According to Rex

Further loss of faith in humanity

noreply@blogger.com (Rex the Strange) — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 17:03:00 +0000

Rex and I went into the theatre to see "Avatar" with very low expectations. And we weren't disappointed. On the Strange scale (1-9) it rates a 2. Really, don't waste your money. I know some people are coming out of it saying that it's the best movie they've ever seen, but we're not hearing from those who leave lamenting that they'll never get their eight dollars and two and a half hours of their lives back.

The best description we've heard is it is "Dancing with Wolves" with blue people. And "Dancing with Wolves" is a much better movie.

To be fair, we missed the opening but through the grapevine it is told that there is little explanation of the scenario. We don't know how they found this planet, how they discovered the coveted "unobtainium" (which, I mean, really guys. Is this not the stupidest name for an unknown element?)

There is debate on the subject, but Rex and I are convinced that many of the ideas are ripped off directly from "World of Warcraft": the "floating mountains" look exactly like the floating mountains in the zone of Nagrand in WoW, the blue people (who are Night Elves?) ride their flying mounts, there are large mushroom growths very similar to those found in Zangermarsh and everything is phosphorescent just like Zanger.

Plus, add to that that the real focus of the movie is to show off future munitions - as humanity advances we're still dependent on weapons of mass destruction, that public opinion doesn't seem to count for squat and there never was any mention of a government keeping control.

News travelled slowly when the American West was being colonized, so the portrayal of the Native American as savage blight on the land was more believable (in "Dances with Wolves" and in American history) than the people in "Avatar" who, not only have instant communications but, get this: actually infiltrate the natives and have first hand knowledge of them and their ways (and, one would assume, more empathy).

But they're still portrayed as, what did the mad Colonel call them? Cockroaches? Puh-leeze! And speaking of the mad Colonel, you have to have the token asshole military man. Or do you? Nope, the entire ending war sequence was clearly put in to attract the testosterone laden 13 year old male. It was totally unnecessary.

Rex's associate suggested that it is the result of American guilt over the Iraq war and there's probably something to be said for that. But even with our hatred of the decision to go into Iraq, this movie does, in subtle ways, glorify war with the characters that it puts on screen the "awesome" military effects blah blah blah.

And that's how we characterize the movie generally: blah. We know that the critics are raving about the film which is further evidence of why critics should not be listened to, although usually the critics slam movies which Rex and I think do not think deserve the slamming that they get. In this case this film does not warrant the attention that it is getting.

It's crap. Forget it. Rent "Dances with Wolves" and play "World of Warcraft." It will be a much more fulfilling experience.

And now for a little more fun!

noreply@blogger.com (Rex the Strange) — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 06:34:00 +0000

A friend of Rex's saw that we post "Walking 'round in Women's Underwear" every year and suggested that Rex might like to delve a little deeper into the comedian who created this little gem.

And, so we present another item from Bob Rivers (audio only - no video. Sorry, we know it sucks but is still, no less amusing).

Enjoy.

Creating a User Control Library

noreply@blogger.com (Rex the Strange) — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 21:29:00 +0000

Rex and I have searched the web trying to find a way to compile user controls into a library in Visual Studio, much the same way that one can compile web controls into a library using a class library. What we found was, in our opinions, unsatisfactory.

Originally using the techniques highlighted here we have, we think, come up with a pretty cool solution. This is for VS 2005 and higher - if you're using an older version then this might work or it might not. We simply don't know.

To Create:

Step 1: Create a new web site (not a web application, although we toyed with that for a while). Delete everything in the site that can be deleted (we're going to be starting from scratch) or select "Empty Web Site" from the project screen.

Step 2: Import any user controls you want in your library (any file with a .ascx extension) or create new ones.

Step 3: Give each control a namespace (this is necessary for calling it up later). You can do this in the ascx file (rather than the codefile which one would do if one were making a class library). In the control registration block, add:

classname='[your namespace and class name]'

For example:

<%@
control language='vb'
codefile='rexscontrol.ascx.vb'
classname='rexthestrange.rexscontrol'
inherits='rexscontrol'
%>

Your namespaces, of course, can vary - they're just for reference on the other end.

Step 4: Publish. On the publish dialog screen uncheck all options. The exception is that you might want to publish each control as a separate assembly, in which case check "use fixed naming and single page assemblies." At any rate, it is imperative to uncheck "allow this precompiled site to be updatable" as this will put the XML code in a separate file and we don't want this. We want it all to be in one nice neat little package.

Step 5: Open a DOS window (yes, a DOS window - or a console window if you want to call it that) and navigate to where you published the site. Go to the "bin" directory and get a listing. If you selected "use fixed naming and single page assemblies" then you will find a listing of one dll per control that you made. If you didn't there should just be one dll - for the whole site (or, soon to be, library).

Step 6: Now here's the cool part. When you publish a .net web site the dlls are named not, as one would expect, to the name of the project (or site) - that would be too easy and, besides, as the guy in the article I mentioned earlier pointed out, if you have two controls with the same name then confusion will ensue. So Visual Studio prefixes the name with "app_web_" and affixes the name with a hash that is created from the directory path. If you don't select "use fixed naming and single page assemblies" then you get one dll with the "app_web_" prefix and the hash code affix (with no name in between).

Either way that's really messy and not good for our library as that will cause confusion. This was causing us many headaches. Rex tried renaming the file, but this renders it useless (Visual Studio doesn't like that).

And then we stumbled on a post where someone mentioned ILMerge. ILMerge is a tool that takes several assemblies (dlls) and merges them into one. What is really cool about this is that it can take a single assembly and create a replica of it with a new name. You can download ILMerge here.

Once you have downloaded it (and added the location of the exe to your windows path) then, from your console (you are still in the console window, aren't you? and still in the web site's bin folder?) you simply type:

ilmerge /out:newdllname.dll olddllname.dll

And hit enter. Bingo. A new user control library has been born.

Step 7: In your project where you intend to use the controls simply add a reference to the dll and add the control as you would a web control (ie: add a "reference" directive to the page or add it to your web.config).

Step 6 - Revisited: But wait, there's more. If you did create multiple assemblies then you can still merge them all by using ILMerge, like so:

ilmerge /out:newdllname.dll firstolddll.dll secondolddll.dll thirdolddll.dll ...

It's probably a good idea to create a batch file for this and keep it somewhere away from the publishing directory (remember that directory gets emptied on each publish) and make file references by full path names. Then, whenever you want to make a change to your library you can simply republish the site, run the batch file and you're done.

Step 7 - Revisited: Whenever you make a change to your library, any applications that you have that reference it will also need to be updated (because when you add a reference to a dll Visual Studio makes a copy of it. We've updated the original in Step 6 - Revisited, but not the copy.

But this is so simple. Open the "bin" branch of the tree in the Solution Explorer, right-click the dll in question and hit "Update Reference." A new copy of the dll will be copied over and you're back in business.

Pretty cool, huh?

Rex and I have tested this using Visual Basic and it works like a dream. It probably works in other languages like C# but we wouldn't know because C languages are, of course, for idiots.

That time of year again!

noreply@blogger.com (Rex the Strange) — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 04:35:00 +0000

Enjoy!

Blade Runner Pagan Festival

noreply@blogger.com (Rex the Strange) — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 04:27:00 +0000

This photograph doesn't highlight how it looks in real life, but this is the Strange Family tree this year. Rex decided to exchange some of his old incandescent pagan festival lights for some of those new LED models that they have out now.

And this is the result. What immediately came to my mind was that it looked like a scene from Blade Runner. Remember in Blade Runner that all of the lights (with a few ambient exceptions) were all fluorescent - and that's what Rex's tree looks like this year.

