Showing posts sorted by relevance for query web 2.0. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query web 2.0. Sort by date Show all posts

2.0 3.0 = 4.0?

No-one was quite sure what Web 2.0 was when the term was first used. Did it refer to the technology behind Google Maps? This revolutionary approach allowed the server to update the browser as you dragged your cursor around the map, without having to press Submit to get a new response. Did Web 2.0 refer to user generated content such as blogs and wikis (and much later, social media like Twitter and Facebook)? No one really knew then, or really knows now. (Even Wikipedia, at the end of November 2010, is not sure about it, saying in its Web 2.0 article “This article needs attention from an expert on the subject.”)

But Web 2.0 was exciting, and indeed the subject of trademark claims. We all knew Web 2.0 was not Web 1.0 (which only existed as a counterpoint to Web 2.0 – no-one used Web 1.0 before Web 2.0 was coined). Web 1.0 was the old web, the static web pages, boring forms with submit buttons – nothing changed unless the whole page changed, and basically you read Web 1.0, and someone else wrote it. Web 2.0 was exciting because it was dynamic, and maybe even you helped write it, even if we didn’t know exactly what it was.

Then someone coined the phrase Web 3.0. This is never really caught on except with uber geeks, and I think it refers to semantic web technologies, where computers can read online data and make sense of it. The whole march of 1.0, 2.0, 3.0 then seemed to peter out.

Until now that is … Apparently the Marketplace Economy blog is called “Economy 4.0”. There is just too much wrong with this to spill ink (or bits) on it. Just don’t let me catch anyone doing anything 5.0.

Web 2.0, Jewish Social Scene 2.0, Idiocy 2.0

Web 2.0: I just read about a new site called outside.in, which is one of many locality based sites. I mention it because the web address "outside.in" is cute (using the Indian top-level domain .in), and they are a great example of web 2.0 at work. They clearly have a mechanism to match web articles to geographic locations (known as geo-spatial mapping), based on town names. When I put in my local zip-code, it produced articles from Newton and surrounding towns. It also allows users to add content to the site: for example, restaurant reviews. So this combines clever new "mashups" (the geo-spatial mapping), plus user-generated content, plus a bit of naming whimsy (or branding hopefulness). I would say that is web 2.0.

Jewish Social Scene 2.0: My good buddy, Ilan Segev, has no blog. (Does that make him Ilan 1.0?) So lacking the forum to break his own news scoops, he passed on a viral video ad for Koolanoo.com, which promotes itself as either the first or the biggest Jewish Social Networking site. As I mentioned the other day, social networking is "big news" in the web 2.0 world. Koolanoo (a hebrew word meaning "all of us") is certainly not the first Jewish social networking site (Jewish Geography, for one, has been around since 2000), but it is the first to look like MySpace or Facebook, and I guess that for this generation, that is the comparator.

Idiocy 2.0: Google issued an idiotic posting, no doubt prompted by their lawyers who are upset at being sued now they own the YouTube copyright problems, telling everyone that "google" as an everyday word is bad, Bad, BAD. They have a trademark to protect, and it is clearly more important to them than their reputation as a smart company. Their company motto is "Don't be evil". Perhaps they should add "Don't be idiots, either".

Wow 2.0

I have recently been playing with widgets. For example, I added a Hazon Bike Ride fundraising widget to the web version of my blog (note: this is temporary - if you are reading this after Oct 2007 it will not be there). Widgets are a manifestation of Web 2.0, of which I have posted previously.

Right now I am very pleased and grateful to my many friends who have contributed so generously to Hazon by sponsoring me - I am very close to $10,000 as I write, and still hope to break that. If that includes you, please accept my sincerest thanks! (If you want to help me get over $10,000 - click here.)

The widget graphics and data are pulled from the fundraising database (hosted by Kintera) automatically. This widget was added very easily just by copying/pasting a few lines of code that the Kintera website gave me onto my blog template. Neat huh!

I have also been playing with more Web 2.0 "toys" recently, especially Facebook. Facebook has been written about in many different places. If you are at all interested in Web 2.0 get an account and find some friends to link to ... the rest becomes easy. Another example, I have just now added a feed from this blog onto my Facebook page so that postings show up there as well.

There are a million other Web 2.0 toys that help mash things together from different places on the web. If I had the time, for example, I could display a map of the Hazon ride route right here on this page using Google Maps.

Widgets and Web 2.0 are definitely here to stay. The question now is how much more will their impact grow.

