I’m in the process of upgrading the servers here, in anticipation of their move to the new silverorange/reinvented data centre.

The server that powers this website is far, far less powerful than you might imagine it to be: it’s a generic 233 MGHz Pentium II with a 4GB hard drive. Not greased lightning, in other words.

I’m preparing to replace it with the machine that used to be my Windows 2000 desktop, which is a 500 MGhz Pentium III bona fide IBM machine. It’s a trusty piece of iron that has served me well, and has a lot of life left in it. Although it isn’t a greased lightning server either, it’s more than up to the task of running the operation here.

But it only had a 4GB hard drive, which isn’t really enough space to store everything that I’d like to store.

So I went out to Future Shop today and bought a 160GB Western Digital hard drive. With rebate (the standard Future Shop “price is lower than you think” trick), the price was $169 before taxes. Or about a dollar a gigabyte. And it came with a free UltraATA controller card.

The irony is that this price makes it both cheaper than the generic “Cicero” brand 160GB drive, and cheaper than the 80GB Western Digital drive of the same series.

It installed in the old IBM machine easily, and RedHat Linux is chugging away at its installation right now.

I can’t actually conceive of a drive that’s 160GB — my first IBM machine had a 20MB drive, and I thought that was basically infinite.

I’m sure, however, that I’ll fill it up in short order.

The $169/160GB drive is on sale this week at Future Shop. Be prepared for the usual “would you like an extended warranty with that?” routine.

Although I’m on the record as being oppposed to the lights-o-rama that afflicts our neighbourhood every November, I’ve got to say that the recent flap over the “geese pecking down the Empire State Building” is completely overblown.

I suppose, if you squint your eyes, it does look like the animated geese in front of Province House are pecking down the upper reaches of that grand New York building. But suggestions that this somehow represents a slight by Prince Edward Island against our neighbours to the south are absurd.

Yes, the lights are ugly. But I can’t imagine that their designers intentionally included anti-New York imagery, especially in the post-9/11 climate.

How can we put this public relations debacle to rest?

I love ellen, the new daytime talk show from Ellen Degeneres. Its got a great aesthetic, a brilliant host, and an attitude that elevates it above the Letterman/Leno/Rosie level. It’s not Charlie Rose, but, thank goodness, it’s not The View either. The show plays locally on NBC over the noon hour.

Good flag and credit card icons are gold in the web design world (or at least in my little obscure oart of it). Daniel Von Fange found a good source for free flag graphics, in Estonia, of all places.

Between the flags from Estonia, and the PDF tools from Romania, coutries formerly under Soviet control are looming more important in my digital life.

BBEdit, the excellent text editor for the Mac, has long spoken FTP. Now it speaks SFTP too, so you can open/edit/save files sitting on an SFTP-enabled server simply by selecting File \| Open from FTP/SFTP Server from the menu.

BBEdit has long had the ability to talk to external SFTP clients, like MacSFTP. Bringing this feature “into the family” means it works faster and more cleanly.

Available in the 7.1 update released on Friday.

A commercial under the tagline “It’s not what you think, it’s what you know” has been running on the local CBC station here for the last while; the commercials drive traffic to a website with the same messages.

The campaign is funded by the Canada/Prince Edward Island Labour Market Development Agreement which is “co-managed by Human Resources Development Canada and the Provincial Department of Development and Technology.” (Disclaimer: Reinvented was under contract to the Department of Development and Technology until earlier this year).

While the tagline — “It’s not what you think, it’s what you know” — is presumably intended to be some sort of tricky double reverse entendre, I can’t help but feeling that it’s a deeply wrongheaded message about career planning. Indeed, if I was running my own campaign, I might use the tagline “It’s not what you know, it’s what you think.”

The message appears to be “don’t treat yourself as an intelligent, thinking human being, treat yourself as a vessel waiting to be filled up with career skills so you can be an effective automaton for the trade economy.”

The irony is that to excel in the trades — and I consider my work to be a trade as much as any other — requires the ability to think — to imagine, innovate, solve problems, improvise, ponder and solve — much more than the ability to execute a robotic series of tasks. As a prospective employer, I ultimately don’t care at all what skills you have going in (“what you know”), I care about what kind of person you are, whether you have learned how to learn, whether you care about your work, whether you can work as a member of a team, and help to solve new and unique problems (“what you think”). Compared to those qualities, whether you can write elegant PHP code or not is, relatively speaking, irrelevant.

This is not to say that training, with the specific technical skills it allows one to develop (“what you know”), isn’t important. But to suggest that those technical skills are more important than, indeed more important enough to supersede, “thinking” skills seems irresponsible. I’ve been through an apprenticeship, and learned a trade: I learned a lot of very specific (and now, alas, woefully out of date) technical skills. But my ability to thrive in that workplace, and my ultimate value to my employer, had much more to do with my ability to think than with my ability to know.

Perhaps I’m living in some idealized little bubble world where thinking is important. Perhaps I misunderstand the message of the campaign. Or perhaps I misunderstand the way the world of employment actually works. But on the surface, the message I’m getting from this campaign is “stop thinking and start working.” Is that the kind of world we really want to build?

The CBC Disclosure special Political Animal that aired this Tuesday was actually quite informative and entertaining. And, unusually for the CBC, the website for the special is simple, well-designed, and contains the complete video, in three formats, of the entire television program. Bravo, CBC.

If you go to Google and search for “how big is a shipping container?”, this is your first search result:

I am delighted by this, both as a prideful parent of a useful post, but also because the Google abstract of the post actually provides a complete answer to the question.

