This Yoz Grahame Is Normative
This Yoz Grahame Is NormativeUPDATE: I think I've got enough of this wrong that this whole post should have a line through it. My apologies to Mr Godin, to whose excellent work I have done a great disservice. My only excuse was that I put this out in the middle of an incredibly hectic work day, when clearly I should have been less rushed about things...
Still in the process of blog moving, still about to blog about Ning, etc. But until then, a huge glaring fish in a bucket: Seth Godin's post on legacy reasons. Lots of trackbacks, none of which seem to have caught on that it must be some kind of hoax.
The reason about Blockbuster? Not true. (UPDATE: Still checking this one.)
The reason about places of work? Obviously not true. (UPDATE: Not so sure. I'm thinking about organisational and output-gathering benefits as primary rather than power source, though clearly the power source also has something to do with it. Anyone want to supply evidence of either (which I completely lack, go me)? I'm still interested in this one, though I'm probably completely wrong.)
The reason about typewriter keys? Famously not true. (UPDATE: Boy, was I wrong. And even worse, I didn't read the linked article properly, which clearly agrees with Seth, as Paul points out below.)
The reason about SUVs? True.
So, what's Seth really asking?
(Addendum: I should add that the above question is not one of those A-list style pretending-to-know-the-answer-to-a-rhetorical thing. I have no idea what he's really asking, or even if he knows that half of his reasons are bollocks. But, as Nick has already shown in the comments, it's a fun thing to think about.)
Right, I'm getting sick of this.
As you can see, I've fixed this blog, only now it's getting hammered with over 200 spams per day ('cos MT-Blacklist appears to be irreperably b0rked). I've installed MT3.2 elsewhere and I'm getting ready to move to it properly, only - how do I clear out all the old crap? There's over a thousand spam messages in my export file, and while 3.2 appears to have all kinds of whizzy barbed-wire anti-spamness for incoming attacks, it seems to have no way of applying said whizziness to the buggers that have already nested. I've hunted through the UI, I've Googled around, I've even posted to the 6A support forums, all to no avail. Anyone? Please? Help?
(And, just to fend off the obvious, let's assume I want to stick with MT for the moment until I'm certain there's no chance of success, okay?)
(Part Two in an occasional series. Part One was three-and-a-half years ago. Try the tip, though, it still works in Winamp 5.) (Oh, and the proper Ning stuff is coming soon, I promise.)
Occasionally, one wants to listen to music in computer data files. One also wants one's llama's ass really whipped. To achieve both of these in a single package, Winamp is recommended. (Poor Mac and Gnulix users! They have to choose one or the other. Ha ha ha! But don't worry, Mac fans - there's a bonus treat for you at the end of this blog entry.) Winamp gets much of its llama-whippingness from the hardcore n3rd-5|<i((5 of people like Mr Frankel, and this is visible in the insanity of its built-in expression languages.
NOTE how I said expression languages. Not scripting languages. Scripting languages are for arsing about with hotkeys that switch the equalizer mode for every room in your house, or post your current playlist into a Flash movie on your MySpace site every 12 seconds. They are lame, and you suck for wanting them. Expression languages are for manipulation of audio-visual magic using raw, high-power mathematiznics. And the engines for this come built in, super-optimised and remarkably under-documented.
You may have already played with the Winamp AVS - if not, go have some fun with it, 'cos not only can you get it to produce some remarkably Minter visuals but it gives you the tools to build your own - both by piping existing things together and by writing exciting mini-programs inside of Winamp that you can see working live as you type them. This is incredibly cool, but I'm not going to talk about AVS today. I'm going to talk about something hidden a little deeper that I came across almost by accident.
Phil Ringnalda, to Diego: You don't *have* to promote your work in your personal weblog, but if you're trying to hold it back to keep from being one of "those" bloggers, well, I think maybe you've overdone it.
Hello, everyone. I'm Yoz Grahame, Developer Advocate for Ning, and I think it's time I started blogging again.
(I'm going to have to keep it concise; partially because there's a balance to be kept, partially because attention spans are even shorter than they used to be (especially mine) and partially because it's the only way I get get this thing started. Blogging is a Pillar Of Daunt for me at the best of times, but now that I'm working in public... it takes a run-up, y'know?)
Anyway, some of the story is this: We were mostly as the mice for two and a half months after Ning launched, then (after we realised that we were being way too quiet, and had not given people enough cause to investigate beyond thinking that we were just providing an easy way to make your own HotOrNot clones) decided that we should be a lot louder. And then this happened (and Diego's post which was so good it was lauded by Salon) and it's time to shout about things a little more, y'know?
Ning is not the Alpha and Omega, nor the cream that will revive your deadened scalp, plump your lips, ease the pounds from your waist. But it is the project I've been dreaming of working on since - goodness, is that the time? - since 1995. Yep, that long. (This is not hyperbole, and will be properly explained.) It night not take over the world, nor make us all rich, nor even provide me enough cash to get the kid through kindergarten; but it's damn well worth a try, because it's the latest iteration of the most interesting idea the internet has ever seen - an idea that's been almost criminally underexploited, and whose time has come. That is the most prominent of the many reasons why I'm on board.
It'll need some explaining, though. New web apps sell themselves from the word go; platforms take a little longer. Let me just get MT working properly again, and I'll be right back...
In a few hours, we get one of the most eagerly-awaited events in the technology calendar: a Steve Jobs keynote. I've been watching them since he returned to Apple in 1997, despite the fact that I've never owned any Apple gear. I know I'm not the only one hypnotically drawn to his performances. I'm a Windows user, but I don't watch video presentations from Bill Gates (well, not often) or Andy Grove. Why Steve?
The answer: It's why we're here in the first place.
Apparently, some more definitiveness is required. Not only did I get another (email) response from Dave asking me to further clarify things, but several other smart people also seem to be touting the slippery slope argument as well as demanding that their content be delivered to the user's eyeballs unaltered. "We are on the first step down the road to madness!" they yell. "Where is the line to be drawn?" God knows, I've been aching to draw a line under this whole thing since it started (which was the point of my first post).
Dave specifically requested I answer his email publicly: I shall quote it in its entirety with my interspersed responses, and tackle Scoble, Calacanis, Rubel et al at the same time. While eating a banana. (Excellent value for your attention dollar, that's me.)
Dave: thank you for your response. And that's a genuine thank you, not a sarcastic thank you. That said, I had hoped that, despite the satirical tone, my previous post on this topic at least contained enough solid arguments to be considered slightly intelligent. But perhaps not. My tone (and use of the word "obsession", which I think is at least partially justified since you've been repeatedly focusing on this topic for over a week now) came from an exasperation at seeing you and many others drawn in to a pointless and potentially harmful battle.
Sarcasm and its problems aside, the point that I was trying to make was that (as you pointed out to me with the sentence starting "When you take that first step down the slope...") your prime argument against the AutoLink feature is a slippery slope fallacy. The Google AutoLink feature is a fundamentally useful one now. Since it must be directly activated on each page, it does not defraud the user into fooling them that the content they are seeing is as it was originally created. (Surely they would only press the button if the content was lacking in useful links) It does not remove or replace any existing links or ads. It only does something for which the user has specifically asked.
The argument that you raise in your response to me hinges on what Google/Microsoft/A.N.Other BigCo might do but haven't. To which I say: well, when they do something that actually is fraudulent or dangerous, we'll complain about it then. You are saying that AutoLink legitimises the wilful changing of content in its passage between creator and user; I say that it does nothing that the user has not specifically asked for. And if the user has asked for it, there is no reason why they should not have it; after all, they could save the HTML to their hard drive and edit it for exactly the same effect. (In fact, the user could do far more wilful damage to HTML than the AutoLink feature does.) Content creators should not have to provide specific opt-in permission; if they had to do this for every such feature out there, most of them would never work.
