alex chiang: web 6.0

I have a pet theory that geeky people tend to read a lot of non-fiction. Certainly, that theory holds true for me. I would say the ratio of non-fiction to fiction is about 5:1 for me. (Currently, I’m engrossed in an oldie-but-goodie, Thomas Friedman’s “From Beirut to Jerusalem”)

Why is this so? My theory is that geeks have a fundamental desire to understand how stuff works or why things are, which is what much non-fiction tends to be (if you exclude garbage like the Chicken Soup series, etc.). Getting lost in someone else’s world just isn’t that appealing after spending all day imposing our own sense of order on the world.

Or maybe it is, and I just like to read non-fiction.

What are you reading? This is my unscientific survey of my readership. Leave a comment.

For those of you readers who have Macs and are thinking of using Camino as a web browser, be aware that there are at least two issues which prevent me from using it. One is (presumably) fixable, one is not.

The fixable one — at least I hope it is fixable — is that when you open a link in a new tab, Camino seems to think that you also want that tab to have focus. This occurs even if you have the “open links in background” option checked off. Very annoying, but I assume this behavior is simply a bug that will be fixed over time.

The second issue is related to design. From the Camino FAQ:

Camino needs RSS!

Camino is not intended to be a Swiss Army Knife Internet tool. The extent of Camino’s RSS support will be its ability to detect a feed and hand that feed off to the reader of your choice. This functionality does not yet exist, but will be part of Camino 1.1.

This design choice means that I can’t use my delicious bookmark synchronization technique.

I’m sure Camino is a great browser for some people. For now, I’m sticking with Firefox on my Mac.

The latest piece of digg-fodder was one of those “N tips on saving money”. Usually, those lists are pretty dumb (aka use your common sense), but I am oddly drawn to them, like the el cheapo Asian moth that I am. Today, one of those lists linked to this blog post about saving money by rounding up.

The scheme is this: if you must write a check for $23.37, then when you go to write it in your checkbook register, you enter the transaction as $24. That’s it.

Now, if you’re like me, you’re scratching your head, wondering how the hell that is supposed to save you money. Let me explain. At the end of the month, you don’t actually balance your checkbook to the nearest penny. You simply look to see that all the transactions are present. What this does is to trick you into thinking that you have less money than you do in reality. Then, I guess when you go to the bank and look at your real balance, you have more money than you thought. Free money (if you are willing to wait 2.5 years for the incorrectly accounted-for change to add up to something.)

This is the stupidest idea I’ve ever heard of in my life.

First, if in the year 2007, you are still writing checks to pay for goods and services, then you should be dragged outside by rabid porcupines and killed slowly. How slowly? About as long as it takes you to write the check when I am standing behind you in the supermarket line.

Second, if in the year 2007, you are balancing your checkbook by hand, let me introduce you to computers. Why on god’s good earth are you not using Quicken, Money, GNU Cash, or even Excel to balance your accounts? ps, they have machines that will wash your clothes for you these days too!

Basically, this idea only works if a) you are easily tricked b) have a bad memory and c) enjoy using obsolete technology while annoying the rest of the world who understands that the preferred method of payment is electrons, plastic, or cash (in that order). What happens when you look at your current balance and see that the number there doesn’t match the number that you think should be there? Just live with it? Shouldn’t a large discrepancy in either direction cause you concern to investigate the reason for the discrepancy?

But hey, whatever you gotta do to get by, I guess.

As an Asian, I am blessed with soft skin, super intelligence, and extreme frugality. However, there are some things that as a race, we just can’t do well. Growing facial hair is one of them.

Ne’ertheless, to celebrate Manuary, I got a head start this year, starting the growth process in mid-December, and throwing off the shackles of society for two months. One of the many side benefits of growing some bad looking facial hair (aside from the obvious, inherent humor value), is that shaving it off was a great, free Valentine’s day gift for Jenny (who absolutely detested it).

A sample daily conversation:

“When are you going to shave? That looks horrible.”

“That’s exactly why it’s funny — because it looks bad.”

“Isn’t Manuary over yet?”

“Can you make me a sandwich?”

My real friends will find the following sequence of pictures to be humorous. Enjoy.

— 2 months of growth

— cleaned up fu manchu

— yarr!

— valentine’s day gift (me)

To see the pictures at full size, go to my beautiful hair set on Flickr.

64th Anniversary of the Nanking Massacre

note to friends — do not ask my dad about Japanese cars

Continuing with the food theme for today, this article in the Coloradoan about how the Whole Foods in Maine is selling lobsters had a line that made me retch:

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, the Virginia-based animal rights group, would rather Whole Foods not sell live lobsters, but it said the company should also be commended for ensuring that the animals are being treated humanely.

Is anyone else annoyed by the jarring mental dissonance of treating an animal “humanely”?

Someone ought to give PETA a lesson in set theory or maybe just plain logic. All humans are animals, but not all animals are humans. The need to have to explain why this is so depresses me.

It doesn’t make sense to try and treat an animal the same way that you would treat a human. Attempting to do so not only degrades what it means to be a human, but also demeans the animal as well, by forcing a paternalistic attitude on something that doesn’t even realize what’s going on. Think “noble savage” and apply it to animals, and you’ll see what I mean.

Humanity would be better served if a giant meteor fell on top of Virginia.

On the other hand, if PETA wants to continue to send hot chicks who strip naked, put on body paint, and sit in a cage all day to my town, I guess I’d be down with that.

Yikes, a serious dearth of interesting posts here lately. My apologies.

Not that today will be any better. Best I can do is send you to some other site to read the interesting stuff they have written.

New York Times article on how to use the broiler in your oven correctly.

Enjoy.