Thanks for this counterpoint to the glib dismissals around here. The message of the article is hard to hear if you already have ideological commitments to the transformative potential of entrepreneurial activity and to the power of Web 2.0.
It's a long, difficult article. So, pick something you didn't like, and dismiss it all wholesale? Too easy.
I read the article, and disagreed with half the message. The first (Specificity is important) was very good, well defended, and made me think about how I use language in my life. The second (O'Reilly is a shill for Rand) was soapboxing about a topic the writer didn't appear to understand.
Comments
Thanks for this counterpoint to the glib dismissals around here. The message of the article is hard to hear if you already have ideological commitments to the transformative potential of entrepreneurial activity and to the power of Web 2.0.
It's a long, difficult article. So, pick something you didn't like, and dismiss it all wholesale? Too easy.
I read the article, and disagreed with half the message. The first (Specificity is important) was very good, well defended, and made me think about how I use language in my life. The second (O'Reilly is a shill for Rand) was soapboxing about a topic the writer didn't appear to understand.