August 2007 - Posts
I'll be among the first to congratulate Microsoft for doing a pretty good job - writing software that's stable and reliable in the wild is very difficult, and all of their software works with most of their software most of the time. This is considerably above average performance and rather more than the Microsoft-is-evil crowd has ever managed.
However, Outlook is, or at least should be, an embarrassment to Microsoft. I realise it's more than just an email client. I know it does fancy calendaring and it consolidates a plethora of mail providers. But 100MB memory footprint is just plain silly.
The ridiculous memory consumption I can ignore - I have equally ridiculous amounts of memory installed, so it isn't really a problem. But there's another defect, and it is rather more serious since it affects other software. Outlook frequently stalls the global message queue. As a result, it interferes with any software that uses the shell common dialogs (just about every program ever written) and it interferes with debuggers.
At work I have a running battle between my boss, who insists that I run Outlook all the time, and my boss, who wants me to debug software, an activity not assisted by Outlook.
There is a workaround. It depends on having scads of system resources. What you do is run Outlook in a virtual PC. This isolates the antisocial Outlook from the rest of my PC.
Arguably the mere fact that this problem can exist implies severe design flaws in Windows messaging, but this is hardly news and is a situation unlikely to improve for legacy reasons.
I like dogs more than people. Someone commented on this today, and he wasn't the first to say so. My ex-wife was always amazed that I could be so apathetic to the plight of my fellow man, yet respond with instant fury to the sight of a dog tied up without water or shade.
I guess it's because our dogs love us and trust us unconditionally, and they are utterly dependent on our care. They give us everything they have and ask only our love, and this is the treatment they get.
Before you think I'm getting soppy let me reassure you that I regard small, yippy and stupid dogs as travesties. We started with wolves. That people would deliberate breed a chiuahua makes it embarrassing to be human.
I firmly believe that dogs (well, big intelligent working dogs) reflect the character of the people who command them. A lot of people should find this greatly embarrassing: watch their dogs and see them for what they really are. This works both ways, of course. Let your dogs choose your friends.
At work we were discussing the whole water thing and in particular I was defending my views, which unsurprisingly are often regarded as unusual.
I wondered out loud why the powers-that-be continue to fail to take simple and obviously necessary steps. It was suggested to me that these are expensive undertakings and if the current government does them then it will get blamed for the bill. There will then be a change of government and the other party will get the credit for sorting things out.
So there are two paths, both of which involve them sitting tight for the present. If there is a change of government at the next election, then the incoming government will be obliged to do the works and cop the blame for the expense. If there isn't a change of government then they keep sitting on their hands until the doom and gloom of no water actually materialises. This will give them a mandate to do whatever it takes, and they will take the opportunity to slip through all sorts of things that would otherwise be poisonous.
So there you have it: self-serving rather than stupid.
More of a worry is that rather than solving the underpinning problem, they'll build a pipe to the Sunshine Coast water supply and steal resources from there, providing the semblance of a solution without all the expense. Not actually solving the problem means that in a couple of years you get another bite of the cherry - another opportunity to slip through, on the coattails of the obviously necessary and urgent, all those little items that would otherwise never be tolerated. You watch, all through the proceedings not one of these twits will ever say "the problem isn't not-enough-water, it's too-many-people, maybe we should discourage further immigration".
Oh no, growth is good. You get bigger numbers in the budget. And with overcrowding comes endless opportunity for pyramid-building. You can build power stations, tunnels and bridges, not to mention hospital wings, and name them after your party members and major contributors.
If we get rain in the interim, we'll never get them to do the right thing.
You know we could save a lot of money at the next election. We can simplify the voting options to "twit" (Beatty and co) and "twat" (opposition).
Trish doesn't understand why I'd rather ski in Australia. Well... I'd rather ski in France, but that's currently out of the question. But there's this notion that skiing in NZ is somehow better than skiing in Australia. Personally I think it's a load of cobblers. Each has its own merits and for my money Australia is preferable.
There are really two reasons I like skiing in Australia.
The first reason is entirely selfish, and hinges on the fact that I'm good at skiing.
From my point of view the ideal skifield is all high-intermediate and advanced runs. I warm up on the intermediate runs, and they're good for working on technique. Advanced runs are where I cut loose and have some fun. Most importantly, when a field is beginner unfriendly, it's less crowded and the people there are more able. You don't come belting around a blind corner at 40kph to find someone wobbling along at 10kph right in the middle of a narrow path. And the lifts don't keep stopping because people don't fall off them.
Sure I was a beginner once. It was a long time ago and I promise not to do it again.
Mt Hotham in Australia is exactly what I like: ski-in-ski-out, mostly high-end intermediate and advanced runs, and nestled in a U-shaped valley lined with snowgum. Snowgum, unlike the conifers you get in NZ, catch and keep powder. They also break the wind, making surface conditions much more agreeable.
