I tried so hard to make this post short and simple and failed so badly, if you want you can just head to this wikipedia article on ionizing radiation or the epa's page on the topic and get a more coherent version of this post. Otherwise you can continue reading why the person who makes his money designing circuits that put radiation in the air thinks that radiation from electronics is safe.
Unfortunately very few people really know physics and very few people really know biology and especially since they are on somewhat opposite ends of the science spectrum an extremely small number of people really know both. This leads to a lot of confusion over how radiation impacts people.
I definitely can't claim to really know biology, but I do know some physics especially when it comes to a certain range of the electromagnetic spectrum. So I'm going to try to spread a bit of knowledge about the subject.
First of all, radiation sounds scary right? Well some of it is. If someone says there's a big source of alpha radiation near by then run. But when I tell you that in order to read this post you have to bombard your eyes with radiation and that each particle of that radiation is far more energetic than those created in a microwave, you should stay calm cause I'm talking about visible light.
Next an attempt to quickly explain what radiation is: radiation is a very general term describing particles or waves traveling through a medium. Unfortunately some radiation is described as waves while other radiation is described as particles and sometimes people go back and forth. Explaining that takes some mind bending quantum mechanics, but we can skip over that. Most of the time when radiation is discussed it's either alpha/beta radiation which is typically viewed as particles. In general big doses of alpha/beta radiation come from radioactive elements and can be scary stuff. The other type is electromagnetic radiation which is typically described as a wave. All electromagnetic radiation is the same thing, just with different frequencies. It's a bit easier to think of it as a particle in which case frequency describes how much energy each particle has and power describes how many of those particles are flying around. The span of frequencies is essentially infinite, but the range people typically encounter is about 10^6 Hz (AM radio) to 10^19 Hz (gamma rays - hopefully you don't encounter these too often). This chart from wikipedia nicely shows the spectrum. Notice that 10^6 to 10^19 is a crazy huge range - gamma radiation's frequency is 10 trillion times greater than the frequency of AM radio.
So what makes some radiation scary and some radiation completely safe? Well to answer that we have to know what it can do to a person. Alpha/beta/gamma radiation can do some really nasty stuff that can kill fairly quickly as well as cause cancer - I don't know much about what it is doing when it kills quickly - probably just messing up a bunch of molecules by knocking out electrons. The main fear of radiation is that it causes cancer. It can also heat the inside of the body.
Well what about cancer? Radiation causes cancer by knocking electrons out of molecules in DNA. Once an electron is knocked out it can change the chemical properties and change what the DNA encodes. Then a bunch of biology can happen and end up causing cancer. In order to knock out an electron the radiation particle hitting the electron must have enough energy to knock it out. The key here is that the individual particle must have enough energy. No matter how many times someone lightly pokes you, you'll never break a bone. So if the particles are low energy/low frequency it doesn't matter what the power is. If the particles do have enough energy then the power, and exposure time, do matter because the more particles hitting you the more likely one will hit an electron and cause all the steps required to cause cancer. This is the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation and is the key concept in knowing how dangerous radiation is.
So what radiation is ionizing? Ultraviolet light and higher frequencies, so around 10^16 Hz and above. Cellphones, portable phones, wifi, baby monitors, and bluetooth all use frequencies around 10^8 to 10^10 Hz, one millionth the frequency of ionizing radiation. Most other electronic communication standards use lower frequencies cause generating higher frequencies is really hard. Note that visible light is between any radiation generated by electronics and the frequency of ionizing energy.
Ok, so all these electronics devices don't use ionizing radiation, but microwaves don't use ionizing radiation (2.4*10^9 Hz) and everyone knows that if they stick their head in a microwave bad stuff happens. True, this gets us to the third issue with radiation which is that it can heat parts of your body. Microwaves are the prime example of this since they are designed specifically to heat water, 2.4 GHz is the resonate frequency of water. The human body works really hard to keep its innards within a very specific range of temperatures and outside of that stuff starts to breakdown and cause problems. WiFi uses the same frequency as microwaves and cell phones are sorta close. So it seems reasonable that they could cause heating which would then cause issues. Except they don't put out nearly enough power. Try reheating leftovers by putting your cell phone next to them. A common response is even if the power is small, people spend a lot of time with cell phones next to their heads. True, but again the human body works really hard to keep its insides at the right temperature, so it's not going to have any problem adjusting to some tiny bit of power. Consider that the human body can handle it being 100 degrees outside or 0 degrees outside and still stay 98.6 degrees. Compared to that getting rid of the tiny bit of heat from cell phone radiation is nothing - heck getting rid of the heat from the hot phone touching your head is probably the bigger issue. Microwaves generate about 700 watts of radiation, cell phones max out around 2 watts.
Yeah you say all that, but what about those big studies that show that cellphones cause bad stuff? For that I refer you to my post about shoulder tapping.
A few bonus items:
-People who live near cell phone towers are actually exposed to less cell phone radiation. Most of the exposure is from their phone, which doesn't need to transmit as much power if it is close to a tower.
-If you notice that your ear feels kinda warm and weird after a long phone call on a cell phone, it isn't cause of the radiation, it's cause you were holding a hot, hard object against your ear for a long time. Normal phones have a more comfortable shape and don't get as hot.
If you're still worried about cell phone radiation:
-When you're talking the phone has to transmit a bunch of data so it is almost constantly sending out radiation. When you aren't talking it's just checking in with the tower every once in a while so the amount of radiation exposure is far lower.
-Radiation falls off with distance squared so moving the phone just a little further from your head significantly cuts down on the radiation, plus your ear will appreciate not being pressed against a hot object.
-Bluetooth only needs to cover from your ear to your phone, vs a phone that has to talk to a tower. So bluetooth head sets do transmit significantly less radiation.
-WiFi is actually the one that is the right frequency to heat water. But its range (and transmit power) is much less than a cell phone and people generally don't hold their computer or access point to their head. Sleeping near an access point isn't a big deal because there typically isn't a lot of traffic on your wireless network while you're asleep.
-It might seem that something like streaming a movie would cause more radiation from your phone/laptop because more data is moving over the wireless connection. But when downloading data the only transmitting the device needs to do is send acknowledgements that it's getting the data. That's more transmitting than when the device is doing nothing, but far less than if you're sending a movie to someone.
-Frequency, power and duration are all key to understanding the impacts of radiation so watch carefully what terms are being used when reading about the topic.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Wikileaks
I probably shouldn't apologize every time I write a post that ends up too long, so this is me trying not to apologize even though I am sorry.
What I find so interesting about all the recent activity surrounding wikileaks is how it combines many of the social concepts associated with the internet.
One of the big memes when the intertubes first popped up and still one of the semi-utopian ideals of the internet is anonymity, summed up by the phrase on the internet nobody knows you're a dog. This sense of privacy has quickly eroded, but the internet is still a great way to get to interact with the world without anyone knowing who you are (if that no longer seems true, go check out TOR).
Another big meme which started long before the series of pipes and tubes was made, but was truly able to take off because of the internet is information wants to be free.
These two concepts are often promoted by the same people and organizations (such as The EFF, Richard Stallman, and to a much lesser degree myself). While it may be possible to mesh the two concepts into a consistent framework by drawing some lines, there's clearly some conflict between wanting transparency and privacy.
To me these have coexisted as two of the pillars of the social movement around the internet and the wikileaks events so nicely brings them out and especially their conflicts. Such as a secret organization, where one of the key enabling factors is their ability to give information sources complete anonymity, whose stated goal is increased transparency. Then a group that actually calls itself anonymous supports the group dedicated to transparency by disabling websites while ignoring the fact that shutting down websites is the opposite of promoting free speech.
This whole post so far is essentially a long drawn out version of this xkcd comic.
In addition to those two long standing concepts, a more recent idea comes into the picture. While net neutrality is typically discussed in relation to making sure ISPs treat everyone equally, the concept can also apply to webhosts refusing to host certain content. And even more disturbing, credit cards and paypal saying who you can and cannot pay using their services based on disapproving of what the organization says.
Another concept which I think is related to the idea that no one knows you're a dog is the idea that information should be put forward and evaluated on its own merits. I've mentioned this idea and its relationship to wikileaks before. This is one of the few concepts I'm mentioning that I am very wary of since I think that information without context can be misleading which is where experts can help clarify what the information actually means.
When the leaked documents first came out there was some commentary about it prompting security improvements. It is reasonably likely that wikileaks improved national security, because if they got the info then it seems reasonably likely that other nations and enemies of the state were already able to get it. But when wikileaks got the info the government found out so it is able to address the security weakness. There are a lot of existing computer security concepts related to this situation that I unfortunately don't know well enough to talk about (I know that usually doesn't stop me).
One thing I wonder is how the debate would change if instead of partially scrubbing the data, wikileaks was more like wikipedia and allowed the raw posted data to go up on the site. On one hand it seems much worse since potentially life threatening info could get out, but on the other hand it would make the poster responsible rather than the data hosting organization. Much like youtube isn't responsible if someone posts daily show episodes since they don't do anything to screen the posted content. Well ok, in the case of youtube they take down the offending material when contacted which of course wikileaks wouldn't do. Although by removing some of the data wikileaks is choosing what information to host and what information not to host much like what amazon did when they stopped hosting wikileaks. Holly crap, I'm now arguing that Assange isn't sufficiently dedicated to transparency, time to move along.
Anyway, kinda cool to see all those major concepts interacting over the course of a single news story, although it does make it really hard to come up with an opinion. But, I really think the reason this has become such a big story is that unlike the previous leak, no one knows who leaked the info. So everyone, including the government, is trying to place the blame somewhere. When the source of the leak is known it is so straight forward that the person who stole the info is guilty and having found the person to blame we can all just move along. But without that clear answer we get stuck in this area where all these normally great principals don't quite fit together.
What I find so interesting about all the recent activity surrounding wikileaks is how it combines many of the social concepts associated with the internet.
One of the big memes when the intertubes first popped up and still one of the semi-utopian ideals of the internet is anonymity, summed up by the phrase on the internet nobody knows you're a dog. This sense of privacy has quickly eroded, but the internet is still a great way to get to interact with the world without anyone knowing who you are (if that no longer seems true, go check out TOR).
Another big meme which started long before the series of pipes and tubes was made, but was truly able to take off because of the internet is information wants to be free.
These two concepts are often promoted by the same people and organizations (such as The EFF, Richard Stallman, and to a much lesser degree myself). While it may be possible to mesh the two concepts into a consistent framework by drawing some lines, there's clearly some conflict between wanting transparency and privacy.
