[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message]

RE: The Best Technologies Don't Win

• To: xml-dev@l...
• Subject: RE: The Best Technologies Don't Win
• From: Eric van der Vlist <vdv@d...>
• Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2006 17:34:38 +0200
• In-reply-to: <7411F30464DC9C479FB14CFD348D71D9869D00@U...>
• Organization: Dyomedea (http://dyomedea.com)
• References: <7411F30464DC9C479FB14CFD348D71D9869D00@U...>

Your demonstration is probably brillant, but I still don't get the
point. My question was simpler: how can a technology win if there is no
winners and losers?

I really think we should stop this thread that is going nowhere and
won't continue to answer.

Sorry.

Eric

Le lundi 10 juillet 2006 à 10:22 -0500, Bullard, Claude L (Len) a
écrit :
> Because of locales and force vectors as locales over time in an
> environment.   To steer a market, the direct path is the most
> expensive.  Why don't the best win?  That was Ayn Rand's dilemma.
> Regardless of whether or not one subscribes to her social agenda, some
> of her conclusions relate well to the current web zeitgeist.
> 
> 1)  There is an inverse relationship among the numbers of subjective
> views and objective implementations.  A Many To One relationship is
> classically chaotic.
> 
> 2)  At the end of "Atlas Shrugged", Rand makes the point that
> innovation is done in small teams in isolated locales to offset the
> averaging effect of large social forces mediated through small groups
> of appointed or self-appointed but mediocre authorities.   
> 
> The effect is discomfiting for some:  most of the evolutionary
> direction comes from sources that are almost invisible.  (If you like,
> the illuminati do exist but they don't party together in robes; they
> barely know each other if at all). The other discomfiting effect is
> that if, for example, you are in a company that has a 'special circle
> of top performers selected by the employees', you may want to route
> around these people if innovation is your goal.  If stability is your
> goal, you promote ideas through them.  It is the American Idol effect.
> 
> In chaos theory, weak signals presage emergence because strong signals
> are heavily filtered.  If you want a technology to dominate, keep it
> small until just before you launch it but monitor the environment very
> precisely.  Listening is everything.  Timing is everything else.
> 
> len
> 
> From: Eric van der Vlist [mailto:vdv@d...] 
> 
> Le lundi 10 juillet 2006 à 08:43 -0500, Bullard, Claude L (Len) a
> écrit :
> > There are no winners and losers.  
> 
> Good, this is the first time we do agree.
> 
> But why this title "The Best Technologies Don't Win" and this trailing
> sentence "Chalk up another win for objectivism." in your post that
> started this thread, then?
> 
> 
-- 
GPG-PGP: 2A528005
If you have a XML document, you have its schema.
                                                  http://examplotron.org
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Eric van der Vlist       http://xmlfr.org            http://dyomedea.com
(ISO) RELAX NG   ISBN:0-596-00421-4 http://oreilly.com/catalog/relax
(W3C) XML Schema ISBN:0-596-00252-1 http://oreilly.com/catalog/xmlschema
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ceci est une partie de message=?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: The Best Technologies Don't Win
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L \(Len\)" <len.bullard@i...>

• References:
  • RE: The Best Technologies Don't Win
    • From: "Bullard, Claude L \(Len\)" <len.bullard@i...>

• Prev by Date: Re: The Best Technologies Don't Win
• Next by Date: RE: The Best Technologies Don't Win
• Previous by thread: RE: The Best Technologies Don't Win
• Next by thread: RE: The Best Technologies Don't Win
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread