(Ooh, and there goes a toaster, too!)
Time really gets away from one at times. Like when school starts and you're back to the usual work-a-week world. Oh well.
The real reason for todays post is to bring you the very sad news that an important age in communications has come to a close. Western Union has stopped sending telegrams. I'm not really sure what else to say now. *sniff*
Thursday, February 02, 2006
Monday, January 16, 2006
iTower Progress
Formerly an iMac...
Originally uploaded by The One True Stickman.
Heralding the first photo post from Flickr and previously mentioned here, the now-named iTower (Gromit) is progressing. The next step is building another chassis piece so he can stand up properly. The ports you see on top are technically the back of the machine. The stand piece will also house such things as the speakers, airflow, and possibly a fan, and make it possible to connect a monitor cable without tipping the whole rig over - currently the mac Video connector is pointing straight down, requiring some extra room. Normally it won't be too much of a problem, given that he's going to be a server, but we'll need it occasionally.
Oh, and it all runs! Debian Sarge installed and booting, though not quite all set up. I mostly wanted to make sure it was good to go before school started and before I finished things off. The last thing I want to have to do is pull it all apart again just to hook up a CD-ROM drive to (re)install.
Once I've got further along (and got my conversion done website) I'll post a full write-up with lots more pictures of construction detail. Promise.
Weekend Windchills & Websites
I heartily congratulate Old Man Winter for getting off his duff and freezing ours solid for a change. Saturday (14th) our high was 51°F - our high today was 40°F at about 12:01am and it's been dropping ever since. NWS forecast for tomorrow is a high around 27°, wind chill values between -3 and -13. Now let it snow!
In other news, using TT2site isn't really as hard as I thought (although I've yet to tackle the menu thing). It is, like a great many new things, mostly a matter of actually putting in a little time to try to understand it and realizing that it's really all fairly straightforward, just a little complex at first bite. As soon as I get NateNet fully migrated I'll write up an idiot's guide. Once I figured out sort of how the variable hash works it got easier - the Template::Toolkit manual might have been helpful, in retrospect.
In other news, using TT2site isn't really as hard as I thought (although I've yet to tackle the menu thing). It is, like a great many new things, mostly a matter of actually putting in a little time to try to understand it and realizing that it's really all fairly straightforward, just a little complex at first bite. As soon as I get NateNet fully migrated I'll write up an idiot's guide. Once I figured out sort of how the variable hash works it got easier - the Template::Toolkit manual might have been helpful, in retrospect.
Friday, January 13, 2006
On Preserving Dead iMacs
Since well before the analog board on my parents Bondi iMac died, I've been contemplating what to do with it. Well, ok, not what to do with it, just how. Since most of the bulk of an iMac is the monitor, the obvious solution is to put the brains in a smaller box. There have been a number of ATX powersupply conversions - such as the kMac, this other site and a bunch of others - but I don't have to do that, my power supply works fine. It's just the monitor bit that doesn't. Why go through all the bother of rigging a boxy ATX supply when I've got a working one with about the same form factor as the motherboard and it Just Works(tm)? This guy did it with his iBox and there's the infamous 21-inch iMac. The only problems are 1) the iBox is sorta ugly, and 2) I don't have any extra big monitors lying around to hack up even if I wanted to. So, since necessity is the mother of invention and insanity the father, we set higher goals: we want to take the guts (mobo, PS, hard drive, switch board, speakers, and irDA port) and stick them in a nice, Mac-looking box. Hopefully.
We'll tackle the size thing first. I can fit it in a box smaller than a NeXT cube, but (obviously) larger than the G4 Cube. The thing is getting the components together with in a way that a) uses as much stock cabling as possible, b) allows access to external ports, c) fits in the smallest box possible, and d) allows for adequate air flow and some service without complete disassebly. So far I've got the Motherboard assembly and power supply board mostly bracketed together and the hard drive mount integrated. We're mostly good on (b) - the monitor port is slightly awkward, but this is probably going to be a server so heck - and (a) is doing spiffy except for the IDE cable. (c) is bigger than I'd like, but really can't get any smaller. (d) will be fine, once I figure out the fan placement, and I'm doing as well as can be expected on the service end. PS replacement will require a lot of take-apart, but we have decent access to the HD and Proc./RAM.
