I’ve delivered simple, clear and easy-to-use services for 20 years, for startups, scaleups and government. I write about the nerdy bits here.
— @joahua
Last night we had our second “Cook Off” event, which involves a bunch of ingredients and four teams competing against each other to create something delicious edible.
I’ve uploaded a bunch of photos from the cook-off, so… go check them out. Credits to Sarah for… about half of the shots. I did the food macro ones. Also managed to accidentally over-write source images when copying, so the scaled images you see in the album are all I’ve got, sorry.
An interesting article from CNet reporting Marc Andreessen’s (of Netscape fame, amongst other things) comments on the future of PHP and Java. Personally, I think the whole thing is overplayed. So what, we’re seeing a diversion between where the technologies are applied? Okay… PHP has the higher level closer-to-the-browser layers, and Java does the hardcore stuff. It is, as the article suggests, a pretty complex language, and it’s being used accordingly.
At the end of the article (second page), Andreessen is quoted as saying “I think Flash is one of the most exciting technologies out there that’s almost on the verge of great success and never quite achieving it.”
What on earth is his definition of success? Flash has 97% market penetration, which is higher than any operating system on the planet, let alone browser or scripting language. He’s decrying the peril of Java as it shifts away from prominence on the web — and who needs Java applets, anyway? Google, if you try and get into that whole thing, damn you too. They’re slow to load, and generally crap. Newer versions are looking more and more like Flash clones, with video support leading the way in this area — to where? Why, to the systems that sit behind the web. It still fits with Sun’s infamous “the network is the computer” paradigm, albeit slightly differently.
Me, I don’t particularly care about the backend tools. I’m a frontend person. However, if we can reduce complexity of systems closer to the delivery layer, we should — if this means choosing PHP for something over Java, so be it. PHP, however, doesn’t run on the desktop (unless you’re someone with BSD and too much time on your hands ;-), and Java does. This, admittedly, is slightly apart from Sun’s proclaimed strategy — but it isn’t really such a bad place to be. The places this technology is/has a stronghold is the enterprise desktop. I can only see Java in this field moving in the direction of desktop apps as a gateway to the network, as that (so it seems to me) has always been one of the platform’s core advantages — it has great connectivity powers.
Java, for a standalone app, seems a little… lonely. It doesn’t make sense. It’s like a real compiled app, only probably more complex and slower. Once you introduce the network, it starts to make sense. I think Eclipse’s director Mike Milinkovich has a quote that surmises the article flawlessly: “Java and PHP compete at some level. Get over it.”
UPDATE: Maybe I was wrong. See the bottom of this article for more.
The sensor on this must be an absolute piece of trash. It hasn’t even got the excuse of a slowly dying sensor due to a manufacturing defect/humidity… it’s just really poor quality.
The above image has just been scaled, and carefully compressed so as not to exacerbate the problem (in actual fact, JPEG compression artifacts reduce the severity of it). It looks as though it’s had a posterize filter applied to it (reducing the number of colours in the palette, similar to what indexed GIF photos look like), but it hasn’t. That’s straight out of the camera… so far as I can tell, no other software has touched it.
Maybe it just looks worse to me than it is because I’ve got three sets of images here, the other two of which come from a Canon EOS-300D — or Digital Rebel in US-speak — (or maybe a pair of them, judging from time delay between shots, but last I heard they were junky consumer versions of the EOS-10D with plastic casing, and “special” lens options, so why anyone would buy two of them is beyond me). I don’t know, I was just pretty appalled this was coming straight of a camera — ANY camera, regardless as to the brand. It’s not overexposed, or blurred, or grainy (well, it is, but you can’t see it particularly well in the scaled version and that’s not what I’m complaining about — I understand low-light does that to photos), it’s just really bad colour. Incidentally, it was shot as a JPEG. So, it’s not like I or anyone else has screwed up RAW processing — the camera has done that for us.
Oh, and incidentally, what’s with 3:2 ratios? I think it’s nicer than 4:3, but it bugged me to look shots from the Canon before I figured out what was going on!
Update: Perhaps they have been processed a little. One or two of the Rebel’s photos are exhibiting similar qualities, so that leads me to believe someone was being a tool with saturation in Photoshop or the like. And unhelpfully left the EXIF data intact so I thought it was unchanged. :-( I guess I’m often guilty of much the same thing with the GIMP, but oh well. Doesn’t hurt to be wrong once in a while!
I watched a customer profile video on Big Spaceship, a company doing some funky things with Macromedia’s new Flash 8, and hurried off to have a look at the Underworld: Evolution site (because of the technology, and, yes, because I’m a sucker for that kind of movie).
Alas, Flash 8 is required — and 7 is the latest available for Linux! I was loathe to walk over to another computer just for that, so I’ll have a look later I guess.
I figured I’d go with Atom when creating an app to extract photo feeds for the gallery here, because it’s touted as the next best thing since sliced bread. It’s not. Maybe that’s just coz I’m overtired and have spent too long staring at Feed Validator, but probably not. What the hell is with a limitation on the number of times you can have the same value on an update date? Maybe I posted multiple things at once! Or had scheduled posts. Whatever. Either way, a limit of two on this is ridiculous and… seemingly completely superfluous.
As is the requirement to have a <content> element in the feed. For this gallery feed, that really isn’t neccessary. I conceded that point, but am now regretting it: this means I am now bound to introduce a feature I really don’t want in the future! Note to self: next time a validator comes along, abscond. (Mmm… scones…)
On the record, right now: I know the feed is invalid, and I don’t give a crap. I haven’t even tested it in a feed reader yet: my eyes are doing all the parsing right now. You can check it out at http://www.joahua.com/photostack/atomiccat.php — thus named because of Atom and cat-scan. More bugs presently exist than I care to name, or even think about, but my neck feels like I’ve been sitting at this computer for about a day (it’s been a few hours…), and I really need sleep. Will resolve later, in the meantime… add that feed (application/atom+xml) to your feed reader at your own risk. It’s highly likely to break stuff.
I’ll also setup mod_rewrite rules sometime so it looks like a real feed. Sometime…