Trying an experiment overnight when the traffic is low.

I'm redirecting from scripting.com to s3.scripting.com.

I'm using a code 302, non-permanent redirect, so if things break badly I can easily go back.

I'm wondering if I can switch over to S3 for static hosting. The only way to find out for sure is to try it and see what happens.

Update: The experiment didn't work. Too many redirects. I don't think Apache sites, even static ones, can be moved into S3 space. Not unless they never did any kind of redirecting to hold it together. This site has been around since the mid-90s. Too much history I'm afraid. :-(

 3/17/2011; 8:27:49 PM.   .

I spent the last couple of days creating an installable scripting2.root, with a howto. That's the software I use to edit this weblog and produce all the feeds.

The sites are fully baked, meaning they can be hosted anywhere. It's set up to, by default, host sites on Amazon S3.

One of the things I tripped over while testing the release is some code I forgot I had written. It manages a file that's what I think of as JSONified RSS. It's the feed for Scripting News rendered as JSON.

http://scripting.com/rss.json

From this, I believe you could create a JavaScript browser for this kind of website. Not sure, but I think it could be interesting.

My dream would be to have the Readability guys take a shot at this. Or Flipboard. Hmmm.

PS: The server you get with EC2-for-Poets will run scripting2.root just fine. The pieces are starting to fit together real nice.

 3/17/2011; 4:56:05 PM.   .

There's a lot of tweeting going on about Twitter's terms of use for the API.

Not sure what's new, I don't pay close attention. But the focus seems to be on Section I, paragraph 5, sub-E.

"You may not use Twitter Content or other data collected from end users of your Client to create or maintain a separate status update or social network database or service."

What this seems to mean is:

1. If your client touches the Twitter API, then any text or data the user enters into that app becomes Twitter Content.

2. You cannot use that data to form a new service. So there goes the idea of Twitter clients sharing info between each other using RSS. They should have done it a long time ago, now they would be able to fall back on that net (and that's why Twitter wouldn't be able to pull this string now).

3. You can't be half in and half out. Either you connect to Twitter, and they own you and your users, or you don't connect to Twitter.

I don't think there's really anything here that wasn't obviously coming before. I've said it many times, but I guess people don't read my posts, otherwise why are they surprised. This has been a long time coming.

 3/17/2011; 1:59:51 PM.   .

I had a pretty strong feeling the announcement was coming when I wrote the piece about the Times paywall yesterday.

Now that I've had a chance to read the actual announcement, here's the problem. They're not offering anything to readers other than the Times' survival, and they're not even explicit about that.

Wouldn't it have been wise to, at this juncture, offer something to sweeten the deal. Something truly exciting and new that you get when you pay the money. Something that makes your palms sweat and your heart beat faster?

I put down $700 last week to get a few minor improvements to my iPad. If they had said "Give us $700 so we can survive," well, I might have done it. But I feel better about getting the new features.

The mistake is not viewing this from the other end of the communication pipe. Listen to to the pitch from the other guy's point of view. This is the same thing NPR fails to do in their pledge drives. I suppose it's in the nature of the old way of doing news. Our job is to appreciate and pay and their job is to inform and be paid. Of course even NPR would acknowledge that isn't how news works anymore. Maybe even some people at the Times would, today. More will in the future.

Now would have been a very good time to turn the formula around, show a little vision beyond "We need this to survive."

I'd like to hear something that makes me believe they are excited about the future news, and are translating that excitement into thoughtful new products.

On the other hand, they did something smart in not charging readers who get to a Times story through a link from a blog post or tweet. But -- since I am a frequent linker, I wonder why I should pay to read their site, when I'm delivering flow to them. How does that equation balance by me paying them? Maybe they should pay me? Seriously. I have a need to survive too.

As always comments are on the record and for attribution. I am editor of Scripting News, visiting scholar at NYU in journalism, and a leading software developer.

 3/17/2011; 10:50:48 AM.   .

Welcome back my friends to the show that never ends.

All baking done on premises.

 3/17/2011; 10:05:36 AM.   .