Once we've got that done up a little more, it gets itself more of a chassis structure of some sort (Still need more of an exoskeleton in some parts, legs, and (maybe) CD mount) and then we figure out how to make a decent looking box for it all. Simple, quoth the beautiful beast of theoreticals. Not so simple if you have great visions of nicely bent lexan and all that jazz, but we'll cross that bridge after we burn all the others.
We'll tackle the size thing first. I can fit it in a box smaller than a NeXT cube, but (obviously) larger than the G4 Cube. The thing is getting the components together with in a way that a) uses as much stock cabling as possible, b) allows access to external ports, c) fits in the smallest box possible, and d) allows for adequate air flow and some service without complete disassebly. So far I've got the Motherboard assembly and power supply board mostly bracketed together and the hard drive mount integrated. We're mostly good on (b) - the monitor port is slightly awkward, but this is probably going to be a server so heck - and (a) is doing spiffy except for the IDE cable. (c) is bigger than I'd like, but really can't get any smaller. (d) will be fine, once I figure out the fan placement, and I'm doing as well as can be expected on the service end. PS replacement will require a lot of take-apart, but we have decent access to the HD and Proc./RAM.
Once we've got that done up a little more, it gets itself more of a chassis structure of some sort (Still need more of an exoskeleton in some parts, legs, and (maybe) CD mount) and then we figure out how to make a decent looking box for it all. Simple, quoth the beautiful beast of theoreticals. Not so simple if you have great visions of nicely bent lexan and all that jazz, but we'll cross that bridge after we burn all the others.
Thursday, January 12, 2006
Welcome To January, It's 50° and Sunny
This is Maine. This is supposed to be winter. Instead we get wonderful springy weather complete with a thunderstorm. Where is our snow? Where is our Ice? Why do we have stinking rain and mud puddles? I suppose I really shouldn't be complaining, what with heating oil prices and all, but it just seems wrong to have green grass growing in your backyard this time of year.
Wednesday, January 11, 2006
Wonka's Many Flavors
This is one of those very rare posts where I talk about movies. It's a combination of things, really - I've lately been on a Charlie and the Chocolate Factory kick, having just read the book, and (in a rare fit of something) watched both of the movies based on that book back to back. The contrasts are quite interesting.
First off, I love the book. It's zany, it's light, it's deep, it's funny, it's classic. It's the sort of thing I wonder how I made it this far in life without. This naturally colors my perception, so keep that in mind.
I like the second movie best. (For clarity, I will refer to the first movie, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, as "the first movie". I will refer to the recently released Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, with Johnny Depp, as "the second movie". It would be terribly confusing to refer to the movies by their rather similar titles, necessitating a note about which one Johnny Depp is in every time to make sure everyone understands, and also noting when I'm actually talking about Charlie and the Chocolate Factory the book vs. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory the movie.)
As I was saying, I like the second movie best. And no, not because Johnny Depp is in it. (Though I do think he's a very good actor and does a generally better job than Gene Wilder, but we'll get to that later.) It's a combination of things, really, partially due to technology differences between 1971 and 2005, but also casting and general story line.
The first obvious difference is casting. Just to hit on a couple major points: I really have nothing against Peter Ostrum, but he just doesn't look like a poor kid who's practically starving. He looks like he just walked out of some California Suburb and probably going surfing tomorrow, after he finishes his paper route. Mr. Bucket is also another notable figure, partly for his absence in the first movie, but also for his casting. He comes across very well as a young, but very tired and careworn man. The second Grampa Joe is also rather more effective in my opinion. Much more the wizened old man one would expect to have been in bed the last twenty years. The first is almost too young. (Never mind the fact that he might have been Einstein in another movie.)
Gene Wilder's Willy Wonka also lacks some sort of pep. The image I constructed from the book is of a spry little man who can't sit still, has a White Rabbit complex (So much to see! So little time! Hurry along, I'm Late! I'm Late!), is seemingly out of touch with much of reality and happily naive. Mr. Wonka from the first movie (that's Gene Wilder) seems slightly lethargic in comparison. Humorously oddball, yes, but a little to far up in the clouds somewhere. The second Mr. Wonka (that's Johnny Depp) is a little more odd and less kindly, but comes across as less of a polite mad scientist with A.D.D. and more of a mental case with a really bad haircut. He also seemed more rather more nervous about the things happening to the kids. I can understand some of that - who wouldn't be nervous if someone got pushed down your garbage chute by your squirrels - but my ink & paper mental image smiles and nods politely and does what little it can to help deal with consequences. The whole thing is (partially) rigged, anyhow. Oh, and what's up with the flashcards? Chalk one up for the world-class-mental/weirdo nomination. Happy mediums are elusive things.
