tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24244078.post218122205731486728..comments2008-03-18T04:30:13.840Zswardleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04702421918430488600noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24244078.post-89910874785439385462008-03-18T04:30:00.000Z2008-03-18T04:30:00.000ZHi Ed,<BR/><BR/>What it is saying is there is a relationship between the ubiquity of an activity and the acceleration and then decline of new information produced about that activity.<BR/><BR/>Both adoption vs time and publication vs time follow S-Curves for a specific activity.<BR/><BR/>This graph simply removes the time element of adoption vs publication and expands the area of study to ubiquity vs certainty.<BR/><BR/>In itself, it is not particular special, except it reinforces the link between ubiquity and certainty <I>(I have lots of these graphs)</I>.<BR/><BR/>The real power is when you combine this with ..... <I>(this is my surprise for a conference later in the year).</I>swardleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04702421918430488600noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24244078.post-52448972436763880522008-03-17T21:00:00.000Z2008-03-17T21:00:00.000Z...interesting... Are you sure this isn't just saying that there's a switch-over in the number of references (certainty) when something hits a particular level of ubiquity?Ed Frenchhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06076782927303415497noreply@blogger.com