Food: Bird

At first glance, Bird had held promise. Free range chicken and a simple menu was a pretty good combination, and I expected a fresh take on the dirty chicken shops we know and love (and hate).

And as it happened, Bird wasn't that bad at first. We started with a whole bunch of wings in various sauces and glazes (including one which was especially chilli) and things were good. The mains were less so, with "pathetic" being the only word I could use for the Chinese pancakes, while my waffle burger, although novel, not hitting the spot like I wanted it to. There was a regular fried chicken burger too, but that appeared adequate at best.

The service was a little hit and miss: food took a while to get to us, an oddity considering the fried nature of the stuff. There were a few errors made in the order that were quickly addressed, and overall all the staff had looked after us. The bill came to around 15 a head which although not earth shattering did just about fail to justify what we ate.

Although a good idea in principle, Bird does fail in execution and so just falls short of a recommendation.

The Annual Inevitably Cynical "I Hate Valentine's" Post

Oh don't worry: the fact that this is my tenth post of vitriolic rambling is as depressing for me as it might be for you. On the other hand, I am impressed by the sheer stamina of the theme and although I don't know how they would look, I reckon I have at least another ten posts in me. Crikey. Ten! You can click the title link for the rest by the way.

But what exactly do I talk about this year? Could it be the unprecedented increase in apparent losership (a clear sign of whippage in my opinion)? Or how about how pervasive it's becoming in places I previously thought immune (oh why Karachi, why?)?

No, perhaps what I will talk about is my increasing indifference to the theme here, not because I denounce most forms of blatant commercialism, but because I've become even more cynical about anything and everything, of which my distaste of this day is but a mere iceberg tip.

Woah there, this post almost became seriously dark. Let's bring the humour back:

But hey, at least I got my own back on the day - Krispy Kreme offered me some sweets if I was to complete the old "Roses are red..." poem at the time I was claiming. I did so, humorously so I might add, and got not just one but two original glazed doughnuts as a reward. That extra doughnut was the difference between me being exploited and doing the exploiting, and so I see no problem seeing it as a win for the little man. There's no need to thank me.

The Annual Inevitably Cynical "I Hate Valentine's" Post

A very, very easy one this year:

All true, yet I'm still struggling to think which category I fall into. And no, that isn't an invitation to comment.

The Annual Inevitably Cynical "I Hate Valentine's" Post

The really frustrating thing is that although we constantly hear about the plentiful number of fine women desperate to have a date on this fine day, I'm still dateless and find myself once again at my PC bitching about the whole thing instead.

But I like to console myself with the realisation that a) this day isn't actually for couples anyway, but for singles who want to become the former and b) I don't even want to do anything on this day anyway even if I was able to finally tick that other box on my census form. That's not bitterness, that's being old and wanting an early night.

But okay fine; if the day didn't hold some kind of significance for me then I wouldn't be bothered enough to complain about it in a post. But hey that's explainable enough: for a start I'm a stickler for tradition, but more than that if I ever do find myself on the other side then I'll lose my right to write my repeal of all this bitterness as soon as I give up moaning about it on the way. Yes, it's all about the long game.

Anyway to prove that I'm perfectly balanced about all this let me take this opportunity to wish you all a very happy Valentine's Day whether you're celebrating it with someone or not.

Shak's Rules of Twitter

I love Twitter. I like the immediacy, the API and content orientation, the fact that it forces me and those I follow not to waffle. In fact I'd say one of the major reasons I'm no longer outputting stuff here like I used to is because most of that content has moved to Twitter.

However, as with most things the popularity of Twitter seems to have come around and bitten it in the behind. That's right, I'm talking about those people who don't quite realise the point of the technology, those who see it as merely typing into a box or simply clicking a retweet button without thinking of the meaning and power behind those actions.

The main thing people forget is that their content on Twitter should be always be follower-centric rather than anything else. Your content should be about your audience as a whole, and not just one person in particular or even yourself. In this way, it's very much like a blog and very different to email or IM. If you still don't get it, allow me to just list some fundamental rules that, if you choose to follow, will automatically bring you into harmony with Twitter and what it actually stands for.

1. Don't extend tweets. If you're finding that 160 characters are too few for you to get your message across, then write a blog post.
2. Similarly, do not follow up or reply to your own tweets. Write a blog instead.
   
3. Don't converse. It's extremely unlikely that anyone cares what you and another tweeter is talking about past the first witty @reply to an original tweet. And unlike with FB and gBuzz, everyone becomes part of your conversation whether they like it or not (why hasn't anyone released a Twitter-conversation application yet?). My rule of thumb? Never @reply to an @reply. If you really must, consider using DM, email, IM or even the phone instead. Crazy, I know.
   
4. Don't make up hashtags to convey sarcasm. The power of hashtags is in how everyone uses the same ones - unique and disposable hashtags are useless. Try to actually, you know, say what you mean instead of implying it.
   
