Valve Entertainment had a Day Of Defeat weekend, where you can play the game for free for a weekend. The game itself is not that interesting, but the promotion itself highlights the strengths and weaknesses of the Steam software distribution platform (and others like it). I think Steam is rather innovative, so it's worth commenting on.
[FYI: Day of Defeat is a squad-based, first person shooter for Windows based on the Half-Life 2 'Source' engine that is a WWII era capture the flag style game.]
Steam shows its strength first through the fact that this promotion exists at all. The steam interface makes it very easy to download and install new software, so users are more likely to try out demos and other software that isn't necessarily going to stay on the machine. Steam is a built in marketing tool for valve to direct-market games to gamers. It's safe to say that such a promo could have happened before Steam, but it wouldn't have been as convenient for users, and hence penetration wouldn't have been as deep.
Along with this innovation comes a drawback. Primarily this is due to the multiplayer, cooperative nature of a game like DoD. The pool of players grows quickly, but the quality diminishes. Player quality diminishes in two respects: first, game play knowledge density decreases. This means that a smaller fraction of players really knows how to play, making it hard to get a coherent game going. Second, transient play seems to decrease maturity density as well. Because players have no intention of sticking around, they mic spam, cuss, TK and do all kinds of nasty stuff.
Question: does making the demo easier to install decrease the quality of play? Wouldn't it be ironic if it turned out Steam increased promo penetration by 50% but users disgusted with the experience bought 50% fewere licenses?
I think so.
Fixing the internet by avoiding artifical scarcity.
PBS | I, Cringely . June 29, 2006 - If we build it they will come: "To Bob the issues surrounding Net Neutrality come down to billability and infrastructure. While saying they are doing us favors, ISPs are really offering us services they can bill for. Nothing is aimed at helping us, while everything is aimed at creating a billable event. Take WiFi hotspots, for example. Why should the telephone or cable company care about who connects to my WiFi access point? They are my bits, not the ISP's. I paid for them. If I can download gigabytes of pornography why can't I share my hotspot with someone walking down the street wanting to check his e-mail? Frankston's analogy for this is accusing someone of stealing your porch light by using it to read a street sign."
Picasa - unable to submit bug reports.
Picasa Support doesn't include any way for me to post bugs. Picasa isn't free software, but I do feel appreciative and would like to help it get better. I suggest that Picasa provide such a facility.
UPDATE: you can submit...something.
UPDATE: you can submit...something.
Fourth of July on Walker Lee Drive, 2006
I took photos (and 2 movies) of the block party held on my childhood block. Not shown were some good conversations with Tiffany about photography, and with Jason about motorcycling. There were lots more games (including an egg toss, balloon toss, and a paper sack race).
(Click on the image to see more photos)
(Click on the image to see more photos)
The silent trauma
I was just sharing with someone traumatic memories of being face cleaned by Mom - you know, when your mom licks her finger or a napkin and then rubs your face. Eventually I got old enough to make a face and prevent this gross practice. Not suprisingly, this trauma has been experienced by many. And yet there are no resources online for dealing with the harsh psychological ramifications.
There really is nothing as gross as someone elses dried spit on your own skin. It feels and smells terribly. Mom's get away with it because kids don't realize their being traumatized at the time. The irony is that Mom's have apparently forgotten their own experiences, and so keep the wheel of spit-trauma rotating.
There really is nothing as gross as someone elses dried spit on your own skin. It feels and smells terribly. Mom's get away with it because kids don't realize their being traumatized at the time. The irony is that Mom's have apparently forgotten their own experiences, and so keep the wheel of spit-trauma rotating.
Jugglers and the ridiculously talented Human Race
Google video has some footage of a juggler named Chris Bliss:
First of all, this is an amazing performance, an interpretation of the Beatle's "Golden Slumbers" and "Carry that Weight" from Abbey Road. The music is itself wonderful, but the skill with which Mr. Bliss moves those white spheres through space definitely adds to the (already considerable) magic of the music.
But almost as importantly, this clip serves as yet another stunning example of the incredibly talented Human Race, which, thanks to the internet (and specifically resources like YouTube and Google Video) are only now getting widespread acclaim. To a certain degree, blogging has already highlighted the fiercely creative and talented writers floating around, and has eaten a little bit of traditional publishing's lunch. Now, the same thing is poised to happen with performance art, thanks to high-speed internet access.
What is wonderful about this evolution is that traditional media is getting better. A lot better. Pick up a newspaper these days: it's timely, useful, and tightly written. It's also easy to read (physical paper tends to be that way) and highly portable. The unique strengths of traditional media are growing because the things which are universal (raw information dissemination) are now known to be secondary. This can only mean good things for information consumers like you and me.
UPDATE: poking around Mr. Bliss's website, I found that he is no amateur, nor is he a stranger to exposure. Be that as it may, I reckon his exposure will increase dramatically thanks to Google Video.
First of all, this is an amazing performance, an interpretation of the Beatle's "Golden Slumbers" and "Carry that Weight" from Abbey Road. The music is itself wonderful, but the skill with which Mr. Bliss moves those white spheres through space definitely adds to the (already considerable) magic of the music.
