Chip's Quips
A tiny spark of wit for a highly flammable world

Chipping the web – best regards

March 30th, 2007 4:39:45 pm pst by Sterling Camden

Chipping the web

72 is par for the course on most 18-hole golf courses.

Assaf:

If you’re switching to Ruby from some other language, be prepared. It doesn’t come for free. You will spend considerable time searching for things you used to have and no longer need. Old habits are hard to break. It takes a while to trust yourself and break the dependency.

Yesterday’s post about Intelligent Design sparked an interesting comment thread. Then Kiltak posted a video on cosmology that ties in nicely. ID: no, yes, no, yes, no, yes, maybe. Of course, if there is an intelligent creator, then who created her and her universe? Is there an infinite regression?

Speaking of Shelley : “There is a code already: it’s called humanity.”

Apotheon’s finally back in blogness after his long trip and adventures with Windows Me. Ewwww.

Randy doesn’t get Twitter. Yep, that’s it, Randy.

Diogenes has started a blog series on the “Fine Art of Blogging” in which he posts thoughts about that subject from various bloggers. Here’s my contribution .

WordPress users, check out the new OPML Browser for WordPress. Paul McGillivary likes it — it’s already up on ContentQuake. Many thanks to Paul and Tony Lindskog for their suggestions for this plugin, and for testing it out for me.

Mohan of Blogging India has added me to his blogroll. Shukriyaa, Mohan!

Posted in Share the Love | 16 Comments » RSS 2.0

God’s PR team

March 29th, 2007 12:34:24 pm pst by Sterling Camden

Originally uploaded by
matt.farina to flickr

Joseph picked up my thoughts on perception and carried them into the questions of theism and creationism (I wonder if his post’s title is a hat tip to TDavid, or just coincidental?).

I’ve often wondered why Christians (or anyone else) would be attracted to the argument of Intelligent Design. It seems like the kickdog of science, begging scraps of information to sustain its meager existence.

If I were worried about maintaining a literal or near-literal interpretation of the Bible, then I wouldn’t ask anything of science. I’d lunge into the very feet of science, fangs first: deny that cause and effect are anything more than an illusion. God controls all events, and any apparent connection between one event and another is the deluded conclusion of the mind of fallen mankind. Thus, repeatable experiments are mere deceptions, and science proves nothing. That’s what I’d say, if I was still a fundamentalist.

But fundamentalists have other Dunkleosteus to fry. Their task is not merely to posit a theoretical basis for their beliefs, they must also be convincing. It’s not philosophy, it’s marketing. In marketing you go with what people want to believe. And our society places implicit faith in science — even though most people don’t understand or practice it well at all. People today speak science like the New Testament speaks Greek: badly formed, sometimes intentionally, to give the appearance of logic to a point that sorely lacks it.

Thus Intelligent Design wears the trappings of the scientific method in order to give credence to some interpretation of the Genesis stories of creation (pick one). Clue: whenever anyone, of any persuasion, attempts to present data in order to give credence to an idea, you should immediately mistrust the data. It’s cooked.

Which is why I also get a bit uncomfortable when scientists react with dismay when people question the theory of evolution. Don’t get me wrong, I think that natural evolution is the best theory to date to explain the manifold forms that life on earth has assumed, and the relationships between those forms. (Aside: and if you’re a theist, why can’t natural evolution be God’s mechanism for creation?) But IMHO any good scientist should want all theories to be questioned and tested, so that they can be revised and refined and — yes, maybe even rejected for something that better explains the phenomena. Now I don’t believe for a minute that anyone will ever present a reasonable argument that species don’t change over generations. But I do think that our understanding of how species have evolved in the past might still be open to revision. Don’t you think so, Greg? (love your blog, BTW)

But ah, the nuances of human communication. It’s never about the facts, it’s always about the intentions. When ID “scientists” question the theory of evolution, I get the distinct feeling that they aren’t really trying to improve on it — they want to discredit it. Facts and agenda just don’t mix. Except in marketing.

