Personal Oct 9, 2006
On a scale from 1 to 10, I would say my website is about a 7 in terms of how personal it is.  I write a good deal of personal opinions and thoughts, but I have to admit there are a few more "layers of the onion" I'm not willing to share with the internet.  Or at least I'm not willing to share them without anonymity.  It's kinda weird that I'm this candid and open with the internet, seeing that I'm a relatively shy and introverted person.  But for whatever reason, I've decided to make many of my views and ideas readable by countless people.  This becomes a slightly weird thing as more and more people find out that I have a website.  Several family members have found out about it, and I'm sure they're not only surprised that I have so much to say, but also shocked at some of the views I express.  It's always an awkward conversation when someone (a.k.a. Wendy) says, "Oh, Dave has a website.  You should check it out."  Meanwhile, I'm in the background denying that the website exists and trying to change the subject.  Different groups of friends and acquaintances have heard about it or stumbled upon it, and this makes me get the occasional desire to curb some posts around my perceived audience.  This is obviously not what I'm gonna do, but I still sometimes have the fear that my website will get me fired or lose me friends (meh).  I just sorta hope that the people who find my website either read it briefly then toss it aside because it's uninteresting and irrelevant, or become completely enthralled with everything I say and feel the need to leave copious comments that feed my enormous ego.  I hope they don't do what I do when I find somebody's website:  Read it privately and think about how much of a loser the person is for having a website. #technology
Referral programs Oct 6, 2006
In addition to some of my recent money-making schemes such as advertising and PayPerPost, I've gotten into a similar system:  Referral/affiliate programs.  Many of the products I've tried and have been happy with recently have some sort of way of referring customers to them by rewarding the referrer.  1and1 is the site I used to register this domain and a few others.  They offer a good service at consistently low prices (despite my sometimes negative feelings).  Dreamhost is my web host.  I've been pleased for several months now (despite a few hiccups).  AdBrite and Text Link Ads are my two current advertisers, though I haven't yet made my final decision about either of them.  Amazon.com has an affiliate program (and a simple script to generate pretty referral links).  And of course, PayPerPost has a referral program for you to make money while making me money.  The only difference is that you need to enter my email address in the referral box when you sign up.  It's not too complicated.  Despite some pretty negative opinions about PayPerPost, I'm still keeping a positive attitude.  Most people's objections to the system stem from the fact that money can bias a writer's opinion.  Are there ads in newspapers and magazines?  Yes.  Are there ads on TV and the radio?  Yes.  Yet we trust those freaks to give us "fair and balanced" news and opinion.  It's no different with this.  But like I mentioned previously, I refuse to accept money offered in an attempt to change my opinion.  So anyway, sign up for PayPerPost and make me money. 

Update (2006-12-12 9:10am):  PayPerPost has a newer, simpler affiliate program.  Just click this affiliate link and sign up. 

This is a sponsored post. #entertainment
Dinosaurs in the Bible Oct 6, 2006
A relatively common question people have about/against the Bible and Christianity is this:  "Why doesn't the Bible say anything about dinosaurs?"  I've already proven my ineptitude once before when it comes to dinosaurs, so I'll try to even out my record (or dig a deeper hole) with these ideas: 

1.  Just because the Bible doesn't specifically mention dinosaurs doesn't mean they didn't exist.  The creation story in Genesis 1 isn't very detailed.  It says God created "living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals".  It doesn't mention cats, dogs, bunnies, turtles, or groundhogs.  "Yeah, but those are small, unimportant animals."  True, but it also doesn't mention any huge or deadly animals like lions, tigers, bears (don't say it), elephants, hippos, rhinos, sharks, or whales.  Most other mention of animals throughout the Bible is to cattle and livestock because those were the most important animals seeing that they were treated as currency.  The lack of inclusion of something in the Bible doesn't prove its lack of existence. 

2.  Perhaps the Bible does mention dinosaurs and we've just been overlooking it.  Job 40:15-18 says,
Look at the behemoth, which I made along with you and which feeds on grass like an ox.  What strength he has in his loins, what power in the muscles of his belly!  His tail sways like a cedar; the sinews of his thighs are close-knit.  His bones are tubes of bronze, his limbs like rods of iron.
If you were to draw a picture with this description, what would it look like?  A brontosaurus!  The footnote for "behemoth" says it could refer to an elephant or a hippo, and the "tail" could refer to an elephant's trunk.  Sure, this is possible.  But I think it's also plausible that this is referring to a dinosaur. 

