My wife and I spent the day in Santa Cruz last Sunday, on the Boardwalk. I got in trouble by taking her on the Fireball for our first ride. "If this makes me sick, I'm going to kill you," she said. To make a long story short (and perhaps this is even needless to say), she wasn't happy when the ride was over.

To be honest, I wasn't, either. The Fireball is a great ride, but I think one needs to work up to it. But that didn't stop me. I must have ridden it 6 or 7 times that day. To shorten this story yet again, I wound up feeling pretty sick by the end of the day. But the really sick part about it all was that I wanted to ride it again. But I refrained.

It was a beautiful day, so we spent part of the time just laying on the beach or walking around. We alternated between easy rides (like the haunted house and some other kiddie ride, which made me sick from the gaudy visual displays) and the hard rides (like the Tornado, which is where we got really sick after reversing the spin direction of our pod). Chris even rode the Merry-Go-Round...while I watched. I had to get out of there quickly, since the automated "musical" instruments were driving me murderously insane.

What I really like about the Boardwalk are the old video games. For some reason, I didn't get around to playing any this time, but I did walk past an old Asteroids game...that had a single high score on it. Apparently, those old games don't get played much anymore. But Galaxians was there, and Frogger and a slew of others. My favorite was Gorf, which was kind of like five games in one.

I miss those old games.

If you go into an arcade these days, all you see are high-speed fighting or driving or flying games, that usually involve shooting at something, blowing something up, running something over, or crashing into things...or at least trying not to. The realism in some of the modern games is pretty amazing, too. But there's just something about those old, original arcade games that today's games just don't have. I can't put my finger on it, but maybe it is because they were just plain fun.

One game in particular seemed to be all the rage when it came out: Pac-Man. I was never particularly interested in this game and today still do not know what the attraction to it was. But it appealed to a lot of people, and if people were having fun playing it, then it was OK by me. Sometimes I just liked to watch.

Pac-Man reminds me of a friend of mine. Let me tell you a little about my friend Jeff. Pac-Man reminds me of Jeff because of a hilarious story he once told me. I can't remember the specifics, but it involved a bulletin board system (BBS for short - that I believe he wrote for the Commodore 64) and a particular chat function that one of its features. As a SYSOP (System OPerator - pronounced "sis-op" by some, and "sigh-sop" by others), Jeff had total control over the system. Also, since he wrote the thing, he could add whatever features he wanted.

Usually, BBS's were single-user systems - one user could dial up and connect to it. But while the user was online, he (or she) could page the SYSOP in order to enter a text chat mode and talk directly to the system operator...in this case, to Jeff. Well, Jeff had cleverly implemented a little hidden feature whereby if he pressed a particular key combination while in chat mode, the user would see a little animated (text-based, I assume) Pac-Man zip across the screen, eating the words away as it went by. Then it would disappear and the words would reappear as though nothing had happened.

One particular user (I believe it was a friend of Jeff's at the time) was very disturbed by this. And, of course, when he made comment about it or otherwise reported it to Jeff, Jeff simply denied that it existed and accused this user of contriving this tall tale. I mean, really - a Pac-Man marching across the screen, eating the text away? That's absurd! After all, this was a simple text chat mode on a BBS that Jeff wrote! Nobody was going to convince Jeff that there was this animated Pac-Man running around on the user's screen, much less on the system. Perhaps it was an early virus! ;-)

It was just a funny tale that I remember Jeff telling me. I wish I could have been there to partake in the prank, but especially to see the actions and reactions of this user that was trying so diligently to convince Jeff of what he was seeing. I don't know if Jeff ever told him the truth, and I wonder to this day if the guy doubts now what he saw back then. Well, but hey - he had a garbled print-out of the very Pac-Man character that he saw marching across his screen. Or did he? Hmm... Looks like a garbled string of somewhat random characters to me - better check your printer!

