Your Ad Here

Monthly Archive for May, 2006

Global Warming: Inconvenient? Truth?

Many people are going to be seeing/talking about Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth for awhile now. I am entirely in favor of being a good steward of the environment; but is calling global warming and its dangers “truth”… going too far?

The pro-global warming side of the story is to be found everywhere; so here are some links to the other side of the story. Read, distribute, make up your own mind.

I’m not trying to suggest that the people who believe in human-caused global warming are stupid, irresponsible, or brainwashed; nor that there are not persuasive arguments on each side. Let’s just agree that it is a theory, not a “truth,” and that there exists significant controversy over the plausibility of human-caused global warming, and the alleged dangers of it.

The Slashdot Redesign

Slashdot has chosen a new design which will presumably become standard very soon.

I like it. I’m one of those relics who believes that Slashdot will never be usurped by sites like Digg or reddit — they are good and useful, but they are not the same. Heck, Tom Peters includes a link to Slashdot in his blogroll.

Back to the design: I’m sure I’ll see a lot of comments along the lines of It’s the same, only different (true), you just added round corners/gradients (no and yes — they already had some round corners), and more such complaints. I’m of the opinion that it retains the characteristic slashdotness of the design, but manages to make it look current. Good job, I say. Congrats to designer Alex Bendiken.

My 5 CSS Tips — Business Logs

Mike Rundle shares his 5 CSS Tips. Good points, all.

One more thought on lists

One more thought on lists: I happened to be browsing David Allen’s Ready For Anything, a book of essays that is a follow-up to Getting Things Done, and stopped on chapter 13, where David admits that some of the best projects he’s ever done were things which were not on any of his lists.

Lest this sound heretical, he clarifies the real purpose of having all these lists:

You don’t make the lists of actions and projects just to get them all done and then do nothing else in your life. You process the things you have attention on so you can do what you really feel like doing.

Worth pondering.

Different kinds of lists

Everyone loves (or hates) lists. If you’re like me, you might feel like you have too many of them, which leads to losing them, ignoring them, or forgetting to update them.

Something that might help is to simply make sure you have them categorized properly; there are different sorts of lists. Some of these you’ll know from GTD and related systems, others are common-place, but here’s my list of lists…

  • To-do lists. The venerable, the loved and hated, the list of things to do. If you doing without this in some incarnation, you either have superhuman memory powers, are extremely stressed out, or you just don’t have very much to do. I’m guessing the second option. The danger is trying to make your “to do” list your only list. That gets overwhelming and unmanageable, and fast. My “to-do” list has become analagous to David Allen’s “Next Action” list — things to do next. That is, each item on the list must be discrete and actionable (or just doable if you prefer less jargon).
    Discrete is worth elaborating on as well; a project, to use the canonical example, is not a discrete item — it is probably a whole list of “to-do” items of its own, all of which, together, make up the “project”. So projects don’t go on this list; put them on the…
  • Project List(s). You probably have several projects; maybe even more than you think. Again, I like David Allen’s guideline of what constitutes a project: if it will take more than one step to complete, it’s a project. Changing a lightbulb might be a project; you have to find out what sort of bulb you need, find the bulb (maybe even order or obtain one if you have none), and install the bulb (which may require a ladder, which you need to go find…).
    So your project list will be more of a micro list-of-lists of its own; it may help to have a list of projects, but each “project” will itself be a list of steps, which may need to be done in a specific order.
  • Process Lists. It depends what you do for a living, but I can say for certain that it helps to have lists of commonly repeated tasks/projects. For example, setting up a PC for a user. This invariably involves many steps, and many separate software packages to be installed, upgraded, tested, and configured. In this example there is the additional problem of having to wait while a package installs, or while the PC restarts, thus increasing the chance that you will go do something else and then come back to the PC, at which point you may forget exactly where you are in the process…
    Unless you have a list.
    I would also put “daily routines” in this category. You might have a certain set of things which you would like to make sure you do every day (check voicemail, email, check server lgos for errors, back up server x, and so on).
  • Idea lists. Having ideas may not be part of your job description, but sooner or later you will have one — maybe many. The problem with ideas is that they tend to disappear if not recorded or acted upon, and since chances are you won’t be able to put every one of your ideas into action, the next option is to make sure to write it down.
    This sort of list is pretty vague; it could include what David Allen calls his “someday/maybe” lists. It could include things that have nothing to do with your work, or your present hobbies, but that you’d like to make sure you don’t forget.
  • The Calendar. A calendar is basically a list, keyed to months and days. You probably want to have one of these. I like David Allen’s suggestion (rule) that the calendar only contains items that absolutely must take place on a certain date; anything else goes on the “to-do” (next action) list, or is a project. This keeps the calendar cleaner, and ultimately more usable.
  • The Budget. This is something even more personal, but you probably want one. If you keep your “budget” in your head, then you probably already know that you’d be better off if it were written down. I’ll leave it to you to figure this “list” out, as I’m still wrestling with the best method of keeping track of this, myself. Suffice it to say, it helps to have one.

There are probably more that you can think of; some may be just peculiar instances of the above sort of list, or they may be a whole new type. For what it’s worth, I find that even the act of separating all these things into their own separate “lists” or areas, helps keep them all organized.