Another similar passage talks about something called "leviathan".  Job 41:14-21 says,
Who dares open the doors of his mouth, ringed about with his fearsome teeth?  His back has rows of shields tightly sealed together; each is so close to the next that no air can pass between.  They are joined fast to one another; they cling together and cannot be parted.  His snorting throws out flashes of light; his eyes are like the rays of dawn.  Firebrands stream from his mouth; sparks of fire shoot out.  Smoke pours from his nostrils as from a boiling pot over a fire of reeds.  His breath sets coals ablaze, and flames dart from his mouth.
If you were to draw a picture of this description, what would it look like?  A fire-breathing dragon!  The footnote for "leviathan" says it could refer to a crocodile.  Sure, crocodiles have big teeth and rows of shields on their backs, but what about the breathing of fire?  The last crocodile I saw lacked this ability. 

Initially, the thought of a dragon sounds pretty stupid because everybody knows dragons are mythical creatures.  But what if they're not?  Isn't it weird that numerous cultures from around the world incorporated the idea of a fire-breathing dragon into their belief system or mythology?  Why didn't they come up with the idea of a fire-breathing bear or lion?  Why was it a giant green lizard with scales and wings?  And why was the myth of the dragon prevalent in China, Arabia, Greek mythology, Hindu mythology, and Aboriginal Australia?  Can word really travel that far? 

And what about the breathing of fire?  Consider the case of the bombardier beetle, a bug native to Africa.  This tiny animal mixes hydroquinones, hydrogen peroxide, and a few catalysts in its abdomen to produce an explosive reaction that it shoots out its back end for the purpose of self-defense.  This BBC article says that the boiling hot, toxic fluid even lets out a "loud bang on detonation".  So basically, we have a fire-breathing (or fire-shooting) bug.  In addition to this, some scientists believe that certain dinosaurs had an extra chamber in their skulls for the purpose of storing chemicals that could be used for mixing and breathing fire.  With these two ideas, it's not that much of a stretch to conclude that the idea of the existence of a dragon is at least somewhat possible.  Crazy, huh? #religion
That Was Me Oct 5, 2006
That Was Me is a site with user-submitted pictures that contain someone who wasn't supposed to be in the picture.  The guy on the front page is pretty funny.  (via Neatorama) #entertainment
PayPerPost Oct 5, 2006
PayPerPost is an interesting yet controversial new web service that pays bloggers to write about certain topics or products.  TechCrunch recently wrote about this new form of blog advertising, giving some details about venture capital and other mumbo jumbo "grownup" ideas.  I personally think it's a great idea, as long as people are honest.  Unfortunately, judging from all of human history, people aren't honest, so this will most likely eventually turn into another spam advertising platform where someone with a lot of money will pay for someone else to write positive things about their negative product/service.  It sucks, but that's how it is.  However, on the positive side, this can be a really cool way for bloggers to get some money and advertisers to get their product known.  Several times in the past, I've written about products that have blown me away with their effectiveness and/or ease of use.  I sometimes jokingly put a little note at the end of my posts saying something like, "Hey I just advertised your product because I really like it.  Feel free to send me some money."  I don't think that would ever actually happen in real life, but maybe PayPerPost will change that.  TechCrunch says that the controversy stems from "the fact that advertisers can mandate that posts be positive on the product".  This is essentially bribery:  An advertiser is paying a person to give a positive opinion.  To makes things clear, I won't be accepting bribes.  PayPerPost has a very simple "choosing" system.  You can choose to write about a certain product, or you can choose not to.  It's quite simple.  I won't be letting my violent, greedy love of money get in the way of expressing my hateful, erroneous, and mostly irrelevant opinions. 

