Radial Input Devices Piss me off.

What is it with MP3 players using Radial Input Devices, they are really the most annoying and unnatural means to navigate through an overly complex GUI on a 2” (if you are lucky) screen. Would a simple down button be too hard to implement, not to mention pushing back the onset of RSI (Repetitive Strain Injury) by several decades.

Spinning your thumb around in an endless circle has to be one of the most unnatural motions and require far more effort than holding down a simple down button. This brings the other deficiencies of Radial Input Devs to light, they will never be as fast or as accurate as a down button, they have to both, cap acceleration to allow small movements between single songs and have a limited top speed as dictated by the fact your thumb can not move in a circle that fast.

I know the Radial Input Dev in an MP3 player originally comes from Apple, a bane in my life, but why do people need to copy aesthetics is a poor excuse, used by uneducated technically illiterate people who need to justify why they spent $400 on something shiny when a $2.50 roll of tin foil would have had the same effect (and make a spiffy piece of head ware).

What’s even worse is that Crapple are bringing out touch screens with the next version of the crapPod. People have clearly never tried to use a touch screen whist running or in a moving vehicle, using a damned Radial Input Dev whist doing either of those activities is bad enough. All this so called “innovation” [Inigo Montoya] I do not think that word means what they think it means [/Inigo Montoya] and they cant make a device that simply works like a USB flash drive allowing me to copy off of any box I like.

But of course the iTards will try to use the “oooh its shiny” and “look at this, I iz teh Kool” excuses when they drag out their touch crapPod which is covered in greasy fingerprints and encrusted with whatever cheesberger and tall double decaf triple strength mocha-chi-capo-latte they were iShovelling into their iMouth at the same time. Where is your vaunted “aesthetics” now I ask? To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin:

"He who would sacrifice essential functionality for temporary aesthetics deserves neither and will lose both."

I've been away for a while

Mostly dealing with work, I've added a Poll to my blag.

Just this week my boss Richard, asked me if "I was happier now" (as compared to a few months ago when I asked for a pay rise). It took a lot of effort not to blurt out what I really thought but I dont really want to get sacked 2 weeks before my holiday.

BTW I'm going to Thailand.

The ultimate web 2.0 site

I have conceived of the ultimate web 2.0 site. I got the idea from existing web sites which would fit into the web 2.0 pattern of rehashing old ideas and producing new websites that have all the functionality of old websites with two important differences, the first being that they have some component that runs AJAX or some form of .net and the second difference is that they have a shiny coat of paint.

So I have developed a new site, it is an amalgamation of the two most popular web 2.0 sites YouTube and MySpace, I will call it either YouSpace or MyTube.

The exact function of this site is yet undetermined and that detail is unimportant, as YouSpace/MyTube will have the shiniest web 2.0 colour scheme that money can buy, more importantly I will generate buzz about my site by disseminating news amongst the blogoshpere to synergize the maximum potential of YouSpace/MyTube's Advanced AJAX features.

We will also be Buzzword 2.0 compliant.

Failing this I can always create GetOuttaMySpace.com, the antisocial network

To the dearly departed

I threw away three generations of sneakers this evening.

You may of course be wondering why I kept three generations of sneakers around, we in my defence, sneakers are well... sneaky.

The indestructable Taco Shell

I am tired of Taco shells breaking on me.

I had tacos for dinner tonight, of course I didn't go to a Mexican restaurant nor did I make the aforementioned tacos myself. Instead I opted for the simpler option of an old el paso taco kit. It was at the point where I was half way through my first taco when the entire construction lost cohesion and fell apart. This is normal. I asked myself "why do taco shells do this" and continued to dig through the remains of what began dinner as a fully formed taco.

It was not until I was half way through my second taco where I struck upon the idea that I should construct the ulitmate indestructible taco shell^tm. I realized that the shell was so brittle because of its base construction material, Corn. So I realized that I had two options, rewrite the base structure of corn to make it more malleable or find a corn substitute.

I decided that finding a new material would be better so I began to think of alternatives, first I started with corns nearest cousins, other cereals like barley and wheat then moved onto other members of the plant kingdom such as fruit or cucumber and then onto animals. I conceived of the beef shell, which would eliminate the need to add meat to the shell. But as this solution would require too many head of cattle I continued with my research into alternate materials. The copper shell did not make it past the first test group and the kitten shell was an idea that should be left alone, for a very very long time.