Those LED lights may seem cool, but they lack the warmth and coziness of the old fashioned version. Happy Pagan Festival (time to die).

noreply@blogger.com (Rex the Strange) — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:49:00 +0000

And to cap the evening, another Goodies:

Well done, Mr President

noreply@blogger.com (Rex the Strange) — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 06:51:00 +0000

I don't know how we missed it, but it was recently brought to Rex's and my attention that President Obama has been receiving criticism for bowing to Japanese Emperor Akihito during his recent Asian tour. According to William Kristol, during an interview with Fox News Sunday program, "...it's not appropriate for an American president to bow to a foreign one."

Perhaps someone should enlighten Mr Kristol. Firstly, to speak on Fox News reduces ones credibility to a minuscule degree amongst those of us who still believe that we have freedom of thought. Secondly, Akihito San is Emperor of Japan, not a President. Japan has no President - a faux pas of Republican parochialism which, in itself, further demonstrates why the Republicans are unfit to lead.

Thirdly, the assertion that Americans should not bow to anyone, even at the risk of giving offense to a major trading partner, is ludicrous to the extreme. Rex and I assert the contrary - to visit a foreign country and not offer the diplomatic courtesies of the host nation is inappropriate.

Mr Bush took the stance that America could "go it alone" - that America was so almighty powerful that no respect need be given to any nation. This attitude was demonstrated at the 2006 G8 Summit where Mr Bush showed himself to have no respect for foreign powers, firstly by catching the attention of British Prime Minister Tony Blair with the now infamous frat boy catcall "Yo, Blair" and later with the uninvited (and completely disrespectful) massage of German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

So what would have been acceptable to these right-wing critics of Mr Obama? Perhaps high-five to the Emperor and a "Yo, Akibaby!" followed by a fond groping of Empress Michiko. Clearly not, because that would have been "shocking!" Oddly enough these people seem to think that it was alright when Mr Bush did it.

Rex was tellling me the other day that he looked up "hypocrite" in the dictionary and the entry said "see Republican". Together we decided that it was time for someone to stand up for Mr Obama - the press have been spending far too much time featuring the critics. While it's true that the squeaky wheel gets the grease, no one seems to acknowledge that it's the squeaky wheel that is probably broken.

So, from Rex and myself, we say, "well done, Mr President." The United States is not a collection of hypocritical, jingoistic frat boys, after all!

Low Suds Mold

noreply@blogger.com (Rex the Strange) — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:45:00 +0000

Here's something Rex and I stumbled across - if you're familiar with these guys then this should be a nice flashback - if not, then you've missed something and it's time to catch up.

Enjoy.

The Truth about Trekkies

noreply@blogger.com (Rex the Strange) — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 05:37:00 +0000

News for you, guys - the original Star Trek series was crap. That's why it was cancelled after three and a half seasons due to a dying viewership. It was only because of Star Wars that it was revived for the original movie released in 1979. The truth is that the best thing Roddenberry did for the franchise was die and leave it up to people who tried to make it less poofy. I just saw the new movie and it shits all over every Star Trek made to date.

But of course "real" trekkies can't get their heads out of their asses to see the quality of this new film even though it punches them in the face. All they do is sit around and bitch and moan that "this sucks because it's not like the original." Well, you're right, it isn't. For a start it doesn't have that talentless hack William Shatner and is generally much more creative. But of course trekkies will never know because they're so narrow minded and (sigh) really stupid.

Beware of the Blob

noreply@blogger.com (Rex the Strange) — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 07:22:00 +0000

beware of the blob
it creeps and leaps
and glides and slides
across the floor
right though the door
and all around the wall
a splotch, a blotch
be careful of the blob

His name is "Bob"

Rex and I submitted this to IMDB, with regard to Mystery Science Theater 3000 (reproduced here because, as usual, we're not sure if they'll print it there):

Mystery Science Theater just plain bites. If you want to heckle a movie then get a movie and heckle it. Don't rely on these idiots to do it - they're just, plain, not funny.

Heckling is not a spectator sport. Go ahead and heckle it yourself. And even if it was a spectator sport then get a few friends together and with a half a brain and a few six packs of beer, I'm sure you can do it better than what's on offer here. I'm often amazed that the film companies that made these movies allowed them to be denigrated by this puerile humor.

But, if you want real sport, then get one of these old mid-century chestnuts, turn the volume down and try to come up with your own dialog.

The Rahm Emanuel Fan Club

noreply@blogger.com (Rex the Strange) — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 03:17:00 +0000

We've been looking - Rex and I have both Googled it and we've come across a Barack Obama Fan Club (of course, no surprises there), a Sarah Palin Fan Club (mildly surprised, but I'm sure it has nothing to do with her political leanings) and even a George W. Bush Fan Club (which, Rex suggested, is probably akin to the Hitler Youth).

Friends and foe alike have described Barack Obama as a rock star. As a public speaker, Rex and I would have to concur, so it comes as no surprise that he has such a large fan following. But where we come from politicians don't get fan followings. The general attitude where we come from is that all politicians are dirt-bag slime-balls and that only an asshole would want to become a politician. Generally, most people where we come from vote because they feel they have to, not because they find anything genuinely likable about the candidate.

Is this why we don't see many fan clubs for politicians? Oh sure, there are political campaigns and campaign offices. People put bumper stickers on their cars to demonstrate their support of a particular candidate. But then there are those political jobs where, really, the guy is doing a hell of a good job - he's a force to be reckoned with and, let's face it, he's just a likable character who once sent a dead fish to a political opponent.

That's where Rahm Emanuel comes in. A former senior adviser to President Clinton and the current White House Chief of Staff, Rahm, not only had the balls to threaten British Prime Minister Tony Blair (and, while we originally liked Tony, his stature has been diminished inestimably by his unwavering support of that incompetent brain-dead douche bag, George W. Bush) but showed his enthusiasm by repetitively stabbing the dinner table with a steak knife while pronouncing a list of people he wanted dead.

This is not the type of person you would want to actually hold the office of a leader of a country (any country, not just the United States) but this is the type of person you want on your side when you do hold the office. Unfortunately, because of the nature of his job, he doesn't get the fan press that he deserves.

Sure, we're all members of the Barack Obama Fan Club (or, at least, anyone with half a brain who doesn't hold a death wish for the world) but how many of us can say that we're members of the Rahm Emanuel Fan Club? Sure, we won't be plugging Rahm for President (unless of course, the Universe implodes and he manages to win the Democratic nomination) but really, a man with this much style - by all accounts as close as a Jewish politician can get to being a mafiosi - deserves some respect.

Join with Rex and me as we present the founding of the first, original (and, hopefully, official - Rahm, just email Rex your blessing) Rahm Emanuel Fan Club.

Millennial Spawn

noreply@blogger.com (Rex the Strange) — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 04:49:00 +0000

I'm sorry, you can't do it. There's no way that you can rebel rebut or, otherwise do anything to shock Gen X. Go ahead, try. Our parents smoked pot and had free sex, our uncles and aunts got into riots and busted heads. Our childhood friends were either skinhead rockers who thrived on the ultra-violence or snotty boys with lipstick on.

Think you're all that and then some because you've got the cyberworld? The Boomers invented the cyberworld and Gen X made it cool. Do you think you're all together because you're in on facebook or twitter? I'm sorry to say, that before you were square we were singing that it was hip to be square.

So what can you do to rebel? Don't even try. At best you'll show the world that you're simply mimicking what has already been done and at worst you're showing that you're a complete asshole.

But then, as Sid (and Frank) says:

What a pisser Sid's dead, so we can't ask for his endorsement.

