So, this media company I write for has asked me to get some photos taken. They gave me a budget of $100, but I'm asking this fellow I know to do it, and he charges $300. Maybe the company will pay for it anyway. It's New York! What kind of photo shoot did they think I'd be able to arrange for $100??
The thing is, the last picture I sent them was from long, long, long ago - it was current at the time, but that was way other than 2010. I was clean shaven and had short hair. Now my hair is all over the place and I have this beard. I'm also about 25 lbs heavier. I'm basically an entirely different person. People are going to read what I write and be like, "who's this new guy they've got writing it, who has the exact same name as the other guy?" And they'll be like, "did they seriously just go out and find someone with the same name so they wouldn't have to change the byline??"
Anyway, I'm self-conscious, but it's fun to have a fuss made about me - they want my picture! Yay!
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Debugging
My friend Will is living with me for awhile, and doing some volunteer work. One of his projects is to create a website that provides information on members of the organization he's helping out.
The organization has a hosting company that provides a web server, a MySQL database, and the option of installing certain additional software, like WordPress. But it only lets Will have FTP access, so he's been doing the main coding on his home Linux system, and then FTPing his development files onto the main server.
Yesterday he ran into a problem - one of his PHP files was supposed to generate a PDF file listing all the people in the database. On his local system, the PHP file would load and run, and out would pop the PDF file just as expected. On the remote server, the page would produce a 500 error - internal server error, and do nothing.
We stayed up till 1:00 AM debugging it. At first I wanted to eliminate the possibility that it was the PDF data itself causing the problem, so we edited the file to produce a blank PDF page. Still got the error. Then we edited the file so it wouldn't even produce PDF data, but would just load up the various libraries it relied on, and then just make an empty HTML file. Still gave the same error.
If we were seeing a 500 error on a blank HTML file, the problem couldn't be in the file itself. We checked the file permissions, and found they were the same as the PHP files provided by WordPress itself for administrative features of the web site. We also copied the problem file into the same directory as those WordPress PHP files. When we viewed our file, we still got the error. Viewing the WordPress PHP files, we got no error.
So that eliminated any file permission issue or directory permission issue, right? The file that had the error had the same permissions, and was in the same directory, as files that didn't have the error. The only possible answer was that somehow the PHP needed to generate appropriate HTTP headers or HTML code.
So we tried copying the HTML code from one of the working files into the problem file. Still the same error. We were about to try directly copying one of the working files to have the name of the problem file, so that the problem file would be completely eradicated and replaced by an identical copy of a working file, but we were too tired and had to go to sleep.
Then Will emails me this morning. Problem solved! If we had done that final test last night, we would have seen that the identical copy would still have produced the same error. The exact same file, but just with a different filename.
Apparently Will had done that test when he woke up, and, having come to the end of any possible investigative avenue, just stared at the directory listing for awhile, until he figured it had to be a permissions problem after all. The problem file had the permissions set as -rw-rw-r--. This was the same as the WordPress files, but apparently WordPress is fine with its own files having those permissions, it just doesn't want anyone else's files to have those permissions. Once Will set the file permissions to -rw-r--r--, the problem went away.
I'm still not clear on how he made that leap, but it's so frustrating, because checking the permissions was one of the first things we did, and we naturally compared them to the WordPress files since we assumed the WordPress PHP files (which were actively used as part of the running application) would have the correct permissions for us to use. So the whole time last night, we kept saying, "OK, what could account for this? We know it's not a permissions problem, so...."
Bah. This is why I never tried to be a professional coder or sysadmin. Yes, I have skills, but if something like this can totally hang me up, then that's kind of a real problem.
The organization has a hosting company that provides a web server, a MySQL database, and the option of installing certain additional software, like WordPress. But it only lets Will have FTP access, so he's been doing the main coding on his home Linux system, and then FTPing his development files onto the main server.
Yesterday he ran into a problem - one of his PHP files was supposed to generate a PDF file listing all the people in the database. On his local system, the PHP file would load and run, and out would pop the PDF file just as expected. On the remote server, the page would produce a 500 error - internal server error, and do nothing.