5. Don't abuse retweet. RT stuff you think your followers will find interesting, not what you alone do because of a particular context. Definitely do NOT RT the requests of other people - this is pretty tantamount to spamming your followers.
   
6. Don't announce small talk in order to absolve yourself of responsibility. Twitter is NOT for wishing people a good morning, each and every morning. Set up an automated scheduled email if you want to do that. Better still, wish whom you want to a good morning personally. Yes that would take time... but then they're worth the effort, aren't they?
   
7. Don't use Twitter as a glorified distribution list. If you want to tell five people that a meeting is about to start, try emailing them instead.
8. Don't use Twitter to create plausible deniability. You obviously want a single person to know it's them (and only them) you're talking about with your generic messages, so stop being a pussy, save the rest of us some embarrassment and just tell them directly
   
9. Don't fish for random conversation. If you're bored, go post on 4chan.
   
10. Don't announce new blog posts, photos, music trends, running times, gamerscores etc, and don't let third parties do it for you either. These things should have been made publicly available in their own right, and interested parties will already know about them via rss or some other delivery mechanism. Tweets regarding how to initially find stuff are okay, but not each and every time.
    
11. Don't me-too. You wouldn't go out of your way in real life to publicly congratulate, thank or best wish someone, and you look equally naff when you do it online.
12. Don't use Twitter to disseminate common knowledge. We already know what day it is, and can figure out how many weeks it is till Christmas; we don't need you to remind us.
    

There's probably more, so I'll be updating this as time goes on.

As always feel free to ignore me or accuse me of being uptight and a spoilsport. You see, the other great thing about Twitter is that you can easily unfollow people with a click of a button; but when Twitter eventually implements karma you'll all see how right I am anyway.

The Annual Inevitably Cynical "I Hate Valentine's" Post

The irony, of course, is that I didn't think I'd have to write one of these this year. "2010 will be the year I'll finally put up that backtrack I've been desperate to post for the past fifteen years" I told myself last time around. Still, to be fair I had said the exact same thing in 2008, and have it in the back of my mind even now as I write this.

Virtual self-mutilation aside though I do seem to have made it through a bit of mind-shift since last Valentine's: up until last year I did still hold onto the image of being finally able to do partake in rituals like this with a partner post-marriage, but something seems to have changed over the past 12 months. Not in a sad or despairing way, but more in a "I now want different, perhaps more practical, things in life and anything else will be a bonus". I guess between acknowledging my age and realising what I really want at this point in my life (clue: it's not very exciting), I've finally been able to let go of some of the things I had missed out on which I had wanted to experience, and accept that it just may not happen in that particular way.

Cynical enough or just plain depressing? Apologies if it's the latter; I hope the following will make up for it:

Things That Pee Me Off #4: Literary Hypocrisy

• If a guy offers a girl his coat or scarf, then he's patronising or, even worse, only after one thing.
• If a guy walks or drives a girl (friend or otherwise) home, right up to her door and waits till she gets in, then he's a creepy stalker.
• If a guy insists on paying, then he's controlling and repressive.
• If a guy looks ahead while walking with a girl, or makes sure he walks on her roadside or between her and a rowdy crowd of people, or behind her while climbing up stairs and in front of her while climbing down, then he's obstructive and irritating.
• If a guy wants to make a girl his main focus, much more than any job or social life, then he's misguided and unambitious.
• If a guy shows an interest in what a girl likes and wants, then he's either faking it or is too boring to have his own interests.
• If a guy wants to spend all his free time with a girl, then he's clingy and suffocating.
• If a guy wants to just talk, then he talks too much.
  
• If a guy shows genuine concern about a girl's well-being, then he's over-protective or under-estimating.
• If a guy says how he feels then he's a metrosexual and unmanly.
  

All this, unless the guy has a marble-like chest which glitters in the sun and lists blood as his all time favourite beverage.

You all know I'm right.

Single and Muslim? Well There's A Website Just For You

Look, I know I'm tight. And yes I have big ideological issues about paying a third party to meet a prospective partner. I just wanted to get all that out of the way so that I could possibly make a decent point below.

While checking out the profile of a friend, I must admit that I was pretty impressed my singlemuslim.com. Yes it had a lot of the regular features (including umpteen profiles claiming how they "weren't very good at this kind of thing") but had a lot of relevant features too - things like check boxes indicating how much you prayed or whether you had a beard or hijab (but not both, unfortunately). And if I'm being honest, well, there were some quite attractive profiles, both in image and word, across the site as I took a quick looksie. You know, while I was there.

So I registered and it was all very find and very dandy. I was even more impressed once I had - you can see who's been checking out your profile and the site even let me change my username after I decided it wasn't relevant any more (it was "spammy").

But then the cracks started to appear. You know, stuff that, on the whole most people would ignore but couldn't get past my anal retentiveness (you all love it really). I'm talking about things like dodgy pagerank links or the use of blatant models in their advertising (I'm sure I've seen a few of them on telly). These aren't big deals in themselves, but once added up hardly inspire confidence in the people who are running the site. But the biggest issue I have is with the membership structure singlemuslims.com uses.

