![\"\"](\"http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/AU0uTNag.jpeg\" "\\"dandotlewis\\"")
\";s:6:\"filter\";b:0;}s:12:\"_multiwidget\";i:1;}','yes'),(95,'widget_rss','a:2:{i:2;a:0:{}s:12:\"_multiwidget\";i:1;}','yes'),(97,'dismissed_update_core','a:0:{}','yes'),(98,'wp_user_roles','a:5:{s:13:\"administrator\";a:2:{s:4:\"name\";s:23:\"Administrator|User role\";s:12:\"capabilities\";a:61:{s:13:\"switch_themes\";b:1;s:11:\"edit_themes\";b:1;s:16:\"activate_plugins\";b:1;s:12:\"edit_plugins\";b:1;s:10:\"edit_users\";b:1;s:10:\"edit_files\";b:1;s:14:\"manage_options\";b:1;s:17:\"moderate_comments\";b:1;s:17:\"manage_categories\";b:1;s:12:\"manage_links\";b:1;s:12:\"upload_files\";b:1;s:6:\"import\";b:1;s:15:\"unfiltered_html\";b:1;s:10:\"edit_posts\";b:1;s:17:\"edit_others_posts\";b:1;s:20:\"edit_published_posts\";b:1;s:13:\"publish_posts\";b:1;s:10:\"edit_pages\";b:1;s:4:\"read\";b:1;s:8:\"level_10\";b:1;s:7:\"level_9\";b:1;s:7:\"level_8\";b:1;s:7:\"level_7\";b:1;s:7:\"level_6\";b:1;s:7:\"level_5\";b:1;s:7:\"level_4\";b:1;s:7:\"level_3\";b:1;s:7:\"level_2\";b:1;s:7:\"level_1\";b:1;s:7:\"level_0\";b:1;s:17:\"edit_others_pages\";b:1;s:20:\"edit_published_pages\";b:1;s:13:\"publish_pages\";b:1;s:12:\"delete_pages\";b:1;s:19:\"delete_others_pages\";b:1;s:22:\"delete_published_pages\";b:1;s:12:\"delete_posts\";b:1;s:19:\"delete_others_posts\";b:1;s:22:\"delete_published_posts\";b:1;s:20:\"delete_private_posts\";b:1;s:18:\"edit_private_posts\";b:1;s:18:\"read_private_posts\";b:1;s:20:\"delete_private_pages\";b:1;s:18:\"edit_private_pages\";b:1;s:18:\"read_private_pages\";b:1;s:12:\"delete_users\";b:1;s:12:\"create_users\";b:1;s:17:\"unfiltered_upload\";b:1;s:14:\"edit_dashboard\";b:1;s:14:\"update_plugins\";b:1;s:14:\"delete_plugins\";b:1;s:15:\"install_plugins\";b:1;s:13:\"update_themes\";b:1;s:14:\"install_themes\";b:1;s:11:\"update_core\";b:1;s:10:\"list_users\";b:1;s:12:\"remove_users\";b:1;s:13:\"promote_users\";b:1;s:18:\"edit_theme_options\";b:1;s:13:\"delete_themes\";b:1;s:6:\"export\";b:1;}}s:6:\"editor\";a:2:{s:4:\"name\";s:16:\"Editor|User role\";s:12:\"capabilities\";a:34:{s:17:\"moderate_comments\";b:1;s:17:\"manage_categories\";b:1;s:12:\"manage_links\";b:1;s:12:\"upload_files\";b:1;s:15:\"unfiltered_html\";b:1;s:10:\"edit_posts\";b:1;s:17:\"edit_others_posts\";b:1;s:20:\"edit_published_posts\";b:1;s:13:\"publish_posts\";b:1;s:10:\"edit_pages\";b:1;s:4:\"read\";b:1;s:7:\"level_7\";b:1;s:7:\"level_6\";b:1;s:7:\"level_5\";b:1;s:7:\"level_4\";b:1;s:7:\"level_3\";b:1;s:7:\"level_2\";b:1;s:7:\"level_1\";b:1;s:7:\"level_0\";b:1;s:17:\"edit_others_pages\";b:1;s:20:\"edit_published_pages\";b:1;s:13:\"publish_pages\";b:1;s:12:\"delete_pages\";b:1;s:19:\"delete_others_pages\";b:1;s:22:\"delete_published_pages\";b:1;s:12:\"delete_posts\";b:1;s:19:\"delete_others_posts\";b:1;s:22:\"delete_published_posts\";b:1;s:20:\"delete_private_posts\";b:1;s:18:\"edit_private_posts\";b:1;s:18:\"read_private_posts\";b:1;s:20:\"delete_private_pages\";b:1;s:18:\"edit_private_pages\";b:1;s:18:\"read_private_pages\";b:1;}}s:6:\"author\";a:2:{s:4:\"name\";s:16:\"Author|User role\";s:12:\"capabilities\";a:10:{s:12:\"upload_files\";b:1;s:10:\"edit_posts\";b:1;s:20:\"edit_published_posts\";b:1;s:13:\"publish_posts\";b:1;s:4:\"read\";b:1;s:7:\"level_2\";b:1;s:7:\"level_1\";b:1;s:7:\"level_0\";b:1;s:12:\"delete_posts\";b:1;s:22:\"delete_published_posts\";b:1;}}s:11:\"contributor\";a:2:{s:4:\"name\";s:21:\"Contributor|User role\";s:12:\"capabilities\";a:5:{s:10:\"edit_posts\";b:1;s:4:\"read\";b:1;s:7:\"level_1\";b:1;s:7:\"level_0\";b:1;s:12:\"delete_posts\";b:1;}}s:10:\"subscriber\";a:2:{s:4:\"name\";s:20:\"Subscriber|User role\";s:12:\"capabilities\";a:2:{s:4:\"read\";b:1;s:7:\"level_0\";b:1;}}}','yes'),(100,'auth_salt','@f^rt7%x%c0f','yes'),(208,'db_upgraded','','yes'),(104,'logged_in_salt','AwPs(w92uOx0','yes'),(106,'nonce_salt','kXoE^h4Z(Z#f','yes'),(108,'sidebars_widgets','a:7:{s:19:\"wp_inactive_widgets\";a:13:{i:0;s:10:\"nav_menu-2\";i:1;s:7:\"pages-2\";i:2;s:10:\"calendar-2\";i:3;s:7:\"links-2\";i:4;s:6:\"meta-2\";i:5;s:8:\"search-2\";i:6;s:12:\"categories-2\";i:7;s:17:\"recent-comments-2\";i:8;s:5:\"rss-2\";i:9;s:10:\"archives-2\";i:10;s:6:\"disqus\";i:11;s:15:\"tumblr-widget-2\";i:12;s:11:\"tag_cloud-2\";}s:9:\"sidebar-1\";a:3:{i:0;s:14:\"text-455181767\";i:1;s:14:\"text-455181761\";i:2;s:13:\"gdlb_widget-2\";}s:13:\"array_version\";i:3;s:15:\"sidebar-widgets\";a:3:{i:0;s:14:\"text-455181767\";i:1;s:14:\"text-455181761\";i:2;s:13:\"gdlb_widget-2\";}s:16:\"services-widgets\";a:0:{}s:14:\"skills-widgets\";a:0:{}s:17:\"subscribe-widgets\";a:0:{}}','yes'),(111,'cron','a:8:{i:1571776825;a:1:{s:34:\"wp_privacy_delete_old_export_files\";a:1:{s:32:\"40cd750bba9870f18aada2478b24840a\";a:3:{s:8:\"schedule\";s:6:\"hourly\";s:4:\"args\";a:0:{}s:8:\"interval\";i:3600;}}}i:1571795042;a:1:{s:19:\"wp_scheduled_delete\";a:1:{s:32:\"40cd750bba9870f18aada2478b24840a\";a:3:{s:8:\"schedule\";s:5:\"daily\";s:4:\"args\";a:0:{}s:8:\"interval\";i:86400;}}}i:1571795351;a:1:{s:30:\"wp_scheduled_auto_draft_delete\";a:1:{s:32:\"40cd750bba9870f18aada2478b24840a\";a:3:{s:8:\"schedule\";s:5:\"daily\";s:4:\"args\";a:0:{}s:8:\"interval\";i:86400;}}}i:1571795352;a:1:{s:16:\"wp_version_check\";a:1:{s:32:\"40cd750bba9870f18aada2478b24840a\";a:3:{s:8:\"schedule\";s:10:\"twicedaily\";s:4:\"args\";a:0:{}s:8:\"interval\";i:43200;}}}i:1571804724;a:1:{s:16:\"wp_update_themes\";a:1:{s:32:\"40cd750bba9870f18aada2478b24840a\";a:3:{s:8:\"schedule\";s:10:\"twicedaily\";s:4:\"args\";a:0:{}s:8:\"interval\";i:43200;}}}i:1571813955;a:1:{s:17:\"wp_update_plugins\";a:1:{s:32:\"40cd750bba9870f18aada2478b24840a\";a:3:{s:8:\"schedule\";s:10:\"twicedaily\";s:4:\"args\";a:0:{}s:8:\"interval\";i:43200;}}}i:1571841625;a:2:{s:32:\"recovery_mode_clean_expired_keys\";a:1:{s:32:\"40cd750bba9870f18aada2478b24840a\";a:3:{s:8:\"schedule\";s:5:\"daily\";s:4:\"args\";a:0:{}s:8:\"interval\";i:86400;}}s:25:\"delete_expired_transients\";a:1:{s:32:\"40cd750bba9870f18aada2478b24840a\";a:3:{s:8:\"schedule\";s:5:\"daily\";s:4:\"args\";a:0:{}s:8:\"interval\";i:86400;}}}s:7:\"version\";i:2;}','yes'),(115,'dashboard_widget_options','a:4:{s:24:\"dashboard_incoming_links\";a:5:{s:4:\"home\";s:17:\"http://dlewis.net\";s:4:\"link\";s:99:\"http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?hl=en&scoring=d&partner=wordpress&q=link:http://dlewis.net/\";s:3:\"url\";s:132:\"http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch_feeds?hl=en&scoring=d&ie=utf-8&num=10&output=rss&partner=wordpress&q=link:http://dlewis.net/\";s:5:\"items\";i:10;s:9:\"show_date\";b:0;}s:17:\"dashboard_primary\";a:7:{s:4:\"link\";s:33:\"http://wordpress.org/development/\";s:3:\"url\";s:38:\"http://wordpress.org/development/feed/\";s:5:\"title\";s:26:\"WordPress Development Blog\";s:5:\"items\";i:2;s:12:\"show_summary\";i:1;s:11:\"show_author\";i:0;s:9:\"show_date\";i:1;}s:19:\"dashboard_secondary\";a:4:{s:4:\"link\";s:28:\"http://planet.wordpress.org/\";s:3:\"url\";s:33:\"http://planet.wordpress.org/feed/\";s:5:\"title\";s:20:\"Other WordPress News\";s:5:\"items\";i:5;}s:25:\"dashboard_recent_comments\";a:1:{s:5:\"items\";i:5;}}','yes'),(218,'widget_gdlb_widget','a:2:{i:2;a:5:{s:5:\"title\";s:0:\"\";s:3:\"url\";s:40:\"https://www.linkedin.com/in/danielnlewis\";s:4:\"text\";s:9:\"Dan Lewis\";s:11:\"description\";s:0:\"\";s:5:\"badge\";s:1:\"0\";}s:12:\"_multiwidget\";i:1;}','yes'),(51014,'widget_nav_menu','a:2:{i:2;a:0:{}s:12:\"_multiwidget\";i:1;}','yes'),(51365,'initial_db_version','18226','yes'),(33934,'Disqus Widget','a:6:{s:5:\"title\";s:8:\"Comments\";s:5:\"items\";i:5;s:5:\"color\";s:4:\"blue\";s:3:\"tab\";s:6:\"recent\";s:16:\"titlebar-visible\";b:0;s:7:\"blog-id\";s:6:\"dlewis\";}','yes'),(35745,'evidens_header','text','yes'),(39123,'_transient_update_plugins','O:8:\"stdClass\":3:{s:12:\"last_checked\";i:1320389965;s:7:\"checked\";a:29:{s:19:\"akismet/akismet.php\";s:5:\"2.2.7\";s:43:\"all-in-one-seo-pack/all_in_one_seo_pack.php\";s:8:\"1.6.10.2\";s:21:\"articles/articles.php\";s:3:\"1.3\";s:32:\"disqus-comment-system/disqus.php\";s:9:\"2.33.8752\";s:31:\"disqus-widget/disqus-widget.php\";s:3:\"0.3\";s:34:\"feedburner-plugin/fdfeedburner.php\";s:4:\"1.42\";s:33:\"featured-posts/featured-posts.php\";s:5:\"0.2.1\";s:32:\"feed-stats-plugin/feed-stats.php\";s:5:\"1.0.6\";s:39:\"gd-linkedin-badge/gd-linkedin-badge.php\";s:5:\"2.0.5\";s:37:\"google-reader-widget/googlereader.php\";s:5:\"1.9.1\";s:36:\"google-sitemap-generator/sitemap.php\";s:5:\"3.2.3\";s:24:\"headspace2/headspace.php\";s:6:\"3.6.32\";s:9:\"hello.php\";s:5:\"1.5.1\";s:49:\"jw-player-plugin-for-wordpress/jwplayermodule.php\";s:5:\"1.1.2\";s:23:\"mailchimp/mailchimp.php\";s:6:\"1.1.14\";s:23:\"no-404-errors/no404.php\";s:5:\"0.1.1\";s:74:\"official-statcounter-plugin-for-wordpress/StatCounter-Wordpress-Plugin.php\";s:3:\"1.5\";s:21:\"outbrain/outbrain.php\";s:7:\"3.7.8.1\";s:58:\"post-rich-videos-and-photos-galleries/wp-media-cincopa.php\";s:4:\"1.60\";s:21:\"sociable/sociable.php\";s:5:\"3.5.2\";s:45:\"tumblr-widget-for-wordpress/tumblr-widget.php\";s:3:\"1.1\";s:23:\"tweetmeme/tweetmeme.php\";s:5:\"1.8.5\";s:37:\"twittercounter/ald-twittercounter.php\";s:3:\"1.4\";s:33:\"twitter-for-wordpress/twitter.php\";s:5:\"1.9.7\";s:41:\"ultimate-google-analytics/ultimate_ga.php\";s:5:\"1.6.0\";s:53:\"what-would-seth-godin-do/what_would_seth_godin_do.php\";s:3:\"1.7\";s:15:\"stats/stats.php\";s:5:\"1.6.3\";s:37:\"wp-facebook-like/wp-facebook-like.php\";s:5:\"1.3.9\";s:19:\"wptouch/wptouch.php\";s:6:\"1.9.12\";}s:8:\"response\";a:15:{s:43:\"all-in-one-seo-pack/all_in_one_seo_pack.php\";O:8:\"stdClass\":5:{s:2:\"id\";s:3:\"520\";s:4:\"slug\";s:19:\"all-in-one-seo-pack\";s:11:\"new_version\";s:8:\"1.6.13.4\";s:3:\"url\";s:56:\"http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/all-in-one-seo-pack/\";s:7:\"package\";s:61:\"http://downloads.wordpress.org/plugin/all-in-one-seo-pack.zip\";}s:32:\"disqus-comment-system/disqus.php\";O:8:\"stdClass\":5:{s:2:\"id\";s:4:\"4500\";s:4:\"slug\";s:21:\"disqus-comment-system\";s:11:\"new_version\";s:4:\"2.67\";s:3:\"url\";s:58:\"http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/disqus-comment-system/\";s:7:\"package\";s:68:\"http://downloads.wordpress.org/plugin/disqus-comment-system.2.67.zip\";}s:34:\"feedburner-plugin/fdfeedburner.php\";O:8:\"stdClass\":5:{s:2:\"id\";s:4:\"2744\";s:4:\"slug\";s:17:\"feedburner-plugin\";s:11:\"new_version\";s:4:\"1.45\";s:3:\"url\";s:54:\"http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/feedburner-plugin/\";s:7:\"package\";s:59:\"http://downloads.wordpress.org/plugin/feedburner-plugin.zip\";}s:39:\"gd-linkedin-badge/gd-linkedin-badge.php\";O:8:\"stdClass\":5:{s:2:\"id\";s:4:\"3220\";s:4:\"slug\";s:17:\"gd-linkedin-badge\";s:11:\"new_version\";s:5:\"2.1.2\";s:3:\"url\";s:54:\"http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/gd-linkedin-badge/\";s:7:\"package\";s:59:\"http://downloads.wordpress.org/plugin/gd-linkedin-badge.zip\";}s:36:\"google-sitemap-generator/sitemap.php\";O:8:\"stdClass\":5:{s:2:\"id\";s:3:\"132\";s:4:\"slug\";s:24:\"google-sitemap-generator\";s:11:\"new_version\";s:5:\"3.2.6\";s:3:\"url\";s:61:\"http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/google-sitemap-generator/\";s:7:\"package\";s:72:\"http://downloads.wordpress.org/plugin/google-sitemap-generator.3.2.6.zip\";}s:49:\"jw-player-plugin-for-wordpress/jwplayermodule.php\";O:8:\"stdClass\":5:{s:2:\"id\";s:5:\"14333\";s:4:\"slug\";s:30:\"jw-player-plugin-for-wordpress\";s:11:\"new_version\";s:5:\"1.5.2\";s:3:\"url\";s:67:\"http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/jw-player-plugin-for-wordpress/\";s:7:\"package\";s:78:\"http://downloads.wordpress.org/plugin/jw-player-plugin-for-wordpress.1.5.2.zip\";}s:23:\"mailchimp/mailchimp.php\";O:8:\"stdClass\":6:{s:2:\"id\";s:4:\"3432\";s:4:\"slug\";s:9:\"mailchimp\";s:11:\"new_version\";s:5:\"1.2.5\";s:14:\"upgrade_notice\";s:91:\"Added support for multiple interest groups, field formatting based on type and date picker.\";s:3:\"url\";s:46:\"http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/mailchimp/\";s:7:\"package\";s:57:\"http://downloads.wordpress.org/plugin/mailchimp.1.2.5.zip\";}s:74:\"official-statcounter-plugin-for-wordpress/StatCounter-Wordpress-Plugin.php\";O:8:\"stdClass\":5:{s:2:\"id\";s:4:\"2480\";s:4:\"slug\";s:41:\"official-statcounter-plugin-for-wordpress\";s:11:\"new_version\";s:5:\"1.6.1\";s:3:\"url\";s:78:\"http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/official-statcounter-plugin-for-wordpress/\";s:7:\"package\";s:89:\"http://downloads.wordpress.org/plugin/official-statcounter-plugin-for-wordpress.1.6.1.zip\";}s:21:\"outbrain/outbrain.php\";O:8:\"stdClass\":5:{s:2:\"id\";s:4:\"1370\";s:4:\"slug\";s:8:\"outbrain\";s:11:\"new_version\";s:7:\"7.0.0.0\";s:3:\"url\";s:45:\"http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/outbrain/\";s:7:\"package\";s:58:\"http://downloads.wordpress.org/plugin/outbrain.7.0.0.0.zip\";}s:21:\"sociable/sociable.php\";O:8:\"stdClass\":5:{s:2:\"id\";s:4:\"1514\";s:4:\"slug\";s:8:\"sociable\";s:11:\"new_version\";s:5:\"4.0.6\";s:3:\"url\";s:45:\"http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/sociable/\";s:7:\"package\";s:56:\"http://downloads.wordpress.org/plugin/sociable.4.0.6.zip\";}s:45:\"tumblr-widget-for-wordpress/tumblr-widget.php\";O:8:\"stdClass\":5:{s:2:\"id\";s:4:\"9035\";s:4:\"slug\";s:27:\"tumblr-widget-for-wordpress\";s:11:\"new_version\";s:5:\"1.4.6\";s:3:\"url\";s:64:\"http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/tumblr-widget-for-wordpress/\";s:7:\"package\";s:69:\"http://downloads.wordpress.org/plugin/tumblr-widget-for-wordpress.zip\";}s:23:\"tweetmeme/tweetmeme.php\";O:8:\"stdClass\":5:{s:2:\"id\";s:4:\"6808\";s:4:\"slug\";s:9:\"tweetmeme\";s:11:\"new_version\";s:3:\"2.3\";s:3:\"url\";s:46:\"http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/tweetmeme/\";s:7:\"package\";s:55:\"http://downloads.wordpress.org/plugin/tweetmeme.2.3.zip\";}s:37:\"twittercounter/ald-twittercounter.php\";O:8:\"stdClass\":5:{s:2:\"id\";s:4:\"4585\";s:4:\"slug\";s:14:\"twittercounter\";s:11:\"new_version\";s:3:\"1.5\";s:3:\"url\";s:51:\"http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/twittercounter/\";s:7:\"package\";s:56:\"http://downloads.wordpress.org/plugin/twittercounter.zip\";}s:15:\"stats/stats.php\";O:8:\"stdClass\":5:{s:2:\"id\";s:3:\"626\";s:4:\"slug\";s:5:\"stats\";s:11:\"new_version\";s:5:\"1.8.5\";s:3:\"url\";s:42:\"http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/stats/\";s:7:\"package\";s:47:\"http://downloads.wordpress.org/plugin/stats.zip\";}s:37:\"wp-facebook-like/wp-facebook-like.php\";O:8:\"stdClass\":5:{s:2:\"id\";s:5:\"14400\";s:4:\"slug\";s:16:\"wp-facebook-like\";s:11:\"new_version\";s:5:\"1.5.1\";s:3:\"url\";s:53:\"http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/wp-facebook-like/\";s:7:\"package\";s:64:\"http://downloads.wordpress.org/plugin/wp-facebook-like.1.5.1.zip\";}}}','yes'),(38452,'new404_page_no','424','yes'),(37589,'mca_api','a73e1b632cd7fb2ba77892e4a3f1903d-us1','yes'),(37590,'mca_lists','a:1:{i:0;s:10:\"689d00e31c\";}','yes'),(37591,'mca_interval_option','year','yes'),(37592,'mca_target','','yes'),(37593,'mca_js','','yes'),(37594,'mca_save','on','yes'),(37595,'mca_cat','13','yes'),(37596,'mca_author','1','yes'),(37597,'mca_status','publish','yes'),(37598,'mca_type','post','yes'),(37599,'mca_campsdata','a:1:{i:0;a:3:{s:2:\"id\";s:10:\"0569019a04\";s:7:\"subject\";s:42:\"Now I Know: Carrots Were Originally Purple\";s:11:\"create_time\";s:19:\"2010-06-22 01:53:22\";}}','yes'),(37601,'mca_postmeta','a:1:{i:0;O:8:\"stdClass\":4:{s:7:\"meta_id\";s:3:\"421\";s:7:\"post_id\";s:3:\"422\";s:8:\"meta_key\";s:6:\"mca_id\";s:10:\"meta_value\";s:10:\"0569019a04\";}}','yes'),(35907,'tm_display_front','','yes'),(35908,'tm_display_rss','','yes'),(35909,'tm_ping','on','yes'),(35910,'tm_hashtags','no','yes'),(35911,'tm_url_shortner','bit.ly','yes'),(35912,'tm_space','','yes'),(35913,'tm_hashtags_tags','','yes'),(35914,'tm_api_key','R_3d7cec035e1af80c659b7f1a8053c06d','yes'),(37641,'mc_username','DanDotLewis','yes'),(37642,'mc_user_id','2889002ad89d45ca21f50ba46','yes'),(37643,'mc_list_id','689d00e31c','yes'),(37644,'mc_list_name','Now I Know','yes'),(37645,'mc_header_content','Sign up for \"Now I Know\" -- My Daily Email List Sharing Something Interesting I Learned That Day!','yes'),(37646,'mc_submit_text','Subscribe','yes'),(37647,'mc_custom_style','on','yes'),(37648,'mc_use_javascript','on','yes'),(37649,'mc_use_unsub_link','off','yes'),(37650,'mc_header_border_width','1','yes'),(37651,'mc_header_border_color','E3E3E3','yes'),(37652,'mc_header_background','FFFFFF','yes'),(37653,'mc_header_text_color','CC6600','yes'),(37654,'mc_form_border_width','1','yes'),(37655,'mc_form_border_color','C4D3EA','yes'),(37656,'mc_form_background','EEF3F8','yes'),(37657,'mc_form_text_color','555555','yes'),(37658,'mc_show_interest_groups','off','yes'),(37659,'mc_merge_vars','s:594:\"a:3:{i:0;a:9:{s:4:\"name\";s:13:\"Email Address\";s:3:\"req\";b:1;s:10:\"field_type\";s:5:\"email\";s:6:\"public\";b:1;s:4:\"show\";b:1;s:5:\"order\";s:1:\"1\";s:7:\"default\";N;s:4:\"size\";s:2:\"25\";s:3:\"tag\";s:5:\"EMAIL\";}i:1;a:9:{s:4:\"name\";s:10:\"First Name\";s:3:\"req\";b:0;s:10:\"field_type\";s:4:\"text\";s:6:\"public\";b:1;s:4:\"show\";b:1;s:5:\"order\";s:1:\"2\";s:7:\"default\";s:0:\"\";s:4:\"size\";s:2:\"25\";s:3:\"tag\";s:5:\"FNAME\";}i:2;a:9:{s:4:\"name\";s:9:\"Last Name\";s:3:\"req\";b:0;s:10:\"field_type\";s:4:\"text\";s:6:\"public\";b:1;s:4:\"show\";b:1;s:5:\"order\";s:1:\"3\";s:7:\"default\";s:0:\"\";s:4:\"size\";s:2:\"25\";s:3:\"tag\";s:5:\"LNAME\";}}\";','yes'),(51013,'default_post_format','0','yes'),(47142,'category_children','a:0:{}','yes'),(41791,'_transient_update_themes','O:8:\"stdClass\":3:{s:12:\"last_checked\";i:1320389965;s:7:\"checked\";a:12:{s:5:\"3grey\";s:3:\"1.0\";s:26:\"blog-design-studio-newblue\";s:3:\"1.0\";s:7:\"classic\";s:3:\"1.5\";s:37:\"compositio-wordpress-theme/compositio\";s:1:\"1\";s:7:\"default\";s:3:\"1.6\";s:6:\"fusion\";s:5:\"3.0.3\";s:5:\"inove\";s:5:\"1.4.5\";s:10:\"journalist\";s:3:\"1.9\";s:11:\"premiumnews\";s:5:\"1.2.1\";s:18:\"simple-blog-design\";s:3:\"1.0\";s:14:\"tastyplacement\";s:3:\"1.2\";s:11:\"the-erudite\";s:5:\"2.7.7\";}s:8:\"response\";a:3:{s:6:\"fusion\";a:3:{s:11:\"new_version\";s:3:\"3.1\";s:3:\"url\";s:41:\"http://wordpress.org/extend/themes/fusion\";s:7:\"package\";s:58:\"http://wordpress.org/extend/themes/download/fusion.3.1.zip\";}s:5:\"inove\";a:3:{s:11:\"new_version\";s:5:\"1.4.6\";s:3:\"url\";s:40:\"http://wordpress.org/extend/themes/inove\";s:7:\"package\";s:59:\"http://wordpress.org/extend/themes/download/inove.1.4.6.zip\";}s:11:\"the-erudite\";a:3:{s:11:\"new_version\";s:5:\"2.7.8\";s:3:\"url\";s:46:\"http://wordpress.org/extend/themes/the-erudite\";s:7:\"package\";s:65:\"http://wordpress.org/extend/themes/download/the-erudite.2.7.8.zip\";}}}','yes'),(41775,'_transient_timeout_feed_mod_4247684660e8e6eeb8b47a5f6fb54342','1289134860','no'),(192,'aka_columns','1','yes'),(193,'aka_token','0','yes'),(130,'wordpress_api_key','4a4970c28e3d','yes'),(131,'akismet_discard_month','true','yes'),(133,'disqus_forum_url','dlewis','yes'),(134,'disqus_api_key','NQFLuBs0jw0N5KZlQLrQQGvZq5NoM2IPYIzMmzJHE98KhmCHj08R7Nz4kDLAEUtv','yes'),(135,'disqus_replace','all','yes'),(137,'fd_feedburner','a:5:{s:14:\"feedburner_url\";s:38:\"http://feeds2.feedburner.com/DLewisNet\";s:22:\"feedburner_comment_url\";s:0:\"\";s:22:\"feedburner_append_cats\";i:0;s:18:\"feedburner_no_cats\";s:1:\"1\";s:20:\"feedburner_no_search\";i:0;}','yes'),(194,'posts_settings','a:7:{s:8:\"posts_id\";i:1;s:9:\"ex_length\";i:55;s:9:\"i_display\";s:3:\"yes\";s:7:\"i_width\";i:233;s:8:\"i_height\";i:175;s:14:\"fp_desc_custom\";s:2:\"no\";s:7:\"fp_desc\";s:0:\"\";}','yes'),(139,'feedburner_feed_stats_name','http://feeds.feedburner.com/DanLewis','yes'),(140,'feedburner_feed_stats_entries','30','yes'),(30169,'aioseop_options','a:31:{s:9:\"aiosp_can\";s:2:\"on\";s:12:\"aiosp_donate\";N;s:16:\"aiosp_home_title\";s:0:\"\";s:22:\"aiosp_home_description\";s:0:\"\";s:19:\"aiosp_home_keywords\";s:0:\"\";s:23:\"aiosp_max_words_excerpt\";N;s:20:\"aiosp_rewrite_titles\";s:2:\"on\";s:23:\"aiosp_post_title_format\";s:27:\"%post_title% | %blog_title%\";s:23:\"aiosp_page_title_format\";s:27:\"%page_title% | %blog_title%\";s:27:\"aiosp_category_title_format\";s:31:\"%category_title% | %blog_title%\";s:26:\"aiosp_archive_title_format\";s:21:\"%date% | %blog_title%\";s:22:\"aiosp_tag_title_format\";s:20:\"%tag% | %blog_title%\";s:25:\"aiosp_search_title_format\";s:23:\"%search% | %blog_title%\";s:24:\"aiosp_description_format\";s:13:\"%description%\";s:22:\"aiosp_404_title_format\";s:33:\"Nothing found for %request_words%\";s:18:\"aiosp_paged_format\";s:14:\" - Part %page%\";s:20:\"aiosp_use_categories\";N;s:32:\"aiosp_dynamic_postspage_keywords\";s:2:\"on\";s:22:\"aiosp_category_noindex\";s:2:\"on\";s:21:\"aiosp_archive_noindex\";s:2:\"on\";s:18:\"aiosp_tags_noindex\";N;s:14:\"aiosp_cap_cats\";N;s:27:\"aiosp_generate_descriptions\";s:2:\"on\";s:16:\"aiosp_debug_info\";N;s:20:\"aiosp_post_meta_tags\";s:0:\"\";s:20:\"aiosp_page_meta_tags\";s:0:\"\";s:20:\"aiosp_home_meta_tags\";s:0:\"\";s:13:\"aiosp_enabled\";s:1:\"1\";s:26:\"aiosp_use_tags_as_keywords\";N;s:12:\"aiosp_do_log\";N;s:14:\"aiosp_ex_pages\";s:0:\"\";}','yes'),(165,'widget_twitter','a:2:{s:6:\"number\";i:1;i:1;a:8:{s:5:\"title\";s:13:\"Recent Tweets\";s:8:\"username\";s:11:\"DanDotLewis\";s:3:\"num\";s:1:\"5\";s:6:\"update\";b:1;s:6:\"linked\";s:0:\"\";s:10:\"hyperlinks\";b:1;s:13:\"twitter_users\";b:0;s:11:\"encode_utf8\";b:1;}}','yes'),(167,'inove_options','a:25:{s:10:\"google_cse\";b:0;s:13:\"google_cse_cx\";s:0:\"\";s:9:\"menu_type\";s:5:\"pages\";s:9:\"nosidebar\";b:0;s:6:\"notice\";b:0;s:14:\"notice_content\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"banner_registered\";b:0;s:18:\"banner_commentator\";b:0;s:14:\"banner_visitor\";b:0;s:14:\"banner_content\";s:0:\"\";s:19:\"showcase_registered\";b:0;s:20:\"showcase_commentator\";b:0;s:16:\"showcase_visitor\";b:0;s:16:\"showcase_caption\";b:0;s:14:\"showcase_title\";s:0:\"\";s:16:\"showcase_content\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"author\";b:1;s:10:\"categories\";b:0;s:4:\"tags\";b:0;s:9:\"ctrlentry\";b:0;s:12:\"feed_readers\";b:1;s:4:\"feed\";b:0;s:8:\"feed_url\";s:0:\"\";s:10:\"feed_email\";b:0;s:14:\"feed_url_email\";s:0:\"\";}','yes'),(196,'woothemes_settings','a:0:{}','yes'),(168,'widget_archives','a:2:{i:2;a:3:{s:5:\"count\";i:0;s:8:\"dropdown\";i:0;s:5:\"title\";s:13:\"Blog Archives\";}s:12:\"_multiwidget\";i:1;}','yes'),(169,'sociable_usecss','1','yes'),(170,'sociable_usecss_set_once','1','yes'),(171,'sociable_active_sites','a:7:{i:0;s:5:\"Print\";i:1;s:4:\"Digg\";i:2;s:6:\"Sphinn\";i:3;s:11:\"del.icio.us\";i:4;s:8:\"Facebook\";i:5;s:4:\"Mixx\";i:6;s:6:\"Google\";}','yes'),(172,'sociable_tagline','Share and Enjoy:','yes'),(173,'sociable_conditionals','a:9:{s:7:\"is_home\";b:0;s:9:\"is_single\";b:1;s:7:\"is_page\";b:1;s:11:\"is_category\";b:0;s:6:\"is_tag\";b:0;s:7:\"is_date\";b:0;s:9:\"is_search\";b:0;s:9:\"is_author\";b:0;s:7:\"is_feed\";b:0;}','yes'),(186,'edit_flow_custom_statuses_enabled','1','yes'),(187,'edit_flow_custom_status_default_status','draft','yes'),(175,'recently_activated','a:0:{}','yes'),(176,'widget_gdlinkedinbadge','a:6:{s:5:\"title\";s:0:\"\";s:3:\"url\";s:39:\"http://www.linkedin.com/in/danielnlewis\";s:4:\"text\";s:0:\"\";s:11:\"description\";s:0:\"\";s:5:\"badge\";s:1:\"0\";s:5:\"image\";s:0:\"\";}','yes'),(177,'ald_tc_settings','a:10:{s:8:\"username\";s:11:\"dandotlewis\";s:5:\"style\";s:5:\"black\";s:8:\"users_id\";s:7:\"3171384\";s:7:\"a_color\";s:6:\"4D6B7A\";s:8:\"hr_color\";s:6:\"CCCCCC\";s:7:\"nr_show\";s:1:\"6\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"180\";s:8:\"bg_color\";s:6:\"FFFFFF\";s:11:\"tc_hr_color\";s:6:\"FFFFFF\";s:11:\"tc_bg_color\";s:6:\"111111\";}','yes'),(178,'sm_options','a:55:{s:18:\"sm_b_prio_provider\";s:41:\"GoogleSitemapGeneratorPrioByCountProvider\";s:13:\"sm_b_filename\";s:11:\"sitemap.xml\";s:10:\"sm_b_debug\";b:1;s:8:\"sm_b_xml\";b:1;s:9:\"sm_b_gzip\";b:1;s:9:\"sm_b_ping\";b:1;s:14:\"sm_b_pingyahoo\";b:0;s:13:\"sm_b_yahookey\";s:0:\"\";s:12:\"sm_b_pingask\";b:1;s:12:\"sm_b_pingmsn\";b:1;s:19:\"sm_b_manual_enabled\";b:0;s:17:\"sm_b_auto_enabled\";b:1;s:15:\"sm_b_auto_delay\";b:1;s:15:\"sm_b_manual_key\";s:32:\"de43ac59990190c70e0fed820826cc7d\";s:11:\"sm_b_memory\";s:0:\"\";s:9:\"sm_b_time\";i:-1;s:14:\"sm_b_max_posts\";i:-1;s:13:\"sm_b_safemode\";b:0;s:18:\"sm_b_style_default\";b:1;s:10:\"sm_b_style\";s:0:\"\";s:11:\"sm_b_robots\";b:1;s:12:\"sm_b_exclude\";a:0:{}s:17:\"sm_b_exclude_cats\";a:0:{}s:18:\"sm_b_location_mode\";s:4:\"auto\";s:20:\"sm_b_filename_manual\";s:0:\"\";s:19:\"sm_b_fileurl_manual\";s:0:\"\";s:10:\"sm_in_home\";b:1;s:11:\"sm_in_posts\";b:1;s:15:\"sm_in_posts_sub\";b:0;s:11:\"sm_in_pages\";b:1;s:10:\"sm_in_cats\";b:0;s:10:\"sm_in_arch\";b:0;s:10:\"sm_in_auth\";b:0;s:10:\"sm_in_tags\";b:0;s:10:\"sm_cf_home\";s:5:\"daily\";s:11:\"sm_cf_posts\";s:7:\"monthly\";s:11:\"sm_cf_pages\";s:6:\"weekly\";s:10:\"sm_cf_cats\";s:6:\"weekly\";s:10:\"sm_cf_auth\";s:6:\"weekly\";s:15:\"sm_cf_arch_curr\";s:5:\"daily\";s:14:\"sm_cf_arch_old\";s:6:\"yearly\";s:10:\"sm_cf_tags\";s:6:\"weekly\";s:10:\"sm_pr_home\";d:1;s:11:\"sm_pr_posts\";d:0.59999999999999997779553950749686919152736663818359375;s:15:\"sm_pr_posts_min\";d:0.200000000000000011102230246251565404236316680908203125;s:11:\"sm_pr_pages\";d:0.59999999999999997779553950749686919152736663818359375;s:10:\"sm_pr_cats\";d:0.299999999999999988897769753748434595763683319091796875;s:10:\"sm_pr_arch\";d:0.299999999999999988897769753748434595763683319091796875;s:10:\"sm_pr_auth\";d:0.299999999999999988897769753748434595763683319091796875;s:10:\"sm_pr_tags\";d:0.299999999999999988897769753748434595763683319091796875;s:12:\"sm_i_donated\";b:0;s:17:\"sm_i_hide_donated\";b:0;s:17:\"sm_i_install_date\";i:1244665277;s:14:\"sm_i_hide_note\";b:0;s:16:\"sm_i_hide_donors\";b:0;}','yes'),(179,'sm_status','O:28:\"GoogleSitemapGeneratorStatus\":34:{s:10:\"_startTime\";d:1567754717.9446010589599609375;s:8:\"_endTime\";d:1567754719.220263004302978515625;s:11:\"_hasChanged\";b:1;s:12:\"_memoryUsage\";i:28573696;s:9:\"_lastPost\";i:46;s:9:\"_lastTime\";d:1567754717.96102809906005859375;s:8:\"_usedXml\";b:1;s:11:\"_xmlSuccess\";b:1;s:8:\"_xmlPath\";s:37:\"/home/dlewis2/public_html/sitemap.xml\";s:7:\"_xmlUrl\";s:29:\"http://dlewis.net/sitemap.xml\";s:8:\"_usedZip\";b:1;s:11:\"_zipSuccess\";b:1;s:8:\"_zipPath\";s:40:\"/home/dlewis2/public_html/sitemap.xml.gz\";s:7:\"_zipUrl\";s:32:\"http://dlewis.net/sitemap.xml.gz\";s:11:\"_usedGoogle\";b:1;s:10:\"_googleUrl\";s:95:\"http://www.google.com/webmasters/sitemaps/ping?sitemap=http%3A%2F%2Fdlewis.net%2Fsitemap.xml.gz\";s:15:\"_gooogleSuccess\";b:1;s:16:\"_googleStartTime\";d:1567754717.96280002593994140625;s:14:\"_googleEndTime\";d:1567754718.2230861186981201171875;s:10:\"_usedYahoo\";b:0;s:9:\"_yahooUrl\";s:0:\"\";s:13:\"_yahooSuccess\";b:0;s:15:\"_yahooStartTime\";i:0;s:13:\"_yahooEndTime\";i:0;s:8:\"_usedAsk\";b:1;s:7:\"_askUrl\";s:80:\"http://submissions.ask.com/ping?sitemap=http%3A%2F%2Fdlewis.net%2Fsitemap.xml.gz\";s:11:\"_askSuccess\";b:0;s:13:\"_askStartTime\";d:1567754718.22416210174560546875;s:11:\"_askEndTime\";d:1567754718.3298549652099609375;s:8:\"_usedMsn\";b:1;s:7:\"_msnUrl\";s:88:\"http://www.bing.com/webmaster/ping.aspx?siteMap=http%3A%2F%2Fdlewis.net%2Fsitemap.xml.gz\";s:11:\"_msnSuccess\";b:0;s:13:\"_msnStartTime\";d:1567754718.331017017364501953125;s:11:\"_msnEndTime\";d:1567754719.219049930572509765625;}','no'),(23657,'_transient_rewrite_rules','a:71:{s:12:\"robots\\.txt$\";s:18:\"index.php?robots=1\";s:14:\".*wp-atom.php$\";s:19:\"index.php?feed=atom\";s:13:\".*wp-rdf.php$\";s:18:\"index.php?feed=rdf\";s:13:\".*wp-rss.php$\";s:18:\"index.php?feed=rss\";s:14:\".*wp-rss2.php$\";s:19:\"index.php?feed=rss2\";s:14:\".*wp-feed.php$\";s:19:\"index.php?feed=feed\";s:22:\".*wp-commentsrss2.php$\";s:34:\"index.php?feed=rss2&withcomments=1\";s:32:\"feed/(feed|rdf|rss|rss2|atom)/?$\";s:27:\"index.php?&feed=$matches[1]\";s:27:\"(feed|rdf|rss|rss2|atom)/?$\";s:27:\"index.php?&feed=$matches[1]\";s:20:\"page/?([0-9]{1,})/?$\";s:28:\"index.php?&paged=$matches[1]\";s:41:\"comments/feed/(feed|rdf|rss|rss2|atom)/?$\";s:42:\"index.php?&feed=$matches[1]&withcomments=1\";s:36:\"comments/(feed|rdf|rss|rss2|atom)/?$\";s:42:\"index.php?&feed=$matches[1]&withcomments=1\";s:29:\"comments/page/?([0-9]{1,})/?$\";s:28:\"index.php?&paged=$matches[1]\";s:44:\"search/(.+)/feed/(feed|rdf|rss|rss2|atom)/?$\";s:40:\"index.php?s=$matches[1]&feed=$matches[2]\";s:39:\"search/(.+)/(feed|rdf|rss|rss2|atom)/?$\";s:40:\"index.php?s=$matches[1]&feed=$matches[2]\";s:32:\"search/(.+)/page/?([0-9]{1,})/?$\";s:41:\"index.php?s=$matches[1]&paged=$matches[2]\";s:14:\"search/(.+)/?$\";s:23:\"index.php?s=$matches[1]\";s:47:\"category/(.+?)/feed/(feed|rdf|rss|rss2|atom)/?$\";s:52:\"index.php?category_name=$matches[1]&feed=$matches[2]\";s:42:\"category/(.+?)/(feed|rdf|rss|rss2|atom)/?$\";s:52:\"index.php?category_name=$matches[1]&feed=$matches[2]\";s:35:\"category/(.+?)/page/?([0-9]{1,})/?$\";s:53:\"index.php?category_name=$matches[1]&paged=$matches[2]\";s:17:\"category/(.+?)/?$\";s:35:\"index.php?category_name=$matches[1]\";s:42:\"tag/(.+?)/feed/(feed|rdf|rss|rss2|atom)/?$\";s:42:\"index.php?tag=$matches[1]&feed=$matches[2]\";s:37:\"tag/(.+?)/(feed|rdf|rss|rss2|atom)/?$\";s:42:\"index.php?tag=$matches[1]&feed=$matches[2]\";s:30:\"tag/(.+?)/page/?([0-9]{1,})/?$\";s:43:\"index.php?tag=$matches[1]&paged=$matches[2]\";s:12:\"tag/(.+?)/?$\";s:25:\"index.php?tag=$matches[1]\";s:47:\"author/([^/]+)/feed/(feed|rdf|rss|rss2|atom)/?$\";s:50:\"index.php?author_name=$matches[1]&feed=$matches[2]\";s:42:\"author/([^/]+)/(feed|rdf|rss|rss2|atom)/?$\";s:50:\"index.php?author_name=$matches[1]&feed=$matches[2]\";s:35:\"author/([^/]+)/page/?([0-9]{1,})/?$\";s:51:\"index.php?author_name=$matches[1]&paged=$matches[2]\";s:17:\"author/([^/]+)/?$\";s:33:\"index.php?author_name=$matches[1]\";s:69:\"([0-9]{4})/([0-9]{1,2})/([0-9]{1,2})/feed/(feed|rdf|rss|rss2|atom)/?$\";s:80:\"index.php?year=$matches[1]&monthnum=$matches[2]&day=$matches[3]&feed=$matches[4]\";s:64:\"([0-9]{4})/([0-9]{1,2})/([0-9]{1,2})/(feed|rdf|rss|rss2|atom)/?$\";s:80:\"index.php?year=$matches[1]&monthnum=$matches[2]&day=$matches[3]&feed=$matches[4]\";s:57:\"([0-9]{4})/([0-9]{1,2})/([0-9]{1,2})/page/?([0-9]{1,})/?$\";s:81:\"index.php?year=$matches[1]&monthnum=$matches[2]&day=$matches[3]&paged=$matches[4]\";s:39:\"([0-9]{4})/([0-9]{1,2})/([0-9]{1,2})/?$\";s:63:\"index.php?year=$matches[1]&monthnum=$matches[2]&day=$matches[3]\";s:56:\"([0-9]{4})/([0-9]{1,2})/feed/(feed|rdf|rss|rss2|atom)/?$\";s:64:\"index.php?year=$matches[1]&monthnum=$matches[2]&feed=$matches[3]\";s:51:\"([0-9]{4})/([0-9]{1,2})/(feed|rdf|rss|rss2|atom)/?$\";s:64:\"index.php?year=$matches[1]&monthnum=$matches[2]&feed=$matches[3]\";s:44:\"([0-9]{4})/([0-9]{1,2})/page/?([0-9]{1,})/?$\";s:65:\"index.php?year=$matches[1]&monthnum=$matches[2]&paged=$matches[3]\";s:26:\"([0-9]{4})/([0-9]{1,2})/?$\";s:47:\"index.php?year=$matches[1]&monthnum=$matches[2]\";s:43:\"([0-9]{4})/feed/(feed|rdf|rss|rss2|atom)/?$\";s:43:\"index.php?year=$matches[1]&feed=$matches[2]\";s:38:\"([0-9]{4})/(feed|rdf|rss|rss2|atom)/?$\";s:43:\"index.php?year=$matches[1]&feed=$matches[2]\";s:31:\"([0-9]{4})/page/?([0-9]{1,})/?$\";s:44:\"index.php?year=$matches[1]&paged=$matches[2]\";s:13:\"([0-9]{4})/?$\";s:26:\"index.php?year=$matches[1]\";s:58:\"[0-9]{4}/[0-9]{1,2}/[0-9]{1,2}/[^/]+/attachment/([^/]+)/?$\";s:32:\"index.php?attachment=$matches[1]\";s:68:\"[0-9]{4}/[0-9]{1,2}/[0-9]{1,2}/[^/]+/attachment/([^/]+)/trackback/?$\";s:37:\"index.php?attachment=$matches[1]&tb=1\";s:88:\"[0-9]{4}/[0-9]{1,2}/[0-9]{1,2}/[^/]+/attachment/([^/]+)/feed/(feed|rdf|rss|rss2|atom)/?$\";s:49:\"index.php?attachment=$matches[1]&feed=$matches[2]\";s:83:\"[0-9]{4}/[0-9]{1,2}/[0-9]{1,2}/[^/]+/attachment/([^/]+)/(feed|rdf|rss|rss2|atom)/?$\";s:49:\"index.php?attachment=$matches[1]&feed=$matches[2]\";s:83:\"[0-9]{4}/[0-9]{1,2}/[0-9]{1,2}/[^/]+/attachment/([^/]+)/comment-page-([0-9]{1,})/?$\";s:50:\"index.php?attachment=$matches[1]&cpage=$matches[2]\";s:57:\"([0-9]{4})/([0-9]{1,2})/([0-9]{1,2})/([^/]+)/trackback/?$\";s:85:\"index.php?year=$matches[1]&monthnum=$matches[2]&day=$matches[3]&name=$matches[4]&tb=1\";s:77:\"([0-9]{4})/([0-9]{1,2})/([0-9]{1,2})/([^/]+)/feed/(feed|rdf|rss|rss2|atom)/?$\";s:97:\"index.php?year=$matches[1]&monthnum=$matches[2]&day=$matches[3]&name=$matches[4]&feed=$matches[5]\";s:72:\"([0-9]{4})/([0-9]{1,2})/([0-9]{1,2})/([^/]+)/(feed|rdf|rss|rss2|atom)/?$\";s:97:\"index.php?year=$matches[1]&monthnum=$matches[2]&day=$matches[3]&name=$matches[4]&feed=$matches[5]\";s:65:\"([0-9]{4})/([0-9]{1,2})/([0-9]{1,2})/([^/]+)/page/?([0-9]{1,})/?$\";s:98:\"index.php?year=$matches[1]&monthnum=$matches[2]&day=$matches[3]&name=$matches[4]&paged=$matches[5]\";s:72:\"([0-9]{4})/([0-9]{1,2})/([0-9]{1,2})/([^/]+)/comment-page-([0-9]{1,})/?$\";s:98:\"index.php?year=$matches[1]&monthnum=$matches[2]&day=$matches[3]&name=$matches[4]&cpage=$matches[5]\";s:57:\"([0-9]{4})/([0-9]{1,2})/([0-9]{1,2})/([^/]+)(/[0-9]+)?/?$\";s:97:\"index.php?year=$matches[1]&monthnum=$matches[2]&day=$matches[3]&name=$matches[4]&page=$matches[5]\";s:47:\"[0-9]{4}/[0-9]{1,2}/[0-9]{1,2}/[^/]+/([^/]+)/?$\";s:32:\"index.php?attachment=$matches[1]\";s:57:\"[0-9]{4}/[0-9]{1,2}/[0-9]{1,2}/[^/]+/([^/]+)/trackback/?$\";s:37:\"index.php?attachment=$matches[1]&tb=1\";s:77:\"[0-9]{4}/[0-9]{1,2}/[0-9]{1,2}/[^/]+/([^/]+)/feed/(feed|rdf|rss|rss2|atom)/?$\";s:49:\"index.php?attachment=$matches[1]&feed=$matches[2]\";s:72:\"[0-9]{4}/[0-9]{1,2}/[0-9]{1,2}/[^/]+/([^/]+)/(feed|rdf|rss|rss2|atom)/?$\";s:49:\"index.php?attachment=$matches[1]&feed=$matches[2]\";s:72:\"[0-9]{4}/[0-9]{1,2}/[0-9]{1,2}/[^/]+/([^/]+)/comment-page-([0-9]{1,})/?$\";s:50:\"index.php?attachment=$matches[1]&cpage=$matches[2]\";s:64:\"([0-9]{4})/([0-9]{1,2})/([0-9]{1,2})/comment-page-([0-9]{1,})/?$\";s:81:\"index.php?year=$matches[1]&monthnum=$matches[2]&day=$matches[3]&cpage=$matches[4]\";s:51:\"([0-9]{4})/([0-9]{1,2})/comment-page-([0-9]{1,})/?$\";s:65:\"index.php?year=$matches[1]&monthnum=$matches[2]&cpage=$matches[3]\";s:38:\"([0-9]{4})/comment-page-([0-9]{1,})/?$\";s:44:\"index.php?year=$matches[1]&cpage=$matches[2]\";s:25:\".+?/attachment/([^/]+)/?$\";s:32:\"index.php?attachment=$matches[1]\";s:35:\".+?/attachment/([^/]+)/trackback/?$\";s:37:\"index.php?attachment=$matches[1]&tb=1\";s:55:\".+?/attachment/([^/]+)/feed/(feed|rdf|rss|rss2|atom)/?$\";s:49:\"index.php?attachment=$matches[1]&feed=$matches[2]\";s:50:\".+?/attachment/([^/]+)/(feed|rdf|rss|rss2|atom)/?$\";s:49:\"index.php?attachment=$matches[1]&feed=$matches[2]\";s:50:\".+?/attachment/([^/]+)/comment-page-([0-9]{1,})/?$\";s:50:\"index.php?attachment=$matches[1]&cpage=$matches[2]\";s:18:\"(.+?)/trackback/?$\";s:35:\"index.php?pagename=$matches[1]&tb=1\";s:38:\"(.+?)/feed/(feed|rdf|rss|rss2|atom)/?$\";s:47:\"index.php?pagename=$matches[1]&feed=$matches[2]\";s:33:\"(.+?)/(feed|rdf|rss|rss2|atom)/?$\";s:47:\"index.php?pagename=$matches[1]&feed=$matches[2]\";s:26:\"(.+?)/page/?([0-9]{1,})/?$\";s:48:\"index.php?pagename=$matches[1]&paged=$matches[2]\";s:33:\"(.+?)/comment-page-([0-9]{1,})/?$\";s:48:\"index.php?pagename=$matches[1]&cpage=$matches[2]\";s:18:\"(.+?)(/[0-9]+)?/?$\";s:47:\"index.php?pagename=$matches[1]&page=$matches[2]\";}','yes'),(188,'edit_flow_dashboard_widgets_enabled','1','yes'),(189,'edit_flow_post_status_widget_enabled','1','yes'),(181,'widget_googlereader','a:11:{s:5:\"title\";s:26:\"Google Reader Shared Items\";s:5:\"cache\";s:1311:\"Want to learn something new every day? Subscribe to \"Now I Know.\" Delivered right to your email inbox. No more than once a day. No spam. Just 100% pure interesting stuff.
\r\nWordPress 3.0 or newer required. Support for centralized translations. Removed PHP4 legacy constructors. Removed WordPress 2.x legacy widget code.
\";s:6:\"tested\";s:6:\"4.4.20\";s:12:\"requires_php\";b:0;s:13:\"compatibility\";O:8:\"stdClass\":0:{}}s:36:\"google-sitemap-generator/sitemap.php\";O:8:\"stdClass\":12:{s:2:\"id\";s:38:\"w.org/plugins/google-sitemap-generator\";s:4:\"slug\";s:24:\"google-sitemap-generator\";s:6:\"plugin\";s:36:\"google-sitemap-generator/sitemap.php\";s:11:\"new_version\";s:5:\"4.1.0\";s:3:\"url\";s:55:\"https://wordpress.org/plugins/google-sitemap-generator/\";s:7:\"package\";s:73:\"https://downloads.wordpress.org/plugin/google-sitemap-generator.4.1.0.zip\";s:5:\"icons\";a:2:{s:2:\"2x\";s:77:\"https://ps.w.org/google-sitemap-generator/assets/icon-256x256.png?rev=1701944\";s:2:\"1x\";s:77:\"https://ps.w.org/google-sitemap-generator/assets/icon-128x128.png?rev=1701944\";}s:7:\"banners\";a:1:{s:2:\"1x\";s:79:\"https://ps.w.org/google-sitemap-generator/assets/banner-772x250.png?rev=1701944\";}s:11:\"banners_rtl\";a:0:{}s:6:\"tested\";s:5:\"5.2.4\";s:12:\"requires_php\";b:0;s:13:\"compatibility\";O:8:\"stdClass\":0:{}}s:24:\"headspace2/headspace.php\";O:8:\"stdClass\":12:{s:2:\"id\";s:24:\"w.org/plugins/headspace2\";s:4:\"slug\";s:10:\"headspace2\";s:6:\"plugin\";s:24:\"headspace2/headspace.php\";s:11:\"new_version\";s:6:\"3.6.41\";s:3:\"url\";s:41:\"https://wordpress.org/plugins/headspace2/\";s:7:\"package\";s:53:\"https://downloads.wordpress.org/plugin/headspace2.zip\";s:5:\"icons\";a:1:{s:7:\"default\";s:54:\"https://s.w.org/plugins/geopattern-icon/headspace2.svg\";}s:7:\"banners\";a:0:{}s:11:\"banners_rtl\";a:0:{}s:6:\"tested\";s:5:\"3.4.2\";s:12:\"requires_php\";b:0;s:13:\"compatibility\";O:8:\"stdClass\":0:{}}s:9:\"hello.php\";O:8:\"stdClass\":12:{s:2:\"id\";s:25:\"w.org/plugins/hello-dolly\";s:4:\"slug\";s:11:\"hello-dolly\";s:6:\"plugin\";s:9:\"hello.php\";s:11:\"new_version\";s:5:\"1.7.2\";s:3:\"url\";s:42:\"https://wordpress.org/plugins/hello-dolly/\";s:7:\"package\";s:60:\"https://downloads.wordpress.org/plugin/hello-dolly.1.7.2.zip\";s:5:\"icons\";a:2:{s:2:\"2x\";s:64:\"https://ps.w.org/hello-dolly/assets/icon-256x256.jpg?rev=2052855\";s:2:\"1x\";s:64:\"https://ps.w.org/hello-dolly/assets/icon-128x128.jpg?rev=2052855\";}s:7:\"banners\";a:1:{s:2:\"1x\";s:66:\"https://ps.w.org/hello-dolly/assets/banner-772x250.jpg?rev=2052855\";}s:11:\"banners_rtl\";a:0:{}s:6:\"tested\";s:5:\"5.2.4\";s:12:\"requires_php\";b:0;s:13:\"compatibility\";O:8:\"stdClass\":0:{}}s:23:\"mailchimp/mailchimp.php\";O:8:\"stdClass\":12:{s:2:\"id\";s:23:\"w.org/plugins/mailchimp\";s:4:\"slug\";s:9:\"mailchimp\";s:6:\"plugin\";s:23:\"mailchimp/mailchimp.php\";s:11:\"new_version\";s:5:\"1.5.7\";s:3:\"url\";s:40:\"https://wordpress.org/plugins/mailchimp/\";s:7:\"package\";s:58:\"https://downloads.wordpress.org/plugin/mailchimp.1.5.7.zip\";s:5:\"icons\";a:2:{s:2:\"2x\";s:62:\"https://ps.w.org/mailchimp/assets/icon-256x256.png?rev=1509507\";s:2:\"1x\";s:62:\"https://ps.w.org/mailchimp/assets/icon-256x256.png?rev=1509507\";}s:7:\"banners\";a:0:{}s:11:\"banners_rtl\";a:0:{}s:6:\"tested\";s:6:\"4.5.13\";s:12:\"requires_php\";b:0;s:13:\"compatibility\";O:8:\"stdClass\":0:{}}s:74:\"official-statcounter-plugin-for-wordpress/StatCounter-Wordpress-Plugin.php\";O:8:\"stdClass\":12:{s:2:\"id\";s:55:\"w.org/plugins/official-statcounter-plugin-for-wordpress\";s:4:\"slug\";s:41:\"official-statcounter-plugin-for-wordpress\";s:6:\"plugin\";s:74:\"official-statcounter-plugin-for-wordpress/StatCounter-Wordpress-Plugin.php\";s:11:\"new_version\";s:5:\"2.0.6\";s:3:\"url\";s:72:\"https://wordpress.org/plugins/official-statcounter-plugin-for-wordpress/\";s:7:\"package\";s:90:\"https://downloads.wordpress.org/plugin/official-statcounter-plugin-for-wordpress.2.0.6.zip\";s:5:\"icons\";a:2:{s:2:\"1x\";s:86:\"https://ps.w.org/official-statcounter-plugin-for-wordpress/assets/icon.svg?rev=1988081\";s:3:\"svg\";s:86:\"https://ps.w.org/official-statcounter-plugin-for-wordpress/assets/icon.svg?rev=1988081\";}s:7:\"banners\";a:0:{}s:11:\"banners_rtl\";a:0:{}s:6:\"tested\";s:5:\"5.1.3\";s:12:\"requires_php\";b:0;s:13:\"compatibility\";O:8:\"stdClass\":0:{}}s:27:\"redirection/redirection.php\";O:8:\"stdClass\":12:{s:2:\"id\";s:25:\"w.org/plugins/redirection\";s:4:\"slug\";s:11:\"redirection\";s:6:\"plugin\";s:27:\"redirection/redirection.php\";s:11:\"new_version\";s:5:\"4.4.2\";s:3:\"url\";s:42:\"https://wordpress.org/plugins/redirection/\";s:7:\"package\";s:60:\"https://downloads.wordpress.org/plugin/redirection.4.4.2.zip\";s:5:\"icons\";a:2:{s:2:\"2x\";s:63:\"https://ps.w.org/redirection/assets/icon-256x256.jpg?rev=983639\";s:2:\"1x\";s:63:\"https://ps.w.org/redirection/assets/icon-128x128.jpg?rev=983640\";}s:7:\"banners\";a:2:{s:2:\"2x\";s:66:\"https://ps.w.org/redirection/assets/banner-1544x500.jpg?rev=983641\";s:2:\"1x\";s:65:\"https://ps.w.org/redirection/assets/banner-772x250.jpg?rev=983642\";}s:11:\"banners_rtl\";a:0:{}s:6:\"tested\";s:5:\"5.2.4\";s:12:\"requires_php\";s:3:\"5.4\";s:13:\"compatibility\";O:8:\"stdClass\":0:{}}s:21:\"sociable/sociable.php\";O:8:\"stdClass\":12:{s:2:\"id\";s:22:\"w.org/plugins/sociable\";s:4:\"slug\";s:8:\"sociable\";s:6:\"plugin\";s:21:\"sociable/sociable.php\";s:11:\"new_version\";s:7:\"4.3.4.1\";s:3:\"url\";s:39:\"https://wordpress.org/plugins/sociable/\";s:7:\"package\";s:59:\"https://downloads.wordpress.org/plugin/sociable.4.3.4.1.zip\";s:5:\"icons\";a:1:{s:7:\"default\";s:52:\"https://s.w.org/plugins/geopattern-icon/sociable.svg\";}s:7:\"banners\";a:0:{}s:11:\"banners_rtl\";a:0:{}s:6:\"tested\";s:5:\"3.3.2\";s:12:\"requires_php\";b:0;s:13:\"compatibility\";O:8:\"stdClass\":0:{}}s:45:\"tumblr-widget-for-wordpress/tumblr-widget.php\";O:8:\"stdClass\":12:{s:2:\"id\";s:41:\"w.org/plugins/tumblr-widget-for-wordpress\";s:4:\"slug\";s:27:\"tumblr-widget-for-wordpress\";s:6:\"plugin\";s:45:\"tumblr-widget-for-wordpress/tumblr-widget.php\";s:11:\"new_version\";s:3:\"2.1\";s:3:\"url\";s:58:\"https://wordpress.org/plugins/tumblr-widget-for-wordpress/\";s:7:\"package\";s:70:\"https://downloads.wordpress.org/plugin/tumblr-widget-for-wordpress.zip\";s:5:\"icons\";a:1:{s:7:\"default\";s:71:\"https://s.w.org/plugins/geopattern-icon/tumblr-widget-for-wordpress.svg\";}s:7:\"banners\";a:0:{}s:11:\"banners_rtl\";a:0:{}s:6:\"tested\";s:6:\"4.2.25\";s:12:\"requires_php\";b:0;s:13:\"compatibility\";O:8:\"stdClass\":0:{}}s:45:\"use-google-libraries/use-google-libraries.php\";O:8:\"stdClass\":13:{s:2:\"id\";s:34:\"w.org/plugins/use-google-libraries\";s:4:\"slug\";s:20:\"use-google-libraries\";s:6:\"plugin\";s:45:\"use-google-libraries/use-google-libraries.php\";s:11:\"new_version\";s:7:\"1.6.2.3\";s:3:\"url\";s:51:\"https://wordpress.org/plugins/use-google-libraries/\";s:7:\"package\";s:63:\"https://downloads.wordpress.org/plugin/use-google-libraries.zip\";s:5:\"icons\";a:1:{s:7:\"default\";s:64:\"https://s.w.org/plugins/geopattern-icon/use-google-libraries.svg\";}s:7:\"banners\";a:0:{}s:11:\"banners_rtl\";a:0:{}s:14:\"upgrade_notice\";s:47:\"Changed supported version to < WP 4.8
\";s:6:\"tested\";s:6:\"4.7.15\";s:12:\"requires_php\";b:0;s:13:\"compatibility\";O:8:\"stdClass\":0:{}}s:53:\"what-would-seth-godin-do/what_would_seth_godin_do.php\";O:8:\"stdClass\":13:{s:2:\"id\";s:38:\"w.org/plugins/what-would-seth-godin-do\";s:4:\"slug\";s:24:\"what-would-seth-godin-do\";s:6:\"plugin\";s:53:\"what-would-seth-godin-do/what_would_seth_godin_do.php\";s:11:\"new_version\";s:5:\"2.0.6\";s:3:\"url\";s:55:\"https://wordpress.org/plugins/what-would-seth-godin-do/\";s:7:\"package\";s:73:\"https://downloads.wordpress.org/plugin/what-would-seth-godin-do.2.0.6.zip\";s:5:\"icons\";a:1:{s:7:\"default\";s:68:\"https://s.w.org/plugins/geopattern-icon/what-would-seth-godin-do.svg\";}s:7:\"banners\";a:0:{}s:11:\"banners_rtl\";a:0:{}s:14:\"upgrade_notice\";s:50:\"Fixed a bug that caused errors on SSL pages
\";s:6:\"tested\";s:5:\"5.2.4\";s:12:\"requires_php\";b:0;s:13:\"compatibility\";O:8:\"stdClass\":0:{}}s:25:\"wp-testing/wp-testing.php\";O:8:\"stdClass\":12:{s:2:\"id\";s:24:\"w.org/plugins/wp-testing\";s:4:\"slug\";s:10:\"wp-testing\";s:6:\"plugin\";s:25:\"wp-testing/wp-testing.php\";s:11:\"new_version\";s:7:\"0.21.18\";s:3:\"url\";s:41:\"https://wordpress.org/plugins/wp-testing/\";s:7:\"package\";s:61:\"https://downloads.wordpress.org/plugin/wp-testing.0.21.18.zip\";s:5:\"icons\";a:2:{s:2:\"2x\";s:63:\"https://ps.w.org/wp-testing/assets/icon-256x256.png?rev=1074213\";s:2:\"1x\";s:63:\"https://ps.w.org/wp-testing/assets/icon-128x128.png?rev=1074213\";}s:7:\"banners\";a:2:{s:2:\"2x\";s:66:\"https://ps.w.org/wp-testing/assets/banner-1544x500.jpg?rev=1074213\";s:2:\"1x\";s:65:\"https://ps.w.org/wp-testing/assets/banner-772x250.jpg?rev=1074213\";}s:11:\"banners_rtl\";a:0:{}s:6:\"tested\";s:5:\"5.2.4\";s:12:\"requires_php\";b:0;s:13:\"compatibility\";O:8:\"stdClass\":0:{}}s:19:\"wptouch/wptouch.php\";O:8:\"stdClass\":12:{s:2:\"id\";s:21:\"w.org/plugins/wptouch\";s:4:\"slug\";s:7:\"wptouch\";s:6:\"plugin\";s:19:\"wptouch/wptouch.php\";s:11:\"new_version\";s:6:\"4.3.37\";s:3:\"url\";s:38:\"https://wordpress.org/plugins/wptouch/\";s:7:\"package\";s:57:\"https://downloads.wordpress.org/plugin/wptouch.4.3.37.zip\";s:5:\"icons\";a:2:{s:2:\"2x\";s:60:\"https://ps.w.org/wptouch/assets/icon-256x256.png?rev=1313960\";s:2:\"1x\";s:60:\"https://ps.w.org/wptouch/assets/icon-128x128.png?rev=1313960\";}s:7:\"banners\";a:2:{s:2:\"2x\";s:63:\"https://ps.w.org/wptouch/assets/banner-1544x500.jpg?rev=1313960\";s:2:\"1x\";s:62:\"https://ps.w.org/wptouch/assets/banner-772x250.jpg?rev=1313960\";}s:11:\"banners_rtl\";a:0:{}s:6:\"tested\";s:5:\"5.1.3\";s:12:\"requires_php\";b:0;s:13:\"compatibility\";O:8:\"stdClass\":0:{}}}s:12:\"translations\";a:0:{}s:9:\"no_update\";a:4:{s:21:\"articles/articles.php\";O:8:\"stdClass\":9:{s:2:\"id\";s:22:\"w.org/plugins/articles\";s:4:\"slug\";s:8:\"articles\";s:6:\"plugin\";s:21:\"articles/articles.php\";s:11:\"new_version\";s:3:\"1.3\";s:3:\"url\";s:39:\"https://wordpress.org/plugins/articles/\";s:7:\"package\";s:55:\"https://downloads.wordpress.org/plugin/articles.1.3.zip\";s:5:\"icons\";a:1:{s:7:\"default\";s:59:\"https://s.w.org/plugins/geopattern-icon/articles_a9c9d7.svg\";}s:7:\"banners\";a:1:{s:2:\"1x\";s:62:\"https://ps.w.org/articles/assets/banner-772x250.png?rev=545917\";}s:11:\"banners_rtl\";a:0:{}}s:31:\"disqus-widget/disqus-widget.php\";O:8:\"stdClass\":9:{s:2:\"id\";s:27:\"w.org/plugins/disqus-widget\";s:4:\"slug\";s:13:\"disqus-widget\";s:6:\"plugin\";s:31:\"disqus-widget/disqus-widget.php\";s:11:\"new_version\";s:3:\"0.3\";s:3:\"url\";s:44:\"https://wordpress.org/plugins/disqus-widget/\";s:7:\"package\";s:60:\"https://downloads.wordpress.org/plugin/disqus-widget.0.2.zip\";s:5:\"icons\";a:1:{s:7:\"default\";s:57:\"https://s.w.org/plugins/geopattern-icon/disqus-widget.svg\";}s:7:\"banners\";a:0:{}s:11:\"banners_rtl\";a:0:{}}s:33:\"featured-posts/featured-posts.php\";O:8:\"stdClass\":9:{s:2:\"id\";s:28:\"w.org/plugins/featured-posts\";s:4:\"slug\";s:14:\"featured-posts\";s:6:\"plugin\";s:33:\"featured-posts/featured-posts.php\";s:11:\"new_version\";s:5:\"0.2.1\";s:3:\"url\";s:45:\"https://wordpress.org/plugins/featured-posts/\";s:7:\"package\";s:63:\"https://downloads.wordpress.org/plugin/featured-posts.0.2.1.zip\";s:5:\"icons\";a:1:{s:7:\"default\";s:58:\"https://s.w.org/plugins/geopattern-icon/featured-posts.svg\";}s:7:\"banners\";a:0:{}s:11:\"banners_rtl\";a:0:{}}s:33:\"twitter-for-wordpress/twitter.php\";O:8:\"stdClass\":9:{s:2:\"id\";s:35:\"w.org/plugins/twitter-for-wordpress\";s:4:\"slug\";s:21:\"twitter-for-wordpress\";s:6:\"plugin\";s:33:\"twitter-for-wordpress/twitter.php\";s:11:\"new_version\";s:5:\"1.9.7\";s:3:\"url\";s:52:\"https://wordpress.org/plugins/twitter-for-wordpress/\";s:7:\"package\";s:64:\"https://downloads.wordpress.org/plugin/twitter-for-wordpress.zip\";s:5:\"icons\";a:1:{s:7:\"default\";s:65:\"https://s.w.org/plugins/geopattern-icon/twitter-for-wordpress.svg\";}s:7:\"banners\";a:0:{}s:11:\"banners_rtl\";a:0:{}}}}','no'),(91482,'recovery_keys','a:0:{}','yes'),(91484,'can_compress_scripts','1','no'); /*!40000 ALTER TABLE `wp_options` ENABLE KEYS */; UNLOCK TABLES; -- -- Table structure for table `wp_postmeta` -- DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `wp_postmeta`; /*!40101 SET @saved_cs_client = @@character_set_client */; /*!40101 SET character_set_client = utf8 */; CREATE TABLE `wp_postmeta` ( `meta_id` bigint(20) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, `post_id` bigint(20) unsigned NOT NULL DEFAULT '0', `meta_key` varchar(255) DEFAULT NULL, `meta_value` longtext, PRIMARY KEY (`meta_id`), KEY `post_id` (`post_id`), KEY `meta_key` (`meta_key`(191)) ) ENGINE=MyISAM AUTO_INCREMENT=600 DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1; /*!40101 SET character_set_client = @saved_cs_client */; -- -- Dumping data for table `wp_postmeta` -- LOCK TABLES `wp_postmeta` WRITE; /*!40000 ALTER TABLE `wp_postmeta` DISABLE KEYS */; INSERT INTO `wp_postmeta` VALUES (3,3,'_edit_lock','1245084120'),(4,3,'_edit_last','1'),(7,6,'_edit_lock','1318624003'),(8,6,'_edit_last','1'),(15,13,'_edit_lock','1245085030'),(11,11,'_edit_lock','1245085320'),(12,11,'_edit_last','1'),(16,13,'_edit_last','1'),(19,16,'_edit_lock','1245084515'),(20,16,'_edit_last','1'),(21,18,'_edit_lock','1274392284'),(22,18,'_edit_last','1'),(25,3,'_ak_article','1'),(28,24,'_wp_attached_file','2009/06/thomas.jpg'),(29,24,'_wp_attachment_metadata','a:6:{s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"250\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"234\";s:14:\"hwstring_small\";s:23:\"height=\'96\' width=\'102\'\";s:4:\"file\";s:18:\"2009/06/thomas.jpg\";s:5:\"sizes\";a:1:{s:9:\"thumbnail\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:18:\"thomas-150x150.jpg\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"150\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"150\";}}s:10:\"image_meta\";a:10:{s:8:\"aperture\";s:1:\"0\";s:6:\"credit\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"camera\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"caption\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"created_timestamp\";s:1:\"0\";s:9:\"copyright\";s:0:\"\";s:12:\"focal_length\";s:1:\"0\";s:3:\"iso\";s:1:\"0\";s:13:\"shutter_speed\";s:1:\"0\";s:5:\"title\";s:0:\"\";}}'),(30,26,'_wp_attached_file','2009/06/thomas1.jpg'),(31,26,'_wp_attachment_metadata','a:6:{s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"468\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"377\";s:14:\"hwstring_small\";s:23:\"height=\'96\' width=\'119\'\";s:4:\"file\";s:19:\"2009/06/thomas1.jpg\";s:5:\"sizes\";a:2:{s:9:\"thumbnail\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:19:\"thomas1-150x150.jpg\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"150\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"150\";}s:6:\"medium\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:19:\"thomas1-300x241.jpg\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"300\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"241\";}}s:10:\"image_meta\";a:10:{s:8:\"aperture\";s:1:\"0\";s:6:\"credit\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"camera\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"caption\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"created_timestamp\";s:1:\"0\";s:9:\"copyright\";s:0:\"\";s:12:\"focal_length\";s:1:\"0\";s:3:\"iso\";s:1:\"0\";s:13:\"shutter_speed\";s:1:\"0\";s:5:\"title\";s:0:\"\";}}'),(36,29,'_wp_attached_file','2009/06/keynote_audience_itforum2005.jpg'),(37,29,'_wp_attachment_metadata','a:6:{s:5:\"width\";s:4:\"3008\";s:6:\"height\";s:4:\"2000\";s:14:\"hwstring_small\";s:23:\"height=\'85\' width=\'128\'\";s:4:\"file\";s:40:\"2009/06/keynote_audience_itforum2005.jpg\";s:5:\"sizes\";a:3:{s:9:\"thumbnail\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:40:\"keynote_audience_itforum2005-150x150.jpg\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"150\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"150\";}s:6:\"medium\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:40:\"keynote_audience_itforum2005-300x199.jpg\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"300\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"199\";}s:5:\"large\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:41:\"keynote_audience_itforum2005-1024x680.jpg\";s:5:\"width\";s:4:\"1024\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"680\";}}s:10:\"image_meta\";a:10:{s:8:\"aperture\";s:3:\"4.8\";s:6:\"credit\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"camera\";s:10:\"NIKON D100\";s:7:\"caption\";s:525:\"[#Beginning of Shooting Data Section]\rNikon D100 \rFocal Length: 28mm\rWhite Balance: Auto\rColor Mode: Mode II (Adobe RGB)\r2005/11/15 08:25:30\rExposure Mode: Manual\rAF Mode: AF-S\rHue Adjustment: 0¡\rJPEG (8-bit) Fine\rMetering Mode: Spot\rTone Comp.: Normal\rSharpening: Normal\rImage Size: Large (3008 x 2000)\r1/3 sec - f/4.8\rFlash Sync Mode: Not Attached\rNoise Reduction: OFF\rExposure Comp.: 0 EV\rImage Comment: \rLens: 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 D\rSensitivity: ISO 320\r[#End of Shooting Data Section]\";s:17:\"created_timestamp\";s:10:\"1132071930\";s:9:\"copyright\";s:0:\"\";s:12:\"focal_length\";s:2:\"28\";s:3:\"iso\";s:1:\"0\";s:13:\"shutter_speed\";s:14:\"0.333333333333\";s:5:\"title\";s:0:\"\";}}'),(40,31,'_wp_attached_file','2009/06/crystal_ball.jpg'),(41,31,'_wp_attachment_metadata','a:6:{s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"656\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"833\";s:14:\"hwstring_small\";s:22:\"height=\'96\' width=\'75\'\";s:4:\"file\";s:24:\"2009/06/crystal_ball.jpg\";s:5:\"sizes\";a:2:{s:9:\"thumbnail\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:24:\"crystal_ball-150x150.jpg\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"150\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"150\";}s:6:\"medium\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:24:\"crystal_ball-236x300.jpg\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"236\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"300\";}}s:10:\"image_meta\";a:10:{s:8:\"aperture\";s:1:\"0\";s:6:\"credit\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"camera\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"caption\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"created_timestamp\";s:1:\"0\";s:9:\"copyright\";s:0:\"\";s:12:\"focal_length\";s:1:\"0\";s:3:\"iso\";s:1:\"0\";s:13:\"shutter_speed\";s:1:\"0\";s:5:\"title\";s:0:\"\";}}'),(46,35,'_edit_lock','1275794449'),(47,35,'_edit_last','1'),(48,36,'_wp_attached_file','2009/06/picture-19.png'),(49,36,'_wp_attachment_metadata','a:6:{s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"702\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"513\";s:14:\"hwstring_small\";s:23:\"height=\'93\' width=\'128\'\";s:4:\"file\";s:22:\"2009/06/picture-19.png\";s:5:\"sizes\";a:2:{s:9:\"thumbnail\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:22:\"picture-19-150x150.png\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"150\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"150\";}s:6:\"medium\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:22:\"picture-19-300x219.png\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"300\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"219\";}}s:10:\"image_meta\";a:10:{s:8:\"aperture\";s:1:\"0\";s:6:\"credit\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"camera\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"caption\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"created_timestamp\";s:1:\"0\";s:9:\"copyright\";s:0:\"\";s:12:\"focal_length\";s:1:\"0\";s:3:\"iso\";s:1:\"0\";s:13:\"shutter_speed\";s:1:\"0\";s:5:\"title\";s:0:\"\";}}'),(54,41,'_edit_lock','1245802005'),(55,41,'_edit_last','1'),(78,67,'_edit_last','1'),(77,67,'_edit_lock','1256957916'),(63,52,'_edit_lock','1318623965'),(64,52,'_edit_last','1'),(357,379,'_wp_attached_file','2010/06/Picture-22.png'),(81,71,'_wp_attached_file','2009/10/house_md_ver3.jpg'),(82,71,'_wp_attachment_metadata','a:6:{s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"510\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"755\";s:14:\"hwstring_small\";s:22:\"height=\'96\' width=\'64\'\";s:4:\"file\";s:25:\"2009/10/house_md_ver3.jpg\";s:5:\"sizes\";a:2:{s:9:\"thumbnail\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:25:\"house_md_ver3-150x150.jpg\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"150\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"150\";}s:6:\"medium\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:25:\"house_md_ver3-202x300.jpg\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"202\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"300\";}}s:10:\"image_meta\";a:10:{s:8:\"aperture\";s:1:\"0\";s:6:\"credit\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"camera\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"caption\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"created_timestamp\";s:1:\"0\";s:9:\"copyright\";s:0:\"\";s:12:\"focal_length\";s:1:\"0\";s:3:\"iso\";s:1:\"0\";s:13:\"shutter_speed\";s:1:\"0\";s:5:\"title\";s:0:\"\";}}'),(85,74,'_edit_lock','1256960043'),(86,74,'_edit_last','1'),(87,75,'_wp_attached_file','2009/10/TerribleTerryTate.png'),(88,75,'_wp_attachment_metadata','a:6:{s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"320\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"240\";s:14:\"hwstring_small\";s:23:\"height=\'96\' width=\'128\'\";s:4:\"file\";s:29:\"2009/10/TerribleTerryTate.png\";s:5:\"sizes\";a:2:{s:9:\"thumbnail\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:29:\"TerribleTerryTate-150x150.png\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"150\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"150\";}s:6:\"medium\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:29:\"TerribleTerryTate-300x225.png\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"300\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"225\";}}s:10:\"image_meta\";a:10:{s:8:\"aperture\";s:1:\"0\";s:6:\"credit\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"camera\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"caption\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"created_timestamp\";s:1:\"0\";s:9:\"copyright\";s:0:\"\";s:12:\"focal_length\";s:1:\"0\";s:3:\"iso\";s:1:\"0\";s:13:\"shutter_speed\";s:1:\"0\";s:5:\"title\";s:0:\"\";}}'),(122,107,'_edit_last','1'),(121,107,'_edit_lock','1262033379'),(95,81,'_edit_lock','1259723415'),(96,81,'_edit_last','1'),(97,84,'_edit_lock','1318624006'),(98,84,'_edit_last','1'),(110,91,'_edit_last','1'),(109,91,'_edit_lock','1318624007'),(129,118,'_edit_lock','1265771532'),(130,118,'_edit_last','1'),(131,119,'_wp_attached_file','2010/02/Picture-3.png'),(132,119,'_wp_attachment_metadata','a:6:{s:5:\"width\";s:4:\"1004\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"538\";s:14:\"hwstring_small\";s:23:\"height=\'68\' width=\'128\'\";s:4:\"file\";s:21:\"2010/02/Picture-3.png\";s:5:\"sizes\";a:2:{s:9:\"thumbnail\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:21:\"Picture-3-150x150.png\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"150\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"150\";}s:6:\"medium\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:21:\"Picture-3-300x160.png\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"300\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"160\";}}s:10:\"image_meta\";a:10:{s:8:\"aperture\";s:1:\"0\";s:6:\"credit\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"camera\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"caption\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"created_timestamp\";s:1:\"0\";s:9:\"copyright\";s:0:\"\";s:12:\"focal_length\";s:1:\"0\";s:3:\"iso\";s:1:\"0\";s:13:\"shutter_speed\";s:1:\"0\";s:5:\"title\";s:0:\"\";}}'),(133,120,'_wp_attached_file','2010/02/Picture-4.png'),(134,120,'_wp_attachment_metadata','a:6:{s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"813\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"571\";s:14:\"hwstring_small\";s:23:\"height=\'89\' width=\'128\'\";s:4:\"file\";s:21:\"2010/02/Picture-4.png\";s:5:\"sizes\";a:2:{s:9:\"thumbnail\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:21:\"Picture-4-150x150.png\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"150\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"150\";}s:6:\"medium\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:21:\"Picture-4-300x210.png\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"300\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"210\";}}s:10:\"image_meta\";a:10:{s:8:\"aperture\";s:1:\"0\";s:6:\"credit\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"camera\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"caption\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"created_timestamp\";s:1:\"0\";s:9:\"copyright\";s:0:\"\";s:12:\"focal_length\";s:1:\"0\";s:3:\"iso\";s:1:\"0\";s:13:\"shutter_speed\";s:1:\"0\";s:5:\"title\";s:0:\"\";}}'),(137,122,'_edit_lock','1266637112'),(138,122,'_edit_last','1'),(144,126,'_edit_lock','1268941344'),(143,122,'_wp_old_slug','a-preference-for-conversation'),(145,126,'_edit_last','1'),(153,137,'_edit_last','1'),(159,144,'_wp_attached_file','2010/04/CountWins.png'),(152,137,'_edit_lock','1271101862'),(158,137,'_wp_old_slug','the-wikipedia-reading-club-joe-dimaggio'),(160,144,'_wp_attachment_metadata','a:6:{s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"534\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"617\";s:14:\"hwstring_small\";s:22:\"height=\'96\' width=\'83\'\";s:4:\"file\";s:21:\"2010/04/CountWins.png\";s:5:\"sizes\";a:2:{s:9:\"thumbnail\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:21:\"CountWins-150x150.png\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"150\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"150\";}s:6:\"medium\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:21:\"CountWins-259x300.png\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"259\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"300\";}}s:10:\"image_meta\";a:10:{s:8:\"aperture\";s:1:\"0\";s:6:\"credit\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"camera\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"caption\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"created_timestamp\";s:1:\"0\";s:9:\"copyright\";s:0:\"\";s:12:\"focal_length\";s:1:\"0\";s:3:\"iso\";s:1:\"0\";s:13:\"shutter_speed\";s:1:\"0\";s:5:\"title\";s:0:\"\";}}'),(161,145,'_edit_lock','1274236713'),(162,145,'_edit_last','1'),(172,153,'_edit_last','1'),(171,153,'_edit_lock','1318623991'),(173,161,'_edit_lock','1274389965'),(174,161,'_edit_last','1'),(459,477,'_wp_page_template','default'),(458,477,'_edit_last','1'),(457,477,'_edit_lock','1530288416:1'),(178,171,'_wp_attached_file','2010/03/1x1.gif'),(179,171,'_wp_attachment_metadata','a:5:{s:5:\"width\";s:1:\"2\";s:6:\"height\";s:1:\"2\";s:14:\"hwstring_small\";s:20:\"height=\'2\' width=\'2\'\";s:4:\"file\";s:15:\"2010/03/1x1.gif\";s:10:\"image_meta\";a:10:{s:8:\"aperture\";s:1:\"0\";s:6:\"credit\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"camera\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"caption\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"created_timestamp\";s:1:\"0\";s:9:\"copyright\";s:0:\"\";s:12:\"focal_length\";s:1:\"0\";s:3:\"iso\";s:1:\"0\";s:13:\"shutter_speed\";s:1:\"0\";s:5:\"title\";s:0:\"\";}}'),(180,172,'_wp_attached_file','2010/04/Secretary-Lynn-Admiral-MullenGary-Knell-President-Sesame-Workshop-with-Jesse-Elmo-and-Rosita-atPentagon-screening-of-When-Families-Grieve.jpg'),(181,172,'_wp_attachment_metadata','a:6:{s:5:\"width\";s:4:\"1024\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"655\";s:14:\"hwstring_small\";s:23:\"height=\'81\' width=\'128\'\";s:4:\"file\";s:149:\"2010/04/Secretary-Lynn-Admiral-MullenGary-Knell-President-Sesame-Workshop-with-Jesse-Elmo-and-Rosita-atPentagon-screening-of-When-Families-Grieve.jpg\";s:5:\"sizes\";a:2:{s:9:\"thumbnail\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:149:\"Secretary-Lynn-Admiral-MullenGary-Knell-President-Sesame-Workshop-with-Jesse-Elmo-and-Rosita-atPentagon-screening-of-When-Families-Grieve-150x150.jpg\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"150\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"150\";}s:6:\"medium\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:149:\"Secretary-Lynn-Admiral-MullenGary-Knell-President-Sesame-Workshop-with-Jesse-Elmo-and-Rosita-atPentagon-screening-of-When-Families-Grieve-300x191.jpg\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"300\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"191\";}}s:10:\"image_meta\";a:10:{s:8:\"aperture\";s:1:\"9\";s:6:\"credit\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"camera\";s:20:\"Canon EOS 5D Mark II\";s:7:\"caption\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"created_timestamp\";s:10:\"1271148137\";s:9:\"copyright\";s:0:\"\";s:12:\"focal_length\";s:2:\"46\";s:3:\"iso\";s:4:\"2000\";s:13:\"shutter_speed\";s:15:\"0.0166666666667\";s:5:\"title\";s:0:\"\";}}'),(251,263,'_wp_attached_file','2010/06/061011_munson_vmed_9p-widec.jpg'),(249,262,'_edit_lock','1275617158'),(250,262,'_edit_last','1'),(188,178,'_edit_lock','1273808532'),(189,178,'_edit_last','1'),(190,179,'_wp_attached_file','2010/05/Picture-14.png'),(191,179,'_wp_attachment_metadata','a:6:{s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"457\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"593\";s:14:\"hwstring_small\";s:22:\"height=\'96\' width=\'73\'\";s:4:\"file\";s:22:\"2010/05/Picture-14.png\";s:5:\"sizes\";a:2:{s:9:\"thumbnail\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:22:\"Picture-14-150x150.png\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"150\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"150\";}s:6:\"medium\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:22:\"Picture-14-231x300.png\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"231\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"300\";}}s:10:\"image_meta\";a:10:{s:8:\"aperture\";s:1:\"0\";s:6:\"credit\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"camera\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"caption\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"created_timestamp\";s:1:\"0\";s:9:\"copyright\";s:0:\"\";s:12:\"focal_length\";s:1:\"0\";s:3:\"iso\";s:1:\"0\";s:13:\"shutter_speed\";s:1:\"0\";s:5:\"title\";s:0:\"\";}}'),(194,182,'_edit_lock','1274153235'),(195,182,'_edit_last','1'),(196,183,'_wp_attached_file','2010/05/wheelchair.jpg'),(197,183,'_wp_attachment_metadata','a:6:{s:5:\"width\";s:4:\"1600\";s:6:\"height\";s:4:\"1200\";s:14:\"hwstring_small\";s:23:\"height=\'96\' width=\'128\'\";s:4:\"file\";s:22:\"2010/05/wheelchair.jpg\";s:5:\"sizes\";a:3:{s:9:\"thumbnail\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:22:\"wheelchair-150x150.jpg\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"150\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"150\";}s:6:\"medium\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:22:\"wheelchair-300x225.jpg\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"300\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"225\";}s:5:\"large\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:23:\"wheelchair-1024x768.jpg\";s:5:\"width\";s:4:\"1024\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"768\";}}s:10:\"image_meta\";a:10:{s:8:\"aperture\";s:1:\"0\";s:6:\"credit\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"camera\";s:15:\"BlackBerry 8330\";s:7:\"caption\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"created_timestamp\";s:1:\"0\";s:9:\"copyright\";s:0:\"\";s:12:\"focal_length\";s:1:\"0\";s:3:\"iso\";s:1:\"0\";s:13:\"shutter_speed\";s:1:\"0\";s:5:\"title\";s:0:\"\";}}'),(202,186,'_wp_attached_file','2010/05/BBWins.png'),(203,186,'_wp_attachment_metadata','a:6:{s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"430\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"492\";s:14:\"hwstring_small\";s:22:\"height=\'96\' width=\'83\'\";s:4:\"file\";s:18:\"2010/05/BBWins.png\";s:5:\"sizes\";a:2:{s:9:\"thumbnail\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:18:\"BBWins-150x150.png\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"150\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"150\";}s:6:\"medium\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:18:\"BBWins-262x300.png\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"262\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"300\";}}s:10:\"image_meta\";a:10:{s:8:\"aperture\";s:1:\"0\";s:6:\"credit\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"camera\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"caption\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"created_timestamp\";s:1:\"0\";s:9:\"copyright\";s:0:\"\";s:12:\"focal_length\";s:1:\"0\";s:3:\"iso\";s:1:\"0\";s:13:\"shutter_speed\";s:1:\"0\";s:5:\"title\";s:0:\"\";}}'),(204,187,'_wp_attached_file','2010/05/tweet.png'),(205,187,'_wp_attachment_metadata','a:6:{s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"624\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"389\";s:14:\"hwstring_small\";s:23:\"height=\'79\' width=\'128\'\";s:4:\"file\";s:17:\"2010/05/tweet.png\";s:5:\"sizes\";a:2:{s:9:\"thumbnail\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:17:\"tweet-150x150.png\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"150\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"150\";}s:6:\"medium\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:17:\"tweet-300x187.png\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"300\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"187\";}}s:10:\"image_meta\";a:10:{s:8:\"aperture\";s:1:\"0\";s:6:\"credit\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"camera\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"caption\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"created_timestamp\";s:1:\"0\";s:9:\"copyright\";s:0:\"\";s:12:\"focal_length\";s:1:\"0\";s:3:\"iso\";s:1:\"0\";s:13:\"shutter_speed\";s:1:\"0\";s:5:\"title\";s:0:\"\";}}'),(358,379,'_wp_attachment_metadata','a:6:{s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"556\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"369\";s:14:\"hwstring_small\";s:23:\"height=\'84\' width=\'128\'\";s:4:\"file\";s:22:\"2010/06/Picture-22.png\";s:5:\"sizes\";a:2:{s:9:\"thumbnail\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:22:\"Picture-22-150x150.png\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"150\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"150\";}s:6:\"medium\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:22:\"Picture-22-300x199.png\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"300\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"199\";}}s:10:\"image_meta\";a:10:{s:8:\"aperture\";s:1:\"0\";s:6:\"credit\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"camera\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"caption\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"created_timestamp\";s:1:\"0\";s:9:\"copyright\";s:0:\"\";s:12:\"focal_length\";s:1:\"0\";s:3:\"iso\";s:1:\"0\";s:13:\"shutter_speed\";s:1:\"0\";s:5:\"title\";s:0:\"\";}}'),(212,196,'_wp_attached_file','2010/05/tweet2.png'),(213,196,'_wp_attachment_metadata','a:6:{s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"623\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"350\";s:14:\"hwstring_small\";s:23:\"height=\'71\' width=\'128\'\";s:4:\"file\";s:18:\"2010/05/tweet2.png\";s:5:\"sizes\";a:2:{s:9:\"thumbnail\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:18:\"tweet2-150x150.png\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"150\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"150\";}s:6:\"medium\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:18:\"tweet2-300x168.png\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"300\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"168\";}}s:10:\"image_meta\";a:10:{s:8:\"aperture\";s:1:\"0\";s:6:\"credit\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"camera\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"caption\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"created_timestamp\";s:1:\"0\";s:9:\"copyright\";s:0:\"\";s:12:\"focal_length\";s:1:\"0\";s:3:\"iso\";s:1:\"0\";s:13:\"shutter_speed\";s:1:\"0\";s:5:\"title\";s:0:\"\";}}'),(219,205,'_edit_lock','1368412965:1'),(218,145,'_wp_old_slug','can-big-bird-convert-twitter-followers-into-to-facebook-fans'),(220,205,'_edit_last','1'),(229,229,'_wp_attached_file','2010/05/Picture-18.png'),(230,229,'_wp_attachment_metadata','a:6:{s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"614\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"307\";s:14:\"hwstring_small\";s:23:\"height=\'64\' width=\'128\'\";s:4:\"file\";s:22:\"2010/05/Picture-18.png\";s:5:\"sizes\";a:2:{s:9:\"thumbnail\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:22:\"Picture-18-150x150.png\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"150\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"150\";}s:6:\"medium\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:22:\"Picture-18-300x150.png\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"300\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"150\";}}s:10:\"image_meta\";a:10:{s:8:\"aperture\";s:1:\"0\";s:6:\"credit\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"camera\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"caption\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"created_timestamp\";s:1:\"0\";s:9:\"copyright\";s:0:\"\";s:12:\"focal_length\";s:1:\"0\";s:3:\"iso\";s:1:\"0\";s:13:\"shutter_speed\";s:1:\"0\";s:5:\"title\";s:0:\"\";}}'),(231,230,'_wp_attached_file','2010/05/Picture-17.png'),(232,230,'_wp_attachment_metadata','a:6:{s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"526\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"221\";s:14:\"hwstring_small\";s:23:\"height=\'53\' width=\'128\'\";s:4:\"file\";s:22:\"2010/05/Picture-17.png\";s:5:\"sizes\";a:2:{s:9:\"thumbnail\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:22:\"Picture-17-150x150.png\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"150\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"150\";}s:6:\"medium\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:22:\"Picture-17-300x126.png\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"300\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"126\";}}s:10:\"image_meta\";a:10:{s:8:\"aperture\";s:1:\"0\";s:6:\"credit\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"camera\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"caption\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"created_timestamp\";s:1:\"0\";s:9:\"copyright\";s:0:\"\";s:12:\"focal_length\";s:1:\"0\";s:3:\"iso\";s:1:\"0\";s:13:\"shutter_speed\";s:1:\"0\";s:5:\"title\";s:0:\"\";}}'),(233,231,'_wp_attached_file','2010/05/Picture-19.png'),(234,231,'_wp_attachment_metadata','a:6:{s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"486\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"614\";s:14:\"hwstring_small\";s:22:\"height=\'95\' width=\'75\'\";s:4:\"file\";s:22:\"2010/05/Picture-19.png\";s:5:\"sizes\";a:2:{s:9:\"thumbnail\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:22:\"Picture-19-150x150.png\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"150\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"150\";}s:6:\"medium\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:22:\"Picture-19-237x300.png\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"237\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"300\";}}s:10:\"image_meta\";a:10:{s:8:\"aperture\";s:1:\"0\";s:6:\"credit\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"camera\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"caption\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"created_timestamp\";s:1:\"0\";s:9:\"copyright\";s:0:\"\";s:12:\"focal_length\";s:1:\"0\";s:3:\"iso\";s:1:\"0\";s:13:\"shutter_speed\";s:1:\"0\";s:5:\"title\";s:0:\"\";}}'),(235,237,'_edit_lock','1318623940'),(236,237,'_edit_last','1'),(237,240,'_edit_lock','1274753792'),(238,240,'_edit_last','1'),(243,256,'_edit_lock','1274477159'),(244,256,'_edit_last','1'),(245,258,'_edit_lock','1275680919'),(246,258,'_edit_last','1'),(252,263,'_wp_attachment_metadata','a:6:{s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"298\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"434\";s:14:\"hwstring_small\";s:22:\"height=\'96\' width=\'65\'\";s:4:\"file\";s:39:\"2010/06/061011_munson_vmed_9p-widec.jpg\";s:5:\"sizes\";a:2:{s:9:\"thumbnail\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:39:\"061011_munson_vmed_9p-widec-150x150.jpg\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"150\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"150\";}s:6:\"medium\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:39:\"061011_munson_vmed_9p-widec-205x300.jpg\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"205\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"300\";}}s:10:\"image_meta\";a:10:{s:8:\"aperture\";s:1:\"0\";s:6:\"credit\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"camera\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"caption\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"created_timestamp\";s:1:\"0\";s:9:\"copyright\";s:0:\"\";s:12:\"focal_length\";s:1:\"0\";s:3:\"iso\";s:1:\"0\";s:13:\"shutter_speed\";s:1:\"0\";s:5:\"title\";s:0:\"\";}}'),(255,266,'_edit_lock','1484666955:1'),(256,266,'_edit_last','1'),(259,268,'_edit_lock','1275926321'),(260,268,'_edit_last','1'),(261,269,'_wp_attached_file','2010/06/Picture-41.png'),(262,269,'_wp_attachment_metadata','a:6:{s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"743\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"483\";s:14:\"hwstring_small\";s:23:\"height=\'83\' width=\'128\'\";s:4:\"file\";s:22:\"2010/06/Picture-41.png\";s:5:\"sizes\";a:2:{s:9:\"thumbnail\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:22:\"Picture-41-150x150.png\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"150\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"150\";}s:6:\"medium\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:22:\"Picture-41-300x195.png\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"300\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"195\";}}s:10:\"image_meta\";a:10:{s:8:\"aperture\";s:1:\"0\";s:6:\"credit\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"camera\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"caption\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"created_timestamp\";s:1:\"0\";s:9:\"copyright\";s:0:\"\";s:12:\"focal_length\";s:1:\"0\";s:3:\"iso\";s:1:\"0\";s:13:\"shutter_speed\";s:1:\"0\";s:5:\"title\";s:0:\"\";}}'),(265,275,'_wp_attached_file','2010/06/Picture-42.png'),(266,275,'_wp_attachment_metadata','a:6:{s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"526\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"388\";s:14:\"hwstring_small\";s:23:\"height=\'94\' width=\'128\'\";s:4:\"file\";s:22:\"2010/06/Picture-42.png\";s:5:\"sizes\";a:2:{s:9:\"thumbnail\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:22:\"Picture-42-150x150.png\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"150\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"150\";}s:6:\"medium\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:22:\"Picture-42-300x221.png\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"300\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"221\";}}s:10:\"image_meta\";a:10:{s:8:\"aperture\";s:1:\"0\";s:6:\"credit\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"camera\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"caption\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"created_timestamp\";s:1:\"0\";s:9:\"copyright\";s:0:\"\";s:12:\"focal_length\";s:1:\"0\";s:3:\"iso\";s:1:\"0\";s:13:\"shutter_speed\";s:1:\"0\";s:5:\"title\";s:0:\"\";}}'),(267,276,'_wp_attached_file','2010/06/Picture-43.png'),(268,276,'_wp_attachment_metadata','a:6:{s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"541\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"442\";s:14:\"hwstring_small\";s:23:\"height=\'96\' width=\'117\'\";s:4:\"file\";s:22:\"2010/06/Picture-43.png\";s:5:\"sizes\";a:2:{s:9:\"thumbnail\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:22:\"Picture-43-150x150.png\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"150\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"150\";}s:6:\"medium\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:22:\"Picture-43-300x245.png\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"300\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"245\";}}s:10:\"image_meta\";a:10:{s:8:\"aperture\";s:1:\"0\";s:6:\"credit\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"camera\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"caption\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"created_timestamp\";s:1:\"0\";s:9:\"copyright\";s:0:\"\";s:12:\"focal_length\";s:1:\"0\";s:3:\"iso\";s:1:\"0\";s:13:\"shutter_speed\";s:1:\"0\";s:5:\"title\";s:0:\"\";}}'),(269,285,'_wp_attached_file','2010/06/0712ifyoutalkedtopeople.jpg'),(270,285,'_wp_attachment_metadata','a:6:{s:5:\"width\";s:4:\"3072\";s:6:\"height\";s:4:\"1725\";s:14:\"hwstring_small\";s:23:\"height=\'71\' width=\'128\'\";s:4:\"file\";s:35:\"2010/06/0712ifyoutalkedtopeople.jpg\";s:5:\"sizes\";a:3:{s:9:\"thumbnail\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:35:\"0712ifyoutalkedtopeople-150x150.jpg\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"150\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"150\";}s:6:\"medium\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:35:\"0712ifyoutalkedtopeople-300x168.jpg\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"300\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"168\";}s:5:\"large\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:36:\"0712ifyoutalkedtopeople-1024x575.jpg\";s:5:\"width\";s:4:\"1024\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"575\";}}s:10:\"image_meta\";a:10:{s:8:\"aperture\";s:1:\"0\";s:6:\"credit\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"camera\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"caption\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"created_timestamp\";s:1:\"0\";s:9:\"copyright\";s:0:\"\";s:12:\"focal_length\";s:1:\"0\";s:3:\"iso\";s:1:\"0\";s:13:\"shutter_speed\";s:1:\"0\";s:5:\"title\";s:0:\"\";}}'),(273,295,'_wp_attached_file','2010/06/aadl1.png'),(274,295,'_wp_attachment_metadata','a:6:{s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"500\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"325\";s:14:\"hwstring_small\";s:23:\"height=\'83\' width=\'128\'\";s:4:\"file\";s:17:\"2010/06/aadl1.png\";s:5:\"sizes\";a:2:{s:9:\"thumbnail\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:17:\"aadl1-150x150.png\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"150\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"150\";}s:6:\"medium\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:17:\"aadl1-300x195.png\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"300\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"195\";}}s:10:\"image_meta\";a:10:{s:8:\"aperture\";s:1:\"0\";s:6:\"credit\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"camera\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"caption\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"created_timestamp\";s:1:\"0\";s:9:\"copyright\";s:0:\"\";s:12:\"focal_length\";s:1:\"0\";s:3:\"iso\";s:1:\"0\";s:13:\"shutter_speed\";s:1:\"0\";s:5:\"title\";s:0:\"\";}}'),(277,297,'_edit_lock','1275970976'),(278,297,'_edit_last','1'),(279,298,'_wp_attached_file','2010/06/babc.jpg'),(280,298,'_wp_attachment_metadata','a:6:{s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"500\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"619\";s:14:\"hwstring_small\";s:22:\"height=\'96\' width=\'77\'\";s:4:\"file\";s:16:\"2010/06/babc.jpg\";s:5:\"sizes\";a:2:{s:9:\"thumbnail\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:16:\"babc-150x150.jpg\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"150\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"150\";}s:6:\"medium\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:16:\"babc-242x300.jpg\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"242\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"300\";}}s:10:\"image_meta\";a:10:{s:8:\"aperture\";s:1:\"0\";s:6:\"credit\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"camera\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"caption\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"created_timestamp\";s:1:\"0\";s:9:\"copyright\";s:0:\"\";s:12:\"focal_length\";s:1:\"0\";s:3:\"iso\";s:1:\"0\";s:13:\"shutter_speed\";s:1:\"0\";s:5:\"title\";s:0:\"\";}}'),(281,299,'_wp_attached_file','2010/06/brand-alphabet.gif'),(282,299,'_wp_attachment_metadata','a:6:{s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"468\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"390\";s:14:\"hwstring_small\";s:23:\"height=\'96\' width=\'115\'\";s:4:\"file\";s:26:\"2010/06/brand-alphabet.gif\";s:5:\"sizes\";a:2:{s:9:\"thumbnail\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:26:\"brand-alphabet-150x150.gif\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"150\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"150\";}s:6:\"medium\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:26:\"brand-alphabet-300x250.gif\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"300\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"250\";}}s:10:\"image_meta\";a:10:{s:8:\"aperture\";s:1:\"0\";s:6:\"credit\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"camera\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"caption\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"created_timestamp\";s:1:\"0\";s:9:\"copyright\";s:0:\"\";s:12:\"focal_length\";s:1:\"0\";s:3:\"iso\";s:1:\"0\";s:13:\"shutter_speed\";s:1:\"0\";s:5:\"title\";s:0:\"\";}}'),(283,300,'_wp_attached_file','2010/06/toy-soldiers-abc-alphabet.jpg'),(284,300,'_wp_attachment_metadata','a:6:{s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"925\";s:6:\"height\";s:4:\"1200\";s:14:\"hwstring_small\";s:22:\"height=\'96\' width=\'74\'\";s:4:\"file\";s:37:\"2010/06/toy-soldiers-abc-alphabet.jpg\";s:5:\"sizes\";a:3:{s:9:\"thumbnail\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:37:\"toy-soldiers-abc-alphabet-150x150.jpg\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"150\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"150\";}s:6:\"medium\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:37:\"toy-soldiers-abc-alphabet-231x300.jpg\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"231\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"300\";}s:5:\"large\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:38:\"toy-soldiers-abc-alphabet-789x1024.jpg\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"789\";s:6:\"height\";s:4:\"1024\";}}s:10:\"image_meta\";a:10:{s:8:\"aperture\";s:1:\"0\";s:6:\"credit\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"camera\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"caption\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"created_timestamp\";s:1:\"0\";s:9:\"copyright\";s:0:\"\";s:12:\"focal_length\";s:1:\"0\";s:3:\"iso\";s:1:\"0\";s:13:\"shutter_speed\";s:1:\"0\";s:5:\"title\";s:0:\"\";}}'),(285,302,'_wp_attached_file','2010/06/hand-abcs-alphabet.jpg'),(286,302,'_wp_attachment_metadata','a:6:{s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"500\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"466\";s:14:\"hwstring_small\";s:23:\"height=\'96\' width=\'103\'\";s:4:\"file\";s:30:\"2010/06/hand-abcs-alphabet.jpg\";s:5:\"sizes\";a:2:{s:9:\"thumbnail\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:30:\"hand-abcs-alphabet-150x150.jpg\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"150\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"150\";}s:6:\"medium\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:30:\"hand-abcs-alphabet-300x279.jpg\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"300\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"279\";}}s:10:\"image_meta\";a:10:{s:8:\"aperture\";s:1:\"0\";s:6:\"credit\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"camera\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"caption\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"created_timestamp\";s:1:\"0\";s:9:\"copyright\";s:0:\"\";s:12:\"focal_length\";s:1:\"0\";s:3:\"iso\";s:1:\"0\";s:13:\"shutter_speed\";s:1:\"0\";s:5:\"title\";s:0:\"\";}}'),(287,303,'_wp_attached_file','2010/06/alphabet-sky.jpg'),(288,303,'_wp_attachment_metadata','a:6:{s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"460\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"496\";s:14:\"hwstring_small\";s:22:\"height=\'96\' width=\'89\'\";s:4:\"file\";s:24:\"2010/06/alphabet-sky.jpg\";s:5:\"sizes\";a:2:{s:9:\"thumbnail\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:24:\"alphabet-sky-150x150.jpg\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"150\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"150\";}s:6:\"medium\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:24:\"alphabet-sky-278x300.jpg\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"278\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"300\";}}s:10:\"image_meta\";a:10:{s:8:\"aperture\";s:1:\"0\";s:6:\"credit\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"camera\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"caption\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"created_timestamp\";s:1:\"0\";s:9:\"copyright\";s:0:\"\";s:12:\"focal_length\";s:1:\"0\";s:3:\"iso\";s:1:\"0\";s:13:\"shutter_speed\";s:1:\"0\";s:5:\"title\";s:0:\"\";}}'),(297,310,'_edit_last','1'),(293,297,'_wp_old_slug','fiv-neat-visualizations-of-the-alphabet'),(296,310,'_edit_lock','1276048923'),(300,315,'_edit_lock','1276170348'),(301,315,'_edit_last','1'),(302,319,'_wp_attached_file','2010/06/Picture-20.png'),(303,319,'_wp_attachment_metadata','a:6:{s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"537\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"199\";s:14:\"hwstring_small\";s:23:\"height=\'47\' width=\'128\'\";s:4:\"file\";s:22:\"2010/06/Picture-20.png\";s:5:\"sizes\";a:2:{s:9:\"thumbnail\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:22:\"Picture-20-150x150.png\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"150\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"150\";}s:6:\"medium\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:22:\"Picture-20-300x111.png\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"300\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"111\";}}s:10:\"image_meta\";a:10:{s:8:\"aperture\";s:1:\"0\";s:6:\"credit\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"camera\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"caption\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"created_timestamp\";s:1:\"0\";s:9:\"copyright\";s:0:\"\";s:12:\"focal_length\";s:1:\"0\";s:3:\"iso\";s:1:\"0\";s:13:\"shutter_speed\";s:1:\"0\";s:5:\"title\";s:0:\"\";}}'),(306,324,'_wp_attached_file','2010/06/ATeamFacebook.png'),(307,324,'_wp_attachment_metadata','a:6:{s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"248\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"215\";s:14:\"hwstring_small\";s:23:\"height=\'96\' width=\'110\'\";s:4:\"file\";s:25:\"2010/06/ATeamFacebook.png\";s:5:\"sizes\";a:1:{s:9:\"thumbnail\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:25:\"ATeamFacebook-150x150.png\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"150\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"150\";}}s:10:\"image_meta\";a:10:{s:8:\"aperture\";s:1:\"0\";s:6:\"credit\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"camera\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"caption\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"created_timestamp\";s:1:\"0\";s:9:\"copyright\";s:0:\"\";s:12:\"focal_length\";s:1:\"0\";s:3:\"iso\";s:1:\"0\";s:13:\"shutter_speed\";s:1:\"0\";s:5:\"title\";s:0:\"\";}}'),(308,325,'_edit_lock','1276193851'),(309,325,'_edit_last','1'),(312,328,'_edit_lock','1276564124'),(313,328,'_edit_last','1'),(314,331,'_wp_attached_file','2010/06/internet_week-logo-light_bk.gif'),(315,331,'_wp_attachment_metadata','a:6:{s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"307\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"137\";s:14:\"hwstring_small\";s:23:\"height=\'57\' width=\'128\'\";s:4:\"file\";s:39:\"2010/06/internet_week-logo-light_bk.gif\";s:5:\"sizes\";a:2:{s:9:\"thumbnail\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:39:\"internet_week-logo-light_bk-150x137.gif\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"150\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"137\";}s:6:\"medium\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:39:\"internet_week-logo-light_bk-300x133.gif\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"300\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"133\";}}s:10:\"image_meta\";a:10:{s:8:\"aperture\";s:1:\"0\";s:6:\"credit\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"camera\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"caption\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"created_timestamp\";s:1:\"0\";s:9:\"copyright\";s:0:\"\";s:12:\"focal_length\";s:1:\"0\";s:3:\"iso\";s:1:\"0\";s:13:\"shutter_speed\";s:1:\"0\";s:5:\"title\";s:0:\"\";}}'),(316,333,'_wp_attached_file','2010/06/Al+20Gore1260901037.jpg'),(317,333,'_wp_attachment_metadata','a:6:{s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"340\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"474\";s:14:\"hwstring_small\";s:22:\"height=\'96\' width=\'68\'\";s:4:\"file\";s:31:\"2010/06/Al+20Gore1260901037.jpg\";s:5:\"sizes\";a:2:{s:9:\"thumbnail\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:31:\"Al+20Gore1260901037-150x150.jpg\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"150\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"150\";}s:6:\"medium\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:31:\"Al+20Gore1260901037-215x300.jpg\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"215\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"300\";}}s:10:\"image_meta\";a:10:{s:8:\"aperture\";s:1:\"0\";s:6:\"credit\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"camera\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"caption\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"created_timestamp\";s:1:\"0\";s:9:\"copyright\";s:0:\"\";s:12:\"focal_length\";s:1:\"0\";s:3:\"iso\";s:1:\"0\";s:13:\"shutter_speed\";s:1:\"0\";s:5:\"title\";s:0:\"\";}}'),(318,338,'_wp_attached_file','2010/06/681163378.jpg'),(319,338,'_wp_attachment_metadata','a:6:{s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"274\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"200\";s:14:\"hwstring_small\";s:23:\"height=\'93\' width=\'128\'\";s:4:\"file\";s:21:\"2010/06/681163378.jpg\";s:5:\"sizes\";a:1:{s:9:\"thumbnail\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:21:\"681163378-150x150.jpg\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"150\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"150\";}}s:10:\"image_meta\";a:10:{s:8:\"aperture\";s:1:\"0\";s:6:\"credit\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"camera\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"caption\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"created_timestamp\";s:1:\"0\";s:9:\"copyright\";s:0:\"\";s:12:\"focal_length\";s:1:\"0\";s:3:\"iso\";s:1:\"0\";s:13:\"shutter_speed\";s:1:\"0\";s:5:\"title\";s:0:\"\";}}'),(320,339,'_wp_attached_file','2010/06/ignite-nyc-20080724-120543.jpg'),(321,339,'_wp_attachment_metadata','a:6:{s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"450\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"394\";s:14:\"hwstring_small\";s:23:\"height=\'96\' width=\'109\'\";s:4:\"file\";s:38:\"2010/06/ignite-nyc-20080724-120543.jpg\";s:5:\"sizes\";a:2:{s:9:\"thumbnail\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:38:\"ignite-nyc-20080724-120543-150x150.jpg\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"150\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"150\";}s:6:\"medium\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:38:\"ignite-nyc-20080724-120543-300x262.jpg\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"300\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"262\";}}s:10:\"image_meta\";a:10:{s:8:\"aperture\";s:1:\"0\";s:6:\"credit\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"camera\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"caption\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"created_timestamp\";s:1:\"0\";s:9:\"copyright\";s:0:\"\";s:12:\"focal_length\";s:1:\"0\";s:3:\"iso\";s:1:\"0\";s:13:\"shutter_speed\";s:1:\"0\";s:5:\"title\";s:0:\"\";}}'),(322,341,'_wp_attached_file','2010/06/tile-rtw-summit-ny-125x125.png'),(323,341,'_wp_attachment_metadata','a:5:{s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"125\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"125\";s:14:\"hwstring_small\";s:22:\"height=\'96\' width=\'96\'\";s:4:\"file\";s:38:\"2010/06/tile-rtw-summit-ny-125x125.png\";s:10:\"image_meta\";a:10:{s:8:\"aperture\";s:1:\"0\";s:6:\"credit\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"camera\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"caption\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"created_timestamp\";s:1:\"0\";s:9:\"copyright\";s:0:\"\";s:12:\"focal_length\";s:1:\"0\";s:3:\"iso\";s:1:\"0\";s:13:\"shutter_speed\";s:1:\"0\";s:5:\"title\";s:0:\"\";}}'),(324,345,'_wp_attached_file','2010/06/1_google_logo.jpg'),(325,345,'_wp_attachment_metadata','a:6:{s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"425\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"300\";s:14:\"hwstring_small\";s:23:\"height=\'90\' width=\'127\'\";s:4:\"file\";s:25:\"2010/06/1_google_logo.jpg\";s:5:\"sizes\";a:2:{s:9:\"thumbnail\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:25:\"1_google_logo-150x150.jpg\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"150\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"150\";}s:6:\"medium\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:25:\"1_google_logo-300x211.jpg\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"300\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"211\";}}s:10:\"image_meta\";a:10:{s:8:\"aperture\";s:1:\"0\";s:6:\"credit\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"camera\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"caption\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"created_timestamp\";s:1:\"0\";s:9:\"copyright\";s:0:\"\";s:12:\"focal_length\";s:1:\"0\";s:3:\"iso\";s:1:\"0\";s:13:\"shutter_speed\";s:1:\"0\";s:5:\"title\";s:0:\"\";}}'),(336,354,'_edit_lock','1277143449'),(337,354,'_edit_last','1'),(338,355,'_wp_attached_file','2010/06/flipper-bridge.jpg'),(339,355,'_wp_attachment_metadata','a:0:{}'),(340,356,'_wp_attached_file','2010/06/flipper-bridge1.jpg'),(341,356,'_wp_attachment_metadata','a:6:{s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"500\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"295\";s:14:\"hwstring_small\";s:23:\"height=\'75\' width=\'128\'\";s:4:\"file\";s:27:\"2010/06/flipper-bridge1.jpg\";s:5:\"sizes\";a:2:{s:9:\"thumbnail\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:27:\"flipper-bridge1-150x150.jpg\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"150\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"150\";}s:6:\"medium\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:27:\"flipper-bridge1-300x177.jpg\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"300\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"177\";}}s:10:\"image_meta\";a:10:{s:8:\"aperture\";s:1:\"0\";s:6:\"credit\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"camera\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"caption\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"created_timestamp\";s:1:\"0\";s:9:\"copyright\";s:0:\"\";s:12:\"focal_length\";s:1:\"0\";s:3:\"iso\";s:1:\"0\";s:13:\"shutter_speed\";s:1:\"0\";s:5:\"title\";s:0:\"\";}}'),(343,361,'_edit_lock','1276779205'),(344,361,'_edit_last','1'),(345,362,'_wp_attached_file','2010/06/justcoz.png'),(346,362,'_wp_attachment_metadata','a:6:{s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"242\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"116\";s:14:\"hwstring_small\";s:23:\"height=\'61\' width=\'128\'\";s:4:\"file\";s:19:\"2010/06/justcoz.png\";s:5:\"sizes\";a:1:{s:9:\"thumbnail\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:19:\"justcoz-150x116.png\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"150\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"116\";}}s:10:\"image_meta\";a:10:{s:8:\"aperture\";s:1:\"0\";s:6:\"credit\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"camera\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"caption\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"created_timestamp\";s:1:\"0\";s:9:\"copyright\";s:0:\"\";s:12:\"focal_length\";s:1:\"0\";s:3:\"iso\";s:1:\"0\";s:13:\"shutter_speed\";s:1:\"0\";s:5:\"title\";s:0:\"\";}}'),(347,367,'_wp_attached_file','2010/06/justcoz_distribution_model.gif'),(348,367,'_wp_attachment_metadata','a:6:{s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"700\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"165\";s:14:\"hwstring_small\";s:23:\"height=\'30\' width=\'128\'\";s:4:\"file\";s:38:\"2010/06/justcoz_distribution_model.gif\";s:5:\"sizes\";a:2:{s:9:\"thumbnail\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:38:\"justcoz_distribution_model-150x150.gif\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"150\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"150\";}s:6:\"medium\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:37:\"justcoz_distribution_model-300x70.gif\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"300\";s:6:\"height\";s:2:\"70\";}}s:10:\"image_meta\";a:10:{s:8:\"aperture\";s:1:\"0\";s:6:\"credit\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"camera\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"caption\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"created_timestamp\";s:1:\"0\";s:9:\"copyright\";s:0:\"\";s:12:\"focal_length\";s:1:\"0\";s:3:\"iso\";s:1:\"0\";s:13:\"shutter_speed\";s:1:\"0\";s:5:\"title\";s:0:\"\";}}'),(464,487,'_wp_attachment_metadata','a:5:{s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"115\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"130\";s:14:\"hwstring_small\";s:22:\"height=\'96\' width=\'84\'\";s:4:\"file\";s:23:\"2010/08/ebgheadshot.jpg\";s:10:\"image_meta\";a:10:{s:8:\"aperture\";s:1:\"0\";s:6:\"credit\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"camera\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"caption\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"created_timestamp\";s:1:\"0\";s:9:\"copyright\";s:0:\"\";s:12:\"focal_length\";s:1:\"0\";s:3:\"iso\";s:1:\"0\";s:13:\"shutter_speed\";s:1:\"0\";s:5:\"title\";s:0:\"\";}}'),(361,382,'_wp_attached_file','2010/06/Little_Fenway_Park.jpg'),(362,382,'_wp_attachment_metadata','a:6:{s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"320\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"240\";s:14:\"hwstring_small\";s:23:\"height=\'96\' width=\'128\'\";s:4:\"file\";s:30:\"2010/06/Little_Fenway_Park.jpg\";s:5:\"sizes\";a:2:{s:9:\"thumbnail\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:30:\"Little_Fenway_Park-150x150.jpg\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"150\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"150\";}s:6:\"medium\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:30:\"Little_Fenway_Park-300x225.jpg\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"300\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"225\";}}s:10:\"image_meta\";a:10:{s:8:\"aperture\";s:1:\"0\";s:6:\"credit\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"camera\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"caption\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"created_timestamp\";s:1:\"0\";s:9:\"copyright\";s:0:\"\";s:12:\"focal_length\";s:1:\"0\";s:3:\"iso\";s:1:\"0\";s:13:\"shutter_speed\";s:1:\"0\";s:5:\"title\";s:0:\"\";}}'),(381,388,'_wp_attachment_metadata','a:6:{s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"346\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"425\";s:14:\"hwstring_small\";s:22:\"height=\'96\' width=\'78\'\";s:4:\"file\";s:31:\"2010/06/Phillips-circa-2003.jpg\";s:5:\"sizes\";a:2:{s:9:\"thumbnail\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:31:\"Phillips-circa-2003-150x150.jpg\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"150\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"150\";}s:6:\"medium\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:31:\"Phillips-circa-2003-244x300.jpg\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"244\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"300\";}}s:10:\"image_meta\";a:10:{s:8:\"aperture\";s:1:\"0\";s:6:\"credit\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"camera\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"caption\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"created_timestamp\";s:1:\"0\";s:9:\"copyright\";s:0:\"\";s:12:\"focal_length\";s:1:\"0\";s:3:\"iso\";s:1:\"0\";s:13:\"shutter_speed\";s:1:\"0\";s:5:\"title\";s:0:\"\";}}'),(380,388,'_wp_attached_file','2010/06/Phillips-circa-2003.jpg'),(368,384,'_wp_attached_file','2010/06/fivebunch1.jpg'),(369,384,'_wp_attachment_metadata','a:6:{s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"301\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"410\";s:14:\"hwstring_small\";s:22:\"height=\'96\' width=\'70\'\";s:4:\"file\";s:22:\"2010/06/fivebunch1.jpg\";s:5:\"sizes\";a:2:{s:9:\"thumbnail\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:22:\"fivebunch1-150x150.jpg\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"150\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"150\";}s:6:\"medium\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:22:\"fivebunch1-220x300.jpg\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"220\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"300\";}}s:10:\"image_meta\";a:10:{s:8:\"aperture\";s:1:\"0\";s:6:\"credit\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"camera\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"caption\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"created_timestamp\";s:1:\"0\";s:9:\"copyright\";s:0:\"\";s:12:\"focal_length\";s:1:\"0\";s:3:\"iso\";s:1:\"0\";s:13:\"shutter_speed\";s:1:\"0\";s:5:\"title\";s:0:\"\";}}'),(389,392,'_edit_last','1'),(388,392,'_edit_lock','1277152982'),(396,403,'_wp_attachment_metadata','a:6:{s:5:\"width\";s:4:\"1288\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"374\";s:14:\"hwstring_small\";s:23:\"height=\'37\' width=\'127\'\";s:4:\"file\";s:23:\"2010/06/logo-subway.jpg\";s:5:\"sizes\";a:3:{s:9:\"thumbnail\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:23:\"logo-subway-150x150.jpg\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"150\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"150\";}s:6:\"medium\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:22:\"logo-subway-300x87.jpg\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"300\";s:6:\"height\";s:2:\"87\";}s:5:\"large\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:24:\"logo-subway-1023x297.jpg\";s:5:\"width\";s:4:\"1023\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"297\";}}s:10:\"image_meta\";a:10:{s:8:\"aperture\";s:1:\"0\";s:6:\"credit\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"camera\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"caption\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"created_timestamp\";s:1:\"0\";s:9:\"copyright\";s:0:\"\";s:12:\"focal_length\";s:1:\"0\";s:3:\"iso\";s:1:\"0\";s:13:\"shutter_speed\";s:1:\"0\";s:5:\"title\";s:0:\"\";}}'),(395,403,'_wp_attached_file','2010/06/logo-subway.jpg'),(393,399,'_edit_lock','1318623886'),(394,399,'_edit_last','1'),(397,405,'_wp_attached_file','2010/06/delta.gif'),(398,405,'_wp_attachment_metadata','a:6:{s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"800\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"313\";s:14:\"hwstring_small\";s:23:\"height=\'50\' width=\'128\'\";s:4:\"file\";s:17:\"2010/06/delta.gif\";s:5:\"sizes\";a:2:{s:9:\"thumbnail\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:17:\"delta-150x150.gif\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"150\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"150\";}s:6:\"medium\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:17:\"delta-300x117.gif\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"300\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"117\";}}s:10:\"image_meta\";a:10:{s:8:\"aperture\";s:1:\"0\";s:6:\"credit\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"camera\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"caption\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"created_timestamp\";s:1:\"0\";s:9:\"copyright\";s:0:\"\";s:12:\"focal_length\";s:1:\"0\";s:3:\"iso\";s:1:\"0\";s:13:\"shutter_speed\";s:1:\"0\";s:5:\"title\";s:0:\"\";}}'),(401,409,'_edit_lock','1484666940:1'),(402,409,'_edit_last','1'),(407,413,'_wp_attached_file','2010/06/061410FML9WCL093233-300x300.jpg'),(408,413,'_wp_attachment_metadata','a:6:{s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"300\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"300\";s:14:\"hwstring_small\";s:22:\"height=\'96\' width=\'96\'\";s:4:\"file\";s:39:\"2010/06/061410FML9WCL093233-300x300.jpg\";s:5:\"sizes\";a:1:{s:9:\"thumbnail\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:39:\"061410FML9WCL093233-300x300-150x150.jpg\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"150\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"150\";}}s:10:\"image_meta\";a:10:{s:8:\"aperture\";s:3:\"3.5\";s:6:\"credit\";s:15:\"William C Lopez\";s:6:\"camera\";s:21:\"Canon EOS-1D Mark III\";s:7:\"caption\";s:134:\"061410FML9WCL 6th Ave & 14th St, FM L123 subway station, signs in the station that read FML along with 123. FML is a popular website.\";s:17:\"created_timestamp\";s:10:\"1276541388\";s:9:\"copyright\";s:0:\"\";s:12:\"focal_length\";s:2:\"45\";s:3:\"iso\";s:3:\"640\";s:13:\"shutter_speed\";s:6:\"0.0125\";s:5:\"title\";s:13:\"061410FML9WCL\";}}'),(417,418,'_edit_lock','1277221849'),(418,418,'_edit_last','1'),(463,487,'_wp_attached_file','2010/08/ebgheadshot.jpg'),(461,484,'_edit_lock','1458785609:1'),(462,484,'_edit_last','1'),(424,424,'_edit_lock','1350345179:3'),(425,424,'_edit_last','3'),(426,424,'_wp_page_template','default'),(460,484,'_wp_page_template','default'),(429,433,'_edit_lock','1279643805'),(430,433,'_edit_last','1'),(431,433,'_wp_page_template','default'),(432,440,'_edit_lock','1297648296'),(433,440,'_edit_last','1'),(434,440,'_wp_page_template','newsletter.php'),(435,452,'_edit_lock','1277781223'),(436,452,'_edit_last','1'),(437,453,'_wp_attached_file','2010/06/Picture-23.png'),(438,453,'_wp_attachment_metadata','a:6:{s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"252\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"158\";s:14:\"hwstring_small\";s:23:\"height=\'80\' width=\'128\'\";s:4:\"file\";s:22:\"2010/06/Picture-23.png\";s:5:\"sizes\";a:1:{s:9:\"thumbnail\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:22:\"Picture-23-150x150.png\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"150\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"150\";}}s:10:\"image_meta\";a:10:{s:8:\"aperture\";s:1:\"0\";s:6:\"credit\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"camera\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"caption\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"created_timestamp\";s:1:\"0\";s:9:\"copyright\";s:0:\"\";s:12:\"focal_length\";s:1:\"0\";s:3:\"iso\";s:1:\"0\";s:13:\"shutter_speed\";s:1:\"0\";s:5:\"title\";s:0:\"\";}}'),(439,454,'_wp_attached_file','2010/06/Picture-24.png'),(440,454,'_wp_attachment_metadata','a:6:{s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"251\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"166\";s:14:\"hwstring_small\";s:23:\"height=\'84\' width=\'128\'\";s:4:\"file\";s:22:\"2010/06/Picture-24.png\";s:5:\"sizes\";a:1:{s:9:\"thumbnail\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:22:\"Picture-24-150x150.png\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"150\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"150\";}}s:10:\"image_meta\";a:10:{s:8:\"aperture\";s:1:\"0\";s:6:\"credit\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"camera\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"caption\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"created_timestamp\";s:1:\"0\";s:9:\"copyright\";s:0:\"\";s:12:\"focal_length\";s:1:\"0\";s:3:\"iso\";s:1:\"0\";s:13:\"shutter_speed\";s:1:\"0\";s:5:\"title\";s:0:\"\";}}'),(441,455,'_wp_attached_file','2010/06/Picture-25.png'),(442,455,'_wp_attachment_metadata','a:6:{s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"254\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"158\";s:14:\"hwstring_small\";s:23:\"height=\'79\' width=\'128\'\";s:4:\"file\";s:22:\"2010/06/Picture-25.png\";s:5:\"sizes\";a:1:{s:9:\"thumbnail\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:22:\"Picture-25-150x150.png\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"150\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"150\";}}s:10:\"image_meta\";a:10:{s:8:\"aperture\";s:1:\"0\";s:6:\"credit\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"camera\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"caption\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"created_timestamp\";s:1:\"0\";s:9:\"copyright\";s:0:\"\";s:12:\"focal_length\";s:1:\"0\";s:3:\"iso\";s:1:\"0\";s:13:\"shutter_speed\";s:1:\"0\";s:5:\"title\";s:0:\"\";}}'),(443,456,'_wp_attached_file','2010/06/Picture-26.png'),(444,456,'_wp_attachment_metadata','a:6:{s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"248\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"162\";s:14:\"hwstring_small\";s:23:\"height=\'83\' width=\'128\'\";s:4:\"file\";s:22:\"2010/06/Picture-26.png\";s:5:\"sizes\";a:1:{s:9:\"thumbnail\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:22:\"Picture-26-150x150.png\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"150\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"150\";}}s:10:\"image_meta\";a:10:{s:8:\"aperture\";s:1:\"0\";s:6:\"credit\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"camera\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"caption\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"created_timestamp\";s:1:\"0\";s:9:\"copyright\";s:0:\"\";s:12:\"focal_length\";s:1:\"0\";s:3:\"iso\";s:1:\"0\";s:13:\"shutter_speed\";s:1:\"0\";s:5:\"title\";s:0:\"\";}}'),(445,457,'_wp_attached_file','2010/06/Picture-27.png'),(446,457,'_wp_attachment_metadata','a:6:{s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"256\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"156\";s:14:\"hwstring_small\";s:23:\"height=\'78\' width=\'128\'\";s:4:\"file\";s:22:\"2010/06/Picture-27.png\";s:5:\"sizes\";a:1:{s:9:\"thumbnail\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:22:\"Picture-27-150x150.png\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"150\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"150\";}}s:10:\"image_meta\";a:10:{s:8:\"aperture\";s:1:\"0\";s:6:\"credit\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"camera\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"caption\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"created_timestamp\";s:1:\"0\";s:9:\"copyright\";s:0:\"\";s:12:\"focal_length\";s:1:\"0\";s:3:\"iso\";s:1:\"0\";s:13:\"shutter_speed\";s:1:\"0\";s:5:\"title\";s:0:\"\";}}'),(447,458,'_wp_attached_file','2010/06/Picture-44.png'),(448,458,'_wp_attachment_metadata','a:6:{s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"250\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"155\";s:14:\"hwstring_small\";s:23:\"height=\'79\' width=\'128\'\";s:4:\"file\";s:22:\"2010/06/Picture-44.png\";s:5:\"sizes\";a:1:{s:9:\"thumbnail\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:22:\"Picture-44-150x150.png\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"150\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"150\";}}s:10:\"image_meta\";a:10:{s:8:\"aperture\";s:1:\"0\";s:6:\"credit\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"camera\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"caption\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"created_timestamp\";s:1:\"0\";s:9:\"copyright\";s:0:\"\";s:12:\"focal_length\";s:1:\"0\";s:3:\"iso\";s:1:\"0\";s:13:\"shutter_speed\";s:1:\"0\";s:5:\"title\";s:0:\"\";}}'),(449,459,'_wp_attached_file','2010/06/Picture-46.png'),(450,459,'_wp_attachment_metadata','a:6:{s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"254\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"154\";s:14:\"hwstring_small\";s:23:\"height=\'77\' width=\'128\'\";s:4:\"file\";s:22:\"2010/06/Picture-46.png\";s:5:\"sizes\";a:1:{s:9:\"thumbnail\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:22:\"Picture-46-150x150.png\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"150\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"150\";}}s:10:\"image_meta\";a:10:{s:8:\"aperture\";s:1:\"0\";s:6:\"credit\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"camera\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"caption\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"created_timestamp\";s:1:\"0\";s:9:\"copyright\";s:0:\"\";s:12:\"focal_length\";s:1:\"0\";s:3:\"iso\";s:1:\"0\";s:13:\"shutter_speed\";s:1:\"0\";s:5:\"title\";s:0:\"\";}}'),(451,460,'_wp_attached_file','2010/06/Picture-47.png'),(452,460,'_wp_attachment_metadata','a:6:{s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"256\";s:6:\"height\";s:2:\"79\";s:14:\"hwstring_small\";s:23:\"height=\'39\' width=\'128\'\";s:4:\"file\";s:22:\"2010/06/Picture-47.png\";s:5:\"sizes\";a:1:{s:9:\"thumbnail\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:21:\"Picture-47-150x79.png\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"150\";s:6:\"height\";s:2:\"79\";}}s:10:\"image_meta\";a:10:{s:8:\"aperture\";s:1:\"0\";s:6:\"credit\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"camera\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"caption\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"created_timestamp\";s:1:\"0\";s:9:\"copyright\";s:0:\"\";s:12:\"focal_length\";s:1:\"0\";s:3:\"iso\";s:1:\"0\";s:13:\"shutter_speed\";s:1:\"0\";s:5:\"title\";s:0:\"\";}}'),(453,461,'_wp_attached_file','2010/06/Picture-45.png'),(454,461,'_wp_attachment_metadata','a:6:{s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"253\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"182\";s:14:\"hwstring_small\";s:23:\"height=\'92\' width=\'127\'\";s:4:\"file\";s:22:\"2010/06/Picture-45.png\";s:5:\"sizes\";a:1:{s:9:\"thumbnail\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:22:\"Picture-45-150x150.png\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"150\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"150\";}}s:10:\"image_meta\";a:10:{s:8:\"aperture\";s:1:\"0\";s:6:\"credit\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"camera\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"caption\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"created_timestamp\";s:1:\"0\";s:9:\"copyright\";s:0:\"\";s:12:\"focal_length\";s:1:\"0\";s:3:\"iso\";s:1:\"0\";s:13:\"shutter_speed\";s:1:\"0\";s:5:\"title\";s:0:\"\";}}'),(465,493,'_wp_attached_file','2010/08/sesasme-street-sign.gif'),(466,493,'_wp_attachment_metadata','a:6:{s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"281\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"112\";s:14:\"hwstring_small\";s:23:\"height=\'51\' width=\'128\'\";s:4:\"file\";s:31:\"2010/08/sesasme-street-sign.gif\";s:5:\"sizes\";a:1:{s:9:\"thumbnail\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:31:\"sesasme-street-sign-150x112.gif\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"150\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"112\";}}s:10:\"image_meta\";a:10:{s:8:\"aperture\";s:1:\"0\";s:6:\"credit\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"camera\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"caption\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"created_timestamp\";s:1:\"0\";s:9:\"copyright\";s:0:\"\";s:12:\"focal_length\";s:1:\"0\";s:3:\"iso\";s:1:\"0\";s:13:\"shutter_speed\";s:1:\"0\";s:5:\"title\";s:0:\"\";}}'),(467,494,'_wp_attached_file','2010/08/nikbulb.jpg'),(468,494,'_wp_attachment_metadata','a:6:{s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"250\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"283\";s:14:\"hwstring_small\";s:22:\"height=\'96\' width=\'84\'\";s:4:\"file\";s:19:\"2010/08/nikbulb.jpg\";s:5:\"sizes\";a:1:{s:9:\"thumbnail\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:19:\"nikbulb-150x150.jpg\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"150\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"150\";}}s:10:\"image_meta\";a:10:{s:8:\"aperture\";s:1:\"0\";s:6:\"credit\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"camera\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"caption\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"created_timestamp\";s:1:\"0\";s:9:\"copyright\";s:0:\"\";s:12:\"focal_length\";s:1:\"0\";s:3:\"iso\";s:1:\"0\";s:13:\"shutter_speed\";s:1:\"0\";s:5:\"title\";s:0:\"\";}}'),(502,561,'_edit_lock','1445967571:1'),(495,552,'_edit_last','1'),(472,513,'_edit_lock','1284001549'),(473,513,'_edit_last','1'),(474,516,'_edit_lock','1297648163'),(475,516,'_edit_last','1'),(476,516,'_wp_page_template','default'),(504,566,'_wp_attached_file','2016/03/AU0uTNag.jpeg'),(503,561,'_wp_page_template','default'),(480,527,'_edit_lock','1287176956'),(481,527,'_edit_last','1'),(484,532,'_edit_lock','1293158366'),(485,532,'_edit_last','2'),(486,532,'_wp_page_template','newsletter.php'),(487,542,'_edit_lock','1307208183'),(488,542,'_edit_last','1'),(505,566,'_wp_attachment_metadata','a:6:{s:5:\"width\";s:4:\"1252\";s:6:\"height\";s:4:\"1252\";s:14:\"hwstring_small\";s:22:\"height=\'96\' width=\'96\'\";s:4:\"file\";s:21:\"2016/03/AU0uTNag.jpeg\";s:5:\"sizes\";a:3:{s:9:\"thumbnail\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:20:\"AU0uTNag-150x150.jpg\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"150\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"150\";}s:6:\"medium\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:20:\"AU0uTNag-300x300.jpg\";s:5:\"width\";s:3:\"300\";s:6:\"height\";s:3:\"300\";}s:5:\"large\";a:3:{s:4:\"file\";s:22:\"AU0uTNag-1024x1024.jpg\";s:5:\"width\";s:4:\"1024\";s:6:\"height\";s:4:\"1024\";}}s:10:\"image_meta\";a:10:{s:8:\"aperture\";s:1:\"0\";s:6:\"credit\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"camera\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"caption\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"created_timestamp\";s:1:\"0\";s:9:\"copyright\";s:0:\"\";s:12:\"focal_length\";s:1:\"0\";s:3:\"iso\";s:1:\"0\";s:13:\"shutter_speed\";s:1:\"0\";s:5:\"title\";s:0:\"\";}}'),(501,561,'_edit_last','1'),(498,552,'_edit_lock','1350344003:3'),(506,567,'_wp_attached_file','2016/03/tumblr_m6ya2mhKw01qzrh81o1_1280.png'),(507,567,'_wp_attachment_metadata','a:5:{s:5:\"width\";i:712;s:6:\"height\";i:516;s:4:\"file\";s:43:\"2016/03/tumblr_m6ya2mhKw01qzrh81o1_1280.png\";s:5:\"sizes\";a:2:{s:9:\"thumbnail\";a:4:{s:4:\"file\";s:43:\"tumblr_m6ya2mhKw01qzrh81o1_1280-150x150.png\";s:5:\"width\";i:150;s:6:\"height\";i:150;s:9:\"mime-type\";s:9:\"image/png\";}s:6:\"medium\";a:4:{s:4:\"file\";s:43:\"tumblr_m6ya2mhKw01qzrh81o1_1280-300x217.png\";s:5:\"width\";i:300;s:6:\"height\";i:217;s:9:\"mime-type\";s:9:\"image/png\";}}s:10:\"image_meta\";a:12:{s:8:\"aperture\";s:1:\"0\";s:6:\"credit\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"camera\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"caption\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"created_timestamp\";s:1:\"0\";s:9:\"copyright\";s:0:\"\";s:12:\"focal_length\";s:1:\"0\";s:3:\"iso\";s:1:\"0\";s:13:\"shutter_speed\";s:1:\"0\";s:5:\"title\";s:0:\"\";s:11:\"orientation\";s:1:\"0\";s:8:\"keywords\";a:0:{}}}'),(508,568,'_wp_attached_file','2016/03/tumblr_lzmb6laSvp1qzrh81o1_1280.png'),(509,568,'_wp_attachment_metadata','a:5:{s:5:\"width\";i:621;s:6:\"height\";i:238;s:4:\"file\";s:43:\"2016/03/tumblr_lzmb6laSvp1qzrh81o1_1280.png\";s:5:\"sizes\";a:2:{s:9:\"thumbnail\";a:4:{s:4:\"file\";s:43:\"tumblr_lzmb6laSvp1qzrh81o1_1280-150x150.png\";s:5:\"width\";i:150;s:6:\"height\";i:150;s:9:\"mime-type\";s:9:\"image/png\";}s:6:\"medium\";a:4:{s:4:\"file\";s:43:\"tumblr_lzmb6laSvp1qzrh81o1_1280-300x115.png\";s:5:\"width\";i:300;s:6:\"height\";i:115;s:9:\"mime-type\";s:9:\"image/png\";}}s:10:\"image_meta\";a:12:{s:8:\"aperture\";s:1:\"0\";s:6:\"credit\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"camera\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"caption\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"created_timestamp\";s:1:\"0\";s:9:\"copyright\";s:0:\"\";s:12:\"focal_length\";s:1:\"0\";s:3:\"iso\";s:1:\"0\";s:13:\"shutter_speed\";s:1:\"0\";s:5:\"title\";s:0:\"\";s:11:\"orientation\";s:1:\"0\";s:8:\"keywords\";a:0:{}}}'),(510,567,'_edit_lock','1458786444:1'),(511,568,'_edit_lock','1458786591:1'),(512,569,'_wp_attached_file','2016/03/7RpW1.jpg'),(513,570,'_menu_item_type','post_type'),(514,570,'_menu_item_menu_item_parent','0'),(515,570,'_menu_item_object_id','477'),(516,570,'_menu_item_object','page'),(517,570,'_menu_item_target',''),(518,570,'_menu_item_classes','a:1:{i:0;s:0:\"\";}'),(519,570,'_menu_item_xfn',''),(520,570,'_menu_item_url',''),(521,570,'_menu_item_orphaned','1458789913'),(522,571,'_menu_item_type','post_type'),(523,571,'_menu_item_menu_item_parent','0'),(524,571,'_menu_item_object_id','477'),(525,571,'_menu_item_object','page'),(526,571,'_menu_item_target',''),(527,571,'_menu_item_classes','a:1:{i:0;s:0:\"\";}'),(528,571,'_menu_item_xfn',''),(529,571,'_menu_item_url',''),(530,571,'_menu_item_orphaned','1458789913'),(531,572,'_menu_item_type','post_type'),(532,572,'_menu_item_menu_item_parent','0'),(533,572,'_menu_item_object_id','484'),(534,572,'_menu_item_object','page'),(535,572,'_menu_item_target',''),(536,572,'_menu_item_classes','a:1:{i:0;s:0:\"\";}'),(537,572,'_menu_item_xfn',''),(538,572,'_menu_item_url',''),(539,572,'_menu_item_orphaned','1458789913'),(540,573,'_menu_item_type','post_type'),(541,573,'_menu_item_menu_item_parent','0'),(542,573,'_menu_item_object_id','424'),(543,573,'_menu_item_object','page'),(544,573,'_menu_item_target',''),(545,573,'_menu_item_classes','a:1:{i:0;s:0:\"\";}'),(546,573,'_menu_item_xfn',''),(547,573,'_menu_item_url',''),(548,573,'_menu_item_orphaned','1458789913'),(549,574,'_menu_item_type','post_type'),(550,574,'_menu_item_menu_item_parent','0'),(551,574,'_menu_item_object_id','516'),(552,574,'_menu_item_object','page'),(553,574,'_menu_item_target',''),(554,574,'_menu_item_classes','a:1:{i:0;s:0:\"\";}'),(555,574,'_menu_item_xfn',''),(556,574,'_menu_item_url',''),(557,574,'_menu_item_orphaned','1458789913'),(558,575,'_menu_item_type','post_type'),(559,575,'_menu_item_menu_item_parent','0'),(560,575,'_menu_item_object_id','433'),(561,575,'_menu_item_object','page'),(562,575,'_menu_item_target',''),(563,575,'_menu_item_classes','a:1:{i:0;s:0:\"\";}'),(564,575,'_menu_item_xfn',''),(565,575,'_menu_item_url',''),(566,575,'_menu_item_orphaned','1458789913'),(567,576,'_menu_item_type','post_type'),(568,576,'_menu_item_menu_item_parent','0'),(569,576,'_menu_item_object_id','440'),(570,576,'_menu_item_object','page'),(571,576,'_menu_item_target',''),(572,576,'_menu_item_classes','a:1:{i:0;s:0:\"\";}'),(573,576,'_menu_item_xfn',''),(574,576,'_menu_item_url',''),(575,576,'_menu_item_orphaned','1458789913'),(590,588,'_wp_attachment_metadata','a:5:{s:5:\"width\";i:972;s:6:\"height\";i:464;s:4:\"file\";s:48:\"2017/06/Screen-Shot-2017-06-27-at-8.00.50-PM.png\";s:5:\"sizes\";a:4:{s:9:\"thumbnail\";a:4:{s:4:\"file\";s:48:\"Screen-Shot-2017-06-27-at-8.00.50-PM-150x150.png\";s:5:\"width\";i:150;s:6:\"height\";i:150;s:9:\"mime-type\";s:9:\"image/png\";}s:6:\"medium\";a:4:{s:4:\"file\";s:48:\"Screen-Shot-2017-06-27-at-8.00.50-PM-300x143.png\";s:5:\"width\";i:300;s:6:\"height\";i:143;s:9:\"mime-type\";s:9:\"image/png\";}s:12:\"medium_large\";a:4:{s:4:\"file\";s:48:\"Screen-Shot-2017-06-27-at-8.00.50-PM-768x367.png\";s:5:\"width\";i:768;s:6:\"height\";i:367;s:9:\"mime-type\";s:9:\"image/png\";}s:15:\"latte-blogposts\";a:4:{s:4:\"file\";s:48:\"Screen-Shot-2017-06-27-at-8.00.50-PM-287x230.png\";s:5:\"width\";i:287;s:6:\"height\";i:230;s:9:\"mime-type\";s:9:\"image/png\";}}s:10:\"image_meta\";a:12:{s:8:\"aperture\";s:1:\"0\";s:6:\"credit\";s:0:\"\";s:6:\"camera\";s:0:\"\";s:7:\"caption\";s:0:\"\";s:17:\"created_timestamp\";s:1:\"0\";s:9:\"copyright\";s:0:\"\";s:12:\"focal_length\";s:1:\"0\";s:3:\"iso\";s:1:\"0\";s:13:\"shutter_speed\";s:1:\"0\";s:5:\"title\";s:0:\"\";s:11:\"orientation\";s:1:\"0\";s:8:\"keywords\";a:0:{}}}'),(589,588,'_wp_attached_file','2017/06/Screen-Shot-2017-06-27-at-8.00.50-PM.png'),(591,588,'_edit_lock','1498608193:1'); /*!40000 ALTER TABLE `wp_postmeta` ENABLE KEYS */; UNLOCK TABLES; -- -- Table structure for table `wp_posts` -- DROP TABLE IF EXISTS `wp_posts`; /*!40101 SET @saved_cs_client = @@character_set_client */; /*!40101 SET character_set_client = utf8 */; CREATE TABLE `wp_posts` ( `ID` bigint(20) unsigned NOT NULL AUTO_INCREMENT, `post_author` bigint(20) unsigned NOT NULL DEFAULT '0', `post_date` datetime NOT NULL DEFAULT '0000-00-00 00:00:00', `post_date_gmt` datetime NOT NULL DEFAULT '0000-00-00 00:00:00', `post_content` longtext NOT NULL, `post_title` text NOT NULL, `post_category` int(4) NOT NULL DEFAULT '0', `post_excerpt` text NOT NULL, `post_status` varchar(20) NOT NULL DEFAULT 'publish', `comment_status` varchar(20) NOT NULL DEFAULT 'open', `ping_status` varchar(20) NOT NULL DEFAULT 'open', `post_password` varchar(255) NOT NULL DEFAULT '', `post_name` varchar(200) NOT NULL DEFAULT '', `to_ping` text NOT NULL, `pinged` text NOT NULL, `post_modified` datetime NOT NULL DEFAULT '0000-00-00 00:00:00', `post_modified_gmt` datetime NOT NULL DEFAULT '0000-00-00 00:00:00', `post_content_filtered` longtext NOT NULL, `post_parent` bigint(20) unsigned NOT NULL DEFAULT '0', `guid` varchar(255) NOT NULL DEFAULT '', `menu_order` int(11) NOT NULL DEFAULT '0', `post_type` varchar(20) NOT NULL DEFAULT 'post', `post_mime_type` varchar(100) NOT NULL DEFAULT '', `comment_count` bigint(20) NOT NULL DEFAULT '0', PRIMARY KEY (`ID`), KEY `type_status_date` (`post_type`,`post_status`,`post_date`,`ID`), KEY `post_parent` (`post_parent`), KEY `post_author` (`post_author`), KEY `post_name` (`post_name`(191)) ) ENGINE=MyISAM AUTO_INCREMENT=599 DEFAULT CHARSET=latin1; /*!40101 SET character_set_client = @saved_cs_client */; -- -- Dumping data for table `wp_posts` -- LOCK TABLES `wp_posts` WRITE; /*!40000 ALTER TABLE `wp_posts` DISABLE KEYS */; INSERT INTO `wp_posts` VALUES (3,1,'2009-06-10 19:14:36','2009-06-10 19:14:36','\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nAsk yourself: When does the lone guy dancing turn into a mob? Seth\'s Godin says it\'s the third guy, but that\'s not the whole story.\r\n\r\nTake a look at the people sitting around. They\'re looking at the solo dancer but their attention wanes. The second guy comes and captures their attention for long enough for the third guy to come in. But it\'s another 20 seconds before anyone else shows up.\r\n\r\nAnd when someone else does, it\'s actually two someone elses. You can almost here the conversation.\r\n\"Look at that guy dancing.\"\r\n\r\n\"Heh. Idiot.\"\r\n\r\n<silence>\r\n\r\n\"Another one.\"\r\n\r\n\"Wow.\"\r\n\r\n<silence>\r\n\r\n<third guy joins>\r\n\r\n\"Dude... wanna join in?\"\r\n\r\n\"Let\'s go.\"\r\nSeth is right -- we need more guy #3s. But they\'re rare and we can\'t expect to make more. The fourth person wasn\'t going alone. Neither was the fifth.\r\n\r\nWhat we really need is more guy #5s for the guy #4s out there, and more #4s for the #5s. That we can make happen: If you\'re afraid to go it alone, just find a friend who is similarly afraid.','Just Walk Beside Me and Be My Friend',0,'','publish','open','open','','just-walk-beside-me-and-be-my-friend','','','2009-06-14 23:20:50','2009-06-14 23:20:50','',0,'http://dlewis.net/?p=3',0,'post','',9),(4,1,'2009-06-10 19:14:14','2009-06-10 19:14:14','\n
\n\n
\nAsk yourself: When does the lone guy dancing turn into a mob? Seth\'s Godin says it\'s the third guy, but that\'s not the whole story.
