apk zenonia 5

Those of you who read my blog directly, rather than via a feed-reader, will notice that it is looking styled again, for the first time since CSS Naked Day in April.

I made an initial conversion to hAtom by hand in the meantime, but a few weeks back Michał Cierniak and I checked in a change to the underlying Blogger templates to make hAtom the default, which the Blogger team graciously accepted. This should enable much simpler client-side parsing of the blog pages. One thing we had to do to enable this was to add a new datatype to output a date in the W3C's ISO-8601 profile, as expected by hAtom. If you look in the templates now, you'll see markup like this:

<abbr class='published' expr:title='data:post.timestampISO8601'> <data:post.timestamp/></abbr>

If you want to make your own hAtom friendly templates, you can use the data:post.timestampISO8601 appropriately in the date-time design pattern; the data:post.timestamp will reflect your personal formatting preferences as before.

The UK Professional Association of Teachers has called for YouTube to be banned because it has been used to show people being bullied. Meanwhile, Oxford police are pursuing a man who pinched a news reporters' bum on air:

I trust the PAT will call for Channel 4 to be banned too.

Perhaps the net can fulfill Bentham's dream of the panopticon, where prisoners are always watched. In the Philippines they are showing the way. With Bentham, Busby Berkeley and Michael Jackson as guiding spirits, 1500 prisoners perform "Radio Gaga", "Thriller", the Algorithm march, and, yes, "YMCA" for the camera. If they're taking requests, I nominate Pink Floyd's "In the Flesh".

YouTube, like the rest of the web is a mirror to life. If you don't like what you see, look for something else, like this elegy for Concorde:

Or remember Antonioni

Or Syd Barrett

Or make a video to tell your own story.

There is a dangerous prejudice afoot in the technical world - Homographophobia. Those who suffer from it call for segregation, to avoid the miscegenation of meaning - they want to ensure that their Humpty-Dumpty definitions are not polluted by sharing with others. But they are wrong. We are all imperfectly multilingual, we all have our own internal associations for any given word, but we can only communicate through overlapping meanings with some degree of sharing of concepts.

So we should eschew namespaces and hierarchies as they are just solipsistic security blankets, and embrace the overlapping ambiguity of using words as tags, as Roschian prototypes and as puns. Homophonophobia is a similar affliction, yet homophones give rise to so much entertainment and jollity, as the "four candles" sketch shows:

One way of thinking about social networks is through "social objects" - the cultural touchstones and shared ideas that we use to bridge our Dunbar-constrained networks to broader communities. We all do this - use some shared object as a point of conversational reference. Here in the US it tends to be sports teams activities; in the UK there's always the weather to fall back on. (This fails in California because it's too predictable - when I came here in 1998 it took me a while to realise that saying "beautiful day again" was like saying "I see gravity's still working" to Californians).

Talking about social objects is nothing new - Jyri discussed them at length back in 2005, and danah dissected Friendster's suicide in 2006 when they killed off the Fakesters (user profiles that represented social objects like "Jack Daniels" and "Burning Man").

Where I find the 'Dunbar number' idea falls down is that social network connections, like so many other human-made things, are power-law distributed. The small number of highly-connected entities that fulfil the role of social objects are sometimes people. If you think about celebrities, they clearly fit- being able to discuss Brad and Jen and Angelina's latest shenanigans binds you in, and shows like American Idol are designed to draw on this need, giving the Faustian bargain of fame in exchange for objectification.

Different social network services can be distinguished through the different kinds of object that lead to their success. Friendster's expulsion of Fakesters, and later attempts to use TV characters is one example; MySpace's embrace of independent bands and FaceBook's initial use of Universities as touchstones help explain their divergence. LinkedIn has Companies as their touchstone, Orkut has it's communities, which are often used as badges for the users to express their identity. Suicide Girls is a blog network focused around models-as-objects, last.fm uses songs and bands, Flickr uses photos, Dopplr uses places.

Looked at in this way, James Hong's attempt to change the core objects of HotOrNot from pictures of strangers to pictoral self-tags he calls "Stylepix" seems an interesting experiment.

Making sense of the different object graphs and how they interact with the social graphs in these overlapping sites will keep lots more researchers busy, I'm sure.