Unlike other matrimonial sites, the biggest difference here is how singlemuslim.com make full membership free for girls while making guys pay for what they describe as the "gold" level. Now the official line (I read this a while back but can't find it now) is that this is a way of respecting a Muslim woman's right to search, right to decline and underlining the great importance of girlie prerogative, while also (I suppose) prompting men to be men (which means making them reach into their wallets).

Being the cynic I am though, I just don't buy this. You see, although men can't send messages until they're gold, they can't read any that have been received either. It's the ultimate marketing gimmick actually; having three or four girls (hey, I just signed up today, okay?) in your inbox without being able to know what exactly they've written.

Stemming this curiosity while bolstering your ego costs the princely sum of 28 quid a month. That's a rate of over 300 pounds a year, something which I find incredible (although that could just be because I've yet to find a profile worth that kinda money). If you're thinking "well that's just there to encourage you to subscribe for longer", well then you'll be right. Subscribe for a year and it's a much more manageable 120 quid. There's even an unlimited option for £160.

I'll give you a few minutes to think about what's wrong with this set up.

See, unlike mobile phone plans or television subscriptions, matrimonial sites by definition require you to quit and stop paying once they do their job. In that sense they're shooting themselves in the foot, and most of them feel that the best way to do this is to take as much money as possible, based on your own assessment of how well you think you'll do. You're literally betting on your own failure here - what kind of guy would go for the unlimited option? Does he really expect it to take that long (and if so then no website is gonna help him)? And what kind of girl would go for that kind of guy? And of course once a guy pays for a long term membership, he's going to want to use it, regardless of whether he meets a goodun' or not; he may as well keep looking until his membership lapses. In short, paying members are either desperate (enough to pay tons of money for a short term) or losers (who really don't think much of themselves).

There are genuine solutions to this. The main thing is to normalise memberships across genders and to make girls pay - if they want to. To facilitate this, it should be free for all read messages. Regarding the shrewd payment options, a much more honest way would be to stick to the monthly price of 28 pounds, but to cap or reduce it if it happens to take some poor sod a bit longer (so the second month costs 25, the third 20, etc). They could even introduce some kind of pay-per-message option if they wanted us to be really discerning before hitting that "Hello Gorgeous! You look really nice on your picture! Masha'Allah! I'd love to talk to you further, let me know if you'd like to chat some time!" canned message. No really, it's there.

This would all ensure that it's the initiator (be it the guy or the girl) who puts their money where their mouths are when initiating, rather than burdening those getting hit on with the hit (did you see what I did there?). Under the current system girls already do make the first move so there's no decrease of respect here (even though in my humble opinion they always should).

But yes, as it stands it seems to me that certain choice have been made to maximise profit rather than to help people get it on (hooray for Islamploitation!). That's fair enough but I think it's an attitude which may find its way into the beginnings of any relationship borne out of such a site too (although judging by the literature they do seem quite successful).

Honestly, it's enough to get me to start my own matrimonial site, one that is free or perhaps donation based. Of course I'd have a conflict of interest that would make such a thing impossible right now, so for now perhaps I should just start a SM directory, mapping usernames to email addresses?

In the meantime I just hope the girls on the site are enterprising enough to use Google properly. Wink wink and all that.

Things That Pee Me Off #12(b): Self-Lolling

Now here's something that's so annoying that I'm having to write about it once again. This time however, I'd like to focus on a particular instance of this self-congratulatory behaviour, one which only really happens over text based media; that of self-lolling:

Them: Hello!
Me: Yo, wasuap?

...

Me: And that's why I think we should adjust our attitudes toward the rishta process.
Them: Actually I think it's 'cos you're so obviously gay! Haha! Looooooool! LMFAO!!
Me: Haha, you're so funn... Wait a minute, what?

You get the idea.

Just because at least one person is laughing hard (namely you), that in itself doesn't make something funny - no, that actually takes wit, relevance and (possibly) a little bit of thought. Likewise, if something is funny then other people will laugh at it. On their own. Without prompting. If you have to fill that role, then the chances are that your humour isn't as, well, accessible as you think it is.

Of course we shouldn't need other people to validate ourselves. And I'm not saying that you're not allowed to find yourself hilarious either (I certainly do myself). I just find it a bit over-compensatory to let other people know this, and perhaps a bit insecure. And in the worst case it could make something that would have been funny on its own, not (assuming you care that is): I mean if they didn't laugh then I probably would have (although I will say that the majority of the times it's as funny as the reaction suggests it is).

But let's assume it's not about being insecure, but that it just generally stems from bad manners. Call it e-bravery or cyberguts, but people generally don't lol at their own jokes in real life but find it acceptable to do so online. Add to that the fact that these jokes are usually at the expense of someone else and you end up with something pretty close to classic misanthropic cyberbullying.

