Is Farcebook repeating Myspace mistakes?

interesting excerpts:


Myspace
Myspace did everything itself. "We tried to create every feature in the world and said, 'O.K., we can do it, why should we let a third party do it?' " says DeWolfe. "We should have picked 5 to 10 key features that we totally focused on and let other people innovate on everything else."

Some ideas, such as classifieds, represented real business opportunities, DeWolfe says, but didn't get enough manpower. Others, such as karaoke, were niche products that diverted energy from less glamorous, more practical concerns. " ...... Gold says. "We went with a lot of products that were shallow and not the best products in the world."

Farcebook:
“Our mission is to get everyone in the world interacting with Facebook.... Platform is trying to help every site or app a person comes into contact with be more social and personal to a user. We are trying to build Facebook in some way into every single website people visit as most sites are anything but socially enabled,” he explained."

Excerpt sources:
Myspace: http://www.businessweek.com/print/magazine/content/11_27/b4235053917570.htm

Farcebook:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/facebook/8592132/Inside-Facebook-HQ-future-proofing-the-social-network.html

I don't care about climate change, but I want to cut pollution

Last night I watched Q&A (ABCTV  ) because the Katter Hat was on, and watched with interest his viewpoints on the live animal exports mess.  I’ll post my reaction to his commetns below*. Then the debate moved to climate change AGAIN…..  AGAIN and again the debate centres on whether or not our climate is changing as the government hires expert after expert to prepare reports on it.  But the question should not be ‘Is the climate changing?’ – that’s where the Coalition wants the debate centred. It stalls in phase one, it’s never ever going to progress from there.  The real question is ‘Should we all cut our pollution?’.  This makes the answer obvious – Yes.  It’s a no brainer, regardless of climate change. Following from that is ‘what steps can we take to cut pollution?’ and the carbon tax is one step.  

Why does the Coalition want to question the existence of climate change? Because it stalls any response to climate change.  The Coalition tends to be aligned with those who control society, the dominant incumbents, generally big business.  Dominant incumbents typically don’t want change, because change challenges their control of society, or the spheres of society they control.  Incumbents will typically stall change (using for example, levers such as regulatory lobbying, paying (questionable) ‘experts’ from the other side of the world to do a talk tour of Australia to spread their propaganda) until they figure out how they can maintain control in a changed environment, and THEN, and only then does change occur, while they maintain control. In the meantime, the Coalition stalls the debate.

This is all very basic and obvious. So why does the debate over the existence of climate change continue? I don't get it.

Simply ask ‘do we want to cut pollution?’.  The obvious answer is yes, everyone would say yes, but the dominant incumbents would then say ‘yes but at what cost’ and argue about jobs etc.  Whereas a change to green energy sources would not cut jobs, it just changes jobs. It changes jobs for the better – for example I’d rather work in wind energy than a coal mine.  Society needs to transition to cut pollution quickly, given the increasing negative forecasts on our future.  

To quote from the LogLady of Twin Peaks:

Complications set in--yes, complications.  How many times have we heard: 'it's simple'.  Nothing is simple.  We live in a world where nothing is simple.  Each day, just when we think we have a handle on things, suddenly some new element is introduced and everything is complicated once again. .... What is the secret?  What is the secret to simplicity, to the pure and simple life?  Are our appetites, our desires undermining us?  Is the cart in front of the horse? .... Is life like a game of chess?  Are our present moves important for future success?  I think so.  We paint our future with every present brush stroke.

* I’ve written heaps elsewhere in the last fortnight to support a live animal export ban, of all live animals to all countries.  Long distance transport of live animals intended for slaughter is inhumane, full stop.  Kill locally, quickly.  I won’t regurgitate what I've written here, but a quick response to Katter’s comments on Q&A last night: he said abattoirs can't open in north Australia because the need for them is seasonal - but so is fruit picking. And he contradicted himself in saying abattoirs are expensive but then repeated 'all that's needed is a belt and pulley' or similar. He made a valid point about refrigeration in Indonesia, but I suspect frozen meat goes off a lot slower than fresh.