But almost as importantly, this clip serves as yet another stunning example of the incredibly talented Human Race, which, thanks to the internet (and specifically resources like YouTube and Google Video) are only now getting widespread acclaim. To a certain degree, blogging has already highlighted the fiercely creative and talented writers floating around, and has eaten a little bit of traditional publishing's lunch. Now, the same thing is poised to happen with performance art, thanks to high-speed internet access.
What is wonderful about this evolution is that traditional media is getting better. A lot better. Pick up a newspaper these days: it's timely, useful, and tightly written. It's also easy to read (physical paper tends to be that way) and highly portable. The unique strengths of traditional media are growing because the things which are universal (raw information dissemination) are now known to be secondary. This can only mean good things for information consumers like you and me.
UPDATE: poking around Mr. Bliss's website, I found that he is no amateur, nor is he a stranger to exposure. Be that as it may, I reckon his exposure will increase dramatically thanks to Google Video.
DHL - our phone number is secret!
Quite remarkably, a DHL 800 number operator refused to give me the phone number of the local DHL shipping station, but would happily give me the address:
2828 Junipero ave. signal hill, ca 90755 - Google Maps
I wasn't here to sign for a shipment, and because tomorrow is a holiday, I really wanted to get the package today. From experience, I know that if you call the local shipping station they can sometimes have the driver swing by again the same day.
"I'm sorry sir, but I can't give you the phone number," the operator said. This was just business as usual. She sounded neither bored, nor sad, nor angry.
"Why can't you give me the phone number?" I asked.
"For security purposes. They will give you a call," reminding me that they had *my* phone number, "and perhaps they will choose to give you their phone number. There's nothing wrong with that. Would you like me to request a local pickup?" She ended. I marvelled at the tacit approval she gave to the local station giving me their own number. As if, without that encouragment, I would be tempted to call her back and 'inform' on the local DHL folks.
I hesitated. Did a quick internet search. Didn't find a number. "Sure," I answered, distracted now with solving this puzzle.
I will go an pick up my package, retrieve this secret number, and post it on my blog for future reference. Businesses can be so silly!
2828 Junipero ave. signal hill, ca 90755 - Google Maps
I wasn't here to sign for a shipment, and because tomorrow is a holiday, I really wanted to get the package today. From experience, I know that if you call the local shipping station they can sometimes have the driver swing by again the same day.
"I'm sorry sir, but I can't give you the phone number," the operator said. This was just business as usual. She sounded neither bored, nor sad, nor angry.
"Why can't you give me the phone number?" I asked.
"For security purposes. They will give you a call," reminding me that they had *my* phone number, "and perhaps they will choose to give you their phone number. There's nothing wrong with that. Would you like me to request a local pickup?" She ended. I marvelled at the tacit approval she gave to the local station giving me their own number. As if, without that encouragment, I would be tempted to call her back and 'inform' on the local DHL folks.
I hesitated. Did a quick internet search. Didn't find a number. "Sure," I answered, distracted now with solving this puzzle.
I will go an pick up my package, retrieve this secret number, and post it on my blog for future reference. Businesses can be so silly!
Idea: an online debate tool
Seems to me that most online debates are sorely repetative. They also tend to get rather heated, and the quality of argument tends to decline with increased heat.
There was a wonderful website that did this for the 'Intelligent Design Debate'. It had arguments and counters on both sides, to an impressive depth. I wish I had the URL!
Here's another debate, that is nominally about the coherence of the so-called 'pro-victory' stance (to be distinguished from 'pro-war'). But really, it's hard to say what this debate is about, but it touches on the Iraq war, George W. Bush, Al-Queda, U.S. foriegn policy, and general matters of personal and civic ethics. Last but not least there are issues of logical fallacy and debating etiquette sprinkled throughout the discussion.
It would be nice to apply the ID-style format to discussions like these, so that people interested can navigate the argument tree, make corrections as they see them, and expand the tree (ideally) until someone confronted with the debate could very quickly discover where they stand and why.
Judging from the quality of online debate, it is likely that even if such a resource existed, it would probably be ignored (or forgotten, as in the case of ID!) Ordinary people do not like being confronted about their beliefs. Many times I've seen people get angry when presented with obvious proof of an inconsistency, and choose to simply ignore the inconsistency and go on believing. Tradition is a powerful force in belief and in debate, and one which cannot be ignored!
Luckily it doesn't require too high of an education to get past this first hurdle. The next big issue is keeping someone's interest. Someone with education, in our society, is probably doing quite well and has a lot of options for how to spend his or her time. Debate is not an option many people choose. Especially not debate where repitition is not encuoraged, and so requires some study before beginning.
The system I envision differs from the static model of the ID site. Let us say that the website hosts debates - call it debates.org or greatdebates.org (as we're only interested in big debates, not little ones). Every debate would have to be defined and begun with a seed, that could be expanded upon by others. Additions to the debate tree, called debate nodes, would be judged according to several criteria. Points would be subtracted for fallacions argument (ad absurdem, ad hominem, ad authortatim, etc), repeating other arguments (adding noise), etc. One might realize that an argument is repetative, but like the way it sounds - in which case one could add an isomorphic node.
