Results matching “learning” from Ye Olde Rad Blog III

Created a dedicated 'Guides' page. See here » Radified Guides. Been meaning to do that for .. eons. This will allow me to off-load the guides listed here on the home-page, so I can clean it up.

I indented & right-aligned every other link .. to make them easier to read. What do you think? When the links were all lined-up together & left-aligned, they seemed too .. similar.

Eventually I'd like to include a representative graphic for each guide/link. But for now, I just wanted to create a page that contains a repository of the links to all our guides.

On a related note, I've been looking more deeply into MODx, the Content Management System (CMS). They are fixin' to release a new version (complete-rewrite, from the ground up, based on PHP5) .. called » REVOLUTION. (Current version is called » EVOLUTION.)

Drupal would be cool, but it's way too sophisticated for what I need. I don't want/need a PhD in CMS's. Here's a MODx site, for example. (I used to live in Lancaster, PA .. the heart of Amish country. Nice people there.)

I'd like to become intimately familiar with a good CMS .. as another skill to add to my digital toolkit. Only way to do that is » use one daily.

The good people at MODx claim a 'Release Candidate' version of REVOLUTION will be coming » "Winter 2009" (.. which is now). [ Notice how the words 'Summer 2009' have been lined-out. ] UPDATE » They just changed the RC date to "Spring 2010". Hmmm.

The MODx site is running REVOLUTION. I'm in no hurry, tho. Rather make a good decision than a hasty one.

One of the most satisfying experiences a technoluster can have is becoming proficient with a new technology, especially one that's not easy to master. Geeks sometimes use the word » GROK, which basically means you 'get it'.

The term was coined by Robert Heinlein in his novel Stranger in a Strange Land (SciFi, 1961). The martian word implies you understand something (such as how a particular technology works) .. on an intuitive level, in a satorial kind of way.

The difference between possessing a working knowledge of a particular technology and 'grokking' it is difficult to describe. Grokking impies a deeper understanding .. that surpasses mere facts & figures.

It suggests you can 'see into' the inner workings and comprehend how the different elements interact.

I've been studying CSS (off-n-on) for months, applying the concepts I learned (.. cuz that's how I learn best). And today I finally 'got it'. It came in a flash .. known as the » ah-ha moment.

[ Hmmm. That's interesting » I was looking for a good article to link to the phrase » 'ah-ha moment,' when my Google search returned a page referencing CSS. Surprisingly coincidental, no? Seeing that I didn't query the term 'CSS' (only » 'ah-ha moment').

What are the odds of that occurring? Of those two concepts being found grouped together so prominently (link #2)? Of all the possible topics in the world, CSS comes up. Maybe it means something. ]

It's not like I didn't understand CSS before. I'd long been reading about and felt comfortable wielding the technology .. using it to whip up sophisticated layouts. But now it seems my insights were superficial .. that I was merely applying recipes, cookbook style, mechanically.

Today's insight came so dramatically that it felt like I'd swallowed a ball of CSS enlightenment. "I finally get it," I muttered. Incredibly satisfying experience. Accompanied by a feeling of arrival, completion, mastery.

Of course, this doesn't mean I know everything there is to know about CSS. Far from it. Gladwell says you need 10,000 hours to master a skill. But I now 'see' how it works .. on an intuitive level.

I would love to be able to plug a cable into my brain and upload a whole slew of other cool technologies (.. like they do in the Matrix). Unfortunately, that ain't how it works. Nor can you grok something by sheer force of will. (If we could, I'd be grunting loudly.) You 'get it' when you get it and not a moment before.

Tho I'm curious about what happens at that moment. I mean, I knew everything I did about CSS now in the moments before I 'got it'. I've also been studying Programming. Maybe that helped yield insight, cuz CSS in some ways resembles programming.

The experience, in retrospect, could be described as a 'breaking thru,' or a 'crashing thru,' or a 'falling thru,'. The thing you 'break thru' seems like a semi-translucent crystalline membrane .. that obscures your vision .. from seeing deeply .. into the inner-workings.

