Crap lolly stick joke:
Q: When is a theatre clumsy?
A: When the curtain falls.
Write your own commentary, I can't be bothered.
20031027
20031024
Am I the only person to think that "Carnival of Love" by Texas sounds a lot like "Caravan of Love" by the Housemartins? Or is it just me? I'm listening to "Satellite of Love" by Lou Reed at the moment, which probably isn't helping.
Perhaps the word I'm thinking of is "scripopple", but that doesn't seem to be a word either. Oh well.
Perhaps the word I'm thinking of is "scripopple", but that doesn't seem to be a word either. Oh well.
Evening all. I've recently been fiddling around with my computer setup. I'm typing this on my laptop that I have brought back from the dead with a replacement power supply. Fans of my ill-fated laptop will recall that the springs don't work, hence why I am crouched on the edge of the sofa while the laptop is propped up on a chair in front of me, with wires trailing from all directions. This is progress, since it allows me to watch repeats of the Late Show while I type this. Those campaign jokes about the california recall election just keep getting funnier and funnier.
Anyway, what else is up? I feel a little disconcerted, since I did a quick google search for "scribobble", to see how people defined the word, and I discover that there are no hits for it on google, nor even any on Teoma. How can this be? If scribobble isn't a word, then what word am I thinking of? And what does scribobble mean?
I mean, obviously, a scribobble is a doodle which has consists of loops in a circular pattern, much like a manual version of a spirograph pattern (spirograph: 31,500 hits on google; doodle: 1.5million), but that's only one meaning. I'm now deeply confused about who has stolen the other meanings of scribobble (not to be confused with scrobble: 185 hits on google, most of them to do with the scrobbler plug in for winamp).
Hey, Teoma now have a google-style toolbar searchy thing plug in. And you can also get one from altavista (yes, they are stil going). Which leads to the following challenge: how many search engine toolbars can you collect, and install on your computer? Can you install so many search engine toolbars that there is no more space left in your browser to read webpages? Just an idea.
Oh yes, I know: new lolly stick joke. But I'll keep you waiting for a little while longer.
Anyway, what else is up? I feel a little disconcerted, since I did a quick google search for "scribobble", to see how people defined the word, and I discover that there are no hits for it on google, nor even any on Teoma. How can this be? If scribobble isn't a word, then what word am I thinking of? And what does scribobble mean?
I mean, obviously, a scribobble is a doodle which has consists of loops in a circular pattern, much like a manual version of a spirograph pattern (spirograph: 31,500 hits on google; doodle: 1.5million), but that's only one meaning. I'm now deeply confused about who has stolen the other meanings of scribobble (not to be confused with scrobble: 185 hits on google, most of them to do with the scrobbler plug in for winamp).
Hey, Teoma now have a google-style toolbar searchy thing plug in. And you can also get one from altavista (yes, they are stil going). Which leads to the following challenge: how many search engine toolbars can you collect, and install on your computer? Can you install so many search engine toolbars that there is no more space left in your browser to read webpages? Just an idea.
Oh yes, I know: new lolly stick joke. But I'll keep you waiting for a little while longer.
20031022
20031018
A few short things before I forget them.
1. An entry below appears twice. Not my fault. Can't be bothered to delete the duplicate.
2. The Angel in question is the Angel from DC. I'd link to her blog, but I... don't seem to be about to do so.
3. Boston is in Lincolnshire, not Lancashire. But I still like the coinage "Yankashire".
4. The correct answer was (a).
Now, some more user interactivity. How come I can get to sleep easily when it is raining outside and there is the sound of the rain falling, but not so easily when there is music playing but all I can hear is the drumbeat. Both are at the same volume, so why is the regular noise much more difficult to ignore than the random one? Answers on the back of an email to the regular address. To ensure prompt attention, please send your answers at 2am on Sunday morning EST (7am UK time), since this is the time when I receive least email and hence it is most likely to garner (jennifer) a response. cheers.