Eventually (and probably sooner rather than later) I can see these debate trees starting to touch at their leaves: an argument in favor of one assertion can also be used for another, etc. Indeed, I imagine that most debates held in this matter would follow the same general pattern: an initial rush of very concrete nodes, supported by more general and more abstract nodes. The very tips of the debate tree would inevitably be foundational epistemic questions familiar to philosophers, but rarely considered by anyone else.
Most great debates at this point in history, the nodes of any given important debate tree already exist online. Therefore there is an oppurtunity to gather those resources into a coherent whole.
Last but not least, some debates are heavily influenced by history as it happens. That is, by the news. Every new news item has the potential to influence some debate, even if it is just a single entry in support of a particular point. Users should get some points for doing that sort of work.
Some caution is needed. The ID debate is singular in that it attacks science on it's own turf. Since it is not a political debate, you see a lot of scientists being involved, and a debate tree would appeal to scientists. It's also a special debate in that the question of the debate is simple: is intelligent design true? related questions like "is ID a valid scientific theory" are part of the debate, but not the central issue. It might be harder to pin-down the exact core of the Iraq war debate, or the Guantanamo debate, or the domestic spying debate. If you pin it down too strongly, you risk severe fragmentation down the line, 'severe' in that the debate looses coherence.
All debates fragment. For example, let's say we are debating whether or not it is just to indefinitely detain people from around the world without trial or access to legal counsel. The canonical left response would be "no!" the canonical right response would be "yes!" and a moderate response would be, "yes, but only under the right conditions." Those conditions might include, for example, the duration of a hypothetical war. This brings up the interesting question of how long a "War on Terror" will last, etc.
The experiment is worth doing.
There was a wonderful website that did this for the 'Intelligent Design Debate'. It had arguments and counters on both sides, to an impressive depth. I wish I had the URL!
Here's another debate, that is nominally about the coherence of the so-called 'pro-victory' stance (to be distinguished from 'pro-war'). But really, it's hard to say what this debate is about, but it touches on the Iraq war, George W. Bush, Al-Queda, U.S. foriegn policy, and general matters of personal and civic ethics. Last but not least there are issues of logical fallacy and debating etiquette sprinkled throughout the discussion.
It would be nice to apply the ID-style format to discussions like these, so that people interested can navigate the argument tree, make corrections as they see them, and expand the tree (ideally) until someone confronted with the debate could very quickly discover where they stand and why.
Judging from the quality of online debate, it is likely that even if such a resource existed, it would probably be ignored (or forgotten, as in the case of ID!) Ordinary people do not like being confronted about their beliefs. Many times I've seen people get angry when presented with obvious proof of an inconsistency, and choose to simply ignore the inconsistency and go on believing. Tradition is a powerful force in belief and in debate, and one which cannot be ignored!
Luckily it doesn't require too high of an education to get past this first hurdle. The next big issue is keeping someone's interest. Someone with education, in our society, is probably doing quite well and has a lot of options for how to spend his or her time. Debate is not an option many people choose. Especially not debate where repitition is not encuoraged, and so requires some study before beginning.
The system I envision differs from the static model of the ID site. Let us say that the website hosts debates - call it debates.org or greatdebates.org (as we're only interested in big debates, not little ones). Every debate would have to be defined and begun with a seed, that could be expanded upon by others. Additions to the debate tree, called debate nodes, would be judged according to several criteria. Points would be subtracted for fallacions argument (ad absurdem, ad hominem, ad authortatim, etc), repeating other arguments (adding noise), etc. One might realize that an argument is repetative, but like the way it sounds - in which case one could add an isomorphic node.
Eventually (and probably sooner rather than later) I can see these debate trees starting to touch at their leaves: an argument in favor of one assertion can also be used for another, etc. Indeed, I imagine that most debates held in this matter would follow the same general pattern: an initial rush of very concrete nodes, supported by more general and more abstract nodes. The very tips of the debate tree would inevitably be foundational epistemic questions familiar to philosophers, but rarely considered by anyone else.
Most great debates at this point in history, the nodes of any given important debate tree already exist online. Therefore there is an oppurtunity to gather those resources into a coherent whole.
Last but not least, some debates are heavily influenced by history as it happens. That is, by the news. Every new news item has the potential to influence some debate, even if it is just a single entry in support of a particular point. Users should get some points for doing that sort of work.
Some caution is needed. The ID debate is singular in that it attacks science on it's own turf. Since it is not a political debate, you see a lot of scientists being involved, and a debate tree would appeal to scientists. It's also a special debate in that the question of the debate is simple: is intelligent design true? related questions like "is ID a valid scientific theory" are part of the debate, but not the central issue. It might be harder to pin-down the exact core of the Iraq war debate, or the Guantanamo debate, or the domestic spying debate. If you pin it down too strongly, you risk severe fragmentation down the line, 'severe' in that the debate looses coherence.
