5 March 2004 (12 Adar 5764)
The longer and the more frequently we have used something, the stronger the inertia of continuing to use it seems to be, even when there are seemingly superior alternatives to it. This is even the case even in the area of computers and the Internet where better new programs or improved versions of existing ones are released quite frequently. One needs really compelling reasons for abandoning a certain program and switching to another one. Apparently, it is not sufficient that the new one to which you are supposed to switch, whether willingly or unwillingly, is excellent in comparative and/or absolute terms. The old one you have been used to must prove to have serious problems of some sort.
For many netizens, including myself, a browser and a mailer are probably the most important of all the programs installed in their computers. For this very reason they seldom "defect" to other alternatives once they have settled on something specific. Since I became a netizen in April 1996, I switched my browser and mailer only twice in contrast to other programs which I changed many times. The first time I did so was several months ago. It was mainly for much better security, privacy, standards compliance and customizability that I switched from Internet Explorer and Outlook Express to Mozilla Browser and Mail respectively, which are components of Mozilla suite. The more I used them, the more satisfied I became with them in all of the four respects, until they started to crash every few seconds this week.
Initially I thought I would be able to detect and solve the problem soon, but after spending two whole days and still experiencing the crash, I had no choice but to look for alternatives. Reverting to Internet Explorer and Outlook Express was out of the question. Having got used to the better functionality of Mozilla, I only wondered how I had managed with these much inferior products for such a long time. I could only think of Mozilla Firefox and Mozilla Thunderbird, standalone browser and mailer that are similar to but are not identical to Mozilla Browser and Mail. Even before trying them, I could rest assured that the crash of one of them would not cause the crash of the other as they are separate programs unlike Mozilla suite.
I was hoping that I would finally be able to escape from the frustrating situation of experiencing a crash every few minutes. At least the mailer did not crash, but to my great disappointment, the browser crashed just like its sibling. I started to wonder if there would be no choice but to return to the "stone age" of Internet Explorer. I spent two more days, looking for solutions on the web and reinstalling the program a number of times, until I finally found what caused both Mozilla Browser and Mozilla Firefox to crash. It was a single line of JavaScript code I had added manually to the user preference file.
We tend to investigate something thoroughly mainly or only when we start experiencing some problem with it. Although this headache made me waste four whole days, it has made me a little wiser about browsers and mailers in general and about Mozilla in particular. Of course, such knowledge is something trivial in life, and it can sometimes make our life free of headaches and concentrate on something more important without wasting our time unnecessarily.
12 March 2004 (19 Adar 5764)
I wonder when one is what one really is. Is it when one is sober and under the control of reason, or when one is drunk and not controlled by reason? Or are both states part and parcel of oneself like Jekyll and Hyde?
When I was younger, there was a marked difference between my Jekyll and Hyde. But as I get older, this difference seems to be getting narrower or blurred. This is probably because when I am Jekyll, I am more and more controlled by Hyde, and vice versa.
In my early twenties I used to be self-restrained and taciturn when I was Jekyll, but once Hyde took hold of me under the influence of alcohol, I suddenly became merry and talkative, often doing folly and saying nonsense. When I returned to Jekyll, I often regretted what I had done and said as Hyde. Now when I am Jekyll, I am less self-restrained and more talkative, often telling jokes, but it is not so rare that I have to regret what I did and/or said even as Jekyll. On the other hand, when I am Hyde, I am watched and controlled by Jekyll, thus I do less folly and say less nonsense.
In other words, I used to be able to become totally Jekyll or Hyde, but now I am not always sure which I am as my present Jekyll and Hyde have almost always original Hydian and Jekyllian elements respectively. I do not know whether this is a good thing or not, but one thing I know is that I feel more relaxed when I am more like Jekyll as when I am more like Hyde. I feel that my reason used to dictate my behavior and speech too stringently while I was sober. It may be as a reaction to this sel-imposed stringency that my Hyde went quite wild. So it is natural that he is now more tamed and better disciplined.