The distance traveled (knowledge-wise) was very small, yet the resulting effect was dramatic .. sort of like the view you get when cresting a big hill. The straw that broke the camel's crystalline back, you might say.

Happy Halloween. I modified the method of placing the graphics in the header found at the top of the home page .. up where it says » RADIFIED | Nuclear Grade Technolust. There I implemented a technique known as » CSS Image Replacement, of which there exist many variations, each with its own set of pro's & con's.

The dividing-line among web designers seems to be whether or not to use a non-semantic span tag with CSS positioning, which involves a more complicated technique .. but leaves visible TEXT in place for visitors who surf the Web with STYLES turned off (primarily those using mobile devices).

I used a simpler IR technique, by changing the images you see displayed there .. from foreground images to background images.

This allowed me to replace the foreground images (contained in those heading elements) with TEXT .. which I then indented (way to your left), so it can't be seen. By moving the TEXT out of the way, this technique reveals the graphics (.. which look prettier than standard heading-text).

The advantage however, is » devices that don't render styles (such as screen readers and mobile devices) will now see a TEXT heading and tag-line displayed there, where before there existed only images. Search engines also gives more weight to TEXT than images.

Most Rad visitors will never notice the difference .. seeing most who frequent the site (fellow technolusters) browse with both images and CSS turned ON. But I'm gradually filling my webmaster toolkit with increasingly sophisticated techniques. (Learning by doing.)

After all the pages are styled however, and the markup is coded semantically, there's still no substitute for insightful content .. that is well written (.. and hopefully seasoned with a dash of personality).

This has always been the most difficult challenge .. because a stylish suit does not a charming pig make. And the ugliest person can say the profoundest things, and possess scintillating ideas. So it would seem that content trumps style .. no matter the venue (.. except maybe for those who focus on style).

Enrolled in Amazon's Affiliate program, something I probably shoulda done years ago. They claim it takes ~3 days to process an application, but I received my acceptance letter today. (Applied late last night.)

Being a n00b, I don't know much about their program yet, except that they pay a percentage whenever a visitor clicks a link on my site and makes a corresponding purchase. (How big of a percentage I'm not sure.)

I've long included links to books at the Amazon site [ in pages such as this one » Best Books for Learning the Basics of Web Site Design (XHTML & CSS), and this one » Andy Budd's Book: CSS Mastery ] without ever taking advantage of their program.

If I start making considerable cash, I'll be bummed that I didn't enroll sooner. And if I don't (earn cash), I'll be bummed too, for wasting my time with this program. So either way .. which might be why I hesitated so long.

What I like best about the Amazon program is that it allows me to monetize the site without including visible ads (.. unlike Google's AdSense program). All I need to do is add the following code to the end of each Amazon link » ?ie=UTF8&tag=radifiedcom-20. So it's virtually invisible to visitors. If I didn't tell you, you might never know.

I also like that it doesn't cost visitors anything extra when purchasing a book via a link from this site.

After establishing an 'Associate' account (and logging in to the Amazon site), a toolbar magically appears at the top of the browser window whenever I visit Amazon.com.

The Associate toolbar allows me to create targeted links to the particular book/page I'm at/on .. with a single click. Couldn't be easier. I simply paste the auto-generated code into my web page.

Made some minor style-tweaks to the home page. The text you're reading now, for example, is slightly less-bright (easier on the eyes), while the links are a little brighter .. than they were before. (Might have to refresh your browser to load the revised style sheet.)

Visited-links in the sidebars are now slightly less-bright (grayer) .. than un-visited links. Used to be no diff.

Been studying more CSS. Becoming very comfortable tweaking styles. Fine-tuning. Easier for me to determine what I don't like, than what I do.

Oh, the date is also slightly brighter (whiter) .. than the rest of the text, and has a "text-transform" property applied to make it » UPPERCASE .. via a span tag with 'date' class attribute.

Upgraded the Rad blog to the newest version (4.32), which was released a few days ago. Way easier, now that I have Linux shell skillz & a VPS. Five minutes instead of 2 hours.

