<?xml version="1.0"?>
<!-- RSS generated by OPML Editor version 0.71 on 11/28/2006; 11:52:19 PM Pacific -->
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>Scripting News</title>
		<link>http://www.scripting.com/</link>
		<description>It's even worse than it appears.</description>
		<language>en-us</language>
		<copyright>Copyright 1997-2006 Dave Winer</copyright>
		<pubDate>Tue, 28 Nov 2006 08:00:00 GMT</pubDate>
		<lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Nov 2006 07:52:19 GMT</lastBuildDate>
		<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
		<generator>OPML Editor version 0.71</generator>
		<managingEditor>dave@scripting.com</managingEditor>
		<webMaster>dave@scripting.com</webMaster>
		<item>
			<description>&lt;a href=&quot;http://thomashawk.com/2006/11/well-know-web-20-bubble-has-burst-when.html&quot;&gt;Thomas Hawk&lt;/a&gt;: &quot;I'm scared of Google's stock price.&quot;</description>
			<pubDate>Wed, 29 Nov 2006 07:52:02 GMT</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.scripting.com/2006/11/28.html#When:11:52:02PM</guid>
			</item>
		<item>
			<description>&lt;a href=&quot;http://yodel.yahoo.com/2006/11/28/anything-good-on-tonight/&quot;&gt;Yahoo says&lt;/a&gt; they improved Yahoo TV, but imho, they broke it. The &lt;a href=&quot;http://tv.yahoo.com/listings;_ylt=AtcZfWwjVB5S7ykUK70PjfgXpNEF&quot;&gt;listings page&lt;/a&gt;, which until today was the only page I knew or cared about (they just added a bunch of community features) took a few seconds to load, now it's an Ajax thing, and it loads as you scroll. Great. There's a delay every time I hit Page Down. Now instead of finding out if there's anything on in  seconds it takes minutes. That's an improvement?</description>
			<pubDate>Wed, 29 Nov 2006 07:10:15 GMT</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.scripting.com/2006/11/28.html#When:11:10:15PM</guid>
			</item>
		<item>
			<description>&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.blogmaverick.com/2006/11/28/a-little-ditty-about-web-video-and-hdtv/&quot;&gt;Mark Cuban explains&lt;/a&gt; why it's going to be a long time before our computers connect up to our HD TVs in HD.</description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 28 Nov 2006 21:34:14 GMT</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.scripting.com/2006/11/28.html#When:1:34:14PM</guid>
			</item>
		<item>
			<description>&lt;img src=&quot;http://images.scripting.com/archiveScriptingCom/2006/11/28/postman.gif&quot; width=&quot;65&quot; height=&quot;129&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; hspace=&quot;15&quot; vspace=&quot;5&quot; alt=&quot;A picture named postman.gif&quot;&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://scripting.wordpress.com/2006/11/28/scripting-news-for-11282006/#comment-20209&quot;&gt;Wes Felter says&lt;/a&gt; that &quot;most people&quot; don't want to connect their computers to a TV. Well, most people, in the day in horses and buggies, didn't want to ride in an internal combustion engine-driven &lt;a href=&quot;http://home.iag.net/~middlebr/manincar.jpg&quot;&gt;mobility device&lt;/a&gt;, but today it's impossible to live in modern society without using the darned things. I want to connect my Mac to a TV, and in fact I bought a Mac just to be part of my home entertainment system, and Wes, get this, I watch it a lot more than I watch the danged settop box, even though my Mac can't produce an HD signal, and I love HD. Go figure. Maybe I can do things with my Internet-connected Mac that I can't do with a settop box? Wes, open your mind, stop thinking about connecting PCs to TVs and think of computers that are part of a home entertainment system, and it'll all of a sudden start making sense. Even better, spring for a few hundred bucks and get a Mac Mini, and stare at the the back of it and the back of your TV for a few minutes and you'll see what's missing. Or save yourself a few bucks and re-read Cuban's piece and think he's a smart guy instead of a dumb asshole. </description>
			<pubDate>Wed, 29 Nov 2006 06:48:57 GMT</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.scripting.com/2006/11/28.html#When:10:48:57PM</guid>
			</item>
		<item>
			<description>New feature. Every time I save Scripting News, the content system chooses a header graphic from the collection of &lt;a href=&quot;http://static2.podcatch.com/blogs/gems/snedit/prevHeaders.html&quot;&gt;78 previous graphics&lt;/a&gt;. It's random. You never know what you're going to get. (Update: I found a &lt;a href=&quot;http://images.scripting.com/archiveScriptingCom/2005/12/14/cafeBeignet.jpg&quot;&gt;79th&lt;/a&gt;. I expect I'll keep finding them for a while. I wasn't always so careful about noting the new ones.)</description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 28 Nov 2006 19:34:41 GMT</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.scripting.com/2006/11/28.html#When:11:34:41AM</guid>
