This week I am mostly listening..
..to the Gladiator sound track. It's such a powerful score. Gladiator would not have been half so good a film without it.
Archives for February 2008
CrashReporter: a lost opportunity
Apple's CrashReporter is a neat tool that forwards along a lot of information about crashed MacOSX applications to Apple. But really what a waste.
Today Pathway, the rather neat WikiPedia browser, crashed while I was searching for the composer Felix Mendelssohn.
I duly sent in a crash report to Apple. But is some Apple engineer really going to figure this one out? Surely a much better idea is to forward the fault to the author of Pathway.
Several MacOSX developers have come up with solutions to crash reporting but it's not ideal. This sort of thing like updating should be baked in somehow and easily available to all. And this is what's so crazy about this... it already is baked in, as CrashReporter, it's just that it's only available to Apple!
It seems like a simple first step would simply be to specify a crash report email in your application bundle and have CrashReporter forward that. Then Apple's CrashReporter server can automatically email a copy of the crash report to the developers.
A more ambitious solution would be to open (if it's not already) the API crash reporter uses and allow the application developer to specify their own end point. CrashReporter could then report to both Apple and, directly, the developer involved.
Alternatively maybe Apple could open the CrashReporter backend to developers so that they could see the crashes for their application.
The way CrashReporter works at present just seems such a lost opportunity to improve the quality of MacOSX software generally.
Update: Filed in Radar as #5770715
Smiles
"Death smiles at us all. All a man can do is smile back." -- Marcus Aurelius (121-180)
We're whalers on the moon
We're whalers on the moon, We carry a harpoon. But there ain't no whales. So we tell tall tales. And sing our whaling tune.
A sad tale of robot whalers in a future where there are no whales left. Apparently the Japanese government would like that time to be sooner, rather than later.
If, like me, you object to the slaughter of whales you might also want to sign this petition.
Garfield minus Garfield
Via the Core77 Design Blog I came across this beauty:
"Who would have guessed that when you remove Garfield from the Garfield comic strips, the result is an even better comic about schizophrenia, bipolor disorder, and the empty desperation of modern life?"
A blog entirely dedicated to showing Garfield comic strips without Garfield, which in turn leaves a crazed, lonely, and borderline psychotic John Arbuckle.
I like:
Haven't we all had too many days like this?
DNA for all
As long term readers will, no doubt, guess I am concerned about the national DNA database we're slowly building. On the Radio this morning a government minister mentioned that they thought "they had the balance right" but that there should be no stigma in being on this "intelligence database" because it meant "you could be cleared from future investigations faster."
This approach to denial - that the database is actually a good thing for you to be on - seems to me designed to be slowly relaxed into universality; That salami tactics will be used to extend mandatory inclusion in the database.
If it's such a boon to be there I think the government should lead the way by ensuring that all MP's, Ministers, Lords, and senior civil servants should be asked to volunteer to be on there. If there is no stigma, and it's such a benefit, how can they possibly object?
IP != Capitalism
Here is a Techdirt article on IP law which I found interesting and is, I think, the first in a series. It's US centric, referring to the constitution, but the ideas at work are universal. After reviewing the writings of the founders the conclusion was that it was done...
However, it was clearly done with ambivalence, and the recognition that such "exclusive" rights could have more downsides than advantages. Note, also, that they were clear in their language, that the sole purpose of granting these exclusive rights was "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." From that reading, it should be clear that any use of these types of monopolies in ways that do not promote the progress of science and useful arts is not covered by the Constitution at all.
The comments are interesting and, as you might expect, polarized. One comment that I thought particularly requires addressing was by Matt Fen:
Patents and IP are a good thing for the country and individuals. I have a patent. I am looking at starting a business around it. That business will take much capital. If I am going to pour my money or someone else's into the endeavor it clearly matters that I have exclusive control over the idea. If not, where is the incentive to risk treasure? This is fundamental to the success of Capitalism, and why other systems that may look good on paper fail.
