Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Blaspheming heresy
Although I have no real interest in their products, I like the 37Signals "Signal vs. Noise" blog for its offbeat topics. (Case in point, I'm trying out the standing desk concept at home.) But once in awhile, I do think that I know better. This despite the fact that they've been running a business for years and I have yet to do more than one freelance gig.
Today's "Ask 37Signals: How do you say 'No'?" post is one of those times. One of the post comments linked to their book "Getting Real"--which I've skimmed on the insistence of my boss, but wasn't all that impressed with--and the fact that they throw away customer feature requests after reading them. The text in question, for context:
Don't misunderstand me here: Saying "No" properly is an important skill--one that too few develop. The Roman historian Tacitus contrasted brother-Caesars Titus and Domitian by relating that the former could make a friend with the way he said "No" whereas the latter could make an enemy by the way he said "Yes." Perhaps author of the essay above doesn't have a taste for Roman history or assumes that it's not applicable because it's soooo 2000 years ago an' all. But I don't consider it a wise attitude. Because 37Signals has basically told the people who have paid or would pay their bills that their feedback will be ignored unless the request (or the reader's perception of it--a distinction not to be taken lightly) is validated by some unquantified amount of apparently similar feedback. And to think that these people put down their stakes in the Midwest. That certainly wasn't the politeness ethic that I was raised with...
Apart from the flagrant violation of regional etiquette, I consider this a short-sighted and downright wasteful attitude for a few of logical reasons.
Reason #1: You're treating a customer interaction as if it's disposable. Someone took time from their day to inquire about your product. The employee who reads that feedback will likely be busy, and more likely to pigeonhole the request for an add-on to Bell #21 or Whistle #369. It may be a later customer interaction that could call that "pigeonholing" into question. But by that time, the original email is black-holed, and there's no way to double check. Unless you can guarantee that the same person (with an eidetic memory) reads every feature request throughout the entire life-cycle of your product, this seems like it's just asking for trouble.
Reason #2: It's not All About your bells and whistles, stupid. Obviously, it's 37Signals' business to run. My approach, on the other hand, would be to make view each request not through the lens of "To what feature does this request belong?" but "What does the customer (or potential customer) intend to do with that enhancement? A simple, courteous follow-up email to the customer asking how s/he would use the add-on accomplishes three things:
Now, I won't pretend to consider myself an "inventor," not by any stretch. But the hallmark of the inventor is the openness of her/his perception to what isn't being done, or at least not done very efficiently. And 37Signals' approach strikes me as high-handed, and their success as an increasing liability. That goes double if they choose to remain a relatively small ISV. Because sooner or later your own itches will run out. The line between "Don't need to do" and "Don't feel like doing" blurs. At that point, it's far, far too easy to filter all input through the sieve of a "vision" which becomes more hide-bound and self-serving by the day.
Me, I prefer to leave the "visions" to the blessed lunatics of this world. That the world is generally a harsh place for such blessedness is not a recommendation to emulate them. As I mentioned, I have no real need of what 37Signals is peddling. But I do have some discretionary spending power at work as well as at home, and my itches are peripatetic. Their attitude has made it less likely that I will throw money--mine or, better yet, someone else's--at them.
Today's "Ask 37Signals: How do you say 'No'?" post is one of those times. One of the post comments linked to their book "Getting Real"--which I've skimmed on the insistence of my boss, but wasn't all that impressed with--and the fact that they throw away customer feature requests after reading them. The text in question, for context:
Forget Feature Requests
Let your customers remind you what's important
Customers want everything under the sun. They'll avalanche you with feature requests. Just check out our product forums; The feature request category always trumps the others by a wide margin.
We'll hear about "this little extra feature" or "this can't be hard" or "wouldn't it be easy to add this" or "it should take just a few seconds to put it in" or "if you added this I'd pay twice as much" and so on.
Of course we don't fault people for making requests. We encourage it and we want to hear what they have to say. Most everything we add to our products starts out as a customer request. But, as we mentioned before, your first response should be a no. So what do you do with all these requests that pour in? Where do you store them? How do you manage them? You don't. Just read them and then throw them away.
Yup, read them, throw them away, and forget them. It sounds blasphemous but the ones that are important will keep bubbling up anyway. Those are the only ones you need to remember. Those are the truly essential ones. Don't worry about tracking and saving each request that comes in. Let your customers be your memory. If it's really worth remembering, they'll remind you until you can't forget.