Editing shows respect. Steve Gillmor has put up his new video podcast Bad Sinatra which is him unedited wandering around and chatting to people. Now, I like Steve, and enjoy having rambling conversations with him about things, but I don't think it works as video. With video, as with audio, editing shows respect for your audience. To do a truly live or as-live show, like the splendid In Our Time, you need to plan it out in advance and choreograph it. Otherwise, you need to edit. Carefully.

If you want to hear a perfectly edited podcast, listen to Radiolab. I spend 90 minutes a day cycling and listening to my iPod, which is exactly the use case for podcasting I explained to the BBC a few years back. Now that shows of this quality are there to be downloaded regularly, my tolerance for self-indulgent rambling podcasts like bad voicemail messages is way down.

I made this point way back at the dawn of podcasting , when Chris Lydon's well-edited interviews inspired us to download them to our iPods. In the online world we are each others' media, as we mediate what is worth reading for each other through our blogs and link streams. This too, is a form of editing, and doing it shows respect for each other. Steve, tighten it up into something worth watching. My children know how to do it.

I read two things this morning in praise of closed systems and fêting their future dominance, both by people who should know better. Bob Cringely praises Adobe's Flash, and predicts that AIR will take over the world because Flash can be made to run on cellphones. Clearly, this is wishful thinking on Adobe's part. There is a standard for creating user interfaces that has many orders of magnitude more developers than Flash, is installed on every computer and nearly every cellphone already, and is powerful enough that even Steve Jobs didn't dare to leave it off the iPhone, and that's HTML.

Once you own the interface to every mobile device you can make those devices talk more easily to your networked applications than possibly to those from Apple, Microsoft, or Sun. As we move toward a fully mobile Internet, compliance with mobile APIs will be more important than what operating system is running on the server, which is why I believe Adobe is putting so much effort behind AIR and Flex.

"Owning" interfaces is not something that you can do when there is an existing interface that is simple, powerful and deployed on every device imaginable already. That would be HTTP - Cringely's piece starts by saying how HTML has made it beyond ubiquity to invisibility, but HTTP is so invisible he doesn't even notice that it's there (let alone TCP or UDP).

Marc Andreesson also has a good underlying point about the Valley's short attention span with regard to technologies, but he too ends up praising a closed application model, in this case Facebook's. They provide access to their users under sufferance, and clearly can't provide access to users of otehr social networking sites. For Marc to back a closed system like this when he has built his career on open ones is odd to me. Kottke puts this well:

As it happens, we already have a platform on which anyone can communicate and collaborate with anyone else, individuals and companies can develop applications which can interoperate with one another through open and freely available tools, protocols, and interfaces. It's called the internet and it's more compelling than AOL was in 1994 and Facebook in 2007. Eventually, someone will come along and turn Facebook inside-out, so that instead of custom applications running on a platform in a walled garden, applications run on the internet, out in the open, and people can tie their social network into it if they want, with privacy controls, access levels, and alter-egos galore.

Dave Winer agrees it is time to do this:

Eventually, soon I think, we'll see an explosive unbundling of the services that make up social networks. What was centralized in the form of Facebook, Linked-in, even YouTube, is going to blow up and reconstitute itself.

The thing is , pace Andreesson, we have been working on building a consensus to express these connections in an open way for a few years now. We already have a way to express social networks and personal information online. We have hCard for expressing contact information and authorship, and we have XFN to express social connection. Twitter, Dave's experimental platform, already supports this. Lets continue to spread it further.

My overall reaction similar to what I said based on textual reports. Jobs saying that web-based applications are as good as native ones on the iPhone is a big change for him, and a sign that development really has changed. What was clearly flawed in the iPhone directory app demo was the need to write all the integration links into the site - how about Safari/iPhone natively understanding hCard and integrating it with apps, like Operator does in Firefox?

Stacks seems not to really solve the too many documents problem well - see Tim Oren's discussion of literalism and magic (Tim worked on 'Piles', the less euphoniously named version of this idea at Apple, long ago).

The dynamic DNS support integrated in 'Back to my Mac' is great idea for those not yet committed to keeping their documents in the cloud. The tension between Jobs advocating a new OS with 300 features, versus a thin client on the iPhone to the same developers was pretty clear.

Jobs saying that Safari for Windows has built-in support for both Google and Yahoo Search was not something I saw anyone pick up on.

Oh, and one more thing... the new iChat features look great, but why is there still no demo or even mention of iChat on iPhone? The main thing I use my sidekick for is AIM chatting, and if iPhone can't do that and forces chat through the procrustean constraints of SMS it's a huge missed opportunity.