Nowadays, anybody can go online and post on facebook. This is an example of creating content.

I still do not see the difference. In the - and I shudder to use the phrase - Web 1.0 days, anybody could go online and create a web page. This is an example of creating content.

With web 1.0, users could not create content. If you own a website, you are that website's publisher.

You are hijacking words. My point was, exactly as I said, that everybody (who was online - the same restriction applies today) had a web page. If that made them publishers, then that only means that there were no users. Perhaps that was the case, but if so, the distinction between the words are useless.

Web 2.0 allows people who don't run/manage the website to create and share content.

That means nothing, because it is an arbitrary distinction. If everone and their dog could run a website[0] in 1995, I'm not sure how it's relevant to obsess about those who choose to use a different route today.

You simply keep iterating that these days everyone is capable producing content for Internet - and all I'm saying is that this is nothing new. Nothing of value has been added. We have been able to do so since long before Web 2.0, and we did.

[0] To clarify: At the time, a huge number of connected people were in academia. I can't recall a single university that didn't offer web hosting to their students and staff. For those outside academia, Geocities and similar free options existed, if you didn't have the resources to host a site on your own. Having a webpage was not difficult. Posting to a mailinglist, even less so.

Do you know how many sales it is giving you?

The first incarnation of the internet had content delivered much like newspapers, where only specified editors and journalists would write content and stories

Everybody, and I mean everybody, had a web page when I got online. To say nothing of other parts of the net (newsgroups, mailinglists, whatnot).
So, essentially, the 2.0 thing is something the marketing folks use to label the reversal the damage they caused when they were mistakenly allowed online in the late nineties?

Which is also why I don't understand why programmers and IT usually put down other departments like sales and marketing.

I put down sales and marketing because they are liars. No other reason. Every single time sales and marketing reps produce anything, be that as little as a two minute conversation with a potential customer, they lie.
Now, you can go on about how you can't present all the technical details to the end users and whatnot, but that does not change the fact that you should not lie. Whatever the fuck did their goddamn parents do while they were growing up? Not parenting, apparently.

I do recognize that sales and marketing is hard. I suck at it, perhaps because I don't lie. But I'll be damned if I'm ever going to respect someone who does. Fuck them. Seriously.

You do realize that the people awarding the Peace prize have nothing whatsoever to do with the people awarding the Literature prize? The only linking factor is parts of the name of the prize.

Simple. You give them time to work on fixing bugs, rather than forcing them to spit out the next feature, and the next, and the next, and the next, all while changing the specs behind their backs.

Developers want to write quality software. Management stops them from doing so. At least in every single case I've observed close enough to have a clue about.

Ah, I stand corrected. I clicked the link in TFS (what a thing to do!). But yes, the main one, while better than most others, is still quite bad, I agree.

I should thank you for enlightening me, but I think I'd have preferred blissful ignorance ;-)

The most astonishing thing with this story is the medium. This is the first time in quite a while I've seen an easy to read, easy to navigate web page (from a news organization) where the actual content gets the majority share of my screen real estate.
It also was so quick to load that I couldn't really believe that it was done, and for a long while after it had finished I simply sat staring at the page wondering when the rest (the crap!) would arrive. It never did.

Good job, Helsingin Sanomat.

Or, you could stop committing and covering up crimes and routinely classify any and all information regardless if it's needed or not. Then nobody would feel the need to leak the things that are rightfully secret.

Just a thought.

As a Swedish resident I disagree. While I would certainly not want to go to jail, I wouldn't fear the time there, and I'm a 60kg geek that probably couldn't hold my own against a 12 year old girl.
A prison sentence is far from a luxury resort, but in general in prison violence is low here. Lacking a decent net connection (and being disconnected would be a terrible thing indeed) I'd spend my time in the library, reading up on what I'm curious about, or simply ploughing through the classics I've missed. I doubt I'd have much trouble with other inmates.
A million dollar debt though - that would destroy my life.

I suspect the same is true for Anakata.