Who is Most Influential?(time.com)
time.com
Who is Most Influential?
http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1725112_1726934_1726935,00.html
10 comments
Ugh. Completely unrelated to the actual content -- why, oh why, do people take a simple thing like static tabular data, and make a Flash object out of it? Why? Now it doesn't scroll like anything else does, and in exchange for losing the ability to scroll-wheel through the list, I get ... nothing.
Plus I can't open a link in a new tab. Although, to be fair, flash does discourage bots, which is important for a fair poll.
Then make voting a flash-only feature (not that I think it's a good idea to do it).
The most annoying "feature" of flash in this case is that you can't search [for Paul Graham] in the text.
Flash is good for embedding videos, animating stuff, etc. It's terrible for text and navigation, as the accessibility is next to none.
The most annoying "feature" of flash in this case is that you can't search [for Paul Graham] in the text.
Flash is good for embedding videos, animating stuff, etc. It's terrible for text and navigation, as the accessibility is next to none.
With all respect for Paul Graham I don't think he deserves a place on this list. Steve Jobs is 195 and Nelson Mandela is 192.
Just putting this out there...Paris Hilton hit #173, Amy Winehouse was #174.
Maybe if YC replaced PG with a young substance abusing woman it would be more popular with the media.
Maybe if YC replaced PG with a young substance abusing woman it would be more popular with the media.
When "High School Musical Cast" is #42, we've obviously got bigger problems.
I was surprised to see Steve Jobs and Nelson Mandela at the end, IMHO they should be way higher. Most of the people on the list I really do not know. I recognized a few artists, but thats all. The pope is number 74, I suppose there are only 1,131,000,000 catholics in the world.
Somewhere below the Dalai Lama...and all those other people.
Of course, we should take this very seriously, since number 2 right now (and the landslide winner last year), is someone by the name of "Rain" who is apparently a pop sensation (and obviously incredibly influential) in Korea or some other place where "pop sensation" really means something--not like our namby pamby pop sensations here in the States.
I think it's safe to say that Time Magazine is thoroughly on the right path when it comes to user generated content.
Of course, we should take this very seriously, since number 2 right now (and the landslide winner last year), is someone by the name of "Rain" who is apparently a pop sensation (and obviously incredibly influential) in Korea or some other place where "pop sensation" really means something--not like our namby pamby pop sensations here in the States.
I think it's safe to say that Time Magazine is thoroughly on the right path when it comes to user generated content.
That's why Bono and Bruce Springsteen are #11 and #12 respectively?
Never mind Paul Graham, where is Rick Astley?
Damn, I thought this was some new line of children's books.
This is only a measure of influence amongst Time magazine readers. This is the same magazine that made Hitler man of the year:
http://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauMemorial/TimeCover.html
I wouldn't take it seriously.
http://www.scrapbookpages.com/DachauMemorial/TimeCover.html
I wouldn't take it seriously.
Time's Man of the Year was not originally an endorsement. It was simply the person who'd affected the news most that year. Since a significant number of readers continued to misinterpret it as an endorsement, Time eventually gave in and made it one. But that was much later.
That title just seems like voting-bait. Could have just said what the contents of that article are.
Hey! Someone changed the title of this submission. It is supposed to read "Where's Paul Graham?"
he is still in beta. open beta, but beta none the less. When his brand of influence is bought by the market he'll be on the list.