Posted in Get Outta Here | 22 Comments » RSS 2.0

From the stars to Uncle Dan’s cabin

March 27th, 2007 10:14:14 am pst by Sterling Camden

Even though my wife is now walking with a cane (and even a little without), she can’t remain on her feet for very long, so my morning schedule remains about the same.

This morning around 5AM as Halley and I left the house, the sky was clear. I don’t think I’ve ever seen more stars. I’m no expert astronomer, but I’d swear some of those constellations were never there before.

As I gazed up at the sky while Halley occupied her curiosity over some scent or another, I saw three stars, clustered together, slowly move across the sky to the sound of prolonged thunder, or the rush of many waters.

Of course it was a cargo plane landing at Boeing Field. But when I look at the stars, I can’t help thinking about the distant past, and I imagined what an ancient observer would think of a DHL 757, especially at night. No doubt they would consider it a chariot of the gods, like that of Baal-Hadad, the original Rider on the Storm. I’m not a subscriber to Erich von Däniken’s theories (mostly because of his highly questionable interpretation of ancient texts), but I don’t completely rule them out, either.

Then I thought, what if some of these ancient apparitions weren’t alien at all? What if they were us? Could someone a few thousand years ago look up into the sky and see what I’m seeing this morning? It calls for a radically different view of space-time, doesn’t it?

Ever since reading Hume and Kant I’ve entertained the notion that space-time and causality are crude concepts through which we view the world, and nothing more. We (along with other animals in varying degrees) evolved these perceptions in order to be able to predict what happens next — an important tool for survival. Humans have developed the concepts to such a systematically refined degree that we almost no longer have the ability to frame ideas that violate those principles. When we do, they are termed “irrational” or “insane”.

This serves us well, in perhaps 99.99999% of the cases. We don’t need to be able to frame other concepts, because we can safely ignore any phenomena that belie our framework. We can easily believe that, given enough knowledge and a good theory or two, these occurrences could be understood in the context of our axioms. We almost can’t disbelieve that.

But perhaps our perceptions of space-time and causality are limited, just as our range of perception in light wavelengths is limited to roughly 400-700 nanometers — or rather, was limited until we developed tools with which to “see” more.

As long as the number of phenomena that conflict with our concepts of time, space, and cause and effect remains small enough to discount them as flukes, we don’t need to frame new concepts to deal with them. But is it that minute, or do we ignore more than we care to admit?

When I was a child, my mother and sister and I went to visit my grandparents as we did every Sunday. They lived on a huge farm that had been in the family for generations. On this particular Sunday the grown-ups decided to visit Uncle Dan’s cabin, a small dwelling that was nestled by a spring on a remote part of the farm. Uncle Dan was my grandfather’s brother, and he settled there after retiring from the Marines.

We enjoyed the clear spring air as we walked along the farm road by the wide pastures until we arrived at the shady hill by the spring. Then we proceeded up the steps and into the cabin. Uncle Dan was seated in a chair on the porch, leaning an elbow on a table. He waved at us children as we went by — and silently smiled, as if keeping a joke to himself.

My sister and I explored the upstairs loft while the grown-ups were busy doing grown-up things downstairs. After a while, they called to us that it was time to go. We ran back down the rickety staircase and out the front door.

“Where’s Uncle Dan?” I asked.

“Oh child, he’s gone,” responded my grandmother.

“Where?”

“Heaven knows, child.”

“Momma!” my mother said.

We continued on the farm road in the same direction we had been going before, knowing that it looped all the way around the ninety-some acres of farmland and back to the house. It was a walk that we enjoyed on many occasions over the years, often after a huge Sunday dinner.

Many times we would stop near the end of the loop at the family cemetery, where generations of my mother’s family were buried. As I got older, I became fascinated with the family history, and enjoyed reading each headstone and piecing together the past events of the family with their births and deaths.

Imagine my surprise the first time I noticed that Uncle Dan’s headstone bore a date of death less than two weeks after my birth.

“There’s a mistake on Uncle Dan’s headstone!”

“No, that’s right. He passed away while we were still in Germany,” my mother replied.

“But I MET him!”