1. An entry below appears twice. Not my fault. Can't be bothered to delete the duplicate.
2. The Angel in question is the Angel from DC. I'd link to her blog, but I... don't seem to be about to do so.
3. Boston is in Lincolnshire, not Lancashire. But I still like the coinage "Yankashire".
4. The correct answer was (a).
Now, some more user interactivity. How come I can get to sleep easily when it is raining outside and there is the sound of the rain falling, but not so easily when there is music playing but all I can hear is the drumbeat. Both are at the same volume, so why is the regular noise much more difficult to ignore than the random one? Answers on the back of an email to the regular address. To ensure prompt attention, please send your answers at 2am on Sunday morning EST (7am UK time), since this is the time when I receive least email and hence it is most likely to garner (jennifer) a response. cheers.
Lost in translation
It's taken me a while, but I'm gradually working out a correspondence between british snack foods and america. Contrary to some of the comments posted at snackspot, I do find the variety of snacks available here pretty disappointing. Mostly it's in the crisps department: the basic options here are Lays and Doritos. Doritos should be familiar to UK readers, and Lays seem to be the equivalent of Walker's crisps -- except that the flavours seem to be mostly mild variations on plain (ready salted), rather than any of the exotic Worcester Sauce, Ketchup or Prawn Cocktail variations. Things have improved moderately thanks to the introduction of Pringles. Another part of the problem is that they seem to have great difficulty understanding the notion of a serving of crisps. As everyone knows, crisps should come in units of 28g, and preferably in multi-pack bags of 6 or 12 for about a quid. Here, you pay four dollars and get about a kilo of Dorito-derivative tortilla-style "chips". The problem with this is that if you are not a complete glutton, then you can't get through very much of this before the whole thing has gone off, and you have to throw the remainder away.
Again, there are a few glimmers of hope, in the form of multibags of Doritos (although the bags seem just that little bit too small), and Pringles, which are resealable and so seem to keep for much longer. But this is missing the point. Where are the frazzles? The Monster munch? Nik Naks? Those salt and vinegar spirals that it's almost impossible to find anymore>?
It's almost enough to make me want to use one of those online food ordering things where you end up paying about a pound a packet just for privelege of some decent snacks. I'm telling you, the minute they make Mountain Dew available in the UK with the full caffeine blast, I'm going back to the homeland.
Anyway, I almost forgot why I started this, which is to complain how inferior the US version of the UK versions are. This mostly applies to chocolate. I pretty quickly picked up that 3 Musketeers is about the same as a UK Milky Way, while a US Milky Way is what we would call a mars bar. Apparently, there is also a mars bar around here somewhere, but I've never seen one. These are OK, but they again fall down on the whole size and price issue. In the UK, you can get a 4 or 5 back of decent size mars bars for around a quid (when they are on offer). Here, you pay a few dollars for 10 'fun size' mars bar equivalents, which you need to eat two at a time to feel remotely satisfied, and even then you feel cheated.
Mounds are like little bounties, but aren't as good. Twix also come in stupidly small sizes, and one finger at a time, which is missing the point. They have Kit-kats here as well, but I haven't eaten any, since I am still Boycotting Nestle Products. I did once try a Nestle Crunch here, which is a chocolate / rice crispie style product, kind of like a lion bar, only flat. That would have been OK, but I won't eat them either now. But the thing that really made my blood boil was "Whoppers". I bought a pack of these yesterday. They are "malted milk ball", covered in chocolate. Aha! I thought to myself -- these must be maltesers! So I bought a pack (nice packaging -- they are in what's basically a tetrapak which opens really easily because it does't have to be waterproof) expecting some melt in the mouth excitement. Well, was a I disappointed. They are almost the same thing, but they don't melt at in the same way -- you end up sucking them too hard and hurt your mouth. The honeycomb like structure is replaced by a much crunchier (almost like a Crunchy) interior, and then after most of it has gone you are left with a nasty gritty taste that sticks to your teeth. Nice one, Hershey foods -- you have taken a product of wonder and delight, and tainted it for ever. Thanks.