We stayed up till 1:00 AM debugging it. At first I wanted to eliminate the possibility that it was the PDF data itself causing the problem, so we edited the file to produce a blank PDF page. Still got the error. Then we edited the file so it wouldn't even produce PDF data, but would just load up the various libraries it relied on, and then just make an empty HTML file. Still gave the same error.
If we were seeing a 500 error on a blank HTML file, the problem couldn't be in the file itself. We checked the file permissions, and found they were the same as the PHP files provided by WordPress itself for administrative features of the web site. We also copied the problem file into the same directory as those WordPress PHP files. When we viewed our file, we still got the error. Viewing the WordPress PHP files, we got no error.
So that eliminated any file permission issue or directory permission issue, right? The file that had the error had the same permissions, and was in the same directory, as files that didn't have the error. The only possible answer was that somehow the PHP needed to generate appropriate HTTP headers or HTML code.
So we tried copying the HTML code from one of the working files into the problem file. Still the same error. We were about to try directly copying one of the working files to have the name of the problem file, so that the problem file would be completely eradicated and replaced by an identical copy of a working file, but we were too tired and had to go to sleep.
Then Will emails me this morning. Problem solved! If we had done that final test last night, we would have seen that the identical copy would still have produced the same error. The exact same file, but just with a different filename.
Apparently Will had done that test when he woke up, and, having come to the end of any possible investigative avenue, just stared at the directory listing for awhile, until he figured it had to be a permissions problem after all. The problem file had the permissions set as -rw-rw-r--. This was the same as the WordPress files, but apparently WordPress is fine with its own files having those permissions, it just doesn't want anyone else's files to have those permissions. Once Will set the file permissions to -rw-r--r--, the problem went away.
I'm still not clear on how he made that leap, but it's so frustrating, because checking the permissions was one of the first things we did, and we naturally compared them to the WordPress files since we assumed the WordPress PHP files (which were actively used as part of the running application) would have the correct permissions for us to use. So the whole time last night, we kept saying, "OK, what could account for this? We know it's not a permissions problem, so...."
Bah. This is why I never tried to be a professional coder or sysadmin. Yes, I have skills, but if something like this can totally hang me up, then that's kind of a real problem.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Netflix Streaming - Just North Of Eh.
Awhile back when I visited my friend Amanda who gave me that aged Earl Grey tea, and who's really great in other ways too, I had some time alone in her apartment while she was at work, and I got to experience Netflix streaming.
It seemed pretty appealing, since I was typically spending way too much money on DVDs. The thing is, the disks get old, and also the industry comes up with new formats like Blu-ray, and then everything in my collection becomes out of date. It's becoming more and more pointless to buy media on plastic.
Copyright violation is one option. I'm totally in favor of that, until the powers-that-be fix our copyright laws so that things fall into the public domain on a more reasonable schedule. If they're not going to play fair with that, then neither should the rest of us.
Streaming the media on their terms is another option, and at Amanda's house I started to see that it could actually be kind of cool. I don't like renting disks from Netflix because I always take forever to send them back, so they don't send me more disks, and the process kind of bogs down. That's why I cancelled my old account in the first place. Streaming solves that problem because there's nothing to send back. I watch something, and presto! I can watch something else.
The price looked good, too - ten dollars a month for unlimited streaming. So, how could there be a problem? I'd just watch what I wanted when I wanted, and be happy.
But there are problems. First of all, the selection is not great. It's true that if I poke around I can find a lot of films I'd like to see; but the vast majority of the films available for streaming are just schlock that couldn't make money in the theater. Or in some cases when they do stream a decent film, they'll only make it available for a short time, and then take it away again.
Why would they do this? Disk space is cheap, there's not a lot of reason to make films available for a period of time and then yank them, unless the whole "streaming media" idea is not really what it seems to be.
Finally I figured it out - streaming media is not being offered as a service, but as a teaser. Of course! That's why the different pricing tiers all involve getting more and more simultaneous disks. You can stream a lot of B movies, or a few blockbusters, or some old stuff, or you can pay more for unrestricted access to every film in their database - on DVD.
