Case Study: Twitter Usage at Wordcamp SF

One of my many hats is as an events organizer. Twitter has become an invaluable tool for me to gauge the mood of the attendees. Are they excited by the current speaker? Bored or excited at the latest news? Are they having a good time? And most important, are they making connections?

Pathable, an events social networking company, has posted an analysis on the use of Twitter at WordCamp SF. The above chart shows how 797 tweets each categorized by a Pathable intern. Disclosure: I am friends with the co-founders of Pathable and a proud advisor of the company.

Or as Pathable more broadly classifies them:

• Tweets that are not directly relevant to the vast majority of event attendees (”Here’s what I’m doing / feeling”, “talking directly to someone else”) make up about 1/3 of the tweets sent.
• Tweets that are useful to people who can’t physically be at the event (”Comments / Quotes about speakers”, “Announcements / Info / Questions related to event”) make up more than 1/3 of the tweets
• Tweets that report people’s intended or actual location make up around 1/6 of the tweets (”Traveling to”, “At the event / session”)

And who do you think send those tweets?

While 258 total people sent at least one tweet, 20 people account for more than half of those. That’s consistent at a high-level with the “long-tail” notion of user-generated content (i.e., a large number of people contribute small amounts of content, but that content in aggregate accounts for a large proportion of the total content). The numbers, however, don’t fit cleanly in the 80/20 90/10 buckets that are often cited. Instead, it’s more like 50/50 (50% of the content is accounted for by a small number of high activity contributors, 50% by everybody else).

(continue reading)

Four short links: 24 June 2009

Open Source Kids, Crowdsourcing Lessons, Flickr Secrets, Hadoop Spatial Joins

1. The Digital Open -- The Digital Open is an online technology community and competition for youth around the world, age 17 and under. Building a community of young open source hackers.
2. Four Crowdsoucing Lessons from the Guardian's Spectacular Expenses Scandal Experiment -- Your workers are unpaid, so make it fun. How to lure them? By making it feel like a game. "Any time that you’re trying to get people to give you stuff, to do stuff for you, the most important thing is that people know that what they’re doing is having an effect," Willison said. "It’s kind of a fundamental tenet of social software. … If you’re not giving people the ‘I rock’ vibe, you’re not getting people to stick around." (via migurski on delicious)
3. 10+ Deploys/Day: Dev & Ops Cooperation at Flickr -- John Allspaw and Paul Hammond's talk from Velocity. You tell any mainstream company in the world "10 deploys/day" and you'll be met with disbelief.
4. Reproducing Spatial Joins using Hadoop and EC2 -- bit by bit the techniques for emulating important operations from trad databases are being discovered and shared in the new database scene. (via straup on delicious)

Jonathan Heiliger on Web Performance, Operations, and Culture

We were honored to have Jonathan Heiliger, Facebook’s VP of Technology Operations, as our opening keynote speaker at Velocity. Jonathan is one of the most accomplished leaders in our field, and is a master of the craft.

Here is his keynote in its entirety:

Note: Other videos from Velocity are being posted to VelocityConference.blip.tv

My 140conf Talk: Twitter as Publishing

I spoke at Jeff Pulver's 140conf a few weeks ago. My subject was the continuity of what I do, from publishing through conferences through my presence on twitter. I tried to draw the connections, and to explain how "social media" means drawing from, curating, and amplifying the voices of a community. I suggest that the role of an editor and publisher is analogous to the role of a point guard in basketball, handing out "assists" and improving the performance of his or her teammates. After all, I point out, I couldn't possibly tweet enough to cover all the topics I am interested in. But by using my retweets to build the visibility of others, I can create and foster a community that cares about the ideas, trends, and people that I care about.

My talk starts about 1:40 into the video, after a few comments from Jeff Pulver, the conference organizer. I've provided a lightly edited and linkified transcript below, for those of you who don't have time to watch the entire 15 minute video. If you do have the time, you can watch the video from the entire two-day conference at https://www.140conf.com/watchit.

What I learned from Twitter

Hi. I want to talk to you a little bit about Twitter and media. I'm a publisher. I'm a publisher in print. And it turns out I'm also a publisher on Twitter. I want to explain the roots of media and how that connects with what we're doing in this newest form of media.

When you think about the original use case of Twitter, which @Leisa described so wonderfully as “ambient intimacy,” it's really news from your close friends. But it's news nonetheless. And sometimes the news from individuals becomes news that matters to a whole lot more people. When someone in Tehran today is reporting their personal news, it's news that matters to all of us. And so you can see the continuum between the personal and the international in those moments.