“Oh, no you couldn’t have, son. You were with us. And besides, you were just born.”

Eventually I became convinced that I simply had gotten something wrong, being so young. Parents always had a way of proving that you were mixed up by repeated assertion.

I’m not saying that I saw Uncle Dan’s ghost. Why, even just a few days ago I was asked if I had ever seen a ghost, and after thinking it over I replied, “No, I don’t think so.” This incident didn’t even occur to me as a ghost sighting. I saw someone sitting there as clearly as I’ve seen anyone since (and much more clearly than I see you now, dear reader — who are actually in the future).

Did I catch a glimpse of the past? Or a ghost? Or just my imagination?

Posted in Tempus fugit | 15 Comments » RSS 2.0

Chipping the web – par for the course

March 26th, 2007 5:22:54 pm pst by Sterling Camden

Chipping the web

The city of Eboracum was founded by the Romans in 71 AD. It has since become known as York .

TDavid has released version 0.43 of the TD Word Count plugin for WordPress.

Regexen to the rescue: my third guest post at SOB.

Good for you, Tracy. You should always do what you love and love what you do.

I love what Kathy Sierra does, but apparently some people really don’t. How they communicated that is just sick, though. Here’s Shelley’s take.

Assaf: Since when is IT a faith-based religion?

Not not. Who’s dare?

Thanks for the link, Dio! Looks like I’m on John Paul McCarty’s blogroll, too. Thanks, JP!

Widget watch

GreatWebGuy uses my tag cloud widget, and even links to it. Thanks, GreatWebguy!

Progetto 0.1 also uses the tag cloud widget. Italiano mio is not too great, so I’m not sure whom to thank.

Posted in Share the Love | 3 Comments » RSS 2.0

Guest who?

March 26th, 2007 11:18:58 am pst by Sterling Camden

Kiltak announced my guest-blogger schedule for Geeks are Sexy Technology News in April (9th to the 15th — hmm, better get my taxes done now).

[GAS] is a perfect tech blog in my book: useful information, great links, no firehose. I’ll be honored to add my little stream to the pot while Kiltak’s away.

Thanks for the opportunity, Kiltak — and here’s hoping for a bug-free conclusion to your wife’s release cycle!

Posted in Blog Blog | 12 Comments » RSS 2.0

You’re entitled to better from me

March 24th, 2007 12:30:20 pm pst by Sterling Camden

Many of the Google faithful find their way to my site via the question “how to think of a title“, which invariably lands them here. Once again, my penchant for wordplay has led them astray from the straight and narrow search path of righteousness and into the perdition of offtopicness. So I will try to make restitution and answer the question that every blogger faces, sometimes several times a day: How do you come up with a title?

TDavid wrote a good post on this topic over a year ago, and his tips haven’t lost their relevance:

- write down two or three keywords that describe the content of the story and blend those into the title creatively
- consider using key (short) quotes within articles or stories you are writing about. For example, the quote from Google’s blog was so juicy I decided to use for the title (pictured above)
- play on words. For example, I combined the word accident and Adsense to make the word: accidense
- avoid getting too cutesy with titles and not summarizing the post body. If the title has nothing to do with the post it’s a big risk that is more likely to backfire than not. Readers don’t want to feel like they got suckered.
- when in doubt, be boring. If you can’t think up a good title, then just come up with something descriptive with no sizzle. It’s better than doing a “no title” or just having the date.

The first and third bullets best describe my usual strategy. I think of synonyms for my main subject with which I can make a neologism, a pun, or an alliterative or rhyming phrase. I’m sure that thereby I often stray into the path of the fourth bullet (too cutesy to be useful), which leads searchers to my post who are looking for something they don’t find there. But sometimes I’m willing to sacrifice reader satisfaction to the worship of my own cleverness. Sorry.

Generally I avoid quoting others in the title, though that can certainly be effective. And I try to avoid the bland — to what degree of success can only be measured by my readers.