\nTake a look at the people sitting around. They\'re looking at the solo dancer but their attention wanes. The second guy comes and captures their attention for long enough for the third guy to come in. But it\'s another 20 seconds before anyone else shows up.
\nAnd when someone else does, it\'s actually two someone elses. You can almost here the conversation.
\n\n\n\"Look at that guy dancing.\"
\n\"Heh. Idiot.\"
\n<silence>
\n\"Another one.\"
\n\"Wow.\"
\n<silence>
\n<third guy joins>
\n\"Dude... wanna join in?\"
\n\"Let\'s go.\"
\n
Seth is right -- we need more guy #3s. But they\'re rare and we can\'t expect to make more. The fourth person wasn\'t going alone. Neither was the fifth.
\nWhat we really need is more guy #5s for the guy #4s out there, and more #4s for the #5s. That we can make happen: If you\'re afraid to go it alone, just find a friend who is similarly afraid.
','Just Walk Beside Me and Be My Friend',0,'','inherit','open','open','','3-revision','','','2009-06-10 19:14:14','2009-06-10 19:14:14','',3,'http://dlewis.net/?p=4',0,'revision','',0),(5,1,'2009-06-10 19:14:32','2009-06-10 19:14:32','\r\n\r\n\r\n
\r\nAsk yourself: When does the lone guy dancing turn into a mob? Seth\'s Godin says it\'s the third guy, but that\'s not the whole story.
\r\nTake a look at the people sitting around. They\'re looking at the solo dancer but their attention wanes. The second guy comes and captures their attention for long enough for the third guy to come in. But it\'s another 20 seconds before anyone else shows up.
\r\nAnd when someone else does, it\'s actually two someone elses. You can almost here the conversation.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\"Look at that guy dancing.\"
\r\n\"Heh. Idiot.\"
\r\n<silence>
\r\n\"Another one.\"
\r\n\"Wow.\"
\r\n<silence>
\r\n<third guy joins>
\r\n\"Dude... wanna join in?\"
\r\n\"Let\'s go.\"
\r\n
Seth is right -- we need more guy #3s. But they\'re rare and we can\'t expect to make more. The fourth person wasn\'t going alone. Neither was the fifth.
\r\nWhat we really need is more guy #5s for the guy #4s out there, and more #4s for the #5s. That we can make happen: If you\'re afraid to go it alone, just find a friend who is similarly afraid.
','Just Walk Beside Me and Be My Friend',0,'','inherit','open','open','','3-revision-2','','','2009-06-10 19:14:32','2009-06-10 19:14:32','',3,'http://dlewis.net/?p=5',0,'revision','',0),(23,1,'2009-06-12 19:06:14','2009-06-12 19:06:14','There is an episode of Sex and the City where Carrie, the narrator/protagonist -- a sex columnist for a New York City tabloid -- manages to be in a book pitch meeting. It seems like a natural fit, until the audience (and Carrie) find out that the lady she is meeting publishes children\'s books. It\'s a bad fit, to say the least, notes Carrie, and she shares a laugh with her friends. A sex columist write children\'s books? Crazy. The rules do not allow for such things.\r\n\r\nJust ask Britt Allcroft, creator of three children\'s television series, most notably Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends, a derivative of a half-century-old book series. Thomas has only two speaking parts: a chorus of children who sing sing-along songs; and a narrator, who tells the story and speaks on behalf of the trains and other characters.\r\n\r\nWhen Ms. Allcroft and her team sought a narrator, they assumedly did so with great care; after all, it is the only known voice for the entirity of an episode. Allcroft and her successors attracted some great talent to narrate: Ringo Starr, Alec Baldwin, and Pierce Brosnan all narrated something from the Thomas franchise.\r\n\r\nA few nights ago, while watching an episdoe with my son, I heard another voice -- familiar enough where I knew I had heard it before, but given the context, I could not place it. It turns out that this narrator worked on 51 (!) episodes over most of the 1990s. Per Wikipedia:\r\nIn 1991, he provided the narrative voice for the American version of the children\'s show Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends, a role he continued until 1998. He played \"Mr. Conductor\" on the PBS children\'s show Shining Time Station [another Alcroft show], which featured Thomas the Tank Engine from 1991 to 1993, as well as the Shining Time Station TV specials in 1995 and Mr. Conductor\'s Thomas Tales in 1996.\r\nBut that\'s not what he\'s most famous for. Not even close. And no one who popularized the Seven Dirty Words could possibly be the voice of a beloved children\'s show character. Unless you\'re George Carlin, I guess.','You Are Not Your Bio',0,'','inherit','open','open','','16-revision-2','','','2009-06-12 19:06:14','2009-06-12 19:06:14','',16,'http://dlewis.net/2009/06/12/16-revision-2/',0,'revision','',0),(6,1,'2009-06-16 13:42:09','2009-06-16 13:42:09','A few weeks ago, I walked into Bookberries, a small bookstore on 71st and Lexington, in search of a specific book -- a longshot, to say the least. While there, two other customers walked in. One, an older lady, asked for a biography about Frank Lloyd Wright -- no luck. The other, a middle-aged man, stopped by the register to tell the shopkeeper that he liked the store, praising its \"very exclusive selection\". The shopkeeper replied with a thank you and a half-joking comment: \"Sometimes, too exclusive, I think.\"\r\n\r\nMe? They did not have the book I wanted, nor could I find a book that interested me. I left, having purchased nothing. Twenty minutes, three customers entered, no sales. Too exclusive indeed.\r\n\r\nOr is he?\r\n\r\nThere is simply no way a tiny bookstore is going to compete with Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Borders, or even mini-New York chain Shakespeare & Co. (a mere two blocks away!) on selection. But the small guy can compete. Take Archivia Books, for example -- two blocks away! They only carry books about \"architecture, art, design decorative arts, gardens, interiors.\"\r\n\r\nBookberries needs to come up with something else. Focus on children\'s books and parenting, or true crime/mystery. Or even better, break the mold: figure out what books buyers of bestsellers would like if they only knew the books existed. Either way, there\'s only one way to win:\r\n\r\nThey need to be more exclusive.','Are You Exclusive Enough?',0,'','publish','open','open','','are-you-exclusive-enough','','','2009-06-21 15:18:31','2009-06-21 15:18:31','',0,'http://dlewis.net/?p=6',0,'post','',0),(7,1,'2009-06-11 01:29:50','2009-06-11 01:29:50','A few weeks ago, I walked into Bookberries, a small bookstore on 71st and Lexington, in search of a specific book -- a longshot, to say the least. While there, two other customers walked in. One, an older lady, asked for a biography about Frank Lloyd Wright -- no luck. The other, a middle-aged man, stopped by the register to tell the shopkeeper that he liked the store, praising its \"very exclusive selection\". The shopkeeper replied with a thank you and a half-joking comment: \"Sometimes, too exclusive, I think.\"\n\nAnd as evidence that he is correct, witness my own ','Are You Exclusive Enough?',0,'','inherit','open','open','','6-revision','','','2009-06-11 01:29:50','2009-06-11 01:29:50','',6,'http://dlewis.net/2009/06/11/6-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(8,1,'2009-06-11 01:51:05','2009-06-11 01:51:05','A few weeks ago, I walked into Bookberries, a small bookstore on 71st and Lexington, in search of a specific book -- a longshot, to say the least. While there, two other customers walked in. One, an older lady, asked for a biography about Frank Lloyd Wright -- no luck. The other, a middle-aged man, stopped by the register to tell the shopkeeper that he liked the store, praising its \"very exclusive selection\". The shopkeeper replied with a thank you and a half-joking comment: \"Sometimes, too exclusive, I think.\"\n\nMe? They did not have the book I wanted, nor could I find a book that interested me. I left, having purchased nothing. Twenty minutes, three customers entered, no sales. Too exclusive indeed.\n\nOr is he?\n\nThere is simply no way a tiny bookstore is going to compete with Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Borders, or even mini-New York chain Shakespeare & Co. (a mere two blocks away!) on selection. But the small guy can compete. Take Archivia Books, for example -- two blocks away! They only carry books about \"architecture, art, design decorative arts, gardens, interiors.\" \n\nBookberries needs to come up with something else. Focus on children\'s books and parenting, or true crime/mystery. Or even better, break the mold: figure out what books buyers of bestsellers would like if they only knew the books existed. Either way, there\'s only one way to win:\n\nThey need to be more exclusive.\n\n\n','Are You Exclusive Enough?',0,'','inherit','open','open','','6-revision-2','','','2009-06-11 01:51:05','2009-06-11 01:51:05','',6,'http://dlewis.net/2009/06/11/6-revision-2/',0,'revision','',0),(9,1,'2009-06-11 01:51:10','2009-06-11 01:51:10','A few weeks ago, I walked into Bookberries, a small bookstore on 71st and Lexington, in search of a specific book -- a longshot, to say the least. While there, two other customers walked in. One, an older lady, asked for a biography about Frank Lloyd Wright -- no luck. The other, a middle-aged man, stopped by the register to tell the shopkeeper that he liked the store, praising its \"very exclusive selection\". The shopkeeper replied with a thank you and a half-joking comment: \"Sometimes, too exclusive, I think.\"\r\n\r\nMe? They did not have the book I wanted, nor could I find a book that interested me. I left, having purchased nothing. Twenty minutes, three customers entered, no sales. Too exclusive indeed.\r\n\r\nOr is he?\r\n\r\nThere is simply no way a tiny bookstore is going to compete with Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Borders, or even mini-New York chain Shakespeare & Co. (a mere two blocks away!) on selection. But the small guy can compete. Take Archivia Books, for example -- two blocks away! They only carry books about \"architecture, art, design decorative arts, gardens, interiors.\" \r\n\r\nBookberries needs to come up with something else. Focus on children\'s books and parenting, or true crime/mystery. Or even better, break the mold: figure out what books buyers of bestsellers would like if they only knew the books existed. Either way, there\'s only one way to win:\r\n\r\nThey need to be more exclusive.\r\n\r\n\r\n','Are You Exclusive Enough?',0,'','inherit','open','open','','6-revision-3','','','2009-06-11 01:51:10','2009-06-11 01:51:10','',6,'http://dlewis.net/2009/06/11/6-revision-3/',0,'revision','',0),(14,1,'2009-06-12 16:57:53','2009-06-12 16:57:53','Here\'s a great rule of thumb that any good writer will tell you, and has been told to me many times: Know your audience. If you\'re writing a term paper, your audience is your professor. A legal brief, the supervising attorney/partner and ultimately, the judge. A Facebook status update, your network of friends.\n\nThe problem with the rule is that it prevents you from writing when there is no obvious audience, or when you do not have a target one in mind. If you cannot tailor your writing, how are you supposed to write? That problem is, primarily, why I have not had my own blog in way too long.\n\nBut last week I realized that there is a target audience for this blog: Me. My goal here is simply to get my thoughts into words, and then to have them stored somewhere (semi-)permanently so I can remember what I thought, and why. In retrospect, it makes a lot of sense. No one else out there is going to make me their target audience, at least not on a regular basis. If someone else wants to follow along, all the better. The writer side of me isn\'t bothered by the intrusion, and the audience-side of me appreciates it.','Be Your Own Audience',0,'','inherit','open','open','','13-revision','','','2009-06-12 16:57:53','2009-06-12 16:57:53','',13,'http://dlewis.net/2009/06/12/13-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(11,1,'2009-06-11 13:06:07','2009-06-11 13:06:07','Fred Wilson leads today with a simple point:\r\n
Nothing is standard. You either need it or you don\'t. Explain why you need it and most of the time you\'ll get it or something like it[.]\r\nMr. Wilson says this in the context of contract negotitations, but it applies elsewhere. One can iterate on the scenarios all day.\r\n\r\n
![\"crystal_ball\"](\"http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/crystal_ball-236x300.jpg\" "\\"crystal_ball\\"")
But I\'m more interested in one word: \"it\". Specifically, \"Explain why you need it and you\'ll get it.\" \"It\" is not \"what you asked for\" -- but rather \"what you you want.\" There\'s a big difference.\r\n\r\nWhen you ask for something -- anything, really; this even applies to asking a clerk at the supermarket where the paper goods are -- you assume that the listener has enough information to give you an answer. Sometimes that\'s true, but not always. If you ask that supermarket clerk \"Where are the paper plates?\" and he replies \"Aisle four,\" chances are you will get what you are after. In my neighborhood supermarket, though, that is not always true. Yes, the Dixie and Solo and other every-day paper plates are there, as are the kid-oriented shaped like animal faces or with pictures of Elmo on them. What you want isn\'t there, and to make matters worse, there is no way to find out that high quality paper goods are, well, anywhere -- in fact, if you did not know about them beforehand, you would have no reason to think they even existed.\r\n\r\nHad you explained \"My wife and I are having guests over for dinner and I need some paper goods. Where are they?\" you\'d have, hopefully, gotten a different answer than \"Aisle four.\" If you want to get what you want -- and not just what you asked for -- explain your thinking. It is like turning the other person into a mind reader.','How to Make the Other Person Read Your Mind',0,'','publish','open','open','','how-to-make-the-other-person-read-your-mind','','','2009-06-15 17:01:58','2009-06-15 17:01:58','',0,'http://dlewis.net/?p=11',0,'post','',4),(12,1,'2009-06-11 13:05:38','2009-06-11 13:05:38','Fred Wilson leads today with a simple point:\nNothing is standard. You either need it or you don\'t. Explain why you need it and most of the time you\'ll get it or something like it[.]\nMr. Wilson says this in the context of contract negotitations, but it applies elsewhere. One can iterate on the scenarios all day.\n\nBut I\'m more interested in one word: \"it\". Specifically, \"Explain why you need it and you\'ll get it.\" \"It\" is not \"what you asked for\" -- but rather \"what you you want.\" There\'s a big difference.\n\nWhen you ask for something -- anything, really; this even applies to asking a clerk at the supermarket where the paper goods are -- you assume that the listener has enough information to give you an answer. Sometimes that\'s true, but not always. If you ask that supermarket clerk \"Where are the paper plates?\" and he replies \"Aisle four,\" chances are you will get what you are after. In my neighborhood supermarket, though, that is not always true. Yes, the Dixie and Solo and other every-day paper plates are there, as are the kid-oriented shaped like animal faces or with pictures of Elmo on them. What you want isn\'t there, and to make matters worse, there is no way to find out that high quality paper goods are, well, anywhere -- in fact, if you did not know about them beforehand, you would have no reason to think they even existed.\n\nHad you explained \"My wife and I are having guests over for dinner and I need some paper goods. Where are they?\" you\'d have, hopefully, gotten a different answer than \"Aisle four.\" If you want to get what you want -- and not just what you asked for -- explain your thinking. It is like turning the other person into a mind reader.','How to Make the Other Person Read Your Mind',0,'','inherit','open','open','','11-revision','','','2009-06-11 13:05:38','2009-06-11 13:05:38','',11,'http://dlewis.net/2009/06/11/11-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(13,1,'2009-06-12 16:58:51','2009-06-12 16:58:51','Here\'s a great rule of thumb that any good writer will tell you, and has been told to me many times: Know your audience. If you\'re writing a term paper, your audience is your professor. A legal brief, the supervising attorney/partner and ultimately, the judge. A Facebook status update, your network of friends.\r\n\r\n
![\"keynote_audience_itforum2005\"](\"http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/keynote_audience_itforum2005-300x199.jpg\" "\\"keynote_audience_itforum2005\\"")
The problem with the rule is that it prevents you from writing when there is no obvious audience, or when you do not have a target one in mind. If you cannot tailor your writing, how are you supposed to write? That problem is, primarily, why I have not had my own blog in way too long.\r\n\r\nBut last week I realized that there is a target audience for this blog: Me. My goal here is simply to get my thoughts into words, and then to have them stored somewhere (semi-)permanently so I can remember what I thought, and why. In retrospect, it makes a lot of sense. No one else out there is going to make me their target audience, at least not on a regular basis. If no one else reads or comments, that is OK; but if someone else wants to follow along, all the better. The writer side of me does not mind if more people show up to listen or comment, and the audience-side of me appreciates the company and the feedback.','Be Your Own Audience',0,'','publish','open','open','','be-your-own-audienc','','','2009-06-15 16:56:04','2009-06-15 16:56:04','',0,'http://dlewis.net/?p=13',0,'post','',0),(15,1,'2009-06-15 16:57:27','2009-06-15 16:57:27','Here\'s a great rule of thumb that any good writer will tell you, and has been told to me many times: Know your audience. If you\'re writing a term paper, your audience is your professor. A legal brief, the supervising attorney/partner and ultimately, the judge. A Facebook status update, your network of friends.\r\n\r\nThe problem with the rule is that it prevents you from writing when there is no obvious audience, or when you do not have a target one in mind. If you cannot tailor your writing, how are you supposed to write? That problem is, primarily, why I have not had my own blog in way too long.\r\n\r\nBut last week I realized that there is a target audience for this blog: Me. My goal here is simply to get my thoughts into words, and then to have them stored somewhere (semi-)permanently so I can remember what I thought, and why. In retrospect, it makes a lot of sense. No one else out there is going to make me their target audience, at least not on a regular basis. If no one else reads or comments, that is OK; but if someone else wants to follow along, all the better. The writer side of me does not mind if more people show up to listen or comment, and the audience-side of me appreciates the company and the feedback.','Be Your Own Audience',0,'','inherit','open','open','','13-autosave','','','2009-06-15 16:57:27','2009-06-15 16:57:27','',13,'http://dlewis.net/2009/06/12/13-autosave/',0,'revision','',0),(16,1,'2009-06-15 13:57:53','2009-06-15 13:57:53','There is an episode of Sex and the City where Carrie, the narrator/protagonist -- a sex columnist for a New York City tabloid -- manages to be in a book pitch meeting. It seems like a natural fit, until the audience (and Carrie) find out that the lady she is meeting publishes children\'s books. It\'s a bad fit, to say the least, notes Carrie, and she shares a laugh with her friends. A sex columnist write children\'s books? Crazy. The rules do not allow for such things.\r\n\r\n![\"thomas1\"](\"http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/thomas1.jpg\" "\\"thomas1\\"")
Just ask Britt Allcroft, creator of three children\'s television series, most notably Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends, a derivative of a half-century-old book series. Thomas has only two speaking parts: a chorus of children who sing sing-along songs; and a narrator, who tells the story and speaks on behalf of the trains and other characters.\r\n\r\nWhen Ms. Allcroft and her team sought a narrator, they assumedly did so with great care; after all, it is the only known voice for the entirity of an episode. Allcroft and her successors attracted some great talent to narrate: Ringo Starr, Alec Baldwin, and Pierce Brosnan all narrated something from the Thomas franchise.\r\n\r\nA few nights ago, while watching an episdoe with my son, I heard another voice -- familiar enough where I knew I had heard it before, but given the context, I could not place it. It turns out that this narrator worked on 51 (!) episodes over most of the 1990s. Per Wikipedia:\r\nIn 1991, he provided the narrative voice for the American version of the children\'s show Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends, a role he continued until 1998. He played \"Mr. Conductor\" on the PBS children\'s show Shining Time Station [another Alcroft show], which featured Thomas the Tank Engine from 1991 to 1993, as well as the Shining Time Station TV specials in 1995 and Mr. Conductor\'s Thomas Tales in 1996.\r\nBut that\'s not what he\'s most famous for. Not even close. And no one who popularized the Seven Dirty Words could possibly be the voice of a beloved children\'s show character. Unless you\'re George Carlin, I guess.','You Are Not Your Bio',0,'','publish','open','open','','you-are-not-your-bio','','','2009-06-15 16:45:31','2009-06-15 16:45:31','',0,'http://dlewis.net/?p=16',0,'post','',2),(17,1,'2009-06-12 19:05:15','2009-06-12 19:05:15','There is an episode of Sex and the City where Carrie, the narrator/protagonist -- a sex columnist for a New York City tabloid -- manages to be in a book pitch meeting. It seems like a natural fit, until the audience (and Carrie) find out that the lady she is meeting publishes children\'s books. It\'s a bad fit, to say the least, notes Carrie, and she shares a laugh with her friends. A sex columist write children\'s books? Crazy. The rules do not allow for such things.\n\nJust ask Britt Allcroft, creator of three children\'s television series, most notably Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends, a derivative of a half-century-old book series. Thomas has only two speaking parts: a chorus of children who sing sing-along songs; and a narrator, who tells the story and speaks on behalf of the trains and other characters.\n\nWhen Ms. Allcroft and her team sought a narrator, they assumedly did so with great care; after all, it is the only known voice for the entirity of an episode. Allcroft and her successors attracted some great talent to narrate: Ringo Starr, Alec Baldwin, and Pierce Brosnan all narrated something from the Thomas franchise.\n\nA few nights ago, while watching an episdoe with my son, I heard another voice -- familiar enough where I knew I had heard it before, but given the context, I could not place it. It turns out that this narrator worked on 51 (!) episodes over most of the 1990s. Per Wikipedia:\n
In 1991, he provided the narrative voice for the American version of the children\'s show Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends, a role he continued until 1998. He played \"Mr. Conductor\" on the PBS children\'s show Shining Time Station [another Alcroft show], which featured Thomas the Tank Engine from 1991 to 1993, as well as the Shining Time Station TV specials in 1995 and Mr. Conductor\'s Thomas Tales in 1996.\nBut that\'s not what he\'s most famous for. And no one who popularized the Seven Dirty Words could possibly be the voice of a beloved children\'s show character.','You Are Not Your Bio',0,'','inherit','open','open','','16-revision','','','2009-06-12 19:05:15','2009-06-12 19:05:15','',16,'http://dlewis.net/2009/06/12/16-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(18,1,'2010-05-20 21:15:26','2010-05-20 21:15:26','I know the theme song to the horrid TV show Step by Step. By heart, even.\r\n\r\n
![\"\"](\"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/71/StepByStepOpening.jpg\")
Step by Step aired for six years on ABC\'s \"TGIF\" lineup, and then for a seventh on CBS, totalling 160 episodes. At thirty minutes per episode (including commercials -- this was pre-DVR), a person who watched the entire run wasted over three whole days of his or her life. It is still being aired in syndication on ABC Family: once a day on weekdays and twice-daily on weekends.\r\n\r\nThe show featured six children and later, a seventh and one cousin. It was not significant enough, however, to vault any of those eight actors and actresses beyond the show itself. A quick perusal of Wikipedia confirms this; in fact, one of the actors is so insignificant that he did not even have an entry in Wikipedia until 2009. That\'s not terribly surprising. Step by Step was not something you commiserated over the next week at school. No cultural icons came out of the show; there was no Balki Bartokomous or Tony Micelli or Mike Seaver. Even in retrospect, the only things I can remember about the show is how across the board stupid the characters were (except for the nerdy kid, who was hardly praised for being smart) and, of course, the theme song. Heck, it was only marginally funny.\r\n\r\nYet, I watched it often enough to be able to sing a significant part of the theme song by heart, over a decade after it ceased production. And apparently, I am not alone.\r\n\r\nWe\'re enamored by the lure of Twitter, Facebook, blogs, and social media generally. But don\'t underestimate the power of television.','What Starts With \"T\" and Can Let You Broadcast a Message to Millions?',0,'','publish','open','open','','what-starts-with-t-and-can-let-you-broadcast-a-message-to-millions','','','2010-05-20 21:51:21','2010-05-20 21:51:21','',0,'http://dlewis.net/?p=18',0,'post','',0),(19,1,'2009-06-14 03:31:08','2009-06-14 03:31:08','I know the theme song to the horrid TV show Step by Step. By heart, even.\n\nStep by Step aired for six years on ABC\'s \"TGIF\" lineup, and then for a seventh on CBS, totalling 160 episodes. At thirty minutes per episode (including commercials -- this was pre-DVR), a person who watched the entire run wasted over three whole days of his or her life. It is still being aired in syndication on ABC Family: once a day on weekdays and twice-daily on weekends.\n\nThe show featured six children and later, a seventh and one cousin. It was not significant enough, however, to vault any of those eight actors and actresses beyond the show itself. A quick perusal of Wikipedia confirms this; in fact, one of the actors is so insignificant that he does not even have an entry in Wikipedia. That\'s not terribly surprising. Step by Step was not something you commiserated over the next week at school. No cultural icons came out of the show; there was no Balki Bartokomous or Tony Micelli or Mike Seaver. Even in retrospect, the only things I can remember about the show is how across the board stupid the characters were (except for the nerdy kid, who was hardly praised for being smart) and, of course, the theme song. Heck, it was only marginally funny.\n\nYet, I watched it often enough to be able to sing a significant part of the theme song by heart, over a decade after it ceased production. And apparently, I am not alone.','',0,'','inherit','open','open','','18-revision','','','2009-06-14 03:31:08','2009-06-14 03:31:08','',18,'http://dlewis.net/2009/06/14/18-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(20,1,'2009-06-14 03:31:44','2009-06-14 03:31:44','I know the theme song to the horrid TV show Step by Step. By heart, even.\r\n\r\nStep by Step aired for six years on ABC\'s \"TGIF\" lineup, and then for a seventh on CBS, totalling 160 episodes. At thirty minutes per episode (including commercials -- this was pre-DVR), a person who watched the entire run wasted over three whole days of his or her life. It is still being aired in syndication on ABC Family: once a day on weekdays and twice-daily on weekends.\r\n\r\nThe show featured six children and later, a seventh and one cousin. It was not significant enough, however, to vault any of those eight actors and actresses beyond the show itself. A quick perusal of Wikipedia confirms this; in fact, one of the actors is so insignificant that he does not even have an entry in Wikipedia. That\'s not terribly surprising. Step by Step was not something you commiserated over the next week at school. No cultural icons came out of the show; there was no Balki Bartokomous or Tony Micelli or Mike Seaver. Even in retrospect, the only things I can remember about the show is how across the board stupid the characters were (except for the nerdy kid, who was hardly praised for being smart) and, of course, the theme song. Heck, it was only marginally funny.\r\n\r\nYet, I watched it often enough to be able to sing a significant part of the theme song by heart, over a decade after it ceased production. And apparently, I am not alone.','',0,'','inherit','open','open','','18-revision-2','','','2009-06-14 03:31:44','2009-06-14 03:31:44','',18,'http://dlewis.net/2009/06/14/18-revision-2/',0,'revision','',0),(21,1,'2009-06-14 23:20:40','2009-06-14 23:20:40','\n\n\n\n\nAsk yourself: When does the lone guy dancing turn into a mob? Seth\'s Godin says it\'s the third guy, but that\'s not the whole story.\n\nTake a look at the people sitting around. They\'re looking at the solo dancer but their attention wanes. The second guy comes and captures their attention for long enough for the third guy to come in. But it\'s another 20 seconds before anyone else shows up.\n\nAnd when someone else does, it\'s actually two someone elses. You can almost here the conversation.\n\"Look at that guy dancing.\"\n\n\"Heh. Idiot.\"\n\n<silence>\n\n\"Another one.\"\n\n\"Wow.\"\n\n<silence>\n\n<third guy joins>\n\n\"Dude... wanna join in?\"\n\n\"Let\'s go.\"\nSeth is right -- we need more guy #3s. But they\'re rare and we can\'t expect to make more. The fourth person wasn\'t going alone. Neither was the fifth.\n\nWhat we really need is more guy #5s for the guy #4s out there, and more #4s for the #5s. That we can make happen: If you\'re afraid to go it alone, just find a friend who is similarly afraid.','Just Walk Beside Me and Be My Friend',0,'','inherit','open','open','','3-autosave','','','2009-06-14 23:20:40','2009-06-14 23:20:40','',3,'http://dlewis.net/2009/06/14/3-autosave/',0,'revision','',0),(22,1,'2009-06-10 19:14:36','2009-06-10 19:14:36','\r\n
\r\n\r\n
\r\nAsk yourself: When does the lone guy dancing turn into a mob? Seth\'s Godin says it\'s the third guy, but that\'s not the whole story.
\r\nTake a look at the people sitting around. They\'re looking at the solo dancer but their attention wanes. The second guy comes and captures their attention for long enough for the third guy to come in. But it\'s another 20 seconds before anyone else shows up.
\r\nAnd when someone else does, it\'s actually two someone elses. You can almost here the conversation.
\r\n\r\n\r\n\"Look at that guy dancing.\"
\r\n\"Heh. Idiot.\"
\r\n<silence>
\r\n\"Another one.\"
\r\n\"Wow.\"
\r\n<silence>
\r\n<third guy joins>
\r\n\"Dude... wanna join in?\"
\r\n\"Let\'s go.\"
\r\n
Seth is right -- we need more guy #3s. But they\'re rare and we can\'t expect to make more. The fourth person wasn\'t going alone. Neither was the fifth.
\r\nWhat we really need is more guy #5s for the guy #4s out there, and more #4s for the #5s. That we can make happen: If you\'re afraid to go it alone, just find a friend who is similarly afraid.
','Just Walk Beside Me and Be My Friend',0,'','inherit','open','open','','3-revision-3','','','2009-06-10 19:14:36','2009-06-10 19:14:36','',3,'http://dlewis.net/2009/06/10/3-revision-3/',0,'revision','',0),(24,1,'2009-06-15 16:43:46','2009-06-15 16:43:46','','thomas',0,'','inherit','open','open','','thomas','','','2009-06-15 16:43:46','2009-06-15 16:43:46','',16,'http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/thomas.jpg',0,'attachment','image/jpeg',0),(25,1,'2009-06-15 16:46:35','2009-06-15 16:46:35','There is an episode of Sex and the City where Carrie, the narrator/protagonist -- a sex columnist for a New York City tabloid -- manages to be in a book pitch meeting. It seems like a natural fit, until the audience (and Carrie) find out that the lady she is meeting publishes children\'s books. It\'s a bad fit, to say the least, notes Carrie, and she shares a laugh with her friends. A sex columnist write children\'s books? Crazy. The rules do not allow for such things.\n\nJust ask Britt Allcroft, creator of three children\'s television series, most notably Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends, a derivative of a half-century-old book series. Thomas has only two speaking parts: a chorus of children who sing sing-along songs; and a narrator, who tells the story and speaks on behalf of the trains and other characters.\n\nWhen Ms. Allcroft and her team sought a narrator, they assumedly did so with great care; after all, it is the only known voice for the entirity of an episode. Allcroft and her successors attracted some great talent to narrate: Ringo Starr, Alec Baldwin, and Pierce Brosnan all narrated something from the Thomas franchise.\n\nA few nights ago, while watching an episdoe with my son, I heard another voice -- familiar enough where I knew I had heard it before, but given the context, I could not place it. It turns out that this narrator worked on 51 (!) episodes over most of the 1990s. Per Wikipedia:\nIn 1991, he provided the narrative voice for the American version of the children\'s show Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends, a role he continued until 1998. He played \"Mr. Conductor\" on the PBS children\'s show Shining Time Station [another Alcroft show], which featured Thomas the Tank Engine from 1991 to 1993, as well as the Shining Time Station TV specials in 1995 and Mr. Conductor\'s Thomas Tales in 1996.\nBut that\'s not what he\'s most famous for. Not even close. And no one who popularized the Seven Dirty Words could possibly be the voice of a beloved children\'s show character. Unless you\'re George Carlin, I guess.','You Are Not Your Bio',0,'','inherit','open','open','','16-autosave','','','2009-06-15 16:46:35','2009-06-15 16:46:35','',16,'http://dlewis.net/2009/06/15/16-autosave/',0,'revision','',0),(26,1,'2009-06-15 16:44:47','2009-06-15 16:44:47','','thomas1',0,'','inherit','open','open','','thomas1','','','2009-06-15 16:44:47','2009-06-15 16:44:47','',16,'http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/thomas1.jpg',0,'attachment','image/jpeg',0),(29,1,'2009-06-15 16:55:33','2009-06-15 16:55:33','[#Beginning of Shooting Data Section]\r\nNikon D100 \r\nFocal Length: 28mm\r\nWhite Balance: Auto\r\nColor Mode: Mode II (Adobe RGB)\r\n2005/11/15 08:25:30\r\nExposure Mode: Manual\r\nAF Mode: AF-S\r\nHue Adjustment: 0¡\r\nJPEG (8-bit) Fine\r\nMetering Mode: Spot\r\nTone Comp.: Normal\r\nSharpening: Normal\r\nImage Size: Large (3008 x 2000)\r\n1/3 sec - f/4.8\r\nFlash Sync Mode: Not Attached\r\nNoise Reduction: OFF\r\nExposure Comp.: 0 EV\r\nImage Comment: \r\nLens: 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 D\r\nSensitivity: ISO 320\r\n[#End of Shooting Data Section]','keynote_audience_itforum2005',0,'','inherit','open','open','','keynote_audience_itforum2005','','','2009-06-15 16:55:33','2009-06-15 16:55:33','',13,'http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/keynote_audience_itforum2005.jpg',0,'attachment','image/jpeg',0),(27,1,'2009-06-15 13:57:53','2009-06-15 13:57:53','There is an episode of Sex and the City where Carrie, the narrator/protagonist -- a sex columnist for a New York City tabloid -- manages to be in a book pitch meeting. It seems like a natural fit, until the audience (and Carrie) find out that the lady she is meeting publishes children\'s books. It\'s a bad fit, to say the least, notes Carrie, and she shares a laugh with her friends. A sex columist write children\'s books? Crazy. The rules do not allow for such things.\r\n\r\nJust ask Britt Allcroft, creator of three children\'s television series, most notably Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends, a derivative of a half-century-old book series. Thomas has only two speaking parts: a chorus of children who sing sing-along songs; and a narrator, who tells the story and speaks on behalf of the trains and other characters.\r\n\r\nWhen Ms. Allcroft and her team sought a narrator, they assumedly did so with great care; after all, it is the only known voice for the entirity of an episode. Allcroft and her successors attracted some great talent to narrate: Ringo Starr, Alec Baldwin, and Pierce Brosnan all narrated something from the Thomas franchise.\r\n\r\nA few nights ago, while watching an episdoe with my son, I heard another voice -- familiar enough where I knew I had heard it before, but given the context, I could not place it. It turns out that this narrator worked on 51 (!) episodes over most of the 1990s. Per Wikipedia:\r\n
In 1991, he provided the narrative voice for the American version of the children\'s show Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends, a role he continued until 1998. He played \"Mr. Conductor\" on the PBS children\'s show Shining Time Station [another Alcroft show], which featured Thomas the Tank Engine from 1991 to 1993, as well as the Shining Time Station TV specials in 1995 and Mr. Conductor\'s Thomas Tales in 1996.\r\nBut that\'s not what he\'s most famous for. Not even close. And no one who popularized the Seven Dirty Words could possibly be the voice of a beloved children\'s show character. Unless you\'re George Carlin, I guess.','You Are Not Your Bio',0,'','inherit','open','open','','16-revision-3','','','2009-06-15 13:57:53','2009-06-15 13:57:53','',16,'http://dlewis.net/2009/06/15/16-revision-3/',0,'revision','',0),(28,1,'2009-06-15 16:45:18','2009-06-15 16:45:18','There is an episode of Sex and the City where Carrie, the narrator/protagonist -- a sex columnist for a New York City tabloid -- manages to be in a book pitch meeting. It seems like a natural fit, until the audience (and Carrie) find out that the lady she is meeting publishes children\'s books. It\'s a bad fit, to say the least, notes Carrie, and she shares a laugh with her friends. A sex columist write children\'s books? Crazy. The rules do not allow for such things.\r\n\r\n
Just ask Britt Allcroft, creator of three children\'s television series, most notably Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends, a derivative of a half-century-old book series. Thomas has only two speaking parts: a chorus of children who sing sing-along songs; and a narrator, who tells the story and speaks on behalf of the trains and other characters.\r\n\r\nWhen Ms. Allcroft and her team sought a narrator, they assumedly did so with great care; after all, it is the only known voice for the entirity of an episode. Allcroft and her successors attracted some great talent to narrate: Ringo Starr, Alec Baldwin, and Pierce Brosnan all narrated something from the Thomas franchise.\r\n\r\nA few nights ago, while watching an episdoe with my son, I heard another voice -- familiar enough where I knew I had heard it before, but given the context, I could not place it. It turns out that this narrator worked on 51 (!) episodes over most of the 1990s. Per Wikipedia:\r\nIn 1991, he provided the narrative voice for the American version of the children\'s show Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends, a role he continued until 1998. He played \"Mr. Conductor\" on the PBS children\'s show Shining Time Station [another Alcroft show], which featured Thomas the Tank Engine from 1991 to 1993, as well as the Shining Time Station TV specials in 1995 and Mr. Conductor\'s Thomas Tales in 1996.\r\nBut that\'s not what he\'s most famous for. Not even close. And no one who popularized the Seven Dirty Words could possibly be the voice of a beloved children\'s show character. Unless you\'re George Carlin, I guess.','You Are Not Your Bio',0,'','inherit','open','open','','16-revision-4','','','2009-06-15 16:45:18','2009-06-15 16:45:18','',16,'http://dlewis.net/2009/06/15/16-revision-4/',0,'revision','',0),(30,1,'2009-06-12 16:58:51','2009-06-12 16:58:51','Here\'s a great rule of thumb that any good writer will tell you, and has been told to me many times: Know your audience. If you\'re writing a term paper, your audience is your professor. A legal brief, the supervising attorney/partner and ultimately, the judge. A Facebook status update, your network of friends.\r\n\r\nThe problem with the rule is that it prevents you from writing when there is no obvious audience, or when you do not have a target one in mind. If you cannot tailor your writing, how are you supposed to write? That problem is, primarily, why I have not had my own blog in way too long.\r\n\r\nBut last week I realized that there is a target audience for this blog: Me. My goal here is simply to get my thoughts into words, and then to have them stored somewhere (semi-)permanently so I can remember what I thought, and why. In retrospect, it makes a lot of sense. No one else out there is going to make me their target audience, at least not on a regular basis. If no one else reads or comments, that is OK; but if someone else wants to follow along, all the better. The writer side of me does not mind if more people show up to listen or comment, and the audience-side of me appreciates the company and the feedback.','Be Your Own Audience',0,'','inherit','open','open','','13-revision-2','','','2009-06-12 16:58:51','2009-06-12 16:58:51','',13,'http://dlewis.net/2009/06/12/13-revision-2/',0,'revision','',0),(31,1,'2009-06-15 17:01:36','2009-06-15 17:01:36','','crystal_ball',0,'','inherit','open','open','','crystal_ball','','','2009-06-15 17:01:36','2009-06-15 17:01:36','',11,'http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/crystal_ball.jpg',0,'attachment','image/jpeg',0),(32,1,'2009-06-15 17:01:55','2009-06-15 17:01:55','Fred Wilson leads today with a simple point:\n
Nothing is standard. You either need it or you don\'t. Explain why you need it and most of the time you\'ll get it or something like it[.]\nMr. Wilson says this in the context of contract negotitations, but it applies elsewhere. One can iterate on the scenarios all day.\n\n
But I\'m more interested in one word: \"it\". Specifically, \"Explain why you need it and you\'ll get it.\" \"It\" is not \"what you asked for\" -- but rather \"what you you want.\" There\'s a big difference.\n\nWhen you ask for something -- anything, really; this even applies to asking a clerk at the supermarket where the paper goods are -- you assume that the listener has enough information to give you an answer. Sometimes that\'s true, but not always. If you ask that supermarket clerk \"Where are the paper plates?\" and he replies \"Aisle four,\" chances are you will get what you are after. In my neighborhood supermarket, though, that is not always true. Yes, the Dixie and Solo and other every-day paper plates are there, as are the kid-oriented shaped like animal faces or with pictures of Elmo on them. What you want isn\'t there, and to make matters worse, there is no way to find out that high quality paper goods are, well, anywhere -- in fact, if you did not know about them beforehand, you would have no reason to think they even existed.\n\nHad you explained \"My wife and I are having guests over for dinner and I need some paper goods. Where are they?\" you\'d have, hopefully, gotten a different answer than \"Aisle four.\" If you want to get what you want -- and not just what you asked for -- explain your thinking. It is like turning the other person into a mind reader.','How to Make the Other Person Read Your Mind',0,'','inherit','open','open','','11-autosave','','','2009-06-15 17:01:55','2009-06-15 17:01:55','',11,'http://dlewis.net/2009/06/15/11-autosave/',0,'revision','',0),(33,1,'2009-06-11 13:06:07','2009-06-11 13:06:07','Fred Wilson leads today with a simple point:\r\nNothing is standard. You either need it or you don\'t. Explain why you need it and most of the time you\'ll get it or something like it[.]\r\nMr. Wilson says this in the context of contract negotitations, but it applies elsewhere. One can iterate on the scenarios all day.\r\n\r\nBut I\'m more interested in one word: \"it\". Specifically, \"Explain why you need it and you\'ll get it.\" \"It\" is not \"what you asked for\" -- but rather \"what you you want.\" There\'s a big difference.\r\n\r\nWhen you ask for something -- anything, really; this even applies to asking a clerk at the supermarket where the paper goods are -- you assume that the listener has enough information to give you an answer. Sometimes that\'s true, but not always. If you ask that supermarket clerk \"Where are the paper plates?\" and he replies \"Aisle four,\" chances are you will get what you are after. In my neighborhood supermarket, though, that is not always true. Yes, the Dixie and Solo and other every-day paper plates are there, as are the kid-oriented shaped like animal faces or with pictures of Elmo on them. What you want isn\'t there, and to make matters worse, there is no way to find out that high quality paper goods are, well, anywhere -- in fact, if you did not know about them beforehand, you would have no reason to think they even existed.\r\n\r\nHad you explained \"My wife and I are having guests over for dinner and I need some paper goods. Where are they?\" you\'d have, hopefully, gotten a different answer than \"Aisle four.\" If you want to get what you want -- and not just what you asked for -- explain your thinking. It is like turning the other person into a mind reader.','How to Make the Other Person Read Your Mind',0,'','inherit','open','open','','11-revision-2','','','2009-06-11 13:06:07','2009-06-11 13:06:07','',11,'http://dlewis.net/2009/06/11/11-revision-2/',0,'revision','',0),(34,1,'2009-06-11 01:51:17','2009-06-11 01:51:17','A few weeks ago, I walked into Bookberries, a small bookstore on 71st and Lexington, in search of a specific book -- a longshot, to say the least. While there, two other customers walked in. One, an older lady, asked for a biography about Frank Lloyd Wright -- no luck. The other, a middle-aged man, stopped by the register to tell the shopkeeper that he liked the store, praising its \"very exclusive selection\". The shopkeeper replied with a thank you and a half-joking comment: \"Sometimes, too exclusive, I think.\"\r\n\r\nMe? They did not have the book I wanted, nor could I find a book that interested me. I left, having purchased nothing. Twenty minutes, three customers entered, no sales. Too exclusive indeed.\r\n\r\nOr is he?\r\n\r\nThere is simply no way a tiny bookstore is going to compete with Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Borders, or even mini-New York chain Shakespeare & Co. (a mere two blocks away!) on selection. But the small guy can compete. Take Archivia Books, for example -- two blocks away! They only carry books about \"architecture, art, design decorative arts, gardens, interiors.\" \r\n\r\nBookberries needs to come up with something else. Focus on children\'s books and parenting, or true crime/mystery. Or even better, break the mold: figure out what books buyers of bestsellers would like if they only knew the books existed. Either way, there\'s only one way to win:\r\n\r\nThey need to be more exclusive.\r\n\r\n\r\n','Are You Exclusive Enough?',0,'','inherit','open','open','','6-revision-4','','','2009-06-11 01:51:17','2009-06-11 01:51:17','',6,'http://dlewis.net/2009/06/11/6-revision-4/',0,'revision','',0),(35,1,'2009-06-22 17:22:38','2009-06-22 17:22:38','[Update: June 5, 2010: In January, an armed robber held up a jewlery store on Madison Avenue between 75th an 76th, shooting and killing a 71-year old employee. This is the first shooting homicide in the Upper East Side in over seven years, and per the linked-to article, seemingly random.]\r\n\r\nThe New York Times came out with a neat interactive map of homicides in New York City -- something which would be really cool if it were not about murder. According to the map, ove the six and a half year period covered (2003 to present), NYC recorded just over 3,400 homicides, of which 15% -- or about 500 -- were in Manhattan.\r\n\r\nThe Upper East Side section of Manhattan is incredibly safe, apparently. 11 homicides over the period, or about two per year. For an area with a population of 200,000+, that gives roughly a 1 homicide per 100,000 per annum. To put that in perspective, in 2003, Maine had the \"best\" homicide rate in the nation, at 1.2 per 100,000.\r\n\r\nThere are no formal barriers separating the Upper East Side from the rest of Manhattan -- yes, it abutts Central Park on the west but one can easily walk though that, and the east is bound by the East River. North and south, though, the lines are 96th and 59th streets respectively, which is to say, the borders are entirely fluid with the neighborhoods next to them. (A guess as to why the lines are where they are? On the south side, Central Park ends on 59th; on the north, the Metro North train tracks come above ground at 97th.) The borders are known but hardly observed in any true fashion -- we regularly consider a playground on 99th and 5th to be in the \"Upper East Side\", for example.\r\n\r\nIf you live here, you probably will understand why the neighborhood is safer than most, but experience does not translate well to words. I was not terribly surprised to see a low homicide rate, although admittedly it was much lower than I expected. What did surprise me, however, was one simple fact: no firearms were used in the homicides. Or, more accurately, guns abide by the borders.\r\n
![\"picture-19\"](\"http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/picture-19.png\" "\\"picture-19\\"")
The map above sums it up. The green dots -- firearm-related homicides -- all fall outside the borders of the Upper East Side. There are two which are close, of course: 57th and Madison, 97th and 3rd. Two blocks south of the UES, one block north. This makes the UES a massive outlier, as 69% of the 3,400+ homicides city-wide were firearm-related.
\r\nWhy?
','Why Aren\'t People Shot on the Upper East Side?',0,'','publish','open','open','','why-arent-people-shot-on-the-upper-east-side','','','2010-06-06 03:20:43','2010-06-06 03:20:43','',0,'http://dlewis.net/?p=35',0,'post','',15),(36,1,'2009-06-19 13:47:58','2009-06-19 13:47:58','','picture-19',0,'','inherit','open','open','','picture-19','','','2009-06-19 13:47:58','2009-06-19 13:47:58','',35,'http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/picture-19.png',0,'attachment','image/png',0),(37,1,'2009-06-19 13:55:33','2009-06-19 13:55:33','The New York Times came out with a neat interactive map of homicides in New York City -- something which would be really cool if it were not about murder. According to the map, ove the six and a half year period covered (2003 to present), NYC recorded just over 3,400 homicides, of which 15% -- or about 500 -- were in Manhattan.\n\nThe Upper East Side section of Manhattan is incredibly safe, apparently. 11 homicides over the period, or about two per year. For an area with a population of 200,000+, that gives roughly a 1 homicide per 100,000 per annum. To put that in perspective, in 2003, Maine had the \"best\" homicide rate in the nation, at 1.2 per 100,000.\n\nThere are no formal barriers separating the Upper East Side from the rest of Manhattan -- yes, it abutts Central Park on the west but one can easily walk though that, and the east is bound by the East River. North and south, though, the lines are 96th and 59th streets respectively, which is to say, the borders are entirely fluid with the neighborhoods next to them. (A guess as to why the lines are where they are? On the south side, Central Park ends on 59th; on the north, the Metro North train tracks come above ground at 97th.) The borders are known but hardly observed in any true fashion -- we regularly consider a playground on 99th and 5th to be in the \"Upper East Side\", for example.\n\nIf you live here, you probably will understand why the neighborhood is safer than most, but experience does not translate well to words. I was not terribly surprised to see a low homicide rate, although admittedly it was much lower than I expected. What did surprise me, however, was one simple fact: no firearms were used in the homicides. Or, more accurately, guns abide by the borders.\n
The map above sums it up. The green dots -- firearm-related homicides -- all fall outside the borders of the Upper East Side. There are two which are close, of course: 57th and Madison, 97th and 3rd. Two blocks south of the UES, one block north. This makes the UES a massive outlier, as 69% of the 3,400+ homicides city-wide were firearm-related.
','Why Aren\'t People Shot on the Upper East Side?',0,'','inherit','open','open','','35-revision','','','2009-06-19 13:55:33','2009-06-19 13:55:33','',35,'http://dlewis.net/2009/06/19/35-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(38,1,'2009-06-19 13:57:06','2009-06-19 13:57:06','The New York Times came out with a neat interactive map of homicides in New York City -- something which would be really cool if it were not about murder. According to the map, ove the six and a half year period covered (2003 to present), NYC recorded just over 3,400 homicides, of which 15% -- or about 500 -- were in Manhattan.\r\n\r\nThe Upper East Side section of Manhattan is incredibly safe, apparently. 11 homicides over the period, or about two per year. For an area with a population of 200,000+, that gives roughly a 1 homicide per 100,000 per annum. To put that in perspective, in 2003, Maine had the \"best\" homicide rate in the nation, at 1.2 per 100,000.\r\n\r\nThere are no formal barriers separating the Upper East Side from the rest of Manhattan -- yes, it abutts Central Park on the west but one can easily walk though that, and the east is bound by the East River. North and south, though, the lines are 96th and 59th streets respectively, which is to say, the borders are entirely fluid with the neighborhoods next to them. (A guess as to why the lines are where they are? On the south side, Central Park ends on 59th; on the north, the Metro North train tracks come above ground at 97th.) The borders are known but hardly observed in any true fashion -- we regularly consider a playground on 99th and 5th to be in the \"Upper East Side\", for example.\r\n\r\nIf you live here, you probably will understand why the neighborhood is safer than most, but experience does not translate well to words. I was not terribly surprised to see a low homicide rate, although admittedly it was much lower than I expected. What did surprise me, however, was one simple fact: no firearms were used in the homicides. Or, more accurately, guns abide by the borders.\r\n
The map above sums it up. The green dots -- firearm-related homicides -- all fall outside the borders of the Upper East Side. There are two which are close, of course: 57th and Madison, 97th and 3rd. Two blocks south of the UES, one block north. This makes the UES a massive outlier, as 69% of the 3,400+ homicides city-wide were firearm-related.
\r\nWhy?
','Why Aren\'t People Shot on the Upper East Side?',0,'','inherit','open','open','','35-revision-2','','','2009-06-19 13:57:06','2009-06-19 13:57:06','',35,'http://dlewis.net/2009/06/19/35-revision-2/',0,'revision','',0),(39,1,'2009-06-16 13:42:09','2009-06-16 13:42:09','A few weeks ago, I walked into Bookberries, a small bookstore on 71st and Lexington, in search of a specific book -- a longshot, to say the least. While there, two other customers walked in. One, an older lady, asked for a biography about Frank Lloyd Wright -- no luck. The other, a middle-aged man, stopped by the register to tell the shopkeeper that he liked the store, praising its \"very exclusive selection\". The shopkeeper replied with a thank you and a half-joking comment: \"Sometimes, too exclusive, I think.\"\r\n\r\nMe? They did not have the book I wanted, nor could I find a book that interested me. I left, having purchased nothing. Twenty minutes, three customers entered, no sales. Too exclusive indeed.\r\n\r\nOr is he?\r\n\r\nThere is simply no way a tiny bookstore is going to compete with Amazon, Barnes and Noble, Borders, or even mini-New York chain Shakespeare & Co. (a mere two blocks away!) on selection. But the small guy can compete. Take Archivia Books, for example -- two blocks away! They only carry books about \"architecture, art, design decorative arts, gardens, interiors.\"\r\n\r\nBookberries needs to come up with something else. Focus on children\'s books and parenting, or true crime/mystery. Or even better, break the mold: figure out what books buyers of bestsellers would like if they only knew the books existed. Either way, there\'s only one way to win:\r\n\r\nThey need to be more exclusive.','Are You Exclusive Enough?',0,'','inherit','open','open','','6-revision-5','','','2009-06-16 13:42:09','2009-06-16 13:42:09','',6,'http://dlewis.net/2009/06/16/6-revision-5/',0,'revision','',0),(40,1,'2009-06-19 13:57:12','2009-06-19 13:57:12','The New York Times came out with a neat interactive map of homicides in New York City -- something which would be really cool if it were not about murder. According to the map, ove the six and a half year period covered (2003 to present), NYC recorded just over 3,400 homicides, of which 15% -- or about 500 -- were in Manhattan.\r\n\r\nThe Upper East Side section of Manhattan is incredibly safe, apparently. 11 homicides over the period, or about two per year. For an area with a population of 200,000+, that gives roughly a 1 homicide per 100,000 per annum. To put that in perspective, in 2003, Maine had the \"best\" homicide rate in the nation, at 1.2 per 100,000.\r\n\r\nThere are no formal barriers separating the Upper East Side from the rest of Manhattan -- yes, it abutts Central Park on the west but one can easily walk though that, and the east is bound by the East River. North and south, though, the lines are 96th and 59th streets respectively, which is to say, the borders are entirely fluid with the neighborhoods next to them. (A guess as to why the lines are where they are? On the south side, Central Park ends on 59th; on the north, the Metro North train tracks come above ground at 97th.) The borders are known but hardly observed in any true fashion -- we regularly consider a playground on 99th and 5th to be in the \"Upper East Side\", for example.\r\n\r\nIf you live here, you probably will understand why the neighborhood is safer than most, but experience does not translate well to words. I was not terribly surprised to see a low homicide rate, although admittedly it was much lower than I expected. What did surprise me, however, was one simple fact: no firearms were used in the homicides. Or, more accurately, guns abide by the borders.\r\n
The map above sums it up. The green dots -- firearm-related homicides -- all fall outside the borders of the Upper East Side. There are two which are close, of course: 57th and Madison, 97th and 3rd. Two blocks south of the UES, one block north. This makes the UES a massive outlier, as 69% of the 3,400+ homicides city-wide were firearm-related.
\r\nWhy?
','Why Aren\'t People Shot on the Upper East Side?',0,'','inherit','open','open','','35-revision-3','','','2009-06-19 13:57:12','2009-06-19 13:57:12','',35,'http://dlewis.net/2009/06/19/35-revision-3/',0,'revision','',0),(41,1,'2009-06-24 00:04:41','2009-06-24 00:04:41','![\"\"](\"http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/06/16/magazine/16moral.jpg\")
Marc has a well thought-out takedown of a pair of Ethicist posts by New York Times columnist Randy Cohen on ticket scalping. Cohen defense Miley Cyrus\' practice of instituting anti-scalpling measures by asserting , basically, that not everything should be auctioned off to the highest bidder, and performers should be allowed to license out the right to listen to their performances.\r\n\r\nBut why would they? Artists can easily ride the demand curve, auctioning off tickets or otherwise maximizing revenue. Even if they do not have the ability to do it themselves, they can partner easily. Take Major League Baseball: They have an agreement with StubHub, allowing the latter to re-sell tickets, with the league and its member clubs taking a cut. Why would Cyrus not do the same? Is she really thinking of her fans? If so, she\'s spending a lot of money -- in lost revenue -- to be \"fan-friendly.\"\r\n\r\nNo so, Marc argues. Rather, and correctly, I think, he proposes that artists are more interested in selling out venues than maximizing revenues. Why? Because failing to sell out a show signals a lack of popularity, and in their world, popularity matters.\r\n\r\nWhich is reinforced by another thing that can happen on the secondary ticket market: Ticket prices can actually fall below face. I spoke to Mark -- yes, another Mark -- an experienced ticket arbitrager, and found that prices actually fall more often fall below face value more often than you think. He says that Cyrus, who is popular everywhere, is an extreme outlier: even tickets to Britney Spears\' shows in sparsely populated areas during her recent tour could be obtained at face (or perhaps under) on the secondary market. And if that were to happen, again, we\'d have a signal of waning popularity.\r\n\r\nCyrus is participating in the latter market, which is a market for an even scarcer commodity: attention. Popularity fuels attention. Attention leads to listeners, viewers, and over time, more and more revenue. Losing attention is too risky, and scalpers put it at risk.','If Scalpers Sell Access, What Do Anti-Scalpers Buy?',0,'','publish','open','open','','if-scalpers-sell-access-what-do-anti-scalpers-buy','','','2009-06-24 00:04:41','2009-06-24 00:04:41','',0,'http://dlewis.net/?p=41',0,'post','',0),(45,1,'2009-06-23 23:56:03','2009-06-23 23:56:03','Marc has a well thought-out takedown of a pair of Ethicist posts by New York Times columnist Randy Cohen on ticket scalping. Cohen defense Miley Cyrus\' practice of instituting anti-scalpling measures by asserting , basically, that not everything should be auctioned off to the highest bidder, and performers should be allowed to license out the right to listen to their performances.\n\nBut why would they? Artists can easily ride the demand curve, auctioning off tickets or otherwise maximizing revenue. Even if they do not have the ability to do it themselves, they can partner easily. Take Major League Baseball: They have an agreement with StubHub, allowing the latter to re-sell tickets, with the league and its member clubs taking a cut. Why would Cyrus not do the same? Is she really thinking of her fans? If so, she\'s spending a lot of money -- in lost revenue -- to be \"fan-friendly.\"\n\nNo so, Marc argues. Rather, and correctly, I think, he proposes that artists are more interested in selling out venues than maximizing revenues. Why? Because failing to sell out a show signals a lack of popularity, and in their world, popularity matters.\n\nWhich is reinforced by another thing that can happen on the secondary ticket market: Ticket prices can actually fall below face. I spoke to Mark -- yes, another Mark -- an experienced ticket arbitrager, and found that prices actually fall more often fall below face value more often than you think. He says that Cyrus, who is popular everywhere, is an extreme outlier: even tickets to Britney Spears\' shows in sparcely populated areas, during the height of her popularity, could be obtained at face (or perhaps under) on the secondary market. And if that were to happen, again, we\'d have a signal of waning popularity.\n\nCyrus is participating in the latter market, which is a market for an even scarcer commodity: attention. Popularity fuels attention. Attention leads to listeners, viewers, and over time, more and more revenue. Losing attention is too risky, and scalpers put it at risk.','If Scalpers Sell Access, What Do Anti-Scalpers Buy?',0,'','inherit','open','open','','41-revision-4','','','2009-06-23 23:56:03','2009-06-23 23:56:03','',41,'http://dlewis.net/2009/06/23/41-revision-4/',0,'revision','',0),(42,1,'2009-06-22 21:20:20','2009-06-22 21:20:20','My friend Marc has a well thought-out takedown of a pair of Ethicist posts by New York Times columnist Randy Cohen on ticket scalping. Cohen defense Miley Cyrus\' practice of instituting anti-scalpling measures by asserting , basically, that not everything should be auctioned off to the highest bidder, and performers should be allowed to license out the right to listen to their performances.\n\nBut why would they? Artists canTake Major League Baseball: They have an agreement with StubHub, allowing the latter to re-sell tickets, with the league and its member clubs taking a cut. Why would Cyrus not do the same? Is she really thinking of her fans? If so, she\'s spending a lot of money -- in lost revenue -- to be \"fan-friendly.\"\n\nNo so, Marc argues. Rather, and correctly, I think, he proposes that artists are more interested in selling out venues than maximizing revenues. Why? Because failing to sell out a show signals a lack of popularity, and in their world, popularity matters.\n\nWhich is reinforced by another thing that can happen on the secondary ticket market: Ticket prices can actually fall below face. My friend Mark -- yes, another Mark -- is an experienced ticket arbitrager, and found that prices actually fall more often fall below face value more often than you think. He says that Cyrus, who is popular everywhere, is an extreme outlier: even tickets to Britney Spears\' shows in sparcely populated areas, during the height of her popularity, could be obtained at face (or perhaps under) on the secondary market. And if that were to happen, again, we\'d have a signal of waning popularity.\n\nAs weeks of Jon & Kate Plus Eight on the cover of gossip mags demonstrates, popularity matters to some, and supremely so. Popularity fuels attention. Attention leads to listeners, viewers, and over time, more and more revenue.\n\nBack to the second Ethicist column. Randy Cohen notes that \"[m]arkets function best when supply can adjust to demand. But despite astonishing advances in biotechnology, science remains unable to increase the supply of Miley Cyruses.\" That may be right about the ticket-buying market, but not the ticket-selling market. Cyrus is participating in the latter market, which is a market for an even scarcer commodity: attention. Losing that is too risky, and scalpers put it at risk.','If Scalpers Sell Access, What Do Anti-Scalpers Buy?',0,'','inherit','open','open','','41-revision','','','2009-06-22 21:20:20','2009-06-22 21:20:20','',41,'http://dlewis.net/2009/06/22/41-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(44,1,'2009-06-22 23:57:01','2009-06-22 23:57:01','Marc has a well thought-out takedown of a pair of Ethicist posts by New York Times columnist Randy Cohen on ticket scalping. Cohen defense Miley Cyrus\' practice of instituting anti-scalpling measures by asserting , basically, that not everything should be auctioned off to the highest bidder, and performers should be allowed to license out the right to listen to their performances.\n\nBut why would they? Artists can easily ride the demand curve, auctioning off tickets or otherwise maximizing revenue. Even if they do not have the ability to do it themselves, they can partner easily. Take Major League Baseball: They have an agreement with StubHub, allowing the latter to re-sell tickets, with the league and its member clubs taking a cut. Why would Cyrus not do the same? Is she really thinking of her fans? If so, she\'s spending a lot of money -- in lost revenue -- to be \"fan-friendly.\"\n\nNo so, Marc argues. Rather, and correctly, I think, he proposes that artists are more interested in selling out venues than maximizing revenues. Why? Because failing to sell out a show signals a lack of popularity, and in their world, popularity matters.\n\nWhich is reinforced by another thing that can happen on the secondary ticket market: Ticket prices can actually fall below face. I spoke to Mark -- yes, another Mark -- an experienced ticket arbitrager, and found that prices actually fall more often fall below face value more often than you think. He says that Cyrus, who is popular everywhere, is an extreme outlier: even tickets to Britney Spears\' shows in sparcely populated areas, during the height of her popularity, could be obtained at face (or perhaps under) on the secondary market. And if that were to happen, again, we\'d have a signal of waning popularity. Popularity fuels attention. Attention leads to listeners, viewers, and over time, more and more revenue.\n\nBack to the second Ethicist column. Randy Cohen notes that \"[m]arkets function best when supply can adjust to demand. But despite astonishing advances in biotechnology, science remains unable to increase the supply of Miley Cyruses.\" That may be right about the ticket-buying market, but not the ticket-selling market. Cyrus is participating in the latter market, which is a market for an even scarcer commodity: attention. Losing attention is too risky, and scalpers put it at risk.','If Scalpers Sell Access, What Do Anti-Scalpers Buy?',0,'','inherit','open','open','','41-revision-3','','','2009-06-22 23:57:01','2009-06-22 23:57:01','',41,'http://dlewis.net/2009/06/22/41-revision-3/',0,'revision','',0),(43,1,'2009-06-22 23:45:59','2009-06-22 23:45:59','Marc has a well thought-out takedown of a pair of Ethicist posts by New York Times columnist Randy Cohen on ticket scalping. Cohen defense Miley Cyrus\' practice of instituting anti-scalpling measures by asserting , basically, that not everything should be auctioned off to the highest bidder, and performers should be allowed to license out the right to listen to their performances.\n\nBut why would they? Artists can easily ride the demand curve, auctioning off tickets or otherwise maximizing revenue. Even if they do not have the ability to do it themselves, they can partner to do it. Take Major League Baseball: They have an agreement with StubHub, allowing the latter to re-sell tickets, with the league and its member clubs taking a cut. Why would Cyrus not do the same? Is she really thinking of her fans? If so, she\'s spending a lot of money -- in lost revenue -- to be \"fan-friendly.\"\n\nNo so, Marc argues. Rather, and correctly, I think, he proposes that artists are more interested in selling out venues than maximizing revenues. Why? Because failing to sell out a show signals a lack of popularity, and in their world, popularity matters.\n\nWhich is reinforced by another thing that can happen on the secondary ticket market: Ticket prices can actually fall below face. I spoke to Mark -- yes, another Mark -- an experienced ticket arbitrager, and found that prices actually fall more often fall below face value more often than you think. He says that Cyrus, who is popular everywhere, is an extreme outlier: even tickets to Britney Spears\' shows in sparcely populated areas, during the height of her popularity, could be obtained at face (or perhaps under) on the secondary market. And if that were to happen, again, we\'d have a signal of waning popularity.\n\nAs weeks of Jon & Kate Plus Eight on the cover of gossip mags demonstrates, popularity matters to some, and supremely so. Popularity fuels attention. Attention leads to listeners, viewers, and over time, more and more revenue.\n\nBack to the second Ethicist column. Randy Cohen notes that \"[m]arkets function best when supply can adjust to demand. But despite astonishing advances in biotechnology, science remains unable to increase the supply of Miley Cyruses.\" That may be right about the ticket-buying market, but not the ticket-selling market. Cyrus is participating in the latter market, which is a market for an even scarcer commodity: attention. Losing that is too risky, and scalpers put it at risk.','If Scalpers Sell Access, What Do Anti-Scalpers Buy?',0,'','inherit','open','open','','41-revision-2','','','2009-06-22 23:45:59','2009-06-22 23:45:59','',41,'http://dlewis.net/2009/06/22/41-revision-2/',0,'revision','',0),(46,1,'2009-06-24 00:05:45','2009-06-24 00:05:45','Marc has a well thought-out takedown of a pair of Ethicist posts by New York Times columnist Randy Cohen on ticket scalping. Cohen defense Miley Cyrus\' practice of instituting anti-scalpling measures by asserting , basically, that not everything should be auctioned off to the highest bidder, and performers should be allowed to license out the right to listen to their performances.\n\nBut why would they? Artists can easily ride the demand curve, auctioning off tickets or otherwise maximizing revenue. Even if they do not have the ability to do it themselves, they can partner easily. Take Major League Baseball: They have an agreement with StubHub, allowing the latter to re-sell tickets, with the league and its member clubs taking a cut. Why would Cyrus not do the same? Is she really thinking of her fans? If so, she\'s spending a lot of money -- in lost revenue -- to be \"fan-friendly.\"\n\nNo so, Marc argues. Rather, and correctly, I think, he proposes that artists are more interested in selling out venues than maximizing revenues. Why? Because failing to sell out a show signals a lack of popularity, and in their world, popularity matters.\n\nWhich is reinforced by another thing that can happen on the secondary ticket market: Ticket prices can actually fall below face. I spoke to Mark -- yes, another Mark -- an experienced ticket arbitrager, and found that prices actually fall more often fall below face value more often than you think. He says that Cyrus, who is popular everywhere, is an extreme outlier: even tickets to Britney Spears\' shows in sparsely populated areas during her recent tour could be obtained at face (or perhaps under) on the secondary market. And if that were to happen, again, we\'d have a signal of waning popularity.\n\nCyrus is participating in the latter market, which is a market for an even scarcer commodity: attention. Popularity fuels attention. Attention leads to listeners, viewers, and over time, more and more revenue. Losing attention is too risky, and scalpers put it at risk.','If Scalpers Sell Access, What Do Anti-Scalpers Buy?',0,'','inherit','open','open','','41-autosave','','','2009-06-24 00:05:45','2009-06-24 00:05:45','',41,'http://dlewis.net/2009/06/24/41-autosave/',0,'revision','',0),(52,1,'2009-08-24 19:20:44','2009-08-24 19:20:44','It\'s only noon, yet twice today, I\'ve been asked questions about starting up a web business. Both products are very different; one regarding a content play, the other a B2B e-commerce site. Understandably, both were very different questions. But my answer was the same: Read how other websites started, because your assumptions are just wrong.\r\n\r\nThat\'s precisely what I\'ve been doing for about two or three years now, but I keep losing the links that I\'ve found. So for my purposes, here they are, memorialized. And for any readers, here you go. All I ask is that you leave your thoughts and links as well -- basically, consider this a collaborative endeavor. And that goes for ANY web company, not just the one(s) I am posting about.\r\n\r\nFirst off, Wikipedia.\r\n\r\nWhat I Found\r\n\r\nIn two parts, are the memoirs of Larry Sanger -- an early pioneer on the Wikipedia project and its predecessor, Nupedia. They\'re at Slashdot, specifically http://features.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/18/164213 and http://features.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/19/1746205, and are the best early-stage sources of information.\r\n\r\nWikipedia is, itself, a great source of history, even for itself. These articles are key:\r\nThe project received many new participants after being mentioned three times on the Slashdot website, with two minor mentions in March 2001. It then received a prominent pointer to a story on the community-edited technologies and culture website Kuro5hin on 25 July. Between these relatively rapid influxes of traffic, there had been a steady stream of traffic from other sources, especially Google, which alone sent hundreds of new visitors to the site every day. Its first major mainstream media coverage was in the New York Times on 20 September 2001.\r\nFinally, there\'s the old Nupedia mailing list, archived on Archive.org, from when Wikipedia launched. It\'s at http://web.archive.org/web/20030425172430/www.nupedia.com/pipermail/nupedia-l/2001-January/thread.html#679. It\'s slow, but worth poking around.\r\n\r\nWhat I Learned\r\n\r\nThere are a lot of tactical details in the links above which are best thought about and not memorialized lest they become frozen as fact. But here are two big picture strategy points:\r\n
The project received many new participants after being mentioned three times on the Slashdot website, with two minor mentions in March 2001. It then received a prominent pointer to a story on the community-edited technologies and culture website Kuro5hin on 25 July. Between these relatively rapid influxes of traffic, there had been a steady stream of traffic from other sources, especially Google, which alone sent hundreds of new visitors to the site every day. Its first major mainstream media coverage was in the New York Times on 20 September 2001.\nFinally, there\'s the old Nupedia mailing list, archived on Archive.org, from when Wikipedia launched. It\'s at http://web.archive.org/web/20030425172430/www.nupedia.com/pipermail/nupedia-l/2001-January/thread.html#679','Learning from Wikipedia\'s History',0,'','inherit','open','open','','52-revision','','','2009-08-24 19:20:23','2009-08-24 19:20:23','',52,'http://dlewis.net/2009/08/24/52-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(54,1,'2009-08-24 19:41:50','2009-08-24 19:41:50','It\'s only noon, yet twice today, I\'ve been asked questions about starting up a web business. Both products are very different; one regarding a content play, the other a B2B e-commerce site. Understandably, both were very different questions. But my answer was the same: Read how other websites started, because your assumptions are just wrong.\n\nThat\'s precisely what I\'ve been doing for about two or three years now, but I keep losing the links that I\'ve found. So for my purposes, here they are, memorialized. And for any readers, here you go. All I ask is that you leave your thoughts and links as well -- basically, consider this a collaborative endeavor.\n\nFirst off, Wikipedia.\n\nWhat I Found\n\nIn two parts, are the memoirs of Larry Sanger -- an early pioneer on the Wikipedia project and its predecessor, Nupedia. They\'re at Slashdot, specifically http://features.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/18/164213 and http://features.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/19/1746205, and are the best early-stage sources of information.\n\nWikipedia is, itself, a great source of history, even for itself. These articles are key:\n
The project received many new participants after being mentioned three times on the Slashdot website, with two minor mentions in March 2001. It then received a prominent pointer to a story on the community-edited technologies and culture website Kuro5hin on 25 July. Between these relatively rapid influxes of traffic, there had been a steady stream of traffic from other sources, especially Google, which alone sent hundreds of new visitors to the site every day. Its first major mainstream media coverage was in the New York Times on 20 September 2001.\nFinally, there\'s the old Nupedia mailing list, archived on Archive.org, from when Wikipedia launched. It\'s at http://web.archive.org/web/20030425172430/www.nupedia.com/pipermail/nupedia-l/2001-January/thread.html#679. It\'s slow, but worth poking around.\n\nWhat I Learned\n\nListen long enough and you\'ll hear someone pitching a new product in the Wikipedia model. It\'s exceptionally enticing: you get a ton of content and you do not even have to pay your writers. It sounds too good to be true, and when someone points out how pie-eyed your model is, you can point to Wikipedia and say, \"see?\" There are plenty of other businesses which have succeeded using a similar system as well. It, truly, is not ridiculous, even if it sounds that way.\n\nThe problem comes as the story unfolds: First, the entrepreneur is going to do this. Then, he\'s going to do that. Along the way, he\'ll do a bit more of this and a lot more of that and at some point, all this this and that will lead to users, which will lead to content and community, which will lead to Wikipedia For Whatever. It\'s all fine and good, but it\'s not how Wikipedia became Wikipedia. And to make matters worse: that\'s only half of the problem.\n\nWikipedia is a biproduct of Nupedia and, to a lesser extent, the oddly-confusing-named Gnupedia. Nupedia was supposed to be an expert-driven, expert-gated encyclopedia, yes, but more importantly, it was supposed to be a free encyclopedia, in both the copyrg','Learning from Wikipedia\'s History',0,'','inherit','open','open','','52-autosave','','','2009-08-24 19:41:50','2009-08-24 19:41:50','',52,'http://dlewis.net/2009/08/24/52-autosave/',0,'revision','',0),(55,1,'2009-08-24 19:20:44','2009-08-24 19:20:44','It\'s only noon, yet twice today, I\'ve been asked questions about starting up a web business. Both products are very different; one regarding a content play, the other a B2B e-commerce site. Understandably, both were very different questions. But my answer was the same: Read how other websites started, because your assumptions are just wrong.\r\n\r\nThat\'s precisely what I\'ve been doing for about two or three years now, but I keep losing the links that I\'ve found. So for my purposes, here they are, memorialized. And for any readers, here you go. All I ask is that you leave your thoughts and links as well -- basically, consider this a collaborative endeavor.\r\n\r\nFirst off, Wikipedia.\r\n\r\nIn two parts, are the memoirs of Larry Sanger -- an early pioneer on the Wikipedia project and its predecessor, Nupedia. They\'re at Slashdot, specifically http://features.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/18/164213 and http://features.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/19/1746205, and are the best early-stage sources of information.\r\n\r\nWikipedia is, itself, a great source of history, even for itself. These articles are key:\r\n
The project received many new participants after being mentioned three times on the Slashdot website, with two minor mentions in March 2001. It then received a prominent pointer to a story on the community-edited technologies and culture website Kuro5hin on 25 July. Between these relatively rapid influxes of traffic, there had been a steady stream of traffic from other sources, especially Google, which alone sent hundreds of new visitors to the site every day. Its first major mainstream media coverage was in the New York Times on 20 September 2001.\r\nFinally, there\'s the old Nupedia mailing list, archived on Archive.org, from when Wikipedia launched. It\'s at http://web.archive.org/web/20030425172430/www.nupedia.com/pipermail/nupedia-l/2001-January/thread.html#679. It\'s slow, but worth poking around.\r\n','Learning from Wikipedia\'s History',0,'','inherit','open','open','','52-revision-2','','','2009-08-24 19:20:44','2009-08-24 19:20:44','',52,'http://dlewis.net/2009/08/24/52-revision-2/',0,'revision','',0),(56,1,'2009-08-24 19:22:58','2009-08-24 19:22:58','It\'s only noon, yet twice today, I\'ve been asked questions about starting up a web business. Both products are very different; one regarding a content play, the other a B2B e-commerce site. Understandably, both were very different questions. But my answer was the same: Read how other websites started, because your assumptions are just wrong.\r\n\r\nThat\'s precisely what I\'ve been doing for about two or three years now, but I keep losing the links that I\'ve found. So for my purposes, here they are, memorialized. And for any readers, here you go. All I ask is that you leave your thoughts and links as well -- basically, consider this a collaborative endeavor.\r\n\r\nFirst off, Wikipedia.\r\n\r\nIn two parts, are the memoirs of Larry Sanger -- an early pioneer on the Wikipedia project and its predecessor, Nupedia. They\'re at Slashdot, specifically http://features.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/18/164213 and http://features.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/19/1746205, and are the best early-stage sources of information.\r\n\r\nWikipedia is, itself, a great source of history, even for itself. These articles are key:\r\n
The project received many new participants after being mentioned three times on the Slashdot website, with two minor mentions in March 2001. It then received a prominent pointer to a story on the community-edited technologies and culture website Kuro5hin on 25 July. Between these relatively rapid influxes of traffic, there had been a steady stream of traffic from other sources, especially Google, which alone sent hundreds of new visitors to the site every day. Its first major mainstream media coverage was in the New York Times on 20 September 2001.\r\nFinally, there\'s the old Nupedia mailing list, archived on Archive.org, from when Wikipedia launched. It\'s at http://web.archive.org/web/20030425172430/www.nupedia.com/pipermail/nupedia-l/2001-January/thread.html#679. It\'s slow, but worth poking around.','Learning from Wikipedia\'s History: Links',0,'','inherit','open','open','','52-revision-3','','','2009-08-24 19:22:58','2009-08-24 19:22:58','',52,'http://dlewis.net/2009/08/24/52-revision-3/',0,'revision','',0),(60,1,'2009-08-25 13:21:02','2009-08-25 13:21:02','It\'s only noon, yet twice today, I\'ve been asked questions about starting up a web business. Both products are very different; one regarding a content play, the other a B2B e-commerce site. Understandably, both were very different questions. But my answer was the same: Read how other websites started, because your assumptions are just wrong.\n\nThat\'s precisely what I\'ve been doing for about two or three years now, but I keep losing the links that I\'ve found. So for my purposes, here they are, memorialized. And for any readers, here you go. All I ask is that you leave your thoughts and links as well -- basically, consider this a collaborative endeavor. And that goes for ANY web company, not just the one(s) I am posting about.\n\nFirst off, Wikipedia.\n\nWhat I Found\n\nIn two parts, are the memoirs of Larry Sanger -- an early pioneer on the Wikipedia project and its predecessor, Nupedia. They\'re at Slashdot, specifically http://features.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/18/164213 and http://features.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/19/1746205, and are the best early-stage sources of information.\n\nWikipedia is, itself, a great source of history, even for itself. These articles are key:\n
The project received many new participants after being mentioned three times on the Slashdot website, with two minor mentions in March 2001. It then received a prominent pointer to a story on the community-edited technologies and culture website Kuro5hin on 25 July. Between these relatively rapid influxes of traffic, there had been a steady stream of traffic from other sources, especially Google, which alone sent hundreds of new visitors to the site every day. Its first major mainstream media coverage was in the New York Times on 20 September 2001.\nFinally, there\'s the old Nupedia mailing list, archived on Archive.org, from when Wikipedia launched. It\'s at http://web.archive.org/web/20030425172430/www.nupedia.com/pipermail/nupedia-l/2001-January/thread.html#679. It\'s slow, but worth poking around.\n\nWhat I Learned\n\nThere are a lot of tactical details in the links above which are best thought about and not memorialized lest they become frozen as fact. But here are two big picture strategy points:\n
The project received many new participants after being mentioned three times on the Slashdot website, with two minor mentions in March 2001. It then received a prominent pointer to a story on the community-edited technologies and culture website Kuro5hin on 25 July. Between these relatively rapid influxes of traffic, there had been a steady stream of traffic from other sources, especially Google, which alone sent hundreds of new visitors to the site every day. Its first major mainstream media coverage was in the New York Times on 20 September 2001.\nFinally, there\'s the old Nupedia mailing list, archived on Archive.org, from when Wikipedia launched. It\'s at http://web.archive.org/web/20030425172430/www.nupedia.com/pipermail/nupedia-l/2001-January/thread.html#679. It\'s slow, but worth poking around.\n\nWhat I Learned\n\nListen long enough and you\'ll hear someone pitching a new product in the Wikipedia model. It\'s exceptionally enticing: you get a ton of content and you do not even have to pay your writers. It sounds too good to be true, and when someone points out how pie-eyed your model is, you can point to Wikipedia and say, \"see?\" There are plenty of other businesses which have succeeded using a similar system as well. It, truly, is not ridiculous, even if it sounds that way.\n\nThe problem comes as the story unfolds: First, the entrepreneur is going to do this. Then, he\'s going to do that. Along the way, he\'ll do a bit more of this and a lot more of that and at some point, all this this and that will lead to users, which will lead to content and community, which will lead to Wikipedia For Whatever. It\'s all fine and good, but it\'s not how Wikipedia became Wikipedia. And to make matters worse: that\'s only half of the problem.\n\nWikipedia is a biproduct of Nupedia and, to a lesser extent, the oddly-confusing-named Gnupedia. Nupedia was supposed to be an expert-driven, expert-gated encyclopedia, yes, but more importantly, it was supposed to be a free encyclopedia, in every sense.','Learning from Wikipedia\'s History',0,'','inherit','open','open','','52-revision-4','','','2009-08-24 19:43:35','2009-08-24 19:43:35','',52,'http://dlewis.net/2009/08/24/52-revision-4/',0,'revision','',0),(58,1,'2009-08-24 19:49:10','2009-08-24 19:49:10','It\'s only noon, yet twice today, I\'ve been asked questions about starting up a web business. Both products are very different; one regarding a content play, the other a B2B e-commerce site. Understandably, both were very different questions. But my answer was the same: Read how other websites started, because your assumptions are just wrong.\n\nThat\'s precisely what I\'ve been doing for about two or three years now, but I keep losing the links that I\'ve found. So for my purposes, here they are, memorialized. And for any readers, here you go. All I ask is that you leave your thoughts and links as well -- basically, consider this a collaborative endeavor. And that goes for ANY web company, not just the one(s) I am posting about.\n\nFirst off, Wikipedia.\n\nWhat I Found\n\nIn two parts, are the memoirs of Larry Sanger -- an early pioneer on the Wikipedia project and its predecessor, Nupedia. They\'re at Slashdot, specifically http://features.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/18/164213 and http://features.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/19/1746205, and are the best early-stage sources of information.\n\nWikipedia is, itself, a great source of history, even for itself. These articles are key:\n
The project received many new participants after being mentioned three times on the Slashdot website, with two minor mentions in March 2001. It then received a prominent pointer to a story on the community-edited technologies and culture website Kuro5hin on 25 July. Between these relatively rapid influxes of traffic, there had been a steady stream of traffic from other sources, especially Google, which alone sent hundreds of new visitors to the site every day. Its first major mainstream media coverage was in the New York Times on 20 September 2001.\nFinally, there\'s the old Nupedia mailing list, archived on Archive.org, from when Wikipedia launched. It\'s at http://web.archive.org/web/20030425172430/www.nupedia.com/pipermail/nupedia-l/2001-January/thread.html#679. It\'s slow, but worth poking around.\n\nWhat I Learned\n\nListen long enough and you\'ll hear someone pitching a new product in the Wikipedia model. It\'s exceptionally enticing: you get a ton of content and you do not even have to pay your writers. It sounds too good to be true, and when someone points out how pie-eyed your model is, you can point to Wikipedia and say, \"see?\" There are plenty of other businesses which have succeeded using a similar system as well. It, truly, is not ridiculous, even if it sounds that way.\n\nThe problem comes as the story unfolds: First, the entrepreneur is going to do this. Then, he\'s going to do that. Along the way, he\'ll do a bit more of this and a lot more of that and at some point, all this this and that will lead to users, which will lead to content and community, which will lead to Wikipedia For Whatever. It\'s all fine and good, but it\'s not how Wikipedia became Wikipedia. And to make matters worse: that\'s only half of the problem.\n\nWikipedia is a biproduct of Nupedia and, to a lesser extent, the oddly-confusing-named Gnupedia. Nupedia was supposed to be an expert-driven, expert-gated encyclopedia, yes, but more importantly, it was supposed to be a free encyclopedia, in every sense. Both had a series of accolytes, wi','Learning from Wikipedia\'s History',0,'','inherit','open','open','','52-revision-5','','','2009-08-24 19:49:10','2009-08-24 19:49:10','',52,'http://dlewis.net/2009/08/24/52-revision-5/',0,'revision','',0),(59,1,'2009-08-24 21:13:12','2009-08-24 21:13:12','It\'s only noon, yet twice today, I\'ve been asked questions about starting up a web business. Both products are very different; one regarding a content play, the other a B2B e-commerce site. Understandably, both were very different questions. But my answer was the same: Read how other websites started, because your assumptions are just wrong.\n\nThat\'s precisely what I\'ve been doing for about two or three years now, but I keep losing the links that I\'ve found. So for my purposes, here they are, memorialized. And for any readers, here you go. All I ask is that you leave your thoughts and links as well -- basically, consider this a collaborative endeavor. And that goes for ANY web company, not just the one(s) I am posting about.\n\nFirst off, Wikipedia.\n\nWhat I Found\n\nIn two parts, are the memoirs of Larry Sanger -- an early pioneer on the Wikipedia project and its predecessor, Nupedia. They\'re at Slashdot, specifically http://features.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/18/164213 and http://features.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/19/1746205, and are the best early-stage sources of information.\n\nWikipedia is, itself, a great source of history, even for itself. These articles are key:\n
The project received many new participants after being mentioned three times on the Slashdot website, with two minor mentions in March 2001. It then received a prominent pointer to a story on the community-edited technologies and culture website Kuro5hin on 25 July. Between these relatively rapid influxes of traffic, there had been a steady stream of traffic from other sources, especially Google, which alone sent hundreds of new visitors to the site every day. Its first major mainstream media coverage was in the New York Times on 20 September 2001.\nFinally, there\'s the old Nupedia mailing list, archived on Archive.org, from when Wikipedia launched. It\'s at http://web.archive.org/web/20030425172430/www.nupedia.com/pipermail/nupedia-l/2001-January/thread.html#679. It\'s slow, but worth poking around.\n\nWhat I Learned\n\nListen long enough and you\'ll hear someone pitching a new product in the Wikipedia model. It\'s exceptionally enticing: you get a ton of content and you do not even have to pay your writers. It sounds too good to be true, and when someone points out how pie-eyed your model is, you can point to Wikipedia and say, \"see?\" There are plenty of other businesses which have succeeded using a similar system as well. It, truly, is not ridiculous, even if it sounds that way.\n\nThe problem comes as the story unfolds: First, the entrepreneur is going to do this. Then, he\'s going to do that. Along the way, he\'ll do a bit more of this and a lot more of that and at some point, all this this and that will lead to users, which will lead to content and community, which will lead to Wikipedia For Whatever. It\'s all fine and good, but it\'s not how Wikipedia became Wikipedia. And to make matters worse: that\'s only half of the problem.\n\nWikipedia is a biproduct of Nupedia and, to a lesser extent, the oddly-confusing-named Gnupedia. Nupedia was supposed to be an expert-driven, expert-gated encyclopedia, yes, but more importantly, it was supposed to be a free encyclopedia, in every sense. Both had a series of accolytes, with Nupedia claiming a list of roughly 2,000 people when Wikipedia launched. The lesson: The community came first; the product second.\n\nBut again, that\'s only half the problem. You can exist nicely with a community of 2,000 people, sure -- or even with a small (1%) subset of that if you are tackling a much narrower problem than \"the sum of human knowledge.\" In Wikipedia\'s case, 2,000 subscribers to a mailing list is hardly a dent, let alone an end.','Learning from Wikipedia\'s History',0,'','inherit','open','open','','52-revision-6','','','2009-08-24 21:13:12','2009-08-24 21:13:12','',52,'http://dlewis.net/2009/08/24/52-revision-6/',0,'revision','',0),(110,1,'2009-12-28 04:01:49','2009-12-28 04:01:49','On December 17th -- ten days ago -- I emailed my friend Ashish over at Setfive Consulting with a pretty simple idea: a topical meme tracker, using pre-selected RSS feeds to limit the scope of acceptable articles and bit.ly to weight and further filter the wheat from the chaff. Specifically, as a die-hard New York Mets fan who has a second identity on Twitter, @metstweets, I wanted to be able to tweet out \"hot\" Mets stories. I considered using TweetMeme, but I really didn\'t want some generic article from an out-of-market newspaper, something non-English, spam, or even worse, something entirely unrelated to the \"Mets\" I\'m talking about.\n\n(Also, I wanted to test a model for a startup: a reverse-incubator. But that\'s a story for another day -- probably tomorrow -- so if you\'re interested, subscribe to my RSS feed.)\n\nLimiting the universe of potential sources seemed like the right starting point. So I quickly wrote it up and sent it to Ashish to see if it was a reasonable build. The end result is BitMe.Me, and you\'ll note that the front page has nothing to do with the Mets. The tool itself applies to any vertical, which is why I liked the idea so much, and can be adapted incredibly quickly. When you see how it works, you\'ll see why.\n\nI started with my target vertical -- the Mets. I read enough Mets content to know that there are fewer than 100 key sources, and while I\'m sure there are diamonds out there in other sites, I am willing to forgo them in my meme tracker. Why? Because as the volume of content expands out from beyond the core group, the signal to noise ratio decreases. Also, because the number of sources is relatively small and, in any event, finite, this allowed us to build an index without having to worry about spidering, discovery, etc.','Introducing BitMe.Me',0,'','inherit','open','open','','107-revision-3','','','2009-12-28 04:01:49','2009-12-28 04:01:49','',107,'http://dlewis.net/2009/12/28/107-revision-3/',0,'revision','',0),(109,1,'2009-12-27 18:09:09','2009-12-27 18:09:09','On December 17th -- ten days ago -- I emailed my friend Ashish over at Setfive Consulting with a pretty simple idea: a topical meme tracker, using pre-selected RSS feeds to limit the scope of acceptable articles and bit.ly to weight and further filter the wheat from the chaff. Specifically, as a die-hard New York Mets fan who has a second identity on Twitter, @metstweets, I wanted to be able to tweet out \"hot\" Mets stories. I considered using TweetMeme, but I really didn\'t want some generic article from an out-of-market newspaper, something non-English, spam, or even worse, something entirely unrelated to the \"Mets\" I\'m talking about.\n\n(Also, I wanted to test a model for a startup: a reverse-incubator. But that\'s a story for another day -- probably tomorrow -- so if you\'re interested, subscribe to my RSS feed.)\n\nLimiting the universe of potential sources seemed like the right starting point. So I quickly wrote it up and sent it to Ashish to see if it was a reasonable build. The end result is BitMe.Me, and you\'ll note that the front page has nothing to do with the Mets. The tool itself applies to any vertical, which is why I liked the idea so much, and can be adapted incredibly quickly. When you see how it works, you\'ll see why.\n\nFirst, I started with my target vertical -- the Mets. I read enough Mets content to know that there are fewer than 100 key sources, and while I\'m sure there are diamonds out there in other sites, I am willing to forgo them in my meme tracker. Why? Because as the volume of content expands out from beyond the core group, the signal to noise ratio decreases.\n\nSecond, because the number of sources is so limited,','Introducing BitMe.Me',0,'','inherit','open','open','','107-revision-2','','','2009-12-27 18:09:09','2009-12-27 18:09:09','',107,'http://dlewis.net/2009/12/27/107-revision-2/',0,'revision','',0),(99,1,'2009-12-02 03:04:27','2009-12-02 03:04:27','Rupert Murdoch\'s interest in erecting paywalls around NewsCorp content and removing it from Google\'s index is in the news seemingly daily. And today, it looks like Google made a play to keep the Wall Street Journal and other NewsCorp properties in the index. Mashable reports on the two changes, and the second one has interesting fair use implications:\r\n
Publishers now have the option to tell Google’s spiders to only crawl and index the “preview pages.” This refers to pages that display the first few paragraphs of an article on subscription sites like WSJ.com in order to entice them to pay for a subscription. If a publisher chooses to have spiders crawl their articles in this manner, they will be labeled with “subscription” within Google News.\r\nIf you don\'t know what fair use is, there are four factors that courts look at to see if an otherwise infringing use of one\'s copyright is \"fair\" and therefore non-infringing:\r\n
* * *
\n1) There\'s a scaled-down version of Fenway Park in Vermont, used for Wiffleball games.
\n![\"\"](\"http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Little_Fenway_Park.jpg\" "\\"Little")
It\'s called Little Fenway. I found it via a blog post -- but I can\'t recall which, sorry.
It was built specifically for Wiffleball games, making it doubly cool. And most impressively, the family that built it rents it out for charity games. Little Fenway has raised over $800,000 for various charities in the eight years it\'s been around, including over $230,000 last year alone.
\nAnd yes, you can book Little Fenway for your own use. It\'ll cost you $500, and you can get more information here.
\nNot a Red Sox fan? No problem -- they also have a Little Wrigley, bric
\n2) In Hong Kong, they drive on the left. In China, they drive on the right. The bridge between them is TOTALLY SCARY. \n\nSomeone I follow on Google Reader shared this blog post by Jason Kottke explaining the problem. But really, the picture sums it up:\n![\"\"](\"http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/flipper-bridge1.jpg\" "\\"bridge")
Check out the right (closer) lane. Watch as it dips below its starting point, coming just a few feet above the water (!). Marvel as it passes under the previously left lane, and, effectively, flips itself into being the new left. Gorgeous and horrific at the same time.
\n\n
\n3) Planes sometimes run out of gas, requiring diversion to a nearby airport.\n
\nI met Michael Maney at the ReadWriteWeb Summit last week and have followed him on Twitter since. He shared this tweet from Colleen Swanger, who I don\'t know from Adam (Eve?):
\n\n\n\n\n\nThanks @delta for running out of gas. Now my mother and I are going to miss her mother\'s funeral while stuck at LGA when we should be in BDL
\n
\n\n\n\nSeriously @delta how do you run out of gas 75 miles short of your destination?!? (@ LaGuardia Airport (LGA) w/ 21 others)
\n
\n\nStanding outside LGA with 100 others waiting for a bus to Hartford because a @delta plane ran out of gas. Not kidding. Or they are lying.
\n
You can read more about the flight here. The diversion cost passengers six hours -- which is ridiculous, given the fact that a bus ride from New York (where the plane landed) to Hartford (intended destination) should be about half that. It\'s mind-boggling. How do you miscalculate the amount of fuel so badly that you end up having to land at an airport about 75 miles away?
\n4) Google has a great, nerdy sense of humor.\n\nVia reddit comes this joke, which I\'ll not ruin by further discussing. Just click, think, and laugh.\n\n5) Carrots used to be purple.\n\n\nA friend from college shared this article on Facebook.\n\n4) There\'s a beautiful building in Manhattan, near City Hall, which has been totally abandoned since 1940. (via @antdrosa on Twitter)\n\n![\"\"](\"http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Picture-22.png\" "\\"5")
Five Beerkman Place is a stone\'s throw from New York City Hall. The neighborhood, like any in Manhattan, is a constant bustle, and real estate here is at a constant premium. To find out that there is a large, ornate, and totally vacant building in relatively good repair downtown is nothing short of shocking.\n\nThe original article is here, but it was so popular that the host ran into bandwidth caps, and had to (temporarily, one hopes!) take down the images. Thankfully, New York Magazine recapped it before it went away.\n\n5) You can make any website sound like it\'s a at a World Cup 2010 Stadium. (via Facebook)\n\n\nReally. \n\n6) A baseball player I had high hopes for in 2003 is now a bullpen catcher -- which is how he met his newlywed wife. And their registry is online. (via @jordanzakarin and @howardmegdal)\n\n\nhttp://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/jerrybrewer/2012136666_brewer17.html\n\nhttp://www.bedbathandbeyond.com/regGiftRegistry.asp?wrn=-1220287354&\n\nhttp://sbnation.com/e/1286713\n\n7) The New York City subway system didn\'t know what \"FML\" meant -- but they do now. (via Google Reader)\n\nhttp://secondavenuesagas.com/2010/06/15/an-internet-meme-derails-transits-new-signage/\n\nhttp://secondavenuesagas.com/2010/06/17/from-fml-to-something-mundane/\n\n8) There are more Subway \"restaurants\" than subway stations in Manhattan. \n\nhttp://newyork.grubstreet.com/2010/06/what_are_there_more_of_in_manh.html\n\nFound via @bkabak on Twitter.\n\n10) lil fenway','Ten Things I Learned From Social Media Last Week',0,'','inherit','open','open','','354-revision-12','','','2010-06-18 19:04:23','2010-06-18 19:04:23','',354,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/18/354-revision-12/',0,'revision','',0),(380,1,'2010-06-18 03:35:57','2010-06-18 03:35:57','Last week, I wrote up\n\nIt was well received, and I\'m a feedback junkie, so I\'m considering making this a regular thing. I hope you enjoy this as much as I did. One hint: I shared all of these on Twitter -- so if you want to learn this things as I do, it\'s best to follow me there.\n* * *
\n1) In Hong Kong, they drive on the left. In China, they drive on the right. The bridge between them is TOTALLY SCARY. \n\nSomeone I follow on Google Reader shared this blog post by Jason Kottke explaining the problem. But really, the picture sums it up:\n
Check out the right (closer) lane. Watch as it dips below its starting point, coming just a few feet above the water (!). Marvel as it passes under the previously left lane, and, effectively, flips itself into being the new left. Gorgeous and horrific at the same time.
\nFound Google Reader Shared Items.
\n2) Planes sometimes run out of gas.\n
\nI met Michael Maney at the ReadWriteWeb Summit last week and have followed him on Twitter since. He shared this tweet from Colleen Swanger, who I don\'t know from Adam (Eve?):
\n\n\n\n\n\nThanks @delta for running out of gas. Now my mother and I are going to miss her mother\'s funeral while stuck at LGA when we should be in BDL
\n
\n\n\n\nSeriously @delta how do you run out of gas 75 miles short of your destination?!? (@ LaGuardia Airport (LGA) w/ 21 others)
\n
\n\n3) Carrots used to be purple.\n\n\nhttp://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/04/carrots-used-to-be-purple-before-the-17th-century\n\nShared by a friend on Facebook\n\n4) There\'s a beautiful building in Manhattan, near City Hall, which has been totally abandoned since 1940. (via @antdrosa on Twitter)\n\nFive Beerkman Place is a stone\'s throw from New York City Hall. The neighborhood, like any in Manhattan, is a constant bustle, and real estate here is at a constant premium. To find out that there is a large, ornate, and totally vacant building in relatively good repair downtown is\n\nThe original article is here, but it was so popular that the host ran into bandwidth caps, and had to (temporarily, one hopes!) take down the images. Thankfully, New York Magazine recapped it before it went away.\n\n5) You can make any website sound like it\'s a at a World Cup 2010 Stadium. (via Facebook)\n\n\nReally. \n\n6) A baseball player I had high hopes for in 2003 is now a bullpen catcher -- which is how he met his newlywed wife. And their registry is online. (via @jordanzakarin and @howardmegdal)\n\n\nhttp://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/jerrybrewer/2012136666_brewer17.html\n\nhttp://www.bedbathandbeyond.com/regGiftRegistry.asp?wrn=-1220287354&\n\nhttp://sbnation.com/e/1286713\n\n7) The New York City subway system didn\'t know what \"FML\" meant -- but they do now. (via Google Reader)\n\nhttp://secondavenuesagas.com/2010/06/15/an-internet-meme-derails-transits-new-signage/\n\nhttp://secondavenuesagas.com/2010/06/17/from-fml-to-something-mundane/\n\n8) There are more Subway \"restaurants\" than subway stations in Manhattan. \n\nhttp://newyork.grubstreet.com/2010/06/what_are_there_more_of_in_manh.html\n\nFound via @bkabak on Twitter.','Ten Things I Learned From Social Media Last Week',0,'','inherit','open','open','','354-revision-11','','','2010-06-18 03:35:57','2010-06-18 03:35:57','',354,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/18/354-revision-11/',0,'revision','',0),(107,1,'2009-12-28 20:48:45','2009-12-28 20:48:45','On December 17th -- eleven days ago -- I emailed my friend Ashish over at Setfive Consulting with a pretty simple idea: a topical meme tracker, using pre-selected RSS feeds to limit the scope of acceptable articles and bit.ly to weight and further filter the wheat from the chaff. Specifically, as a die-hard New York Mets fan who has a second identity on Twitter, @metstweets, I wanted to be able to tweet out \"hot\" Mets stories. I considered using TweetMeme, but I really didn\'t want some generic article from an out-of-market newspaper, something non-English, spam, or even worse, something entirely unrelated to the \"Mets\" I\'m talking about.\r\n\r\n(Also, I wanted to test a model for a startup: a reverse-incubator. But that\'s a story for another day -- probably later this week -- so if you\'re interested, subscribe to my RSS feed.)\r\n\r\nLimiting the universe of potential sources seemed like the right starting point. So I quickly wrote it up and sent it to Ashish to see if it was a reasonable build. The end result is BitMe.Me, and you\'ll note that the front page has nothing to do with the Mets. The tool itself applies to any vertical, which is why I liked the idea so much, and can be adapted incredibly quickly. When you see how it works, you\'ll see why.\r\n\r\nWe started with my target vertical -- the Mets. I read enough Mets content to know that there are fewer than 100 key sources, and while I\'m sure there are diamonds out there in other sites, I am willing to forgo them in my meme tracker. Why? Because as the volume of content expands out from beyond the core group, the signal to noise ratio decreases. Also, because the number of sources is relatively small and, in any event, finite, this allowed us to build an index without having to worry about spidering, discovery, etc.\r\n\r\nAshish instinctively expanded it to bigger verticals -- technology, sports, gossip, politics, and news -- and that\'s what you see on the site right now. Yes, there\'s a Mets section as well, but that\'s not the focus of the site. (And we\'re working on a problem which causes MetsBlog content to not register correctly.)\r\n\r\nPretty straight forward. Check it out and let me know what you think in the comments, or by shooting me an email.','Introducing BitMe.Me',0,'','publish','open','open','','introducing-bitmeme','','','2009-12-28 20:49:38','2009-12-28 20:49:38','',0,'http://dlewis.net/?p=107',0,'post','',8),(108,1,'2009-12-27 16:12:30','2009-12-27 16:12:30','On December 17th -- ten days ago -- I emailed my friend Ashish over at Setfive Consulting with a pretty simple idea: a topical meme tracker, using pre-selected RSS feeds to limit the scope of acceptable articles and bit.ly to weight and further filter the wheat from the chaff. Specifically, as a die-hard New York Mets fan who has a second identity on Twitter, @metstweets, I wanted to be able to tweet out \"hot\" Mets stories. I considered using TweetMeme, but I really didn\'t want some generic article from an out-of-market newspaper, something non-English, spam, or even worse, something entirely unrelated to the \"Mets\" I\'m talking about.\n\n(Also, I wanted to test a model for a startup: a reverse-incubator. But that\'s a story for another day -- probably tomorrow -- so if you\'re interested, subscribe to my RSS feed.)\n\nI came up with an idea which I call ex ante curation a while back, and immediately noticed that ex ante curation was the solution to my problem. So I quickly wrote it up and sent it to Ashish to see if it was a reasonable build. The end result is BitMe.Me, and you\'ll note that the front page has nothing to do with the Mets. The tool itself applies to any vertical, which is why I liked the idea so much, and can be adapted incredibly quickly. When you see how it works, you\'ll see why.\n\nFirst, I started with my target vertical -- the Mets. I read enough Mets content to know that there are fewer than 100 key sources, and while I\'m sure there are diamonds out there in other sites, I am willing to forgo them in my meme tracker. Why? Because as the volume of content expands out from beyond the core group, the signal to noise ratio decreases','Introducing BitMe.Me',0,'','inherit','open','open','','107-revision','','','2009-12-27 16:12:30','2009-12-27 16:12:30','',107,'http://dlewis.net/2009/12/27/107-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(97,1,'2009-12-02 03:04:10','2009-12-02 03:04:10','Rupert Murdoch\'s interest in erecting paywalls around NewsCorp content and removing it from Google\'s index is in the news seemingly daily. And today, it looks like Google made a play to keep the Wall Street Journal and other NewsCorp properties in the index. Mashable reports on the two changes, and the second one has interesting fair use implications:\r\nStanding outside LGA with 100 others waiting for a bus to Hartford because a @delta plane ran out of gas. Not kidding. Or they are lying.