You say you care. I agree, you obviously care, and I don't dispute that. However, we clearly have very different ideas about what is good for the web. My argument is that AutoLink is both harmless to the web and good for users. It is a useful feature and I don't think it does anything worth pulling out of users' hands. You say that it breaks a taboo about content modification; I say that taboo has never existed, and useful content modification (by both clients and servers) has been happening since the web began. It is a vital feature of the web that has been implemented in a thousand different ways, most of them useful (pop-up blockers, screen readers and mobile-format filters are just some of the ones that immediately spring to mind). Please don't devalue this feature by saying that this one harmless user-invoked Google function will somehow lead the web to doom.
I'm not saying that harmful content filters will never appear; they have in the past and doubtless will do again. But, as Cory said, what makes them harmful is not content modification, it's fraud. This distinction must be made, or it may end up scaring people into disabling much of what makes the web great. And this is why I disagree with your fight: I don't think that, in this particular case, it's helping.
UPDATE: Yet another response. (Last one, honest. Really.)
Like many others, I had written off Dave Winer's recent obsession with the new Google toolbar. That was until I actually downloaded and installed the thing, and realised - oh my god! There are some really important points he's raised, and everyone needs to hear them right now!
In honour of the BAFTA award nomination for the BBC's new Internet edition of the classic Infocom computer game, The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy, we present two titans of the text adventure:
As well as working with Douglas Adams on the Hitchhiker's game in 1985, Steve Meretzky is responsible for such other classics of the genre as Planetfall, Leather Goddesses of Phobos and Zork Zero. In 1999 he was named one of the industry's 25 "Game Gods" by PC Gamer magazine. He currently holds the position of Principal Game Designer for WorldWinner, Inc.
Veteran writer and broadcaster Michael Bywater has been involved with interactive storytelling since the eighties, both with Douglas Adams on Infocom's Bureaucracy and the legendary British games company Magnetic Scrolls. He worked with Adams again in the mid-nineties on The Digital Village's Starship Titanic. His third book, Lost Worlds: What Have We Lost & Where Did It Go? (not, as previously suggested, a collection of his columns for The Independent On Sunday) is out now.
Date: Thursday 3rd March, 8:00pm
Price: £4 on the door - all proceeds go to Save The Rhino and The Dian Fossey Gorilla Fund
Venue: The Brockway Room, Conway Hall, 25 Red Lion Square, London WC1R 4RL (map)
Any questions: yoz@yoz.com
Due to the BAFTA-nomination of the BBC's new version of the Hitchhiker's text adventure (as updated by Sean, Shim and Rod Lord), the guy who co-created the original game is coming to town next week.
We think it'd be fab if we could get him in conversation publically, you know, giving a talk about the games he's worked on (such as the legendary Planetfall and Leather Goddesses of Phobos), the history of Infocom, his work at WorldWinner and all that.
Except:
The most suitable date for this is Thursday 3rd March. (There is a small but definite chance that it may be Tuesday 1st instead, but for now, it's the Thursday we're working on.) Obviously, final details will be posted here once I have them.
Can you help? Let us know.
UPDATE: All sorted. Big thanks to James Wallis for the venue suggestion and James Cronin for booking it!
We're deeply grateful, if occasionally mystified, by the huge outpouring of emotion you've sent our way. Now, if you could redirect some of that emotion towards stringing idiots like this up by their testicles, we'd be even more grateful. Live8 happened because, believe it or not, there are more important issues in this world than terrorism. If you really do care about us, we'd appreciate it if your media would actually listen to what we have to say, and not merely use this as an excuse to put your government's stupid, pointless crusade back on the agenda. Having now had a brief local reminder of what war can be, we don't like it very much, and we'd like it to stop. All of it. Ta very.
... and rather late, due to wedding prep taking up most of my spare time. (Was finally prompted by Doc.) The summary: I'm fine, Bob's fine, everyone I know is fine, several hundred people in my city are not fine, and at least 37 of them are dead. But, compared to New York and Madrid, we got off pretty lightly. Personally, I slept through it all, just like I did on September 11th (I was in Oregon at the time) - Bob woke me up at 11 and told me what was going on. And, once I'd done the phoning and emailing and watched my various networks of friends go through their internal diagnostic routines to satisfaction, we went shopping. (The LJ is where most of my personal rambling will be appearing from now on - I needed a place where I felt more freedom to talk complete bollocks. Oh, you know what I mean.)