One would think that, as a company that supposedly portrays itself as a leader in technology (and quite a massive company at that) would have an interest in supporting standards so that it could play well with everybody else. Then again, perhaps Microsoft just wants to stand apart from the rest and be its own island. That would be a bad move. If you don't integrate well into the environment, the environment will eventually reject you...without a branch to hold on to.

Come on, Microsoft - play! Play, play, play! Be a pal. Make something that WORKS!

As you can probably tell, I'm tripping over another Microsoft incompatibility. This one is simply a bug. I have been known to say that Microsoft is incompatible with itself, but this time, it simply doesn't work.

Take a look at the following JavaScript function:

function loadScript(src) {
//----------------------------------------------------------
// Dynamically loads in javascript from the specified source
//----------------------------------------------------------
  var ID = "dynamiccode";
  var ht = document.getElementsByTagName("head")[0];
  var e=document.getElementById(ID);
  if (e!=null) {
    ht.removeChild(e);
    delete e;
  }
  try {
    e=document.createElement("script");
    e.id=ID;
    e.type="text/javascript";
    e.src = src;
    ht.appendChild(e);
    return true;
  } catch(err) {
    return false;
  }
}

This function works. This was the solution to the IE problem. However, this defeats my original objective to some degree (although I think I can make it work). Look at the line "e.src=src;" -- this is what IE needed. I originally had this basic code within an event handler that responded to an asynchronous XMLHttpRequest() call that requested some javascript, and instead of "e.src=src;", I had "e.innerHTML=r2.responseText;". This put the actual javascript code directly into the new script element, rather than simply specifying the source file and having the browser load it in.

IE can't handle that. But Firefox and Safari work just fine that way.

The solution above works on all browsers, and I guess it doesn't really change much now that I think about it. It may even simplify things a bit, since I can specify the proper PHP query in the src parameter rather than having to go through an asynchronous XMLHttpRequest() query to load it in. But this means everything is suspended while the code loads (should be quick, though). However, it also does not require a page refresh, which was the whole objective to begin with.

This web stuff sure consumes a lot of time and head space, having to deal with all these different browser quirks! It's not like the old days when I could learn the basics of a language overnight. I'm not sure I can fit most of this stuff in my head (between JavaScript, ActionScript, CSS, XHTML, XML, XPath, Perl, PHP, Linux and all these damn browser issues, I'm just having a hell of a time keeping everything straight. But...I suppose I'll get there one of these days.

Wagon ho!

UPDATE:
UGH! This is not a complete solution. The problem with specifying e.src=src; is that this triggers an asynchronous load behind the scenes for which there is no event handler available (that I know of). This means I can't simply assign e.src=src; and then immediately call a function that is in the file being loaded...because it will not be loaded, yet. If IE would just allow me to set e.innerHTML=r2.responseText; like in *my* asynchronous XMLHttpRequest() handler, then I *could* simply turn right around and call a function that I just loaded - because it would actually be loaded!

Curses, Microsoft again!

I have been toying with an idea now (since last night). Traditionally, it has not been possible to hide JavaScript on a web page. Either, the script is embedded between <script> tags, or it is linked in a link tag. But the bottom line is, if you can find it on the page, you can load it in your browser (or save it to disk).

This means anybody can take your code.

Ajax helps with this, as now I can put my application-level code on the server where it belongs, and minimize JavaScript on the client side. But what if there was some tricky bit of JavaScript code that I thought was so cool that I wanted to be selfish and keep it to myself? Well, I would want to hide it, then!

I am sure there are some clever people out there who could STILL snag my code using the method I am playing with, but at least this idea would give them a good challenge.

There is a nifty little function called XMLHttpRequest() that you can use to make asynchronous calls to the server from an active web page. This is at the heart of Ajax. If you don't know what Ajax is, don't worry - it's nothing really new. It's just a new marketing term for older (and newer) technology together that is helping close the gap between familiar desktop application interfaces and interactive web functionality. It basically includes javascript, CSS, X/HTML, XML/XSL, etc. It is kind of the next generation DHTML...but using revitalized javascript, etc. It is only now that this is becoming possible, since browsers are creeping ever closer to suggested standards. It's 20th century technology coming to life...not a century too soon.