\n\nTKTKTKTKTKTKT
\n
Publishers now have the option to tell Google’s spiders to only crawl and index the “preview pages.” This refers to pages that display the first few paragraphs of an article on subscription sites like WSJ.com in order to entice them to pay for a subscription. If a publisher chooses to have spiders crawl their articles in this manner, they will be labeled with “subscription” within Google News.\r\nIf you don\'t know what fair use is, there are four factors that courts look at to see if an otherwise infringing use of one\'s copyright is \"fair\" and therefore non-infringing:\r\n
Publishers now have the option to tell Google’s spiders to only crawl and index the “preview pages.” This refers to pages that display the first few paragraphs of an article on subscription sites like WSJ.com in order to entice them to pay for a subscription. If a publisher chooses to have spiders crawl their articles in this manner, they will be labeled with “subscription” within Google News.\r\nIf you don\'t know what fair use is, there are four factors that courts look at to see if an otherwise infringing use of one\'s copyright is \"fair\" and therefore non-infringing:\r\n
Publishers now have the option to tell Google’s spiders to only crawl and index the “preview pages.” This refers to pages that display the first few paragraphs of an article on subscription sites like WSJ.com in order to entice them to pay for a subscription. If a publisher chooses to have spiders crawl their articles in this manner, they will be labeled with “subscription” within Google News.\nIf you don\'t know what fair use is, there are four factors that courts look at to see if an otherwise infringing use of one\'s copyright is \"fair\" and therefore non-infringing:\n
![\"house_md_ver3\"](\"http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/house_md_ver3-202x300.jpg\" "\\"house_md_ver3\\"")
Two of the shows I watch on Hulu -- House and It\'s Always Sunny in Philadelphia -- hit the website with an 8 day lag from their first television airing. That is, when an episode of House airs on Monday night on FOX, it won\'t be available on Hulu until the day after the next episode airs a week later. The same is true for Sunny, which airs on FOX-owned FX, but on Thursdays.\r\n\r\nI understand why FOX does this. If you are a true fan of either show, you likely won\'t want to be a week behind, and will only use Hulu has a backup (if that; DVRs are better), and the television medium monetizes better than web/Hulu. And the potential audience for a TV show is huge -- just look at well, House itself. It\'s on a major network with a huge marketing budget. It\'s Facebook page claims almost 2.5 million (!) fans. It does really well in the TV ratings game and pulled 16.5 million viewers for this season\'s premier.\r\n\r\nBut the eight day lag, especially in Sunny\'s case, I find two days too long. Why? Because I\'d gladly watch Sunn\r\n\r\n on TV -- if I could only remember to. And I remember to do so every week -- on Friday, when last week\'s episode hits Hulu. So I watch that episode, laugh hysterically, and then consider DVRing next week\'s show. (NB that the FOX-demanded Hulu time shift requires that I, too, time-shift my TV-based consumption; that is, it\'s DVR or nothing as far as TV is concerned.) Then I remember something else -- I\'m a week behind. So, if I DVR next week\'s show, I\'ll have to watch this week\'s next Friday on my computer like I usually do, and ... bleh. So I stay wed to Hulu.\r\n\r\nThe fix? Easy: lag the shows by six or even seven days. On Thursday night at 8 PM, I watch Sunny on Hulu and am caught up. Two hours later, I\'m watching on TV. I log into Hulu next week and see the show there -- a re-run, to me -- and remember, hey, it\'s on again tonight. Use Hulu as an advertisement, and you win. Big.','Eight Days To Show I Care?',0,'','publish','open','open','','eight-days-to-show-i-care','','','2009-10-31 02:57:31','2009-10-31 02:57:31','',0,'http://dlewis.net/?p=67',0,'post','',0),(68,1,'2009-10-28 21:06:44','2009-10-28 21:06:44','Two of the shows I watch on Hulu -- House and It\'s Always Sunny in Philadelphia -- hit the website with an 8 day lag from their first television airing. That is, when an episode of House airs on Monday night on FOX, it won\'t be available on Hulu until the day after the next episode airs a week later. The same is true for Sunny, which airs on FOX-owned FX, but on Thursdays.\n\nI understand why FOX does this. If you are a true fan of either show, you likely won\'t want to be a week behind, and will only use Hulu has a backup (if that; DVRs are better), and the television medium monetizes better than web/Hulu. And for House, that makes sense. It\'s on a major network with a huge marketing budget. It\'s Facebook page claims almost 2.5 million (!) fans. It does really well in the TV ratings game and pulled 16.5 million viewers for this season\'s premier. There is something very valuable there to protect.\n\nBut the eight day lag, especially in Sunny\'s case, I find two days too long. Why? Because I\'d gladly watch Sunny on TV -- if I could only remember to. And I remember to do so every week -- on Friday.\n\nIn other words, by making available on Hulu the (not-so-)new episode the day after the (actually) new episode airs on TV,\n\n\n','What\'s Good for the Doc Isn\'t Good for the Degenerate',0,'','inherit','open','open','','67-revision','','','2009-10-28 21:06:44','2009-10-28 21:06:44','',67,'http://dlewis.net/2009/10/28/67-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(69,1,'2009-10-29 20:56:28','2009-10-29 20:56:28','Two of the shows I watch on Hulu -- House and It\'s Always Sunny in Philadelphia -- hit the website with an 8 day lag from their first television airing. That is, when an episode of House airs on Monday night on FOX, it won\'t be available on Hulu until the day after the next episode airs a week later. The same is true for Sunny, which airs on FOX-owned FX, but on Thursdays.\n\nI understand why FOX does this. If you are a true fan of either show, you likely won\'t want to be a week behind, and will only use Hulu has a backup (if that; DVRs are better), and the television medium monetizes better than web/Hulu. And the potential audience for a TV show is huge -- just look at well, House itself. It\'s on a major network with a huge marketing budget. It\'s Facebook page claims almost 2.5 million (!) fans. It does really well in the TV ratings game and pulled 16.5 million viewers for this season\'s premier.\n\nBut the eight day lag, especially in Sunny\'s case, I find two days too long. Why? Because I\'d gladly watch Sunny on TV -- if I could only remember to. And I remember to do so every week -- on Friday, when last week\'s episode hits Hulu. So I watch that episode, laugh hysterically, and then consider DVRing next week\'s show. (NB that the FOX-demanded time shift requires that I, too, time-shift my consum Then I remember something else -- I\'m a week behind. So, if I DVR next week\'s show, I\'ll have to watch this week\'s next Friday on my computer like I usually do, and ... bleh. So I stay wed to Hulu.\n\n\n','Eight Days To Show I Care?',0,'','inherit','open','open','','67-revision-2','','','2009-10-29 20:56:28','2009-10-29 20:56:28','',67,'http://dlewis.net/2009/10/29/67-revision-2/',0,'revision','',0),(111,1,'2009-12-28 20:47:13','2009-12-28 20:47:13','On December 17th -- ten days ago -- I emailed my friend Ashish over at Setfive Consulting with a pretty simple idea: a topical meme tracker, using pre-selected RSS feeds to limit the scope of acceptable articles and bit.ly to weight and further filter the wheat from the chaff. Specifically, as a die-hard New York Mets fan who has a second identity on Twitter, @metstweets, I wanted to be able to tweet out \"hot\" Mets stories. I considered using TweetMeme, but I really didn\'t want some generic article from an out-of-market newspaper, something non-English, spam, or even worse, something entirely unrelated to the \"Mets\" I\'m talking about.\n\n(Also, I wanted to test a model for a startup: a reverse-incubator. But that\'s a story for another day -- probably later this week -- so if you\'re interested, subscribe to my RSS feed.)\n\nLimiting the universe of potential sources seemed like the right starting point. So I quickly wrote it up and sent it to Ashish to see if it was a reasonable build. The end result is BitMe.Me, and you\'ll note that the front page has nothing to do with the Mets. The tool itself applies to any vertical, which is why I liked the idea so much, and can be adapted incredibly quickly. When you see how it works, you\'ll see why.\n\nWe started with my target vertical -- the Mets. I read enough Mets content to know that there are fewer than 100 key sources, and while I\'m sure there are diamonds out there in other sites, I am willing to forgo them in my meme tracker. Why? Because as the volume of content expands out from beyond the core group, the signal to noise ratio decreases. Also, because the number of sources is relatively small and, in any event, finite, this allowed us to build an index without having to worry about spidering, discovery, etc.\n\nAshish instictively expanded it to bigger verticals -- technology, sports, gossip, politics, and news -- and that\'s what you see on the site right now. Yes, there\'s a Mets section as well, but that\'s not the focus of the site. (And we\'re working on a problem which causes MetsBlog content to not register correctly.)','Introducing BitMe.Me',0,'','inherit','open','open','','107-revision-4','','','2009-12-28 20:47:13','2009-12-28 20:47:13','',107,'http://dlewis.net/2009/12/28/107-revision-4/',0,'revision','',0),(112,1,'2009-12-28 20:48:15','2009-12-28 20:48:15','On December 17th -- ten days ago -- I emailed my friend Ashish over at Setfive Consulting with a pretty simple idea: a topical meme tracker, using pre-selected RSS feeds to limit the scope of acceptable articles and bit.ly to weight and further filter the wheat from the chaff. Specifically, as a die-hard New York Mets fan who has a second identity on Twitter, @metstweets, I wanted to be able to tweet out \"hot\" Mets stories. I considered using TweetMeme, but I really didn\'t want some generic article from an out-of-market newspaper, something non-English, spam, or even worse, something entirely unrelated to the \"Mets\" I\'m talking about.\n\n(Also, I wanted to test a model for a startup: a reverse-incubator. But that\'s a story for another day -- probably later this week -- so if you\'re interested, subscribe to my RSS feed.)\n\nLimiting the universe of potential sources seemed like the right starting point. So I quickly wrote it up and sent it to Ashish to see if it was a reasonable build. The end result is BitMe.Me, and you\'ll note that the front page has nothing to do with the Mets. The tool itself applies to any vertical, which is why I liked the idea so much, and can be adapted incredibly quickly. When you see how it works, you\'ll see why.\n\nWe started with my target vertical -- the Mets. I read enough Mets content to know that there are fewer than 100 key sources, and while I\'m sure there are diamonds out there in other sites, I am willing to forgo them in my meme tracker. Why? Because as the volume of content expands out from beyond the core group, the signal to noise ratio decreases. Also, because the number of sources is relatively small and, in any event, finite, this allowed us to build an index without having to worry about spidering, discovery, etc.\n\nAshish instictively expanded it to bigger verticals -- technology, sports, gossip, politics, and news -- and that\'s what you see on the site right now. Yes, there\'s a Mets section as well, but that\'s not the focus of the site. (And we\'re working on a problem which causes MetsBlog content to not register correctly.)\n\nPretty straight forward. Check it out and let me know what you think in the comments, or by shooting me an email.','Introducing BitMe.Me',0,'','inherit','open','open','','107-revision-5','','','2009-12-28 20:48:15','2009-12-28 20:48:15','',107,'http://dlewis.net/2009/12/28/107-revision-5/',0,'revision','',0),(113,1,'2009-12-28 20:48:41','2009-12-28 20:48:41','On December 17th -- ten days ago -- I emailed my friend Ashish over at Setfive Consulting with a pretty simple idea: a topical meme tracker, using pre-selected RSS feeds to limit the scope of acceptable articles and bit.ly to weight and further filter the wheat from the chaff. Specifically, as a die-hard New York Mets fan who has a second identity on Twitter, @metstweets, I wanted to be able to tweet out \"hot\" Mets stories. I considered using TweetMeme, but I really didn\'t want some generic article from an out-of-market newspaper, something non-English, spam, or even worse, something entirely unrelated to the \"Mets\" I\'m talking about.\r\n\r\n(Also, I wanted to test a model for a startup: a reverse-incubator. But that\'s a story for another day -- probably later this week -- so if you\'re interested, subscribe to my RSS feed.)\r\n\r\nLimiting the universe of potential sources seemed like the right starting point. So I quickly wrote it up and sent it to Ashish to see if it was a reasonable build. The end result is BitMe.Me, and you\'ll note that the front page has nothing to do with the Mets. The tool itself applies to any vertical, which is why I liked the idea so much, and can be adapted incredibly quickly. When you see how it works, you\'ll see why.\r\n\r\nWe started with my target vertical -- the Mets. I read enough Mets content to know that there are fewer than 100 key sources, and while I\'m sure there are diamonds out there in other sites, I am willing to forgo them in my meme tracker. Why? Because as the volume of content expands out from beyond the core group, the signal to noise ratio decreases. Also, because the number of sources is relatively small and, in any event, finite, this allowed us to build an index without having to worry about spidering, discovery, etc.\r\n\r\nAshish instinctively expanded it to bigger verticals -- technology, sports, gossip, politics, and news -- and that\'s what you see on the site right now. Yes, there\'s a Mets section as well, but that\'s not the focus of the site. (And we\'re working on a problem which causes MetsBlog content to not register correctly.)\r\n\r\nPretty straight forward. Check it out and let me know what you think in the comments, or by shooting me an email.','Introducing BitMe.Me',0,'','inherit','open','open','','107-revision-6','','','2009-12-28 20:48:41','2009-12-28 20:48:41','',107,'http://dlewis.net/2009/12/28/107-revision-6/',0,'revision','',0),(114,1,'2009-12-28 20:48:45','2009-12-28 20:48:45','On December 17th -- ten days ago -- I emailed my friend Ashish over at Setfive Consulting with a pretty simple idea: a topical meme tracker, using pre-selected RSS feeds to limit the scope of acceptable articles and bit.ly to weight and further filter the wheat from the chaff. Specifically, as a die-hard New York Mets fan who has a second identity on Twitter, @metstweets, I wanted to be able to tweet out \"hot\" Mets stories. I considered using TweetMeme, but I really didn\'t want some generic article from an out-of-market newspaper, something non-English, spam, or even worse, something entirely unrelated to the \"Mets\" I\'m talking about.\r\n\r\n(Also, I wanted to test a model for a startup: a reverse-incubator. But that\'s a story for another day -- probably later this week -- so if you\'re interested, subscribe to my RSS feed.)\r\n\r\nLimiting the universe of potential sources seemed like the right starting point. So I quickly wrote it up and sent it to Ashish to see if it was a reasonable build. The end result is BitMe.Me, and you\'ll note that the front page has nothing to do with the Mets. The tool itself applies to any vertical, which is why I liked the idea so much, and can be adapted incredibly quickly. When you see how it works, you\'ll see why.\r\n\r\nWe started with my target vertical -- the Mets. I read enough Mets content to know that there are fewer than 100 key sources, and while I\'m sure there are diamonds out there in other sites, I am willing to forgo them in my meme tracker. Why? Because as the volume of content expands out from beyond the core group, the signal to noise ratio decreases. Also, because the number of sources is relatively small and, in any event, finite, this allowed us to build an index without having to worry about spidering, discovery, etc.\r\n\r\nAshish instinctively expanded it to bigger verticals -- technology, sports, gossip, politics, and news -- and that\'s what you see on the site right now. Yes, there\'s a Mets section as well, but that\'s not the focus of the site. (And we\'re working on a problem which causes MetsBlog content to not register correctly.)\r\n\r\nPretty straight forward. Check it out and let me know what you think in the comments, or by shooting me an email.','Introducing BitMe.Me',0,'','inherit','open','open','','107-revision-7','','','2009-12-28 20:48:45','2009-12-28 20:48:45','',107,'http://dlewis.net/2009/12/28/107-revision-7/',0,'revision','',0),(70,1,'2009-10-29 21:11:10','2009-10-29 21:11:10','Two of the shows I watch on Hulu -- House and It\'s Always Sunny in Philadelphia -- hit the website with an 8 day lag from their first television airing. That is, when an episode of House airs on Monday night on FOX, it won\'t be available on Hulu until the day after the next episode airs a week later. The same is true for Sunny, which airs on FOX-owned FX, but on Thursdays.\n\nI understand why FOX does this. If you are a true fan of either show, you likely won\'t want to be a week behind, and will only use Hulu has a backup (if that; DVRs are better), and the television medium monetizes better than web/Hulu. And the potential audience for a TV show is huge -- just look at well, House itself. It\'s on a major network with a huge marketing budget. It\'s Facebook page claims almost 2.5 million (!) fans. It does really well in the TV ratings game and pulled 16.5 million viewers for this season\'s premier.\n\nBut the eight day lag, especially in Sunny\'s case, I find two days too long. Why? Because I\'d gladly watch Sunn\n\n on TV -- if I could only remember to. And I remember to do so every week -- on Friday, when last week\'s episode hits Hulu. So I watch that episode, laugh hysterically, and then consider DVRing next week\'s show. (NB that the FOX-demanded Hulu time shift requires that I, too, time-shift my TV-based consumption; that is, it\'s DVR or nothing as far as TV is concerned.) Then I remember something else -- I\'m a week behind. So, if I DVR next week\'s show, I\'ll have to watch this week\'s next Friday on my computer like I usually do, and ... bleh. So I stay wed to Hulu.\n\nThe fix? Easy: lag the shows by six or even seven days. On Thursday night at 8 PM, I watch Sunny on Hulu and am caught up. Two hours later, I\'m watching on TV','Eight Days To Show I Care?',0,'','inherit','open','open','','67-revision-3','','','2009-10-29 21:11:10','2009-10-29 21:11:10','',67,'http://dlewis.net/2009/10/29/67-revision-3/',0,'revision','',0),(71,1,'2009-10-31 02:56:36','2009-10-31 02:56:36','','house_md_ver3',0,'','inherit','open','open','','house_md_ver3','','','2009-10-31 02:56:36','2009-10-31 02:56:36','',67,'http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/house_md_ver3.jpg',0,'attachment','image/jpeg',0),(72,1,'2009-10-29 21:11:56','2009-10-29 21:11:56','Two of the shows I watch on Hulu -- House and It\'s Always Sunny in Philadelphia -- hit the website with an 8 day lag from their first television airing. That is, when an episode of House airs on Monday night on FOX, it won\'t be available on Hulu until the day after the next episode airs a week later. The same is true for Sunny, which airs on FOX-owned FX, but on Thursdays.\r\n\r\nI understand why FOX does this. If you are a true fan of either show, you likely won\'t want to be a week behind, and will only use Hulu has a backup (if that; DVRs are better), and the television medium monetizes better than web/Hulu. And the potential audience for a TV show is huge -- just look at well, House itself. It\'s on a major network with a huge marketing budget. It\'s Facebook page claims almost 2.5 million (!) fans. It does really well in the TV ratings game and pulled 16.5 million viewers for this season\'s premier.\r\n\r\nBut the eight day lag, especially in Sunny\'s case, I find two days too long. Why? Because I\'d gladly watch Sunn\r\n\r\n on TV -- if I could only remember to. And I remember to do so every week -- on Friday, when last week\'s episode hits Hulu. So I watch that episode, laugh hysterically, and then consider DVRing next week\'s show. (NB that the FOX-demanded Hulu time shift requires that I, too, time-shift my TV-based consumption; that is, it\'s DVR or nothing as far as TV is concerned.) Then I remember something else -- I\'m a week behind. So, if I DVR next week\'s show, I\'ll have to watch this week\'s next Friday on my computer like I usually do, and ... bleh. So I stay wed to Hulu.\r\n\r\nThe fix? Easy: lag the shows by six or even seven days. On Thursday night at 8 PM, I watch Sunny on Hulu and am caught up. Two hours later, I\'m watching on TV. I log into Hulu next week and see the show there -- a re-run, to me -- and remember, hey, it\'s on again tonight. Use Hulu as an advertisement, and you win. Big.','Eight Days To Show I Care?',0,'','inherit','open','open','','67-revision-4','','','2009-10-29 21:11:56','2009-10-29 21:11:56','',67,'http://dlewis.net/2009/10/29/67-revision-4/',0,'revision','',0),(73,1,'2009-10-31 02:58:36','2009-10-31 02:58:36','Two of the shows I watch on Hulu -- House and It\'s Always Sunny in Philadelphia -- hit the website with an 8 day lag from their first television airing. That is, when an episode of House airs on Monday night on FOX, it won\'t be available on Hulu until the day after the next episode airs a week later. The same is true for Sunny, which airs on FOX-owned FX, but on Thursdays.\n\nI understand why FOX does this. If you are a true fan of either show, you likely won\'t want to be a week behind, and will only use Hulu has a backup (if that; DVRs are better), and the television medium monetizes better than web/Hulu. And the potential audience for a TV show is huge -- just look at well, House itself. It\'s on a major network with a huge marketing budget. It\'s Facebook page claims almost 2.5 million (!) fans. It does really well in the TV ratings game and pulled 16.5 million viewers for this season\'s premier.\n\nBut the eight day lag, especially in Sunny\'s case, I find two days too long. Why? Because I\'d gladly watch Sunn\n\n on TV -- if I could only remember to. And I remember to do so every week -- on Friday, when last week\'s episode hits Hulu. So I watch that episode, laugh hysterically, and then consider DVRing next week\'s show. (NB that the FOX-demanded Hulu time shift requires that I, too, time-shift my TV-based consumption; that is, it\'s DVR or nothing as far as TV is concerned.) Then I remember something else -- I\'m a week behind. So, if I DVR next week\'s show, I\'ll have to watch this week\'s next Friday on my computer like I usually do, and ... bleh. So I stay wed to Hulu.\n\nThe fix? Easy: lag the shows by six or even seven days. On Thursday night at 8 PM, I watch Sunny on Hulu and am caught up. Two hours later, I\'m watching on TV. I log into Hulu next week and see the show there -- a re-run, to me -- and remember, hey, it\'s on again tonight. Use Hulu as an advertisement, and you win. Big.','Eight Days To Show I Care?',0,'','inherit','open','open','','67-autosave','','','2009-10-31 02:58:36','2009-10-31 02:58:36','',67,'http://dlewis.net/2009/10/31/67-autosave/',0,'revision','',0),(74,1,'2009-10-31 03:29:56','2009-10-31 03:29:56','The Office is a brilliant TV show, but you probably already knew that.\r\n\r\nBut did you know that there\'s a three-part \"Webisode\" on Hulu? If not, take ten minutes -- actually less, including the ads -- and watch all three, below.\r\n\r\nEpisode 1: Creative Differences (2:10)\r\n\r\n\r\nEpisode 2: The Replacement (2:13)\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nEpisode 3: The Music Video\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nA few questions:\r\n![\"TerribleTerryTate\"](\"http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/TerribleTerryTate-300x225.png\" "\\"TerribleTerryTate\\"")
If the answers to the above skew in the direction the title of this post implies, there is probably a huge opportunity here. Imagine, if you will, if Terry Tate: Office Linebacker debuted today. In 2003, before Hulu and YouTube were here to make online video distribution easy, and before Facebook and Twitter were around to make content spread from friend-to-friend, the flagship video witnessed 7 million views on Reebok\'s website. Last night\'s episode of The Office, by comparison, drew roughly 8.15 million viewers.\r\n\r\nYes, the numbers reek of an apples-to-oranges fallacy; and yes, creating a Terry Tate is hard. You\'d have to hire writers. You\'d have to develop characters. Actors would not just stand there and smile, but deliver lines and interact with each other. Permanent sets would need to be built. The list, I\'m sure, goes on, and again, it\'s not easy.\r\n\r\nBut if you can do it, it\'s invaluable. Imagine how amazing it would be if consumers not only watched your ad, but made a point of watching it -- every single day. And then shared it with a friend.','Are Webisodes the Future of Brand Advertising?',0,'','publish','open','open','','are-webisodes-the-future-of-brand-advertising','','','2009-10-31 03:29:56','2009-10-31 03:29:56','',0,'http://dlewis.net/?p=74',0,'post','',0),(75,1,'2009-10-31 03:26:54','2009-10-31 03:26:54','','TerribleTerryTate',0,'','inherit','open','open','','terribleterrytate','','','2009-10-31 03:26:54','2009-10-31 03:26:54','',74,'http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/TerribleTerryTate.png',0,'attachment','image/png',0),(76,1,'2009-10-31 03:28:47','2009-10-31 03:28:47','The Office is a brilliant TV show, but you probably already knew that.\n\nBut did you know that there\'s a three-part \"Webisode\" on Hulu? If not, take ten minutes -- actually less, including the ads -- and watch all three, below.\n\nEpisode 1: Creative Differences (2:10)\n\n\nEpisode 2: The Replacement (2:13)\n\n\n\nEpisode 3: The Music Video\n\n\n\nA few questions:\nIf the answers to the above skew in the direction the title of this post implies, there is probably a huge opportunity here. Imagine, if you will, if Terry Tate: Office Linebacker debuted today. In 2003, before Hulu and YouTube were here to make online video distribution easy, and before Facebook and Twitter were around to make content spread from friend-to-friend, the flagship video witnessed 7 million views on Reebok\'s website. Last night\'s episode of The Office, by comparison, drew roughly 8.15 million viewers.\n\nYes, the numbers reek of an apples-to-oranges fallacy; and yes, creating a Terry Tate is hard. You\'d have to hire writers. You\'d have to develop characters. Actors would not just stand there and smile, but deliver lines and interact with each other. Permanent sets would need to be built. The list, I\'m sure, goes on, and again, it\'s not easy.\n\nBut if you can do it, it\'s invaluable. Imagine how amazing it would be if consumers not only watched your ad, but shared it with yourbut made a point of watching it -- every single day.','Are Webisodes the Future of Brand Advertising?',0,'','inherit','open','open','','74-revision','','','2009-10-31 03:28:47','2009-10-31 03:28:47','',74,'http://dlewis.net/2009/10/31/74-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(77,1,'2009-10-31 03:29:47','2009-10-31 03:29:47','The Office is a brilliant TV show, but you probably already knew that.\n\nBut did you know that there\'s a three-part \"Webisode\" on Hulu? If not, take ten minutes -- actually less, including the ads -- and watch all three, below.\n\nEpisode 1: Creative Differences (2:10)\n\n\nEpisode 2: The Replacement (2:13)\n\n\n\nEpisode 3: The Music Video\n\n\n\nA few questions:\nIf the answers to the above skew in the direction the title of this post implies, there is probably a huge opportunity here. Imagine, if you will, if Terry Tate: Office Linebacker debuted today. In 2003, before Hulu and YouTube were here to make online video distribution easy, and before Facebook and Twitter were around to make content spread from friend-to-friend, the flagship video witnessed 7 million views on Reebok\'s website. Last night\'s episode of The Office, by comparison, drew roughly 8.15 million viewers.\n\nYes, the numbers reek of an apples-to-oranges fallacy; and yes, creating a Terry Tate is hard. You\'d have to hire writers. You\'d have to develop characters. Actors would not just stand there and smile, but deliver lines and interact with each other. Permanent sets would need to be built. The list, I\'m sure, goes on, and again, it\'s not easy.\n\nBut if you can do it, it\'s invaluable. Imagine how amazing it would be if consumers not only watched your ad, but made a point of watching it -- every single day. And then shared it with a friend.','Are Webisodes the Future of Brand Advertising?',0,'','inherit','open','open','','74-revision-2','','','2009-10-31 03:29:47','2009-10-31 03:29:47','',74,'http://dlewis.net/2009/10/31/74-revision-2/',0,'revision','',0),(78,1,'2009-10-31 03:31:02','2009-10-31 03:31:02','The Office is a brilliant TV show, but you probably already knew that.\n\nBut did you know that there\'s a three-part \"Webisode\" on Hulu? If not, take ten minutes -- actually less, including the ads -- and watch all three, below.\n\nEpisode 1: Creative Differences (2:10)\n\n\nEpisode 2: The Replacement (2:13)\n\n\n\nEpisode 3: The Music Video\n\n\n\nA few questions:\nIf the answers to the above skew in the direction the title of this post implies, there is probably a huge opportunity here. Imagine, if you will, if Terry Tate: Office Linebacker debuted today. In 2003, before Hulu and YouTube were here to make online video distribution easy, and before Facebook and Twitter were around to make content spread from friend-to-friend, the flagship video witnessed 7 million views on Reebok\'s website. Last night\'s episode of The Office, by comparison, drew roughly 8.15 million viewers.\n\nYes, the numbers reek of an apples-to-oranges fallacy; and yes, creating a Terry Tate is hard. You\'d have to hire writers. You\'d have to develop characters. Actors would not just stand there and smile, but deliver lines and interact with each other. Permanent sets would need to be built. The list, I\'m sure, goes on, and again, it\'s not easy.\n\nBut if you can do it, it\'s invaluable. Imagine how amazing it would be if consumers not only watched your ad, but made a point of watching it -- every single day. And then shared it with a friend.','Are Webisodes the Future of Brand Advertising?',0,'','inherit','open','open','','74-autosave','','','2009-10-31 03:31:02','2009-10-31 03:31:02','',74,'http://dlewis.net/2009/10/31/74-autosave/',0,'revision','',0),(385,1,'2010-06-18 19:27:40','2010-06-18 19:27:40','Last week, I wrote up\n\nIt was well received, and I\'m a feedback junkie, so I\'m considering making this a regular thing. I hope you enjoy this as much as I did. One hint: I shared all of these on Twitter -- so if you want to learn this things as I do, it\'s best to follow me there.\n* * *
\n1) There\'s a scaled-down version of Fenway Park in Vermont, used for Wiffleball games.
\nIt\'s called Little Fenway. I found it via a blog post -- but I can\'t recall which, sorry.
It was built specifically for Wiffleball games, making it doubly cool. And most impressively, the family that built it rents it out for charity games. Little Fenway has raised over $800,000 for various charities in the eight years it\'s been around, including over $230,000 last year alone.
\nAnd yes, you can book Little Fenway for your own use. It\'ll cost you $500, and you can get more information here.
\nNot a Red Sox fan? No problem -- they also have a Little Wrigley, brick back fence and all. No ivy, though.
\n2) In Hong Kong, they drive on the left. In China, they drive on the right. The bridge between them is TOTALLY SCARY. \n\nSomeone I follow on Google Reader shared this blog post by Jason Kottke explaining the problem. But really, the picture sums it up:\n
Check out the right (closer) lane. Watch as it dips below its starting point, coming just a few feet above the water (!). Marvel as it passes under the previously left lane, and, effectively, flips itself into being the new left. Gorgeous and horrific at the same time.
\n3) Planes sometimes run out of gas, requiring diversion to a nearby airport.\n
\nI met Michael Maney at the ReadWriteWeb Summit last week and have followed him on Twitter since. He shared this tweet from Colleen Swanger, who I don\'t know from Adam (Eve?):
\n\n\n\n\n\nThanks @delta for running out of gas. Now my mother and I are going to miss her mother\'s funeral while stuck at LGA when we should be in BDL
\n
\n\n\n\nSeriously @delta how do you run out of gas 75 miles short of your destination?!? (@ LaGuardia Airport (LGA) w/ 21 others)
\n
\n\nStanding outside LGA with 100 others waiting for a bus to Hartford because a @delta plane ran out of gas. Not kidding. Or they are lying.
\n
You can read more about the flight here. The diversion cost passengers six hours -- which is ridiculous, given the fact that a bus ride from New York (where the plane landed) to Hartford (intended destination) should be about half that. It\'s mind-boggling. How do you miscalculate the amount of fuel so badly that you end up having to land at an airport about 75 miles away?
\n4) Google has a great, nerdy sense of humor.\n\nVia reddit comes this joke, which I\'ll not ruin by further discussing. Just click, think, and laugh.\n\n5) Carrots used to be purple.\n\n\n![\"\"](\"http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/fivebunch1.jpg\" "\\"Carrots")
A friend from college shared this article on Facebook.\n\nCarrots -- well, orange carrots -- are mutants.\n\nPurple carrots were the norm, but there were some offshoots: yellow and white ones. Over time, somehow, 17th century Dutch carrot growers managed to cultivate these mutant carrots into the orange ones were are familiar with today.\n\nThe purple ones still do exist, but by far are the minority in the world of carrot colo\n\n4) There\'s a beautiful building in Manhattan, near City Hall, which has been totally abandoned since 1940. (via @antdrosa on Twitter)\n\nFive Beerkman Place is a stone\'s throw from New York City Hall. The neighborhood, like any in Manhattan, is a constant bustle, and real estate here is at a constant premium. To find out that there is a large, ornate, and totally vacant building in relatively good repair downtown is nothing short of shocking.\n\nThe original article is here, but it was so popular that the host ran into bandwidth caps, and had to (temporarily, one hopes!) take down the images. Thankfully, New York Magazine recapped it before it went away.\n\n5) You can make any website sound like it\'s a at a World Cup 2010 Stadium. (via Facebook)\n\n\nReally. \n\n6) A baseball player I had high hopes for in 2003 is now a bullpen catcher -- which is how he met his newlywed wife. And their registry is online. (via @jordanzakarin and @howardmegdal)\n\n\nhttp://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/jerrybrewer/2012136666_brewer17.html\n\nhttp://www.bedbathandbeyond.com/regGiftRegistry.asp?wrn=-1220287354&\n\nhttp://sbnation.com/e/1286713\n\n7) The New York City subway system didn\'t know what \"FML\" meant -- but they do now. (via Google Reader)\n\nhttp://secondavenuesagas.com/2010/06/15/an-internet-meme-derails-transits-new-signage/\n\nhttp://secondavenuesagas.com/2010/06/17/from-fml-to-something-mundane/\n\n8) There are more Subway \"restaurants\" than subway stations in Manhattan. \n\nhttp://newyork.grubstreet.com/2010/06/what_are_there_more_of_in_manh.html\n\nFound via @bkabak on Twitter.\n\n10) lil fenway','Ten Things I Learned From Social Media Last Week',0,'','inherit','open','open','','354-revision-13','','','2010-06-18 19:27:40','2010-06-18 19:27:40','',354,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/18/354-revision-13/',0,'revision','',0),(118,1,'2010-02-10 03:12:10','2010-02-10 03:12:10','Here in New York City, we expect snow. A lot of snow. Enough snow, in fact, that as a precaution, the New York City public school system is closed. That\'s very rare, and for a lot of parents -- whose places of work are very much expected to be open, especially -- it is also exceptionally inconvenient. (Not I; my office is closed.)\r\n\r\nLet\'s say you are a parent of a school-aged child or, like me, someone who solely wanted to know if school was canceled tomorrow. Say someone in your office mentioned it in passing and you needed confirmation. One of the many things you could do to get that confirmation is to go to the New York City Department of Education\'s web site, like I did. Here\'s what you\'d see -- click to enlarge, if you\'d like:\r\n\r\n![\"NYC](\"http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Picture-3-300x160.png\" "\\"NYC")
\r\n\r\nYes, it says that there schools are closed. But it does so ineffectively. The language is wrong -- \"Chancellor Klein Announces...\" yawn... -- and there\'s no visual cue telling us that this is important. In both language and aesthetics, the important content blends away from the reader. In this case, that reader was me. Not seeing the one sentence I expected -- \"SCHOOLS ARE CLOSED, WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 10TH. CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION\" -- in bolded red letters, I moved on.\r\n\r\nOn, that is, to the City\'s website.\r\n\r\n![\"City](\"http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Picture-4-300x210.png\" "\\"City")
\r\n\r\nAgain, click to enlarge.\r\n\r\nAnd again, same problem. The announcement blends in with a larger story about snow preparations, replete with a yawn-inducing picture of Mayor Mike behind the podium. No big notice, no clear language. The only thing which catches the eye, at all, is in the upper-right. There\'s a small box, titled \"NYC Right Now,\" and right there is the notice I\'m looking for. Except that it scrolls away a few seconds after the page loads.\r\n\r\nThankfully, I caught it quickly enough, and clicked it -- sending me back to the school board\'s site. So I guess that worked -- somehow.\r\n\r\nOne of the great downfalls of the Internet is that it is very, very easy to publish your message. But failing to deliver the message renders the message moot. Don\'t let the messenger neglect his duties.','It\'s Time To Shoot The Messenger',0,'','publish','open','open','','its-time-to-shoot-the-messenger','','','2010-02-10 03:12:10','2010-02-10 03:12:10','',0,'http://dlewis.net/?p=118',0,'post','',0),(119,1,'2010-02-10 01:52:52','2010-02-10 01:52:52','','NYC Schools Website',0,'','inherit','open','open','','picture-3','','','2010-02-10 01:52:52','2010-02-10 01:52:52','',0,'http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Picture-3.png',0,'attachment','image/png',0),(120,1,'2010-02-10 01:55:52','2010-02-10 01:55:52','','City of New York Website',0,'','inherit','open','open','','picture-4','','','2010-02-10 01:55:52','2010-02-10 01:55:52','',118,'http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Picture-4.png',0,'attachment','image/png',0),(121,1,'2010-02-10 03:11:14','2010-02-10 03:11:14','Here in New York City, we expect snow. A lot of snow. Enough snow, in fact, that as a precaution, the New York City public school system is closed. That\'s very rare, and for a lot of parents -- whose places of work are very much expected to be open, especially -- it is also exceptionally inconvenient. (Not I; my office is closed.)\n\nLet\'s say you are a parent of a school-aged child or, like me, someone who solely wanted to know if school was canceled tomorrow. Say someone in your office mentioned it in passing and you needed confirmation. One of the many things you could do to get that confirmation is to go to the New York City Department of Education\'s web site, like I did. Here\'s what you\'d see -- click to enlarge, if you\'d like:\n\n\n\nYes, it says that there schools are closed. But it does so ineffectively. The language is wrong -- \"Chancellor Klein Announces...\" yawn... -- and there\'s no visual cue telling us that this is important. In both language and aesthetics, the important content blends away from the reader. In this case, that reader was me. Not seeing the one sentence I expected -- \"SCHOOLS ARE CLOSED, WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 10TH. CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION\" -- in bolded red letters, I moved on.\n\nOn, that is, to the City\'s website.\n\n\n\nAgain, click to enlarge.\n\nAnd again, same problem. The announcement blends in with a larger story about snow preparations, replete with a yawn-inducing picture of Mayor Mike behind the podium. No big notice, no clear language. The only thing which catches the eye, at all, is in the upper-right. There\'s a small box, titled \"NYC Right Now,\" and right there is the notice I\'m looking for. Except that it scrolls away a few seconds after the page loads.\n\nThankfully, I caught it quickly enough, and clicked it -- sending me back to the school board\'s site. So I guess that worked -- somehow.\n\nOne of the great downfalls of the Internet is that it is very, very easy to publish your message. But that doesn\'t absolve you from delivering it. Failing to deliver the message rend','It\'s Time To Shoot The Messenger',0,'','inherit','open','open','','118-revision','','','2010-02-10 03:11:14','2010-02-10 03:11:14','',118,'http://dlewis.net/2010/02/10/118-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(81,1,'2009-12-02 03:04:27','2009-12-02 03:04:27','Rupert Murdoch\'s interest in erecting paywalls around NewsCorp content and removing it from Google\'s index is in the news seemingly daily. And today, it looks like Google made a play to keep the Wall Street Journal and other NewsCorp properties in the index. Mashable reports on the two changes, and the second one has interesting fair use implications:\r\nPublishers now have the option to tell Google’s spiders to only crawl and index the “preview pages.” This refers to pages that display the first few paragraphs of an article on subscription sites like WSJ.com in order to entice them to pay for a subscription. If a publisher chooses to have spiders crawl their articles in this manner, they will be labeled with “subscription” within Google News.\r\nIf you don\'t know what fair use is, there are four factors that courts look at to see if an otherwise infringing use of one\'s copyright is \"fair\" and therefore non-infringing:\r\n
[T]he owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:\r\n\r\n[. . .]\r\n\r\n(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.\r\nSee? Illegal, all of it.\r\n\r\nBut of course, we know better. We know that libraries and used book stores exist, lawfully so at that, and (correctly) discount the idea that these institutions have cleared copyright with every single author and publisher whose work appears in their inventory. We also know that no one gets in trouble for passing a book to a friend.\r\n\r\nThat\'s because of the First Sale Doctrine. Originally stemming from a 1908 Supreme Court case and codified at 17 USC 109 in 1976, the First Sale Doctrine, in a nutshell, says that the copyright holder only holds rights of distribution in order to put the product into the stream of commerce. Once the product is lawfully sold once, the right of distribution evaporates. So yes, go ahead and send me copies of books you think I should read.\r\n\r\nBut what about e-books?\r\n\r\nImagine, then, this: You could fire up your laptop or Amazon Kindle and borrow, rent, or buy a used book. Heck, while we\'re at it, a friend could lend of give you a used copy of their book, too.\r\n\r\nRight now? Unlawful. An exception to the First Sale Doctrine may render it irrelevant, and in any event, the digital transaction necessarily involves copying -- thereby impinging on the copyright holder\'s exclusive right at 17 USC 106 (1): \"to reproduce the copyrighted work.\" \r\n\r\nSeems silly, but that\'s the lay of the land.\r\n\r\n\r\nBoth John Battelle and Mike Shatzkin have posts today about e-books, and both touch on this. Shatzkin discusses best practices for e-book publishers to combat piracy while Battelle complains about features his Kindle lacks:\r\n
You can\'t share a Kindle book with anyone else. That\'s just nuts. The sharing of a book is perhaps one of the most intimate and important intellectual acts between humans, ever. I\'m not stuck on whether or not that sharing is physical. I\'m stuck on the inability to share. It\'s a crime.\r\nThe juxtaposition shows the problem. The consumer (Battelle) demands the ability to share (\"It\'s a crime\" that he can\'t!) while the publisher (through the eyes of Shatzkin) is desperately trying to maintain control over the distribution of e-books, with the effect of controlling downstream distribution as well. These goals are irreconcilable, so something has to give.\r\n\r\nWhich brings me to the used book store in the cloud. Say an annual fee -- $50? $100? -- gave you the ability to rent a book directly to your Kindle or other device. The fee could be built into the price of a Kindle; as well as selling the current version for $259 without this service bundled, Amazon could offer it for $200 plus a $100 annual fee and multi-year contract, much like a cellular phone. Either way, one would still be able to purchase -- permanently -- a copy of an e-book whenever they see fit.\r\n\r\nThe books would actually live \"in the cloud\" -- that is, on the publishers\' or distributors\' (Amazon\'s? B&N\'s?), and be pushed to your device as-needed, with some liberal allowances made for things like flying, etc., when wifi and cellular connectivity is lacking. Copying the file could be made difficult, especially if the service were limited to e-readers such as the Kindle. You could have a certain mumber of rented books on your device at a time, say three, but maybe fewer. And while your friend could not just give you a book he or she purchased, they could definitely recommend them to you via some sort of social network-like interface. But each of these digital copies would exist in a finite space, as determined by the publisher and policed by the distributor. Quite literally, we\'d be applying the First Sale Doctrine to e-books as much as possible by re-introducing scarcity to (e-)books.\r\n\r\nFor Battelle, this would allow him, effectively, to share books with friends, so long as his friend was part of the renting ecosystem. As the annual fee would be easily incorporated into the Kindle\'s price, this would be even more palatable. Further, I bet that one of his other gripes -- that you can\'t put the actual, physical book on your shelf -- would be mitigated as the marginal cost to acquire the book would be offset in kind.\r\n\r\nFor Shatzkin and publishers, this would massively reduce the incentive to \"pirate\" e-books, especially among those consumers who would be likely to purchase books if otherwise available for a rental/browse/borrow discount. It would certainly cut into the number of sales of e-books, but because of the lack of permancy, not into the sale of paper-and-ink books. It probably is a net negative compared to the revenue stream provided by a world without e-books at all, but that universe is gone and not coming back.\r\n\r\nThe irony? While the publishing world looks toward saving the present structure, they\'re doing so by ignoring the First Sale Doctrine -- a common-sense point of law in both contexts. Adopting a First Sale Dotrine for e-books would be a huge step toward meeting everyone\'s needs.','The Used Book Store in the Cloud',0,'','publish','open','open','','the-used-book-store-in-the-cloud','','\nhttp://www.idealog.com/blog/fighting-piracy-our-3-point-program','2009-11-30 16:50:49','2009-11-30 16:50:49','',0,'http://dlewis.net/?p=84',0,'post','',27),(85,1,'2009-11-30 16:41:04','2009-11-30 16:41:04','Imagine this: You could walk into a building and borrow, rent, or buy used books. We could call these buildings \"libraries\" or \"used book stores\". Heck, while we\'re at it, let\'s also imagine people giving books that they\'ve just finished to their friends.\n\nIf you look at the copyright law -- 17 U.S.C. 106 -- you may be surprised to see that the law explicitly says that these transactions cannot occur, at least without permission of the copyright holder. Really:\n
[T]he owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:\n\n[. . .]\n\nSee? Illegal, all of it.\n\nBut of course, we know better. We know that libraries and used book stores exist, lawfully so at that, and (correctly) discount the idea that these institutions have cleared copyright with every single author and publisher whose work appears in their inventory. We also know that no one gets in trouble for passing a book to a friend.\n\nThat\'s because of the First Sale Doctrine. Originally stemming from a 1908 Supreme Court case and codified at 17 USC 109 in 1976, the First Sale Doctrine, in a nutshell, says that the copyright holder only holds rights of distribution in order to put the product into the stream of commerce. Once the product is lawfully sold once, the right of distribution evaporates. So yes, go ahead and send me copies of books you think I should read.\n\nBut what about e-books?\n\nImagine, then, this: You could fire up your laptop or Amazon Kindle and borrow, rent, or buy a used book. Heck, while we\'re at it, a friend could lend of give you a used copy of their book, too.\n\nRight now? Unlawful. An exception to the First Sale Doctrine may render it irrelevant, and in any event, the digital transaction necessarily involves copying -- thereby impinging on the copyright holder\'s exclusive right at 17 USC 106 (1): \"to reproduce the copyrighted work.\" \n\nSeems silly, but that\'s the lay of the land.\n\n\nBoth John Battelle and Mike Shatzkin have posts today about e-books, and both touch on this. Shatzkin discusses best practices for e-book publishers to combat piracy while Battelle complains about features his Kindle lacs:\n(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.
You can\'t share a Kindle book with anyone else. That\'s just nuts. The sharing of a book is perhaps one of the most intimate and important intellectual acts between humans, ever. I\'m not stuck on whether or not that sharing is physical. I\'m stuck on the inability to share. It\'s a crime.\nThe juxtoposition shows the problem. The consumer (Battelle) demands the ability to share (\"It\'s a crime\" that he can\'t!) while the publisher (through the eyes of Shatzkin) is desperately trying to maintain control over the distribution of e-books, with the effect of controlling downstream distribution as well. These goals are irreconcilable, so something has to give.\n\nWhich brings me to the used book store in the cloud. Say an annual fee -- $50? $100? -- gave you the ability to rent a book directly to your Kindle or other device. The fee could be built into the price of a Kindle; as well as selling the current version for $259 without this service bundled, Amazon could offer it for $200 plus a $100 annual fee and multi-year contract, much like a cellular phone. Either way, one would still be able to purchase -- permanently -- a copy of an e-book whenever they see fit.\n\nThe books would actually live \"in the cloud\" -- that is, on the publishers\' or distributors\' (Amazon\'s? B&N\'s?), and be pushed to your device as-needed, with some liberal allowances made for things like flying, etc., when wifi and cellular connectivity is lacking. Copying the file could be made difficult, especially if the service were limited to e-readers such as the Kindle. You could have a certain mumber of rented books on your device at a time, say three, but maybe fewer. And while your friend could not just give you a book he or she purchased, they could definitely recommend them to you via some sort of social network-like interface. But each of these digital copies would exist in a finite space, as deteremined by the publisher and policed by the distributor. Quite literally, we\'d be applying the First Sale Doctrine to e-books as much as possible by re-introducing scarcity to books.\n\nFor Battelle, this would allow him, effectively, to share books with friends, so long as his friend was part of the renting ecosystem. As the annual fee would be easily incorporated into the Kindle\'s price, this would be even more palatable. Further, I bet that one of his other gripes -- that you can\'t put the actual, physical book on your shelf -- would be mitigated as the marginal cost to acquire the book would be offset in kind.\n\nFor Shatzkin and publishers, this would massively reduce the incentive to \"pirate\" e-books, especially among those consumers who would be likely to purchase books if otherwise available for a rental/browse/borrow discount. It would certainly cut into the number of sales of e-books, but because of the lack of permancy, not into the sale of paper-and-ink books. It probably is a net negative compared to the revenue stream provided by a world without e-books at all, but that universe is gone and not coming back.\n\nThe irony? While the publishing world looks toward saving the present structure, they\'re doing so by ignoring the First Sale Doctrine -- a common-sense point of law in both contexts. Adopting a First Sale Dotrine for e-books would be a huge step toward meeting everyone\'s needs.','The Used Book Store in the Cloud',0,'','inherit','open','open','','84-revision','','','2009-11-30 16:41:04','2009-11-30 16:41:04','',84,'http://dlewis.net/2009/11/30/84-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(86,1,'2009-11-30 16:41:16','2009-11-30 16:41:16','Imagine this: You could walk into a building and borrow, rent, or buy used books. We could call these buildings \"libraries\" or \"used book stores\". Heck, while we\'re at it, let\'s also imagine people giving books that they\'ve just finished to their friends.\r\n\r\nIf you look at the copyright law -- 17 U.S.C. 106 -- you may be surprised to see that the law explicitly says that these transactions cannot occur, at least without permission of the copyright holder. Really:\r\n
[T]he owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:\r\n\r\n[. . .]\r\n\r\nSee? Illegal, all of it.\r\n\r\nBut of course, we know better. We know that libraries and used book stores exist, lawfully so at that, and (correctly) discount the idea that these institutions have cleared copyright with every single author and publisher whose work appears in their inventory. We also know that no one gets in trouble for passing a book to a friend.\r\n\r\nThat\'s because of the First Sale Doctrine. Originally stemming from a 1908 Supreme Court case and codified at 17 USC 109 in 1976, the First Sale Doctrine, in a nutshell, says that the copyright holder only holds rights of distribution in order to put the product into the stream of commerce. Once the product is lawfully sold once, the right of distribution evaporates. So yes, go ahead and send me copies of books you think I should read.\r\n\r\nBut what about e-books?\r\n\r\nImagine, then, this: You could fire up your laptop or Amazon Kindle and borrow, rent, or buy a used book. Heck, while we\'re at it, a friend could lend of give you a used copy of their book, too.\r\n\r\nRight now? Unlawful. An exception to the First Sale Doctrine may render it irrelevant, and in any event, the digital transaction necessarily involves copying -- thereby impinging on the copyright holder\'s exclusive right at 17 USC 106 (1): \"to reproduce the copyrighted work.\" \r\n\r\nSeems silly, but that\'s the lay of the land.\r\n\r\n\r\nBoth John Battelle and Mike Shatzkin have posts today about e-books, and both touch on this. Shatzkin discusses best practices for e-book publishers to combat piracy while Battelle complains about features his Kindle lacs:\r\n(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.
You can\'t share a Kindle book with anyone else. That\'s just nuts. The sharing of a book is perhaps one of the most intimate and important intellectual acts between humans, ever. I\'m not stuck on whether or not that sharing is physical. I\'m stuck on the inability to share. It\'s a crime.\r\nThe juxtoposition shows the problem. The consumer (Battelle) demands the ability to share (\"It\'s a crime\" that he can\'t!) while the publisher (through the eyes of Shatzkin) is desperately trying to maintain control over the distribution of e-books, with the effect of controlling downstream distribution as well. These goals are irreconcilable, so something has to give.\r\n\r\nWhich brings me to the used book store in the cloud. Say an annual fee -- $50? $100? -- gave you the ability to rent a book directly to your Kindle or other device. The fee could be built into the price of a Kindle; as well as selling the current version for $259 without this service bundled, Amazon could offer it for $200 plus a $100 annual fee and multi-year contract, much like a cellular phone. Either way, one would still be able to purchase -- permanently -- a copy of an e-book whenever they see fit.\r\n\r\nThe books would actually live \"in the cloud\" -- that is, on the publishers\' or distributors\' (Amazon\'s? B&N\'s?), and be pushed to your device as-needed, with some liberal allowances made for things like flying, etc., when wifi and cellular connectivity is lacking. Copying the file could be made difficult, especially if the service were limited to e-readers such as the Kindle. You could have a certain mumber of rented books on your device at a time, say three, but maybe fewer. And while your friend could not just give you a book he or she purchased, they could definitely recommend them to you via some sort of social network-like interface. But each of these digital copies would exist in a finite space, as deteremined by the publisher and policed by the distributor. Quite literally, we\'d be applying the First Sale Doctrine to e-books as much as possible by re-introducing scarcity to (e-)books.\r\n\r\nFor Battelle, this would allow him, effectively, to share books with friends, so long as his friend was part of the renting ecosystem. As the annual fee would be easily incorporated into the Kindle\'s price, this would be even more palatable. Further, I bet that one of his other gripes -- that you can\'t put the actual, physical book on your shelf -- would be mitigated as the marginal cost to acquire the book would be offset in kind.\r\n\r\nFor Shatzkin and publishers, this would massively reduce the incentive to \"pirate\" e-books, especially among those consumers who would be likely to purchase books if otherwise available for a rental/browse/borrow discount. It would certainly cut into the number of sales of e-books, but because of the lack of permancy, not into the sale of paper-and-ink books. It probably is a net negative compared to the revenue stream provided by a world without e-books at all, but that universe is gone and not coming back.\r\n\r\nThe irony? While the publishing world looks toward saving the present structure, they\'re doing so by ignoring the First Sale Doctrine -- a common-sense point of law in both contexts. Adopting a First Sale Dotrine for e-books would be a huge step toward meeting everyone\'s needs.','The Used Book Store in the Cloud',0,'','inherit','open','open','','84-revision-2','','','2009-11-30 16:41:16','2009-11-30 16:41:16','',84,'http://dlewis.net/2009/11/30/84-revision-2/',0,'revision','',0),(87,1,'2009-11-30 16:42:04','2009-11-30 16:42:04','Imagine this: You could walk into a building and borrow, rent, or buy used books. We could call these buildings \"libraries\" or \"used book stores\". Heck, while we\'re at it, let\'s also imagine people giving books that they\'ve just finished to their friends.\r\n\r\nIf you look at the copyright law -- 17 U.S.C. 106 -- you may be surprised to see that the law explicitly says that these transactions cannot occur, at least without permission of the copyright holder. Really:\r\n
[T]he owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:\r\n\r\n[. . .]\r\n\r\n(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.\r\nSee? Illegal, all of it.\r\n\r\nBut of course, we know better. We know that libraries and used book stores exist, lawfully so at that, and (correctly) discount the idea that these institutions have cleared copyright with every single author and publisher whose work appears in their inventory. We also know that no one gets in trouble for passing a book to a friend.\r\n\r\nThat\'s because of the First Sale Doctrine. Originally stemming from a 1908 Supreme Court case and codified at 17 USC 109 in 1976, the First Sale Doctrine, in a nutshell, says that the copyright holder only holds rights of distribution in order to put the product into the stream of commerce. Once the product is lawfully sold once, the right of distribution evaporates. So yes, go ahead and send me copies of books you think I should read.\r\n\r\nBut what about e-books?\r\n\r\nImagine, then, this: You could fire up your laptop or Amazon Kindle and borrow, rent, or buy a used book. Heck, while we\'re at it, a friend could lend of give you a used copy of their book, too.\r\n\r\nRight now? Unlawful. An exception to the First Sale Doctrine may render it irrelevant, and in any event, the digital transaction necessarily involves copying -- thereby impinging on the copyright holder\'s exclusive right at 17 USC 106 (1): \"to reproduce the copyrighted work.\" \r\n\r\nSeems silly, but that\'s the lay of the land.\r\n\r\n\r\nBoth John Battelle and Mike Shatzkin have posts today about e-books, and both touch on this. Shatzkin discusses best practices for e-book publishers to combat piracy while Battelle complains about features his Kindle lacs:\r\n
You can\'t share a Kindle book with anyone else. That\'s just nuts. The sharing of a book is perhaps one of the most intimate and important intellectual acts between humans, ever. I\'m not stuck on whether or not that sharing is physical. I\'m stuck on the inability to share. It\'s a crime.\r\nThe juxtoposition shows the problem. The consumer (Battelle) demands the ability to share (\"It\'s a crime\" that he can\'t!) while the publisher (through the eyes of Shatzkin) is desperately trying to maintain control over the distribution of e-books, with the effect of controlling downstream distribution as well. These goals are irreconcilable, so something has to give.\r\n\r\nWhich brings me to the used book store in the cloud. Say an annual fee -- $50? $100? -- gave you the ability to rent a book directly to your Kindle or other device. The fee could be built into the price of a Kindle; as well as selling the current version for $259 without this service bundled, Amazon could offer it for $200 plus a $100 annual fee and multi-year contract, much like a cellular phone. Either way, one would still be able to purchase -- permanently -- a copy of an e-book whenever they see fit.\r\n\r\nThe books would actually live \"in the cloud\" -- that is, on the publishers\' or distributors\' (Amazon\'s? B&N\'s?), and be pushed to your device as-needed, with some liberal allowances made for things like flying, etc., when wifi and cellular connectivity is lacking. Copying the file could be made difficult, especially if the service were limited to e-readers such as the Kindle. You could have a certain mumber of rented books on your device at a time, say three, but maybe fewer. And while your friend could not just give you a book he or she purchased, they could definitely recommend them to you via some sort of social network-like interface. But each of these digital copies would exist in a finite space, as deteremined by the publisher and policed by the distributor. Quite literally, we\'d be applying the First Sale Doctrine to e-books as much as possible by re-introducing scarcity to (e-)books.\r\n\r\nFor Battelle, this would allow him, effectively, to share books with friends, so long as his friend was part of the renting ecosystem. As the annual fee would be easily incorporated into the Kindle\'s price, this would be even more palatable. Further, I bet that one of his other gripes -- that you can\'t put the actual, physical book on your shelf -- would be mitigated as the marginal cost to acquire the book would be offset in kind.\r\n\r\nFor Shatzkin and publishers, this would massively reduce the incentive to \"pirate\" e-books, especially among those consumers who would be likely to purchase books if otherwise available for a rental/browse/borrow discount. It would certainly cut into the number of sales of e-books, but because of the lack of permancy, not into the sale of paper-and-ink books. It probably is a net negative compared to the revenue stream provided by a world without e-books at all, but that universe is gone and not coming back.\r\n\r\nThe irony? While the publishing world looks toward saving the present structure, they\'re doing so by ignoring the First Sale Doctrine -- a common-sense point of law in both contexts. Adopting a First Sale Dotrine for e-books would be a huge step toward meeting everyone\'s needs.','The Used Book Store in the Cloud',0,'','inherit','open','open','','84-revision-3','','','2009-11-30 16:42:04','2009-11-30 16:42:04','',84,'http://dlewis.net/2009/11/30/84-revision-3/',0,'revision','',0),(88,1,'2009-11-30 16:42:41','2009-11-30 16:42:41','Imagine this: You could walk into a building and borrow, rent, or buy used books. We could call these buildings \"libraries\" or \"used book stores\". Heck, while we\'re at it, let\'s also imagine people giving books that they\'ve just finished to their friends.\r\n\r\nIf you look at the copyright law -- 17 U.S.C. 106 -- you may be surprised to see that the law explicitly says that these transactions cannot occur, at least without permission of the copyright holder. Really:\r\n
[T]he owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:\r\n\r\n[. . .]\r\n\r\n(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.\r\nSee? Illegal, all of it.\r\n\r\nBut of course, we know better. We know that libraries and used book stores exist, lawfully so at that, and (correctly) discount the idea that these institutions have cleared copyright with every single author and publisher whose work appears in their inventory. We also know that no one gets in trouble for passing a book to a friend.\r\n\r\nThat\'s because of the First Sale Doctrine. Originally stemming from a 1908 Supreme Court case and codified at 17 USC 109 in 1976, the First Sale Doctrine, in a nutshell, says that the copyright holder only holds rights of distribution in order to put the product into the stream of commerce. Once the product is lawfully sold once, the right of distribution evaporates. So yes, go ahead and send me copies of books you think I should read.\r\n\r\nBut what about e-books?\r\n\r\nImagine, then, this: You could fire up your laptop or Amazon Kindle and borrow, rent, or buy a used book. Heck, while we\'re at it, a friend could lend of give you a used copy of their book, too.\r\n\r\nRight now? Unlawful. An exception to the First Sale Doctrine may render it irrelevant, and in any event, the digital transaction necessarily involves copying -- thereby impinging on the copyright holder\'s exclusive right at 17 USC 106 (1): \"to reproduce the copyrighted work.\" \r\n\r\nSeems silly, but that\'s the lay of the land.\r\n\r\n\r\nBoth John Battelle and Mike Shatzkin have posts today about e-books, and both touch on this. Shatzkin discusses best practices for e-book publishers to combat piracy while Battelle complains about features his Kindle lacs:\r\n
You can\'t share a Kindle book with anyone else. That\'s just nuts. The sharing of a book is perhaps one of the most intimate and important intellectual acts between humans, ever. I\'m not stuck on whether or not that sharing is physical. I\'m stuck on the inability to share. It\'s a crime.\r\nThe juxtoposition shows the problem. The consumer (Battelle) demands the ability to share (\"It\'s a crime\" that he can\'t!) while the publisher (through the eyes of Shatzkin) is desperately trying to maintain control over the distribution of e-books, with the effect of controlling downstream distribution as well. These goals are irreconcilable, so something has to give.\r\n\r\nWhich brings me to the used book store in the cloud. Say an annual fee -- $50? $100? -- gave you the ability to rent a book directly to your Kindle or other device. The fee could be built into the price of a Kindle; as well as selling the current version for $259 without this service bundled, Amazon could offer it for $200 plus a $100 annual fee and multi-year contract, much like a cellular phone. Either way, one would still be able to purchase -- permanently -- a copy of an e-book whenever they see fit.\r\n\r\nThe books would actually live \"in the cloud\" -- that is, on the publishers\' or distributors\' (Amazon\'s? B&N\'s?), and be pushed to your device as-needed, with some liberal allowances made for things like flying, etc., when wifi and cellular connectivity is lacking. Copying the file could be made difficult, especially if the service were limited to e-readers such as the Kindle. You could have a certain mumber of rented books on your device at a time, say three, but maybe fewer. And while your friend could not just give you a book he or she purchased, they could definitely recommend them to you via some sort of social network-like interface. But each of these digital copies would exist in a finite space, as deteremined by the publisher and policed by the distributor. Quite literally, we\'d be applying the First Sale Doctrine to e-books as much as possible by re-introducing scarcity to (e-)books.\r\n\r\nFor Battelle, this would allow him, effectively, to share books with friends, so long as his friend was part of the renting ecosystem. As the annual fee would be easily incorporated into the Kindle\'s price, this would be even more palatable. Further, I bet that one of his other gripes -- that you can\'t put the actual, physical book on your shelf -- would be mitigated as the marginal cost to acquire the book would be offset in kind.\r\n\r\nFor Shatzkin and publishers, this would massively reduce the incentive to \"pirate\" e-books, especially among those consumers who would be likely to purchase books if otherwise available for a rental/browse/borrow discount. It would certainly cut into the number of sales of e-books, but because of the lack of permancy, not into the sale of paper-and-ink books. It probably is a net negative compared to the revenue stream provided by a world without e-books at all, but that universe is gone and not coming back.\r\n\r\nThe irony? While the publishing world looks toward saving the present structure, they\'re doing so by ignoring the First Sale Doctrine -- a common-sense point of law in both contexts. Adopting a First Sale Dotrine for e-books would be a huge step toward meeting everyone\'s needs.','The Used Book Store in the Cloud',0,'','inherit','open','open','','84-revision-4','','','2009-11-30 16:42:41','2009-11-30 16:42:41','',84,'http://dlewis.net/2009/11/30/84-revision-4/',0,'revision','',0),(89,1,'2009-11-30 16:51:55','2009-11-30 16:51:55','Imagine this: You could walk into a building and borrow, rent, or buy used books. We could call these buildings \"libraries\" or \"used book stores\". Heck, while we\'re at it, let\'s also imagine people giving books that they\'ve just finished to their friends.\n\nIf you look at the copyright law -- 17 U.S.C. 106 -- you may be surprised to see that the law explicitly says that these transactions cannot occur, at least without permission of the copyright holder. Really:\n
[T]he owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:\n\n[. . .]\n\n(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.\nSee? Illegal, all of it.\n\nBut of course, we know better. We know that libraries and used book stores exist, lawfully so at that, and (correctly) discount the idea that these institutions have cleared copyright with every single author and publisher whose work appears in their inventory. We also know that no one gets in trouble for passing a book to a friend.\n\nThat\'s because of the First Sale Doctrine. Originally stemming from a 1908 Supreme Court case and codified at 17 USC 109 in 1976, the First Sale Doctrine, in a nutshell, says that the copyright holder only holds rights of distribution in order to put the product into the stream of commerce. Once the product is lawfully sold once, the right of distribution evaporates. So yes, go ahead and send me copies of books you think I should read.\n\nBut what about e-books?\n\nImagine, then, this: You could fire up your laptop or Amazon Kindle and borrow, rent, or buy a used book. Heck, while we\'re at it, a friend could lend of give you a used copy of their book, too.\n\nRight now? Unlawful. An exception to the First Sale Doctrine may render it irrelevant, and in any event, the digital transaction necessarily involves copying -- thereby impinging on the copyright holder\'s exclusive right at 17 USC 106 (1): \"to reproduce the copyrighted work.\" \n\nSeems silly, but that\'s the lay of the land.\n\n\nBoth John Battelle and Mike Shatzkin have posts today about e-books, and both touch on this. Shatzkin discusses best practices for e-book publishers to combat piracy while Battelle complains about features his Kindle lacks:\n
You can\'t share a Kindle book with anyone else. That\'s just nuts. The sharing of a book is perhaps one of the most intimate and important intellectual acts between humans, ever. I\'m not stuck on whether or not that sharing is physical. I\'m stuck on the inability to share. It\'s a crime.\nThe juxtaposition shows the problem. The consumer (Battelle) demands the ability to share (\"It\'s a crime\" that he can\'t!) while the publisher (through the eyes of Shatzkin) is desperately trying to maintain control over the distribution of e-books, with the effect of controlling downstream distribution as well. These goals are irreconcilable, so something has to give.\n\nWhich brings me to the used book store in the cloud. Say an annual fee -- $50? $100? -- gave you the ability to rent a book directly to your Kindle or other device. The fee could be built into the price of a Kindle; as well as selling the current version for $259 without this service bundled, Amazon could offer it for $200 plus a $100 annual fee and multi-year contract, much like a cellular phone. Either way, one would still be able to purchase -- permanently -- a copy of an e-book whenever they see fit.\n\nThe books would actually live \"in the cloud\" -- that is, on the publishers\' or distributors\' (Amazon\'s? B&N\'s?), and be pushed to your device as-needed, with some liberal allowances made for things like flying, etc., when wifi and cellular connectivity is lacking. Copying the file could be made difficult, especially if the service were limited to e-readers such as the Kindle. You could have a certain mumber of rented books on your device at a time, say three, but maybe fewer. And while your friend could not just give you a book he or she purchased, they could definitely recommend them to you via some sort of social network-like interface. But each of these digital copies would exist in a finite space, as determined by the publisher and policed by the distributor. Quite literally, we\'d be applying the First Sale Doctrine to e-books as much as possible by re-introducing scarcity to (e-)books.\n\nFor Battelle, this would allow him, effectively, to share books with friends, so long as his friend was part of the renting ecosystem. As the annual fee would be easily incorporated into the Kindle\'s price, this would be even more palatable. Further, I bet that one of his other gripes -- that you can\'t put the actual, physical book on your shelf -- would be mitigated as the marginal cost to acquire the book would be offset in kind.\n\nFor Shatzkin and publishers, this would massively reduce the incentive to \"pirate\" e-books, especially among those consumers who would be likely to purchase books if otherwise available for a rental/browse/borrow discount. It would certainly cut into the number of sales of e-books, but because of the lack of permancy, not into the sale of paper-and-ink books. It probably is a net negative compared to the revenue stream provided by a world without e-books at all, but that universe is gone and not coming back.\n\nThe irony? While the publishing world looks toward saving the present structure, they\'re doing so by ignoring the First Sale Doctrine -- a common-sense point of law in both contexts. Adopting a First Sale Dotrine for e-books would be a huge step toward meeting everyone\'s needs.','The Used Book Store in the Cloud',0,'','inherit','open','open','','84-autosave','','','2009-11-30 16:51:55','2009-11-30 16:51:55','',84,'http://dlewis.net/2009/11/30/84-autosave/',0,'revision','',0),(90,1,'2009-11-30 16:44:36','2009-11-30 16:44:36','Imagine this: You could walk into a building and borrow, rent, or buy used books. We could call these buildings \"libraries\" or \"used book stores\". Heck, while we\'re at it, let\'s also imagine people giving books that they\'ve just finished to their friends.\r\n\r\nIf you look at the copyright law -- 17 U.S.C. 106 -- you may be surprised to see that the law explicitly says that these transactions cannot occur, at least without permission of the copyright holder. Really:\r\n
[T]he owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:\r\n\r\n[. . .]\r\n\r\n(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending.\r\nSee? Illegal, all of it.\r\n\r\nBut of course, we know better. We know that libraries and used book stores exist, lawfully so at that, and (correctly) discount the idea that these institutions have cleared copyright with every single author and publisher whose work appears in their inventory. We also know that no one gets in trouble for passing a book to a friend.\r\n\r\nThat\'s because of the First Sale Doctrine. Originally stemming from a 1908 Supreme Court case and codified at 17 USC 109 in 1976, the First Sale Doctrine, in a nutshell, says that the copyright holder only holds rights of distribution in order to put the product into the stream of commerce. Once the product is lawfully sold once, the right of distribution evaporates. So yes, go ahead and send me copies of books you think I should read.\r\n\r\nBut what about e-books?\r\n\r\nImagine, then, this: You could fire up your laptop or Amazon Kindle and borrow, rent, or buy a used book. Heck, while we\'re at it, a friend could lend of give you a used copy of their book, too.\r\n\r\nRight now? Unlawful. An exception to the First Sale Doctrine may render it irrelevant, and in any event, the digital transaction necessarily involves copying -- thereby impinging on the copyright holder\'s exclusive right at 17 USC 106 (1): \"to reproduce the copyrighted work.\" \r\n\r\nSeems silly, but that\'s the lay of the land.\r\n\r\n\r\nBoth John Battelle and Mike Shatzkin have posts today about e-books, and both touch on this. Shatzkin discusses best practices for e-book publishers to combat piracy while Battelle complains about features his Kindle lacks:\r\n
You can\'t share a Kindle book with anyone else. That\'s just nuts. The sharing of a book is perhaps one of the most intimate and important intellectual acts between humans, ever. I\'m not stuck on whether or not that sharing is physical. I\'m stuck on the inability to share. It\'s a crime.\r\nThe juxtaposition shows the problem. The consumer (Battelle) demands the ability to share (\"It\'s a crime\" that he can\'t!) while the publisher (through the eyes of Shatzkin) is desperately trying to maintain control over the distribution of e-books, with the effect of controlling downstream distribution as well. These goals are irreconcilable, so something has to give.\r\n\r\nWhich brings me to the used book store in the cloud. Say an annual fee -- $50? $100? -- gave you the ability to rent a book directly to your Kindle or other device. The fee could be built into the price of a Kindle; as well as selling the current version for $259 without this service bundled, Amazon could offer it for $200 plus a $100 annual fee and multi-year contract, much like a cellular phone. Either way, one would still be able to purchase -- permanently -- a copy of an e-book whenever they see fit.\r\n\r\nThe books would actually live \"in the cloud\" -- that is, on the publishers\' or distributors\' (Amazon\'s? B&N\'s?), and be pushed to your device as-needed, with some liberal allowances made for things like flying, etc., when wifi and cellular connectivity is lacking. Copying the file could be made difficult, especially if the service were limited to e-readers such as the Kindle. You could have a certain mumber of rented books on your device at a time, say three, but maybe fewer. And while your friend could not just give you a book he or she purchased, they could definitely recommend them to you via some sort of social network-like interface. But each of these digital copies would exist in a finite space, as determined by the publisher and policed by the distributor. Quite literally, we\'d be applying the First Sale Doctrine to e-books as much as possible by re-introducing scarcity to (e-)books.\r\n\r\nFor Battelle, this would allow him, effectively, to share books with friends, so long as his friend was part of the renting ecosystem. As the annual fee would be easily incorporated into the Kindle\'s price, this would be even more palatable. Further, I bet that one of his other gripes -- that you can\'t put the actual, physical book on your shelf -- would be mitigated as the marginal cost to acquire the book would be offset in kind.\r\n\r\nFor Shatzkin and publishers, this would massively reduce the incentive to \"pirate\" e-books, especially among those consumers who would be likely to purchase books if otherwise available for a rental/browse/borrow discount. It would certainly cut into the number of sales of e-books, but because of the lack of permancy, not into the sale of paper-and-ink books. It probably is a net negative compared to the revenue stream provided by a world without e-books at all, but that universe is gone and not coming back.\r\n\r\nThe irony? While the publishing world looks toward saving the present structure, they\'re doing so by ignoring the First Sale Doctrine -- a common-sense point of law in both contexts. Adopting a First Sale Dotrine for e-books would be a huge step toward meeting everyone\'s needs.','The Used Book Store in the Cloud',0,'','inherit','open','open','','84-revision-5','','','2009-11-30 16:44:36','2009-11-30 16:44:36','',84,'http://dlewis.net/2009/11/30/84-revision-5/',0,'revision','',0),(91,1,'2009-12-01 20:00:26','2009-12-01 20:00:26','The discussion around my post yesterday also entailed this comment over on another blog, and got me thinking further about what one actually purchases when one buys and e-book. The same, of course, applies to mp3s and any other property which can be reproduced by a third party at very low (often no) marginal costs.\r\n\r\nThere is a disconnect of language here, probably a side effect of legacy businesses working with their legal teams to try and grab control while the consumer base, disorganized as it naturally is, is expected if not forced to make its arguments with the rubric set by the producers. In other words, \"buying\" an e-book is different than \"buying\" a book, even though from the consumer\'s standpoint, it shouldn\'t be.\r\n\r\nLet\'s start with tangible books -- you know, the dead-tree versions that sit on shelves. For those, there\'s a pretty clear bundle of rights and lexicon, which I articulated in the comment linked-to above:\r\n
If I buy (\"own\") a book, I expect to be able to do things such as re-sell, loan, rent, gift it. If I rent or borrow (\"posses\") a book, I don\'t, but expect to be able to do things like take it with me on a trip. If I am in your house and flip through (\"access\") a book, you being a mensch aside, I probably can\'t just walk out the door with it.\r\nThat\'s not complete, of course, but it\'s intuitive. For centuries, we have culturally understood ownership to mean something absolute, constituting exclusivity and control. If I own it, you don\'t. You can\'t tell me what to do with it, what not to do with it, etc. Obviously, there are going to be some limitations on my ownership when my ownership rights conflict with something in your bundle of rights in something. But the meaning of the term is pretty clear.\r\n\r\nWhat is also typically clear is how one gets to own something. In most cases, you either buy it or receive it as a gift/inheritance. Sure, there are other situations, but even then the transfer of ownership is most often clear, clean, simple. Just over five years ago, two friends were over my apartment. As one left, he noticed a DVD on my bookcase, and asked if he could borrow it. I of course said yes, and he left. My other friend commented, immediately after, that I would never be getting the DVD back. We both knew he was right (and he still is). What lawyers may deem theft by conversion I instead saw as acceptable if not annoying. But in any event, it was clear -- by any definition other than a hard legal one, my friend now owned that DVD.\r\n\r\nIndeed, the biggest virtue of \"ownership\" is that it\'s simple. Everyone -- even a toddler (\"Mine!\") knows what it means.\r\n\r\nE-books, specifically, and digital media, generally, muddle that up. Right now, when you buy an e-book on your Kindle, you most definitely do not own that \"book\" in the typical meaning of the word \"own\". You cannot, lawfully and/or technologically, use it in the way(s) which you would have been able to use the paperback version of the same content: you can\'t lend it to a friend, donate it to a library, re-sell it, etc. Your rights are clearly delineated, I\'ll bet, in the licensing agreement you entered into, but as the consumer, that\'s not the bargain you expected. What is expected is the simple, common language: I bought it, therefore I own it.\r\n\r\nThe troubling part about all this is that the time-tested concept of ownership is clear, yet we have some odd expectation that it will yield to granularity in licensing. You can buy DRM music in the iTunes store or non-DRM. Amazon uses DRM-free content as a sales point. On the other side of the aisle, Creative Commons has six different licenses, some of which use ther term \"non-commercial.\" What does non-commercial mean? Answering that required a year long study (in which I participated) to yield a 255 page (!) .pdf to \"define non-commercial\".\r\n\r\nIt\'s all way, way too complicated. We need to find a way to keep it simple.','What Does it Mean to \"Buy\" an E-book?',0,'','publish','open','open','','what-does-it-mean-to-buy-an-e-book','','http://dlewis.net/2009/11/30/the-used-book-store-in-the-cloud/#disqus_thread\nhttp://dlewis.net/2009/11/30/the-used-book-store-in-the-cloud/','2009-12-01 23:32:13','2009-12-01 23:32:13','',0,'http://dlewis.net/?p=91',0,'post','',16),(92,1,'2009-12-01 19:54:26','2009-12-01 19:54:26','The discussion around my post yesterday also entailed this comment over on another blog, and got me thinking further about what one actually purchases when one buys and e-book. The same, of course, applies to mp3s and any other property which can be reproduced by a third party at very low (often no) marginal costs.\n\nThere is a disconnect of language here, probably a side effect of legacy businesses working with their legal teams to try and grab control while the consumer base, disorganized as it naturally is, is expected if not forced to make its arguments with the rubric set by the producers. In other words, \"buying\" an e-book is different than \"buying\" a book, even though from the consumer\'s standpoint, it shouldn\'t be.\n\nLet\'s start with tangible books -- you know, the dead-tree versions that sit on shelves. For those, there\'s a pretty clear bundle of rights and lexicon, which I articulated in the comment linked-to above:\n
If I buy (\"own\") a book, I expect to be able to do things such as re-sell, loan, rent, gift it. If I rent or borrow (\"posses\") a book, I don\'t, but expect to be able to do things like take it with me on a trip. If I am in your house and flip through (\"access\") a book, you being a mensch aside, I probably can\'t just walk out the door with it.\nThat\'s not complete, of course, but it\'s intuitive. For centuries, we have culturally understood ownership to mean something absolute, constituting exclusivity and control. If I own it, you don\'t. You can\'t tell me what to do with it, what not to do with it, etc. Obviously, there are going to be some limitations on my ownership when my ownership rights conflict with something in your bundle of rights in something. But the meaning of the term is pretty clear.\n\nWhat is also typically clear is how one gets to own something. In most cases, you either buy it or receive it as a gift/inheritance. Sure, there are other situations, but even then the transfer of ownership is most often clear, clean, simple. Just over five years ago, two friends were over my apartment. As one left, he noticed a DVD on my bookcase, and asked if he could borrow it. I of course said yes, and he left. My other friend commented, immediately after, that I would never be getting the DVD back. We both knew he was right (and he still is). What lawyers may deem theft by conversion I instead saw as acceptable if not annoying. But in any event, it was clear -- by any definition other than a hard legal one, my friend now owned that DVD.\n\nIndeed, the biggest virtue of \"ownership\" is that it\'s simple. Everyone -- even a toddler (\"Mine!\") knows what it means.\n\nE-books, specifically, and digital media, generally, muddle that up. Right now, when you buy an e-book on your Kindle, you most definitely do not own that \"book\" in the typical meaning of the word \"own\". You cannot, lawfully and/or technologically, use it in the way(s) which you would have been able to use the paperback version of the same content: you can\'t lend it to a friend, donate it to a library, re-sell it, etc. Your rights are clearly delineated, I\'ll bet, in the licensing agreement you entered into, but as the consumer, that\'s not the bargain you expected. What is expected is the simple, common language: I bought it, therefore I own it.\n\nThe troubling part about all this is that the time-tested concept of ownership is clear, yet we have some odd expectation that it will yield to granularity in licensing. You can buy DRM music in the iTunes store or non-DRM. Amazon uses DRM-free content as a sales point. On the other side of the aisle, Creative Commons has six different licenses, some of which use ther term \"non-commercial.\" What does non-commercial mean? Answering that required a year long study (in which I participated) to yield a 255 page (!) .pdf to \"define non-commercial\".\n\nIt\'s all way, way too complicated.\n\nThe solution is to use the','What Does it Mean to \"Buy\" an E-book?',0,'','inherit','open','open','','91-revision','','','2009-12-01 19:54:26','2009-12-01 19:54:26','',91,'http://dlewis.net/2009/12/01/91-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(93,1,'2009-12-01 19:59:36','2009-12-01 19:59:36','The discussion around my post yesterday also entailed this comment over on another blog, and got me thinking further about what one actually purchases when one buys and e-book. The same, of course, applies to mp3s and any other property which can be reproduced by a third party at very low (often no) marginal costs.\n\nThere is a disconnect of language here, probably a side effect of legacy businesses working with their legal teams to try and grab control while the consumer base, disorganized as it naturally is, is expected if not forced to make its arguments with the rubric set by the producers. In other words, \"buying\" an e-book is different than \"buying\" a book, even though from the consumer\'s standpoint, it shouldn\'t be.\n\nLet\'s start with tangible books -- you know, the dead-tree versions that sit on shelves. For those, there\'s a pretty clear bundle of rights and lexicon, which I articulated in the comment linked-to above:\n
If I buy (\"own\") a book, I expect to be able to do things such as re-sell, loan, rent, gift it. If I rent or borrow (\"posses\") a book, I don\'t, but expect to be able to do things like take it with me on a trip. If I am in your house and flip through (\"access\") a book, you being a mensch aside, I probably can\'t just walk out the door with it.\nThat\'s not complete, of course, but it\'s intuitive. For centuries, we have culturally understood ownership to mean something absolute, constituting exclusivity and control. If I own it, you don\'t. You can\'t tell me what to do with it, what not to do with it, etc. Obviously, there are going to be some limitations on my ownership when my ownership rights conflict with something in your bundle of rights in something. But the meaning of the term is pretty clear.\n\nWhat is also typically clear is how one gets to own something. In most cases, you either buy it or receive it as a gift/inheritance. Sure, there are other situations, but even then the transfer of ownership is most often clear, clean, simple. Just over five years ago, two friends were over my apartment. As one left, he noticed a DVD on my bookcase, and asked if he could borrow it. I of course said yes, and he left. My other friend commented, immediately after, that I would never be getting the DVD back. We both knew he was right (and he still is). What lawyers may deem theft by conversion I instead saw as acceptable if not annoying. But in any event, it was clear -- by any definition other than a hard legal one, my friend now owned that DVD.\n\nIndeed, the biggest virtue of \"ownership\" is that it\'s simple. Everyone -- even a toddler (\"Mine!\") knows what it means.\n\nE-books, specifically, and digital media, generally, muddle that up. Right now, when you buy an e-book on your Kindle, you most definitely do not own that \"book\" in the typical meaning of the word \"own\". You cannot, lawfully and/or technologically, use it in the way(s) which you would have been able to use the paperback version of the same content: you can\'t lend it to a friend, donate it to a library, re-sell it, etc. Your rights are clearly delineated, I\'ll bet, in the licensing agreement you entered into, but as the consumer, that\'s not the bargain you expected. What is expected is the simple, common language: I bought it, therefore I own it.\n\nThe troubling part about all this is that the time-tested concept of ownership is clear, yet we have some odd expectation that it will yield to granularity in licensing. You can buy DRM music in the iTunes store or non-DRM. Amazon uses DRM-free content as a sales point. On the other side of the aisle, Creative Commons has six different licenses, some of which use ther term \"non-commercial.\" What does non-commercial mean? Answering that required a year long study (in which I participated) to yield a 255 page (!) .pdf to \"define non-commercial\".\n\nIt\'s all way, way too complicated.\n\nThe solution is to use the','What Does it Mean to \"Buy\" an E-book?',0,'','inherit','open','open','','91-revision-2','','','2009-12-01 19:59:36','2009-12-01 19:59:36','',91,'http://dlewis.net/2009/12/01/91-revision-2/',0,'revision','',0),(94,1,'2009-12-01 23:33:20','2009-12-01 23:33:20','The discussion around my post yesterday also entailed this comment over on another blog, and got me thinking further about what one actually purchases when one buys and e-book. The same, of course, applies to mp3s and any other property which can be reproduced by a third party at very low (often no) marginal costs.\n\nThere is a disconnect of language here, probably a side effect of legacy businesses working with their legal teams to try and grab control while the consumer base, disorganized as it naturally is, is expected if not forced to make its arguments with the rubric set by the producers. In other words, \"buying\" an e-book is different than \"buying\" a book, even though from the consumer\'s standpoint, it shouldn\'t be.\n\nLet\'s start with tangible books -- you know, the dead-tree versions that sit on shelves. For those, there\'s a pretty clear bundle of rights and lexicon, which I articulated in the comment linked-to above:\n
If I buy (\"own\") a book, I expect to be able to do things such as re-sell, loan, rent, gift it. If I rent or borrow (\"posses\") a book, I don\'t, but expect to be able to do things like take it with me on a trip. If I am in your house and flip through (\"access\") a book, you being a mensch aside, I probably can\'t just walk out the door with it.\nThat\'s not complete, of course, but it\'s intuitive. For centuries, we have culturally understood ownership to mean something absolute, constituting exclusivity and control. If I own it, you don\'t. You can\'t tell me what to do with it, what not to do with it, etc. Obviously, there are going to be some limitations on my ownership when my ownership rights conflict with something in your bundle of rights in something. But the meaning of the term is pretty clear.\n\nWhat is also typically clear is how one gets to own something. In most cases, you either buy it or receive it as a gift/inheritance. Sure, there are other situations, but even then the transfer of ownership is most often clear, clean, simple. Just over five years ago, two friends were over my apartment. As one left, he noticed a DVD on my bookcase, and asked if he could borrow it. I of course said yes, and he left. My other friend commented, immediately after, that I would never be getting the DVD back. We both knew he was right (and he still is). What lawyers may deem theft by conversion I instead saw as acceptable if not annoying. But in any event, it was clear -- by any definition other than a hard legal one, my friend now owned that DVD.\n\nIndeed, the biggest virtue of \"ownership\" is that it\'s simple. Everyone -- even a toddler (\"Mine!\") knows what it means.\n\nE-books, specifically, and digital media, generally, muddle that up. Right now, when you buy an e-book on your Kindle, you most definitely do not own that \"book\" in the typical meaning of the word \"own\". You cannot, lawfully and/or technologically, use it in the way(s) which you would have been able to use the paperback version of the same content: you can\'t lend it to a friend, donate it to a library, re-sell it, etc. Your rights are clearly delineated, I\'ll bet, in the licensing agreement you entered into, but as the consumer, that\'s not the bargain you expected. What is expected is the simple, common language: I bought it, therefore I own it.\n\nThe troubling part about all this is that the time-tested concept of ownership is clear, yet we have some odd expectation that it will yield to granularity in licensing. You can buy DRM music in the iTunes store or non-DRM. Amazon uses DRM-free content as a sales point. On the other side of the aisle, Creative Commons has six different licenses, some of which use ther term \"non-commercial.\" What does non-commercial mean? Answering that required a year long study (in which I participated) to yield a 255 page (!) .pdf to \"define non-commercial\".\n\nIt\'s all way, way too complicated. We need to find a way to keep it simple.','What Does it Mean to \"Buy\" an E-book?',0,'','inherit','open','open','','91-autosave','','','2009-12-01 23:33:20','2009-12-01 23:33:20','',91,'http://dlewis.net/2009/12/01/91-autosave/',0,'revision','',0),(95,1,'2009-12-01 20:00:26','2009-12-01 20:00:26','The discussion around my post yesterday also entailed this comment over on another blog, and got me thinking further about what one actually purchases when one buys and e-book. The same, of course, applies to mp3s and any other property which can be reproduced by a third party at very low (often no) marginal costs.\r\n\r\nThere is a disconnect of language here, probably a side effect of legacy businesses working with their legal teams to try and grab control while the consumer base, disorganized as it naturally is, is expected if not forced to make its arguments with the rubric set by the producers. In other words, \"buying\" an e-book is different than \"buying\" a book, even though from the consumer\'s standpoint, it shouldn\'t be.\r\n\r\nLet\'s start with tangible books -- you know, the dead-tree versions that sit on shelves. For those, there\'s a pretty clear bundle of rights and lexicon, which I articulated in the comment linked-to above:\r\n
If I buy (\"own\") a book, I expect to be able to do things such as re-sell, loan, rent, gift it. If I rent or borrow (\"posses\") a book, I don\'t, but expect to be able to do things like take it with me on a trip. If I am in your house and flip through (\"access\") a book, you being a mensch aside, I probably can\'t just walk out the door with it.\r\nThat\'s not complete, of course, but it\'s intuitive. For centuries, we have culturally understood ownership to mean something absolute, constituting exclusivity and control. If I own it, you don\'t. You can\'t tell me what to do with it, what not to do with it, etc. Obviously, there are going to be some limitations on my ownership when my ownership rights conflict with something in your bundle of rights in something. But the meaning of the term is pretty clear.\r\n\r\nWhat is also typically clear is how one gets to own something. In most cases, you either buy it or receive it as a gift/inheritance. Sure, there are other situations, but even then the transfer of ownership is most often clear, clean, simple. Just over five years ago, two friends were over my apartment. As one left, he noticed a DVD on my bookcase, and asked if he could borrow it. I of course said yes, and he left. My other friend commented, immediately after, that I would never be getting the DVD back. We both knew he was right (and he still is). What lawyers may deem theft by conversion I instead saw as acceptable if not annoying. But in any event, it was clear -- by any definition other than a hard legal one, my friend now owned that DVD.\r\n\r\nIndeed, the biggest virtue of \"ownership\" is that it\'s simple. Everyone -- even a toddler (\"Mine!\") knows what it means.\r\n\r\nE-books, specifically, and digital media, generally, muddle that up. Right now, when you buy an e-book on your Kindle, you most definitely do not own that \"book\" in the typical meaning of the word \"own\". You cannot, lawfully and/or technologically, use it in the way(s) which you would have been able to use the paperback version of the same content: you can\'t lend it to a friend, donate it to a library, re-sell it, etc. Your rights are clearly delineated, I\'ll bet, in the licensing agreement you entered into, but as the consumer, that\'s not the bargain you expected. What is expected is the simple, common language: I bought it, therefore I own it.\r\n\r\nThe troubling part about all this is that the time-tested concept of ownership is clear, yet we have some odd expectation that it will yield to granularity in licensing. You can buy DRM music in the iTunes store or non-DRM. Amazon uses DRM-free content as a sales point. On the other side of the aisle, Creative Commons has six different licenses, some of which use ther term \"non-commercial.\" What does non-commercial mean? Answering that required a year long study (in which I participated) to yield a 255 page (!) .pdf to \"define non-commercial\".\r\n\r\nIt\'s all way, way too complicated. We need to find a way to keep it simple.','What Does it Mean to \"Buy\" an E-book?',0,'','inherit','open','open','','91-revision-3','','','2009-12-01 20:00:26','2009-12-01 20:00:26','',91,'http://dlewis.net/2009/12/01/91-revision-3/',0,'revision','',0),(122,1,'2010-02-20 03:37:02','2010-02-20 03:37:02','
![\"\"](\"http://www.montana.edu/freshmen/facebook_pic.jpg\")
Here\'s some quick and dirty data from my last 10 Facebook status updates. \"Comments\" are unique commentors, and do not count me.\r\n\r\nFebruary 1 (status update): three comments\r\n\r\nFebruary 5 (shared link): 1 \"like,\" and I believe one or two others shared the link with their friend. I explicitly asked for people to share the link.\r\n\r\nFebruary 9 (status update): one comments\r\n\r\nFebruary 11 (status update): four comments, but this was a specific question to a subset of my friends\r\n\r\nFebruary 12 (shared link): one comment\r\n\r\nFebruary 12 (status update): four comments\r\n\r\nFebruary 13 (status update): nothing.\r\n\r\nFebruary 18 (status update): one private message, but let\'s ignore that.\r\n\r\nFebruary 19 (photo upload): 4 likes, 1 comment\r\n\r\nFebruary 19 (status update): 4 likes, 2 comments\r\n\r\nAll together, that\'s about 25 public responses over just under three weeks. I have just under 200 Facebook friends.\r\n\r\nAnother one of my friends has about 850. Over the last month, he has somewhere between 150-200 status updates. My 10 updates to roughly 200 people meant that my updates were received (albeit not viewed) 2,000 times. His volume and network: 150,000 times received. His broadcast volume is seventy-five times greater than mine.\r\n\r\nAnd received 17 public responses. Seventy-five times the updates yielded seventy-five percent of the public responses.\r\n\r\nThe truth is, we\'re both outliers. Me? I typically won\'t post something to Facebook unless I expect it to get a response, and looking back at my last ten updates, that rule was true for at least seven of the 10. I aim to engage and converse.\r\n\r\nHe, on the other hand, is a broadcaster. He publishes what he\'s thinking and does it, literally, all day long. He pushes (presumably all of) his off-Facebook content to Facebook. And he is a very active Twitter with over 10,000 tweets in about three years. That\'s one every two hours, if you assume he spends four per day asleep. He\'s also active on FourSquare, blogs much more often than I do, uploads pictures to Flickr, etc. I don\'t do much if any of these things.\r\n\r\nTaking Facebook as a vaccum, mine clearly is -- but Facebook isn\'t a vacuum. My friend is one of the most active people in the New York tech sector, and by broadcasting everything -- and by doing it on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, etc. -- he hits people wherever they are. I get better quality and surprisingly, quantity on Facebook, but he bests me when you look at a larger picture. I tailor my message for my audience; he tailors his audience for his message.\r\n\r\nNeither is necessarily better; rather, it\'s a question of style or personal preference. Which do you do?','Tailoring Your Message or Tailoring Your Audience',0,'','publish','open','open','','tailoring-your-message-or-tailoring-your-audience','','','2010-02-20 03:37:29','2010-02-20 03:37:29','',0,'http://dlewis.net/?p=122',0,'post','',0),(123,1,'2010-02-20 03:35:18','2010-02-20 03:35:18','Here\'s some quick and dirty data from my last 10 Facebook status updates. \"Comments\" are unique commentors, and do not count me.\n\nFebruary 1 (status update): three comments\n\nFebruary 5 (shared link): 1 \"like,\" and I believe one or two others shared the link with their friend. I explicitly asked for people to share the link.\n\nFebruary 9 (status update): one comments\n\nFebruary 11 (status update): four comments, but this was a specific question to a subset of my friends\n\nFebruary 12 (shared link): one comment\n\nFebruary 12 (status update): four comments\n\nFebruary 13 (status update): nothing.\n\nFebruary 18 (status update): one private message, but let\'s ignore that.\n\nFebruary 19 (photo upload): 4 likes, 1 comment\n\nFebruary 19 (status update): 4 likes, 2 comments\n\nAll together, that\'s about 25 public responses over just under three weeks. I have just under 200 Facebook friends.\n\nAnother one of my friends has about 850. Over the last month, he has somewhere between 150-200 status updates. My 10 updates to roughly 200 people meant that my updates were received (albeit not viewed) 2,000 times. His volume and network: 150,000 times received. His broadcast volume is seventy-five times greater than mine.\n\nAnd received 17 public responses. Seventy-five times the updates yielded seventy-five percent of the public responses.\n\nThe truth is, we\'re both outliers. Me? I typically won\'t post something to Facebook unless I expect it to get a response, and looking back at my last ten updates, that rule was true for at least seven of the 10. I aim to engage and converse.\n\nHe, on the other hand, is a broadcaster. He publishes what he\'s thinking and does it, literally, all day long. He pushes (presumably all of) his off-Facebook content to Facebook. And he is a very active Twitter with over 10,000 tweets in about three years. That\'s one every two hours, if you assume he spends four per day asleep. He\'s also active on FourSquare, blogs much more often than I do, uploads pictures to Flickr, etc. I don\'t do much if any of these things.\n\nTaking Facebook as a vaccum, mine clearly is -- but Facebook isn\'t a vacuum. My friend is one of the most active people in the New York tech sector, and by broadcasting everything -- and by doing it on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, etc. -- he hits people wherever they are. I get better quality and surprisingly, quantity on Facebook, but he bests me when you look at a larger picture. I tailor my message for my audience; he tailors his audience for his message.\n\nNeither is necessarily better; rather, it\'s a question of style or personal preference.','Tailoring Your Message or Tailoring Your Audience',0,'','inherit','open','open','','122-revision','','','2010-02-20 03:35:18','2010-02-20 03:35:18','',122,'http://dlewis.net/2010/02/20/122-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(124,1,'2010-02-20 03:37:02','2010-02-20 03:37:02','Here\'s some quick and dirty data from my last 10 Facebook status updates. \"Comments\" are unique commentors, and do not count me.\r\n\r\nFebruary 1 (status update): three comments\r\n\r\nFebruary 5 (shared link): 1 \"like,\" and I believe one or two others shared the link with their friend. I explicitly asked for people to share the link.\r\n\r\nFebruary 9 (status update): one comments\r\n\r\nFebruary 11 (status update): four comments, but this was a specific question to a subset of my friends\r\n\r\nFebruary 12 (shared link): one comment\r\n\r\nFebruary 12 (status update): four comments\r\n\r\nFebruary 13 (status update): nothing.\r\n\r\nFebruary 18 (status update): one private message, but let\'s ignore that.\r\n\r\nFebruary 19 (photo upload): 4 likes, 1 comment\r\n\r\nFebruary 19 (status update): 4 likes, 2 comments\r\n\r\nAll together, that\'s about 25 public responses over just under three weeks. I have just under 200 Facebook friends.\r\n\r\nAnother one of my friends has about 850. Over the last month, he has somewhere between 150-200 status updates. My 10 updates to roughly 200 people meant that my updates were received (albeit not viewed) 2,000 times. His volume and network: 150,000 times received. His broadcast volume is seventy-five times greater than mine.\r\n\r\nAnd received 17 public responses. Seventy-five times the updates yielded seventy-five percent of the public responses.\r\n\r\nThe truth is, we\'re both outliers. Me? I typically won\'t post something to Facebook unless I expect it to get a response, and looking back at my last ten updates, that rule was true for at least seven of the 10. I aim to engage and converse.\r\n\r\nHe, on the other hand, is a broadcaster. He publishes what he\'s thinking and does it, literally, all day long. He pushes (presumably all of) his off-Facebook content to Facebook. And he is a very active Twitter with over 10,000 tweets in about three years. That\'s one every two hours, if you assume he spends four per day asleep. He\'s also active on FourSquare, blogs much more often than I do, uploads pictures to Flickr, etc. I don\'t do much if any of these things.\r\n\r\nTaking Facebook as a vaccum, mine clearly is -- but Facebook isn\'t a vacuum. My friend is one of the most active people in the New York tech sector, and by broadcasting everything -- and by doing it on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, etc. -- he hits people wherever they are. I get better quality and surprisingly, quantity on Facebook, but he bests me when you look at a larger picture. I tailor my message for my audience; he tailors his audience for his message.\r\n\r\nNeither is necessarily better; rather, it\'s a question of style or personal preference. Which do you do?','Tailoring Your Message or Tailoring Your Audience',0,'','inherit','open','open','','122-revision-2','','','2010-02-20 03:37:02','2010-02-20 03:37:02','',122,'http://dlewis.net/2010/02/20/122-revision-2/',0,'revision','',0),(125,1,'2010-02-20 03:38:32','2010-02-20 03:38:32','Here\'s some quick and dirty data from my last 10 Facebook status updates. \"Comments\" are unique commentors, and do not count me.\n\nFebruary 1 (status update): three comments\n\nFebruary 5 (shared link): 1 \"like,\" and I believe one or two others shared the link with their friend. I explicitly asked for people to share the link.\n\nFebruary 9 (status update): one comments\n\nFebruary 11 (status update): four comments, but this was a specific question to a subset of my friends\n\nFebruary 12 (shared link): one comment\n\nFebruary 12 (status update): four comments\n\nFebruary 13 (status update): nothing.\n\nFebruary 18 (status update): one private message, but let\'s ignore that.\n\nFebruary 19 (photo upload): 4 likes, 1 comment\n\nFebruary 19 (status update): 4 likes, 2 comments\n\nAll together, that\'s about 25 public responses over just under three weeks. I have just under 200 Facebook friends.\n\nAnother one of my friends has about 850. Over the last month, he has somewhere between 150-200 status updates. My 10 updates to roughly 200 people meant that my updates were received (albeit not viewed) 2,000 times. His volume and network: 150,000 times received. His broadcast volume is seventy-five times greater than mine.\n\nAnd received 17 public responses. Seventy-five times the updates yielded seventy-five percent of the public responses.\n\nThe truth is, we\'re both outliers. Me? I typically won\'t post something to Facebook unless I expect it to get a response, and looking back at my last ten updates, that rule was true for at least seven of the 10. I aim to engage and converse.\n\nHe, on the other hand, is a broadcaster. He publishes what he\'s thinking and does it, literally, all day long. He pushes (presumably all of) his off-Facebook content to Facebook. And he is a very active Twitter with over 10,000 tweets in about three years. That\'s one every two hours, if you assume he spends four per day asleep. He\'s also active on FourSquare, blogs much more often than I do, uploads pictures to Flickr, etc. I don\'t do much if any of these things.\n\nTaking Facebook as a vaccum, mine clearly is -- but Facebook isn\'t a vacuum. My friend is one of the most active people in the New York tech sector, and by broadcasting everything -- and by doing it on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, etc. -- he hits people wherever they are. I get better quality and surprisingly, quantity on Facebook, but he bests me when you look at a larger picture. I tailor my message for my audience; he tailors his audience for his message.\n\nNeither is necessarily better; rather, it\'s a question of style or personal preference. Which do you do?','Tailoring Your Message or Tailoring Your Audience',0,'','inherit','open','open','','122-autosave','','','2010-02-20 03:38:32','2010-02-20 03:38:32','',122,'http://dlewis.net/2010/02/20/122-autosave/',0,'revision','',0),(126,1,'2010-03-18 19:23:26','2010-03-18 19:23:26','A few weeks ago, Joe Posnanski penned a great column about the etymology of the phrase \"begs the question.\" In it, he recalls mentioning the name Amelia Earhart to a colleague and is \"stunned\" to learn that the colleague has not idea who Earhart is. Posnanski explains: \"[She] was the woman pilot from Kansas who disappeared over the Pacific Ocean while attempting to fly around the world.\"\r\n\r\nAnd then he admits that maybe he shouldn\'t have been stunned about his colleague\'s ignorance. After all, the sentence I just quoted \"more or less exhausts [his] entire catalogue of knowledge about Amelia Earhart.\" Mine too -- in fact, I did not know she was from Kansas.\r\n\r\n![\"John](\"http://symonsez.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/john_adams.jpg\" "\\"John")
That same day, former president John Adams came up in a conversation with a friend. We were talking about Liz Cheney\'s objection to American lawyers representing Al Qaeda members, and Adams -- who represented British soldiers (successfully!) charged with crimes stemming from the Boston Massacre -- naturally came up. We both knew who he was, basically -- the second President of the United States, a Boston patriot, even cousin of Sam Adams. But beyond that? Nothing. Not even enough to fill a top 10 list.\r\n\r\nI figured that needed fixing. I wasn\'t going to go read David McCullough\'s 752 page book on Adams, but I wanted to get more than just a glib understanding of his impact on the American Founding. I read Adams\' Wikipedia entry that evening on my commute home, and found a few things surprising. But with no one to discuss them with -- my friend was happy with his glib understanding -- the learnings fell silent. I wished, quietly, that others had also read the article with me, and shared their top takeaways. Kind of like a book club, but for Wikipedia articles.\r\n\r\nSo, I\'m starting one here, and hope you\'ll do the same on your blog, Facebook page, twitter account, etc. Here\'s how:\r\n\r\n1) If you\'re interested in the topic (this time, John Adams), read the Wikipedia article and post your takeaways in the comments. Think of it as a book club, hosted at my place. I want to know what you learned, what you think, etc.\r\n\r\n2) Start a Wikipedia Reading Club meeting on your own blog. Pick a topic that you think you should know more about, but don\'t. And do what I\'m doing, below. The source need not be Wikipedia, either; for example, if you wanted to know more about Cookie Monster, you might suggest reading both his Wikipedia entry and his Muppet Wiki one.\r\n\r\n3) Share your participation in this Club meeting and others on your blog, Twitter feeds, etc. I\'ll be sharing my participation in this Wikipedia Reading Club meeting announcing it on Twitter (maybe with a #WikiRC hash tag) and by commenting here. If you start your own WikiRC around an article of your choosing, let me know on Twitter, by leaving a comment here, by emailing me, etc. And if I join your meetings, I\'ll be tweeting and commenting there, too.\r\n\r\nNow, to John Adams:\r\n\r\nThe fundamental structure of the U.S. Congress was much more radical than I thought. And I thought it was pretty radical. In elementary school and beyond, I (and most Americans) were taught that the core debate of the Constitutional Congress was one of states rights versus a strong federal government. One of the big concerns was that large, populous states (e.g. Virginia) would have more influence than smaller ones. The solution was a bicameral legislature, with one house giving each state equal representation as to any other (the Senate) and the other (the House) tied to population. Seems reasonable -- but it\'s now how Adams saw a bicameral system operating. He noted \"that social classes exist in every political society, and [believed] that a good government must accept that reality.\" In his eyes, the elite would be one house, the commoners the other. Given that this theory was propounded by a Founding Father and the 2nd President of the United States, it should go without saying that it was considered. Imagine how different America, and probably the world, would be had the Continental Congress adopted Adams\' ideals.\r\n\r\nAdams was an accidental, \"electability\" candidate for President -- and won. Obviously, I knew he won. The first part caught me off guard, but it explains a lot. Coming into this, I knew more about Alexander Hamilton and even Aaron Burr than I do Adams -- and neither of them were ever elected President. Now I understand why.\r\n\r\nIn 2004, John Kerry grabbed the Democratic nomination for President, over the much more passionate and interesting Howard Dean. Dean rallied the base and to a large degree teed up the issues for both the primaries but did came in third (!) at the Iowa caucuses mostly because he was widely regarded as a bit crazy and divisive. Kerry, on the other hand, had a reputation for being \"electable\" -- not someone you\'d vote for, not someone you\'d vote against, but certainly, if enough people disliked George W. Bush, someone who could win by default. Adams seems to be that type of candidate. The Federalists were more passionate about Hamilton, but wanted to make sure Thomas Jefferson lost. Hamilton was toxic to enough voters as to make him a non-option, so the Federalists went with Adams. And, unlike Kerry\'s Democrats, it worked. The second President of the United States was a default candidate. Sad, but apparently, true.\r\n\r\nIn the late 1700s, Britian and France were at war. American political parties were divided as to whom to support. The war I knew about, albeit glibly. I also knew that for the most part, the United States stayed out of it. But this line absolutely floored me: \"Adams\'s term (1797–1801) was marked by intense disputes over foreign policy and a limited naval war with France. Britain and France were at war; Hamilton and the Federalists favored Britain, while Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans favored France.\"\r\n\r\nThe default rule of neutrality made a ton of sense for early America. Isolated from Europe and a very young nation, the cost of war and the time lag made it incredibly cumbersome. But I never thought \"who should we support\" was contentious.\r\n\r\nTake modern day America. Since World War II, has there ever been a deep divide about who the U.S. should support? Perhaps Israeli/Palestinian relations come close, but even then, both major parties back Israel. My knowledge of the history of American foreign relations is lacking, I guess, but I can\'t think of a single example where two major powers were at war and the U.S. couldn\'t decide what side to be on. I\'m flabbergasted.\r\n\r\n***\r\n\r\nYour turn. Read John Adams\' Wikipedia entry and leave your thoughts in the comments. And then start your own Wikipedia Reading Club meeting!','The Wikipedia Reading Club',0,'','publish','open','open','','the-wikipedia-reading-club','','\nhttp://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2009/11/20/begging-the-question-from-midair/','2010-03-18 19:25:20','2010-03-18 19:25:20','',0,'http://dlewis.net/?p=126',0,'post','',10),(127,1,'2010-03-16 21:46:56','2010-03-16 21:46:56','A few weeks ago, Joe Posnanski penned a great column about the etymology of the phrase \"begs the question.\" In it, he recalls mentioning the name Amelia Earhart to a colleague and is \"stunned\" to learn that the colleague has not idea who Earhart is. Posnanski explains: \"[She] was the woman pilot from Kansas who disappeared over the Pacific Ocean while attempting to fly around the world.\"\n\nAnd then he admits that maybe he shouldn\'t have been stunned about his colleague\'s ignorance. After all, the sentence I just quoted \"more or less exhausts [his] entire catalogue of knowledge about Amelia Earhart.\" Mine too -- in fact, I did not know she was from Kansas.\n\nThat same day, former president John Adams came up in a conversation with a friend. We were talking about Liz Cheney\'s objection to American lawyers representing Al Qaeda members, and Adams -- who represented British soldiers (successfully!) charged with crimes stemming from the Boston Massacre -- naturally came up. We both knew who he was, basically -- the second President of the United States, a Boston patriot, even cousin of Sam Adams. But','The Wikipedia Reading Club',0,'','inherit','open','open','','126-revision','','','2010-03-16 21:46:56','2010-03-16 21:46:56','',126,'http://dlewis.net/2010/03/16/126-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(128,1,'2010-03-16 21:48:22','2010-03-16 21:48:22','A few weeks ago, Joe Posnanski penned a great column about the etymology of the phrase \"begs the question.\" In it, he recalls mentioning the name Amelia Earhart to a colleague and is \"stunned\" to learn that the colleague has not idea who Earhart is. Posnanski explains: \"[She] was the woman pilot from Kansas who disappeared over the Pacific Ocean while attempting to fly around the world.\"\n\nAnd then he admits that maybe he shouldn\'t have been stunned about his colleague\'s ignorance. After all, the sentence I just quoted \"more or less exhausts [his] entire catalogue of knowledge about Amelia Earhart.\" Mine too -- in fact, I did not know she was from Kansas.\n\nThat same day, former president John Adams came up in a conversation with a friend. We were talking about Liz Cheney\'s objection to American lawyers representing Al Qaeda members, and Adams -- who represented British soldiers (successfully!) charged with crimes stemming from the Boston Massacre -- naturally came up. We both knew who he was, basically -- the second President of the United States, a Boston patriot, even cousin of Sam Adams. But beyond that? Nothing. Not even enough to fill a top 10 list.','The Wikipedia Reading Club',0,'','inherit','open','open','','126-revision-2','','','2010-03-16 21:48:22','2010-03-16 21:48:22','',126,'http://dlewis.net/2010/03/16/126-revision-2/',0,'revision','',0),(129,1,'2010-03-17 03:11:16','2010-03-17 03:11:16','A few weeks ago, Joe Posnanski penned a great column about the etymology of the phrase \"begs the question.\" In it, he recalls mentioning the name Amelia Earhart to a colleague and is \"stunned\" to learn that the colleague has not idea who Earhart is. Posnanski explains: \"[She] was the woman pilot from Kansas who disappeared over the Pacific Ocean while attempting to fly around the world.\"\n\nAnd then he admits that maybe he shouldn\'t have been stunned about his colleague\'s ignorance. After all, the sentence I just quoted \"more or less exhausts [his] entire catalogue of knowledge about Amelia Earhart.\" Mine too -- in fact, I did not know she was from Kansas.\n\nThat same day, former president John Adams came up in a conversation with a friend. We were talking about Liz Cheney\'s objection to American lawyers representing Al Qaeda members, and Adams -- who represented British soldiers (successfully!) charged with crimes stemming from the Boston Massacre -- naturally came up. We both knew who he was, basically -- the second President of the United States, a Boston patriot, even cousin of Sam Adams. But beyond that? Nothing. Not even enough to fill a top 10 list.\n\nI figured that needed fixing. I wasn\'t going to go read David McCullough\'s 752 page book on Adams, but I wanted to get more than just a glib understanding of his impact on the American Founding. I read Adams\' Wikipedia entry that evening on my commute home, and found a few things surprising. But with no one to discuss them with -- my friend was happy with his glib understanding -- the learnings fell silent.','The Wikipedia Reading Club',0,'','inherit','open','open','','126-revision-3','','','2010-03-17 03:11:16','2010-03-17 03:11:16','',126,'http://dlewis.net/2010/03/17/126-revision-3/',0,'revision','',0),(130,1,'2010-03-18 18:07:16','2010-03-18 18:07:16','A few weeks ago, Joe Posnanski penned a great column about the etymology of the phrase \"begs the question.\" In it, he recalls mentioning the name Amelia Earhart to a colleague and is \"stunned\" to learn that the colleague has not idea who Earhart is. Posnanski explains: \"[She] was the woman pilot from Kansas who disappeared over the Pacific Ocean while attempting to fly around the world.\"\n\nAnd then he admits that maybe he shouldn\'t have been stunned about his colleague\'s ignorance. After all, the sentence I just quoted \"more or less exhausts [his] entire catalogue of knowledge about Amelia Earhart.\" Mine too -- in fact, I did not know she was from Kansas.\n\nThat same day, former president John Adams came up in a conversation with a friend. We were talking about Liz Cheney\'s objection to American lawyers representing Al Qaeda members, and Adams -- who represented British soldiers (successfully!) charged with crimes stemming from the Boston Massacre -- naturally came up. We both knew who he was, basically -- the second President of the United States, a Boston patriot, even cousin of Sam Adams. But beyond that? Nothing. Not even enough to fill a top 10 list.\n\nI figured that needed fixing. I wasn\'t going to go read David McCullough\'s 752 page book on Adams, but I wanted to get more than just a glib understanding of his impact on the American Founding. I read Adams\' Wikipedia entry that evening on my commute home, and found a few things surprising. But with no one to discuss them with -- my friend was happy with his glib understanding -- the learnings fell silent. I wished, quietly, that others had also read the article with me, and shared their top takeaways. Kind of like a book club, but for Wikipedia articles.\n\nSo, I\'m starting one here, and hope you\'ll do the same on your blog, Facebook page, twitter account, etc. Here\'s how:\n\n1) If you\'re interested in the topic (this time, John Adams), read the Wikipedia article and post your takeaways in the comments. Think of it as a book club, hosted at my place. I want to know what you learned, what you think, etc.\n\n2) Start a Wikipedia Reading Club meeting on your own blog. Pick a topic that you think you should know more about, but don\'t. And do what I\'m doing, below.\n\n3) Share your participation in this Club meeting and others on your blog, Twitter feeds, etc. I\'ll be sharing my participation in this Wikipedia Reading Club meeting announcing it on Twitter (maybe with a #WikiRC hash tag) and by commenting here. If you start your own WikiRC around an article of your choosing, let me know on Twitter, by leaving a comment here, by emailing me, etc. And if I join your meetings, I\'ll be tweeting and commenting there, too.\n\nNow, to John Adams:\n\nThe fundamental structure of the U.S. Congress was much more radical than I thought. And I thought it was pretty radical. In elementary school and beyond, I (and most Americans) were taught that the core debate of the Constitutional Congress was one of states rights versus a strong federal government. One of the big concerns was that large, populous states (e.g. Virginia) would have more influence than smaller ones. The solution was a bicameral legislature, with one house giving each state equal representation as to any other (the Senate) and the other (the House) tied to population. Seems reasonable -- but it\'s now how Adams saw a bicameral system operating. He noted \"that social classes exist in every political society, and [believed] that a good government must accept that reality.\" In his eyes, the elite would be one house, the commoners the other. Given that this theory was propather and the 2nd President of the United States.','The Wikipedia Reading Club',0,'','inherit','open','open','','126-revision-4','','','2010-03-18 18:07:16','2010-03-18 18:07:16','',126,'http://dlewis.net/2010/03/18/126-revision-4/',0,'revision','',0),(131,1,'2010-03-18 19:13:05','2010-03-18 19:13:05','A few weeks ago, Joe Posnanski penned a great column about the etymology of the phrase \"begs the question.\" In it, he recalls mentioning the name Amelia Earhart to a colleague and is \"stunned\" to learn that the colleague has not idea who Earhart is. Posnanski explains: \"[She] was the woman pilot from Kansas who disappeared over the Pacific Ocean while attempting to fly around the world.\"\n\nAnd then he admits that maybe he shouldn\'t have been stunned about his colleague\'s ignorance. After all, the sentence I just quoted \"more or less exhausts [his] entire catalogue of knowledge about Amelia Earhart.\" Mine too -- in fact, I did not know she was from Kansas.\n\nThat same day, former president John Adams came up in a conversation with a friend. We were talking about Liz Cheney\'s objection to American lawyers representing Al Qaeda members, and Adams -- who represented British soldiers (successfully!) charged with crimes stemming from the Boston Massacre -- naturally came up. We both knew who he was, basically -- the second President of the United States, a Boston patriot, even cousin of Sam Adams. But beyond that? Nothing. Not even enough to fill a top 10 list.\n\nI figured that needed fixing. I wasn\'t going to go read David McCullough\'s 752 page book on Adams, but I wanted to get more than just a glib understanding of his impact on the American Founding. I read Adams\' Wikipedia entry that evening on my commute home, and found a few things surprising. But with no one to discuss them with -- my friend was happy with his glib understanding -- the learnings fell silent. I wished, quietly, that others had also read the article with me, and shared their top takeaways. Kind of like a book club, but for Wikipedia articles.\n\nSo, I\'m starting one here, and hope you\'ll do the same on your blog, Facebook page, twitter account, etc. Here\'s how:\n\n1) If you\'re interested in the topic (this time, John Adams), read the Wikipedia article and post your takeaways in the comments. Think of it as a book club, hosted at my place. I want to know what you learned, what you think, etc.\n\n2) Start a Wikipedia Reading Club meeting on your own blog. Pick a topic that you think you should know more about, but don\'t. And do what I\'m doing, below.\n\n3) Share your participation in this Club meeting and others on your blog, Twitter feeds, etc. I\'ll be sharing my participation in this Wikipedia Reading Club meeting announcing it on Twitter (maybe with a #WikiRC hash tag) and by commenting here. If you start your own WikiRC around an article of your choosing, let me know on Twitter, by leaving a comment here, by emailing me, etc. And if I join your meetings, I\'ll be tweeting and commenting there, too.\n\nNow, to John Adams:\n\nThe fundamental structure of the U.S. Congress was much more radical than I thought. And I thought it was pretty radical. In elementary school and beyond, I (and most Americans) were taught that the core debate of the Constitutional Congress was one of states rights versus a strong federal government. One of the big concerns was that large, populous states (e.g. Virginia) would have more influence than smaller ones. The solution was a bicameral legislature, with one house giving each state equal representation as to any other (the Senate) and the other (the House) tied to population. Seems reasonable -- but it\'s now how Adams saw a bicameral system operating. He noted \"that social classes exist in every political society, and [believed] that a good government must accept that reality.\" In his eyes, the elite would be one house, the commoners the other. Given that this theory was propounded by a Founding Father and the 2nd President of the United States, it should go without saying that it was considered. Imagine how different America, and probably the world, would be had the Continental Congress adopted Adams\' ideals.\n\nAdams was an accidental, \"electability\" candidate for President -- and won. Obviously, I knew he won. The first part caught me off guard, but it explains a lot. Coming into this, I knew more about Alexander Hamilton and even Aaron Burr than I do Adams -- and neither of them were ever elected President. Now I understand why.\n\nIn 2004, John Kerry grabbed the Democratic nomination for President, over the much more passionate and interesting Howard Dean. Dean rallied the base and to a large degree teed up the issues for both the primaries but did came in third (!) at the Iowa caucuses mostly because he was widely regarded as a bit crazy and divisive. Kerry, on the other hand, had a reputation for being \"electable\" -- not someone you\'d vote for, not someone you\'d vote against, but certainly, if enough people disliked George W. Bush, someone who could win by default. Adams seems to be that type of candidate. The Federalists were more passionate about Hamilton, but wanted to make sure Thomas Jefferson lost. Hamilton was toxic to enough voters as to make him a non-option, so the Federalists went with Adams. And, unlike Kerry\'s Democrats, it worked. The second President of the United States was a default candidate. Sad, but apparently, true.\n\nIn the late 1700s, Britian and France were at war. American political parties were divided as to whom to support. The war I knew about, albeit glibly. I also knew that for the most part, the United States stayed out of it. But this line absolutely floored me: \"Adams\'s term (1797–1801) was marked by intense disputes over foreign policy and a limited naval war with France. Britain and France were at war; Hamilton and the Federalists favored Britain, while Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans favored France.\"\n\nThe default rule of neutrality made a ton of sense for early America. Isolated from Europe and a very young nation, the cost of war and the time lag made it incredibly cumbersome. But I never thought \"who should we support\" was contentious.\n\nTake modern day America. Since World War II, has there ever been a deep divide about who the U.S. should support? Perhaps Israeli/Palestinian relations come close, but even then, both major parties back Israel. My knowledge of the history of American foreign relations is lacking, I guess, but I can\'t think of a single example where two major powers were at war and the U.S. couldn\'t decide what side to be on. I\'m flabbergasted.\n\n***\n\nYour turn. Read John Adams\' Wikipedia entry and leave your thoughts in the comments. And then start your own Wikipedia Reading Club meeting!','The Wikipedia Reading Club',0,'','inherit','open','open','','126-revision-5','','','2010-03-18 19:13:05','2010-03-18 19:13:05','',126,'http://dlewis.net/2010/03/18/126-revision-5/',0,'revision','',0),(132,1,'2010-03-18 19:18:05','2010-03-18 19:18:05','A few weeks ago, Joe Posnanski penned a great column about the etymology of the phrase \"begs the question.\" In it, he recalls mentioning the name Amelia Earhart to a colleague and is \"stunned\" to learn that the colleague has not idea who Earhart is. Posnanski explains: \"[She] was the woman pilot from Kansas who disappeared over the Pacific Ocean while attempting to fly around the world.\"\n\nAnd then he admits that maybe he shouldn\'t have been stunned about his colleague\'s ignorance. After all, the sentence I just quoted \"more or less exhausts [his] entire catalogue of knowledge about Amelia Earhart.\" Mine too -- in fact, I did not know she was from Kansas.\n\nThat same day, former president John Adams came up in a conversation with a friend. We were talking about Liz Cheney\'s objection to American lawyers representing Al Qaeda members, and Adams -- who represented British soldiers (successfully!) charged with crimes stemming from the Boston Massacre -- naturally came up. We both knew who he was, basically -- the second President of the United States, a Boston patriot, even cousin of Sam Adams. But beyond that? Nothing. Not even enough to fill a top 10 list.\n\nI figured that needed fixing. I wasn\'t going to go read David McCullough\'s 752 page book on Adams, but I wanted to get more than just a glib understanding of his impact on the American Founding. I read Adams\' Wikipedia entry that evening on my commute home, and found a few things surprising. But with no one to discuss them with -- my friend was happy with his glib understanding -- the learnings fell silent. I wished, quietly, that others had also read the article with me, and shared their top takeaways. Kind of like a book club, but for Wikipedia articles.\n\nSo, I\'m starting one here, and hope you\'ll do the same on your blog, Facebook page, twitter account, etc. Here\'s how:\n\n1) If you\'re interested in the topic (this time, John Adams), read the Wikipedia article and post your takeaways in the comments. Think of it as a book club, hosted at my place. I want to know what you learned, what you think, etc.\n\n2) Start a Wikipedia Reading Club meeting on your own blog. Pick a topic that you think you should know more about, but don\'t. And do what I\'m doing, below.\n\n3) Share your participation in this Club meeting and others on your blog, Twitter feeds, etc. I\'ll be sharing my participation in this Wikipedia Reading Club meeting announcing it on Twitter (maybe with a #WikiRC hash tag) and by commenting here. If you start your own WikiRC around an article of your choosing, let me know on Twitter, by leaving a comment here, by emailing me, etc. And if I join your meetings, I\'ll be tweeting and commenting there, too.\n\nNow, to John Adams:\n\nThe fundamental structure of the U.S. Congress was much more radical than I thought. And I thought it was pretty radical. In elementary school and beyond, I (and most Americans) were taught that the core debate of the Constitutional Congress was one of states rights versus a strong federal government. One of the big concerns was that large, populous states (e.g. Virginia) would have more influence than smaller ones. The solution was a bicameral legislature, with one house giving each state equal representation as to any other (the Senate) and the other (the House) tied to population. Seems reasonable -- but it\'s now how Adams saw a bicameral system operating. He noted \"that social classes exist in every political society, and [believed] that a good government must accept that reality.\" In his eyes, the elite would be one house, the commoners the other. Given that this theory was propounded by a Founding Father and the 2nd President of the United States, it should go without saying that it was considered. Imagine how different America, and probably the world, would be had the Continental Congress adopted Adams\' ideals.\n\nAdams was an accidental, \"electability\" candidate for President -- and won. Obviously, I knew he won. The first part caught me off guard, but it explains a lot. Coming into this, I knew more about Alexander Hamilton and even Aaron Burr than I do Adams -- and neither of them were ever elected President. Now I understand why.\n\nIn 2004, John Kerry grabbed the Democratic nomination for President, over the much more passionate and interesting Howard Dean. Dean rallied the base and to a large degree teed up the issues for both the primaries but did came in third (!) at the Iowa caucuses mostly because he was widely regarded as a bit crazy and divisive. Kerry, on the other hand, had a reputation for being \"electable\" -- not someone you\'d vote for, not someone you\'d vote against, but certainly, if enough people disliked George W. Bush, someone who could win by default. Adams seems to be that type of candidate. The Federalists were more passionate about Hamilton, but wanted to make sure Thomas Jefferson lost. Hamilton was toxic to enough voters as to make him a non-option, so the Federalists went with Adams. And, unlike Kerry\'s Democrats, it worked. The second President of the United States was a default candidate. Sad, but apparently, true.\n\nIn the late 1700s, Britian and France were at war. American political parties were divided as to whom to support. The war I knew about, albeit glibly. I also knew that for the most part, the United States stayed out of it. But this line absolutely floored me: \"Adams\'s term (1797–1801) was marked by intense disputes over foreign policy and a limited naval war with France. Britain and France were at war; Hamilton and the Federalists favored Britain, while Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans favored France.\"\n\nThe default rule of neutrality made a ton of sense for early America. Isolated from Europe and a very young nation, the cost of war and the time lag made it incredibly cumbersome. But I never thought \"who should we support\" was contentious.\n\nTake modern day America. Since World War II, has there ever been a deep divide about who the U.S. should support? Perhaps Israeli/Palestinian relations come close, but even then, both major parties back Israel. My knowledge of the history of American foreign relations is lacking, I guess, but I can\'t think of a single example where two major powers were at war and the U.S. couldn\'t decide what side to be on. I\'m flabbergasted.\n\n***\n\nYour turn. Read John Adams\' Wikipedia entry and leave your thoughts in the comments. And then start your own Wikipedia Reading Club meeting!','The Wikipedia Reading Club',0,'','inherit','open','open','','126-revision-6','','','2010-03-18 19:18:05','2010-03-18 19:18:05','',126,'http://dlewis.net/2010/03/18/126-revision-6/',0,'revision','',0),(133,1,'2010-03-18 19:22:30','2010-03-18 19:22:30','A few weeks ago, Joe Posnanski penned a great column about the etymology of the phrase \"begs the question.\" In it, he recalls mentioning the name Amelia Earhart to a colleague and is \"stunned\" to learn that the colleague has not idea who Earhart is. Posnanski explains: \"[She] was the woman pilot from Kansas who disappeared over the Pacific Ocean while attempting to fly around the world.\"\r\n\r\nAnd then he admits that maybe he shouldn\'t have been stunned about his colleague\'s ignorance. After all, the sentence I just quoted \"more or less exhausts [his] entire catalogue of knowledge about Amelia Earhart.\" Mine too -- in fact, I did not know she was from Kansas.\r\n\r\nThat same day, former president John Adams came up in a conversation with a friend. We were talking about Liz Cheney\'s objection to American lawyers representing Al Qaeda members, and Adams -- who represented British soldiers (successfully!) charged with crimes stemming from the Boston Massacre -- naturally came up. We both knew who he was, basically -- the second President of the United States, a Boston patriot, even cousin of Sam Adams. But beyond that? Nothing. Not even enough to fill a top 10 list.\r\n\r\nI figured that needed fixing. I wasn\'t going to go read David McCullough\'s 752 page book on Adams, but I wanted to get more than just a glib understanding of his impact on the American Founding. I read Adams\' Wikipedia entry that evening on my commute home, and found a few things surprising. But with no one to discuss them with -- my friend was happy with his glib understanding -- the learnings fell silent. I wished, quietly, that others had also read the article with me, and shared their top takeaways. Kind of like a book club, but for Wikipedia articles.\r\n\r\nSo, I\'m starting one here, and hope you\'ll do the same on your blog, Facebook page, twitter account, etc. Here\'s how:\r\n\r\n1) If you\'re interested in the topic (this time, John Adams), read the Wikipedia article and post your takeaways in the comments. Think of it as a book club, hosted at my place. I want to know what you learned, what you think, etc.\r\n\r\n2) Start a Wikipedia Reading Club meeting on your own blog. Pick a topic that you think you should know more about, but don\'t. And do what I\'m doing, below. The source need not be Wikipedia, either; for example, if you wanted to know more about Cookie Monster, you might suggest reading both his Wikipedia entry and his Muppet Wiki one.\r\n\r\n3) Share your participation in this Club meeting and others on your blog, Twitter feeds, etc. I\'ll be sharing my participation in this Wikipedia Reading Club meeting announcing it on Twitter (maybe with a #WikiRC hash tag) and by commenting here. If you start your own WikiRC around an article of your choosing, let me know on Twitter, by leaving a comment here, by emailing me, etc. And if I join your meetings, I\'ll be tweeting and commenting there, too.\r\n\r\nNow, to John Adams:\r\n\r\nThe fundamental structure of the U.S. Congress was much more radical than I thought. And I thought it was pretty radical. In elementary school and beyond, I (and most Americans) were taught that the core debate of the Constitutional Congress was one of states rights versus a strong federal government. One of the big concerns was that large, populous states (e.g. Virginia) would have more influence than smaller ones. The solution was a bicameral legislature, with one house giving each state equal representation as to any other (the Senate) and the other (the House) tied to population. Seems reasonable -- but it\'s now how Adams saw a bicameral system operating. He noted \"that social classes exist in every political society, and [believed] that a good government must accept that reality.\" In his eyes, the elite would be one house, the commoners the other. Given that this theory was propounded by a Founding Father and the 2nd President of the United States, it should go without saying that it was considered. Imagine how different America, and probably the world, would be had the Continental Congress adopted Adams\' ideals.\r\n\r\nAdams was an accidental, \"electability\" candidate for President -- and won. Obviously, I knew he won. The first part caught me off guard, but it explains a lot. Coming into this, I knew more about Alexander Hamilton and even Aaron Burr than I do Adams -- and neither of them were ever elected President. Now I understand why.\r\n\r\nIn 2004, John Kerry grabbed the Democratic nomination for President, over the much more passionate and interesting Howard Dean. Dean rallied the base and to a large degree teed up the issues for both the primaries but did came in third (!) at the Iowa caucuses mostly because he was widely regarded as a bit crazy and divisive. Kerry, on the other hand, had a reputation for being \"electable\" -- not someone you\'d vote for, not someone you\'d vote against, but certainly, if enough people disliked George W. Bush, someone who could win by default. Adams seems to be that type of candidate. The Federalists were more passionate about Hamilton, but wanted to make sure Thomas Jefferson lost. Hamilton was toxic to enough voters as to make him a non-option, so the Federalists went with Adams. And, unlike Kerry\'s Democrats, it worked. The second President of the United States was a default candidate. Sad, but apparently, true.\r\n\r\nIn the late 1700s, Britian and France were at war. American political parties were divided as to whom to support. The war I knew about, albeit glibly. I also knew that for the most part, the United States stayed out of it. But this line absolutely floored me: \"Adams\'s term (1797–1801) was marked by intense disputes over foreign policy and a limited naval war with France. Britain and France were at war; Hamilton and the Federalists favored Britain, while Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans favored France.\"\r\n\r\nThe default rule of neutrality made a ton of sense for early America. Isolated from Europe and a very young nation, the cost of war and the time lag made it incredibly cumbersome. But I never thought \"who should we support\" was contentious.\r\n\r\nTake modern day America. Since World War II, has there ever been a deep divide about who the U.S. should support? Perhaps Israeli/Palestinian relations come close, but even then, both major parties back Israel. My knowledge of the history of American foreign relations is lacking, I guess, but I can\'t think of a single example where two major powers were at war and the U.S. couldn\'t decide what side to be on. I\'m flabbergasted.\r\n\r\n***\r\n\r\nYour turn. Read John Adams\' Wikipedia entry and leave your thoughts in the comments. And then start your own Wikipedia Reading Club meeting!','The Wikipedia Reading Club',0,'','inherit','open','open','','126-revision-7','','','2010-03-18 19:22:30','2010-03-18 19:22:30','',126,'http://dlewis.net/2010/03/18/126-revision-7/',0,'revision','',0),(134,1,'2010-03-18 19:23:26','2010-03-18 19:23:26','A few weeks ago, Joe Posnanski penned a great column about the etymology of the phrase \"begs the question.\" In it, he recalls mentioning the name Amelia Earhart to a colleague and is \"stunned\" to learn that the colleague has not idea who Earhart is. Posnanski explains: \"[She] was the woman pilot from Kansas who disappeared over the Pacific Ocean while attempting to fly around the world.\"\r\n\r\nAnd then he admits that maybe he shouldn\'t have been stunned about his colleague\'s ignorance. After all, the sentence I just quoted \"more or less exhausts [his] entire catalogue of knowledge about Amelia Earhart.\" Mine too -- in fact, I did not know she was from Kansas.\r\n\r\nThat same day, former president John Adams came up in a conversation with a friend. We were talking about Liz Cheney\'s objection to American lawyers representing Al Qaeda members, and Adams -- who represented British soldiers (successfully!) charged with crimes stemming from the Boston Massacre -- naturally came up. We both knew who he was, basically -- the second President of the United States, a Boston patriot, even cousin of Sam Adams. But beyond that? Nothing. Not even enough to fill a top 10 list.\r\n\r\nI figured that needed fixing. I wasn\'t going to go read David McCullough\'s 752 page book on Adams, but I wanted to get more than just a glib understanding of his impact on the American Founding. I read Adams\' Wikipedia entry that evening on my commute home, and found a few things surprising. But with no one to discuss them with -- my friend was happy with his glib understanding -- the learnings fell silent. I wished, quietly, that others had also read the article with me, and shared their top takeaways. Kind of like a book club, but for Wikipedia articles.\r\n\r\nSo, I\'m starting one here, and hope you\'ll do the same on your blog, Facebook page, twitter account, etc. Here\'s how:\r\n\r\n1) If you\'re interested in the topic (this time, John Adams), read the Wikipedia article and post your takeaways in the comments. Think of it as a book club, hosted at my place. I want to know what you learned, what you think, etc.\r\n\r\n2) Start a Wikipedia Reading Club meeting on your own blog. Pick a topic that you think you should know more about, but don\'t. And do what I\'m doing, below. The source need not be Wikipedia, either; for example, if you wanted to know more about Cookie Monster, you might suggest reading both his Wikipedia entry and his Muppet Wiki one.\r\n\r\n3) Share your participation in this Club meeting and others on your blog, Twitter feeds, etc. I\'ll be sharing my participation in this Wikipedia Reading Club meeting announcing it on Twitter (maybe with a #WikiRC hash tag) and by commenting here. If you start your own WikiRC around an article of your choosing, let me know on Twitter, by leaving a comment here, by emailing me, etc. And if I join your meetings, I\'ll be tweeting and commenting there, too.\r\n\r\nNow, to John Adams:\r\n\r\nThe fundamental structure of the U.S. Congress was much more radical than I thought. And I thought it was pretty radical. In elementary school and beyond, I (and most Americans) were taught that the core debate of the Constitutional Congress was one of states rights versus a strong federal government. One of the big concerns was that large, populous states (e.g. Virginia) would have more influence than smaller ones. The solution was a bicameral legislature, with one house giving each state equal representation as to any other (the Senate) and the other (the House) tied to population. Seems reasonable -- but it\'s now how Adams saw a bicameral system operating. He noted \"that social classes exist in every political society, and [believed] that a good government must accept that reality.\" In his eyes, the elite would be one house, the commoners the other. Given that this theory was propounded by a Founding Father and the 2nd President of the United States, it should go without saying that it was considered. Imagine how different America, and probably the world, would be had the Continental Congress adopted Adams\' ideals.\r\n\r\nAdams was an accidental, \"electability\" candidate for President -- and won. Obviously, I knew he won. The first part caught me off guard, but it explains a lot. Coming into this, I knew more about Alexander Hamilton and even Aaron Burr than I do Adams -- and neither of them were ever elected President. Now I understand why.\r\n\r\nIn 2004, John Kerry grabbed the Democratic nomination for President, over the much more passionate and interesting Howard Dean. Dean rallied the base and to a large degree teed up the issues for both the primaries but did came in third (!) at the Iowa caucuses mostly because he was widely regarded as a bit crazy and divisive. Kerry, on the other hand, had a reputation for being \"electable\" -- not someone you\'d vote for, not someone you\'d vote against, but certainly, if enough people disliked George W. Bush, someone who could win by default. Adams seems to be that type of candidate. The Federalists were more passionate about Hamilton, but wanted to make sure Thomas Jefferson lost. Hamilton was toxic to enough voters as to make him a non-option, so the Federalists went with Adams. And, unlike Kerry\'s Democrats, it worked. The second President of the United States was a default candidate. Sad, but apparently, true.\r\n\r\nIn the late 1700s, Britian and France were at war. American political parties were divided as to whom to support. The war I knew about, albeit glibly. I also knew that for the most part, the United States stayed out of it. But this line absolutely floored me: \"Adams\'s term (1797–1801) was marked by intense disputes over foreign policy and a limited naval war with France. Britain and France were at war; Hamilton and the Federalists favored Britain, while Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans favored France.\"\r\n\r\nThe default rule of neutrality made a ton of sense for early America. Isolated from Europe and a very young nation, the cost of war and the time lag made it incredibly cumbersome. But I never thought \"who should we support\" was contentious.\r\n\r\nTake modern day America. Since World War II, has there ever been a deep divide about who the U.S. should support? Perhaps Israeli/Palestinian relations come close, but even then, both major parties back Israel. My knowledge of the history of American foreign relations is lacking, I guess, but I can\'t think of a single example where two major powers were at war and the U.S. couldn\'t decide what side to be on. I\'m flabbergasted.\r\n\r\n***\r\n\r\nYour turn. Read John Adams\' Wikipedia entry and leave your thoughts in the comments. And then start your own Wikipedia Reading Club meeting!','The Wikipedia Reading Club',0,'','inherit','open','open','','126-revision-8','','','2010-03-18 19:23:26','2010-03-18 19:23:26','',126,'http://dlewis.net/2010/03/18/126-revision-8/',0,'revision','',0),(135,1,'2010-03-18 19:24:29','2010-03-18 19:24:29','A few weeks ago, Joe Posnanski penned a great column about the etymology of the phrase \"begs the question.\" In it, he recalls mentioning the name Amelia Earhart to a colleague and is \"stunned\" to learn that the colleague has not idea who Earhart is. Posnanski explains: \"[She] was the woman pilot from Kansas who disappeared over the Pacific Ocean while attempting to fly around the world.\"\r\n\r\nAnd then he admits that maybe he shouldn\'t have been stunned about his colleague\'s ignorance. After all, the sentence I just quoted \"more or less exhausts [his] entire catalogue of knowledge about Amelia Earhart.\" Mine too -- in fact, I did not know she was from Kansas.\r\n\r\nThat same day, former president John Adams came up in a conversation with a friend. We were talking about Liz Cheney\'s objection to American lawyers representing Al Qaeda members, and Adams -- who represented British soldiers (successfully!) charged with crimes stemming from the Boston Massacre -- naturally came up. We both knew who he was, basically -- the second President of the United States, a Boston patriot, even cousin of Sam Adams. But beyond that? Nothing. Not even enough to fill a top 10 list.\r\n\r\nI figured that needed fixing. I wasn\'t going to go read David McCullough\'s 752 page book on Adams, but I wanted to get more than just a glib understanding of his impact on the American Founding. I read Adams\' Wikipedia entry that evening on my commute home, and found a few things surprising. But with no one to discuss them with -- my friend was happy with his glib understanding -- the learnings fell silent. I wished, quietly, that others had also read the article with me, and shared their top takeaways. Kind of like a book club, but for Wikipedia articles.\r\n\r\nSo, I\'m starting one here, and hope you\'ll do the same on your blog, Facebook page, twitter account, etc. Here\'s how:\r\n\r\n1) If you\'re interested in the topic (this time, John Adams), read the Wikipedia article and post your takeaways in the comments. Think of it as a book club, hosted at my place. I want to know what you learned, what you think, etc.\r\n\r\n2) Start a Wikipedia Reading Club meeting on your own blog. Pick a topic that you think you should know more about, but don\'t. And do what I\'m doing, below. The source need not be Wikipedia, either; for example, if you wanted to know more about Cookie Monster, you might suggest reading both his Wikipedia entry and his Muppet Wiki one.\r\n\r\n3) Share your participation in this Club meeting and others on your blog, Twitter feeds, etc. I\'ll be sharing my participation in this Wikipedia Reading Club meeting announcing it on Twitter (maybe with a #WikiRC hash tag) and by commenting here. If you start your own WikiRC around an article of your choosing, let me know on Twitter, by leaving a comment here, by emailing me, etc. And if I join your meetings, I\'ll be tweeting and commenting there, too.\r\n\r\nNow, to John Adams:\r\n\r\nThe fundamental structure of the U.S. Congress was much more radical than I thought. And I thought it was pretty radical. In elementary school and beyond, I (and most Americans) were taught that the core debate of the Constitutional Congress was one of states rights versus a strong federal government. One of the big concerns was that large, populous states (e.g. Virginia) would have more influence than smaller ones. The solution was a bicameral legislature, with one house giving each state equal representation as to any other (the Senate) and the other (the House) tied to population. Seems reasonable -- but it\'s now how Adams saw a bicameral system operating. He noted \"that social classes exist in every political society, and [believed] that a good government must accept that reality.\" In his eyes, the elite would be one house, the commoners the other. Given that this theory was propounded by a Founding Father and the 2nd President of the United States, it should go without saying that it was considered. Imagine how different America, and probably the world, would be had the Continental Congress adopted Adams\' ideals.\r\n\r\nAdams was an accidental, \"electability\" candidate for President -- and won. Obviously, I knew he won. The first part caught me off guard, but it explains a lot. Coming into this, I knew more about Alexander Hamilton and even Aaron Burr than I do Adams -- and neither of them were ever elected President. Now I understand why.\r\n\r\nIn 2004, John Kerry grabbed the Democratic nomination for President, over the much more passionate and interesting Howard Dean. Dean rallied the base and to a large degree teed up the issues for both the primaries but did came in third (!) at the Iowa caucuses mostly because he was widely regarded as a bit crazy and divisive. Kerry, on the other hand, had a reputation for being \"electable\" -- not someone you\'d vote for, not someone you\'d vote against, but certainly, if enough people disliked George W. Bush, someone who could win by default. Adams seems to be that type of candidate. The Federalists were more passionate about Hamilton, but wanted to make sure Thomas Jefferson lost. Hamilton was toxic to enough voters as to make him a non-option, so the Federalists went with Adams. And, unlike Kerry\'s Democrats, it worked. The second President of the United States was a default candidate. Sad, but apparently, true.\r\n\r\nIn the late 1700s, Britian and France were at war. American political parties were divided as to whom to support. The war I knew about, albeit glibly. I also knew that for the most part, the United States stayed out of it. But this line absolutely floored me: \"Adams\'s term (1797–1801) was marked by intense disputes over foreign policy and a limited naval war with France. Britain and France were at war; Hamilton and the Federalists favored Britain, while Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans favored France.\"\r\n\r\nThe default rule of neutrality made a ton of sense for early America. Isolated from Europe and a very young nation, the cost of war and the time lag made it incredibly cumbersome. But I never thought \"who should we support\" was contentious.\r\n\r\nTake modern day America. Since World War II, has there ever been a deep divide about who the U.S. should support? Perhaps Israeli/Palestinian relations come close, but even then, both major parties back Israel. My knowledge of the history of American foreign relations is lacking, I guess, but I can\'t think of a single example where two major powers were at war and the U.S. couldn\'t decide what side to be on. I\'m flabbergasted.\r\n\r\n***\r\n\r\nYour turn. Read John Adams\' Wikipedia entry and leave your thoughts in the comments. And then start your own Wikipedia Reading Club meeting!','The Wikipedia Reading Club',0,'','inherit','open','open','','126-revision-9','','','2010-03-18 19:24:29','2010-03-18 19:24:29','',126,'http://dlewis.net/2010/03/18/126-revision-9/',0,'revision','',0),(136,1,'2010-03-18 19:26:24','2010-03-18 19:26:24','A few weeks ago, Joe Posnanski penned a great column about the etymology of the phrase \"begs the question.\" In it, he recalls mentioning the name Amelia Earhart to a colleague and is \"stunned\" to learn that the colleague has not idea who Earhart is. Posnanski explains: \"[She] was the woman pilot from Kansas who disappeared over the Pacific Ocean while attempting to fly around the world.\"\n\nAnd then he admits that maybe he shouldn\'t have been stunned about his colleague\'s ignorance. After all, the sentence I just quoted \"more or less exhausts [his] entire catalogue of knowledge about Amelia Earhart.\" Mine too -- in fact, I did not know she was from Kansas.\n\nThat same day, former president John Adams came up in a conversation with a friend. We were talking about Liz Cheney\'s objection to American lawyers representing Al Qaeda members, and Adams -- who represented British soldiers (successfully!) charged with crimes stemming from the Boston Massacre -- naturally came up. We both knew who he was, basically -- the second President of the United States, a Boston patriot, even cousin of Sam Adams. But beyond that? Nothing. Not even enough to fill a top 10 list.\n\nI figured that needed fixing. I wasn\'t going to go read David McCullough\'s 752 page book on Adams, but I wanted to get more than just a glib understanding of his impact on the American Founding. I read Adams\' Wikipedia entry that evening on my commute home, and found a few things surprising. But with no one to discuss them with -- my friend was happy with his glib understanding -- the learnings fell silent. I wished, quietly, that others had also read the article with me, and shared their top takeaways. Kind of like a book club, but for Wikipedia articles.\n\nSo, I\'m starting one here, and hope you\'ll do the same on your blog, Facebook page, twitter account, etc. Here\'s how:\n\n1) If you\'re interested in the topic (this time, John Adams), read the Wikipedia article and post your takeaways in the comments. Think of it as a book club, hosted at my place. I want to know what you learned, what you think, etc.\n\n2) Start a Wikipedia Reading Club meeting on your own blog. Pick a topic that you think you should know more about, but don\'t. And do what I\'m doing, below. The source need not be Wikipedia, either; for example, if you wanted to know more about Cookie Monster, you might suggest reading both his Wikipedia entry and his Muppet Wiki one.\n\n3) Share your participation in this Club meeting and others on your blog, Twitter feeds, etc. I\'ll be sharing my participation in this Wikipedia Reading Club meeting announcing it on Twitter (maybe with a #WikiRC hash tag) and by commenting here. If you start your own WikiRC around an article of your choosing, let me know on Twitter, by leaving a comment here, by emailing me, etc. And if I join your meetings, I\'ll be tweeting and commenting there, too.\n\nNow, to John Adams:\n\nThe fundamental structure of the U.S. Congress was much more radical than I thought. And I thought it was pretty radical. In elementary school and beyond, I (and most Americans) were taught that the core debate of the Constitutional Congress was one of states rights versus a strong federal government. One of the big concerns was that large, populous states (e.g. Virginia) would have more influence than smaller ones. The solution was a bicameral legislature, with one house giving each state equal representation as to any other (the Senate) and the other (the House) tied to population. Seems reasonable -- but it\'s now how Adams saw a bicameral system operating. He noted \"that social classes exist in every political society, and [believed] that a good government must accept that reality.\" In his eyes, the elite would be one house, the commoners the other. Given that this theory was propounded by a Founding Father and the 2nd President of the United States, it should go without saying that it was considered. Imagine how different America, and probably the world, would be had the Continental Congress adopted Adams\' ideals.\n\nAdams was an accidental, \"electability\" candidate for President -- and won. Obviously, I knew he won. The first part caught me off guard, but it explains a lot. Coming into this, I knew more about Alexander Hamilton and even Aaron Burr than I do Adams -- and neither of them were ever elected President. Now I understand why.\n\nIn 2004, John Kerry grabbed the Democratic nomination for President, over the much more passionate and interesting Howard Dean. Dean rallied the base and to a large degree teed up the issues for both the primaries but did came in third (!) at the Iowa caucuses mostly because he was widely regarded as a bit crazy and divisive. Kerry, on the other hand, had a reputation for being \"electable\" -- not someone you\'d vote for, not someone you\'d vote against, but certainly, if enough people disliked George W. Bush, someone who could win by default. Adams seems to be that type of candidate. The Federalists were more passionate about Hamilton, but wanted to make sure Thomas Jefferson lost. Hamilton was toxic to enough voters as to make him a non-option, so the Federalists went with Adams. And, unlike Kerry\'s Democrats, it worked. The second President of the United States was a default candidate. Sad, but apparently, true.\n\nIn the late 1700s, Britian and France were at war. American political parties were divided as to whom to support. The war I knew about, albeit glibly. I also knew that for the most part, the United States stayed out of it. But this line absolutely floored me: \"Adams\'s term (1797–1801) was marked by intense disputes over foreign policy and a limited naval war with France. Britain and France were at war; Hamilton and the Federalists favored Britain, while Jefferson and the Democratic-Republicans favored France.\"\n\nThe default rule of neutrality made a ton of sense for early America. Isolated from Europe and a very young nation, the cost of war and the time lag made it incredibly cumbersome. But I never thought \"who should we support\" was contentious.\n\nTake modern day America. Since World War II, has there ever been a deep divide about who the U.S. should support? Perhaps Israeli/Palestinian relations come close, but even then, both major parties back Israel. My knowledge of the history of American foreign relations is lacking, I guess, but I can\'t think of a single example where two major powers were at war and the U.S. couldn\'t decide what side to be on. I\'m flabbergasted.\n\n***\n\nYour turn. Read John Adams\' Wikipedia entry and leave your thoughts in the comments. And then start your own Wikipedia Reading Club meeting!','The Wikipedia Reading Club',0,'','inherit','open','open','','126-autosave','','','2010-03-18 19:26:24','2010-03-18 19:26:24','',126,'http://dlewis.net/2010/03/18/126-autosave/',0,'revision','',0),(137,1,'2010-03-19 17:19:03','2010-03-19 17:19:03','Yesterday, I kicked off the Wikipedia Reading Club with this post on John Adams\' entry. Click that link to learn more about the Club and how to participate; read on if you already know.\r\n\r\n![\"\"](\"http://blueducksports.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/jackie-robinsonkauffman1.jpg\" "\\"Jackie")