I was really disappointed to realize that - it means they're not working towards making their whole archive available to everyone for streaming. Of course, I guess it should have been obvious from the start. "Working towards" is a lot easier for digital video than it is for something like books - just copy the movie data onto the drive, and you're done. No messy scanning or OCR operations that are required for books.
I'll probably stick with Netflix for now though, because as lame as it is, the price is low enough to be worth it, at least for a little while. Eventually I can't see it keeping my interest, and I'll probably go back to piracy, or maybe by then someone in the industry will have figured out that they should just make all their media available for a low monthly fee, and we can finally get past the whole issue.
It seemed pretty appealing, since I was typically spending way too much money on DVDs. The thing is, the disks get old, and also the industry comes up with new formats like Blu-ray, and then everything in my collection becomes out of date. It's becoming more and more pointless to buy media on plastic.
Copyright violation is one option. I'm totally in favor of that, until the powers-that-be fix our copyright laws so that things fall into the public domain on a more reasonable schedule. If they're not going to play fair with that, then neither should the rest of us.
Streaming the media on their terms is another option, and at Amanda's house I started to see that it could actually be kind of cool. I don't like renting disks from Netflix because I always take forever to send them back, so they don't send me more disks, and the process kind of bogs down. That's why I cancelled my old account in the first place. Streaming solves that problem because there's nothing to send back. I watch something, and presto! I can watch something else.
The price looked good, too - ten dollars a month for unlimited streaming. So, how could there be a problem? I'd just watch what I wanted when I wanted, and be happy.
But there are problems. First of all, the selection is not great. It's true that if I poke around I can find a lot of films I'd like to see; but the vast majority of the films available for streaming are just schlock that couldn't make money in the theater. Or in some cases when they do stream a decent film, they'll only make it available for a short time, and then take it away again.
Why would they do this? Disk space is cheap, there's not a lot of reason to make films available for a period of time and then yank them, unless the whole "streaming media" idea is not really what it seems to be.
Finally I figured it out - streaming media is not being offered as a service, but as a teaser. Of course! That's why the different pricing tiers all involve getting more and more simultaneous disks. You can stream a lot of B movies, or a few blockbusters, or some old stuff, or you can pay more for unrestricted access to every film in their database - on DVD.
I was really disappointed to realize that - it means they're not working towards making their whole archive available to everyone for streaming. Of course, I guess it should have been obvious from the start. "Working towards" is a lot easier for digital video than it is for something like books - just copy the movie data onto the drive, and you're done. No messy scanning or OCR operations that are required for books.
I'll probably stick with Netflix for now though, because as lame as it is, the price is low enough to be worth it, at least for a little while. Eventually I can't see it keeping my interest, and I'll probably go back to piracy, or maybe by then someone in the industry will have figured out that they should just make all their media available for a low monthly fee, and we can finally get past the whole issue.
Friday, April 16, 2010
Sickening
For the last 2 weeks I've been home in bed watching streaming media, sniffling, aching, coughing, the works. I was actually feeling so run down before then, that my work productivity dropped to zero. So it's been around two and a half or three weeks that I've been sick this time. That's a long-running sickness.
I don't usually like to go to the doctor when I have a cold or flu, because doctors suck - all they want to do is usher you out of their office as quickly as possible and collect their fee from the insurance companies.
But after 10 days, when I had this huge cough that was making me feel like my blood was going to burst out like needles through my skin each time, and after none of the store-bought medicines were doing anything to ease it off, I finally relented and made an appointment with my doctor.
He's a neurologist, which I figured would be fine - my previous doctor was a cardiologist, but he was still fine being people's primary doctor. And this guy had helped me get a prescription for physical therapy when I needed it, so he seemed like someone who'd be able to help me get a prescription for something to stop the coughing. Seriously - I was starting to injure myself.
So I made the appointment and went in, and the first thing he did was offer me a prescription for antibiotics. I said, "but doctor, aren't antibiotics really bad unless I have a bacterial infection?"
"It's true," he replied, "it might be a viral infection, in which case antibiotics would be contra-indicated."
I should mention, this conversation took place without any physical examination at all.
