Disqus - Latest Comments for Shelley

Re: Anti-abortion protest at DNC (Scripting News)

Shelley — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 01:56:13 -0000

According to other sites, the pamphlets these people were handing out had the following:

"Which is a worse crime: slavery or murder? The correct answer: murder. A slave can get free, but a murder victim cannot get ‘undead'."

These are the type of people who will control our court systems if McCain wins. Scary, eh?

Re: Let’s all grow up a little, shall we?

mathewi — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 01:48:49 -0000

I guess it must be kind of frosty in Heck today, eh Shelley?

Re: Let’s all grow up a little, shall we?

Shelley — Tue, 12 Aug 2008 01:46:25 -0000

Wow. We, uh, agree.

Re: louisgray.com: Techmeme and TechCrunch's Detractors Prove It's Hard to be On Top

Shelley — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 03:38:46 -0000

"As for the TechCrunchIT vs. TechCrunch vs. CrunchGear argument, Gabe said on FriendFeed that this was not impacting Techmeme. "

That makes no sense, unless Gabe is specifically filtering out these partnered weblogs when they link to each other. In either case, yes, it impacts on Techmeme.

Re: Firefox Tablet — I would like one too

mathewi — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 01:43:08 -0000

Fair enough. I still want one :-)

Re: louisgray.com: Techmeme and TechCrunch's Detractors Prove It's Hard to be On Top

tonyhung — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 22:45:39 -0000

"Unless you're linked by one of the biggies, and continue to be linked by at least moderate or big sites, you won't show up. "

I think this is only part of the picture. There are blogs which show up -- seemingly out of the blue -- with few or no inbound links to any particular post. Or, who are large in their own right, but without any inbound links from high leaderboarders (see: Digital Inspiration over the past two days).

I would love to know exactly how Techmeme seems to pick these out of the air.

Re: louisgray.com: Techmeme and TechCrunch's Detractors Prove It's Hard to be On Top

louismg — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 21:58:27 -0000

Shelley, I get your comments and concerns there. The cloud of mystery is actually important, in some ways, to Techmeme, as if it were obvious, it could be gamed much easier than it is now. I wouldn't call myself an insider, even if I have been participating in this circle for a few years now.

There are some prominent bloggers who link more than do others, that's clear. But it's not clear how many links or what prominence of links are needed to make a story hot. If it were, I bet there'd be a lot more friendly linking going on. As for the TechCrunchIT vs. TechCrunch vs. CrunchGear argument, Gabe said on FriendFeed that this was not impacting Techmeme. Also, if TechCrunchIT is run as a parallel property with its own URL and writers, it should have equal opportunity to rise up the leaderboard as any other site.

Re: louisgray.com: Techmeme and TechCrunch's Detractors Prove It's Hard to be On Top

Shelley — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 20:16:59 -0000

PS Oh, and poor Michael Arrington and having to deal with the hate? This is my own brush with having to deal with Arrington's gentle ways.

I closed my weblog down specifically because of him. Now, I don't even know why I bother to comment at a post like yours. You're all part of a clan, and we're nothing but noise.

Re: louisgray.com: Techmeme and TechCrunch's Detractors Prove It's Hard to be On Top

Shelley — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 20:06:31 -0000

Techmeme uses weighted factors when determining who gets air time. Unless you're linked by one of the biggies, and continue to be linked by at least moderate or big sites, you won't show up. Who are the biggies? Well, Techcrunch is one, and with Techcrunch spawing other sites, the empire can basically guarantee that will always be top dog in Techmeme. CyndyA has a very good point about Techcrunch pointing to TechcrunchIT, which points to Crunchgear, which points back to Techcrunch. Talk about rigged.

We won't even go into how few women are on the list, until someone makes a stink and then, wonder of wonders, women actually start showing up (golly). We also won't talk about how insular the environment is, or how the news really is rarely about "technology" and more about marketing. At least posts like this aren't about the Yahoo Board and is Steve going to die tomorrow.

As for Michael Arrington, he's made an art form of how to throw a hissy fit and end up benefiting from the resulting noise. He, and other princes of the meme boards are also not above deliberately stifling sites run by people they don't like, in order to choke off any potential attention.

Lastly, most of the people in the Techmeme lists won't link unless it will do them some good. It perpetuates the myth about equality. It harms more than helps.

You don't see this because you're an insider. You're acceptable to the big boys and therefore you got the attention and now you're part of the club.

Re: Firefox Tablet — I would like one too

Shelley — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:49:53 -0000

I'm not adverse to innovation, and lord knows I like my specialty boxes like the Roku. At the same time, though, we have to look at the environment every time a new plastic "must have" comes along. Something like an iPhone has the capability you mention, but it's also a phone, which means it serves a specific purpose. You couldn't do real work with this device, it's going to be hot to the touch (because it won't be big enough to have much of a fan system), and it will most likely burn out within a year. You'd then have to buy another as you "throw" this one away, because it's too integrated and cheap to fix.

You really couldn't answer email because there is no keyboard, other than what gets overlayed on the device. You couldn't do work with the device, and like I said, most web-based applications wouldn't work with it, because it doesn't have enough to power the apps.

If people can afford to spend money on a limited use device, more power to them. But this device has a carbon footprint. Anytime we see a device with a carbon footprint, we should ask ourselves, do we really need it, or does it just touch our "cool" and is cheap, so what the heck?

It would be nice if we could indulge our need for cool without being destructive on the environment, not to mention using dwindling resources like oil.

Re: Firefox Tablet — I would like one too

mathewi — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:30:10 -0000

Shelley, no one -- least of all me -- actually *needs* this device.
That said, however, I sure would like one :-) I'd like to use it at
home, instead of carting around a bulky laptop. I often want to check
the Web or look at email during commercials or something like that,
and this tablet would be perfect.