All debates fragment. For example, let's say we are debating whether or not it is just to indefinitely detain people from around the world without trial or access to legal counsel. The canonical left response would be "no!" the canonical right response would be "yes!" and a moderate response would be, "yes, but only under the right conditions." Those conditions might include, for example, the duration of a hypothetical war. This brings up the interesting question of how long a "War on Terror" will last, etc.
The experiment is worth doing.
The bright side of Hammas
Despite what you may read in articles like this:
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Israel rejects soldier deadline
Hammas is interesting because their name sounds a lot like a tasty mediterranean dish called "Hummus". Personally, I think everyone would be happier if both the Israelis and Hammas started making Hummus and stopped killing. (Unfortunately, 'Israel' doesn't sound like any tasty dish that I know of).
Here is a good, standard hummus recipe:
http://www.mediterrasian.com/delicious_recipes_hummus.htm
Basically hummus is garbonzo beans (aka chickpeas), tahini (like peanutbutter but made from sunflower seeds - a unique taste!), and other stuff, most important being lemon juice (IMHO). Often roasted pine nuts and olive oil are sprinkled on top, mainly for looks. People have experimented adding other flavors, like peppers of various sorts, but really this is the best.
It is particularly easy to prepare, as all you have to do is blend or food process the whole thing. I wonder how they did it before food processors? I would guess either they used a human-powered form of food processor, or somehow softened up the garbonzos such that they could be easily mashed into a smooth paste.
BBC NEWS | Middle East | Israel rejects soldier deadline
Hammas is interesting because their name sounds a lot like a tasty mediterranean dish called "Hummus". Personally, I think everyone would be happier if both the Israelis and Hammas started making Hummus and stopped killing. (Unfortunately, 'Israel' doesn't sound like any tasty dish that I know of).
Here is a good, standard hummus recipe:
http://www.mediterrasian.com/delicious_recipes_hummus.htm
Basically hummus is garbonzo beans (aka chickpeas), tahini (like peanutbutter but made from sunflower seeds - a unique taste!), and other stuff, most important being lemon juice (IMHO). Often roasted pine nuts and olive oil are sprinkled on top, mainly for looks. People have experimented adding other flavors, like peppers of various sorts, but really this is the best.
It is particularly easy to prepare, as all you have to do is blend or food process the whole thing. I wonder how they did it before food processors? I would guess either they used a human-powered form of food processor, or somehow softened up the garbonzos such that they could be easily mashed into a smooth paste.
Can you decide which kind of Buddha you're going to be?
A curious feature of Mahāyāna Buddhism is that it considers itself superior to other schools of Buddhism because it teaches practitioners to aim for the 'highest' kind of Buddha. Consider this from The Wikipedia article about three types of Buddha:
"Mahāyāna, and Vajrayāna traditions consider there to be three types of Buddha:
* Samyaksambuddha (Pāli: Sammāsambuddha), often simply referred to as Buddha)
* Pratyekabuddha (Pāli: Paccekabuddha),
* Śrāvakabuddha (Pāli: Sāvakabuddha), often equated to the more general term Arhat (Pāli: Arahant).
All three types of Buddha achieve Nirvāṇa, and may be called Arhats, or foe destroyers, but within the Mahāyāna tradition some people reserve the term Arhat for Sravaka Buddhas."
Why would Mahāyāna would consider forms 2 and 3 to be 'lesser' - espeically when the historical Buddha almost decided not to teach because it was too subtle. According to legend, Brahmā Sahampati came down from a Celestial Sphere and pleaded with Gotema to teach. Finally, Gotema agreed. (This is not the first time that Gotema Buddha was convinced to do something that he initially didn't want to do - Ananda convinced him to admit women as monastics, despite strong reservations. These episodes are interesting to me as they contrast so strongly with Gotema's other unique and sometimes eyebrow raising qualities.)
Seems to me that it really isn't up to the individual to choose how they'll end up. This applies not only to 'states of enlightenment' but to any future state - can I really choose 'how I will be' tomorrow? Or even today? There are qualities that I have, and qualities that I do not have, and while I can work hard to nuture those qualities that I think are most beneficial, my success is, in some very real sense, out of my hands. Any statment I make about my future state is not binding, and it's hard to understand how Mahāyāna differs from other Buddhist schools except in making such statements.
"Mahāyāna, and Vajrayāna traditions consider there to be three types of Buddha:
* Samyaksambuddha (Pāli: Sammāsambuddha), often simply referred to as Buddha)
* Pratyekabuddha (Pāli: Paccekabuddha),
* Śrāvakabuddha (Pāli: Sāvakabuddha), often equated to the more general term Arhat (Pāli: Arahant).
All three types of Buddha achieve Nirvāṇa, and may be called Arhats, or foe destroyers, but within the Mahāyāna tradition some people reserve the term Arhat for Sravaka Buddhas."
