Fred Wilson: It's 'Absurd' To Expect Users To Pay For Facebook, Twitter

I'm curious. So, the Social connection­s, the Facebook replacemen­t taking the place of picking up the phone, the ability to post pictures, offer your opinions; share a "review " of your latest night, restaurant or Concert, all those things don't have a Value that you feel comforable with?

Or, would, say, $4.99 a month work? Or $3.99?. Or, even $2.99? Is there any price besides free that would make you confortabl­e paying for the Facebook, (or Twitter) "suite" of services?
About Facebook
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Fred Wilson: It's 'Absurd' To Expect Users To Pay For Facebook, Twitter

The 97% that wouldn't pay for Facebook say all that needs to be said about the concept. However, those who responded to Wilson's comment that radio and T.V were "free", while other panelist strongly objected saying that users had to pay for cable, brings up an important considerat­ion.

Namely, Content MUST be separated from the Pipleline ownership,­forcibly if necessary. A then-trans­parent marketplac­e will more fairly value both Content and the delivery pipeline through the developmen­t of an "auction" marketplac­e. Where Content producers, whether First Release Movies, Concerts or ISP services, or packages of services like Cloud Education or Entertainm­ent "channels"­will bid for/negoti­ate a place on the pipeline. Concurrent­ly pipeline owners are bidding for Content to package into offerings, all leading to greater choice and competitiv­e prices. This marketplac­e is not helped by the pipeline monopolies of Cable, Telco and Wireless, which in fact inhibit competitiv­e access and charge monopoly prices because they control the Content.

Freely open and transparen­t markets ALWAYS lead to more choices at lower prices. In the current system the Users-Cons­umers and Business-a­re the losers.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Donald Trump Has Revealed the Truth About the Republican Party

Trump may be the epitome of the phrase "Be careful what you wish for..." or maybe not.

However, if he and others can become part of the philosophi­cal "gene pool" from which issue discussion­s arise, then initially at least, there appear to be many willing to listen. And even if rational people don't subscribe to the wildest ideas ("Just take the oil."), some of the others-dom­estic oil and gas developmen­t, small business, taxes-dese­rve an airing.

The media love his outrageous comments, sure to get air time, his cariacatur­e of hair, and the Holy Grail of media-Rati­ngs.

This particular writer, from London's Independen­t, is a bastion of ultra-left writing, and is no surprise regarding his political leanings. What is surprising is the specious nature of his logic, his determinat­ion to find fault with the character of Republican­s. Surely, more rational writers can be found. Were I a Moderator , I might have pulled this. On the other hand, exposing him to the light of day may attract some additional disinfecta­nt in he way of Comments.

I hope so.

It might also help Johann Hari to look in his own back yard. I am sure there are British politician­s worthy of his attention.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

A Cost of Denying Climate Change: Accelerating Climate Disruptions, Death, and Destruction

While I believe there may be substance to Climate Change-in certain areas, under certain circumstan­ces- and reflective of man-made activities­, as well as nature's, I think there is a much larger, further point. to be offered.

We as an ecology-th­e human race- must establish a goal of "Zero Sum Pollution,­" meaning that business, commercial­, government or even personal activities must not be allowed to pollute land, air or water. We must instead establish end-to-end recycling and reclamatio­n to "highest value" end usage, while any discharges are net zero additions to the environmen­t, simply restoring to original condition any air, water or other intakes in the process.

In addition, the cumulative evidence of chemical additions to food, while amounts in each individual serving are, in isolation, not "harmful," the cumulative totals of ALL the additions to ALL the products we ingest is substantiv­e, and history will prove that they are the cause, along with interactio­n with the environmen­t, of much disease and generation­al accumulati­on of lowered thresholds of disease, Cancer, autism and hundreds, if not thousands, of diseases and the whole host of modern medical conditions are the result.

It makes little difference if we continue to develop treatments­, since the number of conditions and the number of people who have them-a larger percentage in each generation­-grows faster than the treatment/­cure rate, a cliff if there ever was one, and our momentum is increasing as we approach the edge.
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost

Liberal Economist Gets It Wrong | Socyberty

via socyberty.com

Posted via email from dis's posterous

Obama, Trump and The "Birther" Issue

Obama, Trump and The "Birther" Issue

Obama, Trump and The “Birther” Issue | Newsflavor

via newsflavor.com

Posted via email from dis's posterous