Disqus - Friends of cdharrison

Re: A social namespace (Scripting News)

factoryjoe — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 18:56:59 -0000

Fair enough. Twitter certainly has momentum, and that's hard to argue with. One challenge, then, is to extract the essence of what's happening on Twitter to enable these activities to happen between different silos. Of course it seems to always be the case that the silos come first, develop the user experience and cultural norms, and then there are clones, and then someone comes along and adds value by breaking down the silo walls... so it will probably be with Twitter too, but for now there's just too much value in participating in their arena to allow an independent channel (say StatusNet or FriendFeed) to compete on mere technology alone.

I'll think about what it would take to get the data constructs you've outlined here into Portable Contacts all the same.

Re: Tease! Tease! Tease! (Scripting News)

factoryjoe — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 19:31:03 -0000

Swell, thanks! Will read up.

Re: Tease! Tease! Tease! (Scripting News)

factoryjoe — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 17:05:42 -0000

Ah, I guess I wasn't asking for history so much as technical differences. Of course the problem with most technologies is interoperable adoption, so it'd be nice to either protocol gain adoption and enable a better P2P push-based infrastructure to rise up.

Re: APPLE TABLET: Ultimate Gallery of Concept Designs and Prototypes

factoryjoe — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 17:06:32 -0000

Sweet. Thanks for the change, Pete!

Re: What Spotlight search might look like according to... - the michael galpert tumblelog*

factoryjoe — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 10:42:47 -0000

Ha! Yeah, you're right. It was a 5 minute mockup -- it'd be cool to
see other people's ideas for an Apple search engine!

Re: Microsyntax.org: A Messifesto

factoryjoe — Tue, 26 May 2009 13:46:07 -0000

Tiny URLs are the zip files of Twitter. I doubt we'll see much more compression than that!

Re: Why Didn't PubSub Become Twitter?

factoryjoe — Wed, 13 May 2009 12:57:56 -0000

I completely, 100% disagree.

SMS is still the only universal API for getting data from any phone into web services... and furthermore, is the only API that stands up when WiFi/Edge/3G networks go down or experience service interruption.

It's also increasingly necessary from an international perspective (that is, I might tweet by SMS when roaming, but I'm certainly not going to roam on data).

While it's true that phones are becoming more capable as publishing tools, I think that the network is still a great limitation on what we're able to do with these devices.

Re: Why Didn't PubSub Become Twitter?

factoryjoe — Wed, 13 May 2009 09:10:02 -0000

Yeah, I'd agree that SMS penetration is what made Twitter. Laptops are too clunky to get out to post 140 characters — but using a phone is perfect — especially since everyone has one. Once we finally got to the point where everyone could use their phones to send text messages did the preconditions for Twitter to exist.

Oh, and it was no longer just a nerdy thing to use online social networks, likely thanks to MySpace making it culturally "cool" to have a web profile.

Re: The Seven Gates of Hell

czar — Sat, 02 May 2009 14:41:12 -0000

approvw

Re: Tag Synonyms

factoryjoe — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 18:09:31 -0000

Sure. I totally get that. You can't totally prevent spam, but the difference with just abusing hashtags is that it doesn't define anything — it still requires people to follow the spammer or search for the hashtag.

Let me put it another way... I presume that tag equivalency and linking will allow me to search for "#pigpox" and get results tagged with "#swineflu". That seems really useful! However, unless there is a reliable method to prevent abuse, prevent incorrect linking, deal with words with multiple meaning (i.e. is "trade" related to #stocktrade or #baseballtrade, etc?)... it seems that this could cause some confusion?

That said, I think curation is the right way to approach this — by creating system-level admins that can do this linking... and if you have a system that learns over time, perhaps explicit mappings will be primarily useful for emergent trending words (that a computer can't deduce as being related to something else) or for terms that should be related but aren't yet. And so on.

Eager to see how this is implemented though!

Re: The Seven Gates of Hell

czar — Sun, 05 Apr 2009 08:36:12 -0000

aoorive

Re: betaworks - See, the people who populate Facebook are largely...

factoryjoe — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 19:02:19 -0000

I would agree with this, and yes, by "people who populate Facebook", I largely meant the employees and developers of Facebook, rather than its userbase.

That said, while they may not pay any attention to the moral argument between openness and proprietariness, I think that there is an implicit assumption (represented through behavior) that there is more value in being generally open and transparent than in being private, and that's because privacy and things like DRM get in the way of sharing and spreading information.

Openness and transparency is simply easier for folks who don't care about the technology, and care more about what technology allows them to do [with their friends].

Re: R.I.P. Ma.gnolia

factoryjoe — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 19:29:09 -0000

;)

Also watch next week's episode of theSocialWeb.tv, featuring Larry! ;)

Re: Facebook and Twitter, OpenID (Scripting News)

factoryjoe — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 14:46:55 -0000

I host my own OpenID on my blog: factoryjoe.com. That said, there are many more people who will choose to delegate or use an OpenID provided by someone else, just as they do with their email and their credit cards.

It's not a binary decision: what works for some folks may not work for others, but the technology should support the emergence of an ecosystem of solutions.

Re: Facebook and Twitter, OpenID (Scripting News)

factoryjoe — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 20:53:12 -0000

Hey Dave, thanks for the post.

Wanted to address the confusion that you mentioned about the OpenID Design Workshop.

The event is not a closed event per se, but we are creating the event to strongly favor the participation of folks with design, user experience, usability, a/b testing and similar skills. The OpenID community has historically lacked participation and coordination among people with these skills, and it's high time that we remedied that situation by creating a dedicated space for them to do what they do, and facilitating the transfer of their knowledge back to the community at large.