It's taken me a while, but I'm gradually working out a correspondence between british snack foods and america. Contrary to some of the comments posted at snackspot, I do find the variety of snacks available here pretty disappointing. Mostly it's in the crisps department: the basic options here are Lays and Doritos. Doritos should be familiar to UK readers, and Lays seem to be the equivalent of Walker's crisps -- except that the flavours seem to be mostly mild variations on plain (ready salted), rather than any of the exotic Worcester Sauce, Ketchup or Prawn Cocktail variations. Things have improved moderately thanks to the introduction of Pringles. Another part of the problem is that they seem to have great difficulty understanding the notion of a serving of crisps. As everyone knows, crisps should come in units of 28g, and preferably in multi-pack bags of 6 or 12 for about a quid. Here, you pay four dollars and get about a kilo of Dorito-derivative tortilla-style "chips". The problem with this is that if you are not a complete glutton, then you can't get through very much of this before the whole thing has gone off, and you have to throw the remainder away.
Again, there are a few glimmers of hope, in the form of multibags of Doritos (although the bags seem just that little bit too small), and Pringles, which are resealable and so seem to keep for much longer. But this is missing the point. Where are the frazzles? The Monster munch? Nik Naks? Those salt and vinegar spirals that it's almost impossible to find anymore>?
It's almost enough to make me want to use one of those online food ordering things where you end up paying about a pound a packet just for privelege of some decent snacks. I'm telling you, the minute they make Mountain Dew available in the UK with the full caffeine blast, I'm going back to the homeland.
Anyway, I almost forgot why I started this, which is to complain how inferior the US version of the UK versions are. This mostly applies to chocolate. I pretty quickly picked up that 3 Musketeers is about the same as a UK Milky Way, while a US Milky Way is what we would call a mars bar. Apparently, there is also a mars bar around here somewhere, but I've never seen one. These are OK, but they again fall down on the whole size and price issue. In the UK, you can get a 4 or 5 back of decent size mars bars for around a quid (when they are on offer). Here, you pay a few dollars for 10 'fun size' mars bar equivalents, which you need to eat two at a time to feel remotely satisfied, and even then you feel cheated.
Mounds are like little bounties, but aren't as good. Twix also come in stupidly small sizes, and one finger at a time, which is missing the point. They have Kit-kats here as well, but I haven't eaten any, since I am still Boycotting Nestle Products. I did once try a Nestle Crunch here, which is a chocolate / rice crispie style product, kind of like a lion bar, only flat. That would have been OK, but I won't eat them either now. But the thing that really made my blood boil was "Whoppers". I bought a pack of these yesterday. They are "malted milk ball", covered in chocolate. Aha! I thought to myself -- these must be maltesers! So I bought a pack (nice packaging -- they are in what's basically a tetrapak which opens really easily because it does't have to be waterproof) expecting some melt in the mouth excitement. Well, was a I disappointed. They are almost the same thing, but they don't melt at in the same way -- you end up sucking them too hard and hurt your mouth. The honeycomb like structure is replaced by a much crunchier (almost like a Crunchy) interior, and then after most of it has gone you are left with a nasty gritty taste that sticks to your teeth. Nice one, Hershey foods -- you have taken a product of wonder and delight, and tainted it for ever. Thanks.
Now, continuing on from below, who is sending me all this email? Well, I decided to look at just the last log file that I took, which covers roughly the first 9 months of this year. This contained 7093 messages. After filtering out spam based on ignoring low frequency addresses, I was left with 4146 messages. 1779 of these came from mailing lists, most notably from the trivmiscers (you know who you are) who accounted for 988 in the period I was monitoring.
So, to break those figures down, they give a daily average of: 25.3 messages, of which 10.5 are spam. 3.5 are from trivmisc, which, after taking out other lists, leaves 8.4 real messages to deal with.
61% of mail addressed to me (removing spam and lists) is to do with my work. This is potentially depressing. More so may be that 20% of my mail comes from my boss, 13% from industrial researchers that I'm working with, 9% from students in a class, leaving roughly 16% from other sources. (that should add up to about 53%, but there is some rounding).
29% of my mail is personal, which is less than I might have imagined. 9% of my personal mail is from the loosely defined RDP conglomerate, for which I am greatly thankful. Another 20% comes from other assorted friends. That leaves the 10% of my mail which is to do with administrative matters. Which isn't so bad, I suppose.
Lastly, I'm sure you're all asking, on what days do I receive most mail? Well, it breaks down as follows. In total I recorded 33732 email messages. These were received as follows:
Mondays - 16%
Tuedays - 16%
Wednesdays - 18%
Thursdays - 21%
Fridays - 17%
Saturdays - 5%
Sundays - 5%
So, people send slightly more email on thursdays (or they spam more, I didn't bother with that breakdown). And there really is a slackening off at the weekend, perhaps the spammers take the weekend off. No real difference between saturdays and sundays.
