« April 2006 | Main | September 2006 »
August 05, 2006
Writing/Coding
A few months ago, I started writing code full-time after a very long hiatus. What surprised me about my new job was that maybe taking a few years off to get an English degree wasn't such a bad career move after all. I used to think I could never be much of a programmer because I had little aptitude for math or science but I've learned that to be successful in programming, like most things, demands discipline not genius.
I think that's one reason why bloggers deserve respect: because they have the discipline to write to the same rigorous deadlines as a seasoned beat reporter. But unlike reporters, whose editors are willing to supply any discipline that might be lacking, bloggers impose their own deadlines.
Of course, I still have a lot to learn about deadlines. I've been letting this blog languish for some time now and almost every paper I wrote in university was, miraculously marked "extension granted." I may not yet be a disciplined writer; however, I remain stubborn enough to call myself one. And I think any programmer can call themsevles a writer too because the code one writes is nothing without the prose that accompanies it. In his essay, Is Writing More Important than Programming?, Jeff Atwood quotes Joel Spolsky who explains in Advice for Computer Science College Students what distinguishes great programmers from "tolerable" ones:
It's whether they can communicate their ideas. By persuading other people, they get leverage. By writing clear comments and technical specs, they let other programmers understand their code, which means other programmers can use and work with their code instead of rewriting it. Absent this, their code is worthless. By writing clear technical documentation for end users, they allow people to figure out what their code is supposed to do, which is the only way those users can see the value in their code.
I am part of a new class of "user-developers" as Terry Hancock calls them. Thanks to high-level languages and being able to consult Google (or more importanly, the big-brains on my MSN buddy list), most programming problems aren't as daunting as they used to be. However, what remains as daunting as ever is entropy. It is the cause of writer's block, obfuscated code, and crappy software. Writing code, like any form of writing, demands a high tolerance for chaos and the willingness to grind it out until your readers/users can make sense of your ideas.
Posted by rsexton at 12:46 AM | Comments (1)
August 04, 2006
Not Just Sweatshops in Common
So Nike+iPod is here (actually, not yet in Canada) and it looks to me like BrainAge for your body. I have a feeling that, for whatever reason, being able to track my running data on my computer would motivate me to go running more regularly. Isn't it strange that something doesn't even seem real until we can convert it to bits?
Good news if you don't want to use Nike shoes: how-to use nike+ipod sport kit with any shoe.
Oh, and another reason to go running: no more stretching. Quirks and Quarks: scientists debunk the importance of pre-workout stretching.
Posted by rsexton at 12:11 AM | Comments (1)
August 03, 2006
You Tube and Copyright
According to this article in the Hollywood Reporter, You Tube is actually shielded from copyright infringement suits because it is defined as an "online service provider" under the US DMCA.
I think services like You Tube have an important role to play in the media ecosystem because they, at least temporarily, disrupt the rigid rules of copyright. Strangely, it seems that You Tube benefits copyright owners most when their works are uploaded without permission.
In this week's "Pulpit" column, Robert Cringely examines You Tube's notoriously sweeping Terms of Service, which basically state that by uploading a video, you agree to sign away all your rights as creator to You Tube. However, Larry Lessig points out an interesting loophole: if one of your fans upload the video they are not authorized to grant those right to You Tube. And so it is up to you whether you want to ask You Tube to remove it or leave it up to help spread word of mouth.
What if videos whose copyright couldn't be verified were automatically taken offline once a certain number of viewings was reached? Advertisers could even sponsor the more popular videos to keep them going. This would also make it possible to have a wide variety of back-catalog videos available that only seen occasionally but could potentially turn into hits thanks to the effect of "the long tail."
Posted by rsexton at 11:10 PM | Comments (0)