If the sum purpose of my life is to help people find out what the size of a shipping container is, perhaps I will have lived a useful life. So far, 171 people from around the world have been so-helped.

And I think there’s a useful commercial lesson to be learned here: the best way to drive traffic to your commecial website us to honestly and completely describe what you have to offer the world.

For example: my post-competitive-society officemates at silverorange have engineered an excellent website for Veseys. And Veseys’ Big Thing is Seeds for Shorter Seasons.

But if you search Google for where can I buy seeds for shorter seasons?, you’ll find some links that mention Veseys by name, but no link back to Veseys’ own website. I suspect that much of the reason for this is that Veseys only uses the phrase once on their website.

I’m not holding this up as a failure — I’ve no idea if Veseys really wants to drive home the “short seasons” thing on the web at all, for example — but simply as a situation where it would be very, very, easy for Veseys, at no cost, to own Google searches for “where can I buy seeds for shorter seasons?” in the same way that I own shipping container size questions.

And just to demonstrate that I am the pot calling the kettle black, a search for where can I buy the old farmer’s almanac? doesn’t highlight the Almanac.com website of the publishers as well as it might.

And that’s simply because the words “buy the old farmer’s almanac” don’t actually appear on the Almanac.com front page anywhere.

Now that I own shipping containers, I’m going to try and branch out into particle beam weapons and goat herding aftercare.

In the comments to my Note to New Webloggers (both here and over on Mattville) there’s been some suggestion that RSS is something that’s “good for people addicted to weblogs” (my paraphrase) but that regular old folks don’t need it.

I want to describe why that’s not true. But to do so means starting with a primer on RSS. So here goes.

The atom of the weblog is the post. This is a post you’re reading now. It has a title, a date, and some content. A weblog is a collection of posts, arranged chronologically.

RSS — there are various definitions of the acronym, but I like Really Simple Syndication the best — makes all of the posts on a weblog available to others in a structured format that allows each post and its components to be sliced and diced and examined and indexed and sorted and searched.

Why do we need something like RSS for that?

Well, let’s take a Matt’s blog as an example. This particular post has a permalink, which is to say it has a web address that, if called up in a web browser will take one directly to the start of the post. But the text of the post appears on a page that also contains a lot of other posts.

Because that post is simply a needle in a haystack of other material, it’s relatively hard (i.e. hard enough that few would bother) to train a computer to figure out where one post starts and another starts. In other words, for most intents and purposes, the post is painted on a wall with a bunch of other posts, and loses its identity as a post. To a real person, with a good memory, Matt’s weblog appears to be a collection of posts; to a computer program trained to juggle posts into interesting other things, Matt’s weblog appears to be a mass of amorphous text.

Who cares?

Well, on a personal, practical level, people like Steven and I do because we don’t read weblogs in a web browser, we read them in a specialized tool called a newsreader that eats up the RSS versions of weblogs, and presents them in a structured, useful, centralized fashion.

Other people use RSS versions of weblogs to feed news aggregators, like Radio UserLand, which allows them not only to read weblogs in one place, but also to easily comment on what they read, and to link back to the original post on the original weblog.

Then there are tools like Feedster and Technorati and Weblogs.com that read in the RSS versions of weblogs and do interesting things with them.

Weblogs.com is a constantly updated list of new posts, on thousands of weblogs around the world. It is, in a sense, the heartbeat of the blog universe.

Technorati takes the RSS versions of weblogs and automatically determines the relationships between posts from different blogs, and thus the relationships between blogs, and makes this information available in a variety of formats. It’s a excellent tool for exploring the social life of the blogosphere.

Feedster is a blog search engine. It slurps in the RSS versions of thousands of weblog posts and makes them keyword searchable, Google-style. For example, here’s a Feedster search for ‘Zap Your PRAM’ that shows references to the Zap Your PRAM conference from all over the blogosphere.

And those are only three tools of hundreds.

When you blog using a tool that doesn’t support RSS, your words are left out of the blogosphere. Indeed there are some who would say that these days if you blog without RSS, you’re not actually blogging at all.

Whether that is true or not, it remains that RSS affords the opportunity to have your words participate in a social system rather than simply sitting motionless on an isolated web page.

In other words, RSS-free blogging is kind of like masturbation, while blogging with RSS is like group sex. Or, at the very least, sex with an interesting rotating collection of partners.

I recommend it.

I am, by all measurements, a bad photographer. Which is more about not being a good photographer than about having some inherent inability to take good looking photographs.

I’ve decided that I should get better.

Here’s what I’ve learned to date:

• Symmetry is over-valued; more often than not, asymmetrically composed photos look better. This goes against my better judgment, but it’s true.
• The camera is not you. In other words, the process of taking a photo is not the process of simply recording what your eye sees. This was a big lesson for me. Think of the camera as a complicated paint brush.
• Understanding how light works is important. Common sense, this one. But I have no understanding of light, and this is crippling me. I need to learn.
• Early morning and late in the day are good times to take pictures. This is contrary to what I would think, as these are times of “low light.” But the pictures look better. Perhaps for the same reason that cinematographers talk about the “golden hour” at the end of the day? See these examples by Steven.
• Taking pictures of faces head-on makes people look flat. I learned this from The New Yorker, in an article on film.
• Photos that are out of focus when large can look pretty good when digitally shrunk. The photo of me on this page was horribly out of focus full-size, and I would have thrown it out but for the fact that I mistakenly downsized it, and it came out looking very interesting. Go figure.

More as I learn.