Want an example of Ajax in action? Visit Google Suggest.

Since JavaScript files can be rather large, depending on how much client-side functionality you have (or want), this can add significant download time to web pages...besides the ability to look at the HTML and see what javascript files are being loaded.

My idea is to use XMLHttpRequest() to load in javascript on an as-needed basis, or to simply provide a means of hiding the javascript code. Using PHP in the back end, I can utilize security tests to deliver the javascript code only if it is being requested from a web page on my domain. That way, even if you know the correct PHP call, you can't just type in the URL and get my javascript, or make a web page of your own to load and display my javascript.

MWA HA HA HA HA HA HAAAAAA!!!!

The only problem with this idea is, I haven't been able to get it to work!

WAAAAA!!!

It loads in the javascript just fine, but for some reason, I can't seem to be able to call any of its functions. I don't know enough about how the browsers work, etc., yet to know if a post-page-load method of importing JavaScript like this is putting it into another kind of name space or area of memory or is simply being seen only as text...or what the deal it. But, like everything else about JavaScript and front-end engineering, it is irritating as hell.

But I'm going to figure it out! I just wanted to post the idea here in case I am the first, since I have seen no other reference to this idea. But if I have things my way, I'll make it work!

UPDATE:
Well, that didn't take me very long. I found a solution, and apparently I was not the first to think of it. I kind of figured as much, as late as I am coming into this game. But I got the basic idea working! Unfortunately, you can't see it, since it is on my internal network, but you may one day soon see the results of my efforts online somewhere. Maybe I'll even post some details about the whole mechanism in this blog if there is any interest.

I was tempted to do this when I saw this in another blog, and then it showed up in yet another blog, so I guess now I have to do this. Perhaps this is a bit personal for the Computer Circus, but then again, what hasn't been personal in this blog? May as well find out a little about yours truly, eh? ;-)

7 Things That Scare Me:
1: Fire
2: Evil-looking markings on evil-looking critters
3: Other drivers
4: Hearing things I cannot see
5: Bridges
6: Losing my memory, a limb, or any of my senses
7: Old age

7 Things That I Like The Most:
1: Laughing
2: Flying a model airplane out in the desert
3: A really good thunderstorm
4: Swimming in the Yuba River
5: Bringing a new or interesting idea into reality
6: Someone smiling because of me
7: Arizona sunsets in the summertime

7 Important Things In My Room
1: My PC (with all my pictures, files, writing, software & other creations)
2: My Mac (damn expensive, it was)
3: My nine model airplanes (lots of memories)
4: My paper files (important documents)
5: My checkbook
6: My fire extinguisher
7: Me

7 Random Facts About Me:
1: I think best in a quiet room where I can be undisturbed.
2: I hate to eat or to see/hear others eat. I especially hate onions.
3: I am uncomfortable in social situations.
4: I don't like living in Northern California. I miss the desert.
5: I love to watch good sci-fi.
6: I have chronic allergies to animal dander and DUST MITES! EEK!
7: I just want to live somewhere WARM.

7 Things I Plan To Do Before I Die:
1: Live a little
2: Learn to play the piano
3: Write a book
4: Act in a movie
5: Figure out how to make a lot of money
6: Retire
7: Buy a house on enough land to have my own RC flying strip

7 Things I Can Do:
1: Make software work
2: Build and fly model airplanes
3: Program PIC microcontrollers
4: Design simple circuit boards
5: Troubleshoot computer problems - hardware and software
6: Program my DVR and other household electronics
7: Read and send Morse Code

7 Things I Can't or Won't Do:
1: Have children
2: Hurt or kill (anyone or anything) without provocation. Mosquitos may be an exception.
3: Eat onions
4: Climb transmitter towers to change light bulbs
5: Intoxicate myself
6: Sing and dance (probably would if I could)
7: Understand marketing, economics and politics

7 Things I Say The Most:
1: So...
2: Sure.
3: I don't know.
4: What?
5: Oh ____!
6: Where the hell is my ______?
7: Stupid computer!

