October 31, 2005

Yo Google/Gmail... What Gives?

So the above is a result of this which, in case you're wondering is an AVI of Gmail have a web application's version of a seizure (redirect, redirect, redirect, redirect, redirect, re- you get the point)

So anyway, apparently if you try to send email to my personal gmail account (as opposed to my m.david.x2x2x@gee-are-you-sure-this-is-email.com which I only use for lists I subscribe to) I won't be able to access for another 24 hours. In the mean time (I havent been able to access anything since early this morning) if you need to get a hold of me please send email to "same-alias-as-my-personal-GEEZ-This-Sucks-Mail"@mac.com.

@mac.com?

Yes, I finally broke down and bought a Mac... I got tired of asking people "can you check this in Safari for me?" and undoubtedly those in whom I tormented with such requests on an all to regular basis are quite pleased with my purchase. I have a post all planned out to tell you all about my experiences thus far... just need a few extra minutes to write it. Will probably be on my OReilly blog as well so if you are interested, keep an eye out on that feed. :)

Until then... Yo Google/Gmail... What gives?

Posted by m.david at 09:02 PM | Comments (0)

October 26, 2005

Herzprung-Russell Diagram of Software Evolution [via Kurt Cagle]

via a recent IM with Kurt comes the following (after reading my last post, this was his response):

It seems to be the final point in the Herzprung-Russell diagram of software evolution.

Stage 1) Innovation

Stage 2) Market Establishment

Stage 3) Market Obsolescence

Stage 4) Sue everyone in sight as your stock gets delisted.

I'll let this one just speak for itself. No comments from me even necessary. :D

Posted by m.david at 06:42 AM | Comments (0)

October 23, 2005

Move Over SCO : Now We Have Someone Else To Hate Even More

Small company makes big claims on XML patents | CNET News.com

A small software developer plans to seek royalties from companies that use XML, the latest example of patent claims embroiling the tech industry.

Let me just be the first to send a big phat:

To Mr. Scientigo [Correction: Scientigo is the name of the company. The big phat "Fuck You!" goes to Scientigo's CEO Doyal Bryant. My apologies to any Mr. Scientigo's out there. This wasn't intended for you.]

Oh, and good luck with that. I'm sure everthing's going to work out for you just as you planned. Smart thinking.

Question: How is it that you are just coming to realize eight(8) years later the claim that XML is infringing upon your patents? Don't you think 1998, or maybe even 1999 would have been a more realistic time for you to "stand up!" and claim patent infringement. XML has been around for WAY TO LONG for you to make any kind of assertion that you feel "violated." Besides, being one who started working with the first stages of XML(via Microsoft's Channel Defintion Format : < Note the date of this submission to the W3C: 3/10/97. While the submission date is 1997-01-28, the date this patent that XML supposedly infringes was awarded on is 1998-11-24) back in 1996(which, given the fact that your stupid enough to believe you can win such a claim causes me to believe that the need exists to suggest to you that 1996 comes BEFORE November of 1998, the month and year your patent went into effect), I would be happy to testify for and in behalf of the XML community that XML most definitely has the claim of prior art with plenty of available documentation(both online and off) that dates well before your filing date to back up such an assertion.

Fucking idiot.

[NOTE: For a more authorative and less vulger opinion on such matters, please see Kurt Cagle's piece "Patent Criminals"]

[UPDATE: In reading the abstract to both patents I couldn't help but notice the following description that are nearly identical in each of these abstracts:

The present invention simplifies the data modeling process and enables its full dynamic versioning by employing a non-hierarchical non-integrated structure to the organization of information. This is achieved by expressing data modeling, storage and transfer in a particular non-hierarchical, non-integrated neutral form.

"non-hierarchical, non-integrated"?

