Finger info for


Remember how I said the other day that tin snips are a little piece of
chainmaille-related heaven? Well, it's still true.

That picture right there would be the whole reason I learnt to make
chainmaille. I saw online various people wrapping juggling balls in it,
and thought "sounds cool, plus it's a new random skill to learn".

Take one normal cheap juggling ball, and wrap in chain.

Completely changes the whole feel of the ball, makes is somewhat larger,
more resilient to hurt, heavier... lots of things. And muchly personalised.

Very cool.


Hmmm. I was just looking at my CV, and two horrific things came to
my attention:

1) Every time I've worked with Macs in a really-I-mean-it kinda way,
  I've been in a small windowless room housing 4 computers and either
  two or three people. Usually at least one of my roomies smokes.

2) All of the paid jobs I've had so far have involved me, in some way,
  relegated to webmonkey. Be it search engine developer or more
  general-purpose monkey. And my personal webpages are still ugly
  as sin. Perhaps I oughta do something about that.

Sensing a theme, I've also just realised I've ended up as a DBA to go
with the webmonkey stuff, oftentimes.



Note to self: When people online talk about using Aviation Snips to
create the rings for ChainMaille, over a pair of normal wire croppers,
and how they're a little bit better...

They mean it.

This weekend I was wandering by Sears at some point, and thought

So I bought some Aviation Snips [for Brits, "Tin Snips"]. And suddenly
I'm finding I can make a small mountain of rings in remarkably little
time. With remarkably little effort. And when I take a pair of pliers to
them, the rings actually meet cleanly at the end. And don't come apart
when two rings are meeting at their respective joins.

Anyone else considering learning to make ChainMaille [not as hard as it
looks, by the way], spending 15 bucks on a set of Aviation Snips over
8 bucks for a normal pair of croppers, it's COMPLETELY worth it. By
several orders of magnitude. Think "Difference between night & day"


Yet another browser sounding-off session.

There's a reason that HTTP headers exist. That MIME types exist. And
the reasons IS NOT that the browser knows better than the server.

By way of example:
Content-type: text/plain

If you're Mozilla, Netscape, Opera, pretty much anything except IE, then
it's rendered as plain text. Even if it's HTML. That's a Good Thing,
there's a reason for things like that. [eg, serving up source code to
HTML in-line scripting langauges]

And that's where my usual ranting finishes. IE sucks, Mozilla rocks.

But no.

Mozilla, in it's infinite wisdom sees the following, and renders it,
if it's been served up as text/plain:
Content-disposition: attatchment; filename=something.clf

Having flicked through RFC2183, the above should be interpreted as
"ask the user what to do with it", which IE actually manages successfully.

Of course, not to let IE off the hook, it does helpfully append a ".txt"


You see, I'd really hoped to avoid that whole application/octet-stream
thing for a simple text file. But no.

<mozilla> When I grow up, I want to be IE

When this .plan was written: 2003-03-25 21:43:25
.plan archives for this user are here (RSS here).
Powered by IcculusFinger v2.1.27
Stick it in the camel and go.