The Maxson Homepage on the WWW
I don’t like the idea of software patents. Do companies need some sort of protection? Sure. But current law has been taken way too far.
This is an interesting way to limit the plethora of current software patents.
By the way, I didn’t know that the Wright Brothers had patented their wing-warping technique.
Image from Michael Neubert via flickr
Have you ever needed to print a directory tree? No, I’m not talking about a simple directory listing, I’m talking about a tree. Like this:
├───2009
│ ├───A
│ │ ├───1
│ │ ├───2
│ │ ├───3
│ ├───b
│ │ ├───1
│ │ └───5
I knew I had done it before but couldn’t remember how. I only needed it for a 2 minute thing so I just printed the dir output and called it good. But, I couldn’t leave it. That is when I found:
The tree command did exactly what I wanted. Hope this helps you if you ever need/want to print a directory tree in Windows.
Image from eduarti amorim via flickr
I saw this commercial / advert on TV a few days ago and laughed and laughed. I liked the fact that a US company would poke fun of themselves this way. Here you go:
This video is archived here just in case it ever comes off youtube
[Update 2013-02-08 07:07:17] Sky is also playing this game craftily. Here are two of their internet adverts.
Today was a church picnic. After everyone had eaten, there was a pickup game of rounders. I hadn’t heard of it so I was going to sit out. But everyone convinced me to play. They said “it’s like baseball.” So, this post is a bit about rounders and baseball. But first, here’s two pictures:
|
|
|
| from sk8geek via flickr | from wrongindustries via flickr |
In these pictures, you can see about all of the similarities between rounders and baseball. There’s a ball (but it is smaller) and bat. The goal is to hit the ball and run around the bases (or sticks in the case of rounders). You get out if the ball is caught or the stick is tagged. But you don’t run home as in baseball…you run to 4th base. There’s no such things as fouls or strikes. You run on the 3rd pitch even if you don’t hit the ball. If you don’t hit a homerun–called a rounder–you don’t get credit for making it home; however, if you don’t make it all the way around, you can move to the next base as soon as the bowler bowls the ball (pitches it). To switch sides, you have to get people “out” by catching the ball. Tagging them out doesn’t count. BUT, once you are out, you are out (like in dodgeball) and you don’t get to bat again.
So, even though it isn’t really like baseball, I had fun playing.
Today, we went to Battle which is where the Battle of Hastings was fought in 1066. Interestingly, I always thought that 1066 was the year the English kicked out the French (the Normans). However, it turns out it was exactly the opposite. That was the battle where the French got their foothold on Great Britain Island. Here’s some pictures (and here are even more on flickr)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, it turns out that I do have something real to blog about today. And no, that isn’t just the fact that it will be 20 days to my next birthday.
Tomorrow, 7 September 2012, Amazon is expected to launch a new Kindle and a new Kindle Fire. We’ll see.
[Update 2012-09-07 06:57:23] Well, I got it wrong. They announced it yesterday.
Image from brian sawyer via flickr
…so if I blog about not having anything to blog about today, have I really blogged?
Image from uggboy via flickr
Today was Lydia’s first day of Year 1. She was so excited to go to school. Here’s a selection of pctures Cyndi took (they are all here on Flickr):
|
|
|
| Lydia getting ready for Year 1! | |
|
|
|
| Lydia in her class | Lydia and her friend Lucy |
Here’s a link to the Lydia’s First day of Reception post.
[Update 2012-12-26 09:49:11] Edited flickr link
A big row here in the UK is whether or not to allow London’s Heathrow airport to build a third runway or not. The airport argues that they need to add the runway to keep pace with the demands of the world (Heathrow is currently at 95+% capacity). People around the airport say it is a bad idea (either because they’ll loose their homes, don’t want the increase of the airport’s carbon footprint, etc….). Some support building yet another airport around London (there’s already 4 major ones and several other smaller ones).
Yesterday, Prime Minister Cameron announced that he was shuffling government ministers around. Everyone thinks this is a run-up to the UK Government announcing they plan to back the 3rd runway at Heathrow.