To me these have coexisted as two of the pillars of the social movement around the internet and the wikileaks events so nicely brings them out and especially their conflicts. Such as a secret organization, where one of the key enabling factors is their ability to give information sources complete anonymity, whose stated goal is increased transparency. Then a group that actually calls itself anonymous supports the group dedicated to transparency by disabling websites while ignoring the fact that shutting down websites is the opposite of promoting free speech.
This whole post so far is essentially a long drawn out version of this xkcd comic.
In addition to those two long standing concepts, a more recent idea comes into the picture. While net neutrality is typically discussed in relation to making sure ISPs treat everyone equally, the concept can also apply to webhosts refusing to host certain content. And even more disturbing, credit cards and paypal saying who you can and cannot pay using their services based on disapproving of what the organization says.
Another concept which I think is related to the idea that no one knows you're a dog is the idea that information should be put forward and evaluated on its own merits. I've mentioned this idea and its relationship to wikileaks before. This is one of the few concepts I'm mentioning that I am very wary of since I think that information without context can be misleading which is where experts can help clarify what the information actually means.
When the leaked documents first came out there was some commentary about it prompting security improvements. It is reasonably likely that wikileaks improved national security, because if they got the info then it seems reasonably likely that other nations and enemies of the state were already able to get it. But when wikileaks got the info the government found out so it is able to address the security weakness. There are a lot of existing computer security concepts related to this situation that I unfortunately don't know well enough to talk about (I know that usually doesn't stop me).
One thing I wonder is how the debate would change if instead of partially scrubbing the data, wikileaks was more like wikipedia and allowed the raw posted data to go up on the site. On one hand it seems much worse since potentially life threatening info could get out, but on the other hand it would make the poster responsible rather than the data hosting organization. Much like youtube isn't responsible if someone posts daily show episodes since they don't do anything to screen the posted content. Well ok, in the case of youtube they take down the offending material when contacted which of course wikileaks wouldn't do. Although by removing some of the data wikileaks is choosing what information to host and what information not to host much like what amazon did when they stopped hosting wikileaks. Holly crap, I'm now arguing that Assange isn't sufficiently dedicated to transparency, time to move along.
Anyway, kinda cool to see all those major concepts interacting over the course of a single news story, although it does make it really hard to come up with an opinion. But, I really think the reason this has become such a big story is that unlike the previous leak, no one knows who leaked the info. So everyone, including the government, is trying to place the blame somewhere. When the source of the leak is known it is so straight forward that the person who stole the info is guilty and having found the person to blame we can all just move along. But without that clear answer we get stuck in this area where all these normally great principals don't quite fit together.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
David's Second Rule for Debugging
Way back when I came up with David's Rule for Debugging, then read a book about debugging with a more comprehensive set of rules. Since then I've added a new rule to my list. The exact rule is still a bit of a work in progress, and it has some similarity to "get a fresh view", but I think has some unique aspects. So here it goes.
In its most extreme form the rule is:
I tried writing this post in a general way using third person but it was making it very tough to write so I'll just go with first person.
When I'm facing a problem, typically at first I'll want to think about it and look at it either on my own or as part of a small group. Later I might get around to "get a fresh perspective", but first I'll want a chance to get an understanding of the situation. This is especially true for high pressure/high excitement situations, which is unfortunate since that's when lots of people want to come by and get involved or give some advice. My general response is to try to gently push them away so I can get my chance to think/work (they typically don't leave, but I try).
However, there is a special case when the event is so high pressure and the results are so bad and make so little sense that the pressure gets to me and I start to feel nauseous. My gut reaction as the stress steps up is to push people away harder so I can dedicate my diminishing focus on the problem. But once nausea has kicked in there really isn't any focus or wits left to dedicate to the problem. That's when the rule kicks into effect, since I'm no longer of any use the best thing I can do is back away. Even if the people stopping by are normally less qualified to work on the problem, at this point random people off the street would have better luck solving it, so let them have at it. This also allows me to regain composure by stepping back rather than focusing in.
Luckily, I've only been in this situation once in recent memory and one of the people who stopped by was the exact right person to solve the problem. Unfortunately, I hadn't come up with this rule yet so I resisted help for longer than I should have, but eventually just had to back away. Also luckily, the person who solved the problem did it impressively quickly and once that was taken care of everything worked really well.
Can't say I'm looking forward to getting to use this rule, but at least if it happens I'll be prepared, well if I have enough wits left to use it - maybe the rule should be adjusted to: ...BEFORE you feel nauseous...
In its most extreme form the rule is:
If you feel nauseous or about to cry, let other people help you.
I tried writing this post in a general way using third person but it was making it very tough to write so I'll just go with first person.
When I'm facing a problem, typically at first I'll want to think about it and look at it either on my own or as part of a small group. Later I might get around to "get a fresh perspective", but first I'll want a chance to get an understanding of the situation. This is especially true for high pressure/high excitement situations, which is unfortunate since that's when lots of people want to come by and get involved or give some advice. My general response is to try to gently push them away so I can get my chance to think/work (they typically don't leave, but I try).
However, there is a special case when the event is so high pressure and the results are so bad and make so little sense that the pressure gets to me and I start to feel nauseous. My gut reaction as the stress steps up is to push people away harder so I can dedicate my diminishing focus on the problem. But once nausea has kicked in there really isn't any focus or wits left to dedicate to the problem. That's when the rule kicks into effect, since I'm no longer of any use the best thing I can do is back away. Even if the people stopping by are normally less qualified to work on the problem, at this point random people off the street would have better luck solving it, so let them have at it. This also allows me to regain composure by stepping back rather than focusing in.
Luckily, I've only been in this situation once in recent memory and one of the people who stopped by was the exact right person to solve the problem. Unfortunately, I hadn't come up with this rule yet so I resisted help for longer than I should have, but eventually just had to back away. Also luckily, the person who solved the problem did it impressively quickly and once that was taken care of everything worked really well.
Can't say I'm looking forward to getting to use this rule, but at least if it happens I'll be prepared, well if I have enough wits left to use it - maybe the rule should be adjusted to: ...BEFORE you feel nauseous...
Thursday, December 09, 2010
To Engineer Is Human
I finished up To Engineer Is Human a few weeks ago, but have been considering how to blog about it in the back of my head. It is a book from 1982 that is supposed to be about engineering in generally, but is almost entirely focused on structural engineering (and at the very end has a short chapter about using computer aided design). While it does have some general engineering lessons, it really isn't very relevant to pretty much anyone I know reading this blog. So while I'm tempted to dig into a bunch of examples in the book I'm going to try to just skim some highlights.
First off is he mentions The Deacon's Masterpiece which is one of the few engineering poems I've ever read. The poem itself is rather long, but the idea is that someone decides that for any wagon there's always one thing that breaks first. So he's going to design each piece of the wagon so it won't be the first to go. And the thing works great for years and years and eventually every part fails at once and the whole thing falls apart. It's pointing out that in any design, no matter how good there has to always be a weak point.
One of the main themes of the book is that the reliability of structures kind of goes in cycles. Once a type of bridge has been design properly with a certain set of materials so it doesn't fall one of a few things happen:
1. The same design is used in a different set of conditions and fails. Then the engineers figure out what is required for that set of conditions.
2. Lessons of the past are forgotten and repeated. Once the new bridge fails the lessons are remembered and the next set of bridges are good again.
3. Since the current bridges are good it is time for progress and new designs or new materials or the same idea but with less safety margin are used. Then if there are failures the issues are worked out and then some better reliable bridges are built.
Along similar lines he suggests that every design is a hypothesis. The hypothesis is the design will work without failure. When the hypothesis fails it can be very unfortunate, but it is also the most informative. When the structure doesn't fail it doesn't say much because who knows what slight change in conditions would cause it to fail.
The two themes above suggest the problem with using structural engineering to draw general lessons for all engineering. In many areas of engineering failure is not as catastrophic and as long as failure rates are within acceptable limits meeting performance requirements can be far more important.
A lot of the book is going through various structural failures and talking about why they happened. One of particular interest to me is the Kansas City Hyatt Walkway Failure. Less than a month after I was born the Kansas City Hyatt was hosting a large party, which some of my family members almost attended, and the walkways over the lobby where the party was held collapsed and killed 114 people. Some of the initial thoughts were that the walkways simply weren't designed for people dancing on them. What actually happened is that the original design used beams that stretched from the ceiling and each beam supported multiple levels of walkways. But getting bolts to the middle of a long beam was practically very difficult so someone modified the design to have one beam from ceiling to the top level and then another beam from the top walkway to the bottom walkway. The problem is that now the bolt holding the top walk way had to support the weight of two levels instead of just one. Besides the personal relevance of the story I think this is interesting because it is tempting to blame whoever made the change at the last minute. But it is also the fault of the original designer for creating a design that couldn't actually be built or as someone else put it:
Few other random items:
-Kind of cool to see a book from 1982 mention a congressman working on improving safety regulations and it's Al Gore.
-Excalibur and other sword myths have a lot to do with engineering (why when a bunch of swords are built one is especially reliable). So is Icarus (wings melting as he tried to fly to the sun) - this one is really about a good design being used improperly (for the SGU fans - get it, the Icarus planet, get it? - oh and for the SG1/SGA fans, Daedalus is the guy that built the wings). And the liberty bell is an engineering failure.
-In this book written in 1982:
-This one is actually an important lesson in many aspects of life - random failures can be mitigated by having two of something, but to backup against systematic failure the backup must be of a different design (a friend has a story about a bunch of people backpacking who all brought water pumps so they'd be ok if a few broke, but then the temperature dropped and all of the pumps froze - luckily some of them had iodine tablets).
Oh crap, so much for not writing too much. Sorry.
First off is he mentions The Deacon's Masterpiece which is one of the few engineering poems I've ever read. The poem itself is rather long, but the idea is that someone decides that for any wagon there's always one thing that breaks first. So he's going to design each piece of the wagon so it won't be the first to go. And the thing works great for years and years and eventually every part fails at once and the whole thing falls apart. It's pointing out that in any design, no matter how good there has to always be a weak point.
One of the main themes of the book is that the reliability of structures kind of goes in cycles. Once a type of bridge has been design properly with a certain set of materials so it doesn't fall one of a few things happen:
1. The same design is used in a different set of conditions and fails. Then the engineers figure out what is required for that set of conditions.
2. Lessons of the past are forgotten and repeated. Once the new bridge fails the lessons are remembered and the next set of bridges are good again.
