On Apologies

There is only one person you can apologize for: You.

Only You can apologize for your actions or lack there of. You have neither the right nor responsibility to apologize for others. Though nothing happens in a void, each man's actions are his own.

It is popular in the current social and political climate to play passive-aggressive linguistic games with apologies, turning them into snide asides and insults. Worse, it is quite en vogue to use such false apologies to blame a wronged party for being slighted. Such insincerity is neither clever nor charming, but rather, shows a distinct lack of character. Taken to its ends, in the right setting it demonstrates a distinct lack of survival instincts.

If your employer hires you to be a Frontman or foreman, and apologizing for others' failures is part of your job, you are not apologizing. You are politicking.

If you offer an apology on behalf of a group that you are neither spokesman for nor identify with, you are not apologizing. You are grandstanding.

If you apologize for the actions of your children or someone you have introduced, you are likely as embarrassed and agog as the third party offended. Your failure to prevent the misstep is certainly worthy of an apology, but this too is politik. You too should expect an apology from the offending party you have chaperoned.

If you profit from another's ill doings, again, your apology is for your actions, or lack thereof. Anything else is not an apology.

Be your own master, Damnit! If you cannot apologize sincerely, keep yourself on a shorter leash.

Masterworks

Craftsmanship like this brings a tear to my eye and fills me with hope. I am pleased there is such beauty in the world.



This is what skill and dedication to one's craft looks like. I salute the Gentleman and his precision handiwork.

End of an Era

I grew up with the Space Shuttle. I watched the first shuttle launch and many after it. It is with both great excitement and some sadness that I look forward to this Friday's launch.

The applet and coverage below is courtesy of SpaceFlightNow.com

Skydiving Dance Numbers

Ladies and Gentlemen, please allow me to introduce you to Havard, Ju, Raph, and Alberto. These gentlemen are skydivers beyond compare who represent their respective exhibition teams in a truly inspired performance or aerial acumen. For your consideration, I present to you a display of grace and style rarely seen upon land, sea, or air.

Fred and Ginger have nothing on these four.

Search Fail: wherein I vent Bile I did not know I had

I fear I unloaded on a fellow member of ISC over something that he has no control over. It was inappropriate of me.

However, it changes nothing about my opinion.


In the last week, I have had no less than five (well, six now) conversations regarding Second Life's search function. In each case, the other person reads it as being a "Viewer 1x vs Viewer 2x" or "Primary Viewer vs Third Party Viewer" debate.

No.
No. No. No.

This is a debate over usability.

Fifteen years ago
In 1994
Anno Domine One Thousand Ninehundred and Ninety-Four,
I could visit Webcrawler or AltaVista and do a websearch, using quotation marks for an exact match, or logical operands such as + and - or AND and NOT to limit or broaden my search.

Fifteen Years have passed.

I can use Google to find a specific Chris Johnson in the city of Chicago using quotation marks for an exact match, or logical operands such as + and - or AND and NOT to limit or broaden my search.


Even in the nascent days of the web, search engines and webcrawlers included this functionality. SL search, in the years I have been here does not.

Please: This is not about one viewer being better than another.  This is about search being deployed in such a way that it fails to incorporate the most basic boolean functionality. Anyone who Evangelizes that search works just fine for them is just begging to play out the Dead Parrot Sketch and I am not John Cleese.

I am sick of this bloody discussion.

Search.  Does.  Not.  Work.
Don't try to tell me it does but that I am using it wrong- there is only one way to use it.
Don't tell me it is because of my viewer. I can log into the SL website and get the same results and I can try under numerous different viewers and reach the same end.


When search query is for a place, dumping to full list of every possible refence to that place, plus spellings close to the term, but not the actual place, is not a meaningful result.
When it is for a person, especially one with a somewhat common name, dumping 50 results full of references and variants on the name, rather than the exact match you could have shown me,  is not a meaningful result.


Now, I do not believe i pointing out a problem with out suggesting a solution, so here is my suggestion:

Linden Lab, please offer an advanced search option.

Include using quotation marks for an exact match, or logical operands such as + and - or AND and NOT to limit or broaden search results.
For Bonus points: Weight results to Name field first, then Descriptions (objects or places) and Screen Names (avatars).



And to the Evangelists: Don't tell people they are doing it wrong without listening to what the actual complaint is. It makes you look moronic and does nothing to win anyone over. There is no "winning" or scoring points on someone when your argument consists solely of  knee-jerk gainsaying.

There is the reason Open Source left a bad taste in the mouths of so many prior to Ubuntu:  you.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I swear, I am surrounded by zealots and sycophants.