7 Celebrity Crushes:
Well, I don't know if you'd call them CRUSHES, but I like:
1: Sandra Bullock
2: Heather Locklear
3: Meg Ryan
When I was much younger, I liked
4: Farrah Fawcett
5: Lindsey Wagner
6: Kate Jackson
7: ???

That's enough. That's quite enough. For now. I think it is time to return to the theme of the Computer Circus, although there is not much to report on that front. Aside from the fact that I am out of disk space...AGAIN!

Again I stray from the focus of the Computer Circus (there is so much more to life, isn't there?). This time, it is about the media.

Don't you just love how melodramatic the media is? How about interrupting normal programming for hours to talk endlessly about an airplane that is flying around in circles to burn off fuel before it lands on its twisted landing gear?

Do we really expect to see people die? Do we really want to? You know that's what everybody is thinking. Oh, how terrible this situation is...LET'S WATCH! Got to hand it to the media to bring us the latest tragic story into our comfy living rooms, hyping it up like it was an alien invasion, hoping for the worst, interrupting my lunch while I'm trying to RELAX. Next thing you know, they'll be televising an all-out nuclear attack.

I knew how this story was going to play out. There just really wasn't a whole lot that could have happened. Yeah, it's kind of bad when landing gear doesn't play right on an airplane, but the thing was turned a full 90 degrees perpendicular, so there were only two real options that could have played out - the wheels would be ground off on landing, or the strut would break and the nose would be ground up a bit on landing. Either way, nobody dies.

What I didn't quite expect was to see a landing that was so phenomenal. That had to be one of the greatest landings I have ever seen. I'd fly with that pilot any day. But as far as the landing gear went, it was pretty much what I imagined. I even said to myself - out loud - when I pressed the mute button on the TV remote before the plane landed - that after all this build-up and hype and nya-nya-nya-nya-nya, the plane would roll to a stop and the passengers would unload and all would end well.

I swear the news commentators were absolutely giddy about the situation. You could tell they absolutely couldn't WAIT to see the thing crash and burn. The disappointment in the end was almost painful in their voices. Just think - all this air time, all these other planes and helicopters scrambling around to get pictures, all the interrupted advertising dollars lost, all these resources consumed to capture this late breaking story that might not have otherwise even made the news if they didn't know about the situation beforehand.

I guess it just wasn't quite 9-11.

Sure, it was exciting to see the plane coming closer and closer to the ground, imagining what it must be like to be on the plane in that moment. But really, did we all need to be dragged through this experience? Do we need this sort of thing in our lives to be happy and healthy? Just what is the deal with all this "reality TV" these days?

When it was all over, I wanted to know what it sounded like inside the plane when it landed. I wanted to hear from one of the passengers to know what it was like inside the plane. To me, that seemed like the real story...yet I never heard mention of that. Never heard a personal account, and not a peep about what it sounded like when that nose wheel came down. It just wasn't news.

Nobody died.

Aw, shucks! Maybe next time.

I sit late into the night, tediously hacking away on my keyboard(s). My back hurts, my neck aches, I strain against the poor lighting conditions as my eyes attempt to compensate for the high contrast of the white screen against the darkened room, and my brows furl as I toggle back and forth between the Mac and the PC...or whatever other computer(s) or gadget(s) I have on my desk at the time. And I ask myself...

What's it all worth?

Is there some value to what I am doing? Does it matter that I get good at this stuff or even know it? But then I stop and think that maybe I am just doing this, because it gives me a reason to push ahead and keep going, to meet the next challenge. So what if it is in software - perhaps that is just a distraction to make sure I remain here to do what it is that I am really here to do.

Which is what?