Why would Mahāyāna would consider forms 2 and 3 to be 'lesser' - espeically when the historical Buddha almost decided not to teach because it was too subtle. According to legend, Brahmā Sahampati came down from a Celestial Sphere and pleaded with Gotema to teach. Finally, Gotema agreed. (This is not the first time that Gotema Buddha was convinced to do something that he initially didn't want to do - Ananda convinced him to admit women as monastics, despite strong reservations. These episodes are interesting to me as they contrast so strongly with Gotema's other unique and sometimes eyebrow raising qualities.)
Seems to me that it really isn't up to the individual to choose how they'll end up. This applies not only to 'states of enlightenment' but to any future state - can I really choose 'how I will be' tomorrow? Or even today? There are qualities that I have, and qualities that I do not have, and while I can work hard to nuture those qualities that I think are most beneficial, my success is, in some very real sense, out of my hands. Any statment I make about my future state is not binding, and it's hard to understand how Mahāyāna differs from other Buddhist schools except in making such statements.
Paper Prototyping - not a figment of my imagination!
I recently bid on a software project where I asserted that the best way to design user interfaces was using paper. I think that the committee (yes, I was going to work for a committe, but it was for a good cause!) thought I was a hack, or worse, an amatuer. And yet, paper prototyping is something I've always done, always liked to do. Particularly valuable is its approachability, but also that it sends the user-representative the exact right signal: this is a rough design, it can change an incredible amount, lets have fun! It also helps both parties focus in on what is important and what is not!
Now I find that Neilson (a Sun senior architect and autho r of the psuedo-famous "Anti-mac" paper is selling a DVD describing how to do paper UI prototypes.
Interestingly, I never used colored, seperate pieces of paper for tabbed prototypes but that's a great idea! Thanks Mr. Nielson!
Now I find that Neilson (a Sun senior architect and autho r of the psuedo-famous "Anti-mac" paper is selling a DVD describing how to do paper UI prototypes.
Interestingly, I never used colored, seperate pieces of paper for tabbed prototypes but that's a great idea! Thanks Mr. Nielson!
The beauty of smoothies
Wikipedia has an article on smoothies, but that really doesn't do this delicious treat justice.
There is a real elegance to the smoothie concept. The fruit is frozen for storage purposes, and that coldness is also used to cool down the treat and make it taste good.
There are 3 key components to making good smoothies.
First, you have to have a great blender. I really don't like traditional blenders because they are bulky, take up precious counter space, and most importantly, they're hard to clearn. Costco saved the day when they carried Cuisinart hand held blender of the gods. This little device is absolutely perfect for making a single smoothie. It's actually better than a table top blender because you can move it around and get those wayward bits of fruit.
Second, you must have vanilla flavored soy milk. Don't get me wrong, I do drink milk. Soy milk is pretty gross in most everything else (although it does work quite well in mashed potatoes, I must say!). But for smoothies, normal milk just won't do. It is important to add enough soy milk such that the fruit is almost covered. Any less, and it will be too thick to drink.
Third, you must have a good selection of frozen fruit. My personal favorites are mango and rasberry, and the local Trader Joe's stocks bags of this stuff for cheap. A recent discovery at Costco of a large (10lb) bag of 'berry mix' turned out to be quite delicious: Rasberry, Blueberry, and Marion berries. Mix a cup of that mix, one slightly overripe banana, vanilla soy-milk, blend well, and enjoy!
If you have the hand-held blender and the ingredients you like, you can make a smoothie in about 3 minutes (including cleanup which involves running the blade of the blender under hot water for about 10 seconds) for a cost of about $.50.
I suppose if you were quite ambitious and wanted to do the full "Jamba Juice" treatment, you could add other stuff (mix-ins). But who wants a femm boost anyway - the soy milk has enough estrogen for that. :(
Seriously, avoid ice for two reasons: first, it's unnecessary because the fruit is it's own ice. Second, unless you eat a lot of ice in your drinks or other foods, it tends to sit in the freezer and evaporate very slowly out of its tray, tending to ice up the freezer and humidify the thing quite badly.
As for other ingredients, I must wonder, why bother? The soy milk gives you the creaminess, the fruit gives you sweetness, flavorfullness, and coolness. And these are the essential properties of a smoothy: creamy, sweet, flavorfull, and cool.
There is a real elegance to the smoothie concept. The fruit is frozen for storage purposes, and that coldness is also used to cool down the treat and make it taste good.
There are 3 key components to making good smoothies.
First, you have to have a great blender. I really don't like traditional blenders because they are bulky, take up precious counter space, and most importantly, they're hard to clearn. Costco saved the day when they carried Cuisinart hand held blender of the gods. This little device is absolutely perfect for making a single smoothie. It's actually better than a table top blender because you can move it around and get those wayward bits of fruit.
Second, you must have vanilla flavored soy milk. Don't get me wrong, I do drink milk. Soy milk is pretty gross in most everything else (although it does work quite well in mashed potatoes, I must say!). But for smoothies, normal milk just won't do. It is important to add enough soy milk such that the fruit is almost covered. Any less, and it will be too thick to drink.