This is a sponsored post. #entertainment
Arizona No Carb Tea Oct 5, 2006
I bought this stuff called "Arizona No Carb Peach Green Tea" [1] because it seemed like a good idea at the time.  I was in Target thinking, "I'm sorta sick of normal green tea.  I feel like branching out.  How about peach-flavored?"  The reason it's "No Carb" is because it uses sorbitol instead of sugar.  Sorbitol is a sugar alcohol that gets processed very slowly by the body, so it doesn't affect blood sugar levels.  That's all fine and dandy, but let me restate that it's a sugar alcohol.  It doesn't mean it gets you drunk, but it might have something to do with the fact that it tastes like peach schnapps.  I would assume that drinking peach schnapps would normally be a fun and enjoyable thing, but this is far from enjoyable.  Wikipedia says sorbitol is also used in cough syrups.  And there you have it.  I've been drinking peach schnapps cough syrup green tea for lunch.  No wonder I feel like puking. 

[1] It's listed as Diet Peach Green Tea on the Arizona website, but they replaced the word "Diet" with "No Carb" on the bottle I bought. #food
Peak fall foliage map Oct 5, 2006
This map shows the normal peak fall colors in various parts of the country.  Very cool.  (via Kottke) #nature
Job (1) Oct 5, 2006
I was listening to a show on the radio a little while ago that was talking about what's most important to people in terms of their job, whether it's how hard their boss drives them, how cool their co-workers are, or something else.  A former boss told me that the best jobs he's ever had have been when he's working for a boss that he really enjoys working for.  His belief was that the boss made all the difference.  I don't know if I agree with that idea.  I guess it depends on who I consider my boss to be.  In any given job, I usually have 3 or 4 levels of bosses, all of which have varying degrees of involvement in and impact on my daily working life.  If the boss in question is the person directly involved with giving me work to do on a daily basis, I would say it's extremely important that I like and/or get along with this person.  If there's a bad vibe there, I'll try to avoid this person or attempt to get a job with someone else.  But if the boss in question is one of the other levels of bosses, it hardly makes a difference to me if I like them or not.  My interaction with them usually consists of corporate formalities created to give each of us raises.  These bosses need to "rate" me on my "performance" (which they haven't directly observed so can only give a second-hand opinion), and they need me to "rate" their "performance" as "managers" (were all those quotes necessary?).  It's all just a stupid little game created by some dudes in a Lean Six Sigma blah blah MBA class. 

My relationships with co-workers aren't usually very important to me either.  I think that's based on two things:  (1) I don't go to work to make friends, and (2) I've never had a terrible relationship with a co-worker.  It seems like it would be a cool thing to get a job where I'm working with some good friends.  I've had jobs like that in the past, and it's mostly just fun and games, interspersed here and there with some "work".  The obvious disadvantage of a job like that is that productivity goes down (not that it's "up" to begin with), and it might get a little old working with the same people you hang out with socially.  It's like working with your spouse.  How about a little alone time every now and then? 

For me, the most important part about a job is ... ya know ... the job.  I need to be doing something that interests me or at least provides me some amount of satisfaction.  For different people, this means different things.  Certain people simply want to cross things off their to-do list.  The more tasks accomplished, the better, whether that means writing a document or designing a spaceship.  This doesn't fly with me [pun].  I need to be doing some sort of math, science, or engineering to get satisfaction from a job.  I need to be solving equations.  I need to be using Excel, Matlab, or Solidworks to solve problems or model things.  It makes no difference to me how big or small these tasks are.  It could be a single equation for a single screw in a single part of an enormous system.  It makes no difference, as long as I'm using some of the nonsense I learned in 17 years of school. 

Another important thing for me is the big picture:  What the company or group does as a whole.  I like jobs that have a cool description.  For example, if I worked on little tiny equations that helped a rocket get to the moon, I could say I work for a company that sends rockets to the moon.  Even if my daily activities have nothing to do with rockets or sending them to the moon, it sounds cool to work for that type of company.  On the other hand, if I did really important things for a pharmaceutical company, it wouldn't be quite as cool to talk about my job because let's face it, pharmaceuticals aren't that exciting.  I take some pills when I have a headache.  That's all I really need to know. 