Who knows, but I think about all the things I have been interested in and have known (or tried to know) and I realize how these things - as selfish as they may appear at times - have actually helped other people in my life. And it is not always about what I know, but also about what I do and how I conduct my life.

Computers kept me out of trouble as a youth. I was interested in computers before I really knew what they were; when they were portrayed in science fiction stories as some kind of artificial intelligence. I wanted to learn what computers actually were, and to learn as much as I could about them.

Computers were my vice. I never smoked or drank or took drugs. I can't really say why, except that it was a conscious decision I made at a very young age - perhaps as a challenge to myself - to stay away from that stuff. Perhaps I just got a good dose of "just say no!" Whatever the reason, computers filled my time and my head space when and where nothing else sufficed. Diving into computers truly took me away from whatever ills ailed me, but also provided enjoyment and satisfaction even in times when I was feeling good. I suppose in that context, the computer could have been considered a drug.

So how could this be a good thing? Wouldn't I be better off doing something else - doing something "more productive" than sitting all day long and deep into the night, staring at a computer screen? What would my life, and the lives of those around me, be like if I wasn't the person that I am, or if I wasn't staring at an electronic box all the time?

Well, let me see...

One friend of mine credits me for saving his life, because he was impressed that I wore my seat belt all the time, and shortly after he started immitating my behavior, some dumb ass in a Trans Am plowed into his car, knocking him unconscious. He claims he would have been lying dead in the street if it wasn't for his seat belt.

I never would have met my first girlfriend (whom I came --><-- this close to marrying), whom I met in the computer lab at Pima College in Tucson. We had some great times together, and I helped her with programming. Now she works as a developer, and I wonder how her life path would have been different had I not been there.

I never would have met all the interesting people that I have met over the years through computer bulletin board systems. I still have a nerf football and a volleyball with a bunch of signatures from people who attended a BBS picnic that I arranged once, years ago. I must have inspired them enough to compell them to give me not one, but two signed balls! (Hey, now - don't take that the wrong way).

I once had a rather sizable crowd of Mexican children gather around me down in Mexico when I flew a radio-controlled model airplane on the beach. They were so enthralled, like it was a magical thing. I often wonder if any of them were inspired to reach beyond their means because of that experience - and what if I hadn't known how to fly or thought to bring my plane to the beach with me?

I wouldn't have known all the good people I have known through the jobs I have had. I have never had a job that wasn't related to computers (except a paper route, and the short time I was a lab monitor in the electronics lab at Pima College - oh, and then there was the time I sold soft drinks at a football game - ack!). If I had never met my friend Jeff (and, subsequently, Fluffy), there probably wouldn't be a show called Hobby Hut or the awards that went with it. I also wouldn't have built a mock space ship or have learned as much about Delphi and Visual Basic (shudder) as I did. And I often wonder how his life would have been different, though I hope I've had a positive influence (sometimes I'm not so sure).

Without my influence, another friend of mine, Dave, would never have taken up RC night flying and thus may never have gone down the road that led to his many innovations that have now taken him to a place where he may now get some remuneration for some of his ideas.

I never would have met my current wife. We met online in Tucson, AZ. She was a struggling musician whose music partner just broke up with, and she needed to get on track with earning a living. Without me, she never would have gotten into computers, and thus would not be pulling down a six-figure income in user interface engineering today. Without me, she may not have had the insurance to pay for the life-saving surgery that changed her life a few years ago, and she certainly wouldn't be able to ride a bicycle today.

I know there are people out there who's lives I have influenced in one way or another, in ways I am not aware. People I don't even know, perhaps (like the woman who crossed a street in front of my car one day who changed my entire attitude with a simple, heart-warming smile) and people I don't remember. Our influence extends beyond our awareness, even if and when we are not trying. Just by being who we are, and sometimes just by being where we are, we can influence others. I could probably write a book about all the ways that the many people in my life have influenced me. And I would probably be very surprised to discover what some of those things have been if I really sat down and thought about it.