Lastly, and I'm sure you're dying to know this, the time distribution of received emails.
Well, there you have it. Most email arrives between 3 and 4 in the afternoon. Makes you think, eh?
(Errors due to differences in local time, differing timezones, and such like, carefully and deliberately ignored).
OK, that's quite enough data mining for now.
So, to break those figures down, they give a daily average of: 25.3 messages, of which 10.5 are spam. 3.5 are from trivmisc, which, after taking out other lists, leaves 8.4 real messages to deal with.
61% of mail addressed to me (removing spam and lists) is to do with my work. This is potentially depressing. More so may be that 20% of my mail comes from my boss, 13% from industrial researchers that I'm working with, 9% from students in a class, leaving roughly 16% from other sources. (that should add up to about 53%, but there is some rounding).
29% of my mail is personal, which is less than I might have imagined. 9% of my personal mail is from the loosely defined RDP conglomerate, for which I am greatly thankful. Another 20% comes from other assorted friends. That leaves the 10% of my mail which is to do with administrative matters. Which isn't so bad, I suppose.
Lastly, I'm sure you're all asking, on what days do I receive most mail? Well, it breaks down as follows. In total I recorded 33732 email messages. These were received as follows:
Mondays - 16%
Tuedays - 16%
Wednesdays - 18%
Thursdays - 21%
Fridays - 17%
Saturdays - 5%
Sundays - 5%
So, people send slightly more email on thursdays (or they spam more, I didn't bother with that breakdown). And there really is a slackening off at the weekend, perhaps the spammers take the weekend off. No real difference between saturdays and sundays.
Lastly, and I'm sure you're dying to know this, the time distribution of received emails.
%
10.0 ##
9.75 ##
9.50 ##
9.25 ##
9.00 ##
8.75 ##
8.50 ##
8.25 ##
8.00 ##
7.75 ##
7.50 ##
7.25 ####
7.00 ####
6.75 ####
6.50 ## ######
6.25 ############
6.00 ##############
5.75 ################
5.50 ##################
5.25 ##################
5.00 ####################
4.75 ######################
4.50 ######################
4.25 ######################
4.00 ######################
3.75 ########################
3.50 ########################
3.25 ##############################
3.00 ##############################
2.75 ##############################
2.50 ##############################
2.25## ##############################
2.00## ##############################
1.75## ##############################
1.50#### #### ################################
1.25##############################################
1.00##############################################
0.75##############################################
0.50##############################################
0.25##############################################
0.00##############################################
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3
Well, there you have it. Most email arrives between 3 and 4 in the afternoon. Makes you think, eh?
(Errors due to differences in local time, differing timezones, and such like, carefully and deliberately ignored).
OK, that's quite enough data mining for now.
OK, here is a refinement of the previous figure. It shows "real mail" as #s, and "spam" as *s. Clearly, I need a definition of spam for this to work. As a rough approximation, I'm counting any message for which I received only one message from that address as spam. Clearly that will include some non-spam, but it will also miss some spam where the spammer sends from the same address multiple times. A quick scan of which addresses this hits shows that it is pretty good, suggesting that whitelisting might be the way ahead.
Now, this shows that I get a pretty good amount of real mail to spam, by this measure. The diagram is a little misleading, because of the rounding, but it's not too bad. Except that, for the last couple of months, the spam rate has been creeping towards 50%, having jumped to 550 spam messages in september, from an average of about 100 in last year. Of course, most of these seem to be coming from one of my accounts that is being forwarded and filtered into a folder, so maybe I should just switch this off.
Next up, an analysis of who is sending me real mail. I bet you can't wait.
