::sigh:: Another late night, and I just can't seem to make this web site do exactly what I want it to do... space itself out correctly on the page, no matter what browser / screen size you are using. Its a huge pain in the ass.

What a day. I've been running around like a blue-arsed fly organising stuff I really don't want to organise. I wonder what the etymology of the phrase "Blue-arsed fly" is? Going to find out....
Didn't find it, but Google has some interesting links on the subject. Anyway, there's been a pretty negative reaction to the way the site looks now, with about 5 people saying it looks shit. To them, I have to say "Fuck you". It's MY site, and it'll look the way I want. Until next weekend anyway, when I'll probably put it back the way it was ;-)

It took until 5am this morning to get the the stage I'm at now. And now that I look at it , it IS shit (Thanks Dave & John). ::sigh:: I'm going to have to do this all over again, aren't I?

Site is fucked. Making it W3C compliant has screwed everything. Roll on the redesign... might look like this :

Fuck me... I didn't think it was going to be THAT difficult. Anyway, it works now, after I wrote some routines to dynamically size stuff depending on the screen resolution. Working version is here, I'll finish the rest off and put it live tomorrow. Have to get sleep now, tired beyond belief.

Now comes the hard part. I've just looked at the page in Mozilla, and it looks fucking awful. The tables are all over the place. I wonder if there's something that Mozilla does to tables that Internet Explorer doesn't?

Easy peasy... and now I am using validated CSS :-)

Part one is complete - this page (and only this page so far) complies with the W3C HTML 4.01 Transitional standard. I didn’t go for the "strict" standard because it would require too much of a re-write, and I don’t have time for that. At the bottom of the page you’ll see a new image - - which links back to the W3C validation service. I’m going to tackle the CSS on the page next :-)

<Anna>And now for alll of you out there who like to sleep (like me), the good news: Dolores del Rio - one of the greatest beauties of all time - slept up to sixteen (!) hours a night (together with drinking hibiscus juice every day and living healthily in general) to preserve her flawless good looks (she also lived to be 78). For anyone who is interested, Claudette Colbert's recipe for a long (93 years) and happy live consisted of 'a vodka a day and one vitamin pill'. My personal favourite!</Anna>

Yessss... I've just written my first Windows program in C++ :-) Its a little thing which reads some stuff from the Windows registry, and copied some files around based on the information it reads. While copying, it draws a progress bar showing the amount of files left to copy. I'm a very satisfied camper right now. Going to do some more funky stuff later I think. ::sigh:: There's just too much to do - I have to be in the office for eight hours each day, I need to re-design the site, re-engineer the database mechanism, learn more C++ and write stuff in that, learn Italian, move to Italy and finish off Dan's web site (no longer, Dan has sold Nevada Casting to someone else now). In all this, I need time to be with my love too... there just isn't enough hours in the day. Oh, James was telling me something interesting earlier. Apparently there was a survey done over the last 14 years or something, which measured the amount of time people sleep each night, and compared that against the age at which they died. On average, it appears that those who sleep seven hours a night live longest, and those who sleep more or less than seven hours have a lower average life expectancy. That suits me ok, but Anna sleeps 9 hours a night :-( I have to find out where the research is published and get some more information. Sounds interesting.