But that continuum exists all the time, and it's existed always in media.

(continue reading)

Personal Democracy Forum ramp-up: adaptive legislation can respond to action in the agora

This article is the last in a series leading up to the Personal Democracy Forum. The first article was posted on June 16 and the second article on June 19.

Whole libraries could be filled with writings about the growth of executive power during United States history. The power of the executive branch is likely to increase with technology. But for open government, that growth may be a necessary transition to more public involvement.

As its name indicates, the executive branch is responsible for carrying out the law. The open government movement wants the public to have more say in its own governance, and envisions a more fine-grained implementation of government's role in everyday life. For instance, open government advocates want more citizen input into details such as the siting of physical facilities and the choice of projects for funding. Logically speaking, therefore, the public has more control over implementation if decision-making is shifted from the legislature to the agencies carrying out the law.

Congress should also crack open its hidden chambers; law-making itself could be much more open. It will be interesting to see what comes out of work on a collaborative law drafting project in health care, started by Congressman Anthony D. Weiner of New York. I don't harbor any fantasies, though, that much of his public input will survive the traditional Congressional horse-trading that will follow.

But even the most ideal legislative process ends up with a static document that tries cumbersomely to anticipate every use and abuse of its language. (That's why laws are filled with hedges such as "This passage shall not be construed to...") Legislation is like setting off over rough terrain in a tank. Although the tank can complete the journey, it does so only by flattening everything it encounters.

Some political scientists also think that the executive branch is inherently better suited to understanding and responding to public needs. Here is an intriguing quote from Jane E. Fountain's Building the Virtual State: Information Technology and Institutional Change, summarizing work by Alfred C. Stepan:

Intellectual activities and decisions of civil servants working for long periods on policy questions are arguably more powerful and influential than the sporadic attention of legislators to particular policies.

So I'll take a look at the future of the executive branch, and end this three-part series with speculation about how to build fewer legislative tanks and more Jeeps.

• The executive branch: power and potency
• The legislative branch: how to write laws for an engaged public
• Appendix: the top question asked on Change.gov

The executive branch: power and potency

There's little mystery concerning about why the power of the executive branch tends to grow. Of the three branches of government, it's the one that actually arrives on the scene. It makes decisions about real people and activities on a daily basis and takes responsibility for those decisions.

To act effectively, the executive branch tends to centralize. (Unfortunately, so have many legislative branches in recent decades. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is run by three people, when they're not fighting indictments or running off to seek other positions: the Governor, the Speaker of the House, and the President of the Senate.)

Because knowledge is power, technology will cause the power of the executive branch to skyrocket over the next few decades. Civil liberties advocates already decry surveillance cameras, wiretapping, the subpoening of information collected by private firms, and the computer analysis that the government applies to all the resulting data. But the data currently available is miniscule compared to everything that will be collected by atmospheric sensors, electronic toll collectors, and various other technologies that are starting to be installed. If Microsoft can produce a game machine cheap enough for the consumer market with face recognition, voice recognition, and full-body motion sensing, what can the government do to track us?

So the power that the executive branch takes on in the political realm will be multipled by the potency it obtains from the data it collects and from ever more sophisticated tools for analyzing that data.

(Strangely, the strict constructionists and "original intent" scholars, who bar judges from interpreting the Constitution broadly, don't apply these restrictions to the ever-expanding executive branch.)

I don't know how to halt this expansion of power. We could open-source the Panopticon by demanding that the public have access to all data collected by public cameras and senors. That won't help, though, because the data will still prove useful mostly to large organizations with the time and expertise to analyze it. And do you want to encourage every budding computer hacker in the country to become a data-mining Nancy Drew?

We could call for strict laws to restrict the collection or sharing of data. You'll still suspect that somebody is collecting information on you. But you'll rest easier because the fear of prosecution will keep them from sharing the data with most of the people you are afraid to have know it.

Still, the reasoning in this article suggests that open government advocates should welcome the shift of initiative away from the legislative branch to the executive one. But only if that's a transitional stage to lodging decision-making more in public hands.

In fact, the other two branches of government and the public had better find ways to implement collective participation, because it may be the only alternative to a resurgent Government 1.0.

To make this shift a positive change, we'll need well-established government/public collaborations that run through the whole cycle I described in my first article. We'll need to make sure that everybody is online and has the training to participate in decisions at the level of their competence and interest. We'll also need to refine polls and discussions to give us confidence that the public's most important concerns and desires rise to the top of the forums.