1300
1250 *
1200 *
1150 *
1100 * # *
1050 * # *
1000 * # *
950 * * # *
900 * **# *
850 # **#* *
800 # **#* * *
750 # #*## ** **
700 # #### **** ***
650 # #### **** ***
600 * #* ####* ***** ***
550 * #* * ####* ***** **#
500 ** ** #* * #####* *#**#***#
450 *#* *#* #** *# *#####** *##*#*###
400 *## *#* ##***# ***######***####*###
350 ###*###*##***#* ****######**#####*###
300 ###*###*##**##* *#**######**#########
250 ##########*#### ##*########*#########
200* ## ############### #####################
150####** *############### #####################
100###### ################ #####################
50###### ################ #####################
0###### ################ #####################
MAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJAS
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Now, this shows that I get a pretty good amount of real mail to spam, by this measure. The diagram is a little misleading, because of the rounding, but it's not too bad. Except that, for the last couple of months, the spam rate has been creeping towards 50%, having jumped to 550 spam messages in september, from an average of about 100 in last year. Of course, most of these seem to be coming from one of my accounts that is being forwarded and filtered into a folder, so maybe I should just switch this off.
Next up, an analysis of who is sending me real mail. I bet you can't wait.
20031017
Right, before you get on anything resembling a lofty equine, let me point out that this blog is for my benefit. Therefore, if I choose to use it as a convenient piece of scrap paper upon which to doodle, then I shall do.
I have spent the past twenty minutes playing around with Unix commands to analyse my procmail logs. The goals are roughly as follow -- to see how much email I get, who I get it from, and how much of it is spam.
If I could be bothered, then I would do all sorts of graphs. But I won't. Oh, OK then. This is a graph of how much email I received every month, since March 1999. Note certain gaps, for August 99 - July 2000, while my email was being delivered to another system, and another around December 2001, for no good reason I can think of.
Some quick analysis: the data from 1999 is interesting because it shows how much my email has increased in the intervening years. In theory, the activity from 1999 should be relatively high, since I was quite bored at the time, and tended to email people a lot more than I do now. However, these charts are of incoming mail (can't be bothered to analyze outgoing, since it automatically gets sorted into folders, and I don't want to go digging around), and I think what this is mainly showing is how much spam I get. I will do some more poking around to figure out how much of this is spam. Almost certainly, more of this will follow...
I have spent the past twenty minutes playing around with Unix commands to analyse my procmail logs. The goals are roughly as follow -- to see how much email I get, who I get it from, and how much of it is spam.
If I could be bothered, then I would do all sorts of graphs. But I won't. Oh, OK then. This is a graph of how much email I received every month, since March 1999. Note certain gaps, for August 99 - July 2000, while my email was being delivered to another system, and another around December 2001, for no good reason I can think of.
1300
1250 #
1200 #
1150 #
1100 # # #
1050 # # #
1000 # # #
950 # # # #
900 # ### #
850 # #### #
800 # #### # #
750 # #### ## ##
700 # #### #### ###
650 # #### #### ###
600 # ## ##### ##### ###
550 # ## # ##### ##### ###
500 ## ## ## # ###### #########
450 ### ### ### ## ######## #########
400 ### ### ###### ####################
350 ############### #####################
300 ############### #####################
250 ############### #####################
200# ## ############### #####################
150###### ################ #####################
100###### ################ #####################
50###### ################ #####################
0###### ################ #####################
MAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJASONDJFMAMJJAS
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Some quick analysis: the data from 1999 is interesting because it shows how much my email has increased in the intervening years. In theory, the activity from 1999 should be relatively high, since I was quite bored at the time, and tended to email people a lot more than I do now. However, these charts are of incoming mail (can't be bothered to analyze outgoing, since it automatically gets sorted into folders, and I don't want to go digging around), and I think what this is mainly showing is how much spam I get. I will do some more poking around to figure out how much of this is spam. Almost certainly, more of this will follow...
20031016
Many happy returns
It's a year since I landed this side of the atlantic, and decided to make a small corner of suburban New Jersey my home. In that year, I have made many observations, collected many insights into life, culture, politics, religion, and the whole experience of living. And it is right that I should share these with you. But I won't. Because I can't be arsed.
Bah humbug to the lot of you.
It's a year since I landed this side of the atlantic, and decided to make a small corner of suburban New Jersey my home. In that year, I have made many observations, collected many insights into life, culture, politics, religion, and the whole experience of living. And it is right that I should share these with you. But I won't. Because I can't be arsed.
Bah humbug to the lot of you.