What's really upsetting is that, in the online world anyway, it's the women who tend to self-lol the most. Check your Facebook and count which status messages end with a lol or a winky and you'll see what I'm talking about. This is pretty ironic seeing as it's the men who are usually accused of finding themselves funny but more than that it's a shame since it's also a pretty immodest thing to do. I guess modesty is another casualty in the struggle for independence, and as long as you're laughing it doesn't really matter about anyone else.

In conclusion then, whether you are genuinely funny or not, you don't have to prove that you at the very least think you are by self-lolling. Patting yourself on the back is never a good idea, so how about letting someone else do that instead? At the very least remember this much: that self-lolling doesn't make what you said kind, clever, acceptable or most importantly funny, what you actually said in the first place does.

The Unconsidered Implications of Uploading

There's been a lot of flap about Facebook's daring change in Terms of Service this week, most of it a step behind what's actually happened. For most of us it had all been done before, Google's Chrome being the last to fall foul of idiotic God-like claims to our content. And like Chrome, even the mighty Facebook had to back down. Whether they originally knew what they were actually asking for is still up for debate; I for one think the distribution argument is a cop out. And just in case you didn't know, most content driven sites lay some kind of rights to the content you create or upload to them. They almost have to by definition. The problem I have is that this whole news story, and the frenzy we've all whipped up, is totally missing the point.

This Wired article concisely and clearly explains what happened and what needs to be done next, but the real message is in the comments; in short: "You either sign up & lose privacy, or you don't sign up at all. Is that simple.". Anyone thinking otherwise is being terribly naive; even if a website's intention is for the best, that alone will not stop bad things from happening. How many pictures have you accidentally seen on Facebook that you know was probably not intended for your eyes?

I hate to say I told you all so, but I blatantly did. To be frank I don't care whether someone puts pictures of themselves up on the Internet or not, but I don't think anyone has the right to compromise the privacy of others so flippantly. It's almost on par with Governmental "Big Brother" invasion of privacy which we often complain about. There's no difference between the two if neither considers your wishes.

To be fair I don't blame the people; well not directly anyway. Technology is moving so fast that people are failing to educate themselves - they literally know not what they do. Without being too dramatic it's actually disrespectful of the power such a global network like the Internet puts in your hands. At least one good thing about this Facebook fiasco is that people now have a clue, some idea of the implications that their actions have. On the other hand, there are very few of us (I hope) who would freely create multiple hard copies of their holiday/party snaps and send them to all they know either. There's no real justification for doing this over the wires either, yet we so easily do.

The solution is to make a change to your assumptions - instead of thinking that there's a small chance that the things you release into the wild will reach the attention of people they're not supposed to, think that they most definitely will at some stage. Expect the worst, even if it means compromising your lazy little attention-seeking social network and maybe then you'll not worry about a website claiming the inevitable truth - that once you tell someone a secret, it's no longer yours to keep any more anyway.

The Annual Inevitably Cynical "I Hate Valentine's" Post

It's an especially hateful Valentine's Day this year - I won't bother explaining why and I won't be responding to any questions either so don't bother. I'm serious. Cough.

So what can us singles collectively bitch about this year? Commercialism is lame (and easily avoided by celebrating the day before or after), complaining about how difficult it is to find someone is annoying (I'm sure) and just stating that those who happen to be in relationships are losers is just too easy (no matter how true it is). You do all realise it's just a matter of time before you break up, right?

So how about we flip the script a bit? I think that conventionally this annual post shouldn't be deep or long, so just bear with me on this one: how about I make the suggestion that those of us still single are such purely out of choice? Make it due to laziness, high expectations, fear or whatever you want; the point is that if any of us really did want to celebrate VD (snigger) with a loved one then they totally could. It's in our hands people.

Still, at least I won't be totally and utterly alone watching a film this year. No, tonight is all about curry, poker, foos-ball (and bitching about those in relationships whatever their gender. We are equal opportunity haters). I guess I should be thankful for having such lovely (and chronically single) mates. And you know what? There's no reason whatsoever that we can't celebrate the unique love that exists between friends during this day either.

Reasoning And The Absolute Truth

I don't think I'll ever lay an absolute claim to knowing Islam - I mean on an obvious level at least I hardly act like the best of Muslims on a day to day basis. However some people still ask me my opinion on certain things, mistakenly in the belief that I'll be of some use (it must be the beard), and admittedly it's pretty engaging talking about religion to the lengths we sometimes go to. Amongst other things, the topics in question have been regarding interfaith marriage, the role of a guardian in a marriage contract, the applicability of Zakah, the number of rakats to read in a full tarawih prayer and even what qualifies someone to enter heaven.

Now I'm hardly the best person to come to for a traditional Islamic opinion - you can read many examples of what could be seen as contrary ideas to traditionalism right on this blog. I'm also not an expert on any of the things we talk about but I always declare my opinions to be my own - I'm always well aware of the Black Box Fiqh I'm spewing out all the time.