For more about David Allen/GTD, you might visit David Allen’s site, Merlin Mann’s Intro to GTD, or the Wikipedia entry.

“Why Bush Won the Election” photos

Okay, it’s shamelessly partisan, the photos are clearly handpicked, and it’s probably not a fair comparison at all… but Why Bush Won the Election is still pretty funny.

The Shangri La Diet

There’s an interesting new diet floating around, which I first heard about via Kathy Sierra at Creating Passionate Users. It’s called the Shangri La Diet, and it is simultaneously ridiculously hard to believe… and very interesting.

However, it is absurdly easy to try, and so far it sounds like most feedback is positive or neutral (that is, a few who’ve tried it report no results at all, but seemingly no ill effects).

I don’t have a whole heck of a lot of weight to lose, but I may test it out just to see the effects.

In a nutshell, the main idea is that you can trick your body into having less of an appetite — thereby snacking less, and becoming full with smaller meals. In other words, it sounds way too good to be true — eating less without being hungry. It’s appealing in a “geek-ish” sort of way, as it sounds remarkably like “hacking” your body’s system to cause it to desire less food; that concept alone is interesting, even if you have no weight to lose.

Do your research, though; the diet does have its detractors, and I’m not a doctor. Caveat emptor, and all that.

My synopsis above is not strictly accurate — but for more information I’d suggest flipping through the book at your local bookstore. If you decide you like it, you can find it for almost half-price at Amazon versus the bookstore price.

In other news, Ergonomics is important

I am not sure what happened, but I can barely move my head and neck today without incredible piercing pain. The chiropractor thinks that it may be my workstation. Looks like it’s time to request a keyboard tray…

Ergonomics, friends. It’s what’s for dinner.

Troubleshooting Tip: Do One Thing At A Time

One of the potential pitfalls of being a technically oriented person is that every once in awhile you start to actually believe that you know exactly what you are doing.

Anecdotal reference material: I’ve spent the last few days setting up a FTP/web server using Fedora Core 5 (for better or worse… we’ll see). I’ve been configuring all sorts of things; disk quotas, Samba, FTP, user creation scripts, setting the static IP address… Then blam — I decided to reboot it to make sure everything was set up and working.

Well, it never did reboot.

Oh, it seemed to be working, and all. The trouble was, the boot process got to be taking about forty minutes. I, in my razor sharp technical analysis, concluded that something was wrong.

Now here’s the problem: laboring under the delusion that I could do no wrong, I had reset and reconfigured a half-dozen or more different things before the reboot. This makes it nigh impossible to determine which of those many changes was actually responsible for the failure on reboot.

As difficult as it may be… as much as we might feel like we know what we’re doing… the only way to make sure that we can trace a problem is to just do one thing at a time; then stop — test it — and go on.

This is a debugging technique in programming — if you have a program or a long-ish function that is not working, you can add some temporary “status” outputs after each action. That way, you can determine exactly where the program is failing. Unfortunately, when configuring a Linux server (or any similar activity), one can’t roll back time and add break-points and then fast-forward a dozen times to see where it broke down. You have to remember to do that as you go.

Do you have to stop and test what you’ve done after every step? No; of course not.

Just don’t go crying to anyone when your server won’t boot and you don’t know what you did to break it.

Steve Ballmer does tech support

There’s an interesting article up at ITWorld.com called Even the Builders of Windows Find Tech Support a Challenge.

In it, we hear how Jim Allchin recounted a story about Steve Ballmer, who while attending a wedding was asked if he could take a look at someone’s PC which was performing extremely slowly. To his credit, Ballmer was happy to oblige his friend.

From the article:

According to Allchin, Ballmer spent the better part of the next two days trying to rid this PC of worms, viruses, spyware, malware, severe fragmentation, and well, you name it. Picture it: the world’s 24th wealthiest person, a man worth $13.6 billion according to Forbes magazine, sitting at a table for two days, playing tech support. It was, Allchin says, a humbling experience.

Allchin says Ballmer eventually gave up and instead lugged the machine back to Microsoft’s Redmond, Wash. campus. There, several engineers spent several days, burrowing deep into the system to figure out the problem. Imagine, CSI: Redmond.

It turns out there were more than a hundred pieces of malware of various types. Things that these engineers using Microsoft’s own private tools could not ferret out and fix. Some of these threats hooked themselves deeply into the core operating system and essentially lied about their existence. Other malware scoured the hard drive for anything containing the string “virus,” and, in Allchin’s words, would “shoot them dead.” The result was disabling any installed antivirus software.

It took a team of engineers to restore this system to health.

This, to me, is fascinating. Anyone who has every tried to deal with a really bad spyware/adware/other infection can probably empathize with the aforementioned engineers — in fact most people I know, myself included, would have given up, backed up the data, and reinstalled Windows rather than spending several days on one PC. But if anyone is able to “burrow in” to Windows and fix these issues, I suppose a team of Microsoft engineers ought to be — after all, it’s their OS.

The article goes on to state that this experience caused Microsoft to “get religion” about system health — though the article’s author remains skeptical, as do probably most of the rest of us. At any rate, I thought it was a cool story. Ballmer usually comes across as very easy to dislike, and I thought that, if nothing else, this showed another side of him. Can’t say I blame him for taking the machine back to Redmond after two days, either… ;-)


Your Ad Here