The never ending software saga continues. You may (or may not) have noticed that I cleaned up and spruced up this blog a bit. What a fiasco. Decorating the page was the easy part. Now I'm deep in the code again, trying to optimize the page generator. To do it right, I've darn near got to re-write the entire application. Isn't that how it usually works? You can't see the 'article' links yet, but just turning them on required a few days of debugging - and this is supposed to be a working and tested part of the application. Right. It never worked. There was no way it could ever work. Poor design. Oh well, it was free. I got what I paid for. In retrospect I could've saved a lot of time by just writing the entire application from scratch.

Business is slow again. My gorilla marketing campaign isn't working.  All my efforts to boost my page rank have resulted in it slipping to page 2 - and that's if you type in 'sonica music company'. If instead you make a generic query like 'musical instruments in mountain view', I get the very first entry. You'd think that would be good. But no, the first listing is for a google-local page - 'Mountain View Music Center', which no longer exists. The local pages get updated maybe once a year, maybe less. There seems to be no way to correct the links. They get their info from a third-party yellow pages service, which gets updated even less frequently. Going to that service, it says to send an email to correct inaccurate business info. I did that months ago. No response. Google says they'll allow you to update these incorrect listings online in some future release. This reminds me of the ODP - I'll have to put a reminder in my calendar to check again in two years. Until then, I'm stuck.

I remember in the past I would usually have something hilariously funny to write about once in a while. I'm not coming up with many things that are funny these days... (sigh...)

OK, here's something mildly amusing. I just read an article at CNN online a couple of days ago announcing the latest SI swimsuit edition. There was a link to a photo gallery. In the photo gallery, not one swimsuit was shown. Nothing below the neckline - everything was cropped except the face and shoulders. OK, one picture had a slight bit of a strap showing. Yes, that was amusing. So is this. Tonight Aaron Brown comments on the swimsuit edition (SI is owned by Time Warner, who owns CNN, etc...). His comments are that he thought this was hot stuff when he was 12 years old. And he's now 56. Yay! Another math problem! That would mean he thought it was hot stuff in 1961 (2005 minus (56 - 12) or 44 years ago). The swimsuit issue didn't come out until 1964. Hardly anybody heard about it until 1980, but that's beside the point. It didn't exist when Aaron Brown was 12. But wait - I'm not done yet... In researching this article, the story from the other day and the politically correct photo archive has vanished completely. Everything goes now to the new SI swimsuit issue website, where the model on the website photo isn't wearing a swimsuit at all, and thumbnails are provided of other photos shot at high angles - all you see is cleavage, with just a hint of cloth visible. Same company, two days later. Talk about mixed messages.