The comments identifying the parts that Cluetrain got "wrong" and the ones stating it "failed" prove only one thing to me...
TCM didn't fail, we did. All of the Cluetrain Manifesto could have been "right," and might have "succeeded" if we hadn't let the centralized and antiquated powers that be have their way.
TCM wasn't meant to be a solution, it was meant to point out (very early on) something we all know...
When a truly groundbreaking idea like the Internet comes along, there will always be power structures and people who want to turn it into a tool to further centralize and increase their power.
So, we failed. The book did its job, or we wouldn't be discussing how "wrong" it is today.
I'm not a programming expert, nor a process expert, but the way I see it...
... there has got to be a multi-stage process for authentication that does NOT use any CC or SSN. Of course, the responsibility lies with the account owner for maintaining passwords/authentication information.
If you lose the information, no way to recover it.
I say this because it seems (again, I'm not an expert) that these thieves use social engineering mostly in the "data recovery" stage of the process.
The only way to tighten that from my perspective is to put maximum responsibility on the account owner to keep their logins, passwords (again, for multi-stage authentication), and such on hand. Don't have a need to recover your info, and others can't use the recovery process to get to your account.
I guess it wouldn't be a perfect scenario but... this, or lose @N.
I am sorry to hear there are companies allowing these practices, though... sad.
I don't like the "persistence" of Google either, but... if you want to use their package of services (Plus, GMail, others...) the stakes are just going to get higher and higher.
Today, it's a cell phone number for the "benefit" security. Tomorrow, they will ask for a SSN in order to use Gmail.
They offer free services for one reason, and one reason only... and it isn't because they like giving away stuff.
Google is offering "X" service so they can bargain your data out of you, more and more of your data. That, IMO, is the reality of the situation. I would challenge that most people don't understand fully the bargain they are getting.
Google knows most people don't understand this bargain.
Now, that said, do they offer value in the services they provide in exchange for this data? Sure.
If you want that value, they will either:
1. Get your data, and quit asking for it.
2. Not get your data, but keep asking for it, as many times as they want, because it's their sandbox.
And here's the kicker in my opinion, millions of people are going to keep signing up for and using their free services, and keep offering their data in exchange for using their services.
The way Mr. Schmidt comes across in response to critics, immediately labeling ALL critics as people afraid of change... comes across as desperate to me.
Society will adapt to those technologies IT deems fit for society... not every single technology that comes out.
Yes, but the article title makes it sound like the author got screwed even though he made the bestseller list.
$12000 isn't nothing, and Amazon has nothing to do with the results an author gets from their book in terms of units sold, except for providing search results.
Just seems like one of those attempts to get eyeballs to an article to me.
"Bestseller" does not equal income. I think there are a percentage of authors who believe that because they get on a bestseller list, they are going to be a millionaire.
The article stated 4000 copies sold, and $12000 in income. Math is math, no matter how you look at it. $3 a copy in income isn't all that bad at all.
The author's book was priced at $8.95 according to the article (Kindle version). Perhaps the author should consider price adjustments to see if the market will respond with more sales?
And this all assumes the author did a nice job with their marketing efforts in the first place... because "bestseller" also doesn't mean book sales on autopilot.
"you'd have to be pretty ignorant to claim remote workers are able to communicate as well as on-site workers. If I need to ask a teammate a question, I turn my head slightly to the left and ask them. They respond immediately."
And here's why, Skype overcomes this problem... I've worked remotely in plenty of team situations where I've sent a chat message, and got instant response, consistently.
When I get a Skype message in these situations, the only reason I wouldn't respond is if I wasn't at my desk for the same reasons someone wouldn't be at their desk in a face-to-face office situation.
I think, as a business community, we just need to get more and more comfortable with remote working arrangements, and implement policies that could cover the various productivity issues (if you don't respond to a message within 'X'... this happens etc...).
I also think we have to remember there are productivity issues in the face-to-face office scenario as well, when people get together they tend to "talk around the water cooler," they tend to "go out for drinks, then call in sick the next day" etc... and other social-oriented productivity issues.
Not all productivity issues are bad either, if someone working remotely doesn't answer a chat message in 7 seconds, they might be improving themselves in some manner. ;)
In my opinion, writing and hosting a blog serves several purposes. One, to hone my writing chops. Two, to express my own ideas in my own way... because it's my own "house" online. Three, I've actually landed some fairly lucrative client opportunities because of my blog. Four, it gives me a "home base" content repository from which to draw other ideas, participate in other discussions etc...
TCM didn't fail, we did. All of the Cluetrain Manifesto could have been "right," and might have "succeeded" if we hadn't let the centralized and antiquated powers that be have their way.
TCM wasn't meant to be a solution, it was meant to point out (very early on) something we all know...
When a truly groundbreaking idea like the Internet comes along, there will always be power structures and people who want to turn it into a tool to further centralize and increase their power.
So, we failed. The book did its job, or we wouldn't be discussing how "wrong" it is today.