I still don't know what I'm doing: But it's apt to be a little bit of everything. Some inclinations may be forming, but I'm not ruling out anything . . .
Now my "Email this" links don't seem to be working -- that was how I got around the problem where the "Blog this" link didn't work.
Oh, well, some people evidently just don't need the exposure: At this rate, world conquest ought to be relatively easy . . .
Ernie
----------------------------------
Ernest Clayton Cordell, Jr.
E-mail: ernie.cordell@highstream.net
Yahoo/Geocities Site: http://www.geocities.com/ecordell
Web page redirect at: http://come.to/ernie
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: ^Ernie^
Date: Jan 26, 3:38 pm
Subject: Is there a fix to get Digg "Blog This" to work with new
Blogger?
To: Publishing Trouble
Has everyone given up yet?
There are a couple of other things that I'd like to point out for
anyone who is listening:
(1) It is a well-known fact with clear evidence, present problems and a history of malfunction that this problem exists and has a specific and known nature to users and likely a known source and concrete reason for digg/blogger technical staff (Personally, I've been hoping that it is a transitional issue until blogger can drop the dual redirecting login, but lately it would appear that digg would rather have to deal with the duality and work with blogger on a solution).
(2) Why is it that I have one login to "all things Google," but whenever I move between services, I have to login all over again? Migrations and mergers can be difficult, but if you can't deal with the workload, pass on the acquisition or your stockholders will lose confidence, which translates to a lower-valued venture.
Thank you, Landus, for allowing me to use this reply to speak to the
broader community.
Just another blogger blogger,
Ernie
On Jan 19, 3:03 pm, lordkosc wrote:
> no fix yet..... i am getting the same error....... :(
> Landus wrote:
> > Does anyone know if Digg has fixed this, or if another way to get Digg
> > to work has been found?
> > -- Chris
> > ^Ernie^ wrote:
> > > This was the first reply that I got, which is what inspired me to blog
> > > via
> > > email to myhttp://ecordell.blogspot.comblog. Somehow I got the blog
> > > to
> > > appear on my Google homepage, but I don't see a way to verify the
> > > xml-rpc
> > > link there so that I could try it manually.
> > > I can find thehttp://ecordell.blogspot.com/atom.xmllink, and I tried
> > > using
> > > that one in the xml-rpc field for a manual setup, but that's when I got
> > > the
> > > error that I mention in the blog.
> > > Well, like other people, I have bigger fish to fry at the moment,
> > > Ernie
> > > --- benbabooey <[email address]> wrote:
> > > > nope.. i checked the other day, still not working. SO many sites have
> > > > fixed this (flickr, etc) - i dont see why they cant just change it :-\
> > > ___________________________________________________________________________
> > > Never miss an email again!
> > > Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives.
> > >http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/--
> > > Posted By Ernie to My Other Handsome Blog at 1/12/2007 08:53:00 AM
> > > KiddWhiz wrote:
> > > > still not working......anyone know how to setup the new Blogger
> > > > manually in Digg? Even YouTube doesn't work.....it's the same company!- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
I got tired of going through all the menus just to manage my blog, so I tried this:
Google Blogger Login
But if you're already logged in, this may be better:
Google Blogger Home
YMMV . . .
Tired of the war? Microwave the enemy!
No serious health hazards? Tell JAMA and NEJM -- They'll want 1500 test cases. As of yet, no long-term exposure: Later, when they figure out they aren't on fire, there will be health risks -- like Cancer, for example.
Someone should invent the cell phone: Then we could detonate suicide bombers at our least favorite Metro stations.
Ray Gun Makes "Targets" Feel As Though They Were Afire
Until now, I had yet to delete any posts on any of the blogs that I've kept. Those "that I've kept" is perhaps the key phrase here: I have deleted entire accounts, but not individual posts. It's a long story, and not one I care to tell today, but that's a perfect introduction for what I do want to say.
I posted an advertisement that I received in email by sending it onto the blog. I've developed a special fondness for blogging by email -- it's like writing to a friend, except that it doesn't reply with all the reasons that it couldn't really read your message. Hopefully, if one cultivates an audience, this is the feeling one begins to develop for those readers -- a feeling of friendship and a genuine desire to inform them in such a way as might help them -- but with a knowledge that one needs not give up too much and that the general quality of the posts (like magazine articles, but hopefully less formal) determines the kind of feedback one does receive.
