Archives » January 13th, 2003

January 13, 2003

Holy Moly

Well, I’m stumped. I’ve gotten about twenty times my normal traffic today, and I can’t figure out where it’s all coming from. Most of them are being referred from, but I don’t see a link on the acutal homepage. Maybe it has something to do with the new Blogger RSS feed that was released today. That’s my best guess, and it’s a wild one.

So where are you all coming from?

Fired for being an actor

Here’s an example of how effing brilliant the management in the Nevada State Government is. A couple of months ago, HBO was in town to make a documentary on our world-famous legalized prostitution, filming at one of the brothels just over the county line. They hired a few local actors to play customers (“I’m not really a John, but I play one on TV!”). Anyway, one of the guys they hired also works for the State, and had just gotten a promotion. He took his few hundred clams from the HBO gig and forgot all about it, settling into his new job.

In December the documentary aired, and one of his supervisors caught it on the tube. Not too long after, the man, named James Wood, found himself demoted back to his old position, his supervisors claiming “moral reasons” for the dismissal. WTF?! Fired for being an actor?

Cory Farley deconsructs the story better than I could. My analysis just involves a lot of head-shaking and muttering the word “boneheaded”.

Great to live in Nevada, isn’t it?

On a funny side note, the James Wood in question isn’t listed in the phone book. A different James Wood is, though, and he’s gotten so many calls from news outlets in the last week that he took out an ad in the newspaper telling people to stop calling him. Ace reporting skills, there.


Mark Pilgrim finally got pushed over the edge.

Standards are bullshit. XHTML is a crock. The W3C is irrelevant.

He’s ranting about XHTML 2.0, as so many have done in the past. Me? I don’t think it’s worth worrying over. I have a distinct feeling that XHTML 2.0 is never going to catch on or see any kind of widespread adoption, and it was never meant to. The W3 released it as an April Fool’s joke to lash out at everyone who was complaining that HTML hadn’t been updated for so long. It’s the only explanation. HTML has reached a stable plateau, and I can see it staying there for pretty much the rest of its useful life. Backwards compatibility is never going to go away, because browsers like Netscape 4 will never die completely. Any progress from here on out will be done in XML, and there will be advances on that front, but HTML as we know it is something we’re going to be stuck with for a long time. A move away from it, even to XHTML 2.0, would require a simultaneous migration to brand new web browsers at some point in history, and the majority of people out there – the ones who don’t give a pig’s snout about technical matters and who upgrade their computers once every seven years – would revolt if we tried to push a whole new Web on them. So, for me, it’s only XHTML 2.0 that’s irrelevant.