The technology, however, really helped with things in general for the second movie. Quite frankly, a lot of the first movie's factory innards were rather lame. Brown water don't pass for very good chocolate in my book, and you think that waterfall is the source for the world's supply of Wonka Bars? Colossal and Vast and Fantastic are supposed to describe the factory of Mr. Wonka, not Boston Flower Show, amazing as it is. I also have problems with the the boat, it's so very...er...unimpressive. (We're working on the colossal and fantastic, remember?) I'm sorry to say this, but that bell (when the boat first appears) brought back images of Mr. Roger's Trolley and Mr. Roger's Trolley was better. Never mind that the tunnel scene is just plain out of place weird. Oh, and I almost expected the Everlasting Gobstopper machine to start churning out sock puppets or something - never have I seen such a hilariously ridiculous machine, covered totally in a custom cloth cover, with that goofy pink thing sproinging into the air.
Somehow, story lines are always the first victims of script writers or movie producers or whoever does these sorts of things. The changes in the first movie amounted primarily to the Everlasting Gobstopper Plot Device, which, in my humble opinion, was quite unnecessary. I don't really see any problems with the original plot. (There was also a notable absence of the Great Glass Elevator, but I relinquish the benefit of the doubt as far as technical feasibility.) The changes in the second movie were mostly Willy's history, in the form of flashbacks. Which also affected the end but provided some extra food for thought. The literary purist in me rankles at the liberty. The other side of me, however, really appreciates the way it was done. (I will also admit that the puppet scene is another case where I enjoy the book for what it is and the movie for what it is.) While I don't think adding in Willy's childhood and Father really adds a whole lot to the story (aside from providing a terribly convenient reason for Willy to be in the Candy business), it does add an interesting dimension in the comparison of relationships between Charlie's family and Willy's. (That's a whole 'nother post, however.) I'm not so sure about the end, though, they could still move to the factory. That, however, is just my two cents worth, through a lens of Ink & Dead Trees.
First off, I love the book. It's zany, it's light, it's deep, it's funny, it's classic. It's the sort of thing I wonder how I made it this far in life without. This naturally colors my perception, so keep that in mind.
I like the second movie best. (For clarity, I will refer to the first movie, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, as "the first movie". I will refer to the recently released Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, with Johnny Depp, as "the second movie". It would be terribly confusing to refer to the movies by their rather similar titles, necessitating a note about which one Johnny Depp is in every time to make sure everyone understands, and also noting when I'm actually talking about Charlie and the Chocolate Factory the book vs. Charlie and the Chocolate Factory the movie.)
As I was saying, I like the second movie best. And no, not because Johnny Depp is in it. (Though I do think he's a very good actor and does a generally better job than Gene Wilder, but we'll get to that later.) It's a combination of things, really, partially due to technology differences between 1971 and 2005, but also casting and general story line.
The first obvious difference is casting. Just to hit on a couple major points: I really have nothing against Peter Ostrum, but he just doesn't look like a poor kid who's practically starving. He looks like he just walked out of some California Suburb and probably going surfing tomorrow, after he finishes his paper route. Mr. Bucket is also another notable figure, partly for his absence in the first movie, but also for his casting. He comes across very well as a young, but very tired and careworn man. The second Grampa Joe is also rather more effective in my opinion. Much more the wizened old man one would expect to have been in bed the last twenty years. The first is almost too young. (Never mind the fact that he might have been Einstein in another movie.)
Gene Wilder's Willy Wonka also lacks some sort of pep. The image I constructed from the book is of a spry little man who can't sit still, has a White Rabbit complex (So much to see! So little time! Hurry along, I'm Late! I'm Late!), is seemingly out of touch with much of reality and happily naive. Mr. Wonka from the first movie (that's Gene Wilder) seems slightly lethargic in comparison. Humorously oddball, yes, but a little to far up in the clouds somewhere. The second Mr. Wonka (that's Johnny Depp) is a little more odd and less kindly, but comes across as less of a polite mad scientist with A.D.D. and more of a mental case with a really bad haircut. He also seemed more rather more nervous about the things happening to the kids. I can understand some of that - who wouldn't be nervous if someone got pushed down your garbage chute by your squirrels - but my ink & paper mental image smiles and nods politely and does what little it can to help deal with consequences. The whole thing is (partially) rigged, anyhow. Oh, and what's up with the flashcards? Chalk one up for the world-class-mental/weirdo nomination. Happy mediums are elusive things.