How did we come to this conclusion? When we first launched Basecamp we tracked every major feature request on a Basecamp to-do list. When a request was repeated by someone else we'd update the list with an extra hash mark (II or III or IIII, etc). We figured that one day we'd review this list and start working from the most requested features on down.
But the truth is we never looked at it again. We already knew what needed to be done next because our customers constantly reminded us by making the same requests over and over again. There was no need for a list or lots of analysis because it was all happening in real time. You can't forget what's important when you are reminded of it every day.
And one more thing: Just because x number of people request something, doesn't mean you have to include it. Sometimes it's better to just say no and maintain your vision for the product.
Don't misunderstand me here: Saying "No" properly is an important skill--one that too few develop. The Roman historian Tacitus contrasted brother-Caesars Titus and Domitian by relating that the former could make a friend with the way he said "No" whereas the latter could make an enemy by the way he said "Yes." Perhaps author of the essay above doesn't have a taste for Roman history or assumes that it's not applicable because it's soooo 2000 years ago an' all. But I don't consider it a wise attitude. Because 37Signals has basically told the people who have paid or would pay their bills that their feedback will be ignored unless the request (or the reader's perception of it--a distinction not to be taken lightly) is validated by some unquantified amount of apparently similar feedback. And to think that these people put down their stakes in the Midwest. That certainly wasn't the politeness ethic that I was raised with...
Apart from the flagrant violation of regional etiquette, I consider this a short-sighted and downright wasteful attitude for a few of logical reasons.
Reason #1: You're treating a customer interaction as if it's disposable. Someone took time from their day to inquire about your product. The employee who reads that feedback will likely be busy, and more likely to pigeonhole the request for an add-on to Bell #21 or Whistle #369. It may be a later customer interaction that could call that "pigeonholing" into question. But by that time, the original email is black-holed, and there's no way to double check. Unless you can guarantee that the same person (with an eidetic memory) reads every feature request throughout the entire life-cycle of your product, this seems like it's just asking for trouble.
Reason #2: It's not All About your bells and whistles, stupid. Obviously, it's 37Signals' business to run. My approach, on the other hand, would be to make view each request not through the lens of "To what feature does this request belong?" but "What does the customer (or potential customer) intend to do with that enhancement? A simple, courteous follow-up email to the customer asking how s/he would use the add-on accomplishes three things:
- It shows that you actually (gasp!) read the email.
- It engages the serious customers, b/c the time-wasters probably won't put themselves through the agony of translating self-reflection into words.
- It could be a shortcut to the front of the Next Big Thing's curve.
Now, I won't pretend to consider myself an "inventor," not by any stretch. But the hallmark of the inventor is the openness of her/his perception to what isn't being done, or at least not done very efficiently. And 37Signals' approach strikes me as high-handed, and their success as an increasing liability. That goes double if they choose to remain a relatively small ISV. Because sooner or later your own itches will run out. The line between "Don't need to do" and "Don't feel like doing" blurs. At that point, it's far, far too easy to filter all input through the sieve of a "vision" which becomes more hide-bound and self-serving by the day.
Me, I prefer to leave the "visions" to the blessed lunatics of this world. That the world is generally a harsh place for such blessedness is not a recommendation to emulate them. As I mentioned, I have no real need of what 37Signals is peddling. But I do have some discretionary spending power at work as well as at home, and my itches are peripatetic. Their attitude has made it less likely that I will throw money--mine or, better yet, someone else's--at them.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Becoming the enemy
We're repeatedly told that the folks gunning (or IEDing) for Western soldiers or blowing up innocents in Afghanistan and Iraq do so because their leaders have muddled religion and killing people. Good thing our Armed Forces don't have that problem. Riiiight???
So...we'll take people with criminal records, put guns in their hands and not fuss overmuch about what they do to someone else's country--as long as nobody takes pictures. But for crissakes, kick out the homosexuals and atheists before they get their cooties on someone!
Feh. I suppose it makes perfect sense if you're a theocon. But, then, if you can believe that the kangaroos swam to Australia after Noah beached the Ark on Mount Ararat, I s'pose you can manage any amount of self-serving twaddle. Depressing, isn't it, how the moral compass never seems to survive the auto-lobotomy required by fundamentalism?
