/.: Mod +2, insightful.
Twitter always seemed to me to be "broadcast text messaging", so the
irc relationship makes a lot of sense. I like that it works on most
phones nowadays, thus ubiquitous.
It also fits in with the simple vs fancy. I'm simple. Possibly too
much so? :)
But I am fascinated with texting and how it evolved, capturing the
"third world" due to being far less expensive than a phone call. It
is definitely the "people's medium". Dirt cheap, started outside the
US, massively popular in the third world .. and europe. Caught on
here 'cause of the kids, bless them.
Mashups are still in the simple, I think: build something up from
simple components.
This brings me to Google Wave. It definitely is raw at this point.
But I think of it as "simple" due to the composition of "blips" into
waves. And the blips can be used in multiple waves. The text is dead
simple. And additional functionality is via very easy to build
"gadgets".
Google Wave has one serious test to pass before it's OK by me: I've
got to be able to export it off Google back into your-basic internet.
Possibly an xml/jason export, or html export. But I'm finding myself
unhappy using facebook or twitter or wave if I can't some capture the
media I've created into some standard format.
The blog folks are tackling this: how to blog, but be able to move
onto other technologies. Wordpress has an xml export that's close to
OK and interoperates with many other blog engines like Blogspot.
I guess its protocols and standard formats all the way down.
-- Owen
On Nov 22, 2009, at 1:44 PM, glen e. p. ropella wrote:
Thus spake Owen Densmore circa 11/22/2009 08:13 AM:
update. Not sure I grok it all, but if I'm going to be tweeting, I'd
like it to also be published in facebook, right?
Not necessarily. I do. In fact, twitter is way more useful to me
than
facebook. So, I treat facebook as a kind-of ditch to catch the run-
off
from twitter.
More importantly, twitter should be viewed as a global IRC chat room,
which is what it is. [grin] So, by using tircd
<http://code.google.com/p/tircd/>, I can address twitter through the
proper interface.
People who use the two media (facebook vs. twitter) can, I think, be
divided into two types that, to me, are very similar to the two
types of
WWW people: flat/simple html vs. busy/dynamic applets. I _hate_ ajax
style web pages with lots of little wiggly bits, pop-ups, tooltips,
drop-downs, etc. I like a nice clean interface that doesn't do
anything
without my _explicit_ and purposeful action.... I really like my
motorcycle's gear shifting mechanism... it makes a nice visceral CLUNK
when I shift. I like my computers (and my guns) the same. I don't
want
it doing anything unless I _tell_ it to do precisely that thing. For
the same reasons, I dislike touch screens and rely fundamentally on
actual buttons.... There's nothing as satisfying as the force feedback
of a buckling spring keyboard in comparison to these wimpy
clickety-clack things so popular nowadays.
Facebook is full of annoying little wiggly bits that move around
regardless of what you do (or want to do). Twitter, on the other
hand,
is a well-behaved, simple thing... Facebook seems very Windowsy/Macsy
and twitter seems very unixy.
So, I think whether you want to hook your twitter feed directly and
automatically into facebook depends on what type of person you are and
what type of "friends" you have. Since I don't like facebook and
dribble my banal, useless offerings mainly into IRC, it allows my
Windowsy/Macsy friends to pretend that I'm one of them.
--
glen e. p. ropella, 971-222-9095, http://agent-based-modeling.com
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
