Is being the first enough?
Yesterday I was reading National Geographic's Africa Special and there was an interesting article on how Africa being the first continent to host homo sapiens is now the poorest continent of the seven. According to the author in this case the difficulty in agrictultural development and the geography of the black continent played an important role in undermining its development and progress.
This morning I was reading Lindsey Vereen's Editorial in October's STP Magazine and he wrote an insight about what it entails to be the first in a market. Diners Club was the first card accepted by multiple vendors but since its debut in 1950 it now retains only 1 percent of the credit card market. Some of the difficulties pioneers face are the difficulty to identify what the market wants, and being vulnerable to potential competitors who can take advantage of the road you've paved for them.
Being a pioneer isn't a guarantee to ongoing success and web search technology and the British football team are another two proofs, but sometimes it pays to be first. In software litigation on the intellectual property of code you might gain the better hand in court if the code forensic analysts manage to find the original spark in your source code.
333. Stephen Andrew OKelley on 10/21/2005
No. I don't suppose it is enough. But let me be picky. Enough of what? We all seem to intuitively know what enough means. It means sufficient for the most optimum benefit. That is: good just because of the one thing held.... primacy. It is therefore prime.. premium... primus..primary...primitive..? What about primitive? or aboriginal? That is first. And also in this culture the "primary" denotation of "gone" over with... caput! So as in the case of africa.. caput! It may have been first but (It is the land of the darkies) those people with plates in their lips and umpteen bones in their noses!! " "them thar dern ugly dirty people who can't build a good old American style civilization" (the sarcasm started some lines back) Well anyway, the point of course is that the relativity of first or last is just that; relative to your thoughts about the matter, and, wholey prejudicial. And what is the meaning of prejudice?? judging FIRST; AND thinking LAST.... if at all.
Stephen O'Kelley Deadsalive.blogspot celibacy. blogspot Thank you, ps: very good website! keep up the good work.