Maybe its just me, but if I were to describe the "structure" of XML the phrase "non-hierarchical, non-integrated" would not be the phrase I would choose to use. In fact, I would more than likely choose to use the phrase

"

XML is a hierarchical-based data format that can be used to described integrated/related sets of data in an open, vendor-neutral/non-proprietary format"

In fact the very hierarchical-based nature of XML should be fairly obvious looking at XPath, the language used to reference segments of an XML document who's abstract reads:

XPath is a language for addressing parts of an XML document, designed to be used by both XSLT and XPointer.

Inside of this document you will find the following list of "axes" in which can be used to describe the "relationship" of any element within an XML document to ANY OTHER element within that same [integrated]document:

* the child axis contains the children of the context node

* the descendant axis contains the descendants of the context node; a descendant is a child or a child of a child and so on; thus the descendant axis never contains attribute or namespace nodes

* the parent axis contains the parent of the context node, if there is one

* the ancestor axis contains the ancestors of the context node; the ancestors of the context node consist of the parent of context node and the parent's parent and so on; thus, the ancestor axis will always include the root node, unless the context node is the root node

* the following-sibling axis contains all the following siblings of the context node; if the context node is an attribute node or namespace node, the following-sibling axis is empty

* the preceding-sibling axis contains all the preceding siblings of the context node; if the context node is an attribute node or namespace node, the preceding-sibling axis is empty

* the following axis contains all nodes in the same document as the context node that are after the context node in document order, excluding any descendants and excluding attribute nodes and namespace nodes

* the preceding axis contains all nodes in the same document as the context node that are before the context node in document order, excluding any ancestors and excluding attribute nodes and namespace nodes

* the attribute axis contains the attributes of the context node; the axis will be empty unless the context node is an element

* the namespace axis contains the namespace nodes of the context node; the axis will be empty unless the context node is an element

* the self axis contains just the context node itself

* the descendant-or-self axis contains the context node and the descendants of the context node

* the ancestor-or-self axis contains the context node and the ancestors of the context node; thus, the ancestor axis will always include the root node

NOTE: The ancestor, descendant, following, preceding and self axes partition a document (ignoring attribute and namespace nodes): they do not overlap and together they contain all the nodes in the document.

Maybe its just me, but when I think of ancestors, descendants, siblings, parents, and children the first thing that comes to mind is Genealogy. When I think of Genealogy I think of hierarchy.

Speaking to the integration side of things, when I think of documents I think about integrated, relateds sets of information.

Can someone please explain to me how ANYBODY could possibly take the phrase "non-hierarchical, non-integrated" and think "Geez' that sounds just like XML."

I've said it once, and I'm going to say it again:

Mr. Doyal Bryant, you're a fucking idiot.

Posted by m.david at 05:13 PM | Comments (0)

Karma? Maybe. But, For The Rest Of Us At Least, Its Karma Of The Good Variety

mikechampion's weblog : Karma ?

Karma ?

To atone for my sins in a previous virtual life, I have been made the program manager "owning" the DOM APIs at Microsoft -- MSXML, System.Xml, and whatever lies ahead in the future.

Whoever runs the universe has a sense of humor, anyway :-)

Remind me to thank whoever it is that does run the Universe, as I can't imagine a more qualified individual who will also have the best interests of the XML communities as a whole in each and every decision he makes.

Very good decision Microsoft, and obviously an easy one to make.

Congratulations Mike!

Posted by m.david at 05:03 PM | Comments (0)

And We Continue To Suggest Anonymity Is An Important Part Of The Web Because...?

Hot Points – A blog by Go Daddy founder and president Bob Parsons

Now that the facts are in the open, it takes only a second to know that Ben Fawley is not the type of individual most of us would choose to associate with. Unfortunately, for those that were unlucky enough to encounter Fawley over the internet, he seemed just like anyone else. This brings me to why I’ve decided to write about this sad tale: Taylor Behl met Ben Fawley online.

There are two types of anonymity that need to be looked at with different "eyes": The kind of anonymity in which your personal details -- Where you live, where you work, that sort of thing -- are not available for the general internet population to view. This is the good kind of anonymity.