Third, you must have a good selection of frozen fruit. My personal favorites are mango and rasberry, and the local Trader Joe's stocks bags of this stuff for cheap. A recent discovery at Costco of a large (10lb) bag of 'berry mix' turned out to be quite delicious: Rasberry, Blueberry, and Marion berries. Mix a cup of that mix, one slightly overripe banana, vanilla soy-milk, blend well, and enjoy!
If you have the hand-held blender and the ingredients you like, you can make a smoothie in about 3 minutes (including cleanup which involves running the blade of the blender under hot water for about 10 seconds) for a cost of about $.50.
I suppose if you were quite ambitious and wanted to do the full "Jamba Juice" treatment, you could add other stuff (mix-ins). But who wants a femm boost anyway - the soy milk has enough estrogen for that. :(
Seriously, avoid ice for two reasons: first, it's unnecessary because the fruit is it's own ice. Second, unless you eat a lot of ice in your drinks or other foods, it tends to sit in the freezer and evaporate very slowly out of its tray, tending to ice up the freezer and humidify the thing quite badly.
As for other ingredients, I must wonder, why bother? The soy milk gives you the creaminess, the fruit gives you sweetness, flavorfullness, and coolness. And these are the essential properties of a smoothy: creamy, sweet, flavorfull, and cool.
How Many Programming Languages are on Your Computer?
Last night I got to wondering, how many kinds of programs can I write on my computer? If I was stuck on a desert island, how many kinds of programs could I write to keep myself amused? I have a JDK installed, so I can write Java programs. I have a browser that can run my JavaScript programs. I can write Windows batch files. I used to be able to run Quick Basic, but apparently that's gone.
Interestingly, I can write programs inside of two games I have installed. Half-Life 2 has a complete suite of development tools, as does Neverwinter Nights Aurora Toolset. Both games have a Turing complete scripting language inside of them.
You can write VBA programs in MS Office. OpenOffice.org is scriptable in BeanShell.
I heard somewhere that Photoshop CS2 is scriptable in JavaScript.
Steinburg Cubase probably has a macro language, although I've never needed to use it. Certainly Cakewalk had a full-blown macro language.
I used to have Cygwin installed for those times when I absolutely had to have a bash prompt to do something in windows, and if I had that installed I would have almost the full array of Unixy programming languages at my disposal, most of which are represented by Perl (shell, sed, awk, etc). IIRC it comes with gcc, allowing me to write programs in C or C++.
I have an IBM ThinkPad, some of who's utilities are written in Python, so I probably have a python interpreter lurking around somewhere.
There are a handful of languages that are based on Java worth mentioning. I would consider JSP (odd that the wikipedia article is called 'JavaServerPages' when the meaning of JSP is officially undefined) to be a Java language variant that is text-oriented. In the same veign, I have an XSL interpreter (Xalan), and XSLT is definitely a full-blown computer language. 'Ant' is kind of a language, too (it has conditionals, assignments, and 'functions', but no arithmetic AFAIK). At some point I had a Groovy interpreter installed, but heaven knows where that is. I'm almost certain something I have installed is using BeanShell, which means I could write programs with BeanShell, too. Because I have a Resin appserver installed, I can write programs in PHP. (I used to have an Apache 2.0 win32 binary installed with PHP support, too).
The very esoteric languages like OCAML or Scheme are nowhere to be found as they aren't used in any of the software I use. Alas.
Interestingly, I can write programs inside of two games I have installed. Half-Life 2 has a complete suite of development tools, as does Neverwinter Nights Aurora Toolset. Both games have a Turing complete scripting language inside of them.
You can write VBA programs in MS Office. OpenOffice.org is scriptable in BeanShell.
I heard somewhere that Photoshop CS2 is scriptable in JavaScript.
Steinburg Cubase probably has a macro language, although I've never needed to use it. Certainly Cakewalk had a full-blown macro language.
I used to have Cygwin installed for those times when I absolutely had to have a bash prompt to do something in windows, and if I had that installed I would have almost the full array of Unixy programming languages at my disposal, most of which are represented by Perl (shell, sed, awk, etc). IIRC it comes with gcc, allowing me to write programs in C or C++.
I have an IBM ThinkPad, some of who's utilities are written in Python, so I probably have a python interpreter lurking around somewhere.
There are a handful of languages that are based on Java worth mentioning. I would consider JSP (odd that the wikipedia article is called 'JavaServerPages' when the meaning of JSP is officially undefined) to be a Java language variant that is text-oriented. In the same veign, I have an XSL interpreter (Xalan), and XSLT is definitely a full-blown computer language. 'Ant' is kind of a language, too (it has conditionals, assignments, and 'functions', but no arithmetic AFAIK). At some point I had a Groovy interpreter installed, but heaven knows where that is. I'm almost certain something I have installed is using BeanShell, which means I could write programs with BeanShell, too. Because I have a Resin appserver installed, I can write programs in PHP. (I used to have an Apache 2.0 win32 binary installed with PHP support, too).