Today, it\'s Jackie Robinson. As a die-hard baseball fan, I know more about Robinson than the average person, I\'d bet -- I know he broke the MLB color barrier, of course, but I also knew a good amount about the details of his playing career; even the fact that he retired rather than accept a trade to the San Francisco Giants (although I did not realize that he had decided to retire prior to the trade). Here are a few things I learned; please share your thoughts in the comments, as always.\r\n\r\nIn junior college, Robinson had a run-in with the police over what he saw as a racially motivated detainment of a friend. Specifically, \"[a]n incident at [Pasadena Junior College] illustrated Robinson\'s impatience with authority figures he perceived as racist – a character trait that would resurface repeatedly in his life. On January 25, 1938, he was arrested after vocally disputing the detention of a black friend by police. Robinson received a two-year suspended sentence, but the incident – along with other rumored run-ins between Robinson and police – gave Robinson a reputation for combativeness in the face of racial antagonism.\" \r\n\r\nThis jumped off the page for two reasons. First, I thought one of the reasons Robinson -- beyond his supreme talent for baseball -- made for a great candidate to break the color barrier is because he was one to turn the other cheek; it turns out, I was entirely wrong on that point. Rather, Branch Rickey and Robinson had to come to an informal agreement that Robinson would turn the other cheek in spite of his history of doing the opposite; I see this as a major testament to Robinson\'s will and fortitude against hate that I can\'t even imagine.\r\n\r\nSecond, six years after he debuted, the Yankees were still an all-white ball club. They had a guy named Vic Power in the minors was was destined to get a call to the bigs. But the Yankees, allegedly fearing Power\'s temperament, kept Power in the minors for the 1953 season -- they did not even extend him a Spring Training invite. Again, allegedly, the organization did not want Power to be the first African-American Yankee, instead preferring Elston Howard to take that honor. With Power clearly Major League ready but Howard needing time in the minors -- the team was converting him to play catcher, the Yankees traded Power in December of 1953.\r\n\r\nGiven the amount of time, detail, planning, and consideration of off-field behavior that the Yankees required in order to put an African-American in pinstripes, I\'m surprised to read that, by present-day indicators, Robinson had a checkered (albeit nearly certainly justified) off-field resume.\r\n\r\nWorld War II cut Robinson\'s career short -- his football career, that is. Ted Williams is one of my favorite players, ever. In 1941, he hit .406 -- the last player to break the .400 barrier. The next year, 1942, he won the Triple Crown. In 1946, he was second on batting average, home runs, and RBI, but lead the league in runs, on-base percentage, slugging percentage, and won his first MVP award. In 1947, he won the Triple Crown again. 1948, he lost a few games due to injury, but still finished third in MVP voting. And to top it all off, he returned healthy in 1949 to win a Triple Crown a third time, his second MVP award, and, for good measure, lead the league in doubles, too.\r\n\r\nFrom 1943-1945, during the prime of his career, he served in World War II. Yet when he retired in 1960, he did so with 521 homers, then good enough for third all-time behind Babe Ruth (714) and Jimmie Foxx (534). Imagine how great Williams may have been if he hadn\'t lost that time to the War. (He also missed time to a tour of duty in Korea.)\r\n\r\nBut for baseball fans, what WWII taketh, maybe it giveth back? Robinson was destined to play football -- baseball was his worst sport as a UCLA student -- but the war cut his football career short. And then, I learned...\r\n\r\nRobinson ended up on the Negro League Kansas City Monarchs because of the above two things. When serving in the military, Robinson refused -- in Rosa Parks\' style -- to move to the back of a bus. After a few twists and turns with many refusing to take action, Robinson was brought before a military tribunal charged with two counts of insubordination. He was acquitted by an all-white panel, and soon after transferred to Camp Breckenridge, Kentucky. There, he\'d meet a former Monarch player who convinced him to push for a spot on the team.\r\n\r\nThe first team to give Robinson a tryout was also the last Major League team to integrate. The Red Sox, in case you wondered.\r\n\r\nThe team was feeling pressure from local politicians to desegregate, so they brought in Robinson -- but it was a dog and pony show. Even at the tryout, Robinson was the subject of racial epithets, even though the tryout was closed to the public -- that is, the slurs were coming from the mouths of people in Red Sox management.\r\n\r\nRobinson was the first African-American vice president of a major corporation. He retired from baseball in January of 1957 and joined Chock full o\'Nuts, as what sounds like vice president of human resources -- where he remained until 1964.\r\n\r\nPolitically, he was independent and active. Robinson endorsed Richard Nixon in 1960 -- over JFK. He supported JFK afterward, and saw Kennedy as a civil rights leader. Four years later, Robinson backed Nelson Rockefeller in the primaries against eventual Republican nominee Barry Goldwater, but after LBJ prevailed in the general election, Robinson supported him more than one would think, writing to Martin Luther King Jr. in support of Johnson\'s Vietnam War plan. Coming full circle, Robinson supported Democratic presidential candidate Hubert Humphrey in 1968 -- versus Nixon.\r\n\r\nI enjoy the nuanced political stance, especially given the leverage Robinson certainly had in the America of the 1960s. I also can\'t help but notice that he backed the loser three times in three election cycles -- but I\'m not sure what that means.\r\n\r\n***\r\n\r\nYour turn. Read Jackie Robinson’s Wikipedia entry and leave your thoughts in the comments. And then start your own Wikipedia Reading Club meeting!','The Wikipedia Reading Club: Jackie Robinson',0,'','publish','open','open','','the-wikipedia-reading-club-jackie-robinson','','http://dlewis.net/2010/03/18/the-wikipedia-reading-club/\nhttp://dlewis.net/2010/03/18/the-wikipedia-reading-club/','2010-03-19 17:19:34','2010-03-19 17:19:34','',0,'http://dlewis.net/?p=137',0,'post','',3),(138,1,'2010-03-19 15:54:49','2010-03-19 15:54:49','Yesterday, I kicked off the Wikipedia Reading Club with this post on John Adams\' entry. Click that link to learn more about the Club and how to participate; read on if you already know.\n\nToday, it\'s Jackie Robinson. As a die-hard baseball fan, I know more about Robinson than the average person, I\'d bet -- I know he broke the MLB color barrier, of course, but I also knew a good amount about the details of his playing career; even the fact that he retired rather than accept a trade to the San Francisco Giants (although I did not realize that he had decided to retire prior to the trade). Here are a few things I learned; please share your thoughts in the comments, as always.\n\nIn junior college, Robinson had a run-in with the police over what he saw as a racially motivated detainment of a friend. Specifically, \"An incident at PJC illustrated Robinson\'s impatience with authority figures he perceived as racist – a character trait that would resurface repeatedly in his life. On January 25, 1938, he was arrested after vocally disputing the detention of a black friend by police. Robinson received a two-year suspended sentence, but the incident – along with other rumored run-ins between Robinson and police – gave Robinson a reputation for combativeness in the face of racial antagonism.\"','The Wikipedia Reading Club: Jackie Robinson',0,'','inherit','open','open','','137-revision','','','2010-03-19 15:54:49','2010-03-19 15:54:49','',137,'http://dlewis.net/2010/03/19/137-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(139,1,'2010-03-19 17:00:32','2010-03-19 17:00:32','Yesterday, I kicked off the Wikipedia Reading Club with this post on John Adams\' entry. Click that link to learn more about the Club and how to participate; read on if you already know.\n\nToday, it\'s Jackie Robinson. As a die-hard baseball fan, I know more about Robinson than the average person, I\'d bet -- I know he broke the MLB color barrier, of course, but I also knew a good amount about the details of his playing career; even the fact that he retired rather than accept a trade to the San Francisco Giants (although I did not realize that he had decided to retire prior to the trade). Here are a few things I learned; please share your thoughts in the comments, as always.\n\nIn junior college, Robinson had a run-in with the police over what he saw as a racially motivated detainment of a friend. Specifically, \"[a]n incident at [Pasadena Junior College] illustrated Robinson\'s impatience with authority figures he perceived as racist – a character trait that would resurface repeatedly in his life. On January 25, 1938, he was arrested after vocally disputing the detention of a black friend by police. Robinson received a two-year suspended sentence, but the incident – along with other rumored run-ins between Robinson and police – gave Robinson a reputation for combativeness in the face of racial antagonism.\" \n\nThis jumped off the page for two reasons. First, I thought one of the reasons Robinson -- beyond his supreme talent for baseball -- made for a great candidate to break the color barrier is because he was one to turn the other cheek; it turns out, I was entirely wrong on that point. Rather, Branch Rickey and Robinson had to come to an informal agreement that Robinson would turn the other cheek in spite of his history of doing the opposite; I see this as a major testament to Robinson\'s will and fortitude against hate that I can\'t even imagine.\n\nSecond, six years after he debuted, the Yankees were still an all-white ball club. They had a guy named Vic Power in the minors was was destined to get a call to the bigs. But the Yankees, allegedly fearing Power\'s temperament, kept Power in the minors for the 1953 season -- they did not even extend him a Spring Training invite. Again, allegedly, the organization did not want Power to be the first African-American Yankee, instead preferring Elston Howard to take that honor. With Power clearly Major League ready but Howard needing time in the minors -- the team was converting him to play catcher, the Yankees traded Power in December of 1953.\n\nGiven the amount of time, detail, planning, and consideration of off-field behavior that the Yankees required in order to put an African-American in pinstripes, I\'m surprised to read that, by present-day indicators, Robinson had a checkered (albeit nearly certainly justified) off-field resume.\n\nWorld War II cut Robinson\'s career short -- his football career, that is. Ted Williams is one of my favorite players, ever. In 1941, he hit .406 -- the last player to break the .400 barrier. The next year, 1942, he won the Triple Crown. In 1946, he was second on batting average, home runs, and RBI, but lead the league in runs, on-base percentage, slugging percentage, and won his first MVP award. In 1947, he won the Triple Crown again. 1948, he lost a few games due to injury, but still finished third in MVP voting. And to top it all off, he returned healthy in 1949 to win a Triple Crown a third time, his second MVP award, and, for good measure, lead the league in doubles, too.\n\nFrom 1943-1945, during the prime of his career, he served in World War II. Yet when he retired in 1960, he did so with 521 homers, then good enough for third all-time behind Babe Ruth (714) and Jimmie Foxx (534). Imagine how great Williams may have been if he hadn\'t lost that time to the War. (He also missed time to a tour of duty in Korea.)\n\nBut for baseball fans, what WWII taketh, maybe it giveth back? Robinson was destined to play football -- baseball was his worst sport as a UCLA student -- but the war cut his football career short. And then, I learned...\n\nRobinson ended up on the Negro League Kansas City Monarchs because of the above two things. When serving in the military, Robinson refused -- in Rosa Parks\' style -- to move to the back of a bus. After a few twists and turns with many refusing to take action, Robinson was brought before a military tribunal charged with two counts of insubordination. He was acquitted by an all-white panel, and soon after transferred to Camp Breckenridge, Kentucky. There, he\'d meet a former Monarch player who convinced him to push for a spot on the team.\n\nThe first team to give Robinson a tryout was also the last Major League team to integrate. The Red Sox, in case you wondered.\n\nThe team was feeling pressure from local politicians to desegregate, so they brought in Robinson -- but it was a dog and pony show. Even at the tryout, Robinson was the subject of racial epithets, even though the tryout was closed to the public -- that is, the slurs were coming from the mouths of people in Red Sox management.\n\nRobinson was the first African-American vice president of a major corporation. He retired from baseball in January of 1957 and joined Chock full o\'Nuts, as what sounds like vice president of human resources -- where he remained until 1964.\n\nPolitically, he was independent and active. Robinson endorsed Richard Nixon in 1960 -- over JFK. He supported JFK afterward, and saw Kennedy as a civil rights leader. Four years later, Robinson backed Nelson Rockefeller in the primaries against eventual Republican nominee Barry Goldwater, but after LBJ prevailed in the general election, Robinson supported him more than one would think, writing to Martin Luther King Jr. in support of Johnson\'s Vietnam War plan. Coming full circle, Robinson supported Democratic presidential candidate Hubert Humphrey in 1968 -- versus Nixon.\n\nI enjoy the nuanced political stance, especially given the leverage Robinson certainly had in the America of the 1960s. I also can\'t help but notice that he backed the loser three times in three election cycles -- but I\'m not sure what that means.\n\n***\n\nYour turn. Read Jackie Robinson’s Wikipedia entry and leave your thoughts in the comments. And then start your own Wikipedia Reading Club meeting!','The Wikipedia Reading Club: Jackie Robinson',0,'','inherit','open','open','','137-revision-2','','','2010-03-19 17:00:32','2010-03-19 17:00:32','',137,'http://dlewis.net/2010/03/19/137-revision-2/',0,'revision','',0),(141,1,'2010-03-19 17:02:09','2010-03-19 17:02:09','Yesterday, I kicked off the Wikipedia Reading Club with this post on John Adams\' entry. Click that link to learn more about the Club and how to participate; read on if you already know.\n\nToday, it\'s Jackie Robinson. As a die-hard baseball fan, I know more about Robinson than the average person, I\'d bet -- I know he broke the MLB color barrier, of course, but I also knew a good amount about the details of his playing career; even the fact that he retired rather than accept a trade to the San Francisco Giants (although I did not realize that he had decided to retire prior to the trade). Here are a few things I learned; please share your thoughts in the comments, as always.\n\nIn junior college, Robinson had a run-in with the police over what he saw as a racially motivated detainment of a friend. Specifically, \"[a]n incident at [Pasadena Junior College] illustrated Robinson\'s impatience with authority figures he perceived as racist – a character trait that would resurface repeatedly in his life. On January 25, 1938, he was arrested after vocally disputing the detention of a black friend by police. Robinson received a two-year suspended sentence, but the incident – along with other rumored run-ins between Robinson and police – gave Robinson a reputation for combativeness in the face of racial antagonism.\" \n\nThis jumped off the page for two reasons. First, I thought one of the reasons Robinson -- beyond his supreme talent for baseball -- made for a great candidate to break the color barrier is because he was one to turn the other cheek; it turns out, I was entirely wrong on that point. Rather, Branch Rickey and Robinson had to come to an informal agreement that Robinson would turn the other cheek in spite of his history of doing the opposite; I see this as a major testament to Robinson\'s will and fortitude against hate that I can\'t even imagine.\n\nSecond, six years after he debuted, the Yankees were still an all-white ball club. They had a guy named Vic Power in the minors was was destined to get a call to the bigs. But the Yankees, allegedly fearing Power\'s temperament, kept Power in the minors for the 1953 season -- they did not even extend him a Spring Training invite. Again, allegedly, the organization did not want Power to be the first African-American Yankee, instead preferring Elston Howard to take that honor. With Power clearly Major League ready but Howard needing time in the minors -- the team was converting him to play catcher, the Yankees traded Power in December of 1953.\n\nGiven the amount of time, detail, planning, and consideration of off-field behavior that the Yankees required in order to put an African-American in pinstripes, I\'m surprised to read that, by present-day indicators, Robinson had a checkered (albeit nearly certainly justified) off-field resume.\n\nWorld War II cut Robinson\'s career short -- his football career, that is. Ted Williams is one of my favorite players, ever. In 1941, he hit .406 -- the last player to break the .400 barrier. The next year, 1942, he won the Triple Crown. In 1946, he was second on batting average, home runs, and RBI, but lead the league in runs, on-base percentage, slugging percentage, and won his first MVP award. In 1947, he won the Triple Crown again. 1948, he lost a few games due to injury, but still finished third in MVP voting. And to top it all off, he returned healthy in 1949 to win a Triple Crown a third time, his second MVP award, and, for good measure, lead the league in doubles, too.\n\nFrom 1943-1945, during the prime of his career, he served in World War II. Yet when he retired in 1960, he did so with 521 homers, then good enough for third all-time behind Babe Ruth (714) and Jimmie Foxx (534). Imagine how great Williams may have been if he hadn\'t lost that time to the War. (He also missed time to a tour of duty in Korea.)\n\nBut for baseball fans, what WWII taketh, maybe it giveth back? Robinson was destined to play football -- baseball was his worst sport as a UCLA student -- but the war cut his football career short. And then, I learned...\n\nRobinson ended up on the Negro League Kansas City Monarchs because of the above two things. When serving in the military, Robinson refused -- in Rosa Parks\' style -- to move to the back of a bus. After a few twists and turns with many refusing to take action, Robinson was brought before a military tribunal charged with two counts of insubordination. He was acquitted by an all-white panel, and soon after transferred to Camp Breckenridge, Kentucky. There, he\'d meet a former Monarch player who convinced him to push for a spot on the team.\n\nThe first team to give Robinson a tryout was also the last Major League team to integrate. The Red Sox, in case you wondered.\n\nThe team was feeling pressure from local politicians to desegregate, so they brought in Robinson -- but it was a dog and pony show. Even at the tryout, Robinson was the subject of racial epithets, even though the tryout was closed to the public -- that is, the slurs were coming from the mouths of people in Red Sox management.\n\nRobinson was the first African-American vice president of a major corporation. He retired from baseball in January of 1957 and joined Chock full o\'Nuts, as what sounds like vice president of human resources -- where he remained until 1964.\n\nPolitically, he was independent and active. Robinson endorsed Richard Nixon in 1960 -- over JFK. He supported JFK afterward, and saw Kennedy as a civil rights leader. Four years later, Robinson backed Nelson Rockefeller in the primaries against eventual Republican nominee Barry Goldwater, but after LBJ prevailed in the general election, Robinson supported him more than one would think, writing to Martin Luther King Jr. in support of Johnson\'s Vietnam War plan. Coming full circle, Robinson supported Democratic presidential candidate Hubert Humphrey in 1968 -- versus Nixon.\n\nI enjoy the nuanced political stance, especially given the leverage Robinson certainly had in the America of the 1960s. I also can\'t help but notice that he backed the loser three times in three election cycles -- but I\'m not sure what that means.\n\n***\n\nYour turn. Read Jackie Robinson’s Wikipedia entry and leave your thoughts in the comments. And then start your own Wikipedia Reading Club meeting!','The Wikipedia Reading Club: Jackie Robinson',0,'','inherit','open','open','','137-revision-4','','','2010-03-19 17:02:09','2010-03-19 17:02:09','',137,'http://dlewis.net/2010/03/19/137-revision-4/',0,'revision','',0),(140,1,'2010-03-19 17:00:34','2010-03-19 17:00:34','Yesterday, I kicked off the Wikipedia Reading Club with this post on John Adams\' entry. Click that link to learn more about the Club and how to participate; read on if you already know.\r\n\r\nToday, it\'s Jackie Robinson. As a die-hard baseball fan, I know more about Robinson than the average person, I\'d bet -- I know he broke the MLB color barrier, of course, but I also knew a good amount about the details of his playing career; even the fact that he retired rather than accept a trade to the San Francisco Giants (although I did not realize that he had decided to retire prior to the trade). Here are a few things I learned; please share your thoughts in the comments, as always.\r\n\r\nIn junior college, Robinson had a run-in with the police over what he saw as a racially motivated detainment of a friend. Specifically, \"[a]n incident at [Pasadena Junior College] illustrated Robinson\'s impatience with authority figures he perceived as racist – a character trait that would resurface repeatedly in his life. On January 25, 1938, he was arrested after vocally disputing the detention of a black friend by police. Robinson received a two-year suspended sentence, but the incident – along with other rumored run-ins between Robinson and police – gave Robinson a reputation for combativeness in the face of racial antagonism.\" \r\n\r\nThis jumped off the page for two reasons. First, I thought one of the reasons Robinson -- beyond his supreme talent for baseball -- made for a great candidate to break the color barrier is because he was one to turn the other cheek; it turns out, I was entirely wrong on that point. Rather, Branch Rickey and Robinson had to come to an informal agreement that Robinson would turn the other cheek in spite of his history of doing the opposite; I see this as a major testament to Robinson\'s will and fortitude against hate that I can\'t even imagine.\r\n\r\nSecond, six years after he debuted, the Yankees were still an all-white ball club. They had a guy named Vic Power in the minors was was destined to get a call to the bigs. But the Yankees, allegedly fearing Power\'s temperament, kept Power in the minors for the 1953 season -- they did not even extend him a Spring Training invite. Again, allegedly, the organization did not want Power to be the first African-American Yankee, instead preferring Elston Howard to take that honor. With Power clearly Major League ready but Howard needing time in the minors -- the team was converting him to play catcher, the Yankees traded Power in December of 1953.\r\n\r\nGiven the amount of time, detail, planning, and consideration of off-field behavior that the Yankees required in order to put an African-American in pinstripes, I\'m surprised to read that, by present-day indicators, Robinson had a checkered (albeit nearly certainly justified) off-field resume.\r\n\r\nWorld War II cut Robinson\'s career short -- his football career, that is. Ted Williams is one of my favorite players, ever. In 1941, he hit .406 -- the last player to break the .400 barrier. The next year, 1942, he won the Triple Crown. In 1946, he was second on batting average, home runs, and RBI, but lead the league in runs, on-base percentage, slugging percentage, and won his first MVP award. In 1947, he won the Triple Crown again. 1948, he lost a few games due to injury, but still finished third in MVP voting. And to top it all off, he returned healthy in 1949 to win a Triple Crown a third time, his second MVP award, and, for good measure, lead the league in doubles, too.\r\n\r\nFrom 1943-1945, during the prime of his career, he served in World War II. Yet when he retired in 1960, he did so with 521 homers, then good enough for third all-time behind Babe Ruth (714) and Jimmie Foxx (534). Imagine how great Williams may have been if he hadn\'t lost that time to the War. (He also missed time to a tour of duty in Korea.)\r\n\r\nBut for baseball fans, what WWII taketh, maybe it giveth back? Robinson was destined to play football -- baseball was his worst sport as a UCLA student -- but the war cut his football career short. And then, I learned...\r\n\r\nRobinson ended up on the Negro League Kansas City Monarchs because of the above two things. When serving in the military, Robinson refused -- in Rosa Parks\' style -- to move to the back of a bus. After a few twists and turns with many refusing to take action, Robinson was brought before a military tribunal charged with two counts of insubordination. He was acquitted by an all-white panel, and soon after transferred to Camp Breckenridge, Kentucky. There, he\'d meet a former Monarch player who convinced him to push for a spot on the team.\r\n\r\nThe first team to give Robinson a tryout was also the last Major League team to integrate. The Red Sox, in case you wondered.\r\n\r\nThe team was feeling pressure from local politicians to desegregate, so they brought in Robinson -- but it was a dog and pony show. Even at the tryout, Robinson was the subject of racial epithets, even though the tryout was closed to the public -- that is, the slurs were coming from the mouths of people in Red Sox management.\r\n\r\nRobinson was the first African-American vice president of a major corporation. He retired from baseball in January of 1957 and joined Chock full o\'Nuts, as what sounds like vice president of human resources -- where he remained until 1964.\r\n\r\nPolitically, he was independent and active. Robinson endorsed Richard Nixon in 1960 -- over JFK. He supported JFK afterward, and saw Kennedy as a civil rights leader. Four years later, Robinson backed Nelson Rockefeller in the primaries against eventual Republican nominee Barry Goldwater, but after LBJ prevailed in the general election, Robinson supported him more than one would think, writing to Martin Luther King Jr. in support of Johnson\'s Vietnam War plan. Coming full circle, Robinson supported Democratic presidential candidate Hubert Humphrey in 1968 -- versus Nixon.\r\n\r\nI enjoy the nuanced political stance, especially given the leverage Robinson certainly had in the America of the 1960s. I also can\'t help but notice that he backed the loser three times in three election cycles -- but I\'m not sure what that means.\r\n\r\n***\r\n\r\nYour turn. Read Jackie Robinson’s Wikipedia entry and leave your thoughts in the comments. And then start your own Wikipedia Reading Club meeting!','The Wikipedia Reading Club: Jackie Robinson',0,'','inherit','open','open','','137-revision-3','','','2010-03-19 17:00:34','2010-03-19 17:00:34','',137,'http://dlewis.net/2010/03/19/137-revision-3/',0,'revision','',0),(142,1,'2010-03-19 17:19:03','2010-03-19 17:19:03','Yesterday, I kicked off the Wikipedia Reading Club with this post on John Adams\' entry. Click that link to learn more about the Club and how to participate; read on if you already know.\r\n\r\nToday, it\'s Jackie Robinson. As a die-hard baseball fan, I know more about Robinson than the average person, I\'d bet -- I know he broke the MLB color barrier, of course, but I also knew a good amount about the details of his playing career; even the fact that he retired rather than accept a trade to the San Francisco Giants (although I did not realize that he had decided to retire prior to the trade). Here are a few things I learned; please share your thoughts in the comments, as always.\r\n\r\nIn junior college, Robinson had a run-in with the police over what he saw as a racially motivated detainment of a friend. Specifically, \"[a]n incident at [Pasadena Junior College] illustrated Robinson\'s impatience with authority figures he perceived as racist – a character trait that would resurface repeatedly in his life. On January 25, 1938, he was arrested after vocally disputing the detention of a black friend by police. Robinson received a two-year suspended sentence, but the incident – along with other rumored run-ins between Robinson and police – gave Robinson a reputation for combativeness in the face of racial antagonism.\" \r\n\r\nThis jumped off the page for two reasons. First, I thought one of the reasons Robinson -- beyond his supreme talent for baseball -- made for a great candidate to break the color barrier is because he was one to turn the other cheek; it turns out, I was entirely wrong on that point. Rather, Branch Rickey and Robinson had to come to an informal agreement that Robinson would turn the other cheek in spite of his history of doing the opposite; I see this as a major testament to Robinson\'s will and fortitude against hate that I can\'t even imagine.\r\n\r\nSecond, six years after he debuted, the Yankees were still an all-white ball club. They had a guy named Vic Power in the minors was was destined to get a call to the bigs. But the Yankees, allegedly fearing Power\'s temperament, kept Power in the minors for the 1953 season -- they did not even extend him a Spring Training invite. Again, allegedly, the organization did not want Power to be the first African-American Yankee, instead preferring Elston Howard to take that honor. With Power clearly Major League ready but Howard needing time in the minors -- the team was converting him to play catcher, the Yankees traded Power in December of 1953.\r\n\r\nGiven the amount of time, detail, planning, and consideration of off-field behavior that the Yankees required in order to put an African-American in pinstripes, I\'m surprised to read that, by present-day indicators, Robinson had a checkered (albeit nearly certainly justified) off-field resume.\r\n\r\nWorld War II cut Robinson\'s career short -- his football career, that is. Ted Williams is one of my favorite players, ever. In 1941, he hit .406 -- the last player to break the .400 barrier. The next year, 1942, he won the Triple Crown. In 1946, he was second on batting average, home runs, and RBI, but lead the league in runs, on-base percentage, slugging percentage, and won his first MVP award. In 1947, he won the Triple Crown again. 1948, he lost a few games due to injury, but still finished third in MVP voting. And to top it all off, he returned healthy in 1949 to win a Triple Crown a third time, his second MVP award, and, for good measure, lead the league in doubles, too.\r\n\r\nFrom 1943-1945, during the prime of his career, he served in World War II. Yet when he retired in 1960, he did so with 521 homers, then good enough for third all-time behind Babe Ruth (714) and Jimmie Foxx (534). Imagine how great Williams may have been if he hadn\'t lost that time to the War. (He also missed time to a tour of duty in Korea.)\r\n\r\nBut for baseball fans, what WWII taketh, maybe it giveth back? Robinson was destined to play football -- baseball was his worst sport as a UCLA student -- but the war cut his football career short. And then, I learned...\r\n\r\nRobinson ended up on the Negro League Kansas City Monarchs because of the above two things. When serving in the military, Robinson refused -- in Rosa Parks\' style -- to move to the back of a bus. After a few twists and turns with many refusing to take action, Robinson was brought before a military tribunal charged with two counts of insubordination. He was acquitted by an all-white panel, and soon after transferred to Camp Breckenridge, Kentucky. There, he\'d meet a former Monarch player who convinced him to push for a spot on the team.\r\n\r\nThe first team to give Robinson a tryout was also the last Major League team to integrate. The Red Sox, in case you wondered.\r\n\r\nThe team was feeling pressure from local politicians to desegregate, so they brought in Robinson -- but it was a dog and pony show. Even at the tryout, Robinson was the subject of racial epithets, even though the tryout was closed to the public -- that is, the slurs were coming from the mouths of people in Red Sox management.\r\n\r\nRobinson was the first African-American vice president of a major corporation. He retired from baseball in January of 1957 and joined Chock full o\'Nuts, as what sounds like vice president of human resources -- where he remained until 1964.\r\n\r\nPolitically, he was independent and active. Robinson endorsed Richard Nixon in 1960 -- over JFK. He supported JFK afterward, and saw Kennedy as a civil rights leader. Four years later, Robinson backed Nelson Rockefeller in the primaries against eventual Republican nominee Barry Goldwater, but after LBJ prevailed in the general election, Robinson supported him more than one would think, writing to Martin Luther King Jr. in support of Johnson\'s Vietnam War plan. Coming full circle, Robinson supported Democratic presidential candidate Hubert Humphrey in 1968 -- versus Nixon.\r\n\r\nI enjoy the nuanced political stance, especially given the leverage Robinson certainly had in the America of the 1960s. I also can\'t help but notice that he backed the loser three times in three election cycles -- but I\'m not sure what that means.\r\n\r\n***\r\n\r\nYour turn. Read Jackie Robinson’s Wikipedia entry and leave your thoughts in the comments. And then start your own Wikipedia Reading Club meeting!','The Wikipedia Reading Club: Jackie Robinson',0,'','inherit','open','open','','137-revision-5','','','2010-03-19 17:19:03','2010-03-19 17:19:03','',137,'http://dlewis.net/2010/03/19/137-revision-5/',0,'revision','',0),(143,1,'2010-03-19 17:20:37','2010-03-19 17:20:37','Yesterday, I kicked off the Wikipedia Reading Club with this post on John Adams\' entry. Click that link to learn more about the Club and how to participate; read on if you already know.\n\nToday, it\'s Jackie Robinson. As a die-hard baseball fan, I know more about Robinson than the average person, I\'d bet -- I know he broke the MLB color barrier, of course, but I also knew a good amount about the details of his playing career; even the fact that he retired rather than accept a trade to the San Francisco Giants (although I did not realize that he had decided to retire prior to the trade). Here are a few things I learned; please share your thoughts in the comments, as always.\n\nIn junior college, Robinson had a run-in with the police over what he saw as a racially motivated detainment of a friend. Specifically, \"[a]n incident at [Pasadena Junior College] illustrated Robinson\'s impatience with authority figures he perceived as racist – a character trait that would resurface repeatedly in his life. On January 25, 1938, he was arrested after vocally disputing the detention of a black friend by police. Robinson received a two-year suspended sentence, but the incident – along with other rumored run-ins between Robinson and police – gave Robinson a reputation for combativeness in the face of racial antagonism.\" \n\nThis jumped off the page for two reasons. First, I thought one of the reasons Robinson -- beyond his supreme talent for baseball -- made for a great candidate to break the color barrier is because he was one to turn the other cheek; it turns out, I was entirely wrong on that point. Rather, Branch Rickey and Robinson had to come to an informal agreement that Robinson would turn the other cheek in spite of his history of doing the opposite; I see this as a major testament to Robinson\'s will and fortitude against hate that I can\'t even imagine.\n\nSecond, six years after he debuted, the Yankees were still an all-white ball club. They had a guy named Vic Power in the minors was was destined to get a call to the bigs. But the Yankees, allegedly fearing Power\'s temperament, kept Power in the minors for the 1953 season -- they did not even extend him a Spring Training invite. Again, allegedly, the organization did not want Power to be the first African-American Yankee, instead preferring Elston Howard to take that honor. With Power clearly Major League ready but Howard needing time in the minors -- the team was converting him to play catcher, the Yankees traded Power in December of 1953.\n\nGiven the amount of time, detail, planning, and consideration of off-field behavior that the Yankees required in order to put an African-American in pinstripes, I\'m surprised to read that, by present-day indicators, Robinson had a checkered (albeit nearly certainly justified) off-field resume.\n\nWorld War II cut Robinson\'s career short -- his football career, that is. Ted Williams is one of my favorite players, ever. In 1941, he hit .406 -- the last player to break the .400 barrier. The next year, 1942, he won the Triple Crown. In 1946, he was second on batting average, home runs, and RBI, but lead the league in runs, on-base percentage, slugging percentage, and won his first MVP award. In 1947, he won the Triple Crown again. 1948, he lost a few games due to injury, but still finished third in MVP voting. And to top it all off, he returned healthy in 1949 to win a Triple Crown a third time, his second MVP award, and, for good measure, lead the league in doubles, too.\n\nFrom 1943-1945, during the prime of his career, he served in World War II. Yet when he retired in 1960, he did so with 521 homers, then good enough for third all-time behind Babe Ruth (714) and Jimmie Foxx (534). Imagine how great Williams may have been if he hadn\'t lost that time to the War. (He also missed time to a tour of duty in Korea.)\n\nBut for baseball fans, what WWII taketh, maybe it giveth back? Robinson was destined to play football -- baseball was his worst sport as a UCLA student -- but the war cut his football career short. And then, I learned...\n\nRobinson ended up on the Negro League Kansas City Monarchs because of the above two things. When serving in the military, Robinson refused -- in Rosa Parks\' style -- to move to the back of a bus. After a few twists and turns with many refusing to take action, Robinson was brought before a military tribunal charged with two counts of insubordination. He was acquitted by an all-white panel, and soon after transferred to Camp Breckenridge, Kentucky. There, he\'d meet a former Monarch player who convinced him to push for a spot on the team.\n\nThe first team to give Robinson a tryout was also the last Major League team to integrate. The Red Sox, in case you wondered.\n\nThe team was feeling pressure from local politicians to desegregate, so they brought in Robinson -- but it was a dog and pony show. Even at the tryout, Robinson was the subject of racial epithets, even though the tryout was closed to the public -- that is, the slurs were coming from the mouths of people in Red Sox management.\n\nRobinson was the first African-American vice president of a major corporation. He retired from baseball in January of 1957 and joined Chock full o\'Nuts, as what sounds like vice president of human resources -- where he remained until 1964.\n\nPolitically, he was independent and active. Robinson endorsed Richard Nixon in 1960 -- over JFK. He supported JFK afterward, and saw Kennedy as a civil rights leader. Four years later, Robinson backed Nelson Rockefeller in the primaries against eventual Republican nominee Barry Goldwater, but after LBJ prevailed in the general election, Robinson supported him more than one would think, writing to Martin Luther King Jr. in support of Johnson\'s Vietnam War plan. Coming full circle, Robinson supported Democratic presidential candidate Hubert Humphrey in 1968 -- versus Nixon.\n\nI enjoy the nuanced political stance, especially given the leverage Robinson certainly had in the America of the 1960s. I also can\'t help but notice that he backed the loser three times in three election cycles -- but I\'m not sure what that means.\n\n***\n\nYour turn. Read Jackie Robinson’s Wikipedia entry and leave your thoughts in the comments. And then start your own Wikipedia Reading Club meeting!','The Wikipedia Reading Club: Jackie Robinson',0,'','inherit','open','open','','137-autosave','','','2010-03-19 17:20:37','2010-03-19 17:20:37','',137,'http://dlewis.net/2010/03/19/137-autosave/',0,'revision','',0),(144,1,'2010-04-02 14:42:45','2010-04-02 14:42:45','','CountWins',0,'','inherit','open','open','','countwins','','','2010-04-02 14:42:45','2010-04-02 14:42:45','',145,'http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/CountWins.png',0,'attachment','image/png',0),(145,1,'2010-05-19 02:29:59','2010-05-19 02:29:59','I work for Sesame Workshop, the non-profit behind Sesame Street. I\'m the Director of New Media Communications, which means, in part, I get to figure out how we use Facebook and Twitter. I have been collecting a lot of publicly available data about one of my projects, and the results have proved interesting.\r\n\r\nEarlier this year, we opened up a bunch of official Fan pages (when they were called that) for various characters. We started with Elmo, Cookie Monster, Grover, Bert and Ernie, Rosita, Oscar the Grouch, and Abby Cadabby. Each proved popular, and on March 25th, we invited our then-60,000 plus Twitter followers to become Facebook fans of those characters.\r\n![\"\"](\"http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/tweet.png\" "\\"tweet\\"")
The bitly link did about 550 clicks. Before the tweet, most of the existing character fan pages had fewer Facebook fans than we had Twitter followers by an order of magnitude. Each of these pages fan counts grew by about 10%.
\r\nBut the more interesting feedback I had to gather by hand. People tweeted at @sesamestreet with their requests. Almost 20 different characters -- including human actors and one teddy bear -- were suggested. Many characters were suggested by only one or two people, but three characters stood out.
\r\n\r\nA week or so later, we announced the new pages on Twitter.
\r\n![\"\"](\"http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/tweet2.png\" "\\"tweet2\\"")
I intentionally did not announce it on Facebook because I wanted to see how well our then-70,000 Twitter followers would translate into Facebook fans. It was slow going, taking about 90 minutes to get one of the three characters to 100 fans, despite roughly 650 clicks overall that day. I stopped checking once the first character hit 100 fans.
\r\nGiven the response to my informal poll, I expected Big Bird to come out to a quick and decisive lead. I was wrong.
\r\n\r\n\r\n![\"\"](\"http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/CountWins.png\" "\\"CountWins\\"")
Snuffy and The Count were neck and for the 90 or so minutes it took for the latter to prevail. Big Bird was a laggard, not even coming close. It was the exact opposite results of the poll.
\r\nSmall sample size, perhaps? Maybe I wasn\'t hitting the same audiences? Perhaps the responders on Twitter were not also using Facebook? Or maybe they were, but they did not want their Facebook (real?) friends to know they were fans of children\'s television characters?
\r\nAny are likely explanations, but none are very satisfying. Instead of coming up with some answers, I instead ended up with another question:
\r\nWhich \"survey\" was more accurate?
\r\nIn effect, I conducted two surveys on Twitter. One was an explicit ask: Which character pages would you want to become a fan of? The other -- \"we\'ve created these pages!\" -- was, implicitly, the same thing. The former was more theoretical while the latter concrete. Which one is better?
\r\nYesterday, I checked these three characters\' pages again. The results changed, reflecting closely the results of the earlier poll:
\r\n\r\n![\"\"](\"http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/BBWins.png\" "\\"BBWins\\"")
Indexing Big Bird to 100 again, Snuffy comes in at 77 -- not far off from his original Twitter score -- and the Count at 67. It makes sense that these are a bit higher because while the Twitter responses naturally limit the # of possibilities (140 characters and the memory/imagination of the responder being two factors), there is no such mutual exclusivity or memory leaks when presented with options on Facebook.
\r\nSome general takeaways:
\r\n\r\nOn Friday morning, Sesame Workshop officially opened Facebook Fan Pages for Snuffleupagus, the Count, and Big Bird.','Moobark',0,'','inherit','open','open','','145-revision','','','2010-04-02 14:45:18','2010-04-02 14:45:18','',145,'http://dlewis.net/2010/04/02/145-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(147,1,'2010-04-02 14:45:27','2010-04-02 14:45:27','On Friday morning, Sesame Workshop officially opened Facebook Fan Pages for Snuffleupagus, the Count, and Big Bird.','Moobark',0,'','inherit','open','open','','145-revision-2','','','2010-04-02 14:45:27','2010-04-02 14:45:27','',145,'http://dlewis.net/2010/04/02/145-revision-2/',0,'revision','',0),(153,1,'2010-04-07 11:42:26','0000-00-00 00:00:00','A decade and a half ago, we casually referred to the Internet as the \"Information Superhighway.\" It probably meant \"a really fast conduit upon which information travels.\" But the way in invaded the parlance of the early consumer Web suggests that any such definition found itself quickly extinguished. URLs were -- and are -- commonly referred to as \"web addresses,\" as if one travels to Amazon.com in a way similar to 123 Sesame Street. Early personal websites were called homepages, as in \"Dan Lewis\'s Home in Cyberspace!!!\". In-print and TV advertisements commonly suggested that a consumer \"visit us on the World Wide Web at www.Honda.com.\" Even the term \"cyberspace\" nods its head toward a physical manifestation of a virtual universe.\r\n\r\nThis mindset was more than semantic. Early legal decisions viewed websites as static entities on this Superhighway; quite literally, courts often analogized sites to billboards. Web sites -- and, for web-based companies, the underlying business -- were graded by how many eyeballs \"visited\" their respective sites. (To a large degree, they still are.) While a good address is still important today, they were more important -- both in concept and practice -- fifteen years ago. Amazon was compared to Barnes & Nobles and Borders simply because all three sold books, even though the former\'s business model was radically different. eBay was analogized to a huge garage sale or flea market -- an analogy they probably bought into and which has hamstrung them since. We simply insisted on reconciling a virtual world into physical terms. It was doomed to fail, of course, but we tried.\r\n\r\nWith one exception. While we gave names to every destination, we ignored transportation. In real life, transportation -- airports, highways, rail lines -- are key. Even Monopoly realizes this. How one travels from point A to point B is a fundamental detail. Online, we ignored it.\r\n\r\n* * *\r\n\r\nBoston was settled very early on in our nation\'s history, predating the horse and buggy by perhaps as much as 200 years. Transportation was mostly by foot, I\'d imagine, which lead to (as evidenced by Boston\'s current geographic borders) lead to high population density. Simply put, no one had to think about how to get from A to B, because there was only one viable way to get there, and getting there did not require much infrastructure.\r\n\r\nBut over time, transportation matured, and Boston had to mature along with it. There\'s an old, certainly apocryphal story about why Boston\'s roads are so hard to navigate: When roadways were needed, the road-maker would simply go around obstacles. The term \"obstacles\" was defined liberally; a pig in one\'s way could lead to interesting (and dangerous) roadways. Wikipedia sums it up perfectly: \"Downtown Boston\'s streets were not organized on a grid, but grew in a meandering organic pattern from early in the seventeenth century. They were created as needed, and as wharves and landfill expanded the area of the small Boston peninsula. Along with several rotaries, roads change names and lose and add lanes seemingly at random.\"\r\n\r\nThe horrible side effect: You can get incredibly lost in Boston even though you are following a perfectly intuitive and sensible path. A road which leads toward your destination promises nothing more than that it will get you a few hundred feet from where you want to end up, which is to say, incredibly lost and frustrated.\r\n\r\n* * *\r\n\r\nMuch like Boston, the roadways of the Internet post-date the destinations. Our roads are search engines, social networks, banner ads, etc. -- anything you go to and end up, correctly, somewhere else. And these conduits, being new, deliver new features which we probably did not expect. In short: How we use these pathways matters, and increasingly, the time spent here is being distinguished from the old parlance of the Information Superhighway, homepages, cyberspace, and -- thankfully -- \"visits.\" A new set of buzzwords has emerged:\r\n\r\nSocial Media. Conversation. Engagement.\r\n\r\nWhat\'s interesting about these buzzwords is that, while pithy and increasingly meaningless, they have nothing whatsoever to do with transportation. Contrast that with the first generation of buzzwords and it\'s striking. We are no longer trying to cabin the on-line flow of information into brick and mortar definitions; we have realized that is a recipe for failure.\r\n\r\nBut even more amazing? Not only have we semantically moved away from tangible terms, we have also shifted the analogy away from face-to-face interaction. Maybe -- maybe we could analogize the 50-something lady\'s decision to \"window shop\" as \"engagement,\" but that would be something of a stretch. And while perhaps the changing, perfectly targeted billboard she\'s presented with is \"conversation\" or some bastardized version of \"social media\", it\'s no matter: it never happened. The lady stopped at the intersection, waited for the light to change, and continued on, walking briskly.\r\n\r\nFrom a business perspective, that lost opportunity is a huge one -- yet in brick and mortar commerce, no one seems interested in fixing it. Online, we are already experimenting with what\'s being termed \"behavioral retargeting,\" and it is controversial. But the controversy is not over privacy. It is over the fundamental maturity in how we view the Internet -- as a concept distinct from the shackles of tangible space.','TK boston',0,'','draft','open','open','','','','','2010-04-07 11:42:26','2010-04-07 11:42:26','',0,'http://dlewis.net/?p=153',0,'post','',0),(154,1,'2010-04-07 03:11:26','2010-04-07 03:11:26','Upper East Side, New York, New York. A woman, probably in her late 50s, makes her way uptown on Third Avenue, walking. Her outfit describes the clientele of the neighborhood -- knee-high leather boots, black skirt, white blouse, pink shawl in 70 degree weather. She\'s carrying a large designer handbag over her left shoulder and, in her right hand, carrying three bags: two from Madison Avenue boutiques and a third from Citrella, which coins itself \"The Ultimate [and overpriced] Gourmet Market.\" \n\nShe was walking briskly for three, maybe four blocks. Then, suddenly, she slowed down to a glacial pace. She was walking by a shoe store and, in spite of her previous \"New York minute\" attitude, found the time to stop and smell the roses. Or, more accurately, slow down and check out the shoes.\n\nShe did not buy anything. She did not even go into the store. In fact, I don\'t recall her actually stopping. But let\'s make three things clear:\n\n1) She was exactly the demographic the store was after.\n2) She was interested in the product.\n3) With a little bit of work -- a small closed circuit camera mounted in the store window? -- the owner/manager of the store could have been instantly aware of her presence and interest, and with enough sophistication, of her interest in a specific product. \n\n* * *\n\nI learned about behavioral ad retargeting today. Not about the tactic -- I knew about it already -- but about the term. I\'ll let Wikipedia, linked, to define it: it\'s \"a form of online targeted advertising by which online advertising is delivered to consumers based on previous Internet actions that did not in the past result in a conversion.\"\n\nThe way it works? Let\'s say you search for \"black leather knee-high women\'s boots\" on Google, and click an ad. You glance at the pictures for a moment but for some reason or another, move on. Maybe you weren\'t looking to make a purchase now. Maybe you weren\'t looking to make a purchase online, but rather, wanted to figure out the name of the brand you just saw in that Third Avenue shop window. Who knows. Either way, you click the ad, glance around, and click away.\n\nThe next site you are on, though, uses Google\'s advertising network for its banner ads. It has nothing to do with shoes, and, in fact, trends toward male visitors. Yet Google knows your clicking history, and serves you an ad about the shoes you just looked at, paid for by and directed back to the site you just clicked on. \n\nThat\'s behavioral retargeting.\n\n* * *\n\nBack to our 50-something lady. \n\nAfter she made her way past the shoe store, she picked up her pace quickly but was thwarted when the traffic light changed. Across the street was a billboard -- some generic MetroPCS or Verizon Wireless ad, a typical brand-building media buy which blends into the landscape and seeps into our subconscious. Suddenly, the billboard changed: \"Hey, lady in the black skirt and white blouse! If you buy those boots right now at that store you just passed, we\'ll give you 10% off!\"\n\nOf course, the billboard changed for everyone, but to the extent that anyone else noticed, they did with a passing glance. But not our lady. The motion of the billboard immediately caught her eye and the message was so perfectly relevant -- and her desire to purchase strong enough -- that it lead to a sale. \n\n* * *\n\nA decade and a half ago, we casually referred to the Internet as the \"Information Superhighway.\" It\'s a nomenclature that, thankfully, has fallen out of favor. ','If Online Advertising Tactics Were Used Face to Face, How Would It Change?',0,'','inherit','open','open','','153-revision','','','2010-04-07 03:11:26','2010-04-07 03:11:26','',153,'http://dlewis.net/2010/04/07/153-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(155,1,'2010-04-07 03:57:19','2010-04-07 03:57:19','Upper East Side, New York, New York. A woman, probably in her late 50s, makes her way uptown on Third Avenue, walking. Her outfit describes the clientele of the neighborhood -- knee-high leather boots, black skirt, white blouse, pink shawl in 70 degree weather. She\'s carrying a large designer handbag over her left shoulder and, in her right hand, carrying three bags: two from Madison Avenue boutiques and a third from Citrella, which coins itself \"The Ultimate [and overpriced] Gourmet Market.\" \n\nShe was walking briskly for three, maybe four blocks. Then, suddenly, she slowed down to a glacial pace. She was walking by a shoe store and, in spite of her previous \"New York minute\" attitude, found the time to stop and smell the roses. Or, more accurately, slow down and check out the shoes.\n\nShe did not buy anything. She did not even go into the store. In fact, I don\'t recall her actually stopping. But let\'s make three things clear:\n\n1) She was exactly the demographic the store was after.\n2) She was interested in the product.\n3) With a little bit of work -- a small closed circuit camera mounted in the store window? -- the owner/manager of the store could have been instantly aware of her presence and interest, and with enough sophistication, of her interest in a specific product. \n\n* * *\n\nI learned about behavioral ad retargeting today. Not about the tactic -- I knew about it already -- but about the term. I\'ll let Wikipedia, linked, to define it: it\'s \"a form of online targeted advertising by which online advertising is delivered to consumers based on previous Internet actions that did not in the past result in a conversion.\"\n\nThe way it works? Let\'s say you search for \"black leather knee-high women\'s boots\" on Google, and click an ad. You glance at the pictures for a moment but for some reason or another, move on. Maybe you weren\'t looking to make a purchase now. Maybe you weren\'t looking to make a purchase online, but rather, wanted to figure out the name of the brand you just saw in that Third Avenue shop window. Who knows. Either way, you click the ad, glance around, and click away.\n\nThe next site you are on, though, uses Google\'s advertising network for its banner ads. It has nothing to do with shoes, and, in fact, trends toward male visitors. Yet Google knows your clicking history, and serves you an ad about the shoes you just looked at, paid for by and directed back to the site you just clicked on. \n\nThat\'s behavioral retargeting.\n\n* * *\n\nBack to our 50-something lady. \n\nAfter she made her way past the shoe store, she picked up her pace quickly but was thwarted when the traffic light changed. Across the street was a billboard -- some generic MetroPCS or Verizon Wireless ad, a typical brand-building media buy which blends into the landscape and seeps into our subconscious. Suddenly, the billboard changed: \"Hey, lady in the black skirt and white blouse! If you buy those boots right now at that store you just passed, we\'ll give you 10% off!\"\n\nOf course, the billboard changed for everyone, but to the extent that anyone else noticed, they did with a passing glance. But not our lady. The motion of the billboard immediately caught her eye and the message was so perfectly relevant -- and her desire to purchase strong enough -- that it lead to a sale. \n\n* * *\n\nA decade and a half ago, we casually referred to the Internet as the \"Information Superhighway.\" It probably meant \"a really fast conduit upon which information travels.\" But the way in invaded the parlance of the early consumer Web suggests that any such definition found itself quickly extinguished. URLs were -- and are -- commonly referred to as \"web addresses,\" as if one travels to Amazon.com in a way similar to 123 Sesame Street. Early personal websites were called homepages, as in \"Dan Lewis\'s Home in Cyberspace!!!\". In-print and TV advertisements commonly suggested that a consumer \"visit us on the World Wide Web at www.Honda.com.\" Even the term \"cyberspace\" nods its head toward a physical manifestation of a virtual universe.\n\nThis mindset was more than semantic. Early legal decisions viewed websites as static entities on this Superhighway; quite literally, courts often analogized sites to billboards. Web sites -- and, for web-based companies, the underlying business -- were graded by how many eyeballs \"visited\" their respective sites. (To a large degree, they still are.) While a good address is still important today, they were more important -- both in concept and practice -- fifteen years ago. \n\n','If Online Advertising Tactics Were Used Face to Face, How Would It Change?',0,'','inherit','open','open','','153-revision-2','','','2010-04-07 03:57:19','2010-04-07 03:57:19','',153,'http://dlewis.net/2010/04/07/153-revision-2/',0,'revision','',0),(156,1,'2010-04-07 04:05:37','2010-04-07 04:05:37','Upper East Side, New York, New York. A woman, probably in her late 50s, makes her way uptown on Third Avenue, walking. Her outfit describes the clientele of the neighborhood -- knee-high leather boots, black skirt, white blouse, pink shawl in 70 degree weather. She\'s carrying a large designer handbag over her left shoulder and, in her right hand, carrying three bags: two from Madison Avenue boutiques and a third from Citrella, which coins itself \"The Ultimate [and overpriced] Gourmet Market.\" \n\nShe was walking briskly for three, maybe four blocks. Then, suddenly, she slowed down to a glacial pace. She was walking by a shoe store and, in spite of her previous \"New York minute\" attitude, found the time to stop and smell the roses. Or, more accurately, slow down and check out the shoes.\n\nShe did not buy anything. She did not even go into the store. In fact, I don\'t recall her actually stopping. But let\'s make three things clear:\n\n1) She was exactly the demographic the store was after.\n2) She was interested in the product.\n3) With a little bit of work -- a small closed circuit camera mounted in the store window? -- the owner/manager of the store could have been instantly aware of her presence and interest, and with enough sophistication, of her interest in a specific product. \n\n* * *\n\nI learned about behavioral ad retargeting today. Not about the tactic -- I knew about it already -- but about the term. I\'ll let Wikipedia, linked, to define it: it\'s \"a form of online targeted advertising by which online advertising is delivered to consumers based on previous Internet actions that did not in the past result in a conversion.\"\n\nThe way it works? Let\'s say you search for \"black leather knee-high women\'s boots\" on Google, and click an ad. You glance at the pictures for a moment but for some reason or another, move on. Maybe you weren\'t looking to make a purchase now. Maybe you weren\'t looking to make a purchase online, but rather, wanted to figure out the name of the brand you just saw in that Third Avenue shop window. Who knows. Either way, you click the ad, glance around, and click away.\n\nThe next site you are on, though, uses Google\'s advertising network for its banner ads. It has nothing to do with shoes, and, in fact, trends toward male visitors. Yet Google knows your clicking history, and serves you an ad about the shoes you just looked at, paid for by and directed back to the site you just clicked on. \n\nThat\'s behavioral retargeting.\n\n* * *\n\nBack to our 50-something lady. \n\nAfter she made her way past the shoe store, she picked up her pace quickly but was thwarted when the traffic light changed. Across the street was a billboard -- some generic MetroPCS or Verizon Wireless ad, a typical brand-building media buy which blends into the landscape and seeps into our subconscious. Suddenly, the billboard changed: \"Hey, lady in the black skirt and white blouse! If you buy those boots right now at that store you just passed, we\'ll give you 10% off!\"\n\nOf course, the billboard changed for everyone, but to the extent that anyone else noticed, they did with a passing glance. But not our lady. The motion of the billboard immediately caught her eye and the message was so perfectly relevant -- and her desire to purchase strong enough -- that it lead to a sale. \n\n* * *\n\nA decade and a half ago, we casually referred to the Internet as the \"Information Superhighway.\" It probably meant \"a really fast conduit upon which information travels.\" But the way in invaded the parlance of the early consumer Web suggests that any such definition found itself quickly extinguished. URLs were -- and are -- commonly referred to as \"web addresses,\" as if one travels to Amazon.com in a way similar to 123 Sesame Street. Early personal websites were called homepages, as in \"Dan Lewis\'s Home in Cyberspace!!!\". In-print and TV advertisements commonly suggested that a consumer \"visit us on the World Wide Web at www.Honda.com.\" Even the term \"cyberspace\" nods its head toward a physical manifestation of a virtual universe.\n\nThis mindset was more than semantic. Early legal decisions viewed websites as static entities on this Superhighway; quite literally, courts often analogized sites to billboards. Web sites -- and, for web-based companies, the underlying business -- were graded by how many eyeballs \"visited\" their respective sites. (To a large degree, they still are.) While a good address is still important today, they were more important -- both in concept and practice -- fifteen years ago. Amazon was compared to Barnes & Nobles and Borders simply because all three sold books, even though the former\'s business model was radically different. eBay was analogized to a huge garage sale or flea market -- an analogy they probably bought into and which has hamstrung them since. We simply insisted on reconciling a virtual w\n\n','If Online Advertising Tactics Were Used Face to Face, How Would It Change?',0,'','inherit','open','open','','153-revision-3','','','2010-04-07 04:05:37','2010-04-07 04:05:37','',153,'http://dlewis.net/2010/04/07/153-revision-3/',0,'revision','',0),(162,1,'2010-04-07 10:49:02','2010-04-07 10:49:02','A decade and a half ago, we casually referred to the Internet as the \"Information Superhighway.\" It probably meant \"a really fast conduit upon which information travels.\" But the way in invaded the parlance of the early consumer Web suggests that any such definition found itself quickly extinguished. URLs were -- and are -- commonly referred to as \"web addresses,\" as if one travels to Amazon.com in a way similar to 123 Sesame Street. Early personal websites were called homepages, as in \"Dan Lewis\'s Home in Cyberspace!!!\". In-print and TV advertisements commonly suggested that a consumer \"visit us on the World Wide Web at www.Honda.com.\" Even the term \"cyberspace\" nods its head toward a physical manifestation of a virtual universe.\n\nThis mindset was more than semantic. Early legal decisions viewed websites as static entities on this Superhighway; quite literally, courts often analogized sites to billboards. Web sites -- and, for web-based companies, the underlying business -- were graded by how many eyeballs \"visited\" their respective sites. (To a large degree, they still are.) While a good address is still important today, they were more important -- both in concept and practice -- fifteen years ago. Amazon was compared to Barnes & Nobles and Borders simply because all three sold books, even though the former\'s business model was radically different. eBay was analogized to a huge garage sale or flea market -- an analogy they probably bought into and which has hamstrung them since. We simply insisted on reconciling a virtual world into physical terms. It was doomed to fail, of course, but we tried.\n\nWith one exception. While we gave names to every destination, we ignored transportation. In real life, transportation -- airports, highways, rail lines -- are key. Even Monopoly realizes this. How one travels from point A to point B is a fundamental detail. Online, we ignored it.\n\n* * *\n\nBoston was settled very early on in our nation\'s history, predating the horse and buggy by perhaps as much as 200 years. Transportation was mostly by foot, I\'d imagine, which lead to (as evidenced by Boston\'s current geographic borders) lead to high population density. Simply put, no one had to think about how to get from A to B, because there was only one viable way to get there, and getting there did not require much infrastructure.\n\nBut over time, transportation matured, and Boston had to mature along with it. There\'s an old, certainly apocryphal story about why Boston\'s roads are so hard to navigate: When roadways were needed, the road-maker would simply go around obstacles. The term \"obstacles\" was defined liberally; a pig in one\'s way could lead to interesting (and dangerous) roadways. Wikipedia sums it up perfectly: \"Downtown Boston\'s streets were not organized on a grid, but grew in a meandering organic pattern from early in the seventeenth century. They were created as needed, and as wharves and landfill expanded the area of the small Boston peninsula. Along with several rotaries, roads change names and lose and add lanes seemingly at random.\"\n\nThe horrible side effect: You can get incredibly lost in Boston even though you are following a perfectly intuitive and sensible path. A road which leads toward your destination promises nothing more than that it will get you a few hundred feet from where you want to end up, which is to say, incredibly lost and frustrated.\n\n* * *\n\nMuch like Boston, the roadways of the Internet post-date the destinations. Our roads are search engines, social networks, banner ads, etc. -- anything you go to and end up, correctly, somewhere else. And these conduits, being new, deliver new features which we probably did not expect. In short: How we use these pathways matters, and increasingly, the time spent here is being distinguished from the old parlance of the Information Superhighway, homepages, cyberspace, and -- thankfully -- \"visits.\" A new set of buzzwords has emerged:\n\nSocial Media. Conversation. Engagement.\n\nWhat\'s interesting about these buzzwords is that, while pithy and increasingly meaningless, they have nothing whatsoever to do with transportation. Contrast that with the first generation of buzzwords and it\'s striking. We are no longer trying to cabin the on-line flow of information into brick and mortar definitions; we have realized that is a recipe for failure.\n\nBut even more amazing? Not only have we semantically moved away from tangible terms, we have also shifted the analogy away from face-to-face interaction. Maybe -- maybe we could analogize the 50-something lady\'s decision to \"window shop\" as \"engagement,\" but that would be something of a stretch. And while perhaps the changing, perfectly targeted billboard she\'s presented with is \"conversation\" or some bastardized version of \"social media\", it\'s no matter: it never happened. The lady stopped at the intersection, waited for the light to change, and continued on, walking briskly.\n\nFrom a business perspective, that lost opportunity is a huge one -- yet in brick and mortar commerce, no one seems interested in fixing it. Online, we are already experimenting with what\'s being termed \"behavioral retargeting,\" and it is controversial. But the controversy is not over privacy. It is over the fundamental maturity in how we view the Internet -- as a concept distinct from the shackles of tangible space.','',0,'','inherit','open','open','','153-revision-8','','','2010-04-07 10:49:02','2010-04-07 10:49:02','',153,'http://dlewis.net/2010/04/07/153-revision-8/',0,'revision','',0),(157,1,'2010-04-07 04:29:20','2010-04-07 04:29:20','Upper East Side, New York, New York. A woman, probably in her late 50s, makes her way uptown on Third Avenue, walking. Her outfit describes the clientele of the neighborhood -- knee-high leather boots, black skirt, white blouse, pink shawl in 70 degree weather. She\'s carrying a large designer handbag over her left shoulder and, in her right hand, carrying three bags: two from Madison Avenue boutiques and a third from Citrella, which coins itself \"The Ultimate [and overpriced] Gourmet Market.\" \n\nShe was walking briskly for three, maybe four blocks. Then, suddenly, she slowed down to a glacial pace. She was walking by a shoe store and, in spite of her previous \"New York minute\" attitude, found the time to stop and smell the roses. Or, more accurately, slow down and check out the shoes.\n\nShe did not buy anything. She did not even go into the store. In fact, I don\'t recall her actually stopping. But let\'s make three things clear:\n\n1) She was exactly the demographic the store was after.\n2) She was interested in the product.\n3) With a little bit of work -- a small closed circuit camera mounted in the store window? -- the owner/manager of the store could have been instantly aware of her presence and interest, and with enough sophistication, of her interest in a specific product. \n\n* * *\n\nI learned about behavioral ad retargeting today. Not about the tactic -- I knew about it already -- but about the term. I\'ll let Wikipedia, linked, to define it: it\'s \"a form of online targeted advertising by which online advertising is delivered to consumers based on previous Internet actions that did not in the past result in a conversion.\"\n\nThe way it works? Let\'s say you search for \"black leather knee-high women\'s boots\" on Google, and click an ad. You glance at the pictures for a moment but for some reason or another, move on. Maybe you weren\'t looking to make a purchase now. Maybe you weren\'t looking to make a purchase online, but rather, wanted to figure out the name of the brand you just saw in that Third Avenue shop window. Who knows. Either way, you click the ad, glance around, and click away.\n\nThe next site you are on, though, uses Google\'s advertising network for its banner ads. It has nothing to do with shoes, and, in fact, trends toward male visitors. Yet Google knows your clicking history, and serves you an ad about the shoes you just looked at, paid for by and directed back to the site you just clicked on. \n\nThat\'s behavioral retargeting.\n\n* * *\n\nBack to our 50-something lady. \n\nAfter she made her way past the shoe store, she picked up her pace quickly but was thwarted when the traffic light changed. Across the street was a billboard -- some generic MetroPCS or Verizon Wireless ad, a typical brand-building media buy which blends into the landscape and seeps into our subconscious. Suddenly, the billboard changed: \"Hey, lady in the black skirt and white blouse! If you buy those boots right now at that store you just passed, we\'ll give you 10% off!\"\n\nOf course, the billboard changed for everyone, but to the extent that anyone else noticed, they did with a passing glance. But not our lady. The motion of the billboard immediately caught her eye and the message was so perfectly relevant -- and her desire to purchase strong enough -- that it lead to a sale. \n\n* * *\n\nA decade and a half ago, we casually referred to the Internet as the \"Information Superhighway.\" It probably meant \"a really fast conduit upon which information travels.\" But the way in invaded the parlance of the early consumer Web suggests that any such definition found itself quickly extinguished. URLs were -- and are -- commonly referred to as \"web addresses,\" as if one travels to Amazon.com in a way similar to 123 Sesame Street. Early personal websites were called homepages, as in \"Dan Lewis\'s Home in Cyberspace!!!\". In-print and TV advertisements commonly suggested that a consumer \"visit us on the World Wide Web at www.Honda.com.\" Even the term \"cyberspace\" nods its head toward a physical manifestation of a virtual universe.\n\nThis mindset was more than semantic. Early legal decisions viewed websites as static entities on this Superhighway; quite literally, courts often analogized sites to billboards. Web sites -- and, for web-based companies, the underlying business -- were graded by how many eyeballs \"visited\" their respective sites. (To a large degree, they still are.) While a good address is still important today, they were more important -- both in concept and practice -- fifteen years ago. Amazon was compared to Barnes & Nobles and Borders simply because all three sold books, even though the former\'s business model was radically different. eBay was analogized to a huge garage sale or flea market -- an analogy they probably bought into and which has hamstrung them since. We simply insisted on reconciling a virtual world into physical terms. It was doomed to fail, of course, but we tried.\n\nWith one exception. While we gave names to every destination, we ignored transportation. In real life, transportation -- airports, highways, rail lines -- are key. Even Monopoly realizes this. How one travels from point A to point B is a fundamental detail. Online, we ignored it.\n\n* * * \n\nBoston was settled very early on in our nation\'s history, predating the horse and buggy by perhaps as much as 200 years. Transportation was mostly by foot, I\'d imagine, which lead to (as evidenced by Boston\'s current geographic borders) lead to high population density. Simply put, no one had to think about how to get from A to B, because there was only one viable way to get there, and getting there did not require much infrastructure.\n\nBut over time, transportation matured, and Boston had to mature along with it. There\'s an old, certainly apocryphal story about why Boston\'s roads are so hard to navigate: When roadways were needed, the road-maker would simply go around obstacles. The term \"obstacles\" was defined liberally; a pig in one\'s way could lead to interesting (and dangerous) roadways. Wikipedia sums it up perfectly: \"Downtown Boston\'s streets were not organized on a grid, but grew in a meandering organic pattern from early in the seventeenth century. They were created as needed, and as wharves and landfill expanded the area of the small Boston peninsula. Along with several rotaries, roads change names and lose and add lanes seemingly at random.\" \n\nA strange side effect? You can get incredibly lost in Boston yet end up exactly where you want to go. It is like a never-ending maze of turns, rotaries, and exits, eternally spilling into one another. Drive for long enough and aggressively enough and you are bound to reach your destination. It\'s not that \"all roads lead to Rome,\" but rather the opposite -- the roads lead now\n\n\n','Our Bank Only Takes Money',0,'','inherit','open','open','','153-revision-4','','','2010-04-07 04:29:20','2010-04-07 04:29:20','',153,'http://dlewis.net/2010/04/07/153-revision-4/',0,'revision','',0),(158,1,'2010-04-07 04:38:15','2010-04-07 04:38:15','Upper East Side, New York, New York. A woman, probably in her late 50s, makes her way uptown on Third Avenue, walking. Her outfit describes the clientele of the neighborhood -- knee-high leather boots, black skirt, white blouse, pink shawl in 70 degree weather. She\'s carrying a large designer handbag over her left shoulder and, in her right hand, carrying three bags: two from Madison Avenue boutiques and a third from Citrella, which coins itself \"The Ultimate [and overpriced] Gourmet Market.\" \n\nShe was walking briskly for three, maybe four blocks. Then, suddenly, she slowed down to a glacial pace. She was walking by a shoe store and, in spite of her previous \"New York minute\" attitude, found the time to stop and smell the roses. Or, more accurately, slow down and check out the shoes.\n\nShe did not buy anything. She did not even go into the store. In fact, I don\'t recall her actually stopping. But let\'s make three things clear:\n\n1) She was exactly the demographic the store was after.\n2) She was interested in the product.\n3) With a little bit of work -- a small closed circuit camera mounted in the store window? -- the owner/manager of the store could have been instantly aware of her presence and interest, and with enough sophistication, of her interest in a specific product. \n\n* * *\n\nI learned about behavioral ad retargeting today. Not about the tactic -- I knew about it already -- but about the term. I\'ll let Wikipedia, linked, to define it: it\'s \"a form of online targeted advertising by which online advertising is delivered to consumers based on previous Internet actions that did not in the past result in a conversion.\"\n\nThe way it works? Let\'s say you search for \"black leather knee-high women\'s boots\" on Google, and click an ad. You glance at the pictures for a moment but for some reason or another, move on. Maybe you weren\'t looking to make a purchase now. Maybe you weren\'t looking to make a purchase online, but rather, wanted to figure out the name of the brand you just saw in that Third Avenue shop window. Who knows. Either way, you click the ad, glance around, and click away.\n\nThe next site you are on, though, uses Google\'s advertising network for its banner ads. It has nothing to do with shoes, and, in fact, trends toward male visitors. Yet Google knows your clicking history, and serves you an ad about the shoes you just looked at, paid for by and directed back to the site you just clicked on. \n\nThat\'s behavioral retargeting.\n\n* * *\n\nBack to our 50-something lady. \n\nAfter she made her way past the shoe store, she picked up her pace quickly but was thwarted when the traffic light changed. Across the street was a billboard -- some generic MetroPCS or Verizon Wireless ad, a typical brand-building media buy which blends into the landscape and seeps into our subconscious. Suddenly, the billboard changed: \"Hey, lady in the black skirt and white blouse! If you buy those boots right now at that store you just passed, we\'ll give you 10% off!\"\n\nOf course, the billboard changed for everyone, but to the extent that anyone else noticed, they did with a passing glance. But not our lady. The motion of the billboard immediately caught her eye and the message was so perfectly relevant -- and her desire to purchase strong enough -- that it lead to a sale. \n\n* * *\n\nA decade and a half ago, we casually referred to the Internet as the \"Information Superhighway.\" It probably meant \"a really fast conduit upon which information travels.\" But the way in invaded the parlance of the early consumer Web suggests that any such definition found itself quickly extinguished. URLs were -- and are -- commonly referred to as \"web addresses,\" as if one travels to Amazon.com in a way similar to 123 Sesame Street. Early personal websites were called homepages, as in \"Dan Lewis\'s Home in Cyberspace!!!\". In-print and TV advertisements commonly suggested that a consumer \"visit us on the World Wide Web at www.Honda.com.\" Even the term \"cyberspace\" nods its head toward a physical manifestation of a virtual universe.\n\nThis mindset was more than semantic. Early legal decisions viewed websites as static entities on this Superhighway; quite literally, courts often analogized sites to billboards. Web sites -- and, for web-based companies, the underlying business -- were graded by how many eyeballs \"visited\" their respective sites. (To a large degree, they still are.) While a good address is still important today, they were more important -- both in concept and practice -- fifteen years ago. Amazon was compared to Barnes & Nobles and Borders simply because all three sold books, even though the former\'s business model was radically different. eBay was analogized to a huge garage sale or flea market -- an analogy they probably bought into and which has hamstrung them since. We simply insisted on reconciling a virtual world into physical terms. It was doomed to fail, of course, but we tried.\n\nWith one exception. While we gave names to every destination, we ignored transportation. In real life, transportation -- airports, highways, rail lines -- are key. Even Monopoly realizes this. How one travels from point A to point B is a fundamental detail. Online, we ignored it.\n\n* * * \n\nBoston was settled very early on in our nation\'s history, predating the horse and buggy by perhaps as much as 200 years. Transportation was mostly by foot, I\'d imagine, which lead to (as evidenced by Boston\'s current geographic borders) lead to high population density. Simply put, no one had to think about how to get from A to B, because there was only one viable way to get there, and getting there did not require much infrastructure.\n\nBut over time, transportation matured, and Boston had to mature along with it. There\'s an old, certainly apocryphal story about why Boston\'s roads are so hard to navigate: When roadways were needed, the road-maker would simply go around obstacles. The term \"obstacles\" was defined liberally; a pig in one\'s way could lead to interesting (and dangerous) roadways. Wikipedia sums it up perfectly: \"Downtown Boston\'s streets were not organized on a grid, but grew in a meandering organic pattern from early in the seventeenth century. They were created as needed, and as wharves and landfill expanded the area of the small Boston peninsula. Along with several rotaries, roads change names and lose and add lanes seemingly at random.\" \n\nA strange side effect? You can get incredibly lost in Boston yet end up exactly where you want to go. It is like a never-ending maze of turns, rotaries, and exits, eternally spilling into one another. Drive for long enough and aggressively enough and you are bound to reach your destination. It\'s not that \"all roads lead to Rome,\" but rather the opposite -- the roads lead nowhere, yet are intended to get you somewhere... and manage to succeed.\n\n* * *\n\nMuch like Boston, the roadways of the Internet post-date the destinations. Our roads are search engines, social networks, banner ads, etc. -- anything you go to and end up, correctly, somewhere else. And these conduits, being new, deliver new features which we probably did not expect. In short: How we use these pathways matters, and increasingly, the time spent here is being distinguished from the old parlance of the Information Superhighway, homepages, cyberspace, and -- thankfully -- \"visits.\" A new set of buzzwords has emerged:\n\nSocial. Conversation. Engagement. \n\n\n\n','Our Bank Only Takes Money',0,'','inherit','open','open','','153-revision-5','','','2010-04-07 04:38:15','2010-04-07 04:38:15','',153,'http://dlewis.net/2010/04/07/153-revision-5/',0,'revision','',0),(160,1,'2010-04-07 10:40:21','2010-04-07 10:40:21','Upper East Side, New York, New York. A woman, probably in her late 50s, makes her way uptown on Third Avenue, walking. Her outfit describes the clientele of the neighborhood -- knee-high leather boots, black skirt, white blouse, pink shawl in 70 degree weather. She\'s carrying a large designer handbag over her left shoulder and, in her right hand, carrying three bags: two from Madison Avenue boutiques and a third from Citrella, which coins itself \"The Ultimate [and overpriced] Gourmet Market.\"\n\nShe was walking briskly for three, maybe four blocks. Then, suddenly, she slowed down to a glacial pace. She was walking by a shoe store and, in spite of her previous \"New York minute\" attitude, found the time to stop and smell the roses. Or, more accurately, slow down and check out the shoes.\n\nShe did not buy anything. She did not even go into the store. In fact, I don\'t recall her actually stopping. But let\'s make three things clear:\n\n1) She was exactly the demographic the store was after.\n2) She was interested in the product.\n3) With a little bit of work -- a small closed circuit camera mounted in the store window? -- the owner/manager of the store could have been instantly aware of her presence and interest, and with enough sophistication, of her interest in a specific product.\n\n* * *\n\nI learned about behavioral ad retargeting today. Not about the tactic -- I knew about it already -- but about the term. I\'ll let Wikipedia, linked, to define it: it\'s \"a form of online targeted advertising by which online advertising is delivered to consumers based on previous Internet actions that did not in the past result in a conversion.\"\n\nThe way it works? Let\'s say you search for \"black leather knee-high women\'s boots\" on Google, and click an ad. You glance at the pictures for a moment but for some reason or another, move on. Maybe you weren\'t looking to make a purchase now. Maybe you weren\'t looking to make a purchase online, but rather, wanted to figure out the name of the brand you just saw in that Third Avenue shop window. Who knows. Either way, you click the ad, glance around, and click away.\n\nThe next site you are on, though, uses Google\'s advertising network for its banner ads. It has nothing to do with shoes, and, in fact, trends toward male visitors. Yet Google knows your clicking history, and serves you an ad about the shoes you just looked at, paid for by and directed back to the site you just clicked on.\n\nThat\'s behavioral retargeting.\n\n* * *\n\nBack to our 50-something lady.\n\nAfter she made her way past the shoe store, she picked up her pace quickly but was thwarted when the traffic light changed. Across the street was a billboard -- some generic MetroPCS or Verizon Wireless ad, a typical brand-building media buy which blends into the landscape and seeps into our subconscious. Suddenly, the billboard changed: \"Hey, lady in the black skirt and white blouse! If you buy those boots right now at that store you just passed, we\'ll give you 10% off!\"\n\nOf course, the billboard changed for everyone, but to the extent that anyone else noticed, they did with a passing glance. But not our lady. The motion of the billboard immediately caught her eye. At first, she was scared: How did that billboard know who she was? How did it know that I wanted those shoes? Is somebody watching me, and who? The message was perfectly relevant. Her desire to purchase the boots was strong. The discount was fantastic. But the invasion of the privacy of her mind was overwhelming. Not only was there no sale, but she quickly left the intersection, going, probably, slightly out of the way, just to avoid the uncomfortable feeling that she was being watched.\n\n* * *\n\nA decade and a half ago, we casually referred to the Internet as the \"Information Superhighway.\" It probably meant \"a really fast conduit upon which information travels.\" But the way in invaded the parlance of the early consumer Web suggests that any such definition found itself quickly extinguished. URLs were -- and are -- commonly referred to as \"web addresses,\" as if one travels to Amazon.com in a way similar to 123 Sesame Street. Early personal websites were called homepages, as in \"Dan Lewis\'s Home in Cyberspace!!!\". In-print and TV advertisements commonly suggested that a consumer \"visit us on the World Wide Web at www.Honda.com.\" Even the term \"cyberspace\" nods its head toward a physical manifestation of a virtual universe.\n\nThis mindset was more than semantic. Early legal decisions viewed websites as static entities on this Superhighway; quite literally, courts often analogized sites to billboards. Web sites -- and, for web-based companies, the underlying business -- were graded by how many eyeballs \"visited\" their respective sites. (To a large degree, they still are.) While a good address is still important today, they were more important -- both in concept and practice -- fifteen years ago. Amazon was compared to Barnes & Nobles and Borders simply because all three sold books, even though the former\'s business model was radically different. eBay was analogized to a huge garage sale or flea market -- an analogy they probably bought into and which has hamstrung them since. We simply insisted on reconciling a virtual world into physical terms. It was doomed to fail, of course, but we tried.\n\nWith one exception. While we gave names to every destination, we ignored transportation. In real life, transportation -- airports, highways, rail lines -- are key. Even Monopoly realizes this. How one travels from point A to point B is a fundamental detail. Online, we ignored it.\n\n* * *\n\nBoston was settled very early on in our nation\'s history, predating the horse and buggy by perhaps as much as 200 years. Transportation was mostly by foot, I\'d imagine, which lead to (as evidenced by Boston\'s current geographic borders) lead to high population density. Simply put, no one had to think about how to get from A to B, because there was only one viable way to get there, and getting there did not require much infrastructure.\n\nBut over time, transportation matured, and Boston had to mature along with it. There\'s an old, certainly apocryphal story about why Boston\'s roads are so hard to navigate: When roadways were needed, the road-maker would simply go around obstacles. The term \"obstacles\" was defined liberally; a pig in one\'s way could lead to interesting (and dangerous) roadways. Wikipedia sums it up perfectly: \"Downtown Boston\'s streets were not organized on a grid, but grew in a meandering organic pattern from early in the seventeenth century. They were created as needed, and as wharves and landfill expanded the area of the small Boston peninsula. Along with several rotaries, roads change names and lose and add lanes seemingly at random.\"\n\nA strange side effect? You can get incredibly lost in Boston yet end up exactly where you want to go. It is like a never-ending maze of turns, rotaries, and exits, eternally spilling into one another. Drive for long enough and aggressively enough and you are bound to reach your destination. It\'s not that \"all roads lead to Rome,\" but rather the opposite -- the roads lead nowhere, yet are intended to get you somewhere... and manage to succeed.\n\n* * *\n\nMuch like Boston, the roadways of the Internet post-date the destinations. Our roads are search engines, social networks, banner ads, etc. -- anything you go to and end up, correctly, somewhere else. And these conduits, being new, deliver new features which we probably did not expect. In short: How we use these pathways matters, and increasingly, the time spent here is being distinguished from the old parlance of the Information Superhighway, homepages, cyberspace, and -- thankfully -- \"visits.\" A new set of buzzwords has emerged:\n\nSocial Media. Conversation. Engagement.\n\nWhat\'s interesting about these buzzwords is that, while pithy and increasingly meaningless, they have nothing whatsoever to do with transportation. Contrast that with the first generation of buzzwords and it\'s striking. We are no longer trying to cabin the on-line flow of information into brick and mortar definitions; we have realized that is a recipe for failure.\n\nBut even more amazing? Not only have we semantically moved away from tangible terms, we have also shifted the analogy away from face-to-face interaction. Maybe -- maybe we could analogize the 50-something lady\'s decision to \"window shop\" as \"engagement,\" but that would be something of a stretch. And while perhaps the changing, perfectly targeted billboard she\'s presented with is \"conversation\" or some bastardized version of \"social media\", it\'s no matter: it never happened. The lady stopped at the intersection, waited for the light to change, and continued on, walking briskly.\n\nFrom a business perspective, that lost opportunity is a huge one -- yet in brick and mortar commerce, no one seems interested in fixing it. Online, we are already experimenting with what\'s being termed \"behavioral retargeting,\" and it is controversial. But the controversy is not over privacy. It is over the fundamental maturity in how we view the Internet -- as a concept distinct from the shackles of tangible space.','',0,'','inherit','open','open','','153-revision-7','','','2010-04-07 10:40:21','2010-04-07 10:40:21','',153,'http://dlewis.net/2010/04/07/153-revision-7/',0,'revision','',0),(159,1,'2010-04-07 05:07:51','2010-04-07 05:07:51','Upper East Side, New York, New York. A woman, probably in her late 50s, makes her way uptown on Third Avenue, walking. Her outfit describes the clientele of the neighborhood -- knee-high leather boots, black skirt, white blouse, pink shawl in 70 degree weather. She\'s carrying a large designer handbag over her left shoulder and, in her right hand, carrying three bags: two from Madison Avenue boutiques and a third from Citrella, which coins itself \"The Ultimate [and overpriced] Gourmet Market.\"\n\nShe was walking briskly for three, maybe four blocks. Then, suddenly, she slowed down to a glacial pace. She was walking by a shoe store and, in spite of her previous \"New York minute\" attitude, found the time to stop and smell the roses. Or, more accurately, slow down and check out the shoes.\n\nShe did not buy anything. She did not even go into the store. In fact, I don\'t recall her actually stopping. But let\'s make three things clear:\n\n1) She was exactly the demographic the store was after.\n2) She was interested in the product.\n3) With a little bit of work -- a small closed circuit camera mounted in the store window? -- the owner/manager of the store could have been instantly aware of her presence and interest, and with enough sophistication, of her interest in a specific product.\n\n* * *\n\nI learned about behavioral ad retargeting today. Not about the tactic -- I knew about it already -- but about the term. I\'ll let Wikipedia, linked, to define it: it\'s \"a form of online targeted advertising by which online advertising is delivered to consumers based on previous Internet actions that did not in the past result in a conversion.\"\n\nThe way it works? Let\'s say you search for \"black leather knee-high women\'s boots\" on Google, and click an ad. You glance at the pictures for a moment but for some reason or another, move on. Maybe you weren\'t looking to make a purchase now. Maybe you weren\'t looking to make a purchase online, but rather, wanted to figure out the name of the brand you just saw in that Third Avenue shop window. Who knows. Either way, you click the ad, glance around, and click away.\n\nThe next site you are on, though, uses Google\'s advertising network for its banner ads. It has nothing to do with shoes, and, in fact, trends toward male visitors. Yet Google knows your clicking history, and serves you an ad about the shoes you just looked at, paid for by and directed back to the site you just clicked on.\n\nThat\'s behavioral retargeting.\n\n* * *\n\nBack to our 50-something lady.\n\nAfter she made her way past the shoe store, she picked up her pace quickly but was thwarted when the traffic light changed. Across the street was a billboard -- some generic MetroPCS or Verizon Wireless ad, a typical brand-building media buy which blends into the landscape and seeps into our subconscious. Suddenly, the billboard changed: \"Hey, lady in the black skirt and white blouse! If you buy those boots right now at that store you just passed, we\'ll give you 10% off!\"\n\nOf course, the billboard changed for everyone, but to the extent that anyone else noticed, they did with a passing glance. But not our lady. The motion of the billboard immediately caught her eye. At first, she was scared: How did that billboard know who she was? How did it know that I wanted those shoes? Is somebody watching me, and who? The message was perfectly relevant. Her desire to purchase the boots was strong. The discount was fantastic. But the invasion of the privacy of her mind was overwhelming. Not only was there no sale, but she quickly left the intersection, going, probably, slightly out of the way, just to avoid the uncomfortable feeling that she was being watched.\n\n* * *\n\nA decade and a half ago, we casually referred to the Internet as the \"Information Superhighway.\" It probably meant \"a really fast conduit upon which information travels.\" But the way in invaded the parlance of the early consumer Web suggests that any such definition found itself quickly extinguished. URLs were -- and are -- commonly referred to as \"web addresses,\" as if one travels to Amazon.com in a way similar to 123 Sesame Street. Early personal websites were called homepages, as in \"Dan Lewis\'s Home in Cyberspace!!!\". In-print and TV advertisements commonly suggested that a consumer \"visit us on the World Wide Web at www.Honda.com.\" Even the term \"cyberspace\" nods its head toward a physical manifestation of a virtual universe.\n\nThis mindset was more than semantic. Early legal decisions viewed websites as static entities on this Superhighway; quite literally, courts often analogized sites to billboards. Web sites -- and, for web-based companies, the underlying business -- were graded by how many eyeballs \"visited\" their respective sites. (To a large degree, they still are.) While a good address is still important today, they were more important -- both in concept and practice -- fifteen years ago. Amazon was compared to Barnes & Nobles and Borders simply because all three sold books, even though the former\'s business model was radically different. eBay was analogized to a huge garage sale or flea market -- an analogy they probably bought into and which has hamstrung them since. We simply insisted on reconciling a virtual world into physical terms. It was doomed to fail, of course, but we tried.\n\nWith one exception. While we gave names to every destination, we ignored transportation. In real life, transportation -- airports, highways, rail lines -- are key. Even Monopoly realizes this. How one travels from point A to point B is a fundamental detail. Online, we ignored it.\n\n* * *\n\nBoston was settled very early on in our nation\'s history, predating the horse and buggy by perhaps as much as 200 years. Transportation was mostly by foot, I\'d imagine, which lead to (as evidenced by Boston\'s current geographic borders) lead to high population density. Simply put, no one had to think about how to get from A to B, because there was only one viable way to get there, and getting there did not require much infrastructure.\n\nBut over time, transportation matured, and Boston had to mature along with it. There\'s an old, certainly apocryphal story about why Boston\'s roads are so hard to navigate: When roadways were needed, the road-maker would simply go around obstacles. The term \"obstacles\" was defined liberally; a pig in one\'s way could lead to interesting (and dangerous) roadways. Wikipedia sums it up perfectly: \"Downtown Boston\'s streets were not organized on a grid, but grew in a meandering organic pattern from early in the seventeenth century. They were created as needed, and as wharves and landfill expanded the area of the small Boston peninsula. Along with several rotaries, roads change names and lose and add lanes seemingly at random.\"\n\nA strange side effect? You can get incredibly lost in Boston yet end up exactly where you want to go. It is like a never-ending maze of turns, rotaries, and exits, eternally spilling into one another. Drive for long enough and aggressively enough and you are bound to reach your destination. It\'s not that \"all roads lead to Rome,\" but rather the opposite -- the roads lead nowhere, yet are intended to get you somewhere... and manage to succeed.\n\n* * *\n\nMuch like Boston, the roadways of the Internet post-date the destinations. Our roads are search engines, social networks, banner ads, etc. -- anything you go to and end up, correctly, somewhere else. And these conduits, being new, deliver new features which we probably did not expect. In short: How we use these pathways matters, and increasingly, the time spent here is being distinguished from the old parlance of the Information Superhighway, homepages, cyberspace, and -- thankfully -- \"visits.\" A new set of buzzwords has emerged:\n\nSocial Media. Conversation. Engagement.\n\nWhat\'s interesting about these buzzwords is that, while pithy and increasingly meaningless, they have nothing whatsoever to do with transportation. Contrast that with the first generation of buzzwords and it\'s striking. We are no longer trying to cabin the on-line flow of information into brick and mortar definitions; we have realized that is a recipe for failure.\n\nBut even more amazing? Not only have we semantically moved away from tangible terms, we have also shifted the analogy away from face-to-face interaction. Maybe -- maybe we could analogize the 50-something lady\'s decision to \"window shop\" as \"engagement,\" but that would be something of a stretch. And while perhaps the changing, perfectly targeted billboard she\'s presented with is \"conversation\" or some bastardized version of \"social media\", it\'s no matter: it never happened. The lady stopped at the intersection, waited for the light to change, and continued on, walking briskly.\n\nFrom a business perspective, that lost opportunity is a huge one -- yet in brick and mortar commerce, no one seems interested in fixing it. Online, we are already experimenting with what\'s being termed \"behavioral retargeting,\" and it is controversial. But the controversy is not over privacy. It is over the fundamental maturity in how we view the Internet -- as a concept distinct from the shackles of tangible space.','Behavioral Retargeting Is About the Maturation of the Web, Not Privacy',0,'','inherit','open','open','','153-revision-6','','','2010-04-07 05:07:51','2010-04-07 05:07:51','',153,'http://dlewis.net/2010/04/07/153-revision-6/',0,'revision','',0),(161,1,'2010-05-20 21:12:43','0000-00-00 00:00:00','Upper East Side, New York, New York.\n\nA woman, probably in her late 50s, makes her way uptown on Third Avenue, walking. Her outfit describes the clientele of the neighborhood -- knee-high leather boots, black skirt, white blouse, pink shawl in 70 degree weather. She\'s carrying a large designer handbag over her left shoulder and, in her right hand, carrying three bags: two from Madison Avenue boutiques and a third from Citarella, which coins itself \"The Ultimate [and overpriced] Gourmet Market.\"\n\nShe was walking briskly for three, maybe four blocks. Then, suddenly, she slowed down to a glacial pace. She was walking by a shoe store and, in spite of her previous \"New York minute\" attitude, found the time to stop and smell the roses. Or, more accurately, slow down and check out the shoes.\n\nShe did not buy anything. She did not even go into the store. In fact, I don\'t recall her actually stopping. But let\'s make three things clear:\n* * *
\nI learned about behavioral ad retargeting in April. Not about the tactic -- I knew about it already -- but about the term. I\'ll let Wikipedia, linked, to define it: it\'s \"a form of online targeted advertising by which online advertising is delivered to consumers based on previous Internet actions that did not in the past result in a conversion.\"\n\nThe way it works? Let\'s say you search for \"black leather knee-high women\'s boots\" on Google, and click an ad. You glance at the pictures for a moment but for some reason or another, move on. Maybe you weren\'t looking to make a purchase now. Maybe you weren\'t looking to make a purchase online, but rather, wanted to figure out the name of the brand you just saw in that Third Avenue shop window. Who knows. Either way, you click the ad, glance around, and click away.\n\nThe next site you are on, though, uses Google\'s advertising network for its banner ads. It has nothing to do with shoes, and, in fact, trends toward male visitors. Yet Google knows your clicking history, and serves you an ad about the shoes you just looked at, paid for by and directed back to the site you just clicked on.\n\nThat\'s behavioral retargeting.\n* * *
\nBack to our 50-something lady.\n\nAfter she made her way past the shoe store, she picked up her pace quickly but was thwarted when the traffic light changed. Across the street was a billboard -- some generic MetroPCS or Verizon Wireless ad, a typical brand-building media buy which blends into the landscape and seeps into our subconscious. Suddenly, the billboard changed: \"Hey, lady in the black skirt and white blouse! If you buy those boots right now at that store you just passed, we\'ll give you 10% off!\"\n\nOf course, the billboard changed for everyone, but to the extent that anyone else noticed, they did with a passing glance. But not our lady. The motion of the billboard immediately caught her eye. At first, she was scared: How did that billboard know who she was? How did it know that I wanted those shoes? Is somebody watching me, and who? The message was perfectly relevant. Her desire to purchase the boots was strong. The discount was fantastic. But the invasion of the privacy of her mind was overwhelming. Not only was there no sale, but she quickly left the intersection, going, probably, slightly out of the way, just to avoid the uncomfortable feeling that she was being watched.\n* * *
\nThe last section, above, is fiction, obviously. But I think it is fair to say that if that were to happen -- if the billboard changed its message to talk to the lady in question -- her reaction would have been negative. It\'s creepy.
\n\n\n','TKTKTK Behavior Retargeting',0,'','draft','open','open','','','','','2010-05-20 21:12:43','2010-05-20 21:12:43','',0,'http://dlewis.net/?p=161',0,'post','',0),(163,1,'2010-04-07 11:13:07','2010-04-07 11:13:07','A decade and a half ago, we casually referred to the Internet as the \"Information Superhighway.\" It probably meant \"a really fast conduit upon which information travels.\" But the way in invaded the parlance of the early consumer Web suggests that any such definition found itself quickly extinguished. URLs were -- and are -- commonly referred to as \"web addresses,\" as if one travels to Amazon.com in a way similar to 123 Sesame Street. Early personal websites were called homepages, as in \"Dan Lewis\'s Home in Cyberspace!!!\". In-print and TV advertisements commonly suggested that a consumer \"visit us on the World Wide Web at www.Honda.com.\" Even the term \"cyberspace\" nods its head toward a physical manifestation of a virtual universe.\n\nThis mindset was more than semantic. Early legal decisions viewed websites as static entities on this Superhighway; quite literally, courts often analogized sites to billboards. Web sites -- and, for web-based companies, the underlying business -- were graded by how many eyeballs \"visited\" their respective sites. (To a large degree, they still are.) While a good address is still important today, they were more important -- both in concept and practice -- fifteen years ago. Amazon was compared to Barnes & Nobles and Borders simply because all three sold books, even though the former\'s business model was radically different. eBay was analogized to a huge garage sale or flea market -- an analogy they probably bought into and which has hamstrung them since. We simply insisted on reconciling a virtual world into physical terms. It was doomed to fail, of course, but we tried.\n\nWith one exception. While we gave names to every destination, we ignored transportation. In real life, transportation -- airports, highways, rail lines -- are key. Even Monopoly realizes this. How one travels from point A to point B is a fundamental detail. Online, we ignored it.\n\n* * *\n\nBoston was settled very early on in our nation\'s history, predating the horse and buggy by perhaps as much as 200 years. Transportation was mostly by foot, I\'d imagine, which lead to (as evidenced by Boston\'s current geographic borders) lead to high population density. Simply put, no one had to think about how to get from A to B, because there was only one viable way to get there, and getting there did not require much infrastructure.\n\nBut over time, transportation matured, and Boston had to mature along with it. There\'s an old, certainly apocryphal story about why Boston\'s roads are so hard to navigate: When roadways were needed, the road-maker would simply go around obstacles. The term \"obstacles\" was defined liberally; a pig in one\'s way could lead to interesting (and dangerous) roadways. Wikipedia sums it up perfectly: \"Downtown Boston\'s streets were not organized on a grid, but grew in a meandering organic pattern from early in the seventeenth century. They were created as needed, and as wharves and landfill expanded the area of the small Boston peninsula. Along with several rotaries, roads change names and lose and add lanes seemingly at random.\"\n\nThe horrible side effect: You can get incredibly lost in Boston even though you are following a perfectly intuitive and sensible path. A road which leads toward your destination promises nothing more than that it will get you a few hundred feet from where you want to end up, which is to say, incredibly lost and frustrated.\n\n* * *\n\nMuch like Boston, the roadways of the Internet post-date the destinations. Our roads are search engines, social networks, banner ads, etc. -- anything you go to and end up, correctly, somewhere else. And these conduits, being new, deliver new features which we probably did not expect. In short: How we use these pathways matters, and increasingly, the time spent here is being distinguished from the old parlance of the Information Superhighway, homepages, cyberspace, and -- thankfully -- \"visits.\" A new set of buzzwords has emerged:\n\nSocial Media. Conversation. Engagement.\n\nWhat\'s interesting about these buzzwords is that, while pithy and increasingly meaningless, they have nothing whatsoever to do with transportation. Contrast that with the first generation of buzzwords and it\'s striking. We are no longer trying to cabin the on-line flow of information into brick and mortar definitions; we have realized that is a recipe for failure.\n\nBut even more amazing? Not only have we semantically moved away from tangible terms, we have also shifted the analogy away from face-to-face interaction. Maybe -- maybe we could analogize the 50-something lady\'s decision to \"window shop\" as \"engagement,\" but that would be something of a stretch. And while perhaps the changing, perfectly targeted billboard she\'s presented with is \"conversation\" or some bastardized version of \"social media\", it\'s no matter: it never happened. The lady stopped at the intersection, waited for the light to change, and continued on, walking briskly.\n\nFrom a business perspective, that lost opportunity is a huge one -- yet in brick and mortar commerce, no one seems interested in fixing it. Online, we are already experimenting with what\'s being termed \"behavioral retargeting,\" and it is controversial. But the controversy is not over privacy. It is over the fundamental maturity in how we view the Internet -- as a concept distinct from the shackles of tangible space.','',0,'','inherit','open','open','','153-revision-9','','','2010-04-07 11:13:07','2010-04-07 11:13:07','',153,'http://dlewis.net/2010/04/07/153-revision-9/',0,'revision','',0),(485,1,'2010-08-04 12:05:05','2010-08-04 16:05:05','There will be more here soon, as I re-do things. \r\n','Hi. I\'m Dan.',0,'','inherit','open','open','','477-revision-v1','','','2010-08-04 12:05:05','2010-08-04 16:05:05','',477,'http://dlewis.net/2010/08/04/477-revision-6/',0,'revision','',0),(477,1,'2010-08-04 11:59:24','2010-08-04 15:59:24','Hi. I’m Dan. I’m a dad. And a husband.\r\n\r\nAnd a Mets fan.\r\n\r\nI can tell you how to get to Sesame Street. (Kind of.)\r\n\r\nI have an email newsletter with more than 100,000 subscribers. It’s about trivia. Pee-Wee Herman once tweeted about it. \r\n\r\nIn 2013, I wrote a book.\r\n\r\nMy forehead is in a YouTube video with more than 20 million views. \r\n\r\nI once had a startup, but I sold it to the founder of Wikipedia. I didn’t make nearly as much money as the press reported.\r\n\r\nI’ve made important public statements concerning Big Bird’s bedtime.\r\n\r\nI’ve read all of the Harry Potter books at least twice.\r\n\r\nI can vibrate my eyes.\r\n\r\nI’ve never eaten bacon.\r\n\r\nI’ve tweeted over 50,000 times. \r\n\r\nI was not in Gangs of New York.\r\n\r\nI’ve gotten 4096 in 2048.\r\n\r\nI’ve fed cookies to Cookie Monster.\r\n\r\nI once started a petition which ended up with more than 150,000 signatures. \r\n\r\nI’m a recovering lawyer.\r\n\r\nI created a legal argument which went to the Supreme Court (and the Court rejected). \r\n\r\nI taught a five-year-old about square roots.\r\n\r\nI went to Tufts. And Cardozo.\r\n\r\nI curate under-$20 gift ideas to make Secret Santa easier for people.\r\n\r\nI’ve been the New York Mets Designated Driver of the Game four times.\r\n\r\nIn 2014, I wrote another book.\r\n\r\nI am the Connecticut State Magic the Gathering Champion (1997) in both Limited and Standard formats. I am somewhat embarrassed by this.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nNice to meet you. \r\n\r\nSay hi.\r\n\r\n ','',0,'','publish','closed','closed','','home','','','2018-06-29 12:09:15','2018-06-29 16:09:15','',0,'http://dlewis.net/?page_id=477',0,'page','',0),(577,1,'2016-03-23 23:27:45','2016-03-24 03:27:45','Hi. I’m Dan. I’m a dad. And a husband. I’m a Mets fan. I’m a recovering lawyer. I’ve fed cookies to Cookie Monster. I went to Tufts. And Cardozo.\r\n\r\nI have an email newsletter with more than 100,000 subscribers. It’s about trivia. Pee-Wee Herman once tweeted about it.\r\n\r\nIn 2013, I wrote a book.\r\n\r\nMy forehead is in a YouTube video with more than 20 million views.\r\n\r\nI once had a startup, but I sold it to the founder of Wikipedia. I didn’t make nearly as much money as the press reported.\r\n\r\nI’ve made important public statements for Big Bird’s bedtime.\r\n\r\nI can vibrate my eyes.\r\n\r\nI’ve gotten 4096 in 2048.\r\n\r\nI’ve read all of the Harry Potter books at least twice.\r\n\r\nI once started a petition which ended up with more than than 150,000 people signed.\r\n\r\nI taught a five-year-old about square roots.\r\n\r\nI curate under-$20 gift ideas to make Secret Santa easier for people.\r\n\r\nI’ve been the New York Mets Designated Driver of the Game three times.\r\n\r\nIn 2014, I wrote another book.\r\n\r\nI’ve tweeted over 50,000 times.\r\n\r\nI am the Connecticut State Magic the Gathering Champion (1997) in both Limited and Standard formats. I am somewhat embarrassed by this.\r\n\r\nI created a legal argument which went to the Supreme Court (and the Court rejected).\r\n\r\nI’ve never eaten bacon.\r\n\r\nI think too much about Star Trek, especially for someone who has never been to a Trek convention.\r\n\r\nNice to meet you. Say hi.','',0,'','inherit','closed','closed','','477-revision-v1','','','2016-03-23 23:27:45','2016-03-24 03:27:45','',477,'http://dlewis.net/2016/03/23/477-revision-v1/',0,'revision','',0),(558,3,'2010-09-07 21:59:34','2010-09-08 01:59:34','![\"Now](\"http://gallery.mailchimp.com/2889002ad89d45ca21f50ba46/images/Now_I_Know.1.jpg\" "\\"Now")
\r\n\r\nWe\'ve all heard the adage \"you learn something new every day.\" It\'s definitely true. Want to keep learning all sorts of interesting things?\r\n\r\n\"Now I Know\" is my free daily email where I share these things. No more than once a day. No spam. Things that I find genuinely interesting, such as:\r\n![\"\"](\"http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/ebgheadshot.jpg\" "\\"dandotlewis\\"")
Hi, I\'m Dan. \r\n\r\nI\'m a father, husband, Mets fan, and officially, a lawyer. I\'m a proud graduate of Tufts University and the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. I\'m the Director of New Media Communications for Sesame Workshop, the non-profit organization which brings Sesame Street to the world (and, of specific importance to me, Twitter and Facebook). As a fringe benefit, I get to work with Cookie Monster and Grover and Elmo etc. It\'s awesome.\r\n\r\nI write a daily email called \"Now I Know,\" which you can sign up for by clicking that link. Every morning, I share something interesting I\'ve learned over the last few weeks. It began in June of 2010. As of January 1, 2012, 35,000 people are subscribed. The up-to-the-minute accurate count is over at the right. You should try it, you\'ll like it.\r\n\r\nBefore all this, I co-founded ArmchairGM, which I co-sold to Wikia. And before that, I was a practicing attorney at EpsteinBeckerGreen, which coincidentally has another attorney in the same office named Dan Lewis. (He is not me.) All of this, and more, can be found on my LinkedIn profile.\r\n\r\nI\'m on Twitter as @DanDotLewis. My most recent tweets are on the right. I usually talk about the Mets (and sports generally), trivia, the New York startup ecosystem, and of course, Sesame Street. It\'s a bit of hodgepodge. For more of me: occasionally, I\'ll write a blog post on my Tumblr. And I\'m also active at Amazin\' Avenue, an excellent Mets blog/community as well, and write a lot about the Mets there. Like the two times I won the Designated Driver of the Game. (See?)\r\n\r\nWant to share something with me? The best way to reach me is by email — dan.lewis@gmail.com. I typically respond to everything, but things fall through the proverbial cracks, so if you email me for some reason and I don’t, just follow up with me.\r\n\r\nOh, and all the stuff here is my personal opinion, not necessarily that of my employer (or anyone else, for that matter, but you\'re welcome to agree with me). Standard disclaimer, you know the drill.\r\n\r\nThanks for stopping by.','',0,'','inherit','open','open','','477-revision-v1','','','2012-01-24 23:14:51','2012-01-25 04:14:51','',477,'http://dlewis.net/2012/01/24/477-revision-23/',0,'revision','',0),(478,1,'2010-08-04 11:12:09','2010-08-04 15:12:09','There will be more here soon.','Home',0,'','inherit','open','open','','477-revision-v1','','','2010-08-04 11:12:09','2010-08-04 15:12:09','',477,'http://dlewis.net/2010/08/04/477-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(479,1,'2010-08-04 11:59:24','2010-08-04 15:59:24','There will be more here soon.','Home',0,'','inherit','open','open','','477-revision-v1','','','2010-08-04 11:59:24','2010-08-04 15:59:24','',477,'http://dlewis.net/2010/08/04/477-revision-2/',0,'revision','',0),(480,1,'2010-08-04 11:59:38','2010-08-04 15:59:38','There will be more here soon.','Home',0,'','inherit','open','open','','477-revision-v1','','','2010-08-04 11:59:38','2010-08-04 15:59:38','',477,'http://dlewis.net/2010/08/04/477-revision-3/',0,'revision','',0),(481,1,'2016-03-23 23:40:39','2016-03-24 03:40:39','Hi. I’m Dan. I’m a dad. And a husband.\n\nAnd a Mets fan.\n\nI can tell you how to get to Sesame Street. (Kind of.)\n\nI have an email newsletter with more than 100,000 subscribers. It’s about trivia. Pee-Wee Herman once tweeted about it. \n\nIn 2013, I wrote a book.\n\nMy forehead is in a YouTube video with more than 20 million views. \n\nI once had a startup, but I sold it to the founder of Wikipedia. I didn’t make nearly as much money as the press reported.\n\nI’ve made important public statements concerning Big Bird’s bedtime.\n\nI’ve read all of the Harry Potter books at least twice.\n\nI can vibrate my eyes.\n\nI’ve never eaten bacon.\n\nI’ve tweeted over 50,000 times. \n\nI’ve gotten 4096 in 2048.\n\nI’ve fed cookies to Cookie Monster.\n\nI once started a petition which ended up with more than than 150,000 signatures. (But it wasn\'t successful.)\n\nI’m a recovering lawyer.\n\nI created a legal argument which went to the Supreme Court (and the Court rejected). \n\nI taught a five-year-old about square roots.\n\nI went to Tufts. And Cardozo.\n\nI curate under-$20 gift ideas to make Secret Santa easier for people.\n\nI’ve been the New York Mets Designated Driver of the Game three times.\n\nIn 2014, I wrote another book.\n\nI am the Connecticut State Magic the Gathering Champion (1997) in both Limited and Standard formats. I am somewhat embarrassed by this.\n\n \n\nNice to meet you. \n\nSay hi.\n\n ','',0,'','inherit','open','open','','477-autosave-v1','','','2016-03-23 23:40:39','2016-03-24 03:40:39','',477,'http://dlewis.net/2010/08/04/477-autosave/',0,'revision','',0),(570,1,'2016-03-23 23:25:13','0000-00-00 00:00:00','','#477 (no title)',0,'','draft','closed','closed','','','','','2016-03-23 23:25:13','0000-00-00 00:00:00','',0,'http://dlewis.net/?p=570',1,'nav_menu_item','',0),(571,1,'2016-03-23 23:25:13','0000-00-00 00:00:00','','#477 (no title)',0,'','draft','closed','closed','','','','','2016-03-23 23:25:13','0000-00-00 00:00:00','',0,'http://dlewis.net/?p=571',1,'nav_menu_item','',0),(572,1,'2016-03-23 23:25:13','0000-00-00 00:00:00',' ','',0,'','draft','closed','closed','','','','','2016-03-23 23:25:13','0000-00-00 00:00:00','',0,'http://dlewis.net/?p=572',1,'nav_menu_item','',0),(573,1,'2016-03-23 23:25:13','0000-00-00 00:00:00',' ','',0,'','draft','closed','closed','','','','','2016-03-23 23:25:13','0000-00-00 00:00:00','',0,'http://dlewis.net/?p=573',1,'nav_menu_item','',0),(574,1,'2016-03-23 23:25:13','0000-00-00 00:00:00',' ','',0,'','draft','closed','closed','','','','','2016-03-23 23:25:13','0000-00-00 00:00:00','',0,'http://dlewis.net/?p=574',1,'nav_menu_item','',0),(575,1,'2016-03-23 23:25:13','0000-00-00 00:00:00',' ','',0,'','draft','closed','closed','','','','','2016-03-23 23:25:13','0000-00-00 00:00:00','',0,'http://dlewis.net/?p=575',1,'nav_menu_item','',0),(576,1,'2016-03-23 23:25:13','0000-00-00 00:00:00',' ','',0,'','draft','closed','closed','','','','','2016-03-23 23:25:13','0000-00-00 00:00:00','',0,'http://dlewis.net/?p=576',1,'nav_menu_item','',0),(550,1,'2012-01-24 19:13:35','2012-01-25 00:13:35','I\'m a father, husband, Mets fan, and officially, a lawyer. I\'m a proud graduate of Tufts University and the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. This site and the other personal ones linked off of it are reflective of my personal views, and not necessarily that of my employer. Standard disclaimer, as it were.\r\n\r\nOh, my job?\r\n\r\nI\'m the Director of New Media Communications for Sesame Workshop, the non-profit organization which brings Sesame Street to the world (and, of specific importance to me, Twitter and Facebook). I am in charge of the organization\'s use of digital media for corporate communications purposes, which is a more formal way of saying that if it involves social media and/or the corporate website at Sesame Workshop, I\'m the guy to talk to. As a fringe benefit, I get to work with Cookie Monster and Grover and Elmo etc. It\'s awesome.\r\n\r\nBefore Sesame, I co-founded ArmchairGM, which I co-sold to Wikia. And before that, I was a practicing attorney at EpsteinBeckerGreen, which coincidentally has another attorney in the same office named Dan Lewis. (He is not me.) All of this, and more, can be found on my LinkedIn profile.\r\n\r\nHobbies?\r\n\r\nI\'m a die-hard Mets fan and have been since the early 1980s. I\'m a sports enthusiast generally, in fact, and spent a good portion of the early 2000s trying (and failing) to become a professional sports writer.\r\n\r\n\r\n![\"\"](\"http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/nikbulb.jpg\" "\\"nikbulb\\"")
I write a daily email called \"Now I Know,\" which you can sign up for over there on the right. Every morning, I share something interesting I\'ve learned over the last few weeks. For example, did you know that George Carlin narrated Thomas and Friends; polar bears are almost invisible under infrared light; Google uses goats as lawnmowers; and carrots, originally, were purple? You would have if you subscribed to my email list. (The whole archive? Here.)\r\n\r\nIn fact, the best way to reach me is by email -- dan.lewis@gmail.com. I typically respond to everything, but things fall through the proverbial cracks, so if you email me for some reason and I don\'t, just follow up with me.\r\n\r\n\r\nI\'m active on Twitter as @DanDotLewis and occasionally, I\'ll write a blog post. My last five posts can be found on the sidebar, and once I figure out how to put the headlines here, consider it done. I\'m also active at Amazin\' Avenue, an excellent Mets blog/community as well.\r\n\r\nMore about me? Really? OK.\r\n![\"\"](\"http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/061011_munson_vmed_9p-widec.jpg\" "\\"thurman_munson_plane_crash\\"")
Newspapers are slowly dying off because the cost to distribute content via newsprint -- something that used to be the industry\'s biggest competitive advantage -- is now a massive disadvantage. But the editorial cycle, where writers and editors are vetted and hired; articles are vetted and edited by these pre-screened talents; etc.\r\n\r\nThe goal is to maintain a high level of quality and accuracy. This comes at the expense of speed, as additional checks and approvals inherently require additional time. Note that in the pre-digital world, this didn\'t matter, because publications were only able to publish once a day anyway -- they, quite literally, had all day to write, edit, and fact check articles.\r\n\r\nBut the alleged benefits -- again, quality and accuracy -- are supposed to be the point of differentiation between newspapers and newer media, e.g. blogs and tweets and email blasts and the like. So when the New York Post publishes a column by Filip Bondy bemoaning how Major League Baseball veterans are relegated to the undignified designated hitter role, one expects the argument to be a home run.\r\n\r\nInstead, we get classless claptrap. Witness:\r\nThe DH may forever represent an unwanted demotion for older sluggers - [Hideki] Matsui, too, felt that way - but it is the fate of almost everyone, if they\'re good enough to hang around. Thurman Munson was spared this indignity, in tragic fashion, dying at age 32.\r\nIn other words: \"It\'s a good thing Thurman Munson died in a plane crash, or he would have become a designated hitter! How awful!\"\r\n\r\nIf this made it past the controls at a newspaper, where\'s the value in the process?','The Indignity of the DH and the Death of Newspapers',0,'','publish','open','open','','the-indignity-of-the-dh-and-the-death-of-newspapers','','','2010-06-04 02:05:55','2010-06-04 02:05:55','',0,'http://dlewis.net/?p=262',0,'post','',0),(263,1,'2010-06-04 02:05:00','2010-06-04 02:05:00','','thurman_munson_plane_crash',0,'','inherit','open','open','','061011_munson_vmed_9p-widec','','','2010-06-04 02:05:00','2010-06-04 02:05:00','',262,'http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/061011_munson_vmed_9p-widec.jpg',0,'attachment','image/jpeg',0),(264,1,'2010-06-04 02:05:47','2010-06-04 02:05:47','
Newspapers are slowly dying off because the cost to distribute content via newsprint -- something that used to be the industry\'s biggest competitive advantage -- is now a massive disadvantage. But the editorial cycle, where writers and editors are vetted and hired; articles are vetted and edited by these pre-screened talents; etc.\n\nThe goal is to maintain a high level of quality and accuracy. This comes at the expense of speed, as additional checks and approvals inherently require additional time. Note that in the pre-digital world, this didn\'t matter, because publications were only able to publish once a day anyway -- they, quite literally, had all day to write, edit, and fact check articles.\n\nBut the alleged benefits -- again, quality and accuracy -- are supposed to be the point of differentiation between newspapers and newer media, e.g. blogs and tweets and email blasts and the like. So when the New York Post publishes a column by Filip Bondy bemoaning how Major League Baseball veterans are relegated to the undignified designated hitter role, one expects the argument to be a home run.\n\nInstead, we get classless claptrap. Witness:\nThe DH may forever represent an unwanted demotion for older sluggers - [Hideki] Matsui, too, felt that way - but it is the fate of almost everyone, if they\'re good enough to hang around. Thurman Munson was spared this indignity, in tragic fashion, dying at age 32.\nIn other words: \"It\'s a good thing Thurman Munson died in a plane crash, or he would have become a designated hitter! How awful!\"\n\nIf this made it past the controls at a newspaper, where\'s the value in the process?','The Indignity of the DH and the Death of Newspapers',0,'','inherit','open','open','','262-revision','','','2010-06-04 02:05:47','2010-06-04 02:05:47','',262,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/04/262-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(266,1,'2010-06-05 00:35:28','2010-06-05 00:35:28','I\'ll be at the ReadWriteWeb Real-Time Summit next Friday, and I\'m not a good fit for it. Which is why I\'m excited to be there.\r\n\r\nWhile Sesame Workshop produces content across types of media, the core content is, of course, video. Video plus Muppets necessarily requires a too-l0ng-for-real-time production cycle. Factor in the time it takes to ensure that the content is educational -- as demanded by the Workshop\'s mission -- and being reactive, on video, in real-time is basically impossible.\r\n\r\nSo I\'m looking for ways we can fit in. We can definitely be trendsetters which dictate some degree of the information stream, but only in small doses. There\'s a huge, untapped pool in which we can make a difference, and I\'m hoping the RWW Summit helps us understand that.\r\n\r\nOn a similar note, I\'m still looking to put together a panel on how we can use social media to improve the lives of children (defined as ages 9 and under). If you are interested in helping, please drop me a note.','Standing Still While Time Moves Past Me',0,'','publish','open','open','','standing-still-while-time-moves-past-me','','','2010-06-05 00:35:28','2010-06-05 00:35:28','',0,'http://dlewis.net/?p=266',0,'post','',0),(267,1,'2010-06-05 00:34:49','2010-06-05 00:34:49','I\'ll be at the ReadWriteWeb Real-Time Summit next Friday, and I\'m not a good fit for it. Which is why I\'m excited to be there.\n\nWhile Sesame Workshop produces content across types of media, the core content is, of course, video. Video plus Muppets necessarily requires a too-l0ng-for-real-time production cycle. Factor in the time it takes to ensure that the content is educational -- as demanded by the Workshop\'s mission -- and being reactive, on video, in real-time is basically impossible.\n\nSo I\'m looking for ways we can fit in. We can definitely be trendsetters which dictate some degree of the information stream, but only in small doses. There\'s a huge, untapped pool in which we can make a difference, and I\'m hoping the RWW Summit helps us understand that.\n\nOn a similar note, I\'m still looking to put tog','Standing Still While Time Moves Past Me',0,'','inherit','open','open','','266-revision','','','2010-06-05 00:34:49','2010-06-05 00:34:49','',266,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/05/266-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(268,1,'2010-06-07 11:05:45','2010-06-07 11:05:45','Mike Arauz, a digital media strategist, had a great observation in March of 2009:\r\n
If I tell my Facebook friends about your brand, it\'s not because I like your brand, but rather because I like your friends.\r\nSpot on, and it applies to friends, and sharing, generally -- not just to Facebook.\r\n\r\nBut on Friday, I received the email below from American Airlines.\r\n\r\n
![\"\"](\"http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/aadl1.png\" "\\"aadl1\\"")
\r\n\r\nAmerican should read the Mike Arauz quote above a few hundred times, because they did basically everything wrong. Why is American Airlines explicitly asking me to spam my friends? And why do they think I\'d sell my friends for a handful of air miles?\r\n\r\nI clicked through, thinking that maybe I misunderstood. Maybe they were offering my friends 10,000 air miles, and wanted me to make the introduction, so to speak.\r\n\r\nClicking the banner leads me to a Flash movie (??) and then, finally, this form:\r\n![\"\"](\"http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Picture-42.png\" "\\"Picture")
Nope. They\'re offering my friends 1,000 miles to sign up -- and they mention that as an aside. As one member of FlyerTalk (a forum dedicated to air miles deals) noted: \"My friendships are too valuable to me for me to try and market to them for a thousand miles. The relationships are worth a lot more than that.\" Bad play, American.
\r\nThen, there\'s the email. You fill out the form and it generates an email, automatically, and sends it to your friend(s). I grabbed the \"preview\" text, below.
\r\n![\"\"](\"http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Picture-43.png\" "\\"Picture")
![\"\"](\"http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/0712ifyoutalkedtopeople-1024x575.jpg\" "\\"0712ifyoutalkedtopeople\\"")
What should American have done?
\r\n1) Redo the offer to focus on the payout to my friends.
\r\nGive my friends a meaningful incentive to join -- a chance to win a free trip, or upgrades for life, or something really cool. AAdvantage miles are meaningless to them if they are not in the program already -- especially if they are invested in a competitor\'s program.
\r\nAnd American has to lead with that information. Make it obvious to me that they\'re giving me a unique opportunity to do something for my friends. This encourages sharing, which is American\'s strategy.
\r\nAnd of course, they should have tied it to the payout to me. How\'s this for a great offer:
\r\n\"Invite your friends to become an AAdvantage member -- and your friend will be entered to win two first class tickets anywhere we fly! And if they win, so do you -- we\'ll give you two first class tickets, too! And just for signing up, both you and your friend get 1,000 AAdvantage miles!\"
\r\nMuch better (even if inarticulately written).
\r\n2) Make it dead simple to share everywhere.\r\n\r\nIn order to share, I have to fill out a form. The form requires that I know my friends\' email addresses, that I invite my friends one-by-one, and that they\'re going to be OK with me sending a pretty stupid email to them which, by the way, is clearly not written by me and reads like the spam it is.\r\n\r\nAnd it is way too complicated. American should be making it easy to share -- that\'s the whole point of the email!\r\n\r\nHere are a few ideas:\r\n![\"\"](\"http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Picture-41.png\" "\\"American")
Let\'s count the problems.
\n1) American is asking me to spam my friends.
\n\"Are Your Friends Worth 10,000 Miles?\" is dishonest. It should be \"Is annoying a lot of your friends worth potentially getting 1,000 from one of them?\" They want me to fill out a form on American\'s site, giving them my friends\' email addresses. They\'ll then send out some email to my friends, on \"my behalf,\" inviting them to become AAdvantage members. Each of my friends who signs up earns me 1,000 miles.
\n2)
\n','Sharing Online: American Airlines Just Doesn\'t Get It',0,'','inherit','open','open','','268-revision-2','','','2010-06-05 16:19:16','2010-06-05 16:19:16','',268,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/05/268-revision-2/',0,'revision','',0),(261,1,'2010-05-21 21:08:47','2010-05-21 21:08:47','Last fall, I met with a friend who had recently spoken with an executive at another (not the Mets) professional sports team in New York. The exec said that the single biggest change in the sports world in recent history was the advent of sports talk radio; specifically for you New York sports fans, WFAN. Before WFAN, teams had a cozy relationship with beat writers and newspaper columnists -- that is, the media -- and the reporters and columnists would, by and large, echo the company line as gospel. The team controlled information and access; in exchange, they left to the media the \"right\" to distribute the story. It was a win-win, as the team got positive press and the journalists were glistened the experts. For any baseball fan, this is self-proving: the Baseball Writers Association of America decides on the end-of-season award winners and Hall of Fame inductees. (In any other industry do journalists decide award winners? Could you imagine if the editorial page of the Washington Post named the Nobel Peace Prize winners?)\r\n\r\nSports talk radio changed all that, for at least three reasons:\r\n![\"\"](\"http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Picture-14-231x300.png\" "\\"Duane")
Dutifully, I went down there to get some Children\'s Tylenol -- or, rather, the generic equivalent. I spoke with the manager, who informed me that the name-brand product had been recalled, so they didn\'t have it, and that Duane Reade does not carry a generic.\r\n\r\nThis did me no good.\r\n\r\nI went a block away, passing another Duane Reade en route, to a CVS. They sell a CVS-branded generic equivalent, which I learned when I arrived there to see it on the shelf. Problem solved, with minor-at-worst inconvenience.\r\n\r\nYet a week later, the exchange with the Duane Reade manager bothered me. I could have gone anywhere for the medicine -- the product is the same at CVS, Duane Reader, RiteAid, etc. -- but I came to him. Yes, I came to him because he was closest, but that\'s by design: Duane Reade wants to always be the closest drug store, because convenience matters. The fact that there\'s almost always a Duane Reade around the corner acts as a proxy for good customer service.\r\n\r\nThey can be forgiven for not having generic children\'s acetaminophen. But with a recall in effect for the name-brand product, how hard would it be for them to advise me to go to CVS? Look at it from my perspective: It\'s 8 A.M. There\'s a well-publicized recall in effect for the medicine I need -- it hit the wires midday the day prior. He\'s in charge of a drug store, and I\'m there looking for medicine (clearly) for my child. Odds are, I\'m going to leave his store and go to a competitor anyway. If he sends me there, I\'ll remember that fondly. I\'ll appreciate the great customer service. And I\'ll come back next time.\r\n\r\nInstead, I\'m left wondering: Why wouldn\'t he help?','Expecting Service, Not Product',0,'','publish','open','open','','expecting-service-not-product','','','2010-05-14 03:42:09','2010-05-14 03:42:09','',0,'http://dlewis.net/?p=178',0,'post','',0),(179,1,'2010-05-14 03:20:45','2010-05-14 03:20:45','','Duane Reades',0,'','inherit','open','open','','picture-14','','','2010-05-14 03:20:45','2010-05-14 03:20:45','',178,'http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Picture-14.png',0,'attachment','image/png',0),(180,1,'2010-05-14 03:41:12','2010-05-14 03:41:12','Last week, Johnson & Johnson announced a recall of Children\'s Tylenol. A day later, one of my children ran a fever. Luckily, we live in Manhattan, home of Duane Reade and their seemingly bazillion locations throughout the island. As you can see from the map below right, they\'re everywhere. In fact, there is one in my apartment building -- and twelve (!) others less than half a mile away.\n\nDutifully, I went down there to get some Children\'s Tylenol -- or, rather, the generic equivalent. I spoke with the manager, who informed me that the name-brand product had been recalled, so they didn\'t have it, and that Duane Reade does not carry a generic.\n\nThis did me no good.\n\nI went a block away, passing another Duane Reade en route, to a CVS. They sell a CVS-branded generic equivalent, which I learned when I arrived there to see it on the shelf. Problem solved, with minor-at-worst inconvenience.\n\nYet a week later, the exchange with the Duane Reade manager bothered me. I could have gone anywhere for the medicine -- the product is the same at CVS, Duane Reader, RiteAid, etc. -- but I came to him. Yes, I came to him because he was closest, but that\'s by design: Duane Reade wants to always be the closest drug store, because convenience matters. The fact that there\'s almost always a Duane Reade around the corner acts as a proxy for good customer service.\n\nThey can be forgiven for not having generic children\'s acetaminophen. But with a recall in effect for the name-brand product, how hard would it be for them to advise me to go to CVS? Look at it from my perspective: It\'s 8 A.M. There\'s a well-publicized recall in effect for the medicine I need -- it hit the wires midday the day prior. He\'s in charge of a drug store, and I\'m there looking for medicine (clearly) for my child. Odds are, I\'m going to leave his store and go to a competitor anyway. If he sends me there, I\'ll remember that fondly. I\'ll appreciate the great customer service. And I\'ll come back next time.','Expecting Service, Not Product',0,'','inherit','open','open','','178-revision','','','2010-05-14 03:41:12','2010-05-14 03:41:12','',178,'http://dlewis.net/2010/05/14/178-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(181,1,'2010-05-14 03:42:11','2010-05-14 03:42:11','Last week, Johnson & Johnson announced a recall of Children\'s Tylenol. A day later, one of my children ran a fever. Luckily, we live in Manhattan, home of Duane Reade and their seemingly bazillion locations throughout the island. As you can see from the map below right, they\'re everywhere. In fact, there is one in my apartment building -- and twelve (!) others less than half a mile away.\n\nDutifully, I went down there to get some Children\'s Tylenol -- or, rather, the generic equivalent. I spoke with the manager, who informed me that the name-brand product had been recalled, so they didn\'t have it, and that Duane Reade does not carry a generic.\n\nThis did me no good.\n\nI went a block away, passing another Duane Reade en route, to a CVS. They sell a CVS-branded generic equivalent, which I learned when I arrived there to see it on the shelf. Problem solved, with minor-at-worst inconvenience.\n\nYet a week later, the exchange with the Duane Reade manager bothered me. I could have gone anywhere for the medicine -- the product is the same at CVS, Duane Reader, RiteAid, etc. -- but I came to him. Yes, I came to him because he was closest, but that\'s by design: Duane Reade wants to always be the closest drug store, because convenience matters. The fact that there\'s almost always a Duane Reade around the corner acts as a proxy for good customer service.\n\nThey can be forgiven for not having generic children\'s acetaminophen. But with a recall in effect for the name-brand product, how hard would it be for them to advise me to go to CVS? Look at it from my perspective: It\'s 8 A.M. There\'s a well-publicized recall in effect for the medicine I need -- it hit the wires midday the day prior. He\'s in charge of a drug store, and I\'m there looking for medicine (clearly) for my child. Odds are, I\'m going to leave his store and go to a competitor anyway. If he sends me there, I\'ll remember that fondly. I\'ll appreciate the great customer service. And I\'ll come back next time.\n\nInstead, I\'m left wondering: Why wouldn\'t he help?','Expecting Service, Not Product',0,'','inherit','open','open','','178-autosave','','','2010-05-14 03:42:11','2010-05-14 03:42:11','',178,'http://dlewis.net/2010/05/14/178-autosave/',0,'revision','',0),(182,1,'2010-05-18 03:27:13','2010-05-18 03:27:13','The headline -- it\'s not a metaphor.\r\n\r\nLet\'s say, heaven forbid, you lost the lower half of your body in an accident, and were confined to a wheelchair. Under what circumstances would you venture off and leave the wheelchair behind? To sleep, take a bath/shower, and... that\'s pretty much it, I\'d guess. And you would never, ever leave it behind.\r\n\r\nOr so I thought.\r\n\r\nAt just before 9 PM tonight, I got on the subway. I noticed a man with no legs -- nothing below the waist, roughly -- in a wheelchair. My first thought was that it must be very difficult for him to get around, given the wheelchair, because very few of subway stops are wheelchair accessible.\r\n\r\n![\"\"](\"http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/wheelchair-1024x768.jpg\" "\\"wheelchair\\"")
We both got on the first car of the train. Before the train reached the next station less than two minutes later, the guy was in the middle of the car, panhandling. Nothing too strange, except he wasn\'t in his wheelchair. He was scooting along, pushing himself forward with his arms while simultaneously carrying a coffee can of change and small bills. He said nothing -- the jingle of the change and the spectacle of a legless man moving slowly though the subway car spoke volumes for him. And when the train stopped at the next station, he didn\'t. He moved on, reaching the end of our car just after the train disembarked. Then he went through the doors at the end of the car and into the next one -- leaving his wheelchair behind. I waited a stop or two and, amazed, took the picture to the right.\r\n\r\nA few stops later, I got off the train. The wheelchair was in front of me, still laying fallow in the lead car. As the train doors closed and the subway left my station stop, I watched the man pass from car three to car four, going further and further away from his wheelchair.\r\n\r\nMaybe, in retrospect, it makes sense; it\'s not very likely that someone is going to steal a wheelchair, the guy can probably do better panhandling if he\'s scooting around in half-a-body; it may even be easier to maneuver between train cars without the wheelchair\'s bulk. But for the life of me, there\'s one thing I can\'t shake -- where did this guy ever, possibly, get the idea to leave his wheelchair? And not just that, but leave the car it was in! I cannot imagine it would ever occur to me that the \"best\" thing I could do, if I were in his situation, is to leave the wheels behind.','Leaving the Wheelchair Behind',0,'','publish','open','open','','leaving-the-wheelchair-behind','','','2010-05-18 03:27:13','2010-05-18 03:27:13','',0,'http://dlewis.net/?p=182',0,'post','',0),(183,1,'2010-05-18 03:20:46','2010-05-18 03:20:46','','wheelchair',0,'','inherit','open','open','','wheelchair','','','2010-05-18 03:20:46','2010-05-18 03:20:46','',182,'http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/wheelchair.jpg',0,'attachment','image/jpeg',0),(184,1,'2010-05-18 03:27:10','2010-05-18 03:27:10','The headline -- it\'s not a metaphor.\n\nLet\'s say, heaven forbid, you lost the lower half of your body in an accident, and were confined to a wheelchair. Under what circumstances would you venture off and leave the wheelchair behind? To sleep, take a bath/shower, and... that\'s pretty much it, I\'d guess. And you would never, ever leave it behind.\n\nOr so I thought.\n\nAt just before 9 PM tonight, I got on the subway. I noticed a man with no legs -- nothing below the waist, roughly -- in a wheelchair. My first thought was that it must be very difficult for him to get around, given the wheelchair, because very few of subway stops are wheelchair accessible.\n\nWe both got on the first car of the train. Before the train reached the next station less than two minutes later, the guy was in the middle of the car, panhandling. Nothing too strange, except he wasn\'t in his wheelchair. He was scooting along, pushing himself forward with his arms while simultaneously carrying a coffee can of change and small bills. He said nothing -- the jingle of the change and the spectacle of a legless man moving slowly though the subway car spoke volumes for him. And when the train stopped at the next station, he didn\'t. He moved on, reaching the end of our car just after the train disembarked. Then he went through the doors at the end of the car and into the next one -- leaving his wheelchair behind. I waited a stop or two and, amazed, took the picture to the right.\n\nA few stops later, I got off the train. The wheelchair was in front of me, still laying fallow in the lead car. As the train doors closed and the subway left my station stop, I watched the man pass from car three to car four, going further and further away from his wheelchair.\n\nMaybe, in retrospect, it makes sense; it\'s not very likely that someone is going to steal a wheelchair, the guy can probably do better panhandling if he\'s scooting around in half-a-body; it may even be easier to maneuver between train cars without the wheelchair\'s bulk. But for the life of me, there\'s one thing I can\'t shake -- where did this guy ever, possibly, get the idea to leave his wheelchair? And not just that, but leave the car it was in! I cannot imagine it would ever occur to me that the \"best\" thing I could do, if I were in his situation, is to leave the wheels behind.','Leaving the Wheelchair Behind',0,'','inherit','open','open','','182-revision','','','2010-05-18 03:27:10','2010-05-18 03:27:10','',182,'http://dlewis.net/2010/05/18/182-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(186,1,'2010-05-18 15:26:45','2010-05-18 15:26:45','','BBWins',0,'','inherit','open','open','','bbwins','','','2010-05-18 15:26:45','2010-05-18 15:26:45','',145,'http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/BBWins.png',0,'attachment','image/png',0),(187,1,'2010-05-18 16:49:02','2010-05-18 16:49:02','','tweet',0,'','inherit','open','open','','tweet','','','2010-05-18 16:49:02','2010-05-18 16:49:02','',145,'http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/tweet.png',0,'attachment','image/png',0),(188,1,'2010-05-18 16:48:18','2010-05-18 16:48:18','I work for Sesame Workshop, the non-profit behind Sesame Street. I\'m the Director of New Media Communications, which means, in part, I get to figure out how we use Facebook and Twitter.\n\nEarlier this year, we opened up a bunch of official Fan pages (when they were called that) for various characters. We started with Elmo, Cookie Monster, Grover, Bert and Ernie, Rosita, Oscar the Grouch, and Abby Cadabby. Each proved popular, and on March 25th, we leveraged our then\n\n','Moobark',0,'','inherit','open','open','','145-revision-3','','','2010-05-18 16:48:18','2010-05-18 16:48:18','',145,'http://dlewis.net/2010/05/18/145-revision-3/',0,'revision','',0),(190,1,'2010-05-18 16:50:54','2010-05-18 16:50:54','I work for Sesame Workshop, the non-profit behind Sesame Street. I\'m the Director of New Media Communications, which means, in part, I get to figure out how we use Facebook and Twitter.\n\nEarlier this year, we opened up a bunch of official Fan pages (when they were called that) for various characters. We started with Elmo, Cookie Monster, Grover, Bert and Ernie, Rosita, Oscar the Grouch, and Abby Cadabby. Each proved popular, and on March 25th, we invited our then-60,000 plus Twitter followers to become Facebook fans of those characters.\n\n\n\n\n\n','Moobark',0,'','inherit','open','open','','145-revision-5','','','2010-05-18 16:50:54','2010-05-18 16:50:54','',145,'http://dlewis.net/2010/05/18/145-revision-5/',0,'revision','',0),(189,1,'2010-05-18 16:49:48','2010-05-18 16:49:48','I work for Sesame Workshop, the non-profit behind Sesame Street. I\'m the Director of New Media Communications, which means, in part, I get to figure out how we use Facebook and Twitter.\r\n\r\nEarlier this year, we opened up a bunch of official Fan pages (when they were called that) for various characters. We started with Elmo, Cookie Monster, Grover, Bert and Ernie, Rosita, Oscar the Grouch, and Abby Cadabby. Each proved popular, and on March 25th, we invited our then-60,000 plus Twitter followers to become Facebook fans of those characters.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n','Moobark',0,'','inherit','open','open','','145-revision-4','','','2010-05-18 16:49:48','2010-05-18 16:49:48','',145,'http://dlewis.net/2010/05/18/145-revision-4/',0,'revision','',0),(191,1,'2010-05-18 16:55:09','2010-05-18 16:55:09','I work for Sesame Workshop, the non-profit behind Sesame Street. I\'m the Director of New Media Communications, which means, in part, I get to figure out how we use Facebook and Twitter. I have been collecting a lot of publicly available data about one of my projects, and the results have proved interesting.\n\nEarlier this year, we opened up a bunch of official Fan pages (when they were called that) for various characters. We started with Elmo, Cookie Monster, Grover, Bert and Ernie, Rosita, Oscar the Grouch, and Abby Cadabby. Each proved popular, and on March 25th, we invited our then-60,000 plus Twitter followers to become Facebook fans of those characters.\n
The bitly link did about 550 clicks, but the more interesting feedback I had to gather by hand. People
\n\n
The bitly link did about 550 clicks, but the more interesting feedback I had to gather by hand. People tweeted at @sesamestreet with their requests. Almost 20 different characters -- including human actors and one teddy bear -- were suggested. Many characters were suggested by only one or two people, but three characters stood out.