The second type, the type that needs to be done away with, is the ability to create anonymous or false accounts in internet chat rooms, blogging communities, etc... without any sort of verification that you are who you say you are.

Now I'm not suggesting that full disclosure of every stupid thing you've ever done should be required before someone is allowed to join a community of some sort. If such were the case I'm guessing that a lot of people wouldn't join from the embarrasment of silly little things like getting caught when they were 18 stealing a candy-bar, or even not so silly things like a DUI. As wrong as it is to drink and drive, there are a lot of people (no, I'm not one of them; I'm not suggesting this to protect my own interests) who have made that mistake, rightfully got caught, and have since learned their lesson.

Now a history of drinking and driving -- the type where people are sent away for considerable lengths of time -- is something all together different. While they may not be the predative, murdering type, you probably would want to avoid getting into a relationship with someone who has proven time and time again that they can not control themselves from getting loaded and getting behind the wheel.

As Bob Parsons points out in the above linked piece: There are online communities such as True.com that require background checks before gaining access to community membership. In the case of True.com this apparently leads to about 5% of the applicants being denied membership because they are already married and another 5% because of negative criminal histories. This is excellent and definitely a good start. More communities such as Match.com and eHarmony (both mentioned by Mr. Parsons in his post) need to embrace this concept and they need to do it NOW!

While I don't think online dating communities should be held accountable (at least not yet -- if they simply will not put forth the effort to help fix the problem, then yeah, they should) when tragedies such as those outlined in the above linked piece take place, I do believe that there needs to be a requirement that forces a certain level of effort on the part of these communities to take the necessary steps to ensure they are doing all they can to keep these tragedies from taking place.

How many more murders, rapes, and other hideous and awful crimes need to take place before we stand up and say "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!" I'll tell you right now that I am standing up and saying "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!" and you should too.

Setting this aside for the moment this is only half of the anonymity problem. On the flip side of this is internet spammers.

Anonymity such that anyone can leave a comment on your blog or a trackback thats something more than a real comment on a particular post someone has made simply should not be allowed. In the same general area, our email inbox is not the kind of thing that anyone and everyone should have access to. Now a lot of progress has been made in this area, but its still not enough as the problem continues to plague the interent communities. Should we require criminal background checks before someone is allowed to perform one of the above activities. No! Obviously theres a level in which certain activities such as leaving a comment or trackback don't pose the same threats that meeting someone via an online dating service and developing a relationship with them pose.

But there does need to be a way to identify someone such that abusers of such privileges can be recognized and disabled from gaining access to the same said privileges. As such, there needs to be a process developed and put into place that forces and enforces a certain level of disclosure before someone is allowed access to these privileges.

Going back to my post regarding "Internet Stamps", I mentioned CACert. What's CACert? From their about page:

About CAcert.org

CAcert.org is a community driven, Certificate Authority that issues certificates to the public at large for free.

CAcert's goal is to promote awareness and education on computer security through the use of encryption, specifically with the X.509 family of standards. We have compiled a document base that has helpful hints and tips on setting up encryption with common software, and general information about Public Key Infrastructures (PKI).

For the enthusiast looking to dip their toe in the water, we have an easy way of obtaining certificates you can use with your email program. You can use these not only to encrypt, but to prove to your friends and family that your email really does come from you.

For administrators looking to protect the services they offer, we provide host and wild card certificates which you can issue almost immediately. Not only can you use these to protect websites, but also POP3, SMTP and IMAP connections, to list but a few. Unlike other certificate authorities, we don't limit the strength of the certificates, or the use of wild card certificates. Everyone should have the right to security and to protect their privacy, not just those looking to run ecommerce sites.

If you're extremely serious about encryption, you can join CAcert's Assurance Programme and Web of Trust. This allows you to have your identity verified to obtain added benefits, including longer length certificates and the ability to include your name on email certificates.

Obviously CACert isn't set-up to handle the problems posed to internet dating and chat forums. But it can certainly help and would definitely be a good foundation to extend from.

Extending from this I want to bring out a few other points.

