SSH,

In my heart I want to agree with you, however, the Internet as we knew it 15
years ago is long gone.

In October I got to hear Gregory Maffei, President and CEO of Liberty Media,
speak at The Cable Center. His position was that the Internet has destroyed
many billions of $$ worth of value over the past 10+ years. Look at the
economic destruction to the music, movie, TV, newspaper, and other media
industries. Look at the primetime schedule these day. Some evenings it's all
reality TV crap, and the idea of Jay Leno at 9/10 PM is just not appealing
to me.

Believe me, I'm no fan of Rupert Murdoch. Fox News is nothing more than
dangerous right wing populist fringe dogma. However, I think he may be on to
something by getting M$ to pay. I desperately want to have good journalism
preserved and that costs $$. I have serious doubts that the traditional
advertising model will work online. I doubt that News Corp alone will have
any significant effect on Google. However, they could be the catalyst to set
off a tsunami.

SSH, please stop crying for "the poor end user". I have absolutely no
sympathy for us. Don't you remember how much fun it was to use Gopher and
Finger to find things on the Internet before there was a World Wide Web?
Back then you could list almost every Internet site on a spreadsheet. Prior
to Google, it was customary to go to 3 or 4 search engines when researching
a topic. No big deal.

The point of my original post was that quality main stream centrist news is
in danger of extinction unless the newspapers find a sustainable revenue
model. My livelihood comes from the Internet. I desperately hope that the
Internet is the solution. Google has a revenue model that is hugely
profitable. Maybe that revenue stream can help preserve news as we know it.
Maybe not. Maybe it's something else sitting right under our nose.

Happy Thanksgiving!!

Alf


Alf Gardner
COMFLUENT
910 15th St., Suite 740
Denver, Colorado 80202 USA
303.376.1600 - 303.376.3725 direct
http://www.comfluent.com
Where the networks meet



From: Stephen Hultquist [mailto:ssh@...]
Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 7:18 PM
To: Derek Scruggs
Cc: Alf Gardner
Subject: Re: [rmiug-discuss] Act 2 of Newspapers might make money online

I'm not crying for Google. I couldn't care less about them. I'm crying for
the poor end users who are used to being able to find stuff who will now be
stuck with a bifurcated Internet. This is the antithesis of the Internet.
The Internet was born to connect disparate systems. Now, we are seeing the
moronic actions of the monopolistic giants destroying the primary benefit of
the Internet: information at your fingertips. Primarily because Microsoft
(and Yahoo) have been unable to compete on the basis of search technology
and so now want to use money to reduce the accuracy of their competitor's
results. Disturbing in the extreme.

On Nov 23, 2009, at 8:19 PM, Derek Scruggs wrote:



Aggregation of.... what? Other people's content. Yahoo tried making money
off their own content and it failed. This was a strategic decision by Google
and every decision carries risk. Murdoch and Microsoft are also taking huge
risks too. I'm not sur I agree with them, but I'm not crying for Google.
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Stephen Hultquist <ssh@...> wrote:
I don't disagree with the premise, although I would argue that Google makes
their money off aggregation and affiliation and relevance rather than off
the content itself. And it takes work to do all that.

On Nov 23, 2009, at 6:29 PM, Derek Scruggs wrote:



Not sure I think it's a good thing per se, but it's not just you making the
decision. It's also Google. If, as they claim, their mission is to bring the
world's information to your fingertips, then by not negotiating in good
faith you have to ask why. Think how much they've spent on scanning books.
Why not spend money on the rights to index?

I'm no fan of Murdoch or Microsoft, but Google makes billions off content
that is provided to them for free.
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:47 PM, Stephen Hultquist <ssh@...> wrote:

...and you think forbidding various search engines from indexing major news
sources is somehow a *good* thing?

Charging to index? Perhaps. Forbidding indexing and effectively creating the
equivalent of the "net neutrality" discussion in the search engine space?
Disturbing. Now, I'll have to decide which search engine to use when I am
searching for something, since search engine G doesn't index the WSJ but
search engine B does, however, search engine B doesn't index the NYT and
search engine G does. How is this possibly a good thing?

ssh

On Nov 23, 2009, at 3:12 PM, Alf Gardner wrote:

> Greetings again,
>
> It appears that M$ may be following Jason Calacanis' advice. I really hope
> that a sustainable business model can be developed here. I feel that it's
> very important that the mainstream newspapers survive. If not I'm afraid
> that we could end up relying on the populist fringe elements for our news.