I reached the conclusion that the only material that could construct a shell to specifications is unobtainium. Whist this material is not readily available I have determined that I will need only 17.5 grams of unobtainium per shell.

It's evolution, baby

The Question, which came first, the Chicken or the Egg.

Darwinism and Evolution tell us that the Chicken in its modern form came about in tiny changes in reaction to the environment around it. The Chicken evolved from a not-quiet chicken-like creature which in turn evolved from a not-quiet not-quiet chicken-like chicken-like creature which in turn evolved from a not-quiet not-quiet not-quiet chicken-like chicken-like chicken-like creature and so on and so forth until you have a creature which doesn't resemble anything like a chicken, in fact this would continue right until the first division of the first amoeba.

Life according to darwinist theories will exist anywhere where the necessary elements of light, heat and moisture are abundant. So the initial spark of life goes back to the tera-formation and initial formation of a planet. Even before then there was the formation of our ever expanding universe in which the planet formed by a sufficiently sized mass collecting other smaller masses around it until all the mass in the gravity wells vicinity was a part of the planet. So the evolution essentially begins here at the formation of the planet.

Of course the universe is infinite and forever expanding, the planet which exists in its three spatial dimensions, the fourth perceivable dimension, time is expanding along all of these dimensions as well as 7 other dimensions described in string theory, more specifically M theory. To add to this the Alternate Dimensions theory that states there is, in parallel with our own infinite and ever expanding universe other infinite and ever expanding universes which continually are created as different possibilities are diverge into their alternate paths. This theory also states that these "parallel universes" exist in a multiverse which if this theory is correct could also indicate that several infinite and expanding multiverses could exist inside a mega-multiverse and in turn could belong to a uber-mega-multiverse continuing on this trend until infinity.

So this leads us inexplicably to Douglas Adams, who said,

Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.

Add this to the number of possible parallel universes in the multiverse, all the multiverses in the mega-multiverse and all the mega-multiverses in the uber-mega-multiverse so on and so forth until infinity. One would think that that trip down to the chemist got a lot shorter, perhaps even infinitely shorter.

So just to surmise



So, who is still thinking about the chicken?

On that subject I have some theories of my own,

First is that the chicken and the egg are not indeed the same species but are two closely related species that share a symbiotic/parasitic relationship. First the Chicken grows as a parasite inside the egg and then the eggs continue to use the chicken as a host to continue their species. Such a symbiosis could occur if both the chicken and the egg were offshoots of the same parent species, a creature which I call the Chegg. Laugh now but mark my words ladies and gentlemen, one day palaeontologists will unearth my Chegg and I will be vindicated.

The second theory is that the chicken is not native to this earth or indeed to this dimension. I theorise that the chicken is a pan-dimensional being which managed to send a small number of eggs through a rift in space/time to arrive here on the earth where the hatched chickens were able to make use to the local surroundings to multiply and are continually attempting to communicate but have thus far been unsuccessful due to the sheer number of differences between us and pan-dimensional beings. If this theory is correct (and I see no evidence to the contrary) it means people are eating a far superior life form, although for some people this can be said for almost anything they eat.

Some would say that evolution is just a theory, well I remind them that gravity is just a theory and say,

If I kick you in the butt, do you fly off the planet. good sir, just a theory indeed.

Re-introducing girt back into everyday useage

It is, my intent to re-introduce the word Girt back into the everyday use. I don’t see how a useful word such as girt managed to fall out of popular use, perhaps it was over used and people decided to stop, possibly it had some kind of stigmata attached to it like a serial killer called John C Girt who killed of 107 prostitutes in south London (or possibly south Freemantle) or maybe it just got pissed off with all the other words teasing it and decided to leave on its own. Either way it is a situation that I intend to rectify.

Girt as defined by Dictionary.com as:

2. To enclose, surround, hem in.

Girt seems to have so many uses in everyday life, such as: “I’m on the freeway and I’m girt by traffic”, “I am girt by problems” or “why do you continue to girt me with the foulness of your presence”. The sheer number of uses for girt seems limitless. So to all those who are reading my blog (yes both of you) endeavour to use the word girt at least once each day.