And now... Odious 2.0... Disclosure 3.0

The latest twist in the web 2.0 world is the PayPerPost story, nicely analyzed by TechCrunch (who also has a previous posting listing other companies doing more or less the same thing). PayPerPost pays bloggers to say nice things about products, as long as they only say nice things... and they do not require disclosure of the payments.

One of the characteristics of web 2.0, as I have mentioned, is that user generated content plays a prominent role. In many cases the value lies in conversation between end users with no big corporation managing, editing or censoring. The PayPerPost approach is harnessing this in ways that seem to me to be unethical and immoral, not because of the payment, but because of the lack of disclosure. My belief is that many (most? all?) conflict of interest situations can be neatly defused by full disclosure. Who cares who spends time with Dick Cheney, as long as we all know? Similarly, who cares if I am paid to write nice things about Dick Cheney, as long as you know I am being paid. Advertising is usually required to be properly labelled as such, and I see no reason why those regulations should not apply in this case as well. There seems to be a groundswell of concern, so my guess is that this will be a dynamic situation for a while.

Meanwhile, if web 2.0 leads to odious 2.0, then here is my disclosure 3.0:

This blog does not accept any form of advertising, sponsorship, or paid insertions. I write for my own purposes. However, I may be influenced by my background, occupation, religion, political affiliation or experience. The Amazon.com links in this blog have my affiliates code embedded in them which results in small amounts of commission payment (which I donate to charity).

Look for this on every page of my blog from now on.

I promise not to turn my blog into a jokes page... but did you hear the one about the guy who asked a shrub what we should do about Iraq? The response was "why are you asking a bush?"

Technorati:

Principles 3.0

Actually, I do have principles, and I am mostly guided by the "full disclosure" principle that if you know what I am doing you can judge for yourself. I discussed this here, and promised never to take advertising on this blog and associated website.

However, as I return to the theme of Web 2.0 on a regular basis, I realised I was getting behind. Now Web 3.0 is on the horizon - in fact it has been so for a year or more (see here, here and here). Part of the power of Web 2.0 and Web 3.0 has been the levelling of the publishing playing field. Anyone can be a publisher and a large industry of what are known as advertising networks (or third party advertising networks) has grown up - starting with Google, but including all the big players and some small ones too. With a third party advertising network, a two-bit publisher (like me) can easily mark out how and where advertisements will appear, and the network displays ads from its customers according to whatever recondite method it uses. The publisher does not know in advance what ads will be displayed, and doesn't have to worry about "selling space" like a newspaper or TV channel. Magically, at the end of each month a check (or PayPal payment) appears for the publisher's "cut" of the advertising revenue.

In order for me to understand this more fully I have decided to experiment with a couple of advertising networks, so you can expect to see small ads on this blog and the associated website soon. Let me know if you find them odious.

Here is my new disclosure, which is found at the footer of each blog page and web page:

This website and the associated blog accepts advertising from third party advertising networks, mostly so I understand how those work. I have no control over which advertisements are displayed, I do not accept paid sponsorships, and I am not writing for income. Any payment I receive from advertising networks is donated to charity. I write for my own purposes. However, I may be influenced by my background, occupation, religion, political affiliation or experience. The Amazon.com links in this blog have my affiliates code embedded in them which results in small amounts of commission payment (which I donate to charity).


Bike 2.0

Yet more web 2.0 intrigue... this time bike related. It starts with Twitter and ends on a personalized Google map, going via tinyurl.

Today I read a tweet (Twitter posting) from ctanowitz who noted: "One day while biking to work a car is going to hit me here http://tinyurl.com/45e94w. Even if I give a hand signal they don't care."

What is that "tinyurl" thing? It is a free service where you copy and paste a long unweildy URL (web address) and it gives you a tiny URL like the one in the message. This is great for many uses, especially for twitter with its 140 character limit on each posting. Someone is now going to ask me how the tinyurl service makes money ... I have no idea!

Setting aside someone else's money worries and click on that tinyurl link to get a fabulous map where he marks the spot about which he is so worried... a small rotary in Waltham which I use pretty frequently. As a cyclist myself (although not on that rotary), I think I am a reasonably thoughtful driver around bikes ... I sure hope he's not complaining about me!