>
> Let's all stay tuned to see where this heads.
>
> Alf
>
>
>
> MICROSOFT AND NEWS CORP EYE WEB PACT
> By Matthew Garrahan in Los Angeles, Richard Waters in San Francisco and
> Andrew Edgecliffe-Johnson in New YorkPublished: November 22 2009 23:01 |
> Last updated: November 22 2009 23:01 Microsoft has had discussions with
News
> Corp over a plan that would involve the media company's being paid to
> "de-index" its news websites from Google, setting the scene for a search
> engine battle that could offer a ray of light to the newspaper industry.
> The impetus for the discussions came from News Corp, owner of newspapers
> ranging from the Wall Street Journal of the US to The Sun of the UK, said
a
> person familiar with the situation, who warned that talks were at an early
> stage.
> This article can be found at:
>
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a243c8b2-d79b-11de-b578-00144feabdc0,_i_email=y.ht
> ml
>
>
>
>
> From: rmiug-discuss@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:rmiug-discuss%40yahoogroups.com>
[mailto:rmiug-discuss@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:rmiug-discuss%40yahoogroups.com> ]
> On Behalf Of Alf Gardner
> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 4:56 PM
> To: rmiug-discuss@yahoogroups.com <mailto:rmiug-discuss%40yahoogroups.com>

> Subject: [rmiug-discuss] Newspapers might make money online
>
>
> Greetings,
>
> I'm sure you've heard that Rupert Murdoch is threatening to not allow
Google
> to index the WSJ:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7GkJqRv3BI
>
> Considering his purchase of MySpace, it's questionable whether Mr. Murdoch
> grasps the online business. He may have also paid too much for the WSJ.
But
> even if 25% of the WSJ traffic may come from Google, what good is that
> traffic if he can't make any $$ off of it.
>
> Jason Calacanis has come up with an intriguing potential solution:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTe15DEWp30
>
> If you were Google, what lengths would you go to to keep Bing/M$ from
> getting exclusive indexing arrangements with the NY Times, WSJ and the
other
> top content sites? These indexing deals could be especially effective if
> Bing/Google/Yahoo could place adds on the content sites based on the
search
> criteria.
>
> Craigslist has pretty much devalued the newspapers' gravy train. The
content
> sites need to generate real revenue from real sales of whatever, not just
> generate page views and unique visitors. I don't know if Colacanis has the
> answer, but I do like the direction of his mindset and the train of
thought.
> The answer is there. We just need to get out of the way.





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

The irony of your two statements is in the juxtaposition of two opposite ideas,
both of which you claim to be true:

1) The traditional advertising model doesn't work.
2) Google has a revenue model that works (which is advertising)

Most of the "destruction of value" wasn't any such thing! It was
disintermediation of the corporate structures that turn out to be superfluous
with technology delivering the content. It's the information equivalent of
robotics and the natural evolution of information content (including
entertainment, the arts, and journalism, among others).

If you want to understand what's really happening, it's important to know that
what Liberty Media (and the rest of the similar organizations) brought to bear
is largely replaced by Internet distribution. That traditional media fell for
the idea that "content has to be free" was a huge mistake on their part. There
*are* ways to make it work (witness iTunes, which didn't exist 7 years ago), but
it's much easier to try to block what's already being done instead of finding
ways to develop a profitable model that works for the real end-users of the
data.

I *hated* using multiple search engines! It was such a waste of time, energy,
and productivity. That is a *huge* benefit to the competitive landscape that
Google created in a Stanford dorm room. Heck, Yahoo did the same thing when they
cataloged the Internet for the first time, and yes, I remember it very well. A
cohesive search environment has been perhaps the primary drive behind ubiquitous
use of the Internet.

Frankly, nobody matters but the "poor end user." They are the ones with the
money. If they don't like it, they'll go somewhere else, and someone will figure
out how to give them what they want.

FWIW, I'm not a fan of 95% of "traditional media," either, finding it scary in
its ability to use professionally-skilled writing primarily to influence rather
than simply report and educate. I hold a different opinion of Fox News than you,
but see Murdoch for what he is: a businessman after profit by simply catering to
the broadest demographic that he thinks he can serve. I don't particularly care
for his way of doing it, but I do understand it.