- CACert is founded on the notion that providing payment for a signed certificate does basically nothing as far ensuring the honesty and integrity of any given individual or entity. As such, there is no direct charge for a CACert signed certificate. However, if you visit the site you should be able to quickly establish the fact that this project is built upon a base of "assurers", or real live people who meet up with other real live people who are desirous to gain a certificate in person, verify through a generated pass-id that the person they are meeting has gone through the online processing and given a secret ID that is shared with the assurer and verified to be the same, then verify via various forms of Government issued identification that they are who they say they are.

Once this has all been established the assurer then apply "points" to this person based on various factors -- the type of ID that was shown, their own personal "gut" feelings as to whether this person is legit, etc... -- and then enters their points rating into an online form provided by CACert. The ultimate goal then is to build up your points such that the more points you have, the more "trust" you are given. But from what I understand, how much trust you give any given person is up to you. In other words you might decide "I don't want to allow anyone access to my email inbox or to leave a trackback or comment on my blog unless they have 75 points." Fair enough. That's your decision and rightfully so. Such a system allows for the idea that we all have our own levels of comfort and should be given the ability to determine these levels for ourself, and not allow "comfort by commitee" to be the controlling factor. It also leaves room for the notion that, at this stage anyway, its not really known what level of points should be sufficient in safely assuming "yeah, this person is legit." My guess is that eventually enough data will exist that can be analyzed to determine the various risks involved with each level of points. With this data an official recommendation can be made as to what can truly be considered "safe."

But a recommedation is all it should ever be, as this area needs to stay fluid so that "glitches" in the system can be verified and adjusted such that there is never a notion set in stone that "ahhh.... now we can all feel better now as we have finally determined what can be assumed safe and what can not." Hackers (the bad kind) will always find a way around a system. As such that system needs to be enabled to always find away around the hackers. A cat and mouse game that never ends, yes. But a never ending cat and mouse game is a lot better than the alternative so its something we're just going to have to accept and get used to.

So getting back to the assurers and the cost of the CACert program. As I said, there is no cost for the certificate itself. However, each assurer is allowed a "reasonable" amount of room to recover costs incurred through travel, etc... As such, there may be a charge imposed upon by the assurer. They don't have to, but they can. I will admit that when I first saw this I thought "ooh, there in and of itself lies the problem with the system." But after chatting with various trusted individuals such as Uche, I came to understand that this isn't the problem I was making it out to be. Recovering costs is one thing. Charging exuberant rates and turning the "assurer business" into a lucrative business proposition is quite another. Such a system would be a little to enticing for the dishonest segment of our populations and would allow too much room for corruption. Fortunately a system such as the one CACert has in place will quickly root out those who are in it to gain profit as opposed to those who are in it to help bring a certain level of sanity to the insane internet "trust" system we currently lay victim too. All fees that the assurer might charge MUST be made known and agreed upong before a meeting takes place. If this "assurer" then demands a higher price a system exists to make these demands known.

With this in mind I feel really good about standing behind this system and stating "THIS ABSOLUTELY NEEDS TO HAPPEN AND IT NEEDS TO HAPPEN NOW!"

Why are we waiting?

What are we waiting for?

Why are you not standing up and making this same statement?

You need to. No more excuses. This needs to happen and it needs to happen now.

Thanks for reading.

Posted by m.david at 02:18 PM | Comments (0)

October 20, 2005

Opera 9.0 : With XSLT/XPath 1.0 Support?

Changelog for Opera 9.0 Technology Preview 1 for Windows

# Added support for XSLT 1.0 and the XSLTProcessor constructor.

# Added support for XPath 1.0.

I'm a little too in shock at the moment to comment beyond the fact that I am in shock at the moment.

Posted by m.david at 05:25 PM | Comments (0)

"XML SUCKS!!!"

Push Button Paradise

"XML Doesn't suck! You're just an IDIOT!"

Now now children, settle down. Lets try and pretend we're grown-ups today, K?

