Categories
Just Shelley

Powerbook update

I have good news and bad news about my Powerbook.

The bad news is that the mother board is DOA. The good news is that I’m still covered under the extended AppleCare warranty.

For some reason, I had thought the warranty was expired, but the guy at the Apple store looked up the machine and said the warranty was good until 2009. Yahoo for buying extended warranties on computers. (Yahoo, the shout for joy, not the defunct search engine.)

PB is on its way to get a new heart, and she’ll be as good as new when she gets back. The guy at the genius bar enjoyed my password. He agreed with me that it might be a bit dated.

Categories
Just Shelley

The stories this week: killer caught, fireworks over the flood

Recovered from the Wayback machine.

Today is the 4th of July and St. Louis will again have its spectacular fireworks display—considered one of the top ten in the country—over the Mississippi tonight. Unfortunately, the annual summer festival, Live on the Levee is off the levee due to the recent flood. Currently, water levels in St. Louis are at 37 feet, and falling. Flood stage at downtown St. Louis is 30 feet.

I won’t be attending the fireworks this year, but next year I plan on “adopting a shell” (paying for the cost of a single firework), and joining the party.

Other news from St. Louis this week has not been as bright or happy. We’re relieved that a man wanted for serial killing, has been captured but reminded again of the persistent problems we in the Midwest have with meth addiction and methamphetamine labs. Though state and federal officials have mounted a strong effort to fight the production of meth in Missouri, we’re still one of the highest meth producers in the country.

To fight off the challenge from InBev, Anheuser Busch has had to cut salary benefits and bonuses in order to bring the price of the company stock up without InBev’s intervention. Unfortunately, the move may not be enough as InBev begins the process of attempting a hostile takeover. Oh, in case you’re interested, InBev makes both Beck’s and Stella Artois—wouldn’t you rather have a Bud or Corona?

More jobs were lost to St. Louis when Chrysler announced it would be closing its minivan plant here and cutting back the number of jobs at the remaining truck plant. No one was really surprised at the cuts, but many were disappointed, and these are jobs that Missouri could ill afford to lose.

Too bad we don’t have the biotech industry that wanted to open research centers here in Missouri to help offset these job losses. The biotech industry decided not to invest in this state because of recent legislative efforts against stem cell research.

Governor Blunt signed into law a modification of the state’s harassment laws because of the recent events related to Lori Drew, MySpace, and the suicide of Megan Meier. This was an ill-considered modification. I can agree that threats of violence coming through the internet should be treated the same as those coming in via phone. However, the bill also includes under the term of “harassment” any communication that knowingly causes emotional distress. Now, how would you define emotional distress? Most chat in political weblogs would fall under “harassment” if we use “emotional distress” as a guideline.

However, such acts will be a misdemeanor unless you’re over 21 and the other person is under 17, or you’ve been convicted of harassment in the past, so I guess we can continue to battle it out in weblog comments. Both of these caveats would also have meant that Lori Drew still would not have been charged in this state under this law— she did not write the text that caused Megan to suffer emotional distress. Those messages were written by her 13 year old daughter, and an 18 year old employee.

This same bill also provides support for spanking in the school systems, though how such two acts came to be combined is something I guess only a politician would understand. I also find it difficult to understand how the legislature can support a humiliating punishment such as spanking, which causes enormous emotional distress to children, yet seek to limit the infliction of emotional distress via words through the internet. I guess there must be something in the water in Jefferson City, because the logic of our representatives actions escapes me.

To end on a light note, the fireflies are out this week. One can live through any number of hot, humid summers in order to see fireflies come out at dusk. The effect is magical. I have been attempting to photograph these wonderful creatures and will post my admittedly sad efforts in a later post.

Categories
Writing

O’Reilly and the goodies

Kathryn Barrett recently responded to an O’Reilly’s author who was unhappy about not having Safari Online access. I’ve seen these complaints before, which puzzle me because I’ve had Safari Online access since the online site was first launched. Which, I guess, means I’ve been an O’Reilly author for a long time.

O’Reilly is also good about sending us free books, which I appreciate. Reading what other people write on a topic helps ensure that I’m not covering too much of the same ground in any of my ongoing efforts. In addition, new stuff keeps my synapses shiny and sharp.

Instead of just passively receiving the books, as I’ve done in the past, I’ve decided to start writing reviews of some of the books I receive from O’Reilly. I’ll also write reviews of books sent from other publication companies. I like free books.

Kathryn also writes about the new author portal. I haven’t been making as much use of it as I should. The one aspect I really like, maintaining errata, isn’t fully operational, yet. As for the publicity pieces of the portal, much of my indifference to the site is because O’Reilly fosters a competitiveness between the authors I find off-putting. For instance, I am not a “five star” best selling author, and therefore I don’t rate the front page. I can see the company’s point of view, but it’s difficult enough being motivated without being constantly reminded that my books are not rated as high, nor selling as well as others.

The computer book industry is a different industry now than it was five years ago. I guess we either have to adapt, or leave.

Categories
Books JavaScript

Douglas Crockford’s Good Parts of JavaScript

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

My editor at O’Reilly sent me a copy of Douglas Crockford’s JavaScript: The Good Parts, which I found to be both interesting and useful. The volume is slim, 153 pages in all, but packed full of information about JavaScript—the good parts and the bad.