From my perspective, there's virtually no "good journalism" left in traditional
media.

Best of the season to you!

Best,
ssh

On Nov 25, 2009, at 12:39 PM, Alf Gardner wrote:

> SSH,
>
> In my heart I want to agree with you, however, the Internet as we knew it 15
years ago is long gone.
>
> In October I got to hear Gregory Maffei, President and CEO of Liberty Media,
speak at The Cable Center. His position was that the Internet has destroyed many
billions of $$ worth of value over the past 10+ years. Look at the economic
destruction to the music, movie, TV, newspaper, and other media industries. Look
at the primetime schedule these day. Some evenings it’s all reality TV crap, and
the idea of Jay Leno at 9/10 PM is just not appealing to me.
>
> Believe me, I’m no fan of Rupert Murdoch. Fox News is nothing more than
dangerous right wing populist fringe dogma. However, I think he may be on to
something by getting M$ to pay. I desperately want to have good journalism
preserved and that costs $$. I have serious doubts that the traditional
advertising model will work online. I doubt that News Corp alone will have any
significant effect on Google. However, they could be the catalyst to set off a
tsunami.
>
> SSH, please stop crying for “the poor end user”. I have absolutely no sympathy
for us. Don’t you remember how much fun it was to use Gopher and Finger to find
things on the Internet before there was a World Wide Web? Back then you could
list almost every Internet site on a spreadsheet. Prior to Google, it was
customary to go to 3 or 4 search engines when researching a topic. No big deal.
>
> The point of my original post was that quality main stream centrist news is in
danger of extinction unless the newspapers find a sustainable revenue model. My
livelihood comes from the Internet. I desperately hope that the Internet is the
solution. Google has a revenue model that is hugely profitable. Maybe that
revenue stream can help preserve news as we know it. Maybe not. Maybe it’s
something else sitting right under our nose.
>
> Happy Thanksgiving!!
>
> Alf
>
>
> Alf Gardner
> COMFLUENT
> 910 15th St., Suite 740
> Denver, Colorado 80202 USA
> 303.376.1600 - 303.376.3725 direct
> http://www.comfluent.com
> Where the networks meet
>
>
>
> From: Stephen Hultquist [mailto:ssh@...]
> Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 7:18 PM
> To: Derek Scruggs
> Cc: Alf Gardner
> Subject: Re: [rmiug-discuss] Act 2 of Newspapers might make money online
>
> I'm not crying for Google. I couldn't care less about them. I'm crying for the
poor end users who are used to being able to find stuff who will now be stuck
with a bifurcated Internet. This is the antithesis of the Internet. The Internet
was born to connect disparate systems. Now, we are seeing the moronic actions of
the monopolistic giants destroying the primary benefit of the Internet:
information at your fingertips. Primarily because Microsoft (and Yahoo) have
been unable to compete on the basis of search technology and so now want to use
money to reduce the accuracy of their competitor's results. Disturbing in the
extreme.
>
> On Nov 23, 2009, at 8:19 PM, Derek Scruggs wrote:
>
>
> Aggregation of.... what? Other people's content. Yahoo tried making money off
their own content and it failed. This was a strategic decision by Google and
every decision carries risk. Murdoch and Microsoft are also taking huge risks
too. I'm not sur I agree with them, but I'm not crying for Google.
>
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Stephen Hultquist <ssh@...> wrote:
> I don't disagree with the premise, although I would argue that Google makes
their money off aggregation and affiliation and relevance rather than off the
content itself. And it takes work to do all that.
>
> On Nov 23, 2009, at 6:29 PM, Derek Scruggs wrote:
>
>
> Not sure I think it's a good thing per se, but it's not just you making the
decision. It's also Google. If, as they claim, their mission is to bring the