On a related (bike 2.0) note, I wrote yesterday that my GPS elevation change readings differ significantly from those on Guy Sapirstein's GPS. I felt sure I could easily get an elevation chart based on proper surveys (rather than consumer GPS barometers) for any route by looking on Google Earth or some other web 2.0 site ... so far no good - anyone care to make suggestions?

Microsoft 2.0 (or is that 22.0)

Continuing my foray into the world of Web_2.0, I saw a recent Techcrunch posting that talks about how fast Microsoft is moving to challenge Google's apparent superiority in this arena.

10 years ago I saw first hand how fast Microsoft can move, when they purchased Vermeer Technologies, makers of FrontPage, at which I was VP Operations. At that time, Microsoft was fighting what seemed to be a losing battle with Netscape (browser wars), Lotus Notes (groupware wars) and AOL (online wars). Bill Gates was also busily predicting the future in his not very good book, "The Road Ahead".

At that time I contended that Microsoft (and Bill Gates) was lousy (LOUSY) at predicting the future, but absolutely phenomenal at mastering the present:
  • DOS: missed predicting (or acting on) the need for good graphical user interface
  • Windows / Office: missed predicting (or acting on) the need for email/groupware
  • MSN: missed predicting (or acting on) the need for open/internet based system
  • Internet: missed predicting (or acting on) the need for good browser
In all of these areas, Microsoft caught up. There are some examples of more forward thinking (Hotmail?), but not many. However, I contend that Microsoft never had to see the future to win, and still doesn't. Microsoft has certainly missed predicting (or acting on) the need for web 2.0, but it seems to be very capable of playing catchup here as well.

We used to hear about "embrace and extend", Microsoft's approach to succeeding in established markets. This was seen as a form of judo strategy where you turn your competitor's strength to your own advantage (see the book blurb).

I contend that Microsoft remains strong at this game. Necessity, we are told, is the mother of invention. Microsoft has for years been able to see the necessity of adopting and embracing new trends, and has turned the market to its advantage by extending (or more) those trends to create a winning strategy. The only difference now is to understand how much of this was dependent on the brilliance of Bill Gates which will be lost going forward, now he is no longer active in the firm.

Technorati:

Healthcare 2.0 vs Healthcare 0.2

"Where do all the dollars go?" asks the Economist on page 53 of its January 12th edition. "America lags behind its peers in preventing avoidable deaths" is the sub-headline, and the short article goes on to note that "despite being the top spender per head on health, the US lags painfully, and increasingly, behind other wealthy countries in the overall performance of its medial system." This is based on a study of preventable deaths in the population in 19 propserous nations, in which the US came last, and in which the US is falling even further behind.

This damning indictment is shameful, and shows how far the US healthcare system has to go. While we worry about Healthcare 2.0 (a la Web 2.0), what we should really be concerned about is the fact that our system looks like a version 0.2.

In contrast, you know I am a fan of Paul Levy and his blog. Paul is CEO of a partnership of two hospitals, BIDMC (large, Harvard-affiliated academic medical center) and BID Needham (community hospital in the Boston suburbs). Paul's recent posting on the big goals they have set for themselves continues the tradition of leadership that he and the hospitals have been taking on things that matter, and on transparency of efforts and outcomes. This is the real Healthcare 2.0, despite my infatuation with PHRs and the like. May the the BID Hospitals reach their goals speedily, and congratulations to their entire team.

My 1st 2.0 30 4 bike ride

Some relatives are visiting on Sunday, so I wanted to take advantage of low traffic on the roads (for the July 4 holiday) and ride today. My regular riding partner, Guy, was otherwise occupied and so I made plans with Lee, Sammy and Elisa to do the 30 mile Lincoln loop bike ride.

Since it was not clear if everyone would be up for the full ride, I made up a route and cue sheets for everyone which would allow for some to go ahead and some to cut the ride short if needed. I used the Bikely website because it allowed for me to create a route by "drawing" on a map or downloading a file from my GPS. Once the route was in place, you can add notations on the route (mostly at turns) and then it creates a cue sheet - with distances calculated automatically - for you to be able to share turn-by-turn instructions. Here is the route, click the title bar to see the ride and cue sheet on the main Bikely site.


Also, I should mention, that Guy is normally the guide, and although I was pretty sure of the route, this time I would be the navigator and I wanted to be sure I didn't lead anyone astray.