The advertisement was one that was generally helpful to me, but I became hesitant to leave it because it was based on my buying habits at the Amazon.com ecommerce site. I could have extracted the essential and helpful information, but part of the reason that I posted it in its entirety was to see how it would be treated in the conversion from email message to blog post. It was pretty good, I'll share that much with you. Maybe I might even blurb something on the specific (C++) books, later, but the fact that I was once interested in a pair of black pants in my size may not be too interesting to you. Also as they say, it was TMI.
I think we need a new acronym that is more specific to the complaint expressed by TMI -- I thought the post contained too much personal information or TMPI.
So I deleted it.
This is written in reaction to the links Digg.com: The Evolution of a Web Developer/Designer, The Evolution of a Web Developer/Designer, 10 CSS Tips from a Professional CSS Front-End Architect and The Evolution of a Programmer.
I was 14 years old 40 years and three days ago and IBM had a "markup language" called RUNOFF that looked remarkably like HTML. I was surprised that I got use out of one of its grandchildren "RNF" on the CDC 6000 "Cyber"-series 720, piping the 128-character ASCII out of its `scientific' 64-character set over its network operating system to an i8086 IBM PC as late as 1982.
I enjoyed the articles: The dugg one was funny and the one that inspired it was informative within the context of time, place and environment. We've been struggling with this portability problem since we tried to figure out whether to put ioports in high or low core, which pins on a plug should be grounded and how to synchronize our clocks. Completely portable solutions ain't gonna happen: As soon as two people agree, a third will rewrite the code and a fourth will reconfigure the hardware. Portability is one of those lofty goals to which we aspire but at which we should never really expect to arrive. I think it was in the 60s that the ACM published an article on whether we should hold machine architecture constant so that all languages could aim at producing code for the same target or rather have different kinds of machines that use standardized languages. I think we finally decided on varying everything and learning to deal with it.
There are so many aspects to this issue that I'm all over the road on it. I think "Hello World!" should be rewritten because as it stands, it's an insult to the student. If you can't get assimilate more than "shift a character string into the standard output stream" in your first C++ lesson, then maybe you shouldn't be studying programming. When I tutored/monitored/consulted in school, the program that I saw entirely too much was:
10 FOR I=1 TO 100
20 PRINT "I LOVE YOU!"
30 NEXT I
40 END
I think that nonsense was something that we started in my generation to alleviate "computer fear" -- a disease that seems to have been eradicated entirely. You have to remember that, in those days, Joe Public hadn't seen any real computers, only Hollywood mockups that inevitably encountered a logic error and burst into flames. You put that together with the fact that any computer that would run a program that your average Joe could actually write had an owner who stood over his/seldom-her million-dollar machine with a shotgun, and nerd armies guarded the doors day and night intimidating everyone with technospeak, and it translates to people fleeing in fear at the mere mention of a computer.
I may seem ancient to most readers, but I was the second computer generation, a working-class servant to the privileged grant-winners, and it fell upon us to help the third computer generation recover from the terrorism of million-dollar computer owners and the propaganda of mass-media sheep who feared that smart machines would soon enslave the human race and use them for batteries (cf. Matrix).
Predicting the future is a tricky business. Scripting may indeed replace the lion's share of commercial coding, but the winning language won't ressemble the gobbledygook that you have to write in order to get these primitive machines and amateur software (aka browsers) to behave. In order to use the expanded capabilities of our current processor-hardware complexes, we'll first have to cut the fluff and toys out of the operating systems and purge web-content of superflous gadgetry. Then you'll have enough processing power and memory left to parse a comprehensive scripting language that will still run in your lifetime.
I have a geeky side that still says, "Nifty!" when I see a cute bit of code or script, but my long-term perspective tells me that when you recount your software victories to your children, they'll look at you with a blank stare and ask, "Why in the name of Gates-Torvald would you want to do _that_?"
In the interim, we do have to keep the customer satisfied because it pays the bills until we write that perfect scripting language, but hopefully not in a scripting language, or any other form of interpreted code. If you are independently wealthy, you might still want to consider making yourself useful: While you're breathing the air, drinking the water and polluting the planet, you might want to provide some service so you'll be spared after the revolution.
Grammar does matter: As long as human communication is only at the most superficial layer of the lowest intellectual level, no designs will ever translate into implementations because no designer/developer will ever be able to relate a concept to any programmer/scripter, at least no concept that is complex enough to be interesting. I tire of engineers who come to me saying, "You go module he do include in that places important part when function him library no you no." Some of the foreign ones are almost as bad.