world's information to your fingertips, then by not negotiating in good faith
you have to ask why. Think how much they've spent on scanning books. Why not
spend money on the rights to index?
>
> I'm no fan of Murdoch or Microsoft, but Google makes billions off content that
is provided to them for free.
>
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:47 PM, Stephen Hultquist <ssh@...> wrote:
>
> ...and you think forbidding various search engines from indexing major news
sources is somehow a *good* thing?
>
> Charging to index? Perhaps. Forbidding indexing and effectively creating the
equivalent of the "net neutrality" discussion in the search engine space?
Disturbing. Now, I'll have to decide which search engine to use when I am
searching for something, since search engine G doesn't index the WSJ but search
engine B does, however, search engine B doesn't index the NYT and search engine
G does. How is this possibly a good thing?
>
> ssh
>
> On Nov 23, 2009, at 3:12 PM, Alf Gardner wrote:
>
> > Greetings again,
> >
> > It appears that M$ may be following Jason Calacanis' advice. I really hope
> > that a sustainable business model can be developed here. I feel that it's
> > very important that the mainstream newspapers survive. If not I'm afraid
> > that we could end up relying on the populist fringe elements for our news.
> >
> > Let's all stay tuned to see where this heads.
> >
> > Alf
> >
> >
> >
> > MICROSOFT AND NEWS CORP EYE WEB PACT
> > By Matthew Garrahan in Los Angeles, Richard Waters in San Francisco and
> > Andrew Edgecliffe-Johnson in New YorkPublished: November 22 2009 23:01 |
> > Last updated: November 22 2009 23:01 Microsoft has had discussions with News
> > Corp over a plan that would involve the media company's being paid to
> > "de-index" its news websites from Google, setting the scene for a search
> > engine battle that could offer a ray of light to the newspaper industry.
> > The impetus for the discussions came from News Corp, owner of newspapers
> > ranging from the Wall Street Journal of the US to The Sun of the UK, said a
> > person familiar with the situation, who warned that talks were at an early
> > stage.
> > This article can be found at:
> > http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a243c8b2-d79b-11de-b578-00144feabdc0,_i_email=y.ht
> > ml
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: rmiug-discuss@yahoogroups.com [mailto:rmiug-discuss@yahoogroups.com]
> > On Behalf Of Alf Gardner
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 4:56 PM
> > To: rmiug-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [rmiug-discuss] Newspapers might make money online
> >
> >
> > Greetings,
> >
> > I'm sure you've heard that Rupert Murdoch is threatening to not allow Google
> > to index the WSJ:
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7GkJqRv3BI
> >
> > Considering his purchase of MySpace, it's questionable whether Mr. Murdoch
> > grasps the online business. He may have also paid too much for the WSJ. But
> > even if 25% of the WSJ traffic may come from Google, what good is that
> > traffic if he can't make any $$ off of it.
> >
> > Jason Calacanis has come up with an intriguing potential solution:
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTe15DEWp30
> >
> > If you were Google, what lengths would you go to to keep Bing/M$ from
> > getting exclusive indexing arrangements with the NY Times, WSJ and the other
> > top content sites? These indexing deals could be especially effective if
> > Bing/Google/Yahoo could place adds on the content sites based on the search
> > criteria.
> >
> > Craigslist has pretty much devalued the newspapers' gravy train. The content
> > sites need to generate real revenue from real sales of whatever, not just
> > generate page views and unique visitors. I don't know if Colacanis has the
> > answer, but I do like the direction of his mindset and the train of thought.
> > The answer is there. We just need to get out of the way.
>
>
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