\n\nA week or so later, we announced the new pages on Twitter.
\n
I intentionally did not announce it on Facebook because I wanted to see how well our then-70,000 Twitter followers would translate into Facebook fans. It was slow going, taking about 90 minutes to get one of the three characters to 100 fans, despite roughly 650 clicks overall that day. I stopped checking once the first character hit 100 fans.
\nGiven the response to my informal poll, I expected Big Bird to come out to a quick and decisive lead. I was wrong.
\n\n\n
Snuffy and The Count were neck and for the 90 or so minutes it took for the latter to prevail. Big Bird was a laggard, not even coming close. It was the exact opposite results of the poll.
\nSmall sample size, perhaps? Maybe I wasn\'t hitting the same audiences? Perhaps the responders on Twitter were not also using Facebook? Or maybe they were, but they did not want their Facebook (real?) friends to know they were fans of children\'s television characters?
\nAny are likely explanations, but none are very satisfying. Instead of coming up with some answers, I instead ended up with another question:
\nWhich \"survey\" was more accurate?
\nIn effect, I conducted two surveys on Twitter. One was an explicit ask: Which character pages would you want to become a fan of? The other -- \"we\'ve created these pages!\" -- was, implicitly, the same thing. The former was more theoretical while the latter concrete. Which one is better?
\nYesterday, I checked these three characters\' pages again. The results changed, reflecting closely the results of the earlier poll:
\n\n
Indexing Big Bird to 100 again, Snuffy comes in at 77 -- not far off from his original Twitter score -- and the Count at 67. It makes sense that these are a bit higher because while the Twitter responses naturally limit the # of possibilities (140 characters and the memory/imagination of the responder being two factors), there is no such mutual exclusivity or memory leaks when presented with options on Facebook.
','Moobark',0,'','inherit','open','open','','145-revision-8','','','2010-05-18 19:29:38','2010-05-18 19:29:38','',145,'http://dlewis.net/2010/05/18/145-revision-8/',0,'revision','',0),(198,1,'2010-05-18 21:00:07','2010-05-18 21:00:07','I work for Sesame Workshop, the non-profit behind Sesame Street. I\'m the Director of New Media Communications, which means, in part, I get to figure out how we use Facebook and Twitter. I have been collecting a lot of publicly available data about one of my projects, and the results have proved interesting.\n\nEarlier this year, we opened up a bunch of official Fan pages (when they were called that) for various characters. We started with Elmo, Cookie Monster, Grover, Bert and Ernie, Rosita, Oscar the Grouch, and Abby Cadabby. Each proved popular, and on March 25th, we invited our then-60,000 plus Twitter followers to become Facebook fans of those characters.\n
The bitly link did about 550 clicks. Before the tweet, most of the existing character fan pages had fewer Facebook fans than we had Twitter followers by an order of magnitude. Each of these pages fan counts grew by about 10%.
\nBut the more interesting feedback I had to gather by hand. People tweeted at @sesamestreet with their requests. Almost 20 different characters -- including human actors and one teddy bear -- were suggested. Many characters were suggested by only one or two people, but three characters stood out.
\n\nA week or so later, we announced the new pages on Twitter.
\n
I intentionally did not announce it on Facebook because I wanted to see how well our then-70,000 Twitter followers would translate into Facebook fans. It was slow going, taking about 90 minutes to get one of the three characters to 100 fans, despite roughly 650 clicks overall that day. I stopped checking once the first character hit 100 fans.
\nGiven the response to my informal poll, I expected Big Bird to come out to a quick and decisive lead. I was wrong.
\n\n\n
Snuffy and The Count were neck and for the 90 or so minutes it took for the latter to prevail. Big Bird was a laggard, not even coming close. It was the exact opposite results of the poll.
\nSmall sample size, perhaps? Maybe I wasn\'t hitting the same audiences? Perhaps the responders on Twitter were not also using Facebook? Or maybe they were, but they did not want their Facebook (real?) friends to know they were fans of children\'s television characters?
\nAny are likely explanations, but none are very satisfying. Instead of coming up with some answers, I instead ended up with another question:
\nWhich \"survey\" was more accurate?
\nIn effect, I conducted two surveys on Twitter. One was an explicit ask: Which character pages would you want to become a fan of? The other -- \"we\'ve created these pages!\" -- was, implicitly, the same thing. The former was more theoretical while the latter concrete. Which one is better?
\nYesterday, I checked these three characters\' pages again. The results changed, reflecting closely the results of the earlier poll:
\n\n
Indexing Big Bird to 100 again, Snuffy comes in at 77 -- not far off from his original Twitter score -- and the Count at 67. It makes sense that these are a bit higher because while the Twitter responses naturally limit the # of possibilities (140 characters and the memory/imagination of the responder being two factors), there is no such mutual exclusivity or memory leaks when presented with options on Facebook.
\nSome general takeaways:
\n\n
The bitly link did about 550 clicks. Before the tweet, most of the existing character fan pages had fewer Facebook fans than we had Twitter followers by an order of magnitude. Each of these pages fan counts grew by about 10%.
\nBut the more interesting feedback I had to gather by hand. People tweeted at @sesamestreet with their requests. Almost 20 different characters -- including human actors and one teddy bear -- were suggested. Many characters were suggested by only one or two people, but three characters stood out.
\n\nA week or so later, we announced the new pages on Twitter.
\n
I intentionally did not announce it on Facebook because I wanted to see how well our then-70,000 Twitter followers would translate into Facebook fans. It was slow going, taking about 90 minutes to get one of the three characters to 100 fans, despite roughly 650 clicks overall that day. I stopped checking once the first character hit 100 fans.
\nGiven the response to my informal poll, I expected Big Bird to come out to a quick and decisive lead. I was wrong.
\n\n\n
Snuffy and The Count were neck and for the 90 or so minutes it took for the latter to prevail. Big Bird was a laggard, not even coming close. It was the exact opposite results of the poll.
\nSmall sample size, perhaps? Maybe I wasn\'t hitting the same audiences? Perhaps the responders on Twitter were not also using Facebook? Or maybe they were, but they did not want their Facebook (real?) friends to know they were fans of children\'s television characters?
\nAny are likely explanations, but none are very satisfying. Instead of coming up with some answers, I instead ended up with another question:
\nWhich \"survey\" was more accurate?
\nIn effect, I conducted two surveys on Twitter. One was an explicit ask: Which character pages would you want to become a fan of? The other -- \"we\'ve created these pages!\" -- was, implicitly, the same thing. The former was more theoretical while the latter concrete. Which one is better?
\nYesterday, I checked these three characters\' pages again. The results changed, reflecting closely the results of the earlier poll:
\n\n
Indexing Big Bird to 100 again, Snuffy comes in at 77 -- not far off from his original Twitter score -- and the Count at 67. It makes sense that these are a bit higher because while the Twitter responses naturally limit the # of possibilities (140 characters and the memory/imagination of the responder being two factors), there is no such mutual exclusivity or memory leaks when presented with options on Facebook.
\nSome general takeaways:
\n\n
The bitly link did about 550 clicks. Before the tweet, most of the existing character fan pages had fewer Facebook fans than we had Twitter followers by an order of magnitude. Each of these pages fan counts grew by about 10%.
\r\nBut the more interesting feedback I had to gather by hand. People tweeted at @sesamestreet with their requests. Almost 20 different characters -- including human actors and one teddy bear -- were suggested. Many characters were suggested by only one or two people, but three characters stood out.
\r\n\r\nA week or so later, we announced the new pages on Twitter.
\r\n
I intentionally did not announce it on Facebook because I wanted to see how well our then-70,000 Twitter followers would translate into Facebook fans. It was slow going, taking about 90 minutes to get one of the three characters to 100 fans, despite roughly 650 clicks overall that day. I stopped checking once the first character hit 100 fans.
\r\nGiven the response to my informal poll, I expected Big Bird to come out to a quick and decisive lead. I was wrong.
\r\n\r\n\r\n
Snuffy and The Count were neck and for the 90 or so minutes it took for the latter to prevail. Big Bird was a laggard, not even coming close. It was the exact opposite results of the poll.
\r\nSmall sample size, perhaps? Maybe I wasn\'t hitting the same audiences? Perhaps the responders on Twitter were not also using Facebook? Or maybe they were, but they did not want their Facebook (real?) friends to know they were fans of children\'s television characters?
\r\nAny are likely explanations, but none are very satisfying. Instead of coming up with some answers, I instead ended up with another question:
\r\nWhich \"survey\" was more accurate?
\r\nIn effect, I conducted two surveys on Twitter. One was an explicit ask: Which character pages would you want to become a fan of? The other -- \"we\'ve created these pages!\" -- was, implicitly, the same thing. The former was more theoretical while the latter concrete. Which one is better?
\r\nYesterday, I checked these three characters\' pages again. The results changed, reflecting closely the results of the earlier poll:
\r\n\r\n
Indexing Big Bird to 100 again, Snuffy comes in at 77 -- not far off from his original Twitter score -- and the Count at 67. It makes sense that these are a bit higher because while the Twitter responses naturally limit the # of possibilities (140 characters and the memory/imagination of the responder being two factors), there is no such mutual exclusivity or memory leaks when presented with options on Facebook.
\r\nSome general takeaways:
\r\n\r\n
The bitly link did about 550 clicks. Before the tweet, most of the existing character fan pages had fewer Facebook fans than we had Twitter followers by an order of magnitude. Each of these pages fan counts grew by about 10%.
\nBut the more interesting feedback I had to gather by hand. People tweeted at @sesamestreet with their requests. Almost 20 different characters -- including human actors and one teddy bear -- were suggested. Many characters were suggested by only one or two people, but three characters stood out.
\n\nA week or so later, we announced the new pages on Twitter.
\n
I intentionally did not announce it on Facebook because I wanted to see how well our then-70,000 Twitter followers would translate into Facebook fans. It was slow going, taking about 90 minutes to get one of the three characters to 100 fans, despite roughly 650 clicks overall that day. I stopped checking once the first character hit 100 fans.
\nGiven the response to my informal poll, I expected Big Bird to come out to a quick and decisive lead. I was wrong.
\n\n\n
Snuffy and The Count were neck and for the 90 or so minutes it took for the latter to prevail. Big Bird was a laggard, not even coming close. It was the exact opposite results of the poll.
\nSmall sample size, perhaps? Maybe I wasn\'t hitting the same audiences? Perhaps the responders on Twitter were not also using Facebook? Or maybe they were, but they did not want their Facebook (real?) friends to know they were fans of children\'s television characters?
\nAny are likely explanations, but none are very satisfying. Instead of coming up with some answers, I instead ended up with another question:
\nWhich \"survey\" was more accurate?
\nIn effect, I conducted two surveys on Twitter. One was an explicit ask: Which character pages would you want to become a fan of? The other -- \"we\'ve created these pages!\" -- was, implicitly, the same thing. The former was more theoretical while the latter concrete. Which one is better?
\nYesterday, I checked these three characters\' pages again. The results changed, reflecting closely the results of the earlier poll:
\n\n
Indexing Big Bird to 100 again, Snuffy comes in at 77 -- not far off from his original Twitter score -- and the Count at 67. It makes sense that these are a bit higher because while the Twitter responses naturally limit the # of possibilities (140 characters and the memory/imagination of the responder being two factors), there is no such mutual exclusivity or memory leaks when presented with options on Facebook.
\nSome general takeaways:
\n\n
The bitly link did about 550 clicks. Before the tweet, most of the existing character fan pages had fewer Facebook fans than we had Twitter followers by an order of magnitude. Each of these pages fan counts grew by about 10%.
\nBut the more interesting feedback I had to gather by hand. People tweeted at @sesamestreet with their requests. Almost 20 different characters -- including human actors and one teddy bear -- were suggested. Many characters were suggested by only one or two people, but three characters stood out.
\n\nA week or so later, we announced the new pages on Twitter.
\n
I intentionally did not announce it on Facebook because I wanted to see how well our then-70,000 Twitter followers would translate into Facebook fans. It was slow going, taking about 90 minutes to get one of the three characters to 100 fans, despite roughly 650 clicks overall that day. I stopped checking once the first character hit 100 fans.
\nGiven the response to my informal poll, I expected Big Bird to come out to a quick and decisive lead. I was wrong.
\n\n\n
Snuffy and The Count were neck and for the 90 or so minutes it took for the latter to prevail. Big Bird was a laggard, not even coming close. It was the exact opposite results of the poll.
\nSmall sample size, perhaps? Maybe I wasn\'t hitting the same audiences? Perhaps the responders on Twitter were not also using Facebook? Or maybe they were, but they did not want their Facebook (real?) friends to know they were fans of children\'s television characters?
\nAny are likely explanations, but none are very satisfying. Instead of coming up with some answers, I instead ended up with another question:
\nWhich \"survey\" was more accurate?
\nIn effect, I conducted two surveys on Twitter. One was an explicit ask: Which character pages would you want to become a fan of? The other -- \"we\'ve created these pages!\" -- was, implicitly, the same thing. The former was more theoretical while the latter concrete. Which one is better?
\nYesterday, I checked these three characters\' pages again. The results changed, reflecting closely the results of the earlier poll:
\n\n
Indexing Big Bird to 100 again, Snuffy comes in at 77 -- not far off from his original Twitter score -- and the Count at 67. It makes sense that these are a bit higher because while the Twitter responses naturally limit the # of possibilities (140 characters and the memory/imagination of the responder being two factors), there is no such mutual exclusivity or memory leaks when presented with options on Facebook.
\nSome general takeaways:
\n\n
The bitly link did about 550 clicks. Before the tweet, most of the existing character fan pages had fewer Facebook fans than we had Twitter followers by an order of magnitude. Each of these pages fan counts grew by about 10%.
\r\nBut the more interesting feedback I had to gather by hand. People tweeted at @sesamestreet with their requests. Almost 20 different characters -- including human actors and one teddy bear -- were suggested. Many characters were suggested by only one or two people, but three characters stood out.
\r\n\r\nA week or so later, we announced the new pages on Twitter.
\r\n
I intentionally did not announce it on Facebook because I wanted to see how well our then-70,000 Twitter followers would translate into Facebook fans. It was slow going, taking about 90 minutes to get one of the three characters to 100 fans, despite roughly 650 clicks overall that day. I stopped checking once the first character hit 100 fans.
\r\nGiven the response to my informal poll, I expected Big Bird to come out to a quick and decisive lead. I was wrong.
\r\n\r\n\r\n
Snuffy and The Count were neck and for the 90 or so minutes it took for the latter to prevail. Big Bird was a laggard, not even coming close. It was the exact opposite results of the poll.
\r\nSmall sample size, perhaps? Maybe I wasn\'t hitting the same audiences? Perhaps the responders on Twitter were not also using Facebook? Or maybe they were, but they did not want their Facebook (real?) friends to know they were fans of children\'s television characters?
\r\nAny are likely explanations, but none are very satisfying. Instead of coming up with some answers, I instead ended up with another question:
\r\nWhich \"survey\" was more accurate?
\r\nIn effect, I conducted two surveys on Twitter. One was an explicit ask: Which character pages would you want to become a fan of? The other -- \"we\'ve created these pages!\" -- was, implicitly, the same thing. The former was more theoretical while the latter concrete. Which one is better?
\r\nYesterday, I checked these three characters\' pages again. The results changed, reflecting closely the results of the earlier poll:
\r\n\r\n
Indexing Big Bird to 100 again, Snuffy comes in at 77 -- not far off from his original Twitter score -- and the Count at 67. It makes sense that these are a bit higher because while the Twitter responses naturally limit the # of possibilities (140 characters and the memory/imagination of the responder being two factors), there is no such mutual exclusivity or memory leaks when presented with options on Facebook.
\r\nSome general takeaways:
\r\n\r\n
The bitly link did about 550 clicks. Before the tweet, most of the existing character fan pages had fewer Facebook fans than we had Twitter followers by an order of magnitude. Each of these pages fan counts grew by about 10%.
\nBut the more interesting feedback I had to gather by hand. People tweeted at @sesamestreet with their requests. Almost 20 different characters -- including human actors and one teddy bear -- were suggested. Many characters were suggested by only one or two people, but three characters stood out.
\n\nA week or so later, we announced the new pages on Twitter.
\n
I intentionally did not announce it on Facebook because I wanted to see how well our then-70,000 Twitter followers would translate into Facebook fans. It was slow going, taking about 90 minutes to get one of the three characters to 100 fans, despite roughly 650 clicks overall that day. I stopped checking once the first character hit 100 fans.
\nGiven the response to my informal poll, I expected Big Bird to come out to a quick and decisive lead. I was wrong.
\n\n\n
Snuffy and The Count were neck and for the 90 or so minutes it took for the latter to prevail. Big Bird was a laggard, not even coming close. It was the exact opposite results of the poll.
\nSmall sample size, perhaps? Maybe I wasn\'t hitting the same audiences? Perhaps the responders on Twitter were not also using Facebook? Or maybe they were, but they did not want their Facebook (real?) friends to know they were fans of children\'s television characters?
\nAny are likely explanations, but none are very satisfying. Instead of coming up with some answers, I instead ended up with another question:
\nWhich \"survey\" was more accurate?
\nIn effect, I conducted two surveys on Twitter. One was an explicit ask: Which character pages would you want to become a fan of? The other -- \"we\'ve created these pages!\" -- was, implicitly, the same thing. The former was more theoretical while the latter concrete. Which one is better?
\nYesterday, I checked these three characters\' pages again. The results changed, reflecting closely the results of the earlier poll:
\n\n
Indexing Big Bird to 100 again, Snuffy comes in at 77 -- not far off from his original Twitter score -- and the Count at 67. It makes sense that these are a bit higher because while the Twitter responses naturally limit the # of possibilities (140 characters and the memory/imagination of the responder being two factors), there is no such mutual exclusivity or memory leaks when presented with options on Facebook.
\nSome general takeaways:
\n\n* * *
\r\nApplying the three Ds is not difficult. It simply requires time and consistent effort.
\r\nOne such example occurred last week, when Fox News ran an article claiming that Wikipedia founder (and my former boss), Jimmy Wales, was stripped of editorial rights due to an unrelated scandal. He took to Twitter (and to TechCrunch, a third party blog) to set the record straight and defend himself:\r\n![\"\"](\"http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Picture-18.png\" "\\"Jwales")
![\"\"](\"http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Picture-19.png\" "\\"Picture")
![\"\"](\"http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Picture-17.png\" "\\"Picture")
\r\n\r\nEffective? You bet. The passion plus the time investment means that he\'s taking it seriously; that this is important; and that the current media-driven meme is incorrect. It\'s believable and simulteaneouly remarkable.\r\n\r\nIt\'s the approach everyone should be taking in managing the media sentiment of their organization. Don\'t follow the sports teams\' model.','Managing Your Memes: The Three Ds',0,'','publish','open','open','','managing-your-memes-the-three-ds','','','2010-05-21 17:27:04','2010-05-21 17:27:04','',0,'http://dlewis.net/?p=205',0,'post','',0),(206,1,'2010-05-19 12:15:31','2010-05-19 12:15:31','Imagine you owned a Major League Baseball team; well call it the Mets. Your star player (\"David Wright\") is, inexplicably, striking out a lot, and your team is having a bad year. What message do you expect the sports media to hook into and spread?\n\nAnswer: It\'s going to be about how awful a year David Wright is having, and how that\'s a big reason for the team\'s similarly awful year.\n\nBut what if that\'s not true?\n\n* * *\n\nLast fall, I met with a friend who had recently spoken with an executive at another (not the Mets) professional sports team in New York. The exec said that the single biggest change in the sports world in recent history was the advent of sports talk radio; specifically for you New York sports fans, WFAN. Before WFAN, teams had a cozy relationship with beat writers and newspaper columnists -- that is, the media -- and the reporters and columnists would, by and large, echo the company line as gospel. Th','Managing Your Media Sentiment: The Three Ds',0,'','inherit','open','open','','205-revision','','','2010-05-19 12:15:31','2010-05-19 12:15:31','',205,'http://dlewis.net/2010/05/19/205-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(207,1,'2010-05-19 12:16:54','2010-05-19 12:16:54','Imagine you owned a Major League Baseball team; well call it the Mets. Your star player (\"David Wright\") is, inexplicably, striking out a lot, and your team is having a bad year. What message do you expect the sports media to hook into and spread?\n\nAnswer: It\'s going to be about how awful a year David Wright is having, and how that\'s a big reason for the team\'s similarly awful year.\n\nBut what if that\'s not true?\n\n* * *\n\nLast fall, I met with a friend who had recently spoken with an executive at another (not the Mets) professional sports team in New York. The exec said that the single biggest change in the sports world in recent history was the advent of sports talk radio; specifically for you New York sports fans, WFAN. Before WFAN, teams had a cozy relationship with beat writers and newspaper columnists -- that is, the media -- and the reporters and columnists would, by and large, echo the company line as gospel.','Managing Your Media Sentiment: The Three Ds',0,'','inherit','open','open','','205-revision-2','','','2010-05-19 12:16:54','2010-05-19 12:16:54','',205,'http://dlewis.net/2010/05/19/205-revision-2/',0,'revision','',0),(208,1,'2010-05-19 16:06:05','2010-05-19 16:06:05','Imagine you owned a Major League Baseball team; well call it the Mets. Your star player (\"David Wright\") is, inexplicably, striking out a lot, and your team is having a bad year. What message do you expect the sports media to hook into and spread?\n\nAnswer: It\'s going to be about how awful a year David Wright is having, and how that\'s a big reason for the team\'s similarly awful year.\n\nBut what if that\'s not true?\n\n* * *\n\nLast fall, I met with a friend who had recently spoken with an executive at another (not the Mets) professional sports team in New York. The exec said that the single biggest change in the sports world in recent history was the advent of sports talk radio; specifically for you New York sports fans, WFAN. Before WFAN, teams had a cozy relationship with beat writers and newspaper columnists -- that is, the media -- and the reporters and columnists would, by and large, echo the company line as gospel. The team controlled information and access; in exchange, they left to the media the \"right\" to distribute the story. It was a win-win, as the team got positive press and the journalists were glistened the experts. For any baseball fan, this is self-proving: the Baseball Writers Association of America decides on the end-of-season award winners and Hall of Fame inductees. (In any other industry do journalists decide award winners? Could you imagine if the editorial page of the','Managing Your Media Sentiment: The Three Ds',0,'','inherit','open','open','','205-revision-3','','','2010-05-19 16:06:05','2010-05-19 16:06:05','',205,'http://dlewis.net/2010/05/19/205-revision-3/',0,'revision','',0),(209,1,'2010-05-19 17:02:28','2010-05-19 17:02:28','Imagine you owned a Major League Baseball team; well call it the Mets. Your star player (\"David Wright\") is, inexplicably, striking out a lot, and your team is having a bad year. What message do you expect the sports media to hook into and spread?\n\nAnswer: It\'s going to be about how awful a year David Wright is having, and how that\'s a big reason for the team\'s similarly awful year.\n\nBut what if that\'s not true?\n\n* * *\n\nLast fall, I met with a friend who had recently spoken with an executive at another (not the Mets) professional sports team in New York. The exec said that the single biggest change in the sports world in recent history was the advent of sports talk radio; specifically for you New York sports fans, WFAN. Before WFAN, teams had a cozy relationship with beat writers and newspaper columnists -- that is, the media -- and the reporters and columnists would, by and large, echo the company line as gospel. The team controlled information and access; in exchange, they left to the media the \"right\" to distribute the story. It was a win-win, as the team got positive press and the journalists were glistened the experts. For any baseball fan, this is self-proving: the Baseball Writers Association of America decides on the end-of-season award winners and Hall of Fame inductees. (In any other industry do journalists decide award winners? Could you imagine if the editorial page of the Washington Post named the Nobel Peace Prize winners?)\n\nSports talk radio changed all that, for at least three reasons:\n* * *
\nLast fall, I met with a friend who had recently spoken with an executive at another (not the Mets) professional sports team in New York. The exec said that the single biggest change in the sports world in recent history was the advent of sports talk radio; specifically for you New York sports fans, WFAN. Before WFAN, teams had a cozy relationship with beat writers and newspaper columnists -- that is, the media -- and the reporters and columnists would, by and large, echo the company line as gospel. The team controlled information and access; in exchange, they left to the media the \"right\" to distribute the story. It was a win-win, as the team got positive press and the journalists were glistened the experts. For any baseball fan, this is self-proving: the Baseball Writers Association of America decides on the end-of-season award winners and Hall of Fame inductees. (In any other industry do journalists decide award winners? Could you imagine if the editorial page of the Washington Post named the Nobel Peace Prize winners?)\n\nSports talk radio changed all that, for at least three reasons:\n* * *
\nThe Three Ds of Media Sentiment Management
\n\n
','Managing Your Media Sentiment: The Three Ds',0,'','inherit','open','open','','205-revision-5','','','2010-05-19 18:00:11','2010-05-19 18:00:11','',205,'http://dlewis.net/2010/05/19/205-revision-5/',0,'revision','',0),(211,1,'2010-05-19 21:49:25','2010-05-19 21:49:25','Imagine you owned a Major League Baseball team; well call it the Mets. Your star player (\"David Wright\") is, inexplicably, striking out a lot, and your team is having a bad year. What message do you expect the sports media to hook into and spread?\n\nAnswer: It\'s going to be about how awful a year David Wright is having, and how that\'s a big reason for the team\'s similarly awful year.\n\nBut what if that\'s not true? While the example above is sports related, the solution can apply to anyone in the public sphere.\n* * *
\nLast fall, I met with a friend who had recently spoken with an executive at another (not the Mets) professional sports team in New York. The exec said that the single biggest change in the sports world in recent history was the advent of sports talk radio; specifically for you New York sports fans, WFAN. Before WFAN, teams had a cozy relationship with beat writers and newspaper columnists -- that is, the media -- and the reporters and columnists would, by and large, echo the company line as gospel. The team controlled information and access; in exchange, they left to the media the \"right\" to distribute the story. It was a win-win, as the team got positive press and the journalists were glistened the experts. For any baseball fan, this is self-proving: the Baseball Writers Association of America decides on the end-of-season award winners and Hall of Fame inductees. (In any other industry do journalists decide award winners? Could you imagine if the editorial page of the Washington Post named the Nobel Peace Prize winners?)\n\nSports talk radio changed all that, for at least three reasons:\n* * *
\nThe Three Ds of Media Sentiment Management
\nThe Mets star player, David Wright, is striking out a lot -- but he\'s also outperforming the rest of his team. He\'s second on the team in home runs, leading in runs batted in, gets on base more often than anyone else, and even is second (by one) in stolen bases. He is on pace for a \"30/30\" season -- thirty homers, thirty stolen bases -- and 100+ runs batted in. He\'s having a good, if not great year, except for the strikeouts.\n\nBut the team has a problem: The media has hooked onto a meme. \"David Wright is striking out a ton, and it\'s hurting the team.\"','Managing Your Media Sentiment: The Three Ds',0,'','inherit','open','open','','205-revision-6','','','2010-05-19 21:49:25','2010-05-19 21:49:25','',205,'http://dlewis.net/2010/05/19/205-revision-6/',0,'revision','',0),(212,1,'2010-05-19 21:56:56','2010-05-19 21:56:56','Imagine you owned a Major League Baseball team; well call it the Mets. Your star player (\"David Wright\") is, inexplicably, striking out a lot, and your team is having a bad year. What message do you expect the sports media to hook into and spread?\n\nAnswer: It\'s going to be about how awful a year David Wright is having, and how that\'s a big reason for the team\'s similarly awful year.\n\nBut what if that\'s not true? While the example above is sports related, the solution can apply to anyone in the public sphere.\n* * *
\nLast fall, I met with a friend who had recently spoken with an executive at another (not the Mets) professional sports team in New York. The exec said that the single biggest change in the sports world in recent history was the advent of sports talk radio; specifically for you New York sports fans, WFAN. Before WFAN, teams had a cozy relationship with beat writers and newspaper columnists -- that is, the media -- and the reporters and columnists would, by and large, echo the company line as gospel. The team controlled information and access; in exchange, they left to the media the \"right\" to distribute the story. It was a win-win, as the team got positive press and the journalists were glistened the experts. For any baseball fan, this is self-proving: the Baseball Writers Association of America decides on the end-of-season award winners and Hall of Fame inductees. (In any other industry do journalists decide award winners? Could you imagine if the editorial page of the Washington Post named the Nobel Peace Prize winners?)\n\nSports talk radio changed all that, for at least three reasons:\n* * *
\nThe Three Ds of Media Sentiment Management
\nThe media has hooked onto a meme. \"David Wright is striking out a ton, and it\'s hurting the team.\"\n\nBut it\'s not true. Yes, he\'s striking out a lot -- but he\'s also outperforming the rest of his team. He\'s second on the team in home runs, leading in runs batted in, gets on base more often than anyone else, and even is second (by one) in stolen bases. He is on pace for a \"30/30\" season -- thirty homers, thirty stolen bases -- and 100+ runs batted in. Yes, he\'s striking out a lot more than in years past, but he\'s having a good, if not great year. He\'s an asset, not a liability.\n\nThe Mets should combat this, just like any organization should if an asset is being treated like a liability by the press.\n\nHere\'s how:\n\n1) Develop your own soundbite.\n\nThe term \"soundbite\" may come off as negative, but it\'s descriptive here. You need to find a message and boil it down into a sentence or two. I did that above.\n* * *
\r\nLast fall, I met with a friend who had recently spoken with an executive at another (not the Mets) professional sports team in New York. The exec said that the single biggest change in the sports world in recent history was the advent of sports talk radio; specifically for you New York sports fans, WFAN. Before WFAN, teams had a cozy relationship with beat writers and newspaper columnists -- that is, the media -- and the reporters and columnists would, by and large, echo the company line as gospel. The team controlled information and access; in exchange, they left to the media the \"right\" to distribute the story. It was a win-win, as the team got positive press and the journalists were glistened the experts. For any baseball fan, this is self-proving: the Baseball Writers Association of America decides on the end-of-season award winners and Hall of Fame inductees. (In any other industry do journalists decide award winners? Could you imagine if the editorial page of the Washington Post named the Nobel Peace Prize winners?)\r\n\r\nSports talk radio changed all that, for at least three reasons:\r\n* * *
\r\nThe Three Ds of Media Sentiment Management
\r\nThe media has hooked onto a meme. \"David Wright is striking out a ton, and it\'s hurting the team.\"\r\n\r\nBut it\'s not true. Yes, he\'s striking out a lot -- but he\'s also outperforming the rest of his team. He\'s second on the team in home runs, leading in runs batted in, gets on base more often than anyone else, and even is second (by one) in stolen bases. He is on pace for a \"30/30\" season -- thirty homers, thirty stolen bases -- and 100+ runs batted in. Yes, he\'s striking out a lot more than in years past, but he\'s having a good, if not great year. He\'s an asset, not a liability.\r\n\r\nThe Mets should combat this, just like any organization should if an asset is being treated like a liability by the press.\r\n\r\nHere\'s how:\r\n\r\n1) Develop your own soundbite.\r\n\r\nThe term \"soundbite\" may come off as negative, but it\'s descriptive here. You need to find a message and boil it down into a sentence or two. I did that above.\r\n* * *
\nLast fall, I met with a friend who had recently spoken with an executive at another (not the Mets) professional sports team in New York. The exec said that the single biggest change in the sports world in recent history was the advent of sports talk radio; specifically for you New York sports fans, WFAN. Before WFAN, teams had a cozy relationship with beat writers and newspaper columnists -- that is, the media -- and the reporters and columnists would, by and large, echo the company line as gospel. The team controlled information and access; in exchange, they left to the media the \"right\" to distribute the story. It was a win-win, as the team got positive press and the journalists were glistened the experts. For any baseball fan, this is self-proving: the Baseball Writers Association of America decides on the end-of-season award winners and Hall of Fame inductees. (In any other industry do journalists decide award winners? Could you imagine if the editorial page of the Washington Post named the Nobel Peace Prize winners?)\n\nSports talk radio changed all that, for at least three reasons:\n* * *
\nThe Three Ds of Media Sentiment Management
\nThe media has hooked onto a meme. \"David Wright is striking out a ton, and it\'s hurting the team.\"\n\nBut it\'s not true. Yes, he\'s striking out a lot -- but he\'s also outperforming the rest of his team. He\'s second on the team in home runs, leading in runs batted in, gets on base more often than anyone else, and even is second (by one) in stolen bases. He is on pace for a \"30/30\" season -- thirty homers, thirty stolen bases -- and 100+ runs batted in. Yes, he\'s striking out a lot more than in years past, but he\'s having a good, if not great year. He\'s an asset, not a liability.\n\nThe Mets should combat this, just like any organization should if an asset is being treated like a liability by the press.\n\nHere\'s how:\n\n1) Develop your own soundbite.\n\nThe term \"soundbite\" may come off as negative, but it\'s descriptive here. You need to find a message and boil it down into a sentence or two. I did that above.\n\nThe message has to be short and to the point. The more you say, the more things there are for the chattering class to analyze, refute, and often (and unintentionally) distort. Be clear and succinct.\n\n2) Distribute the message yourself.\n\nYou cannot control your message, no matter how hard you try. But that doesn\'t mean you shouldn\'t try.\n\nBut the definition of \"trying\" has changed from the press conferences a','Managing Your Media Sentiment: The Three Ds',0,'','inherit','open','open','','205-revision-9','','','2010-05-20 01:46:33','2010-05-20 01:46:33','',205,'http://dlewis.net/2010/05/20/205-revision-9/',0,'revision','',0),(215,1,'2010-05-20 02:52:18','2010-05-20 02:52:18','Imagine you owned a Major League Baseball team; well call it the Mets. Your star player (\"David Wright\") is, inexplicably, striking out a lot, and your team is having a bad year. What message do you expect the sports media to hook into and spread?\n\nAnswer: It\'s going to be about how awful a year David Wright is having, and how that\'s a big reason for the team\'s similarly awful year.\n\nBut what if that\'s not true? While the example above is sports related, the solution can apply to anyone in the public sphere.\n* * *
\nLast fall, I met with a friend who had recently spoken with an executive at another (not the Mets) professional sports team in New York. The exec said that the single biggest change in the sports world in recent history was the advent of sports talk radio; specifically for you New York sports fans, WFAN. Before WFAN, teams had a cozy relationship with beat writers and newspaper columnists -- that is, the media -- and the reporters and columnists would, by and large, echo the company line as gospel. The team controlled information and access; in exchange, they left to the media the \"right\" to distribute the story. It was a win-win, as the team got positive press and the journalists were glistened the experts. For any baseball fan, this is self-proving: the Baseball Writers Association of America decides on the end-of-season award winners and Hall of Fame inductees. (In any other industry do journalists decide award winners? Could you imagine if the editorial page of the Washington Post named the Nobel Peace Prize winners?)\n\nSports talk radio changed all that, for at least three reasons:\n* * *
\nThe Three Ds of Media Sentiment Management
\nThe media has hooked onto a meme. \"David Wright is striking out a ton, and it\'s hurting the team.\"\n\nBut it\'s not true. Yes, he\'s striking out a lot -- but he\'s also outperforming the rest of his team. He\'s second on the team in home runs, leading in runs batted in, gets on base more often than anyone else, and even is second (by one) in stolen bases. He is on pace for a \"30/30\" season -- thirty homers, thirty stolen bases -- and 100+ runs batted in. Yes, he\'s striking out a lot more than in years past, but he\'s having a good, if not great year. He\'s an asset, not a liability.\n\nThe Mets should combat this, just like any organization should if an asset is being treated like a liability by the press.\n\nHere\'s how:\n\n1) Develop your own soundbite.\n\nThe term \"soundbite\" may come off as negative, but it\'s descriptive here. You need to find a message and boil it down into a sentence or two. I did that above.\n\nThe message has to be short and to the point. The more you say, the more things there are for the chattering class to analyze, refute, and often (and unintentionally) distort. Be clear and succinct.\n\n2) Distribute the message yourself.\n\nYou cannot control your message, no matter how hard you try. But that doesn\'t mean you shouldn\'t try.\n\nBut the definition of \"trying\" has changed from the press conferences, interviews, and press releases rubric of years past. It\'s not enough to sit around, crafting the message and choosing which media outlets you\'ll speak with. Nearly any organization can distribute the message themselves. Have key stakeholders (the general manager? the owner? even a PR representative or spokesperson) start a blog. Create an organizational Facebook page. Use Twitter accounts, etc. None of this is groundbreaking advice, so it is rather absurd that organizations have not yet caught on. Again, take the Mets for example. They do none of the above.','Managing Your Media Sentiment: The Three Ds',0,'','inherit','open','open','','205-revision-10','','','2010-05-20 02:52:18','2010-05-20 02:52:18','',205,'http://dlewis.net/2010/05/20/205-revision-10/',0,'revision','',0),(216,1,'2010-05-20 03:13:16','2010-05-20 03:13:16','Imagine you owned a Major League Baseball team; well call it the Mets. Your star player (\"David Wright\") is, inexplicably, striking out a lot, and your team is having a bad year. What message do you expect the sports media to hook into and spread?\n\nAnswer: It\'s going to be about how awful a year David Wright is having, and how that\'s a big reason for the team\'s similarly awful year.\n\nBut what if that\'s not true? While the example above is sports related, the solution can apply to anyone in the public sphere.\n* * *
\nLast fall, I met with a friend who had recently spoken with an executive at another (not the Mets) professional sports team in New York. The exec said that the single biggest change in the sports world in recent history was the advent of sports talk radio; specifically for you New York sports fans, WFAN. Before WFAN, teams had a cozy relationship with beat writers and newspaper columnists -- that is, the media -- and the reporters and columnists would, by and large, echo the company line as gospel. The team controlled information and access; in exchange, they left to the media the \"right\" to distribute the story. It was a win-win, as the team got positive press and the journalists were glistened the experts. For any baseball fan, this is self-proving: the Baseball Writers Association of America decides on the end-of-season award winners and Hall of Fame inductees. (In any other industry do journalists decide award winners? Could you imagine if the editorial page of the Washington Post named the Nobel Peace Prize winners?)\n\nSports talk radio changed all that, for at least three reasons:\n* * *
\nThe Three Ds of Media Sentiment Management
\nThe media has hooked onto a meme. \"David Wright is striking out a ton, and it\'s hurting the team.\"\n\nBut it\'s not true. Yes, he\'s striking out a lot -- but he\'s also outperforming the rest of his team. He\'s second on the team in home runs, leading in runs batted in, gets on base more often than anyone else, and even is second (by one) in stolen bases. He is on pace for a \"30/30\" season -- thirty homers, thirty stolen bases -- and 100+ runs batted in. Yes, he\'s striking out a lot more than in years past, but he\'s having a good, if not great year. He\'s an asset, not a liability.\n\nThe Mets should combat this, just like any organization should if an asset is being treated like a liability by the press.\n\nHere\'s how:\n\n1) Develop your own soundbite.\n\nThe term \"soundbite\" may come off as negative, but it\'s descriptive here. You need to find a message and boil it down into a sentence or two. I did that above.\n\nThe message has to be short and to the point. The more you say, the more things there are for the chattering class to analyze, refute, and often (and unintentionally) distort. Be clear and succinct.\n\n2) Distribute the message yourself.\n\nYou cannot control your message, no matter how hard you try. But that doesn\'t mean you shouldn\'t try.\n\nBut the definition of \"trying\" has changed from the press conferences, interviews, and press releases rubric of years past. It\'s not enough to sit around, crafting the message and choosing which media outlets you\'ll speak with. Nearly any organization can distribute the message themselves. Have key stakeholders (the general manager? the owner? even a PR representative or spokesperson) start a blog. Create an organizational Facebook page. Use Twitter accounts, etc. None of this is groundbreaking advice, so it is rather absurd that organizations have not yet caught on. Again, take the Mets for example. To the extent they use any of these tools -- and it is minimal -- it\'s for marketing purposes only.\n\n3) Defend your message.\n\nOnce others hear, repeat, rehash, and discuss your take on the goings-on, some will criticize it.','Managing Your Media Sentiment: The Three Ds',0,'','inherit','open','open','','205-revision-11','','','2010-05-20 03:13:16','2010-05-20 03:13:16','',205,'http://dlewis.net/2010/05/20/205-revision-11/',0,'revision','',0),(217,1,'2010-05-20 20:51:52','2010-05-20 20:51:52','Upper East Side, New York, New York. A woman, probably in her late 50s, makes her way uptown on Third Avenue, walking. Her outfit describes the clientele of the neighborhood -- knee-high leather boots, black skirt, white blouse, pink shawl in 70 degree weather. She\'s carrying a large designer handbag over her left shoulder and, in her right hand, carrying three bags: two from Madison Avenue boutiques and a third from Citrella, which coins itself \"The Ultimate [and overpriced] Gourmet Market.\"\n\nShe was walking briskly for three, maybe four blocks. Then, suddenly, she slowed down to a glacial pace. She was walking by a shoe store and, in spite of her previous \"New York minute\" attitude, found the time to stop and smell the roses. Or, more accurately, slow down and check out the shoes.\n\nShe did not buy anything. She did not even go into the store. In fact, I don\'t recall her actually stopping. But let\'s make three things clear:\n\n1) She was exactly the demographic the store was after.\n2) She was interested in the product.\n3) With a little bit of work -- a small closed circuit camera mounted in the store window? -- the owner/manager of the store could have been instantly aware of her presence and interest, and with enough sophistication, of her interest in a specific product.\n* * *
\nI learned about behavioral ad retargeting in April. Not about the tactic -- I knew about it already -- but about the term. I\'ll let Wikipedia, linked, to define it: it\'s \"a form of online targeted advertising by which online advertising is delivered to consumers based on previous Internet actions that did not in the past result in a conversion.\"\n\nThe way it works? Let\'s say you search for \"black leather knee-high women\'s boots\" on Google, and click an ad. You glance at the pictures for a moment but for some reason or another, move on. Maybe you weren\'t looking to make a purchase now. Maybe you weren\'t looking to make a purchase online, but rather, wanted to figure out the name of the brand you just saw in that Third Avenue shop window. Who knows. Either way, you click the ad, glance around, and click away.\n\nThe next site you are on, though, uses Google\'s advertising network for its banner ads. It has nothing to do with shoes, and, in fact, trends toward male visitors. Yet Google knows your clicking history, and serves you an ad about the shoes you just looked at, paid for by and directed back to the site you just clicked on.\n\nThat\'s behavioral retargeting.\n* * *
\nBack to our 50-something lady.\n\nAfter she made her way past the shoe store, she picked up her pace quickly but was thwarted when the traffic light changed. Across the street was a billboard -- some generic MetroPCS or Verizon Wireless ad, a typical brand-building media buy which blends into the landscape and seeps into our subconscious. Suddenly, the billboard changed: \"Hey, lady in the black skirt and white blouse! If you buy those boots right now at that store you just passed, we\'ll give you 10% off!\"\n\nOf course, the billboard changed for everyone, but to the extent that anyone else noticed, they did with a passing glance. But not our lady. The motion of the billboard immediately caught her eye. At first, she was scared: How did that billboard know who she was? How did it know that I wanted those shoes? Is somebody watching me, and who? The message was perfectly relevant. Her desire to purchase the boots was strong. The discount was fantastic. But the invasion of the privacy of her mind was overwhelming. Not only was there no sale, but she quickly left the intersection, going, probably, slightly out of the way, just to avoid the uncomfortable feeling that she was being watched.\n\n* * *','TKTKTK Behavior Retargeting',0,'','inherit','open','open','','161-revision','','','2010-05-20 20:51:52','2010-05-20 20:51:52','',161,'http://dlewis.net/2010/05/20/161-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(218,1,'2010-05-20 20:52:52','2010-05-20 20:52:52','Upper East Side, New York, New York. A woman, probably in her late 50s, makes her way uptown on Third Avenue, walking. Her outfit describes the clientele of the neighborhood -- knee-high leather boots, black skirt, white blouse, pink shawl in 70 degree weather. She\'s carrying a large designer handbag over her left shoulder and, in her right hand, carrying three bags: two from Madison Avenue boutiques and a third from Citrella, which coins itself \"The Ultimate [and overpriced] Gourmet Market.\"\n\nShe was walking briskly for three, maybe four blocks. Then, suddenly, she slowed down to a glacial pace. She was walking by a shoe store and, in spite of her previous \"New York minute\" attitude, found the time to stop and smell the roses. Or, more accurately, slow down and check out the shoes.\n\nShe did not buy anything. She did not even go into the store. In fact, I don\'t recall her actually stopping. But let\'s make three things clear:\n* * *
\nI learned about behavioral ad retargeting in April. Not about the tactic -- I knew about it already -- but about the term. I\'ll let Wikipedia, linked, to define it: it\'s \"a form of online targeted advertising by which online advertising is delivered to consumers based on previous Internet actions that did not in the past result in a conversion.\"\n\nThe way it works? Let\'s say you search for \"black leather knee-high women\'s boots\" on Google, and click an ad. You glance at the pictures for a moment but for some reason or another, move on. Maybe you weren\'t looking to make a purchase now. Maybe you weren\'t looking to make a purchase online, but rather, wanted to figure out the name of the brand you just saw in that Third Avenue shop window. Who knows. Either way, you click the ad, glance around, and click away.\n\nThe next site you are on, though, uses Google\'s advertising network for its banner ads. It has nothing to do with shoes, and, in fact, trends toward male visitors. Yet Google knows your clicking history, and serves you an ad about the shoes you just looked at, paid for by and directed back to the site you just clicked on.\n\nThat\'s behavioral retargeting.\n* * *
\nBack to our 50-something lady.\n\nAfter she made her way past the shoe store, she picked up her pace quickly but was thwarted when the traffic light changed. Across the street was a billboard -- some generic MetroPCS or Verizon Wireless ad, a typical brand-building media buy which blends into the landscape and seeps into our subconscious. Suddenly, the billboard changed: \"Hey, lady in the black skirt and white blouse! If you buy those boots right now at that store you just passed, we\'ll give you 10% off!\"\n\nOf course, the billboard changed for everyone, but to the extent that anyone else noticed, they did with a passing glance. But not our lady. The motion of the billboard immediately caught her eye. At first, she was scared: How did that billboard know who she was? How did it know that I wanted those shoes? Is somebody watching me, and who? The message was perfectly relevant. Her desire to purchase the boots was strong. The discount was fantastic. But the invasion of the privacy of her mind was overwhelming. Not only was there no sale, but she quickly left the intersection, going, probably, slightly out of the way, just to avoid the uncomfortable feeling that she was being watched.\n* * *
\n','TKTKTK Behavior Retargeting',0,'','inherit','open','open','','161-revision-2','','','2010-05-20 20:52:52','2010-05-20 20:52:52','',161,'http://dlewis.net/2010/05/20/161-revision-2/',0,'revision','',0),(219,1,'2010-05-20 21:03:37','2010-05-20 21:03:37','Upper East Side, New York, New York.\n\nA woman, probably in her late 50s, makes her way uptown on Third Avenue, walking. Her outfit describes the clientele of the neighborhood -- knee-high leather boots, black skirt, white blouse, pink shawl in 70 degree weather. She\'s carrying a large designer handbag over her left shoulder and, in her right hand, carrying three bags: two from Madison Avenue boutiques and a third from Citarella, which coins itself \"The Ultimate [and overpriced] Gourmet Market.\"\n\nShe was walking briskly for three, maybe four blocks. Then, suddenly, she slowed down to a glacial pace. She was walking by a shoe store and, in spite of her previous \"New York minute\" attitude, found the time to stop and smell the roses. Or, more accurately, slow down and check out the shoes.\n\nShe did not buy anything. She did not even go into the store. In fact, I don\'t recall her actually stopping. But let\'s make three things clear:\n* * *
\nI learned about behavioral ad retargeting in April. Not about the tactic -- I knew about it already -- but about the term. I\'ll let Wikipedia, linked, to define it: it\'s \"a form of online targeted advertising by which online advertising is delivered to consumers based on previous Internet actions that did not in the past result in a conversion.\"\n\nThe way it works? Let\'s say you search for \"black leather knee-high women\'s boots\" on Google, and click an ad. You glance at the pictures for a moment but for some reason or another, move on. Maybe you weren\'t looking to make a purchase now. Maybe you weren\'t looking to make a purchase online, but rather, wanted to figure out the name of the brand you just saw in that Third Avenue shop window. Who knows. Either way, you click the ad, glance around, and click away.\n\nThe next site you are on, though, uses Google\'s advertising network for its banner ads. It has nothing to do with shoes, and, in fact, trends toward male visitors. Yet Google knows your clicking history, and serves you an ad about the shoes you just looked at, paid for by and directed back to the site you just clicked on.\n\nThat\'s behavioral retargeting.\n* * *
\nBack to our 50-something lady.\n\nAfter she made her way past the shoe store, she picked up her pace quickly but was thwarted when the traffic light changed. Across the street was a billboard -- some generic MetroPCS or Verizon Wireless ad, a typical brand-building media buy which blends into the landscape and seeps into our subconscious. Suddenly, the billboard changed: \"Hey, lady in the black skirt and white blouse! If you buy those boots right now at that store you just passed, we\'ll give you 10% off!\"\n\nOf course, the billboard changed for everyone, but to the extent that anyone else noticed, they did with a passing glance. But not our lady. The motion of the billboard immediately caught her eye. At first, she was scared: How did that billboard know who she was? How did it know that I wanted those shoes? Is somebody watching me, and who? The message was perfectly relevant. Her desire to purchase the boots was strong. The discount was fantastic. But the invasion of the privacy of her mind was overwhelming. Not only was there no sale, but she quickly left the intersection, going, probably, slightly out of the way, just to avoid the uncomfortable feeling that she was being watched.\n* * *
\n','TKTKTK Behavior Retargeting',0,'','inherit','open','open','','161-revision-3','','','2010-05-20 21:03:37','2010-05-20 21:03:37','',161,'http://dlewis.net/2010/05/20/161-revision-3/',0,'revision','',0),(220,1,'2010-05-20 21:09:43','2010-05-20 21:09:43','Upper East Side, New York, New York.\n\nA woman, probably in her late 50s, makes her way uptown on Third Avenue, walking. Her outfit describes the clientele of the neighborhood -- knee-high leather boots, black skirt, white blouse, pink shawl in 70 degree weather. She\'s carrying a large designer handbag over her left shoulder and, in her right hand, carrying three bags: two from Madison Avenue boutiques and a third from Citarella, which coins itself \"The Ultimate [and overpriced] Gourmet Market.\"\n\nShe was walking briskly for three, maybe four blocks. Then, suddenly, she slowed down to a glacial pace. She was walking by a shoe store and, in spite of her previous \"New York minute\" attitude, found the time to stop and smell the roses. Or, more accurately, slow down and check out the shoes.\n\nShe did not buy anything. She did not even go into the store. In fact, I don\'t recall her actually stopping. But let\'s make three things clear:\n* * *
\nI learned about behavioral ad retargeting in April. Not about the tactic -- I knew about it already -- but about the term. I\'ll let Wikipedia, linked, to define it: it\'s \"a form of online targeted advertising by which online advertising is delivered to consumers based on previous Internet actions that did not in the past result in a conversion.\"\n\nThe way it works? Let\'s say you search for \"black leather knee-high women\'s boots\" on Google, and click an ad. You glance at the pictures for a moment but for some reason or another, move on. Maybe you weren\'t looking to make a purchase now. Maybe you weren\'t looking to make a purchase online, but rather, wanted to figure out the name of the brand you just saw in that Third Avenue shop window. Who knows. Either way, you click the ad, glance around, and click away.\n\nThe next site you are on, though, uses Google\'s advertising network for its banner ads. It has nothing to do with shoes, and, in fact, trends toward male visitors. Yet Google knows your clicking history, and serves you an ad about the shoes you just looked at, paid for by and directed back to the site you just clicked on.\n\nThat\'s behavioral retargeting.\n* * *
\nBack to our 50-something lady.\n\nAfter she made her way past the shoe store, she picked up her pace quickly but was thwarted when the traffic light changed. Across the street was a billboard -- some generic MetroPCS or Verizon Wireless ad, a typical brand-building media buy which blends into the landscape and seeps into our subconscious. Suddenly, the billboard changed: \"Hey, lady in the black skirt and white blouse! If you buy those boots right now at that store you just passed, we\'ll give you 10% off!\"\n\nOf course, the billboard changed for everyone, but to the extent that anyone else noticed, they did with a passing glance. But not our lady. The motion of the billboard immediately caught her eye. At first, she was scared: How did that billboard know who she was? How did it know that I wanted those shoes? Is somebody watching me, and who? The message was perfectly relevant. Her desire to purchase the boots was strong. The discount was fantastic. But the invasion of the privacy of her mind was overwhelming. Not only was there no sale, but she quickly left the intersection, going, probably, slightly out of the way, just to avoid the uncomfortable feeling that she was being watched.\n* * *
\nThe last section, above, is fiction, obviously. But I think it is fair to say that if that were to happen -- if the billboard changed its message to talk to the lady in question -- her reaction would have been negative. It\'s creepy.
\n\n','TKTKTK Behavior Retargeting',0,'','inherit','open','open','','161-revision-4','','','2010-05-20 21:09:43','2010-05-20 21:09:43','',161,'http://dlewis.net/2010/05/20/161-revision-4/',0,'revision','',0),(221,1,'2010-05-20 21:15:16','2010-05-20 21:15:16','I know the theme song to the horrid TV show Step by Step. By heart, even.\n\nStep by Step aired for six years on ABC\'s \"TGIF\" lineup, and then for a seventh on CBS, totalling 160 episodes. At thirty minutes per episode (including commercials -- this was pre-DVR), a person who watched the entire run wasted over three whole days of his or her life. It is still being aired in syndication on ABC Family: once a day on weekdays and twice-daily on weekends.\n\nThe show featured six children and later, a seventh and one cousin. It was not significant enough, however, to vault any of those eight actors and actresses beyond the show itself. A quick perusal of Wikipedia confirms this; in fact, one of the actors is so insignificant that he does not even have an entry in Wikipedia. That\'s not terribly surprising. Step by Step was not something you commiserated over the next week at school. No cultural icons came out of the show; there was no Balki Bartokomous or Tony Micelli or Mike Seaver. Even in retrospect, the only things I can remember about the show is how across the board stupid the characters were (except for the nerdy kid, who was hardly praised for being smart) and, of course, the theme song. Heck, it was only marginally funny.\n\nYet, I watched it often enough to be able to sing a significant part of the theme song by heart, over a decade after it ceased production. And apparently, I am not alone.','What Starts With \"T\" and Can Let You Broadcast a Message to Millions?',0,'','inherit','open','open','','18-revision-3','','','2010-05-20 21:15:16','2010-05-20 21:15:16','',18,'http://dlewis.net/2010/05/20/18-revision-3/',0,'revision','',0),(222,1,'2010-05-20 21:15:21','2010-05-20 21:15:21','I know the theme song to the horrid TV show Step by Step. By heart, even.\r\n\r\nStep by Step aired for six years on ABC\'s \"TGIF\" lineup, and then for a seventh on CBS, totalling 160 episodes. At thirty minutes per episode (including commercials -- this was pre-DVR), a person who watched the entire run wasted over three whole days of his or her life. It is still being aired in syndication on ABC Family: once a day on weekdays and twice-daily on weekends.\r\n\r\nThe show featured six children and later, a seventh and one cousin. It was not significant enough, however, to vault any of those eight actors and actresses beyond the show itself. A quick perusal of Wikipedia confirms this; in fact, one of the actors is so insignificant that he does not even have an entry in Wikipedia. That\'s not terribly surprising. Step by Step was not something you commiserated over the next week at school. No cultural icons came out of the show; there was no Balki Bartokomous or Tony Micelli or Mike Seaver. Even in retrospect, the only things I can remember about the show is how across the board stupid the characters were (except for the nerdy kid, who was hardly praised for being smart) and, of course, the theme song. Heck, it was only marginally funny.\r\n\r\nYet, I watched it often enough to be able to sing a significant part of the theme song by heart, over a decade after it ceased production. And apparently, I am not alone.','What Starts With \"T\" and Can Let You Broadcast a Message to Millions?',0,'','inherit','open','open','','18-revision-4','','','2010-05-20 21:15:21','2010-05-20 21:15:21','',18,'http://dlewis.net/2010/05/20/18-revision-4/',0,'revision','',0),(223,1,'2010-05-20 21:15:26','2010-05-20 21:15:26','I know the theme song to the horrid TV show Step by Step. By heart, even.\r\n\r\nStep by Step aired for six years on ABC\'s \"TGIF\" lineup, and then for a seventh on CBS, totalling 160 episodes. At thirty minutes per episode (including commercials -- this was pre-DVR), a person who watched the entire run wasted over three whole days of his or her life. It is still being aired in syndication on ABC Family: once a day on weekdays and twice-daily on weekends.\r\n\r\nThe show featured six children and later, a seventh and one cousin. It was not significant enough, however, to vault any of those eight actors and actresses beyond the show itself. A quick perusal of Wikipedia confirms this; in fact, one of the actors is so insignificant that he does not even have an entry in Wikipedia. That\'s not terribly surprising. Step by Step was not something you commiserated over the next week at school. No cultural icons came out of the show; there was no Balki Bartokomous or Tony Micelli or Mike Seaver. Even in retrospect, the only things I can remember about the show is how across the board stupid the characters were (except for the nerdy kid, who was hardly praised for being smart) and, of course, the theme song. Heck, it was only marginally funny.\r\n\r\nYet, I watched it often enough to be able to sing a significant part of the theme song by heart, over a decade after it ceased production. And apparently, I am not alone.','What Starts With \"T\" and Can Let You Broadcast a Message to Millions?',0,'','inherit','open','open','','18-revision-5','','','2010-05-20 21:15:26','2010-05-20 21:15:26','',18,'http://dlewis.net/2010/05/20/18-revision-5/',0,'revision','',0),(225,1,'2010-05-20 21:31:40','2010-05-20 21:31:40','I know the theme song to the horrid TV show Step by Step. By heart, even.\n\nStep by Step aired for six years on ABC\'s \"TGIF\" lineup, and then for a seventh on CBS, totalling 160 episodes. At thirty minutes per episode (including commercials -- this was pre-DVR), a person who watched the entire run wasted over three whole days of his or her life. It is still being aired in syndication on ABC Family: once a day on weekdays and twice-daily on weekends.\n\nThe show featured six children and later, a seventh and one cousin. It was not significant enough, however, to vault any of those eight actors and actresses beyond the show itself. A quick perusal of Wikipedia confirms this; in fact, one of the actors is so insignificant that he does not even have an entry in Wikipedia. That\'s not terribly surprising. Step by Step was not something you commiserated over the next week at school. No cultural icons came out of the show; there was no Balki Bartokomous or Tony Micelli or Mike Seaver. Even in retrospect, the only things I can remember about the show is how across the board stupid the characters were (except for the nerdy kid, who was hardly praised for being smart) and, of course, the theme song. Heck, it was only marginally funny.\n\nYet, I watched it often enough to be able to sing a significant part of the theme song by heart, over a decade after it ceased production. And apparently, I am not alone.\n\nWe\'re enamored by the lure of Twitter, Facebook, blogs, and social media generally. But don\'t underestimate the power of television.','What Starts With \"T\" and Can Let You Broadcast a Message to Millions?',0,'','inherit','open','open','','18-revision-7','','','2010-05-20 21:31:40','2010-05-20 21:31:40','',18,'http://dlewis.net/2010/05/20/18-revision-7/',0,'revision','',0),(224,1,'2010-05-20 21:30:40','2010-05-20 21:30:40','I know the theme song to the horrid TV show Step by Step. By heart, even.\n\nStep by Step aired for six years on ABC\'s \"TGIF\" lineup, and then for a seventh on CBS, totalling 160 episodes. At thirty minutes per episode (including commercials -- this was pre-DVR), a person who watched the entire run wasted over three whole days of his or her life. It is still being aired in syndication on ABC Family: once a day on weekdays and twice-daily on weekends.\n\nThe show featured six children and later, a seventh and one cousin. It was not significant enough, however, to vault any of those eight actors and actresses beyond the show itself. A quick perusal of Wikipedia confirms this; in fact, one of the actors is so insignificant that he does not even have an entry in Wikipedia. That\'s not terribly surprising. Step by Step was not something you commiserated over the next week at school. No cultural icons came out of the show; there was no Balki Bartokomous or Tony Micelli or Mike Seaver. Even in retrospect, the only things I can remember about the show is how across the board stupid the characters were (except for the nerdy kid, who was hardly praised for being smart) and, of course, the theme song. Heck, it was only marginally funny.\n\nYet, I watched it often enough to be able to sing a significant part of the theme song by heart, over a decade after it ceased production. And apparently, I am not alone.\n\nWhen we think of B-list TV shows, we don\'t think of them as having a big impact. Yet when we think of A-list Twitterers, that\'s a given. By follower count, the top two Twitterers, Ashton Kutcher and Britney Spears, have just shy of 5 million followers each as of this writing.\n\nBut I\'m willing to bet that more than 5 million people -- many more, in fact -- watched Step by Step.\n\nTwitter has come a long way, but there\'s a long, long way for it to go.','What Starts With \"T\" and Can Let You Broadcast a Message to Millions?',0,'','inherit','open','open','','18-revision-6','','','2010-05-20 21:30:40','2010-05-20 21:30:40','',18,'http://dlewis.net/2010/05/20/18-revision-6/',0,'revision','',0),(226,1,'2010-05-20 21:31:42','2010-05-20 21:31:42','I know the theme song to the horrid TV show Step by Step. By heart, even.\r\n\r\nStep by Step aired for six years on ABC\'s \"TGIF\" lineup, and then for a seventh on CBS, totalling 160 episodes. At thirty minutes per episode (including commercials -- this was pre-DVR), a person who watched the entire run wasted over three whole days of his or her life. It is still being aired in syndication on ABC Family: once a day on weekdays and twice-daily on weekends.\r\n\r\nThe show featured six children and later, a seventh and one cousin. It was not significant enough, however, to vault any of those eight actors and actresses beyond the show itself. A quick perusal of Wikipedia confirms this; in fact, one of the actors is so insignificant that he does not even have an entry in Wikipedia. That\'s not terribly surprising. Step by Step was not something you commiserated over the next week at school. No cultural icons came out of the show; there was no Balki Bartokomous or Tony Micelli or Mike Seaver. Even in retrospect, the only things I can remember about the show is how across the board stupid the characters were (except for the nerdy kid, who was hardly praised for being smart) and, of course, the theme song. Heck, it was only marginally funny.\r\n\r\nYet, I watched it often enough to be able to sing a significant part of the theme song by heart, over a decade after it ceased production. And apparently, I am not alone.\r\n\r\nWe\'re enamored by the lure of Twitter, Facebook, blogs, and social media generally. But don\'t underestimate the power of television.','What Starts With \"T\" and Can Let You Broadcast a Message to Millions?',0,'','inherit','open','open','','18-revision-8','','','2010-05-20 21:31:42','2010-05-20 21:31:42','',18,'http://dlewis.net/2010/05/20/18-revision-8/',0,'revision','',0),(227,1,'2010-05-20 21:35:49','2010-05-20 21:35:49','I know the theme song to the horrid TV show Step by Step. By heart, even.\r\n\r\nStep by Step aired for six years on ABC\'s \"TGIF\" lineup, and then for a seventh on CBS, totalling 160 episodes. At thirty minutes per episode (including commercials -- this was pre-DVR), a person who watched the entire run wasted over three whole days of his or her life. It is still being aired in syndication on ABC Family: once a day on weekdays and twice-daily on weekends.\r\n\r\nThe show featured six children and later, a seventh and one cousin. It was not significant enough, however, to vault any of those eight actors and actresses beyond the show itself. A quick perusal of Wikipedia confirms this; in fact, one of the actors is so insignificant that he does not even have an entry in Wikipedia. That\'s not terribly surprising. Step by Step was not something you commiserated over the next week at school. No cultural icons came out of the show; there was no Balki Bartokomous or Tony Micelli or Mike Seaver. Even in retrospect, the only things I can remember about the show is how across the board stupid the characters were (except for the nerdy kid, who was hardly praised for being smart) and, of course, the theme song. Heck, it was only marginally funny.\r\n\r\nYet, I watched it often enough to be able to sing a significant part of the theme song by heart, over a decade after it ceased production. And apparently, I am not alone.\r\n\r\nWe\'re enamored by the lure of Twitter, Facebook, blogs, and social media generally. But don\'t underestimate the power of television.','What Starts With \"T\" and Can Let You Broadcast a Message to Millions?',0,'','inherit','open','open','','18-revision-9','','','2010-05-20 21:35:49','2010-05-20 21:35:49','',18,'http://dlewis.net/2010/05/20/18-revision-9/',0,'revision','',0),(228,1,'2010-05-20 21:50:14','2010-05-20 21:50:14','I know the theme song to the horrid TV show Step by Step. By heart, even.\r\n\r\nStep by Step aired for six years on ABC\'s \"TGIF\" lineup, and then for a seventh on CBS, totalling 160 episodes. At thirty minutes per episode (including commercials -- this was pre-DVR), a person who watched the entire run wasted over three whole days of his or her life. It is still being aired in syndication on ABC Family: once a day on weekdays and twice-daily on weekends.\r\n\r\nThe show featured six children and later, a seventh and one cousin. It was not significant enough, however, to vault any of those eight actors and actresses beyond the show itself. A quick perusal of Wikipedia confirms this; in fact, one of the actors is so insignificant that he does not even have an entry in Wikipedia. That\'s not terribly surprising. Step by Step was not something you commiserated over the next week at school. No cultural icons came out of the show; there was no Balki Bartokomous or Tony Micelli or Mike Seaver. Even in retrospect, the only things I can remember about the show is how across the board stupid the characters were (except for the nerdy kid, who was hardly praised for being smart) and, of course, the theme song. Heck, it was only marginally funny.\r\n\r\nYet, I watched it often enough to be able to sing a significant part of the theme song by heart, over a decade after it ceased production. And apparently, I am not alone.\r\n\r\nWe\'re enamored by the lure of Twitter, Facebook, blogs, and social media generally. But don\'t underestimate the power of television.','What Starts With \"T\" and Can Let You Broadcast a Message to Millions?',0,'','inherit','open','open','','18-revision-10','','','2010-05-20 21:50:14','2010-05-20 21:50:14','',18,'http://dlewis.net/2010/05/20/18-revision-10/',0,'revision','',0),(229,1,'2010-05-21 03:31:20','2010-05-21 03:31:20','','Jwales Tweet',0,'','inherit','open','open','','picture-18','','','2010-05-21 03:31:20','2010-05-21 03:31:20','',205,'http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Picture-18.png',0,'attachment','image/png',0),(243,1,'2010-05-21 11:21:27','2010-05-21 11:21:27','Imagine you owned a Major League Baseball team; well call it the Mets. Your star player (\"David Wright\") is, inexplicably, striking out a lot, and your team is having a bad year. What message do you expect the sports media to hook into and spread?\n\nIn the Mets\' case, the media has hooked onto a meme. \"David Wright is striking out a ton, and it\'s hurting the team.\"\n\nBut it\'s not true. Yes, he\'s striking out a lot -- but he\'s also outperforming the rest of his team. He\'s second on the team in home runs, leading in runs batted in, gets on base more often than anyone else, and even is second (by one) in stolen bases. He is on pace for a \"30/30\" season -- thirty homers, thirty stolen bases -- and 100+ runs batted in. Yes, he\'s striking out a lot more than in years past, but he\'s having a good, if not great year. He\'s an asset, not a liability.\n\nThe Mets should combat this, just like any organization should if an asset is being treated like a liability by the press. While the example above is sports related, the solution can apply to anyone in the public sphere.\n\nHere\'s how:\n\nThe Three Ds of Media Sentiment Management\n\n1) Develop your own soundbite.\n\nThe term \"soundbite\" may come off as negative, but it\'s descriptive here. You need to find a message and boil it down into a sentence or two. I did that above.\n\nThe message has to be short and to the point. The more you say, the more things there are for the chattering class to analyze, refute, and often (and unintentionally) distort. Be clear and succinct.* Stay on message. You want to tee up your idea and hope that it spreads, winning the day; or at least, is something you can keep reiterating across various media channels.\n\n* And, it should go without saying: Choose your words carefully to make sure you don\'t sound stupid. Last night, when the Mets removed their starting pitcher from the game after five pitches, the pitcher claimed that he was not injured and was appalled by the decision to remove him. The pitching coach\'s response: that the pitcher is a \"habitual liar\" when it comes to his playing condition. Big mistake.\n\n2) Distribute the message yourself.\n\nYou cannot control your message, no matter how hard you try. But that doesn\'t mean you shouldn\'t try.\n\nBut the definition of \"trying\" has changed from the press conferences, interviews, and press releases rubric of years past. It\'s not enough to sit around, crafting the message and choosing which media outlets you\'ll speak with. Nearly any organization can distribute the message themselves. Have key stakeholders (the general manager? the owner? even a PR representative or spokesperson) start a blog. Create an organizational Facebook page. Use Twitter accounts, etc. None of this is groundbreaking advice, so it is rather absurd that organizations have not yet caught on. Again, take the Mets for example. To the extent they use any of these tools -- and it is minimal -- it\'s for marketing purposes only.\n\n3) Defend your message.\n\nOnce others hear, repeat, rehash, and discuss your take on the goings-on, some will criticize it. You need to be ready to defend it.\n\nThat means engaging the critics on their turf, as the Mets and other sports teams often (and sometimes poorly) do take the media to task, head on. But rarely do you see a team do this. Instead, they hold press conferences, go on radio shows, issue statements, etc. They don\'t ever engage the fan directly via media properties they control.\n\nPerhaps the most valuable aspect of Twitter, Facebook pages, and blogs is that you can receive -- and reply to -- feedback right then and there. And the replies are public, so even if you don\'t convince the skeptic, you may convince someone else listening or watching the argument. Overlooking this value, in the current \"social media\" climate, is fatal.\n* * *
\nApplying the three Ds is not difficult. It simply requires time and consistent effort.
\nOne such example occurred last week, when Fox News ran an article claiming that Wikipedia founder (and my former boss), Jimmy Wales, was stripped of editorial rights due to an unrelated scandal. He took to Twitter (and to TechCrunch, a third party blog) to set the record straight and defend himself:\n
\n\n\n\nEffective? You bet. The passion plus the time investment means that he\'s taking it seriously; that this is important; and that the current media-driven meme is incorrect. It\'s believable and simulteaneouly remarkable.\n\nIt\'s the approach everyone should be taking in managing the media sentiment of their organization. Don\'t follow the sports teams\' model.','Managing Your Media Sentiment: The Three Ds',0,'','inherit','open','open','','205-revision-19','','','2010-05-21 11:21:27','2010-05-21 11:21:27','',205,'http://dlewis.net/2010/05/21/205-revision-19/',0,'revision','',0),(241,1,'2010-05-21 11:18:29','2010-05-21 11:18:29','Imagine you owned a Major League Baseball team; well call it the Mets. Your star player (\"David Wright\") is, inexplicably, striking out a lot, and your team is having a bad year. What message do you expect the sports media to hook into and spread?\n\nAnswer: It\'s going to be about how awful a year David Wright is having, and how that\'s a big reason for the team\'s similarly awful year.\n\nBut what if that\'s not true? While the example above is sports related, the solution can apply to anyone in the public sphere.\nThe Three Ds of Media Sentiment Management
\nThe media has hooked onto a meme. \"David Wright is striking out a ton, and it\'s hurting the team.\"\n\nBut it\'s not true. Yes, he\'s striking out a lot -- but he\'s also outperforming the rest of his team. He\'s second on the team in home runs, leading in runs batted in, gets on base more often than anyone else, and even is second (by one) in stolen bases. He is on pace for a \"30/30\" season -- thirty homers, thirty stolen bases -- and 100+ runs batted in. Yes, he\'s striking out a lot more than in years past, but he\'s having a good, if not great year. He\'s an asset, not a liability.\n\nThe Mets should combat this, just like any organization should if an asset is being treated like a liability by the press.\n\nHere\'s how:\n\n1) Develop your own soundbite.\n\nThe term \"soundbite\" may come off as negative, but it\'s descriptive here. You need to find a message and boil it down into a sentence or two. I did that above.\n\nThe message has to be short and to the point. The more you say, the more things there are for the chattering class to analyze, refute, and often (and unintentionally) distort. Be clear and succinct.* Stay on message. You want to tee up your idea and hope that it spreads, winning the day; or at least, is something you can keep reiterating across various media channels.\n\n* And, it should go without saying: Choose your words carefully to make sure you don\'t sound stupid. Last night, when the Mets removed their starting pitcher from the game after five pitches, the pitcher claimed that he was not injured and was appalled by the decision to remove him. The pitching coach\'s response: that the pitcher is a \"habitual liar\" when it comes to his playing condition. Big mistake.\n\n2) Distribute the message yourself.\n\nYou cannot control your message, no matter how hard you try. But that doesn\'t mean you shouldn\'t try.\n\nBut the definition of \"trying\" has changed from the press conferences, interviews, and press releases rubric of years past. It\'s not enough to sit around, crafting the message and choosing which media outlets you\'ll speak with. Nearly any organization can distribute the message themselves. Have key stakeholders (the general manager? the owner? even a PR representative or spokesperson) start a blog. Create an organizational Facebook page. Use Twitter accounts, etc. None of this is groundbreaking advice, so it is rather absurd that organizations have not yet caught on. Again, take the Mets for example. To the extent they use any of these tools -- and it is minimal -- it\'s for marketing purposes only.\n\n3) Defend your message.\n\nOnce others hear, repeat, rehash, and discuss your take on the goings-on, some will criticize it. You need to be ready to defend it.\n\nThat means engaging the critics on their turf, as the Mets and other sports teams often (and sometimes poorly) do take the media to task, head on. But rarely do you see a team do this. Instead, they hold press conferences, go on radio shows, issue statements, etc. They don\'t ever engage the fan directly via media properties they control.\n\nPerhaps the most valuable aspect of Twitter, Facebook pages, and blogs is that you can receive -- and reply to -- feedback right then and there. And the replies are public, so even if you don\'t convince the skeptic, you may convince someone else listening or watching the argument. Overlooking this value, in the current \"social media\" climate, is fatal.\n* * *
\nApplying the three Ds is not difficult. It simply requires time and consistent effort.
\nOne such example occurred last week, when Fox News ran an article claiming that Wikipedia founder (and my former boss), Jimmy Wales, was stripped of editorial rights due to an unrelated scandal. He took to Twitter (and to TechCrunch, a third party blog) to set the record straight and defend himself:\n
\n\n\n\nEffective? You bet. The passion plus the time investment means that he\'s taking it seriously; that this is important; and that the current media-driven meme is incorrect. It\'s believable and simulteaneouly remarkable.\n\nIt\'s the approach everyone should be taking in managing the media sentiment of their organization. Don\'t follow the sports teams\' model.','Managing Your Media Sentiment: The Three Ds',0,'','inherit','open','open','','205-revision-18','','','2010-05-21 11:18:29','2010-05-21 11:18:29','',205,'http://dlewis.net/2010/05/21/205-revision-18/',0,'revision','',0),(230,1,'2010-05-21 03:34:58','2010-05-21 03:34:58','','Picture 17',0,'','inherit','open','open','','picture-17','','','2010-05-21 03:34:58','2010-05-21 03:34:58','',205,'http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Picture-17.png',0,'attachment','image/png',0),(231,1,'2010-05-21 03:35:01','2010-05-21 03:35:01','','Picture 19',0,'','inherit','open','open','','picture-19-2','','','2010-05-21 03:35:01','2010-05-21 03:35:01','',205,'http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Picture-19.png',0,'attachment','image/png',0),(232,1,'2010-05-21 03:38:36','2010-05-21 03:38:36','Imagine you owned a Major League Baseball team; well call it the Mets. Your star player (\"David Wright\") is, inexplicably, striking out a lot, and your team is having a bad year. What message do you expect the sports media to hook into and spread?\n\nAnswer: It\'s going to be about how awful a year David Wright is having, and how that\'s a big reason for the team\'s similarly awful year.\n\nBut what if that\'s not true? While the example above is sports related, the solution can apply to anyone in the public sphere.\n* * *
\nLast fall, I met with a friend who had recently spoken with an executive at another (not the Mets) professional sports team in New York. The exec said that the single biggest change in the sports world in recent history was the advent of sports talk radio; specifically for you New York sports fans, WFAN. Before WFAN, teams had a cozy relationship with beat writers and newspaper columnists -- that is, the media -- and the reporters and columnists would, by and large, echo the company line as gospel. The team controlled information and access; in exchange, they left to the media the \"right\" to distribute the story. It was a win-win, as the team got positive press and the journalists were glistened the experts. For any baseball fan, this is self-proving: the Baseball Writers Association of America decides on the end-of-season award winners and Hall of Fame inductees. (In any other industry do journalists decide award winners? Could you imagine if the editorial page of the Washington Post named the Nobel Peace Prize winners?)\n\nSports talk radio changed all that, for at least three reasons:\n* * *
\nThe Three Ds of Media Sentiment Management
\nThe media has hooked onto a meme. \"David Wright is striking out a ton, and it\'s hurting the team.\"\n\nBut it\'s not true. Yes, he\'s striking out a lot -- but he\'s also outperforming the rest of his team. He\'s second on the team in home runs, leading in runs batted in, gets on base more often than anyone else, and even is second (by one) in stolen bases. He is on pace for a \"30/30\" season -- thirty homers, thirty stolen bases -- and 100+ runs batted in. Yes, he\'s striking out a lot more than in years past, but he\'s having a good, if not great year. He\'s an asset, not a liability.\n\nThe Mets should combat this, just like any organization should if an asset is being treated like a liability by the press.\n\nHere\'s how:\n\n1) Develop your own soundbite.\n\nThe term \"soundbite\" may come off as negative, but it\'s descriptive here. You need to find a message and boil it down into a sentence or two. I did that above.\n\nThe message has to be short and to the point. The more you say, the more things there are for the chattering class to analyze, refute, and often (and unintentionally) distort. Be clear and succinct.\n\n2) Distribute the message yourself.\n\nYou cannot control your message, no matter how hard you try. But that doesn\'t mean you shouldn\'t try.\n\nBut the definition of \"trying\" has changed from the press conferences, interviews, and press releases rubric of years past. It\'s not enough to sit around, crafting the message and choosing which media outlets you\'ll speak with. Nearly any organization can distribute the message themselves. Have key stakeholders (the general manager? the owner? even a PR representative or spokesperson) start a blog. Create an organizational Facebook page. Use Twitter accounts, etc. None of this is groundbreaking advice, so it is rather absurd that organizations have not yet caught on. Again, take the Mets for example. To the extent they use any of these tools -- and it is minimal -- it\'s for marketing purposes only.\n\n3) Defend your message.\n\nOnce others hear, repeat, rehash, and discuss your take on the goings-on, some will criticize it. You need to be ready to defend it.\n\nThat means engaging the critics on their turf, as the Mets and other sports teams often (and sometimes poorly) do take the media to task, head on. But rarely do you see a team\n\nPerhaps the most valuable aspect of Twitter, Facebook pages, and blogs is that you can receive -- and reply to -- feedback right then and there. And the replies are public, so even if you don\'\n\nOne such example occurred last week, when Fox News ran an article claiming that Wikipedia founder (and my former boss), Jimmy Wales, was stripped of editorial rights due to an unrelated scandal. He took to Twitter (and to TechCrunch, a third party blog) to set the record straight and defend himself:\n\n\n\nThe defense consisted of pointed replies to those who reacted skeptically:\n\n\n\n','Managing Your Media Sentiment: The Three Ds',0,'','inherit','open','open','','205-revision-12','','','2010-05-21 03:38:36','2010-05-21 03:38:36','',205,'http://dlewis.net/2010/05/21/205-revision-12/',0,'revision','',0),(233,1,'2010-05-21 03:47:42','2010-05-21 03:47:42','Imagine you owned a Major League Baseball team; well call it the Mets. Your star player (\"David Wright\") is, inexplicably, striking out a lot, and your team is having a bad year. What message do you expect the sports media to hook into and spread?\n\nAnswer: It\'s going to be about how awful a year David Wright is having, and how that\'s a big reason for the team\'s similarly awful year.\n\nBut what if that\'s not true? While the example above is sports related, the solution can apply to anyone in the public sphere.\n* * *
\nLast fall, I met with a friend who had recently spoken with an executive at another (not the Mets) professional sports team in New York. The exec said that the single biggest change in the sports world in recent history was the advent of sports talk radio; specifically for you New York sports fans, WFAN. Before WFAN, teams had a cozy relationship with beat writers and newspaper columnists -- that is, the media -- and the reporters and columnists would, by and large, echo the company line as gospel. The team controlled information and access; in exchange, they left to the media the \"right\" to distribute the story. It was a win-win, as the team got positive press and the journalists were glistened the experts. For any baseball fan, this is self-proving: the Baseball Writers Association of America decides on the end-of-season award winners and Hall of Fame inductees. (In any other industry do journalists decide award winners? Could you imagine if the editorial page of the Washington Post named the Nobel Peace Prize winners?)\n\nSports talk radio changed all that, for at least three reasons:\n* * *
\nThe Three Ds of Media Sentiment Management
\nThe media has hooked onto a meme. \"David Wright is striking out a ton, and it\'s hurting the team.\"\n\nBut it\'s not true. Yes, he\'s striking out a lot -- but he\'s also outperforming the rest of his team. He\'s second on the team in home runs, leading in runs batted in, gets on base more often than anyone else, and even is second (by one) in stolen bases. He is on pace for a \"30/30\" season -- thirty homers, thirty stolen bases -- and 100+ runs batted in. Yes, he\'s striking out a lot more than in years past, but he\'s having a good, if not great year. He\'s an asset, not a liability.\n\nThe Mets should combat this, just like any organization should if an asset is being treated like a liability by the press.\n\nHere\'s how:\n\n1) Develop your own soundbite.\n\nThe term \"soundbite\" may come off as negative, but it\'s descriptive here. You need to find a message and boil it down into a sentence or two. I did that above.\n\nThe message has to be short and to the point. The more you say, the more things there are for the chattering class to analyze, refute, and often (and unintentionally) distort. Be clear and succinct.\n\n2) Distribute the message yourself.\n\nYou cannot control your message, no matter how hard you try. But that doesn\'t mean you shouldn\'t try.\n\nBut the definition of \"trying\" has changed from the press conferences, interviews, and press releases rubric of years past. It\'s not enough to sit around, crafting the message and choosing which media outlets you\'ll speak with. Nearly any organization can distribute the message themselves. Have key stakeholders (the general manager? the owner? even a PR representative or spokesperson) start a blog. Create an organizational Facebook page. Use Twitter accounts, etc. None of this is groundbreaking advice, so it is rather absurd that organizations have not yet caught on. Again, take the Mets for example. To the extent they use any of these tools -- and it is minimal -- it\'s for marketing purposes only.\n\n3) Defend your message.\n\nOnce others hear, repeat, rehash, and discuss your take on the goings-on, some will criticize it. You need to be ready to defend it.\n\nThat means engaging the critics on their turf, as the Mets and other sports teams often (and sometimes poorly) do take the media to task, head on. But rarely do you see a team\n\nPerhaps the most valuable aspect of Twitter, Facebook pages, and blogs is that you can receive -- and reply to -- feedback right then and there. And the replies are public, so even if you don\'t convince the skeptic, you may convince someone else listening or watching the argument.\n\nOne such example occurred last week, when Fox News ran an article claiming that Wikipedia founder (and my former boss), Jimmy Wales, was stripped of editorial rights due to an unrelated scandal. He took to Twitter (and to TechCrunch, a third party blog) to set the record straight and defend himself:\n\n\n\nThe defense consisted of pointed replies to those who reacted skeptically:\n\n\n\n\n\nEffective? You bet. The passion plus the time investment means that he\'s taking it seriously; that this is important; and that the current media-driven meme is incorrect. It\'s believable and simulteaneouly remarkable.\n\nIt\'s the ap','Managing Your Media Sentiment: The Three Ds',0,'','inherit','open','open','','205-revision-13','','','2010-05-21 03:47:42','2010-05-21 03:47:42','',205,'http://dlewis.net/2010/05/21/205-revision-13/',0,'revision','',0),(234,1,'2010-05-21 03:50:22','2010-05-21 03:50:22','Imagine you owned a Major League Baseball team; well call it the Mets. Your star player (\"David Wright\") is, inexplicably, striking out a lot, and your team is having a bad year. What message do you expect the sports media to hook into and spread?\n\nAnswer: It\'s going to be about how awful a year David Wright is having, and how that\'s a big reason for the team\'s similarly awful year.\n\nBut what if that\'s not true? While the example above is sports related, the solution can apply to anyone in the public sphere.\n* * *
\nLast fall, I met with a friend who had recently spoken with an executive at another (not the Mets) professional sports team in New York. The exec said that the single biggest change in the sports world in recent history was the advent of sports talk radio; specifically for you New York sports fans, WFAN. Before WFAN, teams had a cozy relationship with beat writers and newspaper columnists -- that is, the media -- and the reporters and columnists would, by and large, echo the company line as gospel. The team controlled information and access; in exchange, they left to the media the \"right\" to distribute the story. It was a win-win, as the team got positive press and the journalists were glistened the experts. For any baseball fan, this is self-proving: the Baseball Writers Association of America decides on the end-of-season award winners and Hall of Fame inductees. (In any other industry do journalists decide award winners? Could you imagine if the editorial page of the Washington Post named the Nobel Peace Prize winners?)\n\nSports talk radio changed all that, for at least three reasons:\n* * *
\nThe Three Ds of Media Sentiment Management
\nThe media has hooked onto a meme. \"David Wright is striking out a ton, and it\'s hurting the team.\"\n\nBut it\'s not true. Yes, he\'s striking out a lot -- but he\'s also outperforming the rest of his team. He\'s second on the team in home runs, leading in runs batted in, gets on base more often than anyone else, and even is second (by one) in stolen bases. He is on pace for a \"30/30\" season -- thirty homers, thirty stolen bases -- and 100+ runs batted in. Yes, he\'s striking out a lot more than in years past, but he\'s having a good, if not great year. He\'s an asset, not a liability.\n\nThe Mets should combat this, just like any organization should if an asset is being treated like a liability by the press.\n\nHere\'s how:\n\n1) Develop your own soundbite.\n\nThe term \"soundbite\" may come off as negative, but it\'s descriptive here. You need to find a message and boil it down into a sentence or two. I did that above.\n\nThe message has to be short and to the point. The more you say, the more things there are for the chattering class to analyze, refute, and often (and unintentionally) distort. Be clear and succinct.\n\n2) Distribute the message yourself.\n\nYou cannot control your message, no matter how hard you try. But that doesn\'t mean you shouldn\'t try.\n\nBut the definition of \"trying\" has changed from the press conferences, interviews, and press releases rubric of years past. It\'s not enough to sit around, crafting the message and choosing which media outlets you\'ll speak with. Nearly any organization can distribute the message themselves. Have key stakeholders (the general manager? the owner? even a PR representative or spokesperson) start a blog. Create an organizational Facebook page. Use Twitter accounts, etc. None of this is groundbreaking advice, so it is rather absurd that organizations have not yet caught on. Again, take the Mets for example. To the extent they use any of these tools -- and it is minimal -- it\'s for marketing purposes only.\n\n3) Defend your message.\n\nOnce others hear, repeat, rehash, and discuss your take on the goings-on, some will criticize it. You need to be ready to defend it.\n\nThat means engaging the critics on their turf, as the Mets and other sports teams often (and sometimes poorly) do take the media to task, head on. But rarely do you see a team do this. Instead, they hold press conferences, go on radio shows, issue statements, etc. They don\'t ever engage the fan directly via media properties they control.\n\nPerhaps the most valuable aspect of Twitter, Facebook pages, and blogs is that you can receive -- and reply to -- feedback right then and there. And the replies are public, so even if you don\'t convince the skeptic, you may convince someone else listening or watching the argument. Overlooking this value, in the current \"social media\" climate, is fatal.\n\n* * *\n\nOne such example occurred last week, when Fox News ran an article claiming that Wikipedia founder (and my former boss), Jimmy Wales, was stripped of editorial rights due to an unrelated scandal. He took to Twitter (and to TechCrunch, a third party blog) to set the record straight and defend himself:\n\n\n\nThe defense consisted of pointed replies to those who reacted skeptically:\n\n\n\n\n\nEffective? You bet. The passion plus the time investment means that he\'s taking it seriously; that this is important; and that the current media-driven meme is incorrect. It\'s believable and simulteaneouly remarkable.\n\nIt\'s the approach everyone should be taking in managing the media sentiment of their organization. Don\'t follow the sports teams\' model.','Managing Your Media Sentiment: The Three Ds',0,'','inherit','open','open','','205-revision-14','','','2010-05-21 03:50:22','2010-05-21 03:50:22','',205,'http://dlewis.net/2010/05/21/205-revision-14/',0,'revision','',0),(235,1,'2010-05-21 03:51:54','2010-05-21 03:51:54','Imagine you owned a Major League Baseball team; well call it the Mets. Your star player (\"David Wright\") is, inexplicably, striking out a lot, and your team is having a bad year. What message do you expect the sports media to hook into and spread?\n\nAnswer: It\'s going to be about how awful a year David Wright is having, and how that\'s a big reason for the team\'s similarly awful year.\n\nBut what if that\'s not true? While the example above is sports related, the solution can apply to anyone in the public sphere.\n* * *
\nLast fall, I met with a friend who had recently spoken with an executive at another (not the Mets) professional sports team in New York. The exec said that the single biggest change in the sports world in recent history was the advent of sports talk radio; specifically for you New York sports fans, WFAN. Before WFAN, teams had a cozy relationship with beat writers and newspaper columnists -- that is, the media -- and the reporters and columnists would, by and large, echo the company line as gospel. The team controlled information and access; in exchange, they left to the media the \"right\" to distribute the story. It was a win-win, as the team got positive press and the journalists were glistened the experts. For any baseball fan, this is self-proving: the Baseball Writers Association of America decides on the end-of-season award winners and Hall of Fame inductees. (In any other industry do journalists decide award winners? Could you imagine if the editorial page of the Washington Post named the Nobel Peace Prize winners?)\n\nSports talk radio changed all that, for at least three reasons:\n* * *
\nThe Three Ds of Media Sentiment Management
\nThe media has hooked onto a meme. \"David Wright is striking out a ton, and it\'s hurting the team.\"\n\nBut it\'s not true. Yes, he\'s striking out a lot -- but he\'s also outperforming the rest of his team. He\'s second on the team in home runs, leading in runs batted in, gets on base more often than anyone else, and even is second (by one) in stolen bases. He is on pace for a \"30/30\" season -- thirty homers, thirty stolen bases -- and 100+ runs batted in. Yes, he\'s striking out a lot more than in years past, but he\'s having a good, if not great year. He\'s an asset, not a liability.\n\nThe Mets should combat this, just like any organization should if an asset is being treated like a liability by the press.\n\nHere\'s how:\n\n1) Develop your own soundbite.\n\nThe term \"soundbite\" may come off as negative, but it\'s descriptive here. You need to find a message and boil it down into a sentence or two. I did that above.\n\nThe message has to be short and to the point. The more you say, the more things there are for the chattering class to analyze, refute, and often (and unintentionally) distort. Be clear and succinct.\n\n2) Distribute the message yourself.\n\nYou cannot control your message, no matter how hard you try. But that doesn\'t mean you shouldn\'t try.\n\nBut the definition of \"trying\" has changed from the press conferences, interviews, and press releases rubric of years past. It\'s not enough to sit around, crafting the message and choosing which media outlets you\'ll speak with. Nearly any organization can distribute the message themselves. Have key stakeholders (the general manager? the owner? even a PR representative or spokesperson) start a blog. Create an organizational Facebook page. Use Twitter accounts, etc. None of this is groundbreaking advice, so it is rather absurd that organizations have not yet caught on. Again, take the Mets for example. To the extent they use any of these tools -- and it is minimal -- it\'s for marketing purposes only.\n\n3) Defend your message.\n\nOnce others hear, repeat, rehash, and discuss your take on the goings-on, some will criticize it. You need to be ready to defend it.\n\nThat means engaging the critics on their turf, as the Mets and other sports teams often (and sometimes poorly) do take the media to task, head on. But rarely do you see a team do this. Instead, they hold press conferences, go on radio shows, issue statements, etc. They don\'t ever engage the fan directly via media properties they control.\n\nPerhaps the most valuable aspect of Twitter, Facebook pages, and blogs is that you can receive -- and reply to -- feedback right then and there. And the replies are public, so even if you don\'t convince the skeptic, you may convince someone else listening or watching the argument. Overlooking this value, in the current \"social media\" climate, is fatal.\n* * *
\nApplying the three Ds is not difficult. It simply requires time and consistent effort.
\nOne such example occurred last week, when Fox News ran an article claiming that Wikipedia founder (and my former boss), Jimmy Wales, was stripped of editorial rights due to an unrelated scandal. He took to Twitter (and to TechCrunch, a third party blog) to set the record straight and defend himself:\n\n\n\nThe defense consisted of pointed replies to those who reacted skeptically:\n\n\n\n\n\nEffective? You bet. The passion plus the time investment means that he\'s taking it seriously; that this is important; and that the current media-driven meme is incorrect. It\'s believable and simulteaneouly remarkable.\n\nIt\'s the approach everyone should be taking in managing the media sentiment of their organization. Don\'t follow the sports teams\' model.','Managing Your Media Sentiment: The Three Ds',0,'','inherit','open','open','','205-revision-15','','','2010-05-21 03:51:54','2010-05-21 03:51:54','',205,'http://dlewis.net/2010/05/21/205-revision-15/',0,'revision','',0),(236,1,'2010-05-21 03:52:10','2010-05-21 03:52:10','Imagine you owned a Major League Baseball team; well call it the Mets. Your star player (\"David Wright\") is, inexplicably, striking out a lot, and your team is having a bad year. What message do you expect the sports media to hook into and spread?\r\n\r\nAnswer: It\'s going to be about how awful a year David Wright is having, and how that\'s a big reason for the team\'s similarly awful year.\r\n\r\nBut what if that\'s not true? While the example above is sports related, the solution can apply to anyone in the public sphere.\r\n* * *
\r\nLast fall, I met with a friend who had recently spoken with an executive at another (not the Mets) professional sports team in New York. The exec said that the single biggest change in the sports world in recent history was the advent of sports talk radio; specifically for you New York sports fans, WFAN. Before WFAN, teams had a cozy relationship with beat writers and newspaper columnists -- that is, the media -- and the reporters and columnists would, by and large, echo the company line as gospel. The team controlled information and access; in exchange, they left to the media the \"right\" to distribute the story. It was a win-win, as the team got positive press and the journalists were glistened the experts. For any baseball fan, this is self-proving: the Baseball Writers Association of America decides on the end-of-season award winners and Hall of Fame inductees. (In any other industry do journalists decide award winners? Could you imagine if the editorial page of the Washington Post named the Nobel Peace Prize winners?)\r\n\r\nSports talk radio changed all that, for at least three reasons:\r\n* * *
\r\nThe Three Ds of Media Sentiment Management
\r\nThe media has hooked onto a meme. \"David Wright is striking out a ton, and it\'s hurting the team.\"\r\n\r\nBut it\'s not true. Yes, he\'s striking out a lot -- but he\'s also outperforming the rest of his team. He\'s second on the team in home runs, leading in runs batted in, gets on base more often than anyone else, and even is second (by one) in stolen bases. He is on pace for a \"30/30\" season -- thirty homers, thirty stolen bases -- and 100+ runs batted in. Yes, he\'s striking out a lot more than in years past, but he\'s having a good, if not great year. He\'s an asset, not a liability.\r\n\r\nThe Mets should combat this, just like any organization should if an asset is being treated like a liability by the press.\r\n\r\nHere\'s how:\r\n\r\n1) Develop your own soundbite.\r\n\r\nThe term \"soundbite\" may come off as negative, but it\'s descriptive here. You need to find a message and boil it down into a sentence or two. I did that above.\r\n\r\nThe message has to be short and to the point. The more you say, the more things there are for the chattering class to analyze, refute, and often (and unintentionally) distort. Be clear and succinct.\r\n\r\n2) Distribute the message yourself.\r\n\r\nYou cannot control your message, no matter how hard you try. But that doesn\'t mean you shouldn\'t try.\r\n\r\nBut the definition of \"trying\" has changed from the press conferences, interviews, and press releases rubric of years past. It\'s not enough to sit around, crafting the message and choosing which media outlets you\'ll speak with. Nearly any organization can distribute the message themselves. Have key stakeholders (the general manager? the owner? even a PR representative or spokesperson) start a blog. Create an organizational Facebook page. Use Twitter accounts, etc. None of this is groundbreaking advice, so it is rather absurd that organizations have not yet caught on. Again, take the Mets for example. To the extent they use any of these tools -- and it is minimal -- it\'s for marketing purposes only.\r\n\r\n3) Defend your message.\r\n\r\nOnce others hear, repeat, rehash, and discuss your take on the goings-on, some will criticize it. You need to be ready to defend it.\r\n\r\nThat means engaging the critics on their turf, as the Mets and other sports teams often (and sometimes poorly) do take the media to task, head on. But rarely do you see a team do this. Instead, they hold press conferences, go on radio shows, issue statements, etc. They don\'t ever engage the fan directly via media properties they control.\r\n\r\nPerhaps the most valuable aspect of Twitter, Facebook pages, and blogs is that you can receive -- and reply to -- feedback right then and there. And the replies are public, so even if you don\'t convince the skeptic, you may convince someone else listening or watching the argument. Overlooking this value, in the current \"social media\" climate, is fatal.\r\n* * *
\r\nApplying the three Ds is not difficult. It simply requires time and consistent effort.
\r\nOne such example occurred last week, when Fox News ran an article claiming that Wikipedia founder (and my former boss), Jimmy Wales, was stripped of editorial rights due to an unrelated scandal. He took to Twitter (and to TechCrunch, a third party blog) to set the record straight and defend himself:\r\n
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nEffective? You bet. The passion plus the time investment means that he\'s taking it seriously; that this is important; and that the current media-driven meme is incorrect. It\'s believable and simulteaneouly remarkable.\r\n\r\nIt\'s the approach everyone should be taking in managing the media sentiment of their organization. Don\'t follow the sports teams\' model.','Managing Your Media Sentiment: The Three Ds',0,'','inherit','open','open','','205-revision-16','','','2010-05-21 03:52:10','2010-05-21 03:52:10','',205,'http://dlewis.net/2010/05/21/205-revision-16/',0,'revision','',0),(237,1,'2010-06-04 19:52:05','0000-00-00 00:00:00','Sunlight is the best disinfectant. -- Justice Louis Brandeis\n','Where Vampires Fear to Tread',0,'','draft','open','open','','','','','2010-06-04 19:52:05','2010-06-04 19:52:05','',0,'http://dlewis.net/?p=237',0,'post','',0),(238,1,'2010-05-21 09:54:46','2010-05-21 09:54:46','','Where Vampires Fear to Tread',0,'','inherit','open','open','','237-revision','','','2010-05-21 09:54:46','2010-05-21 09:54:46','',237,'http://dlewis.net/2010/05/21/237-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(239,1,'2010-05-21 11:14:40','2010-05-21 11:14:40','Imagine you owned a Major League Baseball team; well call it the Mets. Your star player (\"David Wright\") is, inexplicably, striking out a lot, and your team is having a bad year. What message do you expect the sports media to hook into and spread?\n\nAnswer: It\'s going to be about how awful a year David Wright is having, and how that\'s a big reason for the team\'s similarly awful year.\n\nBut what if that\'s not true? While the example above is sports related, the solution can apply to anyone in the public sphere.\n
* * *
\nLast fall, I met with a friend who had recently spoken with an executive at another (not the Mets) professional sports team in New York. The exec said that the single biggest change in the sports world in recent history was the advent of sports talk radio; specifically for you New York sports fans, WFAN. Before WFAN, teams had a cozy relationship with beat writers and newspaper columnists -- that is, the media -- and the reporters and columnists would, by and large, echo the company line as gospel. The team controlled information and access; in exchange, they left to the media the \"right\" to distribute the story. It was a win-win, as the team got positive press and the journalists were glistened the experts. For any baseball fan, this is self-proving: the Baseball Writers Association of America decides on the end-of-season award winners and Hall of Fame inductees. (In any other industry do journalists decide award winners? Could you imagine if the editorial page of the Washington Post named the Nobel Peace Prize winners?)\n\nSports talk radio changed all that, for at least three reasons:\n* * *
\nThe Three Ds of Media Sentiment Management
\nThe media has hooked onto a meme. \"David Wright is striking out a ton, and it\'s hurting the team.\"\n\nBut it\'s not true. Yes, he\'s striking out a lot -- but he\'s also outperforming the rest of his team. He\'s second on the team in home runs, leading in runs batted in, gets on base more often than anyone else, and even is second (by one) in stolen bases. He is on pace for a \"30/30\" season -- thirty homers, thirty stolen bases -- and 100+ runs batted in. Yes, he\'s striking out a lot more than in years past, but he\'s having a good, if not great year. He\'s an asset, not a liability.\n\nThe Mets should combat this, just like any organization should if an asset is being treated like a liability by the press.\n\nHere\'s how:\n\n1) Develop your own soundbite.\n\nThe term \"soundbite\" may come off as negative, but it\'s descriptive here. You need to find a message and boil it down into a sentence or two. I did that above.\n\nThe message has to be short and to the point. The more you say, the more things there are for the chattering class to analyze, refute, and often (and unintentionally) distort. Be clear and succinct.* Stay on message. You want to tee up your idea and hope that it spreads, winning the day\n\n* And, it should go without saying: Choose your words carefully to make sure you don\'t sound stupid. Last night, when the Mets removed their starting pitcher from the game after five pitches, the pitcher claimed that he was not injured and was appalled by the decision to remove him. The pitching coach\'s response: that the pitcher is a \"habitual liar\" when it comes to his playing condition. Big mistake.\n\n2) Distribute the message yourself.\n\nYou cannot control your message, no matter how hard you try. But that doesn\'t mean you shouldn\'t try.\n\nBut the definition of \"trying\" has changed from the press conferences, interviews, and press releases rubric of years past. It\'s not enough to sit around, crafting the message and choosing which media outlets you\'ll speak with. Nearly any organization can distribute the message themselves. Have key stakeholders (the general manager? the owner? even a PR representative or spokesperson) start a blog. Create an organizational Facebook page. Use Twitter accounts, etc. None of this is groundbreaking advice, so it is rather absurd that organizations have not yet caught on. Again, take the Mets for example. To the extent they use any of these tools -- and it is minimal -- it\'s for marketing purposes only.\n\n3) Defend your message.\n\nOnce others hear, repeat, rehash, and discuss your take on the goings-on, some will criticize it. You need to be ready to defend it.\n\nThat means engaging the critics on their turf, as the Mets and other sports teams often (and sometimes poorly) do take the media to task, head on. But rarely do you see a team do this. Instead, they hold press conferences, go on radio shows, issue statements, etc. They don\'t ever engage the fan directly via media properties they control.\n\nPerhaps the most valuable aspect of Twitter, Facebook pages, and blogs is that you can receive -- and reply to -- feedback right then and there. And the replies are public, so even if you don\'t convince the skeptic, you may convince someone else listening or watching the argument. Overlooking this value, in the current \"social media\" climate, is fatal.\n* * *
\nApplying the three Ds is not difficult. It simply requires time and consistent effort.
\nOne such example occurred last week, when Fox News ran an article claiming that Wikipedia founder (and my former boss), Jimmy Wales, was stripped of editorial rights due to an unrelated scandal. He took to Twitter (and to TechCrunch, a third party blog) to set the record straight and defend himself:\n
\n\n\n\nEffective? You bet. The passion plus the time investment means that he\'s taking it seriously; that this is important; and that the current media-driven meme is incorrect. It\'s believable and simulteaneouly remarkable.\n\nIt\'s the approach everyone should be taking in managing the media sentiment of their organization. Don\'t follow the sports teams\' model.','Managing Your Media Sentiment: The Three Ds',0,'','inherit','open','open','','205-revision-17','','','2010-05-21 11:14:40','2010-05-21 11:14:40','',205,'http://dlewis.net/2010/05/21/205-revision-17/',0,'revision','',0),(240,1,'2010-05-25 02:16:28','2010-05-25 02:16:28','Last fall, I met with a friend who had recently spoken with an executive at another (not the Mets) professional sports team in New York. The exec said that the single biggest change in the sports world in recent history was the advent of sports talk radio; specifically for you New York sports fans, WFAN. Before WFAN, teams had a cozy relationship with beat writers and newspaper columnists -- that is, the media -- and the reporters and columnists would, by and large, echo the company line as gospel. The team controlled information and access; in exchange, they left to the media the \"right\" to distribute the story. It was a win-win, as the team got positive press and the journalists were glistened the experts. For any baseball fan, this is self-proving: the Baseball Writers Association of America decides on the end-of-season award winners and Hall of Fame inductees. (In any other industry do journalists decide award winners? Could you imagine if the editorial page of the Washington Post named the Nobel Peace Prize winners?)\r\n\r\nSports talk radio changed all that, for at least three reasons:\r\n* * *
\r\nApplying the three Ds is not difficult. It simply requires time and consistent effort.
\r\nOne such example occurred last week, when Fox News ran an article claiming that Wikipedia founder (and my former boss), Jimmy Wales, was stripped of editorial rights due to an unrelated scandal. He took to Twitter (and to TechCrunch, a third party blog) to set the record straight and defend himself:\r\n
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nEffective? You bet. The passion plus the time investment means that he\'s taking it seriously; that this is important; and that the current media-driven meme is incorrect. It\'s believable and simulteaneouly remarkable.\r\n\r\nIt\'s the approach everyone should be taking in managing the media sentiment of their organization. Don\'t follow the sports teams\' model.','Managing Your Media Sentiment: The Three Ds',0,'','inherit','open','open','','205-revision-20','','','2010-05-21 11:21:30','2010-05-21 11:21:30','',205,'http://dlewis.net/2010/05/21/205-revision-20/',0,'revision','',0),(245,1,'2010-05-21 11:22:29','2010-05-21 11:22:29','Imagine you owned a Major League Baseball team; well call it the Mets. Your star player (\"David Wright\") is, inexplicably, striking out a lot, and your team is having a bad year. What message do you expect the sports media to hook into and spread?\r\n\r\nIn the Mets\' case, the media has hooked onto a meme. \"David Wright is striking out a ton, and it\'s hurting the team.\"\r\n\r\nBut it\'s not true. Yes, he\'s striking out a lot -- but he\'s also outperforming the rest of his team. He\'s second on the team in home runs, leading in runs batted in, gets on base more often than anyone else, and even is second (by one) in stolen bases. He is on pace for a \"30/30\" season -- thirty homers, thirty stolen bases -- and 100+ runs batted in. Yes, he\'s striking out a lot more than in years past, but he\'s having a good, if not great year. He\'s an asset, not a liability.\r\n\r\nThe Mets should combat this, just like any organization should if an asset is being treated like a liability by the press. While the example above is sports related, the solution can apply to anyone in the public sphere.\r\n\r\nThe Three Ds of Meme Management\r\n\r\n1) Develop your own soundbite.\r\n\r\nThe term \"soundbite\" may come off as negative, but it\'s descriptive here. You need to find a message and boil it down into a sentence or two. I did that above.\r\n\r\nThe message has to be short and to the point. The more you say, the more things there are for the chattering class to analyze, refute, and often (and unintentionally) distort. Be clear and succinct.* Stay on message. You want to tee up your idea and hope that it spreads, winning the day; or at least, is something you can keep reiterating across various media channels.\r\n\r\n* And, it should go without saying: Choose your words carefully to make sure you don\'t sound stupid. Last night, when the Mets removed their starting pitcher from the game after five pitches, the pitcher claimed that he was not injured and was appalled by the decision to remove him. The pitching coach\'s response: that the pitcher is a \"habitual liar\" when it comes to his playing condition. Big mistake.\r\n\r\n2) Distribute the message yourself.\r\n\r\nYou cannot control your message, no matter how hard you try. But that doesn\'t mean you shouldn\'t try.\r\n\r\nBut the definition of \"trying\" has changed from the press conferences, interviews, and press releases rubric of years past. It\'s not enough to sit around, crafting the message and choosing which media outlets you\'ll speak with. Nearly any organization can distribute the message themselves. Have key stakeholders (the general manager? the owner? even a PR representative or spokesperson) start a blog. Create an organizational Facebook page. Use Twitter accounts, etc. None of this is groundbreaking advice, so it is rather absurd that organizations have not yet caught on. Again, take the Mets for example. To the extent they use any of these tools -- and it is minimal -- it\'s for marketing purposes only.\r\n\r\n3) Defend your message.\r\n\r\nOnce others hear, repeat, rehash, and discuss your take on the goings-on, some will criticize it. You need to be ready to defend it.\r\n\r\nThat means engaging the critics on their turf, as the Mets and other sports teams often (and sometimes poorly) do take the media to task, head on. But rarely do you see a team do this. Instead, they hold press conferences, go on radio shows, issue statements, etc. They don\'t ever engage the fan directly via media properties they control.\r\n\r\nPerhaps the most valuable aspect of Twitter, Facebook pages, and blogs is that you can receive -- and reply to -- feedback right then and there. And the replies are public, so even if you don\'t convince the skeptic, you may convince someone else listening or watching the argument. Overlooking this value, in the current \"social media\" climate, is fatal.\r\n* * *
\r\nApplying the three Ds is not difficult. It simply requires time and consistent effort.
\r\nOne such example occurred last week, when Fox News ran an article claiming that Wikipedia founder (and my former boss), Jimmy Wales, was stripped of editorial rights due to an unrelated scandal. He took to Twitter (and to TechCrunch, a third party blog) to set the record straight and defend himself:\r\n
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nEffective? You bet. The passion plus the time investment means that he\'s taking it seriously; that this is important; and that the current media-driven meme is incorrect. It\'s believable and simulteaneouly remarkable.\r\n\r\nIt\'s the approach everyone should be taking in managing the media sentiment of their organization. Don\'t follow the sports teams\' model.','Managing Your Memes: The Three Ds',0,'','inherit','open','open','','205-revision-21','','','2010-05-21 11:22:29','2010-05-21 11:22:29','',205,'http://dlewis.net/2010/05/21/205-revision-21/',0,'revision','',0),(246,1,'2010-05-21 14:04:52','2010-05-21 14:04:52','Imagine you owned a Major League Baseball team; well call it the Mets. Your star player (\"David Wright\") is, inexplicably, striking out a lot, and your team is having a bad year. What message do you expect the sports media to hook into and spread?\r\n\r\nIn the Mets\' case, the media has hooked onto a meme. \"David Wright is striking out a ton, and it\'s hurting the team.\"\r\n\r\nBut it\'s not true. Yes, he\'s striking out a lot -- but he\'s also outperforming the rest of his team. He\'s second on the team in home runs, leading in runs batted in, gets on base more often than anyone else, and even is second (by one) in stolen bases. He is on pace for a \"30/30\" season -- thirty homers, thirty stolen bases -- and 100+ runs batted in. Yes, he\'s striking out a lot more than in years past, but he\'s having a good, if not great year. He\'s an asset, not a liability.\r\n\r\nThe Mets should combat this, just like any organization should if an asset is being treated like a liability by the press. While the example above is sports related, the solution can apply to anyone in the public sphere.\r\n\r\nThe Three Ds of Meme Management\r\n\r\n1) Develop your own soundbite.\r\n\r\nThe term \"soundbite\" may come off as negative, but it\'s descriptive here. You need to find a message and boil it down into a sentence or two. I did that above.\r\n\r\nThe message has to be short and to the point. The more you say, the more things there are for the chattering class to analyze, refute, and often (and unintentionally) distort. Be clear and succinct.* Stay on message. You want to tee up your idea and hope that it spreads, winning the day; or at least, is something you can keep reiterating across various media channels.\r\n\r\n* And, it should go without saying: Choose your words carefully to make sure you don\'t sound stupid. Last night, when the Mets removed their starting pitcher from the game after five pitches, the pitcher claimed that he was not injured and was appalled by the decision to remove him. The pitching coach\'s response: that the pitcher is a \"habitual liar\" when it comes to his playing condition. Big mistake.\r\n\r\n2) Distribute the message yourself.\r\n\r\nYou cannot control your message, no matter how hard you try. But that doesn\'t mean you shouldn\'t try.\r\n\r\nBut the definition of \"trying\" has changed from the press conferences, interviews, and press releases rubric of years past. It\'s not enough to sit around, crafting the message and choosing which media outlets you\'ll speak with. Nearly any organization can distribute the message themselves. Have key stakeholders (the general manager? the owner? even a PR representative or spokesperson) start a blog. Create an organizational Facebook page. Use Twitter accounts, etc. None of this is groundbreaking advice, so it is rather absurd that organizations have not yet caught on. Again, take the Mets for example. To the extent they use any of these tools -- and it is minimal -- it\'s for marketing purposes only.\r\n\r\n3) Defend your message.\r\n\r\nOnce others hear, repeat, rehash, and discuss your take on the goings-on, some will criticize it. You need to be ready to defend it.\r\n\r\nThat means engaging the critics on their turf, as the Mets and other sports teams often (and sometimes poorly) do take the media to task, head on. But rarely do you see a team do this. Instead, they hold press conferences, go on radio shows, issue statements, etc. They don\'t ever engage the fan directly via media properties they control.\r\n\r\nPerhaps the most valuable aspect of Twitter, Facebook pages, and blogs is that you can receive -- and reply to -- feedback right then and there. And the replies are public, so even if you don\'t convince the skeptic, you may convince someone else listening or watching the argument. Overlooking this value, in the current \"social media\" climate, is fatal.\r\n* * *
\r\nApplying the three Ds is not difficult. It simply requires time and consistent effort.
\r\nOne such example occurred last week, when Fox News ran an article claiming that Wikipedia founder (and my former boss), Jimmy Wales, was stripped of editorial rights due to an unrelated scandal. He took to Twitter (and to TechCrunch, a third party blog) to set the record straight and defend himself:\r\n
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nEffective? You bet. The passion plus the time investment means that he\'s taking it seriously; that this is important; and that the current media-driven meme is incorrect. It\'s believable and simulteaneouly remarkable.\r\n\r\nIt\'s the approach everyone should be taking in managing the media sentiment of their organization. Don\'t follow the sports teams\' model.','Managing Your Memes: The Three Ds',0,'','inherit','open','open','','205-revision-22','','','2010-05-21 14:04:52','2010-05-21 14:04:52','',205,'http://dlewis.net/2010/05/21/205-revision-22/',0,'revision','',0),(252,1,'2010-05-21 17:28:12','2010-05-21 17:28:12','Imagine you owned a Major League Baseball team; well call it the Mets. Your star player (\"David Wright\") is, inexplicably, striking out a lot, and your team is having a bad year. What message do you expect the sports media to hook into and spread?\n\nIn the Mets\' case, the media has hooked onto a meme. \"David Wright is striking out a ton, and it\'s hurting the team.\"\n\nBut it\'s not true. Yes, he\'s striking out a lot -- but he\'s also outperforming the rest of his team. He\'s second on the team in home runs, leading in runs batted in, gets on base more often than anyone else, and even is second (by one) in stolen bases. He is on pace for a \"30/30\" season -- thirty homers, thirty stolen bases -- and 100+ runs batted in. Yes, he\'s striking out a lot more than in years past, but he\'s having a good, if not great year. He\'s an asset, not a liability.\n\nThe Mets should combat this, just like any organization should if an asset is being treated like a liability by the press. While the example above is sports related, the solution can apply to anyone in the public sphere.\n\nThe Three Ds of Meme Management\n\n1) Develop your own soundbite.\n\nThe term \"soundbite\" may come off as negative, but it\'s descriptive here. You need to find a message and boil it down into a sentence or two. I did that above.\n\nThe message has to be short and to the point. The more you say, the more things there are for the chattering class to analyze, refute, and often (and unintentionally) distort. Be clear and succinct.* Stay on message. You want to tee up your idea and hope that it spreads, winning the day; or at least, is something you can keep reiterating across various media channels.\n\n* And, it should go without saying: Choose your words carefully to make sure you don\'t sound stupid. Last night, when the Mets removed their starting pitcher from the game after five pitches, the pitcher claimed that he was not injured and was appalled by the decision to remove him. The pitching coach\'s response: that the pitcher is a \"habitual liar\" when it comes to his playing condition. Big mistake.\n\n2) Distribute the message yourself.\n\nYou cannot control your message, no matter how hard you try. But that doesn\'t mean you shouldn\'t try.\n\nBut the definition of \"trying\" has changed from the press conferences, interviews, and press releases rubric of years past. It\'s not enough to sit around, crafting the message and choosing which media outlets you\'ll speak with. Nearly any organization can distribute the message themselves. Have key stakeholders (the general manager? the owner? even a PR representative or spokesperson) start a blog. Create an organizational Facebook page. Use Twitter accounts, etc. None of this is groundbreaking advice, so it is rather absurd that organizations have not yet caught on. Again, take the Mets for example. To the extent they use any of these tools -- and it is minimal -- it\'s for marketing purposes only.\n\n3) Defend your message.\n\nOnce others hear, repeat, rehash, and discuss your take on the goings-on, some will criticize it. You need to be ready to defend it.\n\nThat means engaging the critics on their turf, as the Mets and other sports teams often (and sometimes poorly) do take the media to task, head on. But rarely do you see a team do this. Instead, they hold press conferences, go on radio shows, issue statements, etc. They don\'t ever engage the fan directly via media properties they control.\n\nPerhaps the most valuable aspect of Twitter, Facebook pages, and blogs is that you can receive -- and reply to -- feedback right then and there. And the replies are public, so even if you don\'t convince the skeptic, you may convince someone else listening or watching the argument. Overlooking this value, in the current \"social media\" climate, is fatal.\n* * *
\nApplying the three Ds is not difficult. It simply requires time and consistent effort.
\nOne such example occurred last week, when Fox News ran an article claiming that Wikipedia founder (and my former boss), Jimmy Wales, was stripped of editorial rights due to an unrelated scandal. He took to Twitter (and to TechCrunch, a third party blog) to set the record straight and defend himself:\n
\n\nEffective? You bet. The passion plus the time investment means that he\'s taking it seriously; that this is important; and that the current media-driven meme is incorrect. It\'s believable and simulteaneouly remarkable.\n\nIt\'s the approach everyone should be taking in managing the media sentiment of their organization. Don\'t follow the sports teams\' model.','Managing Your Memes: The Three Ds',0,'','inherit','open','open','','205-autosave','','','2010-05-21 17:28:12','2010-05-21 17:28:12','',205,'http://dlewis.net/2010/05/21/205-autosave/',0,'revision','',0),(248,1,'2010-05-21 14:59:34','2010-05-21 14:59:34','Last fall, I met with a friend who had recently spoken with an executive at another (not the Mets) professional sports team in New York. The exec said that the single biggest change in the sports world in recent history was the advent of sports talk radio; specifically for you New York sports fans, WFAN. Before WFAN, teams had a cozy relationship with beat writers and newspaper columnists -- that is, the media -- and the reporters and columnists would, by and large, echo the company line as gospel. The team controlled information and access; in exchange, they left to the media the \"right\" to distribute the story. It was a win-win, as the team got positive press and the journalists were glistened the experts. For any baseball fan, this is self-proving: the Baseball Writers Association of America decides on the end-of-season award winners and Hall of Fame inductees. (In any other industry do journalists decide award winners? Could you imagine if the editorial page of the Washington Post named the Nobel Peace Prize winners?)\n\nSports talk radio changed all that, for at least three reasons:\n* * *
\r\nApplying the three Ds is not difficult. It simply requires time and consistent effort.
\r\nOne such example occurred last week, when Fox News ran an article claiming that Wikipedia founder (and my former boss), Jimmy Wales, was stripped of editorial rights due to an unrelated scandal. He took to Twitter (and to TechCrunch, a third party blog) to set the record straight and defend himself:\r\n
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nEffective? You bet. The passion plus the time investment means that he\'s taking it seriously; that this is important; and that the current media-driven meme is incorrect. It\'s believable and simulteaneouly remarkable.\r\n\r\nIt\'s the approach everyone should be taking in managing the media sentiment of their organization. Don\'t follow the sports teams\' model.','Managing Your Memes: The Three Ds',0,'','inherit','open','open','','205-revision-23','','','2010-05-21 14:05:16','2010-05-21 14:05:16','',205,'http://dlewis.net/2010/05/21/205-revision-23/',0,'revision','',0),(253,1,'2010-05-21 20:47:55','2010-05-21 20:47:55','Last fall, I met with a friend who had recently spoken with an executive at another (not the Mets) professional sports team in New York. The exec said that the single biggest change in the sports world in recent history was the advent of sports talk radio; specifically for you New York sports fans, WFAN. Before WFAN, teams had a cozy relationship with beat writers and newspaper columnists -- that is, the media -- and the reporters and columnists would, by and large, echo the company line as gospel. The team controlled information and access; in exchange, they left to the media the \"right\" to distribute the story. It was a win-win, as the team got positive press and the journalists were glistened the experts. For any baseball fan, this is self-proving: the Baseball Writers Association of America decides on the end-of-season award winners and Hall of Fame inductees. (In any other industry do journalists decide award winners? Could you imagine if the editorial page of the Washington Post named the Nobel Peace Prize winners?)\n\nSports talk radio changed all that, for at least three reasons:\n
Let\'s count the problems.
\n1) American is asking me to spam my friends.
\n\"Are Your Friends Worth 10,000 Miles?\" is dishonest. It should be \"Is annoying a lot of your friends worth potentially getting 1,000 from one of them?\" American want me to fill out a form on American\'s site, giving them my friends\' email addresses. They\'ll then send out some email to my friends, on \"my behalf,\" inviting them to become AAdvantage members. Each of my friends who signs up earns me 1,000 miles.
\n2) There is no incentive for my friends to sign up.\n
\nAt least, nothing stated in the email. I am sure that if one of my friends signed up, they\'d get 1,000 AAdvantage miles or something like that. If I am going to bother my friend, I need to start the conversation with that information. American omits it.
\nWhat should American have done? First, give my friends a meaningful incentive to join -- a chance to win a free trip, or upgrades for life, or something really cool. AAdvantage miles are meaningless to them if they are not in the program already -- especially if they are invested in a competitor\'s program. Second, they should have lead with that information. Finally, they should have tied it to the payout to me. How\'s this for a winning offer:
\n\"Invite your friends to become an AAdvantage member -- and your friend will be entered to win two first class tickets anywhere we fly! And if they win, And just for signing up, both you and your friend get 1,000 AAdvantage miles!\"
\n','Sharing Online: American Airlines Just Doesn\'t Get It',0,'','inherit','open','open','','268-revision-3','','','2010-06-06 03:09:47','2010-06-06 03:09:47','',268,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/06/268-revision-3/',0,'revision','',0),(273,1,'2010-06-06 03:20:33','2010-06-06 03:20:33','[Update: June 5, 2010: In January, an armed robber held up a jewlery store on Madison Avenue between 75th an 76th, shooting and killing a 71-year old employee. This is the first shooting homicide in the Upper East Side in over seven years, and p]\n\nThe New York Times came out with a neat interactive map of homicides in New York City -- something which would be really cool if it were not about murder. According to the map, ove the six and a half year period covered (2003 to present), NYC recorded just over 3,400 homicides, of which 15% -- or about 500 -- were in Manhattan.\n\nThe Upper East Side section of Manhattan is incredibly safe, apparently. 11 homicides over the period, or about two per year. For an area with a population of 200,000+, that gives roughly a 1 homicide per 100,000 per annum. To put that in perspective, in 2003, Maine had the \"best\" homicide rate in the nation, at 1.2 per 100,000.\n\nThere are no formal barriers separating the Upper East Side from the rest of Manhattan -- yes, it abutts Central Park on the west but one can easily walk though that, and the east is bound by the East River. North and south, though, the lines are 96th and 59th streets respectively, which is to say, the borders are entirely fluid with the neighborhoods next to them. (A guess as to why the lines are where they are? On the south side, Central Park ends on 59th; on the north, the Metro North train tracks come above ground at 97th.) The borders are known but hardly observed in any true fashion -- we regularly consider a playground on 99th and 5th to be in the \"Upper East Side\", for example.\n\nIf you live here, you probably will understand why the neighborhood is safer than most, but experience does not translate well to words. I was not terribly surprised to see a low homicide rate, although admittedly it was much lower than I expected. What did surprise me, however, was one simple fact: no firearms were used in the homicides. Or, more accurately, guns abide by the borders.\n
The map above sums it up. The green dots -- firearm-related homicides -- all fall outside the borders of the Upper East Side. There are two which are close, of course: 57th and Madison, 97th and 3rd. Two blocks south of the UES, one block north. This makes the UES a massive outlier, as 69% of the 3,400+ homicides city-wide were firearm-related.
\nWhy?
','Why Aren\'t People Shot on the Upper East Side?',0,'','inherit','open','open','','35-autosave','','','2010-06-06 03:20:33','2010-06-06 03:20:33','',35,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/06/35-autosave/',0,'revision','',0),(274,1,'2009-06-22 17:22:38','2009-06-22 17:22:38','The New York Times came out with a neat interactive map of homicides in New York City -- something which would be really cool if it were not about murder. According to the map, ove the six and a half year period covered (2003 to present), NYC recorded just over 3,400 homicides, of which 15% -- or about 500 -- were in Manhattan.
\r\nThe Upper East Side section of Manhattan is incredibly safe, apparently. 11 homicides over the period, or about two per year. For an area with a population of 200,000+, that gives roughly a 1 homicide per 100,000 per annum. To put that in perspective, in 2003, Maine had the \"best\" homicide rate in the nation, at 1.2 per 100,000.
\r\nThere are no formal barriers separating the Upper East Side from the rest of Manhattan -- yes, it abutts Central Park on the west but one can easily walk though that, and the east is bound by the East River. North and south, though, the lines are 96th and 59th streets respectively, which is to say, the borders are entirely fluid with the neighborhoods next to them. (A guess as to why the lines are where they are? On the south side, Central Park ends on 59th; on the north, the Metro North train tracks come above ground at 97th.) The borders are known but hardly observed in any true fashion -- we regularly consider a playground on 99th and 5th to be in the \"Upper East Side\", for example.
\r\nIf you live here, you probably will understand why the neighborhood is safer than most, but experience does not translate well to words. I was not terribly surprised to see a low homicide rate, although admittedly it was much lower than I expected. What did surprise me, however, was one simple fact: no firearms were used in the homicides. Or, more accurately, guns abide by the borders.