And when all that's in place, we can start to experiment with adaptive legislation.

The legislative branch: how to write laws for an engaged public

I mentioned at the beginning of this article that legislatures could develop laws in a more transparent manner. But that's only a start. If they could rely on public participation during the implementation of the law, they could write laws that embrace such input.

Laws already include feedback mechanisms. Many call on an executive agency to collect information on the effects of the law, run hearings, and release a report after a fixed amount of time so that the legislature can evaluate whether the law is achieving their goals. This practice could be dramatically extended by involving the public in the implementation of the law at the start, though continuous forums. The feedback loop would be reduced from years to weeks.

Laws also include ways to delegate control. For instance. Community Block Grants are offered to municipalities to spend as they see fit. (My town manager spent several hundred thousand dollars of our block grant to improve a park next to Town Hall, which in my opinion showed dubious judgment during an affordable housing crisis.) The idea of delegation could also be extended to more and more facets of law. What if a virtual town hall debated the expenditure of the town's Community Block Grant?

Critics of government solutions to social problems--usually political conservatives--accuse the law of being too rigid. The legislative process has trouble evolving with the times and responding flexibly to new conditions. Well, with provisions for public comment and group decision-making, laws can be as flexible as we want.

Congress needs evidence, though, that public feedback reflects the diverse needs and values of the population. Public participation must be protected against the complementary evils of capture by special interests and tyranny of the majority, which I have termed the problem of stakeholders.

If the public can live with a law it debates and tweaks as well as it can live with a law designed by Congress, adaptive legislation is viable.

And we need this flexibility, because the really big problems we have to tackle are what computer scientists call "massively distributed." Problems of this type include climate change, health care cost control, a food crisis that leads to rampant obesity in some populations and rampant starvation in others, job creation in an era of reduced staffing needs, and more.

The presence of the term "Collaboration" in the Administration's open government initiative reflects their understanding that they cannot solve the problems by themselves. Nor can technology, the market, or educational efforts--they must all work together. The concept of Megacommunity perhaps reflects the size of the effort (I actually find the "mega" part of the term slightly redundant) but may not even be enough to capture the extent of cultural adaptation required. In any case, adaptive legislation could trigger related efforts and bolster their effectiveness.

Appendix: the top question asked on Change.gov

Although Obama's approach to data sharing is a welcome sea change from the previous administration, the most committed members of his constituency press him to show more transparency about things that particularly matter to them, such as the role the Administration is playing in the financial system and what it knows about torture.

When Change.gov opened a public forum for questions at the beginning of Obama's presidency, the first place was taken by a question about prosecuting US officials suspected of promoting torture. Progressives then cried foul when the Administration failed to answer.

But did Obama really fail to answer? On April 16 he released Bush Administration memos that showed irrefutably that highly placed officials had discarded legal safeguards to institute interrogation practices that were described by these memos in gory detail.

Yes, Obama has resisted investigations of torture before and after this moment. But I am convinced that by releasing the memos he launched a historical process that cannot be reversed. The memos were his answer to the question that the public forced on him in January.

He has made the kind of political calculation that is his hallmark, deciding not to confront Republicans directly with a torture investigation. But if decent citizens keep up the pressure, prosecution will ultimately reach any US officials responsible for human rights violations, just as it did Pinochet and Fujimori. Open government applications do not free activists from the responsibility to engage with every accessible locus of power.

What democracy advocates must remember is that open government is not just a discussion forum. It's a maelstrom of intersecting investigations and competing proposals just as complex as the current political process. In fact, open government can succeed only by integrating with a political process that has a twenty-five hundred year history, even though our goal over time is to transform that process.

Now that the Administration wants to dance, we must learn all the steps. Listen closely: the musicians have already struck up their first round.

App Growth, PalmOS vs iPhoneOS

There's a chart I've been meaning to put together for a while to explain why I'm expecting the iPhoneOS to be the dominant mobile platform for at least the next decade. I've been thinking of the role third-party applications played in helping Palm maintain its mobile platform dominance for about that same period, from 1996 to 2006. If you believe Palm apps were a primary cause of Palm's long-term success against Microsoft and other competitors -- apps which were far more awkward to install than iPhone apps, which had a far narrower range of interface or capabilities, and which for a long time didn't even have a network connection to use, and yet which still spawned the term "Palm Economy" to describe the developers making money off their sales -- then what has happened on the App Store over the past year should make the case for the iPhoneOS's dominance. Here, looky:

Over a ten-year period, the PalmOS grew to support about 29,000 apps. The App Store passed that mark about 10 months after launching, and by now has probably doubled it. Developers, developers, developers!