I found myself nodding more than once, raising my eyebrow a couple of times, and chuckling a time or two, especially when reading about the equality operators, those “evil twins” of JavaScript, according to Crockford.

The book is not intended for neophyte developers, or even those new to JavaScript. It does, however, give you insight into the mind of a very experienced JavaScript developer. Such insight can provide the information necessary to take you from being familiar with JavaScript to being experienced with JavaScript. In particular, the book’s fourth chapter on Functions is, by itself, worth the price of the book.

Crockford writes clearly and without pretension, which I found refreshing. His aim is to clarify, but without pandering. He doesn’t hold you by the hand, and don’t expect him to explain every last bit of the subjects introduced. However, reading through his material is a nice confirmation as to whether your understanding of JavaScript is comprehensive, or if you’re missing out on some of the bits. I particularly liked his chapter on regular expressions, because I suck at regular expressions.

You’ll also be served a hefty dose of Crockford’s opinions on the JavaScript language, which is no bad thing. I didn’t necessarily agree with all of his opinions, such as avoiding the use of new, but I liked reading the opinions because they help me question my own use of the JavaScript language: is this necessary? Could this be improved? Why am I doing this?

I don’t usually have opinions, good or bad, about components of a language. I either like the language, and learn to adapt to the awkward pieces; or I don’t like the language at all. I like JavaScript, so I tend to like all of JavaScript, even the grungy parts. If there’s one thing I consider to be a “bad” part of JavaScript, it is the experts in JavaScript who tell us not to do this or that, but either give no reason for their opinion, or the reason they give borders on the obtuse and cryptic—assuming that we, of course, know exactly what they’re talking about (if we’re worth anything as programmers, goes the implication).

Reading Crockford laying out his opinion as to what he considers “bad” in JavaScript, and why, in clear, unambiguous terms—with examples—is like a breath of fresh air. His doing so is also worth the price of the book (leaving me to wonder whether I should, in all fairness, pay twice). I can only hope other experts, in whatever language, follow his lead.

My only quibble with the book is one paragraph in the chapter on Objects, and that’s because I’m still puzzled by what I read. Crockford writes:

The simple types of JavaScript are numbers, strings, booleans (true and false), null, and undefined. All other values are objects. Numbers, strings, and booleans are object-like in that they have methods, but they are immutable. Objects in JavaScript are mutable keyed collections.

My understanding of immutable objects is that these are objects, not some form of pseudo-object, or second class object. If I had been a tech reviewer for this book, I would have asked for additional clarification of this paragraph in the text.

Other than this relatively minor quibble, though, I really enjoyed this book. It is a nice read, and invaluable for any JavaScript developer.

Categories
Just Shelley

The long way home

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Before weblogging and RSS—long before Facebook, Twitter, or the next poor bastard service, doomed to be worshiped and then sacrificed on some given Friday—I used to write long essays I’d publish online by hand editing the HTML and posting the static files. Having to manually create the HTML template and design, incorporate navigation, and craft the links and images, took a considerable amount of time.

To justify the time, I wanted to make sure that what I published was worth the effort. I would research a story and edit and re-edit it, and look for additional resources, and then re-edit the story again. My one essay on the giant squid actually took two months to research, and days, not minutes, to edit. Even after publication, I would tweak the pages as old links died, or to refine a section of the writing.

Now, we have wonderful tools to make it easy to put writing or other content online. We can think of a topic, create a writing about it, and publish it—all in five or less minutes. We’ve also come to expect that whatever is published is read as quickly. We’ve moved from multi-page writings, to a single page, to a few paragraphs, to 140 characters or less. Though there is something to be said for brevity, and it takes a true master to create a mental image that can stand alone in 140 characters or less, there still is a place for longer writings. We don’t have to be in a continuous state of noise; a race to create and to consume.

Other than a few posts, such as this, all writings at Just Shelley will be spread across pages, not paragraphs, or characters. Such length will, naturally, require a commitment of your time in addition to your interest. However, I can’t guarantee that your time will be well spent, or even that your interest will be held (though the former will, naturally, be dependent on the latter). All I can guarantee is that I probably took longer to create the writing than you will in reading it.

I am using a tool to publish, true, and even providing an Atom feed. There are no categories, tags, or taxonomies, though, because everything here fits under one bucket: it is something that interests me. Taxonomies would just clutter the site’s zen-like structure, as well as set expectations I’m almost certainly not going to fulfill.

To further add to my state of web regression, I’ve not enabled comments, though I’d love to hear from you through some other means. As anachronistic as it may seem nowadays, this is not a site that’s community built. It’s not that I don’t care about you or community, or that I’m asking you to be a passive observer. My hope is that if I don’t inspire you—to talk, to write, to howl at the moon— I make you think; if I don’t make you think, I provide comfort; if I don’t comfort, I entertain; if I don’t entertain, at a minimum, I hope I’ve kept you in the house long enough not to be hit on one of those rare occasions when a meteorite falls from space and lands in front of your home just as you were leaving.

Just Shelley is my place to be still, and my invitation for you to be still with me.