Foofy Versioning

All these years, I’d hoped that WordPress would start versioning like Mozilla did: point releases, with major milestones getting a first-digit change. Instead, WP went from 0.72 to [I believe] 1.0, then to 1.2 [with a couple minor revs], then to 1.5 [with all the silly revs since then].

Now, Mozilla will version like WordPress. Why not just generate version numbers with a random number generator, and only accept the random result if it’s higher than the last number you had? John Wilson could code up such a script in 35 seconds, and Gareth Watts could have a version outputting for all SourceForge projects in a half-day, tops.

Le sigh.

Way to Assume, .net Folk

Dear readers of the .net persuasion:

“For A Friend” wasn’t about anyone you know. Stop speculating. Now, dammit.

Yeesh. Y’all act like you have a right to my business, rampantly running through to people you think I might be talking about before they’ve even had a chance to read what I’ve had to say. I’d like the cluefucked among you to write this on your hand and then slap yourself in the forehead: I have friends outside of our little group.

For the record, no, I don’t know who among you went off half-cocked. I don’t want to know, either. But you need to get out of my business. Thanks.

Craptastic Site Design

Dear Crestron Electronics: Esquire had a nice little blurb in their latest issue about your equipment. I was jazzed, so I decided that I’d check it out.


I might be an engineer by trade, but you just missed a huge opportunity to sell me on your stuff. Do I really need CAD drawings [via PDF … ?] of your stuff if I’m just a mildly interested consumer? Why does your residential products page make me guess as to what I might want? Dude. I just saw something cool in a magazine, and thirty seconds later, I felt like I was back at work. I don’t care if you have a La-Z-Boy integrated with a touchscreen that will do everything from control my TiVo and stereo to make coffee and wipe my ass … you just lost any interest I had in you by having a craptastic site design.


Bad Linkers

Am I the only one who looks at how some people Weblog and say, “Man, I wish that I could offer up a re-write of their links?” An example of bad linking practices for you from the business2blog (hereinafter called “the B2blog”):

There’s a strong discussion going on over at PVRBlog on what’s wrong with TiVo. Such discussions go on all the time, but this one is better than most because several of the commentators get right down to specifics.

That quote is exact as of the time of this writing, down to the fact that the link encompasses the spaces surrounding “PVRBlog”.

Here’s my two big beefs:

  1. The text to give the permalink to the discussion shouldn’t be PVRBlog but “strong discussion”. Why? I look at it this way: I want the link to be self-descriptive. Notice in my first paragraph in this entry that the phrase “example of bad linking practices” is pointed at the permalink of the entry I’m bitching about. That points the bitchiness directly at the entry that sucks, and doesn’t point it at the B2blog itself. Now, mind you, my Christian ethos of “Hate the sin, love the sinner,” may have some overlap here, but I look at it like this: maybe the B2blog will get better at this kind of stuff. I don’t want to point “example of bad linking practices” at B2blog’s home page if, three months from now, they’re using good linking practices.
  2. I like to link the title of sites. Again, if you’ll look back to my first paragraph, I use a secondary link in there to point to the B2blog. Why? That link is self-descriptive: it’s a link to the B2blog, pointing at their homepage.

Now, mind you, you can probably find examples of bad linking practices back in my history. I’ve only improved because I’ve had this kind of things shown to me as a problem in the past.

And I rail about this stuff because bitching about it relaxes me. I heart Business 2.0; I was a charter subscriber and held a subscription for the first few years of the publication. Nowadays, I’m not wanting to do entrepreneurship, so I dropped it. But their Weblog still points me to good stuff, so I read it.

[On the chance that Damon Darlin, the guy who wrote this entry, reads this … it’s intended as constructive criticism, chief. Much love.]


Wow, I can’t begin to tell you how much I despise superlatives.

The rush to declare stuff “the best!” or “the most $x” or whatever has completely made our language devoid of non-superlative comparisons. If I tell you that you’re a good student, or a good person, society has trained you to ask yourself, “Why did Geof use good and not great? Why am I not great?! My mom thinks I’m great!” Anytime that we limit ourselves to acey-deucey, onesie-twosie comparisons, we make binary choices in what is quite clearly a greater-than-binary decision set.


[This is what I get for running a Web forum. Every other discussion seems to be, “What’s the best $X?” “What’s the coolest $y?” AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!]

Gimme Gimme Gimme!

I’m glad that people enjoy community resources. Community resources are to be enjoyed and treasured, because they’re community-oriented.

However, barging in the front door of the community house and screaming, “I’ve seen that you people have cool stuff—GIMME!” is not the way to make the guy who oversees the community resources smile warmly and hand you stuff.

I fear that this is another manifestation of our desire to have what we want right now … and Lord knows I’m as guilty of that as anyone else.

Bad, Bad Production

Heard just now from my lips: “I hate it when TV people do that! Don’t go from the singer’s microphone as your sole audio source, then halfway through the song add in the crowd mics to give you a sense of being at the park with all the reverb—it’s distracting! It’s disrespectful to the singer, too. No reverb or reverb, pick one at the start and f**king stick with it, will you?!”

I’m in a ranting mood today.

“Just because I disagree with you doesn’t make you stupid.”

There’s a trend around today: if I disagree with you, you’re stupid.

I frequently see partisans on both sides of American politics call the other party’s Presidential candidate, or his policies, stupid. This is ingratiating.

I’m one of those annoying motherf**kers that thinks that you can disagree with someone and still respect them. I also think that you can disagree with someone’s position and still understand the basis of their argument.

Examplia gratis: taxation. Liberals generally argue that taxes should be higher so that social programs and infrastructure can be fully funded, increasing the overall well-being of the country. Conservatives generally argue that taxes should be lower so that more funds can be spent consuming and investing, increasing the overall well-being of the country.

Both sides reject the other’s approach, and they usually do it as saying that “it’s stupid”. You know what’s stupid? What’s stupid is not spending a little time looking into how the other person’s framed their arguments, what their presuppositions are, and getting down to an evaluation of the assumptions that fundamentally drive the argument.

A wise man—I know not who—once said, “The level of a man’s intelligence is proportional to the degree with which he agrees with me.” While that’s generally true, I’d rather work from the assumption that we’re all reasonably intelligent and can disagree.

Again, that makes me an annoying motherf**ker. Of course, hearing people call people they don’t like stupid annoys me. It’s the circle of life.