OK.

In the mean time, it seems that Micah Dubinko has decided to tackle both sides of this argument in his new XML.com column, "XML Annoyances"

Excellent!

From his recent announcement:

I'm happy to announce my new monthly column on xml.com: XML Annoyances

At this point, XML is essentially plumbing. And plumbing is difficult to write about in a way that more than a small core of dedicatees will bother to read. Thus a broader topic: annoying things in XML.

Sounds like some fun will be had with this one. :) In his first column he tackles MicroFormats...

Yum.

You can access the Atom feed for the colum here and the RSS 1.0 feed here.

Enjoy!

Posted by m.david at 06:03 AM | Comments (0)

October 18, 2005

Internet Stamps? Ummmm... Well, How 'Bout This Instead

ongoing � Internet Stamps

This week’s splogstorm and the endless flood of email spam are two symptoms of the same disease. When you allow people to add content to the Net for free, the economic incentives to fill all the available space with with spam are irresistible, and fighting back is difficult, maybe impossible. This works because, while the payoff per unit of spam is low, the cost is zero. Well, we can solve all these problems at once. It wouldn’t be free, but it would be cheap and it wouldn’t be that hard. It’s called “Internet Stamps”.

No offense meant, but Internet Stamps sound a little to close to an "Internet Tax" for comfort. While CACert doesn't allow much room for the anonymous side of this idea, as Bill de hÓra recently stated "Anonymity, last time I checked (yes, I did check) is not a neccessary feature to make the web work." Extending from this notion the idea behind CACert is to use existing SSL certificates to ensure via positive identification that you are who you say you are. Adding to this, any email client worth its weight in bits already supports this standard, so its pretty much zero-entry to gain wide spread and immediatte support. Again, not much room for anonymity but as Bill de hÓra once said (see same statement and link from above :)

Posted by m.david at 09:11 PM | Comments (0)

October 15, 2005

Novell's Money and Market Leadership + Miguel's and Nat's Vision, Leadership, and Understanding = An Actual Threat To The Windows Desktop?

BetterDesktop

Welcome!

Better Desktop is a project dedicated to sharing usability data with Linux developers. Over the past year, we have conducted many usability tests on different parts of the KDE and GNOME desktops. We created this site to serve as a place where developers can watch videos of these tests. Here you will find over 200 videos of people using Mozilla Firefox, Evolution, Open Office, Banshee, F-Spot and other applications. All of these can be found in the data section of this site.

If there's one complaint that I have had regarding my own experience's with the various flavors of Linux it is this: Until recently (and being quite frank) there was a certain bit of arrogance in the Linux communities as a whole that "Of course we're better! You just have to try harder to overcome the "Windoze" trance Microsoft has put upon you and *THEN* you'll see and understand." to which I would answer:

"Better than what and at what? Oh, and just what is it that I am not understanding that you *OBVIOUSLY* understand better than I do?"

You see, it seems that what the Linux communities we're forgetting to consider (again, until now) was that there were reasons that Windows was designed a certain way, looked the way it did, reacted the way it reacted. This reason, whether they wanted to agree with the results or not, was and is really quite simple:

Millions of hours and Billions of dollars in research, development, and usability testing.

I must admit that as a hacker, and furthermore as someone who spends, on average, 12-14 hours (at least!) every single day in front of a computer, I have a tendency to have very little patience for people that just don't seem to get what to me is "obviously simple common sense." But I have to catch myself before I let things get too far out of hand as this is the exact "bug" that can quickly cause my own work to fall into this same category of "arrogance" that I am complaining about. Its easy to fall into and completely understandable as to why.

But that doesn't change the fact that there is a reason why Windows is the way it is. For hundreds of millions of people in this world Windows simply makes sense. That doesn't mean training isn't required or that everyone who uses Windows uses it "correctly." What it does mean, however, is that for a new feature and/or new idea to make it into the Windows family of operating systems and related software such as Office and Internet Explorer, a series of usability tests had to be performed to determine whether or not users of the software would "get it." Would it make sense? Could the user, within a reasonable amount of time, understand what this new feature was, what function it performed, and all-in-all did this feature have "stickyness" or, in other words, would it become a part of their daily computing "experience" or would it simply be forgotten about just as quickly as it was learned.