3. Since the current bridges are good it is time for progress and new designs or new materials or the same idea but with less safety margin are used. Then if there are failures the issues are worked out and then some better reliable bridges are built.
Along similar lines he suggests that every design is a hypothesis. The hypothesis is the design will work without failure. When the hypothesis fails it can be very unfortunate, but it is also the most informative. When the structure doesn't fail it doesn't say much because who knows what slight change in conditions would cause it to fail.
The two themes above suggest the problem with using structural engineering to draw general lessons for all engineering. In many areas of engineering failure is not as catastrophic and as long as failure rates are within acceptable limits meeting performance requirements can be far more important.
A lot of the book is going through various structural failures and talking about why they happened. One of particular interest to me is the Kansas City Hyatt Walkway Failure. Less than a month after I was born the Kansas City Hyatt was hosting a large party, which some of my family members almost attended, and the walkways over the lobby where the party was held collapsed and killed 114 people. Some of the initial thoughts were that the walkways simply weren't designed for people dancing on them. What actually happened is that the original design used beams that stretched from the ceiling and each beam supported multiple levels of walkways. But getting bolts to the middle of a long beam was practically very difficult so someone modified the design to have one beam from ceiling to the top level and then another beam from the top walkway to the bottom walkway. The problem is that now the bolt holding the top walk way had to support the weight of two levels instead of just one. Besides the personal relevance of the story I think this is interesting because it is tempting to blame whoever made the change at the last minute. But it is also the fault of the original designer for creating a design that couldn't actually be built or as someone else put it:
A detail that begs a change cannot be completely without blame when the change is made.
Few other random items:
-Kind of cool to see a book from 1982 mention a congressman working on improving safety regulations and it's Al Gore.
-Excalibur and other sword myths have a lot to do with engineering (why when a bunch of swords are built one is especially reliable). So is Icarus (wings melting as he tried to fly to the sun) - this one is really about a good design being used improperly (for the SGU fans - get it, the Icarus planet, get it? - oh and for the SG1/SGA fans, Daedalus is the guy that built the wings). And the liberty bell is an engineering failure.
-In this book written in 1982:
Computer models that predict the behavior of the economy have come increasingly to be relied upon to justify major economic decisions, and yet these models are not necessarily any more infallible than the ones that predict the fatigue life of a bus frame.
-This one is actually an important lesson in many aspects of life - random failures can be mitigated by having two of something, but to backup against systematic failure the backup must be of a different design (a friend has a story about a bunch of people backpacking who all brought water pumps so they'd be ok if a few broke, but then the temperature dropped and all of the pumps froze - luckily some of them had iodine tablets).
Oh crap, so much for not writing too much. Sorry.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Shoulder Tapping
Let's say that for some reason Justin Bieber picks up the habit of tapping people on the shoulder. Then, of course, in a few days every kid in America is tapping everyone they see on the shoulder. The next logical step is some parents get concerned about the health effects of shoulder tapping and make sure that scientists studying shoulder tapping get funded.
Let's say that 200 studies are started. Each study picks a different health effect that seems like it could be connected (impact on bone structure, passing of germs, social anxiety...) and checks if it is correlated with shoulder tapping. These are real scientists who know what they are doing so they properly account for external factors and other correlations and thanks to all the funding are able to get such a large sample size that each study has a confidence level of 99%.
Then a journalist or study of studies scientist comes along and asks every scientist what they found. Turns out that with 99% confidence shoulder tapping causes peripheral vision loss.
There's no theory why shoulder tapping causes peripheral vision loss, but if there's a study showing a chance it is true then best to try to kill the new trend right?
Well, actually, even if there is no correlation between shoulder tapping and any of the studied health effects, the odds that 1 or more studies out of 200 would show a correlation with 99% confidence is 87%. (1-0.99^200). It is actually rather likely that there would be a false positive (even with only 69 studies there's a 50% chance of false positive, and with only 10 studies there's a 10% chance of false positive, much smaller, but still 10x worse than the quoted 99% confidence level).
While the individual studies were done with proper statistics the news story/study of studies was actually done with very poor statistics. Now if a scientist read the news article and then repeated the study of peripheral vision loss and again found a correlation with 99% confidence that would be worth reporting. Of course there would still be some question as to causation, but at least it would be true that there is very likely a correlation.
Let's say that 200 studies are started. Each study picks a different health effect that seems like it could be connected (impact on bone structure, passing of germs, social anxiety...) and checks if it is correlated with shoulder tapping. These are real scientists who know what they are doing so they properly account for external factors and other correlations and thanks to all the funding are able to get such a large sample size that each study has a confidence level of 99%.
Then a journalist or study of studies scientist comes along and asks every scientist what they found. Turns out that with 99% confidence shoulder tapping causes peripheral vision loss.
There's no theory why shoulder tapping causes peripheral vision loss, but if there's a study showing a chance it is true then best to try to kill the new trend right?
Well, actually, even if there is no correlation between shoulder tapping and any of the studied health effects, the odds that 1 or more studies out of 200 would show a correlation with 99% confidence is 87%. (1-0.99^200). It is actually rather likely that there would be a false positive (even with only 69 studies there's a 50% chance of false positive, and with only 10 studies there's a 10% chance of false positive, much smaller, but still 10x worse than the quoted 99% confidence level).
While the individual studies were done with proper statistics the news story/study of studies was actually done with very poor statistics. Now if a scientist read the news article and then repeated the study of peripheral vision loss and again found a correlation with 99% confidence that would be worth reporting. Of course there would still be some question as to causation, but at least it would be true that there is very likely a correlation.
Sunday, November 14, 2010
Wheel of Time 4-7
I figured there's no point in putting up a post for each Wheel of Time book. But I just hit the half way point by finishing book 7. Since I'm in the weird position of being 5,926 pages into the series and thus would have to write a whole book just to summarize and yet only half way in so not even sure where the whole thing is going I won't say much other than good stuff so far.
Actually I take back the summary thing - several young adults plucked out of a small town are exposed to the larger world and meet a variety of other people while on their mission to fight evil using their newly found magic and special powers. I could totally be an author, all Robert Jordan did was fill in some details.
Actually I take back the summary thing - several young adults plucked out of a small town are exposed to the larger world and meet a variety of other people while on their mission to fight evil using their newly found magic and special powers. I could totally be an author, all Robert Jordan did was fill in some details.
Sunday, November 07, 2010
More TV
Better Off Ted: Apparently there were two unaired episodes of Better Off Ted at the end of season 2. They are on netflix streaming, but their order is flipped - what netflix calls episode 12 (swag the dog) is clearly supposed to be the last (13th) episode of the season.
I'm still amazed how badly they messed up the promoting of that show. I know I had no interest in watching the show after seeing the ads since they completely failed to play up the arrested development style humor or the pointed comments about corporations that so well match the post 2008 national attitude. I bet that if they had just used the Veridian ads as the better off ted ads the show would still be on the air. Oh well...
I'm still amazed how badly they messed up the promoting of that show. I know I had no interest in watching the show after seeing the ads since they completely failed to play up the arrested development style humor or the pointed comments about corporations that so well match the post 2008 national attitude. I bet that if they had just used the Veridian ads as the better off ted ads the show would still be on the air. Oh well...
Wednesday, November 03, 2010
TV
First Chuck: Chuck producers, the woman we've all be waiting to see isn't Chuck's mom, it's Summer Glau. And here's how her episode should go. First a mysterious, large box should show up at castle. There should be some commotion over opening it then Chuck should kick it open and Summer should jump out naked (in a surprisingly non-sexual way). Then there should be a mission where Summer has to act as a ballerina and shows off some dance moves. Something strange should happen during the mission causing her to beat up Casey in a series of very fluid motions. Afterwards Morgan should laugh about Casey being beat up by a 90 pound girl. After that Summer should act more cold and distant and take on a stiffer fighting style where she acts almost like she is indestructible. During that time she should run into Chuck's mom and make a comment about how Chuck's mom looks different than she remembers. To make sure the joke lands, Chuck's mom should make a comment about expecting a body builder instead of a little girl. During one of these fights something should land on Summer's arm forcing her to wear a cast. Then she should meet up with Morgan and flirt with him in a weird, nerdy way. While Morgan is busy flirting with Summer, there should be an important phone call to the Buy More and Lester should cover for Morgan by doing a dead on impression of him. Throughout the episode Summer should make slightly off comments. The episode should be written and directed by Joss Whedon. It would also be nice if they could fit in some references to some of Summer's previous roles.
Second SGU: Anyone else think that while a few SGU episodes are about progressing the plot (mostly stacked at the start and end of a season) and a decent number are about building the characters (all thousand of them), that they set aside several of the mid season episodes to be more about how the story is told? I do think it is cool that they play with the format a bit. But in some of those episodes every character acts exactly as you'd expect and so does nothing to build the characters and the plots are so obvious you know the ending 15 minutes in. Which I guess is fine if it is all about how the story is told rather than the story itself, but does seem like making those stories a bit stronger would do a lot to improve the episode. I also don't think they have fully adapted to the idea that the crew is isolated so making it look like someone (especially someone we've seen more than once or twice) is going to die is extra unbelievable.
Third Caprica: I'm so disappointed Caprica is being canceled. Partially because I like the show, but even more so because I feel like I put in a season of watching them build up the world in order to get the payoff in later seasons and now it turns out those seasons won't be made.
Second SGU: Anyone else think that while a few SGU episodes are about progressing the plot (mostly stacked at the start and end of a season) and a decent number are about building the characters (all thousand of them), that they set aside several of the mid season episodes to be more about how the story is told? I do think it is cool that they play with the format a bit. But in some of those episodes every character acts exactly as you'd expect and so does nothing to build the characters and the plots are so obvious you know the ending 15 minutes in. Which I guess is fine if it is all about how the story is told rather than the story itself, but does seem like making those stories a bit stronger would do a lot to improve the episode. I also don't think they have fully adapted to the idea that the crew is isolated so making it look like someone (especially someone we've seen more than once or twice) is going to die is extra unbelievable.
Third Caprica: I'm so disappointed Caprica is being canceled. Partially because I like the show, but even more so because I feel like I put in a season of watching them build up the world in order to get the payoff in later seasons and now it turns out those seasons won't be made.
Travel Costs
I've found that when I'm looking at ticket prices to travel somewhere I tend to evaluate the cost of the ticket based on factors such as the cost of other modes of transportation, ticket prices at other times of the year, ticket prices to other destinations... But rarely try to evaluate how much the trip is actually worth to me.