This NY Times article about Palm having trouble winning developers over to its new WebOS platform for the Pre seemed wistful to me considering the lead PalmOS had acquired and has now lost. I don't think that the Pre's design or keyboard -- nor, for that matter, the openness of Android, which I'd personally far prefer (here's why) -- can effectively compete with a platform that has so many developers excited about it, as iPhoneOS does. An ecosystem creates dominance, and Apple has succeeded at that in an incredibly impressive way.

I'll be interested to see if the new hardware interfaces in iPhoneOS 3.0 help Apple to build a hardware ecosystem, too. If so I may double the length of my bet.

Sources for the numbers in the chart:

• PalmOS:
• Dec. 1998 ("thousands")
• Aug. 2000
• Apr. 2001
• Jun. 2002
• Oct. 2003
• Apr. 2004
• Mar. 2006
• iPhoneOS:
• Jul. 2008
• Sep. 2008
• Mar. 2009
• Apr. 2009
• Jun. 2009

Bing and Google Agree: Slow Pages Lose Users

Today representatives of Google Search and Microsoft's Bing teams, Jake Brutlag and Eric Schurman respectively, presented the results of user performance tests at today's Velocity Conference. The talk was entitled The User and Business Impact of Server Delays, Additional Bytes, and HTTP Chunking in Web Search. These are long-term tests were designed to see what aspects of performance are most important. To know how to improve their sites both Bing and Google need to know what tweaks to page load perceptions and realities help or hurt the user experience. This is one of the first performance tests that has actual data (and is not strictly anecdotal). The numbers may seem small, but they if you are dealing in millions/billions they add up quickly.

Here are Brutlag's and Schurman's final points:

• "Speed matters" is not just lip service
• Delays under half a second impact business metrics
• The cost of delay increases over time and persists
• Use progressive rendering
• Number of bytes in response is less important than what they are and when they are sent

Server-side Delays Test:

Server-side delays that slow down page delivery can significantly and (more importantly) permanently affect usage by users with the test. Both Bing and and Google ran similar tests that support this claim.

Bing's test: Bing delayed server response by ranges from 50ms to 2000ms for their control group. You can see the results of the tests above. Though the number may seem small it's actually large shifts in usage and when applied over millions can be very significant to usage and revenue. The results of the test were so clear that they ended it earlier than originally planned. The metric Time To Click is quite interesting. Notice that as the delays get longer the Time To Click increases at a more extreme rate (1000ms increases by 1900ms). The theory is that the user gets distracted and unengaged in the page. In other words, they've lost the user's full attention and have to get it back.

Google's Test: Google ran a similar experiment for where they tested delays ranging from 50ms - 400ms. The chart above shows the impact that it had on users for the 7 weeks they were in the test. The most interesting thing to note was the continued effect the experiment had on users even after it had ended. Some of the users never recovered -- especially those with the greater delay of 400ms. Google tracked the users for an additional 5 weeks (for a total of 12).

(I've included more on the other tests after the jump.)

(continue reading)

Four short links: 23 June 2009

1. Easter Eggs for Real Life (Neil Gaiman) -- ok, I know easter eggs are already part of real life, but this is still cool. Gaiman recommends a restaurant run by a friend, and the friend has set up a special phrase that to mention to the server, at which point something good and special will happen for them to eat or drink. Think of it as a restaurant Easter Egg. I love language, I love Gaiman's books, I love surprises, and I love that here Gaiman's using the digital sense of Easter Egg (surprise hidden in a program) rather than the analog sense (because there's no searching involved).
2. ASCAP Wants To Be Paid When Your Phone Rings (EFF) -- what the title suggests. You are lost in a twisty maze of rights, all policed by vampires. From ASCAP's point of view, this is a legitimate claim. From anyone else's point of view, it's ridiculous.
3. Tooling Up The Body (MInd Hacks) -- using tools has lots of interesting effects on our perception is the general gist of an intriguing study that provides further evidence for the theory that the brain treats tools as temporary body parts. We talk about using the Internet as our "offsite brain", so it tickles me to learn that the brain treats tools as offsite body parts.
4. Email Patterns Can Predict Impending Doom (New Scientist) -- when Enron was about to collapse, email patterns changed: the number of active email cliques, defined as groups in which every member has had direct email contact with every other member, jumped from 100 to almost 800 around a month before the December 2001 collapse. Messages were also increasingly exchanged within these groups and not shared with other employees. Menezes thinks he and Collingsworth may have identified a characteristic change that occurs as stress builds within a company: employees start talking directly to people they feel comfortable with, and stop sharing information more widely. (via BoingBoing)

A Manifesto on Health Data Rights

As a medical patient, I've always assumed that my medical records were something that I had a right to - after all, they are about me, and my freedom to share them with a second doctor, or see them myself so I can understand my own medical situation, seems self-evident. It was only the fact that so many of these records were on paper that made it so difficult for them to be shared. Electronic access would change all that.