Another approach to creating a title: make it a question — one that the post answers, or one that it raises. The difficulty with these titles is that you often find you want to add them to the text of the post instead. But sometimes, for effect, they’re better left only in the title. Titles scream out, and screaming questions attract attention.

Jessica Hagy, author of the popular and insightful blog indexed, seems to offer her titles as additional commentary on her posts. You should really read them after digesting her diagrams, and I’m pretty sure that’s how she composes them. But in a way, reading them first adds a puzzle aspect to each post, and at the end the meaning of the title clicks.

Humor makes any part of a blog post better, and some of the best humorous titles can be found at Good Morning Silicon Valley. Some recent good ones: New Vonage on-hold music: “Nearer, My God, to Thee”, It’ll be just like YouTube, only with less You, and It’s a computer, too? We just thought it looked nice in our Zen garden. These titles are kind of like outtakes from each post. There’s another good strategy: imagine something that could be said somewhat tangentially (or even mistakenly) on your subject, and convert it into a quip.

If you really want to get attention, say something startling. Kathy Sierra asks: Is your app an ass-kisser? Tell me you didn’t go look at that one. Distill your post down to its most controversial point, then ask a provoking question or make an alarming statement based on it — even if it’s essentially a misunderstanding of your opinion. You can set them straight in the text of your post after they’ve come charging into your readership with phasers set on flame. For instance, if I wanted to write a post on the failures of the present US administration, rather than giving it the transparent title of “Bush: worst president ever”, I might call it “Bush: greatest leader of all time?” and then let the content tear the title to shreds. It would attract many more readers, pro and con — especially from the search engines.

How do you think of a title? Do you employ any techniques other than those listed above?

Now, to think of a title for this one…

Posted in Blog Blog, Wildly popular | 10 Comments » RSS 2.0

Chipping the web – Eboracum

March 23rd, 2007 5:18:57 pm pst by Sterling Camden

Chipping the webIn the Hebrew numbering system, the number 70 is represented by the Hebrew letter ayin, whose name means “eye“.

Kiltak gives us his four keys to the blogging cashbox.

Jeff Atwood’s top 6 list of top 10 lists for programmers. Why wasn’t this written in S-expressions?

My second guest post at SOB, wherein I give COPA a big L8R – NOT! John Murrell voices similar sentiments.

Seems like guest blogging may be a new trend.

Hey, it looks like Greg Laden has taken my advice and started providing full-text feeds! Way to go, Greg! You’ve got a great blog, and now I’ll enjoy reading it even more.

Joseph has me in his Blogroll, and I don’t think I ever acknowledged that. Thanks, Joseph!

Alyx blogrolled my “Jazz writing” post. Thanks, Alyx, I’ve been enjoying your blog lately, too.

BTW, if you have included me in your blogroll, or if you link to me, and I fail to mention it here, please leave me a comment with a link to your site. Normally, I pick these up through my referrer logs, but if nobody clicks on the link it will never get there. Link-love is one of those things of which you only have more the more you give away, so please let me know.

Speaking of referrer logs, I got linked from blogshares.com, a “fantasy blog stock market” (from the “too much time on their hands” department? what, haven’t they heard about Twitter?) where shares of “Chip’s Quips” are currently selling for $611.06. That’s up from $6.65 on March 8, so I am either the Google of this fantasy market or I’m just on a bubble. Guido is the sole shareholder so far with 3000 shares purchased yesterday. Good luck, Guido!

Widget watch

Oleg Somin uses my tag cloud widget on Somin.ru, a Russian blog. Spasebo, Oleg!

Posted in Share the Love | 5 Comments » RSS 2.0

The write thing to do

March 22nd, 2007 5:06:06 pm pst by Sterling Camden

My first guest post over on SOB covers how tacking wings on a Chevette doesn’t make it an SR-71.

At first, I turned down apotheon’s offer to guest blog, though I very much wanted to do it. Writing is one of my favorite occupations, but I have so much on my plate right now that it all gets cold by the time I get to it. It’s hard enough to find time to keep my own hungry blog fed.