Poor poor pitiful Mark

noreply@blogger.com (Rex the Strange) — Wed, 27 May 2009 05:10:00 +0000

I wonder how many times Mark Mothersbaugh has had his nose rubbed in his abject ignorance of his statement that the flagship line "Are we not men" from his band Devo's song "Jocko Homo" comes, as he describes it:

directly from the very first Island Of Lost Souls (1933)

Fair enough, Mark. Rex has no problems with that, but how about this later statement:

There were like, watered down, wussy versions of it in the later Islands Of Dr. Moreau

Life imitating art? Mark, are you devolving? For the uninitiated, "Island of Lost Souls" is a 1932 adaptation of the 1892 H.G. Wells novel "The Island of Doctor Moreau." from which the line "Are we not men" originally featured. It was not, a "later" version or versions. It was the original.

But, still, Jocko Homo is a cool song, and here it is (although this isn't the uber-cool version - it's a live concert version...kinda sucky, in Rex's opinion):

(but, Mark, if you'd like us to run a better version, then just send an autographed copy to Rex)

Because we know Comedy Central won't publish this

noreply@blogger.com (Rex the Strange) — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 07:28:00 +0000

Regarding: The Daily Show interview with Jim Cramer

One the one hand I applaud Mr Cramer for appearing on the show in which he must have known that he would be raked over the coals. On the other, I feel that Mr Stewart was very fair in that he allowed his guest to express his position. Now, while on the one hand we can feel that Mr Stewart was somewhat heavy-handed in his interview, Rex and I feel that Mr Cramer handled himself in a much more competent manner than was portrayed on the aired version of the interview, where many of his rebuttals were edited out (tut tut, Comedy Central, as much of this banter added to the most comic elements to the interview).

On the other hand, it's fairly apparent, from the mannerisms of Mr Cramer, when taken to task by Mr Stewart, that he can easily be seen as behaving much in the manner of a trapped and squirming worm. Anyone who has dealt with people of this ilk will recognize the obvious tactics of the trapped weasel - the whiny, whingey plaintiff pleas of assertions of no wrongdoing, co-mingled with the cliche gestures of honesty - the wide-armed, open palm gesture that he exhibited so frequently during the interview. This gesture once displayed an honesty in showing that there were no concealed weapons but, in our modern intellectual converse it can have the opposite effect in that, while discussing innocent matters it can be utilized to pretend honesty when, in fact, the one put on defense is actually a lying sack of shit.

The truth, however, is that no one will ever know who won this debate (or, if it was a debate at all). Rex and I have agreed that Mr Cramer seemed to plead "no contest" in regard to the unethical practices of the interests in question but, on the other hand, given the candid nature of the issue, really what choice did he have? And surely he knew that he would have to take whatever was coming to him with a smile and a joke.

Which, certainly, is what sets him apart from that other douche bag, Rick Santelli, who refused to appear on the show at all, presumably because he knew what would be coming to him. And Mr Stewart's comment bears repeating (or, at the very least, paraphrasing): Mr Santelli is a hypocritical piece of horseshit...no, that's not right - allow me to rephrase: Mr Santelli is a a hypocritical dung beetle, subsisting on a piece of horseshit, as his claim that we (being the taxpayers) shouldn't support the so-called "losers mortgages" is only made more loud and clear by his silence on the argument that we (being the taxpayers) should pay off and keep afloat the mismanaged banks and auto industries and whatnot.

Following the Cold War, after the fall of the Berlin Wall, there was a bumper sticker very popular in certain countries (not America) that showed the flag of the Soviet Union and the flag of the United States of America. Across the Soviet flag there was a big, red X and the caption read "one down, one to go." Rex and I thought this silly because we had been lead to believe, like all children of the so-called "free world" that America had won the Cold War and that everything would be good again.

But when one considers this in the context of the current economic crisis then, while the point may not have been the intent of the original designers, there emerges an obvious fact - that the problem is not socialism nor capitalism, but authoritarianism and extremism. I can't count how many times I've heard commentary during the Cold War that denounced the "commies," saying that they were inferior because of their system. But here in America we're better because we have "democracy." This is propagandist bullshit to the extreme. Firstly, "Communism" is an economic system and "Democracy" is a political system. The tangential opposite of Democracy is Authoritarianism. That was the true objection to Stalin's communism. The opposite of "Communism" is "Capitalism" and, given the current state of the economy, how well is that working out?

So many (stupid) people will be bitching about how Obama's economic recovery plans resemble Stalinist Russia. Make no mistake - these people are uninformed, paranoid and sensationalist idiots. The truth is that pure Capitalism works no more successfully than pure Communism. Of course, Mr Santelli, and many others like him will refuse to acknowledge this, even in the face of the current economic crisis (and historical evidence that has been repeatedly demonstrated in brutally capitalistic societies, starting with the economic climate that fomented the French Revolution) even as they smilingly take the government handouts, which is even worse that pure communism.

Rex and I give Mr Cramer credit that he did acknowledge blame and that he did acknowledge wrongdoing and that he did express a desire to see the guilty punished, whereas his CNBC co-presenter was too much of a weaselly fucktard to even do that. And, Mr Cramer did it all in the face of Mr Stewart who, let's face it, is a very bright guy and who wouldn't allow him to bullshit his way out of it. I have new found respect for both of these people. The people I have no respect for are the executives at CNBC who, as Mr Stewart put it, "sold the snake skin oil" and the executives at Comedy Central who chose to air only the juicy bits that showed Mr Stewart humiliating his guest out of context - correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't they just like the CNBC slimeballs that Mr Stewart was trying to expose?

A really deep and meaningful personal poll

noreply@blogger.com (Rex the Strange) — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 07:06:00 +0000

We all get them - those meaningless and intrusive polls that ask you for all sorts of details of all facets of your life that no one has a right to know (except maybe your house cleaner - but that's a different post). So here is Rex's version. Pass it on - instructions are available at the end.

--------------------------------------------

Answer the following questions as truthfully as you can (otherwise we'll all know that you're a lying sack of shit)

1) Full name: Rex the Strange

2) Date of Birth: 2001 BCE

3) When was your first kiss? 2002 BCE

4) First kiss with tongue? 2003 BCE

5) Have you ever masturbated? Yes

6) With others present? Yes

7) When? Last Tuesday

8) What time? Between 7:47 and 7:48 pm

9) Have you ever been involved in a sexual act involving gerbils, rodents or small marsupials? Hasn't everyone?

10) Have you been circumcised? Yes.

11) Ritually shawn? Yes.

12) Castrated with two house bricks? Yes. By some guy in robes.

13) Did it hurt? I don't think so. I'm pretty sure he kept his fingers clear of the bricks.

14) Have you slaughtered a goat recently? Yes, and he was very tasty.

15) What was his name? Max

16) Did you know him personally? No, but his uncle was a former entree.

17) Let's talk about your finances. Are you rich? Yes.

18) How rich? Very.

19) Do you own a private numbered account in a Swiss bank? Yes

20) What is the number? 38259682868

21) And the password? There is sauerkraut in my lederhosen

22) Back to personal relations - if the price were right, would you have wild, gay sex with a rabid gorilla with leprosy? Sure (it wouldn't even have to be for money)

23) Do you play computer games? Yes

24) Did you give an answer to the last question? Yes

26) You don't really have a life, do you? Um. No.

27) Do you remove nose hairs on a regular basis? Yes

28) Tweezers or blowtorch? Waffle iron.

28) If the Earth was the ground and you were a potato, how many eyes would you have? 47

29) Why? I don't know. I just like the sound of that number - forty seven - it has a nice rhythm to it.

30) Have you ever had the shit kicked out of you? Yes.