It's really not clear to me at all why the commenters assertion that patents are "fundamental to the success of Capitalism" should be true. Patents may be good for the patenting company (although this is far from certain, just ask Charles Goodyear) and in some cases they may be "fundamental to one company cornering a market and making the maximum profit for itself" but this, to the best of my knowledge, is not actually a definition of capitalism.
In fact if we take a definition of capitalism from Wikipedia:
Capitalism refers to an economic and social system in which the means of production are predominantly private owned and operated, and in which investments, distribution, income, production and pricing of goods and services are determined through the operation of a market economy.
then the idea of the government interfering to grant monopolies to specific companies - and, in doing so, deforming the market economy - is, more or less, antithetical to capitalism.
In the commenters case he sees the path to success as being "owning the idea". Having a patent essentially means his company can be lazy, inefficient, do everything wrong, not serve customers but still, potentially, be very profitable because it will not have to put up with competition. I'm sure potential investors will love that. (Note I do not mean to imply this is the commenters intention, simply that this is a corollary of the grant of a patent).
It is also worth addressing the point:
"If not, where is the incentive to risk treasure?"
The incentive is profit. And don't those who implement an idea well have as much right to profit as those who think of it?
As someone who is rarely short of an ideas I too hope, one day, to prosper through them. Given the reality of IP law today I guess that, despite my ideas springing from the wealth of knowledge freely given to me by those who have gone before, I guess that I don't rule out applying for patents. In our present system it may be in the individuals advantage in maximizing their potential returns.
But I would be in favor of a review of IP law that sought to redress the balance in favor of James Madisons view:
"But grants of this sort can be justified in very peculiar cases only, if at all; the danger being very great that the good resulting from the operation of the monopoly, will be overbalanced by the evil effect of the precedent; and it being not impossible that the monopoly itself, in its original operation, may produce more evil than good."
Words cannot express
From the WTF generator:
"Windows Vista Sensei travels from place to place in a quest to help the underprivileged global citizens. He shows up when you least expect him and always when he's most needed. When it means defending and securing those in need, he's always ready!" -- [Meet the Fource]
"One day a young powerful warrior showed up and introduced himself. Office Master knew of this warrior from stories told. He possesses great skills and strengths of which most have never seen before. His name is Windows Vista Sensei and he is on a crusade against security threats that are wreaking havoc against the world as we know it (but he needed help). He asked Office Master to join him in his quest." -- [Meet the Fource]
You can just feel stock values soaring at this bold, new, Microsoft initiative. A worthy successor to the legendary Bob! (Whose action figure must surely be imminent!)
(Found via Kevin Burton, bless you Kevin)
eciffo tsop
So I was out today and missed a special delivery package that I have to sign for. The van it's on won't be back before the delivery office shuts at 6pm today. This is not the first time this has happened.
Really I would prefer they not try and deliver my package at all. I'd like an option that they just email or call me when the package arrives at the delivery office and I come pick it up. Cheaper for them and, honestly, more convenient for me than deliveries I am rarely around to receive.
After dinner entertainment
Just as we were about to leave the Trattoria in Torbe (after a rather nice meal of Baccalà) the village choir just seemed to spring into life in the next room:
The bellringers of Torbe
Among the many things we did today around Verona (including some rather nice wine from local vineyards) we stopped in at the church in Torbe where some of Stefano's family were among those ringing the bells.
Quite a unique experience.
Nation of Men
Kevin Burton's come up with a clever idea:
The Whitehouse seems to be missing a lot of their email (some of which sent over normal channels like AT&T, Sprint, etc) which they're required by law to maintain.
The White House admitted to Congress last fall, according to members who were present at the closed-door session, that archives have gone missing for hundreds of days' worth of e-mail messages.
The reported gaps involve 473 days in a 20-month period from 2003 to 2005.
Why can't we just use the NSA's database to restore these emails?
That really would be hoisting Bush by his own petard. But I think Burton's best point is:
For a moment let's ignore the stupidity of asking the fox to guard the hen house (a 3rd party should be archiving the email in real time).