Say that it costs $1000 to fly home for thanksgiving. Sounds outrageous since say it is usually $400 around thanksgiving time and $250 other times of the year. But what if you are asked what is it worth to you to get home for thanksgiving? Or why does spending $1000 to go to Egypt seem reasonable, but $2000 seem unreasonable? Do I actually know the value I would get from a trip to Egypt to within $1000? Is the purchase of travel tickets purely based on a game of trying not to be the chump?
Priceline sort of gets at this, although it always shows you the normal prices before you have to name your own. I bet if it didn't do that it would be incredibly difficult to decide what to pay and in the end the decision would probably mostly rely on a guess of what prices should be.
Maybe that's more universal than just airline flights, but I do think that when I buy items there's typically a question of how much is this worth to me, rather than just, how's this compare in price to similar (but not equivalent) items. (The "not equivalent" is important, because unlike say a different smart phone, I can't buy last year's ticket home instead of this year's and a ticket to someone else's home wouldn't make sense, but still factors into the acceptable price calculation).
Say that it costs $1000 to fly home for thanksgiving. Sounds outrageous since say it is usually $400 around thanksgiving time and $250 other times of the year. But what if you are asked what is it worth to you to get home for thanksgiving? Or why does spending $1000 to go to Egypt seem reasonable, but $2000 seem unreasonable? Do I actually know the value I would get from a trip to Egypt to within $1000? Is the purchase of travel tickets purely based on a game of trying not to be the chump?
Priceline sort of gets at this, although it always shows you the normal prices before you have to name your own. I bet if it didn't do that it would be incredibly difficult to decide what to pay and in the end the decision would probably mostly rely on a guess of what prices should be.
Maybe that's more universal than just airline flights, but I do think that when I buy items there's typically a question of how much is this worth to me, rather than just, how's this compare in price to similar (but not equivalent) items. (The "not equivalent" is important, because unlike say a different smart phone, I can't buy last year's ticket home instead of this year's and a ticket to someone else's home wouldn't make sense, but still factors into the acceptable price calculation).
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Facebook Venn Diagram
Since I can't seem to sleep I was flipping through facebook. As I was looking at the page of a good friend I noticed that we have few friends in common both as an absolute number and as a percentage of his total friends. So I started looking through other friends and noticed the same pattern with almost everyone. Good friends, family, distant friends, people from high school whose names I forgot. In almost all cases mutual friends were very roughly around 1% to 20% of total friends.
There is another good friend in college where it came in at 1/3 which is more in line with what I would suspect.
I'm not complaining or worried about not knowing enough of my friend's friends or think any of this means anything. But especially the minimal correlation with how well I knew the person struck me as odd.
Anyway, enough of the meaningless observations, time for bed.
There is another good friend in college where it came in at 1/3 which is more in line with what I would suspect.
I'm not complaining or worried about not knowing enough of my friend's friends or think any of this means anything. But especially the minimal correlation with how well I knew the person struck me as odd.
Anyway, enough of the meaningless observations, time for bed.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
It's All About Jobs
There's a meme floating around that this election is all about jobs and that the top item for voters is jobs.
First off, I'm sorry for for everyone who has lost their job in the economic downturn and in general for the unemployed. I in no way want to imply that I don't think it is important to increase the number of available jobs. Also this discussion could easily be seen as influenced by politics, but I'm really just trying to understand the above statement.
The question is if jobs is the top issue on the minds of voters and if so why?
The unemployment rate is about 10% (which is big). But that's only 10% of people who are looking for a job who don't have one, there are a lot of people who have just given up on looking given the poor economy. Not sure what that number is, but I'm thinking it is reasonably to bump the unemployment rate up to 15% to include those who have stopped looking.
So of the people who want a job 15% don't have one. As a matter of economics and ethics that's very bad, but is a small portion of the voters. Let's assume that everyone who doesn't want a job is dependent on someone in the general population of workers (both employed and unemployed) then 15% of the overall population would be unemployed or depend on someone unemployed. I think that's probably an overestimate (we're talking potential voters so kids under 18 don't count), but let's go with it. We've still got 85% of the population to explain.
Let's for the moment assume that voters represent the population as a whole. Obviously untrue, but I don't think adjusting this assumption would help answer the question (we'd have to consider all the retired people who consistently vote).
There is a decent portion of the population that is underemployed because of a lack of jobs at their skill level. Let's say this equals our adjusted unemployment number, of all my guesses I have the least idea about this one. So now we've accounted for 30% of the voters.
There are only a few other groups I can think of:
1. People who are employed at the right level, but feel they'd be making more money or would like to make a job shift if there were more jobs. Not sure, but doesn't seem this would make jobs their top issue. At this point it seems something like healthcare would be just as important (in either political direction).
2. People who know unemployed people and are sympathetic or even don't know any and are super-sympathetic. Maybe I'm being too jaded, but again doesn't seem like enough to push it to the top of the list.
3. I thought I had another group, but the Dogfish Head 90 Minute Imperial IPA I just drank is starting to kick in.
Maybe some portion of the above groups (including the one I forgot) makes jobs their top issue. Let's say a whole 20% of the population (which would require a fairly large portion of the above groups since they are only a portion of the total population) defies my jaded world view, that only bring us to 50% of voters. That's a lot but only on the edge of majority. I guess that if the rest of the issues have to split the other 50% then jobs would be the top issue. But not in the supermajority way that I think the meme represents.
This leaves me with only a few possibilities:
1. It's not true. Jobs aren't actually the top issue for voters.
2. The above analysis is correct (or close enough) and while jobs is bigger than any other issue, it isn't actually the top issue for more than half the voters.
3. I vastly misestimated the above numbers and/or left out some significant group that cares about jobs.
4. Jobs is the top issue of super-vocal voters, not voters as a whole.
5. Some group or groups have put the idea of jobs into the heads of voters who otherwise would have other top issues.
6. I'm just missing something completely. This seems very likely.
Again, I'm really asking. I'm not trying to make a point, I just don't understand, most likely due to a lack of knowledge. Although, now that I wrote all this out I'm thinking that something along the lines of #2 is correct, but this post took some time to write and I don't feel like deleting it.
First off, I'm sorry for for everyone who has lost their job in the economic downturn and in general for the unemployed. I in no way want to imply that I don't think it is important to increase the number of available jobs. Also this discussion could easily be seen as influenced by politics, but I'm really just trying to understand the above statement.
The question is if jobs is the top issue on the minds of voters and if so why?
The unemployment rate is about 10% (which is big). But that's only 10% of people who are looking for a job who don't have one, there are a lot of people who have just given up on looking given the poor economy. Not sure what that number is, but I'm thinking it is reasonably to bump the unemployment rate up to 15% to include those who have stopped looking.
So of the people who want a job 15% don't have one. As a matter of economics and ethics that's very bad, but is a small portion of the voters. Let's assume that everyone who doesn't want a job is dependent on someone in the general population of workers (both employed and unemployed) then 15% of the overall population would be unemployed or depend on someone unemployed. I think that's probably an overestimate (we're talking potential voters so kids under 18 don't count), but let's go with it. We've still got 85% of the population to explain.
Let's for the moment assume that voters represent the population as a whole. Obviously untrue, but I don't think adjusting this assumption would help answer the question (we'd have to consider all the retired people who consistently vote).
There is a decent portion of the population that is underemployed because of a lack of jobs at their skill level. Let's say this equals our adjusted unemployment number, of all my guesses I have the least idea about this one. So now we've accounted for 30% of the voters.
There are only a few other groups I can think of:
1. People who are employed at the right level, but feel they'd be making more money or would like to make a job shift if there were more jobs. Not sure, but doesn't seem this would make jobs their top issue. At this point it seems something like healthcare would be just as important (in either political direction).
2. People who know unemployed people and are sympathetic or even don't know any and are super-sympathetic. Maybe I'm being too jaded, but again doesn't seem like enough to push it to the top of the list.
3. I thought I had another group, but the Dogfish Head 90 Minute Imperial IPA I just drank is starting to kick in.
Maybe some portion of the above groups (including the one I forgot) makes jobs their top issue. Let's say a whole 20% of the population (which would require a fairly large portion of the above groups since they are only a portion of the total population) defies my jaded world view, that only bring us to 50% of voters. That's a lot but only on the edge of majority. I guess that if the rest of the issues have to split the other 50% then jobs would be the top issue. But not in the supermajority way that I think the meme represents.
This leaves me with only a few possibilities:
1. It's not true. Jobs aren't actually the top issue for voters.
2. The above analysis is correct (or close enough) and while jobs is bigger than any other issue, it isn't actually the top issue for more than half the voters.
3. I vastly misestimated the above numbers and/or left out some significant group that cares about jobs.
4. Jobs is the top issue of super-vocal voters, not voters as a whole.
5. Some group or groups have put the idea of jobs into the heads of voters who otherwise would have other top issues.
6. I'm just missing something completely. This seems very likely.
Again, I'm really asking. I'm not trying to make a point, I just don't understand, most likely due to a lack of knowledge. Although, now that I wrote all this out I'm thinking that something along the lines of #2 is correct, but this post took some time to write and I don't feel like deleting it.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Midas Touch
At a super bowl party last year I had a bottle of Midas Touch and was impressed. Since then I've had it a couple times and thought it was good, but had no idea that when the bottle says Handcrafted Ancient Ale it's serious:
Now I really want to try Chateau Jiahu.
Ok, end beer commercial. Why am I drinking Midas Touch on a Thursday night? Because I'm celebrating that the project I've been working on at work for the last year is finally coming together!
Midas Touch Golden Elixir, currently marketed as Midas Touch, was first marketed in June 2001. The recipe for this beverage is based on the chemical analysis of residues found in clay vessels believed to date back to the 8th century BC. Originally discovered in Gordium, Turkey during a 1957 dig by archaeologist Rodney Young, the content of these vessels was left unknown for 40 years. In 1997, molecular archeologist Dr. Patrick McGovern received a phone call from a former student of his informing him of a residue on clay jars from the tomb of King Midas. Dr. McGovern quickly did chemical analysis finding all aspects of the drink except for the spicing agent but made an assumption of saffron due to regional availability.
Now I really want to try Chateau Jiahu.
Ok, end beer commercial. Why am I drinking Midas Touch on a Thursday night? Because I'm celebrating that the project I've been working on at work for the last year is finally coming together!
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Shop Class As Soulcraft
Today I finished Shop Class As Soulcraft: An Inquiry Into The Value Of Work by Matthew B. Crawford.
