So, what is the future of video?

I've discussed this a little bit before and more directly gave a practical example of how Google and YouTube etc. are going to p0wn cable networks and then today I found yet another example of the shift.

Denver is really a great place. Every time I say that I wish I didn't say it because one of the things I like about Denver is that it's a medium sized city. There will come a day in the future when we have suburbs and shopping malls from the New Mexico Border right up to Wyoming all along the front-rang/I-25 corridor. Until then, we can just be excited about infill, denser downtown Denver, and a lot of exciting mass-transit options. As the Denver Infill Blog put it:

I previously wrote about this idea in Paid blogging - Review of ReviewMe, PayPerPost, Blogsvertise (not a sponsored post) and at that time I was NOT paid for the post. Well, the time has come and ReviewMe is now live and kicking. So, does my earlier review hold true? So far it seems to and that's not terribly surprising based upon the initial work they've done on the site. Use of the site is logical and simple. There are plenty of usability enhancements I found that I want to integrate into my own sites.

ReviewMe has several requirements for their service. First, all blogs submitted must pass their quality test. It's not terribly complicated how it works (nor how to game the system) but it does a decent job of keeping out the junk sites. Next, you must mention that it is a paid post which is certainly above the line in terms of the ethics and clarity of what's going on. Third, write a balanced review - no need for it to be extremely positive OR negative. Fourth, make money. So far, that seems to be it!

What's notably missing: onerous requirements such as required linking and/or link text that you MUST include in each post. Requirements to insert tracking bullets, requirements for a certain slant on the issue. Requirements about frequency of posts. It's really about the best situation I know for publishers and that's a great idea. If it works out right, they'll get the best group of publishers which will in turn draw in advertisers to the group.

This is a system built by and for people who understand the cluetrain manifesto: open and honest conversations with your consumers and in front of your consumers can only help your business. If your business can't stand up to that, time to change or close up shop.

I'm a little sad they don't have an affiliate program.

What do you do before taking an important action?

You research. Since this is the internet age, how do you search? Google. Yahoo. MSN, AOL, Ask.com. At least that's how the majority of internet users research. Maybe you use Wikipedia. If someone were sitting on your shoulder and watching all of your search terms they would know the future of your actions.

Wired is running an article about funding and bias in global warming science this morning. Global warming is a topic that is pretty popular right now, but I believe they are only really telling half the story on the funding/bias issue.

The slant of the story is that Pat Michaels, a long time anti-human-induced/global-warming-is-exaggerated scientist is being biased in his research because he is accepting money from energy producers. Certainly, many research companies have gotten into scandals in recent years as they write passionate stories on a subject only to have it revealed that the study was funded by the organization that stands to benefit the most. This is especially sad when the actions of the research organization are in opposition to the findings in these studies.

So, if we accept the claim that research funding from "interested" parties biases the researchers then what can we say about the people who are crying foul in the case of Michaels?

A quick quote from the article:

"These people are just spitting into the wind," said John Holdren, president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. "The fact is that the drumbeat of science and people's perspectives are in line that the climate is changing."

Frank O'Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch, a Washington advocacy group, said: "This is a classic case of industry buying science to back up its anti-environmental agenda."

So, who are the people funding these organizations. Neither of them readily discloses their sources of funding (at least not that I could find in a cursory view of their website). Clean Air Watch (CAW) does accept donations from private individuals - in which case you have to ask a question: "what motivates a private individual to give money to CAW?" The optimistic perspective is that people do it because CAW is doing something to help every person who breathes air. The pessimistic perspective is that if CAW produces enough "alarmist" reports that scare people into action then those people will be motivated to give more money to CAW. I think it's only fair to say that both the optimistic and pessimistic perspective are valid in at least some of the cases which brings me to my point: CAW has a bias in it's source of funding! So all of this "CAW is holier than though, Pat Michaels" stuff is poppycock.

So, I was reading this article in businessweek about how fancy the satelite dish and cable tv providers are getting. Are you kidding me?

The major breakthrough technologies are