20031011
Ah yes, I've remembered what it was that was so vitally important to mention, but I didn't. It came to me as I was clearing up the mess from the spilt wine. I want to make this clear, by the way, I sometimes have a little glass of wine in the evening. I'm not an alcoholic, just a small glass, it's supposed to be good for you. Anyway, I accidentally knocked the glass over -- a little clumsy, but not really my fault, it was probably just the effects of the bottle of whisky I downed to whet my palate -- but anyway. It's amazing what it takes to get me to finally clear up all the mass of papers on my desk, and in this case it was 100ml of cheap merlot threatening to take down the DSL modem if I didn't do something about it. Forunately, it turned out that the big stack of paperwork was mostly old drafts of stuff that I had been working on, so nothing important was lost. All this has absolutely nothing to do with this link, which is to a cartoon called The Ambiguously Gay Duo. I think it was pretty well known in the US, but I'd never heard of it before, so I thought you might appreciate it. It's kind of crass and monotonous, but that's how I like my humour. Find the movies on your favourite p2p network if the links on the page aren't working.
Right, I'm off to Boston for a few days. That's not Boston in Lancashire, but Boston in Yankashire. Hey, I should get my own county, I could call it Anchorshire. Or Hughfolk. Or something like that.
Anyway, thanks for everyone who wrote in with the correct answer to the lolly stick joke (it was (a), by the way). You win... the knowledge that you had nothing better to do with your time than to write in and tell me something that I already knew. Cheers.
I'm sure that there was something vitally important that I was going to write here, but I can't remember what it was. Such is life. It's been nearly a year since I crossed the ocean to Yankashire, so expect some stats on this later. And a challenge for any programmers out there: like some kind of anal-retentive freak, I keep all my email, and also all my procmail logs. I would like to bore everyone who reads this by doing some analysis of these logs, but I can't find anything that will analyze procmail logs. I guess what I want is something like those web analyzers, that tells you stuff like how many hits I got per day, who sent me the most messages, who sent the largest messages, that kind of stuff. Probably a whizz to do in Perl, and perhaps someone has already done it, but these days I'm getting too lazy to google, it's quicker to type queries in natural language on this thing and let someone else go out and look for the answers for you...
Talking of logs, I am well aware that the servustats site, which is doing my hit counting and search term scraping goes up and down like, as the phrase has it, a whore's yo-yo. Still, I prefer things that way, since it means that when my hit count seems pathetically low, I can just blame it on servustats being down. I probably miss the odd hilarious google search term that brought people here, but so what?
Also, since I'm too lazy to email people anymore, is the "Angel" who posted in the comments on the webpage about the Soup Dalek linked to in this week's NTK the Angel who knows Bex through DC? Because if so, then... actually, I can't think of any consequences if this is the case.
OK, in the absence of any real email stats, some made up stats.
This week I have:
I think that covers everything. Ah yes, as jbs once said (but he doesn't have a weblog, so I can pinch his lines with near impunity), "Somewhere out there, there's some bloke with $25 million dollars sitting in a bank account that he can't shift, and he can't work out why".
And lastly, something I've been meaning to link to for an incredibly long time but never remembered to. From dave, who brought you "Lord of the Rings: an allegory of the PhD?", comes A New Kind of Scientist. It's number two on google for this phrase, but I don't know if that means anything.
Anyway, thanks for everyone who wrote in with the correct answer to the lolly stick joke (it was (a), by the way). You win... the knowledge that you had nothing better to do with your time than to write in and tell me something that I already knew. Cheers.
I'm sure that there was something vitally important that I was going to write here, but I can't remember what it was. Such is life. It's been nearly a year since I crossed the ocean to Yankashire, so expect some stats on this later. And a challenge for any programmers out there: like some kind of anal-retentive freak, I keep all my email, and also all my procmail logs. I would like to bore everyone who reads this by doing some analysis of these logs, but I can't find anything that will analyze procmail logs. I guess what I want is something like those web analyzers, that tells you stuff like how many hits I got per day, who sent me the most messages, who sent the largest messages, that kind of stuff. Probably a whizz to do in Perl, and perhaps someone has already done it, but these days I'm getting too lazy to google, it's quicker to type queries in natural language on this thing and let someone else go out and look for the answers for you...