But just because these opinions happen to be in the minority doesn't mean that they're arbitrary. No, they're based on an personal understanding I have about Islam, something I find to be just as well-founded as the opinion of anyone else. Unless of course they have a vast amount of more knowledge with which to equip their process of reasoning; though I think it's safe to say that most laymen have had the same amount of exposure to formal knowledge over the years, especially with the Internet around.

However in recent conversations of this type I've come across an attitude that seems to stop any deeper discussion from forming. Some just refuse to believe that an understanding other than their own can ever be correct, or more seriously they fail to realise that they've also used subjective reason to reach the opinions that they have. In fact it's almost as if some people don't enter a conversation about religion to find new answers, but more to affirm the ones they already hold to be true. In this sense of pre-concluding it, the conversation becomes less relevant and useful than it could be.

It's not the opinions themselves I find difficult to accept, but more the total assumption that they're not as subjective as others might be. In fact, I think that anyone who believes that they hold the absolute truth and didn't get there via reasoning is sorely mistaken; and if they make an absolute statement while simply declaring it to be an obvious one, then they have either missed the point of what they heard or read or not thought about it deep enough. I've seen many proofs reduced to a truism without it even being realised - and all of a sudden a ruling or opinion has to be true merely because it's what's being stated.

But surely Islam is black and white? Everyone knows what is allowed and what isn't - it's all written down in ink in the Qurans we all keep on our shelves and carry around in our pockets. And this seems to be the best proof of the correctness and universality of an opinion; after all, we all have the same copy of the Quran... Right?

Well yes, of course. But then how many of us can honestly say that we've distilled our opinions from the text itself? Chances are we've had verses presented to us by a third party, one who adds an external context, and possibly, meaning to what they're quoting. For example, if we compare the humanly authored and edited footnotes of a Quran from Pickthall and compared it to one from a "Wahabist Saudi" we would notice vast differences in the meaning and language taken away from the exact same verses (as presented in a recent Dispatches programme anyway). Even learning the language isn't a total answer since subjectivity will be introduced by your own experiences as well as the way you're taught the language.

There are more than enough clear examples of this lack of clarity - the hijab is an obligation for many women yet merely optional for others, while jihad is something mandated by the Quran and Hadith for some, but a metaphor representing personal struggle for the rest of us. Not that there's anything wrong with these differences per se: I think that subjective interpretation, be it directly from scriptural sources or by deciding which scholar to listen to, is an important part of Islam and in fact what makes it great; the onus being on conscious and personal meaning and realisation of right and wrong rather than fixed rules to follow that you might not actually believe in anyway. In fact Islam would be pretty boring and staid if we all believed the same thing. I don't think that contrary opinions come out of laziness or desire either; I'd had long dropped Fajr if that was the case, and I do hold some opinions that could make life more difficult than it could be with a more traditional opinion.

Don't get me wrong; I don't think that there has to be disagreement for Islam to be effective, but more that it's not ineffective it presents many disparate opinions. It's also important to remember, that on the whole, the majority is agreed upon, and that the stuff in dispute may not be all that practically important anyway - well not enough for it to promote an attitude of absolute correctness.

Furthermore in many of these discussions, as things become filtered into hard do and do not buckets, something seems to be lost in reasons why we follow the religion in the first place - as things increasingly turn black and white, the Islamic spirit seems to disappear. Religious integrity can also suffer; sometimes those who have the most vocal opinions find it the most difficult to follow them. It's easy to imagine that even if there was a clear cut Islam that there would be many of us who wouldn't (couldn't?) follow it.

Unfortunately most people have to think they're absolutely right in order to believe totally in something. I don't think this has to necessarily be the case; in fact it's a close-mindedness that doesn't strengthen belief, but, in my opinion, hinders it. This constant need of others to follow your own opinion, this self-vindication, almost seems like a requirement to faith which would otherwise be insecure - on the other hand I reckon someone who is really secure with their faith wouldn't need anyone else to agree with them.

At the end of the day we choose what we want to believe and follow. Even if that eventually means we see things as strictly right or wrong we as individuals ultimately decide what colour something is. There's nothing wrong with having an absolute stance, but a lot with thinking your stance is obviously the only clear cut one. In fact, I'm not even saying that we're all equally right - just that as humans there is only so much we can do to find the truth. Ultimately we have to rely on mystical things like hidayat and faith to affirm our beliefs but since these are all abstract and immeasurable you can't automatically promote your opinion over that of another.

Finally, I'm not saying that we shouldn't discuss and present our own opinions - preaching and dawah can both be good things. It's when we become pushy that it all goes wrong, especially when we don't realise how subjective we're being. I mean, having an informed opinion is one thing; creating a universal truth out of that opinion is something totally different.

Link of the Day

Are You Still Single? Join The Marriage Revolution!

