I'm an Obama fanboy. I'll admit it. Ever since his 2004 keynote address I've been anxiously waiting for the day he takes his oath, and I've been singing his praises as often as possible. But this campaign for the Democratic nomination has been eating at me. I've always loved the Clintons, but I've been stunned at the cheapshots and low blows they've been leveling at Barak...

...Then I realized that I've been naive...

This campaign is brilliant. The Clintons are a godsend. The Democratic party has been playing the game like a god-damned grand champion.

Barak Obama is a once-in-a-generation leader. The Democrats know this. The Clintons know this. But they also know there are a couple issues that hacks like Karl Rove can prey on (like Rev. Wright, and the Weather Underground). If these issues surfaced in October, the initial bite of them could be devastating. If the issues come out now, on the other hand, the people have enough time to realize that they're meaningless issues, and should hold no weight in judging the man. If the issues come out now there'll be almost no bite when the Republicans try to raise them again in a few months.

My hypothesis: Hillary will stay in the campaign long enough to air all of Obama's "dirty laundry". The talking heads will continue to rant about how dirty this campaign has become, and how the Democratic party is tearing itself apart. But Obama will win (it's a near certainty mathematically) and Hillary will join the Obama ticket. The Republicans will attempt a smear campaign founded on the "dirty laundry" that has already been aired and they'll find that the effect is minimal. Obama/Clinton will win in a landslide. Hillary will have 8 years to define herself (and "find her voice"), and to separate her career from the negative aspects of her husband's presidency. Howard Dean will be behind the scenes whooping like a madman, having silently orchestrated a brilliant win. The Democratic party will have set itself up for 16 years of inspirational leadership.

God bless America.

Bloggers are dying. The stress is killing them. This doesn't surprise me very much.

Both the Internet and the 24-hour news cycle create the illusion that the world is constantly changing in profound ways, that in-depth coverage of the revolution is readily available, and that anyone so inclined can digest all of it (making them some kind of uber-human info-god).

But profound change doesn't come from a firehose; It comes from the slow evolution of ideas. Attempting to drink from the firehose doesn't afford us the time necessary to digest and meditate on those ideas.

A few years ago I was a TV news junky (mostly politics and business). But anxiety led me to believe that TV was destroying my productivity. I needed to be working (always) and anything that got in the way of work was bad (TV, sleep, socializing, etc.,). So I turned off my TV for a year...

...I worried that I'd feel cut off from the rest of the world. I didn't. Life (in general) just slowed down, and my life (specifically) kept on moving. When the TV came back on nothing had changed. I hadn't missed the revolution. The 24-hour news channels were still filled with gossip, and prime-time TV was still filled with garbage. 

A year-and-a-half ago I was an Internet junky. I had a huge blogroll which I read religiously each morning. I stayed on top of the trends and knew what was going on. But my head was spinning, and I was burning out. The world seemed to be moving so fast. Huge paradigm-shifting ideas were being anounced daily, and discussed constantly. So I semi-consciously unplugged for a year...

...Surely I was going to miss something huge. I didn't. Life (in general) just slowed down, and my life (specifically) kept on moving.

Professional-Bloggers and Brand-Polishers aside, is drinking from the firehose a wise investment? Given how much time is spent, are the returns appropriate? Is the ego-boost of becoming an Uber-Human Info-God enough? Is the added stress of trying to keep up going to kill us all prematurely?

I'm starting to plug-in again, but am now more weary about the added toll it takes.

Your client work is caught up, your bug list is clear, and you have 8 free hours to throw at your application. Where do you put your time:

1. Cleaning up the UI
2. Shoring up the architecture
3. Updating your documentation
4. Usability testing
5. Something else?

All need attention, so what's the biggest bang for the buck...What takes precedence over all else? I've got to vote for UI, 'cause it is the application (though that's not the answer I'd have given a couple years ago).

The web application at my day job is in the midst of an overhaul. It's architecture has been evolving since the [relatively] early days of web apps, and had become a Big Ball of Mud.

We're trying to synchronize the overhaul of the underlying architecture with the redesign of the UI, because it feels like the best chance we'll have to do it (once the redesign is complete, how much buy-in can we get as there's no direct benefit to the user?).  

I got to thinking about the "evolved" architecture we're starting with, and the thoughtfully designed architecture we're trying to develop; Does an evolved architecture get a unfair wrap? I'm certainly not going to argue that no forethought should be put into the architecture -- That'd be ridiculous. Rather, I'm starting to believe that an "intelligently designed" architecture might be overly naive...Bear with me...

The result of any evolutionary process is dictated by the definition of "success". In biology, an organism is successful if it passes on it's genes. In our original application, a feature was deemed successful solely if it worked. A low bar to be sure, but it kept the company going.

Rather than believing we can design a better architecture than evolution could (which is naive) couldn't we rather aim at tweaking the definition of "success", and letting evolution takes it's course?

Designing an architecture is expensive: Meetings, heated debates about slight variations in theory, and the inevitable introduction of new bugs as we move working code into the new scheme. Also, the architecture we design will be forced to evolve anyway, as we'll no doubt make some mistakes and have to rework things (which may be more expensive in an environment that believes itself "designed" rather than "evolved"). 

One option might be to agree on some "good practices", and use group code reviews to discuss various approaches that developers are taking. This would allow the best practices to find their way into the system organically.

I don't want to push this thought too far, as I absolutely still believe it's valuable to hammer out an architecture at the onset of a project. My mind is wandering, though, as to how concrete and complete the architecture should be.

When setting up a new PC, it takes some time to find and install all of the applications you use on a regular basis. Here is my list. I'm sure it's incomplete, but I'll keep it updated if I realize that something is missing.

Development

• ActivePerl
• NUnit
• Processing
• Python
• SQL Server
• SVN
• TortoiseSVN
• Visual Studio
• WinDiff

 
Design

• Dia
• Gimp
• Inkscape
• Paint.net

Utilities

• 7-Zip
• FileZilla
• Launchy
• Windows Live Messenger
• Notepad++
• Office
• SequoiaView
• Textpad
• Winamp

Back in 2005 my family was planning on taking a trip to New Orleans, but our plans were washed away by hurricane Katrina. But next week we're finally making the trip.

I preparation, I decided to get my blog up and running again. I'm brining my laptop (how could I not?) and will be taking pictures throughout the week.

I wrote that I wouldn't blog again (a few times), but have changed my mind again. This time I've decided to restart the blog because I'm having trouble finding a good place to compile links and clarifying my thoughts and notes and the myriad of other type of information that need placing but don't have a good home.

So I'm back on the wagon again, for now.