The book makes the argument that separating knowledge from being able to work with the physical world is bad for workers in many ways. It is push back on the knowledge economy. The story is based on his own experience working as a motorcycle repairman after getting his PhD and working some office jobs.
If the subject makes you think of Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance, there are a few shared ideas, but this book isn't insane.
I have mix feelings about this book.
First some good:
Sections of the book are clear articulations of thoughts that have guided my career and education. If anyone wants to understand why I chose electrical engineering over computer science and engineering over other fields, this book would be a good place to start - the core idea being working within the constraints of the physical world and seeing ones efforts cause something to actually work both theoretically and practically. Even though he does makes some comments about repair being superior to design (I think most of those comments are based on ignoring several aspects of design).
He even made some comments on creativity that very nearly matched my own.
Some ok:
He makes some good points about the modern office. Especially about how when people work in teams on poorly defined tasks it is difficult to evaluate the success of both the group and individual, vs in repair where either the repairman gets the motorcycle to work or doesn't. And how this puts managers in a strange position. Also how the knowledge of success vs failure is key to satisfaction in work. He also gets into how demoralizing it can be when the goal is something monetarily based, such as number of pages written, instead of working towards quality.
He also discusses how advertising and marketing reveals people's desires to build and repair their own stuff. He discusses marketing campaigns such as the Scion where they have people purchase options to make them feel like they are working on their car, when they are really just buying more stuff.
Some bad:
He takes most of his points to extremes - such as I toned the comments about the office way down.
My biggest issue with the book is that he encourages people to consider vocational school over college, especially since for some people they can make more money if they are willing to accept blue collar jobs. First, I question if that's true, much of the recent discussion of the labor market I've seen is about how recently those with college degrees are pulling even further ahead of those without. Second, even if it was, there are other reasons to go to college, such as just being an education person. Also this is one of the most "academic" books (outside of science and textbooks) that I've ever read which seems somewhat ironic given its subject matter. It's also a bit odd that a book suggesting going to votech made me feel like I should have taken a philosophy class before reading it.
The author doesn't bother at all with balance. He's all about getting away from specialization of labor as well as other aspects of corporations, but doesn't address what would happen if there was actually a major shift back to engineers doing their own building and writing their own user manuals. It never comes up that products would be significantly more expensive and the economy would tank. Not to mention that he does not suggest how reasonably complex projects would be designed or built. A good example of the lack of balance is when I made comments about creativity on this blog several people made good counterpoints and that's my personal blog - this book did nothing to address that there is more than one side to it.
Finally the size:
I really like the size of the book - it isn't a little pocket book, but still fits in a pocket so as I read through the wheel of time at home, I've been reading this book while doing laundry and hanging out on castro st. All books should be this size and if they need to be longer they can be split into multiple volumes. Also makes me wish there was a mini-kindle that bends a little.
The book makes the argument that separating knowledge from being able to work with the physical world is bad for workers in many ways. It is push back on the knowledge economy. The story is based on his own experience working as a motorcycle repairman after getting his PhD and working some office jobs.
If the subject makes you think of Zen And The Art Of Motorcycle Maintenance, there are a few shared ideas, but this book isn't insane.
I have mix feelings about this book.
First some good:
Sections of the book are clear articulations of thoughts that have guided my career and education. If anyone wants to understand why I chose electrical engineering over computer science and engineering over other fields, this book would be a good place to start - the core idea being working within the constraints of the physical world and seeing ones efforts cause something to actually work both theoretically and practically. Even though he does makes some comments about repair being superior to design (I think most of those comments are based on ignoring several aspects of design).
He even made some comments on creativity that very nearly matched my own.
Some ok:
He makes some good points about the modern office. Especially about how when people work in teams on poorly defined tasks it is difficult to evaluate the success of both the group and individual, vs in repair where either the repairman gets the motorcycle to work or doesn't. And how this puts managers in a strange position. Also how the knowledge of success vs failure is key to satisfaction in work. He also gets into how demoralizing it can be when the goal is something monetarily based, such as number of pages written, instead of working towards quality.
He also discusses how advertising and marketing reveals people's desires to build and repair their own stuff. He discusses marketing campaigns such as the Scion where they have people purchase options to make them feel like they are working on their car, when they are really just buying more stuff.
Some bad:
He takes most of his points to extremes - such as I toned the comments about the office way down.
My biggest issue with the book is that he encourages people to consider vocational school over college, especially since for some people they can make more money if they are willing to accept blue collar jobs. First, I question if that's true, much of the recent discussion of the labor market I've seen is about how recently those with college degrees are pulling even further ahead of those without. Second, even if it was, there are other reasons to go to college, such as just being an education person. Also this is one of the most "academic" books (outside of science and textbooks) that I've ever read which seems somewhat ironic given its subject matter. It's also a bit odd that a book suggesting going to votech made me feel like I should have taken a philosophy class before reading it.
The author doesn't bother at all with balance. He's all about getting away from specialization of labor as well as other aspects of corporations, but doesn't address what would happen if there was actually a major shift back to engineers doing their own building and writing their own user manuals. It never comes up that products would be significantly more expensive and the economy would tank. Not to mention that he does not suggest how reasonably complex projects would be designed or built. A good example of the lack of balance is when I made comments about creativity on this blog several people made good counterpoints and that's my personal blog - this book did nothing to address that there is more than one side to it.
Finally the size:
I really like the size of the book - it isn't a little pocket book, but still fits in a pocket so as I read through the wheel of time at home, I've been reading this book while doing laundry and hanging out on castro st. All books should be this size and if they need to be longer they can be split into multiple volumes. Also makes me wish there was a mini-kindle that bends a little.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Time Travel
There's a particular view of time travel that seems to be preferred by tv and movies. This view is that someone can travel back in time and change something which alters the future. Let's say the character lives till 2010 then travels back to 1980 and changes stuff then travels back to 2010. In the show his time line is continuous from 1980 to 2010 then jumps to 1980 then jumps to 2010. The "first" time he is in 2010 in the past there is only one of him in 1980, the time traveling him hasn't visited that time. The "second" time he's in 2010 in the new history of the world there were two of him in 1980, one the normal and one the time traveler.
Ok, before we go further we have to allow physics to be broken in order to time travel, and even bigger we have to allow causality to be broken. It is difficult to proceed with a logical argument once we're allowing causality to be broken, but logic minus causality is one more thing we'll have to allow for this post to proceed.
It's always seemed to me that if someone time travels from 2010 to 1980, then in 1980 there are two of him and all of the resulting consequences, no matter if it is the "first" time he gets to 2010 or the "second" time, since there aren't two 1980s. (Sometimes shows touch on the idea of switching to a different universe when the time traveling occurs - that would solve the problem, but then the person is both time and universe traveling, not just time traveling*). So that's not a new idea. But what finally occurred to me is why the two different 1980s view of time travel is so natural for TV - you are following the character who time travels and time is progressing based on his view of time so it is possible to see each moment in time more than once as soon as he starts time traveling. Even in a story with many characters, the story will take the view point of only the time traveler for that part of the story. (Heros may be an exception to that rule, but Heroes' time travel rules were really wacky, remember the crazy mesh of strings they called a timeline?)
If a TV show had to draw a time line (based on the reference of a third party - or a non-time traveling character) they would be hard pressed to make it work with this view of time travel. It would be equally difficult to make this work if they also showed events from the perspective of a non-time traveling character. Especially since the time traveler's friend's memory contains one set of events during the "first" 2010 and a different set of events during the "second" 2010.
So I blame the linearity of story telling and the tendency to perceive the story through the view point of a single character for this persistent view of time travel.
Although since we've dropped causality maybe I blame this persistent view of time travel for the linearity of story telling.
(*The universe hopping version of time travel is also somewhat less satisfying since if the character goes back in time to save someone they're not actually saving the person in the original universe, but rather just choosing to live in a universe in which the person survives - that seems to make the story much more shallow. Although I guess if they're not sure how time travel works they could still be well intentioned...)
Ok, before we go further we have to allow physics to be broken in order to time travel, and even bigger we have to allow causality to be broken. It is difficult to proceed with a logical argument once we're allowing causality to be broken, but logic minus causality is one more thing we'll have to allow for this post to proceed.
It's always seemed to me that if someone time travels from 2010 to 1980, then in 1980 there are two of him and all of the resulting consequences, no matter if it is the "first" time he gets to 2010 or the "second" time, since there aren't two 1980s. (Sometimes shows touch on the idea of switching to a different universe when the time traveling occurs - that would solve the problem, but then the person is both time and universe traveling, not just time traveling*). So that's not a new idea. But what finally occurred to me is why the two different 1980s view of time travel is so natural for TV - you are following the character who time travels and time is progressing based on his view of time so it is possible to see each moment in time more than once as soon as he starts time traveling. Even in a story with many characters, the story will take the view point of only the time traveler for that part of the story. (Heros may be an exception to that rule, but Heroes' time travel rules were really wacky, remember the crazy mesh of strings they called a timeline?)
If a TV show had to draw a time line (based on the reference of a third party - or a non-time traveling character) they would be hard pressed to make it work with this view of time travel. It would be equally difficult to make this work if they also showed events from the perspective of a non-time traveling character. Especially since the time traveler's friend's memory contains one set of events during the "first" 2010 and a different set of events during the "second" 2010.
So I blame the linearity of story telling and the tendency to perceive the story through the view point of a single character for this persistent view of time travel.
Although since we've dropped causality maybe I blame this persistent view of time travel for the linearity of story telling.
(*The universe hopping version of time travel is also somewhat less satisfying since if the character goes back in time to save someone they're not actually saving the person in the original universe, but rather just choosing to live in a universe in which the person survives - that seems to make the story much more shallow. Although I guess if they're not sure how time travel works they could still be well intentioned...)
Two Ideas
Here are two ideas:
1. Trilingual travel books. Lots of people both in and out of the US speak the language of their home country and English as a second language. When they visit a foreign country it is likely they will speak English there since they will find more English speakers than speakers of their primary language. So it is useful for their tour book to have English names and descriptions. However, even if the person is very fluent in English it is likely that there will be many places in the foreign country they learned about growing up in their primary language and don't know the English for it. In addition to sites, this would likely be true for foods and other aspects of travel. So it is useful for the tour book to also include names in the reader's primary language. And of course any good tour book will include the names in the language of the destination country.
This isn't just a crazy theory - a coworker borrowed a tour book and mentioned how he had a tough time find what he's looking for because he only knows the Chinese name (and his English is approaching native speaker). When I suggested a tour book in Chinese he pointed out that he'd be speaking English in the country so a Chinese tour book wouldn't do it either.