Talking of logs, I am well aware that the servustats site, which is doing my hit counting and search term scraping goes up and down like, as the phrase has it, a whore's yo-yo. Still, I prefer things that way, since it means that when my hit count seems pathetically low, I can just blame it on servustats being down. I probably miss the odd hilarious google search term that brought people here, but so what?
Also, since I'm too lazy to email people anymore, is the "Angel" who posted in the comments on the webpage about the Soup Dalek linked to in this week's NTK the Angel who knows Bex through DC? Because if so, then... actually, I can't think of any consequences if this is the case.
OK, in the absence of any real email stats, some made up stats.
This week I have:
- Won a total of $95million in 12 lotteries that I didn't enter (although I'm not supposed to tell anyone about it yet, since there are few technical issues to work out first)
- Been offered to help various relations of 23 deposed, murdered or naturally expired people shift a grand total of $135million dollars.
- Been told about about 7 boys whose parents found $10,000 dollars in their closet
- Been offered a variety of products, natural, unnatural and pump-based, which could enhance my manhood by a grand total of 4 foot 6.
- Had 3 secret admirers reveal their lust for me, if only I go to some dodgy website, enter my email address and download a dodgy .exe file which will try to get my modem to call a number in Ljubljana.
I think that covers everything. Ah yes, as jbs once said (but he doesn't have a weblog, so I can pinch his lines with near impunity), "Somewhere out there, there's some bloke with $25 million dollars sitting in a bank account that he can't shift, and he can't work out why".
And lastly, something I've been meaning to link to for an incredibly long time but never remembered to. From dave, who brought you "Lord of the Rings: an allegory of the PhD?", comes A New Kind of Scientist. It's number two on google for this phrase, but I don't know if that means anything.
20031009
Some people seem to enjoy the challenge involved in using products for a purpose that they were expressly not designed for. For example, people who use a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Or people who use nutcrackers to knock down a wall. Or people who use a top of the range high power personal computer as a pocket calculator.
Anyway, I know how they feel because today I have been using Microsoft Excel (Excel! Hah!) as something to produce graphs with. Which leads you to all kinds of questions, like who on earth is responsible for choosing the default colour scheme that the graphs come in when you make them? On what computer system, or printer, or anything, do those colours look anything like a sensible and reasonable choice? They look like some child has been let loose with crayons to make the graph. Worse, they look like a CGA palette, or something. Yeah, I'm sure that it's been fixed to be something less awful in Excel Fireball 2005 or whatever, but I'm stuck with Excel '95 as the only quasi-legal version that I have available to me, and it means that for every graph I make I have to spend about five minutes clicking on semi-visible icons in order to make it look like anything that I could seriously use.
Yeuch. I should just give up and figure out how to use gnuplot or something.
Anyway, I know how they feel because today I have been using Microsoft Excel (Excel! Hah!) as something to produce graphs with. Which leads you to all kinds of questions, like who on earth is responsible for choosing the default colour scheme that the graphs come in when you make them? On what computer system, or printer, or anything, do those colours look anything like a sensible and reasonable choice? They look like some child has been let loose with crayons to make the graph. Worse, they look like a CGA palette, or something. Yeah, I'm sure that it's been fixed to be something less awful in Excel Fireball 2005 or whatever, but I'm stuck with Excel '95 as the only quasi-legal version that I have available to me, and it means that for every graph I make I have to spend about five minutes clicking on semi-visible icons in order to make it look like anything that I could seriously use.
Yeuch. I should just give up and figure out how to use gnuplot or something.
20031008
Businesses are great. I have a subscription to a magazine, which is almost done now. But, since they want to get as much money out of m as possible, unless I do something about it they will automatically renew the subscription and charge it to my credit card -- a trick in common with CD buying clubs and pornographic websites, I'm told. One thing that makes me more than usually suspicious is that on the renewal notice (at least there is a notice), there is no mention of how much the renewal will cost. So I call up the customer service people, and they don't know either. They ask me if I want to renew anyway, and I point out that I would rather like to know how much it costs before I choose what to do. I think I will cancel my subscription if they are unable to tell me how much renewing a subscription costs.