I was surprised then, when I met recently with a congressman in Washington, a former physician, to talk about healthcare reform. When we moved to the topic of portable health care records, I was quite startled to hear him say "When I was practicing as a physician, I considered those records to be my property." After all, he said, they were his notes, his analysis. He obviously still felt this way.

Given this disconnect, I was glad to endorse today's Health Data Bill of Rights:

In an era when technology allows personal health information to be more easily stored, updated, accessed and exchanged, the following rights should be self-evident and inalienable. We the people:

1. Have the right to our own health data
2. Have the right to know the source of each health data element
3. Have the right to take possession of a complete copy of our individual health data, without delay, at minimal or no cost; if data exist in computable form, they must be made available in that form
4. Have the right to share our health data with others as we see fit

These principles express basic human rights as well as essential elements of health care that is participatory, appropriate and in the interests of each patient. No law or policy should abridge these rights.

P.S. If you wonder whether a non-binding manifesto like this can have an impact on the deliberations of government, you have only to look at another similar statement, issued at the end of 2007 by a group of open data activists at a meeting organized by Carl Malamud of public.resource.org at O'Reilly, with support from Google, Yahoo! and the Sunlight Foundation, the 8 Open Data Principles. It was extremely gratifying to recently see the White House blog considering the commitment of the Obama administration to these principles.

Or consider the Robustness principle from RFC 761, the commitment to interoperability that provided a philosophical touchstone for the Internet, and has helped ensure its extraordinary resilience.

Statements of principle do matter. We may not yet have any idea what the exact format of an open health record system will look like, but we don't need to. If we establish the underlying principle of open exchange, the marketplace can sort out the details.

Health data exchange will unleash one of the great opportunities of the coming decade. Let's make it happen!

Before and After Shots of Google's Iran Maps

There many places in the world where it is not possible for larger companies to map them. These can be for economic reasons as is the case for Black Rock City (the temporary 40,000 person home for Burning Man). Or for political reasons as is the case for Iran and countries such as China.
As I mentioned the other day Google greatly improved their map coverage of Iran via user contributions through their Mapmaker program. These user contributions were applied just a few weeks ago. Here are before and after screenshots of two Iranian cities. The before shot was taken on September 22, 2008; the after shots were taken on May 18, 2009.

Mashhad (Before and After)

Tabriz (Before and After)

Where are the learners?

I tend to browse around Flickr a lot, and came across this image:

So what's missing here? Well, it would seem obvious... except to many technical book authors. See, for most folks, the obvious answer here is, "There are no students!"

But for the average technical book author -- and to be clear, I'm one of that crowd, so I'm speaking personally and from experience -- we would all, loudly, cry out, "There's no teacher!"

What a fundamental disconnect.

See, those of us who write do that writing alone (or, in some cases, relatively alone. That's author-speak for, "at my local Starbucks with earphones"). And yet, we'll quickly call ourselves "teachers." But what other type of teacher functions without a group of people in front of them, or at least in mind?

Can you imagine a new math teacher walking into a classroom, and gaping at all the kids seated in the room? "What are all these kids doing in here?" We'd very politely usher that teacher back out into unemployment (or perhaps into further training).

Take a short step away from the empty classroom, and consider the dying technical book market. Yes, it's dying. Sales are plummeting for traditional technical books. We're having to examine other markets, other formats, other approaches...

And we're back to the empty classroom. Right? Because we're building screencasts with an anonymous teacher speaking into a microphone in an empty room. Or we're writing iPhone apps that are beautiful... and do little more than highlight the teacher's knowledge.

But what if... what if we looked at that picture above, and realized that what's missing is the student. Better, the learner.

Socrates suggested that learning is remembering (I'm simplifying, I know, but I've already written longer than I should have). And the beautiful part of his picture of learning was suggesting that he was less a teacher than a midwife. He basically didn't teach; he instead aided the learner in learning. He was a facilitator, little more.