So, perhaps it doesn't matter that I spend most of my time with computers. Perhaps that is simply my path; the path that is supposed to put me where I need to be in order to be among the people who need me or who I need. Or both. Perhaps, in our struggles to discover our purpose in life, our life's purpose unfolds itself, regardless of our awareness of it. Like Forrest Gump might say, "computing is as computing does, Mr. Hubbard."

Perhaps the trick is to stop trying to make something out of life and just let life make something out of me.

Are humans like computers? When a computer is turned off, it loses its memory. That which makes it function is gone. The hardware is still there, and if you turn the power back on, all the functionality gets loaded back into memory and off it goes again. But if it is never turned on again, what it was known for - its capabilities, its quirks...it's "personality"...are lost for good.

But what happens to a human when it dies?

I got to thinking about this the other day and became frightened about death for probably the first time in my life. I remember when I was very young, I would try to think back before the time I was born, and was perplexed by the concept that anything could have existed before me. I was rather disturbed that there was this finite beginning to my awareness and my inability to conjure up memories that preceeded me. I learned to accept and adapt to that over time, but it is still just a bit weird to me.

Then I thought about when I went into surgery in March for my broken hand. I can clearly remember drifting out of consciousness when the anethesia was administered. Then, what literally seemed like a second later, I regained consciousness. I clearly remember this, too. What was very disturbing was that there was about an hour in between the two events that are simply missing from my life.

At least when I sleep, I feel I have some sense of time passing - as though I am not fully unaware - perhaps because I dream. But this gap in my consciousness - this utter timeless lapse of knowing - is a bit distressing. I began to wonder if that blackness - that total lack of existence - is what it is like to be dead. Could that truly be the end of a life? What, then, would all this time and effort be for, to learn and improve and strive to make life grand? Why do all that if the switch is simply going to be turned off one day?

I don't have any definable beliefs in any specific concept of "God" (in whatever form it may take), although I have always felt that there must be more to all this that what our simple minds can grasp. Perhaps there will be some part of me - some pattern of energy - that will leave my body to live on in another form, not completely devoid of consciousness after my body dies. I can only hope. But until that day comes, the question probably will remain unanswerable, for how can one attempt to prove existence beyond death by using tools of the living? Maybe one day, science will develop a tool to detect such post-life dimensions, but it seems the only way to do that would be to know what death is. And I'm not sure anyone has defined that just yet.

I also refuse to lock myself into a particular belief system. Why choose to accept a notion based simply on faith? That seems rather limiting as it seems it would stifle one's potential growth and perspective. I guess that is why they call it the straight and "narrow". If there is a "God" (or gods - or whatever the core concept truly represents) then there must be many, many valid paths in life, just as there are many, many people to follow them. I simply do not believe there is just one, single "right" way to live. Perhaps there is one truth (or perhaps truth is simply what you make of it), but whatever truth is, it doesn't matter what you believe, because that's not going to change it. Therefore, I choose to seek out knowledge and understanding with an open mind so that perhaps, one day, I may discover how things are, rather than seek to find ways to validate a belief.

Anyway, I got on a tangent - probably due to this entry in the McBlog blog, written by my friend Jeff. Look for the entry about what a Pagan is. It was a very interesting entry that certainly stimulated a whole lot of thoughts in my head.

My computer is still on. I better tend to it.

This is a test. This entry will be deleted. Changes are a-comin'.

<shudder>I'm using Internet Explorer on the Mac</shudder>

OK, enough of that nonsense. I TRIED to use IE on the Mac, but it didn't like blogger, so I started over. Now I am using Safari. Can you believe IE on the Mac - my powerhouse dual G5 desktop - came with IE 5.2? 5.2! I don't know if 5.2 even understands stylesheets. It certainly doesn't work with much. What's the point? Maybe it is to make Windows users feel at home.