Movable Type v5.0 will be coming out soon. Currently at » beta-3. I normally install NEW versions of whole-number upgrades, rather than upgrading previous installations. Keeps the number of blog-entries down for a given installation.

Currently have 167 entries on MT 4.x. Lots of entries tend to make the blog respond sluggishly (when rebuilding). That would be » Ye Olde Rad Blog IV. (Started with v2.63 .. in May 2003.)

Considering installing a wiki (software). Can't hurt. Might help. Would be a place (beside the forum) where folks could post & reference their own info/content. Might be a good learning experience, too.

I have no experience with wiki's .. other than searching Wikipedia. Not sure which one would be best. So many choices. Ideas? Saw this comparison. Nigel once recommended Dokuwiki (I think) as a well-coded (PHP-based) piece of software.

The Dokuwiki download is 1.7 MB. (Compare that with the Movable Type download, which is 4.6 MB.) An über comparison of all Wiki's and their features is posted » HERE. Meanwhile Wikipedia, the mother-of-all wiki's, uses MediaWiki, which is both free & Open Source.

The Bug rode a bike for the first time this week. I mean » a 2-wheeler, without training wheels. One of the major milestones on the road to manhood.

I was excited (.. even more than he was) .. running alongside, shouting » "Oh my God! You're riding!" Waiving my arms like an idiot.

But later disappointed. Cuz I had anticipated spending a few days teaching him. Instead, he just hopped on and rode off (.. his very first try).

I didn't say anything, but was thinking, "Doncha know you're supposed fall & crack your noggin a few times .. like I did?"

I've been talking to various dads the past few weeks, learning different techniques on how to teach him to ride ...

.. such as » remove the pedals & let him push himself along, allowing him to become accustomed to the bike's balance at his own pace .. or » grab him by a snug-fitting t-shirt between the shoulder blades and run alongside .. again, giving him most of the balance .. and also » the 'broomstick technique.'

Riding a bike is all about » balance. I think the reason he picked it up so quickly is cuz he's been riding a 2-wheel scooter around town the last few weeks. It's actually called » a razor. (He's a little demon on that razor.)

An article posted in last week's NY Times has been gnawing at me all weekend. It cites a study performed by two Israelis & a "leading American expert on the psychology of motivation." The single-page piece is titled » "When a Parent's Love Comes with Conditions" .. or » "When 'I Love You' means 'Do as I Say'."

The article can be summed with the following quote:

"The primary message of all types of conditional parenting is that children must earn a parent's love. A steady diet of that, Rogers warned, and children might eventually need a therapist to provide the unconditional acceptance they didn't get when it counted."

Doesn't it seem odd that a study was required to determine that rationing of love & acceptance (like gasoline during a shortage) based on 'performance' .. is detrimental to children? Duh.

First, conditional love is not love. Let's call it by its real name » manipulation. And it's the worst kind of manipulation, cuz children, especially young ones, are at the mercy of their parents.

Moreover, they do not yet possess the skills necessary to recognize and defend against such insidious tactics  .. from people they're so dependent upon (for eveything).

Now, do you know anyone who enjoys being manipulated? Cuz I don't. Heck, even people who enjoy pain don't like being manipulated. Cuz it doesn't really hurt; it just feels slimy. [Speaking of slime & pain, refer to my comments about boiling a frog near the end.]

Not very difficult to tell the difference, either. Kids (who happen to be particularly sensitive) can spot a fake all-the-way across the coffee shop and will turn away .. while gravitating wholeheartedly to the genuine. You can actually observe this play out.

There are many things a parent can use as leverage to encourage (or discourage) a particular behavior. But love should never be included in the leverage toolkit. Same goes for affection & attention .. things too precious to be used as mere bargaining chips.

Withholding love & affection based on behavior is cruel. Sure, it might elicit the desired response .. in the short term. But the child will grow to resent it (.. as does anybody who's being manipulated). Used consistently and frequently enough, it will instill deep-seated feelings of inadequacy .. that may never go away. (You might even know someone like this .. with deformed self-esteem.)