It's late, I'm tired, and I've been running experiments all evening, hence I've had the word "recall" drilled into me from all directions. The recall is the number of items correctly retrieved divided by the total number of items that could have been retrieved, by the way, and nothing to do with California. Although I'm still confused that the main democratic candidate appeared to be called Booze Cruiser Monty.
Anyway, some important news: a new lolly stick joke.
Q: Where should you put your TV?
Which rather seems to assume (or begs the question) that you have a TV. Well, fortunately, I do, and it's in the living room, so no real difficulty there. Except of course that this is a crap lolly stick joke, and so nothing is as simple as it could be. So, TV, what are the obvious weak pun opportunties there? Screen, picture, show, channel, remote control, volume, colour, contrast... nothing especially good. I tell you what, in the interest of producing some fake excitement, why don't you pick which of the following crap answers you think is the punchline to this joke, and then wait until I remember to tell you the answer, and then see if you were right. (If you are a big fan of website polls, then you can treat this as a poll. Go around and ask everyone else on the internet what they think, and then use that to make a percentage for each answer).
a) In a remote area
b) Behind a screen door
c) At the bottom of a channel
d) On the island of Jersey with a revolver and a fake bullet
e) In the library, with the lead piping
f) In the middle of a baseball field, because that's where people expect to see the picture.
That is all, you may go now.
Anyway, some important news: a new lolly stick joke.
Q: Where should you put your TV?
Which rather seems to assume (or begs the question) that you have a TV. Well, fortunately, I do, and it's in the living room, so no real difficulty there. Except of course that this is a crap lolly stick joke, and so nothing is as simple as it could be. So, TV, what are the obvious weak pun opportunties there? Screen, picture, show, channel, remote control, volume, colour, contrast... nothing especially good. I tell you what, in the interest of producing some fake excitement, why don't you pick which of the following crap answers you think is the punchline to this joke, and then wait until I remember to tell you the answer, and then see if you were right. (If you are a big fan of website polls, then you can treat this as a poll. Go around and ask everyone else on the internet what they think, and then use that to make a percentage for each answer).
a) In a remote area
b) Behind a screen door
c) At the bottom of a channel
d) On the island of Jersey with a revolver and a fake bullet
e) In the library, with the lead piping
f) In the middle of a baseball field, because that's where people expect to see the picture.
That is all, you may go now.
20031007
Things that you hear other people say as you walk past them that really make you want to eavesdrop further and find out what the heck they are talking about only they are going in the opposite direction, so you can't exactly turn around and follow after them to hear the rest of the story, #2
"...got to get me some bitches..."
(contributed by our mildly synaesthetic Leicester correspondant)
"...got to get me some bitches..."
(contributed by our mildly synaesthetic Leicester correspondant)
20031004
20031002
Things that you hear other people say as you walk past them that really make you want to eavesdrop further and find out what the heck they are talking about only they are going in the opposite direction, so you can't exactly turn around and follow after them to hear the rest of the story, #1
"...forcing me to take cocaine..."
"...forcing me to take cocaine..."
The first* rule of Google Adsense is: You don't talk about Google Adsense.
* Actually, looks like it's the 17th rule.
* Actually, looks like it's the 17th rule.
20031001
Cehck tihs out.
Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht witnirg lkie tihs mkaes you seem to be an itilleatre cetrin who is too dman lzay to tkae the tmie and erofft to tpye crroeltcy.
Very tedious indeed. Still, on the bright side, there are now websites which automatically convert your carefully written and correctly spelt text into meaningless gibberish.
To me, this is all rather like saying "My error correcting code can detect and correct a large number of errors, so let's insert lots of spurious errors just to show off how good it is." Anyone who tries to use this observation as an excuse for their careless approach to grammar and spelling will receive no understanding from me.
Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht witnirg lkie tihs mkaes you seem to be an itilleatre cetrin who is too dman lzay to tkae the tmie and erofft to tpye crroeltcy.
Very tedious indeed. Still, on the bright side, there are now websites which automatically convert your carefully written and correctly spelt text into meaningless gibberish.
To me, this is all rather like saying "My error correcting code can detect and correct a large number of errors, so let's insert lots of spurious errors just to show off how good it is." Anyone who tries to use this observation as an excuse for their careless approach to grammar and spelling will receive no understanding from me.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
