Re: Something new for the New Year (2008).
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 21:09:05 GMT
"Marshall" <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com> wrote in message news:504de8fd-536a-457c-a1f9-469dfdfdabcf_at_q39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> > > > Although Marshall says: "I *still* don't know what you find
> > > > interesting about it", I would argue that in addition to being the
> > > > first, new relationship representation in 35 years (nested sets
> > > > notwithstanding), it also demonstrates considerable analytic
> > > I don't think you're taking point-of-view into consideration
> > > very well.
> > > Let me ask you: looking out my window, I see a lot of
> > > fog. I claim it is the kind of fog that is just going to burn
> > > off, and not the kind that will turn into rain. Do you agree?
> > > See the problem?
> > I see one problem. Your "analogy" is between a non-reproducible,
> > observable weather state that exists outside your window, and a
> > technology that can be reproduced on any SQL DBMS.
> Way to completely miss the point, dude.
> > > I cannot disprove your "considerable analytic utility" claim.
> > > Neither can I confirm it.
> > > Maybe I could take a picture of the fog and send it to you.
> > > Maybe you could show some of this analytic utility in action.
> > > Then we might be on more solid footing with regards to
> > > each others claims.
> > According to Geoffrey A. Moore in Crossing the Chasm, the people who
> > will actually adopt a new technology (he uses the term to mean a
> > product) can be divided into Innovators, Early Adopters, The Early
> > Majority, The Late Majority and the Laggards. (The "chasm" of the book
> > title is between the Early Adopters and the Early Majority.) I would
> > not presume to categorize you Marshall, but you are certainly not
> > among the first two groups. I could spend time working up example
> > No offense is intended here. My resources a very limited. I have to
> > spend them where I can hope for the best return.
> Okay I have just totally lost patience with this.
I wouldn't presume to characterize either Rob or you Marshall, but I do have the benefit of much prior discussion with you in this newsgroup, and apparently Rob does not have the same benefit. Much of the tone of Rob's communication does seem to be as if it were between a salesman and a prospective client rather than between two colleagues discussing a technical matter on a public newsgroup.
What I do want to take exception to is Rob's characterization of Diffusion of Innovation as relating to a product rather than to an entire technology. That may be true in the book "Crossing the Chasm", but it isn't true in the original concept of DofI. DofI predates "Chasm" by several years. I was first exposed to DofI and the five stages while still working at Digital.
Here's a link to a wikipedia article about the concept.
I believe that Rob's transformation of a technology oriented concept into a product oriented concept is related to Rod particular intended use for his valuable time. I certainly hope that Rob will feel motivated to spend less of his valuable time writing posts to comp.databases.theory, even though the return on investment might be quite high, over the long run.
Then again, in the long run, we are all dead, according to Keynes. Received on Thu Jan 17 2008 - 22:09:05 CET