So I finally gave in to the hype and downloaded the new Web 2.0 programming language, Ruby on Rails.

Ruby is a relatively new (1998, I believe) programming language that aims right for “developer productivity”. Someone sat down, I suppose, and combined all the easy-to-use-but-powerful parts of Smalltalk, Python and Perl. Does the world NEED a new programming language? Well, usually the answer is no but Ruby is starting to gain some traction as a powerful tool. People are starting to port Ruby to .NET even.

Rails is a web application framework developed by the folks at 37 Signals for Ruby. 37 Signals is famous for their easy to use web applications such as Basecamp, Backpack and Ta Da List.

The claim made by Ruby on Rails is that you could get a new web application up and running in minutes, where it would take days using another language such as ASP.NET. Now when hearing someone claim a web site could be up and running in “minutes”, I instinctively roll my eyes and think, “Yeah, right.”

Last night I ran through the ONLamp Ruby on Rails tutorial, and I must admit to being impressed.

Perhaps the revolutionary feature is this thing called “scaffolds”. Rails will actually provide a default set of CRUD (create, read, update, delete) pages for any database table. So if you have a database table of employees, you simply run a couple of command line programs, and Rails will create a bunch of web pages to let to manage those tables through the browser. It's amazing. Maybe you have to see it in action to be blown away.

I'm still getting into it. I'll spend more time with it tonight. But I have just begun customizing those pages, and working with multiple tables.

I will update this blog later with more on my experience with Ruby. Maybe I'll even have a web application to share with the world, in 15 minutes development time!

Two years ago I searched through my “Living the Geek Life” referral logs and found some interesting search terms. It's time to update the list, using a small VB program I developed at the time and is still available for free download here.

So without further ado, Google has actually sent people here using the following search terms:

“Easy Gymnastic Moves”

I'm #9 on Google for this phrase.

Wow. The olympics aren't on, and people are still searching for gymnastic moves. And Google is STILL sending those people to my web site. The best I can offer is this web site and this one.

“Writing to a 5 year old”

I am #2 on Google for this phrase.

My page got into Google because I was talking about by World Vision sponsored child, who I correspond with. Writing to her is difficult, and doubly so because of the “lost in translation“ effect. Basically, you have to keep the words small, talk about things she might be interested in, etc. Imagine what you would say if she was sitting in front of you... “Did you have fun today? What did you do? Do you want a cookie?“ That kind of stuff. Of course, in a letter, those questions are totally irrelevant so don't listen to me at all.

check my numbers lotto 54321 ie.

I am #1 on Google for these terms. I have no freaking IDEA why.

Honestly, if you are searching Google using that meaningless group of words and numbers, I am not surprised you are brought to an irrelevant site such as this. You've given Google nothing to work with. But welcome anyways, and I hope you enjoy it here. I am sure you won lotto. 54321 comes up all the time!

Movie countdown timer 10...9

I am #3 on Google for these terms.

Ha ha. Searching for a term like that in Google is like searching using the punchline of a joke. Yes, the “countdown timer“ is one of the stupidest ways Hollywood movies use computers. Click that link to see some other good ones. 

Sophie Neveau employer

I am #3 on Google for these terms. Probably because her name is misspelled.

In the book The DaVinci Code, Sophie Neveu was employed as a cryptologist with the French police. In the movie version, she didn't do much but look good. And ask Tom Hanks... “Tom, what does this mean? Tom! Tom! I'm a cryptologist and you're not, but what does it MEAN?“

unemployed can i afford to retire

There is only one difference between unemployment and retirement. Retirement is voluntary. I would have to say that if you are currently unemployed, you probably cannot afford to retire. People who can afford to retire generally call their periods of unemployment “sabbaticals” or “vacations”.

Minor spoilers ahead.

Sandra Bullock and Keanu “Whoa!” Reeves are reunited in this romantic tale about:

OK, there are these two people, and they fall in love. But they can't be together - there's an impossible and almost insurmountable barrier between them. All through the movie, one person is trying to get them back together but circumstances and bad timing keep them apart. At some point during the movie, one of them loses hope but the other doesn't. And then at the very end of the movie, they end up together. The End.

