I wro­te a sta­tic si­te ge­ne­ra­to­r, ca­lled Niko­la a whi­le ago, and it's star­ting to get so­me adop­tion and con­tri­bu­tion­s.

I thi­nk it's a fair­ly ni­ce pie­ce of co­de, to be ho­nes­t, and it pre­tty mu­ch does eve­r­y­thing I nee­d. On the other han­d, it's fun to co­de wi­th.

So, if you are using ano­ther sta­tic si­te ge­ne­ra­to­r, or are re­sear­ching in­to it, or just ha­ve opi­nions about it... wha­t's mis­sin­g? What should it ha­ve that it does­n't ha­ve no­w?

No fea­tu­re too sma­ll, no idea too cra­z­y, plea­se sha­re! I pro­mi­se to make a good effort to im­ple­ment any that seem like a good idea :-)

Ins­pi­red by Djan­go­'s in­te­rac­ti­ve con­so­le, I added one to Niko­la, my sta­tic si­te ge­ne­ra­tor so that if you want to play wi­th its in­ter­nal­s, you can do it ea­si­l­y. He­re's an exam­ple ses­sio­n:

$ nikola init pepe
A new site with some sample data has been created at pepe.
See README.txt in that folder for more information.
$ cd pepe
$ nikola console
Scanning posts
.
.
done!
You can now access your configuration as conf and your site engine as SITE
>>> [p.title('en') for p in SITE.timeline]
[u'Listings Demo', u'Nikola: it generates static', u'Welcome to Nikola',
u'A reStructuredText Primer', u'A reStructuredText Reference', u'Sample
Nikola Config File', u'The Nikola Handbook', u'Theming Nikola']

Ha­ve fun!

Ayer es­ta­ba pen­san­do acer­ca del sa­queo ani­ver­sa­rio del otro día. No me sor­pren­de que ha­ya sa­queos a su­per­mer­ca­dos el 20/21 de di­ciem­bre por­que bue­no, ha­brá quien quie­ra con­me­mo­ra­r, or­ga­ni­za un sa­queo con los ami­go­s, esas co­sas.

Pe­ro hay al­gu­nas co­sas que no en­tien­do.

La idea de "el gobierno no hace nada"

Has­ta don­de sé, ro­bar un su­per­mer­ca­do no es un de­li­to fe­de­ra­l. Es una co­sa que la ma­ne­ja la po­li­cía de la pro­vin­cia. En­ton­ce­s, el que no hi­zo na­da mien­tras sa­quea­ban en Vi­lla Go­ber­na­dor Gál­vez fue el go­bierno de San­ta Fe ¿no?

O sea, un go­bierno opo­si­tor al go­bierno na­cio­nal es el que le da las ór­de­nes a los po­li­cías que mi­ra­ban mien­tras se ro­ba­ban las co­sas. ¿O aca­so es­pe­ran que ha­ya gen­dar­mes cer­ca de ca­da su­per­mer­ca­do del país y va­yan co­rrien­do a re­pri­mi­r? ¿Si eso pa­sa­ra, no se­ría un aten­ta­do contra la au­to­no­mía de las pro­vin­cia­s?

La idea de que "lo organizó el gobierno"

Es­cu­ché a va­rios de­cir eso. Si el go­bierno na­cio­nal lo hi­zo, son pe­lo­tu­do­s. No creo que lo ha­yan he­cho. Real­men­te, es pa­re­cer­se a De la Rua, y si hay al­go que es­te go­bierno no quie­re es eso, ¿no?

La idea de "no tienen hambre, se robaron un LCD"

FE­LI­CI­TA­CIO­NES SE­ÑOR CHO­RRO. Una de mis mo­les­tias cons­tan­tes con el cho­rro pro­me­dio es la fal­ta de am­bi­ció­n. SI vas a ro­ba­r, la pe­na es la mis­ma no im­por­ta lo que ro­be­s, mas allá de cier­to pun­to. Ro­bar $1000 o $2000000 es más o me­nos lo mis­mo.

Si te­nés ham­bre, ro­ba­te 1 (u­na) ban­de­ja de chu­rras­cos y un LCD. El chu­rras­co es pa­ra mor­far es­ta no­che, el LCD lo ven­dés y co­més un mes (aun­que ha­bría que ana­li­zar el pre­cio de re­ven­ta de un LCD com­pa­ra­do co­n, di­ga­mo­s, 25 ki­los de lo­mo­).