31) Recently? No

32) How does next Wednesday sound? Peachy

Now, take your age in octal (using the resulting number as a decimal number) and multiply that by the circumference of your head (in millimeters). Send this poll out to that many of your friends or else you will contract a disfiguring disease and will spend eternity with your flesh rotting while listening to Josh Groban (which, between the two, I must admit, raises the question of cause and effect).

Definition of "wanker"

noreply@blogger.com (Rex the Strange) — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 10:29:00 +0000

We Australians know what this term means and many around the world may be able to surmise the definition. There are many synonyms including: jerk, tosser, toffey-nosed and something to do with sheep that Rex is unwilling to allow me to print because, well, it's a little too expressive.

However, Rex feels that it is necessary to point out exactly what this means. Put simply, a "wanker" is one who masturbates. The most common term to describe this is "jerk." (According to Kurt Vonnegut, a jerk is one who masturbates and a twerp is one who farts in the bathtub and tries to bite the bubbles - but, of course I am paraphrasing ... and I digress). The name may vary, but the concept is the same. It's the idea that I've gotten some vague success so, therefore, by self-dictated fiat I am God and will start imposing unsubstantiated dictums upon my followers.

Here lieth, the Wanker. Take, for example, what was once Rex's favourite photo website: betterphoto.com. It used to be the case that anyone could post a photo and would even aspire to win their best photo of the month category. But now, unless you pay you're not even in the running. So Jimmy, am I wrong? Is this a wallet popularity contest? Rex got two honourable mentions, but now, he feels he can't even get a toe in without expense.

Allow me to level the playing field by saying that Flickr allows virtually infinite free posting - limited by monthly bandwidth, rather than Miotke's 30 picture maximum - so, to display your wares, who would you rather post with? Admittedly, Miotke offers prizes - oh, sorry, he used to - wasn't it the case once when you could submit a picture to compete for a free professional account?

Apparently Jim's revoked that. Rex's best guess is that it's because his site has become too exclusive. Let's face it, if you can't spend his four bucks-plus-change per month - um.. that's $48 plus change, (as opposed to Flickr's $24..ish - per year) - then you're too little for him.

Hey! I need a professional photographer. I need a really cool photographer. I need ... Kiren Chang - but I don't think I need anyone on betterphoto.com - let's face it, they've become (refer to the post heading)...

ps: Jim, sue me and prove me. Bring back the free comp (or, if Rex is wrong I'll be delighted to print a resounding retraction - if you follow Rex then you know he's passionate!). But seriously (and this is no paid plug - just a good friend) - Kiren Chang - Give the man a call. Let's face it, there are a lot of people on this planet who suck a whole lot worse - like Rex, for example ... oh crap, I think I'm out of a job ....

Customer service or lack thereof

noreply@blogger.com (Rex the Strange) — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 17:03:00 +0000

What follows is a dialog in response to Rex's query about the new Delphi Prism scripting language for .NET. The product, using a core compiler known as "Oxygene" promised to allow developers to use a flavour of Pascal as a scripting language for ASP.NET applications.

This is exciting stuff. Rex and I love Pascal so the promise sounded enticing. But mismanagement seems to have pissed on our parade. Go ahead and see if you agree with Rex:

The original question was:

The Wiki describes the new with syntax very nicely, but I can't find anything about how to actually set the compiler option to allow legacy with. To clarify, yes, in a project there is the compatibility options, but if one is making a stand-alone web page using Oxygene, there's no detail on using a compiler switch. Is it:

{$allowlegacywith true}

?

(well, no it's not - I tried this and, of course, the compiler freaked). Is there something like this I can use? Better still, can I put something in the web.config to do it? If so, where, how?

tia
rts

And this was the first response:

It's in the project options, it's a global setting.

Patrick was nice enough to come to Rex's defense:

Carlo,

sorry to contradict you, but not for an ASP.NET project. In addition, it seems there is no possibility to define a global conditional symbol in an ASP.NET project.

This was the final straw for Rex. His response follows:

Correct, Patrick. I'm talking about an ASP.NET project (web page, more accurately, as opposed to an application, web or otherwise) which has only two ways of defining a compilation settings - either, potentially, by a classic Delphi/Turbo Pascal type switch in the code with the {$xx} syntax or by a setting in the web.config. Either would be acceptable and would make me happy.

You know guys, when I heard that there was a Pascal scripting language for ASP.NET I was very excited and began making plans for my company to make the switch (from VB.net). I've been evaluating the product for a couple of days now and I have to say that I'm not all that impressed. If Carlos's flippant response (obviously given without taking the time to read or understand my question) is representative of the kind of customer service I can expect then that's one more reason for my company to not make the switch.

Let's face it, you guys are asking for a lot of money for this product but you've butchered the "with" statement (with a vague promise that I can use the old one but no direction), I still haven't received a response to my question about subrange types - apparently you've gotten rid of them for no valid reason that I can see - and documentation is virtually non-existent. You're relying on a wiki which is tantamount to saying "if you want documentation then write it your damn self."

Well, if my company is going to spend the exorbitant price you're asking for your product then you're really going to have to do a hell of a lot better. I'm sure I won't be the only one to say "screw it, we'll just stick with VB despite it's shortcomings." I strongly suggest that you go away and think it over again. For this kind of money I expect:

Solid, good quality documentation (that should be available for evaluation - if I'm testing a product I want to know if it can do what I want it to do and wasting my time by having me fumble around for a solution is pathetic customer service).

Reasonable and thoughtful customer service - not a "oh say anything because they're wasting my time" type of throw-away response. If I'm bothering you then I'm more than happy to go somewhere else.

The features that Nicklaus Wirth wanted in pascal. It's not your language to screw with as you please!. "Enhancement" means "improvement" not gratuitously changing things because you don't like them.

Not impressed, boys, not impressed. I think you can pretty much kiss my company's money goodbye and probably anyone else who reads this evaluation (which will be posted independently because I just know you'll take it down).

rts.

Party is a state of mind

noreply@blogger.com (Rex the Strange) — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 06:53:00 +0000

Congratulations, Mr Obama.

Rex and I, amongst many others, watched the inauguration. When the oath was complete we cracked a bottle of cheap, pink champagne (Rex's favourite) and toasted that Mr Bush could no longer do any damage. And while we celebrated we also acknowledged that, without hesitation, Mr Obama began to put the wheels in motion to undo all of the damage that Mr Bush, in his most inept idiom, had done to the planet over the last eight years.

Naturally, as any celebration dictates, participants began to dissipate. Eventually there was just Rex and I. But the music flowed and the muse continued and beverage was consumed. When there was simply one, there was no change. Music, dialogue, beverage. There was still a party.

Party is a state of mind. If there is sufficient cause for celebration (like, for example, having an incompetent world leader, such as King Louis XVI of France or Czar Nicholas II of Russia or Idi Amin of Uganda or George W. Bush, removed from power) then is there really a limit to the number of participants for the event to be classified a "party"?

Just you and the statue. Drink and dance and sing and converse. It's an event worthy of celebration. Party on. Party is a state of mind.

Suicide Music

noreply@blogger.com (Rex the Strange) — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 06:58:00 +0000

Recently Rex has been affected by music - it has shown its place as an integral part of his psyche. At the same time, he has been condemning the musical selections of his business partner as "suicide music" - or, as his mother once put it "music to cut one's throat to."

Which has inspired Rex to consider what would be his top choices for his final music to listen to, after slashing his wrists? What tunes would be his dying mantra as the life flowed from his veins?

Please note: Rex the Strange does not advocate suicide and takes no responsibility for any actions taken by anyone reading this post! If you are reading this for suggestions of what music to listen to while ending your own life then Rex the Strange strongly urges you to reconsider and to immediately contact anyone and talk before contemplating such a permanent solution, including (but not limited to) any friends, relatives, casual acquaintances or, if such people are not available, please go immediately to the nearest public service facility such as a hospital, police station or even the local fire station. Talk to someone NOW!