\r\n
The map above sums it up. The green dots -- firearm-related homicides -- all fall outside the borders of the Upper East Side. There are two which are close, of course: 57th and Madison, 97th and 3rd. Two blocks south of the UES, one block north. This makes the UES a massive outlier, as 69% of the 3,400+ homicides city-wide were firearm-related.
\r\nWhy?
\r\n','Why Aren\'t People Shot on the Upper East Side?',0,'','inherit','open','open','','35-revision-4','','','2009-06-22 17:22:38','2009-06-22 17:22:38','',35,'http://dlewis.net/2009/06/22/35-revision-4/',0,'revision','',0),(275,1,'2010-06-06 03:57:06','2010-06-06 03:57:06','','Picture 42',0,'','inherit','open','open','','picture-42','','','2010-06-06 03:57:06','2010-06-06 03:57:06','',268,'http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Picture-42.png',0,'attachment','image/png',0),(276,1,'2010-06-06 03:58:30','2010-06-06 03:58:30','','Picture 43',0,'','inherit','open','open','','picture-43','','','2010-06-06 03:58:30','2010-06-06 03:58:30','',268,'http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Picture-43.png',0,'attachment','image/png',0),(277,1,'2010-06-06 03:57:56','2010-06-06 03:57:56','Friday, I received the email below from American Airlines:\n
Let\'s count the problems.
\n1) American is asking me to spam my friends.
\n\"Are Your Friends Worth 10,000 Miles?\" is dishonest. It should be \"Is annoying a lot of your friends worth potentially getting 1,000 from one of them?\" American want me to fill out a form on American\'s site, giving them my friends\' email addresses. They\'ll then send out some email to my friends, on \"my behalf,\" inviting them to become AAdvantage members. Each of my friends who signs up earns me 1,000 miles.
\n2) There is no incentive for my friends to sign up.\n
\nWell, it\'s there, buried at the end of the email. If one of my friends signed up, they\'d get 1,000 AAdvantage miles, too. If I am going to bother my friend, I need to start the conversation with that information. American mentions it as an aside it.
\nWhat should American have done? First, give my friends a meaningful incentive to join -- a chance to win a free trip, or upgrades for life, or something really cool. AAdvantage miles are meaningless to them if they are not in the program already -- especially if they are invested in a competitor\'s program. Second, they should have lead with that information. Finally, they should have tied it to the payout to me. How\'s this for a great offer:
\n\"Invite your friends to become an AAdvantage member -- and your friend will be entered to win two first class tickets anywhere we fly! And if they win, so do you -- we\'ll give you two first class tickets, too! And just for signing up, both you and your friend get 1,000 AAdvantage miles!\"
\nMuch better (even if inarticulately written).
\n3) I have to sit through some dumb flash movie to figure out how to invite my friends.
\nReally. Click the image or the \"Refer Your Friends Now!\" button and I\'m brought to this weird flash movie. The best idea: Put the instructions in the email. Second best? Don\'t waste my time with some flash interlude -- just bring me to the webpage with the actual information I need to be your spam agent.
\n4) I can\'t invite my friends via Facebook, IM, Twitter, or even a personal email.
\nNope. None of that. All I can do is fill out a form.
\n
The form produces an automated email which I cannot edit:
\n\n\n\"Get 1,000 American Airlines air miles *and* be entered to win two first-class tickets anywhere around the world! http://aa.com/fakeurl\"
','Sharing Online: American Airlines Just Doesn\'t Get It',0,'','inherit','open','open','','268-revision-4','','','2010-06-06 03:57:56','2010-06-06 03:57:56','',268,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/06/268-revision-4/',0,'revision','',0),(278,1,'2010-06-06 12:55:34','2010-06-06 12:55:34','Friday, I received the email below from American Airlines:\n
Nope. They\'re offering my friends 1,000 miles to sign up -- and they mention that as an aside. As one member of FlyerTalk (a forum dedicated to air miles deals) noted: \"My friendships are too valuable to me for me to try and market to them for a thousand miles. The relationships are worth a lot more than that.\" Bad play, American.
\nAnd then, it gets worse.
\nThere\'s no way to share the offer with your friends outside of the form above. There\'s no special URL you can share on Facebook, Twitter, IM, on a message board, or via an informal personal email. Even to the FlyerTalk crowd, many think it\'s just \"too much work.\"
\nCurious, I clicked \"Preview Email\" to see what they wanted me to spam my friends with, and a popup came up with this:
\n
What should American have done?
\n1) Redo the offer to focus on the payout to my friends.
\nGive my friends a meaningful incentive to join -- a chance to win a free trip, or upgrades for life, or something really cool. AAdvantage miles are meaningless to them if they are not in the program already -- especially if they are invested in a competitor\'s program.
\nAnd American has to lead with that information. Make it obvious to me that they\'re giving me a unique opportunity to do something for my friends. This encourages sharing, which is American\'s strategy.
\nAnd of course, they should have tied it to the payout to me. How\'s this for a great offer:
\n\"Invite your friends to become an AAdvantage member -- and your friend will be entered to win two first class tickets anywhere we fly! And if they win, so do you -- we\'ll give you two first class tickets, too! And just for signing up, both you and your friend get 1,000 AAdvantage miles!\"
\nMuch better (even if inarticulately written).
\n3) I have to sit through some dumb flash movie to figure out how to invite my friends.
\nReally. Click the image or the \"Refer Your Friends Now!\" button and I\'m brought to this weird flash movie. The best idea: Put the instructions in the email. Second best? Don\'t waste my time with some flash interlude -- just bring me to the webpage with the actual information I need to be your spam agent.
\n4) I can\'t invite my friends via Facebook, IM, Twitter, or even a personal email.
\nNope. None of that. All I can do is fill out a form.
\n\nThe form produces an automated email which I cannot edit, the bulk of which (minus logos and legalese) is this:
\n\n\n\n\"Get 1,000 American Airlines air miles *and* be entered to win two first-class tickets anywhere around the world! http://aa.com/fakeurl\"
','Sharing Online: American Airlines Just Doesn\'t Get It',0,'','inherit','open','open','','268-revision-5','','','2010-06-06 12:55:34','2010-06-06 12:55:34','',268,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/06/268-revision-5/',0,'revision','',0),(279,1,'2010-06-06 13:22:52','2010-06-06 13:22:52','Mike Arauz, a digital media strategist, had a great observation in March 2009:\nIf I tell my Facebook friends about your brand, it\'s not because I like your brand, but rather because I like your friends.\nFriday, I received the email below from American Airlines. American should read the quote above a few hundred times, because they did basically everything wrong:\n
Nope. They\'re offering my friends 1,000 miles to sign up -- and they mention that as an aside. As one member of FlyerTalk (a forum dedicated to air miles deals) noted: \"My friendships are too valuable to me for me to try and market to them for a thousand miles. The relationships are worth a lot more than that.\" Bad play, American.
\nYou can\'t even edit the email they want you to send!\n
What should American have done?
\n1) Redo the offer to focus on the payout to my friends.
\nGive my friends a meaningful incentive to join -- a chance to win a free trip, or upgrades for life, or something really cool. AAdvantage miles are meaningless to them if they are not in the program already -- especially if they are invested in a competitor\'s program.
\nAnd American has to lead with that information. Make it obvious to me that they\'re giving me a unique opportunity to do something for my friends. This encourages sharing, which is American\'s strategy.
\nAnd of course, they should have tied it to the payout to me. How\'s this for a great offer:
\n\"Invite your friends to become an AAdvantage member -- and your friend will be entered to win two first class tickets anywhere we fly! And if they win, so do you -- we\'ll give you two first class tickets, too! And just for signing up, both you and your friend get 1,000 AAdvantage miles!\"
\nMuch better (even if inarticulately written).
\n2) Make it dead simple to share everywhere.\n\nIf I tell my Facebook friends about your brand, it\'s not because I like your brand, but rather because I like your friends.\r\nSpot on, and it applies to friends, and sharing, generally -- not just to Facebook.\r\n\r\nBut on Friday, I received the email below from American Airlines. American should read the quote above a few hundred times, because they did basically everything wrong:\r\n
Nope. They\'re offering my friends 1,000 miles to sign up -- and they mention that as an aside. As one member of FlyerTalk (a forum dedicated to air miles deals) noted: \"My friendships are too valuable to me for me to try and market to them for a thousand miles. The relationships are worth a lot more than that.\" Bad play, American.
\r\nYou can\'t even edit the email they want you to send!\r\n
What should American have done?
\r\n1) Redo the offer to focus on the payout to my friends.
\r\nGive my friends a meaningful incentive to join -- a chance to win a free trip, or upgrades for life, or something really cool. AAdvantage miles are meaningless to them if they are not in the program already -- especially if they are invested in a competitor\'s program.
\r\nAnd American has to lead with that information. Make it obvious to me that they\'re giving me a unique opportunity to do something for my friends. This encourages sharing, which is American\'s strategy.
\r\nAnd of course, they should have tied it to the payout to me. How\'s this for a great offer:
\r\n\"Invite your friends to become an AAdvantage member -- and your friend will be entered to win two first class tickets anywhere we fly! And if they win, so do you -- we\'ll give you two first class tickets, too! And just for signing up, both you and your friend get 1,000 AAdvantage miles!\"
\r\nMuch better (even if inarticulately written).
\r\n2) Make it dead simple to share everywhere.\r\n\r\nIn order to share, I have to fill out a form. The form requires that I know my friends\' email addresses, that I invite my friends one-by-one, and that they\'re going to be OK with me sending a pretty stupid* email to them which, by the way, is clearly not written by me and reads like the spam it is. \r\n\r\n* The email offers \"a dream vacation to Manhattan\" as a potential use of the miles. Given that I live in Manhattan, and a lot of my friends to do, that would be a really bad vacation for someone to suggest to me (and for me to suggest to my friend down the block). I can\'t edit the email, but to make matters worse, American knows where I live and doesn\'t do anything fix it.\r\n\r\nAnd it is way too complicated. American should be making it easy to share -- that\'s the whole point of the email!\r\n\r\nHere are a few ideas:\r\nIf I tell my Facebook friends about your brand, it\'s not because I like your brand, but rather because I like your friends.\nSpot on, and it applies to friends, and sharing, generally -- not just to Facebook.\n\nBut on Friday, I received the email below from American Airlines. American should read the quote above a few hundred times, because they did basically everything wrong:\n
Nope. They\'re offering my friends 1,000 miles to sign up -- and they mention that as an aside. As one member of FlyerTalk (a forum dedicated to air miles deals) noted: \"My friendships are too valuable to me for me to try and market to them for a thousand miles. The relationships are worth a lot more than that.\" Bad play, American.
\nYou can\'t even edit the email they want you to send!\n
What should American have done?
\n1) Redo the offer to focus on the payout to my friends.
\nGive my friends a meaningful incentive to join -- a chance to win a free trip, or upgrades for life, or something really cool. AAdvantage miles are meaningless to them if they are not in the program already -- especially if they are invested in a competitor\'s program.
\nAnd American has to lead with that information. Make it obvious to me that they\'re giving me a unique opportunity to do something for my friends. This encourages sharing, which is American\'s strategy.
\nAnd of course, they should have tied it to the payout to me. How\'s this for a great offer:
\n\"Invite your friends to become an AAdvantage member -- and your friend will be entered to win two first class tickets anywhere we fly! And if they win, so do you -- we\'ll give you two first class tickets, too! And just for signing up, both you and your friend get 1,000 AAdvantage miles!\"
\nMuch better (even if inarticulately written).
\n2) Make it dead simple to share everywhere.\n\nIf I tell my Facebook friends about your brand, it\'s not because I like your brand, but rather because I like your friends.\r\nSpot on, and it applies to friends, and sharing, generally -- not just to Facebook.\r\n\r\nBut on Friday, I received the email below from American Airlines. American should read the quote above a few hundred times, because they did basically everything wrong:\r\n
Nope. They\'re offering my friends 1,000 miles to sign up -- and they mention that as an aside. As one member of FlyerTalk (a forum dedicated to air miles deals) noted: \"My friendships are too valuable to me for me to try and market to them for a thousand miles. The relationships are worth a lot more than that.\" Bad play, American.
\r\nYou can\'t even edit the email they want you to send!\r\n
What should American have done?
\r\n1) Redo the offer to focus on the payout to my friends.
\r\nGive my friends a meaningful incentive to join -- a chance to win a free trip, or upgrades for life, or something really cool. AAdvantage miles are meaningless to them if they are not in the program already -- especially if they are invested in a competitor\'s program.
\r\nAnd American has to lead with that information. Make it obvious to me that they\'re giving me a unique opportunity to do something for my friends. This encourages sharing, which is American\'s strategy.
\r\nAnd of course, they should have tied it to the payout to me. How\'s this for a great offer:
\r\n\"Invite your friends to become an AAdvantage member -- and your friend will be entered to win two first class tickets anywhere we fly! And if they win, so do you -- we\'ll give you two first class tickets, too! And just for signing up, both you and your friend get 1,000 AAdvantage miles!\"
\r\nMuch better (even if inarticulately written).
\r\n2) Make it dead simple to share everywhere.\r\n\r\nIn order to share, I have to fill out a form. The form requires that I know my friends\' email addresses, that I invite my friends one-by-one, and that they\'re going to be OK with me sending a pretty stupid* email to them which, by the way, is clearly not written by me and reads like the spam it is. \r\n\r\n* The email offers \"a dream vacation to Manhattan\" as a potential use of the miles. Given that I live in Manhattan, and a lot of my friends to do, that would be a really bad vacation for someone to suggest to me (and for me to suggest to my friend down the block). I can\'t edit the email, but to make matters worse, American knows where I live and doesn\'t do anything fix it.\r\n\r\nAnd it is way too complicated. American should be making it easy to share -- that\'s the whole point of the email!\r\n\r\nHere are a few ideas:\r\nIf I tell my Facebook friends about your brand, it\'s not because I like your brand, but rather because I like your friends.\nSpot on, and it applies to friends, and sharing, generally -- not just to Facebook.\n\nBut on Friday, I received the email below from American Airlines. American should read the quote above a few hundred times, because they did basically everything wrong:\n
Nope. They\'re offering my friends 1,000 miles to sign up -- and they mention that as an aside. As one member of FlyerTalk (a forum dedicated to air miles deals) noted: \"My friendships are too valuable to me for me to try and market to them for a thousand miles. The relationships are worth a lot more than that.\" Bad play, American.
\nYou can\'t even edit the email they want you to send!\n
What should American have done?
\n1) Redo the offer to focus on the payout to my friends.
\nGive my friends a meaningful incentive to join -- a chance to win a free trip, or upgrades for life, or something really cool. AAdvantage miles are meaningless to them if they are not in the program already -- especially if they are invested in a competitor\'s program.
\nAnd American has to lead with that information. Make it obvious to me that they\'re giving me a unique opportunity to do something for my friends. This encourages sharing, which is American\'s strategy.
\nAnd of course, they should have tied it to the payout to me. How\'s this for a great offer:
\n\"Invite your friends to become an AAdvantage member -- and your friend will be entered to win two first class tickets anywhere we fly! And if they win, so do you -- we\'ll give you two first class tickets, too! And just for signing up, both you and your friend get 1,000 AAdvantage miles!\"
\nMuch better (even if inarticulately written).
\n2) Make it dead simple to share everywhere.\n\nIn order to share, I have to fill out a form. The form requires that I know my friends\' email addresses, that I invite my friends one-by-one, and that they\'re going to be OK with me sending a pretty stupid* email to them which, by the way, is clearly not written by me and reads like the spam it is. \n\n* The email offers \"a dream vacation to Manhattan\" as a potential use of the miles. Given that I live in Manhattan, and a lot of my friends to do, that would be a really bad vacation for someone to suggest to me (and for me to suggest to my friend down the block). I can\'t edit the email, but to make matters worse, American knows where I live and doesn\'t do anything fix it.\n\nAnd it is way too complicated. American should be making it easy to share -- that\'s the whole point of the email!\n\nHere are a few ideas:\nIf I tell my Facebook friends about your brand, it\'s not because I like your brand, but rather because I like your friends.\r\nSpot on, and it applies to friends, and sharing, generally -- not just to Facebook.\r\n\r\nBut on Friday, I received the email below from American Airlines. American should read the quote above a few hundred times, because they did basically everything wrong:\r\n
Nope. They\'re offering my friends 1,000 miles to sign up -- and they mention that as an aside. As one member of FlyerTalk (a forum dedicated to air miles deals) noted: \"My friendships are too valuable to me for me to try and market to them for a thousand miles. The relationships are worth a lot more than that.\" Bad play, American.
\r\nYou can\'t even edit the email they want you to send!\r\n
What should American have done?
\r\n1) Redo the offer to focus on the payout to my friends.
\r\nGive my friends a meaningful incentive to join -- a chance to win a free trip, or upgrades for life, or something really cool. AAdvantage miles are meaningless to them if they are not in the program already -- especially if they are invested in a competitor\'s program.
\r\nAnd American has to lead with that information. Make it obvious to me that they\'re giving me a unique opportunity to do something for my friends. This encourages sharing, which is American\'s strategy.
\r\nAnd of course, they should have tied it to the payout to me. How\'s this for a great offer:
\r\n\"Invite your friends to become an AAdvantage member -- and your friend will be entered to win two first class tickets anywhere we fly! And if they win, so do you -- we\'ll give you two first class tickets, too! And just for signing up, both you and your friend get 1,000 AAdvantage miles!\"
\r\nMuch better (even if inarticulately written).
\r\n2) Make it dead simple to share everywhere.\r\n\r\nIn order to share, I have to fill out a form. The form requires that I know my friends\' email addresses, that I invite my friends one-by-one, and that they\'re going to be OK with me sending a pretty stupid* email to them which, by the way, is clearly not written by me and reads like the spam it is. \r\n\r\n* The email offers \"a dream vacation to Manhattan\" as a potential use of the miles. Given that I live in Manhattan, and a lot of my friends to do, that would be a really bad vacation for someone to suggest to me (and for me to suggest to my friend down the block). I can\'t edit the email, but to make matters worse, American knows where I live and doesn\'t do anything fix it.\r\n\r\nAnd it is way too complicated. American should be making it easy to share -- that\'s the whole point of the email!\r\n\r\nHere are a few ideas:\r\nIf I tell my Facebook friends about your brand, it\'s not because I like your brand, but rather because I like your friends.\r\nSpot on, and it applies to friends, and sharing, generally -- not just to Facebook.\r\n\r\nBut on Friday, I received the email below from American Airlines. American should read the quote above a few hundred times, because they did basically everything wrong:\r\n
Nope. They\'re offering my friends 1,000 miles to sign up -- and they mention that as an aside. As one member of FlyerTalk (a forum dedicated to air miles deals) noted: \"My friendships are too valuable to me for me to try and market to them for a thousand miles. The relationships are worth a lot more than that.\" Bad play, American.
\r\nYou can\'t even edit the email they want you to send!\r\n
What should American have done?
\r\n1) Redo the offer to focus on the payout to my friends.
\r\nGive my friends a meaningful incentive to join -- a chance to win a free trip, or upgrades for life, or something really cool. AAdvantage miles are meaningless to them if they are not in the program already -- especially if they are invested in a competitor\'s program.
\r\nAnd American has to lead with that information. Make it obvious to me that they\'re giving me a unique opportunity to do something for my friends. This encourages sharing, which is American\'s strategy.
\r\nAnd of course, they should have tied it to the payout to me. How\'s this for a great offer:
\r\n\"Invite your friends to become an AAdvantage member -- and your friend will be entered to win two first class tickets anywhere we fly! And if they win, so do you -- we\'ll give you two first class tickets, too! And just for signing up, both you and your friend get 1,000 AAdvantage miles!\"
\r\nMuch better (even if inarticulately written).
\r\n2) Make it dead simple to share everywhere.\r\n\r\nIn order to share, I have to fill out a form. The form requires that I know my friends\' email addresses, that I invite my friends one-by-one, and that they\'re going to be OK with me sending a pretty stupid* email to them which, by the way, is clearly not written by me and reads like the spam it is. \r\n\r\n* The email offers \"a dream vacation to Manhattan\" as a potential use of the miles. Given that I live in Manhattan, and a lot of my friends to do, that would be a really bad vacation for someone to suggest to me (and for me to suggest to my friend down the block). I can\'t edit the email, but to make matters worse, American knows where I live and doesn\'t do anything fix it.\r\n\r\nAnd it is way too complicated. American should be making it easy to share -- that\'s the whole point of the email!\r\n\r\nHere are a few ideas:\r\nIf I tell my Facebook friends about your brand, it\'s not because I like your brand, but rather because I like your friends.\nSpot on, and it applies to friends, and sharing, generally -- not just to Facebook.\n\nBut on Friday, I received the email below from American Airlines.\n
Nope. They\'re offering my friends 1,000 miles to sign up -- and they mention that as an aside. As one member of FlyerTalk (a forum dedicated to air miles deals) noted: \"My friendships are too valuable to me for me to try and market to them for a thousand miles. The relationships are worth a lot more than that.\" Bad play, American.
\nThen, there\'s the email. You fill out the form and it generates an email, automatically, and sends it to your friend(s). I grabbed the \"preview\" text, below.
\n
What should American have done?
\n1) Redo the offer to focus on the payout to my friends.
\nGive my friends a meaningful incentive to join -- a chance to win a free trip, or upgrades for life, or something really cool. AAdvantage miles are meaningless to them if they are not in the program already -- especially if they are invested in a competitor\'s program.
\nAnd American has to lead with that information. Make it obvious to me that they\'re giving me a unique opportunity to do something for my friends. This encourages sharing, which is American\'s strategy.
\nAnd of course, they should have tied it to the payout to me. How\'s this for a great offer:
\n\"Invite your friends to become an AAdvantage member -- and your friend will be entered to win two first class tickets anywhere we fly! And if they win, so do you -- we\'ll give you two first class tickets, too! And just for signing up, both you and your friend get 1,000 AAdvantage miles!\"
\nMuch better (even if inarticulately written).
\n2) Make it dead simple to share everywhere.\n\nIn order to share, I have to fill out a form. The form requires that I know my friends\' email addresses, that I invite my friends one-by-one, and that they\'re going to be OK with me sending a pretty stupid email to them which, by the way, is clearly not written by me and reads like the spam it is.\n\nAnd it is way too complicated. American should be making it easy to share -- that\'s the whole point of the email!\n\nHere are a few ideas:\nIf I tell my Facebook friends about your brand, it\'s not because I like your brand, but rather because I like your friends.\r\nSpot on, and it applies to friends, and sharing, generally -- not just to Facebook.\r\n\r\nBut on Friday, I received the email below from American Airlines.\r\n
Nope. They\'re offering my friends 1,000 miles to sign up -- and they mention that as an aside. As one member of FlyerTalk (a forum dedicated to air miles deals) noted: \"My friendships are too valuable to me for me to try and market to them for a thousand miles. The relationships are worth a lot more than that.\" Bad play, American.
\r\nThen, there\'s the email. You fill out the form and it generates an email, automatically, and sends it to your friend(s). I grabbed the \"preview\" text, below.
\r\n
What should American have done?
\r\n1) Redo the offer to focus on the payout to my friends.
\r\nGive my friends a meaningful incentive to join -- a chance to win a free trip, or upgrades for life, or something really cool. AAdvantage miles are meaningless to them if they are not in the program already -- especially if they are invested in a competitor\'s program.
\r\nAnd American has to lead with that information. Make it obvious to me that they\'re giving me a unique opportunity to do something for my friends. This encourages sharing, which is American\'s strategy.
\r\nAnd of course, they should have tied it to the payout to me. How\'s this for a great offer:
\r\n\"Invite your friends to become an AAdvantage member -- and your friend will be entered to win two first class tickets anywhere we fly! And if they win, so do you -- we\'ll give you two first class tickets, too! And just for signing up, both you and your friend get 1,000 AAdvantage miles!\"
\r\nMuch better (even if inarticulately written).
\r\n2) Make it dead simple to share everywhere.\r\n\r\nIn order to share, I have to fill out a form. The form requires that I know my friends\' email addresses, that I invite my friends one-by-one, and that they\'re going to be OK with me sending a pretty stupid email to them which, by the way, is clearly not written by me and reads like the spam it is.\r\n\r\nAnd it is way too complicated. American should be making it easy to share -- that\'s the whole point of the email!\r\n\r\nHere are a few ideas:\r\nIf I tell my Facebook friends about your brand, it\'s not because I like your brand, but rather because I like your friends.\nSpot on, and it applies to friends, and sharing, generally -- not just to Facebook.\n\nBut on Friday, I received the email below from American Airlines.\n
Nope. They\'re offering my friends 1,000 miles to sign up -- and they mention that as an aside. As one member of FlyerTalk (a forum dedicated to air miles deals) noted: \"My friendships are too valuable to me for me to try and market to them for a thousand miles. The relationships are worth a lot more than that.\" Bad play, American.
\nThen, there\'s the email. You fill out the form and it generates an email, automatically, and sends it to your friend(s). I grabbed the \"preview\" text, below.
\n
What should American have done?
\n1) Redo the offer to focus on the payout to my friends.
\nGive my friends a meaningful incentive to join -- a chance to win a free trip, or upgrades for life, or something really cool. AAdvantage miles are meaningless to them if they are not in the program already -- especially if they are invested in a competitor\'s program.
\nAnd American has to lead with that information. Make it obvious to me that they\'re giving me a unique opportunity to do something for my friends. This encourages sharing, which is American\'s strategy.
\nAnd of course, they should have tied it to the payout to me. How\'s this for a great offer:
\n\"Invite your friends to become an AAdvantage member -- and your friend will be entered to win two first class tickets anywhere we fly! And if they win, so do you -- we\'ll give you two first class tickets, too! And just for signing up, both you and your friend get 1,000 AAdvantage miles!\"
\nMuch better (even if inarticulately written).
\n2) Make it dead simple to share everywhere.\n\nIn order to share, I have to fill out a form. The form requires that I know my friends\' email addresses, that I invite my friends one-by-one, and that they\'re going to be OK with me sending a pretty stupid email to them which, by the way, is clearly not written by me and reads like the spam it is.\n\nAnd it is way too complicated. American should be making it easy to share -- that\'s the whole point of the email!\n\nHere are a few ideas:\nIf I tell my Facebook friends about your brand, it\'s not because I like your brand, but rather because I like your friends.\r\nSpot on, and it applies to friends, and sharing, generally -- not just to Facebook.\r\n\r\nBut on Friday, I received the email below from American Airlines.\r\n
Nope. They\'re offering my friends 1,000 miles to sign up -- and they mention that as an aside. As one member of FlyerTalk (a forum dedicated to air miles deals) noted: \"My friendships are too valuable to me for me to try and market to them for a thousand miles. The relationships are worth a lot more than that.\" Bad play, American.
\r\nThen, there\'s the email. You fill out the form and it generates an email, automatically, and sends it to your friend(s). I grabbed the \"preview\" text, below.
\r\n
What should American have done?
\r\n1) Redo the offer to focus on the payout to my friends.
\r\nGive my friends a meaningful incentive to join -- a chance to win a free trip, or upgrades for life, or something really cool. AAdvantage miles are meaningless to them if they are not in the program already -- especially if they are invested in a competitor\'s program.
\r\nAnd American has to lead with that information. Make it obvious to me that they\'re giving me a unique opportunity to do something for my friends. This encourages sharing, which is American\'s strategy.
\r\nAnd of course, they should have tied it to the payout to me. How\'s this for a great offer:
\r\n\"Invite your friends to become an AAdvantage member -- and your friend will be entered to win two first class tickets anywhere we fly! And if they win, so do you -- we\'ll give you two first class tickets, too! And just for signing up, both you and your friend get 1,000 AAdvantage miles!\"
\r\nMuch better (even if inarticulately written).
\r\n2) Make it dead simple to share everywhere.\r\n\r\nIn order to share, I have to fill out a form. The form requires that I know my friends\' email addresses, that I invite my friends one-by-one, and that they\'re going to be OK with me sending a pretty stupid email to them which, by the way, is clearly not written by me and reads like the spam it is.\r\n\r\nAnd it is way too complicated. American should be making it easy to share -- that\'s the whole point of the email!\r\n\r\nHere are a few ideas:\r\nIf I tell my Facebook friends about your brand, it\'s not because I like your brand, but rather because I like your friends.\nSpot on, and it applies to friends, and sharing, generally -- not just to Facebook.\n\nBut on Friday, I received the email below from American Airlines.\n
Nope. They\'re offering my friends 1,000 miles to sign up -- and they mention that as an aside. As one member of FlyerTalk (a forum dedicated to air miles deals) noted: \"My friendships are too valuable to me for me to try and market to them for a thousand miles. The relationships are worth a lot more than that.\" Bad play, American.
\nThen, there\'s the email. You fill out the form and it generates an email, automatically, and sends it to your friend(s). I grabbed the \"preview\" text, below.
\n
What should American have done?
\n1) Redo the offer to focus on the payout to my friends.
\nGive my friends a meaningful incentive to join -- a chance to win a free trip, or upgrades for life, or something really cool. AAdvantage miles are meaningless to them if they are not in the program already -- especially if they are invested in a competitor\'s program.
\nAnd American has to lead with that information. Make it obvious to me that they\'re giving me a unique opportunity to do something for my friends. This encourages sharing, which is American\'s strategy.
\nAnd of course, they should have tied it to the payout to me. How\'s this for a great offer:
\n\"Invite your friends to become an AAdvantage member -- and your friend will be entered to win two first class tickets anywhere we fly! And if they win, so do you -- we\'ll give you two first class tickets, too! And just for signing up, both you and your friend get 1,000 AAdvantage miles!\"
\nMuch better (even if inarticulately written).
\n2) Make it dead simple to share everywhere.\n\nIn order to share, I have to fill out a form. The form requires that I know my friends\' email addresses, that I invite my friends one-by-one, and that they\'re going to be OK with me sending a pretty stupid email to them which, by the way, is clearly not written by me and reads like the spam it is.\n\nAnd it is way too complicated. American should be making it easy to share -- that\'s the whole point of the email!\n\nHere are a few ideas:\nIf I tell my Facebook friends about your brand, it\'s not because I like your brand, but rather because I like your friends.\r\nSpot on, and it applies to friends, and sharing, generally -- not just to Facebook.\r\n\r\nBut on Friday, I received the email below from American Airlines.\r\n
Nope. They\'re offering my friends 1,000 miles to sign up -- and they mention that as an aside. As one member of FlyerTalk (a forum dedicated to air miles deals) noted: \"My friendships are too valuable to me for me to try and market to them for a thousand miles. The relationships are worth a lot more than that.\" Bad play, American.
\r\nThen, there\'s the email. You fill out the form and it generates an email, automatically, and sends it to your friend(s). I grabbed the \"preview\" text, below.
\r\n
What should American have done?
\r\n1) Redo the offer to focus on the payout to my friends.
\r\nGive my friends a meaningful incentive to join -- a chance to win a free trip, or upgrades for life, or something really cool. AAdvantage miles are meaningless to them if they are not in the program already -- especially if they are invested in a competitor\'s program.
\r\nAnd American has to lead with that information. Make it obvious to me that they\'re giving me a unique opportunity to do something for my friends. This encourages sharing, which is American\'s strategy.
\r\nAnd of course, they should have tied it to the payout to me. How\'s this for a great offer:
\r\n\"Invite your friends to become an AAdvantage member -- and your friend will be entered to win two first class tickets anywhere we fly! And if they win, so do you -- we\'ll give you two first class tickets, too! And just for signing up, both you and your friend get 1,000 AAdvantage miles!\"
\r\nMuch better (even if inarticulately written).
\r\n2) Make it dead simple to share everywhere.\r\n\r\nIn order to share, I have to fill out a form. The form requires that I know my friends\' email addresses, that I invite my friends one-by-one, and that they\'re going to be OK with me sending a pretty stupid email to them which, by the way, is clearly not written by me and reads like the spam it is.\r\n\r\nAnd it is way too complicated. American should be making it easy to share -- that\'s the whole point of the email!\r\n\r\nHere are a few ideas:\r\nIf I tell my Facebook friends about your brand, it\'s not because I like your brand, but rather because I like your friends.\r\nSpot on, and it applies to friends, and sharing, generally -- not just to Facebook.\r\n\r\nBut on Friday, I received the email below from American Airlines.\r\n
Nope. They\'re offering my friends 1,000 miles to sign up -- and they mention that as an aside. As one member of FlyerTalk (a forum dedicated to air miles deals) noted: \"My friendships are too valuable to me for me to try and market to them for a thousand miles. The relationships are worth a lot more than that.\" Bad play, American.
\r\nThen, there\'s the email. You fill out the form and it generates an email, automatically, and sends it to your friend(s). I grabbed the \"preview\" text, below.
\r\n
What should American have done?
\r\n1) Redo the offer to focus on the payout to my friends.
\r\nGive my friends a meaningful incentive to join -- a chance to win a free trip, or upgrades for life, or something really cool. AAdvantage miles are meaningless to them if they are not in the program already -- especially if they are invested in a competitor\'s program.
\r\nAnd American has to lead with that information. Make it obvious to me that they\'re giving me a unique opportunity to do something for my friends. This encourages sharing, which is American\'s strategy.
\r\nAnd of course, they should have tied it to the payout to me. How\'s this for a great offer:
\r\n\"Invite your friends to become an AAdvantage member -- and your friend will be entered to win two first class tickets anywhere we fly! And if they win, so do you -- we\'ll give you two first class tickets, too! And just for signing up, both you and your friend get 1,000 AAdvantage miles!\"
\r\nMuch better (even if inarticulately written).
\r\n2) Make it dead simple to share everywhere.\r\n\r\nIn order to share, I have to fill out a form. The form requires that I know my friends\' email addresses, that I invite my friends one-by-one, and that they\'re going to be OK with me sending a pretty stupid email to them which, by the way, is clearly not written by me and reads like the spam it is.\r\n\r\nAnd it is way too complicated. American should be making it easy to share -- that\'s the whole point of the email!\r\n\r\nHere are a few ideas:\r\nIf I tell my Facebook friends about your brand, it\'s not because I like your brand, but rather because I like your friends.\nSpot on, and it applies to friends, and sharing, generally -- not just to Facebook.\n\nBut on Friday, I received the email below from American Airlines.\n\n
\n\nAmerican should read the Mike Arauz quote above a few hundred times, because they did basically everything wrong. Why is American Airlines explicitly asking me to spam my friends? And why do they think I\'d sell my friends for a handful of air miles?\n\nI clicked through, thinking that maybe I misunderstood. Maybe they were offering my friends 10,000 air miles, and wanted me to make the introduction, so to speak.\n\nClicking the banner leads me to a Flash movie (??) and then, finally, this form:\n
Nope. They\'re offering my friends 1,000 miles to sign up -- and they mention that as an aside. As one member of FlyerTalk (a forum dedicated to air miles deals) noted: \"My friendships are too valuable to me for me to try and market to them for a thousand miles. The relationships are worth a lot more than that.\" Bad play, American.
\nThen, there\'s the email. You fill out the form and it generates an email, automatically, and sends it to your friend(s). I grabbed the \"preview\" text, below.
\n
What should American have done?
\n1) Redo the offer to focus on the payout to my friends.
\nGive my friends a meaningful incentive to join -- a chance to win a free trip, or upgrades for life, or something really cool. AAdvantage miles are meaningless to them if they are not in the program already -- especially if they are invested in a competitor\'s program.
\nAnd American has to lead with that information. Make it obvious to me that they\'re giving me a unique opportunity to do something for my friends. This encourages sharing, which is American\'s strategy.
\nAnd of course, they should have tied it to the payout to me. How\'s this for a great offer:
\n\"Invite your friends to become an AAdvantage member -- and your friend will be entered to win two first class tickets anywhere we fly! And if they win, so do you -- we\'ll give you two first class tickets, too! And just for signing up, both you and your friend get 1,000 AAdvantage miles!\"
\nMuch better (even if inarticulately written).
\n2) Make it dead simple to share everywhere.\n\nIn order to share, I have to fill out a form. The form requires that I know my friends\' email addresses, that I invite my friends one-by-one, and that they\'re going to be OK with me sending a pretty stupid email to them which, by the way, is clearly not written by me and reads like the spam it is.\n\nAnd it is way too complicated. American should be making it easy to share -- that\'s the whole point of the email!\n\nHere are a few ideas:\n![\"\"](\"http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/babc.jpg\" "\\"beard")
\r\n* * *
\r\n2) The Brand Alphabet, by In Picture Design\r\n\r\nMost of these are familiar, but I confess -- I can\'t actually identify all 26 brands.\r\n\r\n![\"\"](\"http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/brand-alphabet.gif\" "\\"brand")
\r\n* * *
\r\n3) Fire in the Hole, by Oliver Munday\r\n\r\nTruth be told, I\'d rather that this didn\'t include parts of toy soldiers -- but then I remember, they\'re plastic, not real.\r\n\r\n![\"\"](\"http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/toy-soldiers-abc-alphabet-789x1024.jpg\" "\\"toy")
\r\n* * *
\r\n4) Not-Quite-Sign Language Alphabet, author unknown, via A Public Flogging\r\n\r\nI\'ve always been a fan of turning the black space around objects into the focal point of a piece, so this one fits nicely. Blur your vision if you can\'t see the ABCs immediately.\r\n\r\n![\"\"](\"http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/hand-abcs-alphabet.jpg\" "\\"hand")
\r\n* * *
\r\n5) The Alphabet Sky, author unknown, via Ajsha\'s Blog\r\n\r\nThere are a few neat ones over there, but this one is the best of the bunch. It looks up toward the tops of buildings to see the shapes -- letters -- formed by sky peeking in. Brilliant.\r\n\r\n![\"\"](\"http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/alphabet-sky.jpg\" "\\"alphabet-sky\\"")
','Five Neat Visualizations of the Alphabet',0,'','publish','open','open','','five-neat-visualizations-of-the-alphabet','','http://aysesoysal.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/creative-ways-of-writing-alphabet/alphabet-sky/\nhttp://aysesoysal.wordpress.com/2009/11/04/creative-ways-of-writing-alphabet/','2010-06-08 04:20:45','2010-06-08 04:20:45','',0,'http://dlewis.net/?p=297',0,'post','',0),(295,1,'2010-06-07 15:53:15','2010-06-07 15:53:15','','aadl1',0,'','inherit','open','open','','aadl1','','','2010-06-07 15:53:15','2010-06-07 15:53:15','',268,'http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/aadl1.png',0,'attachment','image/png',0),(296,1,'2010-06-07 11:05:45','2010-06-07 11:05:45','Mike Arauz, a digital media strategist, had a great observation in March of 2009:\r\nIf I tell my Facebook friends about your brand, it\'s not because I like your brand, but rather because I like your friends.\r\nSpot on, and it applies to friends, and sharing, generally -- not just to Facebook.\r\n\r\nBut on Friday, I received the email below from American Airlines.\r\n
Nope. They\'re offering my friends 1,000 miles to sign up -- and they mention that as an aside. As one member of FlyerTalk (a forum dedicated to air miles deals) noted: \"My friendships are too valuable to me for me to try and market to them for a thousand miles. The relationships are worth a lot more than that.\" Bad play, American.
\r\nThen, there\'s the email. You fill out the form and it generates an email, automatically, and sends it to your friend(s). I grabbed the \"preview\" text, below.
\r\n
What should American have done?
\r\n1) Redo the offer to focus on the payout to my friends.
\r\nGive my friends a meaningful incentive to join -- a chance to win a free trip, or upgrades for life, or something really cool. AAdvantage miles are meaningless to them if they are not in the program already -- especially if they are invested in a competitor\'s program.
\r\nAnd American has to lead with that information. Make it obvious to me that they\'re giving me a unique opportunity to do something for my friends. This encourages sharing, which is American\'s strategy.
\r\nAnd of course, they should have tied it to the payout to me. How\'s this for a great offer:
\r\n\"Invite your friends to become an AAdvantage member -- and your friend will be entered to win two first class tickets anywhere we fly! And if they win, so do you -- we\'ll give you two first class tickets, too! And just for signing up, both you and your friend get 1,000 AAdvantage miles!\"
\r\nMuch better (even if inarticulately written).
\r\n2) Make it dead simple to share everywhere.\r\n\r\nIn order to share, I have to fill out a form. The form requires that I know my friends\' email addresses, that I invite my friends one-by-one, and that they\'re going to be OK with me sending a pretty stupid email to them which, by the way, is clearly not written by me and reads like the spam it is.\r\n\r\nAnd it is way too complicated. American should be making it easy to share -- that\'s the whole point of the email!\r\n\r\nHere are a few ideas:\r\n\n\n2) The Brand Alphabet, by In Picture Design\n\nMost of these are familiar, but I confess -- I can\'t actually identify all 26 brands.\n\n\n\n3) Fire in the Hole, by Oliver Munday\n\nTruth be told','Ten Neat Visualizations of the Alphabet',0,'','inherit','open','open','','297-revision','','','2010-06-08 03:49:27','2010-06-08 03:49:27','',297,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/08/297-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(302,1,'2010-06-08 03:55:28','2010-06-08 03:55:28','','hand abcs alphabet',0,'','inherit','open','open','','hand-abcs-alphabet','','','2010-06-08 03:55:28','2010-06-08 03:55:28','',297,'http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/hand-abcs-alphabet.jpg',0,'attachment','image/jpeg',0),(303,1,'2010-06-08 04:00:31','2010-06-08 04:00:31','','alphabet-sky',0,'','inherit','open','open','','alphabet-sky','','','2010-06-08 04:00:31','2010-06-08 04:00:31','',297,'http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/alphabet-sky.jpg',0,'attachment','image/jpeg',0),(304,1,'2010-06-08 04:02:59','2010-06-08 04:02:59','Chalk this post up to occupational hazard: working for Sesame Street, I am naturally exposed to the ABCs on a regular basis.\n\n1) Beard ABC, by Tim Yarzhombeck\n\nI think most of these are somewhat plausible facial hair configurations, although the Z look is over the top.\n\n\n\n2) The Brand Alphabet, by In Picture Design\n\nMost of these are familiar, but I confess -- I can\'t actually identify all 26 brands.\n\n\n\n3) Fire in the Hole, by Oliver Munday\n\nTruth be told, I\'d rather that this didn\'t include parts of toy soldiers -- but then I remember, they\'re plastic, not real.\n\n\n\n4) Not-Quite-Sign Language Alphabet, author unknown, via A Public Flogging\n\nI\'ve always been a fan of turning the black space around objects into the focal point of a piece, so this one fits nicely. Blur your vision if you can\'t see the ABCs immediately.\n\n\n\n5) The Alphabet Sky, author unknown, via Ajsha\'s Blog\n\nThere are a few neat ones over there, but this one is the best of the bunch. It looks up toward the tops of buildings to see the\n\n','Five Neat Visualizations of the Alphabet',0,'Chalk this post up to occupational hazard: working for Sesame Street, I am naturally exposed to the ABCs on a regular basis.\n\nThis post is really long because it has a lot of big images, so click through to read it. (Sorry. But it\'s worth it!)','inherit','open','open','','297-revision-2','','','2010-06-08 04:02:59','2010-06-08 04:02:59','',297,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/08/297-revision-2/',0,'revision','',0),(305,1,'2010-06-08 04:04:22','2010-06-08 04:04:22','Chalk this post up to occupational hazard: working for Sesame Street, I am naturally exposed to the ABCs on a regular basis.\n\n1) Beard ABC, by Tim Yarzhombeck\n\nI think most of these are somewhat plausible facial hair configurations, although the Z look is over the top.\n\n\n\n2) The Brand Alphabet, by In Picture Design\n\nMost of these are familiar, but I confess -- I can\'t actually identify all 26 brands.\n\n\n\n3) Fire in the Hole, by Oliver Munday\n\nTruth be told, I\'d rather that this didn\'t include parts of toy soldiers -- but then I remember, they\'re plastic, not real.\n\n\n\n4) Not-Quite-Sign Language Alphabet, author unknown, via A Public Flogging\n\nI\'ve always been a fan of turning the black space around objects into the focal point of a piece, so this one fits nicely. Blur your vision if you can\'t see the ABCs immediately.\n\n\n\n5) The Alphabet Sky, author unknown, via Ajsha\'s Blog\n\nThere are a few neat ones over there, but this one is the best of the bunch. It looks up toward the tops of buildings to see the shapes -- letters -- formed by sky peeking in. Brilliant.\n\n','Five Neat Visualizations of the Alphabet',0,'','inherit','open','open','','297-revision-3','','','2010-06-08 04:04:22','2010-06-08 04:04:22','',297,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/08/297-revision-3/',0,'revision','',0),(306,1,'2010-06-08 04:05:11','2010-06-08 04:05:11','Chalk this post up to occupational hazard: working for Sesame Street, I am naturally exposed to the ABCs on a regular basis.\r\n\r\n1) Beard ABC, by Tim Yarzhombeck\r\n\r\nI think most of these are somewhat plausible facial hair configurations, although the Z look is over the top.\r\n\r\n\r\n* * *
\r\n2) The Brand Alphabet, by In Picture Design\r\n\r\nMost of these are familiar, but I confess -- I can\'t actually identify all 26 brands.\r\n\r\n\r\n* * *
\r\n3) Fire in the Hole, by Oliver Munday\r\n\r\nTruth be told, I\'d rather that this didn\'t include parts of toy soldiers -- but then I remember, they\'re plastic, not real.\r\n\r\n\r\n* * *
\r\n4) Not-Quite-Sign Language Alphabet, author unknown, via A Public Flogging\r\n\r\nI\'ve always been a fan of turning the black space around objects into the focal point of a piece, so this one fits nicely. Blur your vision if you can\'t see the ABCs immediately.\r\n\r\n\r\n* * *
\r\n5) The Alphabet Sky, author unknown, via Ajsha\'s Blog\r\n\r\nThere are a few neat ones over there, but this one is the best of the bunch. It looks up toward the tops of buildings to see the shapes -- letters -- formed by sky peeking in. Brilliant.\r\n\r\n','Five Neat Visualizations of the Alphabet',0,'','inherit','open','open','','297-revision-4','','','2010-06-08 04:05:11','2010-06-08 04:05:11','',297,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/08/297-revision-4/',0,'revision','',0),(307,1,'2010-06-08 04:08:28','2010-06-08 04:08:28','Chalk this post up to occupational hazard: working for Sesame Street, I am naturally exposed to the ABCs on a regular basis.\r\n\r\n1) Beard ABC, by Tim Yarzhombeck\r\n\r\nI think most of these are somewhat plausible facial hair configurations, although the Z look is over the top.\r\n\r\n\r\n* * *
\r\n2) The Brand Alphabet, by In Picture Design\r\n\r\nMost of these are familiar, but I confess -- I can\'t actually identify all 26 brands.\r\n\r\n\r\n* * *
\r\n3) Fire in the Hole, by Oliver Munday\r\n\r\nTruth be told, I\'d rather that this didn\'t include parts of toy soldiers -- but then I remember, they\'re plastic, not real.\r\n\r\n\r\n* * *
\r\n4) Not-Quite-Sign Language Alphabet, author unknown, via A Public Flogging\r\n\r\nI\'ve always been a fan of turning the black space around objects into the focal point of a piece, so this one fits nicely. Blur your vision if you can\'t see the ABCs immediately.\r\n\r\n\r\n* * *
\r\n5) The Alphabet Sky, author unknown, via Ajsha\'s Blog\r\n\r\nThere are a few neat ones over there, but this one is the best of the bunch. It looks up toward the tops of buildings to see the shapes -- letters -- formed by sky peeking in. Brilliant.\r\n\r\n','Five Neat Visualizations of the Alphabet',0,'','inherit','open','open','','297-revision-5','','','2010-06-08 04:08:28','2010-06-08 04:08:28','',297,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/08/297-revision-5/',0,'revision','',0),(308,1,'2010-06-08 04:21:56','2010-06-08 04:21:56','Chalk this post up to occupational hazard: working for Sesame Street, I am naturally exposed to the ABCs on a regular basis. Later this week, I\'ll be putting up a collection of great ABC Song videos, so please subscribe to my RSS feed if you want to be notified when that\'s up.\n\n1) Beard ABC, by Tim Yarzhombeck\n\nI think most of these are somewhat plausible facial hair configurations, although the Z look is over the top.\n\n\n* * *
\n2) The Brand Alphabet, by In Picture Design\n\nMost of these are familiar, but I confess -- I can\'t actually identify all 26 brands.\n\n\n* * *
\n3) Fire in the Hole, by Oliver Munday\n\nTruth be told, I\'d rather that this didn\'t include parts of toy soldiers -- but then I remember, they\'re plastic, not real.\n\n\n* * *
\n4) Not-Quite-Sign Language Alphabet, author unknown, via A Public Flogging\n\nI\'ve always been a fan of turning the black space around objects into the focal point of a piece, so this one fits nicely. Blur your vision if you can\'t see the ABCs immediately.\n\n\n* * *
\n5) The Alphabet Sky, author unknown, via Ajsha\'s Blog\n\nThere are a few neat ones over there, but this one is the best of the bunch. It looks up toward the tops of buildings to see the shapes -- letters -- formed by sky peeking in. Brilliant.\n\n','Five Neat Visualizations of the Alphabet',0,'','inherit','open','open','','297-autosave','','','2010-06-08 04:21:56','2010-06-08 04:21:56','',297,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/08/297-autosave/',0,'revision','',0),(309,1,'2010-06-08 04:08:56','2010-06-08 04:08:56','Chalk this post up to occupational hazard: working for Sesame Street, I am naturally exposed to the ABCs on a regular basis.\r\n\r\n1) Beard ABC, by Tim Yarzhombeck\r\n\r\nI think most of these are somewhat plausible facial hair configurations, although the Z look is over the top.\r\n\r\n\r\n* * *
\r\n2) The Brand Alphabet, by In Picture Design\r\n\r\nMost of these are familiar, but I confess -- I can\'t actually identify all 26 brands.\r\n\r\n\r\n* * *
\r\n3) Fire in the Hole, by Oliver Munday\r\n\r\nTruth be told, I\'d rather that this didn\'t include parts of toy soldiers -- but then I remember, they\'re plastic, not real.\r\n\r\n\r\n* * *
\r\n4) Not-Quite-Sign Language Alphabet, author unknown, via A Public Flogging\r\n\r\nI\'ve always been a fan of turning the black space around objects into the focal point of a piece, so this one fits nicely. Blur your vision if you can\'t see the ABCs immediately.\r\n\r\n\r\n* * *
\r\n5) The Alphabet Sky, author unknown, via Ajsha\'s Blog\r\n\r\nThere are a few neat ones over there, but this one is the best of the bunch. It looks up toward the tops of buildings to see the shapes -- letters -- formed by sky peeking in. Brilliant.\r\n\r\n','Five Neat Visualizations of the Alphabet',0,'','inherit','open','open','','297-revision-6','','','2010-06-08 04:08:56','2010-06-08 04:08:56','',297,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/08/297-revision-6/',0,'revision','',0),(310,1,'2010-06-09 02:01:59','2010-06-09 02:01:59','1) SuperSimpleSongs: Letter Magnets\r\n\r\nWith almost 30 million YouTube views in just over three years, I am definitely not alone in liking this one! It\'s simple and elegant. I really like how they turn \"now\" into \"know\" at the end.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n2) Sesame Street: James Earl Jones\r\n\r\nThere\'s a back story here. It\'s going to be hard for an adult to get through it -- it\'s incredibly slow -- but that\'s part of the point. Muppet Wiki sums it up:\r\nThe first time a child sees the performance, he responds to the invitation to say the alphabet along with the actor. Upon later viewings, the children would name the letter as soon as it appeared, but before it was named by Jones. Further repetition encouraged children to shout out the letter even before it appears. The \"James Earl Jones effect\" thus demonstrated to Sesame Street\'s producers and curriculum advisors the value of both repetition and anticipation, and supplied proof that Sesame Street could promote interactive learning as opposed to merely passive viewing.\r\n\r\n\r\n3) Captain Jean-Luc Picard... Really.\r\n\r\nSadly, he calls \"Z\" \"zed\", which is something James Tiberius Kirk would never do. Never.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n4) Sesame Street, Tilly and the Wall\r\n\r\nI admit that I had never heard of Tilly and the Wall before seeing this clip. It\'s fun, unique, and engaging -- and the second of three Sesame videos. (I\'m biased, I know.)\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n5) Sesame Street: Hip Hop ABC\r\n\r\nShow this to any pre-schooler and watch. It\'s addictive. But on a personal level, I really like this one because if you focus on the Sesame Street Muppets, you\'ll see that their individual personalities can come out even when singing the same song. Especially Grover and Elmo.\r\n\r\n','Five Great ABC Videos, Featuring Jean Luc Picard and Darth Vader',0,'','publish','open','open','','five-great-abc-videos-featuring-jean-luc-picard-and-darth-vader','','','2010-06-09 02:01:59','2010-06-09 02:01:59','',0,'http://dlewis.net/?p=310',0,'post','',0),(311,1,'2010-06-08 14:12:34','2010-06-08 14:12:34','1) SuperSimpleSongs: Letter Magnets\n\nWith almost 30 million YouTube views in just over three years, I am definitely not alone in liking this one! It\'s simple and elegant. I really like how they turn \"now\" into \"know\" at the end.\n\n\n\n3) Captain Jean-Luc Picard... Really.\n\nSadly, he calls \"Z\" \"zed\", which is something James Tiberius Kirk would never do. Never.\n\n\n\n4) Sesame Street, Tilly and the Wall\n\n\n\n\n','',0,'','inherit','open','open','','310-revision','','','2010-06-08 14:12:34','2010-06-08 14:12:34','',310,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/08/310-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(312,1,'2010-06-09 01:56:23','2010-06-09 01:56:23','1) SuperSimpleSongs: Letter Magnets\n\nWith almost 30 million YouTube views in just over three years, I am definitely not alone in liking this one! It\'s simple and elegant. I really like how they turn \"now\" into \"know\" at the end.\n\n\n\n2) Sesame Street: James Earl Jones\n\nThere\'s a back story here. It\'s going to be hard for an adult to get through it -- it\'s incredibly slow -- but that\'s part of the point. Muppet Wiki sums it up:\n
The first time a child sees the performance, he responds to the invitation to say the alphabet along with the actor. Upon later viewings, the children would name the letter as soon as it appeared, but before it was named by Jones. Further repetition encouraged children to shout out the letter even before it appears. The \"James Earl Jones effect\" thus demonstrated to Sesame Street\'s producers and curriculum advisors the value of both repetition and anticipation, and supplied proof that Sesame Street could promote interactive learning as opposed to merely passive viewing.\n\n\n3) Captain Jean-Luc Picard... Really.\n\nSadly, he calls \"Z\" \"zed\", which is something James Tiberius Kirk would never do. Never.\n\n\n\n4) Sesame Street, Tilly and the Wall\n\nI admit that I had never heard of Tilly and the Wall before seeing this clip. It\'s fun, unique, and engaging.\n\n\n\n5) Sesame Street: Hip Hop ABC\n\nShow this to any pre-schooler and watch. It\'s addictive. But on a personal level, I really like this one because if you focus on the Sesame Street Muppets, you\'ll see that their individual personalities can come out even when singing the same song. Especially Grover and Elmo.\n\n','',0,'','inherit','open','open','','310-revision-2','','','2010-06-09 01:56:23','2010-06-09 01:56:23','',310,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/09/310-revision-2/',0,'revision','',0),(313,1,'2010-06-09 02:01:11','2010-06-09 02:01:11','1) SuperSimpleSongs: Letter Magnets\n\nWith almost 30 million YouTube views in just over three years, I am definitely not alone in liking this one! It\'s simple and elegant. I really like how they turn \"now\" into \"know\" at the end.\n\n\n\n2) Sesame Street: James Earl Jones\n\nThere\'s a back story here. It\'s going to be hard for an adult to get through it -- it\'s incredibly slow -- but that\'s part of the point. Muppet Wiki sums it up:\n
The first time a child sees the performance, he responds to the invitation to say the alphabet along with the actor. Upon later viewings, the children would name the letter as soon as it appeared, but before it was named by Jones. Further repetition encouraged children to shout out the letter even before it appears. The \"James Earl Jones effect\" thus demonstrated to Sesame Street\'s producers and curriculum advisors the value of both repetition and anticipation, and supplied proof that Sesame Street could promote interactive learning as opposed to merely passive viewing.\n\n\n3) Captain Jean-Luc Picard... Really.\n\nSadly, he calls \"Z\" \"zed\", which is something James Tiberius Kirk would never do. Never.\n\n\n\n4) Sesame Street, Tilly and the Wall\n\nI admit that I had never heard of Tilly and the Wall before seeing this clip. It\'s fun, unique, and engaging -- and the second of three Sesame videos. (I\'m biased, I know.)\n\n\n\n5) Sesame Street: Hip Hop ABC\n\nShow this to any pre-schooler and watch. It\'s addictive. But on a personal level, I really like this one because if you focus on the Sesame Street Muppets, you\'ll see that their individual personalities can come out even when singing the same song. Especially Grover and Elmo.\n\n','Five Great ABC Videos',0,'','inherit','open','open','','310-revision-3','','','2010-06-09 02:01:11','2010-06-09 02:01:11','',310,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/09/310-revision-3/',0,'revision','',0); INSERT INTO `wp_posts` VALUES (314,1,'2010-06-09 02:01:33','2010-06-09 02:01:33','1) SuperSimpleSongs: Letter Magnets\r\n\r\nWith almost 30 million YouTube views in just over three years, I am definitely not alone in liking this one! It\'s simple and elegant. I really like how they turn \"now\" into \"know\" at the end.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n2) Sesame Street: James Earl Jones\r\n\r\nThere\'s a back story here. It\'s going to be hard for an adult to get through it -- it\'s incredibly slow -- but that\'s part of the point. Muppet Wiki sums it up:\r\n
The first time a child sees the performance, he responds to the invitation to say the alphabet along with the actor. Upon later viewings, the children would name the letter as soon as it appeared, but before it was named by Jones. Further repetition encouraged children to shout out the letter even before it appears. The \"James Earl Jones effect\" thus demonstrated to Sesame Street\'s producers and curriculum advisors the value of both repetition and anticipation, and supplied proof that Sesame Street could promote interactive learning as opposed to merely passive viewing.\r\n\r\n\r\n3) Captain Jean-Luc Picard... Really.\r\n\r\nSadly, he calls \"Z\" \"zed\", which is something James Tiberius Kirk would never do. Never.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n4) Sesame Street, Tilly and the Wall\r\n\r\nI admit that I had never heard of Tilly and the Wall before seeing this clip. It\'s fun, unique, and engaging -- and the second of three Sesame videos. (I\'m biased, I know.)\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n5) Sesame Street: Hip Hop ABC\r\n\r\nShow this to any pre-schooler and watch. It\'s addictive. But on a personal level, I really like this one because if you focus on the Sesame Street Muppets, you\'ll see that their individual personalities can come out even when singing the same song. Especially Grover and Elmo.\r\n\r\n','Five Great ABC Videos, Starring Jean Luc Picard and Darth Vader',0,'','inherit','open','open','','310-revision-4','','','2010-06-09 02:01:33','2010-06-09 02:01:33','',310,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/09/310-revision-4/',0,'revision','',0),(315,1,'2010-06-10 11:45:45','2010-06-10 11:45:45','What do Tomek from Poland, Stephanie from Boston, David from Los Angeles, and Nathan, also from Boston, have in common?\r\n\r\nFacebook thinks I should be friends with all of them.\r\n\r\nAnd I have no idea who any of them are.\r\n\r\nI am, of course, talking about Facebook\'s Suggestions -- people I should consider being friends with. And the suggestions are awful. But they don\'t have to be. Facebook has a ton of data about me -- how old I am, where I live, where I\'ve lived, who I\'m married to, where I work, have worked, went to school, who I consider my friends, which friends I interact with most often (on Facebook, at least), etc.\r\n\r\n
![\"\"](\"http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Picture-20-300x111.png\" "\\"Facebook")
And one would assume that Facebook would want to make the Suggestions tool as close to perfect as possible. Hey, it fits with their mission, over there on the right in big bold letters: \"Facebook helps you connect and share with the people in your life.\" If Facebook could actually help me find those people, it\'d be a huge first step toward connecting and, subsequently, sharing.\r\n\r\nFurther, Facebook certainly makes suggestions a focal point of the site. They appear on the front, News Feed page, right near where the only ad on the page lies. On other pages, they\'ll often take the place of ads. That\'s dedication.\r\n\r\nSo Facebook should be able to get Suggestions right, or, at least close. But do they? Hardly. The criteria Facebook uses in making its suggestions seems to be simple and binary: Do you and your suggested new friend have a friend in common? And the results are ridiculous.\r\n\r\nLet\'s look at Tomek, Stephanie, David, and Nathan once more, and see what information Facebook has. As you will see, Facebook has the ability to draw an impressive graph of my social network, and with a high degree of accuracy, should be able to predict whether I actually know someone. That they fail here is stunning.\r\n\r\nTomek\r\n\r\nI can\'t figure out why Tomek and I should connect. How can Facebook?\r\nAnd one would assume that Facebook would want to make the Suggestions tool as close to perfect as possible. Hey, it fits with their mission, over there on the right in big bold letters: \"Facebook helps you connect and share with the people in your life.\" If Facebook could actually help me find those people, it\'d be a huge first step toward connecting and, subsequently, sharing.\n\nFurther, Facebook certainly makes suggestions a focal point of the site. They appear on the front, News Feed page, right near where the only ad on the page lies. On other pages, they\'ll often take the place of ads. That\'s dedication.\n\nSo Facebook should be able to get Suggestions right, or, at least close. Let\'s look at Tomek, Stephanie, David, and Nathan once more, and see what information Facebook has. As you will see, Facebook has the ability to draw an impressive graph of my social network, and with a high degree of accuracy, predict whether I actually know someone. That they fail here is stunning.\n\nTomek\n\nI can\'t figure out how Tomek is connected to me. How can Facebook?\nAnd one would assume that Facebook would want to make the Suggestions tool as close to perfect as possible. Hey, it fits with their mission, over there on the right in big bold letters: \"Facebook helps you connect and share with the people in your life.\" If Facebook could actually help me find those people, it\'d be a huge first step toward connecting and, subsequently, sharing.\n\nFurther, Facebook certainly makes suggestions a focal point of the site. They appear on the front, News Feed page, right near where the only ad on the page lies. On other pages, they\'ll often take the place of ads. That\'s dedication.\n\nSo Facebook should be able to get Suggestions right, or, at least close. But do they? Hardly. The criteria Facebook uses in making its suggestions seems to be simple and binary: Do you and your suggested new friend have a friend in common? And the results are ridiculous.\n\nLet\'s look at Tomek, Stephanie, David, and Nathan once more, and see what information Facebook has. As you will see, Facebook has the ability to draw an impressive graph of my social network, and with a high degree of accuracy, should be able to predict whether I actually know someone. That they fail here is stunning.\n\nTomek\n\nI can\'t figure out why Tomek and I should connect. How can Facebook?\nAnd one would assume that Facebook would want to make the Suggestions tool as close to perfect as possible. Hey, it fits with their mission, over there on the right in big bold letters: \"Facebook helps you connect and share with the people in your life.\" If Facebook could actually help me find those people, it\'d be a huge first step toward connecting and, subsequently, sharing.\n\nFurther, Facebook certainly makes suggestions a focal point of the site. They appear on the front, News Feed page, right near where the only ad on the page lies. On other pages, they\'ll often take the place of ads. That\'s dedication.\n\nSo Facebook should be able to get Suggestions right, or, at least close. But do they? Hardly. The criteria Facebook uses in making its suggestions seems to be simple and binary: Do you and your suggested new friend have a friend in common? And the results are ridiculous.\n\nLet\'s look at Tomek, Stephanie, David, and Nathan once more, and see what information Facebook has. As you will see, Facebook has the ability to draw an impressive graph of my social network, and with a high degree of accuracy, should be able to predict whether I actually know someone. That they fail here is stunning.\n\nTomek\n\nI can\'t figure out why Tomek and I should connect. How can Facebook?\nAnd one would assume that Facebook would want to make the Suggestions tool as close to perfect as possible. Hey, it fits with their mission, over there on the right in big bold letters: \"Facebook helps you connect and share with the people in your life.\" If Facebook could actually help me find those people, it\'d be a huge first step toward connecting and, subsequently, sharing.\r\n\r\nFurther, Facebook certainly makes suggestions a focal point of the site. They appear on the front, News Feed page, right near where the only ad on the page lies. On other pages, they\'ll often take the place of ads. That\'s dedication.\r\n\r\nSo Facebook should be able to get Suggestions right, or, at least close. But do they? Hardly. The criteria Facebook uses in making its suggestions seems to be simple and binary: Do you and your suggested new friend have a friend in common? And the results are ridiculous.\r\n\r\nLet\'s look at Tomek, Stephanie, David, and Nathan once more, and see what information Facebook has. As you will see, Facebook has the ability to draw an impressive graph of my social network, and with a high degree of accuracy, should be able to predict whether I actually know someone. That they fail here is stunning.\r\n\r\nTomek\r\n\r\nI can\'t figure out why Tomek and I should connect. How can Facebook?\r\n![\"\"](\"http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/ATeamFacebook.png\" "\\"ATeamFacebook\\"")
Facebook just served me a \"Research Poll,\" results above, asking me if I was planning on seeing the A-Team movie. These polls are sponsored -- I assume by the marketing force behind the movie -- so I am understandibly skeptical about the \"Research\" aspect. (If anyone has used this before, and my skepticism is not well-founded, please let me know.)
\r\nTwo thirds of respondents are incredibly unlikely to see the movie. Yikes. That is probably not the marketing message they wanted to send.
','Pitying the Fool Who Gets Bad Facebook \"Research Poll\" Results',0,'','publish','open','open','','pitying-the-fool-who-gets-bad-facebook-research-poll-results','','','2010-06-10 18:17:28','2010-06-10 18:17:28','',0,'http://dlewis.net/?p=325',0,'post','',0),(326,1,'2010-06-10 18:15:59','2010-06-10 18:15:59','
Facebook just served me a \"Research Poll,\" results above, asking me if I was planning on seeing the A-Team movie. These polls are sponsored -- I assume by the marketing force behind the movie -- so I am understandibly skeptical about the \"Research\" aspect.(If anyone has used this before, and my skepticism is not well-founded, please let me know.)
\nTwo thirds of respondents are incredibly unlikely to see the movie.
\n','Pitying the Fool Who Gets Bad Facebook \"Research Poll\" Results',0,'','inherit','open','open','','325-revision','','','2010-06-10 18:15:59','2010-06-10 18:15:59','',325,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/10/325-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(327,1,'2010-06-10 18:17:00','2010-06-10 18:17:00','
Facebook just served me a \"Research Poll,\" results above, asking me if I was planning on seeing the A-Team movie. These polls are sponsored -- I assume by the marketing force behind the movie -- so I am understandibly skeptical about the \"Research\" aspect. (If anyone has used this before, and my skepticism is not well-founded, please let me know.)
\nTwo thirds of respondents are incredibly unlikely to see the movie. Yikes.
','Pitying the Fool Who Gets Bad Facebook \"Research Poll\" Results',0,'','inherit','open','open','','325-revision-2','','','2010-06-10 18:17:00','2010-06-10 18:17:00','',325,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/10/325-revision-2/',0,'revision','',0),(328,1,'2010-06-14 21:35:31','2010-06-14 21:35:31','![\"\"](\"http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/internet_week-logo-light_bk.gif\" "\\"Internet"){kind=logo}
Last week was \"Internet Week\" here in New York, which means I went to a lot of events. Four, in fact. Over the course of three evenings (Monday through Wednesday) and one day-long extravaganza Friday, and learned a ton. Here\'s some of that wealth.
\r\n1) The power of good yields tears with thank yous.\r\n\r\n![\"\"](\"http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/tile-rtw-summit-ny-125x125.png\" "\\"RWW")
At the ReadWriteWeb Summit, I lead a session titled \"The Long Production Cycle of Television: How Traditional Media Can Survive in a Real-Time World\" or something to that effect. During it, I mentioned how Sesame Workshop has a lot of outreach programs, and mentioned a recent one, When Families Grieve, which uses the death of Elmo\'s Uncle Jack -- and the grieving of Elmo and his cousin (Jack\'s daughter) Jesse -- to help children cope with the loss of a relative. I happened to have a resource kit with me and I passed it around, causing one participant to tear up. She later told me that finding out about the hour-long special and the resource kit was timely for her family, and thanked me for the work the Workshop was doing. It\'s a moment I\'ll hardly forget.\r\n\r\n2) Michael Jackson was probably innocent of child molestation charges.\r\n\r\nAt IgniteNYC, Anil Dash made a compelling argument that Michael Jackson did not actually molest a child in 1993, even though he paid the family of that child $20 million (and never faced criminal charges). The salient points: (1) The child\'s father, a dentist, was the screenwriter for Robin Hood: Men in Tights and had a massive incentive to try and hit someone like Jackson up for a lot of money, and (2) the guy killed himself a few months after Jacko\'s death.\r\n\r\nThere are other things out there which buttress this stance. As a lawyer, I\'m trained to trust in the legal system, and given no convictions here, I\'m leaning toward agreeing with Dash.\r\n\r\n3) Al Gore really did invent the Internet. (Even though he didn\'t really claim that.)\r\n\r\n![\"\"](\"http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Al+20Gore1260901037.jpg\" "\\"Al")
I actually knew this already, but not to the degree I was about to.\r\n\r\nBob Wyman joined my friend Jeremie Miller\'s discussion at the RWW Summit (more on this directly below), and suggested that he was present at a meeting to discuss the future of ARPANET, a (if not the) precursor to the present-day Internet. APRANET was the largest of many mini-Internets, and these networks were used mostly for military and/or research purposes.\r\n\r\nGore, then a Congressman, was in those meetings as well, and he championed the idea of making these networks into a venue for commerce. Specifically, Gore pushed the idea that from society\'s point of view, having all these networks was unworkable, as it created islands where we needed seamless inter-connectivity. We needed one \"Internet\".\r\n\r\nTake a look at Gore\'s actual claim: \"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country\'s economic growth[.]\"\r\n\r\nIndeed, as Wyman pointed out, that\'s exactly what he did.\r\n\r\n4) People are already coding stuff for the Internet of 2020.\r\n\r\nThat\'s not a typo. Twenty-twenty.\r\n\r\nJeremie is building TeleHash, a protocol which allows for decentralized everything. Basically -- and I\'m 50% sure I have this right (and 50% sure I have it wrong), when completed, TeleHash will allow an application to connect to another application without having to go through a central server or switch. So instead of posting something to (say) Facebook or Twitter or whatever and having your friends login to that service to see it, you simply post the message and the application, via TeleHash, finds your friends and brings the info directly to them.\r\n\r\nBut what I didn\'t know is that TeleHash is years away from being mainstream-useful. At one point, Jeremie said that he\'s envisioning this as a part of the Internet of 2020 -- ten years out. To put that in perspective: In 2000 -- ten years ago -- AltaVista was looking at an IPO, Facebook and YouTube had not yet been founded, and PayPal was still an independent company. Looking to solve the problems of 2020 is incredibly ambitious, although for some people, ambitious protocol development is par for the course.\r\n\r\n5) We\'re at the point where the speed of light -- literally -- is a significant factor in decision-making at Google.\r\n\r\n![\"\"](\"http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/1_google_logo-300x211.jpg\" "\\"Google"){kind=logo}
In the same discussion, someone asked if we still need big, powerful super-computers, or if a big task can be distributed over many much less powerful machines and done piecemeal. Both Miller and Wyman believed that with rare exception -- so rare, in fact, neither could come up with one off the top of their head -- distributed computing could process any task that a monolithic super computer could do.\r\n\r\nWhich lead someone to ask: Then why does Google have server farms -- singular warehouses with huge numbers of very powerful computers? First, Wyman said that the computers probably aren\'t all that powerful, which is a bit surprising. Then, he said the most important reason is convenience and cost. Specifically, he noted the air conditioning -- it\'s cheaper to cool a lot of machines at once than each machine individually. But those are not technical barriers.\r\n\r\nWyman said that there probably aren\'t any technical barriers. \"Except the speed of light,\" he added, his tone dead serious. It\'s true.\r\n\r\nAll these machines need to communicate with each other, and they can only do so at speeds up to the speed of light. The speed of light is about 187 miles per millisecond, which means that two machines next to each other can communicate basically instantaneously. But it\'d take 15 milliseconds for the same communication to travel between New York and Los Angeles. It doesn\'t seem like it, but it adds up.\r\n\r\n6) LiveStreams of interesting panels are impossible to follow.\r\n\r\nI tried to watch a few, and failed repeatedly. Most notably, I tried to watch Dave Winer\'s Sources Go Direct panel -- I\'d commented on two of his blog posts on the topic and find the thesis interesting.\r\n\r\nPerhaps we\'re spoiled by the high production values of events like the Super Bowl or the Oscars, or even the evening news. The camera is almost always trained at the right target, and in the odd event that it isn\'t, we immediately notice. Livestreams seem to be that bad stuff, with a bit of good stuff mixed in.\r\n\r\n![\"\"](\"http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/681163378.jpg\" "\\"140conf")
7) There startup/innovation sector in New York City is orders of magnitude larger than I thought it was -- and I thought it was big to begin with.\r\n\r\nFom Monday through Wednesday, I went to three events which had probably had, in total, over 500 people. And while those events were going on, so were a bunch of others. For example, while I attended IgniteNYC on Wednesday, a lot of others were in Brooklyn for Social Climbing. While I went to the #140conf Party, I skipped the NY Tech Meetup which started just as the former ended -- 30 minutes away.\r\n\r\nOf those hundreds of people, how many did I see at more than one event?\r\n\r\nUnder five. Yes, I had met many of them beforehand, and yes, I\'d end up seeing a few of them on Friday. But the overlap between the early groups was virtually zero, which is a testament to the size and diversity of the NYC tech scene.\r\n\r\n8 ) The average wait time for a doctor\'s appointment in New York? 24 days.\r\n\r\n![\"\"](\"http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/ignite-nyc-20080724-120543-300x262.jpg\" "\\"ignite-nyc")
At IgniteNYC, Karsten Vagner of ZocDoc gave an impassioned cry for better customer service in the health care industry. He pointed out that when we go on a trip somewhere, and our plane is delayed even an hour, we flip out -- how dare they! But when a doctor makes us sit and wait, whatever.\r\n\r\nAccording to Vagner, a New Yorker will wait, on average, the better part of a month to get an appointment with a doctor. From experience, this is unsurprising. It\'s mostly driven by specialists, though, who have non-emergency/timely matters. For example, we book allergist appointments months in advance, knowing full well that there\'s a need for a checkup/re-test, but nothing which can (or should) be don immediately.\r\n\r\nEven so, that\'s a great little factoid.\r\n\r\n9) Even a near-perfectly scripted presentation by a master showman can be upstaged by an errant comment from the peanut gallery.\r\n\r\nThe master showman? Steve Jobs.\r\n\r\nHeather Gold ran a breakout session at the ReadWriteWeb Summit, talking about \"tummeling.\" Not knowing what that meant -- and I\'m all but sure that it is not a real word -- I joined the conversation, intent on finding out. When I joined, she was speaking with Marshall Kirkpatrick about how often, the best part of a blog post or speech is the authentic, unplanned-on feedback you get from the audience.\r\n\r\nCue \"ah-ha\" moment. I piped up and mentioned that Steve Jobs ran into network problems during his keynote, and at one point, asked if anyone had any suggestions.\r\n\r\nAn audience member offered one: \"Verizon.\" (You can see that part in the video at Gizmodo, with roughly 20 seconds left until it ends.)\r\n\r\nThat was the highlight of the keynote. Certainly the most memorable part.\r\n\r\n10) There are people out there who are leading indicators of what\'s going to become big news. And they may not even know it.\r\n\r\nKirkpatrick gave an opening keynote at the RWW Summit and discussed how the blog tracks potentially viral stories. One of the techniques the RWW team uses is to take trending Techmeme stories and look back at Del.icio.us to see if anyone bookmarked stories ahead of time.\r\n\r\nThey gather up those early bookmarkers and build a small, informal database. Over time, the find repeat users in the list. They now have about a dozen people who, solely by virtue of this process, RWW recognizes as meme bloodhounds.\r\n\r\nThat\'s incredibly impressive, and kudos to the RWW team for mining these networks to find true gems -- even if the gems don\'t know their value.\r\n* * *
\r\nThank you to everyone I met, spoke to, and listened to last week. Internet Week 2010 was a great learning experience, and I\'m better off for having participated.
','Ten Things I Learned During Internet Week 2010',0,'','publish','open','open','','ten-things-i-learned-during-internet-week-2010','','','2010-06-15 01:03:35','2010-06-15 01:03:35','',0,'http://dlewis.net/?p=328',0,'post','',8),(329,1,'2010-06-12 01:55:49','2010-06-12 01:55:49','1) The power of good yields tears with thank yous.\n\n2) Michael Jackson was probably innocent of child molestation charges.\n\n3) Al Gore really did invent the Internet. (Even if he didn\'t really claim that.)\n\n4)','Ten Things I Learned During Internet Week 2010',0,'','inherit','open','open','','328-revision','','','2010-06-12 01:55:49','2010-06-12 01:55:49','',328,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/12/328-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(330,1,'2010-06-12 02:12:05','2010-06-12 02:12:05','1) The power of good yields tears with thank yous.\n\n2) Michael Jackson was probably innocent of child molestation charges.\n\n3) Al Gore really did invent the Internet. (Even if he didn\'t really claim that.)\n\n4)','Ten Things I Learned During Internet Week 2010',0,'','inherit','open','open','','328-revision-2','','','2010-06-12 02:12:05','2010-06-12 02:12:05','',328,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/12/328-revision-2/',0,'revision','',0),(331,1,'2010-06-13 03:28:13','2010-06-13 03:28:13','','Internet Week New York 2010',0,'','inherit','open','open','','internet_week-logo-light_bk','','','2010-06-13 03:28:13','2010-06-13 03:28:13','',328,'http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/internet_week-logo-light_bk.gif',0,'attachment','image/gif',0),(332,1,'2010-06-13 04:01:28','2010-06-13 04:01:28','1) The power of good yields tears with thank yous.\n\nAt the ReadWriteWeb Summit, I lead a session titled \"The Long Production Cycle of Television: How Traditional Media Can Survive in a Real-Time World\" or something to that effect. During it, I mentioned how Sesame Workshop has a lot of outreach programs, and mentioned a recent one, When Families Grieve, which uses the death of Elmo\'s Uncle Jack -- and the grieving of Elmo and his cousin (Jack\'s daughter) Jesse -- to help children cope with the loss of a relative. I happened to have a resource kit with me and I passed it around, causing one participant to tear up. She later told me that finding out about the hour-long special and the resource kit was timely for her family, and thanked me for the work the Workshop was doing. It\'s a moment I\'ll hardly forget.\n\n2) Michael Jackson was probably innocent of child molestation charges.\n\nAt IgniteNYC, Anil Dash made a compelling argument that Michael Jackson did not actually molest a child in 1993, even though he paid the family of that child $20 million (and never faced criminal charges). The salient points: (1) The child\'s father, a dentist, was the screenwriter for Robin Hood: Men in Tights and had a massive incentive to try and hit someone like Jackson up for a lot of money. (2) The guy killed himself a few months after Jacko\'s death.\n\nThere are other things out there which buttress this stance.\n\n3) Al Gore really did invent the Internet. (Even if he didn\'t really claim that.)\n\nBob Wyman joined my friend Jeremie Miller\'s discussion at the RWW Summit (more on this directly below),\n\n4) People are already coding stuff for the Internet of 2020.\n\nThat\'s not a typo.\n\n5) We\'re at the point where the speed of light -- literally -- is a significant factor in decision-making at Google.\n\n6) There\'s a FireFox and Chrome extension which blocks the words \"Justin Bieber\" from appearing on your screen.\n\n7) The average wait time for a doctor\'s appointment in New York? 24 days.\n\n8) Even a near-perfectly scripted presentation by a master showman can be upstaged by an errant comment from the peanut gallery.\n\n9) Opportunity can be defined, in part, as \"Meeting someone for the second time.\"\n\n10) LiveStreams of interesting panels are impossible to follow.\n\nI tried to watch a few, and failed repeatedly.','Ten Things I Learned During Internet Week 2010',0,'','inherit','open','open','','328-revision-3','','','2010-06-13 04:01:28','2010-06-13 04:01:28','',328,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/13/328-revision-3/',0,'revision','',0),(333,1,'2010-06-13 13:50:32','2010-06-13 13:50:32','','Al Gore Invented the Internet MTG',0,'','inherit','open','open','','al20gore1260901037','','','2010-06-13 13:50:32','2010-06-13 13:50:32','',328,'http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Al+20Gore1260901037.jpg',0,'attachment','image/jpeg',0),(334,1,'2010-06-13 13:53:54','2010-06-13 13:53:54','1) The power of good yields tears with thank yous.\n\nAt the ReadWriteWeb Summit, I lead a session titled \"The Long Production Cycle of Television: How Traditional Media Can Survive in a Real-Time World\" or something to that effect. During it, I mentioned how Sesame Workshop has a lot of outreach programs, and mentioned a recent one, When Families Grieve, which uses the death of Elmo\'s Uncle Jack -- and the grieving of Elmo and his cousin (Jack\'s daughter) Jesse -- to help children cope with the loss of a relative. I happened to have a resource kit with me and I passed it around, causing one participant to tear up. She later told me that finding out about the hour-long special and the resource kit was timely for her family, and thanked me for the work the Workshop was doing. It\'s a moment I\'ll hardly forget.\n\n2) Michael Jackson was probably innocent of child molestation charges.\n\nAt IgniteNYC, Anil Dash made a compelling argument that Michael Jackson did not actually molest a child in 1993, even though he paid the family of that child $20 million (and never faced criminal charges). The salient points: (1) The child\'s father, a dentist, was the screenwriter for Robin Hood: Men in Tights and had a massive incentive to try and hit someone like Jackson up for a lot of money. (2) The guy killed himself a few months after Jacko\'s death.\n\nThere are other things out there which buttress this stance.\n\n3) Al Gore really did invent the Internet. (Even though he didn\'t really claim that.)\n\nBob Wyman joined my friend Jeremie Miller\'s discussion at the RWW Summit (more on this directly below), and suggested that he was present at a meeting to discuss the future of ARPANET, a (if not the) precursor to the present-day Internet. APRANET was the largest of many mini-Internets, and these networks were used mostly for military and/or research purposes.\n\nGore, then a Congressman, was in those meetings as well, and he championed the idea of making these networks into a venue for commerce. Specifically, Gore pushed the idea that from society\'s point of view, having all these networks was unworkable, as it created islands where we needed seamless inter-connectivity. We needed one \"Internet\".\n\nTake a look at Gore\'s actual claim: \"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country\'s economic growth[.]\"\n\nIndeed, as Wyman pointed out, that\'s exactly what he did.\n\n4) People are already coding stuff for the Internet of 2020.\n\nThat\'s not a typo.\n\nJeremie is building TeleHash, a protocol which allows for decentralized everything. Basically -- and I\'m 50% sure I have this right (and 50% sure I have it wrong), when completed, TeleHash will allow an application to connect to another application without having to go through a central server or switch. So instead of posting something to (say) Facebook or Twitter or whatever and having your friends login to that service to see it, you simply post the message and the application, via TeleHash, finds your friends and brings the info directly to them.\n\nBut what I didn\'t know is that TeleHash is years away from being mainstream-useful. At one point, Jeremie said that he\'s envisioning this as a part of the Internet of 2020 -- ten years out. To put that in perspective: In 2000 -- ten years ago -- AltaVista was looking at an IPO, Facebook and YouTube had not yet been founded, and PayPal was still an independent company. Looking to solve the problems of 2020 is incredibly ambitious, although for some people, ambitious protocol development is par for the course.\n\n5) We\'re at the point where the speed of light -- literally -- is a significant factor in decision-making at Google.\n\nIn the same discussion, someone asked if we still need big, powerful super-computers, or if a big task can be distributed over many much less powerful machines and done piecemeal. Both Miller and Wyman believed that with rare exception -- so rare, in fact, neither could come up with one off the top of their head -- distributed computing could process any task that a monolithic super computer could do.\n\nWhich lead someone to ask: Then why does Google have\n\n6) LiveStreams of interesting panels are impossible to follow.\n\nI tried to watch a few, and failed repeatedly.\n\n7) There\'s a FireFox and Chrome extension which blocks the words \"Justin Bieber\" from appearing on your screen.\n\n8) The average wait time for a doctor\'s appointment in New York? 24 days.\n\n9) Even a near-perfectly scripted presentation by a master showman can be upstaged by an errant comment from the peanut gallery.\n\n10) Opportunity can be defined, in part, as \"Meeting someone for the second time.\"\n\n11) There are people out there who are leading indicators of what\'s going to become big news.\n\nGuilty as charged: This top 10 goes to eleven.','Ten Things I Learned During Internet Week 2010',0,'','inherit','open','open','','328-revision-4','','','2010-06-13 13:53:54','2010-06-13 13:53:54','',328,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/13/328-revision-4/',0,'revision','',0),(335,1,'2010-06-13 14:07:47','2010-06-13 14:07:47','1) The power of good yields tears with thank yous.\n\nAt the ReadWriteWeb Summit, I lead a session titled \"The Long Production Cycle of Television: How Traditional Media Can Survive in a Real-Time World\" or something to that effect. During it, I mentioned how Sesame Workshop has a lot of outreach programs, and mentioned a recent one, When Families Grieve, which uses the death of Elmo\'s Uncle Jack -- and the grieving of Elmo and his cousin (Jack\'s daughter) Jesse -- to help children cope with the loss of a relative. I happened to have a resource kit with me and I passed it around, causing one participant to tear up. She later told me that finding out about the hour-long special and the resource kit was timely for her family, and thanked me for the work the Workshop was doing. It\'s a moment I\'ll hardly forget.\n\n2) Michael Jackson was probably innocent of child molestation charges.\n\nAt IgniteNYC, Anil Dash made a compelling argument that Michael Jackson did not actually molest a child in 1993, even though he paid the family of that child $20 million (and never faced criminal charges). The salient points: (1) The child\'s father, a dentist, was the screenwriter for Robin Hood: Men in Tights and had a massive incentive to try and hit someone like Jackson up for a lot of money. (2) The guy killed himself a few months after Jacko\'s death.\n\nThere are other things out there which buttress this stance.\n\n3) Al Gore really did invent the Internet. (Even though he didn\'t really claim that.)\n\nBob Wyman joined my friend Jeremie Miller\'s discussion at the RWW Summit (more on this directly below), and suggested that he was present at a meeting to discuss the future of ARPANET, a (if not the) precursor to the present-day Internet. APRANET was the largest of many mini-Internets, and these networks were used mostly for military and/or research purposes.\n\nGore, then a Congressman, was in those meetings as well, and he championed the idea of making these networks into a venue for commerce. Specifically, Gore pushed the idea that from society\'s point of view, having all these networks was unworkable, as it created islands where we needed seamless inter-connectivity. We needed one \"Internet\".\n\nTake a look at Gore\'s actual claim: \"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country\'s economic growth[.]\"\n\nIndeed, as Wyman pointed out, that\'s exactly what he did.\n\n4) People are already coding stuff for the Internet of 2020.\n\nThat\'s not a typo.\n\nJeremie is building TeleHash, a protocol which allows for decentralized everything. Basically -- and I\'m 50% sure I have this right (and 50% sure I have it wrong), when completed, TeleHash will allow an application to connect to another application without having to go through a central server or switch. So instead of posting something to (say) Facebook or Twitter or whatever and having your friends login to that service to see it, you simply post the message and the application, via TeleHash, finds your friends and brings the info directly to them.\n\nBut what I didn\'t know is that TeleHash is years away from being mainstream-useful. At one point, Jeremie said that he\'s envisioning this as a part of the Internet of 2020 -- ten years out. To put that in perspective: In 2000 -- ten years ago -- AltaVista was looking at an IPO, Facebook and YouTube had not yet been founded, and PayPal was still an independent company. Looking to solve the problems of 2020 is incredibly ambitious, although for some people, ambitious protocol development is par for the course.\n\n5) We\'re at the point where the speed of light -- literally -- is a significant factor in decision-making at Google.\n\nIn the same discussion, someone asked if we still need big, powerful super-computers, or if a big task can be distributed over many much less powerful machines and done piecemeal. Both Miller and Wyman believed that with rare exception -- so rare, in fact, neither could come up with one off the top of their head -- distributed computing could process any task that a monolithic super computer could do.\n\nWhich lead someone to ask: Then why does Google have server farms -- singular warehouses with huge numbers of very powerful computers? First, Wyman said that the computers probably aren\'t all that powerful, which is a bit surprising. Then, he said the most important reason is convenience and cost. Specifically, he noted the air conditioning -- it\'s cheaper to cool a lot of machines at once than each machine individually. But those are not technical barriers.\n\n6) LiveStreams of interesting panels are impossible to follow.\n\nI tried to watch a few, and failed repeatedly.\n\n7) There\'s a FireFox and Chrome extension which blocks the words \"Justin Bieber\" from appearing on your screen.\n\n8) The average wait time for a doctor\'s appointment in New York? 24 days.\n\n9) Even a near-perfectly scripted presentation by a master showman can be upstaged by an errant comment from the peanut gallery.\n\n10) Opportunity can be defined, in part, as \"Meeting someone for the second time.\"\n\n11) There are people out there who are leading indicators of what\'s going to become big news.\n\nGuilty as charged: This top 10 goes to eleven.','Ten Things I Learned During Internet Week 2010',0,'','inherit','open','open','','328-revision-5','','','2010-06-13 14:07:47','2010-06-13 14:07:47','',328,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/13/328-revision-5/',0,'revision','',0),(336,1,'2010-06-14 04:03:06','2010-06-14 04:03:06','1) The power of good yields tears with thank yous.\n\nAt the ReadWriteWeb Summit, I lead a session titled \"The Long Production Cycle of Television: How Traditional Media Can Survive in a Real-Time World\" or something to that effect. During it, I mentioned how Sesame Workshop has a lot of outreach programs, and mentioned a recent one, When Families Grieve, which uses the death of Elmo\'s Uncle Jack -- and the grieving of Elmo and his cousin (Jack\'s daughter) Jesse -- to help children cope with the loss of a relative. I happened to have a resource kit with me and I passed it around, causing one participant to tear up. She later told me that finding out about the hour-long special and the resource kit was timely for her family, and thanked me for the work the Workshop was doing. It\'s a moment I\'ll hardly forget.\n\n2) Michael Jackson was probably innocent of child molestation charges.\n\nAt IgniteNYC, Anil Dash made a compelling argument that Michael Jackson did not actually molest a child in 1993, even though he paid the family of that child $20 million (and never faced criminal charges). The salient points: (1) The child\'s father, a dentist, was the screenwriter for Robin Hood: Men in Tights and had a massive incentive to try and hit someone like Jackson up for a lot of money. (2) The guy killed himself a few months after Jacko\'s death.\n\nThere are other things out there which buttress this stance.\n\n3) Al Gore really did invent the Internet. (Even though he didn\'t really claim that.)\n\nI actually knew this already, but not to the degree I was about to.\n\nBob Wyman joined my friend Jeremie Miller\'s discussion at the RWW Summit (more on this directly below), and suggested that he was present at a meeting to discuss the future of ARPANET, a (if not the) precursor to the present-day Internet. APRANET was the largest of many mini-Internets, and these networks were used mostly for military and/or research purposes.\n\nGore, then a Congressman, was in those meetings as well, and he championed the idea of making these networks into a venue for commerce. Specifically, Gore pushed the idea that from society\'s point of view, having all these networks was unworkable, as it created islands where we needed seamless inter-connectivity. We needed one \"Internet\".\n\nTake a look at Gore\'s actual claim: \"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country\'s economic growth[.]\"\n\nIndeed, as Wyman pointed out, that\'s exactly what he did.\n\n4) People are already coding stuff for the Internet of 2020.\n\nThat\'s not a typo.\n\nJeremie is building TeleHash, a protocol which allows for decentralized everything. Basically -- and I\'m 50% sure I have this right (and 50% sure I have it wrong), when completed, TeleHash will allow an application to connect to another application without having to go through a central server or switch. So instead of posting something to (say) Facebook or Twitter or whatever and having your friends login to that service to see it, you simply post the message and the application, via TeleHash, finds your friends and brings the info directly to them.\n\nBut what I didn\'t know is that TeleHash is years away from being mainstream-useful. At one point, Jeremie said that he\'s envisioning this as a part of the Internet of 2020 -- ten years out. To put that in perspective: In 2000 -- ten years ago -- AltaVista was looking at an IPO, Facebook and YouTube had not yet been founded, and PayPal was still an independent company. Looking to solve the problems of 2020 is incredibly ambitious, although for some people, ambitious protocol development is par for the course.\n\n5) We\'re at the point where the speed of light -- literally -- is a significant factor in decision-making at Google.\n\nIn the same discussion, someone asked if we still need big, powerful super-computers, or if a big task can be distributed over many much less powerful machines and done piecemeal. Both Miller and Wyman believed that with rare exception -- so rare, in fact, neither could come up with one off the top of their head -- distributed computing could process any task that a monolithic super computer could do.\n\nWhich lead someone to ask: Then why does Google have server farms -- singular warehouses with huge numbers of very powerful computers? First, Wyman said that the computers probably aren\'t all that powerful, which is a bit surprising. Then, he said the most important reason is convenience and cost. Specifically, he noted the air conditioning -- it\'s cheaper to cool a lot of machines at once than each machine individually. But those are not technical barriers.\n\nWyman said that there probably aren\'t any technical barriers. \"Except the speed of light,\" he added, his tone dead serious. It\'s true.\n\nAll these machines need to communicate with each other, and they can only do so at speeds up to the speed of light. The speed of light is about 187 miles per millisecond, which means that two machines next to each other can communicate basically instantaneously. But it\'d take 15 milliseconds for the same communication to travel between New York and Los Angeles. It doesn\'t seem like it, but it adds up.\n\n6) LiveStreams of interesting panels are impossible to follow.\n\nI tried to watch a few, and failed repeatedly. Most notably, I tried to watch Dave Winer\'s Sources Go Direct panel -- I\'d commented on two of his blog posts\n\n7) There\'s a FireFox and Chrome extension which blocks the words \"Justin Bieber\" from appearing on your screen.\n\n8) The average wait time for a doctor\'s appointment in New York? 24 days.\n\n9) Even a near-perfectly scripted presentation by a master showman can be upstaged by an errant comment from the peanut gallery.\n\n10) Opportunity can be defined, in part, as \"Meeting someone for the second time.\"\n\n11) There are people out there who are leading indicators of what\'s going to become big news.\n\nGuilty as charged: This top 10 goes to eleven.','Ten Things I Learned During Internet Week 2010',0,'','inherit','open','open','','328-revision-6','','','2010-06-14 04:03:06','2010-06-14 04:03:06','',328,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/14/328-revision-6/',0,'revision','',0),(337,1,'2010-06-14 11:54:44','2010-06-14 11:54:44','1) The power of good yields tears with thank yous.\n\nAt the ReadWriteWeb Summit, I lead a session titled \"The Long Production Cycle of Television: How Traditional Media Can Survive in a Real-Time World\" or something to that effect. During it, I mentioned how Sesame Workshop has a lot of outreach programs, and mentioned a recent one, When Families Grieve, which uses the death of Elmo\'s Uncle Jack -- and the grieving of Elmo and his cousin (Jack\'s daughter) Jesse -- to help children cope with the loss of a relative. I happened to have a resource kit with me and I passed it around, causing one participant to tear up. She later told me that finding out about the hour-long special and the resource kit was timely for her family, and thanked me for the work the Workshop was doing. It\'s a moment I\'ll hardly forget.\n\n2) Michael Jackson was probably innocent of child molestation charges.\n\nAt IgniteNYC, Anil Dash made a compelling argument that Michael Jackson did not actually molest a child in 1993, even though he paid the family of that child $20 million (and never faced criminal charges). The salient points: (1) The child\'s father, a dentist, was the screenwriter for Robin Hood: Men in Tights and had a massive incentive to try and hit someone like Jackson up for a lot of money. (2) The guy killed himself a few months after Jacko\'s death.\n\nThere are other things out there which buttress this stance.\n\n3) Al Gore really did invent the Internet. (Even though he didn\'t really claim that.)\n\nI actually knew this already, but not to the degree I was about to.\n\nBob Wyman joined my friend Jeremie Miller\'s discussion at the RWW Summit (more on this directly below), and suggested that he was present at a meeting to discuss the future of ARPANET, a (if not the) precursor to the present-day Internet. APRANET was the largest of many mini-Internets, and these networks were used mostly for military and/or research purposes.\n\nGore, then a Congressman, was in those meetings as well, and he championed the idea of making these networks into a venue for commerce. Specifically, Gore pushed the idea that from society\'s point of view, having all these networks was unworkable, as it created islands where we needed seamless inter-connectivity. We needed one \"Internet\".\n\nTake a look at Gore\'s actual claim: \"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country\'s economic growth[.]\"\n\nIndeed, as Wyman pointed out, that\'s exactly what he did.\n\n4) People are already coding stuff for the Internet of 2020.\n\nThat\'s not a typo.\n\nJeremie is building TeleHash, a protocol which allows for decentralized everything. Basically -- and I\'m 50% sure I have this right (and 50% sure I have it wrong), when completed, TeleHash will allow an application to connect to another application without having to go through a central server or switch. So instead of posting something to (say) Facebook or Twitter or whatever and having your friends login to that service to see it, you simply post the message and the application, via TeleHash, finds your friends and brings the info directly to them.\n\nBut what I didn\'t know is that TeleHash is years away from being mainstream-useful. At one point, Jeremie said that he\'s envisioning this as a part of the Internet of 2020 -- ten years out. To put that in perspective: In 2000 -- ten years ago -- AltaVista was looking at an IPO, Facebook and YouTube had not yet been founded, and PayPal was still an independent company. Looking to solve the problems of 2020 is incredibly ambitious, although for some people, ambitious protocol development is par for the course.\n\n5) We\'re at the point where the speed of light -- literally -- is a significant factor in decision-making at Google.\n\nIn the same discussion, someone asked if we still need big, powerful super-computers, or if a big task can be distributed over many much less powerful machines and done piecemeal. Both Miller and Wyman believed that with rare exception -- so rare, in fact, neither could come up with one off the top of their head -- distributed computing could process any task that a monolithic super computer could do.\n\nWhich lead someone to ask: Then why does Google have server farms -- singular warehouses with huge numbers of very powerful computers? First, Wyman said that the computers probably aren\'t all that powerful, which is a bit surprising. Then, he said the most important reason is convenience and cost. Specifically, he noted the air conditioning -- it\'s cheaper to cool a lot of machines at once than each machine individually. But those are not technical barriers.\n\nWyman said that there probably aren\'t any technical barriers. \"Except the speed of light,\" he added, his tone dead serious. It\'s true.\n\nAll these machines need to communicate with each other, and they can only do so at speeds up to the speed of light. The speed of light is about 187 miles per millisecond, which means that two machines next to each other can communicate basically instantaneously. But it\'d take 15 milliseconds for the same communication to travel between New York and Los Angeles. It doesn\'t seem like it, but it adds up.\n\n6) LiveStreams of interesting panels are impossible to follow.\n\nI tried to watch a few, and failed repeatedly. Most notably, I tried to watch Dave Winer\'s Sources Go Direct panel -- I\'d commented on two of his blog posts on the topic and find the thesis interesting.\n\n7) There startup/innovation sector in New York City is orders of magnitude larger than I thought it was -- and I thought it was big to begin with.\n\n8) The average wait time for a doctor\'s appointment in New York? 24 days.\n\n9) Even a near-perfectly scripted presentation by a master showman can be upstaged by an errant comment from the peanut gallery.\n\n10) There are people out there who are leading indicators of what\'s going to become big news.\n\nGuilty as charged: This top 10 goes to eleven.','Ten Things I Learned During Internet Week 2010',0,'','inherit','open','open','','328-revision-7','','','2010-06-14 11:54:44','2010-06-14 11:54:44','',328,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/14/328-revision-7/',0,'revision','',0),(338,1,'2010-06-14 19:24:34','2010-06-14 19:24:34','','140conf logo',0,'','inherit','open','open','','681163378','','','2010-06-14 19:24:34','2010-06-14 19:24:34','',328,'http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/681163378.jpg',0,'attachment','image/jpeg',0),(339,1,'2010-06-14 19:48:30','2010-06-14 19:48:30','','ignite-nyc logo',0,'','inherit','open','open','','ignite-nyc-20080724-120543','','','2010-06-14 19:48:30','2010-06-14 19:48:30','',328,'http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/ignite-nyc-20080724-120543.jpg',0,'attachment','image/jpeg',0),(340,1,'2010-06-14 20:20:22','2010-06-14 20:20:22','Last week was \"Internet Week\" here in New York, which means I went to a lot of events. Four, in fact. Over the course of three evenings (Monday through Wednesday) and one day-long extravaganza Friday, and learned a ton. Here\'s some of that wealth.\n\n \n\n1) The power of good yields tears with thank yous.\n\nAt the ReadWriteWeb Summit, I lead a session titled \"The Long Production Cycle of Television: How Traditional Media Can Survive in a Real-Time World\" or something to that effect. During it, I mentioned how Sesame Workshop has a lot of outreach programs, and mentioned a recent one, When Families Grieve, which uses the death of Elmo\'s Uncle Jack -- and the grieving of Elmo and his cousin (Jack\'s daughter) Jesse -- to help children cope with the loss of a relative. I happened to have a resource kit with me and I passed it around, causing one participant to tear up. She later told me that finding out about the hour-long special and the resource kit was timely for her family, and thanked me for the work the Workshop was doing. It\'s a moment I\'ll hardly forget.\n\n2) Michael Jackson was probably innocent of child molestation charges.\n\nAt IgniteNYC, Anil Dash made a compelling argument that Michael Jackson did not actually molest a child in 1993, even though he paid the family of that child $20 million (and never faced criminal charges). The salient points: (1) The child\'s father, a dentist, was the screenwriter for Robin Hood: Men in Tights and had a massive incentive to try and hit someone like Jackson up for a lot of money, and (2) the guy killed himself a few months after Jacko\'s death.\n\nThere are other things out there which buttress this stance. As a lawyer, I\'m trained to trust in the legal system, and given no convictions here, I\'m leaning toward agreeing with Dash.\n\n3) Al Gore really did invent the Internet. (Even though he didn\'t really claim that.)\n\nI actually knew this already, but not to the degree I was about to.\n\nBob Wyman joined my friend Jeremie Miller\'s discussion at the RWW Summit (more on this directly below), and suggested that he was present at a meeting to discuss the future of ARPANET, a (if not the) precursor to the present-day Internet. APRANET was the largest of many mini-Internets, and these networks were used mostly for military and/or research purposes.\n\nGore, then a Congressman, was in those meetings as well, and he championed the idea of making these networks into a venue for commerce. Specifically, Gore pushed the idea that from society\'s point of view, having all these networks was unworkable, as it created islands where we needed seamless inter-connectivity. We needed one \"Internet\".\n\nTake a look at Gore\'s actual claim: \"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country\'s economic growth[.]\"\n\nIndeed, as Wyman pointed out, that\'s exactly what he did.\n\n4) People are already coding stuff for the Internet of 2020.\n\nThat\'s not a typo. Twenty-twenty.\n\nJeremie is building TeleHash, a protocol which allows for decentralized everything. Basically -- and I\'m 50% sure I have this right (and 50% sure I have it wrong), when completed, TeleHash will allow an application to connect to another application without having to go through a central server or switch. So instead of posting something to (say) Facebook or Twitter or whatever and having your friends login to that service to see it, you simply post the message and the application, via TeleHash, finds your friends and brings the info directly to them.\n\nBut what I didn\'t know is that TeleHash is years away from being mainstream-useful. At one point, Jeremie said that he\'s envisioning this as a part of the Internet of 2020 -- ten years out. To put that in perspective: In 2000 -- ten years ago -- AltaVista was looking at an IPO, Facebook and YouTube had not yet been founded, and PayPal was still an independent company. Looking to solve the problems of 2020 is incredibly ambitious, although for some people, ambitious protocol development is par for the course.\n\n5) We\'re at the point where the speed of light -- literally -- is a significant factor in decision-making at Google.\n\nIn the same discussion, someone asked if we still need big, powerful super-computers, or if a big task can be distributed over many much less powerful machines and done piecemeal. Both Miller and Wyman believed that with rare exception -- so rare, in fact, neither could come up with one off the top of their head -- distributed computing could process any task that a monolithic super computer could do.\n\nWhich lead someone to ask: Then why does Google have server farms -- singular warehouses with huge numbers of very powerful computers? First, Wyman said that the computers probably aren\'t all that powerful, which is a bit surprising. Then, he said the most important reason is convenience and cost. Specifically, he noted the air conditioning -- it\'s cheaper to cool a lot of machines at once than each machine individually. But those are not technical barriers.\n\nWyman said that there probably aren\'t any technical barriers. \"Except the speed of light,\" he added, his tone dead serious. It\'s true.\n\nAll these machines need to communicate with each other, and they can only do so at speeds up to the speed of light. The speed of light is about 187 miles per millisecond, which means that two machines next to each other can communicate basically instantaneously. But it\'d take 15 milliseconds for the same communication to travel between New York and Los Angeles. It doesn\'t seem like it, but it adds up.\n\n6) LiveStreams of interesting panels are impossible to follow.\n\nI tried to watch a few, and failed repeatedly. Most notably, I tried to watch Dave Winer\'s Sources Go Direct panel -- I\'d commented on two of his blog posts on the topic and find the thesis interesting.\n\nPerhaps we\'re spoiled by the high production values of events like the Super Bowl or the Oscars, or even the evening news. The camera is almost always trained at the right target, and in the odd event that it isn\'t, we immediately notice. Livestreams seem to be that bad stuff, with a bit of good stuff mixed in.\n\n7) There startup/innovation sector in New York City is orders of magnitude larger than I thought it was -- and I thought it was big to begin with.\n\nFom Monday through Wednesday, I went to three events which had probably had, in total, over 500 people. And while those events were going on, so were a bunch of others. For example, while I attended IgniteNYC on Wednesday, a lot of others were in Brooklyn for Social Climbing. While I went to the #140conf Party, I skipped the NY Tech Meetup which started just as the former ended -- 30 minutes away.\n\nOf those hundreds of people, how many did I see at more than one event?\n\nUnder five. Yes, I had met many of them beforehand, and yes, I\'d end up seeing a few of them on Friday. But the overlap between the early groups was virtually zero, which is a testament to the size and diversity of the NYC tech scene.\n\n8) The average wait time for a doctor\'s appointment in New York? 24 days.\n\nAt IgniteNYC, Karsten Vagner of ZocDoc gave an impassioned cry for better customer service in the health care industry. He pointed out that when we go on a trip somewhere, and our plane is delayed even an hour, we flip out -- how dare they! But when a doctor makes us sit and wait, whatever.\n\nAccording to Vagner, a New Yorker will wait, on average, the better part of a month to get an appointment with a doctor. From experience, this is unsurprising. It\'s mostly driven by specialists, though, who have non-emergency/timely matters. For example, we book allergist appointments months in advance, knowing full well that there\'s a need for a checkup/re-test, but nothing which can (or should) be don immediately.\n\nEven so, that\'s a great little factoid.\n\n9) Even a near-perfectly scripted presentation by a master showman can be upstaged by an errant comment from the peanut gallery.\n\nThe master showman? Steve Jobs.\n\nHeather Gold ran a breakout session at the ReadWriteWeb Summit, talking about \"tummeling.\" Not knowing what that meant -- and I\'m all but sure that it is not a real word -- I joined the conversation, intent on finding out. When I joined, she was speaking with Marshall Kirkpatrick about how often, the best part of a blog post or speech is the authentic, unplanned-on feedback you get from the audience.\n\nCue \"ah-ha\" moment. I piped up and mentioned this:\n\n\n\nThat was the highlight of the keynote. Certainly the most rememerable\n\n10) There are people out there who are leading indicators of what\'s going to become big news.\n\nGuilty as charged: This top 10 goes to eleven.','Ten Things I Learned During Internet Week 2010',0,'','inherit','open','open','','328-revision-8','','','2010-06-14 20:20:22','2010-06-14 20:20:22','',328,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/14/328-revision-8/',0,'revision','',0),(341,1,'2010-06-14 21:16:26','2010-06-14 21:16:26','','RWW Summit NYC',0,'','inherit','open','open','','tile-rtw-summit-ny-125x125','','','2010-06-14 21:16:26','2010-06-14 21:16:26','',328,'http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/tile-rtw-summit-ny-125x125.png',0,'attachment','image/png',0),(342,1,'2010-06-14 21:17:21','2010-06-14 21:17:21','Last week was \"Internet Week\" here in New York, which means I went to a lot of events. Four, in fact. Over the course of three evenings (Monday through Wednesday) and one day-long extravaganza Friday, and learned a ton. Here\'s some of that wealth.\n\n1) The power of good yields tears with thank yous.\n\nAt the ReadWriteWeb Summit, I lead a session titled \"The Long Production Cycle of Television: How Traditional Media Can Survive in a Real-Time World\" or something to that effect. During it, I mentioned how Sesame Workshop has a lot of outreach programs, and mentioned a recent one, When Families Grieve, which uses the death of Elmo\'s Uncle Jack -- and the grieving of Elmo and his cousin (Jack\'s daughter) Jesse -- to help children cope with the loss of a relative. I happened to have a resource kit with me and I passed it around, causing one participant to tear up. She later told me that finding out about the hour-long special and the resource kit was timely for her family, and thanked me for the work the Workshop was doing. It\'s a moment I\'ll hardly forget.\n\n2) Michael Jackson was probably innocent of child molestation charges.\n\nAt IgniteNYC, Anil Dash made a compelling argument that Michael Jackson did not actually molest a child in 1993, even though he paid the family of that child $20 million (and never faced criminal charges). The salient points: (1) The child\'s father, a dentist, was the screenwriter for Robin Hood: Men in Tights and had a massive incentive to try and hit someone like Jackson up for a lot of money, and (2) the guy killed himself a few months after Jacko\'s death.\n\nThere are other things out there which buttress this stance. As a lawyer, I\'m trained to trust in the legal system, and given no convictions here, I\'m leaning toward agreeing with Dash.\n\n3) Al Gore really did invent the Internet. (Even though he didn\'t really claim that.)\n\nI actually knew this already, but not to the degree I was about to.\n\nBob Wyman joined my friend Jeremie Miller\'s discussion at the RWW Summit (more on this directly below), and suggested that he was present at a meeting to discuss the future of ARPANET, a (if not the) precursor to the present-day Internet. APRANET was the largest of many mini-Internets, and these networks were used mostly for military and/or research purposes.\n\nGore, then a Congressman, was in those meetings as well, and he championed the idea of making these networks into a venue for commerce. Specifically, Gore pushed the idea that from society\'s point of view, having all these networks was unworkable, as it created islands where we needed seamless inter-connectivity. We needed one \"Internet\".\n\nTake a look at Gore\'s actual claim: \"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country\'s economic growth[.]\"\n\nIndeed, as Wyman pointed out, that\'s exactly what he did.\n\n4) People are already coding stuff for the Internet of 2020.\n\nThat\'s not a typo. Twenty-twenty.\n\nJeremie is building TeleHash, a protocol which allows for decentralized everything. Basically -- and I\'m 50% sure I have this right (and 50% sure I have it wrong), when completed, TeleHash will allow an application to connect to another application without having to go through a central server or switch. So instead of posting something to (say) Facebook or Twitter or whatever and having your friends login to that service to see it, you simply post the message and the application, via TeleHash, finds your friends and brings the info directly to them.\n\nBut what I didn\'t know is that TeleHash is years away from being mainstream-useful. At one point, Jeremie said that he\'s envisioning this as a part of the Internet of 2020 -- ten years out. To put that in perspective: In 2000 -- ten years ago -- AltaVista was looking at an IPO, Facebook and YouTube had not yet been founded, and PayPal was still an independent company. Looking to solve the problems of 2020 is incredibly ambitious, although for some people, ambitious protocol development is par for the course.\n\n5) We\'re at the point where the speed of light -- literally -- is a significant factor in decision-making at Google.\n\nIn the same discussion, someone asked if we still need big, powerful super-computers, or if a big task can be distributed over many much less powerful machines and done piecemeal. Both Miller and Wyman believed that with rare exception -- so rare, in fact, neither could come up with one off the top of their head -- distributed computing could process any task that a monolithic super computer could do.\n\nWhich lead someone to ask: Then why does Google have server farms -- singular warehouses with huge numbers of very powerful computers? First, Wyman said that the computers probably aren\'t all that powerful, which is a bit surprising. Then, he said the most important reason is convenience and cost. Specifically, he noted the air conditioning -- it\'s cheaper to cool a lot of machines at once than each machine individually. But those are not technical barriers.\n\nWyman said that there probably aren\'t any technical barriers. \"Except the speed of light,\" he added, his tone dead serious. It\'s true.\n\nAll these machines need to communicate with each other, and they can only do so at speeds up to the speed of light. The speed of light is about 187 miles per millisecond, which means that two machines next to each other can communicate basically instantaneously. But it\'d take 15 milliseconds for the same communication to travel between New York and Los Angeles. It doesn\'t seem like it, but it adds up.\n\n6) LiveStreams of interesting panels are impossible to follow.\n\nI tried to watch a few, and failed repeatedly. Most notably, I tried to watch Dave Winer\'s Sources Go Direct panel -- I\'d commented on two of his blog posts on the topic and find the thesis interesting.\n\nPerhaps we\'re spoiled by the high production values of events like the Super Bowl or the Oscars, or even the evening news. The camera is almost always trained at the right target, and in the odd event that it isn\'t, we immediately notice. Livestreams seem to be that bad stuff, with a bit of good stuff mixed in.\n\n7) There startup/innovation sector in New York City is orders of magnitude larger than I thought it was -- and I thought it was big to begin with.\n\nFom Monday through Wednesday, I went to three events which had probably had, in total, over 500 people. And while those events were going on, so were a bunch of others. For example, while I attended IgniteNYC on Wednesday, a lot of others were in Brooklyn for Social Climbing. While I went to the #140conf Party, I skipped the NY Tech Meetup which started just as the former ended -- 30 minutes away.\n\nOf those hundreds of people, how many did I see at more than one event?\n\nUnder five. Yes, I had met many of them beforehand, and yes, I\'d end up seeing a few of them on Friday. But the overlap between the early groups was virtually zero, which is a testament to the size and diversity of the NYC tech scene.\n\n8 ) The average wait time for a doctor\'s appointment in New York? 24 days.\n\nAt IgniteNYC, Karsten Vagner of ZocDoc gave an impassioned cry for better customer service in the health care industry. He pointed out that when we go on a trip somewhere, and our plane is delayed even an hour, we flip out -- how dare they! But when a doctor makes us sit and wait, whatever.\n\nAccording to Vagner, a New Yorker will wait, on average, the better part of a month to get an appointment with a doctor. From experience, this is unsurprising. It\'s mostly driven by specialists, though, who have non-emergency/timely matters. For example, we book allergist appointments months in advance, knowing full well that there\'s a need for a checkup/re-test, but nothing which can (or should) be don immediately.\n\nEven so, that\'s a great little factoid.\n\n9) Even a near-perfectly scripted presentation by a master showman can be upstaged by an errant comment from the peanut gallery.\n\nThe master showman? Steve Jobs.\n\nHeather Gold ran a breakout session at the ReadWriteWeb Summit, talking about \"tummeling.\" Not knowing what that meant -- and I\'m all but sure that it is not a real word -- I joined the conversation, intent on finding out. When I joined, she was speaking with Marshall Kirkpatrick about how often, the best part of a blog post or speech is the authentic, unplanned-on feedback you get from the audience.\n\nCue \"ah-ha\" moment. I piped up and mentioned this:\n\n\n\nThat was the highlight of the keynote. Certainly the most memorable part.\n\n10) There are people out there who are leading indicators of what\'s going to become big news. And they may not even know it.\n\nKirkpatrick gave an opening keynote at the RWW Summit and discussed how the blog tracks potentially viral stories. One of the techniques the RWW team uses is to take trending Techmeme stories and look back at Del.icio.us to see if anyone bookmarked stories ahead of time.','Ten Things I Learned During Internet Week 2010',0,'','inherit','open','open','','328-revision-9','','','2010-06-14 21:17:21','2010-06-14 21:17:21','',328,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/14/328-revision-9/',0,'revision','',0),(343,1,'2010-06-14 21:18:41','2010-06-14 21:18:41','Last week was \"Internet Week\" here in New York, which means I went to a lot of events. Four, in fact. Over the course of three evenings (Monday through Wednesday) and one day-long extravaganza Friday, and learned a ton. Here\'s some of that wealth.\r\n\r\n1) The power of good yields tears with thank yous.\r\n\r\nAt the ReadWriteWeb Summit, I lead a session titled \"The Long Production Cycle of Television: How Traditional Media Can Survive in a Real-Time World\" or something to that effect. During it, I mentioned how Sesame Workshop has a lot of outreach programs, and mentioned a recent one, When Families Grieve, which uses the death of Elmo\'s Uncle Jack -- and the grieving of Elmo and his cousin (Jack\'s daughter) Jesse -- to help children cope with the loss of a relative. I happened to have a resource kit with me and I passed it around, causing one participant to tear up. She later told me that finding out about the hour-long special and the resource kit was timely for her family, and thanked me for the work the Workshop was doing. It\'s a moment I\'ll hardly forget.\r\n\r\n2) Michael Jackson was probably innocent of child molestation charges.\r\n\r\nAt IgniteNYC, Anil Dash made a compelling argument that Michael Jackson did not actually molest a child in 1993, even though he paid the family of that child $20 million (and never faced criminal charges). The salient points: (1) The child\'s father, a dentist, was the screenwriter for Robin Hood: Men in Tights and had a massive incentive to try and hit someone like Jackson up for a lot of money, and (2) the guy killed himself a few months after Jacko\'s death.\r\n\r\nThere are other things out there which buttress this stance. As a lawyer, I\'m trained to trust in the legal system, and given no convictions here, I\'m leaning toward agreeing with Dash.\r\n\r\n3) Al Gore really did invent the Internet. (Even though he didn\'t really claim that.)\r\n\r\nI actually knew this already, but not to the degree I was about to.\r\n\r\nBob Wyman joined my friend Jeremie Miller\'s discussion at the RWW Summit (more on this directly below), and suggested that he was present at a meeting to discuss the future of ARPANET, a (if not the) precursor to the present-day Internet. APRANET was the largest of many mini-Internets, and these networks were used mostly for military and/or research purposes.\r\n\r\nGore, then a Congressman, was in those meetings as well, and he championed the idea of making these networks into a venue for commerce. Specifically, Gore pushed the idea that from society\'s point of view, having all these networks was unworkable, as it created islands where we needed seamless inter-connectivity. We needed one \"Internet\".\r\n\r\nTake a look at Gore\'s actual claim: \"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country\'s economic growth[.]\"\r\n\r\nIndeed, as Wyman pointed out, that\'s exactly what he did.\r\n\r\n4) People are already coding stuff for the Internet of 2020.\r\n\r\nThat\'s not a typo. Twenty-twenty.\r\n\r\nJeremie is building TeleHash, a protocol which allows for decentralized everything. Basically -- and I\'m 50% sure I have this right (and 50% sure I have it wrong), when completed, TeleHash will allow an application to connect to another application without having to go through a central server or switch. So instead of posting something to (say) Facebook or Twitter or whatever and having your friends login to that service to see it, you simply post the message and the application, via TeleHash, finds your friends and brings the info directly to them.\r\n\r\nBut what I didn\'t know is that TeleHash is years away from being mainstream-useful. At one point, Jeremie said that he\'s envisioning this as a part of the Internet of 2020 -- ten years out. To put that in perspective: In 2000 -- ten years ago -- AltaVista was looking at an IPO, Facebook and YouTube had not yet been founded, and PayPal was still an independent company. Looking to solve the problems of 2020 is incredibly ambitious, although for some people, ambitious protocol development is par for the course.\r\n\r\n5) We\'re at the point where the speed of light -- literally -- is a significant factor in decision-making at Google.\r\n\r\nIn the same discussion, someone asked if we still need big, powerful super-computers, or if a big task can be distributed over many much less powerful machines and done piecemeal. Both Miller and Wyman believed that with rare exception -- so rare, in fact, neither could come up with one off the top of their head -- distributed computing could process any task that a monolithic super computer could do.\r\n\r\nWhich lead someone to ask: Then why does Google have server farms -- singular warehouses with huge numbers of very powerful computers? First, Wyman said that the computers probably aren\'t all that powerful, which is a bit surprising. Then, he said the most important reason is convenience and cost. Specifically, he noted the air conditioning -- it\'s cheaper to cool a lot of machines at once than each machine individually. But those are not technical barriers.\r\n\r\nWyman said that there probably aren\'t any technical barriers. \"Except the speed of light,\" he added, his tone dead serious. It\'s true.\r\n\r\nAll these machines need to communicate with each other, and they can only do so at speeds up to the speed of light. The speed of light is about 187 miles per millisecond, which means that two machines next to each other can communicate basically instantaneously. But it\'d take 15 milliseconds for the same communication to travel between New York and Los Angeles. It doesn\'t seem like it, but it adds up.\r\n\r\n6) LiveStreams of interesting panels are impossible to follow.\r\n\r\nI tried to watch a few, and failed repeatedly. Most notably, I tried to watch Dave Winer\'s Sources Go Direct panel -- I\'d commented on two of his blog posts on the topic and find the thesis interesting.\r\n\r\nPerhaps we\'re spoiled by the high production values of events like the Super Bowl or the Oscars, or even the evening news. The camera is almost always trained at the right target, and in the odd event that it isn\'t, we immediately notice. Livestreams seem to be that bad stuff, with a bit of good stuff mixed in.\r\n\r\n7) There startup/innovation sector in New York City is orders of magnitude larger than I thought it was -- and I thought it was big to begin with.\r\n\r\nFom Monday through Wednesday, I went to three events which had probably had, in total, over 500 people. And while those events were going on, so were a bunch of others. For example, while I attended IgniteNYC on Wednesday, a lot of others were in Brooklyn for Social Climbing. While I went to the #140conf Party, I skipped the NY Tech Meetup which started just as the former ended -- 30 minutes away.\r\n\r\nOf those hundreds of people, how many did I see at more than one event?\r\n\r\nUnder five. Yes, I had met many of them beforehand, and yes, I\'d end up seeing a few of them on Friday. But the overlap between the early groups was virtually zero, which is a testament to the size and diversity of the NYC tech scene.\r\n\r\n8 ) The average wait time for a doctor\'s appointment in New York? 24 days.\r\n\r\nAt IgniteNYC, Karsten Vagner of ZocDoc gave an impassioned cry for better customer service in the health care industry. He pointed out that when we go on a trip somewhere, and our plane is delayed even an hour, we flip out -- how dare they! But when a doctor makes us sit and wait, whatever.\r\n\r\nAccording to Vagner, a New Yorker will wait, on average, the better part of a month to get an appointment with a doctor. From experience, this is unsurprising. It\'s mostly driven by specialists, though, who have non-emergency/timely matters. For example, we book allergist appointments months in advance, knowing full well that there\'s a need for a checkup/re-test, but nothing which can (or should) be don immediately.\r\n\r\nEven so, that\'s a great little factoid.\r\n\r\n9) Even a near-perfectly scripted presentation by a master showman can be upstaged by an errant comment from the peanut gallery.\r\n\r\nThe master showman? Steve Jobs.\r\n\r\nHeather Gold ran a breakout session at the ReadWriteWeb Summit, talking about \"tummeling.\" Not knowing what that meant -- and I\'m all but sure that it is not a real word -- I joined the conversation, intent on finding out. When I joined, she was speaking with Marshall Kirkpatrick about how often, the best part of a blog post or speech is the authentic, unplanned-on feedback you get from the audience.\r\n\r\nCue \"ah-ha\" moment. I piped up and mentioned this:\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nThat was the highlight of the keynote. Certainly the most memorable part.\r\n\r\n10) There are people out there who are leading indicators of what\'s going to become big news. And they may not even know it.\r\n\r\nKirkpatrick gave an opening keynote at the RWW Summit and discussed how the blog tracks potentially viral stories. One of the techniques the RWW team uses is to take trending Techmeme stories and look back at Del.icio.us to see if anyone bookmarked stories ahead of time.','Ten Things I Learned During Internet Week 2010',0,'','inherit','open','open','','328-revision-10','','','2010-06-14 21:18:41','2010-06-14 21:18:41','',328,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/14/328-revision-10/',0,'revision','',0),(344,1,'2010-06-14 21:30:28','2010-06-14 21:30:28','Last week was \"Internet Week\" here in New York, which means I went to a lot of events. Four, in fact. Over the course of three evenings (Monday through Wednesday) and one day-long extravaganza Friday, and learned a ton. Here\'s some of that wealth.\n\n1) The power of good yields tears with thank yous.\n\nAt the ReadWriteWeb Summit, I lead a session titled \"The Long Production Cycle of Television: How Traditional Media Can Survive in a Real-Time World\" or something to that effect. During it, I mentioned how Sesame Workshop has a lot of outreach programs, and mentioned a recent one, When Families Grieve, which uses the death of Elmo\'s Uncle Jack -- and the grieving of Elmo and his cousin (Jack\'s daughter) Jesse -- to help children cope with the loss of a relative. I happened to have a resource kit with me and I passed it around, causing one participant to tear up. She later told me that finding out about the hour-long special and the resource kit was timely for her family, and thanked me for the work the Workshop was doing. It\'s a moment I\'ll hardly forget.\n\n2) Michael Jackson was probably innocent of child molestation charges.\n\nAt IgniteNYC, Anil Dash made a compelling argument that Michael Jackson did not actually molest a child in 1993, even though he paid the family of that child $20 million (and never faced criminal charges). The salient points: (1) The child\'s father, a dentist, was the screenwriter for Robin Hood: Men in Tights and had a massive incentive to try and hit someone like Jackson up for a lot of money, and (2) the guy killed himself a few months after Jacko\'s death.\n\nThere are other things out there which buttress this stance. As a lawyer, I\'m trained to trust in the legal system, and given no convictions here, I\'m leaning toward agreeing with Dash.\n\n3) Al Gore really did invent the Internet. (Even though he didn\'t really claim that.)\n\nI actually knew this already, but not to the degree I was about to.\n\nBob Wyman joined my friend Jeremie Miller\'s discussion at the RWW Summit (more on this directly below), and suggested that he was present at a meeting to discuss the future of ARPANET, a (if not the) precursor to the present-day Internet. APRANET was the largest of many mini-Internets, and these networks were used mostly for military and/or research purposes.\n\nGore, then a Congressman, was in those meetings as well, and he championed the idea of making these networks into a venue for commerce. Specifically, Gore pushed the idea that from society\'s point of view, having all these networks was unworkable, as it created islands where we needed seamless inter-connectivity. We needed one \"Internet\".\n\nTake a look at Gore\'s actual claim: \"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country\'s economic growth[.]\"\n\nIndeed, as Wyman pointed out, that\'s exactly what he did.\n\n4) People are already coding stuff for the Internet of 2020.\n\nThat\'s not a typo. Twenty-twenty.\n\nJeremie is building TeleHash, a protocol which allows for decentralized everything. Basically -- and I\'m 50% sure I have this right (and 50% sure I have it wrong), when completed, TeleHash will allow an application to connect to another application without having to go through a central server or switch. So instead of posting something to (say) Facebook or Twitter or whatever and having your friends login to that service to see it, you simply post the message and the application, via TeleHash, finds your friends and brings the info directly to them.\n\nBut what I didn\'t know is that TeleHash is years away from being mainstream-useful. At one point, Jeremie said that he\'s envisioning this as a part of the Internet of 2020 -- ten years out. To put that in perspective: In 2000 -- ten years ago -- AltaVista was looking at an IPO, Facebook and YouTube had not yet been founded, and PayPal was still an independent company. Looking to solve the problems of 2020 is incredibly ambitious, although for some people, ambitious protocol development is par for the course.\n\n5) We\'re at the point where the speed of light -- literally -- is a significant factor in decision-making at Google.\n\nIn the same discussion, someone asked if we still need big, powerful super-computers, or if a big task can be distributed over many much less powerful machines and done piecemeal. Both Miller and Wyman believed that with rare exception -- so rare, in fact, neither could come up with one off the top of their head -- distributed computing could process any task that a monolithic super computer could do.\n\nWhich lead someone to ask: Then why does Google have server farms -- singular warehouses with huge numbers of very powerful computers? First, Wyman said that the computers probably aren\'t all that powerful, which is a bit surprising. Then, he said the most important reason is convenience and cost. Specifically, he noted the air conditioning -- it\'s cheaper to cool a lot of machines at once than each machine individually. But those are not technical barriers.\n\nWyman said that there probably aren\'t any technical barriers. \"Except the speed of light,\" he added, his tone dead serious. It\'s true.\n\nAll these machines need to communicate with each other, and they can only do so at speeds up to the speed of light. The speed of light is about 187 miles per millisecond, which means that two machines next to each other can communicate basically instantaneously. But it\'d take 15 milliseconds for the same communication to travel between New York and Los Angeles. It doesn\'t seem like it, but it adds up.\n\n6) LiveStreams of interesting panels are impossible to follow.\n\nI tried to watch a few, and failed repeatedly. Most notably, I tried to watch Dave Winer\'s Sources Go Direct panel -- I\'d commented on two of his blog posts on the topic and find the thesis interesting.\n\nPerhaps we\'re spoiled by the high production values of events like the Super Bowl or the Oscars, or even the evening news. The camera is almost always trained at the right target, and in the odd event that it isn\'t, we immediately notice. Livestreams seem to be that bad stuff, with a bit of good stuff mixed in.\n\n7) There startup/innovation sector in New York City is orders of magnitude larger than I thought it was -- and I thought it was big to begin with.\n\nFom Monday through Wednesday, I went to three events which had probably had, in total, over 500 people. And while those events were going on, so were a bunch of others. For example, while I attended IgniteNYC on Wednesday, a lot of others were in Brooklyn for Social Climbing. While I went to the #140conf Party, I skipped the NY Tech Meetup which started just as the former ended -- 30 minutes away.\n\nOf those hundreds of people, how many did I see at more than one event?\n\nUnder five. Yes, I had met many of them beforehand, and yes, I\'d end up seeing a few of them on Friday. But the overlap between the early groups was virtually zero, which is a testament to the size and diversity of the NYC tech scene.\n\n8 ) The average wait time for a doctor\'s appointment in New York? 24 days.\n\nAt IgniteNYC, Karsten Vagner of ZocDoc gave an impassioned cry for better customer service in the health care industry. He pointed out that when we go on a trip somewhere, and our plane is delayed even an hour, we flip out -- how dare they! But when a doctor makes us sit and wait, whatever.\n\nAccording to Vagner, a New Yorker will wait, on average, the better part of a month to get an appointment with a doctor. From experience, this is unsurprising. It\'s mostly driven by specialists, though, who have non-emergency/timely matters. For example, we book allergist appointments months in advance, knowing full well that there\'s a need for a checkup/re-test, but nothing which can (or should) be don immediately.\n\nEven so, that\'s a great little factoid.\n\n9) Even a near-perfectly scripted presentation by a master showman can be upstaged by an errant comment from the peanut gallery.\n\nThe master showman? Steve Jobs.\n\nHeather Gold ran a breakout session at the ReadWriteWeb Summit, talking about \"tummeling.\" Not knowing what that meant -- and I\'m all but sure that it is not a real word -- I joined the conversation, intent on finding out. When I joined, she was speaking with Marshall Kirkpatrick about how often, the best part of a blog post or speech is the authentic, unplanned-on feedback you get from the audience.\n\nCue \"ah-ha\" moment. I piped up and mentioned that Steve Jobs ran into network problems during his keynote, and at one point, asked if anyone had any suggestions.\n\nAn audience member offered one: \"Verizon.\" (You can see that part in the video at Gizmodo, with roughly 20 seconds left until it ends.)\n\nThat was the highlight of the keynote. Certainly the most memorable part.\n\n10) There are people out there who are leading indicators of what\'s going to become big news. And they may not even know it.\n\nKirkpatrick gave an opening keynote at the RWW Summit and discussed how the blog tracks potentially viral stories. One of the techniques the RWW team uses is to take trending Techmeme stories and look back at Del.icio.us to see if anyone bookmarked stories ahead of time.\n\nThey gather up those early bookmarkers and build a small, informal database. Over time, the find repeat users in the list. They now have about a dozen people who, solely by virtue of this process, RWW recognizes as meme bloodhounds.\n\nThat\'s incredibly impressive, and kudos to the RWW team for mining these networks to find true gems -- even if the gems don\'t know their value.\n* * *
\nThank you to everyone I met
','Ten Things I Learned During Internet Week 2010',0,'','inherit','open','open','','328-revision-11','','','2010-06-14 21:30:28','2010-06-14 21:30:28','',328,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/14/328-revision-11/',0,'revision','',0),(345,1,'2010-06-14 21:33:23','2010-06-14 21:33:23','','Google Logo',0,'','inherit','open','open','','1_google_logo','','','2010-06-14 21:33:23','2010-06-14 21:33:23','',328,'http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/1_google_logo.jpg',0,'attachment','image/jpeg',0),(346,1,'2010-06-14 21:32:02','2010-06-14 21:32:02','
Last week was \"Internet Week\" here in New York, which means I went to a lot of events. Four, in fact. Over the course of three evenings (Monday through Wednesday) and one day-long extravaganza Friday, and learned a ton. Here\'s some of that wealth.
