One of my co-workers made an interesting drink this
morning. Something you might call the “Office Kitchen Special.” He
first poured in a few teaspoons of sugar, and then, perhaps, a
tablespoon or less of powdered creamer (non-dairy). Then he added
about a 1/3 cup of hot water, mixed with a red mixing stick, and
drank.

I was explaning how a
system I’d made
works, so I didn’t quite catch it all. I asked him
what the drink was and he simply said, “Oh, if I drink black coffee, I
will die. So it’s just a little creamer and sugar.”

A Conversation with Josh Bloch, Making Java classes final:

You don’t need that mindset anymore. My view is you can always add something, but you can’t take it away. Make it final. If somebody really needs to subclass it, they will call you. Listen to their argument. Find out if it’s legitimate. If it is, in the next release you can take out the final. In terms of binary compatibility, it is not something that you have to live with forever. You can take something that was final and make it non-final. If you had no public constructors, you can add a public constructor. Or if you actually labeled the class final, you can remove the access modifier. If you look at the binary compatibility chapter of the JLS (Chapter 13), you will see that you have not hurt binary compatibility by adding extendibility in a later release.

Pants & Love

Kate: “By worshiping the pants, they gave me confidence which gave me
some, I think, some degree, maybe, of attractiveness to this person
[Kate’s husband] who, ultimately, I was trying to attract.”

Kate’s Husband: “As anyone who’s fallen in love knows, you
know, you idolize the person you’re falling in love with. And in those
early days, in particular, they feel perfect to you, you know, and
then you start asking yourself all sorts of questions…all sorts of
insecurities come up…’why would this perfect person necessarily fall
for me, and accept me, and want to be with me.’ But then, you know,
when you discover a chink in that person’s perfection, when there’s —
when you find a flaw — in this case, you know, Kate has bad taste, at
least in this one pair of pants, then it, somehow, makes you feel a
little more comfortable. You feel like, ‘well, maybe I do have a
chance because here…God, you know, those pants had a chance
with her.”

Total Dork-out, Dude.

I’ve been reading two auto-industry XML specs this morning, CAF 1.2 (Credit Application Format) and ADF 1.0 (Auto-lead Format).

Man, along with a cup of coffee, they’re fun readin’, esp. the decision and applicant blocks of the CAF spec.

Update: check out this huge ADF errata. It kind of sucks when a “standard” has that many errors…. Hell, check out this ommision, “There is currently no engine field for vehicle.” That is, the ADF format doesn’t allow the car lead to specify what type of engine they’d like. You can specify, trim, interior color, exterior color…but not engine…