There is obviously more to usability testing than this, but I don't want to beat this point to death. What I do want to point out is that with Novell's acquisition of Ximian two things took place:

1. Novell acquired two open source luminaries and (allthough criticized by some) visionaries who understood that for Linux to make the difference it had the potential to make, changes had to be made and had to be made quickly. As part of the acquisition Novell took under its financial wings the development of the Mono project.
2. As a result, I doubt anyone will argue that the Mono project has reached a level of maturation that simply would not have been possible had Novell not acquired Ximian, bringing badly needed funding of which Novell had plenty of.

Lets face it... Novell hasn't had much luck when it has come to making any attempt what-so-ever to take on the Microsoft-owned desktop. In fact, in many ways one could argue that it was because of their original attempt to attack Microsoft's Office dominance with the acquisition of Wordperfect that led to the downfall of its networking dominance, something it once owned in the same way Microsoft now owns the desktop and a considerable share of the server market as well.

Will this time around be any different?

If the acquisition of Ximian and projects such as BetterDesktop are any sort of sign as to whether or not Novell has learned from their past "mistakes" and is well on its way to "getting it" in regards to understanding just what the desktop market is all about then I will most certainly and with a resounding voice suggest that:

Yeah, they get it.

FINALLY! ;) :D

Posted by m.david at 10:05 PM | Comments (0)

If Your Not Reading DonXML, Why Not?

XAML XLinq VB.Net's XML Literals Equals Classic ASP For WinForms?

The final version of.Net 2.0 is just about to be released, and we are already starting to get bits and pieces of what they are toying with for the next version with the announcement of the LINQ project during the PDC. LINQ is the code name for extensions to the .Net framework that extends C# and VB with native language syntax for queries and other functional style programming constructs. XLinq is an implementation of Linq designed around creating a new API around XML. The idea is to create a more natural API for creating and manipulating XML. Think of it as a more modern version of the XML DOM. Here are some examples from the XLinq documentation:

When I first read this a few days ago I knew I needed to link to it and throw in a few comments. Well, as usual, a few comments began to take on a life form of their own. I haven't had the time yet to give this piece the time it would need to get it finished in time for the content to still be relavent to Don's initial piece. So instead I am just going to point you all to it and ask the simple question:

If Your Not Reading DonXML, Why Not?

Actually, that sums up my feelings quite nicely with the added bonus of keeping things short and concise. Huh, maybe I need to do this more often ;)

Enjoy your DonXML-enhanced day!

Posted by m.david at 06:38 AM | Comments (0)

October 14, 2005

COmega-based Logic Programming System

Just found this in my inbox.

Do you still have an interest in COmega? I just wrote a logic programming system (mini-kanren) in comega.

http://www.thinkingms.com/pensieve/

Roshan

I definitely still have an interest in COmega and am happy to promote anybody who takes interest enough in branching out their own understanding of Computer Science by developing such applications. If this happens to be you, let me know. BTW... The logic programming system entry is here.

Oh, and also... Roshan's blog is quite good as well. Take a look.

Posted by m.david at 10:58 PM | Comments (0)

That's The Funniest [-exp as per no profanity in intro policy] Thing I've Read All Week! [via Push Button Paradise]

Push Button Paradise

Podcast listening tip

You know how some podcasts have good little bits in them, but the host(s) drone(s) on and on and on? Here's how to power listen.

1. Download Audacity. It's free and it's available for your platform.
2. Get the mp3 onto your system. Open it in audacity
3. Select all (Ctrl a or Apple a).
4. From the menu, select Effect -> Change Tempo...
5. Pick a value for how much to speed it up. 50% works for me. Click OK.
6. Play your newly-efficient audio file.