Sideline note: Rex is reminded of what he said to his sister, Rexina, when she once spoke of ending her life "Life may be bad today, but think about what you will miss if it gets better tomorrow."

...unless you're a lawyer or politician, in which case, yeah, go ahead, blow your brains out (disclaimer: please don't - especially anywhere near Rex's imported Persian rugs).

Anyway, on with the "off yourself" tunes. Some of these may surprise you, but Rex has good reasons for all of them. Remember, these are for the full enjoyment of the suicide experience (hopefully for enjoyment to the extent that one would reconsider the final act and, possibly, get to hospital as soon as humanly possible). If you just want something to be playing in the background while you do the .45 lobotomy with no hope of redemption then, in Rex's opinion, simply break out the Josh Groban. If the police show up to find a suicide victim and Groban is droning on in the background then motive would, no doubt, be an indecipherable enigma of cause and effect.

But I digress. Here's the top 10, from Rex's personal favorites collections, to be played in order of fading mortality:

#10: Veronica by Elvis Costello - Why? because it's a sad song and for affirmation of the reason behind The Who's assertion "I hope I die before I get old"

#9: Where Do I Go? by Galt McDermott ("Hair" Soundtrack) - Why? This song sings the anthem of the lost way that leads one to such a tragic act.

#8: Live and Let Die by Paul McCartney - Why? Oh, please. Do I really have to explain this one? (probably best played during the adrenaline rush that's caused from excessive blood loss - with any luck it'll make you get off your bleeding ass and call an ambulance - for the ambulance ride, Rex personally recommends "Black Bugs" by Regurgitator)

#7: Black Bugs by Regurgitator - Why? Well, what is at the end? This tune has dual purpose for the impending end or the ambulance ride.

#6: And She Was by Talking Heads - Why? Perhaps Rex has the interpretation wrong, but he's always seen this as being about suicide (David, if Rex is wrong then please feel free to email him personally and let him know). Don't you think that the lines "she's making sure she is not dreaming," "moving into the Universe", "and she was glad about it, no doubt about it, she isn't sure about what she's done, no time to think about what to tell them, no time to think about what she's done" and, of course, "and she was" are a bit of a giveaway?

(subject to correction, Dave, just come around to Rex's place and autograph his copy of "Stop Making Sense" and I'll print a retraction).

#5 New Slang by The Shins - Why? Well, because by now you've lost a lot of blood and (if you haven't had the sense or decency to do it in the traditional Roman style - in a warm bath) you're starting to get pretty cold. So something with a spritely acoustic step might be just the thing to keep you going for those final few moments. Plus, if you're from an early Generation X generation then this sound may ring semblance of some of those fun, yet goofy sounds your Mom played in your childhood. Something nice to remember Mom by before eternal sleep.

#4 Ship of Fools by World Party & Anthony Thistlethwaite - Why? Getting close to last chance buddy! You will pay tomorrow (even though you may not be around to see it). Traditionally this has been a song that Rex plays when he goes crazy drinking until 3 am. But this is totally apt for a last music scenario.

#3 Woke Up This Morning by Vinnie Pauleone & The Ba Da Bing Orchestra - Why? Getting close to the point of no return - stir it up - don't be a loser - get yourself a gun (or a phone to call help!)

#2 Blister in the Sun by Violent Femmes - Why? Because it's a fuckin' cool song! It's in the top 10 of what Rex and I would like to hear just before we die.

And the top song to do the self-snuff to:

#1 The End by The Beatles - Needs no explanation. If you'd ever listened to the words (all fifteen of them) then you wouldn't have gone down this road in the first place!

And there it is. If you have a suggestion then please leave a comment and tell us why. But remember, this if for fun. A much better idea comes from the most unlikely of musical sources: The Bee Gees:

Stayin' Alive
Stayin' Alive
Aah aah aah aah Stayin' Aliiiiive!

Your own private Idaho

noreply@blogger.com (Rex the Strange) — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 07:46:00 +0000

Rex and I convened recently and came to the conclusion that we have absolutely no freaking idea of what this is supposed to mean. I'm sure there are people out there (and Rex and I do invite comments but - disclaimer: can't guarantee that we won't completely ridicule you if you say something extraordinarily stupid) who can explain this to us, but we do feel that, despite the song having an enigmatic quality, it does have a rocking good beat and a sound that epitomises the decade which we now, affectionately refer to as "the 80's"

The twenty year cycle is finally coming around, folks, and it's about time. In fact, by our reckoning, it has become more of a twenty-five to thirty year cycle. For some, inexplicable reason, the 1970's rebirth held out far longer that it should have. Those of us who lived during the 70's recognize the decade for what it truely was: a tasteless, vulgar era in which the world went colorblind (I mean, literally colorblind - orange shag carpet! Oh, give me a break!).

But the 80's, even though it has been coined a "nothing" decade, showed some elements of style that we really should look back on with some nostalgia. For a start computers really began to break through into the masses in the 80s. The early Apples appeared in the late 70s, but geekhood took hold in the 80s and began to define a generation. The "coolness" of technology appeared in the 80s and we sang about it with such hits as Thomas Dolbey's "Blinded Me with Science" and Huey Lewis and the News singing about how it was "Hip to be Square."

And what ever happened to music videos? Rex and I were talking and decided that we missed those days when, after a heavy night on the turps one would go back to whichever house was convenient, crash on the couch and turn on the "all-night video hits channel of your choice (or regional locale)" or as Billy Joel put it "wake up in the morning with your head on fire and your eyes too bloody to see" and turn on the aforementioned video channel whilst waiting for the caffine and asprin to kick in.

But now those days are a fond memory. Artists still create music videos, but there aren't any music video stations available from Rex's or my cable provider. Even the iconic MTV has become "Music TeleVision" in name only. Now, to see the latest music videos you have to YouTube it (and there's that annoying mixed-case creeping into common parlance, again [see former post]) and that actually takes some effort and thought which entirely defeats the purpose of the music channel which had made such an impressive (and, we assume, lucrative) existence from catering to brain injured hangover cases.

And, let's face it, the music of the 80s was so bad it was good. Not "bad it was good" sense in the way that modern young generations feel that the 70s was
"so bad it was good" - for those young afficianados, you really need to know that the 70s was so bad that once it was over the whole world breathed a sigh of relief. When the Monitors sang "What will we be singing in the 80s" they weren't, as they proclaimed, sad that disco died, but had realized that if the style of the decade continued on the downward spiral that was apparent from the 70s then one might as well put a bullet through one's head as life would surely get worse.

In many ways it did - there was the Black Monday crash, Ronald Reagan and the Challenger disaster (which helped to put an end to our space conquest ambitions), but on the other hand, the 70s had orange shag carpet, the pet rock, Richard Nixon, the Opec oil crisis, airline terrorism, the birth of AIDS, Saturday Night Fever and more orange shag carpet (with matching macrame curtains).

And this isn't to say that the 70s were completely awful. For example there was .... there was .... there was .... Star Wars. Yeah, that was cool, but, then again, it was really only a harbinger to the technological boom that would be a hallmark of the 80s. And there was fondue. We all love fondue. And, to be fair, there was some good music. Paisley patterns were nice - Rex still tries to find good paisleys - but then they had to go and fuck it up with the concept of the "body shirt." Rex and I have seen those "What Not To Wear" people say this: that those guys who wear nice, loose, comfortable shirts should have a shirt that 'fits well' (meaning: hugs you like an octopus with a hard-on to the point that you feel your nipples rise, not out of arousement, but just to get some freaking oxygen).

