Harry Potter 1-6

Harry Potter 1-6
J.K. Rowling

In preparation for the upcoming release of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, I followed the fantasy fan grand tradition and re-read the entire series from the beginning. It took me about 10 days, including staying up til 4.00am on the Friday before the release of book seven, to finish them all. It was worth it in the end: I cared deeply about the characters and their fates; perfect for finding out how it all ended.

Some random thoughts from reading them a second time.

• The Philosopher's Stone will always be a sentimental favourite. It has an innocence and magic that the other's can't match. The surprise of this enjoyable world can't be repeated.
• The Prisoner of Azkaban is the strongest; The Chamber of Secrets is the weakest.
• Ron is a lot less irritating on paper than he is in the movies.
• The big action sequence at the end of The Order of the Phoenix is disappointing.
• The Philosopher's Stone was a test book: will this sell? The Chamber of Secrets was 'Oh no, we're on to something get this out quick!' The Prisoner of Azkaban was introducing some new characters and casting around for the real story. The Goblet of Fire is where the story really started. The Order of the Phoenix and The Half-Blood Prince were middle books.

But no matter how I read them, and what different spin I read into them, I loved the story. And to be honest, it fits together a little too well for that final (cynical) analysis to be entirely accurate. All those of you planning on re-reading The Deathly Hallows but slower, I can recommend starting right from the beginning again, if you haven't already. You will get something out of it.

Perl

I don't usually post entries that just refer to someone else's post and then comment, but I thought this one was worth it.

For the sake of comparison, people have been saying that Cobol has been dead for more than 20 years, but there are over 1000 Cobol jobs per month posted on Monster.com, and more than 5000 per month for Perl. - JT Smith, posted by chromatic on O'ReillyNet.

Everyone got that? Perl is doing absolutely fine as a language; there are still heaps of jobs going for COBOL programmers, and Perl has even more! Clearly this is the only measure of a language's health and therefore we should all kindly stop pointing and laughing.

Personally, I think this couldn't come sooner. A technology isn't really dead until people feel the need to loudly proclaim how not dead that technology is. People have been declaring the end of C++ since Java first arrived, but no one is defending C++ yet... more's the pity.

Oh, and I particularly love his analogy to COBOL programmers: smooth.

Against the Day

Against the Day
Thomas Pynchon

This was an absolutely massive brick of a book. 1,085 very dense pages. The longest sentence I remember encountering was a page in length. He's maintained his pattern of hard to read, but very rewarding, books. Though this is only the second Pynchon I've read, I will be going back for more, call me a masochist if you will.

Mathematicians are major characters; reasonably common in sci-fi, but most surprisingly the maths is depicted accurately.

Except... ideas of science are never considered in a rational vacuum. These ideas are always filtered through unbalanced, biased, imperfect humans. We attach extra value to these ideas; we invest in them, growing them beyond a purely rational consideration into something larger. Something that a person could start to believe in. Don't be distracted by false claims of inaccurate ascriptions of religiosity. It's not there. These both emerge from the same base. The linguists who analysed the unusual language of the Pirahã ended up spending sometime literally not speaking over a disagreement in interpretation of language constructs. This is more than science and rational discourse over ideas: this is belief.

No scientific proof is ever accepted from being derived from first principles. Russell showed that isn't actually possible. Well, Russell gave it a shot; his failure showed it wasn't possible then Gödel showed why.

This book is an historical fiction set around the turn of the 20th century: but if it was set now then it would be a near future sci-fi. Something in the line of Stephenson or Gibson where the possible effects of recent discoveries are explored. That's not what the book is really trying to explore however. It feels like a daydream in the end. After exploring many different forms of literatures, sciences, ideas and political battles through the pivotal period of the 20th century the story lazily surfaces into what feels like our world.

You're never quite sure where you've actually been.

For London

Funeral Blues
W.H. Auden

Stop all the clocks, cut off the telephone,
Prevent the dog from barking with a juicy bone,
Silence the pianos and with muffled drum
Bring out the coffin, let the mourners come.


Let aeroplanes circle moaning overhead
Scribbling on the sky the message He Is Dead,
Put crêpe bows round the white necks of the public doves,
Let the traffic policemen wear black cotton gloves.


He was my North, my South, my East and West,
My working week and my Sunday rest,
My noon, my midnight, my talk, my song;
I thought that love would last for ever: I was wrong.


The stars are not wanted now: put out every one;
Pack up the moon and dismantle the sun;
Pour away the ocean and sweep up the wood.
For nothing now can ever come to any good.

We'll always love you Pundy.

The Box Doesn't Exist

One word that always causes me to shudder: 'Content.' This is now apparently the standard word that people in the software industry use to refer to that which is created and owned by their users.

To me it's just the latest horrible, bland, meaningless MBA word. Except it's not. Like all words, 'content' implies something about that which it refers to: that it's irrelevant and doesn't matter, that anything would do in its place. Content is what you put in a box so that the box is no longer empty, it doesn't matter what it is, it's just there to fill the box.

Sure, as software people you're all very proud of your box. You've put a lot of effort into making your box very pretty, and emergent, and Web 2.0, and now you just need something to fill it up. When all you do is build boxes it's very easy to only see boxes.

Well, guess what? Your users don't even notice the box. That content that you regard as interchangeable filling is all they care about. That's what they've spent time, effort and emotion in creating. They don't want to just dump it in some box somewhere, they want it treated specially and with respect. Referring to it with some bland management-speak term is not showing respect.

Words matter. The words you use to refer to something shape your perception of it. If you're in the business of building something where users can display their creations you need to remember that those creative works are the entire purpose of your web site. So don't refer to it as 'content' and then focus on the box. Remember the box don't exist, and treat your user's works with respect.

Don't call it 'content.'

Ticket'd

Spotted out our window one cold winter night:


A drug bust? A shooting? International crime syndicate? Nah, just a P-plater getting a speeding ticket.

Is Something Burning?

We suspect this singe:


On this cat:


Was caused by one of these lights:


Trendy though they may be, it seems that if you have a brain the size of a peanut and a love for heat, heat, glorious heat, halogen lights set at floor level are a little too attractive on a cold winter's morning.

If they hadn't attached themselves to humans cats would long since be extinct. Probably through some accidental fire.