Twittering comes of age

A couple of years ago my agent introduced me to a website with an obscure Scandanavian sounding name where you could leave little comments about how you were/what you were doing at the time - and see other people's comments. I tried it for a day and gave up. I couldn't see the point and couldn't be bothered to go to the website. [Thanks to MG Harris for reminding me it was called Jaiku.]

This concept was more successfully reincarnated in Twitter and now I'm a Twitter convert.

Two bits of technology have pushed me over the edge. One is Twitterfox, an add-in for the Firefox browser (I'm sure there are equivalents for other browsers). It just sits in the bottom right hand corner whenever I use the web (which is a lot of times during the typical working day) and I can instantly pop in and see what's up or make a comment. This 'pop in' part is important. I treat Twitter like I treat The Archers - I don't follow it all, but pop in occasionally to see what's up.

The technology clincher is my iPhone (yes, he's talking about the iPhone again, that Henry Gee has a lot to answer for). Like most internet connected phones it lets me use Twitter from anywhere, whenever I feel the urge (and even to throw in a photo if so inclined). I use Twitterfon for this.

So it was worth plunging in. Then there's the matter of who to follow. Most of the celebrity Twitterers out there I've never heard of (or it's someone like Demi Moore who I couldn't care less about), but I confess I have fallen for the spell of that most urbane of Twitterers, Stephen Fry. And enjoy following a collection of friends. Not to mention some interesting odds and sods. For instance, I follow Planck, Twitterings from the European space observatory, due to launch soon. I'm even tempted by 10 Downing Street.

For me, a piece in the news recently sums it up. A magistrate has resigned because he was Twittering about cases. I think he was right - this is a great way for the public to get an idea of what's going on, much better than newspaper court reporting, which these days is almost nonexistent for everyday cases. He was also wrong - he wasn't the right person to do the Twittering, but every court should have a Twitterer, I feel.

I've seen it suggested somewhere that Twitter is just a flash in the pan, which will be gone in a year or two once people lose interest. Maybe, but I think they're wrong. It's a viable extension of the blog into the short term, and it's coming of age.

And, yes, you can follow me at http://www.twitter.com/brianclegg

Comments

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5. However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor

Why backgammon is a better game than chess

I freely admit that chess, for those who enjoy it, is a wonderful game, but I honestly believe that as a game , backgammon is better (and this isn't just because I'm a lot better at playing backgammon than chess). Having relatively recently written a book on game theory, I have given quite a lot of thought to the nature of games, and from that I'd say that chess has two significant weaknesses compared with backgammon. One is the lack of randomness. Because backgammon includes the roll of the dice, it introduces a random factor into the play. Of course, a game that is totally random provides very little enjoyment. Tossing a coin isn't at all entertaining. But the clever thing about backgammon is that the randomness is contributory without dominating - there is still plenty of room for skill (apart from very flukey dice throws, I can always be beaten by a really good backgammon player), but the introduction of a random factor makes it more life-like, with more of a sense

Search This Blog