Pre­ten­der que ha­ya una "no­ble­za" en el ti­po que es­tá cho­rean­do un su­per es co­sa de lo­co­s. Co­mo de­cía Ol­me­do, si lo va­mos a ha­ce­r, va­mos a ha­cer­lo bien. Si vas a cho­rea­r, cho­reá bien, cho­reá con ga­na­s, y sé un ex­ce­len­te cho­rro.

En fi­n, que co­mo ca­si siem­pre, las co­sas que la gen­te opi­na no me cie­rran mu­cho.

I am on va­ca­tio­n, by the sea. So, I do­n't ha­ve my usual in­ter­net con­nec­ti­vi­ty. I de­ci­ded to buy a 3G mo­dem and de­ci­ded pu­re­ly ba­sed on pri­ce, en­ding up wi­th a ZTE mo­dem pro­vi­ded by Cla­ro.

On Win­do­ws, it wo­rks we­ll enou­gh:

1. Plug it in

2. Get the au­­to­s­­tart wi­n­­dow

3. Start the in­s­­ta­­ller

4. Cli­­ck Next a few ti­­mes

5. Re­­boot

6. Start the client to co­n­­nect

7. Cli­­ck on the "wor­l­­d" icon

8. Wait a li­­ttle

9. In­­te­r­­ne­­t!

I tried it on win­do­ws first be­cau­se I as­su­med it would wo­rk on my wi­fe's com­pu­te­r, and I could do an ad-hoc wi­fi ne­two­rk so I could con­nect mi­ne. We­ll, no.

So I tried it on Ubun­tu. It does wo­rk too:

1. Plug it in

2. Say I am in Ar­­gen­­ti­­na

3. Say it's a Cla­­ro 3G se­r­­vi­­ce

4. Go to Ne­­two­­­rk In­­di­­ca­­tor

5. Cli­­ck on "Cla­­ro 3G"

6. Wait a li­­ttle

7. In­­te­r­­ne­­t!

And ye­s, I can do an ad-hoc con­nec­tion and pro­vi­de ser­vi­ce to eve­r­yo­ne el­se. Plus I do­n't ha­ve an un­clo­sa­ble win­dow la­ying around all the ti­me.

I alwa­ys am ama­zed by peo­ple su­gges­ting that wa­lking in the ra­in keeps you dr­yer than run­nin­g. Just saw an an­swer to this. Che­ck it ou­t, it's ni­ce:

I ha­ve al­so seen it de­bunked ex­pe­ri­men­ta­ll­y, by My­th­Bus­ter­s. But le­t's try a di­ffe­rent appro­ach: in­tui­ti­ve ma­th. In­tui­ti­ve ma­th is tri­cky be­cau­se it usua­lly is wron­g, but he­y, it's fun.

Appa­ren­tl­y, we all agree that how wet you get co­rre­la­tes to your spee­d. Othe­rwi­se, the ques­tion is poin­tle­ss be­cau­se the an­swer is "wa­lk or run, but take an um­bre­lla", whi­le true, is chea­tin­g, ri­gh­t?

So, for tho­se slo­we­r-is-­be­tter pro­po­nen­ts: go and wa­lk ve­r­y, ve­r­y, ve­ry slo­w­l­y. You may no­ti­ce that you end com­ple­te­ly soaked be­fo­re you fi­nish wa­lkin­g. If you did­n'­t, you are sti­ll wa­lking too fas­t.

On the other han­d, if you we­re to go at 1000000 km/h we all agree you would on­ly get so­me drops in your fron­tsi­de, ri­gh­t? Whi­ch would not soak you. Ri­gh­t? And most im­por­tan­tl­y, is cons­tant re­gard­le­ss of your spee­d, be­cau­se it's just the ave­ra­ge amount of wa­ter con­tai­ned in a man-s­ha­ped prism from point A to point B, and you get that wa­ter in your front if you go slow an­ywa­y.

As­su­ming the spee­d/­soaki­ness cur­ve is rou­gh­ly mo­no­to­nous, it's clear that the ma­xi­mum soaki­ness is when you go slo­wes­t.

If it's not mo­no­to­nous, then the ques­tion is rou­gh­ly unan­swe­ra­ble, sin­ce it would in­vol­ve the­re is an op­ti­mal speed and it's wor­se to go ei­ther fas­ter or slo­wer than tha­t, whi­ch means the an­swer is so­me­thing like "jo­g" whi­ch is not what you wan­t.

So, go fas­t, go dr­y.