Therefore, given our limited space, we're asking that people strongly consider what they can contribute to a purely DESIGN conversation before attending. All of the results of our work will be published and summarized after the fact.

To your question about representing open source project, personally I will be presenting the work that I've done on the DiSo Project (an open source project which maintains the OpenID plugin for WordPress -- for which I've done most of the design) and we're reaching out to Aza Raskin from Mozilla to see if he can make it. If you've implemented OpenID in an open source project and have done a great deal of innovative work on the desire of the sign in process, then I believe that you could contribute something to the event.

I also definitely appreciate your concerns about open protocol development happening transparently. Design, however, is of a slightly different nature than source code. Design is inherently subjective — but should nonetheless be informed by statistics and quantifiable metrics. We are looking to bring together designers to share their experiences, expertise and research in areas that relate to OpenID, but there will be opportunities to focus on code and protocols later.

Indeed, given this conversation, it would seem that a follow up workshop on "Implementing OpenID for Developers" would be a good idea. We'll definitely take that into consideration!

Re: Apple iPod Touch large: I want one

factoryjoe — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 19:36:11 -0000

No worries. You're not the first. ;)

Re: Evolutionary Biology = Atheism?

chrispalle — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 23:33:33 -0000

Well, we're talking about both. I agree that they are two different things, but the notion is, if we follow the trail of evolution backwards, we eventually get to a point where we have to ask, "how did it begin?" and EBs cannot, with any degree of certainty, tell us how life began. It will always be hypothetical, but never arguable or unprovable. Scientifically speaking, EB believers can only speculate.

Common Descent in the proper sense? I do believe we were, you and I and everyone else, were _created_ for a purpose. I can only seek God's Will as to what that purpose is as that purpose is far greater than I can know. Did we all descend from one common ancestor? The Bible says we did, but I'm sure it's not the same "Common Descent" of which Darwinists speak.

I guess if you need to have the framework of theistic evolution in order to believe, then that's where you stand. I personally don't need to accept or challenge this belief. When you have "Christian movements" and "denominations" teaching the acceptance of theistic evolution, it's going to cause confusion, dissension, etc, but I would submit, that one should not intend to follow a denomination or movement, but rather Jesus Christ Himself. And hopefully it's detectable in my writings, but I believe Christians are hurting the ID movement by way of association.

Regardless of all that, my point is that the Theory of Evolution (note caps) when taken seriously will lead to a disbelief in God and a disbelief in God will lead to ungodly behavior. The behavior may fit social mores and be acceptable, but it will be ungodly.

Re: Atheist Support for Intelligent Design

chrispalle — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 13:48:24 -0000

I did respond a couple days ago. DOn't know why you weren't notified.

Re: Evolutionary Biology = Atheism?

chrispalle — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 23:16:59 -0000

Actually, Sam, I never said "evolution precludes the existence of God." The Theory of Evolution as basis for the origin of life requires the _presupposition_ that there is no God. It's not me who says it, though. This is what Richard Dawkins, Steven Jay Gould and other EB contemporaries say.

Would you say that Theistic Evolutionists believe God is at work in day-to-day dealings or is like the watchmaker; that is, "built and let it run"?

Re: Evolutionary Biology = Atheism?

chrispalle — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 23:02:23 -0000

The post itself was not intended to open discussions re: Biblical interpretations. Just my personal account that Evolutionary Biologists cannot also believe in god as creator. Evolutionary Biology as a field comes with the presupposition that all evolutionary processes are of natural cause.

I guess it's better stated that the reasons a believer cannot accept EB is Genesis 1-3, not just Gen. 1. That's the account that everything was perfect at one and it's all gone down hill from there due to our disobedience.

I'm saying a "true believer" (as opposed to your word, "real") believes God created, not that we came from nothing.

The entire account for Creation is handled in Gen. 1-2 and that account is *not* being re-told in Gen 2. It's being reinforced that He created the animals in Gen 2:19; it's not necessarily chronological.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/0...

It's a really awesome picture when you think about it.

Yeah, not sure where geocentric and flat-earth perspectives are about.

Re: Atheist Support for Intelligent Design

chrispalle — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 21:48:47 -0000

Hey Sam- This was not intended to continue from the last post, but rather push the discussion of ID and Evolution a little further. I encourage to finish listening. Intelligent Design != Creationism. UK visitors, please take note. :-)

Re: OmniGraffle Stencil: Social Media Interface Objects

chrispalle — Thu, 06 Nov 2008 23:46:15 -0000

Hey Tim, Yeah, man. Glad you like them. Please come back 'round or send me any links to sites you create with them.

Re: Evolutionary Biology = Atheism?

chrispalle — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 23:20:17 -0000

A thought on Occam's Razor... As matter of fact, William of Ockham (the person to whom the principle is attributed) was a Franciscan friar. Yep. A deist who believed that the simplest way was the best. Hrmmm.... Imagine that.

Fact is, EB complicates the issue. We can still explore, we can still think and dream, .

Here's something else folks, Newton. That guy who came up with the Law of Gravity, believer. Yep. The reason he was able to develop so many solid ideas was because he believed there was a very distinct, finite order to the Universe.

Re: Evolutionary Biology = Atheism?

chrispalle — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 23:12:16 -0000

Not _all_ scientists do it in _every_ scientific field. Caroline Crocker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_Crocker) who was a very successful teacher and pharmacologist says she never needed the ToE to be successful at her work... that is except where she was fired from George Mason. She was actually very successful professor yielding some of the best learners and thinkers, but because she questioned Darwin's theory, she was fired.

Re: Evolutionary Biology = Atheism?

chrispalle — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 23:00:49 -0000

erm, yeah, that was pretty nasty.