The very esoteric languages like OCAML or Scheme are nowhere to be found as they aren't used in any of the software I use. Alas.
How to choose CMS software
Giuseppe Persiani wrote:
> I was a consultant for one of the most expensive CMS around and I know that
> sometimes moeny doesn't really pay.
Indeed. I was on the customer side of the CMS dance not too long ago, and I noticed a few things. First, the definition of "CMS" has become extremely "fluid" (that is, ill-defined). Second, management is almost always willing to throw money at a problem if they are guaranteed it will "just work". These two facts combine to create a recipe for disaster.
THEOREM:
When the customer doesn't know what they want, and they are willing to pay through the nose to get it, they will get something expensive that doesn't work.
ANALYSIS:
Customers with vague requirements are led-astray by salesmen and analysts enjoy describing all possible features. The customer starts thinking about what they *could* do with this software, rather they *need* to do with the software. In other words, the sales person is *creating* user requirements and changing the scope of the project from under the user's nose. That's bad.
The hidden bad thing about such over-featured software is that those features are often obtrusive and difficult to remove if you end up not needing them.
SUGGESTION:
Know exactly what you need, and systematically look at all options. Software evaluation is very demanding work, and it's tempting to farm it out, but don't if you have a skilled person able to do the evaluation work who is a permanent employee. They will take greater care because a) they know the requirements (both user and developer), b) they will have to live with the decision and c) the quality of the decision could affect their future salary.
There is an interesting article on CMS at the wikipedia. If it can be believed, Vignette was spun out of CNET and was the first CMS as we know it today. (And I've heard the horror stories about Vignette, too.)
> I was a consultant for one of the most expensive CMS around and I know that
> sometimes moeny doesn't really pay.
Indeed. I was on the customer side of the CMS dance not too long ago, and I noticed a few things. First, the definition of "CMS" has become extremely "fluid" (that is, ill-defined). Second, management is almost always willing to throw money at a problem if they are guaranteed it will "just work". These two facts combine to create a recipe for disaster.
THEOREM:
When the customer doesn't know what they want, and they are willing to pay through the nose to get it, they will get something expensive that doesn't work.
ANALYSIS:
Customers with vague requirements are led-astray by salesmen and analysts enjoy describing all possible features. The customer starts thinking about what they *could* do with this software, rather they *need* to do with the software. In other words, the sales person is *creating* user requirements and changing the scope of the project from under the user's nose. That's bad.
The hidden bad thing about such over-featured software is that those features are often obtrusive and difficult to remove if you end up not needing them.
SUGGESTION:
Know exactly what you need, and systematically look at all options. Software evaluation is very demanding work, and it's tempting to farm it out, but don't if you have a skilled person able to do the evaluation work who is a permanent employee. They will take greater care because a) they know the requirements (both user and developer), b) they will have to live with the decision and c) the quality of the decision could affect their future salary.
There is an interesting article on CMS at the wikipedia. If it can be believed, Vignette was spun out of CNET and was the first CMS as we know it today. (And I've heard the horror stories about Vignette, too.)
Lord of the Rings - Voiceover
Oh man this is hilarious. Simple, and hilarious. It's a voiceover of the LOTR reunion scene. Mostly grunts and moans - I have no idea why it's so funny.
War: always bubbling just under the surface.
Jane's Information Group provides an amazing resource for people working with, well, force. Weapons, tactics, political crises, deployments, are all fodder for Janes.
Did you know that Greece and Turkey almost went to war in 1996, and very recently two of their F-16s collided over the Aegean? It's true.
Did you know how many nukes China actually has that can reach the US or it's Asian neighbors? You do now.
It is telling that Jane's writers themselves refer to this all as a "game", for example in this article about Japan "joining the main game" by joining the "United States' SM-3 (Standard Missile 3) naval ballistic missile interceptor programme".
Indeed, with the right abstractions, it is hard not to see world-wide security status as something of a game. It's a game that must be played and played well or else you (and your country) will die. It is a simple fact that the relationships between nations are at their heart barbaric. "International Law" is meaningless unless it has broad, impartial, and universal enforcement. Tensions exist between nations, each seeking to gain advantage over the other, governed largely by the morality of selfishness.
There are startling exceptions to this rule. The Tsunami of 2004 engendered widespread altrusim throughout the world. Even so, in a way this altruism reenforced our military thinking, as our help was largely dispensed by the military. Movies like "Armageddon" similiarly reenforce the need for military technology as guarantees against large-scale emergencies (in that case that big nukes can be used to save the Earth by blowing up large bodies on collision courses).
I grew up, as most boys do, playing with war-like toys, and playing war games. I enjoyed it. I still enjoy it. I would go so far as to say that most people enjoy war games (e.g. chess), and indeed revere great leaders of war, even on the opposing or losing side. We are taught to respect Yamamoto as well as Nimitz, Eisenhower as well as Rommel, Grant as well as Lee.
Recent conflicts are different; there is no respect. Who were the great commanders of the Korean War? Vietnam (Westmorland comes to mind - the opposition?)? The Gulf War (Schwartzkopf comes to mind, but the opposition?) The second invasion of Iraq?