\n1) The power of good yields tears with thank yous.\n\nAt the ReadWriteWeb Summit, I lead a session titled \"The Long Production Cycle of Television: How Traditional Media Can Survive in a Real-Time World\" or something to that effect. During it, I mentioned how Sesame Workshop has a lot of outreach programs, and mentioned a recent one, When Families Grieve, which uses the death of Elmo\'s Uncle Jack -- and the grieving of Elmo and his cousin (Jack\'s daughter) Jesse -- to help children cope with the loss of a relative. I happened to have a resource kit with me and I passed it around, causing one participant to tear up. She later told me that finding out about the hour-long special and the resource kit was timely for her family, and thanked me for the work the Workshop was doing. It\'s a moment I\'ll hardly forget.\n\n2) Michael Jackson was probably innocent of child molestation charges.\n\nAt IgniteNYC, Anil Dash made a compelling argument that Michael Jackson did not actually molest a child in 1993, even though he paid the family of that child $20 million (and never faced criminal charges). The salient points: (1) The child\'s father, a dentist, was the screenwriter for Robin Hood: Men in Tights and had a massive incentive to try and hit someone like Jackson up for a lot of money, and (2) the guy killed himself a few months after Jacko\'s death.\n\nThere are other things out there which buttress this stance. As a lawyer, I\'m trained to trust in the legal system, and given no convictions here, I\'m leaning toward agreeing with Dash.\n\n3) Al Gore really did invent the Internet. (Even though he didn\'t really claim that.)\n\nI actually knew this already, but not to the degree I was about to.\n\nBob Wyman joined my friend Jeremie Miller\'s discussion at the RWW Summit (more on this directly below), and suggested that he was present at a meeting to discuss the future of ARPANET, a (if not the) precursor to the present-day Internet. APRANET was the largest of many mini-Internets, and these networks were used mostly for military and/or research purposes.\n\nGore, then a Congressman, was in those meetings as well, and he championed the idea of making these networks into a venue for commerce. Specifically, Gore pushed the idea that from society\'s point of view, having all these networks was unworkable, as it created islands where we needed seamless inter-connectivity. We needed one \"Internet\".\n\nTake a look at Gore\'s actual claim: \"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country\'s economic growth[.]\"\n\nIndeed, as Wyman pointed out, that\'s exactly what he did.\n\n4) People are already coding stuff for the Internet of 2020.\n\nThat\'s not a typo. Twenty-twenty.\n\nJeremie is building TeleHash, a protocol which allows for decentralized everything. Basically -- and I\'m 50% sure I have this right (and 50% sure I have it wrong), when completed, TeleHash will allow an application to connect to another application without having to go through a central server or switch. So instead of posting something to (say) Facebook or Twitter or whatever and having your friends login to that service to see it, you simply post the message and the application, via TeleHash, finds your friends and brings the info directly to them.\n\nBut what I didn\'t know is that TeleHash is years away from being mainstream-useful. At one point, Jeremie said that he\'s envisioning this as a part of the Internet of 2020 -- ten years out. To put that in perspective: In 2000 -- ten years ago -- AltaVista was looking at an IPO, Facebook and YouTube had not yet been founded, and PayPal was still an independent company. Looking to solve the problems of 2020 is incredibly ambitious, although for some people, ambitious protocol development is par for the course.\n\n5) We\'re at the point where the speed of light -- literally -- is a significant factor in decision-making at Google.\n\nIn the same discussion, someone asked if we still need big, powerful super-computers, or if a big task can be distributed over many much less powerful machines and done piecemeal. Both Miller and Wyman believed that with rare exception -- so rare, in fact, neither could come up with one off the top of their head -- distributed computing could process any task that a monolithic super computer could do.\n\nWhich lead someone to ask: Then why does Google have server farms -- singular warehouses with huge numbers of very powerful computers? First, Wyman said that the computers probably aren\'t all that powerful, which is a bit surprising. Then, he said the most important reason is convenience and cost. Specifically, he noted the air conditioning -- it\'s cheaper to cool a lot of machines at once than each machine individually. But those are not technical barriers.\n\nWyman said that there probably aren\'t any technical barriers. \"Except the speed of light,\" he added, his tone dead serious. It\'s true.\n\nAll these machines need to communicate with each other, and they can only do so at speeds up to the speed of light. The speed of light is about 187 miles per millisecond, which means that two machines next to each other can communicate basically instantaneously. But it\'d take 15 milliseconds for the same communication to travel between New York and Los Angeles. It doesn\'t seem like it, but it adds up.\n\n6) LiveStreams of interesting panels are impossible to follow.\n\nI tried to watch a few, and failed repeatedly. Most notably, I tried to watch Dave Winer\'s Sources Go Direct panel -- I\'d commented on two of his blog posts on the topic and find the thesis interesting.\n\nPerhaps we\'re spoiled by the high production values of events like the Super Bowl or the Oscars, or even the evening news. The camera is almost always trained at the right target, and in the odd event that it isn\'t, we immediately notice. Livestreams seem to be that bad stuff, with a bit of good stuff mixed in.\n\n7) There startup/innovation sector in New York City is orders of magnitude larger than I thought it was -- and I thought it was big to begin with.\n\nFom Monday through Wednesday, I went to three events which had probably had, in total, over 500 people. And while those events were going on, so were a bunch of others. For example, while I attended IgniteNYC on Wednesday, a lot of others were in Brooklyn for Social Climbing. While I went to the #140conf Party, I skipped the NY Tech Meetup which started just as the former ended -- 30 minutes away.\n\nOf those hundreds of people, how many did I see at more than one event?\n\nUnder five. Yes, I had met many of them beforehand, and yes, I\'d end up seeing a few of them on Friday. But the overlap between the early groups was virtually zero, which is a testament to the size and diversity of the NYC tech scene.\n\n8 ) The average wait time for a doctor\'s appointment in New York? 24 days.\n\nAt IgniteNYC, Karsten Vagner of ZocDoc gave an impassioned cry for better customer service in the health care industry. He pointed out that when we go on a trip somewhere, and our plane is delayed even an hour, we flip out -- how dare they! But when a doctor makes us sit and wait, whatever.\n\nAccording to Vagner, a New Yorker will wait, on average, the better part of a month to get an appointment with a doctor. From experience, this is unsurprising. It\'s mostly driven by specialists, though, who have non-emergency/timely matters. For example, we book allergist appointments months in advance, knowing full well that there\'s a need for a checkup/re-test, but nothing which can (or should) be don immediately.\n\nEven so, that\'s a great little factoid.\n\n9) Even a near-perfectly scripted presentation by a master showman can be upstaged by an errant comment from the peanut gallery.\n\nThe master showman? Steve Jobs.\n\nHeather Gold ran a breakout session at the ReadWriteWeb Summit, talking about \"tummeling.\" Not knowing what that meant -- and I\'m all but sure that it is not a real word -- I joined the conversation, intent on finding out. When I joined, she was speaking with Marshall Kirkpatrick about how often, the best part of a blog post or speech is the authentic, unplanned-on feedback you get from the audience.\n\nCue \"ah-ha\" moment. I piped up and mentioned that Steve Jobs ran into network problems during his keynote, and at one point, asked if anyone had any suggestions.\n\nAn audience member offered one: \"Verizon.\" (You can see that part in the video at Gizmodo, with roughly 20 seconds left until it ends.)\n\nThat was the highlight of the keynote. Certainly the most memorable part.\n\n10) There are people out there who are leading indicators of what\'s going to become big news. And they may not even know it.\n\nKirkpatrick gave an opening keynote at the RWW Summit and discussed how the blog tracks potentially viral stories. One of the techniques the RWW team uses is to take trending Techmeme stories and look back at Del.icio.us to see if anyone bookmarked stories ahead of time.\n\nThey gather up those early bookmarkers and build a small, informal database. Over time, the find repeat users in the list. They now have about a dozen people who, solely by virtue of this process, RWW recognizes as meme bloodhounds.\n\nThat\'s incredibly impressive, and kudos to the RWW team for mining these networks to find true gems -- even if the gems don\'t know their value.\n* * *
\nThank you to everyone I met, spoke to, and listened to last week. Internet Week 2010 was a great learning experience, and I\'m better off for having participated.
','Ten Things I Learned During Internet Week 2010',0,'','inherit','open','open','','328-revision-12','','','2010-06-14 21:32:02','2010-06-14 21:32:02','',328,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/14/328-revision-12/',0,'revision','',0),(348,1,'2010-06-14 21:35:23','2010-06-14 21:35:23','
Last week was \"Internet Week\" here in New York, which means I went to a lot of events. Four, in fact. Over the course of three evenings (Monday through Wednesday) and one day-long extravaganza Friday, and learned a ton. Here\'s some of that wealth.
\n1) The power of good yields tears with thank yous.\n\nAt the ReadWriteWeb Summit, I lead a session titled \"The Long Production Cycle of Television: How Traditional Media Can Survive in a Real-Time World\" or something to that effect. During it, I mentioned how Sesame Workshop has a lot of outreach programs, and mentioned a recent one, When Families Grieve, which uses the death of Elmo\'s Uncle Jack -- and the grieving of Elmo and his cousin (Jack\'s daughter) Jesse -- to help children cope with the loss of a relative. I happened to have a resource kit with me and I passed it around, causing one participant to tear up. She later told me that finding out about the hour-long special and the resource kit was timely for her family, and thanked me for the work the Workshop was doing. It\'s a moment I\'ll hardly forget.\n\n2) Michael Jackson was probably innocent of child molestation charges.\n\nAt IgniteNYC, Anil Dash made a compelling argument that Michael Jackson did not actually molest a child in 1993, even though he paid the family of that child $20 million (and never faced criminal charges). The salient points: (1) The child\'s father, a dentist, was the screenwriter for Robin Hood: Men in Tights and had a massive incentive to try and hit someone like Jackson up for a lot of money, and (2) the guy killed himself a few months after Jacko\'s death.\n\nThere are other things out there which buttress this stance. As a lawyer, I\'m trained to trust in the legal system, and given no convictions here, I\'m leaning toward agreeing with Dash.\n\n3) Al Gore really did invent the Internet. (Even though he didn\'t really claim that.)\n\nI actually knew this already, but not to the degree I was about to.\n\nBob Wyman joined my friend Jeremie Miller\'s discussion at the RWW Summit (more on this directly below), and suggested that he was present at a meeting to discuss the future of ARPANET, a (if not the) precursor to the present-day Internet. APRANET was the largest of many mini-Internets, and these networks were used mostly for military and/or research purposes.\n\nGore, then a Congressman, was in those meetings as well, and he championed the idea of making these networks into a venue for commerce. Specifically, Gore pushed the idea that from society\'s point of view, having all these networks was unworkable, as it created islands where we needed seamless inter-connectivity. We needed one \"Internet\".\n\nTake a look at Gore\'s actual claim: \"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country\'s economic growth[.]\"\n\nIndeed, as Wyman pointed out, that\'s exactly what he did.\n\n4) People are already coding stuff for the Internet of 2020.\n\nThat\'s not a typo. Twenty-twenty.\n\nJeremie is building TeleHash, a protocol which allows for decentralized everything. Basically -- and I\'m 50% sure I have this right (and 50% sure I have it wrong), when completed, TeleHash will allow an application to connect to another application without having to go through a central server or switch. So instead of posting something to (say) Facebook or Twitter or whatever and having your friends login to that service to see it, you simply post the message and the application, via TeleHash, finds your friends and brings the info directly to them.\n\nBut what I didn\'t know is that TeleHash is years away from being mainstream-useful. At one point, Jeremie said that he\'s envisioning this as a part of the Internet of 2020 -- ten years out. To put that in perspective: In 2000 -- ten years ago -- AltaVista was looking at an IPO, Facebook and YouTube had not yet been founded, and PayPal was still an independent company. Looking to solve the problems of 2020 is incredibly ambitious, although for some people, ambitious protocol development is par for the course.\n\n5) We\'re at the point where the speed of light -- literally -- is a significant factor in decision-making at Google.\n\nIn the same discussion, someone asked if we still need big, powerful super-computers, or if a big task can be distributed over many much less powerful machines and done piecemeal. Both Miller and Wyman believed that with rare exception -- so rare, in fact, neither could come up with one off the top of their head -- distributed computing could process any task that a monolithic super computer could do.\n\nWhich lead someone to ask: Then why does Google have server farms -- singular warehouses with huge numbers of very powerful computers? First, Wyman said that the computers probably aren\'t all that powerful, which is a bit surprising. Then, he said the most important reason is convenience and cost. Specifically, he noted the air conditioning -- it\'s cheaper to cool a lot of machines at once than each machine individually. But those are not technical barriers.\n\nWyman said that there probably aren\'t any technical barriers. \"Except the speed of light,\" he added, his tone dead serious. It\'s true.\n\nAll these machines need to communicate with each other, and they can only do so at speeds up to the speed of light. The speed of light is about 187 miles per millisecond, which means that two machines next to each other can communicate basically instantaneously. But it\'d take 15 milliseconds for the same communication to travel between New York and Los Angeles. It doesn\'t seem like it, but it adds up.\n\n6) LiveStreams of interesting panels are impossible to follow.\n\nI tried to watch a few, and failed repeatedly. Most notably, I tried to watch Dave Winer\'s Sources Go Direct panel -- I\'d commented on two of his blog posts on the topic and find the thesis interesting.\n\nPerhaps we\'re spoiled by the high production values of events like the Super Bowl or the Oscars, or even the evening news. The camera is almost always trained at the right target, and in the odd event that it isn\'t, we immediately notice. Livestreams seem to be that bad stuff, with a bit of good stuff mixed in.\n\n7) There startup/innovation sector in New York City is orders of magnitude larger than I thought it was -- and I thought it was big to begin with.\n\nFom Monday through Wednesday, I went to three events which had probably had, in total, over 500 people. And while those events were going on, so were a bunch of others. For example, while I attended IgniteNYC on Wednesday, a lot of others were in Brooklyn for Social Climbing. While I went to the #140conf Party, I skipped the NY Tech Meetup which started just as the former ended -- 30 minutes away.\n\nOf those hundreds of people, how many did I see at more than one event?\n\nUnder five. Yes, I had met many of them beforehand, and yes, I\'d end up seeing a few of them on Friday. But the overlap between the early groups was virtually zero, which is a testament to the size and diversity of the NYC tech scene.\n\n8 ) The average wait time for a doctor\'s appointment in New York? 24 days.\n\nAt IgniteNYC, Karsten Vagner of ZocDoc gave an impassioned cry for better customer service in the health care industry. He pointed out that when we go on a trip somewhere, and our plane is delayed even an hour, we flip out -- how dare they! But when a doctor makes us sit and wait, whatever.\n\nAccording to Vagner, a New Yorker will wait, on average, the better part of a month to get an appointment with a doctor. From experience, this is unsurprising. It\'s mostly driven by specialists, though, who have non-emergency/timely matters. For example, we book allergist appointments months in advance, knowing full well that there\'s a need for a checkup/re-test, but nothing which can (or should) be don immediately.\n\nEven so, that\'s a great little factoid.\n\n9) Even a near-perfectly scripted presentation by a master showman can be upstaged by an errant comment from the peanut gallery.\n\nThe master showman? Steve Jobs.\n\nHeather Gold ran a breakout session at the ReadWriteWeb Summit, talking about \"tummeling.\" Not knowing what that meant -- and I\'m all but sure that it is not a real word -- I joined the conversation, intent on finding out. When I joined, she was speaking with Marshall Kirkpatrick about how often, the best part of a blog post or speech is the authentic, unplanned-on feedback you get from the audience.\n\nCue \"ah-ha\" moment. I piped up and mentioned that Steve Jobs ran into network problems during his keynote, and at one point, asked if anyone had any suggestions.\n\nAn audience member offered one: \"Verizon.\" (You can see that part in the video at Gizmodo, with roughly 20 seconds left until it ends.)\n\nThat was the highlight of the keynote. Certainly the most memorable part.\n\n10) There are people out there who are leading indicators of what\'s going to become big news. And they may not even know it.\n\nKirkpatrick gave an opening keynote at the RWW Summit and discussed how the blog tracks potentially viral stories. One of the techniques the RWW team uses is to take trending Techmeme stories and look back at Del.icio.us to see if anyone bookmarked stories ahead of time.\n\nThey gather up those early bookmarkers and build a small, informal database. Over time, the find repeat users in the list. They now have about a dozen people who, solely by virtue of this process, RWW recognizes as meme bloodhounds.\n\nThat\'s incredibly impressive, and kudos to the RWW team for mining these networks to find true gems -- even if the gems don\'t know their value.\n* * *
\nThank you to everyone I met, spoke to, and listened to last week. Internet Week 2010 was a great learning experience, and I\'m better off for having participated.
','Ten Things I Learned During Internet Week 2010',0,'','inherit','open','open','','328-revision-14','','','2010-06-14 21:35:23','2010-06-14 21:35:23','',328,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/14/328-revision-14/',0,'revision','',0),(347,1,'2010-06-14 21:33:39','2010-06-14 21:33:39','
Last week was \"Internet Week\" here in New York, which means I went to a lot of events. Four, in fact. Over the course of three evenings (Monday through Wednesday) and one day-long extravaganza Friday, and learned a ton. Here\'s some of that wealth.
\r\n1) The power of good yields tears with thank yous.\r\n\r\nAt the ReadWriteWeb Summit, I lead a session titled \"The Long Production Cycle of Television: How Traditional Media Can Survive in a Real-Time World\" or something to that effect. During it, I mentioned how Sesame Workshop has a lot of outreach programs, and mentioned a recent one, When Families Grieve, which uses the death of Elmo\'s Uncle Jack -- and the grieving of Elmo and his cousin (Jack\'s daughter) Jesse -- to help children cope with the loss of a relative. I happened to have a resource kit with me and I passed it around, causing one participant to tear up. She later told me that finding out about the hour-long special and the resource kit was timely for her family, and thanked me for the work the Workshop was doing. It\'s a moment I\'ll hardly forget.\r\n\r\n2) Michael Jackson was probably innocent of child molestation charges.\r\n\r\nAt IgniteNYC, Anil Dash made a compelling argument that Michael Jackson did not actually molest a child in 1993, even though he paid the family of that child $20 million (and never faced criminal charges). The salient points: (1) The child\'s father, a dentist, was the screenwriter for Robin Hood: Men in Tights and had a massive incentive to try and hit someone like Jackson up for a lot of money, and (2) the guy killed himself a few months after Jacko\'s death.\r\n\r\nThere are other things out there which buttress this stance. As a lawyer, I\'m trained to trust in the legal system, and given no convictions here, I\'m leaning toward agreeing with Dash.\r\n\r\n3) Al Gore really did invent the Internet. (Even though he didn\'t really claim that.)\r\n\r\nI actually knew this already, but not to the degree I was about to.\r\n\r\nBob Wyman joined my friend Jeremie Miller\'s discussion at the RWW Summit (more on this directly below), and suggested that he was present at a meeting to discuss the future of ARPANET, a (if not the) precursor to the present-day Internet. APRANET was the largest of many mini-Internets, and these networks were used mostly for military and/or research purposes.\r\n\r\nGore, then a Congressman, was in those meetings as well, and he championed the idea of making these networks into a venue for commerce. Specifically, Gore pushed the idea that from society\'s point of view, having all these networks was unworkable, as it created islands where we needed seamless inter-connectivity. We needed one \"Internet\".\r\n\r\nTake a look at Gore\'s actual claim: \"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country\'s economic growth[.]\"\r\n\r\nIndeed, as Wyman pointed out, that\'s exactly what he did.\r\n\r\n4) People are already coding stuff for the Internet of 2020.\r\n\r\nThat\'s not a typo. Twenty-twenty.\r\n\r\nJeremie is building TeleHash, a protocol which allows for decentralized everything. Basically -- and I\'m 50% sure I have this right (and 50% sure I have it wrong), when completed, TeleHash will allow an application to connect to another application without having to go through a central server or switch. So instead of posting something to (say) Facebook or Twitter or whatever and having your friends login to that service to see it, you simply post the message and the application, via TeleHash, finds your friends and brings the info directly to them.\r\n\r\nBut what I didn\'t know is that TeleHash is years away from being mainstream-useful. At one point, Jeremie said that he\'s envisioning this as a part of the Internet of 2020 -- ten years out. To put that in perspective: In 2000 -- ten years ago -- AltaVista was looking at an IPO, Facebook and YouTube had not yet been founded, and PayPal was still an independent company. Looking to solve the problems of 2020 is incredibly ambitious, although for some people, ambitious protocol development is par for the course.\r\n\r\n5) We\'re at the point where the speed of light -- literally -- is a significant factor in decision-making at Google.\r\n\r\nIn the same discussion, someone asked if we still need big, powerful super-computers, or if a big task can be distributed over many much less powerful machines and done piecemeal. Both Miller and Wyman believed that with rare exception -- so rare, in fact, neither could come up with one off the top of their head -- distributed computing could process any task that a monolithic super computer could do.\r\n\r\nWhich lead someone to ask: Then why does Google have server farms -- singular warehouses with huge numbers of very powerful computers? First, Wyman said that the computers probably aren\'t all that powerful, which is a bit surprising. Then, he said the most important reason is convenience and cost. Specifically, he noted the air conditioning -- it\'s cheaper to cool a lot of machines at once than each machine individually. But those are not technical barriers.\r\n\r\nWyman said that there probably aren\'t any technical barriers. \"Except the speed of light,\" he added, his tone dead serious. It\'s true.\r\n\r\nAll these machines need to communicate with each other, and they can only do so at speeds up to the speed of light. The speed of light is about 187 miles per millisecond, which means that two machines next to each other can communicate basically instantaneously. But it\'d take 15 milliseconds for the same communication to travel between New York and Los Angeles. It doesn\'t seem like it, but it adds up.\r\n\r\n6) LiveStreams of interesting panels are impossible to follow.\r\n\r\nI tried to watch a few, and failed repeatedly. Most notably, I tried to watch Dave Winer\'s Sources Go Direct panel -- I\'d commented on two of his blog posts on the topic and find the thesis interesting.\r\n\r\nPerhaps we\'re spoiled by the high production values of events like the Super Bowl or the Oscars, or even the evening news. The camera is almost always trained at the right target, and in the odd event that it isn\'t, we immediately notice. Livestreams seem to be that bad stuff, with a bit of good stuff mixed in.\r\n\r\n7) There startup/innovation sector in New York City is orders of magnitude larger than I thought it was -- and I thought it was big to begin with.\r\n\r\nFom Monday through Wednesday, I went to three events which had probably had, in total, over 500 people. And while those events were going on, so were a bunch of others. For example, while I attended IgniteNYC on Wednesday, a lot of others were in Brooklyn for Social Climbing. While I went to the #140conf Party, I skipped the NY Tech Meetup which started just as the former ended -- 30 minutes away.\r\n\r\nOf those hundreds of people, how many did I see at more than one event?\r\n\r\nUnder five. Yes, I had met many of them beforehand, and yes, I\'d end up seeing a few of them on Friday. But the overlap between the early groups was virtually zero, which is a testament to the size and diversity of the NYC tech scene.\r\n\r\n8 ) The average wait time for a doctor\'s appointment in New York? 24 days.\r\n\r\nAt IgniteNYC, Karsten Vagner of ZocDoc gave an impassioned cry for better customer service in the health care industry. He pointed out that when we go on a trip somewhere, and our plane is delayed even an hour, we flip out -- how dare they! But when a doctor makes us sit and wait, whatever.\r\n\r\nAccording to Vagner, a New Yorker will wait, on average, the better part of a month to get an appointment with a doctor. From experience, this is unsurprising. It\'s mostly driven by specialists, though, who have non-emergency/timely matters. For example, we book allergist appointments months in advance, knowing full well that there\'s a need for a checkup/re-test, but nothing which can (or should) be don immediately.\r\n\r\nEven so, that\'s a great little factoid.\r\n\r\n9) Even a near-perfectly scripted presentation by a master showman can be upstaged by an errant comment from the peanut gallery.\r\n\r\nThe master showman? Steve Jobs.\r\n\r\nHeather Gold ran a breakout session at the ReadWriteWeb Summit, talking about \"tummeling.\" Not knowing what that meant -- and I\'m all but sure that it is not a real word -- I joined the conversation, intent on finding out. When I joined, she was speaking with Marshall Kirkpatrick about how often, the best part of a blog post or speech is the authentic, unplanned-on feedback you get from the audience.\r\n\r\nCue \"ah-ha\" moment. I piped up and mentioned that Steve Jobs ran into network problems during his keynote, and at one point, asked if anyone had any suggestions.\r\n\r\nAn audience member offered one: \"Verizon.\" (You can see that part in the video at Gizmodo, with roughly 20 seconds left until it ends.)\r\n\r\nThat was the highlight of the keynote. Certainly the most memorable part.\r\n\r\n10) There are people out there who are leading indicators of what\'s going to become big news. And they may not even know it.\r\n\r\nKirkpatrick gave an opening keynote at the RWW Summit and discussed how the blog tracks potentially viral stories. One of the techniques the RWW team uses is to take trending Techmeme stories and look back at Del.icio.us to see if anyone bookmarked stories ahead of time.\r\n\r\nThey gather up those early bookmarkers and build a small, informal database. Over time, the find repeat users in the list. They now have about a dozen people who, solely by virtue of this process, RWW recognizes as meme bloodhounds.\r\n\r\nThat\'s incredibly impressive, and kudos to the RWW team for mining these networks to find true gems -- even if the gems don\'t know their value.\r\n* * *
\r\nThank you to everyone I met, spoke to, and listened to last week. Internet Week 2010 was a great learning experience, and I\'m better off for having participated.
','Ten Things I Learned During Internet Week 2010',0,'','inherit','open','open','','328-revision-13','','','2010-06-14 21:33:39','2010-06-14 21:33:39','',328,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/14/328-revision-13/',0,'revision','',0),(349,1,'2010-06-14 21:35:31','2010-06-14 21:35:31','
Last week was \"Internet Week\" here in New York, which means I went to a lot of events. Four, in fact. Over the course of three evenings (Monday through Wednesday) and one day-long extravaganza Friday, and learned a ton. Here\'s some of that wealth.
\r\n1) The power of good yields tears with thank yous.\r\n\r\nAt the ReadWriteWeb Summit, I lead a session titled \"The Long Production Cycle of Television: How Traditional Media Can Survive in a Real-Time World\" or something to that effect. During it, I mentioned how Sesame Workshop has a lot of outreach programs, and mentioned a recent one, When Families Grieve, which uses the death of Elmo\'s Uncle Jack -- and the grieving of Elmo and his cousin (Jack\'s daughter) Jesse -- to help children cope with the loss of a relative. I happened to have a resource kit with me and I passed it around, causing one participant to tear up. She later told me that finding out about the hour-long special and the resource kit was timely for her family, and thanked me for the work the Workshop was doing. It\'s a moment I\'ll hardly forget.\r\n\r\n2) Michael Jackson was probably innocent of child molestation charges.\r\n\r\nAt IgniteNYC, Anil Dash made a compelling argument that Michael Jackson did not actually molest a child in 1993, even though he paid the family of that child $20 million (and never faced criminal charges). The salient points: (1) The child\'s father, a dentist, was the screenwriter for Robin Hood: Men in Tights and had a massive incentive to try and hit someone like Jackson up for a lot of money, and (2) the guy killed himself a few months after Jacko\'s death.\r\n\r\nThere are other things out there which buttress this stance. As a lawyer, I\'m trained to trust in the legal system, and given no convictions here, I\'m leaning toward agreeing with Dash.\r\n\r\n3) Al Gore really did invent the Internet. (Even though he didn\'t really claim that.)\r\n\r\nI actually knew this already, but not to the degree I was about to.\r\n\r\nBob Wyman joined my friend Jeremie Miller\'s discussion at the RWW Summit (more on this directly below), and suggested that he was present at a meeting to discuss the future of ARPANET, a (if not the) precursor to the present-day Internet. APRANET was the largest of many mini-Internets, and these networks were used mostly for military and/or research purposes.\r\n\r\nGore, then a Congressman, was in those meetings as well, and he championed the idea of making these networks into a venue for commerce. Specifically, Gore pushed the idea that from society\'s point of view, having all these networks was unworkable, as it created islands where we needed seamless inter-connectivity. We needed one \"Internet\".\r\n\r\nTake a look at Gore\'s actual claim: \"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country\'s economic growth[.]\"\r\n\r\nIndeed, as Wyman pointed out, that\'s exactly what he did.\r\n\r\n4) People are already coding stuff for the Internet of 2020.\r\n\r\nThat\'s not a typo. Twenty-twenty.\r\n\r\nJeremie is building TeleHash, a protocol which allows for decentralized everything. Basically -- and I\'m 50% sure I have this right (and 50% sure I have it wrong), when completed, TeleHash will allow an application to connect to another application without having to go through a central server or switch. So instead of posting something to (say) Facebook or Twitter or whatever and having your friends login to that service to see it, you simply post the message and the application, via TeleHash, finds your friends and brings the info directly to them.\r\n\r\nBut what I didn\'t know is that TeleHash is years away from being mainstream-useful. At one point, Jeremie said that he\'s envisioning this as a part of the Internet of 2020 -- ten years out. To put that in perspective: In 2000 -- ten years ago -- AltaVista was looking at an IPO, Facebook and YouTube had not yet been founded, and PayPal was still an independent company. Looking to solve the problems of 2020 is incredibly ambitious, although for some people, ambitious protocol development is par for the course.\r\n\r\n5) We\'re at the point where the speed of light -- literally -- is a significant factor in decision-making at Google.\r\n\r\nIn the same discussion, someone asked if we still need big, powerful super-computers, or if a big task can be distributed over many much less powerful machines and done piecemeal. Both Miller and Wyman believed that with rare exception -- so rare, in fact, neither could come up with one off the top of their head -- distributed computing could process any task that a monolithic super computer could do.\r\n\r\nWhich lead someone to ask: Then why does Google have server farms -- singular warehouses with huge numbers of very powerful computers? First, Wyman said that the computers probably aren\'t all that powerful, which is a bit surprising. Then, he said the most important reason is convenience and cost. Specifically, he noted the air conditioning -- it\'s cheaper to cool a lot of machines at once than each machine individually. But those are not technical barriers.\r\n\r\nWyman said that there probably aren\'t any technical barriers. \"Except the speed of light,\" he added, his tone dead serious. It\'s true.\r\n\r\nAll these machines need to communicate with each other, and they can only do so at speeds up to the speed of light. The speed of light is about 187 miles per millisecond, which means that two machines next to each other can communicate basically instantaneously. But it\'d take 15 milliseconds for the same communication to travel between New York and Los Angeles. It doesn\'t seem like it, but it adds up.\r\n\r\n6) LiveStreams of interesting panels are impossible to follow.\r\n\r\nI tried to watch a few, and failed repeatedly. Most notably, I tried to watch Dave Winer\'s Sources Go Direct panel -- I\'d commented on two of his blog posts on the topic and find the thesis interesting.\r\n\r\nPerhaps we\'re spoiled by the high production values of events like the Super Bowl or the Oscars, or even the evening news. The camera is almost always trained at the right target, and in the odd event that it isn\'t, we immediately notice. Livestreams seem to be that bad stuff, with a bit of good stuff mixed in.\r\n\r\n7) There startup/innovation sector in New York City is orders of magnitude larger than I thought it was -- and I thought it was big to begin with.\r\n\r\nFom Monday through Wednesday, I went to three events which had probably had, in total, over 500 people. And while those events were going on, so were a bunch of others. For example, while I attended IgniteNYC on Wednesday, a lot of others were in Brooklyn for Social Climbing. While I went to the #140conf Party, I skipped the NY Tech Meetup which started just as the former ended -- 30 minutes away.\r\n\r\nOf those hundreds of people, how many did I see at more than one event?\r\n\r\nUnder five. Yes, I had met many of them beforehand, and yes, I\'d end up seeing a few of them on Friday. But the overlap between the early groups was virtually zero, which is a testament to the size and diversity of the NYC tech scene.\r\n\r\n8 ) The average wait time for a doctor\'s appointment in New York? 24 days.\r\n\r\nAt IgniteNYC, Karsten Vagner of ZocDoc gave an impassioned cry for better customer service in the health care industry. He pointed out that when we go on a trip somewhere, and our plane is delayed even an hour, we flip out -- how dare they! But when a doctor makes us sit and wait, whatever.\r\n\r\nAccording to Vagner, a New Yorker will wait, on average, the better part of a month to get an appointment with a doctor. From experience, this is unsurprising. It\'s mostly driven by specialists, though, who have non-emergency/timely matters. For example, we book allergist appointments months in advance, knowing full well that there\'s a need for a checkup/re-test, but nothing which can (or should) be don immediately.\r\n\r\nEven so, that\'s a great little factoid.\r\n\r\n9) Even a near-perfectly scripted presentation by a master showman can be upstaged by an errant comment from the peanut gallery.\r\n\r\nThe master showman? Steve Jobs.\r\n\r\nHeather Gold ran a breakout session at the ReadWriteWeb Summit, talking about \"tummeling.\" Not knowing what that meant -- and I\'m all but sure that it is not a real word -- I joined the conversation, intent on finding out. When I joined, she was speaking with Marshall Kirkpatrick about how often, the best part of a blog post or speech is the authentic, unplanned-on feedback you get from the audience.\r\n\r\nCue \"ah-ha\" moment. I piped up and mentioned that Steve Jobs ran into network problems during his keynote, and at one point, asked if anyone had any suggestions.\r\n\r\nAn audience member offered one: \"Verizon.\" (You can see that part in the video at Gizmodo, with roughly 20 seconds left until it ends.)\r\n\r\nThat was the highlight of the keynote. Certainly the most memorable part.\r\n\r\n10) There are people out there who are leading indicators of what\'s going to become big news. And they may not even know it.\r\n\r\nKirkpatrick gave an opening keynote at the RWW Summit and discussed how the blog tracks potentially viral stories. One of the techniques the RWW team uses is to take trending Techmeme stories and look back at Del.icio.us to see if anyone bookmarked stories ahead of time.\r\n\r\nThey gather up those early bookmarkers and build a small, informal database. Over time, the find repeat users in the list. They now have about a dozen people who, solely by virtue of this process, RWW recognizes as meme bloodhounds.\r\n\r\nThat\'s incredibly impressive, and kudos to the RWW team for mining these networks to find true gems -- even if the gems don\'t know their value.\r\n* * *
\r\nThank you to everyone I met, spoke to, and listened to last week. Internet Week 2010 was a great learning experience, and I\'m better off for having participated.
','Ten Things I Learned During Internet Week 2010',0,'','inherit','open','open','','328-revision-15','','','2010-06-14 21:35:31','2010-06-14 21:35:31','',328,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/14/328-revision-15/',0,'revision','',0),(350,1,'2010-06-14 21:37:09','2010-06-14 21:37:09','
Last week was \"Internet Week\" here in New York, which means I went to a lot of events. Four, in fact. Over the course of three evenings (Monday through Wednesday) and one day-long extravaganza Friday, and learned a ton. Here\'s some of that wealth.
\n1) The power of good yields tears with thank yous.\n\nAt the ReadWriteWeb Summit, I lead a session titled \"The Long Production Cycle of Television: How Traditional Media Can Survive in a Real-Time World\" or something to that effect. During it, I mentioned how Sesame Workshop has a lot of outreach programs, and mentioned a recent one, When Families Grieve, which uses the death of Elmo\'s Uncle Jack -- and the grieving of Elmo and his cousin (Jack\'s daughter) Jesse -- to help children cope with the loss of a relative. I happened to have a resource kit with me and I passed it around, causing one participant to tear up. She later told me that finding out about the hour-long special and the resource kit was timely for her family, and thanked me for the work the Workshop was doing. It\'s a moment I\'ll hardly forget.\n\n2) Michael Jackson was probably innocent of child molestation charges.\n\nAt IgniteNYC, Anil Dash made a compelling argument that Michael Jackson did not actually molest a child in 1993, even though he paid the family of that child $20 million (and never faced criminal charges). The salient points: (1) The child\'s father, a dentist, was the screenwriter for Robin Hood: Men in Tights and had a massive incentive to try and hit someone like Jackson up for a lot of money, and (2) the guy killed himself a few months after Jacko\'s death.\n\nThere are other things out there which buttress this stance. As a lawyer, I\'m trained to trust in the legal system, and given no convictions here, I\'m leaning toward agreeing with Dash.\n\n3) Al Gore really did invent the Internet. (Even though he didn\'t really claim that.)\n\nI actually knew this already, but not to the degree I was about to.\n\nBob Wyman joined my friend Jeremie Miller\'s discussion at the RWW Summit (more on this directly below), and suggested that he was present at a meeting to discuss the future of ARPANET, a (if not the) precursor to the present-day Internet. APRANET was the largest of many mini-Internets, and these networks were used mostly for military and/or research purposes.\n\nGore, then a Congressman, was in those meetings as well, and he championed the idea of making these networks into a venue for commerce. Specifically, Gore pushed the idea that from society\'s point of view, having all these networks was unworkable, as it created islands where we needed seamless inter-connectivity. We needed one \"Internet\".\n\nTake a look at Gore\'s actual claim: \"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country\'s economic growth[.]\"\n\nIndeed, as Wyman pointed out, that\'s exactly what he did.\n\n4) People are already coding stuff for the Internet of 2020.\n\nThat\'s not a typo. Twenty-twenty.\n\nJeremie is building TeleHash, a protocol which allows for decentralized everything. Basically -- and I\'m 50% sure I have this right (and 50% sure I have it wrong), when completed, TeleHash will allow an application to connect to another application without having to go through a central server or switch. So instead of posting something to (say) Facebook or Twitter or whatever and having your friends login to that service to see it, you simply post the message and the application, via TeleHash, finds your friends and brings the info directly to them.\n\nBut what I didn\'t know is that TeleHash is years away from being mainstream-useful. At one point, Jeremie said that he\'s envisioning this as a part of the Internet of 2020 -- ten years out. To put that in perspective: In 2000 -- ten years ago -- AltaVista was looking at an IPO, Facebook and YouTube had not yet been founded, and PayPal was still an independent company. Looking to solve the problems of 2020 is incredibly ambitious, although for some people, ambitious protocol development is par for the course.\n\n5) We\'re at the point where the speed of light -- literally -- is a significant factor in decision-making at Google.\n\nIn the same discussion, someone asked if we still need big, powerful super-computers, or if a big task can be distributed over many much less powerful machines and done piecemeal. Both Miller and Wyman believed that with rare exception -- so rare, in fact, neither could come up with one off the top of their head -- distributed computing could process any task that a monolithic super computer could do.\n\nWhich lead someone to ask: Then why does Google have server farms -- singular warehouses with huge numbers of very powerful computers? First, Wyman said that the computers probably aren\'t all that powerful, which is a bit surprising. Then, he said the most important reason is convenience and cost. Specifically, he noted the air conditioning -- it\'s cheaper to cool a lot of machines at once than each machine individually. But those are not technical barriers.\n\nWyman said that there probably aren\'t any technical barriers. \"Except the speed of light,\" he added, his tone dead serious. It\'s true.\n\nAll these machines need to communicate with each other, and they can only do so at speeds up to the speed of light. The speed of light is about 187 miles per millisecond, which means that two machines next to each other can communicate basically instantaneously. But it\'d take 15 milliseconds for the same communication to travel between New York and Los Angeles. It doesn\'t seem like it, but it adds up.\n\n6) LiveStreams of interesting panels are impossible to follow.\n\nI tried to watch a few, and failed repeatedly. Most notably, I tried to watch Dave Winer\'s Sources Go Direct panel -- I\'d commented on two of his blog posts on the topic and find the thesis interesting.\n\nPerhaps we\'re spoiled by the high production values of events like the Super Bowl or the Oscars, or even the evening news. The camera is almost always trained at the right target, and in the odd event that it isn\'t, we immediately notice. Livestreams seem to be that bad stuff, with a bit of good stuff mixed in.\n\n7) There startup/innovation sector in New York City is orders of magnitude larger than I thought it was -- and I thought it was big to begin with.\n\nFom Monday through Wednesday, I went to three events which had probably had, in total, over 500 people. And while those events were going on, so were a bunch of others. For example, while I attended IgniteNYC on Wednesday, a lot of others were in Brooklyn for Social Climbing. While I went to the #140conf Party, I skipped the NY Tech Meetup which started just as the former ended -- 30 minutes away.\n\nOf those hundreds of people, how many did I see at more than one event?\n\nUnder five. Yes, I had met many of them beforehand, and yes, I\'d end up seeing a few of them on Friday. But the overlap between the early groups was virtually zero, which is a testament to the size and diversity of the NYC tech scene.\n\n8 ) The average wait time for a doctor\'s appointment in New York? 24 days.\n\nAt IgniteNYC, Karsten Vagner of ZocDoc gave an impassioned cry for better customer service in the health care industry. He pointed out that when we go on a trip somewhere, and our plane is delayed even an hour, we flip out -- how dare they! But when a doctor makes us sit and wait, whatever.\n\nAccording to Vagner, a New Yorker will wait, on average, the better part of a month to get an appointment with a doctor. From experience, this is unsurprising. It\'s mostly driven by specialists, though, who have non-emergency/timely matters. For example, we book allergist appointments months in advance, knowing full well that there\'s a need for a checkup/re-test, but nothing which can (or should) be don immediately.\n\nEven so, that\'s a great little factoid.\n\n9) Even a near-perfectly scripted presentation by a master showman can be upstaged by an errant comment from the peanut gallery.\n\nThe master showman? Steve Jobs.\n\nHeather Gold ran a breakout session at the ReadWriteWeb Summit, talking about \"tummeling.\" Not knowing what that meant -- and I\'m all but sure that it is not a real word -- I joined the conversation, intent on finding out. When I joined, she was speaking with Marshall Kirkpatrick about how often, the best part of a blog post or speech is the authentic, unplanned-on feedback you get from the audience.\n\nCue \"ah-ha\" moment. I piped up and mentioned that Steve Jobs ran into network problems during his keynote, and at one point, asked if anyone had any suggestions.\n\nAn audience member offered one: \"Verizon.\" (You can see that part in the video at Gizmodo, with roughly 20 seconds left until it ends.)\n\nThat was the highlight of the keynote. Certainly the most memorable part.\n\n10) There are people out there who are leading indicators of what\'s going to become big news. And they may not even know it.\n\nKirkpatrick gave an opening keynote at the RWW Summit and discussed how the blog tracks potentially viral stories. One of the techniques the RWW team uses is to take trending Techmeme stories and look back at Del.icio.us to see if anyone bookmarked stories ahead of time.\n\nThey gather up those early bookmarkers and build a small, informal database. Over time, the find repeat users in the list. They now have about a dozen people who, solely by virtue of this process, RWW recognizes as meme bloodhounds.\n\nThat\'s incredibly impressive, and kudos to the RWW team for mining these networks to find true gems -- even if the gems don\'t know their value.\n* * *
\nThank you to everyone I met, spoke to, and listened to last week. Internet Week 2010 was a great learning experience, and I\'m better off for having participated.
','Ten Things I Learned During Internet Week 2010',0,'','inherit','open','open','','328-autosave','','','2010-06-14 21:37:09','2010-06-14 21:37:09','',328,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/14/328-autosave/',0,'revision','',0),(351,1,'2010-06-14 21:36:46','2010-06-14 21:36:46','
Last week was \"Internet Week\" here in New York, which means I went to a lot of events. Four, in fact. Over the course of three evenings (Monday through Wednesday) and one day-long extravaganza Friday, and learned a ton. Here\'s some of that wealth.
\r\n1) The power of good yields tears with thank yous.\r\n\r\nAt the ReadWriteWeb Summit, I lead a session titled \"The Long Production Cycle of Television: How Traditional Media Can Survive in a Real-Time World\" or something to that effect. During it, I mentioned how Sesame Workshop has a lot of outreach programs, and mentioned a recent one, When Families Grieve, which uses the death of Elmo\'s Uncle Jack -- and the grieving of Elmo and his cousin (Jack\'s daughter) Jesse -- to help children cope with the loss of a relative. I happened to have a resource kit with me and I passed it around, causing one participant to tear up. She later told me that finding out about the hour-long special and the resource kit was timely for her family, and thanked me for the work the Workshop was doing. It\'s a moment I\'ll hardly forget.\r\n\r\n2) Michael Jackson was probably innocent of child molestation charges.\r\n\r\nAt IgniteNYC, Anil Dash made a compelling argument that Michael Jackson did not actually molest a child in 1993, even though he paid the family of that child $20 million (and never faced criminal charges). The salient points: (1) The child\'s father, a dentist, was the screenwriter for Robin Hood: Men in Tights and had a massive incentive to try and hit someone like Jackson up for a lot of money, and (2) the guy killed himself a few months after Jacko\'s death.\r\n\r\nThere are other things out there which buttress this stance. As a lawyer, I\'m trained to trust in the legal system, and given no convictions here, I\'m leaning toward agreeing with Dash.\r\n\r\n3) Al Gore really did invent the Internet. (Even though he didn\'t really claim that.)\r\n\r\nI actually knew this already, but not to the degree I was about to.\r\n\r\nBob Wyman joined my friend Jeremie Miller\'s discussion at the RWW Summit (more on this directly below), and suggested that he was present at a meeting to discuss the future of ARPANET, a (if not the) precursor to the present-day Internet. APRANET was the largest of many mini-Internets, and these networks were used mostly for military and/or research purposes.\r\n\r\nGore, then a Congressman, was in those meetings as well, and he championed the idea of making these networks into a venue for commerce. Specifically, Gore pushed the idea that from society\'s point of view, having all these networks was unworkable, as it created islands where we needed seamless inter-connectivity. We needed one \"Internet\".\r\n\r\nTake a look at Gore\'s actual claim: \"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country\'s economic growth[.]\"\r\n\r\nIndeed, as Wyman pointed out, that\'s exactly what he did.\r\n\r\n4) People are already coding stuff for the Internet of 2020.\r\n\r\nThat\'s not a typo. Twenty-twenty.\r\n\r\nJeremie is building TeleHash, a protocol which allows for decentralized everything. Basically -- and I\'m 50% sure I have this right (and 50% sure I have it wrong), when completed, TeleHash will allow an application to connect to another application without having to go through a central server or switch. So instead of posting something to (say) Facebook or Twitter or whatever and having your friends login to that service to see it, you simply post the message and the application, via TeleHash, finds your friends and brings the info directly to them.\r\n\r\nBut what I didn\'t know is that TeleHash is years away from being mainstream-useful. At one point, Jeremie said that he\'s envisioning this as a part of the Internet of 2020 -- ten years out. To put that in perspective: In 2000 -- ten years ago -- AltaVista was looking at an IPO, Facebook and YouTube had not yet been founded, and PayPal was still an independent company. Looking to solve the problems of 2020 is incredibly ambitious, although for some people, ambitious protocol development is par for the course.\r\n\r\n5) We\'re at the point where the speed of light -- literally -- is a significant factor in decision-making at Google.\r\n\r\nIn the same discussion, someone asked if we still need big, powerful super-computers, or if a big task can be distributed over many much less powerful machines and done piecemeal. Both Miller and Wyman believed that with rare exception -- so rare, in fact, neither could come up with one off the top of their head -- distributed computing could process any task that a monolithic super computer could do.\r\n\r\nWhich lead someone to ask: Then why does Google have server farms -- singular warehouses with huge numbers of very powerful computers? First, Wyman said that the computers probably aren\'t all that powerful, which is a bit surprising. Then, he said the most important reason is convenience and cost. Specifically, he noted the air conditioning -- it\'s cheaper to cool a lot of machines at once than each machine individually. But those are not technical barriers.\r\n\r\nWyman said that there probably aren\'t any technical barriers. \"Except the speed of light,\" he added, his tone dead serious. It\'s true.\r\n\r\nAll these machines need to communicate with each other, and they can only do so at speeds up to the speed of light. The speed of light is about 187 miles per millisecond, which means that two machines next to each other can communicate basically instantaneously. But it\'d take 15 milliseconds for the same communication to travel between New York and Los Angeles. It doesn\'t seem like it, but it adds up.\r\n\r\n6) LiveStreams of interesting panels are impossible to follow.\r\n\r\nI tried to watch a few, and failed repeatedly. Most notably, I tried to watch Dave Winer\'s Sources Go Direct panel -- I\'d commented on two of his blog posts on the topic and find the thesis interesting.\r\n\r\nPerhaps we\'re spoiled by the high production values of events like the Super Bowl or the Oscars, or even the evening news. The camera is almost always trained at the right target, and in the odd event that it isn\'t, we immediately notice. Livestreams seem to be that bad stuff, with a bit of good stuff mixed in.\r\n\r\n7) There startup/innovation sector in New York City is orders of magnitude larger than I thought it was -- and I thought it was big to begin with.\r\n\r\nFom Monday through Wednesday, I went to three events which had probably had, in total, over 500 people. And while those events were going on, so were a bunch of others. For example, while I attended IgniteNYC on Wednesday, a lot of others were in Brooklyn for Social Climbing. While I went to the #140conf Party, I skipped the NY Tech Meetup which started just as the former ended -- 30 minutes away.\r\n\r\nOf those hundreds of people, how many did I see at more than one event?\r\n\r\nUnder five. Yes, I had met many of them beforehand, and yes, I\'d end up seeing a few of them on Friday. But the overlap between the early groups was virtually zero, which is a testament to the size and diversity of the NYC tech scene.\r\n\r\n8 ) The average wait time for a doctor\'s appointment in New York? 24 days.\r\n\r\nAt IgniteNYC, Karsten Vagner of ZocDoc gave an impassioned cry for better customer service in the health care industry. He pointed out that when we go on a trip somewhere, and our plane is delayed even an hour, we flip out -- how dare they! But when a doctor makes us sit and wait, whatever.\r\n\r\nAccording to Vagner, a New Yorker will wait, on average, the better part of a month to get an appointment with a doctor. From experience, this is unsurprising. It\'s mostly driven by specialists, though, who have non-emergency/timely matters. For example, we book allergist appointments months in advance, knowing full well that there\'s a need for a checkup/re-test, but nothing which can (or should) be don immediately.\r\n\r\nEven so, that\'s a great little factoid.\r\n\r\n9) Even a near-perfectly scripted presentation by a master showman can be upstaged by an errant comment from the peanut gallery.\r\n\r\nThe master showman? Steve Jobs.\r\n\r\nHeather Gold ran a breakout session at the ReadWriteWeb Summit, talking about \"tummeling.\" Not knowing what that meant -- and I\'m all but sure that it is not a real word -- I joined the conversation, intent on finding out. When I joined, she was speaking with Marshall Kirkpatrick about how often, the best part of a blog post or speech is the authentic, unplanned-on feedback you get from the audience.\r\n\r\nCue \"ah-ha\" moment. I piped up and mentioned that Steve Jobs ran into network problems during his keynote, and at one point, asked if anyone had any suggestions.\r\n\r\nAn audience member offered one: \"Verizon.\" (You can see that part in the video at Gizmodo, with roughly 20 seconds left until it ends.)\r\n\r\nThat was the highlight of the keynote. Certainly the most memorable part.\r\n\r\n10) There are people out there who are leading indicators of what\'s going to become big news. And they may not even know it.\r\n\r\nKirkpatrick gave an opening keynote at the RWW Summit and discussed how the blog tracks potentially viral stories. One of the techniques the RWW team uses is to take trending Techmeme stories and look back at Del.icio.us to see if anyone bookmarked stories ahead of time.\r\n\r\nThey gather up those early bookmarkers and build a small, informal database. Over time, the find repeat users in the list. They now have about a dozen people who, solely by virtue of this process, RWW recognizes as meme bloodhounds.\r\n\r\nThat\'s incredibly impressive, and kudos to the RWW team for mining these networks to find true gems -- even if the gems don\'t know their value.\r\n* * *
\r\nThank you to everyone I met, spoke to, and listened to last week. Internet Week 2010 was a great learning experience, and I\'m better off for having participated.
','Ten Things I From During Internet Week 2010',0,'','inherit','open','open','','328-revision-16','','','2010-06-14 21:36:46','2010-06-14 21:36:46','',328,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/14/328-revision-16/',0,'revision','',0),(352,1,'2010-06-14 21:41:08','2010-06-14 21:41:08','
Last week was \"Internet Week\" here in New York, which means I went to a lot of events. Four, in fact. Over the course of three evenings (Monday through Wednesday) and one day-long extravaganza Friday, and learned a ton. Here\'s some of that wealth.
\r\n1) The power of good yields tears with thank yous.\r\n\r\nAt the ReadWriteWeb Summit, I lead a session titled \"The Long Production Cycle of Television: How Traditional Media Can Survive in a Real-Time World\" or something to that effect. During it, I mentioned how Sesame Workshop has a lot of outreach programs, and mentioned a recent one, When Families Grieve, which uses the death of Elmo\'s Uncle Jack -- and the grieving of Elmo and his cousin (Jack\'s daughter) Jesse -- to help children cope with the loss of a relative. I happened to have a resource kit with me and I passed it around, causing one participant to tear up. She later told me that finding out about the hour-long special and the resource kit was timely for her family, and thanked me for the work the Workshop was doing. It\'s a moment I\'ll hardly forget.\r\n\r\n2) Michael Jackson was probably innocent of child molestation charges.\r\n\r\nAt IgniteNYC, Anil Dash made a compelling argument that Michael Jackson did not actually molest a child in 1993, even though he paid the family of that child $20 million (and never faced criminal charges). The salient points: (1) The child\'s father, a dentist, was the screenwriter for Robin Hood: Men in Tights and had a massive incentive to try and hit someone like Jackson up for a lot of money, and (2) the guy killed himself a few months after Jacko\'s death.\r\n\r\nThere are other things out there which buttress this stance. As a lawyer, I\'m trained to trust in the legal system, and given no convictions here, I\'m leaning toward agreeing with Dash.\r\n\r\n3) Al Gore really did invent the Internet. (Even though he didn\'t really claim that.)\r\n\r\nI actually knew this already, but not to the degree I was about to.\r\n\r\nBob Wyman joined my friend Jeremie Miller\'s discussion at the RWW Summit (more on this directly below), and suggested that he was present at a meeting to discuss the future of ARPANET, a (if not the) precursor to the present-day Internet. APRANET was the largest of many mini-Internets, and these networks were used mostly for military and/or research purposes.\r\n\r\nGore, then a Congressman, was in those meetings as well, and he championed the idea of making these networks into a venue for commerce. Specifically, Gore pushed the idea that from society\'s point of view, having all these networks was unworkable, as it created islands where we needed seamless inter-connectivity. We needed one \"Internet\".\r\n\r\nTake a look at Gore\'s actual claim: \"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country\'s economic growth[.]\"\r\n\r\nIndeed, as Wyman pointed out, that\'s exactly what he did.\r\n\r\n4) People are already coding stuff for the Internet of 2020.\r\n\r\nThat\'s not a typo. Twenty-twenty.\r\n\r\nJeremie is building TeleHash, a protocol which allows for decentralized everything. Basically -- and I\'m 50% sure I have this right (and 50% sure I have it wrong), when completed, TeleHash will allow an application to connect to another application without having to go through a central server or switch. So instead of posting something to (say) Facebook or Twitter or whatever and having your friends login to that service to see it, you simply post the message and the application, via TeleHash, finds your friends and brings the info directly to them.\r\n\r\nBut what I didn\'t know is that TeleHash is years away from being mainstream-useful. At one point, Jeremie said that he\'s envisioning this as a part of the Internet of 2020 -- ten years out. To put that in perspective: In 2000 -- ten years ago -- AltaVista was looking at an IPO, Facebook and YouTube had not yet been founded, and PayPal was still an independent company. Looking to solve the problems of 2020 is incredibly ambitious, although for some people, ambitious protocol development is par for the course.\r\n\r\n5) We\'re at the point where the speed of light -- literally -- is a significant factor in decision-making at Google.\r\n\r\nIn the same discussion, someone asked if we still need big, powerful super-computers, or if a big task can be distributed over many much less powerful machines and done piecemeal. Both Miller and Wyman believed that with rare exception -- so rare, in fact, neither could come up with one off the top of their head -- distributed computing could process any task that a monolithic super computer could do.\r\n\r\nWhich lead someone to ask: Then why does Google have server farms -- singular warehouses with huge numbers of very powerful computers? First, Wyman said that the computers probably aren\'t all that powerful, which is a bit surprising. Then, he said the most important reason is convenience and cost. Specifically, he noted the air conditioning -- it\'s cheaper to cool a lot of machines at once than each machine individually. But those are not technical barriers.\r\n\r\nWyman said that there probably aren\'t any technical barriers. \"Except the speed of light,\" he added, his tone dead serious. It\'s true.\r\n\r\nAll these machines need to communicate with each other, and they can only do so at speeds up to the speed of light. The speed of light is about 187 miles per millisecond, which means that two machines next to each other can communicate basically instantaneously. But it\'d take 15 milliseconds for the same communication to travel between New York and Los Angeles. It doesn\'t seem like it, but it adds up.\r\n\r\n6) LiveStreams of interesting panels are impossible to follow.\r\n\r\nI tried to watch a few, and failed repeatedly. Most notably, I tried to watch Dave Winer\'s Sources Go Direct panel -- I\'d commented on two of his blog posts on the topic and find the thesis interesting.\r\n\r\nPerhaps we\'re spoiled by the high production values of events like the Super Bowl or the Oscars, or even the evening news. The camera is almost always trained at the right target, and in the odd event that it isn\'t, we immediately notice. Livestreams seem to be that bad stuff, with a bit of good stuff mixed in.\r\n\r\n7) There startup/innovation sector in New York City is orders of magnitude larger than I thought it was -- and I thought it was big to begin with.\r\n\r\nFom Monday through Wednesday, I went to three events which had probably had, in total, over 500 people. And while those events were going on, so were a bunch of others. For example, while I attended IgniteNYC on Wednesday, a lot of others were in Brooklyn for Social Climbing. While I went to the #140conf Party, I skipped the NY Tech Meetup which started just as the former ended -- 30 minutes away.\r\n\r\nOf those hundreds of people, how many did I see at more than one event?\r\n\r\nUnder five. Yes, I had met many of them beforehand, and yes, I\'d end up seeing a few of them on Friday. But the overlap between the early groups was virtually zero, which is a testament to the size and diversity of the NYC tech scene.\r\n\r\n8 ) The average wait time for a doctor\'s appointment in New York? 24 days.\r\n\r\nAt IgniteNYC, Karsten Vagner of ZocDoc gave an impassioned cry for better customer service in the health care industry. He pointed out that when we go on a trip somewhere, and our plane is delayed even an hour, we flip out -- how dare they! But when a doctor makes us sit and wait, whatever.\r\n\r\nAccording to Vagner, a New Yorker will wait, on average, the better part of a month to get an appointment with a doctor. From experience, this is unsurprising. It\'s mostly driven by specialists, though, who have non-emergency/timely matters. For example, we book allergist appointments months in advance, knowing full well that there\'s a need for a checkup/re-test, but nothing which can (or should) be don immediately.\r\n\r\nEven so, that\'s a great little factoid.\r\n\r\n9) Even a near-perfectly scripted presentation by a master showman can be upstaged by an errant comment from the peanut gallery.\r\n\r\nThe master showman? Steve Jobs.\r\n\r\nHeather Gold ran a breakout session at the ReadWriteWeb Summit, talking about \"tummeling.\" Not knowing what that meant -- and I\'m all but sure that it is not a real word -- I joined the conversation, intent on finding out. When I joined, she was speaking with Marshall Kirkpatrick about how often, the best part of a blog post or speech is the authentic, unplanned-on feedback you get from the audience.\r\n\r\nCue \"ah-ha\" moment. I piped up and mentioned that Steve Jobs ran into network problems during his keynote, and at one point, asked if anyone had any suggestions.\r\n\r\nAn audience member offered one: \"Verizon.\" (You can see that part in the video at Gizmodo, with roughly 20 seconds left until it ends.)\r\n\r\nThat was the highlight of the keynote. Certainly the most memorable part.\r\n\r\n10) There are people out there who are leading indicators of what\'s going to become big news. And they may not even know it.\r\n\r\nKirkpatrick gave an opening keynote at the RWW Summit and discussed how the blog tracks potentially viral stories. One of the techniques the RWW team uses is to take trending Techmeme stories and look back at Del.icio.us to see if anyone bookmarked stories ahead of time.\r\n\r\nThey gather up those early bookmarkers and build a small, informal database. Over time, the find repeat users in the list. They now have about a dozen people who, solely by virtue of this process, RWW recognizes as meme bloodhounds.\r\n\r\nThat\'s incredibly impressive, and kudos to the RWW team for mining these networks to find true gems -- even if the gems don\'t know their value.\r\n* * *
\r\nThank you to everyone I met, spoke to, and listened to last week. Internet Week 2010 was a great learning experience, and I\'m better off for having participated.
','Ten Things I Learned From Internet Week 2010',0,'','inherit','open','open','','328-revision-17','','','2010-06-14 21:41:08','2010-06-14 21:41:08','',328,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/14/328-revision-17/',0,'revision','',0),(354,1,'2010-06-21 13:57:07','2010-06-21 13:57:07','Last week, I wrote up\r\n\r\nIt was well received, and I\'m a feedback junkie, so I\'m considering making this a regular thing. I hope you enjoy this as much as I did. One hint: I shared all of these on Twitter -- so if you want to learn this things as I do, it\'s best to follow me there.\r\n* * *
\r\n1) In Hong Kong, they drive on the left. In China, they drive on the right. The bridge between them is TOTALLY SCARY. \r\n\r\nSomeone I follow on Google Reader shared this blog post by Jason Kottke explaining the problem. But really, the picture sums it up:\r\n
Check out the right (closer) lane. Watch as it dips below its starting point, coming just a few feet above the water (!). Marvel as it passes under the previously left lane, and, effectively, flips itself into being the new left. Gorgeous and horrific at the same time.
\r\nUpdate: Yeah, yeah, it\'s an artist\'s conception. Still totally scary.
\r\n2) The New York City subway system accidentally renamed a station stop \"FML.\"
\r\n![\"\"](\"http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/061410FML9WCL093233-300x300.jpg\" "\\"FML")
To the Internet generation, FML means something R-rated. To the Metropolitian Transit Authority (MTA), it means the F line, M line, and L line all stop here -- \"here\" being 14th Street and 6th Avenue.
How did this happen? Due to service cuts and changes forced by a thinner budget, the MTA cut some lines and renamed others. The M line now runs down 6th Avenue, and due to coloring conventions, is now orange, like the F. (It used to be brown.) The F and M intersect the L -- which runs across 14th into Brooklyn -- at 6th and 14th. And F comes before L, so FM lead.
\r\nBut the MTA is going to break convention after pictures like the one on the right popped up, surrounded by guffaws.
\r\n\r\n3) Planes sometimes run out of gas, requiring diversion to a nearby airport.\r\n
\r\n![\"\"](\"http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/delta-300x117.gif\" "\\"delta")
I met Michael Maney at the ReadWriteWeb Summit last week and have followed him on Twitter since. He shared this tweet from Colleen Swanger, who I don\'t know from Adam (Eve?):
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nThanks @delta for running out of gas. Now my mother and I are going to miss her mother\'s funeral while stuck at LGA when we should be in BDL
\r\n
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nSeriously @delta how do you run out of gas 75 miles short of your destination?!? (@ LaGuardia Airport (LGA) w/ 21 others)
\r\n
\r\n\r\nStanding outside LGA with 100 others waiting for a bus to Hartford because a @delta plane ran out of gas. Not kidding. Or they are lying.
\r\n
You can read more about the flight here. The diversion cost passengers six hours -- which is ridiculous, given the fact that a bus ride from New York (where the plane landed) to Hartford (intended destination) should be about half that. It\'s mind-boggling. How do you miscalculate the amount of fuel so badly that you end up having to land at an airport about 75 miles away?
\r\n\r\n\r\n4) There\'s a secret, unused subway system underneath City Hall in Manhattan, which you can see if you stay on the downtown 6 one stop past the \"last\" official stop.\r\n\r\n\r\nAround the turn of the century -- the 1900s, that is -- the powers that be decided that the Manhattan Main Line, now the 6 subway line in Manhattan, should terminate at City Hall. The station, given its location and prominence, was designed to be a showcase of sorts. But in the mid-1940s, longer trains made the station dangerous. It was one of the least-used stations anyway, serving a mere 600 people a day, due to the proximity of the Brooklyn Bridge station just a few hundred feet away. On the last day of 1945, service to City Hall was discontinued, and the station has been closed, frozen in time, since.\r\n\r\nBut the station is still there, and to a degree, is still used. The last stop on the downtown 6 is Brooklyn Bridge/City Hall, and the first stop uptown is in the same place. But the trains need to turn around -- and they do so by going through the old City Hall stop. Which means if you stay on the train, you\'ll go through this station. Which, apparently, is perfectly allowed.\r\n\r\nBut no, you can\'t get out at City Hall. There are tours of the station, and Ben Kabak of Second Ave. Sagas was lucky enough to attend one. He gathered photos in the gallery below:\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n5) Speaking about Manhattan subways: are more Subway \"restaurants\" than subway stations in Manhattan. \r\n\r\n![\"\"](\"http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/logo-subway-300x87.jpg\" "\\"subway"){kind=logo}
I think, for a long time, I always wondered this. Not explicitly, of course, but subconsciously. Grub Street has done the heavy lifting and found official counts, and determined that it\'s not particularly close: 171 \"sandwich\" shops to 147 train stops. Brooklyn represents the city much more positively, with the trains winning, 170 to 70.\r\n\r\nIt really is too bad that Manhattan isn\'t in a dead heat -- that would be reason enough to open the old City Hall stop.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n\r\n','Planes, Trains, and Automobiles: Five Things I Learned About Transit Last Week',0,'','publish','open','open','','planes-trains-and-automobiles-five-things-i-learned-about-transit-last-week','','http://secondavenuesagas.com/2007/02/20/spying-the-hidden-gem-of-the-east-side-irt/\nhttp://secondavenuesagas.com/2008/03/17/heading-into-the-crown-jewel-of-the-old-subway-system/','2010-06-21 18:02:02','2010-06-21 18:02:02','',0,'http://dlewis.net/?p=354',0,'post','',3),(353,1,'2010-06-14 21:41:21','2010-06-14 21:41:21','
Last week was \"Internet Week\" here in New York, which means I went to a lot of events. Four, in fact. Over the course of three evenings (Monday through Wednesday) and one day-long extravaganza Friday, and learned a ton. Here\'s some of that wealth.
\r\n1) The power of good yields tears with thank yous.\r\n\r\nAt the ReadWriteWeb Summit, I lead a session titled \"The Long Production Cycle of Television: How Traditional Media Can Survive in a Real-Time World\" or something to that effect. During it, I mentioned how Sesame Workshop has a lot of outreach programs, and mentioned a recent one, When Families Grieve, which uses the death of Elmo\'s Uncle Jack -- and the grieving of Elmo and his cousin (Jack\'s daughter) Jesse -- to help children cope with the loss of a relative. I happened to have a resource kit with me and I passed it around, causing one participant to tear up. She later told me that finding out about the hour-long special and the resource kit was timely for her family, and thanked me for the work the Workshop was doing. It\'s a moment I\'ll hardly forget.\r\n\r\n2) Michael Jackson was probably innocent of child molestation charges.\r\n\r\nAt IgniteNYC, Anil Dash made a compelling argument that Michael Jackson did not actually molest a child in 1993, even though he paid the family of that child $20 million (and never faced criminal charges). The salient points: (1) The child\'s father, a dentist, was the screenwriter for Robin Hood: Men in Tights and had a massive incentive to try and hit someone like Jackson up for a lot of money, and (2) the guy killed himself a few months after Jacko\'s death.\r\n\r\nThere are other things out there which buttress this stance. As a lawyer, I\'m trained to trust in the legal system, and given no convictions here, I\'m leaning toward agreeing with Dash.\r\n\r\n3) Al Gore really did invent the Internet. (Even though he didn\'t really claim that.)\r\n\r\nI actually knew this already, but not to the degree I was about to.\r\n\r\nBob Wyman joined my friend Jeremie Miller\'s discussion at the RWW Summit (more on this directly below), and suggested that he was present at a meeting to discuss the future of ARPANET, a (if not the) precursor to the present-day Internet. APRANET was the largest of many mini-Internets, and these networks were used mostly for military and/or research purposes.\r\n\r\nGore, then a Congressman, was in those meetings as well, and he championed the idea of making these networks into a venue for commerce. Specifically, Gore pushed the idea that from society\'s point of view, having all these networks was unworkable, as it created islands where we needed seamless inter-connectivity. We needed one \"Internet\".\r\n\r\nTake a look at Gore\'s actual claim: \"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country\'s economic growth[.]\"\r\n\r\nIndeed, as Wyman pointed out, that\'s exactly what he did.\r\n\r\n4) People are already coding stuff for the Internet of 2020.\r\n\r\nThat\'s not a typo. Twenty-twenty.\r\n\r\nJeremie is building TeleHash, a protocol which allows for decentralized everything. Basically -- and I\'m 50% sure I have this right (and 50% sure I have it wrong), when completed, TeleHash will allow an application to connect to another application without having to go through a central server or switch. So instead of posting something to (say) Facebook or Twitter or whatever and having your friends login to that service to see it, you simply post the message and the application, via TeleHash, finds your friends and brings the info directly to them.\r\n\r\nBut what I didn\'t know is that TeleHash is years away from being mainstream-useful. At one point, Jeremie said that he\'s envisioning this as a part of the Internet of 2020 -- ten years out. To put that in perspective: In 2000 -- ten years ago -- AltaVista was looking at an IPO, Facebook and YouTube had not yet been founded, and PayPal was still an independent company. Looking to solve the problems of 2020 is incredibly ambitious, although for some people, ambitious protocol development is par for the course.\r\n\r\n5) We\'re at the point where the speed of light -- literally -- is a significant factor in decision-making at Google.\r\n\r\nIn the same discussion, someone asked if we still need big, powerful super-computers, or if a big task can be distributed over many much less powerful machines and done piecemeal. Both Miller and Wyman believed that with rare exception -- so rare, in fact, neither could come up with one off the top of their head -- distributed computing could process any task that a monolithic super computer could do.\r\n\r\nWhich lead someone to ask: Then why does Google have server farms -- singular warehouses with huge numbers of very powerful computers? First, Wyman said that the computers probably aren\'t all that powerful, which is a bit surprising. Then, he said the most important reason is convenience and cost. Specifically, he noted the air conditioning -- it\'s cheaper to cool a lot of machines at once than each machine individually. But those are not technical barriers.\r\n\r\nWyman said that there probably aren\'t any technical barriers. \"Except the speed of light,\" he added, his tone dead serious. It\'s true.\r\n\r\nAll these machines need to communicate with each other, and they can only do so at speeds up to the speed of light. The speed of light is about 187 miles per millisecond, which means that two machines next to each other can communicate basically instantaneously. But it\'d take 15 milliseconds for the same communication to travel between New York and Los Angeles. It doesn\'t seem like it, but it adds up.\r\n\r\n6) LiveStreams of interesting panels are impossible to follow.\r\n\r\nI tried to watch a few, and failed repeatedly. Most notably, I tried to watch Dave Winer\'s Sources Go Direct panel -- I\'d commented on two of his blog posts on the topic and find the thesis interesting.\r\n\r\nPerhaps we\'re spoiled by the high production values of events like the Super Bowl or the Oscars, or even the evening news. The camera is almost always trained at the right target, and in the odd event that it isn\'t, we immediately notice. Livestreams seem to be that bad stuff, with a bit of good stuff mixed in.\r\n\r\n7) There startup/innovation sector in New York City is orders of magnitude larger than I thought it was -- and I thought it was big to begin with.\r\n\r\nFom Monday through Wednesday, I went to three events which had probably had, in total, over 500 people. And while those events were going on, so were a bunch of others. For example, while I attended IgniteNYC on Wednesday, a lot of others were in Brooklyn for Social Climbing. While I went to the #140conf Party, I skipped the NY Tech Meetup which started just as the former ended -- 30 minutes away.\r\n\r\nOf those hundreds of people, how many did I see at more than one event?\r\n\r\nUnder five. Yes, I had met many of them beforehand, and yes, I\'d end up seeing a few of them on Friday. But the overlap between the early groups was virtually zero, which is a testament to the size and diversity of the NYC tech scene.\r\n\r\n8 ) The average wait time for a doctor\'s appointment in New York? 24 days.\r\n\r\nAt IgniteNYC, Karsten Vagner of ZocDoc gave an impassioned cry for better customer service in the health care industry. He pointed out that when we go on a trip somewhere, and our plane is delayed even an hour, we flip out -- how dare they! But when a doctor makes us sit and wait, whatever.\r\n\r\nAccording to Vagner, a New Yorker will wait, on average, the better part of a month to get an appointment with a doctor. From experience, this is unsurprising. It\'s mostly driven by specialists, though, who have non-emergency/timely matters. For example, we book allergist appointments months in advance, knowing full well that there\'s a need for a checkup/re-test, but nothing which can (or should) be don immediately.\r\n\r\nEven so, that\'s a great little factoid.\r\n\r\n9) Even a near-perfectly scripted presentation by a master showman can be upstaged by an errant comment from the peanut gallery.\r\n\r\nThe master showman? Steve Jobs.\r\n\r\nHeather Gold ran a breakout session at the ReadWriteWeb Summit, talking about \"tummeling.\" Not knowing what that meant -- and I\'m all but sure that it is not a real word -- I joined the conversation, intent on finding out. When I joined, she was speaking with Marshall Kirkpatrick about how often, the best part of a blog post or speech is the authentic, unplanned-on feedback you get from the audience.\r\n\r\nCue \"ah-ha\" moment. I piped up and mentioned that Steve Jobs ran into network problems during his keynote, and at one point, asked if anyone had any suggestions.\r\n\r\nAn audience member offered one: \"Verizon.\" (You can see that part in the video at Gizmodo, with roughly 20 seconds left until it ends.)\r\n\r\nThat was the highlight of the keynote. Certainly the most memorable part.\r\n\r\n10) There are people out there who are leading indicators of what\'s going to become big news. And they may not even know it.\r\n\r\nKirkpatrick gave an opening keynote at the RWW Summit and discussed how the blog tracks potentially viral stories. One of the techniques the RWW team uses is to take trending Techmeme stories and look back at Del.icio.us to see if anyone bookmarked stories ahead of time.\r\n\r\nThey gather up those early bookmarkers and build a small, informal database. Over time, the find repeat users in the list. They now have about a dozen people who, solely by virtue of this process, RWW recognizes as meme bloodhounds.\r\n\r\nThat\'s incredibly impressive, and kudos to the RWW team for mining these networks to find true gems -- even if the gems don\'t know their value.\r\n* * *
\r\nThank you to everyone I met, spoke to, and listened to last week. Internet Week 2010 was a great learning experience, and I\'m better off for having participated.
','Ten Things I Learned During Internet Week 2010',0,'','inherit','open','open','','328-revision-18','','','2010-06-14 21:41:21','2010-06-14 21:41:21','',328,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/14/328-revision-18/',0,'revision','',0),(355,1,'2010-06-15 21:28:39','2010-06-15 21:28:39','','flipper-bridge',0,'','inherit','open','open','','flipper-bridge','','','2010-06-15 21:28:39','2010-06-15 21:28:39','',354,'http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/flipper-bridge.jpg',0,'attachment','image/jpeg',0),(356,1,'2010-06-15 21:29:07','2010-06-15 21:29:07','','bridge between china and hong kong',0,'','inherit','open','open','','flipper-bridge-2','','','2010-06-15 21:29:07','2010-06-15 21:29:07','',354,'http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/flipper-bridge1.jpg',0,'attachment','image/jpeg',0),(357,1,'2010-06-15 21:35:41','2010-06-15 21:35:41','Last week, I wrote up\n\nIt was well received, and I\'m a feedback junkie, so I\'m considering making this a regular thing. I hope you enjoy this as much as I did. One hint: I shared all of these on Twitter -- so if you want to learn this things as I do, it\'s best to follow me there.\n* * *
\n1) In Hong Kong, they drive on the left. In China, they drive on the right. The bridge between them is TOTALLY SCARY. (via Google Reader Shared Items)\n\nSomeone I follow on Google Reader shared this blog post by Jason Kottke explaining the problem. But really, the picture sums it up:\n
Check out the right (closer) lane. Watch as it dips below its starting point, coming just a few feet above the water (!). Marvel as it passes under the previously left lane, and, effectively, flips itself into being the new left. Gorgeous and horrific at the same time.
\n2) Planes sometimes run out of gas. (via @thespin_md on Twitter)\n
\nI met Michael Maney at the ReadWriteWeb Summit last week and have followed him on Twitter since. He shared this tweet from Colleen Swanger, who I don\'t know from Adam (Eve?):
\n\n\n\n\n\nThanks @delta for running out of gas. Now my mother and I are going to miss her mother\'s funeral while stuck at LGA when we should be in BDL
\n
\n','Ten Things I Learned From Social Media Last Week',0,'','inherit','open','open','','354-revision','','','2010-06-15 21:35:41','2010-06-15 21:35:41','',354,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/15/354-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(358,1,'2010-06-15 21:35:49','2010-06-15 21:35:49','Last week, I wrote up\r\n\r\nIt was well received, and I\'m a feedback junkie, so I\'m considering making this a regular thing. I hope you enjoy this as much as I did. One hint: I shared all of these on Twitter -- so if you want to learn this things as I do, it\'s best to follow me there.\r\nSeriously @delta how do you run out of gas 75 miles short of your destination?!? (@ LaGuardia Airport (LGA) w/ 21 others)
\n\n
* * *
\r\n1) In Hong Kong, they drive on the left. In China, they drive on the right. The bridge between them is TOTALLY SCARY. (via Google Reader Shared Items)\r\n\r\nSomeone I follow on Google Reader shared this blog post by Jason Kottke explaining the problem. But really, the picture sums it up:\r\n
Check out the right (closer) lane. Watch as it dips below its starting point, coming just a few feet above the water (!). Marvel as it passes under the previously left lane, and, effectively, flips itself into being the new left. Gorgeous and horrific at the same time.
\r\n2) Planes sometimes run out of gas. (via @thespin_md on Twitter)\r\n
\r\nI met Michael Maney at the ReadWriteWeb Summit last week and have followed him on Twitter since. He shared this tweet from Colleen Swanger, who I don\'t know from Adam (Eve?):
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nThanks @delta for running out of gas. Now my mother and I are going to miss her mother\'s funeral while stuck at LGA when we should be in BDL
\r\n
\r\n\r\n','Ten Things I Learned From Social Media Last Week',0,'','inherit','open','open','','354-revision-2','','','2010-06-15 21:35:49','2010-06-15 21:35:49','',354,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/15/354-revision-2/',0,'revision','',0),(359,1,'2010-06-15 21:36:11','2010-06-15 21:36:11','Last week, I wrote up\r\n\r\nIt was well received, and I\'m a feedback junkie, so I\'m considering making this a regular thing. I hope you enjoy this as much as I did. One hint: I shared all of these on Twitter -- so if you want to learn this things as I do, it\'s best to follow me there.\r\nSeriously @delta how do you run out of gas 75 miles short of your destination?!? (@ LaGuardia Airport (LGA) w/ 21 others)
\r\nStanding outside LGA with 100 others waiting for a bus to Hartford because a @delta plane ran out of gas. Not kidding. Or they are lying.
\r\n
* * *
\r\n1) In Hong Kong, they drive on the left. In China, they drive on the right. The bridge between them is TOTALLY SCARY. (via Google Reader Shared Items)\r\n\r\nSomeone I follow on Google Reader shared this blog post by Jason Kottke explaining the problem. But really, the picture sums it up:\r\n
Check out the right (closer) lane. Watch as it dips below its starting point, coming just a few feet above the water (!). Marvel as it passes under the previously left lane, and, effectively, flips itself into being the new left. Gorgeous and horrific at the same time.
\r\n2) Planes sometimes run out of gas. (via @thespin_md on Twitter)\r\n
\r\nI met Michael Maney at the ReadWriteWeb Summit last week and have followed him on Twitter since. He shared this tweet from Colleen Swanger, who I don\'t know from Adam (Eve?):
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nThanks @delta for running out of gas. Now my mother and I are going to miss her mother\'s funeral while stuck at LGA when we should be in BDL
\r\n
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nSeriously @delta how do you run out of gas 75 miles short of your destination?!? (@ LaGuardia Airport (LGA) w/ 21 others)
\r\n
\r\n\r\n','Ten Things I Learned From Social Media Last Week',0,'','inherit','open','open','','354-revision-3','','','2010-06-15 21:36:11','2010-06-15 21:36:11','',354,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/15/354-revision-3/',0,'revision','',0),(360,1,'2010-06-16 19:05:00','2010-06-16 19:05:00','Last week, I wrote up\n\nIt was well received, and I\'m a feedback junkie, so I\'m considering making this a regular thing. I hope you enjoy this as much as I did. One hint: I shared all of these on Twitter -- so if you want to learn this things as I do, it\'s best to follow me there.\nStanding outside LGA with 100 others waiting for a bus to Hartford because a @delta plane ran out of gas. Not kidding. Or they are lying.
\r\n
* * *
\n1) In Hong Kong, they drive on the left. In China, they drive on the right. The bridge between them is TOTALLY SCARY. (via Google Reader Shared Items)\n\nSomeone I follow on Google Reader shared this blog post by Jason Kottke explaining the problem. But really, the picture sums it up:\n
Check out the right (closer) lane. Watch as it dips below its starting point, coming just a few feet above the water (!). Marvel as it passes under the previously left lane, and, effectively, flips itself into being the new left. Gorgeous and horrific at the same time.
\n2) Planes sometimes run out of gas. (via @thespin_md on Twitter)\n
\nI met Michael Maney at the ReadWriteWeb Summit last week and have followed him on Twitter since. He shared this tweet from Colleen Swanger, who I don\'t know from Adam (Eve?):
\n\n\n\n\n\nThanks @delta for running out of gas. Now my mother and I are going to miss her mother\'s funeral while stuck at LGA when we should be in BDL
\n
\n\n\n\nSeriously @delta how do you run out of gas 75 miles short of your destination?!? (@ LaGuardia Airport (LGA) w/ 21 others)
\n
\n\n3) Carrots used to be purple. (via Facebook)\n\nhttp://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/04/carrots-used-to-be-purple-before-the-17th-century\n\n4) There\'s a beautiful building in Manhattan, near City Hall, which has been totally abandoned since 1940. (via @antdrosa on Twitter)\n\nhttp://www.scoutingny.com/?p=2164\nStanding outside LGA with 100 others waiting for a bus to Hartford because a @delta plane ran out of gas. Not kidding. Or they are lying.
\n\nTKTKTKTKTKTKT
\n
\n\n','Ten Things I Learned From Social Media Last Week',0,'','inherit','open','open','','354-revision-4','','','2010-06-16 19:05:00','2010-06-16 19:05:00','',354,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/16/354-revision-4/',0,'revision','',0),(361,1,'2010-06-17 12:51:56','2010-06-17 12:51:56','People -- including organizations -- respond to incentives.\r\n\r\nBut rarely do we create incentives for doing good. Rather, we tend to create disincentives -- legal liability, bad press, boycotts, etc. -- for doing bad things. We see this reflected in everyday life. When running for political office, candidates will mention their successes, sure, but the discourse focuses on the failures of their opponents. (Quickly: name one positive thing John Kerry or Sarah Palin did.) Google\'s informal motto, \"Don\'t Be Evil,\" sums up the incredibly low bar of expectations from corporations while simultaneously focusing on the negative stuff they don\'t do, rather than their actual philanthropic work. And with oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico, a boycott of BP makes emotional sense -- but why hasn\'t there been a concerted effort to patronize, as a society, the oil companies which are doing the most work (and investing the most resources) into cleaner-burning fuel alternatives? Do you even know which company that would be? I don\'t, but I feel like I should.\r\n\r\n
![\"\"](\"http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/justcoz.png\" "\\"justcoz")
We rightly place disincentives on doing evil. But we rarely celebrate the good work done in this world. Maybe it\'s just too much work and not worth our time. Maybe it needs to be easier.\r\n\r\nI\'ve been thinking about this problem for about a week, after synthesizing a lot what I learned from Internet Week NYC events. I concluded that we need to make a concerted effort to celebrate the good in this world, and that Twitter makes that easy, so I registered @CelebrateGood and followed some causes. (I am not sure yet what I want to do with @CelebrateGood yet -- I haven\'t even found a good icon! -- but it probably won\'t focus on non-profits. I\'ll outline my basic thinking in another post.)\r\n\r\nApparently, I\'m not alone in seeing this opportunity. This week, serial entrepreneur Jeff Pulver announced his new project, JustCoz.org. JustCoz uses Twitter to make it easy to celebrate some of the good work which is being done in this world -- and it\'s fantastic.\r\n\r\nPulver, the founder of the 140 Characters Conference, is super-invested in the disruptive effects of Twitter and real-time engagement, so it should surprise no one that JustCoz leverages tweets -- or rather, non-tweets. Realizing that you can only share good news -- retweet it, basically -- when you are actually looking at Twitter, Pulver and company saw an opportunity: what if supporters of causes could automatically retweet the tweets of the causes they support? If Doctors Without Borders makes a big announcement while you are on a trans-Atlantic flight, JustCoz will spread it to your followers for you. Automatically.\r\n![\"\"](\"http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/justcoz_distribution_model.gif\" "\\"justcoz_distribution_model\\"")
Noting that personally passed-along tweets are more likely to spread (note the asterisk), JustCoz believes that if we donate our tweets -- actually, our idle Twitter time -- we, collectively, can spread good rapidly and to orders of magnitude more people. Whether this works, who knows; hopefully, it will. But the important story here is that people -- Pulver and his team -- are taking pro-active steps to leverage social media to celebrate the good in this world. I hope more people join that mission.
','JustCoz: Celebrating Good',0,'','publish','open','open','','justcoz-celebrating-good','','\nhttp://dlewis.net/2010/06/14/ten-things-i-learned-during-internet-week-2010/','2010-06-17 12:53:24','2010-06-17 12:53:24','',0,'http://dlewis.net/?p=361',0,'post','',0),(362,1,'2010-06-16 21:23:54','2010-06-16 21:23:54','','justcoz logo',0,'','inherit','open','open','','justcoz','','','2010-06-16 21:23:54','2010-06-16 21:23:54','',361,'http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/justcoz.png',0,'attachment','image/png',0),(363,1,'2010-06-16 21:24:48','2010-06-16 21:24:48','','JustCoz: Automating Good',0,'','inherit','open','open','','361-revision','','','2010-06-16 21:24:48','2010-06-16 21:24:48','',361,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/16/361-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(364,1,'2010-06-16 21:32:14','2010-06-16 21:32:14','This week, serial entrepreneur Jeff Pulver announced his new project, JustCoz.org. Pulver, the founder of the 140 Characters Conference, is super-invested in the disruptive effects of Twitter and real-time engagement','JustCoz: Automating Good',0,'','inherit','open','open','','361-revision-2','','','2010-06-16 21:32:14','2010-06-16 21:32:14','',361,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/16/361-revision-2/',0,'revision','',0),(365,1,'2010-06-17 12:14:06','2010-06-17 12:14:06','People -- including organizations -- respond to incentives.\n\nBut rarely do we create incentives for doing good. Rather, we tend to create disincentives -- legal liability, bad press, boycotts, etc. -- from doing bad things.\n\nThis week, serial entrepreneur Jeff Pulver announced his new project, JustCoz.org. Pulver, the founder of the 140 Characters Conference, is super-invested in the disruptive effects of Twitter and real-time engagement, so it should surprise no one that JustCoz leverages tweets.','JustCoz: Celebrating Good',0,'','inherit','open','open','','361-revision-3','','','2010-06-17 12:14:06','2010-06-17 12:14:06','',361,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/17/361-revision-3/',0,'revision','',0),(366,1,'2010-06-17 12:43:31','2010-06-17 12:43:31','People -- including organizations -- respond to incentives.\n\nBut rarely do we create incentives for doing good. Rather, we tend to create disincentives -- legal liability, bad press, boycotts, etc. -- for doing bad things. We see this reflected in everyday life. When running for political office, candidates will mention their successes, sure, but the discourse focuses on the failures of their opponents. (Quickly: name one positive thing John Kerry or Sarah Palin did.) Google\'s informal motto, \"Don\'t Be Evil,\" sums up the incredibly low bar of expectations from corporations while simultaneously focusing on the negative stuff they don\'t do, rather than their actual philanthropic work. And with oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico, a boycott of BP makes emotional sense -- but why hasn\'t there been a concerted effort to patronize, as a society, the oil companies which are doing the most work (and investing the most resources) into cleaner-burning fuel alternatives? Do you even know which company that would be? I don\'t, but I feel like I should.\n\nWe rightly place disincentives on doing evil. But we rarely celebrate the good work done in this world. Maybe it\'s just too much work and not worth our time. Maybe it needs to be easier.\n\nI\'ve been thinking about this problem for about a week, after synthesizing a lot what I learned from Internet Week NYC events. I concluded that we need to make a concerted effort to celebrate the good in this world, and that Twitter makes that easy, so I registered @CelebrateGood and followed some causes. (I am not sure yet what I want to do with @CelebrateGood yet -- I haven\'t even found a good icon! -- but it probably won\'t focus on non-profits. I\'ll outline my basic thinking in another post.)\n\nThis week, serial entrepreneur Jeff Pulver announced his new project, JustCoz.org. JustCoz uses Twitter to make it easy to celebrate some of the good work which is being done in this world -- and it\'s well beyond the \"mere concept\" stage.\n\nPulver, the founder of the 140 Characters Conference, is super-invested in the disruptive effects of Twitter and real-time engagement, so it should surprise no one that JustCoz leverages tweets -- or rather, non-tweets. Realizing that you can only share good news -- retweet it, basically -- when you are actually looking at Twitter, Pulver and company saw an opportunity: what if supporters of causes could automatically retweet the tweets of the causes they support? If Doctors Without Borders makes a big announcement while you are on a trans-Atlantic flight, JustCoz will spread it to your followers for you. Automatically.','JustCoz: Celebrating Good',0,'','inherit','open','open','','361-revision-4','','','2010-06-17 12:43:31','2010-06-17 12:43:31','',361,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/17/361-revision-4/',0,'revision','',0),(367,1,'2010-06-17 12:47:59','2010-06-17 12:47:59','','justcoz_distribution_model',0,'','inherit','open','open','','justcoz_distribution_model','','','2010-06-17 12:47:59','2010-06-17 12:47:59','',361,'http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/justcoz_distribution_model.gif',0,'attachment','image/gif',0),(368,1,'2010-06-17 12:51:11','2010-06-17 12:51:11','People -- including organizations -- respond to incentives.\n\nBut rarely do we create incentives for doing good. Rather, we tend to create disincentives -- legal liability, bad press, boycotts, etc. -- for doing bad things. We see this reflected in everyday life. When running for political office, candidates will mention their successes, sure, but the discourse focuses on the failures of their opponents. (Quickly: name one positive thing John Kerry or Sarah Palin did.) Google\'s informal motto, \"Don\'t Be Evil,\" sums up the incredibly low bar of expectations from corporations while simultaneously focusing on the negative stuff they don\'t do, rather than their actual philanthropic work. And with oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico, a boycott of BP makes emotional sense -- but why hasn\'t there been a concerted effort to patronize, as a society, the oil companies which are doing the most work (and investing the most resources) into cleaner-burning fuel alternatives? Do you even know which company that would be? I don\'t, but I feel like I should.\n\nWe rightly place disincentives on doing evil. But we rarely celebrate the good work done in this world. Maybe it\'s just too much work and not worth our time. Maybe it needs to be easier.\n\nI\'ve been thinking about this problem for about a week, after synthesizing a lot what I learned from Internet Week NYC events. I concluded that we need to make a concerted effort to celebrate the good in this world, and that Twitter makes that easy, so I registered @CelebrateGood and followed some causes. (I am not sure yet what I want to do with @CelebrateGood yet -- I haven\'t even found a good icon! -- but it probably won\'t focus on non-profits. I\'ll outline my basic thinking in another post.)\n\nApparently, I\'m not alone in seeing this opportunity. This week, serial entrepreneur Jeff Pulver announced his new project, JustCoz.org. JustCoz uses Twitter to make it easy to celebrate some of the good work which is being done in this world -- and it\'s fantastic.\n\nPulver, the founder of the 140 Characters Conference, is super-invested in the disruptive effects of Twitter and real-time engagement, so it should surprise no one that JustCoz leverages tweets -- or rather, non-tweets. Realizing that you can only share good news -- retweet it, basically -- when you are actually looking at Twitter, Pulver and company saw an opportunity: what if supporters of causes could automatically retweet the tweets of the causes they support? If Doctors Without Borders makes a big announcement while you are on a trans-Atlantic flight, JustCoz will spread it to your followers for you. Automatically.\n
Noting that personally passed-along tweets are more likely to spread (note the asterisk), JustCoz believes that if we donate our tweets -- actually, our idle Twitter time -- we, collectively, can spread good rapidly and to orders of magnitude more people. Whether this works, who knows; hopefully, it will. But the important story here is that people -- Pulver and his team -- are taking pro-active steps to leverage social media to celebrate the good in this world. I hope to see more
','JustCoz: Celebrating Good',0,'','inherit','open','open','','361-revision-5','','','2010-06-17 12:51:11','2010-06-17 12:51:11','',361,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/17/361-revision-5/',0,'revision','',0),(369,1,'2010-06-17 12:51:29','2010-06-17 12:51:29','People -- including organizations -- respond to incentives.\r\n\r\nBut rarely do we create incentives for doing good. Rather, we tend to create disincentives -- legal liability, bad press, boycotts, etc. -- for doing bad things. We see this reflected in everyday life. When running for political office, candidates will mention their successes, sure, but the discourse focuses on the failures of their opponents. (Quickly: name one positive thing John Kerry or Sarah Palin did.) Google\'s informal motto, \"Don\'t Be Evil,\" sums up the incredibly low bar of expectations from corporations while simultaneously focusing on the negative stuff they don\'t do, rather than their actual philanthropic work. And with oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico, a boycott of BP makes emotional sense -- but why hasn\'t there been a concerted effort to patronize, as a society, the oil companies which are doing the most work (and investing the most resources) into cleaner-burning fuel alternatives? Do you even know which company that would be? I don\'t, but I feel like I should.\r\n\r\nWe rightly place disincentives on doing evil. But we rarely celebrate the good work done in this world. Maybe it\'s just too much work and not worth our time. Maybe it needs to be easier.\r\n\r\nI\'ve been thinking about this problem for about a week, after synthesizing a lot what I learned from Internet Week NYC events. I concluded that we need to make a concerted effort to celebrate the good in this world, and that Twitter makes that easy, so I registered @CelebrateGood and followed some causes. (I am not sure yet what I want to do with @CelebrateGood yet -- I haven\'t even found a good icon! -- but it probably won\'t focus on non-profits. I\'ll outline my basic thinking in another post.)\r\n\r\nApparently, I\'m not alone in seeing this opportunity. This week, serial entrepreneur Jeff Pulver announced his new project, JustCoz.org. JustCoz uses Twitter to make it easy to celebrate some of the good work which is being done in this world -- and it\'s fantastic.\r\n\r\nPulver, the founder of the 140 Characters Conference, is super-invested in the disruptive effects of Twitter and real-time engagement, so it should surprise no one that JustCoz leverages tweets -- or rather, non-tweets. Realizing that you can only share good news -- retweet it, basically -- when you are actually looking at Twitter, Pulver and company saw an opportunity: what if supporters of causes could automatically retweet the tweets of the causes they support? If Doctors Without Borders makes a big announcement while you are on a trans-Atlantic flight, JustCoz will spread it to your followers for you. Automatically.\r\n
Noting that personally passed-along tweets are more likely to spread (note the asterisk), JustCoz believes that if we donate our tweets -- actually, our idle Twitter time -- we, collectively, can spread good rapidly and to orders of magnitude more people. Whether this works, who knows; hopefully, it will. But the important story here is that people -- Pulver and his team -- are taking pro-active steps to leverage social media to celebrate the good in this world. I hope more people join that mission.
','JustCoz: Celebrating Good',0,'','inherit','open','open','','361-revision-6','','','2010-06-17 12:51:29','2010-06-17 12:51:29','',361,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/17/361-revision-6/',0,'revision','',0),(370,1,'2010-06-17 12:51:56','2010-06-17 12:51:56','People -- including organizations -- respond to incentives.\r\n\r\nBut rarely do we create incentives for doing good. Rather, we tend to create disincentives -- legal liability, bad press, boycotts, etc. -- for doing bad things. We see this reflected in everyday life. When running for political office, candidates will mention their successes, sure, but the discourse focuses on the failures of their opponents. (Quickly: name one positive thing John Kerry or Sarah Palin did.) Google\'s informal motto, \"Don\'t Be Evil,\" sums up the incredibly low bar of expectations from corporations while simultaneously focusing on the negative stuff they don\'t do, rather than their actual philanthropic work. And with oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico, a boycott of BP makes emotional sense -- but why hasn\'t there been a concerted effort to patronize, as a society, the oil companies which are doing the most work (and investing the most resources) into cleaner-burning fuel alternatives? Do you even know which company that would be? I don\'t, but I feel like I should.\r\n\r\nWe rightly place disincentives on doing evil. But we rarely celebrate the good work done in this world. Maybe it\'s just too much work and not worth our time. Maybe it needs to be easier.\r\n\r\nI\'ve been thinking about this problem for about a week, after synthesizing a lot what I learned from Internet Week NYC events. I concluded that we need to make a concerted effort to celebrate the good in this world, and that Twitter makes that easy, so I registered @CelebrateGood and followed some causes. (I am not sure yet what I want to do with @CelebrateGood yet -- I haven\'t even found a good icon! -- but it probably won\'t focus on non-profits. I\'ll outline my basic thinking in another post.)\r\n\r\nApparently, I\'m not alone in seeing this opportunity. This week, serial entrepreneur Jeff Pulver announced his new project, JustCoz.org. JustCoz uses Twitter to make it easy to celebrate some of the good work which is being done in this world -- and it\'s fantastic.\r\n\r\nPulver, the founder of the 140 Characters Conference, is super-invested in the disruptive effects of Twitter and real-time engagement, so it should surprise no one that JustCoz leverages tweets -- or rather, non-tweets. Realizing that you can only share good news -- retweet it, basically -- when you are actually looking at Twitter, Pulver and company saw an opportunity: what if supporters of causes could automatically retweet the tweets of the causes they support? If Doctors Without Borders makes a big announcement while you are on a trans-Atlantic flight, JustCoz will spread it to your followers for you. Automatically.\r\n
Noting that personally passed-along tweets are more likely to spread (note the asterisk), JustCoz believes that if we donate our tweets -- actually, our idle Twitter time -- we, collectively, can spread good rapidly and to orders of magnitude more people. Whether this works, who knows; hopefully, it will. But the important story here is that people -- Pulver and his team -- are taking pro-active steps to leverage social media to celebrate the good in this world. I hope more people join that mission.
','JustCoz: Celebrating Good',0,'','inherit','open','open','','361-revision-7','','','2010-06-17 12:51:56','2010-06-17 12:51:56','',361,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/17/361-revision-7/',0,'revision','',0),(371,1,'2010-06-17 16:15:34','2010-06-17 16:15:34','Last week, I wrote up\n\nIt was well received, and I\'m a feedback junkie, so I\'m considering making this a regular thing. I hope you enjoy this as much as I did. One hint: I shared all of these on Twitter -- so if you want to learn this things as I do, it\'s best to follow me there.\n* * *
\n1) In Hong Kong, they drive on the left. In China, they drive on the right. The bridge between them is TOTALLY SCARY. (via Google Reader Shared Items)\n\nSomeone I follow on Google Reader shared this blog post by Jason Kottke explaining the problem. But really, the picture sums it up:\n
Check out the right (closer) lane. Watch as it dips below its starting point, coming just a few feet above the water (!). Marvel as it passes under the previously left lane, and, effectively, flips itself into being the new left. Gorgeous and horrific at the same time.
\n2) Planes sometimes run out of gas. (via @thespin_md on Twitter)\n
\nI met Michael Maney at the ReadWriteWeb Summit last week and have followed him on Twitter since. He shared this tweet from Colleen Swanger, who I don\'t know from Adam (Eve?):
\n\n\n\n\n\nThanks @delta for running out of gas. Now my mother and I are going to miss her mother\'s funeral while stuck at LGA when we should be in BDL
\n
\n\n\n\nSeriously @delta how do you run out of gas 75 miles short of your destination?!? (@ LaGuardia Airport (LGA) w/ 21 others)
\n
\n\n3) Carrots used to be purple. (via Facebook)\n\nhttp://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/04/carrots-used-to-be-purple-before-the-17th-century\n\n4) There\'s a beautiful building in Manhattan, near City Hall, which has been totally abandoned since 1940. (via @antdrosa on Twitter)\n\nhttp://www.scoutingny.com/?p=2164\n\n5) You can make any website sound like it\'s a at a World Cup 2010 Stadium. (via Facebook)\n\n\nReally.\n\nStanding outside LGA with 100 others waiting for a bus to Hartford because a @delta plane ran out of gas. Not kidding. Or they are lying.
\n\nTKTKTKTKTKTKT
\n
\n\n','Ten Things I Learned From Social Media Last Week',0,'','inherit','open','open','','354-revision-5','','','2010-06-17 16:15:34','2010-06-17 16:15:34','',354,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/17/354-revision-5/',0,'revision','',0),(372,1,'2010-06-17 16:24:17','2010-06-17 16:24:17','Last week, I wrote up\n\nIt was well received, and I\'m a feedback junkie, so I\'m considering making this a regular thing. I hope you enjoy this as much as I did. One hint: I shared all of these on Twitter -- so if you want to learn this things as I do, it\'s best to follow me there.\n
* * *
\n1) In Hong Kong, they drive on the left. In China, they drive on the right. The bridge between them is TOTALLY SCARY. (via Google Reader Shared Items)\n\nSomeone I follow on Google Reader shared this blog post by Jason Kottke explaining the problem. But really, the picture sums it up:\n
Check out the right (closer) lane. Watch as it dips below its starting point, coming just a few feet above the water (!). Marvel as it passes under the previously left lane, and, effectively, flips itself into being the new left. Gorgeous and horrific at the same time.
\n2) Planes sometimes run out of gas. (via @thespin_md on Twitter)\n
\nI met Michael Maney at the ReadWriteWeb Summit last week and have followed him on Twitter since. He shared this tweet from Colleen Swanger, who I don\'t know from Adam (Eve?):
\n\n\n\n\n\nThanks @delta for running out of gas. Now my mother and I are going to miss her mother\'s funeral while stuck at LGA when we should be in BDL
\n
\n\n\n\nSeriously @delta how do you run out of gas 75 miles short of your destination?!? (@ LaGuardia Airport (LGA) w/ 21 others)
\n
\n\n3) Carrots used to be purple. (via Facebook)\n\nhttp://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/04/carrots-used-to-be-purple-before-the-17th-century\n\n4) There\'s a beautiful building in Manhattan, near City Hall, which has been totally abandoned since 1940. (via @antdrosa on Twitter)\n\nhttp://www.scoutingny.com/?p=2164\n\n5) You can make any website sound like it\'s a at a World Cup 2010 Stadium. (via Facebook)\n\n\nReally. \n\n6) The baseball player you had high hopes for in \nStanding outside LGA with 100 others waiting for a bus to Hartford because a @delta plane ran out of gas. Not kidding. Or they are lying.
\n\nTKTKTKTKTKTKT
\n
\n\n','Ten Things I Learned From Social Media Last Week',0,'','inherit','open','open','','354-revision-6','','','2010-06-17 16:24:17','2010-06-17 16:24:17','',354,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/17/354-revision-6/',0,'revision','',0),(373,1,'2010-06-17 16:27:18','2010-06-17 16:27:18','Last week, I wrote up\n\nIt was well received, and I\'m a feedback junkie, so I\'m considering making this a regular thing. I hope you enjoy this as much as I did. One hint: I shared all of these on Twitter -- so if you want to learn this things as I do, it\'s best to follow me there.\n
* * *
\n1) In Hong Kong, they drive on the left. In China, they drive on the right. The bridge between them is TOTALLY SCARY. (via Google Reader Shared Items)\n\nSomeone I follow on Google Reader shared this blog post by Jason Kottke explaining the problem. But really, the picture sums it up:\n
Check out the right (closer) lane. Watch as it dips below its starting point, coming just a few feet above the water (!). Marvel as it passes under the previously left lane, and, effectively, flips itself into being the new left. Gorgeous and horrific at the same time.
\n2) Planes sometimes run out of gas. (via @thespin_md on Twitter)\n
\nI met Michael Maney at the ReadWriteWeb Summit last week and have followed him on Twitter since. He shared this tweet from Colleen Swanger, who I don\'t know from Adam (Eve?):
\n\n\n\n\n\nThanks @delta for running out of gas. Now my mother and I are going to miss her mother\'s funeral while stuck at LGA when we should be in BDL
\n
\n\n\n\nSeriously @delta how do you run out of gas 75 miles short of your destination?!? (@ LaGuardia Airport (LGA) w/ 21 others)
\n
\n\n3) Carrots used to be purple. (via Facebook)\n\nhttp://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/04/carrots-used-to-be-purple-before-the-17th-century\n\n4) There\'s a beautiful building in Manhattan, near City Hall, which has been totally abandoned since 1940. (via @antdrosa on Twitter)\n\nhttp://www.scoutingny.com/?p=2164\n\n5) You can make any website sound like it\'s a at a World Cup 2010 Stadium. (via Facebook)\n\n\nReally. \n\n6) A baseball player I had high hopes for in 2003 is now a bullpen catcher -- which is how he met his newlywed wife. And their registry is online. (via @jordanzakarin and @howardmegdal)\n\n\nhttp://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/jerrybrewer/2012136666_brewer17.html\nStanding outside LGA with 100 others waiting for a bus to Hartford because a @delta plane ran out of gas. Not kidding. Or they are lying.
\n\nTKTKTKTKTKTKT
\n
\n\n','Ten Things I Learned From Social Media Last Week',0,'','inherit','open','open','','354-revision-7','','','2010-06-17 16:27:18','2010-06-17 16:27:18','',354,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/17/354-revision-7/',0,'revision','',0),(471,1,'2010-07-20 12:37:11','2010-07-20 16:37:11','
\r\n\r\nWe\'ve all heard the adage, \"you learn something new every day.\" It\'s definitely true. Want to keep learning all sorts of interesting things?\r\n\r\n\"Now I Know\" is my free daily email where I share these things. No more than once a day. No spam. Things that I find genuinely interesting, such as:\r\n\r\n\r\nWe\'ve all heard the adage, \"you learn something new every day.\" It\'s definitely true. Want to keep learning all sorts of interesting things?\r\n\r\n\"Now I Know\" is my free daily email where I share these things. No more than once a day. No spam. Things that I find genuinely interesting, such as:\r\n* * *
\n1) In Hong Kong, they drive on the left. In China, they drive on the right. The bridge between them is TOTALLY SCARY. (via Google Reader Shared Items)\n\nSomeone I follow on Google Reader shared this blog post by Jason Kottke explaining the problem. But really, the picture sums it up:\n
Check out the right (closer) lane. Watch as it dips below its starting point, coming just a few feet above the water (!). Marvel as it passes under the previously left lane, and, effectively, flips itself into being the new left. Gorgeous and horrific at the same time.
\n2) Planes sometimes run out of gas. (via @thespin_md on Twitter)\n
\nI met Michael Maney at the ReadWriteWeb Summit last week and have followed him on Twitter since. He shared this tweet from Colleen Swanger, who I don\'t know from Adam (Eve?):
\n\n\n\n\n\nThanks @delta for running out of gas. Now my mother and I are going to miss her mother\'s funeral while stuck at LGA when we should be in BDL
\n
\n\n\n\nSeriously @delta how do you run out of gas 75 miles short of your destination?!? (@ LaGuardia Airport (LGA) w/ 21 others)
\n
\n\n3) Carrots used to be purple. (via Facebook)\n\nhttp://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/04/carrots-used-to-be-purple-before-the-17th-century\n\n4) There\'s a beautiful building in Manhattan, near City Hall, which has been totally abandoned since 1940. (via @antdrosa on Twitter)\n\nhttp://www.scoutingny.com/?p=2164\n\n5) You can make any website sound like it\'s a at a World Cup 2010 Stadium. (via Facebook)\n\n\nReally. \n\n6) A baseball player I had high hopes for in 2003 is now a bullpen catcher -- which is how he met his newlywed wife. And their registry is online. (via @jordanzakarin and @howardmegdal)\n\n\nhttp://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/jerrybrewer/2012136666_brewer17.html\n\nhttp://www.bedbathandbeyond.com/regGiftRegistry.asp?wrn=-1220287354&\n\nhttp://sbnation.com/e/1286713\n\n7) The New York City subway system didn\'t know what \"FML\" meant -- but they do now. (via Google Reader)\n\nhttp://secondavenuesagas.com/2010/06/15/an-internet-meme-derails-transits-new-signage/\n\nhttp://secondavenuesagas.com/2010/06/17/from-fml-to-something-mundane/\nStanding outside LGA with 100 others waiting for a bus to Hartford because a @delta plane ran out of gas. Not kidding. Or they are lying.
\n\nTKTKTKTKTKTKT
\n
\n\n','Ten Things I Learned From Social Media Last Week',0,'','inherit','open','open','','354-revision-8','','','2010-06-17 17:45:05','2010-06-17 17:45:05','',354,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/17/354-revision-8/',0,'revision','',0),(377,1,'2010-06-17 18:50:26','2010-06-17 18:50:26','Last week, I wrote up\n\nIt was well received, and I\'m a feedback junkie, so I\'m considering making this a regular thing. I hope you enjoy this as much as I did. One hint: I shared all of these on Twitter -- so if you want to learn this things as I do, it\'s best to follow me there.\n
* * *
\n1) In Hong Kong, they drive on the left. In China, they drive on the right. The bridge between them is TOTALLY SCARY. (via Google Reader Shared Items)\n\nSomeone I follow on Google Reader shared this blog post by Jason Kottke explaining the problem. But really, the picture sums it up:\n
Check out the right (closer) lane. Watch as it dips below its starting point, coming just a few feet above the water (!). Marvel as it passes under the previously left lane, and, effectively, flips itself into being the new left. Gorgeous and horrific at the same time.
\n2) Planes sometimes run out of gas. (via @thespin_md on Twitter)\n
\nI met Michael Maney at the ReadWriteWeb Summit last week and have followed him on Twitter since. He shared this tweet from Colleen Swanger, who I don\'t know from Adam (Eve?):
\n\n\n\n\n\nThanks @delta for running out of gas. Now my mother and I are going to miss her mother\'s funeral while stuck at LGA when we should be in BDL
\n
\n\n\n\nSeriously @delta how do you run out of gas 75 miles short of your destination?!? (@ LaGuardia Airport (LGA) w/ 21 others)
\n
\n\n3) Carrots used to be purple. (via Facebook)\n\nhttp://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/04/carrots-used-to-be-purple-before-the-17th-century\n\n4) There\'s a beautiful building in Manhattan, near City Hall, which has been totally abandoned since 1940. (via @antdrosa on Twitter)\n\nhttp://www.scoutingny.com/?p=2164\n\n5) You can make any website sound like it\'s a at a World Cup 2010 Stadium. (via Facebook)\n\n\nReally. \n\n6) A baseball player I had high hopes for in 2003 is now a bullpen catcher -- which is how he met his newlywed wife. And their registry is online. (via @jordanzakarin and @howardmegdal)\n\n\nhttp://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/jerrybrewer/2012136666_brewer17.html\n\nhttp://www.bedbathandbeyond.com/regGiftRegistry.asp?wrn=-1220287354&\n\nhttp://sbnation.com/e/1286713\n\n7) The New York City subway system didn\'t know what \"FML\" meant -- but they do now. (via Google Reader)\n\nhttp://secondavenuesagas.com/2010/06/15/an-internet-meme-derails-transits-new-signage/\n\nhttp://secondavenuesagas.com/2010/06/17/from-fml-to-something-mundane/\n\n8) There are more Subway \"restaurants\" than subway stations in Manhattan. \n\nhttp://newyork.grubstreet.com/2010/06/what_are_there_more_of_in_manh.html\nStanding outside LGA with 100 others waiting for a bus to Hartford because a @delta plane ran out of gas. Not kidding. Or they are lying.
\n\nTKTKTKTKTKTKT
\n
\n\n','Ten Things I Learned From Social Media Last Week',0,'','inherit','open','open','','354-revision-9','','','2010-06-17 18:50:26','2010-06-17 18:50:26','',354,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/17/354-revision-9/',0,'revision','',0),(378,1,'2010-06-17 18:56:04','2010-06-17 18:56:04','Last week, I wrote up\n\nIt was well received, and I\'m a feedback junkie, so I\'m considering making this a regular thing. I hope you enjoy this as much as I did. One hint: I shared all of these on Twitter -- so if you want to learn this things as I do, it\'s best to follow me there.\n
* * *
\n1) In Hong Kong, they drive on the left. In China, they drive on the right. The bridge between them is TOTALLY SCARY. \n\nSomeone I follow on Google Reader shared this blog post by Jason Kottke explaining the problem. But really, the picture sums it up:\n
Check out the right (closer) lane. Watch as it dips below its starting point, coming just a few feet above the water (!). Marvel as it passes under the previously left lane, and, effectively, flips itself into being the new left. Gorgeous and horrific at the same time.
\nFound Google Reader Shared Items.
\n2) Planes sometimes run out of gas.\n
\nI met Michael Maney at the ReadWriteWeb Summit last week and have followed him on Twitter since. He shared this tweet from Colleen Swanger, who I don\'t know from Adam (Eve?):
\n\n\n\n\n\nThanks @delta for running out of gas. Now my mother and I are going to miss her mother\'s funeral while stuck at LGA when we should be in BDL
\n
\n\n\n\nSeriously @delta how do you run out of gas 75 miles short of your destination?!? (@ LaGuardia Airport (LGA) w/ 21 others)
\n
\n\n3) Carrots used to be purple.\n\n\nhttp://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/04/carrots-used-to-be-purple-before-the-17th-century\n\nShared by a friend on Facebook\n\n4) There\'s a beautiful building in Manhattan, near City Hall, which has been totally abandoned since 1940. (via @antdrosa on Twitter)\n\nhttp://www.scoutingny.com/?p=2164\n\n5) You can make any website sound like it\'s a at a World Cup 2010 Stadium. (via Facebook)\n\n\nReally. \n\n6) A baseball player I had high hopes for in 2003 is now a bullpen catcher -- which is how he met his newlywed wife. And their registry is online. (via @jordanzakarin and @howardmegdal)\n\n\nhttp://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/jerrybrewer/2012136666_brewer17.html\n\nhttp://www.bedbathandbeyond.com/regGiftRegistry.asp?wrn=-1220287354&\n\nhttp://sbnation.com/e/1286713\n\n7) The New York City subway system didn\'t know what \"FML\" meant -- but they do now. (via Google Reader)\n\nhttp://secondavenuesagas.com/2010/06/15/an-internet-meme-derails-transits-new-signage/\n\nhttp://secondavenuesagas.com/2010/06/17/from-fml-to-something-mundane/\n\n8) There are more Subway \"restaurants\" than subway stations in Manhattan. \n\nhttp://newyork.grubstreet.com/2010/06/what_are_there_more_of_in_manh.html\n\nFound via @bkabak on Twitter.','Ten Things I Learned From Social Media Last Week',0,'','inherit','open','open','','354-revision-10','','','2010-06-17 18:56:04','2010-06-17 18:56:04','',354,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/17/354-revision-10/',0,'revision','',0),(384,1,'2010-06-18 19:13:13','2010-06-18 19:13:13','','Carrots of different colors',0,'','inherit','open','open','','fivebunch1','','','2010-06-18 19:13:13','2010-06-18 19:13:13','',354,'http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/fivebunch1.jpg',0,'attachment','image/jpeg',0),(386,1,'2010-06-18 19:39:25','2010-06-18 19:39:25','Last week, I wrote up\n\nIt was well received, and I\'m a feedback junkie, so I\'m considering making this a regular thing. I hope you enjoy this as much as I did. One hint: I shared all of these on Twitter -- so if you want to learn this things as I do, it\'s best to follow me there.\nStanding outside LGA with 100 others waiting for a bus to Hartford because a @delta plane ran out of gas. Not kidding. Or they are lying.
\n\nTKTKTKTKTKTKT
\n
* * *
\n1) There\'s a scaled-down version of Fenway Park in Vermont, used for Wiffleball games.
\nIt\'s called Little Fenway. I found it via a blog post -- but I can\'t recall which, sorry.
It was built specifically for Wiffleball games, making it doubly cool. And most impressively, the family that built it rents it out for charity games. Little Fenway has raised over $800,000 for various charities in the eight years it\'s been around, including over $230,000 last year alone.
\nAnd yes, you can book Little Fenway for your own use. It\'ll cost you $500, and you can get more information here.
\nNot a Red Sox fan? No problem -- they also have a Little Wrigley, brick back fence and all. No ivy, though.
\n2) In Hong Kong, they drive on the left. In China, they drive on the right. The bridge between them is TOTALLY SCARY. \n\nSomeone I follow on Google Reader shared this blog post by Jason Kottke explaining the problem. But really, the picture sums it up:\n
Check out the right (closer) lane. Watch as it dips below its starting point, coming just a few feet above the water (!). Marvel as it passes under the previously left lane, and, effectively, flips itself into being the new left. Gorgeous and horrific at the same time.
\n3) Planes sometimes run out of gas, requiring diversion to a nearby airport.\n
\nI met Michael Maney at the ReadWriteWeb Summit last week and have followed him on Twitter since. He shared this tweet from Colleen Swanger, who I don\'t know from Adam (Eve?):
\n\n\n\n\n\nThanks @delta for running out of gas. Now my mother and I are going to miss her mother\'s funeral while stuck at LGA when we should be in BDL
\n
\n\n\n\nSeriously @delta how do you run out of gas 75 miles short of your destination?!? (@ LaGuardia Airport (LGA) w/ 21 others)
\n
\n\nStanding outside LGA with 100 others waiting for a bus to Hartford because a @delta plane ran out of gas. Not kidding. Or they are lying.
\n
You can read more about the flight here. The diversion cost passengers six hours -- which is ridiculous, given the fact that a bus ride from New York (where the plane landed) to Hartford (intended destination) should be about half that. It\'s mind-boggling. How do you miscalculate the amount of fuel so badly that you end up having to land at an airport about 75 miles away?
\n4) Google has a great, nerdy sense of humor.\n\nVia reddit comes this joke, which I\'ll not ruin by further discussing. Just click, think, and laugh.\n\n5) Carrots used to be purple.\n\n\nA friend from college shared this article on Facebook.\n\nCarrots -- well, orange carrots -- are mutants.\n\nPurple carrots were the norm, but there were some offshoots: yellow and white ones. Over time, somehow, 17th century Dutch carrot growers managed to cultivate these mutant carrots into the orange ones were are familiar with today.\n\nThe purple ones still do exist, but by far are the minority in the world of carrot colors. Want to try some? I can\'t really help -- but if you want to grow them yourself, here are some seeds.\n\n4) There\'s a beautiful building in Manhattan, near City Hall, which has been totally abandoned since 1940. (via @antdrosa on Twitter)\n\nFive Beekman Place is a stone\'s throw from New York City Hall. The neighborhood, like any in Manhattan, is a constant bustle, and real estate here is at a constant premium. To find out that there is a large, ornate, and totally vacant building in relatively good repair downtown is nothing short of shocking.\n\nAbandoned over half a century ago, 5 Beekman is truly frozen in time. It has\n\nThe original article is here, but it was so popular that the host ran into bandwidth caps, and had to (temporarily, one hopes!) take down the images. Thankfully, New York Magazine recapped it before it went away.\n\n5) You can make any website sound like it\'s a at a World Cup 2010 Stadium. (via Facebook)\n\n\nReally. \n\n6) A baseball player I had high hopes for in 2003 is now a bullpen catcher -- which is how he met his newlywed wife. And their registry is online. (via @jordanzakarin and @howardmegdal)\n\n\nhttp://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/jerrybrewer/2012136666_brewer17.html\n\nhttp://www.bedbathandbeyond.com/regGiftRegistry.asp?wrn=-1220287354&\n\nhttp://sbnation.com/e/1286713\n\n7) The New York City subway system didn\'t know what \"FML\" meant -- but they do now. (via Google Reader)\n\nhttp://secondavenuesagas.com/2010/06/15/an-internet-meme-derails-transits-new-signage/\n\nhttp://secondavenuesagas.com/2010/06/17/from-fml-to-something-mundane/\n\n8) There are more Subway \"restaurants\" than subway stations in Manhattan. \n\nhttp://newyork.grubstreet.com/2010/06/what_are_there_more_of_in_manh.html\n\nFound via @bkabak on Twitter.\n\n10) lil fenway','Ten Things I Learned From Social Media Last Week',0,'','inherit','open','open','','354-revision-14','','','2010-06-18 19:39:25','2010-06-18 19:39:25','',354,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/18/354-revision-14/',0,'revision','',0),(387,1,'2010-06-18 19:41:19','2010-06-18 19:41:19','Last week, I wrote up\n\nIt was well received, and I\'m a feedback junkie, so I\'m considering making this a regular thing. I hope you enjoy this as much as I did. One hint: I shared all of these on Twitter -- so if you want to learn this things as I do, it\'s best to follow me there.\n* * *
\n1) There\'s a scaled-down version of Fenway Park in Vermont, used for Wiffleball games.
\nIt\'s called Little Fenway. I found it via a blog post -- but I can\'t recall which, sorry.
It was built specifically for Wiffleball games, making it doubly cool. And most impressively, the family that built it rents it out for charity games. Little Fenway has raised over $800,000 for various charities in the eight years it\'s been around, including over $230,000 last year alone.
\nAnd yes, you can book Little Fenway for your own use. It\'ll cost you $500, and you can get more information here.
\nNot a Red Sox fan? No problem -- they also have a Little Wrigley, brick back fence and all. No ivy, though.
\n2) In Hong Kong, they drive on the left. In China, they drive on the right. The bridge between them is TOTALLY SCARY. \n\nSomeone I follow on Google Reader shared this blog post by Jason Kottke explaining the problem. But really, the picture sums it up:\n
Check out the right (closer) lane. Watch as it dips below its starting point, coming just a few feet above the water (!). Marvel as it passes under the previously left lane, and, effectively, flips itself into being the new left. Gorgeous and horrific at the same time.
\n3) Planes sometimes run out of gas, requiring diversion to a nearby airport.\n
\nI met Michael Maney at the ReadWriteWeb Summit last week and have followed him on Twitter since. He shared this tweet from Colleen Swanger, who I don\'t know from Adam (Eve?):
\n\n\n\n\n\nThanks @delta for running out of gas. Now my mother and I are going to miss her mother\'s funeral while stuck at LGA when we should be in BDL
\n
\n\n\n\nSeriously @delta how do you run out of gas 75 miles short of your destination?!? (@ LaGuardia Airport (LGA) w/ 21 others)
\n
\n\nStanding outside LGA with 100 others waiting for a bus to Hartford because a @delta plane ran out of gas. Not kidding. Or they are lying.
\n
You can read more about the flight here. The diversion cost passengers six hours -- which is ridiculous, given the fact that a bus ride from New York (where the plane landed) to Hartford (intended destination) should be about half that. It\'s mind-boggling. How do you miscalculate the amount of fuel so badly that you end up having to land at an airport about 75 miles away?
\n4) Google has a great, nerdy sense of humor.\n\nVia reddit comes this joke, which I\'ll not ruin by further discussing. Just click, think, and laugh.\n\n5) Carrots used to be purple.\n\n\nA friend from college shared this article on Facebook.\n\nCarrots -- well, orange carrots -- are mutants.\n\nPurple carrots were the norm, but there were some offshoots: yellow and white ones. Over time, somehow, 17th century Dutch carrot growers managed to cultivate these mutant carrots into the orange ones were are familiar with today.\n\nThe purple ones still do exist, but by far are the minority in the world of carrot colors. Want to try some? I can\'t really help -- but if you want to grow them yourself, here are some seeds.\n\n4) There\'s a beautiful building in Manhattan, near City Hall, which has been totally abandoned since 1940. (via @antdrosa on Twitter)\n\nFive Beekman Place is a stone\'s throw from New York City Hall. The neighborhood, like any in Manhattan, is a constant bustle, and real estate here is at a constant premium. To find out that there is a large, ornate, and totally vacant building in relatively good repair downtown is nothing short of shocking.\n\nAbandoned over half a century ago, 5 Beekman is truly frozen in time. The original article is here, but it was so popular that the host ran into bandwidth caps and complaints from the landlord, and had to (temporarily, one hopes!) take down the images. Thankfully, New York Magazine recapped it before it went away, with four pictures including the one at the right.\n\n5) You can make any website sound like it\'s a at a World Cup 2010 Stadium. (via Facebook)\n\n\nReally. \n\n6) A baseball player I had high hopes for in 2003 is now a bullpen catcher -- which is how he met his newlywed wife. And their registry is online. (via @jordanzakarin and @howardmegdal)\n\n\nhttp://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/jerrybrewer/2012136666_brewer17.html\n\nhttp://www.bedbathandbeyond.com/regGiftRegistry.asp?wrn=-1220287354&\n\nhttp://sbnation.com/e/1286713\n\n7) The New York City subway system didn\'t know what \"FML\" meant -- but they do now. (via Google Reader)\n\nhttp://secondavenuesagas.com/2010/06/15/an-internet-meme-derails-transits-new-signage/\n\nhttp://secondavenuesagas.com/2010/06/17/from-fml-to-something-mundane/\n\n8) There are more Subway \"restaurants\" than subway stations in Manhattan. \n\nhttp://newyork.grubstreet.com/2010/06/what_are_there_more_of_in_manh.html\n\nFound via @bkabak on Twitter.\n\n10) lil fenway','Ten Things I Learned From Social Media Last Week',0,'','inherit','open','open','','354-revision-15','','','2010-06-18 19:41:19','2010-06-18 19:41:19','',354,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/18/354-revision-15/',0,'revision','',0),(388,1,'2010-06-18 20:16:09','2010-06-18 20:16:09','','Jason Phillips Mets',0,'','inherit','open','open','','phillips-circa-2003','','','2010-06-18 20:16:09','2010-06-18 20:16:09','',354,'http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Phillips-circa-2003.jpg',0,'attachment','image/jpeg',0),(389,1,'2010-06-18 20:34:23','2010-06-18 20:34:23','Last week, I wrote up\n\nIt was well received, and I\'m a feedback junkie, so I\'m considering making this a regular thing. I hope you enjoy this as much as I did. One hint: I shared all of these on Twitter -- so if you want to learn this things as I do, it\'s best to follow me there.\n* * *
\n1) There\'s a scaled-down version of Fenway Park in Vermont, used for Wiffleball games.
\nIt\'s called Little Fenway. I found it via a blog post -- but I can\'t recall which, sorry.
It was built specifically for Wiffleball games, making it doubly cool. And most impressively, the family that built it rents it out for charity games. Little Fenway has raised over $800,000 for various charities in the eight years it\'s been around, including over $230,000 last year alone.
\nAnd yes, you can book Little Fenway for your own use. It\'ll cost you $500, and you can get more information here.
\nNot a Red Sox fan? No problem -- they also have a Little Wrigley, brick back fence and all. No ivy, though.
\n2) In Hong Kong, they drive on the left. In China, they drive on the right. The bridge between them is TOTALLY SCARY. \n\nSomeone I follow on Google Reader shared this blog post by Jason Kottke explaining the problem. But really, the picture sums it up:\n
Check out the right (closer) lane. Watch as it dips below its starting point, coming just a few feet above the water (!). Marvel as it passes under the previously left lane, and, effectively, flips itself into being the new left. Gorgeous and horrific at the same time.
\n3) Planes sometimes run out of gas, requiring diversion to a nearby airport.\n
\nI met Michael Maney at the ReadWriteWeb Summit last week and have followed him on Twitter since. He shared this tweet from Colleen Swanger, who I don\'t know from Adam (Eve?):
\n\n\n\n\n\nThanks @delta for running out of gas. Now my mother and I are going to miss her mother\'s funeral while stuck at LGA when we should be in BDL
\n
\n\n\n\nSeriously @delta how do you run out of gas 75 miles short of your destination?!? (@ LaGuardia Airport (LGA) w/ 21 others)
\n
\n\nStanding outside LGA with 100 others waiting for a bus to Hartford because a @delta plane ran out of gas. Not kidding. Or they are lying.
\n
You can read more about the flight here. The diversion cost passengers six hours -- which is ridiculous, given the fact that a bus ride from New York (where the plane landed) to Hartford (intended destination) should be about half that. It\'s mind-boggling. How do you miscalculate the amount of fuel so badly that you end up having to land at an airport about 75 miles away?
\n4) Google has a great, nerdy sense of humor.\n\nVia reddit comes this joke, which I\'ll not ruin by further discussing. Just click, think, and laugh.\n\n5) Carrots used to be purple.\n\n\nA friend from college shared this article on Facebook.\n\nCarrots -- well, orange carrots -- are mutants.\n\nPurple carrots were the norm, but there were some offshoots: yellow and white ones. Over time, somehow, 17th century Dutch carrot growers managed to cultivate these mutant carrots into the orange ones were are familiar with today.\n\nThe purple ones still do exist, but by far are the minority in the world of carrot colors. Want to try some? I can\'t really help -- but if you want to grow them yourself, here are some seeds.\n\n4) There\'s a beautiful building in Manhattan, near City Hall, which has been totally abandoned since 1940. \n\nFive Beekman Place is a stone\'s throw from New York City Hall. The neighborhood, like any in Manhattan, is a constant bustle, and real estate here is at a constant premium. To find out that there is a large, ornate, and totally vacant building in relatively good repair downtown is nothing short of shocking.\n\nAbandoned over half a century ago, 5 Beekman is truly frozen in time. Iron railways, vaulted skylights, incredible views -- a classic in any era.\n\nThe original article is here, but it was so popular that the host ran into bandwidth caps and had to (temporarily, one hopes!) take down the images. Thankfully, New York Magazine recapped it before it went away, with four pictures including the one at the right.\n\nFound via Anthony DeRosa on Twitter.\n\n5) You can make any website sound like it\'s a at a World Cup 2010 Stadium.\n\n\nReally. Found this via a friend\'s Facebook Wall. \n\n6) A baseball player I had high hopes for in 2003 is now a bullpen catcher -- which is how he met his newlywed wife. And their registry is online. (via @jordanzakarin and @howardmegdal)\n\n\n![\"\"](\"http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Phillips-circa-2003.jpg\" "\\"Jason")
Jason Phillips (pictured right) was the Mets first baseman in 2003, after a moderately successful minor league career as a catcher. His 2003 season was solid at worst, and he earned the right to a spot on the team in 2004. One problem, though: The Mets all-World catcher, Mike Piazza, was injured in 2003. He\'d enter the 2004 season at age 35, and to preserve his health, the Mets wanted to move him to first base.\n\nSo Phillips moved back behind the dish -- and he stunk up the joint. Piazza reclaimed the catcher role at the end of the year, and Phillips\' Mets career came to an end. So, therefore, did his importance to me. I lost track of him.\n\nUntil this past week. Phillips landed a plum job as the Seattle Mariners\' bullpen catcher at some point in the last five year, which in and of itself is boring. What\'s interesting is that one day, he spied a woman in the stands and, over the course of the game, developed a fantasy crush on her. He joke\n\n(Buy the couple a gift here.)\n\nhttp://sbnation.com/e/1286713\n\n7) The New York City subway system didn\'t know what \"FML\" meant -- but they do now. (via Google Reader)\n\nhttp://secondavenuesagas.com/2010/06/15/an-internet-meme-derails-transits-new-signage/\n\nhttp://secondavenuesagas.com/2010/06/17/from-fml-to-something-mundane/\n\n8) There are more Subway \"restaurants\" than subway stations in Manhattan. \n\nhttp://newyork.grubstreet.com/2010/06/what_are_there_more_of_in_manh.html\n\nFound via @bkabak on Twitter.\n\n10) lil fenway','Ten Things I Learned From Social Media Last Week',0,'','inherit','open','open','','354-revision-16','','','2010-06-18 20:34:23','2010-06-18 20:34:23','',354,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/18/354-revision-16/',0,'revision','',0),(392,1,'2010-06-21 20:42:58','2010-06-21 20:42:58','I found the first video tonight and watched it, kids in tow. They loved it as much as I did, and we spent the better part of an hour watching the others found below. Enjoy!\r\n\r\nViolin, synced to game\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nBeatboxing Flute\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nA capella\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nA ruler\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nTwo Tesla Coils\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nAn ocarina\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nA really sick drum set\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nStepper motors\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nA radio controlled toy car and a bunch of beer bottles\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nA cell phone\r\n\r\n\r\n','Ten Awesome Video Renditions of the Super Mario Brothers Theme Song',0,'','publish','open','open','','ten-awesome-video-renditions-of-the-super-mario-brothers-theme-song','','','2010-06-21 20:42:58','2010-06-21 20:42:58','',0,'http://dlewis.net/?p=392',0,'post','',1),(390,1,'2010-06-18 20:35:06','2010-06-18 20:35:06','Last week, I wrote up\r\n\r\nIt was well received, and I\'m a feedback junkie, so I\'m considering making this a regular thing. I hope you enjoy this as much as I did. One hint: I shared all of these on Twitter -- so if you want to learn this things as I do, it\'s best to follow me there.\r\n* * *
\r\n1) There\'s a scaled-down version of Fenway Park in Vermont, used for Wiffleball games.
\r\nIt\'s called Little Fenway. I found it via a blog post -- but I can\'t recall which, sorry.
It was built specifically for Wiffleball games, making it doubly cool. And most impressively, the family that built it rents it out for charity games. Little Fenway has raised over $800,000 for various charities in the eight years it\'s been around, including over $230,000 last year alone.
\r\nAnd yes, you can book Little Fenway for your own use. It\'ll cost you $500, and you can get more information here.
\r\nNot a Red Sox fan? No problem -- they also have a Little Wrigley, brick back fence and all. No ivy, though.
