The premise of this piece [on overly-"nice" men] is born out in blogland. [Scripting News] I'm not convinced this issue has much to do with sex in general, except inasmuch as it tends to wander back and forth amoungst the sexes over time. But I do believe the issue is importent. I tend to think of the issue as "Nice" versus "Good". Nice is a pale reflection of Good, with the rough edges filed off and all the hard parts taken out.

Spring is here, and I'm enjoying it. Generally I'm a stereotypical pasty computer nerd, but after an especially frustrating semester at school (frustrating... not hard, frustrating), I actually voluntarily did some garden work today, a first I think. Wierd! The sun is bright, the birds are chirping, and if anything, I think these silly emails have added a measure of levity to my day. Meanwhile, I'm posting this from my porch via a long ethernet cable (ahh!

Discover Vol. 23 No. 5 (May 2002) Future Tech: Hack-Proof Chatting. The race is on to make unbreakable codes by tapping into the oddities of quantum physics... [Privacy Digest] I wanted to comment on this, since I feel I'm in an unusually good position to understand it. First, the claims are quite real, and quite attainable. This setup really can ensure that nobody can eavesdrop on your conversation without your knowlege, at least in the middle of transmission.

As the recent run of posts on my weblog might lead you to believe, I've had a little more time lately then the last couple of weeks. The downside of working with a partner on a project is that you feel morally obligated to give it 110% for his sake, even if you're inclined to just do enough to get by. . . or even if you've made it to 100% already and you want to stop for a bit.

Paul Snively replies to yesterday's exploratory post regarding RPC vs. REST. I'd say I feel confident that the issues are explored. I'd say the best thing REST advocates can do is make the tools as simple to use as the approx. 100 implementations of XML-RPC and SOAP. The URI part of the argument, with the corresponding issues, does make sense, and all things considered, I would side with the REST side of issue.

I'd like to thank faisel.com for the weblog life cycle key; it's revealed to me that iRights is dangerously sick! I don't know how rapidly a weblog should be going around that loop, but I've been stuck on "Ranting about the DMCA" for over two years now! That can't be good. I'll try hard to get to "Pontificating about technology" here as soon as possible; I know you dear readers are depending on me.

This is a technical post regarding something approaching a technical Holy War; if you're here for the internet stuff, please ignore the following. Paul (Snively) says, This is the part I find baffling: someone as smart as Roland finds REST "harder to understand" than RPC! I'd be very interested—no sarcasm, as Dave would say—in hearing some comments about that, as I want to gain a better understanding of the issues so that my own ignorance doesn't become self-defeating in RPC and REST discussions.

LA Times - Analysts fear government and private efforts to sabotage federal Internet sites. [Privacy Digest] Believe it when you see it. The press is throwing cyber war warnings everywhere it can. . . most of them are quite unimportent. These threats always come to effectively nothing, even when the CIA or FBI issues them. Remember, if it was that easy, it would be happening. It is that easy, and it is happening.

Kevin Fanning: "It seems like everyone is taking the Spring off from his or her website. At first I was weirded out, but now I see that it's probably a good thing. I mean let's face it." [diveintomark] Yeah, I wish that was the reason. Try "end of semester homework". . .

'I've added a new feature to the home page of my weblog: automatic linkbacks to people who are linking to specific posts.' This in a pretty interesting idea. The biggest problem with the weblog community is the difficulty of noticing people (trying to) conversing with you, if they aren't on your normal reading list. Interesting approach.