This was not our September 11th. This was something we've dealt with before, repeatedly, with the various IRA campaigns and the nail bomber. The typical Londoner's response to an explosion was best summarised by Eddie Izzard: "What? A bomb? Where? Victoria? Shit! No, wait... if I change onto the Metropolitan Line, take the 130 from King's Cross..." That doesn't make it less horrific, but nor does it radically change things like 9-11 did. And god, I hope it doesn't. The American reaction to terrorism was to shout about the freedom and liberties that the enemy was trying to take away, followed by the US Government taking many of those freedoms away instead. (Along with chucking tons of cash at utterly useless countermeasures - Schneier's message of support is particularly noteworthy) If this gives the government's stupid and irrelevant ID card campaign a boost, that would be a great way for the terrorists to have fucked our lives over.
The attack today wasn't about body count - if they'd just wanted to kill people, there are almost certainly more effective routes that could have been taken. It was about infrastructure: immobilisation, inconvenience, massive economic damage. It was about bringing a city to a standstill, making it another blaring distress beacon heard around the world. Fortunately - thanks entirely to the astonishing efforts of the emergency services and those who keep London running - things will be mostly back to normal tomorrow.
Maybe I'm being too flippantly insensitive about what's happened today. I know I'm not sufficiently communicating the shock that I feel, and I've never been good at that. But if we really want to hit back at those who did this to us, one of the best ways is just not to give them the satisfaction of turning our lives upside-down, making their tactics as pointless as possible. We should care, and not try to pretend that we don't - but we shouldn't let that change things for the worse. We bury our dead, we fix the damage, we donate some blood, and we go about our business as free and as loud as ever.
Rebranding: always a pain. Throwing huge amounts of cash at pretentious design consultancies with interminable meetings about "core values", endless iterations with focus groups, worries about brand recognition... then one department folds its arms and refuses to budge, and you have to start all over again. Plus, there's all the effort you have to put into protection of the trademark and prosecution of infringement - because, for a brand to work, it has to have meaning.
It's slightly harder when the brand in question is literally designed to save lives.
Oh, that Rod Begbie! Distracting me so! (Tries to hide gleeful hand-rubbing.) This is one of those pass-it-on blog memes, I'm afraid, and it's all about books.
The long-awaited, breathlessly-anticipated, much-debated Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy arrives on UK screens today, with the USA following tomorrow.
I recommend that you go see it. After you have done so, please let me know what you think of it.
Despite there having been several positive reviews of the Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy movie before his, MJ Simpson's vitriolic slamming has been getting more linkage than all the rest combined. This is mainly because, as someone who wrote a book about Douglas Adams, it's generally considered that he should know what he's talking about. (Oh, and also because it fulfils all the "I knew they'd screw it up!" paranoia which so many fans seem to treasure.)
To redress the balance somewhat from the only negative review that's appeared, here are some slightly-more-positive ones:
Yoz: let me see if I've got this straight in my head
Yoz: The company that made Tomb Raider has been bought by a company named after a song written for the Tomb Raider movie by the guy who's on the board of said company
Yoz: have I got it?
Tim: oh, I don't know
Tim: all I know is
Tim: it's annoying because it looks like it's annoying because it's yoz.
Yoz: Thim.
Tim: Npoz.
For those of you who haven't yet heard (forgive me, I've been really disorganised and somewhat relying on network effects): The shortest audioblog post evar. (200k mp3)
Date: Fri Oct 29 13:45:53 2004 PDT
From: ?
To: *Short Attention Span Theater (#75504)
First they came for the Jews and I said nothing because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the homosexuals and I said nothing because I was not a homosexual.
Then I realized that there would never be anything good on television ever again.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
You can share it and remix it, but any copy or derivative work that is published must also be made available under this licence and attributed to Yoz Grahame.
(Unless you ask me nicely.)
