On January second, I'm doing a business trip to Edinburgh, Scotland. The second-to-last person from our team is leaving after the first week of January, and the last member could leave anytime in the future, so my boss needs someone to know what they know about our UK projects. I actually suspect my boss is sending me to this business trip just in case I had plans to leave myself.
I'm really excited about this, although I'll be sharing the experience only with myself. I'll be in Scotland for the first two weeks of January, then one week of real vacations in London.
Not being able to send an email, I had to call the hotel to extend my Edinburgh trip by one day. I had to concentrate a lot to be able to understand (and be understood) by the very kind hotel lady, which was but a preview of what I'll have to go through with the Scottish language. I reserved a train seat from Edinburgh to London (£35), and the last thing was to book a hotel room for 6 nights in London.
I used to go to expedia in the past because it was convenient and quick to book everything at once, and I never really had any trouble with them. Looking around, I am now understanding that their prices are (obviously and understandably) a bit higher than the prices you get directly at the airline or hotel, except that they sometimes have rebates.
I decided to book the hotel by myself, but the hotel my company had booked for me in Edinburgh was twice the price in London. I checked on expedia for other good hotels, and Caesar Hotel had a pretty good rating, so I went on their site (on Google, the first site that actually looked legit, http://www.caesar-hotel.co.uk/) and booked 6 nights with them. The price was the same than on expedia, which should have ringed my mental alarm, but at the time, I was starting to be tired of looking at the same thing over and over again, and I wanted to be done with it. £514 for 6 nights - ow. But anyway, it was better than the £840 I would have paid, if I kept the same hotel. The booking and payment was processed by CentralR. I just assumed it was a service provider to hotel chains or something.
I started to know something was wrong when I printed the confirmation sheet and highlighted the important parts. Being the careful person that I am (usually), I went to highlight the hotel address and phone number for easy access when I took the taxi from the train station. No address, no phone number. Not even the hotel name - just a totally generic confirmation sheet, written CentralR on top. I just assumed the hotel's web designers were not professionals.
I went back to the hotel web page, noted the address, but never found a phone number. Going to Google maps, I wrote "Caesar Hotel London", and (thanks, Google) the hotel was on the left. The address is slightly different, but both point at the same place on the map. I note the phone number, and that's when I see it. Right beside the phone number, derbyhotels.com, which I remember as being the first link in google. I check that site to grudgingly confirm my suspicions that Caesar Hotel is in fact part of the Derby Hotel group. I preview a booking for the same dates - £462.60. Pieces of the puzzle all fit together at great speed in my head. Either expedia and CentralR are both the same kind of service providers and take the exact same cuts when you book with them, or CentralR is a fishing web site that managed to get pretty high on google search.
I feel like an idiot, especially for being in a hurry like that. I google "CentralR reviews" and confirm it's a service provider, although with mostly bad reviews. Looking back at the cancellation section, I confirm what I already know - there is a 10% reservation upfront (in my case, £51.40) that is not reimbursable. So the maximum I may lose is that amount if I cancel with CentralR and book directly with the hotel. I quickly do a mental substraction. £514.00 - £51.40 = £462.60. I sigh.
All of that brings me to the identity thievery concept. Can a website trying to pass as a different entity be considered an identity theft? CentralR was definitely trying to pass as a specific hotel, and the domain name was convincing enough to fool even me. Normally, I would be right to assume that the web site was the hotel's (okay, I could have done a bit of research), but CentralR keeps quiet about the fact that it is not, and that it is in fact a "service provider" (and a very expensive one). The difference with expedia is that expedia makes no such secret, and proclaim its services as what they are. CentralR was hiding all of this from me.
I know that expedia is taking a pretty big cut on bookings they make for you, but I may use their services in the future nonetheless. CentralR is, in my opinion (and experience with what just happened), using dark patterns, and are being deceptive about them. I will take care to never "use" their services again, and will spread the word as much as I can.
That mistake just cost me about 80$, with added stress that the booking may go wrong. I shall remember.
2011/12/30
2011/12/27
Multimedia and the Cloud
The future as I see it - or as I hope it will come to. A lot of things will have to change for this to work, and some companies that currently make a lot of money will have to make changes that will lower their revenues, but with the chance that, done right, could gain more. Among many others, some of these companies are those behind the music and movie industries.
What I want is a computer that is always connected, wherever I go. Cellular networks have potential, but you can get good reception only in cities. When you get too far, you lose everything. I want to call someone using VoIP, and only care about a data plan (instead of voice+data plans).
If I want to listen to music, I connect to a website similar to iTunes, choose a song and play it. This is a service, payable by month. Artists will get their royalties based on how many songs are played, and how long the users listen to them. The price should be around 5$ for unrestricted access to all songs ever created.
If I want to watch a movie, I connect to the same website, choose a movie and play it. This would also be a service payable by month, with the same royalties paid to movie studios based on watch counts and lengths. The price should be a maximum of 10$ for unrestricted access to all movies or tv series ever made.
If I want to watch a tv channel, same thing. I'd like to pay a maximum of 10$ per month for that.
If I want to listen to the radio, same thing. I'd like to pay a maximum of 5$ per month for that.
That means I'm prepared to pay 30$ per month (360$ per year) for all these services, for unlimited viewing/listening of music, movies, tv and radio. If the company that implements that is smarter than greedy, it will allow me to pay by fair usage. For example, for movies, it could release the following chart:
That means you get to watch a movie (or a couple episodes) for free. After 5 movies, you pay the maximum price (10$), which in itself is very good. A smart and modest company will get a more powerful following.
Right now, a lot of possible alternatives are on the web. iTunes have movies, music, tv shows... but is very expensive, and you have to download them. It is filled with DRM. Grooveshark is a free music service, though I never looked very deep at it. How such a web site can legally be free, I can't understand. You can search by genre, title, artist... For radios, grooveshark also seems to have them, as do live365, jango, and many others, all for free. For movies, you have netflix and hulu, both at around 8$ per month, but the movie selection is restricted. There is also many websites that offer tv channels, some free, some not.
The thing is, there is a way to globalize all of this. I shouldn't be restricted if I want to watch a Russian movie, or a Japanese anime episode. Such a website could bring the whole world together.
Another aspect of the cloud is the ability to store, share, and see personal pictures and videos. There a many sites that do that, notably imgur, tinypic, youtube, and vimeo. I'm sure there are other sites to upload personal music or sounds.
That would bring multimedia to the whole world.
What I want is a computer that is always connected, wherever I go. Cellular networks have potential, but you can get good reception only in cities. When you get too far, you lose everything. I want to call someone using VoIP, and only care about a data plan (instead of voice+data plans).
If I want to listen to music, I connect to a website similar to iTunes, choose a song and play it. This is a service, payable by month. Artists will get their royalties based on how many songs are played, and how long the users listen to them. The price should be around 5$ for unrestricted access to all songs ever created.
If I want to watch a movie, I connect to the same website, choose a movie and play it. This would also be a service payable by month, with the same royalties paid to movie studios based on watch counts and lengths. The price should be a maximum of 10$ for unrestricted access to all movies or tv series ever made.
If I want to watch a tv channel, same thing. I'd like to pay a maximum of 10$ per month for that.
If I want to listen to the radio, same thing. I'd like to pay a maximum of 5$ per month for that.
That means I'm prepared to pay 30$ per month (360$ per year) for all these services, for unlimited viewing/listening of music, movies, tv and radio. If the company that implements that is smarter than greedy, it will allow me to pay by fair usage. For example, for movies, it could release the following chart:
| Movies | |
|---|---|
| Length (hours) | Price ($) |
| < 2 | Free |
| < 4 | 2.50 |
| < 6 | 5.00 |
| < 10 | 7.50 |
| >= 10 | 10.00 |
That means you get to watch a movie (or a couple episodes) for free. After 5 movies, you pay the maximum price (10$), which in itself is very good. A smart and modest company will get a more powerful following.
Right now, a lot of possible alternatives are on the web. iTunes have movies, music, tv shows... but is very expensive, and you have to download them. It is filled with DRM. Grooveshark is a free music service, though I never looked very deep at it. How such a web site can legally be free, I can't understand. You can search by genre, title, artist... For radios, grooveshark also seems to have them, as do live365, jango, and many others, all for free. For movies, you have netflix and hulu, both at around 8$ per month, but the movie selection is restricted. There is also many websites that offer tv channels, some free, some not.
The thing is, there is a way to globalize all of this. I shouldn't be restricted if I want to watch a Russian movie, or a Japanese anime episode. Such a website could bring the whole world together.
Another aspect of the cloud is the ability to store, share, and see personal pictures and videos. There a many sites that do that, notably imgur, tinypic, youtube, and vimeo. I'm sure there are other sites to upload personal music or sounds.
That would bring multimedia to the whole world.
2011/12/23
Lack of Names
What is happening to company names? These days, and the trend has been growing exponentially since at least a few years, new companies have nonsense names - names that have absolutely no meaning, and are totally made up of random syllables.
In the past, you could see a company name as word combinations (like all the companies that have "soft", "tec/tech" or "micro" in their name), the founder(s)'s name(s) (like Hewlett-Packard and countless others), and acronyms (like IBM). You very rarely saw a nonsense name. Even Xerox's name comes from the xerography process, and Amiga from the Spanish word for female friend.
So many recent companies have nonsense names. What does "Zynga" tell? Would someone not familiar with the name know that it's a social network game company? How about "Zumba"? Do you know it's a latino dance fitness program? "Etsy"? "Meebo"? "Tuango"? These names and increasingly countless others have something in common, and it's not that it doesn't tell anything about the company. After all, "Apple", "Adobe", "Google", or even "Symantec" doesn't really mean anything.
What they have in common is that they are not words. They don't feel English, nor French, nor Japanese, nor Mandarin/Cantonese, and I don't think they feel Spanish either (my knowledge in languages stops here). They are just random syllables put together.
So, why this weird trend?
Internationalization, and the Web
When you create a company, you need a presence on the web. There's no question about it. In the past you could have a company in, say, Germany, and another company with the same name in Italy. You could even have similarly-named smaller companies in different cities of a country.
The web brings everything together, so only one company can have [mycompanyname].com. Of course, they need the .net, .org, and all the other domain extensions. You combine that with the fact that there are more and more companies out there, and you get a name shortage. It was only a matter of time.
If you create a startup, you have three choices for your company name:
But these names are easy to forget, and it's only the tip of the iceberg. The current trend is five or six letters, two syllables names. What will happen when these easier names are depleted? Yeah, three syllables names, even harder to remember. "Mufygo" will one day pop-up as a name (assuming, of course, that "Mufy", "Mugo", and "Fygo" are not already taken) , and that name will sound even less like a real word. Where will it end?
Domain Extensions
Adding new domain extensions (like .com or .net) will not solve the problem. Companies will get their extension before someone else gets it (more than likely for scamming purposes), possibly getting a first shot (remember the new .xxx extension?).
Companies will have to rely on country extensions (.ca) more and more, then administrative region extensions (.on.ca). But this is a very short-lived solution.
This will have to change soon, before companies start being created and known by a number.
Conclusion
In guess anyone could predict that in 2 years, the pool of two syllables names will start drying up. In 5 to 10 years, it will be the three syllables names' turn. By then, the need for a revolution on the web will be clear.
I can't begin to imagine what kind of revolution we're talking about (the people who will come up with it are paid about 5-10x more than me). One thing is for sure: we will need a way to easily reference an infinity of companies.
In the past, you could see a company name as word combinations (like all the companies that have "soft", "tec/tech" or "micro" in their name), the founder(s)'s name(s) (like Hewlett-Packard and countless others), and acronyms (like IBM). You very rarely saw a nonsense name. Even Xerox's name comes from the xerography process, and Amiga from the Spanish word for female friend.
So many recent companies have nonsense names. What does "Zynga" tell? Would someone not familiar with the name know that it's a social network game company? How about "Zumba"? Do you know it's a latino dance fitness program? "Etsy"? "Meebo"? "Tuango"? These names and increasingly countless others have something in common, and it's not that it doesn't tell anything about the company. After all, "Apple", "Adobe", "Google", or even "Symantec" doesn't really mean anything.
What they have in common is that they are not words. They don't feel English, nor French, nor Japanese, nor Mandarin/Cantonese, and I don't think they feel Spanish either (my knowledge in languages stops here). They are just random syllables put together.
So, why this weird trend?
Internationalization, and the Web
When you create a company, you need a presence on the web. There's no question about it. In the past you could have a company in, say, Germany, and another company with the same name in Italy. You could even have similarly-named smaller companies in different cities of a country.
The web brings everything together, so only one company can have [mycompanyname].com. Of course, they need the .net, .org, and all the other domain extensions. You combine that with the fact that there are more and more companies out there, and you get a name shortage. It was only a matter of time.
If you create a startup, you have three choices for your company name:
- Use your name, your family name, and/or an amalgam of the cofounders' names;
- Use an annoying word play, or be clever enough to find a good unused combination ("Facebook" is a book of faces... "Groupon" is the concept of buying coupons as a group... effective names, but slightly annoying); or
- Make something up.
But these names are easy to forget, and it's only the tip of the iceberg. The current trend is five or six letters, two syllables names. What will happen when these easier names are depleted? Yeah, three syllables names, even harder to remember. "Mufygo" will one day pop-up as a name (assuming, of course, that "Mufy", "Mugo", and "Fygo" are not already taken) , and that name will sound even less like a real word. Where will it end?
Domain Extensions
Adding new domain extensions (like .com or .net) will not solve the problem. Companies will get their extension before someone else gets it (more than likely for scamming purposes), possibly getting a first shot (remember the new .xxx extension?).
Companies will have to rely on country extensions (.ca) more and more, then administrative region extensions (.on.ca). But this is a very short-lived solution.
This will have to change soon, before companies start being created and known by a number.
Conclusion
In guess anyone could predict that in 2 years, the pool of two syllables names will start drying up. In 5 to 10 years, it will be the three syllables names' turn. By then, the need for a revolution on the web will be clear.
I can't begin to imagine what kind of revolution we're talking about (the people who will come up with it are paid about 5-10x more than me). One thing is for sure: we will need a way to easily reference an infinity of companies.
2011/12/20
Evolution - Holding It
The other day, I was going back home after a lunch in a restaurant. I had drunk a lot of water and a large beer, and didn't go to the toilet before leaving. Through the drive back, the urge to pee was rising, and I analyzed what was happening to me. I noticed four distinct phases, but they are very hard to describe, and out of scope. (Easier to describe was that, in the third phase, heat rushed to my head.)
Describing the urinary system is also out of scope. What this post is about is that the experience led me to wonder why, in an evolutionary point of view, we have the ability to "hold it in". After all, in nature, what difference would it make to pee uncontrollably where we stand?
It took me a couple minutes to find out the most likely reason. Urine is used to mark territory, but also gives position. A prey hiding from a predator would easily be found if his system decided to release.
Also, an animal peeing in its den (for example), would give its den's position (and its babies) as surely as a flashing red light at the entrance.
Over millions of years, a sphincter was slowly formed to stop the flow, until voluntarily released. Those with a stronger sphincter had a bit less chance to be found, and through natural selection, we have a sphincter today.
An interesting thing to know would be if the sphincter can be exercised to be stronger.
Describing the urinary system is also out of scope. What this post is about is that the experience led me to wonder why, in an evolutionary point of view, we have the ability to "hold it in". After all, in nature, what difference would it make to pee uncontrollably where we stand?
It took me a couple minutes to find out the most likely reason. Urine is used to mark territory, but also gives position. A prey hiding from a predator would easily be found if his system decided to release.
Also, an animal peeing in its den (for example), would give its den's position (and its babies) as surely as a flashing red light at the entrance.
Over millions of years, a sphincter was slowly formed to stop the flow, until voluntarily released. Those with a stronger sphincter had a bit less chance to be found, and through natural selection, we have a sphincter today.
An interesting thing to know would be if the sphincter can be exercised to be stronger.
2011/12/16
Emotional Eating
I talked in a recent post about a particular Saturday evening. I wanted to watch two movies and eat some emotions - the worst kind.
I started cooking the spaghetti while eating a jalapeño & cheddar Doritos bag and browsing available movies on iTunes. I settled on watching Harry Potter 7a and 7b.
My plate of spaghetti was pretty large. I sat down, opened my bottle of red wine, and tried to rent the first movie. To my dismay, I couldn't rent it (it was the only movie in the series that I couldn't rent, which was weird). The actual download was 10$, so I bought the movie instead, but that started an hour-long download.
I looked at my plate and sighed, and spent the next hour eating and browsing reddit. When the download was ready, I watched it, and before the end credits were rolling, the bottle of wine and the Doritos bag were empty.
I already knew the second movie rental was accessible (the button was there, after all). So I rented it, but that also started an hour-long download. These two movies were my first experience with iTunes movies. I was pissed off that there was no possibility of streaming, and that I had to wait a total of two hours. I spent the next hour sulking on reddit, and eating a muffin bar.
When the movie was finally ready, I watched it by first opening a bag of jalapeño & cheddar Lays Kettle (I only ate half of it, though), and around the half-mark, opened and finished a Häagen-Dazs strawberry ice cream.
Why?
I ate emotions (junk food) because I wanted to think about something else (the cause of that evening). Just watching the movies would have been easily enough, but the act of eating is evolutionary satisfying, especially carbohydrates and fats. What better food to eat for a carbs and fats boost? Fast food. Most people are compelled to eat like that, and an evening of unrestrained eating can feel good at an emotional level, and also temporarily at a physical level.
I could have gone for a run. I could have started a drawing, visited my sister, baked anything, or created something by hands. I could have read a book, or browsed Wikipedia. I could have done a lot of things that would have helped my mind off.
Sometimes, I just don't care. I figure if I eat like that 2 or 3 times a year, it can't be that bad, can it? Turns out that yes, it can be very bad for your health, mental and physical, short-term and long-term. But it was one of these days when nothing matters, and you just want to sit down, watch a movie, and eat.
I started cooking the spaghetti while eating a jalapeño & cheddar Doritos bag and browsing available movies on iTunes. I settled on watching Harry Potter 7a and 7b.
My plate of spaghetti was pretty large. I sat down, opened my bottle of red wine, and tried to rent the first movie. To my dismay, I couldn't rent it (it was the only movie in the series that I couldn't rent, which was weird). The actual download was 10$, so I bought the movie instead, but that started an hour-long download.
I looked at my plate and sighed, and spent the next hour eating and browsing reddit. When the download was ready, I watched it, and before the end credits were rolling, the bottle of wine and the Doritos bag were empty.
I already knew the second movie rental was accessible (the button was there, after all). So I rented it, but that also started an hour-long download. These two movies were my first experience with iTunes movies. I was pissed off that there was no possibility of streaming, and that I had to wait a total of two hours. I spent the next hour sulking on reddit, and eating a muffin bar.
When the movie was finally ready, I watched it by first opening a bag of jalapeño & cheddar Lays Kettle (I only ate half of it, though), and around the half-mark, opened and finished a Häagen-Dazs strawberry ice cream.
Why?
I ate emotions (junk food) because I wanted to think about something else (the cause of that evening). Just watching the movies would have been easily enough, but the act of eating is evolutionary satisfying, especially carbohydrates and fats. What better food to eat for a carbs and fats boost? Fast food. Most people are compelled to eat like that, and an evening of unrestrained eating can feel good at an emotional level, and also temporarily at a physical level.
I could have gone for a run. I could have started a drawing, visited my sister, baked anything, or created something by hands. I could have read a book, or browsed Wikipedia. I could have done a lot of things that would have helped my mind off.
Sometimes, I just don't care. I figure if I eat like that 2 or 3 times a year, it can't be that bad, can it? Turns out that yes, it can be very bad for your health, mental and physical, short-term and long-term. But it was one of these days when nothing matters, and you just want to sit down, watch a movie, and eat.
2011/12/13
Google vs Apple
If you often read my posts, you know that I eagerly await the next generation of smartphones and tablets. When the next iPhone 5 and iPad 3 will come out (supposedly around mid-2012), I will do my best to compare both with their equivalent on the android's side, with Samsung hardware (probably). Then, I will buy my first tablet, and my first smartphone. Yes, I still have one of these old cell, but I don't care, since I do about 5-10 minutes of talking and 0 text messages.
I also don't really care about the specs, except the basic ones (like resolution and IO jacks). By the way, we're finally at a time when the resolution of small gadgets is at its maximum. Even when looked at very close, a 500dpi screen will not need more resolution - the human eyes will not see it. Finally, the companies will be able to concentrate on other points.
What I want is user-experience, and a flawless interaction between the applications. I think both Apple and Google do that well. People may tell me that Google's applications are not user-friendly, but I never had any problem using them. So for the last few months, and until the new devices appear, I gave and took back points to these companies.
My interest changes back and forth between the two companies, and will probably be settled for a long time once I make up my mind and buy the devices.
I already use a lot of Google's web applications. I also like how they have a vision, especially concerning the user interface. They sometimes make decisions that are counter-intuitive, but these may well become the next interfaces if they play their cards right.
I also like how Apple brings everything together. It's like a whole family of products. Everything is user friendly and intuitive. Google is available on many mobile brands, so there's a bit more research to do if you want the best hardware.
You pay for Apple, and you get ads with Google. I can't decide which is better. I prefer to buy, for example, an app, that has a one-time cost. If I have to pay every month, it can get expensive very quickly, so for a service, I'd go with ads. If the company does its job well, it can have a service at a very low price, and I'll be interested in it. Netflix, for instance, costs 8$ per months to watch movies. That's a pretty low cost, considering that the alternative of getting cable can easily cost 25$/month.
Storage on the cloud is very different, though. You have a 5GB storage on the iCloud (Apple), and can pay 20$ per year for an additional 10GB. With Google, you ahve a mixed amount of storage depending on the application, and can pay 20$ per year for 80GB. That's a huge difference that Apple will have to address. You can get an external storage provider, for example dropbox, but it's 10$ per month for 50GB, so even more expensive than Apple.
Apple has more users, but only because it's been there longer. Google is rising, and is the top provider in all the world except North America. Also, Apple has a very good reputation, and reportedly has a very good customer support. Their clients are loyal.
One thing is for sure: this will be a tough decision.
I also don't really care about the specs, except the basic ones (like resolution and IO jacks). By the way, we're finally at a time when the resolution of small gadgets is at its maximum. Even when looked at very close, a 500dpi screen will not need more resolution - the human eyes will not see it. Finally, the companies will be able to concentrate on other points.
What I want is user-experience, and a flawless interaction between the applications. I think both Apple and Google do that well. People may tell me that Google's applications are not user-friendly, but I never had any problem using them. So for the last few months, and until the new devices appear, I gave and took back points to these companies.
My interest changes back and forth between the two companies, and will probably be settled for a long time once I make up my mind and buy the devices.
I already use a lot of Google's web applications. I also like how they have a vision, especially concerning the user interface. They sometimes make decisions that are counter-intuitive, but these may well become the next interfaces if they play their cards right.
I also like how Apple brings everything together. It's like a whole family of products. Everything is user friendly and intuitive. Google is available on many mobile brands, so there's a bit more research to do if you want the best hardware.
You pay for Apple, and you get ads with Google. I can't decide which is better. I prefer to buy, for example, an app, that has a one-time cost. If I have to pay every month, it can get expensive very quickly, so for a service, I'd go with ads. If the company does its job well, it can have a service at a very low price, and I'll be interested in it. Netflix, for instance, costs 8$ per months to watch movies. That's a pretty low cost, considering that the alternative of getting cable can easily cost 25$/month.
Storage on the cloud is very different, though. You have a 5GB storage on the iCloud (Apple), and can pay 20$ per year for an additional 10GB. With Google, you ahve a mixed amount of storage depending on the application, and can pay 20$ per year for 80GB. That's a huge difference that Apple will have to address. You can get an external storage provider, for example dropbox, but it's 10$ per month for 50GB, so even more expensive than Apple.
Apple has more users, but only because it's been there longer. Google is rising, and is the top provider in all the world except North America. Also, Apple has a very good reputation, and reportedly has a very good customer support. Their clients are loyal.
One thing is for sure: this will be a tough decision.
2011/12/09
Movie Rental Rant
Let me share a story that happened very recently. I stopped watching movies and tv series several months ago, because they seemed like a waste of time that could be better spent elsewhere. A few months ago, I got ill, and stayed in the living room for the whole day - what better reason would I need to watch movies?
I went to YouTube and noticed they now had a movie rental service (I just didn't know at the time). I watched 5 movies during that day. It did cost a lot - about the same price I would get if I got out of my apartment to the nearest video location center, and rented these new movies one-by-one (no economy of scale). They were all streaming, so I could watch them immediately.
YouTube (Google):
This was only a tiny complaint about the renting process, but as I was writing the post, the scope became broader. A post will follow in the future where I will talk about my vision concerning these services, especially Google vs. Apple.
I went to YouTube and noticed they now had a movie rental service (I just didn't know at the time). I watched 5 movies during that day. It did cost a lot - about the same price I would get if I got out of my apartment to the nearest video location center, and rented these new movies one-by-one (no economy of scale). They were all streaming, so I could watch them immediately.
YouTube (Google):
- Price: 5/10. The price was decent (4$, if I remember). Constant price;
- Experience: 8/10. Video quality was okay, and I could watch the movies straight away;
- Movies: 5/10. Video selection was mediocre - the new movies were not available.
Just a few weeks ago, I had a lot of emotions to eat. It was Saturday evening, I had work the next day, but I didn't care. I wanted to eat a lot while watching the last two Harry Potter movies, and I was prepared to go to the Videotron (video location) close to where I live.
YouTube didn't have anything - they didn't even have the 6th movie. I decided to check iTunes' selection before going out. To my surprise, they had everything, at 5$ per rent (which was also decent, though borderline expensive). I decide to rent the first half of HP7 - what? I can't? That's the only movie in the HP series that I can't rent. That's weird, but the price if I actually buy the movie is 10$, so I buy it instead. The download of 1.8GB begins. I wanted to watch the movie right now, but hey... I'll have the movie on my computer. I wait an hour, watch the movie, and rent the last movie (the only one I never saw).
The download begins again. You've got to be kidding me! I want to get a stream, not some... gaah! Fine, I'll spend the next hour on reddit again. The download completes, I watch the movie, and go to bed.
iTunes (Apple):
- Price: 4/10. A bit pricier than I wanted to pay, but still decent. Constant price;
- Experience: 3/10. No streaming. I had to wait two hours for the downloads to complete.
- Movies: 9/10. Great movie selection.
My movie-rental experience was flawed whatever service I chose. Aside from price, what I want is the ability to either download or get a stream. Getting a download would be useful if I plan on watching a movie in a train. Getting a stream would be useful if I plan to watch the movie a second time at my sister's place, or if I want to watch the movie right away! This is especially disconcerting with Apple's renting process. Please don't bother me with such a huge download if I only want to watch the movie once...
This was only a tiny complaint about the renting process, but as I was writing the post, the scope became broader. A post will follow in the future where I will talk about my vision concerning these services, especially Google vs. Apple.
2011/12/06
Christmas
The Christmas period can be really hard on the wallet. How much do you spend on presents, when the average spent by adults is around to 1000-1500$? We are compelled to buy very expensive presents, because the society we live in slowly brainwashed us into thinking that love is proportionally quantified to the gift price. This is a very smart system implanted by the stores and financial institutions.
If you don't believe me, you can check the ads in december. For example, I have beside me a "Gift Guide" from Apple. Yes, the iPad 2 is in it (650$+), and so are the iMac (1200$+) and MacBook Air (1000$+). Who buys presents at that price? Companies say it's ok to spend that much, so people listen to them.
In my family, we have turned our back on such practices. Christmas 2011 will be the second such Christmas. It plays out like this: we have a designated name (chosen at random) beforehand, set a maximum price (we usually go for around 25$), and set how many "small gifts" to prepare (depending on how long you want the evening). That means everyone bring one single "bigger gift", and a number of "small gifts". These "small gifts" should be inexpensive (eg. a special chocolate bar, a tennis ball, a rubik's cube you found in your basement, a few cookies you made...), and are exchanged for fun.
This kind of gift exchange is for a group of adults. Let's admit it - Christmas should be for kids! We buy slightly more expensive presents for each of them - usually, 25-50$ should be enough. No need to break your credit card limit, and no need for a 200$ gift. We all know that children can have more fun with a huge cardboard box than with almost anything.
We usually end up spending less than 150$ each (there are three kids in my family - my sister's). We feel better about ourselves, our wallets thank us, and we can put more emphasis on good food. We can focus more on children, and us all being together. We can have fun, instead of having that nagging feeling in our head that asks you how you're going to pay your credit card debt in January.
I admit - this is very hard to implement and accept. You will all feel cheap, fell that the other person will think you don't love him/her if you don't give the perfect gift. You will look at the neighbors' Christmas tree filled with colorful gifts. But then, you will mature and really understand what Christmas should be about.
Some Mathematics
Every year we have been doing this, we ran into some statistical problems when choosing the gift target at random. We each get a piece of paper with a name on it from a hat. Done manually like that, chances are on one turn, someone will get an invalid name, because you can't have your own name, and we also decided that you can't get your significant other's.
In our case, we have two couples (my parents and my sister+boyfriend, plus myself). Lets get this step by step...
At the simplest, everyone gets someone else's name (the couples don't count), and all pieces of paper are put back in the hat. Everyone has 4 / 5 chances of getting a valid name, which results in ( 4 / 5 ) ^ 5 = 1024 / 3125, or 32.8%.
If the names are not put back in the hat, we fall into a derangement. For 5 people, !n / n! = 44 / 120, or 36.7%.
If the names are put back, but the couples count, we have 4 persons with 3 / 5 chances, and one with 4 / 5 (me). That results in ( 3 / 5 ) ^ 4 × ( 4 / 5 ) = 324 / 3125, or 10.4%.
The calculation gets pretty complicated if the names are kept, and the couples count. Maybe I'll try working out a general equation about this in a future post. Turns out there's only 16 possibilities on 120, or 13.3%. This is why we had to retry again and again (for an average of 120 / 16 = 7.5 times).
Statistics...
Edit: the final statistics should be linked to the Rencontres Numbers, but I don't get exactly the same numbers when I manually calculate the possible permutations.
If you don't believe me, you can check the ads in december. For example, I have beside me a "Gift Guide" from Apple. Yes, the iPad 2 is in it (650$+), and so are the iMac (1200$+) and MacBook Air (1000$+). Who buys presents at that price? Companies say it's ok to spend that much, so people listen to them.
In my family, we have turned our back on such practices. Christmas 2011 will be the second such Christmas. It plays out like this: we have a designated name (chosen at random) beforehand, set a maximum price (we usually go for around 25$), and set how many "small gifts" to prepare (depending on how long you want the evening). That means everyone bring one single "bigger gift", and a number of "small gifts". These "small gifts" should be inexpensive (eg. a special chocolate bar, a tennis ball, a rubik's cube you found in your basement, a few cookies you made...), and are exchanged for fun.
This kind of gift exchange is for a group of adults. Let's admit it - Christmas should be for kids! We buy slightly more expensive presents for each of them - usually, 25-50$ should be enough. No need to break your credit card limit, and no need for a 200$ gift. We all know that children can have more fun with a huge cardboard box than with almost anything.
We usually end up spending less than 150$ each (there are three kids in my family - my sister's). We feel better about ourselves, our wallets thank us, and we can put more emphasis on good food. We can focus more on children, and us all being together. We can have fun, instead of having that nagging feeling in our head that asks you how you're going to pay your credit card debt in January.
I admit - this is very hard to implement and accept. You will all feel cheap, fell that the other person will think you don't love him/her if you don't give the perfect gift. You will look at the neighbors' Christmas tree filled with colorful gifts. But then, you will mature and really understand what Christmas should be about.
Some Mathematics
Every year we have been doing this, we ran into some statistical problems when choosing the gift target at random. We each get a piece of paper with a name on it from a hat. Done manually like that, chances are on one turn, someone will get an invalid name, because you can't have your own name, and we also decided that you can't get your significant other's.
In our case, we have two couples (my parents and my sister+boyfriend, plus myself). Lets get this step by step...
At the simplest, everyone gets someone else's name (the couples don't count), and all pieces of paper are put back in the hat. Everyone has 4 / 5 chances of getting a valid name, which results in ( 4 / 5 ) ^ 5 = 1024 / 3125, or 32.8%.
If the names are not put back in the hat, we fall into a derangement. For 5 people, !n / n! = 44 / 120, or 36.7%.
If the names are put back, but the couples count, we have 4 persons with 3 / 5 chances, and one with 4 / 5 (me). That results in ( 3 / 5 ) ^ 4 × ( 4 / 5 ) = 324 / 3125, or 10.4%.
The calculation gets pretty complicated if the names are kept, and the couples count. Maybe I'll try working out a general equation about this in a future post. Turns out there's only 16 possibilities on 120, or 13.3%. This is why we had to retry again and again (for an average of 120 / 16 = 7.5 times).
Statistics...
Edit: the final statistics should be linked to the Rencontres Numbers, but I don't get exactly the same numbers when I manually calculate the possible permutations.
2011/12/02
Saying Hello
You are walking on the street, and someone happens to walk the other way, towards you. What do you do? Do you look straight ahead, look down, or look at the stranger? Do you take your phone out and pretend you are busy?
I wasn't always like this, but when I cross someone, I look them in the eye. If that person looks back, there is usually an acknowledgement ("good day", a nod, a wave, a smile...). Thing is, practically nobody looks back. It's as if everyone wanted to be left alone in their own world, and not have anything to do with anyone. Or they instinctively feel I am not worthy or their time. But doing that enabled me to notice trends, and these are the major ones I saw, in generally-decreasing order of importance.
(Only one-on-one standard encounters are looked into. No group of thugs, no hobo-looking creepy, no drunk, no cell phone, no baseball bat... These would just drop the probability to near-zero. Just basic and normal situations here.)
Activity
If you and a stranger are doing something similar, there is a high probability of acknowledgement. For example, if you are both jogging, walking a dog, etc.
Age
The older you are, the more likely you are to acknowledge a stranger walking on the street. Old people seem to be very friendly. Teenagers and young adults rarely have visual contact with strangers on the street.
Time of Day
A surprise here. If I didn't notice that myself, I never thought that the time of day was such an important factor. Basically, people are a lot friendlier in the morning. This could be because in the evening, we have a whole day of work or stress on our shoulders, and we want to be done with it. I couldn't really notice anything about when it is still dark in the morning. It seems to be linked more to the time since waking up, than the time since sunrise.
Weather
A beautiful sunny day gets me more "hello" than a cloudy one. On rainy days, people are sulky. I also noticed that when it's a beautiful day right after an ugly day, people are happier.
Gender
That was an easy one. Women acknowledge strangers more often. I don't think it's because I'm a guy, mostly because of the "age" point here.
Location
If you are on opposite sides of the road, chances are that there won't be any acknowledgement. Same if you are both walking in the same direction.
Conclusion
On average, I'd say about 10-25% of strangers have a visual contact with me, followed by an acknowledgement. When I run, it drops to about 1%, except when the stranger is also running, in which case it's about 95%. It's the only case I know when I can wave to someone across the street.
One man I see once in a while when I walk to work in the morning greets me with a very loud and clear "Good day, sir!". This cheers me up and brightens my morning even more.
I wasn't always like this, but when I cross someone, I look them in the eye. If that person looks back, there is usually an acknowledgement ("good day", a nod, a wave, a smile...). Thing is, practically nobody looks back. It's as if everyone wanted to be left alone in their own world, and not have anything to do with anyone. Or they instinctively feel I am not worthy or their time. But doing that enabled me to notice trends, and these are the major ones I saw, in generally-decreasing order of importance.
(Only one-on-one standard encounters are looked into. No group of thugs, no hobo-looking creepy, no drunk, no cell phone, no baseball bat... These would just drop the probability to near-zero. Just basic and normal situations here.)
Activity
If you and a stranger are doing something similar, there is a high probability of acknowledgement. For example, if you are both jogging, walking a dog, etc.
Age
The older you are, the more likely you are to acknowledge a stranger walking on the street. Old people seem to be very friendly. Teenagers and young adults rarely have visual contact with strangers on the street.
Time of Day
A surprise here. If I didn't notice that myself, I never thought that the time of day was such an important factor. Basically, people are a lot friendlier in the morning. This could be because in the evening, we have a whole day of work or stress on our shoulders, and we want to be done with it. I couldn't really notice anything about when it is still dark in the morning. It seems to be linked more to the time since waking up, than the time since sunrise.
Weather
A beautiful sunny day gets me more "hello" than a cloudy one. On rainy days, people are sulky. I also noticed that when it's a beautiful day right after an ugly day, people are happier.
Gender
That was an easy one. Women acknowledge strangers more often. I don't think it's because I'm a guy, mostly because of the "age" point here.
Location
If you are on opposite sides of the road, chances are that there won't be any acknowledgement. Same if you are both walking in the same direction.
Conclusion
On average, I'd say about 10-25% of strangers have a visual contact with me, followed by an acknowledgement. When I run, it drops to about 1%, except when the stranger is also running, in which case it's about 95%. It's the only case I know when I can wave to someone across the street.
One man I see once in a while when I walk to work in the morning greets me with a very loud and clear "Good day, sir!". This cheers me up and brightens my morning even more.
2011/11/29
Suspense at the Gym
Imagine the following... You're on your back, doing your last repetition of bench press. You put a bit more weight than usual (80kg, actually), and with a last feat of strength and a distorted smile of triumph, you complete the rep and put the bar back. You take a breath to savor the moment, stand up, take a sip of water from your bottle, and go to the side to take the weights off. Wait, what are you doing?
There's a lot of weight on the other side of the bar! Won't the bar flip over if you take the weights off on this side? Do you have to go back and forth and gradually take the weights off? You don't know what to do, you're kinda scared to remove the weights, you're still panting, and you suddenly wish you'd read a blog talking about pivot points.
Center of Mass
A typical olympic bar weighs 20kg (45 lbs), and you put 80kg in weights, which totals to 100 kg. When the weights are on each side, the system's center of mass is at the middle.
What happens when the weights on one side are removed? The center of mass is shifted towards the weighted side. The bar will flip if the center of mass goes beyond the hook.
So, will 40kg of weight be enough to flip the bar?
The Barbell
First, let's define the barbell and weight plates. Everything is different everywhere, but I'm trying to stay as close to reality as possible. The barbell we're using is based on a normal olympic barbell. Assuming a constant volumetric mass (density), you can get the weight of the different components.
Let's also define our weight plate set.
Let's also assume that, with your current set-up, the hook (pivot point) is 0.100 meter (10 centimeters) from the larger part where you put the weights, so 0.545 meter from the end. Also, for the example, your 40 kg weight plates are: 3× 10 kg + 2× 5 kg.
40 Kilograms on One Side
How can you know if the bar is going to fall? The farther from the pivot point a weight is, the heavier its impact will be. For example, if you have a 5 kg weight 0.1 meter from the pivot, its impact will be less than the same weight a meter away. As a matter of fact, it will have ten times less impact (1 ÷ 0.1).
It's not so easy, though. We don't have pinpoint weights. They are spread out, so we need to use integrals. Let's first calculate how the barbell will act around the pivot point.
You can calculate how much the weight is spread out by dividing the weight by its length. For example, the 10 kg weight is spread over 0.026 meter, so it is 10kg / 0.026m = 385kg/m. This will be used during the integral calculations.
Now, the farther the weight is, the more impact it has on the system. This is linearly proportional to the distance.
By calculating the area under the curve (the integral), we can compare the two sides of the pivot. The heavier side will win and bring the bar down. Of course, if the left side is heavier, the bar will just rest on the left hook and stay there.
With some calculations (which will be seen shortly), we can learn that the left side is 13.28kg·m, or equivalent to a 13.28kg weight placed a meter away from the pivot, while the right side is equivalent to a 12.17kg weight a meter on the other side. For simplicity, this will be called the impact.
Left side is heavier, so that's enough to keep the bar on the hooks, but the choice of weights could definitely be better. The weights that are farther have a lot more impact - the two 5kg have a 4.76kg·m impact, compared to the three 10kg's 5.23kg·m impact. If we would have chosen four 10kg, they would have had a total impact of 7.49kg·m. Two 20kg would have a 6.8kg·m impact.
Mathematics
What is the impact of the barbell alone? We can split the bar into its constituents, depending on the position.
We can formulate the following integrals
and, knowing the density of the constituents and their position, calculate everything.
That means that if the added weights' impact is less than 11.1kg·m (13.28 - 2.18), the bar will not fall.
The rest is similar. If you have, for example, a stack of twenty 1.25kg, their impact will be 8.375kg·m (integral from 0.135m to 0.535m, with density 62.5kg/m).
When Will the Bar Fall?
Turns out that for normal weight ranges, it's pretty hard to make the bar fall.
If you take a single 25kg weight and place it at the very end, it will be enough to cause a crash. A single 20kg at the end will not, though.
Under a smart weight selection, three 20kg weights will be just enough to tilt the bar. If it happens, it means you were bench-pressing 120kg (264lbs), and at that weight, you should have a spotter.
There's a lot of weight on the other side of the bar! Won't the bar flip over if you take the weights off on this side? Do you have to go back and forth and gradually take the weights off? You don't know what to do, you're kinda scared to remove the weights, you're still panting, and you suddenly wish you'd read a blog talking about pivot points.
Center of Mass
A typical olympic bar weighs 20kg (45 lbs), and you put 80kg in weights, which totals to 100 kg. When the weights are on each side, the system's center of mass is at the middle.
What happens when the weights on one side are removed? The center of mass is shifted towards the weighted side. The bar will flip if the center of mass goes beyond the hook.
So, will 40kg of weight be enough to flip the bar?
The Barbell
First, let's define the barbell and weight plates. Everything is different everywhere, but I'm trying to stay as close to reality as possible. The barbell we're using is based on a normal olympic barbell. Assuming a constant volumetric mass (density), you can get the weight of the different components.
Let's also define our weight plate set.
Let's also assume that, with your current set-up, the hook (pivot point) is 0.100 meter (10 centimeters) from the larger part where you put the weights, so 0.545 meter from the end. Also, for the example, your 40 kg weight plates are: 3× 10 kg + 2× 5 kg.
40 Kilograms on One Side
How can you know if the bar is going to fall? The farther from the pivot point a weight is, the heavier its impact will be. For example, if you have a 5 kg weight 0.1 meter from the pivot, its impact will be less than the same weight a meter away. As a matter of fact, it will have ten times less impact (1 ÷ 0.1).
It's not so easy, though. We don't have pinpoint weights. They are spread out, so we need to use integrals. Let's first calculate how the barbell will act around the pivot point.
You can calculate how much the weight is spread out by dividing the weight by its length. For example, the 10 kg weight is spread over 0.026 meter, so it is 10kg / 0.026m = 385kg/m. This will be used during the integral calculations.
Now, the farther the weight is, the more impact it has on the system. This is linearly proportional to the distance.
By calculating the area under the curve (the integral), we can compare the two sides of the pivot. The heavier side will win and bring the bar down. Of course, if the left side is heavier, the bar will just rest on the left hook and stay there.
With some calculations (which will be seen shortly), we can learn that the left side is 13.28kg·m, or equivalent to a 13.28kg weight placed a meter away from the pivot, while the right side is equivalent to a 12.17kg weight a meter on the other side. For simplicity, this will be called the impact.
Left side is heavier, so that's enough to keep the bar on the hooks, but the choice of weights could definitely be better. The weights that are farther have a lot more impact - the two 5kg have a 4.76kg·m impact, compared to the three 10kg's 5.23kg·m impact. If we would have chosen four 10kg, they would have had a total impact of 7.49kg·m. Two 20kg would have a 6.8kg·m impact.
Mathematics
What is the impact of the barbell alone? We can split the bar into its constituents, depending on the position.
We can formulate the following integrals
and, knowing the density of the constituents and their position, calculate everything.
The rest is similar. If you have, for example, a stack of twenty 1.25kg, their impact will be 8.375kg·m (integral from 0.135m to 0.535m, with density 62.5kg/m).
When Will the Bar Fall?
Turns out that for normal weight ranges, it's pretty hard to make the bar fall.
If you take a single 25kg weight and place it at the very end, it will be enough to cause a crash. A single 20kg at the end will not, though.
Under a smart weight selection, three 20kg weights will be just enough to tilt the bar. If it happens, it means you were bench-pressing 120kg (264lbs), and at that weight, you should have a spotter.
2011/11/25
Minimalism in the Living Room
Ever since I had enough money to buy a computer, I always had the huge powerful ones. At first it was the games, then the video-editing, then just because I wanted the latest technology so that my applications would run quickly and smoothly.
That changed recently as I began to understand the rise of web applications and decentralization. Software is now run on servers, and their interface shown to you through your selected browser. Cross-platform is less and less a problem, though it now lies with cross-browser. Your photos, files, and data are on the cloud. The time when the only thing you need is a browser is quickly coming.
I want to get rid of my huge computer. I also have a handy laptop, and if possible, I'd like to get rid of it too. I want to clean the living room, and be able to look around and not feel visually attacked by all the things around me!
A part of my job is to design web sites, and I've become more and more interested in minimalism, or at least in a way to show the data in the most simple way. User experience is very important, and rely in small part on removing the useless visual clutters. Why not do the same in my living room? I look around... The kitchen is not bad - a couple fruits slowly ripening on the counter, and some small appliances in a corner next to the window. The living room is something else. Clockwise: a bookcase with some books, movies, and random stuff, followed by a huge thousand-dollar desk, a seldom-used PS3, a 32" LCD TV, a 21" LCD monitor, and a laser printer. Under the desk, partially hidden by an expensive wheeled chair, lies the beast, casting a blue glow on a huge powerbar and a web of wires and cords.
What if I sell the monitor, give the computer and printer to someone, sell the bookcase, build a smaller one, sell the huge desk, hang the TV on the wall, and build a minimalist place to store the PS3 and the few movies? I could even get rid of the PS3 and buy a blu-ray reader. How would that look?
I stopped video-editing a couple years ago, but I am still using my computer to draw and to program, with the occasional movie. I think everything else I do these days is through the internet. I guess I could do that with my laptop, but I feel the wind of change is stronger than that. I want to change everything. I want my home experience (related to computers) to be limited to a tablet (Apple or Samsung - I haven't made my choice yet).
After some searching, I learned that it is possible to use a Wacom tablet on the web, which means it is possible to draw without the need for an installed application. I first tried the deviantART Muro web app, made a drawing, and then found out they don't have a crop tool. The drawing was ok, though, once I got used to it (about 5 minutes). There is also Autodesk's Sketchbook, a 50$ windows application, which can be had as an iPad app for 5$. Didn't try it yet, but it looks promising, if you combine it with a Wacom pen for the iPad. I'll have to test these.
Second is the programming. It seems Cloud9 has good reviews. You can set it to work on a GitHub account pretty easily. At work, I program with Visual Studio, and I guess I could use the opportunity to finally learn the simpler and more attractive Python / Django at home. Didn't do much research on that, but programming on the web sure seems easier said than done. Maybe I could completely stop programming at home? Or maybe stay an hour or two after work to continue my personal projects? I could then spend my free time to read, or take a walk...
For the movies, there is of course streaming web sites like Netflix. Also, the movies you buy can be bought as downloads (iTunes). I'll have to check if I can output a movie from the iPad to the tv...
I'll wait for the iPad 3 and the next Samsung tablet, and compare the two. Then I'll make a decision about my living room.
That changed recently as I began to understand the rise of web applications and decentralization. Software is now run on servers, and their interface shown to you through your selected browser. Cross-platform is less and less a problem, though it now lies with cross-browser. Your photos, files, and data are on the cloud. The time when the only thing you need is a browser is quickly coming.
I want to get rid of my huge computer. I also have a handy laptop, and if possible, I'd like to get rid of it too. I want to clean the living room, and be able to look around and not feel visually attacked by all the things around me!
A part of my job is to design web sites, and I've become more and more interested in minimalism, or at least in a way to show the data in the most simple way. User experience is very important, and rely in small part on removing the useless visual clutters. Why not do the same in my living room? I look around... The kitchen is not bad - a couple fruits slowly ripening on the counter, and some small appliances in a corner next to the window. The living room is something else. Clockwise: a bookcase with some books, movies, and random stuff, followed by a huge thousand-dollar desk, a seldom-used PS3, a 32" LCD TV, a 21" LCD monitor, and a laser printer. Under the desk, partially hidden by an expensive wheeled chair, lies the beast, casting a blue glow on a huge powerbar and a web of wires and cords.
What if I sell the monitor, give the computer and printer to someone, sell the bookcase, build a smaller one, sell the huge desk, hang the TV on the wall, and build a minimalist place to store the PS3 and the few movies? I could even get rid of the PS3 and buy a blu-ray reader. How would that look?
I stopped video-editing a couple years ago, but I am still using my computer to draw and to program, with the occasional movie. I think everything else I do these days is through the internet. I guess I could do that with my laptop, but I feel the wind of change is stronger than that. I want to change everything. I want my home experience (related to computers) to be limited to a tablet (Apple or Samsung - I haven't made my choice yet).
After some searching, I learned that it is possible to use a Wacom tablet on the web, which means it is possible to draw without the need for an installed application. I first tried the deviantART Muro web app, made a drawing, and then found out they don't have a crop tool. The drawing was ok, though, once I got used to it (about 5 minutes). There is also Autodesk's Sketchbook, a 50$ windows application, which can be had as an iPad app for 5$. Didn't try it yet, but it looks promising, if you combine it with a Wacom pen for the iPad. I'll have to test these.
Second is the programming. It seems Cloud9 has good reviews. You can set it to work on a GitHub account pretty easily. At work, I program with Visual Studio, and I guess I could use the opportunity to finally learn the simpler and more attractive Python / Django at home. Didn't do much research on that, but programming on the web sure seems easier said than done. Maybe I could completely stop programming at home? Or maybe stay an hour or two after work to continue my personal projects? I could then spend my free time to read, or take a walk...
For the movies, there is of course streaming web sites like Netflix. Also, the movies you buy can be bought as downloads (iTunes). I'll have to check if I can output a movie from the iPad to the tv...
I'll wait for the iPad 3 and the next Samsung tablet, and compare the two. Then I'll make a decision about my living room.
2011/11/22
Working Parents
A recent trend among couples is that both are working. They meet, get married, have kids, but both are so dependent on material possessions or various expensive services that they continue working and just give their children to some caretaker every day of the week. Or maybe they never thought about it that much, and continued their day-to-day lives. Or maybe they have too much debt...
You rarely saw that in the 1920s, 1950s, even 1980s. Women requested more and more rights, and wanted the freedom to do what they wanted. I'm not saying it's a bad thing (far from it), but a consequence of this newly found financial independence is that they want to keep it, and not rely on someone else. Also, we have a society so centered on material possessions that we are willing to forget family values.
I once started the subject with someone. What she replied was "I went to the university for this job, why would I throw it away?" What better reason would you need than for your children?
Please don't get me wrong - I'm not saying it's because women continued to work, but because both parents kept working. If my future love wants to keep working after we get kids, I'll seriously consider giving up my own job and take care of the kids and the house, all day long.
Think about how your parents were when you were a kid. Chances are that, if you're about my age or older, your mother was staying home. Dad left home in the morning, after breakfast. Mom took care of you, played with you, prepared lunch, did some cleaning, washed some laundry, and prepared the dinner just before dad got back from work. Then what? Both were having a nice evening, doing relaxing things, playing with you, or whatever.
Your mother had a job - a very demanding one, and unpaid, but consider the alternative... Both your parents wake up and hurry to eat breakfast and dress you, and both take their respective car in opposite directions, one of them bringing you to a daycare center. You stay there, playing with friends, until one of your parents come and get you back. Both parents get back home, it's 17h30, dinner is not made, and they hurry to prepare something quick (and unhealthy) before spending the evening doing a batch of laundry and cleaning the kitchen, to finally take a breath 20 minutes in front of the TV before going to bed. You, all that time, couldn't get your parents' attention, and had to play by yourself or with your siblings. And then, it's the weekend, and your parents spend it working and cleaning everything that they didn't have enough time to during the week.
This is a trend, and it's a totally voluntary one. People right now are preferring a life of stress and higher pay grades, instead of spending quality time with their family. Yes, they can afford a 60" plasma TV, and the latest PC, and they can give a smartphone to each of their kids even if they costs 60$ per month. But at what cost?
You mother had a job - and in every aspect of it, it's the most rewarding job ever. You help your kids grow up, see them take their first steps, you're there to hug them when they hurt themselves (they always do), and most important of all, you take your time and give them your values. Not the values of a daycare provider - I'm not saying their values are wrong, just that they are not yours.
That leads me to wonder exactly why our society is like that. What has become of the American dream? Was "keeping up with the Joneses" the problem? I guess it's a possibility. Ads are made in such a way that we feel compelled to buy stuff, all the time. Remember the excitation just before you buy something? It's like a drug. We are fed images of things that we don't need, and are "told" that we "should buy it" because "normal people" have it.
Does a family really need two jobs? It costs an average of 10,000$ per year for daycare, per child. Plus a second car (let's say 5,000$ per year, over five years), plus gas, plus the extra cost of ready-to-eat food... Maybe add to that a vacation, because of the added stress? All these extra expenses that occur only as consequences to having both parents working. After taxes, you're left with a net amount of what... 1,000$? 10,000$? 20,000$?
I urge people to consider a life more centered on family values, and less on material possessions. Do you have debts? Pay it back, and as soon as possible! Buy a used car instead of a brand-new 35,000$ one (or for crying out loud, buy the 20,000$ one!). Do you really need *all* those channels on your tv? Do you really need that expensive piece of clothing with a brand on it? Cook instead of going so often to the restaurant. There are so many expensive things that we don't see around us. And when you are done with your debt, invest what you have left - it will pay in the long run.
Maman, papa, merci du fond du coeur pour ce que vous avez fait pour Mélanie et moi.
You rarely saw that in the 1920s, 1950s, even 1980s. Women requested more and more rights, and wanted the freedom to do what they wanted. I'm not saying it's a bad thing (far from it), but a consequence of this newly found financial independence is that they want to keep it, and not rely on someone else. Also, we have a society so centered on material possessions that we are willing to forget family values.
I once started the subject with someone. What she replied was "I went to the university for this job, why would I throw it away?" What better reason would you need than for your children?
Please don't get me wrong - I'm not saying it's because women continued to work, but because both parents kept working. If my future love wants to keep working after we get kids, I'll seriously consider giving up my own job and take care of the kids and the house, all day long.
Think about how your parents were when you were a kid. Chances are that, if you're about my age or older, your mother was staying home. Dad left home in the morning, after breakfast. Mom took care of you, played with you, prepared lunch, did some cleaning, washed some laundry, and prepared the dinner just before dad got back from work. Then what? Both were having a nice evening, doing relaxing things, playing with you, or whatever.
Your mother had a job - a very demanding one, and unpaid, but consider the alternative... Both your parents wake up and hurry to eat breakfast and dress you, and both take their respective car in opposite directions, one of them bringing you to a daycare center. You stay there, playing with friends, until one of your parents come and get you back. Both parents get back home, it's 17h30, dinner is not made, and they hurry to prepare something quick (and unhealthy) before spending the evening doing a batch of laundry and cleaning the kitchen, to finally take a breath 20 minutes in front of the TV before going to bed. You, all that time, couldn't get your parents' attention, and had to play by yourself or with your siblings. And then, it's the weekend, and your parents spend it working and cleaning everything that they didn't have enough time to during the week.
This is a trend, and it's a totally voluntary one. People right now are preferring a life of stress and higher pay grades, instead of spending quality time with their family. Yes, they can afford a 60" plasma TV, and the latest PC, and they can give a smartphone to each of their kids even if they costs 60$ per month. But at what cost?
You mother had a job - and in every aspect of it, it's the most rewarding job ever. You help your kids grow up, see them take their first steps, you're there to hug them when they hurt themselves (they always do), and most important of all, you take your time and give them your values. Not the values of a daycare provider - I'm not saying their values are wrong, just that they are not yours.
That leads me to wonder exactly why our society is like that. What has become of the American dream? Was "keeping up with the Joneses" the problem? I guess it's a possibility. Ads are made in such a way that we feel compelled to buy stuff, all the time. Remember the excitation just before you buy something? It's like a drug. We are fed images of things that we don't need, and are "told" that we "should buy it" because "normal people" have it.
Does a family really need two jobs? It costs an average of 10,000$ per year for daycare, per child. Plus a second car (let's say 5,000$ per year, over five years), plus gas, plus the extra cost of ready-to-eat food... Maybe add to that a vacation, because of the added stress? All these extra expenses that occur only as consequences to having both parents working. After taxes, you're left with a net amount of what... 1,000$? 10,000$? 20,000$?
I urge people to consider a life more centered on family values, and less on material possessions. Do you have debts? Pay it back, and as soon as possible! Buy a used car instead of a brand-new 35,000$ one (or for crying out loud, buy the 20,000$ one!). Do you really need *all* those channels on your tv? Do you really need that expensive piece of clothing with a brand on it? Cook instead of going so often to the restaurant. There are so many expensive things that we don't see around us. And when you are done with your debt, invest what you have left - it will pay in the long run.
Maman, papa, merci du fond du coeur pour ce que vous avez fait pour Mélanie et moi.
2011/11/18
Happy Birthday!
I learned recently that Time-Warner has the copyright to the song "Happy Birthday to You". Technically, they can sue you if you sing it publicly.
This has got to be the most memorable song everyone sing, every year, since their first birthday. Why is there even a copyright on such a happy song? Because TW reportedly receive around 2 million dollars in royalties, evey year. It can cost several thousand dollars to use the song in a movie. And the suing thing was not even a joke - though they were covered in shame for doing so, some smartass somewhere thought it was worthwhile to sue a group of camping scout girls.
I really need to know what they were thinking, if they really thought they could get a lot of money out of this, and who approved the action. After the media coverage, they apparently settled for a symbolic 1 cent (if I remember correctly?), but the intent was there from the beginning.
Companies like this are the ones that we should boycott, but how exactly can we do that? TW owns New Line Cinema, Time inc, and HBO, along with a dozen other subsidiaries. That's pretty big. We can boycott companies like Sony in favor of Samsung, for example, but if I want to boycott New Line Cinema, I'll notice pretty quickly that no other film studio has another version of the Lord of the Rings.
So I guess my question would be: why the *fuck* isn't Time-Warner giving this song back to the public domain, where it belongs? Yeah, yeah... Money...
This has got to be the most memorable song everyone sing, every year, since their first birthday. Why is there even a copyright on such a happy song? Because TW reportedly receive around 2 million dollars in royalties, evey year. It can cost several thousand dollars to use the song in a movie. And the suing thing was not even a joke - though they were covered in shame for doing so, some smartass somewhere thought it was worthwhile to sue a group of camping scout girls.
I really need to know what they were thinking, if they really thought they could get a lot of money out of this, and who approved the action. After the media coverage, they apparently settled for a symbolic 1 cent (if I remember correctly?), but the intent was there from the beginning.
Companies like this are the ones that we should boycott, but how exactly can we do that? TW owns New Line Cinema, Time inc, and HBO, along with a dozen other subsidiaries. That's pretty big. We can boycott companies like Sony in favor of Samsung, for example, but if I want to boycott New Line Cinema, I'll notice pretty quickly that no other film studio has another version of the Lord of the Rings.
So I guess my question would be: why the *fuck* isn't Time-Warner giving this song back to the public domain, where it belongs? Yeah, yeah... Money...
2011/11/15
Pendulum Waves
Did you see the Pendulum Waves video?
It shows a set of properly configured pendulums. When viewed from the side, the brain can recognize different patterns as the bobs swing back and forth at different speed.
The experiment is set up with 15 bobs. The first one is set to do 51 cycles in 60 seconds, the second is set to do 52 cycles in 60 seconds, all the way to the last bob, which is set to do 65 cycles in 60 seconds.
One Pendulum
Let's look at a single pendulum. You bring the bob at a 30° angle, and let it go. It's position over time would be defined as a sine wave.
Two Pendulums
Let's see what happens if you have two pendulums, but they are not synchronized. Pendulum α does 3 cycles in a second, while pendulum β does only 2. Their displacement over time would look like this:
With this graph, we can easily see that at the beginning and at every second, both pendulums are at the left. Also, at 0.5 and 1.5 seconds, pendulum α is at the right, while pendulum β is at the left. This is what our brain recognize as a pattern.
Fifteen Pendulums
Patterns become more apparent with more pendulums, but they can also look more random. The brain recognize when the bobs form groups that are going in the same way, or form a shape (here, this is typically a wave).
The brain seems to have some difficulties to notice patterns made of five groups and more. Forms can also become hard to notice when there is not enough bobs (resolution) to correctly show the wave. For example, when the bobs are first let go in the video, they form a wave of increasing frequency, until, after about 13 or 14 seconds, the brain can't make out the wave anymore.
Mathematics
The most important thing in the experiment is to carefully time the bobs. How to do that? The formula to find a pendulum's cycle (taken from wikipedia, because this was far beyond my skills) is
Furthermore, the dark-blue curve on the graph is the same curve that the bobs make initially in the video. Trivia: for a bob to oscillate once per minute, it would need a cord almost 1 kilometer long. For it to oscillate once per day, the cord would be longer than the distance from the Sun to Saturn.
I have made a small online calculator for such pendulums. You can find it at my web site. At the time of writing, giving the data to find the angle is not implemented (I will have to code a brute-force algorithm for that, or an approximation), but you can easily find the other data.
It shows a set of properly configured pendulums. When viewed from the side, the brain can recognize different patterns as the bobs swing back and forth at different speed.
The experiment is set up with 15 bobs. The first one is set to do 51 cycles in 60 seconds, the second is set to do 52 cycles in 60 seconds, all the way to the last bob, which is set to do 65 cycles in 60 seconds.
One Pendulum
Let's look at a single pendulum. You bring the bob at a 30° angle, and let it go. It's position over time would be defined as a sine wave.
Two Pendulums
Let's see what happens if you have two pendulums, but they are not synchronized. Pendulum α does 3 cycles in a second, while pendulum β does only 2. Their displacement over time would look like this:
With this graph, we can easily see that at the beginning and at every second, both pendulums are at the left. Also, at 0.5 and 1.5 seconds, pendulum α is at the right, while pendulum β is at the left. This is what our brain recognize as a pattern.
Fifteen Pendulums
Patterns become more apparent with more pendulums, but they can also look more random. The brain recognize when the bobs form groups that are going in the same way, or form a shape (here, this is typically a wave).
The brain seems to have some difficulties to notice patterns made of five groups and more. Forms can also become hard to notice when there is not enough bobs (resolution) to correctly show the wave. For example, when the bobs are first let go in the video, they form a wave of increasing frequency, until, after about 13 or 14 seconds, the brain can't make out the wave anymore.
Mathematics
The most important thing in the experiment is to carefully time the bobs. How to do that? The formula to find a pendulum's cycle (taken from wikipedia, because this was far beyond my skills) is
In the video, the initial angle seems to be around 30°, so we can use this value (and greatly reduce the complexity of the formula). Also, gravity on Earth is 9.80665 m/s^2. That simplifies the formula to
For those who care, the graph of the angle modifier looks like this:
If we want the first bob to oscillate 51 times per minute,
we have to set the length of cord to almost one third of a meter, which is pretty much what we can see in the video. With the same formula, we can find that the quickest bob should have a 0.20448 meter cord.
Furthermore, the dark-blue curve on the graph is the same curve that the bobs make initially in the video. Trivia: for a bob to oscillate once per minute, it would need a cord almost 1 kilometer long. For it to oscillate once per day, the cord would be longer than the distance from the Sun to Saturn.
I have made a small online calculator for such pendulums. You can find it at my web site. At the time of writing, giving the data to find the angle is not implemented (I will have to code a brute-force algorithm for that, or an approximation), but you can easily find the other data.
2011/11/11
Evolution of Jilwutses
What motivates everyone (humans, animals, everything) is the survival of its own species. Examples of ways to survive are becoming stronger, and making more babies. On the long term, the way to achieve that is through evolution.
The following is an example of how evolution works with natural selection following a mutation.
The Gist
Let's create a fictional race of little animals called Jilwutz. These wild animals are about the size of a medium house cat. Times are tough, jilwutses are delicious, and predators are abundant. A female jilwutz can have a pretty large litter of baby jilwutses, but most of them are eaten before the age of procreation. In average, though, the global jilwutz population is rising steadily, but very slowly.
One day, a baby jilwutz is born with a mutation in its ears. This defect allows it to hear better than the other jilwutses. It is now one of the first to flee from predators, because it can hear them faster. This gives it a natural advantage over the other jilwutses, and a higher chance of survival.
If this mutation is not hereditary, the story ends here. If it is, this mutation can be passed to its descendants, all of which will have better chances of survival. Over time, the population of mutated jilwutses will become more populous than normal ones. Over even more time, only the mutated jilwutses will be left.
Natural selection wins. The jilwutz race is stronger.
A Mathematical Scenario
Let's define this fictional animal in more details. A jilwutz can live an average of two years, the first six months being still infertile. They have two estrous cycles per year, and thus, in average, let's say that they participate in 2.9 mating seasons, and that 54% of the females are impregnated during these and successfully give birth after a three weeks gestation. They have a litter of 1.4 baby jilwutses, on average.
Thus, on average (again), each female jilwutz will give birth to 2.2 babies during her life (54% impregnation × 1.4 babies × 2.9 mating seasons). 1.1 of these are female, which will continue the tree of jilwutz life.The jilwutz population will grow by a factor of 1.1 every generation.
The mutated jilwutz is born. Being able to hear better, its life expectancy rises to two and a half years, so that it, and its descendants, participate in an average of 3.7 mating seasons (instead of 2.9). These mutated jilwutz females will bear an average of 2.8 babies in a lifetime.
In fact, because the normal jilwutses are easier to kill, their population will diminish faster and faster as the mutated population grows. The jilwutz population over time would perhaps look like this:
Many more layers of difficulties can be added. The mutation is assumed to be hereditary, but it doesn't mean it's passed to all children. It could, for example, have 25% chance of being passed if only one parent have the mutation, and 80% chance if both have it. The effect could be dimmed if one parent doesn't have it.
But if the mutation catches on to enough jilwutses, over time, it will become the standard. Now, because the jilwutz population grows more rapidly, the predators have more food to eat, and their own population (at least in the area) will also rise, which will decrease the number of jilwutses again.
Everything stays the same...
The following is an example of how evolution works with natural selection following a mutation.
The Gist
Let's create a fictional race of little animals called Jilwutz. These wild animals are about the size of a medium house cat. Times are tough, jilwutses are delicious, and predators are abundant. A female jilwutz can have a pretty large litter of baby jilwutses, but most of them are eaten before the age of procreation. In average, though, the global jilwutz population is rising steadily, but very slowly.
One day, a baby jilwutz is born with a mutation in its ears. This defect allows it to hear better than the other jilwutses. It is now one of the first to flee from predators, because it can hear them faster. This gives it a natural advantage over the other jilwutses, and a higher chance of survival.
If this mutation is not hereditary, the story ends here. If it is, this mutation can be passed to its descendants, all of which will have better chances of survival. Over time, the population of mutated jilwutses will become more populous than normal ones. Over even more time, only the mutated jilwutses will be left.
Natural selection wins. The jilwutz race is stronger.
A Mathematical Scenario
Let's define this fictional animal in more details. A jilwutz can live an average of two years, the first six months being still infertile. They have two estrous cycles per year, and thus, in average, let's say that they participate in 2.9 mating seasons, and that 54% of the females are impregnated during these and successfully give birth after a three weeks gestation. They have a litter of 1.4 baby jilwutses, on average.
Thus, on average (again), each female jilwutz will give birth to 2.2 babies during her life (54% impregnation × 1.4 babies × 2.9 mating seasons). 1.1 of these are female, which will continue the tree of jilwutz life.The jilwutz population will grow by a factor of 1.1 every generation.
The mutated jilwutz is born. Being able to hear better, its life expectancy rises to two and a half years, so that it, and its descendants, participate in an average of 3.7 mating seasons (instead of 2.9). These mutated jilwutz females will bear an average of 2.8 babies in a lifetime.
In fact, because the normal jilwutses are easier to kill, their population will diminish faster and faster as the mutated population grows. The jilwutz population over time would perhaps look like this:
Many more layers of difficulties can be added. The mutation is assumed to be hereditary, but it doesn't mean it's passed to all children. It could, for example, have 25% chance of being passed if only one parent have the mutation, and 80% chance if both have it. The effect could be dimmed if one parent doesn't have it.
But if the mutation catches on to enough jilwutses, over time, it will become the standard. Now, because the jilwutz population grows more rapidly, the predators have more food to eat, and their own population (at least in the area) will also rise, which will decrease the number of jilwutses again.
Everything stays the same...
2011/11/08
Running a Marathon
Pain is temporary; pride lasts forever.
Also, the wall is a really subtle bitch ;).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)