Apart from the fantastic URL (one which I can't believe hadn't been taken already) it's worth visiting the above site for yet another indication of the sorry state some single Muslims are in. Not that I'm berating what the organisers are doing; judging by some of the feedback they seem to be helping more than hindering:

Jazak Allahu Khayran for organizing The Marriage Revolution. I can already feel a revolution within me. And I believe that is the first step: to learn and revolutionize my thinking and behavior and then go to others.

Quite. No, what's ultimately disturbing for me is how these questions have to be asked in the first place, and then further require a webcast of all things to have them actually answered. Are people seriously asking the following gems?

• Why in the world are guys scared of *overeducated* women?
• For a sister who had reached an older age (27+) trying to wait for the 'right' person, is it ok for her to continue waiting or should she just lower her standards and settle?
• From a brother's perspective, what is the best way for an interested sister to express her interest in a brother without coming off as too strong or shameless?
• Will getting married mean I have to kiss my personal life goodbye?
• How do I find a brother who will want to marry me if I can not provide him with a family?
• I have a fear of emotional intimacy and find it difficult to trust people, what can I do to change this? Should I refrain from getting married?
• Why are so many educated, professional, and pious Muslim women (in their late 20s, early 30s) unable to find husbands?

I reckon this says more about those who attend such things than those they are actually asking about. But hey, what do I know? As the embedded video says, I obviously don't understand how serious and complex the issues are - but I have found out that, apparently, as a man my focus on career (hah, they're obviously not talking about me here) conflicts with me wanting someone "overqualified" (sure, because such a thing exists). Which is a shame considering how hot I reckon doctors are.

If you are attending the webcast, well good luck and I sincerely hope you gain value from it (just don't pay anyone any money, m'kay?). Heck, maybe I'll attend just so I can throw tomatoes at the audience.

Link of the Day

someecards.com does Ramadan.

I hate e-cards. In fact, for me they come second only to anonymous text messages in their lack of feeling, and like the short message service manages to suck out any sentiment you may have had as you hit the "send to all my friends who happen to Muslim, I don't actually care which". I'd rather you ignore me than make me one of your generic contacts.

That said someecards.com currently have a range of Ramadan themed e-cards which are so hilarious and satirical I just had to give them kudos here. And as an added bonus, since they're so edgy and of an acquired taste people will only send them to specific contacts (i.e. put some actual real life thought into it). Brilliant! I've whacked my favourite below, but make sure you actually visit the site to see the rest.



Oh, and thanks to Fuad for the link.

Being Misunderstood

As some of you may know, I'm a very literal person. I try my best not to be ambiguous, and don't assume those I'm talking to have an innate psychic ability. I also try to be as accurate and clear when making a point. Ironically however, it seems to precisely be this attitude that results in my being so misunderstood. Some examples you ask? Well okay then.

Take a recent invitation I received to an Islamic course. After reading the brief yet clearly spammed message (I've written about the abuse of BCC before) and considering both the course and school I replied with an admittedly short but (in my opinion) appreciative:

cheers! but ill pass....

I'm hoping the individual in this particular case doesn't mind me cutting and pasting the above, but I feel it's important to be accurate here. Apologies if this and what follows violates personal emails but I'm trying to make a point about me, not anyone else.

Fast forward to a week later, and after meeting the original emailer in person and I suddenly find myself being verbally kicked in the nuts for being terse, blunt, and, ultimately, rude. On asking how I was supposed to have replied, I was told that I should have wrapped the declination with smalltalk and things: so, a "how are you" here and a "how's life" there - pretty rhetorical if you ask me. On asking how many people actually replied and further thanked her for the message it turned out that I was the only one. In effect, I would have been better off just ignoring the email altogether.

But my friend here wasn't alone in this assessment of my tone. Another present gave their own example of my feeble use of communication, and this time I was being blunt for offering the following after being asked for some travelling tips in a country I had recently visited:

not really - XXX is pretty neat and easy to travel in. do you want the number of the driver we had there?

I was even more surprised this time, partly because I couldn't quite remember the occasion anyway, but mostly because I had such a brill time in this place that it would have been my pleasure helping someone else experience the same. And looking at the context of the email there wasn't any indication that I had offended anyone at the time either.

So how come I'm so out of touch? So misunderstood? Are my attempts at being straight-up, transparent and answering exactly what's being asked of me inappropriate in a world where people expect something much more?

Interestingly enough my "cheers! but ill pass" above became a "NO THANKS" (capitals and all) when I was being told off for it, so some kind of miscommunication is happening somehow. Should I always assume the things I say will be transmitted so erroneously? But if so what hope do I have in saying anything accurately? I really don't know and don't usually find out until its too late. Perhaps the issue is me not giving the right rather than how I'm saying it; but unless I should be developing an ability to read the minds of others, I don't see how I can fix that without them telling me what they actually want (you know, using words).