We started around 9am; it was cool, misty and cloudy. However, the weather forecast showed it clearing up at the latest by 10am. The clouds were not reading the forecast, because it rained for about 20 of the 30 miles, sometimes pretty hard. However, despite this, or even because of it, we all had a blast on the ride. The route is beautiful, even in the rain, and we were all thrilled to be out enjoying the elements, and the physical activity. The pace was a little slower than usual given the weather and the fact a couple of the group were newer to this length of ride, but it was still a blast and a work out for all of us.

So this is my first Web 2.0 bike ride (using Bikely), and as a 30 miler with 4 of us riding together we have the 1st 2.0 30 4 bike ride.

P.S. It also happens to be my 2 year biking anniversary. I bought my bike on July 3, 2006 and started riding, training up for the Hazon ride, on July 4 of that year. I did not realise this until I was chatting with Sammy half way through today's ride but I know am still enjoying it all as much now as when I started.

VC:VC Social(ly Active) Networking

Continuing my sporadic VC:VC series of postings comparing life as a venture capitalist with life as a venture cyclist, here are some thoughts on social networking, and socially active networking.

Social networking is a term that has some academic background, but venture capital types know that it means the internet phenomenon that links people together according to something that ties them together: high school, college, employer, friend-of-a-friend, shopping preferences and so on. An early icon of this phenomenon was the six degrees of separation websites that allowed you to register and invite your friends, and for them to do the same. You could then see if you had a connection to anyone else in the network stepping through connections registered on the website. Linked-In seems to have become the most successful of the professional oriented sites that provides this service. I have over 100 contacts registered with my profile, and I can search to see, for example, if I could connect through a network of connections to a vice president at Google or a programmer at EMC. Facebook and MySpace are analagous sites aimed squarely at the hip young market with lots of features for sharing information about yourself, your favorite photos, music, videos, hangouts, friends and so on.

Many startup ideas now come with social networking features, either thinking they are de rigueur or that, no matter how irrelevant, they make it easier to get funding. Social networking is part of the cluster of ideas that have been rolled together under the banner of Web 2.0 (or for jaded commentators: internet bubble 2.0). If I had an idea to create an online business by selling accessories for cycling, I could add the ability to find other cyclists who like my kind of bike in my area, and I would have a social networking component.

In the venture capital world, we have been doing social networking without the internet for years, but it does break down beyond one or two steps. I might remember to ask my partners if anyone knows someone at such-and-such company for a background reference on an entrepreneur, but I don't know if lurking just one connection away is exactly the right person. When one VC meets another for the first time, we generally see whom we know in common based on deals we have worked on. Similarly, when one Jew meets another for the first time, we often play "Jewish Geography", looking for mutual friends (or relatives). The Jewish community is small enough (even though larger than the VC world), that we often find some connection that exists. This is yet another example of non-internet social networking (although here is the on-line version).
In her keynote address to the Hazon 2006 NY Bike Ride on September 1st of this year, Anna Stevenson concludes with a marvellous poem:

The Long Road
by Marge Piercy

Alone, you can fight,
you can refuse, you can
take what revenge you can
But they roll over you.
But two people fighting
back to back can cut through
a mob, a snake-dancing file
can break a cordon, an army
can meet an army.

Two people can keep each other sane,
can give support, conviction,
love, massage, hope, sex.
Three people are a delegation,
a committee, a wedge. With four
you can play bridge and start
an organization. With six
you can rent a whole house,
eat a pie for dinner with no
seconds, and hold a fund-raising party.
A dozen can hold a demonstration.
A hundred fill a hall.
A thousand have solidarity and your own newsletter;
ten thousand, power and your own paper;
a hundred thousand, your own media;
ten million, your own country.

It goes one at a time,
it starts when you care
to act, it starts when you do
it again after they said no,
it starts when you say We
and know who you mean, and each
day you mean one more.


This shows the power of socially active networking, which is similar but slightly different. When I meet you, my goal is not only to find out who we know in common, and to whom else we might connect each other, but it is also to enlist you in a cause (hopefully a good one). When I meet you, expect me to play some variant of six degrees, and also to encourage you to get on your bike and join me, join us, next year on the Hazon 2007 NY bike ride.

Free beta, Pay later

"Free beta, Pay later" is a rhyme ... if you have a Boston accent.

After reading my Memo to Self posting, Jon Levisohn asks

So what's the catch with Jott? Is it advertising driven? Or is it just one of the altruistic businesses, created to serve us without any thought of making a profit? ;)

This is a good question (because I have the answer). Jott's website states: As of this beta, there is no fee to sign up and use Jott. Charges associated with phone minute usage, text messages, internet access, etc. may apply, and Jott does not cover those. Please refer to our Terms of Service for more information.

