Joshua Schacter's perspective on URL shorteners from a few years ago.

I hesitate to link to the New York Times, but, uh, yeah, what they said.

David adds another log to the living-in-the-digital-moment-rots-your-mind fire, not that he would say it like that (nor, really, would anyone else — it's quite a mouthful). I can't disagree, especially when Dosteovsky and McLuhan are referenced.

"This is where the copyright witch hunt has brought us: in order to access the content we want, we have to become anonymous and hide our identities. Because people just want to watch a TV show or see a movie, they have to play a ridiculous cat-and-mouse game with the authorities who somehow equate downloading a file with stealing a car."

A potential solution to the headache that is URL-shortening services.

«About twenty years ago people noticed computers and TV were on a collision course and started to speculate about what they'd produce when they converged. We now know the answer: computers. It's clear now that even by using the word "convergence" we were giving TV too much credit. This won't be convergence so much as replacement. People may still watch things they call "TV shows," but they'll watch them mostly on computers.»

Sweat the details. It doesn't get any more granular than words on the page.

Time to upgrade your vocabulary.

The next step after ubiquity is invisibility. The internet, my friends, is about to invade your life outside the computer.

I have seen the future of task management, and it works.