			</item>
		<item>
			<description>And then there are the header graphics that never ran. Like this &lt;a href=&quot;http://images.scripting.com/archiveScriptingCom/2004/05/26/xmlScripting.gif&quot;&gt;blowup&lt;/a&gt; of the white on orange XML icon. An &lt;a href=&quot;http://images.scripting.com/archiveScriptingCom/2005/09/09/blackfasceRudy.jpg&quot;&gt;inversion&lt;/a&gt; of my grandfather and his friends. A Thomas Hawk &lt;a href=&quot;http://images.scripting.com/archiveScriptingCom/2006/11/03/hawkRunner.jpg&quot;&gt;masterpiece&lt;/a&gt;.</description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 28 Nov 2006 23:51:40 GMT</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.scripting.com/2006/11/28.html#When:3:51:40PM</guid>
			</item>
		<item>
			<description>Emily Shurr of News.com thinks &lt;a href=&quot;http://news.com.com/2061-10786_3-6138928.html?part=rss&amp;tag=2547-1_3-0-5&amp;subj=news&quot;&gt;Hedy Lamarr&lt;/a&gt; should be one of the ten girl geeks. Makes total sense. </description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 28 Nov 2006 20:04:32 GMT</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.scripting.com/2006/11/28.html#When:12:04:32PM</guid>
			</item>
		<item>
			<description>&lt;a href=&quot;http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6191988.stm&quot;&gt;BBC&lt;/a&gt;: &quot;Blogs and other internet sites should be covered by a voluntary code of practice similar to that for newspapers in the UK, a conference has been told.&quot;</description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 28 Nov 2006 17:42:55 GMT</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.scripting.com/2006/11/28.html#When:9:42:55AM</guid>
			</item>
		<item>
			<description>&lt;a href=&quot;http://paulboutin.weblogger.com/2006/11/21#a1628&quot;&gt;Paul Boutin offers&lt;/a&gt; &quot;a couple of rules I learned in my career as an evil mainstream media writer.&quot;</description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 28 Nov 2006 12:49:51 GMT</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.scripting.com/2006/11/28.html#When:4:49:51AM</guid>
			</item>
		<item>
			<title>Bubble Burst 2.0</title>
			<link>http://www.scripting.com/2006/11/28.html#bubbleBurst20</link>
			<description>
				&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://images.scripting.com/archiveScriptingCom/2006/11/28/titanicSmall.jpg&quot; width=&quot;125&quot; height=&quot;76&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; hspace=&quot;15&quot; vspace=&quot;5&quot; alt=&quot;A picture named titanicSmall.jpg&quot;&gt;In the late 90s, the period of irrational exuberance, we knew the end would come, and we knew what the end would look like -- a stock market crash of the dotcom sector. So, if Web 2.0 is a bubble, and if like all bubbles it bursts, how will we know when it happens?&lt;/p&gt;
				&lt;p&gt;I almost wrote a piece yesterday saying that since the Web 2.0 companies aren't going public, they're safe from busting in a visible, dramatic way. I almost said it will be hard to tell when the bust comes, it'll be softer and slower, you won't hear a crash or even a pop. But I was wrong, and today we got the first &lt;a href=&quot;http://today.reuters.com/news/articleinvesting.aspx?type=hotStocksNews&amp;storyID=2006-11-27T163153Z_01_N27443864_RTRUKOC_0_US-MARKETS-STOCKS.xml&amp;WTmodLoc=InvArt-C2-NextArticle-1&quot;&gt;rumblings&lt;/a&gt; of the shock that will signal the end of the bubble.&lt;/p&gt;
				&lt;p&gt;Google stock will crash. That's how we'll know.&lt;/p&gt;
				&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://images.scripting.com/archiveScriptingCom/2006/11/28/titanicTilted.jpg&quot; width=&quot;114&quot; height=&quot;143&quot; border=&quot;0&quot; align=&quot;right&quot; hspace=&quot;15&quot; vspace=&quot;5&quot; alt=&quot;A picture named titanicTilted.jpg&quot;&gt;When I realized this, I should have known, because I've been &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.scripting.com/2005/12/22.html#bustedExplained&quot;&gt;saying&lt;/a&gt; for almost a year that Web 2.0 is nothing more than an aftermarket for Google. Startups slicing little bits of Google's P/E ratio, acting as sales reps for Google ads, and getting great multiples for the revenue they generate by fostering the creation of new &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User-generated_content&quot;&gt;UGC&lt;/a&gt; to place ads on. When Google crashes, that's the end of that, no more wave to ride, no more aftermarket, Bubble Burst 2.0. And the flip of this is also true -- as long as Google's stock stays up, no bubble burst.&lt;/p&gt;
				</description>
			<pubDate>Tue, 28 Nov 2006 16:06:38 GMT</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.scripting.com/2006/11/28.html#bubbleBurst20</guid>
			</item>
		</channel>
	</rss>