The technology, however, really helped with things in general for the second movie. Quite frankly, a lot of the first movie's factory innards were rather lame. Brown water don't pass for very good chocolate in my book, and you think that waterfall is the source for the world's supply of Wonka Bars? Colossal and Vast and Fantastic are supposed to describe the factory of Mr. Wonka, not Boston Flower Show, amazing as it is. I also have problems with the the boat, it's so very...er...unimpressive. (We're working on the colossal and fantastic, remember?) I'm sorry to say this, but that bell (when the boat first appears) brought back images of Mr. Roger's Trolley and Mr. Roger's Trolley was better. Never mind that the tunnel scene is just plain out of place weird. Oh, and I almost expected the Everlasting Gobstopper machine to start churning out sock puppets or something - never have I seen such a hilariously ridiculous machine, covered totally in a custom cloth cover, with that goofy pink thing sproinging into the air.
Somehow, story lines are always the first victims of script writers or movie producers or whoever does these sorts of things. The changes in the first movie amounted primarily to the Everlasting Gobstopper Plot Device, which, in my humble opinion, was quite unnecessary. I don't really see any problems with the original plot. (There was also a notable absence of the Great Glass Elevator, but I relinquish the benefit of the doubt as far as technical feasibility.) The changes in the second movie were mostly Willy's history, in the form of flashbacks. Which also affected the end but provided some extra food for thought. The literary purist in me rankles at the liberty. The other side of me, however, really appreciates the way it was done. (I will also admit that the puppet scene is another case where I enjoy the book for what it is and the movie for what it is.) While I don't think adding in Willy's childhood and Father really adds a whole lot to the story (aside from providing a terribly convenient reason for Willy to be in the Candy business), it does add an interesting dimension in the comparison of relationships between Charlie's family and Willy's. (That's a whole 'nother post, however.) I'm not so sure about the end, though, they could still move to the factory. That, however, is just my two cents worth, through a lens of Ink & Dead Trees.
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
The Troubles With Websites
Scalability. That's the bugger - especially with sites that start out small and simple. After a while, they grow and end up not so simple. Which is why I'm trying to convert my personal site over to use a template based pre-processing system to generate the static site prior to upload.
So far the one I've settled on is tt2site. (Reasons: it's easy to install and it looked simpler than WML.) Now if I can only figure it out: the features are plenty but the documents few, and Google's no help either.
The main problem is that there is little explanation of operation. Sure, I can figure out how to run the final generation command. That's easy. But how do I set up templates exactly? (I don't know how Perl's template thing works, and why should I? Tell me.) What exactly do all these config files do? Providing example configs is great - how do they work? I don't know. Tutorials would be nice. Start here. Do this, and why. See what happens? Great, now if you want to change it, do this. Cool, you just made a simple site! Now, add this file structure. Ok, in order to set up the menu things you need this config file, this is how the options work, this is how it will interpret that file structure.
I need more detail, a little bit of hand holding. I guess I'll just have to do a lot of poking and write my own Tutorial. Grokking someone else's creation is always so much harder than using something you thought up. If anyone wants to help, by all means - leave a comment or drop me an email.
So far the one I've settled on is tt2site. (Reasons: it's easy to install and it looked simpler than WML.) Now if I can only figure it out: the features are plenty but the documents few, and Google's no help either.
The main problem is that there is little explanation of operation. Sure, I can figure out how to run the final generation command. That's easy. But how do I set up templates exactly? (I don't know how Perl's template thing works, and why should I? Tell me.) What exactly do all these config files do? Providing example configs is great - how do they work? I don't know. Tutorials would be nice. Start here. Do this, and why. See what happens? Great, now if you want to change it, do this. Cool, you just made a simple site! Now, add this file structure. Ok, in order to set up the menu things you need this config file, this is how the options work, this is how it will interpret that file structure.
I need more detail, a little bit of hand holding. I guess I'll just have to do a lot of poking and write my own Tutorial. Grokking someone else's creation is always so much harder than using something you thought up. If anyone wants to help, by all means - leave a comment or drop me an email.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)