The next question in unpacking this web 2.0 offering is asking what does "beta" mean in this case? Wikipedia has a whole page of possible uses, and in this case it means: the first version [of the software or service] released outside the [company] that develops the software, for the purpose of evaluation or real-world testing. So this is one reason why it is free ... it is still test software. Google is well known for keeping features in a beta state for years while they work out what to do with it. Once they think they have a revenue model, they take it out of beta and make it "general release" or "full production version" or the like.

Like all web-based services, I am sure Jott has some ideas about revenue for the future, but first they want us to get hooked (I am). My guess is they will end up creating a freemium (free to premium) model. You will get, say, 10 messages a month for free, but for more than that you have to pay, say, $5 per month. Skype has a freemium model - basic PC-to-PC calling is free, but additional services (voicemail, calls to/from regular phones etc) cost real money.

Also, they may add advertising to the emails with the note transcription. In any event, you can be sure this is not just an altruistic business. Sorry.

Incentives

As I tweeted last month: Inverse Law of Usenet Bandwidth: The more interesting your life becomes, the less you post... and vice versa. Jorn Barger, 1994.

Usenet was pretty early version of what is now the web 2.0 world of user generated content. Today's simple corollary is: The more interesting your life becomes, the less you post [on blogs]... and vice versa. This leads to wondering whether the incentive (or reward) for blogging is gratification in boring moments...

There is a question about whether Twittering follows the same pattern. Many folks note that it is so easy to tweet that interesting lives lead to more tweeting. That is for another post.

This blog has been silent for over a week exactly because I have been busy on interesting things, mostly work related, mostly our just completed annual advisory committee meeting. I considered live-tweeting the event for about one nanosecond (talk about a breach of etiquette and career-ending adventure). An example tweet might have been "Partner X now telling LPs that deal Y is going to be worth $1b", and another example would be "Partner X now telling LPs that deal Y better show progress before June 30 or it will be shut down". Last night's dinner tweets would have been interesting too, but I can't even hint at those. You can see why the public twitterstream is not ideal for this kind of commentary!

I did want to mention a couple of interesting articles I gleaned from the twittersphere recently. One talks about the very obvious (to me) comment that even *free* will not get physicians to adopt electronic medical records - see this short post on e-patients. Secondly with an eye to my non-profit volunteer work, consider this WSJ blog post on how increasing the price of membership can increase memberships. In both cases the incentive structure is non-intuitive, or at least against the classical or conventional wisdom.

Incentive compensation (bonus plans) are amongst the most complicated parts of my life as a board member on startups. CEOs and their VPs generally have bonus plans approved by the board (or its compensation committee). It is a cliche that "you get what you pay for" and we have to be excruciatingly careful not to encourage unhelpful outcomes through an inadvertent side-effect of a bonus plan. If we offer a bonus for maintaining a healthy cash balance, the CEO might fire a bunch of people and reduce sales or service levels. If we focus on revenue we may encourage profligate spending and reduce our cash cushion. It gets worse from there. Even the seeming alignment around incentive stock options can lead to problems, and not just those seen on Wall Street.

Incentives in all these areas remain intriguing and annoying because they seem to amplify unexpected behavior as much as desired behavior. Despite the concerns and contradictions, or perhaps because of them, they remain a source of constant interest for me in my venture capital (and venture cyclist) work.

Non-profit Twitter

In the tech world, it is a little bit of wry humor to say that all twittering is non-profit. No-one really knows how to make money from Twitter (the company Twitter, least of all, it seems).

Here are a couple of links about real non-profits (charities, as opposed to early stage startups) and twitter:

I also want to highlight Beth Kanter's blog on "How Non-profits can use Social Media" which is about twitter and all the other aspects of Web 2.0 and social media for non-profits.

Buzzword compliance

I saw a new business presentation today which started with a little levity. Calling themselves "fully fad compliant" they state that
[We] use patented search techniques to deliver Web 2.0 applications on mobile devices to the alternative energy industry. We have a pay-per-click business model, leverage social networks, and do open-source product development offshore.

Of course, they are none of these things, but it was fun to see someone recognizing how much of our industry is driven by fads and buzzwords.