The second reason is that the snow's better in Australia.
This statement will no doubt cause raised eyebrows and indignant expostulations of rejection, but it's true. A misperception people seem to cherish is that NZ skiing is better because NZ mountains are taller. Some of them might be, but the ones with chairlifts aren't and that's what matters if you want to ski. Treble Cone in NZ is 2048m high. Mt Kosciuszko by contrast is 2228m high. The Eagle's Nest, the highest lifted point in Australia, is at 1950m. The highest lifted point in NZ is at Mt Dobson, at 2030m. The peak of Mt Dobson is 2110m.
Mt Cook may well be nearly a mile taller than Kosciuszko with permanent snow, but it isn't a ski area. Why not? I really don't know.
What I do know is that NZ mountains are young spires of rock, steep and angular. The snow blows right off them in dramatic plumes that make great photos. Australian mountains are ancient even by geological standards. They have soil and trees most of the way up. We don't get as much snow falling in Australia but the trees catch it and keep it. They also shade it for part of the day, inhibiting snowmelt. The fact that the mountains are shallower and covered with soil means that while NZ fields need a metre of snow to cover the boulders, Australian fields need only half that depth to open the off-piste areas.
To be fair you can stay on-field at Cardrona (NZ). The complex is two-story and the upper floor is mostly accommodation. And in Australia I gather that a lot of people do stay at Jindabyne. But I can't imagine why anyone would want to muck about commuting. If you stay on field it means you don't have to get up till eight, instead of trying to hustle five people and their kit to the bus stop by 7-30. Or into the car by seven (those carparks are like a shopping centre at Christmas). It's different for me and Trish because we're also visiting Neil and Esme.
It occurs to me just now that predominantly on-snow accommodation might be why skiing costs more in Australia. If that's the crux of it then I guess you get what you pay for.
I like smoking. I still like smoking (or at least I'm pretty sure I'd enjoy it if I chose to smoke). I'm not especially worried about my health - family history suggests I'd live to a ripe old age without suffering any of the ill effects.
This is why I kept smoking in the face of public disapproval: I enjoy doing it, I'll probably get off scot-free and the rebel in me doesn't like the puritan politically correct holier-than-thou preachiness of the anti-smoking lobby. Besides lack of desire there was also the fact that I live in a house full of smokers and I work with smokers too, giving me easy access to tobacco at all hours.
So what changed my mind so completely that I had the conviction to go cold turkey in the face of direct and continuous temptation with easy gratification?
It's all about motivation. One evening I was sitting on the front steps having a cigar and a coffee. It was the last one in the packet. Thinking about getting another packet, I checked my watch and found that it was so late I would be forced to buy from the 7-11, which charges sixteen dollars a packet. I had cashflow issues more severe than usual so as part of my mental grumble I multiplied 7 x 365 (I get through a packet every two days) and got $2555
Now, something you have to understand about me is that I love to ski. Hell, I live to ski. And when it dawned on me that if I gave away the smokes I'd be able to go skiing every single year, and I'd missed skiing five years running in favour of bloody smoking, there was a moment of horrified decision. I didn't put out the one I was smoking. I'm not against smoking as such. But buy another packet? Not likely. That's my skiing money!
I suppose I'll have to take steps to ensure it doesn't just bleed into other things. Open a new account at the bank, and transfer $70 every payday, something like that.
I'm over the moon about this. Esme (Trish's mum) loves having us stay with her, and she lives in a ski-town. This lowers our costs so much that $2555 is an adequate budget for one person for four weeks. This is without any attempt at saving. So if I make a diligent and sustained attempt to save up for the trip I'll be able to afford new boots, poles and planks.
It gets even better: no kit rental, which is about $25/day, and no standing in queues fitting second-rate boots and having bindings adjusted and tensioned etc. Because I can leave them in Esme's garage, they won't form part of my luggage. I won't need a boot bag or a ski bag, which means less kit to buy.
No kit rental is more important than it seems: over four weeks we'll ski probably twenty days. That's $500 I won't have to spend. I might get a boot bag anyway - someone has to drive, which means I can't wear my boots in the car, and a boot bag gives me somewhere to stash goggles and balaclavas and all the accessories you don't always use but carry against need.
Nobody in the southern hemisphere seems to do a fortnight or month lift pass (probably because people in the southern hemisphere don't generally ski for more than a week) but Cardrona has a "club card" that's good for a $15/daylift pass discount. You have to pay $35 to get one, but this is worthwhile over twenty days.
I wrote to ask whether it remains valid across seasons. No dice. Can't even make snide comments about tight-ass kiwis - Cardrona is operated by an Australian company.