...and you think forbidding various search engines from indexing major news
sources is somehow a *good* thing?

Charging to index? Perhaps. Forbidding indexing and effectively creating the
equivalent of the "net neutrality" discussion in the search engine space?
Disturbing. Now, I'll have to decide which search engine to use when I am
searching for something, since search engine G doesn't index the WSJ but search
engine B does, however, search engine B doesn't index the NYT and search engine
G does. How is this possibly a good thing?

ssh

On Nov 23, 2009, at 3:12 PM, Alf Gardner wrote:

> Greetings again,
>
> It appears that M$ may be following Jason Calacanis' advice. I really hope
> that a sustainable business model can be developed here. I feel that it's
> very important that the mainstream newspapers survive. If not I'm afraid
> that we could end up relying on the populist fringe elements for our news.
>
> Let's all stay tuned to see where this heads.
>
> Alf
>
>
>
>  MICROSOFT AND NEWS CORP EYE WEB PACT
> By Matthew Garrahan in Los Angeles, Richard Waters in San Francisco and
> Andrew Edgecliffe-Johnson in New YorkPublished: November 22 2009 23:01 |
> Last updated: November 22 2009 23:01 Microsoft has had discussions with News
> Corp over a plan that would involve the media company's being paid to
> "de-index" its news websites from Google, setting the scene for a search
> engine battle that could offer a ray of light to the newspaper industry.
> The impetus for the discussions came from News Corp, owner of newspapers
> ranging from the Wall Street Journal of the US to The Sun of the UK, said a
> person familiar with the situation, who warned that talks were at an early
> stage.
> This article can be found at:
> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a243c8b2-d79b-11de-b578-00144feabdc0,_i_email=y.ht
> ml
>
>
>
>
> From: rmiug-discuss@yahoogroups.com [mailto:rmiug-discuss@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of Alf Gardner
> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 4:56 PM
> To: rmiug-discuss@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [rmiug-discuss] Newspapers might make money online
>
>
> Greetings,
>
> I'm sure you've heard that Rupert Murdoch is threatening to not allow Google
> to index the WSJ:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7GkJqRv3BI
>
> Considering his purchase of MySpace, it's questionable whether Mr. Murdoch
> grasps the online business. He may have also paid too much for the WSJ. But
> even if 25% of the WSJ traffic may come from Google, what good is that
> traffic if he can't make any $$ off of it.
>
> Jason Calacanis has come up with an intriguing potential solution:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTe15DEWp30
>
> If you were Google, what lengths would you go to to keep Bing/M$ from
> getting exclusive indexing arrangements with the NY Times, WSJ and the other
> top content sites? These indexing deals could be especially effective if
> Bing/Google/Yahoo could place adds on the content sites based on the search
> criteria.
>
> Craigslist has pretty much devalued the newspapers' gravy train. The content
> sites need to generate real revenue from real sales of whatever, not just
> generate page views and unique visitors. I don't know if Colacanis has the
> answer, but I do like the direction of his mindset and the train of thought.
> The answer is there. We just need to get out of the way.
>
> Regards,
>
> Alf
>
> Alf Gardner
> COMFLUENT
> 910 15th St., Suite 740
> Denver, Colorado 80202 USA
> 303.376.1600 - 303.376.3725 direct
> http://www.comfluent.com
> Where the networks meet
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> RMIUG, http://www.rmiug.org appreciates the sponsorship of
> MicroStaff, http://www.microstaff.com , ONEWARE, http://www.ONEWARE.com
> and Copy Diva, http://www.copydiva.com
>
> To unsubscribe from this list, send an email to
> rmiug-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com or visit:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rmiug-discuss/Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Greetings again,

It appears that M$ may be following Jason Calacanis' advice. I really hope
that a sustainable business model can be developed here. I feel that it's
very important that the mainstream newspapers survive. If not I'm afraid
that we could end up relying on the populist fringe elements for our news.

Let's all stay tuned to see where this heads.

Alf



   MICROSOFT AND NEWS CORP EYE WEB PACT
By Matthew Garrahan in Los Angeles, Richard Waters in San Francisco and
Andrew Edgecliffe-Johnson in New YorkPublished: November 22 2009 23:01 |
Last updated: November 22 2009 23:01 Microsoft has had discussions with News
Corp over a plan that would involve the media company's being paid to
"de-index" its news websites from Google, setting the scene for a search
engine battle that could offer a ray of light to the newspaper industry.
The impetus for the discussions came from News Corp, owner of newspapers
ranging from the Wall Street Journal of the US to The Sun of the UK, said a
person familiar with the situation, who warned that talks were at an early
stage.
This article can be found at:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a243c8b2-d79b-11de-b578-00144feabdc0,_i_email=y.ht
ml




From: rmiug-discuss@yahoogroups.com [mailto:rmiug-discuss@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Alf Gardner
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 4:56 PM
To: rmiug-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [rmiug-discuss] Newspapers might make money online


Greetings,

I'm sure you've heard that Rupert Murdoch is threatening to not allow Google
to index the WSJ:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7GkJqRv3BI

Considering his purchase of MySpace, it's questionable whether Mr. Murdoch
grasps the online business. He may have also paid too much for the WSJ. But
even if 25% of the WSJ traffic may come from Google, what good is that
traffic if he can't make any $$ off of it.