Wait, am I now quoting myself? Am I quoting myself on something I said 10 minutes ago? As Keanu would say, “Whoa!”

Basically, I'll start off by saying this is not my type of movie normally. I went because my wife is a Sandra Bullock fan. And Sandra and Keanu together? Well, let's just say I had two choices: see the movie tonight, or patiently wait in the parking lot of the movie theater for 100 minutes. I decided to watch. And I was pleasantly surprised.

The movie is well done overall. The writing is excellent. Since Keanu and Sandra are basically the only two characters in the movie (other characters probably had less than a week of shooting), the writing must be good to carry the story.

The movie had excellent direction and cinematography too. It wasn't just slapped together, there is a good feel to the movie. The timing is good, it doesn't drag. There are no real “loose ends” hanging in mid-air at the end of the film. From almost the opening scene, to the last scene, the story weaves together well.

Now this movie is not going to be everyone's cup of tea. Clearly, at opening weekend a majority of critics didn't like the movie. But I went in expecting a slow-moving romantic drama. I wasn't expecting “Speed” or “Fast and the Furious”. So I got what I expected.

There were a couple of points in the movie I found touching. There is a point where Sandra's character is heart-broken - and it was a touching scene. Likewise Keanu also had a chance to cry, and those are the moments over which the characters bond.

So I liked the movie. There's some interesting summer blockbuster's coming, so don't worry. The sappy romance stuff is out of the way for the next little while.

I have a brilliant idea. I'm going to hop on a plane tomorrow and head to Hollywood. I will make a bijillion dollars writing movie scripts.

(Idea #1) OK, there are these two people, and they fall in love. But they can't be together - there's an impossible and almost insurmountable barrier between them. All through the movie, one person is trying to get them back together but circumstances and bad timing keep them apart. At some point during the movie, one of them loses hope but the other doesn't. And then at the very end of the movie, they end up together. The End.

“But wait”, you say. “That's been done already.” Really, sounds original to me. “How about Casablanca? An Affair to Remember? Sleepless in Seattle? You've Got Mail? Kate and Leopold? Ghost? City of Angels? Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind? The Lake House?” OK, OK, you've got me. I have another idea. (By the way, that's a lot of Meg Ryan movies in there. I'm glad she's given the forlorn lost love role up.)

(Idea #2) Now, this has not been done before. You take two people, and at first they are just friends. He helps her with something. She helps him with something. In the end, the two friends realize true love is staring them in the face. They end up together. The End.

“Sorry, that has been done too.  When Harry Met Sally? French Kiss? Addicted to Love? Forrest Gump?”

OK, I give up. I guess I'll stay here in Toronto writing blog entries.

Ken Thomson, who was ranked 9th on the Forbes list of richest people in the world, and one of the few Canadians on the list, died today at his office at the age of 82.

Now depending on his will, and who he gave his $19 billion to, the title might pass to a new family - the Weston's. Thomson had a wife and 3 children - so maybe they are each $4 billionaires.

It's amazing to me that Ted Rogers is not higher on the list. Only $3 billion? He owns the Rogers empire - Skydome, the Blue Jays, 75% of Canada cable TV's, cell phones, etc.

A couple of hours ago, I walked into the kitchen to make some coffee. 8:45 the clock on the wall said. Wow, I thought. Is it only quarter to nine? Seems later than that. I love it when it's actually earlier than I think. I'm so used to it being later than I think.

A few minutes ago, I walked into the kitchen to grab a cold drink. 8:45 the clock on the wall said. Wow, I thought. Is it only quarter to... wait a minute. The clocks not moving. Damn, battery dead. Quick check of the microwave says 1:18am.

I am a night person. Always have been. I am not a morning person, and find it difficult to get up for work in the morning. I am lucky I have a job that lets me start later than most people - flex hours. But why is it that I am still lying in bed at 9am, unable to convince myself to wake up, while others have been up for hours? And why is it that I am wide awake at 2am, and basically have to guilt myself into going to bed?