Anyway, it is SO NICE to finally have my Mac back on the net. Remember my router failure? Well, apparently there was a dual failure involved, because not only did my router die, but my LinkSys 4-port switch stopped working, too. At first, I thought it was just not happy with the replacement router that I got. But it turns out, it just doesn't want to play. So...somehow, while I was reconfiguring the SMC7004BR broadband router to open up some ports, something bizarre happened when I told it to reboot. Perhaps there was some freak data packet that went over the network just at that moment that put the router and/or the switch into some weird mode that corrupted some internal EEPROM memory. Or perhaps there was some voltage or power spike that coincided at that moment that blew them both out.

Whatever it was that killed my router and switch that day left my Mac disconnected from the network, because I had to swap out the bad switch with another hub that I was using in the shop (so I could get my server back online), and that left me with no hub in the shop. But I went out and bought a new switch last night (a NetGear model) for $24. There is a mail-in rebate for $20, so it really will only cost $4 in the end. Not bad. But now my Mac is back!

My replacement router (an SMC7004ABR - which I assume is a step up from the SMC7004BR, although the firmware interface is hideous) is working fine so far. However, I am still looking for an SMC7004BR to replace it with - just because I am resistent to change and I want my old router back (though I am tempted to go wireless one of these days). I even found one on ebay...and bought it...for $2! But when it got here, it didn't work. It still doesn't. The LAN side is dead, even though all the lights indicate that it is working properly. I can even talk to it through the configuration COM port. My dead router can't even do that. So, now I have two dead SMC7004BR routers, and now I am feeling that maybe it is time to move on.

Speaking of moving on, I was perusing the Macromedia web site today and discovered their Flex Server product. This looks awesome. I imagine it will be used more for Intranet applications, but I hope one day it will begin to become more prevelant(sp?) on the Internet at large, with web hosting providers making it available on their servers. It seems like the next logical step in web application development, perhaps in conjunction with, or even completely overshadowing ajax stuff. It looks so easy! It is about time that browsers started adhering to suggested standards so we can start making use of all this "nifty" JavaScript, DHTML, ActionScript, XML/XSLT, CSS, XHTML, etc. technology.

Gads. To think this was all based on the http protocol.

Things are just now beginning to sort of hint at almost becoming something like what the "Web" should have been years ago. And now with Flex, it even kind of is starting to almost feel a tiny bit like some distant cousin of Delphi in a way. But for the web.

And I still can't get IE to cooperate. IE is probably the last browser anyone can expect to follow any standards (which is why so many JavaScript and CSS tricks have to be employed just to get simple things to work, like properly displaying a transparent PNG image), yet it is on more desktop computers than any other browser.

How infinitely sad.

Well, I continue to learn this crap, although I am trying to learn too much at once. There is too much to learn - too much one has to know - to do simple things on the web. My mind is so cluttered with all this new crap, that I don't know how to really do anything, yet. Nothing significant, anyway. I just spent 5 days getting a transparent PNG image to render properly in IE 6. IE 6!!! But it is my objective to get good at this stuff.

I know, I know - what about all those years and all the blog and journal entries and hate mail I never sent about how I loathe, despise and detest computers and how programming makes me so physically and mentally ill? Well...apparently, it is my life blood. It is what drives me. Nothing else has such an affect on me, as nothing else is quite as close to me. I don't have the quick mind and the sharp memory and the innovative spark that I used to have, but I cannot seem to break away from this or shake it out of my system. The best I can hope for from this day forward, is balance.

That reminds me; it is time for my walk.

The nature of this blog may change, somewhat, as I delve ever deeper into the pit of bits that define my life. Instead of the struggle to beat these things into submission, I may focus more on my struggle to find solutions to development issues and begin posting those solutions here. I already have a tutorial up on actionscript.org (I think it is #97 in the intermediate section about understanding movie clips). It's a start. My objective is to put my stuff out there to build an online reputation, portfolio, and a history that people can see. Preferrably, people who might want to give me money for what I do. ;)

Wish me luck! No, wait - don't do that. Luck is a bad thing. Instead, wish me good fortune!