Many times, when a child is acting out, I'd wager it's *because* he or she is not getting the emotional support they need (from a parent). That would be like telling a hungry child » "Stop fussing or I won't give you any food."

[ In the military, we had a saying » "The beatings will continue until morale improves." Same principle. ]

Whichever side of the great nature vs nurture debate you tend to favor, you always return to » the parents .. as the prime causal agent for how a child turns out .. whether it be on count of their genes or their parenting methods (.. or a combination of both).

We were all kids once. (Well, most of us.) So we all have many years of first-hand experience from which to derive our opinions .. of what works, and what doesn't (.. and what really suks). My point is, it's not rocket science.

It's possible to learn to drive a car without ever understanding how one works. (e.g. » what the pistons do, the crankshaft, transmission, differential, etc.) And many drivers do just that. No problem. But I like to know how things work. This includes my study of Programming.

My degree-path specified one "sciencey" Computer Science class. So naturally, that's all I took.

The first half covered the various components of a computer and their functions (» the processor, memory, hard drive, etc.). The second delved into programming (with Pascal) on a rudimentary level.

Our instructor seemed more interested in the girls in the class than teaching. In fact, the hottie (red-head) who I studied with in the hours immediately prior to the Final exam, told me she'd spent the night at his place. (Her hair was messed & she referred to him by his first name.)

Based on the material she suggested we review, I did not doubt her claim. Because it quickly became clear, soon as the Final was handed out, that her suggestions mirrored the material contained therein. (Much of this material was never covered in class.)

I basically got an 'A' in that course cuz that girl spent the night at the instructor's place .. cuz many of those questions I'd never seen before. But that's ancient history now.

I have however, been delving into HOW programming languages work (crankshaft, pistons). I forget how I stumbled upon it, but there's an online version of this book: Programming Language Pragmatics .. located » HERE (Google books).

Actually, the online version is 2nd edition (2006), while the one for sale at Amazon is the 3rd (2009). But I doubt there's much difference .. that would matter to a rookie like me, anyway.

One of the concepts that keeps popping up in my study of Programming languages is » expressiveness. Loosely defined, expressiveness is » the ability to say a lot with a little (my own definition).

Where Programming languages are concerned, expressiveness might be the ability to DO a lot with a little.

Related terms » Meaningful. Concise. Simplicity (as it applies to the elimination of unnecessary complexity). Elegance. Efficiency.

No doubt, you know an 'expressive' person or two. But sheer volume of words does not an expressive person make.

Some people can talk for hours without really saying anything (.. at least not anything meaningful). While others can speak volumes with a simple glance.

In programming, the notion of expressiveness is often touted as a plus, associated with "higher level" languages. I could be wrong, but the idea I get is » the more expressive (a language is) the better. Notice the statement that begins the second paragraph here:

"My contention is that expressive power is the absolutely most important property to focus on right now."

This from a developer with an admitted "unhealthy interest in programming languages," who's currently developing his own. Since the learning process often involves relating new information to things we already know, that's what I've been doing.

As chance would have it, I was watching Hamlet last night (the Kenneth Branagh version). Didn't take long to realize much of what was being said wasn't getting thru. ( "Say what?" )

So I enabled English subtitles and started vigorously working the pause button .. in order to read & digest the Elizabethan chatter. Much better.

Saying Much with Little

Note how the phrase » 'To be or not to be' is exceedingly simple. Yet it carries much meaning beneath the surface (.. especially that 'not-to-be' part).

The ability to "say much with few words" is a primary reason cited when discussing Shakespeare's literary prowess. In other words, it's not just what he says, but the way in which he says it .. that makes his writing so .. descriptive, enchanting.

Spent a good chunk of the day in court. Not a good sign when you feel like a 'regular' at the courthouse .. when faces there become familiar. Wouldn't wish this mess on anybody.

Learning a lot (unfortunately) about how the system works. (Been at this for years.) While waiting for my case to be heard, I sit there and hear lots of other cases. So I glean things.

One thing has become clear » I could never be a lawyer, or a judge .. at least not in Family law, where things are very emotional .. and where there's far more at stake than just money.