So one of the things you're going to see over these next few weeks -- from me and from O'Reilly -- is a renewed focus on the learner. We're going to write and ask questions about how to facilitate, rather than lecture. We're going to push out some new and engaging products and ideas (some for-pay, some for-free), and we're going to put the focus on the learner.

I hate writing a declaratory piece like this, because it doesn't encourage interaction as much as I'd prefer. In a sense, I've broken my own rules, and become lecturer instead of facilitator. I haven't been a good midwife. I'm hoping you see that I'm trying to do a little stage-setting, for a lot of facilitation.

Maybe you've got comments, ideas, and thoughts. How do you do this? How do you keep your focus off your own "brilliance" and on your learner's needs? What are you doing to keep the focus on where it belongs?

Velocity: The Art of Web Operations

Two years ago, at the 2007 O'Reilly Open Source Convention, a group of web operations professionals, led by Jesse Robbins and Steve Souders along with O'Reilly editor Andy Oram, asked for a meeting with me. Their message: "We need a separate conference for our community." That community: the web operations professionals who keep sites up and running.

They knew I was receptive. A year earlier, I'd published a blog post entitled Operations: The New Secret Sauce. I had been pushing for years to get books on web operations into our publishing list (and in fact, Steve's book, High Performance Websites was in production at that time, and Andy had a number of other titles in the works.)

But nonetheless, the meeting felt like an intervention. It was absurdly exciting. I had been thinking in the abstract about the fact that as we move to a software as a service world, one of the big changes was that applications had people "inside" of them, managing them, tuning them, and helping them respond to constantly changing conditions. The skills and tools used by these people would need to be spread to a wider audience. But here were a group of these people - a big group - saying "We need an identity as a profession, and we need a gathering place for our tribe. We want your help."

How could I say no? We agreed to start with a "Summit" meeting to bring together the community and brainstorm ideas. Gina Blaber, our VP of Conferences, organized a meeting of 30 or 40 of the "big dogs", and the excitement was palpable. She moved quickly on from there to launch the Velocity conference. It was a success in its first year out, and the second annual conference, starting today in San Jose, promises to be even better.

What's more, the fact that attendance has surpassed last year, in an economy that has depressed attendance at many industry conferences by 30-50%, says something about the growing importance of this new field.

Back when I first began thinking about this topic for our publishing program, five or six years ago, observing that we needed books on what went on inside of Google and companies like it - the tools and processes they use to deliver such astounding performance and scale - the pushback was that "there are only a few companies operating at that scale."

But of course, if you've heard me speak, you've probably heard me quote William Gibson: "The future is already here. It's just not evenly distributed yet." Now, there are hundreds of companies (at least) operating at the scale that Google was operating at when I first made those statements. Over 700 of the people who keep them running are converging on San Jose today.

Velocity opens today with workshops and tutorials. The regular conference program begins tomorrow. The conference team has provided me with a special discount code for people who want to up-end their schedule and register at the last minute. Use VEL09BLOG for 20% off. There's also an Ignite session tonight, free and open to the public. Spike Night on Tuesday, a demonstration of how companies respond to huge spikes in traffic, is also open to non-conference attendees. It should be a fabulous gathering.

Recent Posts

• Four short links: 22 June 2009 | by Nat Torkington on June 22, 2009
• The Benefits of a Classical Education | by Tim O'Reilly on June 21, 2009
• Health Care Costs: Am I missing something? Or is there a lot of flimflam going on? | by Tim O'Reilly on June 19, 2009
• Dramatic Increase in Number of Tor Clients from Iran: Interview with Tor Project and the EFF | by Timothy M. O'Brien on June 19, 2009
• The Web^2: it's Exponential, but is it Contracting or Expanding? | by Jim Stogdill on June 19, 2009
• Announcing: Spike Night at Velocity | by Scott Ruthfield on June 19, 2009
• Four short links: 19 June 2009 | by Nat Torkington on June 19, 2009
• Twenty-five hundred years of Government 2.0 | by Andy Oram on June 19, 2009
• Personal Democracy Forum: Politics in the Web 2.0 Era | by Tim O'Reilly on June 19, 2009
• Facebook Adds Million of Users in Asia | by Ben Lorica on June 19, 2009
• Sarah Milstein on Iranian Protests and Twitter | by Timothy M. O'Brien on June 18, 2009
• Four short links: 18 June 2009 | by Nat Torkington on June 18, 2009