So...we'll take people with criminal records, put guns in their hands and not fuss overmuch about what they do to someone else's country--as long as nobody takes pictures. But for crissakes, kick out the homosexuals and atheists before they get their cooties on someone!
Feh. I suppose it makes perfect sense if you're a theocon. But, then, if you can believe that the kangaroos swam to Australia after Noah beached the Ark on Mount Ararat, I s'pose you can manage any amount of self-serving twaddle. Depressing, isn't it, how the moral compass never seems to survive the auto-lobotomy required by fundamentalism?
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Reading
I've been under the weather with a mostly annoying bug since Thursday, in which time I've polished off Muhammed Yunus' "Banker to the Poor", the first third of John Norwich's "History of Byzantium" and over 1,000 pages of its second installment.
A weird juxtaposition, that: Microloans in Bangladesh (and elsewhere) vs. the undulations of Imperial fortunes in the Mediterranean. But for the gulf in time and culture, both certainly put the lie to the political coprolite known as supply-side economics. The most fatal mistake the Byzantine Empire made was to switch from freeholders to mercenaries in its armies (thereby dooming the small freeholders to the depredations of the aristocracy). Similarly, the economies of scale (with their feudal bureaucracies) create the economic gated communities that deprive hundreds of millions (if not billions) of people of their basic needs.
The consequences of Byzantium's economic apartheid are of course well-documented. The consequences of our own will, sooner or later, be at our doorstep. If not in outright revolution, then in the form of a super-virus incubated in the squalor which our addiction to cheap gew-gaws has created.
But reading of the rise and fall of ancient empires brings to mind something my boss said several weeks ago after returning from one of those "executive retreat" junkets. Most of my firm's branches are in the U.S., but that fact apparently didn't dampen the opinion--the consensus, to hear by boss talk--that America has lost its place as the "thought leader" of the world.
In that light, it's hard not to consider this morning's headline-skim a harbinger, rather than anecdotal. For instance, there's Ireland--backed by the EU--trying to prevent further devastation from ghost nets. Then there's the--again--European efforts to offset deforestation. And to what pressing issues pray tell, are our far-thinking leaders turning their attention? Legalizing concealed carry in national parks. I soooo wish that I could say that I'm making that up.
Maybe it's just that I've spent two days immersed in the tragi-comedy that is history. But if that's any sampling of our relative priorities, the American "empire" is doomed--with neither the Huns or Seljuks to blame.
A weird juxtaposition, that: Microloans in Bangladesh (and elsewhere) vs. the undulations of Imperial fortunes in the Mediterranean. But for the gulf in time and culture, both certainly put the lie to the political coprolite known as supply-side economics. The most fatal mistake the Byzantine Empire made was to switch from freeholders to mercenaries in its armies (thereby dooming the small freeholders to the depredations of the aristocracy). Similarly, the economies of scale (with their feudal bureaucracies) create the economic gated communities that deprive hundreds of millions (if not billions) of people of their basic needs.
The consequences of Byzantium's economic apartheid are of course well-documented. The consequences of our own will, sooner or later, be at our doorstep. If not in outright revolution, then in the form of a super-virus incubated in the squalor which our addiction to cheap gew-gaws has created.
But reading of the rise and fall of ancient empires brings to mind something my boss said several weeks ago after returning from one of those "executive retreat" junkets. Most of my firm's branches are in the U.S., but that fact apparently didn't dampen the opinion--the consensus, to hear by boss talk--that America has lost its place as the "thought leader" of the world.
In that light, it's hard not to consider this morning's headline-skim a harbinger, rather than anecdotal. For instance, there's Ireland--backed by the EU--trying to prevent further devastation from ghost nets. Then there's the--again--European efforts to offset deforestation. And to what pressing issues pray tell, are our far-thinking leaders turning their attention? Legalizing concealed carry in national parks. I soooo wish that I could say that I'm making that up.
Maybe it's just that I've spent two days immersed in the tragi-comedy that is history. But if that's any sampling of our relative priorities, the American "empire" is doomed--with neither the Huns or Seljuks to blame.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Of memes, metaphors and moral pocket-lint
In politics, there's a tactic called the trial balloon. It basically amounts to having someone at the periphery or epicenter of influence toss a meme out into the press as sort of a marketing test. If it's rejected, whatever was motivating the meme is either unceremoniously shot, or a different, possibly just more sugar-coated meme is tested.