But in the end, work doesn't really matter to me.  I don't try to find satisfaction through work.  I don't base my worth or my happiness on what I do for 8-10 hours a day.  Although that sounds slightly stupid (since 8-10 hours is the majority of my daily life), I find satisfaction through other things.  I like to fix my house.  I like to watch football.  I like to snowboard.  I like to swim in the Caribbean.  Work is just the thing I do when I'm not doing the things I like.  It's really just the means with which I pay for the things I want.  A means to an end. #business
70s clothes guy (1) Oct 4, 2006
There's this guy at work whose entire wardrobe consists of clothes he purchased in the 1970s.  I never claim to be the kind of person who has much fashion sense, so I'm not really in a position to cast judgement.  But this guy is ridiculous.  His clothes aren't just a few years old or even 10-20 years old.  I have a few shirts from about 10 years ago that still fit me (if I had anything from before then, I'd be wearing children's clothes).  His clothes are a good 30 years old.  The reason I can tell the clothes are from the 70s is because they're extremely tight-fitting (and they still fit; kudos to his incredible form) and they consist of colors and patterns that are impossible to find in any type of clothing these days.  It looks like he bought everything from a thrift store, except I can tell he's the person who supplies the thrift store, not the one who shops there.  His bell-bottom dress pants flare out nicely at the bottom and almost reach the tops of his shiny little leather shoes.  His shirts are always strange combinations of light blue, pink, and yellow, and his pants are always some sort of brown or blue.  I've shopped for clothes before.  I know what's out there.  And I know there's nothing like this out there.  This guy hasn't bought new clothes since Jimmy Carter was president.  He hasn't changed his style since the last episode of the Brady Bunch.  He hasn't ... ok that's enough.  My main point is this:  We work at the same place.  Judging from his age, I would say he makes about twice as much as I do.  If I'm able to afford some new clothes every now and then, I think he should be able to as well.  It's not that there's anything wrong with old clothes or being too poor to get new clothes.  Hand-me-downs, consignment shops, and thrift stores are all great things.  But this guy has no need to be wearing 30-year-old clothes.  It's just inexcusable. #lifestyle
Why blog? Oct 4, 2006
Zeldman wrote a little thing about how he's tired of writing/blogging and how he hardly has time to do it.  Some of the comments left by readers of his site echo his sentiments, especially, "My rate of blogging has slowed down massively, partly due to being ill and just really not having anything worthwhile blogging happening, which has left me struggling to do just one post a month."  This presents the obvious question:  "Why blog?" or "Why write?" (if you hate the word "blog"). 

One reason is that some people feel the need to keep a pattern going.  In the old days of plain text HTML editing, slow dial-up connections, and a lack of blogging tools, I would occasionally start up a website and update it a few times, only to let it fall into disuse and old information.  Every once in a while, I would feel bad about publishing a website and not updating it, so I would make a few changes and add some new stuff.  I continued to do this simply because it was something I started.  I have a habit of persevering being stubborn. 

Another reason some people blog is to keep a record of their actions.  This, in my opinion, is one of the worst things to write about, and it's definitely one of the worst to read as well.  Learning the minute details of a person's everyday life is incredibly boring.  There's a reason why they're called "minute details".  Sometimes it can be interesting if the writer does exciting things or if they have a unique take on a certain event.  But most times, it's about as exciting as listening to a play-by-play of a day in the life of average Joe.  "Today I went to class.  Then I went to the gym.  Later, I'm meeting up with some friends to watch Finding Nemo."  Ooh how fascinating.  Please tell me more. 

The third and most important reason people blog is because they have something to say.  Whether they tell stories, share thoughts and opinions, or comment on what they find interesting, people who have something to say will continue to write as long as they continue to have something to say.  The obvious argument against this is that people who really have something to say will actually say it.  Ya know, like to a person.  But for those of us who have insignificant things to say or not enough people to listen, writing on the internet can be quite liberating and enjoyable. 

So for a person to say they "struggle" to write a single post per month, they shouldn't be writing at all.  They obviously either don't have the desire to write or don't have anything to say (or don't have the desire to write it in a blog).  When has not having enough time had any impact on a person's ability to complete a task or accomplish a goal they truly desired to complete?  Never.  And if any of their posts start with, "It's been a while since I last updated this thing," they shouldn't be wasting their effort or their reader's time by writing minuscule little half-thoughts done out of necessity and obligation.  That's my two cents. #technology