It's almost as if some think I go out of my way to craft such deeply double-speaking messages, or that I have the ability to encode reams of meaning in so few words. I certainly don't think that I do - the verbosity of some of my posts here kinda suggests that if I'm short of anything, words it ain't.

I'm reminded of Captain Subtext, a gag character from the BBC's Coupling (one of my favourite sitcoms) demonstrating how easily the "simple" things men say can be interpreted as something much more deep and meaningful by those of the opposite sex. But although the above examples both involve girls I've had the same criticism made of me by guys too so it's definitely an asexual problem in this case. Furthermore it doesn't just happen over email - I've had problems in one on one situations and can't use the phone to save my life (but more on that in a further post). I've also have a habit of lamenting how misunderstood I am (here and here).

Still, I'm lucky in that most of the time my verbal faux pas aren't taken too seriously - in the examples given above I don't think I had offended those involved too much and I've yet to lose friends over my inability to communicate with them properly (or at least manage to catch and rectify myself before it's too late). However, a more serious issue is when I have someone take me aside to "make their peace" over an incident I've either totally forgotten about or, worse still, totally passed me by altogether. I'm not saying I'm immune to getting into serious rows with my friends, but it's quite worrying when I'm not even aware that I'm smack in the middle of one.

But I am open to making adjustments in my style if necessary - yet even my relatively recent use of smilies doesn't seem to get me off the hook. I read somewhere about how the best communicators consider the people they intend on communicating with - this certainly goes for the method in which they do so (so they won't text someone if they suspect the recipient would prefer other means), but perhaps it counts for the actual style and language used too? Perhaps being efficient and to-the-point isn't the best thing to do if it's not wanted? And if I know someone prefers a particular style of writing then maybe I should stick to it no matter how superfluous, patronising or rhetorical I feel it is.

In short maybe empathy and and consideration is more important than what I think is most appropriate at the time?

And finally for those of you who will inevitably be offended by what I've written please don't be. Just put it down to my inability to say what I mean in a way everyone can understand it.

Error Code : 2013

Another day and another issue with joining complex views. However where I solved the previous problem of slow queries by instructing MySQL to not spend too much time looking for an optimal execution plan, this latest issue seems much more grave.

When trying to execute a join I immediately get returned an Error 2013, "Lost connection to MySQL server during query". This occurs whether I run it on a client or server. Changing the query slightly to omit part of a where clause (simply an is null check) causes the query to run correctly. I have a hunch that this is related to my complex views once again. The fact that even the EXPLAIN returns this error is pretty worrying.

Checking the syslog on the server, it appears that MySQL is immediately crashing out. Unfortunately I don't have much more to go on since the promised stack backtrace (used to understand where in code MySQL was when it went titsup) doesn't appear in the log.

No answers in the community - although since I suspect that this a unique error I wasn't expecting much. It seems my only real option is to debug MySQL. However since this requires recompiling the whole thing from source, this solution is probably best left for a time when I'm not as tied up developing (so probably never). Again my confidence in MySQL is such that I'm sure I'll have to face this issue sooner rather than later so I'll have to do the recompilation eventually.

In the meantime I've managed to come across some pretty interesting behaviour regarding optimizer_search_depth. Setting this back to 4 (from 0) does allow the same query to complete, albeit with an incorrect result set (I'm left joining a table with one row on its own and end up with zero results). 62 may work better, but since that still makes the query unbearably long, I've not checked this. Recompiling the view also changes the behaviour of the query. It's all terribly inconsistent and bizarre.

So as it stands I have a choice between crashing the server, completing with incorrect results, or spending an hour waiting for correct results. I'm certainly not impressed and for the first time am wondering if MySQL is the best choice for this job (or indeed any other that requires a database!). I'm even considering switching to MSSQL (and so Windows with it), something I never hear other people having to do.

For the time being though, I've decided to become a bit more pragmatic about MySQL and its features. I now accept that the ONLY reason I'm now using it is because it's free: I've certainly never managed to crash MSSQL, and I've definitely found the community support for it to be better than what I've seen of MySQL's.

So now, instead of complaining about how rubbish MySQL is, I'm going to accept its flaws, use the workarounds given to me and create my own. Yes, my database's design may suffer for it, and yes code written against it may have to be ugly, but I'm guessing that this is the MySQL/OSS way of getting things done.

This isn't all as fatal as I'm making it sound though. The way MySQL works has also forced me to reassess the bad parts of my design and so has prompted more positive changes. For example, there doesn't seem to be way to pass around table results in MySQL, be it via selecting the results of a proc or allowing a function to return variables (in fact there's no table variables at all here). I've had to use scalar functions in a more creative manner instead, which in turn highlighted some inefficiencies in my code that once I saw was able to massage out.

In short, I'm hoping that the progress I make will distract me from the irritations the platform is bringing me.