But something's cropped up in the last week or so has been bothering me: The day-late-dollar-short head-scratching and soul-searching being done by the GOP (national and nearer to home) that involves the meme of refurbishing the GOP's "brand."
As a voter, taxpayer and recovered Reagan Youth, I'm genuinely offended by the term "brand." "Brand" is a marketing concept. "Brand" is Coke vs. Pepsi, Ford vs. Chevy, McDonalds vs. Burger King. It is not about the ideologies that affect millions--if not billions--of lives, and trillions of dollars. And if the chest-thumping over being the soi-dissant party of "moral values" a few years ago was really only about maintaining a brand, then I think that a lot of the folks deserve an explanation, not to mention an apology. Bottom line: "Brand" is the talk of marketers, not leaders. And for that reason, the person who concocted that cynical meme, as well as those who parrot it, should be deeply ashamed of their former pretensions to holding a monopoly on right-thinking.
But as angry as I am at the insult to the principles of leadership inherent in substituting "brand" for "beliefs," part of me is glad that the term is in cant use on the right. On a subliminal level, it will drive home the shallow, time-serving moral bankruptcy of the neocon agenda. Namely the idea that the public is something to be manipulated with a splashy new logo, a catchy jingle, a celebrity endorsement. But the "brand" metaphor ominously indicates--for Republicans, anyway--that the lessons of 2006 and subsequent special elections have yet to be learned. Which in turn hopefully means that the party is fated for still more karmic payback.
But something's cropped up in the last week or so has been bothering me: The day-late-dollar-short head-scratching and soul-searching being done by the GOP (national and nearer to home) that involves the meme of refurbishing the GOP's "brand."
As a voter, taxpayer and recovered Reagan Youth, I'm genuinely offended by the term "brand." "Brand" is a marketing concept. "Brand" is Coke vs. Pepsi, Ford vs. Chevy, McDonalds vs. Burger King. It is not about the ideologies that affect millions--if not billions--of lives, and trillions of dollars. And if the chest-thumping over being the soi-dissant party of "moral values" a few years ago was really only about maintaining a brand, then I think that a lot of the folks deserve an explanation, not to mention an apology. Bottom line: "Brand" is the talk of marketers, not leaders. And for that reason, the person who concocted that cynical meme, as well as those who parrot it, should be deeply ashamed of their former pretensions to holding a monopoly on right-thinking.
But as angry as I am at the insult to the principles of leadership inherent in substituting "brand" for "beliefs," part of me is glad that the term is in cant use on the right. On a subliminal level, it will drive home the shallow, time-serving moral bankruptcy of the neocon agenda. Namely the idea that the public is something to be manipulated with a splashy new logo, a catchy jingle, a celebrity endorsement. But the "brand" metaphor ominously indicates--for Republicans, anyway--that the lessons of 2006 and subsequent special elections have yet to be learned. Which in turn hopefully means that the party is fated for still more karmic payback.
Friday, May 9, 2008
The C-word
Well before The Coultergeist started preening into the cameras at Fox Noise, the only person whom I referred to using "The C-word" was right wing groupie Phillis Schlafley. I once-upon-a-time actually make her snap at me. It's true. With simple logic, even--that anathema to neo/theocons everywhere. She was comparing St. Ronnie's "Star Wars" pipe-dreams to JFK's aspirations for the space program. And I asked the simple--some would say, "D'uh!"--question of how billions of dollars in vaporware were going to save us from chemical or biological attacks. She screwed up her already-prissy mug and snapped, "Well, it won't!"
I was so proud of myself at the time. Still am, 's'matter of fact. (And to think that I was barely through the process of shedding the Reagan Youth cocoon that had wrapped me in Manichean simplicities and Mayberry platitudes through most of my adolescence...)
But it makes me wonder if, despite the toll fake tans and bottle-blonding and plastic surgery will take on that poisonous little bimbo (meaning the Coultergeist), history will repeat itself in another generation. I personally don't plan to grace this country with my citizenship (or, more importantly, my tax dollars) by that time, mind you. But it still makes me sad that rational, educated folk can give that dried-up Uncle Tom any attention whatsoever. Particularly when she deserves to spend her final days in obscurity and stripped of any dignity she was not willing to accord her fellow citizens and human beings. Bluntly and brutally put, if she spent the next decade drooling her pureed meals down her fuzzy chin and waiting overlong between Depends-changes, I would be the last to call call Fate unjust.