On my last major assignment near Washington, DC, the only literate engineer was from Iran and she ran rings around the rest of the staff. It was required of her because the rest of the staff understood little else. I tolerate improvised pidgin when I order a pizza, but if any designer/developer/programmer has expectations of earning more than minimum wage, it is not too much to ask for him/her to read and implement a design document or write one that can be understood without convening the security council to get a translation. Thick accents and variant pronunciations can be understood with effort, but ignorance and/or neglect of grammar renders a billion-dollar idea into cheap babbling.
Occupational titles are names that describe with what pursuits one is occupied: A job title could be a little more specific, but it should still tell what you do; it is the short form of the long position description, and as such, being shorter makes it necessarily more generic. Some people like to make up important-sounding titles and others like cute-sounding names, but I'm probably guilty of just telling you what my boss calls me; well, at least what he calls my job. To me, a "web architect" sounds like a cute name for a spider (the insect, not the crawler bot). "Web monkey" sounds funny, probably a derivation of "grease monkey" for automobile mechanic, but neither is really very descriptive, but probably quite clear to those in their respective positions. I once had a mechanic who was quite hairy, spent most of his time hunched over, lurching about and either swinging from here to there or perched awkwardly on the edge of bumpers and fenders, who was always covered in shiny black grease and flung handfuls of unidentifiable materials all about his garage. I can't say that I've seen web-browser routine writers behave in a similar way, but maybe they act differently when other-worlders are present.
I don't think it's actually possible to have a conclusion to this topic, maybe because I made the mistake of including all the mixed issues from the blogs, jokes and other types of link-sharing sites when a few of them were just meant to be simple ad-hominem attacks on people with differing positions on how to solve problems. Still, I've a right to my own fun, and it might help to look at the whole of the issue, with the disagreements piled in for good measure.
We have plenty of generic terms such as "parameter passing mechanisms {value, value-result, reference [address]}, formal and actual parameters, dummy parameters, iteration, recursion, pre-test loops, post-test loops and branching," but when texts are written, they are filled with the least generic and hardly identifiable terms, yet the content is largely the same -- but it is usually written as though nobody could have conceived as such notions before reading that particular text. I realize some of the language can be daunting to beginners, but hey! They have to learn it too, eventually, or they'll never be able to ask for help or hold a meaningful
conversation about programming.
Parallel to this thought, when I first started learning C++ I noticed that all the beginners' books (and indeed many of the intermediate-level materials) would assert that it may be even better for you to learn C++ without having first learned C. I don't necessarily disagree with that view, but I found it annoying that after presenting this view, the C++ authors generally proceed to cover elements of the C language.
Part of the annoyance of this treatment is that one of the chief advantages of using C++ -- to take advantage of its object-oriented features -- is ignored by this approach, if not altogether compromised.
I thought it might be helpful to write many of the common beginner programs, like Hello, World! from an object-oriented perspective, and accompany them with an article on what the advantages are for learning C++ in this way rather than directing a stream to the console, which is probably actually an insult to the learning capabilities of the average reader who is hoping to learn C++ (especially one who actually stands a chance of learning anything useful or even gratifying).
Of course, I'll have to beat my own predisposition towards playing endlessly with every program I write, especially when I tend to overcomplicate them with every design iteration!
Let me give it a shot . . .
----------------------------------
Ernest Clayton Cordell, Jr.
E-mail: ernie.cordell@highstream.net
Yahoo/Geocities Site: http://www.geocities.com/ecordell
Web page redirect at: http://come.to/ernie
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: ^Ernie^
Date: 12 Jan 2007 09:33:56 -0800
Subject: Gimme a job!
