I just finished watching the last presidential debate of this cycle.  They're always being cut off.  Because they only spend 10 minutes on each topic before moving on, the candidates only have enough time to break out the stump speech numbers and to talk past each other.  When they do engage directly, there isn't enough time to have a proper policy debate.  Just a lot of "yes I did", "no you didn't" back and forth.  Ugh.

Stop repeating your stump speeches and talking past each other.

I think we need a series of "working discussions" where the candidates would talk for an hour on just one topic.  It would be moderated with timers and rules.  But the discussion for the full hour or two will be on a specific topic like the economy or foreign policy.  The candidates would have their running mates and select staff there too.  The staff is for fact checking and providing data.

The moderator could be a select panel of experts so there could be more of a conversation.

Think gathering everyone in your living room to talk about technology, abortion, taxes, or whatever your favorite issue might be.

There's a lot of potential topics that could hold my attention for two hours. 

We could go through all the cabinet level positions and have a debate on each one.  Or a few of the smaller ones can be rolled up into bigger discussions, but have a dedicated 30 minutes minimum.

I'd like to see at least a full hour or two dedicated to these topics:

There doesn't seem to be a point to the New York Times' "permalink" URL.

When you click on the share link in a NYT article, it presents you with a few options.

One of those options is the "permalink". Presumably, this is the preferred link that the New York Times wants people (bloggers) to use. But for some reason, it's hidden away in a box that requires a click.

Another oddity. The permalink URL is not simple or SEO friendly.

Permalink:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/27/fashion/27blogher.html?ex=1374984000&e...

133 characters.

URL I was on clicked from Google Reader share:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/27/fashion/27blogher.html?_r=1&partner=rs...

96 characters.

Why is the permalink hidden behind a click and supremely complicated? What's the point of the permalink? Why bother?

I'm a new user at the up-and-coming social media site Mixx.  I've been there a week, and so far, I like it.

Here are some initial observations and thoughts (from a social news novice):

1. Mixx power users are deeply engaged.

That's fantastic!  It's this core group of users who will be giving management valuable feedback, welcoming new users (like me), and making Mixx a generally nice place to hangout.

2. There's nobody on Mixx.

I've heard that Mixx currently has about 2.5m page views a month.  That's not bad, but it's nowhere near the traffic of the big 4 (Digg, reddit, StumbleUpon, Propeller).  But it's growing quickly, and converting new users and evangelists on a daily basis.

I can think of three effects this (current) lack of traffic has:

1. It has been largely ignored by web power users (SEOs, SMOs, bloggers, etc).  Mixx just doesn't have a large enough user base at the moment to push any significant traffic to the submitted articles.  So bloggers keep writing for and targeting the big 4 in their social media marketing strategies.
2. There isn't much spam (for now).  No reason for spammers to hit up Mixx in force since it's not pushing any traffic back.
3. Many great articles/links don't get submitted.  I'm surprised at how often I'm the first one to submit an article to Mixx, even thought that article has been hot on reddit or Digg for several hours.

3. You still have a chance to be top 5 user on Mixx.

Mixx's unique strategy of allowing users to create new tags/categories, and then only watch those categories (or "Add to their Mixx" in Mixx jargon), is brilliant.  It effectively allows the community to create mini-Diggs.

Dear Facebook,

Please include the actual question, wall message, etc in email notifications.

I want to read my friends' messages immediately even if I don't have time to interact (reply). I love being notified of stuff as it happens, but hate being forced to visit the site just to read the message.

Neutered notifications don't add any value to my inbox and may need to be disabled.  Here's my preference:

1. New messages (question, wall, etc) are included in email notifications so I can easily keep up.  I'll happily go to the site to write something.
2. I disable notifications and visit Facebook a couple of times a week.  Unlikely.  Out of sight, out of mind.
3. Continue to get inbox-clogging notifications that don't really say anything.  Can't put up with it much more...

Thanks for listening,

Greg

Brad Fitzpatrick (creator of LiveJournal) and David Recordon authored a manifesto calling for a unifed, open source social network API. Fascinating read.

Brad proposes an open-source API to tie together the tons of social networking sites out there. Users would have one profile and one set of friends that would automagically work across all other social sites.

For example, you sign up for Facebook and your MySpace friends who have Facebooks are automatically added to your Facebook friends list.

• Benefit to web developers - you don't have to build out the social (eg., adding friends) part of your service. Concentrate on the real problem you're solving.
• Benefit to end users - manage just one profile, instead of going through the same motions for every MyFaceLinkedSter. 

I would love to see this happen!

(via A VC) 

This is Dries' approximation of the Drupal learning curve. I think it's a pretty accurate visual representation of walking the Drupal path.

I'm just starting to cross into the "I kick ass" level. Woo!

Drupal definitely had a tough starting curve, but the D5 release went a looong way towards fixing that. The proof is in the explosion of drupal.org nodes and the number of modules that have since been released. Drupal is crossing into upper echelons of CMSes.

LAist reviews a Maui-Wowie/Trainwreck strain today. They said it was "very stoney" and had a bit of a "creeper effect".

That's right. LAist just reviewed pot like they were auditioning for High Times.

I enjoy a bowl here and there, and I'm definitely no anti-drug crusader, but even I'm shocked the LAist would publish this. If it was a commentary on marijuana legislation that's one thing. But to review pot like they're catering to an audience of potheads? Seems like a bad editorial decision... or maybe not.

Years ago I read an Esquire magazine piece about the demand for gourmet weed among Hollywood power brokers. (Sorry no link. It doesn't appear to be online.) I was amazed then, but now I believe LA has a pretty large stoner base. And not just among the powerful. I'll bet every Angeleno is no more than 1 or 2 degrees away from kush. The good stuff too, not that Mexican crap.

BTW, one of my favorite blogs is poker playing, weed smoking, ex-Hollywood D-girl change100's Pot Committed.

A few months ago, Los Angeles magazine discussed the medical marijuana industry in LA. (Again no link! My search-fu is weak today.) We're apparently the second most pot-friendly town in the world after Amsterdam and ahead of Vancouver. That was a shocker. There are some 400+ dispensaries in the county, though a moratorium is likely to be passed soon. The feds have noticed. There have been at least 2 major DEA raids just in the past 6 months. LA is becoming the front lines for the war on drugs.

Back to the LAist. When I first discovered the blog late last year, I really enjoyed reading it. Great pictures with smart, funny writing. They had good coverage of LA news and events. Awesome coverage of the rock music scene. They were expanding into better sports coverage too. It looked like they were making good progress towards dominating the LA blogosphere. And then... disarray.

I've been pretty disappointed with the posts over the last few months. First was sex columnist/blogger April Smear. Not about sex in LA. Just... sex. Umm, okay. That's not really about LA, but I guess people have sex in LA. Then this weed review. Not about weed in LA. Just... weed. What's going on here?!

On the other hand, this weed review might be a genius move. LA has good pot and knowledgeable potheads. When you consider the fact that LA is also home to Venice Beach hippies, Snoop Dogg of the LBC and the Valley (porn capital of the world), why would anyone be surprised at the LAist post?

Well, yeah. When you put it that way.