09/21/07 08:04 - ID#41242

Social Graph Part 2

Google to take on Facebook:

by opening up their social graph? That is my dream come true! xfn and openid, distributed digital social networks not under anyone's thumbs.

That's all you need. Push and pull from Google, and Six Apart (LJ, etc). Autodiscovery of social networks. Smugmug just did it

and now all I really need is for Flickr to jump in, or maybe I can fake it through their API.

Permalink: Social_Graph_Part_2.html
Words: 82

Category: internet

09/21/07 12:52 - ID#41230

$1000 a Month

Carrier short codes for SMS messages are $1000 a month. (That's the way you can text to or from a really short number, like 22345). I didn't think it would be that expensive. And that's just the cost for the CSC number, there are addiitional higher charges for receiving and sending messages from CSC's as opposed to normal numbers.

Guess I'll need a long number! 716-998-1987 is harder to remember then 23560, though.

paul writes at 08:17:17 09/21/07 - Comment #24978: You can definitely use a GSM modem with sim card attached to a server to send out the messages. Then you just buy an unlimited messaging account from tmobile for that sim card.

I think that SMS is in its death throws. Honestly, after years of closely following mobile telfony I am sure that it is yesterday;'s technology and that most cell phones are going to go in the direction of email very soon. Many, many of them already have.

james writes at 02:35:20 09/21/07 - Comment #24932: Hey Jim, someone smeared geek all over your journal.

jim writes at 02:05:00 09/21/07 - Comment #24926: I mostly need to send outgoing SMS's at this point, so doing without a short code isn't that big a deal for my project.

I think the better browsers and get (mobile safari for example), and mobile email too), the less relevant the SMS racket will be.

jim writes at 02:02:56 09/21/07 - Comment #24925: Yeah, Paul was telling me that I should just tether a cell phone to a server and send them out that way, but my server is in a rack in San Diego, and so...

zobar writes at 02:01:26 09/21/07 - Comment #24924: So you pay per month for your short code, and then you pay per-message for using the API. GOD THIS INDUSTRY IS SO SHADY. Network providers screw service providers and service providers screw content providers and everyone screws the end user. How many people could you possibly bill for sending one 160-byte packet over the network? Let's find out ...

Now that I think about it, my previous phone [Sony Ericsson T616] could operate over Bluetooth as a Hayes-compatible modem. There were special AT commands you could issue to it; there was probably one for sending SMS.

- Z

jim writes at 01:57:27 09/21/07 - Comment #24923: Well you don't need a short code, but whether or not you have a shortcode you need either a web gateway API to call or a cell system interface terminal. The costs for sending a message seem to be around $0.05 per text, and you have to buy at least $25 worth at a time.

jim writes at 01:44:29 09/21/07 - Comment #24922: It's an API call, usually just in an encoded url like this describes: :::link:::

But some of the you have to submit XML packets with the message info. You need to pay for a short code, and then pay a gateway service for an API connection, and your site can send SMS messages directly.

Alternatively there are actual cell devices that you'd hook up to your server and send messages with over the regular cell networks, but I am not too clear on what's involved with that route.

zobar writes at 01:40:50 09/21/07 - Comment #24921: Funny, we were just solicited by a mobile service provider. Question: once you have a short-code, how do you submit SMSes to the network?

- Z

Permalink: _1000_a_Month.html
Words: 71

Category: internet

08/17/07 09:19 - ID#40601

Social Graph

Brad Fitzpatrick (of LiveJournal

and memcached

fame) is starting an intriguing attempt at freeing your social life from the clutches of MySpace and Facebook. White paper:

He wants to take your network of friendships that you've defined on the web, and instead of tying that in to a particular website, make it open for any website to use. If you signed up to MyCoolNewSite.com (for example), and plugged in your access token or whatever, it would tell you which of your friends from other sites are on this new one, and you could instantly get going.

Instead of being tied to just the huge social sites, you could participate in a world of targeted, rich, local and interest sites. Estrip would know about your friends (if you let it), and you could always count on not missing anyone or having to reenter all your info everywhere, or bugging your friends to sign up for every new thing.

It would all just happen, decentralized and under your control.

I love Flickr

but I hate that my photography network of contacts is bound up in it and I can't spill that over to other places. I love Estrip, but feel like it's maybe tucked away from the rest of my online life instead of being the center of my personal presence on the web.

Facebook (Flickr, MySpace, etc) right now is a walled off corner of the Internet, like AOL used to be. It's nice and clean and usable - but who wants to be living inside AOL 2.0? It is pulling everything in like a black hole.

The internet is meant to be messy and glorious. Why shouldn't you or I set the boundaries as we see fit?

Permalink: Social_Graph.html
Words: 300

Category: internet

08/10/07 03:58 - ID#40477

Denial of Service

So, I've been working on and frustrated by this site that I've been working on, and I thought it was ready to launch last weekend, but it's been under a constant denial of service attack for three days now, I only noticed that that was the reason for the slowness and glitches last night.

I've never had this happen before so I didn't think to look for it sooner. Someone apparently really hates my client.