Now, the point of this post isn’t to back the runway or not. All of this talk got me wondering what it would look like. So, I went looking. I ended up and found the image at the beginning of this post and an article at the BBC showing the plans. When I saw this, it wasn’t what I was expecting. I guess I was thinking they would build parallel to the existing runways–prevailing winds–but I thought it would be connected to the rest of the airport. Heck, it doesn’t look like you could even taxi to to (if you would even want to). it also looks significantly shorter than the existing runways. I guess they are thinking they could off-load local flights to that runway and free up slots on the longer runways for long-haul flights.
Now, I’m not real sure what I think. I was originally thinking it would be tied to the other parts of the airport and could be used by everyone. That isn’t what this is. It is more like a small airport built “hanging off” Heathrow. But, I don’t think another airport is the answer. I remember my dad talking about not liking flying into JFK or Newark because of the crowding of the airspace. I can’t imagine having yet another airport around London. I also remember him talking about Atlanta (or Dallas) and having to “drive” the airplane 10 miles before takeoff.
Currently, there are some funny–well, I think they are–rules in place. Like they only operate off of one runway at a time then switch at 1500 to give people under the approach and departure plans a rest. They also use one runway for takeoffs and one for departures. I wonder what would happen if they did away with that rule and doubled up: use both runways for takeoffs and landings. I’m not sure about things like separation, etc (so this might actually cause a decrease in efficiency).
…that these people win their fight. I don’t think they will win; however, their actions should be covered under freedom of religion. What am I talking about? This article on the BBC where 4 christians are taking their cases to the EU version of the US Supreme Court. In two of the cases, people were fired for wearing crosses to work and two were fired for not wanting to perform same-sex marriages. Here is a summary from the article:
Nadia Eweida, a Pentecostal Christian from Twickenham, south-west London, who was sent home by her employer British Airways in 2006 after refusing to remove a necklace with a cross
Devon-based nurse Shirley Chaplin, who was moved to a desk job by Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust Hospital for similar reasons
Gary McFarlane, a Bristol relationship counsellor, who was sacked by Relate after saying on a training course he might have had a conscientious objection to giving sex therapy advice to gay couples
Registrar Lilian Ladele, who was disciplined after she refused to conduct same-sex civil partnership ceremonies in north London
I, again, want to say that I think that what these people did should be allowed under freedom of religion. I think they should win their cases and the employers should have to make “adequate” adjustments for that to happen. But, I think they’ll loose. Why?
Well, the cases have been lumped together by the court (they all applied separately) but they are totally different. In the first two, Nadia and Shirley are trying to equate wearing a cross to the sikh turban or muslim hijab. I think the court will see through this. Why?
Well, because in the other 2 religions–Sikh and Islam–the following of the rules is salvific (it brings about salvation…as defined by that religion). The muslim MUST keep her “modesty” to be a good muslim and the sikh must also keep his hair covered while in public. But, the Christian can point to no such requirement to wear a cross. In fact, the Bible says that works–such as that–won’t bring about salvation. I don’t have a good argument in favor of it, at the moment; however, wearing a cross should be allowed (except in certain jobs where jewelry in general is disallowed for safety…like welding).
The other two have a better case. They can point to where the Bible identifies marriage as being between 1 man and 1 woman. They can show that the Bible considers homosexuality a sin (no different that adultery, murder, or lusting after a woman in your heart). Their argument is one similar to what pharmacists should use in performing an act that they have a moral problem against. If these cases were heard by themselves, they would probably win. People should not be compeled to do things they have moral problems with.
I’m posting this to say that I hope they win. Christians have rights that need to be protected just like anyone else’s. I don’t have a great argument for one of them…perhaps someone will comment and I’ll get a better more firm argument through the discussion.
[Update 2012-09-06 06:21:58] Here is an article in the Telegraph that describes how the arguments went before the court yesterday. All I have to say is …wow. I can’t believe a government that makes so much of multiculturalism takes such anti-Christian positions and arguments. Well….unfortunately, I can.
Image from john h wright photo via flickr