This is an interesting idea. We've had similar issues here in the UK I think. I'm sure that all official emails and communications being archived by an (independent?) 3rd party would make inquiries so much easier and cheaper.
Does anyone know the real picture in the UK? I'm all for accountability so this might be worth making a fuss about.
He has execute style hair. We think it will turn silver.
What is remarkable though is that naive observers are somehow able to extract information (based on more than just age or beauty) from a brief glance at a chief executive's face, which is in some way linked to his company's success. -- [BPS Research Digest]
Dilbert is on the money again it seems ;-)
Alright, grab a shovel. I'm only one skull short of a Mouseketeer reunion.
Here's how to tell that you love a show:
When you decide to watch all four seasons again you start by watching all the commentaries first... again.
That show would be Futurama. Those guys had a blast.
For Straw read Hacker
Listening to the Today programme coverage of the latest bugging scandal my thoughts were, more or less:
Read "Hacker" for "Straw" and you've got yourself an episode of Yes, Minister.
In particular this part of the story:
David Davis, the shadow home secretary, said it showed that Justice Secretary Jack Straw was out of control of his department.
He said it was "beyond belief that the department would not flag up to a minister" that long-standing guidelines had been broken within the department.
"It now appears that Mr. Straw is in as little control of his department as the home secretary is of hers," he said.
It tickles me when one politician accuses another of "losing control of their department" when they know that they all have, at best, tenuous control over the bureaucracy they teeter atop.
I was encouraged by the line the BBC took, that perhaps we and our politicians should be more disgusted with the state of the intelligence gathering in this country.
Have the frogs noticed the gas being turned up at last?
By the Quayside, Buy the Quay
My friend Rainer Brockerhoff is back with the latest version of his Quay utility timed to coincide with the, soon to be forthcoming, 10.5.2 release of MacOSX Leopard.
What's amazing to me is that this is actually the third incarnation of Quay in almost as many months. Rainer's good enough (and confident enough) that he is not afraid to start from scratch if he sees a much better way of doing things. Quay is designed to work well, yet be unobtrusive.
I haven't been of much help to him testing Quay because I never really used the Dock (my Dock is auto-hidden) in Tiger always preferring Quicksilver. So I didn't miss anything about the existing Dock functionality when Leopard. I did try out the previous version of Quay but... well... it just doesn't occur to me to reach for the Dock very often, I'm conditioned to hit Cmd+Space (my Quicksilver shortcut) if I need to find something.
However from the screenshots I think the new version of Quay looks very stylish. Rainer seems to have put a lot of effort into polishing this version and I think it will show. If you do use the Dock a lot and, especially, if you found the changes in Leopard less than a perfect trade-off, I think you might want to check out Quay after he releases 1.1.
Ryanair: chiselers?
Over the last 5 years or so I have been quite grateful for Ryanair as their cheap flights have made it possible for me to do things like meeting with Paolo which I could not imagine would have happened in the 1990's.
But I am finding them an increasingly unpleasant business to deal with as they find new ways of chiseling money out me. The latest is around check-in.
A few months ago I flew to Trieste and, as I had done the previous time, I selected internet check-in. I travel light and using internet check-in meant I could leave for the airport some 90 minutes later which given my journey involves the M4, M25, and M11, is quite a boon.
But I was unable to book the flight. It told me that I couldn't use internet check-in. I phoned Ryanair and they told me this was due to a change in policy at Stansted airport. Stansted they said was unhappy with the number of people in the airport who hadn't checked-in at a desk.
This was very annoying but I went along with it. However when I got to Stansted I had some time on my hands so I persued the matter with the BAA airport staff. They flat out denied Ryanair's claim and pointed at the all of the online check-in terminals waiting for such passengers.
Who do I believe?
Today I am having the same problem. I want to fly to Treviso but, again, it won't let me select internet check-in. I wanted to call Ryanair to follow-up since I now had Stansted telling me the "we don't want internet check-in" line was a load of hogwash. I wanted to know what the reason could be.
