This "Web 2.0 SF Beta Start-Up Rebirth" movement is raising troops. I have had an opportunity to speak to a few of these young GED educated soldiers of fortune and I must admit I am confused by many of their suppositions.

They assume that the growth rate during the first week of a web product can be linearly mapped on to future earnings for years.

They assume that the reason why there hasn't been a multi-million dollar social networking product is that there hasn't been a sufficiently clever design.

They assume that automation is the cause and effect of profit.

The growth rate during the first week reflects the existing demand for that web service, not the continued growth in that demand.

The reason that there has not been a sufficiently clever design is that clever designs are tools to representation people not representations of people who are useful tools.

Automation is inexpensive. Automation is a way to research a method, provide repetitive content, or deliver information to large numbers of people with less effort. The quality of the research, content or information delivery will be entirely determined by the human being behind the automaton. The quality of the research, content, and delivery will determine the rate of return for that product.

We have discussed demand, design , and quality of service, all of which can only be deductively understood in terms of the demand for, designs of and quality of the human being who provides the service.

Why then are we discussing software products when we should be discussing (sound generators) D.J.'s, (sight generators) designers, and (people generators) promoters.

Or if you have all of the above perhaps you need someone with a sharp wit. Perhaps someone like Larry M. Speakes.