Now, I like to think that my adopted liberalism gives me a more humane outlook on others--failings, foibles and all. But for someone who has done as much damage (from the cowardly vantage of the sidelines, no less!) as this self-advancing trollop--I will always think of her as the model for Margaret Atwood's "Serena Joy"--the "grace" that should flow from a civilized nation should be cut off. Let her rot in obscurity. Let her die alone and afraid. Let her grave grow rank with weeds and let accident befall the tombstone so that no one will know where her corpse festers. And if she and her ilk are immortalized at all, let it be in the spirit of comedia della arte caricature.
Such fate would be more befitting of a civilized democracy, which should ultimately be a meritocracy of ideas. Rewarding a persona who makes the Mom in "The Manchurian Candidate" look like Aunt Bea is most emphatically NOT open-mindedness. I could trust my cat to handle noxiousness better than this. Her Ladyship's not the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree, but her sense of context and propriety are infinitely superior. And considering that she has to use her own tongue as toilet paper, that's saying something, peeps.
I was so proud of myself at the time. Still am, 's'matter of fact. (And to think that I was barely through the process of shedding the Reagan Youth cocoon that had wrapped me in Manichean simplicities and Mayberry platitudes through most of my adolescence...)
But it makes me wonder if, despite the toll fake tans and bottle-blonding and plastic surgery will take on that poisonous little bimbo (meaning the Coultergeist), history will repeat itself in another generation. I personally don't plan to grace this country with my citizenship (or, more importantly, my tax dollars) by that time, mind you. But it still makes me sad that rational, educated folk can give that dried-up Uncle Tom any attention whatsoever. Particularly when she deserves to spend her final days in obscurity and stripped of any dignity she was not willing to accord her fellow citizens and human beings. Bluntly and brutally put, if she spent the next decade drooling her pureed meals down her fuzzy chin and waiting overlong between Depends-changes, I would be the last to call call Fate unjust.
Now, I like to think that my adopted liberalism gives me a more humane outlook on others--failings, foibles and all. But for someone who has done as much damage (from the cowardly vantage of the sidelines, no less!) as this self-advancing trollop--I will always think of her as the model for Margaret Atwood's "Serena Joy"--the "grace" that should flow from a civilized nation should be cut off. Let her rot in obscurity. Let her die alone and afraid. Let her grave grow rank with weeds and let accident befall the tombstone so that no one will know where her corpse festers. And if she and her ilk are immortalized at all, let it be in the spirit of comedia della arte caricature.
Such fate would be more befitting of a civilized democracy, which should ultimately be a meritocracy of ideas. Rewarding a persona who makes the Mom in "The Manchurian Candidate" look like Aunt Bea is most emphatically NOT open-mindedness. I could trust my cat to handle noxiousness better than this. Her Ladyship's not the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree, but her sense of context and propriety are infinitely superior. And considering that she has to use her own tongue as toilet paper, that's saying something, peeps.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Finally!
After black-hat hackers and spammers and the mouth-breathers who keep the tasteless banner ad folks in business, my least favorite people on the internet are cybersquatters. For the uninitiated, these folks like to register promising domain names with the intention of "flipping" them to someone who might have a legitimate use for the name. Until recently, I had assumed that this kind of bottom-feeding was more or less a cottage industry. I was quite wrong.
Fortunately, it looks like ICANN is doing something about it. Normally, calling for more regulation of the internet is something you will not find me doing. But the fact is that sleazoids are making billions by creating artificial barriers to entry for others. Which should in no way be mistaken for capitalism. It's pure squattocracy. And as such, I have no qualms whatsoever about brandishing my pitchfork and baying for blood. Get a real business model, losers: Add value or bugger off. Just like the rest of us have do to pay the bills.
Fortunately, it looks like ICANN is doing something about it. Normally, calling for more regulation of the internet is something you will not find me doing. But the fact is that sleazoids are making billions by creating artificial barriers to entry for others. Which should in no way be mistaken for capitalism. It's pure squattocracy. And as such, I have no qualms whatsoever about brandishing my pitchfork and baying for blood. Get a real business model, losers: Add value or bugger off. Just like the rest of us have do to pay the bills.