But now I can't even talk to RyanAir. Dialling their 10p a minute line I had to listen to 2 minutes of waffle before I could select "1" for internet support. Only to get more waffle that told me I would have to redial another number that cost £1 per minute!
I wonder how much money they are making from this? Every caller (and their line was engaged for some time, probably with people busily listening to the same long recorded message) is paying them at least 20p. How many go on to pay at least a further ££ on the other number?
I have a feeling this is a pretty shabby way of squeezing cash out of customers that doesn't appear on the ticket price.
When I went back to the bookings page I noticed that the cost of checking in one bag at the airport is now £18 and it even costs me £6 to check-in without any bags.
Again, none of this price is on their ticket price.
So they list an internet check-in option which is free which means they can claim the lower ticket price. But then I see no way to obtain that price.
I think this is, at best, a deceptive practice.
I'm still going to fly with Ryanair this time but I am feeling somewhat aggrieved about this and will definitely look at other options in the future.
Update:
I should point out that it's not, per se, the money that's the problem here. If they wanted to charge for internet check-in I could live with that. It's the perception that barriers are put in my way that stop me getting the service I want in order to get that money. That's what I suspect and am hostile to.
And I'm not the only one who has complaints about Ryanair online check-in procedures.
Update#2:
Okay I have an answer.
I called Stansted airport again and they re-affirmed that there is no issue with online check-in. I phoned Ryanair again and took a bookings option and asked there.
The girl I spoke to said that the reason was because online check-in was not offered at the Italian airport. This I knew, I've always had to check-in normally at Trieste. Howevertheir system changed in September 2007 so that where before you could book it and just check-in normally now it would refuse the booking.
The answer is to make two bookings instead of one and the person I spoke to from Ryanair last year was... well I'm not sure what he was. He was certainly insisting that Stansted had changed the rules so he was either wildly misinformed or just didn't care.
Now that there is a rational explanation for things I am less aggrieved and am just left thinking the Ryanair make it so much harder for themselves, and for me, than it need be.
So I retract my point about it being deceptive. But the point about them chiseling stands and I guess the rest can be put down to incompetence and poor customer service instead.
What will Matz do?
I'm listening to Zed's podcast on leaving the Ruby community. I think he makes good points about the state of the Ruby platform.
He describes the problems with MRI, the Matz Ruby Interpreter or "official Ruby", and how quite often problems only get fixed because a smart guy (like Eric Mahurin or MenTaLguY) comes along and replaces the MRI code with something entirely new, not fix, replace. Essentially a slash & burn approach to fixing the barn. This doesn't suggest that the MRI code is terribly maintainable. I've done some C coding although I haven't been terribly active with it in the last decade, but enough to write some C extensions for Ruby. Frankly the MRI code scares me.
On the other hand we have Rubinius rapidly speccing out Ruby's behaviours and writing Ruby-in-Ruby on top of a tight virtual machine. They're playing catch up, but catch up they will and one day in the not too distant future there is going to be a Rubinius that is equivalent to and, at the same time, better than the MRI.
What does Matz do then?
Ruby 1.9/2.0 has taken a long time and I'm not sure there is an end in sight. Would it not be faster to evolve the language by jettisoning the MRI and switching to evolving the language on Rubinius?
As Zed points out Rubinius comes with specs and the code written in Ruby. When you want to develop a new feature would you rather be hacking on ugly C code and macros (and constantly anxious about what will break in the GC or some other, little understood, C module) or would you rather be looking at Ruby code with a spec describing its behaviour? Backed up by a series of specs to help pick up regressions?
Even though he wrote a lot of that C code and surely understands it well (at least as well as anyone), it would be a great surprise to me if Matz didn't answer the latter.
Could he make the switch and adopt Rubinius as the new MVM?
Stowe nails the Microsoft+Yahoo merger
Personally, I think the Microsoft and Yahoo matchup is like two tired swimmers who bump into each other and then wind up drowning each other in their scramble to survive. But Yahoo will be the first to go under in this embrace. -- [Stowe Boyd]