RasterWeb!Ok, I’m only what, six months late on this? I finally saw The Incredibles and I must say it was amazing. (You thought I was going to say it was “incredible” didn’t you?)
Maybe it’s just me, but I couldn’t help but notice at least some similarities to The Watchmen.
Be clear though, that is a compliment, I greatly enjoyed The Incredibles (and I’m sure I will again and again) and I’m hoping that I greatly enjoy The Watchmen as well.
I mean, how can you not love Rorschach?
We’re here today to answer the question, “What do kids want?”
Now you know…
Ok, it’s still a bit early, but as I’ve used Amazon more in the last month than I probably have in all of 2004, I thought I’d point you to my Amazon Wish List which I have painstakenly updated over the last few days, since, you know, I’ve got a birthday coming up in June, and you might want to start shopping early.
Keep in mind that if your birthday is anytime after mine, this can really help in attaining a better gift from me. Besides, any gifts you purchase for me may be tax deductable!
(Editor’s Note: Purchases may also not be tax deductable. We don’t know where he came up with that crazy idea…)
Matt suggests that “blogspot is no longer hurting america” because they’ve added captcha’s to the new blog creation forms. This is a good thing, but as someone who has been referer spammed by phony blogspot sites, I thought taking a random survey might be useful.
If you’ve not followed my “scientific methods” in the past, here’s how I typically do things:
The results of the findings? I found 842 weblogs in the list, of which 556 were blogspot sites.
I didn’t have time to check 556 blogspot sites, but some of the prefixes for .blogspot.com were like so:
So now that Google/Blogger have made some steps to stem the tide, I hope the next step is to clean up the existing mess…
(In case you’re wondering, from the list of 842 sites, spaces.msn.com came in second with 60 sites, and LiveJournal clocked in with less than 10 in the list!)
Oops! I meant “More on Databases” of course…
As I’ve mentioned, I deal a lot with database design done by morons, or at least people who somehow didn’t know what they were doing (not that I’m a database genius) but even the little things can bother me. I mean, if you’ve got a table named foo_header and it’s got 40+ fields, and another table named foo_detail and it’s got just 10 fields, doesn’t something seem wrong?
Where I come from, headers usually contain less data than the actual details of something. Maybe it’s just me…