Did you know that Greece and Turkey almost went to war in 1996, and very recently two of their F-16s collided over the Aegean? It's true.
Did you know how many nukes China actually has that can reach the US or it's Asian neighbors? You do now.
It is telling that Jane's writers themselves refer to this all as a "game", for example in this article about Japan "joining the main game" by joining the "United States' SM-3 (Standard Missile 3) naval ballistic missile interceptor programme".
Indeed, with the right abstractions, it is hard not to see world-wide security status as something of a game. It's a game that must be played and played well or else you (and your country) will die. It is a simple fact that the relationships between nations are at their heart barbaric. "International Law" is meaningless unless it has broad, impartial, and universal enforcement. Tensions exist between nations, each seeking to gain advantage over the other, governed largely by the morality of selfishness.
There are startling exceptions to this rule. The Tsunami of 2004 engendered widespread altrusim throughout the world. Even so, in a way this altruism reenforced our military thinking, as our help was largely dispensed by the military. Movies like "Armageddon" similiarly reenforce the need for military technology as guarantees against large-scale emergencies (in that case that big nukes can be used to save the Earth by blowing up large bodies on collision courses).
I grew up, as most boys do, playing with war-like toys, and playing war games. I enjoyed it. I still enjoy it. I would go so far as to say that most people enjoy war games (e.g. chess), and indeed revere great leaders of war, even on the opposing or losing side. We are taught to respect Yamamoto as well as Nimitz, Eisenhower as well as Rommel, Grant as well as Lee.
Recent conflicts are different; there is no respect. Who were the great commanders of the Korean War? Vietnam (Westmorland comes to mind - the opposition?)? The Gulf War (Schwartzkopf comes to mind, but the opposition?) The second invasion of Iraq?
OCJUG Videos From June 2006
Giuseppe Persiani Part 1 - Main Talk on DWR (an ajax library)
Giuseppe Persiani Part 2 - Answering questions
Giuseppe Persiani Part 3 - Answering more questions
Jim White Pre Talk Rant on Java GUIs - Part 1
Jim White Pre Talk Rant on Java GUIs - Part 2
Jim White IFCX Talk - Part 1
Jim White IFCX Talk - Part 2
Giuseppe Persiani Part 2 - Answering questions
Giuseppe Persiani Part 3 - Answering more questions
Jim White Pre Talk Rant on Java GUIs - Part 1
Jim White Pre Talk Rant on Java GUIs - Part 2
Jim White IFCX Talk - Part 1
Jim White IFCX Talk - Part 2
The importance of non-conformity: Addams Family Values & Martin Luther King
Lazing around today, I got to watch the last half of Addams Family Values (1993). What a wonderful movie. I enjoyed the playfulness, the dark humor, and the underlying message that love is really the key, no matter what it looks like. This movie is a strong champion of the message of non-conformity, and what that really means. It shows us what is important by lampooning what is not: what we wear, our perkiness, the way we decorate our houses. Sexual mores are also not important. Gomez and Morticia Adams have a strong and loving relationship, very passionate, albeit based on S&M. This movie is an ode to acceptance, not just of others but of oneself.
As if to reenforce this, driving home I was listening to Studio 360 show on the Lincoln memorial and it's important role as "America's Soapbox". It was interesting to learn that Frank Lloyd Wright despised the memorial as it stands today. And yet, so many non-conformists, like Martin Luther King, Jr., have used it to spread their message: peace, love, harmony, no matter what you look like.
Good stuff.
As if to reenforce this, driving home I was listening to Studio 360 show on the Lincoln memorial and it's important role as "America's Soapbox". It was interesting to learn that Frank Lloyd Wright despised the memorial as it stands today. And yet, so many non-conformists, like Martin Luther King, Jr., have used it to spread their message: peace, love, harmony, no matter what you look like.
Good stuff.
Roger Ebert's pithy take on French Sexuality
In Roger Ebert's review of the 1999 film Romance he says: "It is said that for the French, wine takes the place of flirting, dining takes the place of seduction, smoking takes the place of foreplay and talking takes the place of sex."
That's pretty funny.
(Rather suprisingly he gives this film a thumbs up.)
Also, I looked up this film for 2 reasons. I recall an erotic trailer for it when I say Run Lola Run back in '99, but I never saw the actual movie. Much like the question about tattoos, I decided to satisfy my curiosity here as well. In addition I was reminded of this mystery by a new French film out called District B-13 which has gotten rave reviews.
That's pretty funny.
(Rather suprisingly he gives this film a thumbs up.)
Also, I looked up this film for 2 reasons. I recall an erotic trailer for it when I say Run Lola Run back in '99, but I never saw the actual movie. Much like the question about tattoos, I decided to satisfy my curiosity here as well. In addition I was reminded of this mystery by a new French film out called District B-13 which has gotten rave reviews.
Next time you think life's unfair, remember Aung San Suu Kyi
She is my hero. Read her story in the wikipedia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)