The Klingons have a word for this, most often translated as “trying too hard.”

We’ve had a problem in the last few months with one of our cats defecating on the floor in a particular spot. As mentioned, we have three of them, and we couldn’t tell which one(s) were doing it, but I had an idea: I went out and picked up a webcam (a D-Link DCS-920) that would connect to our wireless network, and set it up to watch the spot where it was happening, using the supplied software to record it when we weren’t around.

The culprit turned out to be Salem, and we’ve been trying to find a way to convince her to use the box instead. It’s an uphill battle though… the thing that seems to work best is to catch her when she needs to go, but before she actually does, and put her into the box, not letting her out until she does her business. But catching her at just the right time is problematic, so whenever I’m at the computer now, I keep a browser window open to the webcam.

She only slips about once a week now, as opposed to daily before we got the webcam. Very annoying, but she’s almost as stubborn as I am, so it takes time to retrain her. I have hope that we’ll manage it somehow, eventually. If and when we do, I’m thinking to set up the camera to overlook the front door, so we can see who’s there before we open it.

Oh, and the network name of the device? We called it PoopCam.

On the other hand, they’ll have to deal with problems that we don’t, just as we’re having to deal with things that our great grandparents never dreamed of. Maybe I should be satisfied with my place in history.

It does sometimes make one hope that the religions that believe in reincarnation are right, though.

I’d used those tricks to remember the combination to a lock that I’d put on our shed, maybe six or seven years ago. The lock was on there for less than a year; I quickly discovered that it froze up in the winter, which made getting to our snow-removal equipment interesting. I replaced it, tossed it into a drawer, and haven’t looked at it since.

As some of you know, we bought a second place, moved into it, and tried renting out the first. About a month ago, that experiment ended as a minor disaster, and we decided to sell the place instead. We’re cleaning it up now, in preparation for putting it on the market, and we’ve had to store a lawnmower there to keep the lawn looking neat while it’s for sale, so of course we wanted to lock up the shed again. I immediately thought of that old lock. But I hadn’t written the combination down anywhere. Could I remember it, after all this time?

I could, and did. I remembered the visual mnemonic that I’d created for it by visualizing the shed itself (which was part of it), and was able to extract the three numbers from its elements, in almost the right order (I swapped the first and second numbers initially). Amazing… I’d used that combination no more than fifteen times total, the last of which was more than five years ago. Even with my fairly good memory of numbers from my programming work, I would never have recalled it without those memory tricks.

So it passed the test, confirming its usefulness and saving me the cost of a new lock. Not too shabby.

[...] But good luck reading the password aloud to your visiting friend when she needs to get her laptop online.

I usually have to type in the password on such machines myself, because while I can rattle it off at a moment’s notice, people seem to have a difficult time typing it in. But that’s a minor consideration, compared to the security of my network.

I’ve been using a second monitor for nearly ten years, thinking that vast amounts of space were key to productivity. The second monitor myth has been around for quite some time. Yet the only actual scientific study I could find linking multiple monitors to productivity was done in 2003 by a monitor manufacturer, a video card manufacturer, and the University of Utah. It’s actually kind of a marketing document, not a study. I’ve opted for one, large monitor. Two monitors just allows me to put distractions on one monitor, and actual work on another.

An interesting fact about the origin of the concept, but that’s beside the point: multiple monitors are indispensable for keeping an eye on one thing while actively working on something else.

I’m using three monitors at present, each one generally dedicated to a different virtual machine (Win7, Linux, and the underlying OS X machine). While I’m coding on the Win7 system, I keep a browser open (to documentation or other useful programming info) on the Linux machine, and my notes and to-do list (and possibly a second browser or an IM conversation with the lead developer at BigCo) open on the third. I could do all that with only one big monitor, and I have before, but it wouldn’t be as efficient… I’d be switching between programs repeatedly, often just to see what’s on their screens. As it is, my notes or documentation are always visible, which is very useful.

So I have to disagree with the phrase “second monitor myth.” In my case, at least, it’s not distractions I’m putting on the extra monitor(s), it’s useful information.

(Via BoingBoing)

(No omniscient beings were harmed in the calculation of that answer.)