Then another friend (who shall remain nameless for the time being, in case he changes his mind) asked if I would fill in on his blog in the near future. I turned him down, too — citing the same reasons and the precedent of my earlier refusal of apotheon. But I felt bad about that response, also. I knew I was turning away from a path that I wanted to explore. When he asked me a second time, I remembered Max’s piercing question.

So I decided I would do both. Wish me luck.

Posted in Blog Blog | 9 Comments » RSS 2.0

Mistake morphology

March 21st, 2007 5:26:22 pm pst by Sterling Camden

Imagine blowing over $200,000 with one errant keystroke, not to mention jeopardizing your employer’s relationship with a $38 billion account!

That story reminded me of my own most costly mistake in computing. Well, at least the apparently most costly mistake — sometimes I shudder to think just how much money was probably lost thanks to a few bad design decisions, but those dollars never get spelled out in a P&L.

Back in 1978, I was a lowly operator in the Data Processing department for the university I attended. My regular shift overlapped the beginning of the university’s work day, and one of my daily tasks was to start the program for the cashier’s office. Yes, this one program ran on a single minicomputer (a Data General Eclipse C-330), accepted inputs from several terminals, and recorded the transactions — which were posted to the database at the end of the day.

My instructions for starting the cashier system included just two steps: delete one file, and run the program.

One day I happened to work a different shift starting in the middle of the day, and the system had just been rebooted from a crash when I arrived. The operations manager was busy getting everything back up, and he asked me to go over to the console and start the cashier’s program.

So I deleted the file, and started the program. (Bet you can see where this is going…)

A little while later, the cashier’s office called. All of their transactions for the day were missing!

My boss, the operations manager, ran over to the console and feverishly scanned back through the console log. Then suddenly he stopped and hung his head, eyes closed. Watching him, I began to get a very uneasy feeling that starting the cashier’s program in the middle of the day might require slightly different steps than those I had employed.

Yes, I had deleted that day’s transaction file. The file I deleted each morning was the transaction file from the day before. But nobody had ever told me what that file was nor why it required deletion, and the procedures for restarting the program were not documented anywhere. So I didn’t lose my job, but unfortunately the cashier’s office lost most of a day of data entry — and probably a lot more time figuring out exactly what transactions needed re-entering.

Nowadays it seems laughable that manual deletion of a transaction file would be a standard step in a daily procedure, but back then programmers were paranoid about letting software automatically delete any file. Besides, they wanted to get the transaction file on the nightly backup, just in case. It could have all made sense, if only they had communicated their design a little better.

Since then our trust in software to manage its own internal affairs has grown to the point where we expect not to be bothered with any details other than our own preferences. File management, cleanup, and software updates (even to the O/S) should just happen as needed. So we’ve migrated our vulnerability from the hands of the ignorant operator to those of the programmer who fails to anticipate every possible scenario. And along the way, I managed to transform myself from the one into the other.

Posted in Geek Meditations, Tempus fugit | 4 Comments » RSS 2.0

Chipping the web – eye

March 20th, 2007 4:24:52 pm pst by Sterling Camden

Chipping the web105 in octal is 69 decimal, and 105 decimal is 69 hexadecimal. What goes around comes around, in true 69 fashion.

Are you ready for JSON? Before you answer “I’m not that kind of g(al|uy)”, take Assaf’s quiz.

I’m the Chip who quips. Or the drip who scripts, depending on whom you ask.

Speaking of scripts, here’s a Perl one-liner to determine whether a number is prime (thanks, Jason).

Apotheon reviews the Trackback Validator plugin for WordPress. Here’s one to validate, apotheon. BTW, I’ll be guest-blogging on SOB later this week. I hope Chad knows what he’s bargained for.

Word for the day: anachronism.

Kathy on the allure of Twitter. Stavros on why we become virtual prostitutes.

I just noticed that Stu Savory has me listed under “Blogs that I read” along with some fine company. Thanks, Stu!

Thanks for the link, Ectio.us!

Widget watch

Chase Peysen and Vicker use the tag cloud widget, and Blogging India links to it. Thanks, folks!

Posted in Share the Love | 10 Comments » RSS 2.0