Social Media Jungle Boston

I am going to be addressing an interesting question soon, as a speaker at an event coming up in March. The question is: "What if the twitter stream told us every time a can of soda is sold?” What about every physicians' prescription (not the patient info, just the prescription, maybe with the diagnosis code)? We already have some automated data on the twitterstream (blog postings, transit updates, job postings, amber alerts)... what happens when more and more data is put out there?

What ideas do you have about unusual, or ridiculous, or mundane, streams of data that could be added to the twitterstream, and what would the implications be - please email me richard@sigmapartners.com or leave comments below with those ideas.

What is all this about? It is about Social Media, and social media technology.

Social Media, also known as crowd-powered media, user-generated media, social networking and, generally Web 2.0, is (as I recently posted) a bigger trend than many people currently think. It is probably more than one trend, but that is also, as yet, unclear.

If you are interested in the social and commercial implications of these trends, and are in (or can be near) the Boston area on March 10, then consider participating in Jeff Pulver's Social Media Jungle Boston. I even have a $50-off code for you: JF2CFU6F.

If you can't make it in person, Twitter coverage will include the tag #smjbos.

Meanwhile, send me those ideas.

VC:VC Good Question

"Tell me about how you plan to differentiate yourself from the 54 other Web 2.0 social network blogging mashup wall clock destination portals out there?" Victor Cool, the VC, asked Eric Enthusiasm, the entrepreneur.

"Good question!" answered Eric confidently, with a grin and a stab of his hand into the air. Eric went on "You see, we interviewed a large group of people who use wall clocks for social networking and we discovered that ..."

Let's leave that conversation there, and consider the oft-repeated phrase: "Good question!"

It is a generally a signal that this is a question which has been asked many times before, or one which was expected, and so there is a prepared answer. Sometimes the phrase is genuinely spontaneous, but often it is like a punctuation mark signaling to listen closely to what the entrepreneur hopes will be a great answer.

Sometimes it is annoying in retrospect because the question does not get answered properly. Perhaps the entrepreneur heard one question (the expected one) but was being asked something slightly different. Perhaps the entrepreneur has a formulaic answer to a complex question, and hopes to deflect further probing through a confident but over-simple answer.

In a way, "Good question!" is like a tell in a poker game, inadvertently giving away something about the player's hand, in this case giving away that the entrepreneur is playing a strong hand.

When I hear an entrepreneur begin an answer with this phrase I will listen a little more carefully. I want to see how an entrepreneur plays to a strong hand, because that should end with a strong result.

Many poker players say you should never let another player know if you have identified a tell, even if they are your friend. A few losses should make them wiser (if poorer). Since I have played the entrepreneur's hand more than once, I identify too strongly to let that stand. So watch out for that tell!

Contrasting this for a moment with my venture cycling life - after all, this is a VC:VC posting (comparing Venture Capital to Venture Cycling). Here, I am on the other side of the table.

As board chair for Hazon, the charity which started me on a bike again (after 30 years), I find myself saying "Good question!" fairly regularly. I am answering questions of friends and colleagues who are intrigued about Hazon's mission and programs. At other times I am talking to prospective donors who are probing before considering gifts to the organization. I find it is a welcome moment to be able to say "Good question!" and launch into a prepared answer.

Sshh! I hope they can't see my tell.

Weblog... Whyblog... Why blog?

Why am I indulging myself with a blog?

Blog is a contraction for weblog, and is an online journal. Some blogs are read by tens of thousands, or millions of people. Mine will be read by a few loyal relatives and friends. It is really a way to stay in touch, for those who want to read of my adventures, and my presumptive progress.

Also, as well as being a Venture Cyclist (and I am not that yet, and won't be until I own a bike... soon, don't worry), I am a Venture Capitalist. With that in mind I thought I should understand what it takes to participate in the Web 2.0 world, of which blogging is a key component.

Setting up a blog can be done in many ways. If I hosted my own domain on my own servers I could install my own blogging software. Absent that (which is the case here) I can choose from many free or fee-based blog hosting options. Blogger seems to be a reasonably functional middle ground between completely unremarkable and tailored-to-the-max. I also added some Feedburner capabilities (I am a fan of Brad Feld's blog and he is an investor in Feedburner).

I have also been inspired by other blogs...

If you don't already have some kind of reader for blogs, you can arrange for your MyYahoo page or the like to automatically receive updates from your chosen blogs (like mine). You can also choose to get updates by email (click here). Let me know if you need help subscribing to my blog (you can email me if you know my address, or leave a comment on this page).