But I digress. As for the 80s, we had the Rubik's Cube (compare that to your stupid rock in a box on hay), the Cold War ended, technology boomed and music took a new bent to the weird. Now, because of this technology, music could do newer and stupider things and, while Rex and I generally frown on stupidity, in the music industry it is positively a boon! And now the 80s is old enough and square enough that it's becoming cool again. Reruns of "Home Improvement" and "Cheers" abound (but then again, they've actually never been taken off the air - can we say that about "WKRP in Cincinnati"?) I was so proud when my daughter got a pair of legwarmers and recently Rex discovered the 80s Music Videos site.

So, welcome back the 80s - it's hip to be square...again. And remember, whether you're a child of the 60s or the 70s or the 80s or the 90s (or the naughties) ...

Wading through moronic molassas

noreply@blogger.com (Rex the Strange) — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 06:11:00 +0000

Rex recently was trying to solve a problem with one of his many computers - an aged machine that he fondly likes to refer to as "grampsware," you know, old enough that no one is really taking care of it but young enough that it's still fun and isn't ready to be euthanized. So he's trying to find a way to "flash" the bios (ie: update it with better firmware) - he has the latest bios update, but the machine doesn't have a floppy drive (and neither does Rex - neither built-in nor USB nor personally).

So, what does a rational person do? Well, a rational person attempts to find answers from others who might know, probably from the Internet. And there are such people out there (yes, all five of you). However, most of the answers that you will receive are more useful for drunken cocktail humour than actual knowledgeable answers.

For example, Rex typed in "flash bios without a floppy drive" into his trusty search engine and, as expected, a plethora of discussions appeared using this very phrase, or something very close. And guess what he gets? Such responses as:

"Unless you know what you're doing don't flash your bios [dude] you could [like] totally [expletive] your computer [dude]"

Like, dude, that's like totally like, dude such a ... a ... a ... pass the joint, dude because I like totally like ... lost my ... dude ... like look at those fancy colours ... like ... oh yeah ... like totally ... oh, wait ... I'M TRYING TO GET TO KNOW WHAT I'M DOING!

A Rex's Advice Moment - Sleep it off

Here's an alternate translation:

Like, you don't want to do that because that's what I do for a living and you'll put me out of business (my exclusive business of flashing bioses - I don't know how to do anything else).

Another Rex's Advice Moment - LEARN SOMETHING ELSE

Or you get a response that's something like:

"Only a complete tard doesn't know how to do that! Go and get some help because you're such a complete NOOOOB"

A Rex's Translation Moment - "I have no idea but I like to belittle people on the Internet because I don't know what to do with my life because I'm so disgruntled because I have a very small penis (microscopically small)"

And then there's the ever popular:

"This doesn't belong on this board because this board is especially dedicated to 'putting lipstick on ferrets' and not 'putting thigh-high stockings on ferrets' so take it somewhere else, you pervert!"

A Rex's Reaction Moment - "I prefer squirrels - can you at least direct me, vaguely, in the right direction?"

But let's not forget the most famous useless response:

"It's all right here: www.deadlink.com/booting/c480BC/etchedinstone.html"

or (with regards to flashing the bios without a floppy drive):

"It's all right here: www.netrap.com/flashing/bios/fromfloppy.html"

So, to conclude - human race: do one simple thing ... THINK. Attempt to help your fellow man. Recognize that you are actually really stupid and try to impart the less stupid parts of yourself onto your fellow man (or woman - another Rex rant to follow on that).

The truth is Rex and I are convinced that Internet discussion boards are simply a room full of chimps randomly attempting to type Shakespeare and coming up with this useless crap. Or a room full of (or several rooms of one) drug-fucked would-be raster(s) who shouldn't be contemplating complex technological questions, but should be wondering if ants dream of candy canes (which Rex admits is a serious question).

But, most of them are useless, self-absorbed assholes who feel that their existence can only be justified by ranting abuse at those who genuinely want to learn because they have such intimate knowledge of computers and the Internet because they dabble with them in between shifts at the Dairy Queen (registered trademark of Dairy Queen - www.dairyqueen.com) and once got a two day data entry job at the local dentist.

These are the people that rant "yew are stoopud - onlie a nooob would ask such a noooby nooob kwestun, yew nooob!" They are as ugly as Frank Zappa after a sex change, five quarts of vodka and a tab of acid, have the vocabulary of a three year old and the IQ of a turnip and only use the pages of the dictionary to clean up after an Internet / self-flagellation session.

In the interest of the universal spirit of intellectual cooperation that the Arpanet was developed with a hope toward (and, yes you "nooob", you are an ignorant moron and should probably look up the history of this medium that you're abusing)

Anyway, here are:

Rex's Rules for Internet Cooperation:

1 - If you don't know the answer and only have an opinion then don't answer (get a blog - hey, try blogger.com)

2 - If you think you know the answer (and even if you're 100% positive) RESEARCH IT FIRST (before actually proving to the world that you're an arrogant, know-it-all, but ignorant asshole)

3 - You're stupid! (assume that - even if you've recently won a Nobel Prize. Always "quote" and [reference] in your response)

4 - Answer the Question! "why would you want to do that?" is not a legitimate answer to "how can I flash my bios without a floppy drive" If you can't answer the question then shut the fuck up (or reserve such comments to your blog - refer to rule 1) or go to night class the learn the difference between "can I have people's opinion on..." and "what is the answer to...".

5 - Don't be an asshole. You will be in their shoes one day (refer to www.solipsology.com)

Winter Wonderland

noreply@blogger.com (Rex the Strange) — Sun, 14 Dec 2008 02:43:00 +0000

Ok people! It's time for the old Winter Solstice favorite. This year Rex and I have decided to post it here LIVE (on prerecorded video - compliments of Youtube). This one has done the Winter Solstice joke circuit for over a year now (which means only one Winter Solstice season but, well, hey, all traditions have to start somewhere).

Enjoy!

rts

Post Script: What? It's been removed? That's so rude. I guess it's a seasonal thing and we'll all have to wait until next year.

The Ethics of Advertising

noreply@blogger.com (Rex the Strange) — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 05:08:00 +0000

Ok, people, it's time to speak out about those anti-abortionist protesters. You know know the ones, those people who sit out on street corners with their placards boasting slogans about how abortion is murder or how women who have abortions have ruined their lives. Or they parade about in peak-hour traffic in their cars or trucks plastered with bumper stickers or huge signs that state how society is in decay when we will happily allow a life to be slaughtered before it is even given a chance.

We're not going to speak of whether or not it's a good cause nor will we be discussing the ethics of the practice, itself. What irks Rex is that they usually chose to express their distain by a shock tactic - depicting an unborn, aborted foetus. This clearly demonstrates that these protesters hate, not only the society that allows this practice (which Rex is somewhat sympathetic to), not only the people who oppose them, but also young children - those who are struggling to understand the world during their fledgling years.

Yes, people, children. While the anti-abortionist protester is busily going about their business of horror tactics in an effort to demonstrate their proclaimed love of life, they are causing more harm than good for the future. These images (which, incidentally, are extremely misleading and could, to all intents and purposes be dismissed as misrepresentation as they portray, not only the Univerally condemned third-trimester abortion, but an extremely Photoshopped version at that) do not really achieve their desired purpose and, in fact, achieve a far more nefarious agenda.

Do these people not realize that these are graphics images of disfigurement? Of course they do. Do they not realize that there are potentially children viewing these horrific portrayals? Of course they don't. And they don't care, either. If they save one unborn child from being terminated then they must consider that they have done well. On the other hand, if that is at the expense of a young child who passes by haplessly in a car and sees the image and gets the wrong message - perhaps that child mutilation is what these people are really arguing for - and that child grows up to be a child molester, child beater or Freddy Krueger, then are they really helping society?

