jump to navigation

NOTE: The spam filter is being unusually aggressive. If you comment does not immediately appear, it has simply been placed in moderation and I will approve it as quickly as possible. Thank you for your patience.

"Murphy was an optimist!"

Design Coding – Rapper explains my world April 16, 2008 6:44 pm

Posted by Doug McCaughan in : HTML, Programming, Software, Standards, Technology
, 2comments

m0serious you are my hero!

Please, I beg you. If you ask people to make a website for you or if you are an artist/designer that gives templates to a scripter or coder, watch this video all the way!


Get with the times! Web 2.0 er no 3.0 keep going Web 4! January 20, 2007 10:02 am

Posted by Doug McCaughan in : Programming, Standards, Technology, Web 2.0
, add a comment

So, I offered that the masses of confused people still arguing over the controversial Web2.0 are falling behind because Web 3.0 is here! "Lynx is the official browser of the ICW3." makes it sound like a joke but Web 3.0 has its own Wikipedia page (which doesn’t lessen the joke potential).

Web 3 is the brainchild of Tim Berners-Lee, largely credited for inventing the world wide web in the first place. It’s more commonly called the Semantic Web. [Source]

Ok. Maybe Web 3.0 is real. Seth Godin has suggested Web 4!

add a comment

Bring Me A Rock! September 8, 2006 12:27 pm

Posted by Doug McCaughan in : Quality Assurance, Software, Standards, Technology
, 5comments

In the Quality Assurance world, we sometimes talk about rocks. Putting aside the middle managers, the product team, customer service, the project manager, the end user and so forth, a product ultimately falls to 2 people or groups: the client and the vendor. The client describes what they want; the vendor fulfills the client’s needs. The industry does not matter; could be software, could be construction, industrial supplies, whatever. And the problems begin with the first conversation. See, the client and the vendor speak the same language but in different dialects. The customer speaks and the vendor thinks they understand and drawing upon their experiences in their industry moves on to make the product for the client.

Here is how it works:

Client: "Bring me a rock!"
Vendor, eager to satisfy: Rushes out and finds the perfect rock. Cleans the dirt from the rock. Polishes it and returns it to the client.
Client: "Not that rock! Weren’t you listening? I said, ‘Bring me a rock!’"
Vendor, thinking he understands better: Goes out, spends twice as long, finds the perfect rock. Cleans it, polishes it, checks with some managers who agree it is the perfect rock. And returns to the client.
Client: "Not that rock! I want flatter rock. That rock is too round. Bring me a rock!"
Vendor, slightly dejected but still enthused: Goes out, kicks around some rocks. Notices all rocks are round here. Travels to another location. Finds a nice flat rock. Returns to client.
Pattern continues…
Client: "Now that’s a rock! Why didn’t you bring me that one in the first place? Could I have two for the price of one?"

The subtle differences in the dialect and the assumptions made on both the client’s part and the vendor’s part often result in a frustrated vendor and a dissatisfied client. Unfortunately client’s often get frustrated when the vendor asks too many questions about the rock in the beginning. The client doesn’t understand why the vendor is so dense. When the client buys into the need to clearly define a specification at the beginning of the project, time, money and aggrivation is saved!

Really, Bring Me A Rock applies to all walks of life. We do this to our children too. "Clean your room." "I’m done. Room’s clean." "That room is a mess!" See the problem?


Which way do you go? June 9, 2006 11:20 am

Posted by Doug McCaughan in : Programming, Standards, Technology
, add a comment

So what’s your preference? A-2, A-3, Num, ITU, FIPS, IOC, DS, WMO, or MARC? I think I prefer FIPS.

Here’s a grin. The US designed FIPS. Europe designs NUTS. Both systems are crazy.

Update: I’ve changed my mind. I like ISO_3166-1.

The FIPS 10-4 country list differs from ISO 3166 in many minor and sometimes surprising ways. It has assigned separate codes to Bassas da India (BS), Europa Island (EU), Glorioso Islands (GO), Juan de Nova Island (JU), and Tromelin Island (TE), tiny and mostly uninhabited Indian Ocean islands administered from Reunion; also, Ashmore and Cartier Islands (AT) and Coral Sea Islands (CR), Australian territories; and Clipperton Island (IP), which is administered from French Polynesia. It splits Svalbard and Jan Mayen Islands into two countries (JN and SV). * It shows United States Minor Outlying Islands as nine countries: Baker Island (FQ), Howland Island (HQ), Jarvis Island (DQ), Johnston Atoll (JQ), Kingman Reef (KQ), Midway Islands (MQ), Navassa Island (BQ), Palmyra Atoll (LQ), and Wake Island (WQ). It treats Palestine as the Gaza Strip (GZ) plus the West Bank (WE); also, a code is assigned to No Man’s Land (NM), a small and winding band of neutral territory near Jerusalem. The 2004 edition of the CIA World Factbook explains why it has added country listings for Akrotiri and Dhekelia, two British military bases in Cyprus. FIPS codes have not yet been assigned to these “countries”, but the Factbook‘s naming scheme implies that they should be AX and DX, respectively. Finally, FIPS allocates codes to the Paracel (PF) and Spratly (PG) Islands, two island groups in the South China Sea that are claimed by every country within shooting distance; ISO 3166 is noncommital about the Paracels and Spratlys.

add a comment