this morning techcruch decided to roundup folks waxing philosophical about the scalability problems with twitter, and decentralizing twitter by creating some new web site or service. and that’s entirely the problem with their thinking.
why their approaches will not work
people are thinking of this as a web problem. twitter is not a web problem. the trouble [...]

Posted on May 5th, 2008 by mike
Filed under: business, future, inventions, lexicon, software, web | No Comments »

watching this video of a meetup of the WELL from 1989. and a quote really struck me, from Flash Gordon, M.D.:
“one of the problems in the world is there are no more neighborhoods in the city and neighbors and things like that, but the feeling of the WELL is that you’ve got a lot of [...]

Posted on April 28th, 2008 by mike
Filed under: future, lexicon, phenomena, web | No Comments »

we always talk of defunct. when was it ever funct?

Posted on January 7th, 2008 by mike
Filed under: Uncategorized, lexicon | No Comments »

press F1 to continue

Posted on January 5th, 2008 by mike
Filed under: lexicon | No Comments »

traffic - trafficking. i know the K probably makes you pronounce this correctly (instead of “traffi” + “sing”) but really, where did we get the K? did the King put it there?

Posted on July 23rd, 2007 by mike
Filed under: lexicon | 2 Comments »

why must we only be resilient? my friend pat wants to skip over the reaction part and just be silient.
since resilient comes from the latin saliere (to leap, so resilient is “to leap back”) after you eliminate the retrograde, then you can achieve silience simply by leaping. constantly.

Posted on June 27th, 2007 by mike
Filed under: lexicon | No Comments »

my friend billiam mentioned today that he’s crestfallen.* which made me think, why are we never feeling crestrisen? certainly if our crest can fall, it can also rise.
* billiam was crestfallen because the wikipedia entry for narwhal, under cultural references, does not cite the B-52s.

Posted on June 19th, 2007 by mike
Filed under: lexicon | No Comments »

merriam-webster defines “gruntle” as a transitive verb, meaning “to put in good humor.”
so why don’t we recognize when we are gruntled, instead focusing only on when someone is disgruntled?
perhaps disgruntled is easier to comprehend. the “dis” assures the listener that it’s something negative. and who wants to use this as a verb anyhow? give it [...]

Posted on June 18th, 2007 by mike
Filed under: lexicon | No Comments »