Yeah, so I made an LOLcat:

moar funny pictures

I took a look at my web statistics for this site, and the number one browser for the past week was... Netscape 4???

Hi there, 1998! Here's a tip: sell your stocks now.

I'm all about helping my readers. I'm sure both of them appreciate it.

I was talking with my friend, an artist, the other day about facebook. He was worried that some of the things put up there by one group of his friends, say his artist friends, might not be the sort of thing another group of friends, say someone who knows his wife from church, might not like.

I, on the other hand, like the notion of being the guy who links people who would otherwise not have anything to do with each other. It's like I'm making the world slightly more surreal, one facebook friend at a time.

Here's an HTTP error code I didn't know existed before today: HTTP 406: Not Acceptable. I don't think I like my web servers being so judgemental.

I just heard today of a site called Yammer. Apparently, people get together and "yammer" at each other. And, as mentioned earlier, there's Twitter, apparently where one goes to... twit?

Apparently the key to web 2.0 success is to have a name that is at least somewhat derogatory to the users.

It may come off reading these posts that I'm a bit of a luddite; but really I'm not. I'm not against the use of technology; I'm against the misuse of technology.

Richard Feynman used the term "Cargo Cult Science" to describe scientific work carried out without a willingness to question accepted values and theories. The term comes from anthropology; cargo cults, appearing in tribal societies, creating mock airports, in the hopes that planes will land there and bring them goods. Of course, they really haven't worked out how airports actually work, and of course airplanes don't actually land there.

A similar phenomenon exists with respect to the application of technology; a "cargo cult technology", if you will. Basically, it's the application of technology without being mindful as to why technology is being used in the first place.

Since the last post was about BSG, how about a simple example from that. The humanoid cylons couldn't boss ye olde metal cylons around. Technological solution? Install devices in your metal cylons to keep them stupid. Works great, until somebody switches the device off and they go on killing sprees. Of course, if they had been more mindful of the actual problem at hand, they could have opted for the less technical, but somewhat more fault-tolerant solution of "stop being such a dick".

What got me thinking along these lines is a couple of news stories. First, was about a speech former president Clinton gave that technology companies can help solve the world's problems. Don't get me wrong; technology companies can help solve the world's problems. Everyone can help solve the world's problems, and tech companies are a subset of everyone. Plus things like a cure for AIDS would be a great solution and be tech in spades. Things like the following bug me, though (from the article):

"Do we have to carry [rising health care costs] like a ball and chain on our children's and our grandchildren's future, down to the end of time?" he said. "What is the role of information technology in escaping this box we've put ourselves in in health care?"

Hmmm. Maybe if we had a system, where insurance companies weren't so driven by profit that they denied claims more for business reasons than medical reasons. Maybe the doctors and hospitals wouldn't have to charge so much for everything to recoup their money from the insurance companies dicking them around. Or I don't know, how about a system where more people are covered so they can go to the doctor earlier, when their condition is easier (and cheaper) to fix, rather then ending up in the ER on death's door? Or we could go the cargo cult technology way. Putting your medical records on the internet will solve everything!

So on the one hand, address the actual causes of skyrocketing health care costs. On the other, shinny tech toy. Which one will we probably wind up up with? Here's a hint; I'm in your medical records, killing your d00dz.

The second article is about a proposal to teach Twitter and Wikipedia in primary schools in the UK. First off, let me take a moment to thank our friends across the pond. For once, I'm glad to be the product of the American educational system, and reassured that our schools don't have a monopoly on curriculum asshattery.  Way to take one for the team, guys!

Like Edsger Dijkstra said, computer science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes. Learn an application like Twitter -- any application for that matter -- and you'll be the shizzle for like a year. Then the next big thing comes out. Or maybe they rev the version. Then you're screwed. This is the cargo cult technology way of computers.

Learn the basic concepts how a computer works. Learn what it can and what it can't do. When you do work on it, know why you're doing what you're doing, and if you don't know, ask. Then you can adapt to the next revision, or the next application. Someone once asked me how I kept up learning all the new things on the computer (and mind you, this was an EE with Boeing). The big secret is that the fundamentals don't really change that much. Computer Science is essentially applied math. Do you worry about upgrading to Math 2009?

Mindfulness in all things is a Good Thing^tm, technology is no different.

A listing on craigslist today:

I went to a presentation of on Windows Azure today. Personally, I'm holding out for Windows Mauve.¹

¹Little known fact, mauve is scientifically proven to be the funniest of all colors.

Facebook announced recently that they will be redesigning their homepage, to look more like Twitter. But what the media isn't telling you, is their final coup de grâce, the final piece of the puzzle that will bring them on true feature parity. Remember kids, you heard it here first:

After rolling out their redesigned web page, Facebook will go down.