A young child doesn't understand the debate, nor should he or she be expected to. The child, on the way to the dentist where, by chance, there happens to be a family planning clinic that is being protested and sees these graphic pictures doesn't, by cognition, think to him or her self "ooh, yes, abortion is wrong because it will look like that baby." They see a mutilated baby and who knows where that will lead their young minds?

At best they will need some psychotherapy and at worst they become the worst serial killer since Jack the Ripper. Think, people, think! Rex does not deny your right to protest. Rex does not deny your freedom of speech and, until now, Rex did not take a stance on the anti-abortion lobby ... until now. No matter how just you feel your cause to be, that does not give you the right to terrorize young children. At the end of the day, that's all these displays do. Adults can handle it and most rational adults have already considered the issue and taken a stance. It's unlikely that these shock tactics will sway them. But think about the children - those who have been born - to them this is nothing short of terror.

And anyone who deliberately causes terror is, by definition, a terrorist. What we see from the anti-abortion lobby, as they stand on street corners or driving their anti-abortion hate-mobiles can be deemed as nothing short of terrorism - emotional terrorism. And the message has been lost. We don't get the message that abortion is a barbaric practice (it may well be) we get the message that these people hate everyone, from the wizened old GYN who has been practicing for years to the delicate infant who will have his or her mind irreparably damaged by their horrific, photoshopped depiction.

Clearly, anyone who stands on a street corner, or drives a vehicle with this imagery doesn't care about society or children or even the unborn, for that matter. They care about one thing and one thing only: themselves. They want to be known and they want to make a statement and who gives a damn if they cause terror to little children.

Becoming Illiterate - Standard Stupidity

noreply@blogger.com (Rex the Strange) — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 23:43:00 +0000

There's a sure fire way to guarantee that you'll never be able to speak English correctly. Just become a computer programmer and follow the standards that are emerging in the industry. When you think about it, if we wrote in the style that programmers program then no one would be able to understand us. Let's take a look at some of the most ridiculous notions.

Cryptic Symbols

The languages of choice these days are those derived from the C Programming Language. This language was developed, presumably, by people who can't type (yes, I'm saying Brian Kernighan and Dennis Ritchie couldn't type). If you look at some more reasonable languages, like Pascal or Basic you see that when they want to say "this or that" or "this and that" then they use the words "and" and "or". But that's not good enough for our C programmers. They have to use && for "and" and || for "or". Clearly this is so they don't have to go looking all over the keyboard for a-n-d and o-r.

It gets worse. To begin a section a far more reasonable person would use the word "begin" or, in the case of Basic, simply the name of the routine or section (like "function", "if" or "loop"). So it makes absolute sense that in C you use { and } (&&huh?)

Parenthesis

Would you think me of sound mind if I used parentheses incorrectly( like this )? Putting a space after the beginning parenthesis and before the closing one with no spaces outside is becoming the norm in programming. Why? Because it helps make code unreadable which helps the programmer with job security (but, of course, job security is a myth because programming jobs go out the window in a recession faster than short-order waiters).

Abbreviations

Programmers love abbreviations. It made sense once upon a time when there was a limit to the amount of characters you could use for identifiers (Apple II basic limits identifiers to three characters) or file names (CP/M limited filenames to eight characters with a three character extension after the period). But there's no such limit anymore. So why do programmers insist on saying things like "vrylrgidntfr" when they mean "verylargeidentifier"? Quite simply, again, because they can't type (or are just very lazy). But, of course, they make it more sensible by using capitalization like VryLrgIdntfr - more on this semi-lobotomized behaviour, later.

On the subject of cryptic symbols and abbreviations, there's the common misconception that if you can type code out quickly then you can increase productivity. This is also a myth. The fact is that you end up with unreadable crap that takes longer to understand and debug. In addition, it also means that you need liberal commenting which also slows down productivity. If you create readable (English type) code then comments become almost redundant.

Mixed Case

This is my favorite. He's now RexTheStrange and this paradigm is creeping into the regular English language (look at the products in your local supermarket one day and you'll see people adopting this nonsense). This comes from the fact that you can't use spaces in your identifiers so, you want multiple words, when run together, to be readable (this is the first time programmers are attempting to make something readable and they just plain get it wrong).

There's a perfectly useful symbol on your keyboard which can allow you to space your words in your identifiers and keep them as one: it's called the underscore. These days people scream and hide under beds when you mention the underscore, but it is, without a doubt, the most useful way of creating multiple words to be one. MySquishyIdentifier isn't as obvious as my_squishy_identifier. But again, lunacy has taken the place of common sense.

Zero Indexing

Let count something. How about your fingers. Let's count them: zero, one, two...nine. So you have nine fingers, do you? Nope, you have ten (or most people do). You don't count one as zero when counting fingers, but programmers do when they count the slots in arrays. So, to find out how many spaces there are you have to add one. How stupid.

More Cramming

C Programmers, in particular, love to cram things together, like an equation will read as:

"result"( oops, sorry - try again is retard language ) "rslt=x+y"

Shouldn't it be:

"result = x + y"?

Seems a little more readable to me.

Sadly this crap is becoming the norm in the industry. Poor Niklaus Wirth is turning over in his grave (ok, he's not dead - I'm surprised that this defecating on the industry isn't killing him, though). I can give many more examples of why C has crapped on the industry. Wirth gave us a clear, crisp language in Pascal (which Basic follows, but the .NET implementation templates have crapped up with C-isms, as have the templates created in Delphi - the modern implementation of Pascal) and now just about every new language follows the C garbage standard.

In fact, it's getting so bad that if you have this debate with a new, young programmer he or she may well say "well, what else is there?" as though there are no other alternatives and this C crap is the way it's always been. There's also the argument that Pascal is dead - everyone programs C - even Visual Basic is losing favour in favour of C#. So, because we've all accepted a crappy language because we're all too stupid to know any better, we should all go with the flow?

Not this little black duck!

Thoughts on the Election

noreply@blogger.com (Rex the Strange) — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 02:34:00 +0000

The Situation:

The statement by Vice-Presidential Nominee Joe Biden that Obama will face serious challenges within six months in office. Clearly, the intention of Senator Biden was to highlight that whichever candidate is chosen, that candidate will face serious challenges within six months of taking office, but pre-empted his candidates success by mentioning Obama personally. Naturally, the Republican party has jumped all over this as an opportunity to highlight Obama's so-called "inexperience."

The Opinion:

It won't hurt much but it will hurt. However, those who would be swayed by this argument were probably Republican leaning, anyway. Furthermore, this just seems like one more desperate attempt by the Republicans to save what many are beginning to believe is a failed cause. And, as Rex tried to find the exact news report only to find it buried under a plethora of other breaking news stories, he would suggest that people have forgotten about it, already (even though it was only yesterday!) However, it will probably rear its ugly head in last minute Obama Hate Commercials (remember how the Republicans played on Kerry's gaffe when he said, regarding the $87 billion dollar financing of the Iraq War, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it", confirming the Republicans designation of him as a flip-flopper?)

The Verdict:
Advantage McCain

The Situation:

Today and tomorrow, Obama will not be campaigning as he is travelling to Hawaii to visit his ailing grandmother (medical reports suggest that her prognosis is not good).