I really wish iTunes and other podcast-listening programs would just include this feature. My mobile phone voice mail does this, and it can be a lifesaver. -m

I need to install such a feature on my blog, huh? ;)

Posted by m.david at 10:37 PM | Comments (0)

October 12, 2005

Project Logo of the Day

Signs on the Sand: Visual Haskell

Regardless of how you feel about the Windows platform, Visual Studio.NET, or Microsoft in general the following Visual Haskell logo:

...if nothing else, you have to admit that this is one of the more creative project logo's you seen in a very long time. :)

Say it... Say it..! SAY IT!!!!

There you go. Good job. I'm so proud. You've come so far in such a short time. Don't you feel better now?

Good, I'm glad we had this talk.

Oh, and by the way, regarding this comment from Oleg's above linked post:

Don Box said "Scheme Is Love", but he forgot to mention that Scheme is actually Love to Lots of Irritating, Silly Parentheses. Haskell my friends is the Real Love.

Ummm.... Ok. Because its Oleg, I'm going to let the...

Lots of Irritating, Silly Parentheses

... comment slide. But if you're name isn't amongst the "Legends" list on the main page of this site and you make a comment like that regarding THE programming language of the Gods (otherwise known as LISP) I am going to set aside an entire chapter in my up and coming book to describe to all those willing to buy a copy just how very much I now hate you. ;)

You see, what LISP actually stands for is "Love Is Scheme Programming" which, if you've programmed in Scheme you know exactly what I'm talking about now don'tchya...

Ah yeah, thats right.. Love, Baby, Love... All You Need Is Love as anything else?

It really doesn't matter now does it... :D

It's ALL about the Love. 'Scheme is Love' and Love?

Completing the perfect circle that is recursion...

Love Is Scheme Programming. :D

'nuff said ;)

Posted by m.david at 06:11 AM | Comments (0)

Top One(1) Reason Not To Use "Blaring-In-Your-Face" Red as The Background Color For Your Website

If you're wondering why this isn't the normal "Top Five(5) Reasons..." list the answer is simple: When you visit this site(which apparently is the first public web site to be hosted on a Sony PSP device), read through some of the content(long enough such that your eyes become "normalized" to the "Blaring-In-Your-Face" red background - 30-45 secs should do) and then click one of the www.PSPProject.NET links listed on the page you should immediattely discover why only one reason is needed, which is:

* The "snow blinding" effect that takes place when you go from a "Blaring-In-Your-Face" red background to a stark white backround in which is the base of the www.PSPProject.NET site.

OWE!!!! I'm still seeing stars, and its been a good 3 minutes since I left that site (never to return!, BTW)

[WARNING: If you choose to follow the above links and try out the "experiment" you are doing so on your own free will with the warning that the blinding effect that this experiment may cause doesn't exactly hurt, but it doesn't tickle either. Consider yourself warned. :)]

Posted by m.david at 12:26 AM | Comments (0)

October 11, 2005

Tuesday's with Rory

Don't like the title? Sue me.

While you get the paperwork together I'm going to be attending an MSDN Event hosted by none other than the infamous Rory Blyth this afternoon at the Sugarhouse Cinemas (which is fairly close to my downtown apartment.)

If you are in the SLC area and plan to attend, see ya there. Well, unless you have now cancelled your plans to attend and instead blocked out your afternoon to fill out the aforementioned legal papers. If thats the case, see ya in court! :)

If attending the event, enjoy your Rory Blyth/MSDN Events enhanced day. :)

Posted by m.david at 05:19 PM | Comments (0)

October 04, 2005

Tim O'Reilly on NerdTV

I, Cringely . NerdTV | PBS

#5 Tim O'Reilly October 4, 2005: Open Source pioneer Tim O'Reilly, who once beat Netscape to the punch in the original browser wars of the mid-90's, noticed the free software didn't come with free printed manuals and so a publishing empire was born, helping us enjoy what we didn't pay for.