I think the major obstacle is a company that has all the content would have to do this or give someone permission to use their content. Also tough would be that this would require the creation of a huge number of books - perhaps it is an idea better suited to a website that allows the user to pick a destination country and all the languages they want the information in - or maybe ebooks are the answer.
2. Certified store for Android apps. Any app going into the Apple app store has to be approved by apple which is both the store's biggest advantage and biggest disadvantage. My understanding is basically anything can go up on the Android store. Seems like an opportunity for someone trusted to check Android apps for security issues (and if trying to mimic apple - occasionally dismiss apps for no reason) and then put them up for sale in a special store. I was thinking that the developers might have to send them the source code, but iOS developers don't send the code to Apple so it should be possible to do the security checks with binaries only.
Semi-related idea - why isn't there an app store equivalent for desktop/laptop computers?
1. Trilingual travel books. Lots of people both in and out of the US speak the language of their home country and English as a second language. When they visit a foreign country it is likely they will speak English there since they will find more English speakers than speakers of their primary language. So it is useful for their tour book to have English names and descriptions. However, even if the person is very fluent in English it is likely that there will be many places in the foreign country they learned about growing up in their primary language and don't know the English for it. In addition to sites, this would likely be true for foods and other aspects of travel. So it is useful for the tour book to also include names in the reader's primary language. And of course any good tour book will include the names in the language of the destination country.
This isn't just a crazy theory - a coworker borrowed a tour book and mentioned how he had a tough time find what he's looking for because he only knows the Chinese name (and his English is approaching native speaker). When I suggested a tour book in Chinese he pointed out that he'd be speaking English in the country so a Chinese tour book wouldn't do it either.
I think the major obstacle is a company that has all the content would have to do this or give someone permission to use their content. Also tough would be that this would require the creation of a huge number of books - perhaps it is an idea better suited to a website that allows the user to pick a destination country and all the languages they want the information in - or maybe ebooks are the answer.
2. Certified store for Android apps. Any app going into the Apple app store has to be approved by apple which is both the store's biggest advantage and biggest disadvantage. My understanding is basically anything can go up on the Android store. Seems like an opportunity for someone trusted to check Android apps for security issues (and if trying to mimic apple - occasionally dismiss apps for no reason) and then put them up for sale in a special store. I was thinking that the developers might have to send them the source code, but iOS developers don't send the code to Apple so it should be possible to do the security checks with binaries only.
Semi-related idea - why isn't there an app store equivalent for desktop/laptop computers?
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Creativity
I'm going to talk about myself for a bit, since that's what I get to observe, but I'm trying to get to a broader point not just spout off about myself.
I feel like there's a "traditional" image of the path to creativity. A bunch of somewhat wacky looking people tossing a ball around while brainstorming in an office shaped like a castle or sitting in a hot springs on some company retreat (ok, maybe that's several images all jammed together). And part of the image is that those people are part of some cross disciplinary team or each has some broad range of work and life experiences. Think of the creativity posters with pictures of an old Einstein with crazy hair.
I've filled several invention disclosures at work. Some of which are working through the process to become patents. I'll admit that while each to the best of my knowledge is an original and useful idea, none of them is going to transform an industry or anything close to that. But I like to think that to have an original useful idea in a field that has been around a while and has a decent amount of competition takes some creativity.
I was thinking about what lead up to each of these inventions. Since I've never been to a meeting where a ball was tossed around and definitely never been to a company retreat with hot springs none of those were involved in the process. In fact the common theme in each case is either independently or in collaboration with one or two other coworkers I was digging deeply into the details of some aspect of a circuit I was working on. And in each case as I reached a certain level of discovery and understanding the new idea just flowed. And it was a single clear idea, not a giant list of brainstormed ideas. Each of these situations seemed almost the exact opposite of the "traditional" image of creativity.
Going back to Einstein for a moment. The old man with crazy hair really didn't do much. It was when he was a clean cut, suit wearing, patent clerk that he came up with mind blowing advances in physics. I will admit that I don't know a ton about Einstein, but my understanding is that most of his advancements came from thought experiments on his own, not brainstorming or even collaboration.
For my own example I wonder if while I'm being creative, maybe I'm not hitting a higher level of creativity that the "traditional" example would help me achieve. The higher level could be just how new the idea is, or could be the difference between creativity on the level of circuit details vs large system changes. However, that doesn't hold together when the Einstein example is considered.
I guess the answer is probably just that creativity is a large, poorly defined concept so different types of creativity require different approaches. And different people get to creativity by different means. In addition, crazy looking Einstein makes a better poster and a multidisciplinary teams going rafting makes a better story than an engineer focusing on a computer screen late at night. So those are the images of creativity that are spread.
Was that obvious? Is there something I missed? Am I over valuing engineering creativity - is a pixar writer so much more creative than a chip designer that the comparison doesn't even make sense? Does a pixar writer actually follow the "traditional" path or is that just a false image? Is "traditional" path really more about how to get a team to collaborate than how to maximize individual creativity?
Most of my random ramblings are just that. But in this case I'm actually reevaluating which assignments at work I want based on this idea. The "traditional" image of creativity that I have says bounce from area to area picking up broad knowledge to allow cross-pollination of ideas. But now I'm thinking that while breadth shouldn't be ignored, my own path to creativity is to go further in depth.
I feel like there's a "traditional" image of the path to creativity. A bunch of somewhat wacky looking people tossing a ball around while brainstorming in an office shaped like a castle or sitting in a hot springs on some company retreat (ok, maybe that's several images all jammed together). And part of the image is that those people are part of some cross disciplinary team or each has some broad range of work and life experiences. Think of the creativity posters with pictures of an old Einstein with crazy hair.
I've filled several invention disclosures at work. Some of which are working through the process to become patents. I'll admit that while each to the best of my knowledge is an original and useful idea, none of them is going to transform an industry or anything close to that. But I like to think that to have an original useful idea in a field that has been around a while and has a decent amount of competition takes some creativity.
I was thinking about what lead up to each of these inventions. Since I've never been to a meeting where a ball was tossed around and definitely never been to a company retreat with hot springs none of those were involved in the process. In fact the common theme in each case is either independently or in collaboration with one or two other coworkers I was digging deeply into the details of some aspect of a circuit I was working on. And in each case as I reached a certain level of discovery and understanding the new idea just flowed. And it was a single clear idea, not a giant list of brainstormed ideas. Each of these situations seemed almost the exact opposite of the "traditional" image of creativity.
Going back to Einstein for a moment. The old man with crazy hair really didn't do much. It was when he was a clean cut, suit wearing, patent clerk that he came up with mind blowing advances in physics. I will admit that I don't know a ton about Einstein, but my understanding is that most of his advancements came from thought experiments on his own, not brainstorming or even collaboration.
For my own example I wonder if while I'm being creative, maybe I'm not hitting a higher level of creativity that the "traditional" example would help me achieve. The higher level could be just how new the idea is, or could be the difference between creativity on the level of circuit details vs large system changes. However, that doesn't hold together when the Einstein example is considered.
I guess the answer is probably just that creativity is a large, poorly defined concept so different types of creativity require different approaches. And different people get to creativity by different means. In addition, crazy looking Einstein makes a better poster and a multidisciplinary teams going rafting makes a better story than an engineer focusing on a computer screen late at night. So those are the images of creativity that are spread.
Was that obvious? Is there something I missed? Am I over valuing engineering creativity - is a pixar writer so much more creative than a chip designer that the comparison doesn't even make sense? Does a pixar writer actually follow the "traditional" path or is that just a false image? Is "traditional" path really more about how to get a team to collaborate than how to maximize individual creativity?
Most of my random ramblings are just that. But in this case I'm actually reevaluating which assignments at work I want based on this idea. The "traditional" image of creativity that I have says bounce from area to area picking up broad knowledge to allow cross-pollination of ideas. But now I'm thinking that while breadth shouldn't be ignored, my own path to creativity is to go further in depth.
Saturday, August 07, 2010
RFCALC
My previous post about iphone programming included some complaining about the development environment. Well I'll admit I had the expectation that I should be able to just sit down, crank out some code, and submit it (as if I was using a program instead of creating one). I realize that was expecting a bit much. Once I bothered watching a few lectures of the Stanford iPhone programming class, looking at some more example code and finding apple's class definitions I realized that apple actually makes iPhone programming very easy. And once I got into it I realized that a lot of it, especially graphics, is much easier than I anticipated.
Version 3.0 (I'm being a little generous with version numbers, but at least I started with version 1) is submitted for review now and should be on the store soon. When I first started the app several coworkers suggested I make a smith chart tool and I said that the graphics would be too much of a pain. So I'm fairly excited that version 3.0 has a smith chart tool. And, maybe it is just because I made it, but I think it is in some ways better than the smith chart tool I have on my computer at work.
I decided to try adding iAds to the app (that was added in version 2.0). So far there are just two ads that run and I'm not really making money off it. But it was kind of cool to have the first app I've seen that uses iAds. And what I like about it is I get to see how many requests for ads occur so I get some sense of if the app is just being downloaded or if people are actually running it. Based on that the number of people using it must be much smaller than the number downloading it, but there's still a decent number of people using it and in surprisingly large number of countries.
Of course now that I'm getting (somewhat) used to objective-c and have some code built up I'm running out of ideas for what to do with it next.
I've been thinking a bit about why I've been enjoying iPhone programming so much. I think part of it is that I like engineering and design and while work sometimes fulfills that role, work projects can have very long stretches between successes. On the other hand, programming, well maybe just hobbyist level programming, allows me to make something and see it work over the course of a few hours to a few days. Far faster than even hobbyist level electronics design.
This is biggest program I've worked on in quite a while, most of my coding since graduation has been limited to single page perl scripts. So it has been cool to come up with the higher level structures (even though I'm sure it is pretty basic even compared to school projects). In particular it is great when all of the underlying objects have been built up so that a few lines of code can add a ton of functionality.
Version 3.0 (I'm being a little generous with version numbers, but at least I started with version 1) is submitted for review now and should be on the store soon. When I first started the app several coworkers suggested I make a smith chart tool and I said that the graphics would be too much of a pain. So I'm fairly excited that version 3.0 has a smith chart tool. And, maybe it is just because I made it, but I think it is in some ways better than the smith chart tool I have on my computer at work.
I decided to try adding iAds to the app (that was added in version 2.0). So far there are just two ads that run and I'm not really making money off it. But it was kind of cool to have the first app I've seen that uses iAds. And what I like about it is I get to see how many requests for ads occur so I get some sense of if the app is just being downloaded or if people are actually running it. Based on that the number of people using it must be much smaller than the number downloading it, but there's still a decent number of people using it and in surprisingly large number of countries.
Of course now that I'm getting (somewhat) used to objective-c and have some code built up I'm running out of ideas for what to do with it next.
I've been thinking a bit about why I've been enjoying iPhone programming so much. I think part of it is that I like engineering and design and while work sometimes fulfills that role, work projects can have very long stretches between successes. On the other hand, programming, well maybe just hobbyist level programming, allows me to make something and see it work over the course of a few hours to a few days. Far faster than even hobbyist level electronics design.
This is biggest program I've worked on in quite a while, most of my coding since graduation has been limited to single page perl scripts. So it has been cool to come up with the higher level structures (even though I'm sure it is pretty basic even compared to school projects). In particular it is great when all of the underlying objects have been built up so that a few lines of code can add a ton of functionality.
Saturday, July 31, 2010
Wikipedia and knowledge
This interview with one of the founders of wikipedia is in general somewhat interesting. But what really caught me was what he had to say about how experts are viewed:
Why did you feel so strongly about involving experts?
Because of the complete disregard for expert opinion among a group of amateurs working on a subject, and in particular because of their tendency to openly express contempt for experts. There was this attitude that experts should be disqualified [from participating] by the very fact that they had published on the subject—that because they had published, they were therefore biased. That frustrated me very much, to see that happening over and over again: experts essentially being driven away by people who didn't have any respect for those who make it their lives' work to know things.
Where do you think that contempt for expertise comes from? It's seems odd to be committed to a project that's all about sharing knowledge, yet dismiss those who've worked so hard to acquire it.
There's a whole worldview that's shared by many programmers—although not all of them, of course—and by many young intellectuals that I characterize as "epistemic egalitarianism." They're greatly offended by the idea that anyone might be regarded as more reliable on a given topic than everyone else. They feel that for everything to be as fair as possible and equal as possible, the only thing that ought to matter is the content [of a claim] itself, not its source.
I thought that fit in very well with all the discussion of wikileaks and the idea of getting information with no knowledge of the source. See the great New Yorker Piece about wikileaks and the slate article claiming transparency means revealing sources. While I somewhat agree that getting a bunch of data without knowing the source is questionable, I do think wikileaks is a very cool idea (although it would say more about the site if the dominate story didn't always become the site rather than the info it is disclosing).
Hm, I feel like there's some clever conclusion to be reached, but I don't feel like thinking that hard right now. But I do think that it is common for people to look at a subjects like economics, global politics, climate change, and health/medicine and try to evaluate the facts for themselves while dismissing the opinions of experts, and on the other side blindly trusting experts without doing any of their own checking (as a person I include myself in this).
For example, recently people are rather unhappy with economic experts, but listening to amateur economists explain why they know better than the expert consensus, possibly based on some document that sounded like fact to them, gets rather absurd.
Why did you feel so strongly about involving experts?
Because of the complete disregard for expert opinion among a group of amateurs working on a subject, and in particular because of their tendency to openly express contempt for experts. There was this attitude that experts should be disqualified [from participating] by the very fact that they had published on the subject—that because they had published, they were therefore biased. That frustrated me very much, to see that happening over and over again: experts essentially being driven away by people who didn't have any respect for those who make it their lives' work to know things.
Where do you think that contempt for expertise comes from? It's seems odd to be committed to a project that's all about sharing knowledge, yet dismiss those who've worked so hard to acquire it.
There's a whole worldview that's shared by many programmers—although not all of them, of course—and by many young intellectuals that I characterize as "epistemic egalitarianism." They're greatly offended by the idea that anyone might be regarded as more reliable on a given topic than everyone else. They feel that for everything to be as fair as possible and equal as possible, the only thing that ought to matter is the content [of a claim] itself, not its source.
I thought that fit in very well with all the discussion of wikileaks and the idea of getting information with no knowledge of the source. See the great New Yorker Piece about wikileaks and the slate article claiming transparency means revealing sources. While I somewhat agree that getting a bunch of data without knowing the source is questionable, I do think wikileaks is a very cool idea (although it would say more about the site if the dominate story didn't always become the site rather than the info it is disclosing).
Hm, I feel like there's some clever conclusion to be reached, but I don't feel like thinking that hard right now. But I do think that it is common for people to look at a subjects like economics, global politics, climate change, and health/medicine and try to evaluate the facts for themselves while dismissing the opinions of experts, and on the other side blindly trusting experts without doing any of their own checking (as a person I include myself in this).
For example, recently people are rather unhappy with economic experts, but listening to amateur economists explain why they know better than the expert consensus, possibly based on some document that sounded like fact to them, gets rather absurd.
Saturday, June 19, 2010
My iPhone App
My iPhone App was just accepted by Apple and is now in the App Store! The app's name is rfcalc (radio frequency calculator).
It still needs a lot of work, in fact there's a mistake in it that even shows up in the screen shot. But I'm excited that it got it to the point of being accepted so now I can build on it.
The app is aimed at RF electrical engineers, which is a fairly small target audience, but it also means that as far as I can tell there aren't other apps that do the same thing. The idea is to have a whole list of calculators for common calculations done by RF engineers. Right now there's just one that goes between impedance as a complex number and the equivalent series and parallel components. Fairly simple, but I've actually already used it a few times at work.
Saeed was nice enough to write some code that I used as a guide to get me going and most of the code for the interface is just a few pieces of example code I found online and hacked together. One of the most interesting moments was when I first used the app on my phone instead of the iPhone simulator on the computer and realized that I kept trying to scroll the window even though I knew I didn't include scrolling. I guess that'll be the first item for version 0.2.
It is also interesting to see the difference between how apple treats developers and users. Considering that most apple programs are installed by dragging a file to a folder, I was very surprised that it took me hours just to figure out how to get all the certificates set up so that I could submit the app to the store. On one hand I did ignore their extensive set of tutorials, but on the other hand since when do apple products require a manual for basic use. That's just one example of everything I found more difficult than expected along the way; although, I did go from never having seen object-c to submitting my app to the store in about a week so maybe I shouldn't complain. But I will complain about the iPhone keyboard - they have several keyboards that can be used in an app, but don't seem to want developers to modify them. A custom keyboard would do a lot to improve the interface of this app.
Oh, and this all means that I did pay the developer fee so if any of you develops a free app and wants to put it on the store without paying the fee let me know.
It still needs a lot of work, in fact there's a mistake in it that even shows up in the screen shot. But I'm excited that it got it to the point of being accepted so now I can build on it.
The app is aimed at RF electrical engineers, which is a fairly small target audience, but it also means that as far as I can tell there aren't other apps that do the same thing. The idea is to have a whole list of calculators for common calculations done by RF engineers. Right now there's just one that goes between impedance as a complex number and the equivalent series and parallel components. Fairly simple, but I've actually already used it a few times at work.
Saeed was nice enough to write some code that I used as a guide to get me going and most of the code for the interface is just a few pieces of example code I found online and hacked together. One of the most interesting moments was when I first used the app on my phone instead of the iPhone simulator on the computer and realized that I kept trying to scroll the window even though I knew I didn't include scrolling. I guess that'll be the first item for version 0.2.
It is also interesting to see the difference between how apple treats developers and users. Considering that most apple programs are installed by dragging a file to a folder, I was very surprised that it took me hours just to figure out how to get all the certificates set up so that I could submit the app to the store. On one hand I did ignore their extensive set of tutorials, but on the other hand since when do apple products require a manual for basic use. That's just one example of everything I found more difficult than expected along the way; although, I did go from never having seen object-c to submitting my app to the store in about a week so maybe I shouldn't complain. But I will complain about the iPhone keyboard - they have several keyboards that can be used in an app, but don't seem to want developers to modify them. A custom keyboard would do a lot to improve the interface of this app.
Oh, and this all means that I did pay the developer fee so if any of you develops a free app and wants to put it on the store without paying the fee let me know.
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Email is working again
Normal email address is working again. Let's all forget about the mailmight address before someone gets out the broken abstraction barrier stamp.
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Something screwy is going on with my email today - I'm working on it. If you are getting email bounces use my mailmight address or give me a call or...
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Ebooks
It's general assumed that books are better than tv/movies, especially since it sounds so superior to say so. Although of course tv/movies have some advantages, other than just being easier to consume.
One of which is it is way easier to remember who characters are. Look at a show like heroes which has a large collection of characters who come and go over the course of years. Yet even if a viewer can't remember all the details of the character, when the viewer sees the character's face they'll generally remember who the character is. Compare that with a long book or series of books. There are plenty of books that can be read over a much shorter period of time and yet give the reader trouble remember which minor character is which.
I think this is a simple matter of people being better at remembering faces than names (especially when authors (I'm looking at you Robert Jordan) pick unpronounceable names, or in the case of say lord of the rings when two characters have very similar names).
I think this is one area where ebooks could improve upon normal books (heresy, I know). The obvious approach is to make character names links that take you to a page describing who they are. But much better would be to give faces to each character and display them, maybe on the opposing page if the ebook has two screens, or even over the name or something along those lines (I'm thinking more along the lines of an ipad display than a kindle display). I know part of the point of books is to let the imagination fill things in, but the face doesn't have to be a photo, it could be a sufficiently generic drawing (similar to what often appears on a book cover) that it would help the memory, but not limit the imagination. Heck for LoTR just a red eye over Sauron and a white cloak over Saruman would be super helpful. Ok, the white cloak would get confusing when Gandalf takes over as the white wizard, but you get the idea.
And about half of Snow Crash could have "more sumerian mythology, just move along" written across it. Ok, maybe that one is taking it too far.
On what I initial thought was an unrelated comment, but now realize is actually rather related. I tried reading a comic book on my phone (dr horrible) and comics seem like the perfect format for reading on a phone. For those times when you want to read, rather than watch video, but don't want to strain your eyes reading on a phone, comics get across the info and have some reading, but small amounts of large text are no problem to read on a small backlit screen.
Oh, just noticed that the first part of this post is describing comic books. So I guess the conclusion is that we should give up books for reading comics on our phones... Not really where I intended to go with this.
One of which is it is way easier to remember who characters are. Look at a show like heroes which has a large collection of characters who come and go over the course of years. Yet even if a viewer can't remember all the details of the character, when the viewer sees the character's face they'll generally remember who the character is. Compare that with a long book or series of books. There are plenty of books that can be read over a much shorter period of time and yet give the reader trouble remember which minor character is which.
I think this is a simple matter of people being better at remembering faces than names (especially when authors (I'm looking at you Robert Jordan) pick unpronounceable names, or in the case of say lord of the rings when two characters have very similar names).
I think this is one area where ebooks could improve upon normal books (heresy, I know). The obvious approach is to make character names links that take you to a page describing who they are. But much better would be to give faces to each character and display them, maybe on the opposing page if the ebook has two screens, or even over the name or something along those lines (I'm thinking more along the lines of an ipad display than a kindle display). I know part of the point of books is to let the imagination fill things in, but the face doesn't have to be a photo, it could be a sufficiently generic drawing (similar to what often appears on a book cover) that it would help the memory, but not limit the imagination. Heck for LoTR just a red eye over Sauron and a white cloak over Saruman would be super helpful. Ok, the white cloak would get confusing when Gandalf takes over as the white wizard, but you get the idea.
And about half of Snow Crash could have "more sumerian mythology, just move along" written across it. Ok, maybe that one is taking it too far.
On what I initial thought was an unrelated comment, but now realize is actually rather related. I tried reading a comic book on my phone (dr horrible) and comics seem like the perfect format for reading on a phone. For those times when you want to read, rather than watch video, but don't want to strain your eyes reading on a phone, comics get across the info and have some reading, but small amounts of large text are no problem to read on a small backlit screen.
Oh, just noticed that the first part of this post is describing comic books. So I guess the conclusion is that we should give up books for reading comics on our phones... Not really where I intended to go with this.
The Dragon Reborn
I recently finished The Dragon Reborn which is part of the wheel of time series. It now strikes me that the title is a bit odd, since this book is almost entirely about everyone but the dragon. Weird, anyway, good book although I'd claim not as good as the previous two.
Moving
Holly crap I'm moving again! Yet again solidifying AEPi as my most stable home since middle school.
I started writing up my giant rant about the insanity of how Avalon at Creekside sets their prices (take the average of some nicer apartment buildings, see how over priced the apartment is then divide that by 4, why 4, cause that's the formula - that's the super short version) but decided I'd spare you. I had discussed the idea of "the worst they can do is say no" with a friend recently. But this experience taught me the worst they can do is give such an insane explanation and pitifully small offer ($9 off) that you get mad and end up leaving.
Anyway I found a place about 5 minutes away that's cheaper and bigger and has an AC and is more recently renovated. So I'm excited about that, but not so excited about putting all my stuff in boxes again.
I started writing up my giant rant about the insanity of how Avalon at Creekside sets their prices (take the average of some nicer apartment buildings, see how over priced the apartment is then divide that by 4, why 4, cause that's the formula - that's the super short version) but decided I'd spare you. I had discussed the idea of "the worst they can do is say no" with a friend recently. But this experience taught me the worst they can do is give such an insane explanation and pitifully small offer ($9 off) that you get mad and end up leaving.
Anyway I found a place about 5 minutes away that's cheaper and bigger and has an AC and is more recently renovated. So I'm excited about that, but not so excited about putting all my stuff in boxes again.
Life
Wow, it's been a while since I posted about my life. I feel like I've noticed a general drop in blog use. I wonder if that's a change in the situation or the observer. I also wonder if twitter really is just enough that it removes people's need to write full blog posts.
Anyway, since the summer I've been working on a chip at work that had/has a very tight schedule and the part with the most focus is the part I am working on. Unfortunately I've discovered that the harder I work the more mindless downtime (aka TV) I require so when I'm low on time I often end up killing the bit I have with TV. Luckily some of my friends in the area are also into watching tv and playing games so I can actually combine that recovery time with being social which is awesome.
That long stretch of work was split up by several intense spouts of having fun. I visited home for Thanksgiving. I visited Santa Barbara where I hung out with my Uncle and his family which was a nice get away as always. Over winter break I went skiing at Sunday River with college friends. The skiing and seeing friends was a great time. It was also nice because I went from a nervous skiing n00b to, well still a beginner, but comfortable getting out there and enjoying it. Finished up that trip with my first Russian New Years and attempt at cross country skiing. I think I'd need to try cross country again before claiming that I really get it.
There was a one day trip to Tahoe for skiing in there. Good time, but I had my first encounter with moguls and wore myself out since I had no idea what to do. Also took a bit of a hard fall. I thought I was going through a connector between trails I had done before so built up some speed before getting to it. Upon entering it and realizing it was so narrow I couldn't slow down I realized I hadn't seen this bit of trail before and had to fall into a pile of snow. That's the only time I've left blood on the snow (just a bit of nose bleed, nothing serious).
March was a lull at work which worked out well since a lot happened that month. My parents came to visit and we headed down to carmel for an extended weekend. It was great to see my parents and hang out in a nice area. Kayaking in Monterey Bay was very cool. The next weekend was my brother's bachelor party. We met up in Denver and headed to the mountains for two solid days of skiing. Then Sunday night hit the town. The next weekend some college friends visited and it was great to see them.
Most recently I'm getting ready to change apartments. This seems like a good point to switch to a new post.
That was a big span of time, so I left out seeing someone or some major event - sorry.
Anyway, since the summer I've been working on a chip at work that had/has a very tight schedule and the part with the most focus is the part I am working on. Unfortunately I've discovered that the harder I work the more mindless downtime (aka TV) I require so when I'm low on time I often end up killing the bit I have with TV. Luckily some of my friends in the area are also into watching tv and playing games so I can actually combine that recovery time with being social which is awesome.
That long stretch of work was split up by several intense spouts of having fun. I visited home for Thanksgiving. I visited Santa Barbara where I hung out with my Uncle and his family which was a nice get away as always. Over winter break I went skiing at Sunday River with college friends. The skiing and seeing friends was a great time. It was also nice because I went from a nervous skiing n00b to, well still a beginner, but comfortable getting out there and enjoying it. Finished up that trip with my first Russian New Years and attempt at cross country skiing. I think I'd need to try cross country again before claiming that I really get it.
There was a one day trip to Tahoe for skiing in there. Good time, but I had my first encounter with moguls and wore myself out since I had no idea what to do. Also took a bit of a hard fall. I thought I was going through a connector between trails I had done before so built up some speed before getting to it. Upon entering it and realizing it was so narrow I couldn't slow down I realized I hadn't seen this bit of trail before and had to fall into a pile of snow. That's the only time I've left blood on the snow (just a bit of nose bleed, nothing serious).
March was a lull at work which worked out well since a lot happened that month. My parents came to visit and we headed down to carmel for an extended weekend. It was great to see my parents and hang out in a nice area. Kayaking in Monterey Bay was very cool. The next weekend was my brother's bachelor party. We met up in Denver and headed to the mountains for two solid days of skiing. Then Sunday night hit the town. The next weekend some college friends visited and it was great to see them.
Most recently I'm getting ready to change apartments. This seems like a good point to switch to a new post.
That was a big span of time, so I left out seeing someone or some major event - sorry.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
The Great Hunt
Having finished The Great Hunt, I now have a mere 12 books left in The Wheel of Time Series. Well this book did answer my questions from The Eye Of The World.
This one seemed a bit less LOTR like. Some similarity to Dune - the power that is primarily used by women, but on rare occasion can be used by men. It might turn out to be something different, but the whole connection to the multiverse through the stone tablets seems overdone (although this book does predate Stargate and Anathem so guess I can't blame it), and there do seem to be clues that something else is going on.
Anyway, good stuff.
This one seemed a bit less LOTR like. Some similarity to Dune - the power that is primarily used by women, but on rare occasion can be used by men. It might turn out to be something different, but the whole connection to the multiverse through the stone tablets seems overdone (although this book does predate Stargate and Anathem so guess I can't blame it), and there do seem to be clues that something else is going on.
Anyway, good stuff.
Saturday, February 20, 2010
A Walk In The Woods
I read A Walk In The Woods over winter break, but since I haven't felt like writing I'm just now posting about it.
It's a fairly funny story of a guy who decides to hike the appalachian trail. The author, Bill Bryson, was unprepared for the challenge and his hiking buddy was hilariously unprepared. So it is an interesting view of hiking and America through the eyes of someone who doesn't have backpacking experience. He did do some interesting research and include it in the book - such as he's very down on the national forest/parks services.
Overall if you're into hiking/backpacking it's a funny read.
It's a fairly funny story of a guy who decides to hike the appalachian trail. The author, Bill Bryson, was unprepared for the challenge and his hiking buddy was hilariously unprepared. So it is an interesting view of hiking and America through the eyes of someone who doesn't have backpacking experience. He did do some interesting research and include it in the book - such as he's very down on the national forest/parks services.
Overall if you're into hiking/backpacking it's a funny read.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Quick Avatar/Dollhouse
I've been meaning to blog about actual life events, like thanksgiving and skiing and new years and... but just haven't been in the writing mood lately.
But two quick items:
(Minor Avatar spoiler): When Jake is getting onto the back of the giant dragon thing, hiss thought is that it is the biggest thing in the sky and doesn't get attacked so it probably doesn't bother looking up. I really think that I've heard almost the exact same thing before, but can't seem to remember from where. Does anyone know what I'm thinking of?
(Minor Dollhouse spoiler): I'm 95% certain that the company I work for made an appearance in the last episode of Dollhouse. When Victor hands Tommy a piece of circuit board to burn, the main chip on that board has a big M on it, I'm pretty sure it's the logo of the company I work for (pausing on hulu is a bit too fuzzy for 100% certainty). My guess is that it was from a hard drive they had broken apart.
But two quick items:
(Minor Avatar spoiler): When Jake is getting onto the back of the giant dragon thing, hiss thought is that it is the biggest thing in the sky and doesn't get attacked so it probably doesn't bother looking up. I really think that I've heard almost the exact same thing before, but can't seem to remember from where. Does anyone know what I'm thinking of?
(Minor Dollhouse spoiler): I'm 95% certain that the company I work for made an appearance in the last episode of Dollhouse. When Victor hands Tommy a piece of circuit board to burn, the main chip on that board has a big M on it, I'm pretty sure it's the logo of the company I work for (pausing on hulu is a bit too fuzzy for 100% certainty). My guess is that it was from a hard drive they had broken apart.
Saturday, January 09, 2010
Motion Sensors
Remember that Better Off Ted episode where the company decides to control the whole building with motion sensors, but it turns out the sensors only see white people? Yeah, way to go hp.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)