19 March 2004 (26 Adar 5764)
Email is probably the most abused thing in computing precisely because it is used more frequently by more people than any other. What I mean is the abuse not by malicious spammers but by ordinary bona fide users, not in what they send but mainly in how they send, due to their lack of consideration and knowledge. This is understandable because many of the email users, especially newbies, have never been exposed to a general consensus known as netiquette. The following are the three most bothering and irritating cases of email abuse for me (and probably for many other netizens) in the descending order.
Although so many people seem to pay little attention to the subject line of a message, its importance cannot be overestimated. The rule of thumb is to write a clear and concise subject line that summarizes the contents of the message. The more messages you receive every day, the more important this becomes as you have to decide which messages to read first or at all according to their subjects. More than half of all the messages I receive from non-spammers have subjects that are badly written in this respect. Ironically, spammers seem to know the importance of the subject line. Some examples of bad subjects include: 1) you write your name (e.g., Subject: This message is from Blah-Blah-Blah); 2) you write part of what should be in the message body (e.g., Subject: I have another question); 3) you write a whole sentence (e.g., Subject: I want to thank you for your answer to my question about netiquette); 4) you leave the subject line blank. What these have in common is that they fail to show the recipient of your message what it is about without actually opening it. It is also important not to change the subject line in replying to someone's message as long as you are writing about the same topic (e.g., a reply to a message with "Subject: netiquette" must be "Subject: Re: netiqutte", not "Subject: Thank you").
For some reason unknown to me there seem to be netizens who do not want to disclose their real names to the recipients of their messages. I think that one should configure the setting of one's mailer so that it may show one's full name in the message header; since this requires little technical knowledge, there is no excuse for not doing so unless, of course, you want to be mistaken for a spammer. What is equally rude and often even offensive is not to write your full name or even part thereof at the end of your message when you send it to someone for the first time. If a message I receive doubly fails to show who sent it, I mechanically treat it as a kind of spam message even if it is intended for me personally.
An amazing number of people seem to believe erroneously that they must quote a whole message before or after their own words in replying to it. It is true that quoting is important so that a message written as a reply can be self-contained when stored in the archive, but I think that one should quote only the relevant portions of the message one is replying to. It is absurd to quote a whole message just to say thank you. This is also a waste of band width.
The above three have one thing in common in that they all make email inefficient in some way or other. I strongly believe that email literacy must be integrated in the school curriculum as email has already established itself as the default method of written communication for many people in the developed world. Of course, it is not a Torah from Sinai but just a collection of manners culled from experiences, hence its details may change. But one cannot deny that the violation of email netiquette often bothers or irritates the recipient of one's message.
26 March 2004 (4 Nisan 5764)
Less is more. I encountered this deceivingly simple but profound dictum, ascribed to Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, in the context of web building. Although it was originally said of architecture, it will also apply to websites, which are in a sense buildings. If I understand it correctly, it means that one can add to the functionality and beauty of a building by leaving out what is not essential to it. This must especially be true of academic websites where the textual data is the core content.
Having seen many personal and public websites by and/or for academics, I regret to say that probably more than half of them are built with such cheap tricks and design in terms of functionality and usability, often abusing HTML/XHTML, that it is not so much a torture than a pleasure to view them. On the other hand, however, there are a small number of academics whose websites have inspired and strengthened my minimalist approach to web building (some of them are listed at the bottom of a separate page on academic online publishing).
As I prefer minimalist websites, so I prefer "minimalist" women and life. What I mean by "minimalist" women are those who put on few or no cosmetics regularly. Of course, I like beautiful women, but the kind of beauty I like is not something that can be attained instantly by decorating oneself only externally. In many cases the external decoration serves to conceal what is inside. I am afraid that young women with few or no cosmetics are endangered rare "species" now, at least in Japan.
I already understand that it may not be easy for me to find a woman who will be ready to live a minimalist life with me. Things I possess or purchase physically are minimal not because I am too stingy or poor to do so but because I feel little or no need in what the majority of the households own, including television sets, cars, etc. All I need to own physically are good books, good CDs of Jewish folk music as well as Baroque instrumental music, good hardware and software and a minimal number of good clothes.