Why Open Source Software Sucks

Most of us should have used open source software by now. Firefox, for example, is pretty huge and used by loads of people, most possibly not even aware that it's OSS. And I'd say that a great deal of software I use has been downloaded from SourceForge, one of the biggest (if not the biggest) repositories of OSS. It's not about it being free either - Internet Explorer is just as free as Firefox and yet it's the latter that's proving to be comparably popular. It's clear that OSS is a good thing for obvious reasons.

Or so I thought. Around 60% of my time on this project so far has been wrestling with the quirks of the major bits of OSS that I've been trying to use and I like to believe that this isn't just because I'm not accustomed to it ("you just need to get used to it" is the top reason given for my pain). Although most of my troubles have been with MySQL (enough to warrant a whole new post after this one), I've also had some issues with Ubuntu.

First up, it's all so poorly supported. I've found that the "community" that people often rave about to be a bit of a myth. The community doesn't "just" answer your questions for a variety of reasons: either they're too easy, too obscure or not sexy enough. Either way it's a bit of a struggle to get a direct solution to any problem you may have - you have to find your own answer by piecing together scraps you find all over the place. Still, I've found newsgroups to be more helpful than web forums, although only just.

Related to this is the poor documentation. So much knowledge, often basic, seems to be assumed. This means you can't even get started since you're unable to equip yourself with the fundamentals. For example, even after installing quite a few applications on to my Ubuntu build I'm still buggered if I know where a particular application has been installed, keeps its config, or what the heck the etc folder is for. And I can't even find these things out.

Other things seem to be hallmarks of some OSS. Its incomplete (you sometimes have to resort to a text file to edit something because a config screen hasn't been updated), inconsistent (file and configuration locations) and arbitrary (for the same application some things will be in a start menu while others will have to be sudo'd in a terminal).

On the other hand Ubuntu and MySQL at least seem to be just as stable and responsive as anything commercial I've used, sometimes even less so - for all its criticisms I've had to reboot my Vista install less than my Ubuntu, while applications take just as long to start up on each.

Okay, I'll admit that a lot of this does indeed have to do with my not being familiar with the tools I'm trying to use. Maybe I've forgotten the pain I went through learning to use Windows or MySQL. But then on the other hand I have to learn something new each time I use a new application - there was no esoteric quirkiness when using Firefox for the first time, for example. And learning isn't free, it costs time, and I expect some kind of return for that time. So far I've not seen any with Ubuntu or MySQL.

No, the only real benefit I see is with cost - the lack of commercial licences for OSS makes it a very appealing base on which to build a technology business. It's just a shame that the general principle of getting what you pay for seems to hold fully with OSS too.

Shak And The City

No, no and a thousand times no! I will NOT go watch Sex And The City with you! So far three ladies (steady, that count includes an aunt) have now asked me if I'll be going to watch SATC and whether they can tag along if so. I dunno. Am I really that girly[1] or something?

I mean hey, I'll admit it. I may have once for a microsecond considered watching the film, but only to be in the company of the awesome Kristen Davis for a couple of hours. Having not seen the series (in fact I despised it and all that it stood for and was amazed at how women could not see it for the misogynistic pap that it was) the film would probably have been wasted on me anyway, but the continued insinuation by those asking me to take them to the blummin' film has kinda made it a point for me not to go.

And of course this weekend is all about Henry Jones Junior anyway. It'd be like tainting his name if I partook in the oestrogen orgy that is SATC.

So just in case you missed it, no. And just in case you're wondering, I don't want to know how "absolutely brilliant" it was either.

[1] I've chosen that adjective carefully. Anyone who mentions the letters GBF gets a life ban. And a slap.

Video of the Day

Although specifically talking about arguments on the Internet, Wired's Lore Sjoberg's dissection of argumentative misanthropes totally applies to those who generally don't really know what they're talking about in real life discussions too:



Sigh: memories of time wasted on the ALMBs come flooding back. If some of you wonder why I avoid commenting here on my own blog, well the above is partly why. Still, knowing how to recognise time-wasting BSers helps you to avoid, uh, having to talk to them in the first place.

Things That Pee Me Off #12: People Who Laugh At Their Own Jokes

Okay look, I admit it. I think I'm funny. A lot of unfunny people think that they are, and so while I'm not proud of this self awareness, I will also accept that I am most probably wrong. But I don't really have a problem with people who put themselves in such good measure.

No, I just can't stand people who manifest this opinion of themselves by laughing at what they just cracked. To be honest it wouldn't be much of a big deal if everyone else was laughing also, but those who laugh at their own jokes are also usually the ones who found it most funny and so they're also the loudest.

The fact is that most of the time they're the only ones laughing, apart from a few others who choose to be polite and respond to the prompting, possibly out of pity or politeness. Yes it's always good to promote laughter from those around you, but I think it's quite perverse to crease up at something you said yourself. In fact I can liken it to some other forms of self gratification.

My advice to them is to keep it down, show a bit of humility and let others decide whether what you said was worth laughing at or not - perhaps it would have been if you kept quiet? Chances are it wasn't though, and so carrying on and laughing just makes you doubly wrong.