\r\n2) In Hong Kong, they drive on the left. In China, they drive on the right. The bridge between them is TOTALLY SCARY. \r\n\r\nSomeone I follow on Google Reader shared this blog post by Jason Kottke explaining the problem. But really, the picture sums it up:\r\n
Check out the right (closer) lane. Watch as it dips below its starting point, coming just a few feet above the water (!). Marvel as it passes under the previously left lane, and, effectively, flips itself into being the new left. Gorgeous and horrific at the same time.
\r\n3) Planes sometimes run out of gas, requiring diversion to a nearby airport.\r\n
\r\nI met Michael Maney at the ReadWriteWeb Summit last week and have followed him on Twitter since. He shared this tweet from Colleen Swanger, who I don\'t know from Adam (Eve?):
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nThanks @delta for running out of gas. Now my mother and I are going to miss her mother\'s funeral while stuck at LGA when we should be in BDL
\r\n
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nSeriously @delta how do you run out of gas 75 miles short of your destination?!? (@ LaGuardia Airport (LGA) w/ 21 others)
\r\n
\r\n\r\nStanding outside LGA with 100 others waiting for a bus to Hartford because a @delta plane ran out of gas. Not kidding. Or they are lying.
\r\n
You can read more about the flight here. The diversion cost passengers six hours -- which is ridiculous, given the fact that a bus ride from New York (where the plane landed) to Hartford (intended destination) should be about half that. It\'s mind-boggling. How do you miscalculate the amount of fuel so badly that you end up having to land at an airport about 75 miles away?
\r\n4) Google has a great, nerdy sense of humor.\r\n\r\nVia reddit comes this joke, which I\'ll not ruin by further discussing. Just click, think, and laugh.\r\n\r\n5) Carrots used to be purple.\r\n\r\n\r\nA friend from college shared this article on Facebook.\r\n\r\nCarrots -- well, orange carrots -- are mutants.\r\n\r\nPurple carrots were the norm, but there were some offshoots: yellow and white ones. Over time, somehow, 17th century Dutch carrot growers managed to cultivate these mutant carrots into the orange ones were are familiar with today.\r\n\r\nThe purple ones still do exist, but by far are the minority in the world of carrot colors. Want to try some? I can\'t really help -- but if you want to grow them yourself, here are some seeds.\r\n\r\n4) There\'s a beautiful building in Manhattan, near City Hall, which has been totally abandoned since 1940. \r\n\r\nFive Beekman Place is a stone\'s throw from New York City Hall. The neighborhood, like any in Manhattan, is a constant bustle, and real estate here is at a constant premium. To find out that there is a large, ornate, and totally vacant building in relatively good repair downtown is nothing short of shocking.\r\n\r\nAbandoned over half a century ago, 5 Beekman is truly frozen in time. Iron railways, vaulted skylights, incredible views -- a classic in any era.\r\n\r\nThe original article is here, but it was so popular that the host ran into bandwidth caps and had to (temporarily, one hopes!) take down the images. Thankfully, New York Magazine recapped it before it went away, with four pictures including the one at the right.\r\n\r\nFound via Anthony DeRosa on Twitter.\r\n\r\n5) You can make any website sound like it\'s a at a World Cup 2010 Stadium.\r\n\r\n\r\nReally. Found this via a friend\'s Facebook Wall. \r\n\r\n6) A baseball player I had high hopes for in 2003 is now a bullpen catcher -- which is how he met his newlywed wife. And their registry is online. (via @jordanzakarin and @howardmegdal)\r\n\r\n\r\nJason Phillips (pictured right) was the Mets first baseman in 2003, after a moderately successful minor league career as a catcher. His 2003 season was solid at worst, and he earned the right to a spot on the team in 2004. One problem, though: The Mets all-World catcher, Mike Piazza, was injured in 2003. He\'d enter the 2004 season at age 35, and to preserve his health, the Mets wanted to move him to first base.\r\n\r\nSo Phillips moved back behind the dish -- and he stunk up the joint. Piazza reclaimed the catcher role at the end of the year, and Phillips\' Mets career came to an end. So, therefore, did his importance to me. I lost track of him.\r\n\r\nUntil this past week. Phillips landed a plum job as the Seattle Mariners\' bullpen catcher at some point in the last five year, which in and of itself is boring. What\'s interesting is that one day, he spied a woman in the stands and, over the course of the game, developed a fantasy crush on her. He joked with his bullpen mates that if the game went to extra innings, he\'d take it as a sign, and introduce himself to her.\r\n\r\nThe game went to extra innings and they got married this past Sunday.\r\n\r\n(Buy the couple a gift here.)\r\n\r\n7) The New York City subway system didn\'t know what \"FML\" meant -- but they do now. (via Google Reader)\r\n\r\nhttp://secondavenuesagas.com/2010/06/15/an-internet-meme-derails-transits-new-signage/\r\n\r\nhttp://secondavenuesagas.com/2010/06/17/from-fml-to-something-mundane/\r\n\r\n8) There are more Subway \"restaurants\" than subway stations in Manhattan. \r\n\r\nhttp://newyork.grubstreet.com/2010/06/what_are_there_more_of_in_manh.html\r\n\r\nFound via @bkabak on Twitter.\r\n\r\n10) lil fenway','Ten Things I Learned From Social Media Last Week',0,'','inherit','open','open','','354-revision-17','','','2010-06-18 20:35:06','2010-06-18 20:35:06','',354,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/18/354-revision-17/',0,'revision','',0),(391,1,'2010-06-18 20:35:59','2010-06-18 20:35:59','Last week, I wrote up\r\n\r\nIt was well received, and I\'m a feedback junkie, so I\'m considering making this a regular thing. I hope you enjoy this as much as I did. One hint: I shared all of these on Twitter -- so if you want to learn this things as I do, it\'s best to follow me there.\r\n* * *
\r\n1) There\'s a scaled-down version of Fenway Park in Vermont, used for Wiffleball games.
\r\nIt\'s called Little Fenway. I found it via a blog post -- but I can\'t recall which, sorry.
It was built specifically for Wiffleball games, making it doubly cool. And most impressively, the family that built it rents it out for charity games. Little Fenway has raised over $800,000 for various charities in the eight years it\'s been around, including over $230,000 last year alone.
\r\nAnd yes, you can book Little Fenway for your own use. It\'ll cost you $500, and you can get more information here.
\r\nNot a Red Sox fan? No problem -- they also have a Little Wrigley, brick back fence and all. No ivy, though.
\r\n2) In Hong Kong, they drive on the left. In China, they drive on the right. The bridge between them is TOTALLY SCARY. \r\n\r\nSomeone I follow on Google Reader shared this blog post by Jason Kottke explaining the problem. But really, the picture sums it up:\r\n
Check out the right (closer) lane. Watch as it dips below its starting point, coming just a few feet above the water (!). Marvel as it passes under the previously left lane, and, effectively, flips itself into being the new left. Gorgeous and horrific at the same time.
\r\n3) Planes sometimes run out of gas, requiring diversion to a nearby airport.\r\n
\r\nI met Michael Maney at the ReadWriteWeb Summit last week and have followed him on Twitter since. He shared this tweet from Colleen Swanger, who I don\'t know from Adam (Eve?):
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nThanks @delta for running out of gas. Now my mother and I are going to miss her mother\'s funeral while stuck at LGA when we should be in BDL
\r\n
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nSeriously @delta how do you run out of gas 75 miles short of your destination?!? (@ LaGuardia Airport (LGA) w/ 21 others)
\r\n
\r\n\r\nStanding outside LGA with 100 others waiting for a bus to Hartford because a @delta plane ran out of gas. Not kidding. Or they are lying.
\r\n
You can read more about the flight here. The diversion cost passengers six hours -- which is ridiculous, given the fact that a bus ride from New York (where the plane landed) to Hartford (intended destination) should be about half that. It\'s mind-boggling. How do you miscalculate the amount of fuel so badly that you end up having to land at an airport about 75 miles away?
\r\n4) Google has a great, nerdy sense of humor.\r\n\r\nVia reddit comes this joke, which I\'ll not ruin by further discussing. Just click, think, and laugh.\r\n\r\n5) Carrots used to be purple.\r\n\r\n\r\nA friend from college shared this article on Facebook.\r\n\r\nCarrots -- well, orange carrots -- are mutants.\r\n\r\nPurple carrots were the norm, but there were some offshoots: yellow and white ones. Over time, somehow, 17th century Dutch carrot growers managed to cultivate these mutant carrots into the orange ones were are familiar with today.\r\n\r\nThe purple ones still do exist, but by far are the minority in the world of carrot colors. Want to try some? I can\'t really help -- but if you want to grow them yourself, here are some seeds.\r\n\r\n6) There\'s a beautiful building in Manhattan, near City Hall, which has been totally abandoned since 1940. \r\n\r\nFive Beekman Place is a stone\'s throw from New York City Hall. The neighborhood, like any in Manhattan, is a constant bustle, and real estate here is at a constant premium. To find out that there is a large, ornate, and totally vacant building in relatively good repair downtown is nothing short of shocking.\r\n\r\nAbandoned over half a century ago, 5 Beekman is truly frozen in time. Iron railways, vaulted skylights, incredible views -- a classic in any era.\r\n\r\nThe original article is here, but it was so popular that the host ran into bandwidth caps and had to (temporarily, one hopes!) take down the images. Thankfully, New York Magazine recapped it before it went away, with four pictures including the one at the right.\r\n\r\nFound via Anthony DeRosa on Twitter.\r\n\r\n7) You can make any website sound like it\'s a at a World Cup 2010 Stadium.\r\n\r\n\r\nReally. Found this via a friend\'s Facebook Wall. \r\n\r\n8 ) A baseball player I had high hopes for in 2003 is now a bullpen catcher -- which is how he met his newlywed wife. And their registry is online. (via @jordanzakarin and @howardmegdal)\r\n\r\n\r\nJason Phillips (pictured right) was the Mets first baseman in 2003, after a moderately successful minor league career as a catcher. His 2003 season was solid at worst, and he earned the right to a spot on the team in 2004. One problem, though: The Mets all-World catcher, Mike Piazza, was injured in 2003. He\'d enter the 2004 season at age 35, and to preserve his health, the Mets wanted to move him to first base.\r\n\r\nSo Phillips moved back behind the dish -- and he stunk up the joint. Piazza reclaimed the catcher role at the end of the year, and Phillips\' Mets career came to an end. So, therefore, did his importance to me. I lost track of him.\r\n\r\nUntil this past week. Phillips landed a plum job as the Seattle Mariners\' bullpen catcher at some point in the last five year, which in and of itself is boring. What\'s interesting is that one day, he spied a woman in the stands and, over the course of the game, developed a fantasy crush on her. He joked with his bullpen mates that if the game went to extra innings, he\'d take it as a sign, and introduce himself to her.\r\n\r\nThe game went to extra innings and they got married this past Sunday.\r\n\r\n(Buy the couple a gift here.)\r\n\r\n9) The New York City subway system didn\'t know what \"FML\" meant -- but they do now. (via Google Reader)\r\n\r\nhttp://secondavenuesagas.com/2010/06/15/an-internet-meme-derails-transits-new-signage/\r\n\r\nhttp://secondavenuesagas.com/2010/06/17/from-fml-to-something-mundane/\r\n\r\n10) There are more Subway \"restaurants\" than subway stations in Manhattan. \r\n\r\nhttp://newyork.grubstreet.com/2010/06/what_are_there_more_of_in_manh.html\r\n\r\nFound via @bkabak on Twitter.\r\n\r\n\r\n','Ten Things I Learned From Social Media Last Week',0,'','inherit','open','open','','354-revision-18','','','2010-06-18 20:35:59','2010-06-18 20:35:59','',354,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/18/354-revision-18/',0,'revision','',0),(393,1,'2010-06-19 01:38:22','2010-06-19 01:38:22','I found the first video tonight and watched it, kids in tow. They loved it as much as I did, and we spent the better part of an hour watching the others found below. Enjoy!\n\nViolin, synced to game\n\n\n* * *
\nBeatboxing Flute\n\n\n* * *
\nA capella\n\n\n\nA ruler\n\n\n\nTwo Tesla Coils\n\n\n\n\n','Ten Awesome Video Renditions of the Super Mario Brothers Theme Song',0,'','inherit','open','open','','392-revision','','','2010-06-19 01:38:22','2010-06-19 01:38:22','',392,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/19/392-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(394,1,'2010-06-19 01:38:53','2010-06-19 01:38:53','I found the first video tonight and watched it, kids in tow. They loved it as much as I did, and we spent the better part of an hour watching the others found below. Enjoy!\r\n\r\nViolin, synced to game\r\n\r\n\r\n* * *
\r\nBeatboxing Flute\r\n\r\n\r\n* * *
\r\nA capella\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nA ruler\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nTwo Tesla Coils\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n','Ten Awesome Video Renditions of the Super Mario Brothers Theme Song',0,'','inherit','open','open','','392-revision-2','','','2010-06-19 01:38:53','2010-06-19 01:38:53','',392,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/19/392-revision-2/',0,'revision','',0),(395,1,'2010-06-19 01:45:05','2010-06-19 01:45:05','I found the first video tonight and watched it, kids in tow. They loved it as much as I did, and we spent the better part of an hour watching the others found below. Enjoy!\r\n\r\nViolin, synced to game\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nBeatboxing Flute\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nA capella\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nA ruler\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nTwo Tesla Coils\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nAn ocarina\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nA really sick drum set\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nStepper motors\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nA cell phone\r\n\r\n','Ten Awesome Video Renditions of the Super Mario Brothers Theme Song',0,'','inherit','open','open','','392-revision-3','','','2010-06-19 01:45:05','2010-06-19 01:45:05','',392,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/19/392-revision-3/',0,'revision','',0),(396,1,'2010-06-19 01:45:11','2010-06-19 01:45:11','I found the first video tonight and watched it, kids in tow. They loved it as much as I did, and we spent the better part of an hour watching the others found below. Enjoy!\r\n\r\nViolin, synced to game\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nBeatboxing Flute\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nA capella\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nA ruler\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nTwo Tesla Coils\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nAn ocarina\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nA really sick drum set\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nStepper motors\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nA cell phone\r\n\r\n','Ten Awesome Video Renditions of the Super Mario Brothers Theme Song',0,'','inherit','open','open','','392-revision-4','','','2010-06-19 01:45:11','2010-06-19 01:45:11','',392,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/19/392-revision-4/',0,'revision','',0),(397,1,'2010-06-19 01:46:13','2010-06-19 01:46:13','I found the first video tonight and watched it, kids in tow. They loved it as much as I did, and we spent the better part of an hour watching the others found below. Enjoy!\r\n\r\nViolin, synced to game\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nBeatboxing Flute\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nA capella\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nA ruler\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nTwo Tesla Coils\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nAn ocarina\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nA really sick drum set\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nStepper motors\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nA radio controlled toy car and a bunch of beer bottles\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nA cell phone\r\n\r\n\r\n','Ten Awesome Video Renditions of the Super Mario Brothers Theme Song',0,'','inherit','open','open','','392-revision-5','','','2010-06-19 01:46:13','2010-06-19 01:46:13','',392,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/19/392-revision-5/',0,'revision','',0),(398,1,'2010-06-18 22:31:52','2010-06-18 22:31:52','Last week, I wrote up\n\nIt was well received, and I\'m a feedback junkie, so I\'m considering making this a regular thing. I hope you enjoy this as much as I did. One hint: I shared all of these on Twitter -- so if you want to learn this things as I do, it\'s best to follow me there.\n* * *
\n1) There\'s a scaled-down version of Fenway Park in Vermont, used for Wiffleball games.
\nIt\'s called Little Fenway. I found it via a blog post -- but I can\'t recall which, sorry.
It was built specifically for Wiffleball games, making it doubly cool. And most impressively, the family that built it rents it out for charity games. Little Fenway has raised over $800,000 for various charities in the eight years it\'s been around, including over $230,000 last year alone.
\nAnd yes, you can book Little Fenway for your own use. It\'ll cost you $500, and you can get more information here.
\nNot a Red Sox fan? No problem -- they also have a Little Wrigley, brick back fence and all. No ivy, though.
\n2) In Hong Kong, they drive on the left. In China, they drive on the right. The bridge between them is TOTALLY SCARY. \n\nSomeone I follow on Google Reader shared this blog post by Jason Kottke explaining the problem. But really, the picture sums it up:\n
Check out the right (closer) lane. Watch as it dips below its starting point, coming just a few feet above the water (!). Marvel as it passes under the previously left lane, and, effectively, flips itself into being the new left. Gorgeous and horrific at the same time.
\n3) Planes sometimes run out of gas, requiring diversion to a nearby airport.\n
\nI met Michael Maney at the ReadWriteWeb Summit last week and have followed him on Twitter since. He shared this tweet from Colleen Swanger, who I don\'t know from Adam (Eve?):
\n\n\n\n\n\nThanks @delta for running out of gas. Now my mother and I are going to miss her mother\'s funeral while stuck at LGA when we should be in BDL
\n
\n\n\n\nSeriously @delta how do you run out of gas 75 miles short of your destination?!? (@ LaGuardia Airport (LGA) w/ 21 others)
\n
\n\nStanding outside LGA with 100 others waiting for a bus to Hartford because a @delta plane ran out of gas. Not kidding. Or they are lying.
\n
You can read more about the flight here. The diversion cost passengers six hours -- which is ridiculous, given the fact that a bus ride from New York (where the plane landed) to Hartford (intended destination) should be about half that. It\'s mind-boggling. How do you miscalculate the amount of fuel so badly that you end up having to land at an airport about 75 miles away?
\n4) Google has a great, nerdy sense of humor.\n\nVia reddit comes this joke, which I\'ll not ruin by further discussing. Just click, think, and laugh.\n\n5) Carrots used to be purple.\n\n\nA friend from college shared this article on Facebook.\n\nCarrots -- well, orange carrots -- are mutants.\n\nPurple carrots were the norm, but there were some offshoots: yellow and white ones. Over time, somehow, 17th century Dutch carrot growers managed to cultivate these mutant carrots into the orange ones were are familiar with today.\n\nThe purple ones still do exist, but by far are the minority in the world of carrot colors. Want to try some? I can\'t really help -- but if you want to grow them yourself, here are some seeds.\n\n6) There\'s a beautiful building in Manhattan, near City Hall, which has been totally abandoned since 1940. \n\nFive Beekman Place is a stone\'s throw from New York City Hall. The neighborhood, like any in Manhattan, is a constant bustle, and real estate here is at a constant premium. To find out that there is a large, ornate, and totally vacant building in relatively good repair downtown is nothing short of shocking.\n\nAbandoned over half a century ago, 5 Beekman is truly frozen in time. Iron railways, vaulted skylights, incredible views -- a classic in any era.\n\nThe original article is here, but it was so popular that the host ran into bandwidth caps and had to (temporarily, one hopes!) take down the images. Thankfully, New York Magazine recapped it before it went away, with four pictures including the one at the right.\n\nFound via Anthony DeRosa on Twitter.\n\n7) You can make any website sound like it\'s a at a World Cup 2010 Stadium.\n\n\nReally. Found this via a friend\'s Facebook Wall. \n\n8 ) A baseball player I had high hopes for in 2003 is now a bullpen catcher -- which is how he met his newlywed wife. And their registry is online. (via @jordanzakarin and @howardmegdal)\n\n\nJason Phillips (pictured right) was the Mets first baseman in 2003, after a moderately successful minor league career as a catcher. His 2003 season was solid at worst, and he earned the right to a spot on the team in 2004. One problem, though: The Mets all-World catcher, Mike Piazza, was injured in 2003. He\'d enter the 2004 season at age 35, and to preserve his health, the Mets wanted to move him to first base.\n\nSo Phillips moved back behind the dish -- and he stunk up the joint. Piazza reclaimed the catcher role at the end of the year, and Phillips\' Mets career came to an end. So, therefore, did his importance to me. I lost track of him.\n\nUntil this past week. Phillips landed a plum job as the Seattle Mariners\' bullpen catcher at some point in the last five year, which in and of itself is boring. What\'s interesting is that one day, he spied a woman in the stands and, over the course of the game, developed a fantasy crush on her. He joked with his bullpen mates that if the game went to extra innings, he\'d take it as a sign, and introduce himself to her.\n\nThe game went to extra innings and they got married this past Sunday.\n\n(Buy the couple a gift here.)\n\n9) The New York City subway system didn\'t know what \"FML\" meant -- but they do now. (via Google Reader)\n\nhttp://secondavenuesagas.com/2010/06/15/an-internet-meme-derails-transits-new-signage/\n\nhttp://secondavenuesagas.com/2010/06/17/from-fml-to-something-mundane/\n\n10) There are more Subway \"restaurants\" than subway stations in Manhattan. \n\nhttp://newyork.grubstreet.com/2010/06/what_are_there_more_of_in_manh.html\n\nFound via @bkabak on Twitter.\n\n\n','Ten Things I Learned From Social Media Last Week',0,'','inherit','open','open','','354-revision-19','','','2010-06-18 22:31:52','2010-06-18 22:31:52','',354,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/18/354-revision-19/',0,'revision','',0),(402,1,'2010-06-21 13:51:30','2010-06-21 13:51:30','Last week, I wrote up\r\n\r\nIt was well received, and I\'m a feedback junkie, so I\'m considering making this a regular thing. I hope you enjoy this as much as I did. One hint: I shared all of these on Twitter -- so if you want to learn this things as I do, it\'s best to follow me there.\r\n* * *
\r\n1) In Hong Kong, they drive on the left. In China, they drive on the right. The bridge between them is TOTALLY SCARY. \r\n\r\nSomeone I follow on Google Reader shared this blog post by Jason Kottke explaining the problem. But really, the picture sums it up:\r\n
Check out the right (closer) lane. Watch as it dips below its starting point, coming just a few feet above the water (!). Marvel as it passes under the previously left lane, and, effectively, flips itself into being the new left. Gorgeous and horrific at the same time.
\r\n3) Planes sometimes run out of gas, requiring diversion to a nearby airport.\r\n
\r\nI met Michael Maney at the ReadWriteWeb Summit last week and have followed him on Twitter since. He shared this tweet from Colleen Swanger, who I don\'t know from Adam (Eve?):
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nThanks @delta for running out of gas. Now my mother and I are going to miss her mother\'s funeral while stuck at LGA when we should be in BDL
\r\n
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nSeriously @delta how do you run out of gas 75 miles short of your destination?!? (@ LaGuardia Airport (LGA) w/ 21 others)
\r\n
\r\n\r\nStanding outside LGA with 100 others waiting for a bus to Hartford because a @delta plane ran out of gas. Not kidding. Or they are lying.
\r\n
You can read more about the flight here. The diversion cost passengers six hours -- which is ridiculous, given the fact that a bus ride from New York (where the plane landed) to Hartford (intended destination) should be about half that. It\'s mind-boggling. How do you miscalculate the amount of fuel so badly that you end up having to land at an airport about 75 miles away?
\r\n9) There\'s a secret, unused subway system underneath City Hall in Manhattan, which you can see if you stay on the downtown 6 one stop past the \"last\" official stop.\r\n\r\n\r\nAround the turn of the century -- the 1900s, that is -- the powers that be decided that the Manhattan Main Line, now the 6 subway line in Manhattan, should terminate at City Hall. The station, given its location and prominence, was designed to be a showcase of sorts. But in the mid-1940s, longer trains made the station dangerous. It was one of the least-used stations anyway, serving a mere 600 people a day, due to the proximity of the Brooklyn Bridge station just a few hundred feet away. On the last day of 1945, service to City Hall was discontinued, and the station has been closed, frozen in time, since.\r\n\r\nBut the station is still there, and to a degree, is still used. The last stop on the downtown 6 is Brooklyn Bridge/City Hall, and the first stop uptown is in the same place. But the trains need to turn around -- and they do so by going through the old City Hall stop. Which means if you stay on the train, you\'ll go through this station. Which, apparently, is perfectly allowed.\r\n\r\nBut no, you can\'t get out at City Hall. There are tours of the station, and Ben Kabak of Second Ave. Sagas was lucky enough to attend one. He gathered photos in the gallery below:\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n10) Speaking about Manhattan subways: are more Subway \"restaurants\" than subway stations in Manhattan. \r\n\r\nI think, for a long time, I always wondered this. Not explicitly, of course, but subconsciously. Grub Street has done the heavy lifting and found official counts, and determined that it\'s not particularly close: 171 \"sandwich\" shops to 147 train stops. Brooklyn represents the city much more positively, with the trains winning, 170 to 70.\r\n\r\nIt really is too bad that Manhattan isn\'t in a dead heat -- that would be reason enough to open the old City Hall stop.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n\r\n','Five Crazy Things I Learned About Transit Last Week',0,'','inherit','open','open','','354-revision-21','','','2010-06-21 13:51:30','2010-06-21 13:51:30','',354,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/21/354-revision-21/',0,'revision','',0),(399,1,'2010-06-24 19:52:09','0000-00-00 00:00:00','1) There\'s a scaled-down version of Fenway Park in Vermont, used for Wiffleball games.\n\nIt\'s called Little Fenway. I found it via a blog post -- but I can\'t recall which, sorry.\n\nIt was built specifically for Wiffleball games, making it doubly cool. And most impressively, the family that built it rents it out for charity games. Little Fenway has raised over $800,000 for various charities in the eight years it\'s been around, including over $230,000 last year alone.\n\nAnd yes, you can book Little Fenway for your own use. It\'ll cost you $500, and you can get more information here.\n\nNot a Red Sox fan? No problem -- they also have a Little Wrigley, brick back fence and all. No ivy, though.\n\n4) Google has a great, nerdy sense of humor.\n\nVia reddit comes this joke, which I\'ll not ruin by further discussing. Just click, think, and laugh.\n\n5) Carrots used to be purple.\n\n\nA friend from college shared this article on Facebook.\n\nCarrots -- well, orange carrots -- are mutants.\n\nPurple carrots were the norm, but there were some offshoots: yellow and white ones. Over time, somehow, 17th century Dutch carrot growers managed to cultivate these mutant carrots into the orange ones were are familiar with today.\n\nThe purple ones still do exist, but by far are the minority in the world of carrot colors. Want to try some? I can\'t really help -- but if you want to grow them yourself, here are some seeds.','random items not ready to publish',0,'','draft','open','open','','','','','2010-06-24 19:52:09','2010-06-24 19:52:09','',0,'http://dlewis.net/?p=399',0,'post','',0),(400,1,'2010-06-21 13:23:55','2010-06-21 13:23:55','1) There\'s a scaled-down version of Fenway Park in Vermont, used for Wiffleball games.\n\nIt\'s called Little Fenway. I found it via a blog post -- but I can\'t recall which, sorry.\n\nIt was built specifically for Wiffleball games, making it doubly cool. And most impressively, the family that built it rents it out for charity games. Little Fenway has raised over $800,000 for various charities in the eight years it\'s been around, including over $230,000 last year alone.\n\nAnd yes, you can book Little Fenway for your own use. It\'ll cost you $500, and you can get more information here.\n\nNot a Red Sox fan? No problem -- they also have a Little Wrigley, brick back fence and all. No ivy, though.\n\n4) Google has a great, nerdy sense of humor.\n\nVia reddit comes this joke, which I\'ll not ruin by further discussing. Just click, think, and laugh.\n\n5) Carrots used to be purple.\n\n\nA friend from college shared this article on Facebook.\n\nCarrots -- well, orange carrots -- are mutants.\n\nPurple carrots were the norm, but there were some offshoots: yellow and white ones. Over time, somehow, 17th century Dutch carrot growers managed to cultivate these mutant carrots into the orange ones were are familiar with today.\n\nThe purple ones still do exist, but by far are the minority in the world of carrot colors. Want to try some? I can\'t really help -- but if you want to grow them yourself, here are some seeds.','random items not ready to publish',0,'','inherit','open','open','','399-revision','','','2010-06-21 13:23:55','2010-06-21 13:23:55','',399,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/21/399-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(424,1,'2010-06-25 02:52:12','2010-06-25 02:52:12','\r\n\r\nWe\'ve all heard the adage \"you learn something new every day.\" It\'s definitely true. Want to keep learning all sorts of interesting things?\r\n\r\n\"Now I Know\" is my free daily email where I share these things. No more than once a day. No spam. Things that I find genuinely interesting, such as:\r\n* * *
\r\n1) There\'s a scaled-down version of Fenway Park in Vermont, used for Wiffleball games.
\r\nIt\'s called Little Fenway. I found it via a blog post -- but I can\'t recall which, sorry.
It was built specifically for Wiffleball games, making it doubly cool. And most impressively, the family that built it rents it out for charity games. Little Fenway has raised over $800,000 for various charities in the eight years it\'s been around, including over $230,000 last year alone.
\r\nAnd yes, you can book Little Fenway for your own use. It\'ll cost you $500, and you can get more information here.
\r\nNot a Red Sox fan? No problem -- they also have a Little Wrigley, brick back fence and all. No ivy, though.
\r\n2) In Hong Kong, they drive on the left. In China, they drive on the right. The bridge between them is TOTALLY SCARY. \r\n\r\nSomeone I follow on Google Reader shared this blog post by Jason Kottke explaining the problem. But really, the picture sums it up:\r\n
Check out the right (closer) lane. Watch as it dips below its starting point, coming just a few feet above the water (!). Marvel as it passes under the previously left lane, and, effectively, flips itself into being the new left. Gorgeous and horrific at the same time.
\r\n3) Planes sometimes run out of gas, requiring diversion to a nearby airport.\r\n
\r\nI met Michael Maney at the ReadWriteWeb Summit last week and have followed him on Twitter since. He shared this tweet from Colleen Swanger, who I don\'t know from Adam (Eve?):
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nThanks @delta for running out of gas. Now my mother and I are going to miss her mother\'s funeral while stuck at LGA when we should be in BDL
\r\n
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nSeriously @delta how do you run out of gas 75 miles short of your destination?!? (@ LaGuardia Airport (LGA) w/ 21 others)
\r\n
\r\n\r\nStanding outside LGA with 100 others waiting for a bus to Hartford because a @delta plane ran out of gas. Not kidding. Or they are lying.
\r\n
You can read more about the flight here. The diversion cost passengers six hours -- which is ridiculous, given the fact that a bus ride from New York (where the plane landed) to Hartford (intended destination) should be about half that. It\'s mind-boggling. How do you miscalculate the amount of fuel so badly that you end up having to land at an airport about 75 miles away?
\r\n4) Google has a great, nerdy sense of humor.\r\n\r\nVia reddit comes this joke, which I\'ll not ruin by further discussing. Just click, think, and laugh.\r\n\r\n5) Carrots used to be purple.\r\n\r\n\r\nA friend from college shared this article on Facebook.\r\n\r\nCarrots -- well, orange carrots -- are mutants.\r\n\r\nPurple carrots were the norm, but there were some offshoots: yellow and white ones. Over time, somehow, 17th century Dutch carrot growers managed to cultivate these mutant carrots into the orange ones were are familiar with today.\r\n\r\nThe purple ones still do exist, but by far are the minority in the world of carrot colors. Want to try some? I can\'t really help -- but if you want to grow them yourself, here are some seeds.\r\n\r\n6) There\'s a beautiful building in Manhattan, near City Hall, which has been totally abandoned since 1940. \r\n\r\nFive Beekman Place is a stone\'s throw from New York City Hall. The neighborhood, like any in Manhattan, is a constant bustle, and real estate here is at a constant premium. To find out that there is a large, ornate, and totally vacant building in relatively good repair downtown is nothing short of shocking.\r\n\r\nAbandoned over half a century ago, 5 Beekman is truly frozen in time. Iron railways, vaulted skylights, incredible views -- a classic in any era.\r\n\r\nThe original article is here, but it was so popular that the host ran into bandwidth caps and had to (temporarily, one hopes!) take down the images. Thankfully, New York Magazine recapped it before it went away, with four pictures including the one at the right.\r\n\r\nFound via Anthony DeRosa on Twitter.\r\n\r\n7) You can make any website sound like it\'s a at a World Cup 2010 Stadium.\r\n\r\n\r\nReally. Found this via a friend\'s Facebook Wall. \r\n\r\n8 ) A baseball player I had high hopes for in 2003 is now a bullpen catcher -- which is how he met his newlywed wife. And their registry is online. (via @jordanzakarin and @howardmegdal)\r\n\r\n\r\nJason Phillips (pictured right) was the Mets first baseman in 2003, after a moderately successful minor league career as a catcher. His 2003 season was solid at worst, and he earned the right to a spot on the team in 2004. One problem, though: The Mets all-World catcher, Mike Piazza, was injured in 2003. He\'d enter the 2004 season at age 35, and to preserve his health, the Mets wanted to move him to first base.\r\n\r\nSo Phillips moved back behind the dish -- and he stunk up the joint. Piazza reclaimed the catcher role at the end of the year, and Phillips\' Mets career came to an end. So, therefore, did his importance to me. I lost track of him.\r\n\r\nUntil this past week. Phillips landed a plum job as the Seattle Mariners\' bullpen catcher at some point in the last five year, which in and of itself is boring. What\'s interesting is that one day, he spied a woman in the stands and, over the course of the game, developed a fantasy crush on her. He joked with his bullpen mates that if the game went to extra innings, he\'d take it as a sign, and introduce himself to her.\r\n\r\nThe game went to extra innings and they got married this past Sunday.\r\n\r\n(Buy the couple a gift here.)\r\n\r\n9) The New York City subway system didn\'t know what \"FML\" meant -- but they do now. (via Google Reader)\r\n\r\nhttp://secondavenuesagas.com/2010/06/15/an-internet-meme-derails-transits-new-signage/\r\n\r\nhttp://secondavenuesagas.com/2010/06/17/from-fml-to-something-mundane/\r\n\r\n10) There are more Subway \"restaurants\" than subway stations in Manhattan. \r\n\r\nhttp://newyork.grubstreet.com/2010/06/what_are_there_more_of_in_manh.html\r\n\r\nFound via @bkabak on Twitter.\r\n\r\n\r\n','Ten Things I Learned From Social Media Last Week',0,'','inherit','open','open','','354-revision-20','','','2010-06-21 13:07:35','2010-06-21 13:07:35','',354,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/21/354-revision-20/',0,'revision','',0),(403,1,'2010-06-21 13:53:38','2010-06-21 13:53:38','','subway logo',0,'','inherit','open','open','','logo-subway','','','2010-06-21 13:53:38','2010-06-21 13:53:38','',354,'http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/logo-subway.jpg',0,'attachment','image/jpeg',0),(404,1,'2010-06-21 13:53:28','2010-06-21 13:53:28','Last week, I wrote up\n\nIt was well received, and I\'m a feedback junkie, so I\'m considering making this a regular thing. I hope you enjoy this as much as I did. One hint: I shared all of these on Twitter -- so if you want to learn this things as I do, it\'s best to follow me there.\n* * *
\n1) In Hong Kong, they drive on the left. In China, they drive on the right. The bridge between them is TOTALLY SCARY. \n\nSomeone I follow on Google Reader shared this blog post by Jason Kottke explaining the problem. But really, the picture sums it up:\n
Check out the right (closer) lane. Watch as it dips below its starting point, coming just a few feet above the water (!). Marvel as it passes under the previously left lane, and, effectively, flips itself into being the new left. Gorgeous and horrific at the same time.
\n3) Planes sometimes run out of gas, requiring diversion to a nearby airport.\n
\nI met Michael Maney at the ReadWriteWeb Summit last week and have followed him on Twitter since. He shared this tweet from Colleen Swanger, who I don\'t know from Adam (Eve?):
\n\n\n\n\n\nThanks @delta for running out of gas. Now my mother and I are going to miss her mother\'s funeral while stuck at LGA when we should be in BDL
\n
\n\n\n\nSeriously @delta how do you run out of gas 75 miles short of your destination?!? (@ LaGuardia Airport (LGA) w/ 21 others)
\n
\n\nStanding outside LGA with 100 others waiting for a bus to Hartford because a @delta plane ran out of gas. Not kidding. Or they are lying.
\n
You can read more about the flight here. The diversion cost passengers six hours -- which is ridiculous, given the fact that a bus ride from New York (where the plane landed) to Hartford (intended destination) should be about half that. It\'s mind-boggling. How do you miscalculate the amount of fuel so badly that you end up having to land at an airport about 75 miles away?
\n4) There\'s a secret, unused subway system underneath City Hall in Manhattan, which you can see if you stay on the downtown 6 one stop past the \"last\" official stop.\n\n\nAround the turn of the century -- the 1900s, that is -- the powers that be decided that the Manhattan Main Line, now the 6 subway line in Manhattan, should terminate at City Hall. The station, given its location and prominence, was designed to be a showcase of sorts. But in the mid-1940s, longer trains made the station dangerous. It was one of the least-used stations anyway, serving a mere 600 people a day, due to the proximity of the Brooklyn Bridge station just a few hundred feet away. On the last day of 1945, service to City Hall was discontinued, and the station has been closed, frozen in time, since.\n\nBut the station is still there, and to a degree, is still used. The last stop on the downtown 6 is Brooklyn Bridge/City Hall, and the first stop uptown is in the same place. But the trains need to turn around -- and they do so by going through the old City Hall stop. Which means if you stay on the train, you\'ll go through this station. Which, apparently, is perfectly allowed.\n\nBut no, you can\'t get out at City Hall. There are tours of the station, and Ben Kabak of Second Ave. Sagas was lucky enough to attend one. He gathered photos in the gallery below:\n\n\n5) Speaking about Manhattan subways: are more Subway \"restaurants\" than subway stations in Manhattan. \n\nI think, for a long time, I always wondered this. Not explicitly, of course, but subconsciously. Grub Street has done the heavy lifting and found official counts, and determined that it\'s not particularly close: 171 \"sandwich\" shops to 147 train stops. Brooklyn represents the city much more positively, with the trains winning, 170 to 70.\n\nIt really is too bad that Manhattan isn\'t in a dead heat -- that would be reason enough to open the old City Hall stop.\n\n \n\n\n','Planes, Trains, and Automobiles: Five Things I Learned About Transit Last Week',0,'','inherit','open','open','','354-revision-22','','','2010-06-21 13:53:28','2010-06-21 13:53:28','',354,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/21/354-revision-22/',0,'revision','',0),(405,1,'2010-06-21 13:55:32','2010-06-21 13:55:32','','delta logo',0,'','inherit','open','open','','delta','','','2010-06-21 13:55:32','2010-06-21 13:55:32','',354,'http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/delta.gif',0,'attachment','image/gif',0),(406,1,'2010-06-21 13:54:59','2010-06-21 13:54:59','Last week, I wrote up\n\nIt was well received, and I\'m a feedback junkie, so I\'m considering making this a regular thing. I hope you enjoy this as much as I did. One hint: I shared all of these on Twitter -- so if you want to learn this things as I do, it\'s best to follow me there.\n* * *
\n1) In Hong Kong, they drive on the left. In China, they drive on the right. The bridge between them is TOTALLY SCARY. \n\nSomeone I follow on Google Reader shared this blog post by Jason Kottke explaining the problem. But really, the picture sums it up:\n
Check out the right (closer) lane. Watch as it dips below its starting point, coming just a few feet above the water (!). Marvel as it passes under the previously left lane, and, effectively, flips itself into being the new left. Gorgeous and horrific at the same time.
\n3) Planes sometimes run out of gas, requiring diversion to a nearby airport.\n
\nI met Michael Maney at the ReadWriteWeb Summit last week and have followed him on Twitter since. He shared this tweet from Colleen Swanger, who I don\'t know from Adam (Eve?):
\n\n\n\n\n\nThanks @delta for running out of gas. Now my mother and I are going to miss her mother\'s funeral while stuck at LGA when we should be in BDL
\n
\n\n\n\nSeriously @delta how do you run out of gas 75 miles short of your destination?!? (@ LaGuardia Airport (LGA) w/ 21 others)
\n
\n\nStanding outside LGA with 100 others waiting for a bus to Hartford because a @delta plane ran out of gas. Not kidding. Or they are lying.
\n
You can read more about the flight here. The diversion cost passengers six hours -- which is ridiculous, given the fact that a bus ride from New York (where the plane landed) to Hartford (intended destination) should be about half that. It\'s mind-boggling. How do you miscalculate the amount of fuel so badly that you end up having to land at an airport about 75 miles away?
\n4) There\'s a secret, unused subway system underneath City Hall in Manhattan, which you can see if you stay on the downtown 6 one stop past the \"last\" official stop.\n\n\nAround the turn of the century -- the 1900s, that is -- the powers that be decided that the Manhattan Main Line, now the 6 subway line in Manhattan, should terminate at City Hall. The station, given its location and prominence, was designed to be a showcase of sorts. But in the mid-1940s, longer trains made the station dangerous. It was one of the least-used stations anyway, serving a mere 600 people a day, due to the proximity of the Brooklyn Bridge station just a few hundred feet away. On the last day of 1945, service to City Hall was discontinued, and the station has been closed, frozen in time, since.\n\nBut the station is still there, and to a degree, is still used. The last stop on the downtown 6 is Brooklyn Bridge/City Hall, and the first stop uptown is in the same place. But the trains need to turn around -- and they do so by going through the old City Hall stop. Which means if you stay on the train, you\'ll go through this station. Which, apparently, is perfectly allowed.\n\nBut no, you can\'t get out at City Hall. There are tours of the station, and Ben Kabak of Second Ave. Sagas was lucky enough to attend one. He gathered photos in the gallery below:\n\n\n5) Speaking about Manhattan subways: are more Subway \"restaurants\" than subway stations in Manhattan. \n\nI think, for a long time, I always wondered this. Not explicitly, of course, but subconsciously. Grub Street has done the heavy lifting and found official counts, and determined that it\'s not particularly close: 171 \"sandwich\" shops to 147 train stops. Brooklyn represents the city much more positively, with the trains winning, 170 to 70.\n\nIt really is too bad that Manhattan isn\'t in a dead heat -- that would be reason enough to open the old City Hall stop.\n\n \n\n\n','Planes, Trains, and Automobiles: Five Things I Learned About Transit Last Week',0,'','inherit','open','open','','354-revision-23','','','2010-06-21 13:54:59','2010-06-21 13:54:59','',354,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/21/354-revision-23/',0,'revision','',0),(407,1,'2010-06-21 13:56:20','2010-06-21 13:56:20','Last week, I wrote up\r\n\r\nIt was well received, and I\'m a feedback junkie, so I\'m considering making this a regular thing. I hope you enjoy this as much as I did. One hint: I shared all of these on Twitter -- so if you want to learn this things as I do, it\'s best to follow me there.\r\n* * *
\r\n1) In Hong Kong, they drive on the left. In China, they drive on the right. The bridge between them is TOTALLY SCARY. \r\n\r\nSomeone I follow on Google Reader shared this blog post by Jason Kottke explaining the problem. But really, the picture sums it up:\r\n
Check out the right (closer) lane. Watch as it dips below its starting point, coming just a few feet above the water (!). Marvel as it passes under the previously left lane, and, effectively, flips itself into being the new left. Gorgeous and horrific at the same time.
\r\n3) Planes sometimes run out of gas, requiring diversion to a nearby airport.\r\n
\r\nI met Michael Maney at the ReadWriteWeb Summit last week and have followed him on Twitter since. He shared this tweet from Colleen Swanger, who I don\'t know from Adam (Eve?):
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nThanks @delta for running out of gas. Now my mother and I are going to miss her mother\'s funeral while stuck at LGA when we should be in BDL
\r\n
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nSeriously @delta how do you run out of gas 75 miles short of your destination?!? (@ LaGuardia Airport (LGA) w/ 21 others)
\r\n
\r\n\r\nStanding outside LGA with 100 others waiting for a bus to Hartford because a @delta plane ran out of gas. Not kidding. Or they are lying.
\r\n
You can read more about the flight here. The diversion cost passengers six hours -- which is ridiculous, given the fact that a bus ride from New York (where the plane landed) to Hartford (intended destination) should be about half that. It\'s mind-boggling. How do you miscalculate the amount of fuel so badly that you end up having to land at an airport about 75 miles away?
\r\n4) There\'s a secret, unused subway system underneath City Hall in Manhattan, which you can see if you stay on the downtown 6 one stop past the \"last\" official stop.\r\n\r\n\r\nAround the turn of the century -- the 1900s, that is -- the powers that be decided that the Manhattan Main Line, now the 6 subway line in Manhattan, should terminate at City Hall. The station, given its location and prominence, was designed to be a showcase of sorts. But in the mid-1940s, longer trains made the station dangerous. It was one of the least-used stations anyway, serving a mere 600 people a day, due to the proximity of the Brooklyn Bridge station just a few hundred feet away. On the last day of 1945, service to City Hall was discontinued, and the station has been closed, frozen in time, since.\r\n\r\nBut the station is still there, and to a degree, is still used. The last stop on the downtown 6 is Brooklyn Bridge/City Hall, and the first stop uptown is in the same place. But the trains need to turn around -- and they do so by going through the old City Hall stop. Which means if you stay on the train, you\'ll go through this station. Which, apparently, is perfectly allowed.\r\n\r\nBut no, you can\'t get out at City Hall. There are tours of the station, and Ben Kabak of Second Ave. Sagas was lucky enough to attend one. He gathered photos in the gallery below:\r\n\r\n\r\n5) Speaking about Manhattan subways: are more Subway \"restaurants\" than subway stations in Manhattan. \r\n\r\nI think, for a long time, I always wondered this. Not explicitly, of course, but subconsciously. Grub Street has done the heavy lifting and found official counts, and determined that it\'s not particularly close: 171 \"sandwich\" shops to 147 train stops. Brooklyn represents the city much more positively, with the trains winning, 170 to 70.\r\n\r\nIt really is too bad that Manhattan isn\'t in a dead heat -- that would be reason enough to open the old City Hall stop.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n\r\n','Planes, Trains, and Automobiles: Five Things I Learned About Transit Last Week',0,'','inherit','open','open','','354-revision-24','','','2010-06-21 13:56:20','2010-06-21 13:56:20','',354,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/21/354-revision-24/',0,'revision','',0),(408,1,'2010-06-21 13:56:37','2010-06-21 13:56:37','Last week, I wrote up\r\n\r\nIt was well received, and I\'m a feedback junkie, so I\'m considering making this a regular thing. I hope you enjoy this as much as I did. One hint: I shared all of these on Twitter -- so if you want to learn this things as I do, it\'s best to follow me there.\r\n* * *
\r\n1) In Hong Kong, they drive on the left. In China, they drive on the right. The bridge between them is TOTALLY SCARY. \r\n\r\nSomeone I follow on Google Reader shared this blog post by Jason Kottke explaining the problem. But really, the picture sums it up:\r\n
Check out the right (closer) lane. Watch as it dips below its starting point, coming just a few feet above the water (!). Marvel as it passes under the previously left lane, and, effectively, flips itself into being the new left. Gorgeous and horrific at the same time.
\r\n3) Planes sometimes run out of gas, requiring diversion to a nearby airport.\r\n
\r\nI met Michael Maney at the ReadWriteWeb Summit last week and have followed him on Twitter since. He shared this tweet from Colleen Swanger, who I don\'t know from Adam (Eve?):
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nThanks @delta for running out of gas. Now my mother and I are going to miss her mother\'s funeral while stuck at LGA when we should be in BDL
\r\n
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nSeriously @delta how do you run out of gas 75 miles short of your destination?!? (@ LaGuardia Airport (LGA) w/ 21 others)
\r\n
\r\n\r\nStanding outside LGA with 100 others waiting for a bus to Hartford because a @delta plane ran out of gas. Not kidding. Or they are lying.
\r\n
You can read more about the flight here. The diversion cost passengers six hours -- which is ridiculous, given the fact that a bus ride from New York (where the plane landed) to Hartford (intended destination) should be about half that. It\'s mind-boggling. How do you miscalculate the amount of fuel so badly that you end up having to land at an airport about 75 miles away?
\r\n4) There\'s a secret, unused subway system underneath City Hall in Manhattan, which you can see if you stay on the downtown 6 one stop past the \"last\" official stop.\r\n\r\n\r\nAround the turn of the century -- the 1900s, that is -- the powers that be decided that the Manhattan Main Line, now the 6 subway line in Manhattan, should terminate at City Hall. The station, given its location and prominence, was designed to be a showcase of sorts. But in the mid-1940s, longer trains made the station dangerous. It was one of the least-used stations anyway, serving a mere 600 people a day, due to the proximity of the Brooklyn Bridge station just a few hundred feet away. On the last day of 1945, service to City Hall was discontinued, and the station has been closed, frozen in time, since.\r\n\r\nBut the station is still there, and to a degree, is still used. The last stop on the downtown 6 is Brooklyn Bridge/City Hall, and the first stop uptown is in the same place. But the trains need to turn around -- and they do so by going through the old City Hall stop. Which means if you stay on the train, you\'ll go through this station. Which, apparently, is perfectly allowed.\r\n\r\nBut no, you can\'t get out at City Hall. There are tours of the station, and Ben Kabak of Second Ave. Sagas was lucky enough to attend one. He gathered photos in the gallery below:\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n5) Speaking about Manhattan subways: are more Subway \"restaurants\" than subway stations in Manhattan. \r\n\r\nI think, for a long time, I always wondered this. Not explicitly, of course, but subconsciously. Grub Street has done the heavy lifting and found official counts, and determined that it\'s not particularly close: 171 \"sandwich\" shops to 147 train stops. Brooklyn represents the city much more positively, with the trains winning, 170 to 70.\r\n\r\nIt really is too bad that Manhattan isn\'t in a dead heat -- that would be reason enough to open the old City Hall stop.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n\r\n','Planes, Trains, and Automobiles: Five Things I Learned About Transit Last Week',0,'','inherit','open','open','','354-revision-25','','','2010-06-21 13:56:37','2010-06-21 13:56:37','',354,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/21/354-revision-25/',0,'revision','',0),(409,1,'2010-06-21 14:50:57','2010-06-21 14:50:57','Last week, I shared ten things I learned at Internet Week NYC 2010, one of which was that Michael Jackson was probably innocent. The speech was by Anil Dash, and is now available on YouTube. You can watch it below.\r\n\r\n','On Michael Jackson\'s Innocence',0,'','publish','open','open','','on-michael-jacksons-innocence','','\nhttp://dlewis.net/2010/06/14/ten-things-i-learned-during-internet-week-2010/','2010-06-21 14:51:27','2010-06-21 14:51:27','',0,'http://dlewis.net/?p=409',0,'post','',0),(410,1,'2010-06-21 14:49:48','2010-06-21 14:49:48','Last week, I shared ten things I learned at Internet Week NYC 2010, one of which was that Michael Jackson was probably innocent. The speech was by Anil Dash, and is now available on YouTube. You can watch it below.\n\n','On Michael Jackson\'s Innocence',0,'','inherit','open','open','','409-revision','','','2010-06-21 14:49:48','2010-06-21 14:49:48','',409,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/21/409-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(411,1,'2010-06-21 14:50:57','2010-06-21 14:50:57','Last week, I shared ten things I learned at Internet Week NYC 2010, one of which was that Michael Jackson was probably innocent. The speech was by Anil Dash, and is now available on YouTube. You can watch it below.\r\n\r\n','On Michael Jackson\'s Innocence',0,'','inherit','open','open','','409-revision-2','','','2010-06-21 14:50:57','2010-06-21 14:50:57','',409,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/21/409-revision-2/',0,'revision','',0),(412,1,'2010-06-21 15:00:01','2010-06-21 15:00:01','Last week, I wrote up\n\nIt was well received, and I\'m a feedback junkie, so I\'m considering making this a regular thing. I hope you enjoy this as much as I did. One hint: I shared all of these on Twitter -- so if you want to learn this things as I do, it\'s best to follow me there.\n* * *
\n1) In Hong Kong, they drive on the left. In China, they drive on the right. The bridge between them is TOTALLY SCARY. \n\nSomeone I follow on Google Reader shared this blog post by Jason Kottke explaining the problem. But really, the picture sums it up:\n
Check out the right (closer) lane. Watch as it dips below its starting point, coming just a few feet above the water (!). Marvel as it passes under the previously left lane, and, effectively, flips itself into being the new left. Gorgeous and horrific at the same time.
\nUpdate: Yeah, yeah, it\'s an artist\'s conception. Still totally scary.
\n2) The New York City subway system accidentally renamed a station stop \"FML.\"
\nTo the Internet generation, FML means something R-rated. To the Metropolitian Transit Authority (MTA), it means the F line, M line, and L line all stop here -- \"here\" being 14th Street and 6th Avenue.
How did this happen? Due to service cuts and changes forced by a thinner budget, the MTA cut some lines and renamed others. The M line now runs down 6th Avenue, and due to coloring conventions, is now orange, like the F. (It used to be brown.) The F and M intersect the L -- which runs across 14th into Brooklyn -- at 6th and 14th. And F comes before L, so FM lead.
\nBut the MTA is going to break convention after pictures like the one on the right popped up, surrounded by guffaws.
\n\n3) Planes sometimes run out of gas, requiring diversion to a nearby airport.\n
\nI met Michael Maney at the ReadWriteWeb Summit last week and have followed him on Twitter since. He shared this tweet from Colleen Swanger, who I don\'t know from Adam (Eve?):
\n\n\n\nThanks @delta for running out of gas. Now my mother and I are going to miss her mother\'s funeral while stuck at LGA when we should be in BDL
\n
\n\n\n\nSeriously @delta how do you run out of gas 75 miles short of your destination?!? (@ LaGuardia Airport (LGA) w/ 21 others)
\n
\n\nStanding outside LGA with 100 others waiting for a bus to Hartford because a @delta plane ran out of gas. Not kidding. Or they are lying.
\n
You can read more about the flight here. The diversion cost passengers six hours -- which is ridiculous, given the fact that a bus ride from New York (where the plane landed) to Hartford (intended destination) should be about half that. It\'s mind-boggling. How do you miscalculate the amount of fuel so badly that you end up having to land at an airport about 75 miles away?
\n4) There\'s a secret, unused subway system underneath City Hall in Manhattan, which you can see if you stay on the downtown 6 one stop past the \"last\" official stop.\n\n\nAround the turn of the century -- the 1900s, that is -- the powers that be decided that the Manhattan Main Line, now the 6 subway line in Manhattan, should terminate at City Hall. The station, given its location and prominence, was designed to be a showcase of sorts. But in the mid-1940s, longer trains made the station dangerous. It was one of the least-used stations anyway, serving a mere 600 people a day, due to the proximity of the Brooklyn Bridge station just a few hundred feet away. On the last day of 1945, service to City Hall was discontinued, and the station has been closed, frozen in time, since.\n\nBut the station is still there, and to a degree, is still used. The last stop on the downtown 6 is Brooklyn Bridge/City Hall, and the first stop uptown is in the same place. But the trains need to turn around -- and they do so by going through the old City Hall stop. Which means if you stay on the train, you\'ll go through this station. Which, apparently, is perfectly allowed.\n\nBut no, you can\'t get out at City Hall. There are tours of the station, and Ben Kabak of Second Ave. Sagas was lucky enough to attend one. He gathered photos in the gallery below:\n\n\n\n5) Speaking about Manhattan subways: are more Subway \"restaurants\" than subway stations in Manhattan. \n\nI think, for a long time, I always wondered this. Not explicitly, of course, but subconsciously. Grub Street has done the heavy lifting and found official counts, and determined that it\'s not particularly close: 171 \"sandwich\" shops to 147 train stops. Brooklyn represents the city much more positively, with the trains winning, 170 to 70.\n\nIt really is too bad that Manhattan isn\'t in a dead heat -- that would be reason enough to open the old City Hall stop.\n\n \n\n\n','Planes, Trains, and Automobiles: Five Things I Learned About Transit Last Week',0,'','inherit','open','open','','354-autosave','','','2010-06-21 15:00:01','2010-06-21 15:00:01','',354,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/21/354-autosave/',0,'revision','',0),(413,1,'2010-06-21 14:55:19','2010-06-21 14:55:19','','FML Subway',0,'','inherit','open','open','','061410fml9wcl','','','2010-06-21 14:55:19','2010-06-21 14:55:19','',354,'http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/061410FML9WCL093233-300x300.jpg',0,'attachment','image/jpeg',0),(414,1,'2010-06-21 13:57:07','2010-06-21 13:57:07','Last week, I wrote up\r\n\r\nIt was well received, and I\'m a feedback junkie, so I\'m considering making this a regular thing. I hope you enjoy this as much as I did. One hint: I shared all of these on Twitter -- so if you want to learn this things as I do, it\'s best to follow me there.\r\n* * *
\r\n1) In Hong Kong, they drive on the left. In China, they drive on the right. The bridge between them is TOTALLY SCARY. \r\n\r\nSomeone I follow on Google Reader shared this blog post by Jason Kottke explaining the problem. But really, the picture sums it up:\r\n
Check out the right (closer) lane. Watch as it dips below its starting point, coming just a few feet above the water (!). Marvel as it passes under the previously left lane, and, effectively, flips itself into being the new left. Gorgeous and horrific at the same time.
\r\n3) Planes sometimes run out of gas, requiring diversion to a nearby airport.\r\n
\r\nI met Michael Maney at the ReadWriteWeb Summit last week and have followed him on Twitter since. He shared this tweet from Colleen Swanger, who I don\'t know from Adam (Eve?):
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nThanks @delta for running out of gas. Now my mother and I are going to miss her mother\'s funeral while stuck at LGA when we should be in BDL
\r\n
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nSeriously @delta how do you run out of gas 75 miles short of your destination?!? (@ LaGuardia Airport (LGA) w/ 21 others)
\r\n
\r\n\r\nStanding outside LGA with 100 others waiting for a bus to Hartford because a @delta plane ran out of gas. Not kidding. Or they are lying.
\r\n
You can read more about the flight here. The diversion cost passengers six hours -- which is ridiculous, given the fact that a bus ride from New York (where the plane landed) to Hartford (intended destination) should be about half that. It\'s mind-boggling. How do you miscalculate the amount of fuel so badly that you end up having to land at an airport about 75 miles away?
\r\n4) There\'s a secret, unused subway system underneath City Hall in Manhattan, which you can see if you stay on the downtown 6 one stop past the \"last\" official stop.\r\n\r\n\r\nAround the turn of the century -- the 1900s, that is -- the powers that be decided that the Manhattan Main Line, now the 6 subway line in Manhattan, should terminate at City Hall. The station, given its location and prominence, was designed to be a showcase of sorts. But in the mid-1940s, longer trains made the station dangerous. It was one of the least-used stations anyway, serving a mere 600 people a day, due to the proximity of the Brooklyn Bridge station just a few hundred feet away. On the last day of 1945, service to City Hall was discontinued, and the station has been closed, frozen in time, since.\r\n\r\nBut the station is still there, and to a degree, is still used. The last stop on the downtown 6 is Brooklyn Bridge/City Hall, and the first stop uptown is in the same place. But the trains need to turn around -- and they do so by going through the old City Hall stop. Which means if you stay on the train, you\'ll go through this station. Which, apparently, is perfectly allowed.\r\n\r\nBut no, you can\'t get out at City Hall. There are tours of the station, and Ben Kabak of Second Ave. Sagas was lucky enough to attend one. He gathered photos in the gallery below:\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n5) Speaking about Manhattan subways: are more Subway \"restaurants\" than subway stations in Manhattan. \r\n\r\nI think, for a long time, I always wondered this. Not explicitly, of course, but subconsciously. Grub Street has done the heavy lifting and found official counts, and determined that it\'s not particularly close: 171 \"sandwich\" shops to 147 train stops. Brooklyn represents the city much more positively, with the trains winning, 170 to 70.\r\n\r\nIt really is too bad that Manhattan isn\'t in a dead heat -- that would be reason enough to open the old City Hall stop.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n\r\n','Planes, Trains, and Automobiles: Five Things I Learned About Transit Last Week',0,'','inherit','open','open','','354-revision-26','','','2010-06-21 13:57:07','2010-06-21 13:57:07','',354,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/21/354-revision-26/',0,'revision','',0),(415,1,'2010-06-21 14:58:01','2010-06-21 14:58:01','Last week, I wrote up\r\n\r\nIt was well received, and I\'m a feedback junkie, so I\'m considering making this a regular thing. I hope you enjoy this as much as I did. One hint: I shared all of these on Twitter -- so if you want to learn this things as I do, it\'s best to follow me there.\r\n* * *
\r\n1) In Hong Kong, they drive on the left. In China, they drive on the right. The bridge between them is TOTALLY SCARY. \r\n\r\nSomeone I follow on Google Reader shared this blog post by Jason Kottke explaining the problem. But really, the picture sums it up:\r\n
Check out the right (closer) lane. Watch as it dips below its starting point, coming just a few feet above the water (!). Marvel as it passes under the previously left lane, and, effectively, flips itself into being the new left. Gorgeous and horrific at the same time.
\r\n2) The New York City subway system accidentally renamed a station stop \"FML.\"
\r\nTo the Internet generation, FML means something R-rated. To the Metropolitian Transit Authority (MTA), it means the F line, M line, and L line all stop here -- \"here\" being 14th Street and 6th Avenue.
How did this happen? Due to service cuts and changes forced by a thinner budget, the MTA cut some lines and renamed others. The M line now runs down 6th Avenue, and due to coloring conventions, is now orange, like the F. (It used to be brown.) The F and M intersect the L -- which runs across 14th into Brooklyn -- at 6th and 14th. And F comes before L, so FM lead.
\r\nBut the MTA is going to break convention after pictures like the one on the right popped up, surrounded by guffaws.
\r\n\r\n3) Planes sometimes run out of gas, requiring diversion to a nearby airport.\r\n
\r\nI met Michael Maney at the ReadWriteWeb Summit last week and have followed him on Twitter since. He shared this tweet from Colleen Swanger, who I don\'t know from Adam (Eve?):
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nThanks @delta for running out of gas. Now my mother and I are going to miss her mother\'s funeral while stuck at LGA when we should be in BDL
\r\n
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nSeriously @delta how do you run out of gas 75 miles short of your destination?!? (@ LaGuardia Airport (LGA) w/ 21 others)
\r\n
\r\n\r\nStanding outside LGA with 100 others waiting for a bus to Hartford because a @delta plane ran out of gas. Not kidding. Or they are lying.
\r\n
You can read more about the flight here. The diversion cost passengers six hours -- which is ridiculous, given the fact that a bus ride from New York (where the plane landed) to Hartford (intended destination) should be about half that. It\'s mind-boggling. How do you miscalculate the amount of fuel so badly that you end up having to land at an airport about 75 miles away?
\r\n4) There\'s a secret, unused subway system underneath City Hall in Manhattan, which you can see if you stay on the downtown 6 one stop past the \"last\" official stop.\r\n\r\n\r\nAround the turn of the century -- the 1900s, that is -- the powers that be decided that the Manhattan Main Line, now the 6 subway line in Manhattan, should terminate at City Hall. The station, given its location and prominence, was designed to be a showcase of sorts. But in the mid-1940s, longer trains made the station dangerous. It was one of the least-used stations anyway, serving a mere 600 people a day, due to the proximity of the Brooklyn Bridge station just a few hundred feet away. On the last day of 1945, service to City Hall was discontinued, and the station has been closed, frozen in time, since.\r\n\r\nBut the station is still there, and to a degree, is still used. The last stop on the downtown 6 is Brooklyn Bridge/City Hall, and the first stop uptown is in the same place. But the trains need to turn around -- and they do so by going through the old City Hall stop. Which means if you stay on the train, you\'ll go through this station. Which, apparently, is perfectly allowed.\r\n\r\nBut no, you can\'t get out at City Hall. There are tours of the station, and Ben Kabak of Second Ave. Sagas was lucky enough to attend one. He gathered photos in the gallery below:\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n5) Speaking about Manhattan subways: are more Subway \"restaurants\" than subway stations in Manhattan. \r\n\r\nI think, for a long time, I always wondered this. Not explicitly, of course, but subconsciously. Grub Street has done the heavy lifting and found official counts, and determined that it\'s not particularly close: 171 \"sandwich\" shops to 147 train stops. Brooklyn represents the city much more positively, with the trains winning, 170 to 70.\r\n\r\nIt really is too bad that Manhattan isn\'t in a dead heat -- that would be reason enough to open the old City Hall stop.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n\r\n','Planes, Trains, and Automobiles: Five Things I Learned About Transit Last Week',0,'','inherit','open','open','','354-revision-27','','','2010-06-21 14:58:01','2010-06-21 14:58:01','',354,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/21/354-revision-27/',0,'revision','',0),(416,1,'2010-06-21 14:58:56','2010-06-21 14:58:56','Last week, I wrote up\r\n\r\nIt was well received, and I\'m a feedback junkie, so I\'m considering making this a regular thing. I hope you enjoy this as much as I did. One hint: I shared all of these on Twitter -- so if you want to learn this things as I do, it\'s best to follow me there.\r\n* * *
\r\n1) In Hong Kong, they drive on the left. In China, they drive on the right. The bridge between them is TOTALLY SCARY. \r\n\r\nSomeone I follow on Google Reader shared this blog post by Jason Kottke explaining the problem. But really, the picture sums it up:\r\n
Check out the right (closer) lane. Watch as it dips below its starting point, coming just a few feet above the water (!). Marvel as it passes under the previously left lane, and, effectively, flips itself into being the new left. Gorgeous and horrific at the same time.
\r\nUpdate: Yeah, yeah, it\'s an artist\'s conception. Still totally scary.
\r\n2) The New York City subway system accidentally renamed a station stop \"FML.\"
\r\nTo the Internet generation, FML means something R-rated. To the Metropolitian Transit Authority (MTA), it means the F line, M line, and L line all stop here -- \"here\" being 14th Street and 6th Avenue.
How did this happen? Due to service cuts and changes forced by a thinner budget, the MTA cut some lines and renamed others. The M line now runs down 6th Avenue, and due to coloring conventions, is now orange, like the F. (It used to be brown.) The F and M intersect the L -- which runs across 14th into Brooklyn -- at 6th and 14th. And F comes before L, so FM lead.
\r\nBut the MTA is going to break convention after pictures like the one on the right popped up, surrounded by guffaws.
\r\n\r\n3) Planes sometimes run out of gas, requiring diversion to a nearby airport.\r\n
\r\nI met Michael Maney at the ReadWriteWeb Summit last week and have followed him on Twitter since. He shared this tweet from Colleen Swanger, who I don\'t know from Adam (Eve?):
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nThanks @delta for running out of gas. Now my mother and I are going to miss her mother\'s funeral while stuck at LGA when we should be in BDL
\r\n
\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nSeriously @delta how do you run out of gas 75 miles short of your destination?!? (@ LaGuardia Airport (LGA) w/ 21 others)
\r\n
\r\n\r\nStanding outside LGA with 100 others waiting for a bus to Hartford because a @delta plane ran out of gas. Not kidding. Or they are lying.
\r\n
You can read more about the flight here. The diversion cost passengers six hours -- which is ridiculous, given the fact that a bus ride from New York (where the plane landed) to Hartford (intended destination) should be about half that. It\'s mind-boggling. How do you miscalculate the amount of fuel so badly that you end up having to land at an airport about 75 miles away?
\r\n4) There\'s a secret, unused subway system underneath City Hall in Manhattan, which you can see if you stay on the downtown 6 one stop past the \"last\" official stop.\r\n\r\n\r\nAround the turn of the century -- the 1900s, that is -- the powers that be decided that the Manhattan Main Line, now the 6 subway line in Manhattan, should terminate at City Hall. The station, given its location and prominence, was designed to be a showcase of sorts. But in the mid-1940s, longer trains made the station dangerous. It was one of the least-used stations anyway, serving a mere 600 people a day, due to the proximity of the Brooklyn Bridge station just a few hundred feet away. On the last day of 1945, service to City Hall was discontinued, and the station has been closed, frozen in time, since.\r\n\r\nBut the station is still there, and to a degree, is still used. The last stop on the downtown 6 is Brooklyn Bridge/City Hall, and the first stop uptown is in the same place. But the trains need to turn around -- and they do so by going through the old City Hall stop. Which means if you stay on the train, you\'ll go through this station. Which, apparently, is perfectly allowed.\r\n\r\nBut no, you can\'t get out at City Hall. There are tours of the station, and Ben Kabak of Second Ave. Sagas was lucky enough to attend one. He gathered photos in the gallery below:\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n5) Speaking about Manhattan subways: are more Subway \"restaurants\" than subway stations in Manhattan. \r\n\r\nI think, for a long time, I always wondered this. Not explicitly, of course, but subconsciously. Grub Street has done the heavy lifting and found official counts, and determined that it\'s not particularly close: 171 \"sandwich\" shops to 147 train stops. Brooklyn represents the city much more positively, with the trains winning, 170 to 70.\r\n\r\nIt really is too bad that Manhattan isn\'t in a dead heat -- that would be reason enough to open the old City Hall stop.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n\r\n','Planes, Trains, and Automobiles: Five Things I Learned About Transit Last Week',0,'','inherit','open','open','','354-revision-28','','','2010-06-21 14:58:56','2010-06-21 14:58:56','',354,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/21/354-revision-28/',0,'revision','',0),(417,1,'2010-06-19 01:48:14','2010-06-19 01:48:14','I found the first video tonight and watched it, kids in tow. They loved it as much as I did, and we spent the better part of an hour watching the others found below. Enjoy!\r\n\r\nViolin, synced to game\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nBeatboxing Flute\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nA capella\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nA ruler\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nTwo Tesla Coils\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nAn ocarina\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nA really sick drum set\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nStepper motors\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nA radio controlled toy car and a bunch of beer bottles\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nA cell phone\r\n\r\n\r\n','Ten Awesome Video Renditions of the Super Mario Brothers Theme Song',0,'','inherit','open','open','','392-revision-6','','','2010-06-19 01:48:14','2010-06-19 01:48:14','',392,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/19/392-revision-6/',0,'revision','',0),(418,1,'2010-06-22 15:23:48','0000-00-00 00:00:00','In 1950, the U.S. Pulled Off a Huge World Cup Upset. No Major Newspapers Had Sent Reporters to Cover It\n\nIn the summer of 1950, the World Cup resumed after a twelve-year hiatus due to the Second World War. The United States sent a rag-tag bunch to tournament; a team made mostly of semi-pros who, by day, were milkmen and mail carriers. They were set to face the English national team, considered co-favorites with host country Brazil to win the Cup. The Americans, on the other hand, went into Cup play having lost seven consecutive matches by a cumulative score of 45-2. That\'s not a typo. But in the 37th minute of the match versus England, American captain William Bahr (a schoolteacher!) took a shot from twenty-five feet out. Teammate Joe Gaetjens headed it into the net, scoring the game\'s only goal. The Americans pulled off a historic upset, 1-0.\n\nThe world was abuzz, with front page newspaper stories around the blog. But amazingly, only one major American newspaper covered the story the next day.\n\nThe incredibly named Dent McSkinning, a reporter for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, took time off and, on his own dime, attended the Cup match. He was the only American journalist at the match, and his report of the game was the only one in any major U.S. paper. In fact, Bahr later told CNN, \"I don\'t think I did a single interview about the World Cup until 25 years later.\"\n\nThe win, huge news everywhere but in America, was short lived. The U.S. dropped matches to Spain (3-1, although they lead 1-0 with about ten minutes left) and to Chile, 5-2, and failed to advance out of group play. The U.S. would not qualify for a World Cup again until 1990.\n\nBonus fact: No one knows exactly what happened to Joe Gaetjens, the goal scorer, twenty years out. A Haitian by birth, Gaetjens returned to Haiti later in life. Reportedly, he was taken as a political prisoner and shot sometime in the 1960s or 70s, but understandably, there are no available records either way.','NIK Template',0,'','draft','open','open','','','','','2010-06-22 15:23:48','2010-06-22 15:23:49','',0,'http://dlewis.net/?p=418',0,'post','',0),(419,1,'2010-06-22 11:55:26','2010-06-22 11:55:26','In 1950, the U.S. Pulled Off a Huge World Cup Upset. No Major Newspapers Had Sent Reporters to Cover It\n\nIn the summer of 1950, the World Cup resumed after a twelve-year hiatus due to the Second World War.\n\nWhat happened to Gaetjens? No one knows. A Haitian by birth, Gaetjens returned to Haiti later in life. Rumor has it that he was taken as a political prisoner and shot sometime in the 1960s or 70s, but understandably, there are no available records either way.\n\nAs for the U.S. soccer team: They dropped matches to Spain (3-1, although they lead 1-0 with about ten minutes left) and to Chile, 5-2, and failed to advance out of group play. The 1950 World Cup would be their last one for forty years. The next time the U.S. would make the World Cup: 1990.','NIK Template',0,'','inherit','open','open','','418-revision','','','2010-06-22 11:55:26','2010-06-22 11:55:26','',418,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/22/418-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(420,1,'2010-06-22 12:50:36','2010-06-22 12:50:36','In 1950, the U.S. Pulled Off a Huge World Cup Upset. No Major Newspapers Had Sent Reporters to Cover It\n\nIn the summer of 1950, the World Cup resumed after a twelve-year hiatus due to the Second World War. The United States sent a rag-tag bunch to tournament; a team made mostly of semi-pros who, by day, were milkmen and mail carriers. They were set to face the English national team, considered co-favorites with host country Brazil to win the Cup. The Americans, on the other hand, went into Cup play having lost seven consecutive matches by a cumulative score of 45-2. That\'s not a typo. But in the 37th minute of the match versus England, American captain William Bahr (a schoolteacher!) took a shot from twenty-five feet out. Teammate Joe Gaetjens headed it into the net, scoring the game\'s only goal. The Americans pulled off a historic upset, 1-0.\n\nOnly one major American newspaper covered the story the next day.\n\nThe incredibly named Dent McSkinning, a reporter for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, took time off and, on his own dime, attended the Cup match.\n\nWhat happened to Gaetjens? No one knows. A Haitian by birth, Gaetjens returned to Haiti later in life. Rumor has it that he was taken as a political prisoner and shot sometime in the 1960s or 70s, but understandably, there are no available records either way.\n\nAs for the U.S. soccer team: They dropped matches to Spain (3-1, although they lead 1-0 with about ten minutes left) and to Chile, 5-2, and failed to advance out of group play. The U.S. would not qualify for a World Cup again until 1990.','NIK Template',0,'','inherit','open','open','','418-revision-2','','','2010-06-22 12:50:36','2010-06-22 12:50:36','',418,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/22/418-revision-2/',0,'revision','',0),(421,1,'2010-06-22 15:22:12','2010-06-22 15:22:12','In 1950, the U.S. Pulled Off a Huge World Cup Upset. No Major Newspapers Had Sent Reporters to Cover It\n\nIn the summer of 1950, the World Cup resumed after a twelve-year hiatus due to the Second World War. The United States sent a rag-tag bunch to tournament; a team made mostly of semi-pros who, by day, were milkmen and mail carriers. They were set to face the English national team, considered co-favorites with host country Brazil to win the Cup. The Americans, on the other hand, went into Cup play having lost seven consecutive matches by a cumulative score of 45-2. That\'s not a typo. But in the 37th minute of the match versus England, American captain William Bahr (a schoolteacher!) took a shot from twenty-five feet out. Teammate Joe Gaetjens headed it into the net, scoring the game\'s only goal. The Americans pulled off a historic upset, 1-0.\n\nThe world was abuzz, with front page newspaper stories around the blog. But amazingly, only one major American newspaper covered the story the next day.\n\nThe incredibly named Dent McSkinning, a reporter for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, took time off and, on his own dime, attended the Cup match. He was the only American journalist at the match, and his report of the game was the only one in any major U.S. paper. In fact, Bahr later told CNN, \"I don\'t think I did a single interview about the World Cup until 25 years later.\"\n\nThe win, huge news everywhere but in America, was short lived. The U.S. dropped matches to Spain (3-1, although they lead 1-0 with about ten minutes left) and to Chile, 5-2, and failed to advance out of group play. The U.S. would not qualify for a World Cup again until 1990.\n\nBonus fact: No one knows exactly what happened to Joe Gaetjens, theA Haitian by birth, Gaetjens returned to Haiti later in life. Rumor has it that he was taken as a political prisoner and shot sometime in the 1960s or 70s, but understandably, there are no available records either way.','NIK Template',0,'','inherit','open','open','','418-revision-3','','','2010-06-22 15:22:12','2010-06-22 15:22:12','',418,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/22/418-revision-3/',0,'revision','',0),(486,1,'2010-08-04 12:33:29','2010-08-04 16:33:29','I\'m a father, husband, Mets fan, and officially, a lawyer. I\'m the Director of New Media Communications for Sesame Workshop, the non-profit organization which brings Sesame Street to the world (and to Twitter) -- but this site contains only my personal views I co-founded ArmchairGM, which I co-sold to Wikia. I\'m a proud graduate of Tufts Universitythe Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. Only the first sentence of this paragraph matters, excluding that \"lawyer\" part.','Hi. I\'m Dan.',0,'','inherit','open','open','','477-revision-v1','','','2010-08-04 12:33:29','2010-08-04 16:33:29','',477,'http://dlewis.net/2010/08/04/477-revision-7/',0,'revision','',0),(487,1,'2010-08-04 12:34:04','2010-08-04 16:34:04','','dandotlewis',0,'','inherit','open','open','','ebgheadshot','','','2010-08-04 12:34:04','2010-08-04 16:34:04','',477,'http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/ebgheadshot.jpg',0,'attachment','image/jpeg',0),(488,1,'2010-08-04 12:33:36','2010-08-04 16:33:36','I\'m a father, husband, Mets fan, and officially, a lawyer. I\'m the Director of New Media Communications for Sesame Workshop, the non-profit organization which brings Sesame Street to the world (and to Twitter) -- but this site contains only my personal views I co-founded ArmchairGM, which I co-sold to Wikia. I\'m a proud graduate of Tufts Universitythe Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. Only the first sentence of this paragraph matters, excluding that \"lawyer\" part.','Hi. I\'m Dan.',0,'','inherit','open','open','','477-revision-v1','','','2010-08-04 12:33:36','2010-08-04 16:33:36','',477,'http://dlewis.net/2010/08/04/477-revision-8/',0,'revision','',0),(489,1,'2010-08-04 12:34:25','2010-08-04 16:34:25','I\'m a father, husband, Mets fan, and officially, a lawyer. I\'m the Director of New Media Communications for Sesame Workshop, the non-profit organization which brings Sesame Street to the world (and to Twitter) -- but this site contains only my personal views I co-founded ArmchairGM, which I co-sold to Wikia. I\'m a proud graduate of Tufts Universitythe Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. Only the first sentence of this paragraph matters, excluding that \"lawyer\" part.','Hi. I\'m Dan.',0,'','inherit','open','open','','477-revision-v1','','','2010-08-04 12:34:25','2010-08-04 16:34:25','',477,'http://dlewis.net/2010/08/04/477-revision-9/',0,'revision','',0),(490,1,'2010-08-04 12:47:11','2010-08-04 16:47:11','I\'m a father, husband, Mets fan, and officially, a lawyer. I\'m the Director of New Media Communications for Sesame Workshop, the non-profit organization which brings Sesame Street to the world (and to Twitter) -- but this site contains only my personal views I co-founded ArmchairGM, which I co-sold to Wikia. I\'m a proud graduate of Tufts University and the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. Only the first sentence of this paragraph matters, excluding that \"lawyer\" part.\r\n\r\nI write a daily email called \"Now I Know,\" which you can sign up for over there on the right. Every morning, I share something interesting I\'ve learned over the last few weeks. For example, did you know that George Carlin narrated Thomas and Friends; polar bears are almost invisible under infrared light; Google uses goats as lawnmowers; and carrots, originally, were purple? You would have if you subscribed to my email list. (The whole archive? Here.)\r\n\r\nI\'m active on Twitter as @DanDotLewis and occasionally, I\'ll write a blog post. My last five posts can be found on the sidebar, and once I figure out how to put the headlines here, consider it done. I\'m active at Amazin\' Avenue, an excellent Mets blog/community as well.\r\n','Hi. I\'m Dan.',0,'','inherit','open','open','','477-revision-v1','','','2010-08-04 12:47:11','2010-08-04 16:47:11','',477,'http://dlewis.net/2010/08/04/477-revision-10/',0,'revision','',0),(491,1,'2010-08-04 12:55:39','2010-08-04 16:55:39','I\'m a father, husband, Mets fan, and officially, a lawyer. I\'m the Director of New Media Communications for Sesame Workshop, the non-profit organization which brings Sesame Street to the world (and to Twitter) -- but this site contains only my personal views. (That said, Sesame Street is awesome.)\r\n\r\n\r\nBefore Sesame Street, I co-founded ArmchairGM, which I co-sold to Wikia. I\'m a proud graduate of Tufts University and the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.\r\n\r\n\r\nI write a daily email called \"Now I Know,\" which you can sign up for over there on the right. Every morning, I share something interesting I\'ve learned over the last few weeks. For example, did you know that George Carlin narrated Thomas and Friends; polar bears are almost invisible under infrared light; Google uses goats as lawnmowers; and carrots, originally, were purple? You would have if you subscribed to my email list. (The whole archive? Here.)\r\n\r\nIn fact, the best way to reach me is by email -- dan.lewis@gmail.com. I typically respond to everything, but things fall through the proverbial cracks, so if you email me for some reason and I don\'t, just follow up with me.\r\n\r\n\r\nI\'m active on Twitter as @DanDotLewis and occasionally, I\'ll write a blog post. My last five posts can be found on the sidebar, and once I figure out how to put the headlines here, consider it done. I\'m active at Amazin\' Avenue, an excellent Mets blog/community as well.\r\n\r\nMore about me? Really? OK.\r\nI\'m a father, husband, Mets fan, and officially, a lawyer. I\'m the Director of New Media Communications for Sesame Workshop, the non-profit organization which brings Sesame Street to the world (and to Twitter) -- but this site contains only my personal views. (That said, Sesame Street is awesome.)\r\n\r\n\r\nBefore Sesame Street, I co-founded ArmchairGM, which I co-sold to Wikia. I\'m a proud graduate of Tufts University and the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.\r\n\r\n\r\nI write a daily email called \"Now I Know,\" which you can sign up for over there on the right. Every morning, I share something interesting I\'ve learned over the last few weeks. For example, did you know that George Carlin narrated Thomas and Friends; polar bears are almost invisible under infrared light; Google uses goats as lawnmowers; and carrots, originally, were purple? You would have if you subscribed to my email list. (The whole archive? Here.)\r\n\r\nIn fact, the best way to reach me is by email -- dan.lewis@gmail.com. I typically respond to everything, but things fall through the proverbial cracks, so if you email me for some reason and I don\'t, just follow up with me.\r\n\r\n\r\nI\'m active on Twitter as @DanDotLewis and occasionally, I\'ll write a blog post. My last five posts can be found on the sidebar, and once I figure out how to put the headlines here, consider it done. I\'m active at Amazin\' Avenue, an excellent Mets blog/community as well.\r\n\r\nMore about me? Really? OK.\r\nI\'m a father, husband, Mets fan, and officially, a lawyer. I\'m a proud graduate of Tufts University and the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. This site and the other personal ones linked off of it are reflective of my personal views, and not necessarily that of my employer. Standard disclaimer, as it were.\r\n\r\nOh, my job? I\'m the Director of New Media Communications for Sesame Workshop, the non-profit organization which brings Sesame Street to the world (and to Twitter). A while ago, I co-founded ArmchairGM, which I co-sold to Wikia.\r\n\r\nI write a daily email called \"Now I Know,\" which you can sign up for over there on the right. Every morning, I share something interesting I\'ve learned over the last few weeks. For example, did you know that George Carlin narrated Thomas and Friends; polar bears are almost invisible under infrared light; Google uses goats as lawnmowers; and carrots, originally, were purple? You would have if you subscribed to my email list. (The whole archive? Here.)\r\n\r\nIn fact, the best way to reach me is by email -- dan.lewis@gmail.com. I typically respond to everything, but things fall through the proverbial cracks, so if you email me for some reason and I don\'t, just follow up with me.\r\n\r\n\r\nI\'m active on Twitter as @DanDotLewis and occasionally, I\'ll write a blog post. My last five posts can be found on the sidebar, and once I figure out how to put the headlines here, consider it done. I\'m active at Amazin\' Avenue, an excellent Mets blog/community as well.\r\n\r\nMore about me? Really? OK.\r\nI\'m a father, husband, Mets fan, and officially, a lawyer. I\'m a proud graduate of Tufts University and the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. This site and the other personal ones linked off of it are reflective of my personal views, and not necessarily that of my employer. Standard disclaimer, as it were.\r\n\r\nOh, my job?\r\n\r\n![\"\"](\"http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/sesasme-street-sign.gif\" "\\"sesasme")
I\'m the Director of New Media Communications for Sesame Workshop, the non-profit organization which brings Sesame Street to the world (and, of specific importatnce to me, Twitter and Facebook). Before that, I co-founded ArmchairGM, which I co-sold to Wikia. And before that, I was a practicing attorney at EpsteinBeckerGreen, which coincidentally has another attorney in the same office named Dan Lewis. (He is not me.) All of this, and more, can be found on my LinkedIn profile.\r\n\r\nHobbies?\r\n\r\nI write a daily email called \"Now I Know,\" which you can sign up for over there on the right. Every morning, I share something interesting I\'ve learned over the last few weeks. For example, did you know that George Carlin narrated Thomas and Friends; polar bears are almost invisible under infrared light; Google uses goats as lawnmowers; and carrots, originally, were purple? You would have if you subscribed to my email list. (The whole archive? Here.)\r\n\r\nIn fact, the best way to reach me is by email -- dan.lewis@gmail.com. I typically respond to everything, but things fall through the proverbial cracks, so if you email me for some reason and I don\'t, just follow up with me.\r\n\r\n\r\nI\'m active on Twitter as @DanDotLewis and occasionally, I\'ll write a blog post. My last five posts can be found on the sidebar, and once I figure out how to put the headlines here, consider it done. I\'m active at Amazin\' Avenue, an excellent Mets blog/community as well.\r\n\r\nMore about me? Really? OK.\r\n\nI\'m a father, husband, Mets fan, and officially, a lawyer. I\'m a proud graduate of Tufts University and the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. This site and the other personal ones linked off of it are reflective of my personal views, and not necessarily that of my employer. Standard disclaimer, as it were.\r\n\r\nOh, my job?\r\n\r\nI\'m the Director of New Media Communications for Sesame Workshop, the non-profit organization which brings Sesame Street to the world (and, of specific importatnce to me, Twitter and Facebook). I am in charge of the organization\'s use of digital media for corporate communications purposes, which is a more formal way of saying that if it involves social media and/or the corporate website at Sesame Workshop, I\'m the guy to talk to. As a fringe benefit, I get to work with Cookie Monster and Grover and Elmo etc. It\'s awesome.\r\n\r\nBefore Sesame, I co-founded ArmchairGM, which I co-sold to Wikia. And before that, I was a practicing attorney at EpsteinBeckerGreen, which coincidentally has another attorney in the same office named Dan Lewis. (He is not me.) All of this, and more, can be found on my LinkedIn profile.\r\n\r\nHobbies?\r\n\r\nI\'m a die-hard Mets fan and have been since the early 1980s. I\'m a sports enthusiast generally, in fact, and spent a good portion of the early 2000s trying (and failing) to become a professional sports writer.\r\n\r\n\r\nI write a daily email called \"Now I Know,\" which you can sign up for over there on the right. Every morning, I share something interesting I\'ve learned over the last few weeks. For example, did you know that George Carlin narrated Thomas and Friends; polar bears are almost invisible under infrared light; Google uses goats as lawnmowers; and carrots, originally, were purple? You would have if you subscribed to my email list. (The whole archive? Here.)\r\n\r\nIn fact, the best way to reach me is by email -- dan.lewis@gmail.com. I typically respond to everything, but things fall through the proverbial cracks, so if you email me for some reason and I don\'t, just follow up with me.\r\n\r\n\r\nI\'m active on Twitter as @DanDotLewis and occasionally, I\'ll write a blog post. My last five posts can be found on the sidebar, and once I figure out how to put the headlines here, consider it done. I\'m also active at Amazin\' Avenue, an excellent Mets blog/community as well.\r\n\r\nMore about me? Really? OK.\r\n\n\nWe\'ve all heard the adage \"you learn something new every day.\" It\'s definitely true. Want to keep learning all sorts of interesting things?\n\n\"Now I Know\" is my free daily email where I share these things. No more than once a day. No spam. Things that I find genuinely interesting, such as:\n\r\n\r\nWe\'ve all heard the adage, \"you learn something new every day.\" It\'s definitely true.\r\n\r\n\"Now I Know\" is my email list where I share these things. No more than once a day. No spam. Things that I find genuinely interesting -- carrots used to be purple, there\'s an unused subway stop under NYC\'s City Hall, etc. That kind of stuff.\r\n\r\nLearn along with me, and subscribe, below.\r\n\r\n* Email address is required. (How else am I going to get the email to you?)','Now I Know: Learn Something New Every Day, By Email',0,'','inherit','open','open','','424-revision-7','','','2010-06-25 03:10:36','2010-06-25 03:10:36','',424,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/25/424-revision-7/',0,'revision','',0),(428,1,'2010-06-25 02:52:25','2010-06-25 02:52:25','Test','Now I Know',0,'','inherit','open','open','','424-revision-3','','','2010-06-25 02:52:25','2010-06-25 02:52:25','',424,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/25/424-revision-3/',0,'revision','',0),(429,1,'2010-06-25 03:03:20','2010-06-25 03:03:20','\r\n\r\nWe\'ve all heard the adage, \"you learn something new every day.\" It\'s definitely true.\r\n\r\n\"Now I Know\" is my email list where I share these things. No more than once a day. No spam. Things that I find genuinely interesting -- carrots used to be purple, there\'s an unused subway stop under NYC\'s City Hall, etc. That kind of stuff.\r\n\r\nLearn along with me, and subscribe, below. ?What do you have to lose\r\n\r\n* Email address is required. (How else am I going to get the email to you?)','Now I Know: Learn Something New Every Day, By Email',0,'','inherit','open','open','','424-revision-4','','','2010-06-25 03:03:20','2010-06-25 03:03:20','',424,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/25/424-revision-4/',0,'revision','',0),(431,1,'2010-06-25 03:03:46','2010-06-25 03:03:46','\r\n\r\nWe\'ve all heard the adage, \"you learn something new every day.\" It\'s definitely true.\r\n\r\n\"Now I Know\" is my email list where I share these things. No more than once a day. No spam. Things that I find genuinely interesting -- carrots used to be purple, there\'s an unused subway stop under NYC\'s City Hall, etc. That kind of stuff.\r\n\r\nLearn along with me, and subscribe, below.\r\n\r\n* Email address is required. (How else am I going to get the email to you?)','Now I Know: Learn Something New Every Day, By Email',0,'','inherit','open','open','','424-revision-5','','','2010-06-25 03:03:46','2010-06-25 03:03:46','',424,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/25/424-revision-5/',0,'revision','',0),(432,1,'2010-06-25 03:09:43','2010-06-25 03:09:43','\r\n\r\nWe\'ve all heard the adage, \"you learn something new every day.\" It\'s definitely true.\r\n\r\n\"Now I Know\" is my email list where I share these things. No more than once a day. No spam. Things that I find genuinely interesting -- carrots used to be purple, there\'s an unused subway stop under NYC\'s City Hall, etc. That kind of stuff.\r\n\r\nLearn along with me, and subscribe, below.\r\n\r\n* Email address is required. (How else am I going to get the email to you?)','Now I Know: Learn Something New Every Day, By Email',0,'','inherit','open','open','','424-revision-6','','','2010-06-25 03:09:43','2010-06-25 03:09:43','',424,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/25/424-revision-6/',0,'revision','',0),(433,1,'2010-06-25 03:19:16','2010-06-25 03:19:16','\r\n\r\nYou\'re almost done signing up!\r\n\r\nI sent you an email to confirm that you actually use the address you provided. Click the link, and you are good to go.\r\n\r\nThank you, and welcome aboard!\r\n\r\n-- Dan','Now I Know: Thanks!',0,'','publish','closed','closed','','nik-thank-you','','','2010-06-27 02:42:49','2010-06-27 02:42:49','',0,'http://dlewis.net/?page_id=433',0,'page','',0),(434,1,'2010-06-25 03:19:08','2010-06-25 03:19:08','\n\nYou\'re almost done signing up!\n\nI sent you an email to confirm that you actually use the address you provided. Click the link, and you are good to go.\nThank you, and welcome aboard!','Now I Know: Learn Something New Every Day, By Email',0,'','inherit','open','open','','433-revision','','','2010-06-25 03:19:08','2010-06-25 03:19:08','',433,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/25/433-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(435,1,'2010-06-27 02:40:16','2010-06-27 02:40:16','\n\nYou\'re almost done signing up!\n\nI sent you an email to confirm that you actually use the address you provided. Click the link, and you are good to go.\n\nThank you, and welcome aboard!\n\n-- Dan','Now I Know: Thanks!',0,'','inherit','open','open','','433-autosave','','','2010-06-27 02:40:16','2010-06-27 02:40:16','',433,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/25/433-autosave/',0,'revision','',0),(504,1,'2010-08-17 16:44:37','2010-08-17 20:44:37','\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nNow I Know: The Archives\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n','Now I Know: The Archives ',0,'','inherit','open','open','','440-revision-9','','','2010-07-20 12:36:22','2010-07-20 16:36:22','',440,'http://dlewis.net/2010/07/20/440-revision-9/',0,'revision','',0),(454,1,'2010-06-29 02:56:23','2010-06-29 02:56:23','','Time To Make the Donuts',0,'','inherit','open','open','','picture-24','','','2010-06-29 02:56:23','2010-06-29 02:56:23','',452,'http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Picture-24.png',0,'attachment','image/png',0),(451,1,'2010-06-27 02:48:13','2010-06-27 02:48:13','
\r\n\r\nWe\'ve all heard the adage, \"you learn something new every day.\" It\'s definitely true.\r\n\r\n\"Now I Know\" is my free email where I share these things. No more than once a day. No spam. Things that I find genuinely interesting -- carrots used to be purple, there\'s an unused subway stop under NYC\'s City Hall, etc. That kind of stuff.\r\n\r\nLearn along with me, and subscribe, below. And be sure to check out the archives.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n* Email address is required. (How else am I going to get the email to you?)','Now I Know: Learn Something New Every Day, By Email',0,'','inherit','open','open','','424-revision-9','','','2010-06-27 02:48:13','2010-06-27 02:48:13','',424,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/27/424-revision-9/',0,'revision','',0),(437,1,'2010-06-25 03:19:16','2010-06-25 03:19:16','\r\n\r\nYou\'re almost done signing up!\r\n\r\nI sent you an email to confirm that you actually use the address you provided. Click the link, and you are good to go.\r\nThank you, and welcome aboard!','Now I Know: Learn Something New Every Day, By Email',0,'','inherit','open','open','','433-revision-2','','','2010-06-25 03:19:16','2010-06-25 03:19:16','',433,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/25/433-revision-2/',0,'revision','',0),(438,1,'2010-06-25 03:28:32','2010-06-25 03:28:32','\r\n\r\nYou\'re almost done signing up!\r\n\r\nI sent you an email to confirm that you actually use the address you provided. Click the link, and you are good to go.\r\nThank you, and welcome aboard!','Now I Know: Learn Something New Every Day, By Email',0,'','inherit','open','open','','433-revision-3','','','2010-06-25 03:28:32','2010-06-25 03:28:32','',433,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/25/433-revision-3/',0,'revision','',0),(439,1,'2010-06-25 03:28:55','2010-06-25 03:28:55','\r\n\r\nYou\'re almost done signing up!\r\n\r\nI sent you an email to confirm that you actually use the address you provided. Click the link, and you are good to go.\r\nThank you, and welcome aboard!','Now I Know: Learn Something New Every Day, By Email',0,'','inherit','open','open','','433-revision-4','','','2010-06-25 03:28:55','2010-06-25 03:28:55','',433,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/25/433-revision-4/',0,'revision','',0),(449,1,'2010-06-27 02:37:47','2010-06-27 02:37:47','\r\n\r\nYou\'re almost done signing up!\r\n\r\nI sent you an email to confirm that you actually use the address you provided. Click the link, and you are good to go.\r\n\r\nThank you, and welcome aboard!\r\n\r\n-- Dan','Now I Know: Learn Something New Every Day, By Email | Thanks!',0,'','inherit','open','open','','433-revision-6','','','2010-06-27 02:37:47','2010-06-27 02:37:47','',433,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/27/433-revision-6/',0,'revision','',0),(501,1,'2010-07-20 12:47:02','2010-07-20 16:47:02','\r\n\r\nWe\'ve all heard the adage, \"you learn something new every day.\" It\'s definitely true. Want to keep learning all sorts of interesting things?\r\n\r\n\"Now I Know\" is my free daily email where I share these things. No more than once a day. No spam. Things that I find genuinely interesting, such as:\r\n\r\n\n\n(Not yet a subscriber? Sign up to get these in your email inbox, every day, for free!)','Now I Know: Learn Something New Every Day, By Email | Archives ',0,'','inherit','open','open','','440-revision','','','2010-06-27 02:28:04','2010-06-27 02:28:04','',440,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/27/440-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(442,1,'2010-06-27 02:29:46','2010-06-27 02:29:46','\r\n\r\n(Not yet a subscriber? Sign up to get these in your email inbox, every day, for free!)\r\n\r\n\r\n-->\r\n','Now I Know: Learn Something New Every Day, By Email | Archives ',0,'','inherit','open','open','','440-revision-2','','','2010-06-27 02:29:46','2010-06-27 02:29:46','',440,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/27/440-revision-2/',0,'revision','',0),(443,1,'2010-06-27 02:30:28','2010-06-27 02:30:28','\r\n\r\n(Not yet a subscriber? Sign up to get these in your email inbox, every day, for free!)\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nNow I Know: The Archives\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nYou\'re almost done signing up!\r\n\r\nI sent you an email to confirm that you actually use the address you provided. Click the link, and you are good to go.\r\n\r\nThank you, and welcome aboard!\r\n\r\n-- Dan','Now I Know: Learn Something New Every Day, By Email',0,'','inherit','open','open','','433-revision-5','','','2010-06-25 03:30:06','2010-06-25 03:30:06','',433,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/25/433-revision-5/',0,'revision','',0),(446,1,'2010-06-27 02:36:04','2010-06-27 02:36:04','\r\n\r\n\r\nNow I Know: The Archives\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n','Now I Know: Learn Something New Every Day, By Email | Archives ',0,'','inherit','open','open','','440-revision-5','','','2010-06-27 02:36:04','2010-06-27 02:36:04','',440,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/27/440-revision-5/',0,'revision','',0),(447,1,'2010-06-27 02:38:15','2010-06-27 02:38:15','
\r\n\r\n\r\nNow I Know: The Archives\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n','Now I Know: Learn Something New Every Day, By Email | Archives ',0,'','inherit','open','open','','440-revision-6','','','2010-06-27 02:38:15','2010-06-27 02:38:15','',440,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/27/440-revision-6/',0,'revision','',0),(448,1,'2010-06-27 02:38:45','2010-06-27 02:38:45','
\r\n\r\n\r\nNow I Know: The Archives\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n','Now I Know: Learn Something New Every Day, By Email - Archives ',0,'','inherit','open','open','','440-revision-7','','','2010-06-27 02:38:45','2010-06-27 02:38:45','',440,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/27/440-revision-7/',0,'revision','',0),(452,1,'2010-06-29 03:13:40','2010-06-29 03:13:40','Go to your Facebook News Feed and you may see, in the upper right, Facebook suggests some brand Pages for you to follow. Typically, Facebook shows two in tandem -- and sometimes, the results are... well, see for yourself:\r\n\r\nFacebook Games: Better than Facebook?\r\n\r\n
![\"\"](\"http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Picture-23.png\" "\\"Mafia")
\r\n\r\nAnd to make matters worse, Mafia Wars isn\'t even the biggest game -- Farmville and Treasure Isle top it, easily.\r\n\r\nDonuts versus Breast Cancer Awareness\r\n\r\n![\"\"](\"http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Picture-24.png\" "\\"Time")
\r\n\r\nAt least it\'s close... I guess.\r\n\r\nWho needs physical activity when you can sit on the couch?\r\n\r\n![\"\"](\"http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Picture-25.png\" "\\"Who")
\r\n\r\nThere\'s a \"That\'s What She Said\" joke here. But I don\'t see it, sorry. Feel free to leave one in the comments.\r\n\r\nWow, is it still 2002?\r\n\r\n![\"\"](\"http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Picture-26.png\" "\\"South")
\r\n\r\nThis one is shocking. Shocking.\r\n\r\nNoooooooooooooooo....\r\n\r\n![\"\"](\"http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Picture-27.png\" "\\"Lady")
\r\n\r\nAnd Dunkin Wins Again!\r\n\r\n![\"\"](\"http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Picture-44.png\" "\\"Dunkin")
\r\n\r\nAlso, note that Lady Gaga is about seven times more popular than the generally well-liked First Lady.\r\n\r\nSounds Right To Me\r\n\r\n![\"\"](\"http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Picture-46.png\" "\\"Family")
\r\n\r\nI actually prefer Futurama, but accept the fact that I\'m in minority.\r\n\r\nD\'oh!\r\n\r\n![\"\"](\"http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Picture-47.png\" "\\"Simpsons\\"")
\r\n\r\nOn the other hand... really?\r\n\r\nAnd my personal favorite\r\n\r\n![\"\"](\"http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Picture-45.png\" "\\"NYT")
','Unintentional Humor, Facebook Recommendations Style',0,'','publish','open','open','','unintentional-humor-facebook-recommendations-style','','','2010-06-29 03:13:40','2010-06-29 03:13:40','',0,'http://dlewis.net/?p=452',0,'post','',3),(450,1,'2010-06-25 03:25:33','2010-06-25 03:25:33','\r\n\r\nWe\'ve all heard the adage, \"you learn something new every day.\" It\'s definitely true.\r\n\r\n\"Now I Know\" is my email list where I share these things. No more than once a day. No spam. Things that I find genuinely interesting -- carrots used to be purple, there\'s an unused subway stop under NYC\'s City Hall, etc. That kind of stuff.\r\n\r\nLearn along with me, and subscribe, below.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\n\nAnd to make matters worse, Mafia Wars isn\'t even the biggest game -- Farmville and Treasure Isle top it, easily.\n\nDonuts versus Breast Cancer Awareness\n\n\n\nAt least it\'s close... I guess.\n\nWho needs physical activity when you can sit on the couch?\n\n\n\nThere\'s a \"That\'s What She Said\" joke here. But I don\'t see it, sorry. Feel free to leave one in the comments.\n\nWow, is it still 2002?\n\n\n\nThis one is shocking. Shocking.\n\nNoooooooooooooooo....\n\n\n\nAnd Dunkin Wins Again!\n\n\n\nAlso, note that Lady Gaga is about seven times more popular than the generally well-liked First Lady.\n\nSounds Right To Me\n\n\n\nI actually prefer Futurama, but accept the fact that I\'m in minority.\n\nD\'oh!\n\n\n\nOn the other hand... really?\n\nAnd my personal favorite\n\n\n\nThe New York Times: Less Popular','Unintentional Humor, Facebook Recommendations Style',0,'','inherit','open','open','','452-revision','','','2010-06-29 03:12:15','2010-06-29 03:12:15','',452,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/29/452-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(463,1,'2010-06-29 03:13:02','2010-06-29 03:13:02','Go to your Facebook News Feed and you may see, in the upper right, Facebook suggests some brand Pages for you to follow. Typically, Facebook shows two in tandem -- and sometimes, the results are... well, see for yourself:\r\n\r\nFacebook Games: Better than Facebook?\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nAnd to make matters worse, Mafia Wars isn\'t even the biggest game -- Farmville and Treasure Isle top it, easily.\r\n\r\nDonuts versus Breast Cancer Awareness\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nAt least it\'s close... I guess.\r\n\r\nWho needs physical activity when you can sit on the couch?\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nThere\'s a \"That\'s What She Said\" joke here. But I don\'t see it, sorry. Feel free to leave one in the comments.\r\n\r\nWow, is it still 2002?\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nThis one is shocking. Shocking.\r\n\r\nNoooooooooooooooo....\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nAnd Dunkin Wins Again!\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nAlso, note that Lady Gaga is about seven times more popular than the generally well-liked First Lady.\r\n\r\nSounds Right To Me\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nI actually prefer Futurama, but accept the fact that I\'m in minority.\r\n\r\nD\'oh!\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nOn the other hand... really?\r\n\r\nAnd my personal favorite\r\n\r\n','Unintentional Humor, Facebook Recommendations Style',0,'','inherit','open','open','','452-revision-2','','','2010-06-29 03:13:02','2010-06-29 03:13:02','',452,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/29/452-revision-2/',0,'revision','',0),(464,1,'2010-06-27 02:48:58','2010-06-27 02:48:58','\r\n\r\nWe\'ve all heard the adage, \"you learn something new every day.\" It\'s definitely true.\r\n\r\n\"Now I Know\" is my free email where I share these things. No more than once a day. No spam. Things that I find genuinely interesting -- carrots used to be purple, there\'s an unused subway stop under NYC\'s City Hall, etc. That kind of stuff.\r\n\r\nLearn along with me, and subscribe, below. And be sure to check out the archives.\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n* Email address is required. (How else am I going to get the email to you?)','Now I Know: Learn Something New Every Day, By Email',0,'','inherit','open','open','','424-revision-10','','','2010-06-27 02:48:58','2010-06-27 02:48:58','',424,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/27/424-revision-10/',0,'revision','',0),(465,1,'2010-07-06 14:25:45','2010-07-06 14:25:45','\r\n\r\nWe\'ve all heard the adage, \"you learn something new every day.\" It\'s definitely true. Want to keep learning all sorts of interesting things?\r\n\r\n\"Now I Know\" is my free daily email where I share these things. No more than once a day. No spam. Things that I find genuinely interesting, such as:\r\n\r\n\r\nWe\'ve all heard the adage, \"you learn something new every day.\" It\'s definitely true. Want to keep learning all sorts of interesting things?\r\n\r\n\"Now I Know\" is my free daily email where I share these things. No more than once a day. No spam. Things that I find genuinely interesting, such as:\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nNow I Know: The Archives\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n','Now I Know: The Archives ',0,'','inherit','open','open','','440-revision-8','','','2010-06-27 02:39:01','2010-06-27 02:39:01','',440,'http://dlewis.net/2010/06/27/440-revision-8/',0,'revision','',0),(468,1,'2010-07-19 22:47:54','2010-07-20 02:47:54','
\r\n\r\nWe\'ve all heard the adage, \"you learn something new every day.\" It\'s definitely true. Want to keep learning all sorts of interesting things?\r\n\r\n\"Now I Know\" is my free daily email where I share these things. No more than once a day. No spam. Things that I find genuinely interesting, such as:\r\n\r\n\r\nWe\'ve all heard the adage, \"you learn something new every day.\" It\'s definitely true. Want to keep learning all sorts of interesting things?\r\n\r\n\"Now I Know\" is my free daily email where I share these things. No more than once a day. No spam. Things that I find genuinely interesting, such as:\r\n\r\n\r\nWe\'ve all heard the adage, \"you learn something new every day.\" It\'s definitely true. Want to keep learning all sorts of interesting things?\r\n\r\n\"Now I Know\" is my free daily email where I share these things. No more than once a day. No spam. Things that I find genuinely interesting, such as:\r\n\r\n\r\nWe\'ve all heard the adage, \"you learn something new every day.\" It\'s definitely true. Want to keep learning all sorts of interesting things?\r\n\r\n\"Now I Know\" is my free daily email where I share these things. No more than once a day. No spam. Things that I find genuinely interesting, such as:\r\n\r\n\r\nWe\'ve all heard the adage, \"you learn something new every day.\" It\'s definitely true. Want to keep learning all sorts of interesting things?\r\n\r\n\"Now I Know\" is my free daily email where I share these things. No more than once a day. No spam. Things that I find genuinely interesting, such as:\r\n\r\n\r\nWe\'ve all heard the adage, \"you learn something new every day.\" It\'s definitely true. Want to keep learning all sorts of interesting things?\r\n\r\n\"Now I Know\" is my free daily email where I share these things. No more than once a day. No spam. Things that I find genuinely interesting, such as:\r\n\r\n\r\nWe\'ve all heard the adage, \"you learn something new every day.\" It\'s definitely true. Want to keep learning all sorts of interesting things?\r\n\r\n\"Now I Know\" is my free daily email where I share these things. No more than once a day. No spam. Things that I find genuinely interesting, such as:\r\n\nI\'m a father, husband, Mets fan, and officially, a lawyer. I\'m a proud graduate of Tufts University and the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. This site and the other personal ones linked off of it are reflective of my personal views, and not necessarily that of my employer. Standard disclaimer, as it were.\r\n\r\nOh, my job?\r\n\r\nI\'m the Director of New Media Communications for Sesame Workshop, the non-profit organization which brings Sesame Street to the world (and, of specific importatnce to me, Twitter and Facebook). I am in charge of the organization\'s use of digital media for corporate communications purposes, which is a more formal way of saying that if it involves social media and/or the corporate website at Sesame Workshop, I\'m the guy to talk to. As a fringe benefit, I get to work with Cookie Monster and Grover and Elmo etc. It\'s awesome.\r\n\r\nBefore Sesame, I co-founded ArmchairGM, which I co-sold to Wikia. And before that, I was a practicing attorney at EpsteinBeckerGreen, which coincidentally has another attorney in the same office named Dan Lewis. (He is not me.) All of this, and more, can be found on my LinkedIn profile.\r\n\r\nHobbies?\r\n\r\nI\'m a die-hard Mets fan and have been since the early 1980s. I\'m a sports enthusiast generally, in fact, and spent a good portion of the early 2000s trying (and failing) to become a professional sports writer.\r\n\r\n\r\nI write a daily email called \"Now I Know,\" which you can sign up for over there on the right. Every morning, I share something interesting I\'ve learned over the last few weeks. For example, did you know that George Carlin narrated Thomas and Friends; polar bears are almost invisible under infrared light; Google uses goats as lawnmowers; and carrots, originally, were purple? You would have if you subscribed to my email list. (The whole archive? Here.)\r\n\r\nIn fact, the best way to reach me is by email -- dan.lewis@gmail.com. I typically respond to everything, but things fall through the proverbial cracks, so if you email me for some reason and I don\'t, just follow up with me.\r\n\r\n\r\nI\'m active on Twitter as @DanDotLewis and occasionally, I\'ll write a blog post. My last five posts can be found on the sidebar, and once I figure out how to put the headlines here, consider it done. I\'m also active at Amazin\' Avenue, an excellent Mets blog/community as well.\r\n\r\nMore about me? Really? OK.\r\n![\"\"](\"http://i.imgur.com/7RpW1.jpg\")
I\'m a father, husband, Mets fan, and officially, a lawyer. I\'m a proud graduate of Tufts University and the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. This site and the other personal ones linked off of it are reflective of my personal views, and not necessarily that of my employer. Standard disclaimer, as it were.\r\n\r\nOh, my job?\r\n\r\nI\'m the Director of New Media Communications for Sesame Workshop, the non-profit organization which brings Sesame Street to the world (and, of specific importance to me, Twitter and Facebook). I am in charge of the organization\'s use of digital media for corporate communications purposes, which is a more formal way of saying that if it involves social media and/or the corporate website at Sesame Workshop, I\'m the guy to talk to. As a fringe benefit, I get to work with Cookie Monster and Grover and Elmo etc. It\'s awesome.\r\n\r\nBefore Sesame, I co-founded ArmchairGM, which I co-sold to Wikia. And before that, I was a practicing attorney at EpsteinBeckerGreen, which coincidentally has another attorney in the same office named Dan Lewis. (He is not me.) All of this, and more, can be found on my LinkedIn profile.\r\n\r\nHobbies?\r\n\r\nI\'m a die-hard Mets fan and have been since the early 1980s. I\'m a sports enthusiast generally, in fact, and spent a good portion of the early 2000s trying (and failing) to become a professional sports writer.\r\n\r\n\r\nI write a daily email called \"Now I Know,\" which you can sign up for over there on the right. Every morning, I share something interesting I\'ve learned over the last few weeks. For example, did you know that George Carlin narrated Thomas and Friends; polar bears are almost invisible under infrared light; Google uses goats as lawnmowers; and carrots, originally, were purple? You would have if you subscribed to my email list. (The whole archive? Here.)\r\n\r\nIn fact, the best way to reach me is by email -- dan.lewis@gmail.com. I typically respond to everything, but things fall through the proverbial cracks, so if you email me for some reason and I don\'t, just follow up with me.\r\n\r\n\r\nI\'m active on Twitter as @DanDotLewis and occasionally, I\'ll write a blog post. My last five posts can be found on the sidebar, and once I figure out how to put the headlines here, consider it done. I\'m also active at Amazin\' Avenue, an excellent Mets blog/community as well.\r\n\r\nMore about me? Really? OK.\r\n\r\n\r\nWe\'ve all heard the adage \"you learn something new every day.\" It\'s definitely true. Want to keep learning all sorts of interesting things?\r\n\r\n\"Now I Know\" is my free daily email where I share these things. No more than once a day. No spam. Things that I find genuinely interesting, such as:\r\n\r\n\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nWe\'ve all heard the adage, \"you learn something new every day.\" It\'s definitely true. Want to keep learning all sorts of interesting things?\r\n\r\n\"Now I Know\" is my free daily email where I share these things. No more than once a day. No spam. Things that I find genuinely interesting, such as:\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nWe\'ve all heard the adage \"you learn something new every day.\" It\'s definitely true. Want to keep learning all sorts of interesting things?\r\n\r\n\"Now I Know\" is my free daily email where I share these things. No more than once a day. No spam. Things that I find genuinely interesting, such as:\r\n\n\nWe\'ve all heard the adage \"you learn something new every day.\" It\'s definitely true. Want to keep learning all sorts of interesting things?\n\n\"Now I Know\" is my free daily email where I share these things. No more than once a day. No spam. Things that I find genuinely interesting, such as:\n\r\n\r\nWe\'ve all heard the adage \"you learn something new every day.\" It\'s definitely true. Want to keep learning all sorts of interesting things?\r\n\r\n\"Now I Know\" is my free daily email where I share these things. No more than once a day. No spam. Things that I find genuinely interesting, such as:\r\n\r\n\r\nWe\'ve all heard the adage \"you learn something new every day.\" It\'s definitely true. Want to keep learning all sorts of interesting things?\r\n\r\n\"Now I Know\" is my free daily email where I share these things. No more than once a day. No spam. Things that I find genuinely interesting, such as:\r\n \r\nHi! Hope you’re having a great week! Here are five things we found recently that we wanted to share.\r\n\r\n![\"Super](\"https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/0607superheroes19che.jpg?w=840\") \r\n\r\nFirst up, here’s a story from over the summer that we absolutely love: A four year-old girl went to school dressed as Spider-Man and was teased because Spider-Man is a boy. The neighborhood responded with a preschool superhero parade in her honor. As one parent said, it\'s time to change the message: “If a boy likes Elsa or a girl likes Spider-Man, that’s OK. Every kid should love what they love.” Perfect.\r\n\r\n![\"\"](\"https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/XJvolJWSKaIQ9622ZhrllYKSslTiwNhEnwMj5kmtgn5HAC73ATjUBiMvJ1560DXRN8oExsTVVGhfw1RG2GjtbDI4SR_ORSWLp_SchE9Ktuxc-PnBVMEYiVHlLGX1HSZ-=s1600\") \r\n\r\nSomething more practical (and only slightly less awesome)? Let’s tackle stains. Kids can be messy -- from the backyard playdate to the spaghetti dinner, the battle between children and cleanliness is eternal and, let’s face it, a losing one for parents and caregivers. But never fear, Buzzfeed is here, with a chart and instructions for removing ten common stains from your clothes. It’s not quite as easy as making a pb&j sandwich, but it’s not as hard as you’d think.\r\n\r\n![\"healthy-school-lunch\"](\"http://cdn-image.realsimple.com/sites/default/files/styles/rs_main_image/public/school-lunch-fruit.jpg?itok=QgS8Uun3\") \r\n\r\nWhile we’re on the topic of food, Real Simple asked around and found out what registered dietitians pack in their kids’ lunch boxes. The “saved you a click” version (but you should really read the whole thing!): turkey (but choose the low-sodium version, please!) and swiss pinwheels, “carrot coins,” hummus, and some whole grain snack bars make the list; candy and stuff with corn syrup, not so much. And don’t fool yourself into thinking anything packed at home is better than the stuff on the lunch line -- Real Simple cites a 2014 study which found that packed lunches were “generally less nutritious than those offered by schools.” And while we’re on the topic, check out all of our recipes of child-friendly foods your kids will love to help make -- and eat! (We really like Elmo’s guac.)\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n Don\'t forget -- look for the Sesame Street deck in Ellen De Generes\' Heads Up! Pictures app! Click here to get it! \r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\nNext up: social media, privacy, and how we share our kids lives online. The Washington Post asks a question many of us struggle with: how much about our children should we be posting on Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest, and everywhere else? In this essay, a self-described “children’s rights advocate, photographer and mom” chimes in, and it’s a tough question -- she’s the first to admit that the question “haunts” her.\r\n\r\n ![\"\"](\"http://i.imgur.com/ZSG0Chz.jpg\") \r\n\r\nOn the other hand, what about our children’s media use? Our colleague here at Sesame Street, Michael Levine, is a lifelong educator and researcher who has been tackling that question. He and his co-author, Lisa Guernsey, the co-director of the Early Education Initiative and the Learning Technologies Project at New America, tackle the question in their new book, “Tap, Click, Read: Growing Readers in a World of Screens.” They talked to NPR about how parents and teachers are finding new ways to use TV, tablets, phones, and the like to encourage curiosity, exploration, critical thinking, and literacy. It’s worth reading through (and we’re not just saying that because we know Michael, promise!).\r\n\r\nAnd finally, let’s jump to a different topic: feelings. We all have them, and no one really wants to be sad -- but do we tell kids to hide what they’re feeling too often? The Washington Post tackles the question: when does being too positive about things become detrimental to our children? Here’s one example that really spoke to us:\r\nKids don’t require a classroom that’s relentlessly upbeat; they require a place where it’s safe to express whatever they’re feeling, even if at the moment that happens to be sadness or fear or anger. Bad feelings don’t vanish in an environment of mandatory cheer — they just get swept under the rug where people end up tripping over them, so to speak.\r\nIt’s a great point. As we’ve been saying for years, feelings are valid whether happy or sad, and we shouldn’t dismiss them. It’s how we act on them that counts.\r\n\r\nHave something we should share next week? Email us at socialsw@sesame.org -- and thanks! And thanks for reading. We’ll see you next week!\r\n\r\n \r\n
| \r\n
| \nHi! Hope you’re having a great week! Here are five things we found recently that we wanted to share.\n\n\n\nFirst up, here’s a story from over the summer that we absolutely love: A four year-old girl went to school dressed as Spider-Man and was teased because Spider-Man is a boy. The neighborhood responded with a preschool superhero parade in her honor. As one parent said, it\'s time to change the message: “If a boy likes Elsa or a girl likes Spider-Man, that’s OK. Every kid should love what they love.” Perfect.\n\n\n\nSomething more practical (and only slightly less awesome)? Let’s tackle stains. Kids can be messy -- from the backyard playdate to the spaghetti dinner, the battle between children and cleanliness is eternal and, let’s face it, a losing one for parents and caregivers. But never fear, Buzzfeed is here, with a chart and instructions for removing ten common stains from your clothes. It’s not quite as easy as making a pb&j sandwich, but it’s not as hard as you’d think.\n\n\n\nWhile we’re on the topic of food, Real Simple asked around and found out what registered dietitians pack in their kids’ lunch boxes. The “saved you a click” version (but you should really read the whole thing!): turkey (but choose the low-sodium version, please!) and swiss pinwheels, “carrot coins,” hummus, and some whole grain snack bars make the list; candy and stuff with corn syrup, not so much. And don’t fool yourself into thinking anything packed at home is better than the stuff on the lunch line -- Real Simple cites a 2014 study which found that packed lunches were “generally less nutritious than those offered by schools.” And while we’re on the topic, check out all of our recipes of child-friendly foods your kids will love to help make -- and eat! (We really like Elmo’s guac.)\n\n \n\n Don\'t forget -- look for the Sesame Street deck in Ellen De Generes\' Heads Up! Pictures app! Click here to get it! \n\n\n\n\nNext up: social media, privacy, and how we share our kids lives online. The Washington Post asks a question many of us struggle with: how much about our children should we be posting on Facebook, Instagram, Pinterest, and everywhere else? In this essay, a self-described “children’s rights advocate, photographer and mom” chimes in, and it’s a tough question -- she’s the first to admit that the question “haunts” her.\n\n \n\nOn the other hand, what about our children’s media use? Our colleague here at Sesame Street, Michael Levine, is a lifelong educator and researcher who has been tackling that question. He and his co-author, Lisa Guernsey, the co-director of the Early Education Initiative and the Learning Technologies Project at New America, tackle the question in their new book, “Tap, Click, Read: Growing Readers in a World of Screens.” They talked to NPR about how parents and teachers are finding new ways to use TV, tablets, phones, and the like to encourage curiosity, exploration, critical thinking, and literacy. It’s worth reading through (and we’re not just saying that because we know Michael, promise!).\n\nAnd finally, let’s jump to a different topic: feelings. We all have them, and no one really wants to be sad -- but do we tell kids to hide what they’re feeling too often? The Washington Post tackles the question: when does being too positive about things become detrimental to our children? Here’s one example that really spoke to us:\nKids don’t require a classroom that’s relentlessly upbeat; they require a place where it’s safe to express whatever they’re feeling, even if at the moment that happens to be sadness or fear or anger. Bad feelings don’t vanish in an environment of mandatory cheer — they just get swept under the rug where people end up tripping over them, so to speak.\nIt’s a great point. As we’ve been saying for years, feelings are valid whether happy or sad, and we shouldn’t dismiss them. It’s how we act on them that counts.\n\nHave something we should share next week? Email us at socialsw@sesame.org -- and thanks! And thanks for reading. We’ll see you next week!\n\n \n
I\'m a father, husband, Mets fan, and officially, a lawyer. I\'m a proud graduate of Tufts University and the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. This site and the other personal ones linked off of it are reflective of my personal views, and not necessarily that of my employer. Standard disclaimer, as it were.\r\n\r\nOh, my job?\r\n\r\nI\'m the Director of New Media Communications for Sesame Workshop, the non-profit organization which brings Sesame Street to the world (and, of specific importatnce to me, Twitter and Facebook). I am in charge of the organization\'s use of digital media for corporate communications purposes, which is a more formal way of saying that if it involves social media and/or the corporate website at Sesame Workshop, I\'m the guy to talk to. As a fringe benefit, I get to work with Cookie Monster and Grover and Elmo etc. It\'s awesome.\r\n\r\nBefore Sesame, I co-founded ArmchairGM, which I co-sold to Wikia. And before that, I was a practicing attorney at EpsteinBeckerGreen, which coincidentally has another attorney in the same office named Dan Lewis. (He is not me.) All of this, and more, can be found on my LinkedIn profile.\r\n\r\nHobbies?\r\n\r\nI\'m a die-hard Mets fan and have been since the early 1980s. I\'m a sports enthusiast generally, in fact, and spent a good portion of the early 2000s trying (and failing) to become a professional sports writer.\r\n\r\n\r\nI write a daily email called \"Now I Know,\" which you can sign up for over there on the right. Every morning, I share something interesting I\'ve learned over the last few weeks. For example, did you know that George Carlin narrated Thomas and Friends; polar bears are almost invisible under infrared light; Google uses goats as lawnmowers; and carrots, originally, were purple? You would have if you subscribed to my email list. (The whole archive? Here.)\r\n\r\nIn fact, the best way to reach me is by email -- dan.lewis@gmail.com. I typically respond to everything, but things fall through the proverbial cracks, so if you email me for some reason and I don\'t, just follow up with me.\r\n\r\n\r\nI\'m active on Twitter as @DanDotLewis and occasionally, I\'ll write a blog post. My last five posts can be found on the sidebar, and once I figure out how to put the headlines here, consider it done. I\'m also active at Amazin\' Avenue, an excellent Mets blog/community as well.\r\n\r\nMore about me? Really? OK.\r\n
I\'m a father, husband, Mets fan, and officially, a lawyer. I\'m a proud graduate of Tufts University and the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. This site and the other personal ones linked off of it are reflective of my personal views, and not necessarily that of my employer. Standard disclaimer, as it were.\r\n\r\nOh, my job?\r\n\r\nI\'m the Director of New Media Communications for Sesame Workshop, the non-profit organization which brings Sesame Street to the world (and, of specific importance to me, Twitter and Facebook). I am in charge of the organization\'s use of digital media for corporate communications purposes, which is a more formal way of saying that if it involves social media and/or the corporate website at Sesame Workshop, I\'m the guy to talk to. As a fringe benefit, I get to work with Cookie Monster and Grover and Elmo etc. It\'s awesome.\r\n\r\nBefore Sesame, I co-founded ArmchairGM, which I co-sold to Wikia. And before that, I was a practicing attorney at EpsteinBeckerGreen, which coincidentally has another attorney in the same office named Dan Lewis. (He is not me.) All of this, and more, can be found on my LinkedIn profile.\r\n\r\nHobbies?\r\n\r\nI\'m a die-hard Mets fan and have been since the early 1980s. I\'m a sports enthusiast generally, in fact, and spent a good portion of the early 2000s trying (and failing) to become a professional sports writer.\r\n\r\n\r\nI write a daily email called \"Now I Know,\" which you can sign up for over there on the right. Every morning, I share something interesting I\'ve learned over the last few weeks. For example, did you know that George Carlin narrated Thomas and Friends; polar bears are almost invisible under infrared light; Google uses goats as lawnmowers; and carrots, originally, were purple? You would have if you subscribed to my email list. (The whole archive? Here.)\r\n\r\nIn fact, the best way to reach me is by email -- dan.lewis@gmail.com. I typically respond to everything, but things fall through the proverbial cracks, so if you email me for some reason and I don\'t, just follow up with me.\r\n\r\n\r\nI\'m active on Twitter as @DanDotLewis and occasionally, I\'ll write a blog post. My last five posts can be found on the sidebar, and once I figure out how to put the headlines here, consider it done. I\'m also active at Amazin\' Avenue, an excellent Mets blog/community as well.\r\n\r\nMore about me? Really? OK.\r\n
\r\nNow I Know: The Archives\r\nNot yet a subscriber? Subscribe to get these in your email inbox, every day, for free!\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n ','Now I Know: The Archives ',0,'','inherit','open','open','','440-revision-17','','','2010-08-17 16:50:09','2010-08-17 20:50:09','',440,'http://dlewis.net/2010/08/17/440-revision-17/',0,'revision','',0),(543,1,'2011-06-04 13:21:56','2011-06-04 17:21:56','If that\'s what you\'re looking for, you probably want to go to my email newsletter, not this tumbleweed-filled blog. Thanks!','Learn Something New Every Day',0,'','inherit','open','open','','542-revision','','','2011-06-04 13:21:56','2011-06-04 17:21:56','',542,'http://dlewis.net/2011/06/04/542-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(540,1,'2010-12-27 12:48:35','2010-12-27 17:48:35','\r\nNow I Know: The Archives\r\nNot yet a subscriber? Subscribe to get these in your email inbox, every day, for free!\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n ','Now I Know: The Archives ',0,'','inherit','open','open','','440-revision-19','','','2010-12-27 12:48:35','2010-12-27 17:48:35','',440,'http://dlewis.net/2010/12/27/440-revision-19/',0,'revision','',0),(542,1,'2011-06-04 13:23:00','2011-06-04 17:23:00','If that\'s what you\'re looking for, you probably want to go to my daily email newsletter, not this tumbleweed-infested left-for-dead blog.\r\nThanks, and hope to see you there!','Learn Something New Every Day',0,'','publish','open','open','','learn-something-new-every-day','','','2011-06-04 13:23:00','2011-06-04 17:23:00','',0,'http://dlewis.net/?p=542',0,'post','',0),(541,1,'2010-12-27 12:49:03','2010-12-27 17:49:03','\r\nNow I Know: The Archives\r\nNot yet a subscriber? Subscribe to get these in your email inbox, every day, for free!\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n ','Now I Know: The Archives ',0,'','inherit','open','open','','440-revision-20','','','2010-12-27 12:49:03','2010-12-27 17:49:03','',440,'http://dlewis.net/2010/12/27/440-revision-20/',0,'revision','',0),(552,1,'2012-05-02 21:03:05','2012-05-03 01:03:05','Try http://nowiknow.com/feed/','Now I Know RSS',0,'','publish','closed','closed','','now-i-know-rss','','','2012-05-02 21:03:09','2012-05-03 01:03:09','',0,'http://dlewis.net/?p=552',0,'post','',0),(553,1,'2012-05-02 21:02:43','2012-05-03 01:02:43','','Auto Draft',0,'','inherit','closed','closed','','552-revision','','','2012-05-02 21:02:43','2012-05-03 01:02:43','',552,'http://dlewis.net/2012/05/02/552-revision/',0,'revision','',0),(554,1,'2012-05-02 21:03:05','2012-05-03 01:03:05','Try http://nowiknow.com/feed/','Now I Know RSS',0,'','inherit','closed','closed','','552-revision-2','','','2012-05-02 21:03:05','2012-05-03 01:03:05','',552,'http://dlewis.net/2012/05/02/552-revision-2/',0,'revision','',0),(561,1,'2015-10-27 13:39:31','0000-00-00 00:00:00','
I\'m a father, husband, Mets fan, and officially, a lawyer. I\'m a proud graduate of Tufts University and the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. This site and the other personal ones linked off of it are reflective of my personal views, and not necessarily that of my employer. Standard disclaimer, as it were.\r\n\r\nOh, my job?\r\n\r\nI\'m the Director of New Media Communications for Sesame Workshop, the non-profit organization which brings Sesame Street to the world (and, of specific importance to me, Twitter and Facebook). I am in charge of the organization\'s use of digital media for corporate communications purposes, which is a more formal way of saying that if it involves social media and/or the corporate website at Sesame Workshop, I\'m the guy to talk to. As a fringe benefit, I get to work with Cookie Monster and Grover and Elmo etc. It\'s awesome.\r\n\r\nBefore Sesame, I co-founded ArmchairGM, which I co-sold to Wikia. And before that, I was a practicing attorney at EpsteinBeckerGreen, which coincidentally has another attorney in the same office named Dan Lewis. (He is not me.) All of this, and more, can be found on my LinkedIn profile.\r\n\r\nHobbies?\r\n\r\nI\'m a die-hard Mets fan and have been since the early 1980s. I\'m a sports enthusiast generally, in fact, and spent a good portion of the early 2000s trying (and failing) to become a professional sports writer.\r\n\r\n\r\nI write a daily email called \"Now I Know,\" which you can sign up for over there on the right. Every morning, I share something interesting I\'ve learned over the last few weeks. For example, did you know that George Carlin narrated Thomas and Friends; polar bears are almost invisible under infrared light; Google uses goats as lawnmowers; and carrots, originally, were purple? You would have if you subscribed to my email list. (The whole archive? Here.)\r\n\r\nIn fact, the best way to reach me is by email -- dan.lewis@gmail.com. I typically respond to everything, but things fall through the proverbial cracks, so if you email me for some reason and I don\'t, just follow up with me.\r\n\r\n\r\nI\'m active on Twitter as @DanDotLewis and occasionally, I\'ll write a blog post. My last five posts can be found on the sidebar, and once I figure out how to put the headlines here, consider it done. I\'m also active at Amazin\' Avenue, an excellent Mets blog/community as well.\r\n\r\nMore about me? Really? OK.\r\n
I\'m a father, husband, Mets fan, and officially, a lawyer. I\'m a proud graduate of Tufts University and the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. This site and the other personal ones linked off of it are reflective of my personal views, and not necessarily that of my employer. Standard disclaimer, as it were.\r\n\r\nOh, my job?\r\n\r\nI\'m the Director of New Media Communications for Sesame Workshop, the non-profit organization which brings Sesame Street to the world (and, of specific importance to me, Twitter and Facebook). I am in charge of the organization\'s use of digital media for corporate communications purposes, which is a more formal way of saying that if it involves social media and/or the corporate website at Sesame Workshop, I\'m the guy to talk to. As a fringe benefit, I get to work with Cookie Monster and Grover and Elmo etc. It\'s awesome.\r\n\r\nBefore Sesame, I co-founded ArmchairGM, which I co-sold to Wikia. And before that, I was a practicing attorney at EpsteinBeckerGreen, which coincidentally has another attorney in the same office named Dan Lewis. (He is not me.) All of this, and more, can be found on my LinkedIn profile.\r\n\r\nHobbies?\r\n\r\nI\'m a die-hard Mets fan and have been since the early 1980s. I\'m a sports enthusiast generally, in fact, and spent a good portion of the early 2000s trying (and failing) to become a professional sports writer.\r\n\r\n\r\nI write a daily email called \"Now I Know,\" which you can sign up for over there on the right. Every morning, I share something interesting I\'ve learned over the last few weeks. For example, did you know that George Carlin narrated Thomas and Friends; polar bears are almost invisible under infrared light; Google uses goats as lawnmowers; and carrots, originally, were purple? You would have if you subscribed to my email list. (The whole archive? Here.)\r\n\r\nIn fact, the best way to reach me is by email -- dan.lewis@gmail.com. I typically respond to everything, but things fall through the proverbial cracks, so if you email me for some reason and I don\'t, just follow up with me.\r\n\r\n\r\nI\'m active on Twitter as @DanDotLewis and occasionally, I\'ll write a blog post. My last five posts can be found on the sidebar, and once I figure out how to put the headlines here, consider it done. I\'m also active at Amazin\' Avenue, an excellent Mets blog/community as well.\r\n\r\nMore about me? Really? OK.\r\n
|
![\"\"](\"http://i.imgur.com/WTYX040.png\")
![Pee-Wee Herman once tweeted about it](\"http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/tumblr_lzmb6laSvp1qzrh81o1_1280.png\"){kind=link}
![forehead](\"http://dlewis.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/tumblr_m6ya2mhKw01qzrh81o1_1280.png\"){kind=link}