Don't know how they do it. I certainly couldn't.

On that note .. it embarrasses me that we need to have somebody in a black robe make rules for us .. and tell us what to do .. someone who has never even met the Bug. Makes me feel like a big, fat failure. (Yet admittedly, the alternative would be worse.)

You might expect, when children are at stake, that the parents, even when they no longer care for each other, would lay aside their differences .. to focus on what's best for their children. And what's best for the children, you could argue, might include the welfare of the parents (who are caring for the children).

So it's difficult for me to understand why I have been repeatedly attacked. I'm not talking just once or twice, or 3 times, or even 4 or 5 times .. or even 6 or 7 .. but many times. (I've since lost count.)

I'm talking police reports & full-on detectives getting involved. Criminal accusations .. which would involve jail time.

Now even when these accusations are deemed 'unfounded' (as they always are), they still take a toll .. an emotional toll.

I'm reluctant to republish the content of others (as so many sites already do), but .. I found it interesting & noteworthy that » Microsoft has acknowledged Linux as a threat .. especially since I spent so many hours in Linux these past few weeks (learning the Unix shell)

Copy-n-paste snippet (minor Rad-editing for brevity):

"Microsoft acknowledges Linux as the first viable competitor to its Windows client business, due to the use of Linux on netbooks, which are rising in prominence as an alternative to full-sized notebooks.

Microsoft cited Red Hat and Canonical -- the latter of which maintains the Ubuntu Linux distribution -- as competitors to its client business, which includes the desktop version of its Windows OS." </snippet>

Notice how the article said » DESKTOP, and not server. Linux has long been a dominant force in the server market (.. if not the dominant force).

It's difficult to describe why Linux is so cool .. why using it feels so fresh & clean. But I think it has something to do with the good intentions .. that come from thousands of talented programmers donating their time & expertise .. to bring you (for free) an operating system they obviously believe in.

I might be imagining it, but I think you can actually feel these good intentions (while using Linux). Can you feel the difference (in intentions) between someone who genuinely loves you, and someone who is paid to love you?

Moreover, I feel our economy has a lot to do with the Linux threat to the Microsoft desktop. No matter how compelling the product, basic economics suggest it's hard to compete with free. (Which Windows is not.) And in these troubled economic times, free means more than it used to.

I'm learning programming. Not a specific language, such as Javascript or Ruby. Rather, the concepts of programming .. that can be applied to ALL programming languages.

[ By the way, I've completed my study of the Unix shell. You can retrace my CLI steps » here. ]

My particular style of learning emphasizes nailing down foundational concepts .. those primarily presented at the beginning of a course.

While this approach can be frustrating initially, because it slows progress at the outset, while foundational concepts are digested on an emotional level .. it allows me to crank thru with confidence (at an accelerated pace) once the foundation is set. [ See note #1 for an example. ]

Like any good geek, I've previously sought entrée into the world of Programming, but always settled for a cursory review of specific languages. (Most recently » Javascript.) Never found that global entrée I was seeking .. until recently.

The approach that is working for me .. is a combination of studying the HtDP text and watching the SICP videos (found » here).

• SICP = Structure & Interpretation of Computer Programs (based on Lisp)
• HtDP = How to Design Programs (uses Scheme)
• Both languages are similar. So the two courses complement one another nicely.
• The SICP videos and the HtDP text are freely available online, along with the SICP text.

The SICP course is legendary in the world of Computer Science. More people refer to it as the single best course on Programming .. than any other.

It was designed and presented by two professors at MIT (.. arguably the world's finest institution of geekdom). Moreover, it was recorded and the videos posted online, where they remain available for download & viewing (free).

I admit, I need to view each video multiple times before feeling comfortable enough to move on to the next lesson. But I *am* getting it .. and enjoying it.

The HtDP course is a simplified version based on the concepts presented in the SICP course.

Neither the SICP videos by themselves, nor the HtDP text alone works for me. But .. combining both courses really makes things click. I get it. I see what's happening .. how things work. It makes sense. And I look forward to learning more.