Re: Firefox Tablet — I would like one too

Shelley — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 13:07:47 -0000

"That said, however, I can understand Mike’s frustration; I’ve been waiting for that kind of tablet ever since I saw them using one on Star Trek. Put me down for one :-)"

Why? What need would this device fill? Where when you use it, and when? No keyboard, limited caching, no AIR or Silverlight, or Flash...why do you _need_ this device?

Re: I need a job! - RussellBeattie.com

Shelley — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 23:38:29 -0000

Russ, Salon is looking for a tech reporter.

Re: Protests over Verizon deal with 1938media

Shelley — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 12:37:31 -0000

Please don't compare what happened with Feldman to Lenny Bruce. There is a difference between losing a corporate contract, and being arrested every time you appear on stage.

Re: Protests over Verizon deal with 1938media

Shelley — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 11:48:02 -0000

I doubt Feldman was dropped based on a one day protest by small groups yesterday. I imagine that Verizon is finding that outside of the small sphere of webloggers, Feldman really doesn't have much of a following. Certainly not enough to justify keeping his material when seeing the racist video he created.

As for freedom of speech, Feldman still has the same forum the rest of us have. If Verizon does not carry my text, does that mean my freedom of speech has been abrogated? No, and neither has Feldman's. Frankly, I'm amazed that anyone watches any of his stuff, he really isn't very good.

But he has gotten some publicity from this event. So have others. Again.

Re: I Requested That Verizon Drop Their Deal With 1938media

Shelley — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 11:34:51 -0000

There is no "freedom of speech" among corporations. The only way Feldman would be denied freedom of speech is if the government intervened and he was no longer able to publish his material.

You pressured a corporate entity. Chances are, that entity wasn't overly enthusiastic about Feldman in the first place, and you gave the company the excuse to pull his material.

In addition, it was the other organizations that protested his inclusion also helped get his videos pulled.

Re: Google’s subsidized child day care not as good as it used to be?

Shelley — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 19:49:07 -0000

I can't help thinking if the company wants to save money, seems like they have an unusual number of jumbo jets they could consider dumping.

I think the article had it right: this isn't free M&Ms and a massage--this is a mandatory item for anyone with kids, and a big area of concern for parents who are also employees. Keeping the gourmet lunches, but forcing the employees to pay for day care (overpriced day care), demonstrates that Google is only interested in the young and single, who can be burned out and then trashed.

Re: BoingBoing: It’s our blog, and our rules

Shelley — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 13:42:27 -0000

"Thank you Matt for this important reminder. I sure hope I don't confuse these two bastions of journalistic integrity ever again."

+1 to the Duck

Re: AP and the Media Bloggers Assoc.

mathewi — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 13:28:05 -0000

Not sure what you mean, Shelley. I assume (given our past clashes over
the topic) that this has something to do with my support of the 'fair
use' principle?

Re: AP and the Media Bloggers Assoc.

Shelley — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 13:21:10 -0000

How far will you go Matthew, in order to spin yourself into the "right" on this one? Journalist? You make mockery of that word.

Re: Bandwagon Blog - Wow, thanks!

Shelley — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 13:06:38 -0000

Question: is the material encrypted when it's uploaded?

Re: Twitter: A community or a utility?

Shelley — Fri, 23 May 2008 23:43:33 -0000

comment by Ev Williams on this issue at a post by Jeffrey Zeldman.

People have to ask themselves: do they want the Twitter folks to focus on fixing the service? Or catering to the sensitive needs of the dear, little community.

"Oh no, precious dear. Were thou feelings hurt? Let me kiss them, make them better."

Because lord knows, the rest of the internet is such a polite, and safe place to be.

Re: Twitter-storm: Blaine leaves, blame flies

Shelley — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 20:47:03 -0000

Arrington's post is frankly obscene, as well as nothing more than cheap link bait. He wouldn't know technology if it bit him in the butt.

I don't know Blaine, but he left a couple of weeks ago. The Twitter folks also came out and said they tried a new caching scheme that sounded like it failed. Considering how much use this application is getting, I'm rather amazed it doesn't fail more often. Even Google's apps, as well as Amazon's have been known to fail, and no one accuses these two companies of not knowing how to scale.

Don't you guys ever write about anything useful anymore? All I read now is whining, blame games, petty bickering -- good lord, you guys are a piece of work.

I'm not going to write at Techcrunch, because frankly, that site has become a dead bore. But you know Matthew, you used to write about decent stuff once upon a time. Now it seems like all you're doing is going for the attention points.

PS I was an architect at a start up once. I bet there isn't one true tech person who is playing this same blame game. No, it's all of you who haven't a clue.

Re: You Don’t Own ANY Conversation

Corvida — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 02:01:02 -0000

It's not the same because I'm not telling you to remove it. I'm simply
trying to make you aware of one of the possible consequences to putting your
stuff on the internet.

How is it not for the taking? You can't put your content on lockdown and the
only way to really do anything remotely close to that is to protect your
entries with privacy features such as requiring a password. Even then, you
have to give someone the code and in doing so, you're opening your stuff to
the limitless possibility of being taken. Just by putting your stuff on the
internet you're doing that. Ergo, whether you want it to be or not, it's
there for the taking. Or let me rephrase that last part:* It's open to the
POSSIBILITY of being taken.*

Re: You Don’t Own ANY Conversation

Shelley — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 01:45:09 -0000

"This is the internet and quite frankly, EVERYTHING is for the taking, whether you wish it to be or not."

Wrong. Not only wrong, but harmful because this is the same as saying, "Remove everything you care about from the internet, because some scuzzbucket who wants to make money from your stuff will." All that will be left then, is content from people who really can give a sh*t about it. Which says a lot about the quality of the content, doesn't it?