|
| |
Ultimately, any technology that doesn't have human interest and intelligence as core to it's implementation is going to fail within weblogging, because weblogs are a community, not separate aggregatable pieces of unrelated information. We're not headlines within a new electronic form of journalism or isolated pockets of data accessible via search engines; we're members of clans sitting around St. Elmo's fire, exchanging tales and stories, and getting to know each other in the process. [Burningbird]
Go read the entire piece. I kept trying to find the best quote but each paragraph is better than the last. And so right on. I admit it. I have fallen completely under Burningbird's spell. She is a really good counterpoint to Scripting News. Actually, I think Dave and Shelley agree on a lot of points. But it's easy to get excited about some of the things Radio makes possible without thinking through the implications. And we should get excited. But we should think and discuss as well. Thank you Burningbird, for making me think.
8:57:12 PM #
|
|
I think what they're saying is they don't want to run a public web server on their desktop. I get it and agree. I don't either. [Scripting News]
Nope. That's not it. At least not for me. I run Radio remotely because I want my weblog available to me anywhere I go. I can post stuff from my computer, my wife's computer, my computer at work. An Apple Store. An internet cafe in Rome.
I think it's the difference between POP and IMAP for getting my mail. I use IMAP. I can switch mail clients and computers any time I want. And I switch early and often. It's no problem as I always have all my email available to me. It's all on the server. The same goes for my weblog. It's on a remote server and I can get to it anywhere.
The only problem is some administration tasks require that I'm manipulating Radio directly. And the localhost links. But I understand the problem with localhost links and that's easy to fix by editing the link so that it points to my remote weblog.
5:36:06 PM #
|
|
Why Get in Trouble When You Can Lie?:
But perhaps responsibility does not actually require sanity. Perhaps we are responsible for what we do no matter what our state of mind at the time.
Exactly. That's the problem I have with "not guilty by reason of insanity". Guilty means you did it. Sanity has nothing to say on the matter. Maybe you are guilty and insane. But that's something different. Perhaps the penalty could be different. But not the guilt.
2:58:25 PM #
|
|
Lest I've left the wrong impression with that last post, perhaps I should clarify. Yeah. Like that's possible. Anyway, I am not anti-government or anti-taxes. I am not against big government, either. Government definitely has a role to play. There are people who need help and government can be there for them. And government needs money to provide help. I get all of that and I'm all for it. But I believe all that is possible while still giving people the freedom to do with their money as they see fit. Legally, of course.
2:41:19 PM #
|
|
MIA: A War on Greed: John Balzar has some interesting things to say about corporate greed and President Bush's response. One quote I like is:
Oh, but they're going to save our 401(k) plans in Washington. Ha. Imposing formulaic diversity in our retirement investments is the heavy hand of government clamping down on the wrong neck. If I believe in the Tribune Co. and want to stake my future with my employer, should government tell me I cannot? Do we order Microsoft workers to invest in other companies?
I don't want the government to put any more restrictions on how I invest my 401(k) money. Unfortunately, Mr. Balzar contradicts himself with:
Give us back a progressive tax structure. Ratchet up those brackets so that anything over $10 million--or $50 million, or whatever million--is taxed mercilessly. Remember those 90%-plus tax rates for millionaires in the salad days of the 1950s?
So we should not restrict investments in 401(k)'s, but we should restrict how much money we can make. I realize we are talking about millions and when you get that high you'd still be making a lot of money even if the government takes a lot of it. But I don't like the idea that the government would take our money to keep us from making too much of it. The government is supposed to be taking our money because it has something useful to do with it. Otherwise, don't take our money.
Which doesn't mean I'm against taxes. I'm not. I was opposed to President Bush's recent tax cuts. The economy was teetering on the brink of recesion and now we have no more surplus. It should have been obvious that the reason we had the surplus in the first place was because of all of the taxes the dot-com people we paying on their winnings. When the dot-com world went bust the tax revenues stopped rolling in. No more surplus. Adding a tax cut on top of that was just a bad idea.
2:30:38 PM #
|
|
I confess that I don't really know this Sony Barari fellow, but I am really getting a lot of Google hits because I put his name on my website. As a matter of fact, I'm the top search for that name.
2:12:18 PM #
|
|
Slashdot's saying that GTK+ 2.0 has been released. Cool. I'd love to port GTK to Mac OS X. It does, in fact, already run on Mac OS X, as part of the X-on-X project. But I'd like to port it such that it's calling directly into Quartz. Then you could write GTK apps for Mac OS X without needing X-Windows.
10:37:30 AM #
|
|
Gateway throws a Profile punch at iMac: Almost. But not quite. If Apple reallly did succeed in increasing its market share a few points, and it was because their computers were more stylish, then I bet we really would see better looking computers. I was over at Costco yesterday and I happened to spy a couple of Windows laptops. I can't remember the brand, but I do remember thinking they were butt-ugly. I would never own such a gross thing. That's because whoever makes them thinks that style doesn't matter. Maybe it doesn't. But I'm sticking with my Mac.
NB: I don't care if Apple increases its market share. I'm happy with their market share being right where it is now. I only care that Apple continues to make enough money to stay in business. And they are doing that very well. They were one of the few computer companies making money during the so-called US recession.
10:27:12 AM #
|
|
I'm really giving my REALbasic Developer column a lot of thought. I'm seriously thinking of building a very basic XML parser as part of the app I'll be writing about. It needs to be simple enough that I can describe it in the column, but powerful enough to handle enough XML to be useful. I think I can do it, but I want to test out a few things before I'll know for sure.
10:18:24 AM #
|
|
Jonathon Delacour has some thoughts on the RSS debate. You may recall that I've unsubscribed from all of my RSS feeds. I think RSS is great for news. But not for weblogs. We need to visit a weblog to see it's content properly. But Jonathon does make a good point. RSS gives us a way of letting people know about us. It is easy to subscribe to a site and then that site's posts will come pouring into our news aggregator. We'll read the stuff because it's there. If we didn't do that, we may forget to visit the site and then we'll forget the site as well. My solution to that problem (that's "my solution" as in "it may not work for anybody else") is to add sites to my blogrolls so that I know to visit them. Of course, if you've looked at my blogrolls, you'll not see enough weblogs. I'm not using my own system. It's not as precise a system as the news aggregator. But it forces me to "do the right thing" and visit weblogs.
10:15:42 AM #
|
|
|
|
© Copyright
2002
Will Leshner.
Last update:
3/10/02; 10:15:42 AM.
|
|
|