Why you probably won't find me on Twitter

I've noticed that a number of my friends are absolutely raving about Twitter, and while I think the site can be useful to some people, I don't think it's for me.

The basic premise of Twitter is, "What are you doing?" And, you know what?--from time to time, I'll feel like I'm doing something interesting. But, often times, I don't think that my every thought is worth following. If you read this blog, you can see how often I do (or don't) post. I don't feel the need to let everyone know what I'm doing all the time. Most of it would likely wind up being filler with the occasional tidbit of useful information. I prefer to go with quality over quantity.

Also, Twitter mentions that with the service, you "can stay hyper-connected with friends." Great. I'll know everything my friends are up to so I'll never actually have to talk to them. Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but sometimes I enjoy not knowing every single detail of my friends' lives. That way, I feel like I could e-mail, call, or hell, even see them in person and find out some new information on their lives that can't be searched for on the Internet--and with details!

That's the other thing about Twitter that bothers me: entries are limited to 140 characters. So yes, you'll know what your friends are up to, but briefly. To expound on what was said, they'll have to do another entry. If you have a question or a direct response, you do an @username with your "tweet". But still, it's only 140 characters. So, your response has to either be really concise or you have to bastardize the English language to get your whole thought across. Srsly? That's not 4 me, U know? But how does writing such short entries affect broader writing in general? Granted, I know Twitter was initially based off text messages, and texting's effect on grammar is one that is still being debated in different forums, but I'm going to put myself in the camp of thought that the brief and abbreviated communications put a strain or limitation on expanded thought. If you're constantly posting short entries about topics, would you ever be inclined to post something more in-depth?

I don't want to paint a picture that Twitter is all bad. In fact, I don't think that. It could be useful in telling a bunch of friends about a happening going on, or in quickly communicating about plans or a change thereof. And I know that there are some people out there who are using the medium to create "micro-fiction", stories essentially told line by line, and I admire the efforts. My good friend Matt Lydon has been working on such a story about a character called Matthew Tweet, and I suggest you check it out if you can. I always enjoy his writing and have been excited to see where his story goes, although I usually wait for an aggregation so I can read multiple posts at once and catch up on the story.

Still, as this post might seem to suggest, I think I'm doing my best work when I'm writing more than a few lines of text. Maybe it'll take me longer to get it out, but I know by the end it's quite likely that it's thought out pretty well (as I have a habit of going over my work several times before posting) and I know that I'm communicating the way that I want to. And maybe that's the biggest difference between me and the many Twitter users out there: they're happy to communicate in such a terse manner, and that's just not my thing. I like to write, and I don't want to be stifled by the character limitations. I don't need to let everyone know what's going on in my life all the time, and I don't need them to do the same. So while so many others out there in the ether tweet, I'm content to let that one part of Web 2.0 pass me by. I'm just fine and dandy with my blog--K thnx bi!

Really? REALLY???

So, Scarlett Johansson covered "Last Goodbye" by Jeff Buckley, one of my favorite songs of all time.

WHO LET THIS HAPPEN??? WHO??? I WANT TO KNOW!!!! GAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

Okay, okay, I'm breathing, I'm calming down. I got a little out of control there, and I apologize. But, really, why? It's her vocals and a piano, the song length is almost cut in half, and it seems to have a rather lounge-y feel to it (which in that particular case, my favorite lounged-up version of a song is Ben Folds Five covering "She Don't Use Jelly" by The Flaming Lips, and I hold that as my high standard).

The original version of the song evoked so much emotion--it wouldn't be uncommon for me to well up a little bit when Buckley starts belting "Kiss me, please kiss me. Kiss me out of desire, babe, and not consolation." She barely emotes at all there. It's almost like she's yawning when she sings those lines. Oh, sure, she brings it up a notch or two in emotion with the following line, but it's unconvincing. Maybe she didn't even try with those lines because she doesn't quite have the vocal chops to carry it off without her voice cracking in an unflattering way. I'm only speculating, of course, but I heard a song or two when she tried covering Tom Waits, and it seems like, for all she's tried, she's either picking the wrong songs for her range, or, well, she just shouldn't be trying to record and sell music. However, if she tried to write and record some of her own material sometime, I'd probably give it a whirl, just to see what she could come up with.

For the time being, I'm going to pass judgment and say that her interpretation of this great song is far inferior to the original, and it makes me wonder why she made the attempt in the first place.

One thing I want to see out of my current technology

I got to wondering today...why hasn't Apple developed an iPod with an SD slot?

Let's think about this for a few seconds, shall we?

Yes, the iPod memory is flash technology, and SD cards are also flash-based--wouldn't that be like doubling up on the same technology in one device? Well, yeah, but what's so wrong about that?

Think about it in this sense: You purchase an album on an SD card (some people out there think that might be a good route to go), and you want to put it on your iPod without having to go through the middle man of your computer and iTunes. Well, right now, it doesn't seem like you'd be able to do it (I welcome comments from anyone telling me I can, and how to accomplish that without cracking open my iPod). How awesome would it be to take that SD card you just bought and put it right into your iPod to give the new songs a (metaphorical) spin? Yes, at some point, if you want to transfer the album to your iPod for good, you can go through your computer and have it now in two spots. It could also offer the opportunity to "share" the music with someone else and possibly avoid all the copyright infringing--much like lending a CD to a friend (and, you know, assuming they aren't borrowing it to rip it). The same would work for videos, and would allow a person the chance to pop a card in and watch a video on their iPod and not have to worry about taking up precious space usually reserved for music (I know I try to keep my iPod for mostly music, maybe I'm an anomaly in that sense--I just don't know).

All I'm saying is that I think that this is a missed opportunity right now, and if Apple put an SD slot on an iPod, it could make the machines even more versatile, and could very possibly make my life even a little easier.

What are your thoughts? And what would you like to seen done to the iPod?

Oh hey, it's Christmas!

I've been a busy girl lately, but that usually happens this time of year. I'll be doing my best to hustle and bustle and post a bit more in 2009...and maybe next week, if I can get around to it.

Whatever winter holiday you celebrate, I hope you have an fantastic time celebrating it! I myself get in on the Christmas festivities, and so far it's been pretty enjoyable. This whole week has seemed to be one long weekend...aside from the one day I worked. No, I'm not complaining...I'm just not used to it.

A very Merry Thursday to you all! And to all, a good night!

Question of the day

Is it possible to be cynical about specific situations yet optimistic about the overall picture at the same time?