DEBRIS.COMgood for a laugh, or possibly an aneurysm

A study released yesterday by Harvard School of Public Health claims that people following a “western” diet — red meat, fatty dairy products, refined grains… fast food, basically — were “heavier, less physically active, more likely to smoke cigarettes and had a substantially increased risk for type 2 diabetes. “

Here’s the press release: Study Links Western Dietary Pattern with a Greater Risk for Type 2 Diabetes in Men. And here’s the abstract from the Annals of Internal Medicine, a copy of which I think I sat on during my last visit to Dr. Jellyfinger: Dietary Patterns and Risk for Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus in U.S. Men

My only question: why is this news? Even people who eat that crap know it isn’t good for them. Just for fun, let’s review the symptoms of diabetes: heart disease, kidney failure, and blindness. Do you still want to supersize those fries?

If you have not already, please read Eric Schlosser’s Fast Food Nation. It is stunning, and relevant.

Of interest to web designers: Chris Casciano is using Cascading Style Sheets (and only CSS) to redesign the homepage of his website every day this month. See the version with no style, and then cycle through them all using the “switch style” form at the bottom of the page. It’s shocking what CSS can do. (Link seen at Zeldman.)

When I designed this site (Fall of 2000), early frustrations with spotty CSS support led me to rely on HTML tables for basic page layout, even if CSS is used here for typesetting control. Now I see I’ll have to redesign without tables… the possibilities illustrated by Casciano are eye-opening.

Tired of aspirating formaldehyde from that spiffy new ergo-desk? Clean your air with these ten eco-friendly house plants, “chosen for their ease of growth and maintenance, removal of chemical vapors, resistance to insect manifestation and transpiration (humidification) rates.”

Last Fall we hired a general contractor to replace some windows in our house. As is unfortunately typical, the contractor’s work crew had no experience installing windows, especially in masonry. But as is also typical, they forged ahead and did a reasonable job.

Except… two of the replacement windows were mirror-images of one another. The crew leader, a carpenter, did not check his orders closely enough, and installed the XO window (which opens left-to-right) in the place where the OX window was supposed to go.

This was not a fatal error, but the remaining window would not work in the remaining opening. The carpenter became upset, probably embarrassed at having made a mistake, but said he could reverse the direction of the remaining window before installing it. (The opening direction cannot be changed after installation.)

So he swapped the panels, but broke one in the process. Visibly frustrated, he explained that someone would come out to replace the broken glass, and made it equally clear that because he broke it, he’d be footing the bill. He seemed even more upset at this point.

I began to feel sympathetic, and so when he asked what we planned for inside trim, I admitted that we were in need of a finish carpenter to frame and trim the windows. He offered to do this work, and I agreed, thinking I’d give him a chance to do some good work — to redeem his somewhat unsuccessful morning by doing work he was experienced in, and in a more direct sense, by improving the window installation that he’d done substandard work on.

We discussed the trim and foolishly did not write up an agreement or spec. I really do know better… As I look back I realize I was only asking for a bid, but the carpenter assumed I’d hired him. Later, when he called with the bid, he said he’d already purchased the materials, and I realized I was bound to proceed.

One of the key points of the design was that the hardwood sills would not show mounting hardware. What is the point of having stain-grade wood sills if there is a row of screw heads running the length of the board? We discussed this at length; the carpenter came up with an implementation plan that would not require the sills to be screwed down.

Installation day came at last. One frame went in without a problem, but soon I heard some unexpected banging, a few quiet curses, etc. I walked down the hall to check on progess and was horrified to see that the carpenter had just finished driving a big masonry screw through the center of two of the sills. He countersunk them and covered them with blobs of wood putty, and assured me these patches would be invisible. I was too shocked to argue. And I was not about to start a confrontation with a guy holding power tools.

And so I made a third mistake: I paid him.

Later I inspected the frames closely. The work quality was awful. Besides the wood filler: split corners, errant staples, unfinished edges, gaps. What a mess! I agonized for days before coming to a decision, which was to ask the carpenter for a refund. This was a lot harder than it sounds: to tell a guy that the quality of his work is so terrible that I’d rather throw it away than have him come out to fix it. But in the end that’s what I did, albeit with much nicer phrasing.

SF Chronicle tech columnist David Lazarus offers this skewed interpretation of the “browser war:”

Most of us would probably say that the browser war had been settled long ago, and that, for better or worse, Microsoft was the clear winner. … But AOL Time Warner’s Netscape unit apparently didn’t get the memo. …

But I have no problem acknowledging that Microsoft kicked Netscape’s butt the old-fashioned way — it built a better mousetrap. Internet Explorer is now sturdier and more functional that Netscape’s browser, and that’s why most users switched.

It is sad that this sort of misinformed opinion can get printed in a large regional newspaper. Lazarus’ view ignores critically pertinent facts, and draws a conclusion that is most likely untrue: he claims that users “switched” to IE, when in fact it is more likely that the vast majority never bothered to try Navigator in the first place, because it did not come preinstalled on the system.

One of the key complaints in the DoJ’s suit against Microsoft was that MS forced each of its system vendors to bundle IE with the OS, or risk losing their status as Windows licensee. (See Wired’s timeline of the US vs Microsoft trial, item 10/27/97.) In contrast, PC vendors had no compulsion to bundle Navigator, and according to some reports were pressured by Microsoft not to install Navigator.

Remember, too, that MS offered to sacrifice MSN to AOL if AOL would promote IE over Navigator. That alone accounts for a couple of million AOL users who probably didn’t have to “switch” to IE.

So, whether or not IE in 2002 (3+ years later!) is a “better mousetrap” than Navigator, Lazarus’ opinion is woefully underresearched, which is embarrassing given that Google turned up all the above-referenced documents within three search attempts.