Friday, May 2, 2008
Another software rant
I've said elsewhere--and often--that I wouldn't make a good farmer. Whenever I accidentally get underfoot and stepped on by an indifferent Universe, I don't pick myself up and dust off without a good round of shaking my fist and yelling at the sky.
Today at work is no different, and for the usual reasons. Namely Microsoft's presumptuousness with JavaScript implementation. In this case, using JavaScript to inject actual HTML into the .innerHTML value of a tag-set blows big sticky chunks. Whoodathunk that someone might be optimistic enough to take that .innerHTML property literally? Silly me.
Looking ahead to IE 8 (whose designers are allegedly flipping off the rest of the world in their implementation) is not pretty. For any client-intensive web app, it might just make sense to go to a Flash-based interface.
But there's a catch with that, too: Adobe's support for Flash on Linux--there is no delicate way to put this--sucks sewer sludge. And there's a whole 'nuther rant. The suits at Adobe are practically killing themselves making sloppy kissy-noises at the open source community just now. I'd be embarrassed for them if it weren't so patently self-serving. (It's like being hit on by some wanker who thinks his charms will make you overlook his wedding-ring: Eeew, Eeeeww, Eeeeewww.) C'mon boys, did we not use the right coversheet on your memo or something? Open source is a potluck. Inviting the peasants to dumpster-dive behind your McMansion is not the same thing.
Wanktards. All of 'em. Despite its datedness, I can't help going back to Bruce Sterling's "A Contrarian View of Open Source" lecture from 2002 for comfort -- and not just because it's hilarious in spots. The supermodel vs. hippie-chick metaphor will probably stick with me for the rest of my career, actually.
Fortunately, the pro-bono programming I need to get off my plate is (slowly) shrinking. All the sooner to get out of a Microsoft-addicted shop--hopefully easing into a micro ISV. Particularly when my own suits are making loud noises about offshoring programming. It's not that I'm overly worried about being unemployed. It's just that a career in babysitting flunkies is most emphatically NOT aligned with my career-goals. In fact, I'm not quite 100% positive I know which is actually the worst option.
Today at work is no different, and for the usual reasons. Namely Microsoft's presumptuousness with JavaScript implementation. In this case, using JavaScript to inject actual HTML into the .innerHTML value of a tag-set blows big sticky chunks. Whoodathunk that someone might be optimistic enough to take that .innerHTML property literally? Silly me.
Looking ahead to IE 8 (whose designers are allegedly flipping off the rest of the world in their implementation) is not pretty. For any client-intensive web app, it might just make sense to go to a Flash-based interface.
But there's a catch with that, too: Adobe's support for Flash on Linux--there is no delicate way to put this--sucks sewer sludge. And there's a whole 'nuther rant. The suits at Adobe are practically killing themselves making sloppy kissy-noises at the open source community just now. I'd be embarrassed for them if it weren't so patently self-serving. (It's like being hit on by some wanker who thinks his charms will make you overlook his wedding-ring: Eeew, Eeeeww, Eeeeewww.) C'mon boys, did we not use the right coversheet on your memo or something? Open source is a potluck. Inviting the peasants to dumpster-dive behind your McMansion is not the same thing.
Wanktards. All of 'em. Despite its datedness, I can't help going back to Bruce Sterling's "A Contrarian View of Open Source" lecture from 2002 for comfort -- and not just because it's hilarious in spots. The supermodel vs. hippie-chick metaphor will probably stick with me for the rest of my career, actually.
Fortunately, the pro-bono programming I need to get off my plate is (slowly) shrinking. All the sooner to get out of a Microsoft-addicted shop--hopefully easing into a micro ISV. Particularly when my own suits are making loud noises about offshoring programming. It's not that I'm overly worried about being unemployed. It's just that a career in babysitting flunkies is most emphatically NOT aligned with my career-goals. In fact, I'm not quite 100% positive I know which is actually the worst option.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
A new guilty pleasure
Well, "guilty" if I'm tuning into the Falcon Cam on the company time and bandwidth, anyway. Hat-tip to Dearest for finding this. With so much of the real reality on hand, why do people waste their CPU cycles on anything less?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)