Jason Calacanis has come up with an intriguing potential solution:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTe15DEWp30

If you were Google, what lengths would you go to to keep Bing/M$ from
getting exclusive indexing arrangements with the NY Times, WSJ and the other
top content sites? These indexing deals could be especially effective if
Bing/Google/Yahoo could place adds on the content sites based on the search
criteria.

Craigslist has pretty much devalued the newspapers' gravy train. The content
sites need to generate real revenue from real sales of whatever, not just
generate page views and unique visitors. I don't know if Colacanis has the
answer, but I do like the direction of his mindset and the train of thought.
The answer is there. We just need to get out of the way.

Regards,

Alf

Alf Gardner
COMFLUENT
910 15th St., Suite 740
Denver, Colorado 80202 USA
303.376.1600 - 303.376.3725 direct
http://www.comfluent.com
Where the networks meet




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hello,

I recorded a 90-minute teleseminar and would like to provide the audio file for
free to the people who there in the teleseminar, and charge other people to
listen to it. Any suggestions on this? Would people who purchase this be
purchasing a download, or access to a password-protected site where they can
hear the streaming audio? Any suggestions on how to implement this pay-for-audio
idea? I don't host my own site. Goozmo hosts it. Thanks! Liz

Greetings,

I'm sure you've heard that Rupert Murdoch is threatening to not allow Google
to index the WSJ:

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7GkJqRv3BI

Considering his purchase of MySpace, it's questionable whether Mr. Murdoch
grasps the online business. He may have also paid too much for the WSJ. But
even if 25% of the WSJ traffic may come from Google, what good is that
traffic if he can't make any $$ off of it.

Jason Calacanis has come up with an intriguing potential solution:

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTe15DEWp30

If you were Google, what lengths would you go to to keep Bing/M$ from
getting exclusive indexing arrangements with the NY Times, WSJ and the other
top content sites? These indexing deals could be especially effective if
Bing/Google/Yahoo could place adds on the content sites based on the search
criteria.

Craigslist has pretty much devalued the newspapers' gravy train. The content
sites need to generate real revenue from real sales of whatever, not just
generate page views and unique visitors. I don't know if Colacanis has the
answer, but I do like the direction of his mindset and the train of thought.
The answer is there. We just need to get out of the way.

Regards,

Alf

Alf Gardner
COMFLUENT
910 15th St., Suite 740
Denver, Colorado 80202 USA
303.376.1600 - 303.376.3725 direct
http://www.comfluent.com
Where the networks meet







[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Wednesday November 11th, DENVER JAVA USERS GROUP Meeting
=======================================================


*** Free Pizza @ 5:30 ***

Main Session Speaker: Matt Raible
"Building SOFEA Applications with Grails and GWT"
7:15pm -8:30pm

BC Session Speaker: Panel, Q & A
"How to Become and Independent Consultant: Panel Discussion Q & A"
6:00pm - 7:00pm
----------------------------------
Location: Auraria Campus-Tivoli Bldg; Room: TIV 320 AB - Baerresen Ballroom
Directions below

*** MAIN PRESENTATION ***

"Building SOFEA Applications with Grails and GWT"
Matt Raible

Description:
In early 2009, Matt participated in a major
enhancement of a high-traffic well-known internet
site. The company wanted to quickly re-architect
their site and use a modern Ajax framework to do
it with. An Ajax Framework evaluation was done to
help the team choose the best framework for their
skillset. The application was built with a SOFEA
architecture using GWT on the frontend and
Grails/REST on the backend.

This talk will cover how Matt's team came to
choose GWT and Grails, as well as stumbling
blocks they encountered along the way. In
addition, we'll explore many topics such as
raw GWT vs. GXT and SmartGWT, the GWT-Plugin,
modularizing your code, multiple EntryPoints,
integration testing and JSON parsing with
Overlay Types.


Speaker:
Matt Raible resides in Denver, Colorado, where he runs
Raible Designs, a consultancy that specializes in open
source Java frameworks and Ajax development. Matt has
been surrounded by computers for most of his life, even
though he grew up without electricity in the backwoods
of Montana.

Matt is an author (Spring Live, Pro JSP), active Java
open-source contributor, and blogger on
raibledesigns.com. He is the founder of AppFuse,
a project which allows you to get started quickly
with Java frameworks, as well as a committer on the
Apache Roller project.

Matt's presentations can be downloaded from his website.
Contact him if you can't find one of his presentations.

