Searching for the 3D tipping point. I’ve already posited that brand following is a key factor, so how about these others as a starter for 10: Is a monolithic 3D web something that is just not going to happen - as, why would it? 3D serves niche purposes it’s not like text and hyperlinking which is pretty universal. What we will have is what we have now, a set of point applications that just happen to share one characteristic – that they utilize what appears to be a 3D virtual world that can be navigated by various representations of the user. The optimal state is a set of such applications each of which is optimized for its given use; the only monolith that may exist is possibly a middle ware platform on which many of these are built. To give a view, rather than posing homework questions for you good readers, I’m going to go for kind of a middle road, no I just re-wrote this - I’m going to say that a 3D standard will emerge.
Comments on Searching for the 3D tipping point : Posted Oct 17, 2006 4:22:28 PM | link Now... --Bart. XM : エクストリーム・ミーティング. Perpetual traveler. The term perpetual traveller, or occasionally perpetual traveler in American English, (also PT, permanent tourist or prior taxpayer) refers to both a lifestyle and a philosophy. Background[edit] By lacking a legal permanent residence status, they seek to avoid the legal obligations which may accompany residency, such as income and asset taxes, social security contributions, jury duty and military service.
For example, while PTs may hold citizenship in one or more countries that impose taxes based solely on residency, their legal residence will most likely be in a tax haven. PTs may spend the majority of their time in other countries, never staying long enough to be considered a resident. Rationale[edit] Some PTs are wealthy individuals whose primary motivation is tax avoidance. For example, most European countries allow tourists to spend up to three months (and in some cases six months) in the country without being considered a resident or being required to file a local tax return. Seth's Blog: 1840s democracy. 150 years ago, we had pretty much settled on all of the protocols and conventions of the American democractic system. We had figured out the steps and rules of electing a president. Before radio, before TV.Before planes or cars.Before computers or voting machines.Before YouTube.
Since mass democracy is essentially an exercise in communication and marketing, the fact that this essential process is frozen in time is a problem. Here's a few why not questions: Why not have six-hour long debates, and do them once a week on Cspan, with the highlights diced and sliced and put on any number of online or offline channels? Why not use a chess clock style timing device so that each candidate can be free to answer a question for as long as she likes, but each candidate enters the debate with exactly the same amount of time to allocate? The relevant lesson for you, even if you're not an active citizen or if you live elsewhere? Versatilist. A Versatilist is someone who can be a specialist for a particular discipline, while at the same time be able to change to another role with the same ease. The term "versatilist" was first coined in an article from Gartner, where it states: "Versatilists are able to apply a depth of skill to a progressively widening scope of situations and experiences, equally at ease with technical issues as with business strategy.
" It is to the advantage of an organization to employ versatilists—because an enterprise will be able to easily redeploy this type of employee based on changes in business requirements or strategy. To illustrate this using a mathematical concept, the versitilist has a higher area under the curve rating. Think of a person having some level of knowledge/experience in 15 knowledge areas.
This breadth of knowledge and experience is what enables faster changes to other roles. Also Known As[edit] References[edit] OpenSubject──メールによる会議を可能にする技法 - ITmedia Biz.ID. 正式な議論の代表格は「会議」だが、忙しいビジネスパーソンの間で会議に次ぐ議論、コミュニケーションの手段として活用されているのが、言わずと知れたメールだ。 しかし、メールによる議論は、最適化や効率化が全く進んでいない。 それぞれの人が自分なりの「問題が起きにくい方法」を漠然と実行しているのが実情だろう。 最近ではソフトウェア開発で使われるバグトラッキングシステム「Trac」や、議事録ベースの会議支援システム「Sargasso XM」などの導入によってシステム化が進み、メールでの議論や相談は、社内では減りつつある。