Steve Pavlina wrote an article called “How to Be an Early Riser”. I would love to know that secret. Basically, he says, go to bed only when you are tired but force yourself to wake up early at the same time every day, even on weekends. He wakes up at 5am, but I would be happy to be able to wake up at 8:00am or even 8:30am.

His theory, basically, is that very quickly you will settle into a cycle. If you stay up too late, you still have to wake up early, so you will be tired the following night and will go to bed earlier. Eventually, you will find yourself going to bed “on time“. He claims he gets less sleep than he used to, but sleeps better.

I can't imagine trying this experiment unfortunately. Here I am at 1:30am as I type this, not yet tired. What time will I actually get tired? I know through experience that at around 3:30am I will start to get drowsy. If I was in the middle of something (reading a book, watching a movie, or something), I could stay up til 4am or 5am. So is Steve suggesting I go to bed at 3am every night and wake up at 8am? I know people can survive on only 5 hours sleep a night, but I am not one of them.

I don't have a solution for this. Maybe the one thing to take from his article is “When the alarm goes off, get up. Don't think about it. Don't go back to sleep. Get up, and get going. Just do it.” That's what I need to do.

Continuing on my review of the X-Men movie, there were a couple of things that bothered me. Don't read if you don't want to be spoiled.

1) The big fight scene at the end, where Magneto sends in the few hundred or so anonymous mutants. Remember, they have to be mutants because Magento rejected Mystique when she lost her powers.

So mutant after mutant rushes forward, and is either killed by Wolverine/Beast or shot by the dart. Question is, what happened to these mutants powers? Not one of them turned into a fireball, turned invisible (that we know of), raced at the speed of sound, and so on. They just jumped off the bridge, and ran right into the soldiers and their darts. Some just ran straight to their deaths with no apparent reason or hope. Perhaps Magneto had them pumped up with excitement. But if I was there, I'd be like “Hey, I'm here to help Magneto. You go first and I'll be right behind you...“

I was expecting at least one of them to have some special power they could use to avoid the darts. Or some type of Wolverine/mutant fight.

2) The bridge. Yes, the famous bridge scene. Magneto reconstructs the golden gate bridge so that it attaches the mainland to Alcatraz. The question everyone is asking is, why did he do it? Why not just float his mutant army over on some huge piece of metal - why the whole bridge?

3) Rogue. Why was she in this movie? What was her character's purpose?

Actually, to put it another way, I think the writers wanted to show that not all mutants like their powers or find them useful. Rogue's power was exploited in X-Men 1, as she was used in the device that tried to turn everyone into mutants. But she can't fight, and clearly has no “role” at this point. But she could have been removed from the movie completely, and the movie would not be any different. I think the “don't like my powers” thing could have been shown another way.

4) And lastly, the X-Men characters (Storm et al) were struggling with the concept - why would any mutant want to cure themselves. To me, that was never the issue. The issue was, when a parent discovers their child is a mutant, would they “cure” them? With the cure, not another mutant will be allowed to grow to an adult. The movie never mentioned this, although clearly the inventor of the cure did so to cure his own son. That's the issue. “Why cure yourself?” is largely irrelevant.

That's all for now. It's a good sign I guess that this movie is still on my mind a few days after I watched it.

Last fall I talked about getting my DNA analyzed, and upgrading from a 12-marker test to a 37-marker test.

That was completed quite a long time ago, and the results are back. I have no 37-marker matches in the Family Tree DNA database. I think this database contains 67,121 other DNA samples, which is tiny compared to the population of the industrialized world (say, 1 billion+).

Interestingly, I do have 62 12-marker matches, and 3 close 25-marker matches. But it is the 37 marker match that will find someone who is closely related to me, so I am anxiously waiting on the first long-lost relative.

Incidentally, with the 25-marker match, FTdna estimates there is a 62% chance I share a common ancestor with this person within the last 10 generations. 10 generations is a long time - 250 years more or less. My own ancestry is only mapped 4 generations! So who the heck knows if I am related to this person or not. Geez, 250 years ago my ancestors were still in Europe!