The Opinion:

The opinion breaks down into two categories - ie: this can be seen from two viewpoints. The positive viewpoint, and the one most highly reported, is the idea that Barack Obama is a man of strong family values in that he will potentially sacrifice his own career in order to be with an ailing family member. This shows good moral fibre which one would think would serve one well in the American mind. The negative viewpoint is that this is a man who is prepared to drop everything for a family crisis - while people are being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, he puts everything on hold for one sickly old woman. Is this an indication of what we can expect to see when he's President? Initially Rex was surprised that the Republicans didn't jump all over this argument, but on the other hand, election time is a time for prudence and to make such an assertion would be to show incredible insensitivity and, while Rex doesn't agree with McCain's policies, he does respect the man in the sense that Rex doesn't think he would endorse his party making such a cheap shot (let's not forget him standing up to that stupid old woman who called Obama an Arab at a campaign rally).

Clearly those who like him will gravitate towards the former argument and those who don't will gravitate toward the latter. It's a crap shoot as to which argument those in the middle will favour. But the important thing to watch is how the Republicans behave while Obama isn't around to defend himself - Rex is sure that he will still be in contact with his campaign, but while the cat's away, the mice will certainly play.

The Verdict:

No Advantage

The Situation:

Colin Powell, the former head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff under Ronald Reagan reported on Sunday that he will be voting for Barack Obama. Today, Rex read that former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan has also announced an endorsement of Obama.

The Opinion:

Scott McClellan's endorsement is, in Rex's opinion, far more damaging than Powell's (although Powell's endorsement isn't to be understated). In many people's minds the Powell endorsement can be written off as racial solidarity. McClellan's endorsement has no such placating scapegoat. It is clear that top Republicans are jumping a sinking ship, not because they think McCain is unelectable, but because they know that McCain is not the right man for the job at this time.

The Verdict:

Strong Advantage Obama

The Situation:

Sarah Palin was given a $150,000 wardrobe for the campaign.

The Opinion:

Let's face it, everyone loves to take a shot a Sarah Palin. She's a not-too-bright nobody from a state that's so red that ketchup feels pale who was put in place merely as a lure for disgruntled Hillary supporters. Rex feels that everyone should know that the nomination of Sarah Palin as Vice-Presidential candidate was a moronic decision that should be seen as an indicator of the type of moronic decisions we can expect to get from a McCain Presidency. But as for the wardrobe, while it makes good late night fodder for Letterman, Leno and Stewart, the truth of the matter is, Rex doesn't really think anyone cares all that much. The McCain / Palin supporters will write it off as a cheap attack from those awful "liberals" while the Obama supporters will simply chuckle at the silliness of the Republican Party. They cannot, with any conscience, say that it's indicative of the Republicans' pandering to the wealthy as Obama outguns McCain on the financial front by almost two to one. At best it's a light hearted cocktail joke.

However, what people are not asking is "why can Sarah Palin not afford such couture for herself?" After all, politics is big business in the United States and, while Obama owns his own clothing, he also wears Gucci suits (or some other equally expensive brand). The successful politicans have money. So how successful can Palin be when the party has buy her her clothes?

The Verdict:

No Advantage

Other Thoughts:

Campaign Funding: The most telling sign, in this cycle, so far, for Rex, is the fundraising. Obama has secured almost twice as much money as McCain and more is rolling in. This is partially because McCain has accepted public funding which prohibits him raising funds at this point, but be that as it may it allows Obama to indulge in tactics that McCain, quite simply, cannot afford. The most notable is that Obama can fight from a purely financial point of view - he can spend money in advertising in "safe" Republican states and regions forcing the Republicans to defend their home turf and leaving them without the finances to campaign in the swing states where they really need the votes. Meanwhile, the Obama campaign, outspends them in those areas as well, essentially draining them of the financial capacity to campaign effectively - all they have left are their arguments which have been strongly tainted by eight years of the Bush regime.

This has Howard Dean's fingerprints all over it. Most of us remember Dr Dean as the hothead screaming out state names in a frantic, endorphin induced speech during the 2004 Democratic primaries when he, shortly afterwards, lost the nomination. But Dr Dean did finally find his calling as a behind the scenes organizer of the Democratic Party when he became Chairman. He's definitely better as a "behind the scenes" guy as was shown in 2006 when he implimented his "50 State Strategy." The idea was exactly as I just described. Don't just go after the middle ground - attack behind the lines and campaign in those bloody red states. This forces the opposition to campaign in those areas, too, leaving them weak in the middle ground. The result is history - his strategy pulled off the biggest Congressional power shift since Newt Gingrich led the Republican Party to congressional victory in 1994.

The Bush Legacy: Perhaps the most damaging effect on the McCain campaign has been the Bush legacy. With no end in sight to the Iraq War (a war which Americans, increasingly, are believing is one we should never have entered into in the first place), the recent spectacular collapse of the US economy, which is now working its way around the planet, and the threat of a full-blown recession (and, some are saying, possibly a depression, but that can only be calculated after the fact) it's becoming clear that this disaster is being blamed on the decisions made by Bush and the Republican Congress that stood for six of his eight years. Rome is burning and, unfortunately for McCain, Bush is shoving the lyre into McCain's hands before going back to Texas.

Experience: We're hearing a lot about Obama's relative lack of experience in global politics. In fact, it's the cornerstone of the the McCain campaign. While McCain can proudly boast that he's been to Waziristan (and, yes, people, Rex actually had to look it up on the map) he's trying to sell the wrong message. He wants people to believe that experience makes the difference. So what does he do? He chooses an equally inexperienced running mate who's only claim to world politics is her claim that she can see Russia from her house (which, of course, is nonsense - Wasilla, Alaska is over 600 miles from Russia Juno, where the Governer of Alaska resides is further). But be that as it may, experience isn't the issue in this election cycle. Change is and it's becoming evident that Obama is the man who will bring about change. While the McCain campaign boasts an attitude of change his policies reflect the same doctrine as the Bush administration. This is hardly a selling point.

The Polls: Political pundits love the polls. They love to say where the lead is, who is in the lead and what this will mean in the long run (ie: on Election day). But don't forget that Kerry was ahead in the national polls the day before Election Day in 2004 but still lost the election. The difference here is that the 2004 polls were erratic - one day Kerry was up and the next day Bush was up. Obama has held a convincing lead for over a month now. There was a dip today, but remember that that's before the Powell and McClellan endorsements have really had a chance to have an impact. Or, then again, the polls don't mean diddly.

The Paris Hilton Analogy: McCain attempted to discredit Obama by comparing him to socialite Paris Hilton - of star quality but of little substance. According to the polls it worked, for a time (or did it?). America can be criticized for many things, but showmanship is not one of them. Arnold Schwarzenegger became Governor of California based solely on his roles in film. Perhaps what America is craving is another star in the White House?

Negative Advertising: Both candidates do it, but Obama has the money to include positive advertising as well as keep up with the Jones's. The word on the street is that negative advertising is detrimental. Only time will tell.

The Bin Laden Factor: On the weekend before election day in 2004 Osama Bin Laden released a tape that essentially said "I'm still here. Nya nya nya." Many political analyists felt that this killed the Kerry campaign because 9/11 was still fresh in people's minds and he could bring the message of the Republican superiority when it comes to matters of national security (which Rex and I still ponder on - how can the world's most powerful nation be insecure? Or is it a question of cause and effect?) But what if Bin Laden showed his face now? It would definitely send a message of "Oh yeah, that's right. We were supposed to get that guy." But how would it manifest itself? Would the public think "And, of course, the Republican is always better at national security so let's go to McCain" or would they think "Well, he's still out there. Clearly the Republicans have been monkey-botching the job. Let's give the other guy a chance."

In the debates and in his speeches Obama has been reminding the public, over and over, that Bin Laden is still out there and he will focus on getting him. McCain has retorted by saying "I know how to get Bin Laden." Rex and I are sure we're not the only ones asking "then why didn't you tell Mr Bush?"

Conclusion: Advantage Obama (but there's still 11 days to go)