実際、筆者が勤めるコミュニティーエンジンでも、各プロジェクトチームの会議や相談がメールベースで行われることはほとんどなく、単なる連絡や報告用に使われている。 連絡や報告に関してもTracやSalesForceなどのシステムがそれを吸収しようとしている。 しかし、そのようなツールを共有していない社外の人たちとの議論には、メールが不可欠である。 なぜメールでの議論は難しいのか？ メールでの議論を困難にしている要因はいくつもある。 最大の問題は、「言外の情報」「行間の情報」を伝える手段が存在しないことだ。 メールではこれらがすべて省略されていて、利用可能なメタデータが少ない。 いわば、会議では無意識に付け加えていたメタデータによって、“意味の明確化”が図られてていたいたわけだ。 これが最も顕著に現れるのが、メールサブジェクトの一覧画面──スレッド表示のときだ。 上記アーカイブでは、長く続くスレッドが頻繁に発生しているが、一体どのような議論が行われたのか、同じサブジェクトが連続しているため、全く想像することができない。 XM──eXtreme Meeting：究極の会議の視点からメールを見る 対面での会議を効果的に実行するための技法「eXtreme Meeting：究極の会議」（XM）にある15のプラクティスを、メールに当てはめてみると、メールを使った議論の課題が明確に浮かび上がってくる。 XMが提唱している15のプラクティスのうち、メールを使った議論で実現できていない最も重要な点は、「7──意味の明確化」だ。
このプラクティスをメールでの議論でも実現することで、状況を大きく改善する可能性を持っている。 OpenSubject OpenSubjectは、英語をベースとしたプラクティスである。 A City Is Not A Tree. It’s a moment of disorientation I’ve had a couple of times — you find a great piece of writing, and think “Wow, this is really going to change things!” , only to discover that it is in fact decades old. The clash of historical vertigo with Internet Now is both wonderful and daunting. I had that moment yesterday with Christopher Alexander’s A City Is Not A Tree from 1965.
Alexander argues that the hallmark of designed cities (Mesa City, Brasilia) is that their builders invariably gravitate to tree-structures, where all sub-units of a similar type roll-up into a single super-unit, und so weiter, which creates an artificial and ultimately damaging simplification. He contrasts this with the structure of organic cites (London, NYC), which are organized as semi-lattices, where overlap and shared function is the order of the day.
The enormity of this restriction is difficult to grasp. Go. Www.textfile.org - Tracの重要度記述. ArcleModelling. This is a discussion fork from AlternativesToHierarchy, describing a new way to look at the graph / diagramming / thought mapping problem. It should lead to “next generation mind mapping” tools. Currently it’s not more than insight and the final concept. Sketches to come. Feedback, collaboration and co-ownership invited. I would be interested to elaborate this in the community and find collaboration to put this into a “OS Java applet for wiki” project to make this generally available in our everyday work. The idea started from experienced problems with diagramming and data structures, the dichotomy between vertices (“arcs”) and nodes (“circles”) and their corresponding record structure implementations. Experiences over the course of 25 years of programming and thinking. .
– HelmutLeitner The Simple Idea There is only one element, the “Arcle” which can fill the role of an node or vertex (object or relation, box or connection) at will. Symbol and Philosphy The Name Data Structure The Goal Wiki ? ? ? ?
Frameworks Exist for Conceptual Integrity. Isn't the idea of doing things a great one? It sure great, but it's too simplistic a view. Chapter 4 of my copy of has a permanant bookmark now: it is the chapter about conceptual integrity, and after rereading it this weekend, I've finally figured out that conceptual integrity is what continues to frustrate me about Pylons. When there is no conceptual integrity, a product is unusable as the basis of further programming, and a product with no conceptual integrity is fundamentally incomparable to one that does. Brooks says as much in the very first chapter - in fact, on the first page: One occasionally reads newspaper accounts of how two programmers in a remodeled garage have built an important program that surpasses the best efforts of large teams.
A lot of things have changed since Brooks wrote those words, but I'm continually amazed at how accurate they remain. But these things are, as trivializing as it sounds to say it, commodities. These are not trivial issues. E.B. Mamihlapinatapai. The word Mamihlapinatapai (sometimes spelled mamihlapinatapei) is derived from the Yaghan language of Tierra del Fuego, listed in The Guinness Book of World Records as the "most succinct word", and is considered[by whom?] One of the hardest words to translate. It allegedly refers to "a look shared by two people, each wishing that the other will offer something that they both desire but are unwilling to suggest or offer themselves. "[1] A slightly different interpretation of the meaning also exists: "It is that look across the table when two people are sharing an unspoken but private moment.
When each knows the other understands and is in agreement with what is being expressed. An expressive and meaningful silence. It is also referenced in Defining the World in a discussion of the difficulties facing Samuel Johnson in trying to arrive at succinct, yet accurate, definitions of words.[5] In popular culture[edit] References[edit] Jump up ^ Peter Matthews, Norris McWhirter.
Reactee - - Cause a Reaction (shirts that text back)