Doc is offering the closing keynote again this year. He’s beginning with a Weinberger-instigated "Invasion of the Body-Snatchers" reference. He points out that Andre Durand’s notion of identity management puts the user at the center: "assumed identity" (me), "assigned identity" (relationships with others), and "abstract identity" (marketing aggregate blah blah blah). Tier 3 doesn't concern us as people, but as wallets. "Wallets are Tier 2 habitats" — aspects of our identity assigned by others. Mailboxes are Tier 3 habitats, the homes of junk mail and spam.
Doc and Andre ask, what happens when your own identity (Tier 1) gets equal power in Tier 2 relationships? Doc cites the Chris Locke line from Cluetrain, "Networked markets get smarter faster than most companies."
So, where are we now? The enterprise people are talking to each other. Theyre speaking in BuzzPhrases. But they're talking about "markets" in too many different ways, for big aggregates, "the Chinese market" or "the lipstick market," for sales, for lots of different things when markets are, places people meet for exchange and conversation. No one is in charge; the buyer and seller always negotiate. Hence, every transaction makes for a relationship. This translates Andre's three tiers to Doc's Mydentity (roots), Ourdentity (relationships), and Theirdentity (spam). To us grassroots types, this conference sounds a lot like a paving convention.
What do customers want? That's what companies should care about. Doc needed a cable for his TiBook; an interested seller could have sold him a cord, if they knew he needed one. Doc thinks that by shifting attention to the customer, we're dismantling the Matrix (which he construes as a metaphor for marketing).
Posted by AKMA at October 17, 2003 12:26 PM | TrackBackI guess Doc must have tuned out at the cod-philosophy wordy bits in The Matrix Reloaded...
Posted by: Matt at October 17, 2003 03:38 PMWhen the machine compiles your code, however, it does a little bit of translation. At run time, the computer sees nothing but 1s and 0s, which is all the computer ever sees: a continuous string of binary numbers that it can interpret in various ways.
Posted by: Rebecca at January 13, 2004 02:54 AMThe rest of our conversion follows a similar vein. Instead of going through line by line, let's just compare end results: when the transition is complete, the code that used to read:
Posted by: Janikin at January 13, 2004 02:54 AMSince the Heap has no definite rules as to where it will create space for you, there must be some way of figuring out where your new space is. And the answer is, simply enough, addressing. When you create new space in the heap to hold your data, you get back an address that tells you where your new space is, so your bits can move in. This address is called a Pointer, and it's really just a hexadecimal number that points to a location in the heap. Since it's really just a number, it can be stored quite nicely into a variable.
Posted by: Ottewell at January 13, 2004 02:55 AMBut variables get one benefit people do not
Posted by: Archibald at January 13, 2004 09:05 AMThat gives us a pretty good starting point to understand a lot more about variables, and that's what we'll be examining next lesson. Those new variable types I promised last lesson will finally make an appearance, and we'll examine a few concepts that we'll use to organize our data into more meaningful structures, a sort of precursor to the objects that Cocoa works with. And we'll delve a little bit more into the fun things we can do by looking at those ever-present bits in a few new ways.
Posted by: Newton at January 13, 2004 09:05 AMSeth Roby graduated in May of 2003 with a double major in English and Computer Science, the Macintosh part of a three-person Macintosh, Linux, and Windows graduating triumvirate.
Posted by: Matthew at January 13, 2004 09:05 AM