To:
C'mon, guys! I'm a seasoned software developer with more than 20 years
experience on every line-item in every phase of the research,
development and production lifecycle, as well as some amount of time in
the early years in other forms of automated data processing support. I
left defense consulting in the late 90s a little disillusioned with the
whole Federal consulting process and started some State-level
contracting without renewing any clearances. I could never find a real
need to know classified information, even when I analyzed data, because
I had the clients cook it down to character classes, allowing all tests
from pre-edit to acceptance while eliminating unnecessary access to
privileged information. These days I guess they just let some bozo
with a laptop walk with it. Without use, my clearances lapsed quickly,
anyway. After completion of the State-level work, I decided that I was
finally in a position to take a couple months off and finish that novel
that kept getting relegated to one desk drawer or another. I kept a
line out for opportunities, I just didn't pursue any aggressively for a
couple of months. As I sat comparing manuscript versions to be merged
into a whole, I heard Matt Lauer ask with incredulity, "Do we have any
pictures?" That was 9-11 of 2001: Everything I had every done in the
defense consulting community suddenly required an active clearance,
mostly Top Secret or Special Compartmentalized. Then I got a call from
a recruiter who asked why I didn't have a job. I told him I'd been
working on a novel. "You've been unemployed for two months?" He
asked, adding emphatically, "You're no longer employable!" Maybe that
was what spurred me on, maybe it was just software-development
withdrawal, but I started an intensely aggressive campaign that seemed
to be going nowhere. I even had a huge sign with an expensive graphic
made and set it up on a stand, first on Farragut Square, and then in
Lafayette Park. Every reaction I got was as though I were either a
lay-about or that they thought that I would forget everything I knew or
obsolesce in a couple of months after dedicating a lifetime to acquire
my skills and achieve my proficiencies.
I was always too absorbed by the work to have much of a social life:
My personal contacts dried out quickly and friends quickly lost
patience with my situation. At 54, I'm a little set in my ways and
sitting in front of a terminal hasn't done much to keep me in shape for
construction work. Most people hiring for low-level jobs say things
like, "By the time I get you trained, you'll find a job in your field."
Nobody wants to negotiate (and believe me I'm exceedingly reasonable
on rates right now).
I submit online applications constantly, but nobody takes me seriously
and I've nearly lost faith -- I've certainly lost faith in normal
internet solutions. While I'm not burning time online, I'm writing C++
programs that nobody cares to see. I'd love to do that for a living,
but right now I'd just settle for living.
This is a sin and a crime and a shame. Hire me!
Ernie
I can find the http://ecordell.blogspot.com/atom.xml link, and I tried using
that one in the xml-rpc field for a manual setup, but that's when I got the
error that I mention in the blog.
Well, like other people, I have bigger fish to fry at the moment,
Ernie
--- benbabooey <noreply@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> nope.. i checked the other day, still not working. SO many sites have
> fixed this (flickr, etc) - i dont see why they cant just change it :-\
>
>
> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
> This message is part of the topic "Is there a fix to get Digg "Blog
> This" to work with new Blogger?" in the Google Group "Publishing Trouble"
> for which you requested email updates.
> To stop receiving email updates for this topic, please visit the topic
> at
> http://groups.google.com/group/blogger-help-publishing/t/903070ab4edb769e
> -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss an email again!
Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/
In any case, what I concluded ages ago seems to be true: I'm blogging again.
I wonder how long _this_ will last. . . .
--- KiddWhiz <noreply@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> To: "Blogger Help Group - Publishing Trouble"
> <blogger-help-publishing@googlegroups.com>
> Subject: Re: Is there a fix to get Digg "Blog This" to work with new
> Blogger?
> Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 09:45:00 -0800
> From: KiddWhiz <noreply@googlegroups.com>
>
>
>
>
> still not working......anyone know how to setup the new Blogger
> manually in Digg? Even YouTube doesn't work.....it's the same company!
>
>
> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
> This message is part of the topic "Is there a fix to get Digg "Blog
> This" to work with new Blogger?" in the Google Group "Publishing Trouble"
> for which you requested email updates.
> To stop receiving email updates for this topic, please visit the topic
> at
> http://groups.google.com/group/blogger-help-publishing/t/903070ab4edb769e
> -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
>
>
____________________________________________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta.
http://new.mail.yahoo.com
digg user ecordell would like to share this story with you:
http://digg.com/software/Another_Loss_For_GPLv_3_Is_the_Free_Software_Concept_being_murdered
---
"Another Loss For GPLv 3? Is the Free Software Concept being murdered?"
MySQL adjusts its license to prevent automatic failover to GPL v3. Call it the 'uncertainty' clause. This doesn't even look legal to me: How is it possible to take a product that has enjoyed the contribution of innumerable collaborators and then sell their work as though it were your exclusive property? MySQL was originally a teaching exercise.
+4 people dugg this story
To verify that this email was sent by Digg user ecordell, visit:
http://digg.com/verifymail?key=851b42e7f6b2ce23001a71d9df3d4ff6
To opt out of ALL future emails from Digg, visit:
http://digg.com/optout?key=8b2568e65a33058057643aac20e1826e
Digg will NOT store your email address, even if you opt out!
Digg will store only an encrypted key, which even Digg can't decipher.
