Persistence...

Not to seem a braggart, but in my experience persistence does seem to make a big difference. I've found this to be the case in chess, in translation, in writing, and in programming.

I say this about persistence because I often see people give up on things at the very first obstacle, offering the excuse "I can't do it." Often, such people can be found sitting around and saying "I'm bored." (Not directed at anyone in particular, BTW.)

Yesterday, I turned once more to that PHP script that'd been bothering me and found that I had a typo in the if statement that controls everything. When I fixed the typo, the script worked. Duh.

This morning, I turned once more to my MySQL book, and it fell open at an appendix that explains MySQL user administration, which I think will go a long way toward improving my spotty understanding of that area. I'm almost certain this appendix was not mentioned in the main body of the text; no matter, though, even if I missed the reference, I still found it. It's answering all my questions.

In any event, last night I also figured out how to have my desktop "see" my eSlate over the network and was soon running the problem-tracking application. Compared to the progress of the past several days, which I would characterize as short, jerky movements in a car that stayed mostly in the same place, last night I was roaring around a Formula 1 course at a couple of hundred miles per hour.

Not surprisingly, the application that came with the book is far from complete, so much so that it's really not usable, IMHO. So, I've started to make a list of the mods that will have to be made before it can be installed in the store.

Coffee's ready. Talk later. :^)

Cheers...

Let's start a conspiracy theory!

Check out this photo of comet Borelly, taken by the Deep Space 1 probe on Saturday:



Does anyone else see the face? [Hint: Look at the edge of the "terminator."] If truth be told, I can make out a large head, with a pointy nose and wide open mouth, on top of a small body with a short, stubby right arm extended, and forefinger pointing, as if making a point.

Such solid scientific evidence cannot simply be put down to "coincidence," if you ask me.

Just kidding.

Seriously, this is an awesome photo, especially considering that the camera that took it was jury-rigged to operate as a star tracker for navigation when the probe's own tracker went belly up, and was then coordinated to perform its original job at just the right instant.

Cheers...

A pair of surprises...

A bright point of light flared in the southeastern sky above Pagosa for a few seconds about half and hour ago. According to one of the local hams, who sent an e-mail to our local group, the flash was a reflection of the sun in the solar arrays of one of the Iridium satellites that circles the globe.

The satellite was very bright, reminding me a little of one of those magnesium flares the military uses to light up the night sky, except that there was no little parachute attached to this light, nor did it last for more than 4 or 5 seconds.

The other surprise, however, was not so pleasant. Galina and I watched Unbreakable yesterday, and the primary question on my mind was how anyone was able to convince Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson to star in this turkey.

Don't get me wrong, the premise of the film is interesting, there were a couple of interesting moments, and the denouement is attention-grabbing (for about 30 seconds), but overall the film left a lot to be desired. Technically, there are some interesting aspects to the film, and there are flashes of brilliance in the otherwise dismal attempt to develop characters, but when you find yourself examining the film for such details as you are watching it, you know there is a problem!

I opened the store today, and there were a number of details that had to be taken care of, keeping me there until early afternoon. It was a good thing, too, as more work arrived at about the time I got home, along with a couple of exasperating emails from people who Ought To Know Better. (Well, not all that exasperating, since I didn't let them get to me.) After reviewing the new work, I decided I had enough leeway in the deadline to concentrate on getting invoices out today (which I did), leaving me with travel expenses to file (and soon), along with the new work to translate.

Feht and Maria stopped by the store, and I ran into them when I went by around 5:15 pm to make copies of some forms (e.g., fax cover sheet) that I use often. He and Maria shanghaied me to the coffee shop, where we talked shop until about 6 pm.

Time to turn to...

Cheers...

AlexPGP finally takes... a test!

I am not normally one to join the crowd and take any of the many "tests" that have sprung up like toadstools on the Internet. However, inspired by the example of cg07446 (and intrigued by what his results referred to) I went and visited this page, which purports to order a set of philosophers/philosophies according to their compatibility with one's expressed choices on ethics. I took the test, with the following results:

1. Aristotle (100%)
2. Aquinas (99%)
3. Mill (90%)
4. Spinoza (77%)
5. Epicureans (74%)
6. Bentham (72%)
7. Kant (67%)
8. Rand (66%)
9. Augustine (65%)
10. Sartre (62%)
11. Nietzsche (61%)
12. Ockham (59%)
13. Cynics (57%)
14. Hume (57%)
15. Stoics (54%)
16. Plato (51%)
17. Noddings (45%)
18. Hobbes (43%)
19. Prescriptivism (40%)

Personally, I would have expected Rand to rank higher, and certainly would not expect to see her next to (and just below) Kant or within 5% of Sartre. Aquinas' high position is also a surprise.

Ah, well. Assuming the people who put together the test know what they are doing, I must be mellowing in my old age.

Cheers...