I'm not sure what time it will be made available (as of yet it hasn't been posted) but this is definitely "Must See WebTV."

What is NerdTV? via the PBS.org explanation:

NerdTV is a new weekly online TV show from PBS.org technology columnist Robert X. Cringely. NerdTV is essentially Charlie Rose for geeks - a one-hour interview show with a single guest from the world of technology. Guests like Sun Microsystems co-founder Bill Joy or Apple computer inventor Steve Wozniak are household names if your household is nerdy enough, but as historical figures and geniuses in their own right, they have plenty to say to ALL of us. NerdTV is distributed under a Creative Commons license so viewers can legally share the shows with their friends and even edit their own versions. If not THE future of television, NerdTV represents A future of television for niche audiences that have deep interest in certain topics.

Posted by m.david at 08:36 PM

October 03, 2005

Extension to Google Maps vs. MSN Virtual Earth | Understanding WebServices.com / mapping Community Wiki now live [via a post to my O'Reilly blog]

Extension to Google Maps vs. MSN Virtual Earth | UnderstandingWebServices.com/mapping Community Wiki now live

From my most recent post to my O'Reilly blog:

As mentioned in the intro, I have taken a few moments to set-up a communtiy wiki such that we can begin to work together to develop a one of a kind resource regarding web service-based mapping technologies such as Google Maps, MSN Virtual Earth, and Yahoo! Maps.

Located at http://www.UnderstandingWebServices.com/mapping/wiki/ the first paragraph reads:

Welcome! Please excuse the obvious abuse of using a pre-existing image as a place holder until such time as I have a moment to create one more specific to this site, UnderstandingWebServices.com with a focus on "Mapping" technologies. Until just a few minutes ago it hadn't occured to me to crack open one of the Understanding*.com sites I own and begin to make use of them from a community perspective. This seemed to be the best choice to host this topic, so I've quickly set this up such that we can work together as a community to start development of interesting content, pointers to cool mapping projects, code samples, etc...

If a community-based effort to Understand Web Services, in particular mapping-based WS's sounds like your cup-of-tea, please come join in the fun :)

Enjoy!

Posted by m.david at 04:13 PM

October 02, 2005

Google Maps vs. MSN Virtual Earth [via a post to my O'Reilly Weblog]

Google Maps vs. MSN Virtual Earth

A while back I posted an entry to my personal blog soon after I had watched the Scoble MSN Virtual Earth demo on "Channel 9" of Microsoft's Developer Network (MSDN). After watching this demo I came to the realization that Google Maps, as nice as it is, was in for a rude awakening when MSN's Virtual Earth hit the streets.

Posted by m.david at 10:56 AM | Comments (0)

October 01, 2005

'Scheme is Love' [via MSDN and Don Box]

{ End Bracket }: Scheme Is Love -- MSDN Magazine, October 2005

If you have ever experienced Don Box live and in person you'll know what I mean when I say you could very well be in for a real treat. For example, in this picture he has taken a kinda-sorta rendition of "It's the end of the world as we know it" from R.E.M. and given it a whole new meaning, with .NET as its foundation.

I mention this only because of the title he chose for this piece: Scheme is Love. From Don Box, expect nothing else (and thats a good thing!)

This article starts off:

For the past few years, it has become fashionable to embrace a dynamic language such as Perl, PHP, Python, or Ruby. While I'll admit to having a short but pleasurable tryst with Ruby, I believe I have found true love in the dialect of Lisp called Scheme.

He then continues:

In writing Scheme programs, I've learned a lot about coding, design, architecture, and aesthetics. On this front, Eric S. Raymond got it right in his essay, "How to Become a Hacker":

Lisp is worth learning for a different reason—the profound enlightenment experience you will have when you finally get it. That experience will make you a better programmer for the rest of your days, even if you never actually use Lisp itself a lot.

In follow-up he recently posted "More on Scheme" to his blog.

Definitely a must read!

Enjoy!

Posted by m.david at 06:28 PM | Comments (0)