*** BASIC CONCEPTS ***

"How to Become and Independent Consultant: Panel Discussion Q & A"

Description:
How To Become an Independent Consultant: Panel discussion; Q & A
This session explores the trials and tribulations of an independent
consultant. How do you find contracts? Should you setup an LLC, an
S-Corp or just be a sole proprietorship? What about health insurance
and benefits? Are recruiters helpful or hurtful? Learn lots of tips
and tricks to get your dream job and your ideal lifestyle. Ski season
is coming up after all. ;-)

Panel: Matt Raible, Tim Berglund, Matthew McCullough, James Goodwill


Here's a link to the on-campus Map:
http://www.ahec.edu/parking/ParkingMap06color.jpg

*** AGENDA ***

5:30 - 6:00 p.m. Food, and Networking.
6:00 - 7:00 p.m. Basic Concepts
7:00 - 7:15 p.m. Announcements
7:15 - 8:45 p.m. Main Presentation
8:45 p.m. Door prizes

*** DIRECTIONS ***
We will be meeting at the Tivoli Building
which is closest to the Pepsi Center side
of the campus.


Here's a link to the Campus Map followed
by the link to the PDF:

http://www.ahec.edu/parking/index.htm
http://www.ahec.edu/parking/Campus%20Map%202005.pdf

Driving:
The closest parking is in the Tivoli Parking Structure
or directly across from the West entrance of the Tivoli
Building using the surface parking.

The first time we were on-campus some of our
attendees were charged the same rate as the Pepsi Center
Events game parking. If you park in the garage, explain
that you are there for an on-campus event sponsored by
the Metro State Computer Science Department and CCD Life
and that you are to pay the same rate as students attending
other on-campus events.

Do not park in the NE lot - that is for students only.

If you are going to stay late (we often go to Old Chicago
nearby on Market Street after the meeting) you may want to
park in the uncovered parking lot just West of the Tivoli.

Light Rail:
You can take the Light Rail to either the Pepsi Center
or to the Colfax and Auraria Stop.

From the Pepsi Center Light Rail Stop:
Head South, cross Auraria Parkway at the Light.
The Tivoli is the first building as you get to the campus.

From the Auraria Colfax Station:
Head NW on Main Street, past the Library and Media Center.
Continue North until you get to the Tivoli building.

*** SPONSORS ***

Thanks to our Denver JUG sponsors for supporting the Java community:

- TekSystems for providing food and drink at the meeting
http://www.TekSystems.com/

- K*FORCE for sponsoring our books for door prizes.
http://www.kforce.com/

- VACO Technologies for sponsoring some food at
 Old Chicago after the meeting.
http://www.vaco.com/Technology/About/index.cfm

- No Fluff Just Stuff Symposium for sponsoring our room.
Look for the November Denver Symposium November 20-22.
http://www.nofluffjuststuff.com/home/main

- Auraria Community College of Denver Student Life
 for the Tivoli room so we can be considered
 an "on-campus" event and receive a discount rate.
http://www.ccd.edu/main.aspx?CID=70

- EvolutionHosting for providing web hosting
http://www.evolutionhosting.com

Doorprize sponsors:
- SoftPro for a Gift certificate towards the purchase of a book
http://softpro.stores.yahoo.net/index.html

- JetBrains (1 JetBrains product)
http://www.jetbrains.com/

- O'Reilly Media (sent books to give away)
http://oreilly.com/

- ZeroTurnaround (JavaRebel)
http://www.zeroturnaround.com/


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



You can find us:

On our website:
http://www.denverjug.org

As @denverjug on Twitter:
http://twitter.com/denverjug

As Denver Java User Group on Facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#/group.php?gid=20799335316&ref=ts

Through our djug yahoo group:
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/djug/

Or subscribe to our iCalendar to see our events
on your iPod Touch, iPhone, Outlook, BlackBerry
or through a Google Calendar:
http://www.google.com/calendar/ical/6sso485k2eul6vbcpr7pqbvb00%40group.calendar.\
google.com/public/basic.ics

We are also transitioning to a new website using WordPress to make it
easier to maintain the site.
It is currently on the url below; but will go to denverjug.org when it's
done.
Thanks to Demian for creating the site for us.
http://denverjug.wordpress.com/