"Would you like to look in my throat?" I asked.
"We don't have any tongue depressors here. I'm a neurologist. Do you have an allergy to penicilin?"
"No, I'm not allergic to anything. But if I have a viral infection, shouldn't I be given something else? This coughing is horrible."
"Take some robitussin. NEXT!" And he ushered me out.
So, here's my theory. First, the guy was a jack-ass. What kind of an idiot pushes antibiotics when everyone knows there's a huge problem of humanity generating resistant bacteria that can't be stopped and that kills people?
But second, I realized what was really going on. He was totally fine prescribing absolutely horrifying stuff that was ruining the world, so long as it was for a bacterial infection; but he wouldn't do anything at all for a viral infection. You'd think if he had so little regard for the world that he was going to help it breed lethal, unstoppable bacteria, that he also wouldn't mind writing a little script to help my viral infection. But no! The reason he wouldn't treat me for a viral infection is because the only thing he could give me would be opiates!
That's right! Even though the treatments are completely not interchangeable because the two illnesses are very different, the alternative to antibiotics for bacterial infection are opiates for viral infection. And so many big piles of people are walking into doctors' offices with drug-seeking behaviors, that doctors are in such a sweat to spot them and prevent them from achieving their dastardly purposes, that they'd rather prescribe something completely unrelated instead! Something dangerous and harmful to the entire world!
So the trip wasn't a complete waste. I now understand why doctors are handing out antibiotics like lollipops, and why they've never lifted a finger to help me when I've finally dragged myself into their office to get some relief from a cold or flu.
I don't usually like to go to the doctor when I have a cold or flu, because doctors suck - all they want to do is usher you out of their office as quickly as possible and collect their fee from the insurance companies.
But after 10 days, when I had this huge cough that was making me feel like my blood was going to burst out like needles through my skin each time, and after none of the store-bought medicines were doing anything to ease it off, I finally relented and made an appointment with my doctor.
He's a neurologist, which I figured would be fine - my previous doctor was a cardiologist, but he was still fine being people's primary doctor. And this guy had helped me get a prescription for physical therapy when I needed it, so he seemed like someone who'd be able to help me get a prescription for something to stop the coughing. Seriously - I was starting to injure myself.
So I made the appointment and went in, and the first thing he did was offer me a prescription for antibiotics. I said, "but doctor, aren't antibiotics really bad unless I have a bacterial infection?"
"It's true," he replied, "it might be a viral infection, in which case antibiotics would be contra-indicated."
I should mention, this conversation took place without any physical examination at all.
"Would you like to look in my throat?" I asked.
"We don't have any tongue depressors here. I'm a neurologist. Do you have an allergy to penicilin?"
"No, I'm not allergic to anything. But if I have a viral infection, shouldn't I be given something else? This coughing is horrible."
"Take some robitussin. NEXT!" And he ushered me out.
So, here's my theory. First, the guy was a jack-ass. What kind of an idiot pushes antibiotics when everyone knows there's a huge problem of humanity generating resistant bacteria that can't be stopped and that kills people?
But second, I realized what was really going on. He was totally fine prescribing absolutely horrifying stuff that was ruining the world, so long as it was for a bacterial infection; but he wouldn't do anything at all for a viral infection. You'd think if he had so little regard for the world that he was going to help it breed lethal, unstoppable bacteria, that he also wouldn't mind writing a little script to help my viral infection. But no! The reason he wouldn't treat me for a viral infection is because the only thing he could give me would be opiates!
That's right! Even though the treatments are completely not interchangeable because the two illnesses are very different, the alternative to antibiotics for bacterial infection are opiates for viral infection. And so many big piles of people are walking into doctors' offices with drug-seeking behaviors, that doctors are in such a sweat to spot them and prevent them from achieving their dastardly purposes, that they'd rather prescribe something completely unrelated instead! Something dangerous and harmful to the entire world!
So the trip wasn't a complete waste. I now understand why doctors are handing out antibiotics like lollipops, and why they've never lifted a finger to help me when I've finally dragged myself into their office to get some relief from a cold or flu.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
