Technology
From his blog:
Call me crazy, but when given the choice of developing new applications for a deterministic platform connected to a specialty application box connected to a high definition TV with a remote control or a best efforts internet platform connected to who knows how fast a connection to a PC running who knows what operating system connected to a monitor and a keyboard, I will take the first option.
Duh?
But it's not about what is easier. Sure, it's easier for newspapers to keep the same business model as the last 100 years, but that's not working so well.
It's about leveraging the strengths of a given platform, not comparing it apples-to-apples against something completely different. It's about getting viral views, and having content worth spreading. Sure, that's much harder than controlling a network and forcing shows and ads into people's eyeballs, but the alternative is much worse. I can assure you there are people willing to do the hard work.
Check out my tumblog:
It is a combination of all my feeds: here, YouTube, Flickr, Twitter, Last.FM, etc.
I'm trying to remember all my old designs and dig them up through archive.org. This site, from 1996 or 1997, was for the Department of Student Life at Mizzou, who was probably my first paying web development client.
Keep in mind that this was probably a good design by 1996 standards (check out this list of other designs circa 1996).
My first time on the internet was about 1991 or 1992, using telnet to navigate to a university computer in New Mexico to download a MP3. Then the www started coming through the tubes and all was changed!
I have switched all the comments on this blog over to Disqus, which means all old comments (yes, both of them) are gone for now.
Ever since I saw this camera (just after getting back from PMA, grrrr), I've been anxiously awaiting the release of the Sigma DP1, a small Point & Shoot with the same sensor in the SD14 - which is a DSLR. The 14 megapixels will be nice, but the killer feature is the sensor size, 10 times bigger than the best point and shoot on the market.
What that means is better dynamic range and low-light performance. And it'll fit in our pocket. Can't wait.
I've been struggling with finding a good posting workflow system that fist well with how I picture my blog working. So, over the next couple days I'm playing with a way to take all the items I tag on del.icio.us with the tag "feed" and leeching them right into the blog. This version of Drupal has pretty rudimentary leeching functionality compared to the newer modules, so let's see if it will work without upgrading. If so, expect a lot more blog posts.
Google introduced their new Checkout Service a few months ago. It was designed to be an alternative checkout system that an E-Commerce store can add to their web site. The benefit to the customer is that you can see all your orders and status in one place. I tried it because Google is offering $10 off $30 orders at participating sites.
The order was placed successfully for some clearance items on 10/10/2006. Everything seemed fine. I received a confirmation email.
But I've received no status update. The Google Checkout page shows the order as "in progress". After tracking down the merchant's contact information, they tell me they have no knowledge of the order. I need to contact Google.
Back to the Google Checkout page. The only option I have is "Have questions about this order? Contact [Merchant], Inc". There is no way to contact Google. The merchant has no way of helping me. As far as I know, Google has charged my card but never sent in the order, and now I can't contact them.
Being clearance items, there is no way the items are still available. Google has my money, can't fulfill the order, and now I can't even get a hold of them. What. A. Nightmare.
[Update: 3:00 PM] I was able to send an email to Google about the issue, but no other contact information, and more importantly, NO PHONE NUMBER. You have my money, which means I need to be able to call you. Simple enough.
There seems to be some back and forth between Dubner and Levitt over at the Freakonomics Blog regarding Wikipedia.
Dubner says it's inaccurate. Levitt says there is a ton of information on the Power Rangers.
And that's why the traditional critique of Wikipedia and other similar endeavors truly fails: when you compare the information in the Wikipedia to The Encyclopedia Britannica on, say, African Elephants, Wikipedia surely loses.
Now go look up "Power Rangers" in both. Who wins? Look up the Daily Show and see a list of every guest who was on the program and what date they were on! WOW! Who wins that one?
The Wikipedia is the embodiment of the long tail. The depth of information available is truly astounding. The traditional Encyclopedia will remain the encyclopedia on record for anything or anybody they deem fit to allow in the books. As for the other 99.9% of knowledge and information, Wikipedia will remain supreme.
Seth Godin has a post brainstorming ideas about how Digg can monetize its user base. While the idea of letting marketers submit their new campaigns to Digg is interesting, it violates the basic people-powered premise of Digg.
Instead of this:
Then, go to the teeming masses of marketers out there and invite them to nominate their new ideas, their new posts, their new sites to your editor. The editor picks the ones that are good enough, that make the cut. Figure three or ten or a hundred a day, depending on the demand. Once demand goes up, charge $20 just to submit one, so the editor can hire a squadron of assistants.
What he should be saying is:
Then, go to the teeming masses of marketers out there and invite them to nominate their new ideas, their new posts, their new sites to the site. The masses pick the ones that are good enough, that make the cut. Figure three or ten or a hundred a day, depending on the demand. Once demand goes up, charge $20 just to submit one, so Digg can turn a profit.
OK, it's after 1am local time and my server coasted through being dugg. Showing about 6000 unique visitors from Digg, 3000 of those being from the first hour.
Not bad. Not bad at all.
Recently Played:
