Jay's Desktop

Skype webcam tip on Ubuntu 10.04

2012-01-22T12:29:00.005-04:00

Happy Sunday!

I was messing around with Skype on Ubuntu this morning and realized my webcam didn't produce any video for Skype! I did a little research and got it working and wanted to share the tip.

Note that my webcam *did* work with the "cheese" application. If yours does not, you may need to do some additional research.

The issue seems to be that my webcam is only supported on V4L2 (That's Video-For-Linux-Two), not V4L (Video-For-Linux). Apparently Skype by default only supports V4L.

I found this out with the gstreamer-properties utility (use the video tab).

But, it turns out there is a shared library you can preload with skype which will allow it to use this webcam.

For testing purposes, we're going to run skype from the command line, so fire up a terminal!

You can run skype with the "skype" command, no strange magic there.

To load a separate shared library, we use the "LD_PRELOAD" environment variable.

(Warning: Background ahead)

Linux executables make use of something called dynamically linked libraries. These are often called shared objects or "SO"'s. Not all of the code the executable uses is in the executable itself, for code reuse, we can put it in common libraries that multiple applications share.

When the application is build, it usually specifies what shared libraries it wants to use. When the application is run, the OS will know what libraries to provide it (try it yourself, the "ldd" tools shows you the shared libraries, e.g. ldd /usr/bin/skype).

When the OS goes to look for the shared libraries, it looks in the default location. But, you can over-rule this if you want to using the "LD_PRELOAD" environement variable.

(Background done)

So, to make skype use the webcam, we're going to modify how it's run. Instead of just running the skype command, try this:

32-bit Ubuntu: env LD_PRELOAD=/usr/lib/libv4l/v4l1compat.so skype
64-bit Ubuntu: env LD_PRELOAD=/usr/lib32/libv4l/v4l1compat.so skype

After that, go into the Skype webcam settings and give it a test! Hopefully you'll see your picture. You can also try making a few calls and seeing if it's handled properly.

If it works for you, make it a permanent change by right clicking on the Ubuntu-menu and saying "Edit menu". Find the skype entry, and modify the "Command" (under Properties") to have the environment preload variable set.

After that, run Skype from the menu as usual and hopefully your video works!

To be fair, it's still not the best picture in the world. The lighting goes from dark to washed out periodically and fellow Skypers have told me my video is choppy (even when theirs is smooth on my end). Not sure if there's anything I can do about this on my end yet (the web cam was pretty cheap). Here's hoping you get better picture.

Best of luck!

References:

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SkypeWebCams
http://ubuntuforums.org/archive/index.php/t-914952.html

Enabling HDMI audio-out in Ubuntu 10.04 on GeForce 520GT

2011-10-07T13:31:00.005-03:00

Happy Thanksgiving weekend everyone!

Not that long ago, I had a sad day where I booted up my desktop and, despite the whirling of the fan and hard drive, nothing appeared on the screen! Oh noes!

Quickly fearing for my monitor, I plugged in my laptop and was promptly greeting with the laptop's bios booting on the monitor.

No problem with the monitor, then. What else? When turning on the computer, and waiting a few moments, I could clearly hear the Ubuntu start-up noise though the speakers despite having no video.

That would indicate processor, ram, and hard drive were all fine. Only guess remaining was a shot-out video card (or perhaps the PCI slot on the MB). Quite sad really, considering the card was less then a year old.

It also wasn't an easy card to get. Having yet to jump on the High Definition TV band wagon, I was still chucking around with my old, 27 inch, 480i, CRT TV. The only input it had was good old fashioned RCA cables. So, when I went video card shopping, I specifically looked for one with S-video out, having years ago purchased an S-video to RCA adapter for just these occasions.

Alas, I found one! Most cards now-a-days lack S-video, going for the HDMI or DVI connectors instead. But I found one at a local store nonetheless (no having to order on line). Furthermore, it was in fact a 7-pin, S-video cable, meaning that I could use it for not only standard definition S-video, but also for (potentially) high definition component video should I ever decide to upgrade my TV (a 7-pin S-video to component adapter was included with the card).

But I never got the chance to try it. I took my tower down to where I bought the video card and explained the situation. The staff was pretty friendly, they took my tower and let me know what they found. I figured it was either the Video Card (or possibly the MB), so either way I'd probably be getting some new hardware. The called me a short while later.

The video card was toast. Unfortunately, they couldn't tell me much more then that, I figure all they did was either try another card in my tower, or my card in another tower. Good news is, it was still under warranty, so they replaced it for free. Bad news: no more S-video cards.

So I ended up with a new card, a nVidia GeForce 520GX. It had D-Sub, DVI and HDMI outputs. I plugged in the DVI, but alas Ubuntu would only boot in Low-graphics mode. So I went to nVidia's site and downloaded the binary driver for Ubuntu and installed it (a bit of Googling revealed the 520Gx wasn't supported by 10.04 open source driver). My DVI port then worked fine, and I was greeted with the full 1920x1080 Ubuntu desktop on my monitor.

Since my monitor also has HDMI, I tried the HDMI output. It worked! As soon as I plugged it in, nvidia-settings picked it up as another monitor and allowed me to activate it.

But now what? I still couldn't plug it into my TV. So I did the only sane thing a geek would do: upgrade! Yep, I decided it was finally time to get a new TV. I won't bore you with the details, but after a week or two of searching, I ended up with a good deal on a 40-inch Sanyo LCD TV that supported HDMI.

So I plugged in the HDMI and was greeted with yet-another 1920 x 1080 desktop on the TV (I decided to use it as a separate X-session). Alas, I didn't find that resolution was very good for the TV (it looks great on my monitor, but despite the TV's size, things were a little hard to read). So I lowered the resolution to 1280 x 720 (720p) and find it much better and readable.

But what about audio? Sure, I could plug the audio cable from my speakers in, like I used to, but HDMI *is* cable of audio output, was it not? Surely, I could figure out how to activate it!

In fact, nVidia themselves have a guide to do just this. But it's not an easy read and requires some addition steps/research. In the end, it wasn't really that bad. Unfortunately, I was lazy at the time and didn't post any instructions. So when it stopped working the other day (more on that later), I couldn't recall everything I needed to do to get it back! I got everything restored without too much trouble, but decided to turn it into an opportunity to write the steps down and post them.

First, check to see that the audio device is being recognized. Do lspci | grep -i nvidia and you should see:

jason@jason-lucidlynx:~$ lspci | grep -i nvidia
05:00.0 VGA compatible controller: nVidia Corporation Device 1040 (rev a1)
05:00.1 Audio device: nVidia Corporation Device 0e08 (rev a1)

The audio device is what you're looking for. I didn't run into a problem with this, so if you don't see it show up, google-is-your-friend. My thinking though is that it's necessary to install the nVidia binary drivers (at the link I pointed out above) before you can get this far.

Once you confirm the hardware is recognized, you *must* make sure your Alsa is up-to-date. Default Alsa with 10.04 is 1.0.21, which is not sufficient for the GeForce 520GX.

Before you upgrade Alsa, you can note your old version:

jason@jason-lucidlynx:~$ cat /proc/asound/version
Advanced Linux Sound Architecture Driver Version 1.0.21.

Also, aplay -L won't list your HDMI audio output.

jason@jason-lucidlynx:~$ aplay -L
pulse
Playback/recording through the PulseAudio sound server
front:CARD=SB,DEV=0
HDA ATI SB, VT1818S Analog
Front speakers
surround40:CARD=SB,DEV=0
HDA ATI SB, VT1818S Analog
4.0 Surround output to Front and Rear speakers
surround41:CARD=SB,DEV=0
HDA ATI SB, VT1818S Analog
4.1 Surround output to Front, Rear and Subwoofer speakers
surround50:CARD=SB,DEV=0
HDA ATI SB, VT1818S Analog
5.0 Surround output to Front, Center and Rear speakers
surround51:CARD=SB,DEV=0
HDA ATI SB, VT1818S Analog
5.1 Surround output to Front, Center, Rear and Subwoofer speakers
surround71:CARD=SB,DEV=0
HDA ATI SB, VT1818S Analog
7.1 Surround output to Front, Center, Side, Rear and Woofer speakers

Upgrading Alsa is simple. Just follow the instructions here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Audio/InstallingLinuxAlsaDriverModules

After that (don't forget to restart after installing alsa!), you should get:

jason@jason-lucidlynx:~$ cat /proc/asound/version
Advanced Linux Sound Architecture Driver Version 1.0.24.
Compiled on Oct 6 2011 for kernel 2.6.32-34-generic (SMP).

and

jason@jason-lucidlynx:~$ aplay -L
pulse
Playback/recording through the PulseAudio sound server
front:CARD=SB,DEV=0
HDA ATI SB, VT1818S Analog
Front speakers
surround40:CARD=SB,DEV=0
HDA ATI SB, VT1818S Analog
4.0 Surround output to Front and Rear speakers
surround41:CARD=SB,DEV=0
HDA ATI SB, VT1818S Analog
4.1 Surround output to Front, Rear and Subwoofer speakers
surround50:CARD=SB,DEV=0
HDA ATI SB, VT1818S Analog
5.0 Surround output to Front, Center and Rear speakers
surround51:CARD=SB,DEV=0
HDA ATI SB, VT1818S Analog
5.1 Surround output to Front, Center, Rear and Subwoofer speakers
surround71:CARD=SB,DEV=0
HDA ATI SB, VT1818S Analog
7.1 Surround output to Front, Center, Side, Rear and Woofer speakers
iec958:CARD=SB,DEV=0
HDA ATI SB, VT1818S Digital
IEC958 (S/PDIF) Digital Audio Output
hdmi:CARD=NVidia
HDA NVidia, HDMI 0
HDMI Audio Output

which will make the HDMI Audio output show up! Cool, eh?

Next thing to do is see if you can get sound out of it, and figure out what hardware audio device it's enumerated as.

This is where the speaker-test utility comes in handy:

speaker-test -c 2 -r 48000 -D hw:0,0

This should cause some static to come out of your left and right main speakers.

After that, I just tried different values for the hw device.

Each audio card you have is numbered. 0 is typically your main one...I happen to have a USB audio device which shows up as device 1.

But eventually, I found it:

speaker-test -c 2 -r 48000 -D hw:2,7

This caused static to come out of my TV's speakers over the HDMI. Horray!

You might not have 2,7. In fact, 2,3 appeared to work for me, but didn't produce any sound. However, 2.3 *might* work for you.

At this point, you can go into your Gnome audio configuration (or whatever the equivalent might be in KDE/xfce/etc) and under output, you might be lucky enough to see "HDA NVidia..." in addition to your Internal Audio Analog Stereo. Great!

Play a sound file and try it out. If it works, you're done! If not, read on....

This unfortunately did *not* work for me. But I was closer then I realized.

The problem is called under-enumeration. It's pretty simply really, the video card (for whatever reason) made two devices available to the system: (2,3) and (2,7). But only the second mapped to the HDMI audio output. However, the Linux audio utils, by default, pick the first one (2.3). As far as I know, there's no way to change this.

But, you can add more audio devices, and select among those. To do this, open up the following file:

/etc/pulse/default.pa

and add the following line at the end:

load-module module-alsa-sink device=hw:2,7.

Restart. Now, you'll actually get three output devices. The regular internal stereo one, the HDA NVidia one, and a second HDA NVidia one (the text might look a little different).

So now, trying playing some audio and selecting the new audio device and voilà! Hopefully, you should have audio coming through your TV. To be fair, I believe this is only stereo sound, I haven't done any research on getting a digital, surround-sound signal through, but I imagine it's possible.

Strangely, when I booted up a few days ago after doing a system update, Ubuntu once again kicked me into Low-graphics mode.

Investigating, I found that my nVidia binary driver was no longer being loaded. I was going to reinstall the driver, when I decided to check nVidia's site. Even stranger, nVidia *just* released a new driver for my card yesterday! Not sure if they two things are related or not, but hey, I got a new driver.

Installing the new driver restored all my video functionality. But my HDMI audio wasn't working again. It seemed my Alsa had kicked back to 1.0.21, so the device was no longer being picked. So I started doing the motions necessary to restore it and decided to write them down this time (which you've just finished reading). Afterwards, my HDMI audio is working fine again!

References:

http://www.nvidia.com/Download/index.aspx?lang=en-us
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Audio/InstallingLinuxAlsaDriverModules
ftp://download.nvidia.com/XFree86/gpu-hdmi-audio-document/gpu-hdmi-audio.html

How not to solve a Rubik's Cube

2011-10-06T18:43:00.009-03:00

The Rubik's Cube is one of my favorite puzzles. Upon first glace at a sufficiently scrambled cube, one might feel an instant feeling of dismay. With so many combinations, how could anyone hope to figure out how to unscramble it in a reasonable amount of time?

Many people would give up right then and there. But Rubik's Cubes have been solved countless times by countless people. It's far from an unsolvable problem, and in fact many of us take our fun from the thrill in the challenge.

I have successfully solved a Rubik's Cube on a number of occasions. I'm far from an expert solver, or a speed solver, generally it'll take me a couple of hours to solve an arbitrarily scrambled cube, not because it takes that long, but because I can only do it in stages and spending too long on a single stage get's my brain a little wonky :)

I remember the first time I solved the cube was right around the time of my thirteen birthday. Being proud, I continued to play with the solved cube until I accidentally scrambled it again. To my initial frustration, I then had to solve it a second time, which I did. It was promptly buried in the backyard after that.

(Aside: It was buried not because it frustrated me to the point I wanted to get rid of it, but we also happened to be making a Time Capsule at the same time and I thought it would make a good addition. That Time Capsule I believe is due to be unearthed next summer actually.)

Nevertheless, puzzle solved, I prompt forgot about the device for a number of years. Fast forward to several months back when I happened to see one at a local department store and decided to buy it.

I've solved this cube a couple of times since then, this time things are a little different however. Instead of just solving the cube once and forgetting about it, over time I'm practicing on it, trying to become better at solving it so that I can solve it in general for any specific cube without help.

To be fair, I've never actually solved a cube, from scratch, without some sort of assistance. Even when I solved the first cube all those years ago, I had a sort of guide that came with the cube. Now, this guide was far from a defacto "here are step by step solving instructions", but rather just a general set up "helper" steps to get where you wanted to go.

These helper steps are called algorithms, and are basically a short (or long) set of instructions on how to take the cube in one configuration and get it to another configuration. For example, how to move a block on the bottom, to the top, without changing a series of surrounding cubes (but not all cubes). I've always used these to help me, though again, even with this set of helper steps solving the cube is still fairly difficult. You still need to get it the right stage to do perform the algorithm, and could make other unwanted changes as well. Assembling them all together to solve the cube is still the hard part.

Some might label using the algorithms as "cheating", but to me, cheating at a cube would be more akin to rearranging the stickers or taking the cube apart (as many, including my original, are capable of being dismantled) and reassembling it correctly. Even expert speed solvers use these algorithms, likely taught to them by a book or someone else, or perhaps learned from scratch in some cases. Using algorithms is just a natural part of learning how to solve the cube. I suppose you could invest many hours in addition to actual solving time to develop the algorithms, or it may just be the software engineer in me which has taught me to use what's already been developed and not waste time reinventing the wheel :)

But in fact, this blog post is not about how to solve a Rubik's Cube. There are many other sites for that, one of my favorites is linked here: http://www.chessandpoker.com/rubiks-cube-solution.html

No, rather this post is about how *not* to solve a Rubik's Cube. But wait, you cry, why would anyone care about how not to solve the cube?

The answer is that there is an oft-quoted, but misguided, way that people often use to try and solve the cube. When someone first starts trying to solve it, they might start by randomly twisting sides in the hope they'll get somewhere. This procedure is doomed to fail (unless maybe you happen to be a computer program with dozens of gigabytes of memory). But rather, the misconception among novice cubers seems to be that there exists a fixed sequence of moves (moves, which I'll define below) which will solve the cube regardless of it's starting configuration (we'll call this the Magic Sequence). So a cuber with this mindset will spend all of his or her time searching for the Magic Sequence, without actually really paying attention to the mechanics of the cube.

In fact, searching for the Magic Sequence is at least equally (in fact more so) doomed to fail then twisting the cube randomly. I suppose even random twists could conceivably solve the cube eventually even if it takes eons. But trying to use a single set to solve the cube regardless of it's starting configuration is simply impossible, as I will demonstrate here. And so, it's important to explain why this method can't work and that a cuber trying to use it will ultimately never succeed.

First, let's consider what I mean by a "move". Among cubers, "moves" can have a variety of meanings, anything from a single turn to an entire algorithm. However, a common definition for a move often used by newer cubers and people searching for the Magic Sequence is a single turn, either clockwise or counter clockwise, of one of the cube's six sides (sometimes called a Quarter Turn by cubers).

Now, if you'll consider it, what is the cube actually made of? In fact, a Rubik's Cube is not a singular cube, but rather 26 smaller cubes (9 on each end, plus 8 going in a ring down the middle. There is no dead center cube, as that's where the rotation mechanism lives).

We can easily enumerate each of of these smaller 1-26 cubes and keep track of their orientation as we work the cube. Keep in mind that this enumeration would exist regardless of the color of each "face" of the cube.

Thus, from any starting configuration, there are only 12 possible unique moves, by this definition, that we can make to get the cube in a new configuration:

1. Top layer goes clockwise or counter clockwise
2. Bottom layer goes clockwise or counter clockwise
3. Right layer goes clockwise or counter clockwise
4. Left later goes clockwise or counter clockwise
5. Front later goes clockwise or counter clockwise
6. Back layer goes clockwise or counter clockwise

Here is an illustration of 6 of the 12 possible moves. The other 6 are just mirrors on the non-visible sides.

Some people might try to argue that there are more moves then this. For example, turning the bottom two layers clockwise. But, this is really equivalent to turning the top later counter-clockwise. Likewise, turning the right layer clockwise twice is really just two applications of the same unique move. Each move will have a fixed, predetermined affect on the cube that can't be altered.

A solved cube, with all sides showing the same color, will live as one, and only one, possible configuration of the individual cubes. The cube can only exist in a single configuration at a time, it cannot exist in two different states simultaneously. Agreed? This is Rubik's cube, not Schrodinger's cube, after all.

Let's say that I start with the cube in a given configuration, called Configuration A. I then perform a sequence of moves on the cube (where a sequence is an ordered set of the twelve moves listed above). We'll call this Sequence A. Upon applying Sequence A, to Configuration A, we end up in another Configuration B (which could possibly be equal to Configuration A). The important thing to remember is that every time I start the cube in Configuration A, and apply sequence A, I'll *always* end up in Configuration B. Likewise, if I start the cube in Configuration B, and perform Sequence A backwards, I'll always end up with Configuration A. This is true for all possible Configurations and Sequences of the cube. There is no possible sequence that I can perform on a configuration such that applying the same sequence to the same configuration will result in multiple configurations. Make sense? The diagram below shows the symmetric nature of applying a sequence to a configuration.

Given that, to disprove the "Magic Sequence", we can use what's called a proof by contradiction. The basic premise is that if we can show that the existence of a magic sequence would lead to a contradiction given the rules of the cube we've described (cannot exist in more than one state, and configuration + sequence = a single new configuration), then it can't exist.

Let's call a cube's solved state Configuration Z.
First, let's imagine that the "Magic Sequence" did exist. This would mean that there exists a sequence such that I can apply the sequence to Configuration A and end up with Configuration Z, and that I can apply the identical sequence to Configuration B, and end up with Configuration Z, (where A and B are *not* the same configuration, and represent any configuration the cube could be in).

But then, what would happen to Configuration Z if I performed the "Magic Sequence" backwards? Remember that we stated the cube could only exist in one configuration at any one time.

If the "Magic Sequence" existed, then I'd be able to perform it backwards from the solved state (Configuration Z) and end up with *both* Configuration A AND Configuration B, which is impossible, since the cube can only be in one configuration at a time. In other words, I can't apply the "Magic Sequence" to Configuration Z, and wind up with A, then later apply the same sequence to Configuration Z, and wind up with B, since a fixed sequence of moves will always have the same result on the cube. Therefore, the "Magic Sequence" does not exist.

Make sense?

Now, there are plenty of other ways to solve a cube. Many of them involve the application of multiple algorithms in order, which is sort of like a Magic Sequence. But the important distinction is that the algorithms involve decision-making, e.g. applying a different algorithm next based on the result of the last. If such a "Magic Sequence" like the one disproved existed, you'd be able to solve the cube without any decisions.

Feel free to leave any questions or comments you might have below and I'll do my best to answer them!

Happy cubing!

Why the Wii U should support GameCube

2011-07-12T21:55:00.015-03:00

Recently announced was Nintendo's next generation console: the Wii U.

A lot of buzz has been generated around the new console, and with good reason.

Begin a long time fan of Nintendo, I am highly intrigued by the new console. It supports a new array of features, including an innovative touch screen controller and high definition game support.

The funny thing is, I remember reading an article a number of years back that suggested a touch screen controller was among the first prototypes for the Wii; but they decided against it due to fear of imitating the DS too much....I have no idea if that's true or not; but if so this certainly seems an interesting turn of events!

I'm glad to hear that the Wii U will support Wii games and all current Wii-based controllers (classic controller, balance board, etc); although this rumored concept of only one Wii-U Tablet controller per console sounds limiting; Nintendo might just figure out a way to make it work (they could also change their mind on this as supposedly it's already been suggested that you could bring your controller over to a friends house).

But what I really want to talk about is legacy game support on the Wii U. My understanding is that the Wii support for GameCube games is due to having an on board GameCube processor, of which the GC controller ports and GC Memory Cards are wired into (but also have an inturrupt to the Wii processor so they can be used by Wii software as well).

My experience when playing a GC game on the Wii has been just that: it basically acts just like a GameCube and is indistinguishable from the original console. It bypasses the Wii processor altogether.

It is obvious to see why it's tempting to remove GC support: removing the processor leaves more room in the chassis for newer, powerful processors and makes the console cheaper by not having to manufacture a second processor. Plus, the GameCube console is over 10 years old and approaching obsolescence.

But I think there's a very good case for providing GC support on the Wii U, in some form or another.

When the Wii came out with GameCube support, most people were pretty happy that they could ditch their GC with ease, why have two consoles when you can have just one? But then came the real kicker: There was also going to be a Virtual Console which would allow you to play games from the NES, SNES and N64 consoles. I think this, more then GameCube support, really set our imaginations a flame: any Nintendo fan will tell you how much they love the charm and nostalgia of the classic Nintendo games. Playing our favorite classics on a modern, updated console, without having to blow on the cartridge 50 times? Queue the drool in 3....2....1....

But Nintendo did more then they realized when they announced the Virtual Console: they set a precedent. For once; a company was saying "We stand by our old work; we want you to enjoy it as you always did, now and for years to come." It wasn't that you could only play Nintendo Wii games, but you could play nearly the entire Nintendo home console library: NES+SNES+N64+GC+Wii. From that point on, I was left with an potentially dangerous expectation: consoles should only add functionality onto their predecessors and never remove functionality (or at least, remove the minimum possible, only where it would significantly conflict with the design of the next console: e.g. the GameBoy Player on GC).

As a result, I imagined the Wii as less of gaming console and more of a gaming hub: a device that could support many different types of games from many different types of systems. As a fan of removing redundancy, this was a very exciting prospect, and a trend I personally expected to continue into future consoles such as the Wii U.

So then another question presents itself: Will the Wii U support Virtual Console titles?

Although no official word on this has been presented, I'll be fairly shocked if the answer is anything other then "Yes."

If my assumption is correct, then let's look at the list of consoles of the Wii U would support:

NES
SNES
N64
Wii
Wii U

with one glaring omission: the GameCube!

Why would you develop a console that A) Supports the 3 oldest consoles; B) Supports the 2 newest console, but C) Simply decides to ignore the 4th console in the middle?

It doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense to me. Thus, I think the Wii U should absolutely add some level of support for GameCube games, if nothing else, so that it doesn't feel like they are pointlessly skipping a console in their gaming library (supporting all consoles except one).

Now, I'm not saying the Wii U has to support GC games in the same way the Wii does (use a GC chip, have on board GC controller & Memory card slots).

But there are lots of other ways they can add GC support. One of the most obvious ways is to include GameCube games onto the Virtual console. As for controllers perhaps sell an optional adapter to connect the GC controller to USB, and run the GameCube games with emulation (I'm going to assume the Wii U's processor would be powerful enough to run GC emulation software).

Another option is to sell some sort of "mini-GameCube" device for a cheap price that includes GC ports, a disc reader and memory card slots and connects to the Wii U but is otherwise an empty shell that relies on the Wii U for processing: a "GameCube player" or sorts if you will.

There are hybrid approaches as well: allow the Wii U to read GC discs natively, but not include the ports on board but only via an optional mechanism and run the games through emulation. Heck, I'm sure you could figure out a way to connect a GC controller with a Wii-U controller or even a Wii Remote!

Point is, there are lots of different ways to do it; and no serious excuse for not doing it. The absolute minimum I would like to see is GC games on the Virtual Console and support for playing them via the Wii's Classic Controller (which we know to be supported). But this presents a problem: as much as I am a fan of eliminating the need for multiple devices (see my previous post on the subject), I am not of fan of needing to purchase the same things multiple times. In fact, I fully expect a migration tool for porting your Virtual Console purchases from the Wii to the Wii U (again, Nintendo set a precedent for this by announcing you could transfer DSi games to a 3DS).

What I think would be a great option for Nintendo and consumers is to allow a "trade in service" where people could send in older games and receive a credit to get the same game (or an equivalent in Nintendo Points) on the Wii (-U) Shop Channel. You could do this for GC discs, N64 cartridges, etc. Nintendo could recycle the components to make new games/equipment while the consumer would not have to purchase the same thing twice. I really wanted to see this materialize with the Wii Virtual Console, but it never did. However, if more of Nintendo's legacy games continue to wind up on the Virtual Console, I feel it's becoming more of a necessity.

So, not saying any of this is going to happen, but it's a possibility. Would lack of GC support altogether stop me from purchasing a Wii U? Probably not, but it gives me less of an incentive knowing that I'd need to hold onto my Wii (or GameCube) as well. Obviously Nintendo is a company first, with a revenue line to think about, without which they can't produce new consoles and games. But I seriously hope Nintendo continues to put their customers first, which I feel to date they have been doing a good job of. In the end, it will be more profitable for them since it will make many of us, including myself, more likely to purchase their games and equipment.

It makes no sense for the Wii's successor to not support Virtual Console games and it makes even less sense for Nintendo to simply ignore GameCube in the list of consoles the Wii U supports.

Let's hope Nintendo sees it that way too.

Project: Starry Expanse

2011-06-19T11:19:00.002-03:00

Happy Sunday everyone!

When I was kid, I was very interested in the "Myst" franchise. It was a very challenging game: you needed to figure out what to do each step of the game with no real direction. My friend and I played it for about 2 months before finally getting to the end.

It was followed by a sequel, called Riven, which if anything was 10 times more challenging.

There were 3 more sequels to the original, but made by difference companies. They were fun names nonetheless, but never really had the charm and appeal of the originals Myst&Riven.

Myst&Riven were "semi-3D", basically a series of still images that you clicked on to go the next still. You could click to move forwards, up, down, left, right, to give you an artificial feeling of being in a 3D environment. Given the limited technology at the time (circa. 1993), this was pretty ground breaking.

Later, a remake of the original was created called "realMyst". Gameplay was nearly identical to the first, but instead of still images, the game was recreated with a brilliant 3D engine allowing for full range of access across the environment, day/night effects, weather effects and more.

It was very exciting and while playing realMyst it gave me a wonderful feeling of nostalgia + intrigue. "This was the way Myst was meant to be played..." I said to myself. The idea was just ahead the technology at the time.

But my thoughts immediately jumped to the next most logical question: Would there ever be a realRiven?

Myst was later re-released to multiple platforms including the DS, PSP and iPhone.

Unfortunately, they seemed to only like releasing the good old-fashioned "still-based" navigation system, rather then an immersible 3D environment. Personally, I never understood this choice, as the immersible environment I felt would have a better chance of bringing in new fans.

Logically, if they did that, realRiven could follow (and possibly with game 3&4, 5 was already based on the full 3D environment).

But no 3D remakes of the other games never surfaced. Why? I cannot stay, but that hasn't stopped a group of fans from recreating the sequel in 3D themselves!

The project is called Starry Expanse. If you're a Myst fan you'll get the reference. If not, go get yourself a copy of realMyst (I believe it's on Steam), beat it, and then you'll get the reference.

This is a very neat project! Recreating a game in real time 3D is no small feat, so I wish them the best of luck. You can even make a donation on their site (I did) and get your name in the Credits!

Check out their site for more info. It's a really great project and will hopefully help open Myst & Riven to a new world of fans.

Take care!

The Length of a Calendar Day

2011-02-19T12:40:00.009-04:00

Happy 2011! Hope you all have a great year.

Just for the record, I don't have any New Years Resolutions. I have minor modifications to my behavior that I intended to implement coincidentally on January 1st. That's totally different. Right? :)

But just how long *is* January 1st? While down visiting my friends and family over the holidays, this question was posed to me.

Now of course, the answer seems completely obvious. 24 hours. Right? Some might argue the day isn't quite 24 hours, given various rotation periods, or only considering hours of "daylight" etc. But in general, the length of day being defined by the Earth's rotational period is 24 hours. But that wasn't the topic of discussion, rather, this one referred specifically to timezones.

That is, given that different parts of the planet can register the calendar being different days at the same time, how long does *somewhere* on the planet register a specific day?

Take January 1st for instance. I celebrated New Years at 12:00 AM January 1st, Local time. My particular time zone is UTC-4 (aka GMT-4), so by the time it was January 1st for me, it was already January 1st for more than half the planet. So how long, in hours, did January 1st last from the first moment somewhere on Earth registered it, until the last place on Earth clicked over to January 2nd?

The Simple Answer

Let's imagine we break the Earth symmetrically by time zone:

In this simplified model, the day would first "dawn" in UTC+12. It would turn 12:00 am January 1st, 2011 first in UTC+12, then 1 hour later progressively across the planet. The interesting thing is what happens when you go the *other* direction, that is directly from UTC+12 to UTC-12. This is called the International Date Line and works like so, if you cross it traveling west, then the time remains the same but you increment a day to the date. If you cross it going east, the time still remains the same, but the date decrements a day. Thus, If it's 12:00 AM on January 1st in UTC+12, then it's 12:00 AM on December 31st in UTC-12. Using this, we can extrapolate a simple chart like so:

With this model, UTC+12 would be the first place it becomes January 1st, and it would last for 24 hours, the entire time it would be December 31st in UTC-12. Once January 1st in UTC+12 clicks over the January 2nd, the International Date Line tells us that UTC+12 is now January 1st, which it has another 24 hours as Jaunary 1st. The various time zones in between would have their day in between the two extremes, but we don't need to consider the overlapping periods to answer this question. Thus, in this sense it would be January 1st somewhere on the planet for a total time range of 48 hours. Kinda neat, huh?

But not quite...

The simplified model postulated above helps us to think about the problem, but isn't quite the solution. It implies that there are 24 equally distributed time zones (not including UTC), which isn't quite the case.

Granted, there are timezones that are not offset on the hour, UTC -3:30 (Newfoundland Time) for example. But these don't matter for this analysis, since they are still within the UTC+12 and UTC-12 extremes.

The problem is that UTC+/- 12 aren't necessarily the extremes. In fact, there are two additional time zones that need to be considered, UTC+13 and UTC+14. So indeed, UTC+14, rather then UTC+12, is the first place the day clicks over.

What does this imply for our analysis? Well, think about it this way, we've started that there's a total 48 hour window between the period the day dawns in UTC+12, then ticks over the next day in UTC-12.

But, by the time the day clicks over in UTC+12, it's already been that day in UTC+14 for two hours now. And so, we must add on these two hours to the 48 window for a grand total of 50 hours being the length of a calendar day.

Wow, 50 hours!

Indeed! Quite a bit more then the usual 24. However, there's still one other aspect we haven't considered yet: Daylight savings time.

The analysis presented above assumes that all timezones (by which I mean UTC offsets) remains the same throughout the year. This is of course not true. I'm currently in my local timezone of UTC-4, however, for a number of months throughout the year while DST is in effect, I'll in fact be UTC-3 instead.

Daylight savings generally follows a simple rule: Fall back, spring ahead. Thus, during the Fall/Winter months, you are in your "normal" timezone, but during DST, you are one more hour ahead then usual. This means that if you are west of the Prime Meridian, you get one hour closer to UTC (-4 becomes -3), and if you are east of the Prime Meridian, you get one hour farther away (+4 becomes +5).

How does this affect our analysis? Let's consider what this would do at the extremes we've established:

Standard | DST Offset
---------|-----------
UTC + 14 | UTC + 15
UTC - 12 | UTC - 11

This might not seem to affect our counts at all, and in this case, you'd be correct. We might be gaining an hour moving to UTC+15, but we're losing an hour off the other end, keeping the count to our previous count of 50 hours.

The interesting thing is that, while DST offsets us by an hour, not all places observe it. This creates a few interesting scenarios.

For example, presume that there exists a place in UTC+15 that does observe Daylight savings time, but a place in UTC - 12 that does not observe daylight savings time. The resulting effect would be that the UTC+15 and UTC-12 timezones were in effect simultaneously, in fact resulting in a 51-hour day.

Likewise, the opposite could be true. Imagine that there is a place in UTC+14 which does not observe daylight savings time, and that there were no places in UTC-12 which did not. This would cause us to run from UTC-11 to UTC+14 simultaneously, resulting in a 49-hour day.

My research so far however indicates that the only place I'm aware of using UTC+14, a country called Kiribati, uses UTC+14 all year round, so in fact never offsets to UTC+15. So unless I'm incorrect on that, or it changes in the future, we can rule out a 51-hour day.

In addition, according to Wikipedia with regards to UTC-12, there are in fact no human habitations in this timezone. Instead, the timezone is nautical only, observed by ocean ships which happen to be crossing through it. And I highly doubt that they bother to observe DST, or even if some did, that all would.

Thus, year round we likely have a UTC-12, which is the last part of the planet to observe a calendar day.

So even though DST could affect our analysis of a calendar-day length by an hour, due to the decisions of local (or non-existent) jurisdictions, they do not. At least for now, the length of calendar day observance remains at 50 hours, year round, regardless of local DST offsets.

Why Timezones?

To wrap up this post, a short discussion on why we use timezones at all. If you are Canadian (or even interested in the subject at all) you are likely familiar with the Sir Sandford Fleming Heritage Minute. Fleming was an railway engineer, who was fed up by the ridiculous "minute" offsets of various timezones between cities. This was because each various location liked to have noon the time when the sun was "overhead", making the setting of time as one traveled by rail very inconvenient.

So Fleming came up with a different idea: Standardized time. Dividing the world into roughly 24 equal sizes areas, it was now far, far easier to communicate times across the world and have them be relevant and make sense.

Although it took him some time to get it widely accepted and adopted, Fleming's invention of Standard time was nothing short of genius. It was likely as important as the railway and telegraph themselves in modernizing the industrialized world.

But Fleming only reduced the number of timezones. He shrunk the number back by a pretty significant amount, but didn't eliminate them completely. Why?

To me, the elimination of timezones would seem to be the next logical step. As a computer programmer, I can tell you that writing and dealing with software that needs to operate in different timezones can be challenging. You always need to be conscious of what time you are working with, is it local or UTC, how much does it need to be offset by, is it daylight savings time or not, etc. Doing comparisons can also be tricky, and since various programmers do things in different ways, sometimes cooperating between different programs and programmers just complicates things more.

Imagine that, if instead of having timezones, everyone on the planet simply used the single timezone, say UTC. The benefit of this would be that there would no longer be any ambiguity when communicating timezones across the planet. March 1st at 12:00 pm would be March 1st at 12:00 pm everywhere.

Locally, things might seem a little odd at first. For example, people in Greenwich might go to work at 9 am and get home at 5 pm, while people in Halifax might to work at 1 pm and get home at 9 pm.

But what real difference would that make? Sunrise would just "happen" to be at 10 am instead of 6 am, but so what? I dare say that if such a system were to be adopted, it would probably only take a generation or so, perhaps less, for everyone to become accustomed to it. I'm sure our biological clocks would adjust, same as they did for Standard time. You would still have to do some mental calculation offsets on occasion for specific things, but probably not as many.

Just look at the transition of most countries (US not withstanding) to adopt Metric over Imperial measurements. I, for one, certainly can't think or estimate in miles or quartz. I'm not too bad with inches and feet, but only because when I used to help my Dad with upholstery or construction, he made sure I read the measuring tape in inches. I do know my own height in both centimeters and mass in kilograms, and generally get pretty confused dealing with Fahrenheit.

But those are just my personal preferences. Getting international cooperation on such a scheme would prove very difficult, just look at the opposition Mr. Fleming ran into. And countries are far less willing to adopt such things even today.

Nevertheless, I think it's a neat idea with a number of benefits, even if its never actually adopted. What about you? What might be some other pros to such an approach? What might be the cons and downsides of it?

Leave your thoughts and opinions in the comments and below, and feel free to correct me on any of my calculations if you feel I made a mistake in my calculations on the length of a calendar day.

Best wishes, and take care!

The future of computational devices?

2011-02-17T18:45:00.025-04:00

Imagine, for a moment, the computer you're reading this post on.

What type of computer is it? Is it a traditional desktop? A notebook or a netbook? What about a tablet or a smart phone?

Your options on what you use to access information are continually growing, even now they are several times greater then they were just a few years past.

If you are on a traditional computer, say a desktop, what kind of specifications might it have?

A modern 2010-era computer, sold for a reasonable price, might have a set of specifications like this:

* Dual-core processor
* 500 GB Hard drive Storage
* 4 GB of System Memory
* 512 Dedicated Graphics card with 3D acceleration
* Multi-channel sound system

What sized box is your tower? Is it a larger, standard ATX-sized unit, or maybe one of the small form factors?

Whatever the size, I want you to imagine taking that desktop and shrinking it....continually smaller and imagine a computer with similar specifications, but with a form factor the size of your phone.

Sound crazy? Well, consider my own smart phone, a Nokia N900, with the following specifications:

* 600 MHz ARM Cortex-A8 CPU
* 256 MB System Memory
* 32 GB Storage
* PowerVR SGX 530 GPU supporting OpenGL ES 2.0
* Stereo sound system

Not too bad. In fact, as little as decade ago, those specs would probably have been fairly impressive in that desktop your on right now, wouldn't they?

Is it really that crazy that the technology in smart phones could approach the level of desktops? I don't think so.

Consider laptops. Not that long ago, people who chose laptops for the portability advantages they offered were forced to sacrifice the performance of desktop. This is no longer true, as laptops have reached complete parity with desktops in terms of the specifications and abilities.

Those of us today who continue to choose desktops mostly do it for form factor reasons, for example my high definition 22 inch display, full keyboard with number pad and mouse. Of course, these things can additionally be added to a laptop. Other uses for desktops over laptops might include, like myself, use as a DVR (more easily permanently connected to my TV and cable box) or the ability to have multiple disc drives and the like.

Nevertheless, choosing a desktop today is more about form factor and preference then specifications.

In fact, I dare say that while smart phones, net books and tablets continue to make leaps and bounds each year in the amount of power they offer, the traditional computing paradigm of desktops and laptops seem to have plateaued.

For example, why don't we commonly go our local computer stores and see 8 GHZ processors and computers with 48 gigabytes of memory? Are we finally seeing a plateau of Moore's law? Or is the slowdown more for marketing and business purposes?

In fact, one of the problems with sticking more and more transistors on a chip is that the damn things get too bloody hot. Who needs an Infinity-GHZ processor when you need to burn thousands of watts of power just to keep it cool?

Why, even the modest Athlon chips in my two previous laptops could get into the very uncomfortable (and dangerous) 80-90 degrees centigrade range. Had they kept with the numbering convention, I'm sure the slogan for the the Pentium 5 would have been, "Now, you can cook toast on it too!". On the other hand, the Athlon X2 250 processor in my desktop rarely gets above 30C, nor does the Intel Core Duo in my laptop.

But the fact of the matter is that we don't need never increasing clock rates and increases in memory to be happy. In fact, I remember reading an article several years back (that I unfortunately can't source) suggesting that the major chip manufactures such as Intel and AMD would soon stop trying to increase their clock speeds and instead focus on the chips they got: basically, trying to shrink them down and make them more power efficient. This a good thing, not just for your power bill, but for the environment too.

It seems that we are living this reality: Processors aren't getting faster, but they are getting cheaper, smaller, more efficient and multi-cored. We need this more then we need more gigahertz, because there is clearly a limit of diminishing returns. We don't need faster computers because we don't have applications (unless you are in the server or HPC market) that can use them. At least, not yet. Even my desktop with a modest 2GB of Ram runs circles around many computers of better specifications, DVR'ing, web browsing and play games at the same time. Of course, I use a far superior operating system then most :).

So what does that mean for the future of such devices? If laptops and desktops continue their plateau, and the smaller form factor devices such as smart phones continue their rise, will we eventually reach a point where they are all at parity?

It wouldn't surprise me. Likewise, it also wouldn't surprise me if the day comes when your entire computer system fits in your hands, and that's the only computer you need.

For example, imagine a smart phone 10 years from now. We'll consider this our speculative "super-device". It can be connected to a GSM or CDMA network, likely has wi-fi and cellular data capabilities, camera and GPS, plus also a large touch screen and optionally a physical keyboard. It can make calls, play the newest high-end games, browse the web, has storage in the hundreds of gigabytes, extremely fast data transfer and processing rates, and more.

What are the disadvantages of this device? Well, no body wants to stare at web pages on a small screen forever, nor do they want to type up their reports on a keyboard only a few centimeters big.

But wait! Picture another device, in the form factor of a laptop, with a large screen, full keyboard, optical drive and card reader, larger battery perhaps, etc. Except that this device is just a "shell", it has beauty but no brains. No processor, motherboard or memory of it's own. Instead, slide your smart phone into a receptacle and suddenly you can have an entire computer system ready to rock. Able to type reports, see movies and web pages on a larger screen, even play the latest visually stunning computer games.

But why stop there? Don't need a keyboard? Just provide a large touch screen dock, sans keyboard, for your smart phone with receptacle and suddenly you've got a fully functional tablet (or e-reader). Add a keyboard with no optical drive and you've got a net book.

Need a larger screen for those high definition movies/games, or want to use a printer? Just provide a small dock which is nothing but ports, for monitors, printers, keyboards, even DVR connections if you want, and there is your desktop.

The receptacle could also be integrated into cars, essentially taking over as the entire entertainment and communication system of the vehicle.

I fully feel as though this is the natural evolution of where technology is heading. But is it a good idea? What are some of the pros and cons of such a design?

Right now, I have three "computers" that I use on a daily basis. My desktop, my laptop and my smart phone. Each has it's own place in my technological arsenal. My desktop of course serves as my main "home" PC: it does my DVR'ing, plays games, lives as my music and media server, browses websites, check my personal email, Skype conference with my family and more. My laptop is mostly work oriented, it has all my work schedules on it, current projects, contact information, work email, etc. But I also occasionally use it when I travel for web browsing, watching movies, etc. My smart phone, while of course admirably fulfilling it's capacity as my only phone, also handles all my personal schedule, memos and todo's, plays games and browses the web, at 5MP doubles as my primary picture and video camera, and is a full Sat-Nav GPS device with voice guided directions.

I'd be lying if I said the thought of all those devices being combined into one, but each with it's own profile what I wanted to do at the time, wasn't appealing to me. It's easy to get into a state of 'digital fatigue' when you are surrounded by too much technology and want to simplify things, only to feel your current technology is unable to fulfill your needs in some form or another. Even I find myself wanting a tablet, net book, or second laptop, even though I can pretty easily convince myself that I don't really need them. And on top of that, I still have game consoles, several televisions, DVD devices, and so on.

But there is danger as well. Phones are of course designed to be robust, they have to be, being jostled around all day after all. There are significant dangers in putting all your eggs in one digital basket: what happens when your phone gets destroyed, damaged or even just lost?

This could have some pretty bad consequences. But there are other problems as well, for example, Vendor lock-in. Just because you buy your device from Vendor A, you shouldn't have to buy your shells from Vendor A. For such a system to work, the dock and protocols should be entirely open and implementable by all.

The idea of an "all in one" device capable of doubling as any computing device we have today excites me a great deal, though there are pitfalls that I seriously hope we can avoid in order to realize such a device.

There is one pitfall we might not be able to overcome: upgrade-ability. A properly built desktop can be upgraded endlessly, to the point where it is an entirely new computer. Laptops are also upgradeable, but to a significant less degree: the hard drive, memory, battery and optical drives are often changeable but good luck trying to upgrade the screen, motherboard or video card. Unfortunately, as the form factor gets smaller, the ability to upgrade decreases proportionally. Good luck trying to change the memory in that smart phone, or adding an optical drive to that net book.

To make our speculative super device, we want to keep two principles in the back of our mind at all times: longevity and recyclability. We've already made the assumption that the specifications of all devices types would largely plateau out, become equal. But I'm not saying that at this point technology growth would stop, merely that the growth of the three major form factors (desktop, laptop and smart phone) would all grow at the same rate. There will still be advances as people develop new technologies and find uses for them. So technology *will* advance, albeit and hopefully at a more sustainable pace.

I think these devices would need to have a long life span, technology sufficient to last as long as possible. And, when you are finally ready to get a new device, we need programs in place to reuse, resell or recycle the old ones, possibly even taking off from the price of a new device.

Could a device/system like this ever become mainstream? Companies such as Motorola are already taking the first step with their Atrix phone (though I've heard rumors the laptop dock is only available with certain plans...which doesn't bode well). Just imagine if a company, say Apple, announced tomorrow that they had a new iPhone that, with the right dock, could also be your iPad, MacBook and iMac? Would not flocks of people swarm out to buy it? I think so. And the other major vendors, Dell, HP, etc would all follow while Microsoft would probably try to slap Windows on everything. Unfortunately, it might not be in the best interest of these companies to work together, which would create a hell for consumers.

Ideally, I would like to see everything left as open as possible. I could go on for a good length of time on how I believe in the decoupling of hardware and software, but we shall save that for another post.

The only way I would like to see this happen is if people are in control of their own devices. For example, as a strong proponent of free and open source software, I'd want to be able to run my own operating system on my device, and still have my hardware work and interact with other devices. We can place extra security and encryption on the devices (biometrics, perhaps), to help prevent the devices from being compromised if lost.

The phone component needs to optional. We can add a SIM card slot onto the device, and hopefully, carriers and manufactures will allow you to hook up to their networks seamlessly. The phone itself would be little more then an optionally installable application on the device. Hopefully carriers would remove those ridiculous data caps on their networks...but I know that is likely little more then a dream.

What about dedicated uses of the technology? Like I said, my desktop doubles as my DVR, and my ultimate device that I envision will hardly be able to record television shows for me if it's in my pocket on the other side of town.

This could be where device "reuse" comes in. In any case, there are likely to varying types of devices with different hardware capabilities. So it's not that crazy that I could use an older one, or cheaper one properly configured for DVR use while my main device stays with me.

We may still end up with multiple devices, but the fact is that the flexibility and configurability of the devices would all them to act as any other device, which would ultimately reduce the number of simultaneous devices we need at once. And with things such as longevity built into the device, they would need to be replaced less often, while the form factor can no longer improve.

I think such a technology has great potential. It's reasonable to implement, and could revolutionize the way we interact with our devices. But is has pitfalls as well, aspects we need to carefully avoid and implement properly if want to be successful. Nevertheless, I believe it is likely where we are to be headed, hopefully it'll be more of a blessing then a curse.

Do you agree? Feel free to share your thoughts and feelings in the comments, and have a great day!

Gandalf Vs Dumbledore: The Great Debate (Warning: Strong Language!)

2011-01-30T20:23:00.003-04:00

Hello folks!

Read this the other day on the wonderfully funny Failbook and just thought it was too funny not to share. I paraphrased it slightly, but you can find the original post here. Special thanks to the fellow with the Batman(?) avatar.

Warning: Strong language!

You have been warned.

Gandalf Vs Dumbledore

Lemme break it down for you. Dumbledore is pretty sweet. he runs a school where all sorts of crazy shit goes down. He has a bird that spontaneously com-busts and a pretty sweet office. Oh and he dies helping to save the world. No doubting: Dumbledore is pretty bad ass.

But then there's Gandalf

First, he finds the root of all evil, and lays out a plan to save the world. When he gets shit on by his buddy Saruman, he escapes by TALKING TO A MOTH, so that the moth can go get his buddy A GIANT FUCKING EAGLE to fly him off the roof of Saruman's tower. Then he hooks back up with Frodo and the gang. But wait, HE DIES. It is important to note however that he dies FIGHTING A GIANT FLAME DAEMON with a MOTHERFUCKING WHIP. Now, normally, dying would be a problem for most people.

FUCK THAT.

Gandalf just shrugs it off LIKE A BOSS and comes back to finish what he started. He also decided to update his wardrobe with some pimpin' white robes. Now fully pimped out, he tells everybody the plan then dips for a minute to handle some shit elsewhere, cause that's how Gandalf motherfucking rolls.

Then right when shit starts hitting the fan at Helm's Deep, he shows up WITH A GIANT FUCKING ARMY. Oh, and did I mention he shows up on the KING OF HORSES....RIDING BAREBACK?!?! So, not only does Gandalf have figurative balls of steel, he undoubtedly has ACTUAL BALLS OF STEEL.

Finally, after cleaning shit up at Minas Tirith, he peaces out and lets all the hobbits and humans enjoy a world PURGED OF ALL EVIL.

So, to recap,

Dumbledore: mentors the younger generation, sacrifices his live for the greater good.

Gandalf: Talks to animals, gives death the middle finger, constantly saves everybody else's ass, and then when it's all said and done, just leaves everyone else with all the spoils of war.

Gandalf WINS.

LIRC module disable by update

2011-01-29T19:46:00.007-04:00

Good evening everyone,

The other day I ran my system updates and one of the packages that got updated was a package called "lirc-modules-source".

Unfortunately, as a result of this update, my remote control and IR blaster was disabled.

Apparently, the kernel module I used for my infrared equipment, lirc_zilog, was removed in the update. The source file for the module was still available, but all traces of the *.ko weren't to be found.

In addition, I could no longer build the kernel module due to some changes in the newest Ubuntu version. I still intend to do some more research on *why* the update removed the module, but fortunately due to a very helpful blogger I found a very simple set of instructions to repair it:

* sudo bash
* apt-get remove lirc-modules-source
* rm -rf /usr/src/lirc-0.8.6/
* apt-get install lirc-modules-source
* cd /usr/src/lirc-0.8.6
* wget http://bobkmertz.com/blog-files/zilog-for-lucid.diff
* patch -p0 < zilog-for-lucid.diff
* dpkg-reconfigure lirc-modules-source

The last step will build the source and install the *.ko files. The original blog post can be found here with some more information, or if you are still having trouble: http://notepad.bobkmertz.com/2010/06/pvr-150-ir-blaster-on-mythbuntu-1004.html

I did this successfully on my HVR-1600 running regular Ubuntu 10.04. Full LIRC support returned after I modprobe'd the driver.

Otherwise, my MythTV-based DVR continues to work wonderfully. I'm making great progress on my complementary auto startup and shutdown problems I'm developing and will hopefully post them on line when they are complete. In the meantime, just wanted to pass along this info in case someone runs into similar issues! And also, it's a good idea to do a quick review of the system updates before you install them.

Protip: If you do see wonky behavior from any of your software after an update, you can review what packagers were recently updated with Synaptic. Just launch Synaptic and go to File->History and check the logs. This is how I ultimately deduced the culprit to the missing LIRC behavior.

All the best!

Let people choose their aspect ratio

2010-12-25T22:52:00.023-04:00

I can't count the number of times I've sat down to watch a movie with a friend or family member, and as soon as the movie starts, I hear "please tell me those black bars aren't going to be there the whole movie!"

Surely you are familiar with letter boxing. It's been evident on many movies watched at home since the early 90's (perhaps earlier, but I haven't been watching movies that long).

What causes letter boxing?

Letter boxing is related to something called the "aspect ratio". This refers, simply, to the ratio of the width of an image compared to it's height:

So if an image is 16 centimetres wide, and 9 centimetres high, then it is said to have an aspect ratio of 16x9. Often, for easy comparison, these are a reduced to a fraction of X:1, for example, 16x9 is approximately 1.78:1

When a movie or TV film is being produced, it is decided which aspect ratio it'll be filmed in. Three common aspect ratios (though by no means all), are 1.33:1 (4x3), 1.78:1 (16x9) and 2.35:1. Your TV screen also has an aspect ratio. Thus, letter boxing (which can be both horizontal and vertical) occurs when the aspect ratio of the picture your watching does not match the aspect ratio of your screen. For example:

TV content is generally filmed in 4x3 and 16x9 aspect ratios, while movies tend to be 16x9 or 2.35x1. TV and computer monitors are generally 4x3 or 16x9. Another popular screen size (especially on laptops) is 16x10.

I remember renting movies and watching them on VHS tapes. Just before the movie would start, you would see a friendly message on the screen stating "This film has been modified from it's original version. It has been formatted to fit this screen."

I never used to understand what it meant (though I also used to think the quick FBI warnings said "If you watch this tape backwards you will lose your memory") until my brother explained to me one time that "it means you won't get those stupid black bars on the top and bottom".

Later on, we began to rent more and move movies which had the so called "stupid black bars", and every shot, someone would complain about it at the beginning of the movie.

Usually however, once the movie began you didn't notice it as much, but that still didn't mean we liked it. In the early 2000's, the switch was made to DVD's which often, nicely, provided both "wide screen" and "full screen" versions, the wide screen usually referring to a 16x9 aspect ratio, and the full screen referring to 4x3. My Dad used to say that "wide screen" should be called "narrow screen" since half of it was missing. Some DVD's would even have both versions on the same screen, allowing you to choose on the disc. Eventually (around 2006 and much to my dismay) I believe DVD's stopped coming in both formats and came in wide screen only. And, 16x9 was rare, most DVD's were now only available in their native, filmed format of 2.35x1.

This meant that if you had a 4x3 TV, 2.35:1 wasn't just wide screen, it was really wide screen. You needed to upgrade your TV to a 16x9 model, just to lessen (but not remove) the letter boxing. When we had 4:3 TV's, you had to deal with 16x9 letter boxing, and when we got 16x9 TV's, you had to deal with 2.35:1 letter boxing! It's a no win situation, and getting worse with the advent of HDTV's (1080p/i is 16x9 in case you are wondering).

Now, not everyone (unlike my family members) hates letter boxing. Some argue that they prefer to see the movie as it was shown in theaters, as the director intended it, for artistic reasons. They argue that it's actually the cropping that cuts out "half the movie", and not watching it in "wide screen".

That's fine and dandy, if they want to watch the movie that way, let them. But personally, I believe in giving people the choice of aspect ratio they'd like to watch the movie in. And I think the solution to this is much simpler then you might think.

Solving letter boxing

It might seem like the only way to avoid letter boxing would be with some sort of projector, or having a TV of every possible ratio! But there are other solutions.

Many TV's now have the ability to "scale" the image. That is, they take the 2.35x1 image and stretch it to take up all of the 16x9 screen (or same with the 2.35x1 on a 4x3 screen). Personally, I don't like this option, as much as I dislike letter boxing, I dislike even more seeing the movie distorted:

Another option is cropping. Often, your player will have the ability to "zoom" in on the image. This can work to some success, but the problem here is that sometimes you cut out important things on the screen.

Some DVD's player support a "pan and scan" option which allows you to actually sweep across the entire image as it's playing, but I don't really want to have to manually control this while watching a movie either.

Couldn't we simply get them to agree?

Fat chance. There are multiple motivations for choosing an aspect ratio for a program or film, both artistic and financial. It's highly unlikely that we'll ever see an agreed upon aspect ratio for all video content. In addition, it's impractical to produce a different physical version for every aspect ratio. And even then, if you had the 4x3 version but decided later to get a 16x9 TV, suddenly your 4x3 version is obsolete.

And why should we? We're asking for the freedom to watch in the aspect ratio we wish. The creators, really, should be allowed to produce in any aspect ratio we wish. So how do we find common ground?

The solution is actually surprisingly simple, and, it's entirely software based. All we need to do is provide one copy of the video content, in whatever aspect ratio the creator wishes. Then, we use an automatic (on the fly) combination of zooming and scaling to nicely format the image into the desired aspect ratio to watch.

For example, let's say I'm watching a 2.35:1 movie on my 4:3 TV. Along with the single video file would be a text file that mapped what part of the image should be displayed at what time to my aspect ratio. For example, from 5:34 to 6:02 in the movie, the top left of the 4:3 "view window" should be 100 pixels down and 43 pixels over, then from 6:02 to 6:40, it should be 300 pixels over and 90 pixels down.

It's like the zoom method mentioned above, but instead of the entire film being zoomed onto the same spot within the larger image, the player would read from the text file and move zoomed section around the movie, seamlessly (e.g. during pans or transitions) to keep the most relevant sections in frame. Further more, this text file could be easily set up like a table, to have different mappings on my 16x9 TV for the exact same 2.35:1 source film (or have a different file for a different aspect ratio). In some extreme cases, we could also use scaling on parts of the image, but then add it with the zooming to prevent distortion.

Would be this be a lot of work to add to video content? I don't believe so, certainly no more work then doing a "full conversion" for a different aspect ratio like what used to be done. This is essentially the same thing as that conversion, the difference being in the old method the various "crops" were cut together to make a new version of the movie, since the electronics from the older analog display methods (VHS for example) weren't sophisticated enough for this. But with the age of digital media, this is entirely possible. The player merely needs to be updated to read from these cropping files and display the correct part of the source image.

And, as long as the protocol was open and usable by anyone, this could be a community driven effort. It only takes one person a little bit of time to cut their movie from the source into the aspect ratio of their choice, then publish it for others to use. Then, the next person searches a database for the "crop" file for their movie in their aspect ratio, feeds it to their player and watches away. Don't like the cropping decisions they made? Make your own, if you wish, then publish it for others to use. People could rate them and leave comments, which could ultimately result in a final "best" copy. Or, you can easily hit a button and, like magic, the original, non cropped version will play.

In fact, the cropping process itself might even be able to be automated with software (though I still like the idea of being able to do it yourself in case you don't like the decisions the software makes)

So there you go, a nice, laid out solution to matching aspect ratios between source images and display devices! No more letter boxing necessary. Will studios/equipment manufactures pick up on this idea? Perhaps not...but we can dream. It's certainly not an unsolvable problem, alas, for the time being we'll just have to muddle along.

Building a Ubuntu HTPC - Day ????

2010-12-07T20:38:00.009-04:00

I've made tons of progress getting my HTPC in a fully functional state, I'd stay it's at least 85% done of the functionality I want. I just haven't been updating the blog...well these things happen :)

Highlights:

1. Sound "crackle" problems are now fixed. Turns out, when you modprobe the cx18 driver, you can select the tuner type. My HVR-1600 was a Phillips tuner of type 43. It had been just using some "default" tuner type which wasn't reading the audio input correctly. This also fixed ivtv-tune not being able to get high signal strength or pick up channels.

In short:

1. Create a file in "/etc/modprobe.d" called "cx18.conf" (as root)
2. Add the following line: options cx18 tuner=43 radio=0 (your tuner # may be different)
3. Save the file and restart. The module should now be loaded with the correct options and the cracking should be gone for good.

Reference:
http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/showthread.php?p=4164862

2. Lirc: Lirc support is now fully functional, both blaster and receiver. You have to put your own lirc from source, and modprobe the kernel driver, but it should work fine.

The main recipe I got to work is here: http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php?p=9548142&postcount=9

Don't forget to modprobe the driver! You can add it to /etc/modules in Ubuntu 10.04 to have it load on boot.

Additional References you may find helpful:
http://www.blushingpenguin.com/mark/blog/?p=24
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/mythtv/users/442250
http://wilsonet.com/?p=40
http://www.mythtv.org/wiki/Hauppauge_HVR-1600

I had some trouble at first getting the remote to work with MythTV. Make sure your lirc socket (e.g. /dev/lirc0) has a+rw permissions (e.g. chmod a+rw /dev/lirc0)

In addition, if you follow the instructions above, the lirc socket you connect will *not* be /dev/lirc0, but rather /var/run/lirc/lircd. This is what you must configure MythTV to connect to in order to get it to work. You can find a sample .lircrc file for MythTV here, and modify it to your needs. One thing I did is make an entry to start MythTV with the Go button:

begin
button = Go
prog = irexec
repeat = 0
config = "/home/jason/Scripts/startmyth"
end

The contents of my startmyth script:

#!/bin/sh
# Run MythTV front end on display 1
export DISPLAY=:0.1
mythfrontend

You can use the DISPLAY variable to decide what X-session you want MythTV to start if you use a Dual-Head setup, like me.

Also, you'll want to start the lircd daemon on start. Here's my start lirc script:

mkdir /var/run/lirc
/home/jason/Development/lirc-0.8.6/build/sbin/lircd --device=/dev/lirc0 --logfile=/home/jason/Development/lirc-0.8.6/build/lircd.log
chmod a+rw /dev/lirc0

To run as root on boot, add it to your /etc/init.d/rc.local

3. I've cleaned up the video output a bit. Using a longer, single cable has helped but there's still a bit of interference.

4. I'm working on getting a custom Start up and Shut down program working. I've done some tests with ACPI_Wake and hit seems to work, just nailing down the details with the mythtv database, similarly, I also working on a shutdown application to turn off the computer at points after recording. I should be posing back after I get them running!

Smallest of the Small

2010-11-02T20:39:00.009-03:00

Disclaimer: This article is merely intended to be a speculative thought experiment, and shouldn't be mistaken for an actual research paper (in case using Wikipedia as my primary reference didn't already make that clear).

Throughout history, speculation on the fundamental building blocks of matter have been rampant within scientific curiosity. As early as 350-450 BCE, it was believed that all matter was made up of building blocks of four basic elements, Earth, Air, Fire, and Water. It was speculated that all matter could be broken down into these constituent 'elements'. Even today, though they may be a lot more elements listed on the periodic table, the idea is essentially unchanged. Matter consists of massive groups of molecules, which is subsequently made up of varying types of atoms (elements), which in turn consist of neutrons, elections, and protons, which are further subdivided into even more sub-subatomic particles, for example quarks and other types of leptons.

As of current understanding, quarks and leptons are the most elementary form of fermion (traditional matter) particles known. For a particle to truly have no substructure, it must be considered to be the most fundamental particle, the one from which all other matter is built.

It is only natural to ask the question, are these the most fundamental particles or do they have substructure? Quarks are not identical after all, they have different masses, charges, so is it not unreasonable to concluded they might be composed of yet smaller blocks? There have been many ideas on the existence of 'preons', particles considered to be building blocks of quarks. For our purposes here, we are going to indeed make the assumption that quarks do indeed have a yet-undefined substructure. Furthermore, what ever this substructure is, let's assume that it can furthermore broken into an n-particle limit, that is, subdivided and subdivided to a finite level of substructure. The question then becomes, what is the last level? What is the smallest of the small?

We are going to step into a thought experiment, and assume this fundamental particle exists, which we will simply refer to as Particle X. What can we infer about this particle? Assuming that it exists, a few properties seem to be logical extensions of it: 1) All of the particles are identical but unique; 2) They are infinitesimally small, most likely on the order of Planck Length; 3) They exist for only infinitesimal periods in time;

That is, the smallest particle would also be related to the smallest units of time, size, mass, as well as being zero-dimensional. Zero-dimensional you say? I know that can be hard to imagine, given that we normally experience a three dimensional physical universe. If it helps, here's how I visualize N-dimensions (borrowed heavily from arrays in my main vocation, with is computer science). First, imagine a single point, alone, in a vast void. Since there exists no other points, there's no reference with which to differentiate it from another, therefore if we were to try and give coordinates for it, there wouldn't be any. This is the 0^th dimension. Now, imagine that we take an infinite number of those points and arrange them in a line. Now, we can refer to a specific point by giving a single coordinate, X if you like, it's position in the line. Using a single coordinate to reference it's position, this is the 1^st dimension. Now, imagine that we take an infinite number of those lines and lay them parallel to each other, forming a plane. To refer to a specific point, we need two coordinates, the line it's on (Y), and the particle in that line (X). This is the 2^nd dimension. Then, we take take an infinite number of these planes and stack them on top of one another, creating a cube of sorts, using a third coordinate (Z) to reference a single point, basically three dimensions. Then, we could take an infinite number of of these “cubes” and lay them “besides” each other, now using a 4^th coordinate to differentiate between the various cubes, creating a forth spatial dimension, and continuing so on in that fashion for any number of dimensions we want.

Of course, an obvious contraction seems to rouse it's head. We assume that all of the particles would have to be identical, since, if two fundamental particles were different, it would imply that they have a substructure which differentiates them, and we've already said that our particle X is the last level. But if they are all identical, how could they possibly come together to form different higher level particles? That is, they would have to be both identical and unique, which doesn't seem correct.

There are two other aspects of Particle X that haven't been considered yet, namely it's location, and it's motion, or amount of energy. Gauge bosons are currently considered elementary bosons, or units of energy. There may in fact also be a fundamental unit of energy, in essence, possibly even grand unification energy, in analogy with the fundamental particle. Here is the basic model as I'm envisioning it: all fundamental particles are physically identical, for each particle is an associated unit of a unique amount of energy. It is the differing amount of energy which separates different particles. This is where we tie in another necessary smallest, size. What I propose is that the energy level of each particle is dependent on it's location in space-time, and vice versa. My speculation is that there could be a one-to-one relationship between a particle's location in time and space, and the amount of energy it has. This relationship isn't all that much of a stretch. An object will move in a vacuum so long as it has kinetic energy and nothing to interfere with that motion. If something collides with it, or slows it motion, its kinetic energy will lessen and become potential energy.

Consider the Big Bang. We might now think of it as an element of Particle X, with the highest possible energy level (the first location). As time went on, the energy level decreased. This corresponded to the initial expansion of the universe. For a useful analogy, think of cell division. The first Particle X's energy level decreased, creating more particle's out of one, whose level decayed into new particles, and so on. Each new 'generation' is associated with a unique instant in time. The individual energy level of each Particle X is different. That is, each moment of time is 'frozen' where each particle has a unique energy level. But if we were to examine a particle from our point of view, it would appear as though the energy of it was changing over time. The change in time however is relative, if we were to examine two particles, we would notice a consistent change in their energy over time (it should be decreasing), however the two particles would also have a different energy due to their location in space. The difference in the spacial component of their energy would remain the same (assuming they were stationary with respect to one another), relative to their change in temporal energy. So as the universe moves forward in time, the energy decreases, but stays the same relative to other particles in that instant.

So the property that differentiates one particle from another is it's location, and subsequently it's energy. If that were the case, what would allow groups of this particle to differentiate substructures or high structure particles that they form? Since the only property unique to the particle is its location or energy, let's infer that is the property we seek. In essence, it's possible that the differentiating factor is the difference in the collective energy of one group of Particle X's compared to another group. Since the difference in the energy level of two particles stays the same relative to one another over time, this would allow higher level particles to exist, over time. As an analogy, imagine we could take the average of the energy level of a group of Particle X. A certain group of particles may have a mean energy level, different from the mean energy level of another group of particles. For example, one mean may correspond to an 'up' quark, whereas another mean may correspond to a 'down' quark. Given this model, it is possible that all sub atomic particles develop in this way, which is how the most basic substructures are formed.

Another analogy for the location-energy relationship is that of electrons in an atom. It thought that the distance an electron is from the nucleus of an atom is directly dependent on it's energy level (see Electron Shells). That is, the more energy it has, the further from the nucleus it exists. It has also been conjectured, if not proven, that electrons may jump orbits without even moving through the space in between, which alone has spectacular implications.

So let's continue to extend this idea to our Particle X. The 'nucleus' in this case would be the center/beginning of the universe in space time, the big bang. The particles are like the electrons moving around it. Though in this case, it seems it may be more logical to have the situation reversed. The big bang was a massive amount of energy, so in order for particles further from it to have higher energy, it seems like we would be violating the law of conservation of energy. So instead let's reverse it: units of the particle have higher energy as we wind the 'universe's film' (like a movie film) backwards to the big bang, which was a single unit of the particle with the total amount of energy in the universe. Then as the universe expanded, the energy was divided among newly formed particles, which would still be continuing today. But to what end?

The ultimate fate of the universe would then seem to depend on these particles, whether or not the universe eventually contracts or expands indefinitely. Three outcomes are theorized, either 1) the universe doesn't stop expanding, and eventually the thermodynamic energy is equally divided in the universe (heat death); 2) The universe eventually contracts back to a single point; 3) The universe stops expanding but doesn't contract. It may be simply that the “evening out” of fundamental energy as I've describe here works out be the heat death described in the model.

So what happens when I move my hand though the air? Or more precisely, when any sort of body moves through space? In the model as I've described it, every Particle X should have a unique, fixed energy level. Over time, it appears to us that the particle's energy is changing, but staying the same relative to its spacial position. So how does something move, in standard kinematics, given this model? Imagine a ball being thrown, and let's pretend that we have an ultimate high resolution camera with which can take a photo down to the level of Particle X once every Planck second. If we were to analyze each photo, what would see happening to the energy level of each Particle X in the ball, as well as the air it is displacing? First, lets just consider the front end of the ball, without the air. Would our fundamental particle still be present in a vacuum? I would have to venture a “yes” guess, at the very least in the form of virtual particles. Indeed, the fundamental Particle X should permeate all of existence, there shouldn't be anywhere which can exist without it at a corresponding energy level. So either way, with the air or not, the particles in the ball should be displacing other particles just the same.

The balls moves through the air, but the particles can't move though one another. Obviously the particles in the air molecules are be displaced by the particles in the ball's molecules. Since location is depended on energy level, by changing the ball's location, the energy level of its particles must also be changing as a result of the movement. The Particle X's of the ball would either give up or accept energy depending on the direction of the motion (spatially, away from the universe origin point), but of course the precise energy level would always be decreasing, unless the ball was moving backwards in time. Energy level in the ball's particles are thus being swapped particle by particle with the energy of the air molecules it's moving through. Thus, any movement can be generalized as a particle by particle swapping this of fundamental energy among various Particle X's. This could also explain why there is a universal 'curtain' speed limit, for example if a Particle X took such an amount of time to swap an amount of energy with it's neighboring particle (in order to move), perhaps at the speed of light is the fastest this swapping could occur.

Keeping in mind that the preceding argument was all just a speculative thought experiment, if any of it were real, might it be at all useful to us? Assuming this idea is correct, at least in principle it could be useful, but the actual engineering would be extraordinarily complex, if at all possible. The idea is to create a device capable of artificially changing the energy of a group of these particles. With enough energy, we would be able to move an object to any point in space-time, instantly. We wouldn't actually be moving faster then light, in terms of classical mechanics, the mass was motionless the whole time, but rather it is more like a leap, much like the electron jumping orbits, without going through the space in between. Sound like a useful form of transportation? Additionally, we would be able to change the molecular structure of matter at a fundamental level, the ultimate recycling, since the substructure of a complex particle is just the differencing energy level. Whether or not the technology could practically exist to change the energy level of the particle is unknown, but there would be no shortage of applications. We change the energy of a particle all the time by simply moving an object, so what we want to be able to do is the opposite.

Though it also raises the question, if we could artificially change the location of a mass by changing its energy, what would happen to the mass (particles) that are already in the position where we placed the mass? We know that the total amount of energy is constant, so the most logical conclusion seems to be that, for instance, the energy needed to be added to a mass to move it would be directly subtracted from the energy of the place we are relocating it. Since location is dependent on that energy, whatever was previously occupying that point in space time would then take the place of the original object we wanted to move, in effect they would be swapped, without disturbing anything in between. For an example, imagine two cubes, A and B. We know the relative difference in the energy between them, so we know how much energy needs to be added to (or subtracted from) A to give it the location of B. When we apply it, the cubes would swap places, with the A cube taking the place of the B cube, and vice versa.

In conclusion, the 'fundamental particle' we have conjectured may actually be something already conceived, superstrings. Likewise, the energy level we have attributed to our particle may be the vibration of these strings, which is driven by what we have come to call grand unification energy. Let me reiterate, this is all just speculation. There is no experimental evidence for my ideas at the present time, though I feel this is a truly fascinating topic to explore. I've done my best to properly infer my conclusions logically, and hope you enjoyed my take on it. By all means, feel free to leave a comment and share your own thoughts as well.

Building a Ubuntu HTPC - Day Two

2010-10-14T20:01:00.011-03:00

Greetings to the blogging world!

I'm on "Day Two" of my DVR setup (even though a few days have passed since Day One...sue me).

I'm happy to report that progress is proceeding steadily....if not entirely as smoothly as day one. Here's a recap of what's been going on so far:

The good:

* Did I mention just how fast this thing can boot? I go from a cold start to a usable desktop in under 20 seconds! The Ubuntu load screen only flashes for less then a second, then bang, it's there.

* Skype is working well. I can make and receive calls and am getting good reception for audio calls. However, the Skype I installed from the Ubuntu repositories wasn't working, but rather was hanging every time I tried to sign in. Rather, I download and installed the .deb file form Skype itself (they state it's for 8.10+) and that one is working much better.

The bad:

* Despite my sound initially working when I first tried it, I have run into a few minor issues. Namely, I can't get the back audio jack and the headphone jack to work as I'm used too. Initially, plugging in the head phones would mute the rear speakers, but not give me any sound through the headphones. The volume was also quite low. I installed the "Alsa backport" which helped with the volume issues, though the audio still mutes whenever I plug in the headphones. It seems I can only have both jacks working at the same time, or both muted. Here are a few links I've been following on this issue.
**http://www.paralaptop.com/ubuntu/fix-ubuntu-10-04-lucid-lynx-headphone-jack-sense-problem.html
**http://playingwithsid.blogspot.com/2010/06/headphone-jack-sense-problem-in-ubuntu.html (headphone port doesn't mute audio)
* My web cam isn't quite working the way I want. I can an image using Cheese, but it's very dark and looks grainy. I also can't get an image through with Skype.
* TV-out was not working initially. First, I couldn't get the TV to show up at all in nvidia-settings, though I later did by plugging it into my AV adapter, rather then my DVD recorder. Still, I was getting no video on the screen. Eventually I was able to get an image on the screen by turning on the output with nvidia settings, having an Xorg.conf file, then adding the following two lines to the Screen section:

Option "TVOutFormat" "SVIDEO"
Option "TVStandard" "NTSC-M"

Since the video card also seems to be capable of of Component output via a 7-pin to S-video adapter, my hypothesis is that it was trying to use a component signal by default. Some links I used to help me resolve this are:
* https://help.ubuntu.com/community/NvidiaTVOut
* http://us.download.nvidia.com/XFree86/Linux-x86/173.14.09/README/chapter-16.html

* There is still an additional problem with the video out, I get two wavy "bands" moving slowly up the screen. I think this may be a problem with refresh rate, but I don't seem to be able to change the refresh rate beyond 59.94 Hz (e.g. using regular 60 Hz), even from Xorg.conf. It's highly noticeable on still images, though less so on video, so that's good. It doesn't seem to be being caused the by the cable or TV since I can use the same with my W7 laptop with no lines. I'll continue to investigate.

Ubuntu HTPC - Day One

2010-10-14T19:16:00.004-03:00

Earlier in the week I received delivery of my new tower that I ordered with which I'm working on constructing my Ubuntu HTPC.

The primary focus of this machine will be to use as a PVR and HTPC, though I'll also be using it for general IM/Email/Web browsing, as well as some Linux Gaming, Wine usage and video editing.

I'll be starting off with some basic hardware, and expanding as I need too, though hopefully I already have much of what I need. The system hardware as it stands now is:

* AMD Athlon X2 250 @ 3.0Ghz
* ASUS motherboard with USB 3.0 and HD Audio
* 2 GB DDR3 ram # 1333 mhz
* Nvidia GeForce 9400GT @ 1GB Ram (VGA, DVI, S-video/Component ouputs). This card was selected with S-video output since I don't own a HDTV, nor plan to by one in the future. My monitor is high definition, for which I'm using the DVI and still have the spare VGA for my laptop.
* Hauppage HVR-1600 tuner card
* 320 GB SATA drive @ 7200 rpm
* Multi-card reader
* 21.5 inch High Definition Fluid LCD @ 1920x1080 resolution
* Sony external USB 2.0 DVD RW drive.
* Logitech wireless keyboard/mouse, gamepad, webcam, etc.

I also purchased a 2TB USB 3.0 External drive for backup and storage. Ubuntu was selected for the operating system since I to use MythTV as my PVR software and due to the high customization potentials. I considered installing Ubuntu 10.10, but ultimately decided to stick with 10.04 LTS since I figured there would be more community support for it, and I don't necessarily want to need to upgrade in six months. I also want to significantly increase my Linux knowledge as much as possible. I decided against using Mythbuntu, but may decide to use the "one-click-switch" if I have trouble configuring MythTV as an external package.

Install of Ubuntu was exceptionally painless, it formatted and installed the OS rapidly. So far, everything has worked out of the box, including sound and the DVI-port at a high resolution, though I haven't tried installing some things yet such as the Webcam, and TV tuner card.

I have installed the Nvidia proprietary drivers easily with the Ubuntu Hardware Drivers menu, and now and am enjoying desktop effects and hardware acceleration. I've also watched some high definition Flash videos on YouTube on full screen with no issues. Email and IM are setup and working well so far, though I'm using AllTray to minimize Evolution to the system tray since it doesn't seem to have the function itself. Temperature and noise of the machine have been quite reasonable so far, though I'll be keeping an eye on it.

My main setup upcoming tasks are as followed:

* Configure the video out and audio outputs to my TV
* Setup the tuner card and MythTV
* Setup my webcam for use with Skype
* Copy personal data to my primary drive and sync with backup

I'll hopefully be updating my blog as I go along with tips and tricks as I discover them. Stay tuned!

Upgrading to 10.04? Might need to fix your display settings.

2010-05-08T16:39:00.019-03:00

Call me an "early adopter", but I love playing with bleeding edge tech (when I have the cash :) even though it might cause a few buggy issues.

As such I was excited when Ubuntu 10.04 LTS was released just over a week ago. After installing the latest Karmic upgrades, I was presented with a friendly request to upgrade to 10.04 and decided to take it. And as always for Linux, the monetary cost isn't something I need to worry about :).

The Install Process

Installing over my Karmic install was fairly painless, but slow. It had to download about 2.5GB, which surprised me since the install CD's themselves are usually only around 700 MB. The download proceeded smoothly and after a few hours the install began. Again, there wasn't a heck of lot of user interaction on my part, just a few dialogs I needed to answer. After an hour or two more, I was prompted for a reboot to continue.

What the....?

Not sure I was quite prepared for what came next. As you might have seen before in my blog, I have a rather customized Gnome desktop, including a custom Xorg.conf file for extended displays. Upon rebooting, my entire desktop was...rather messed up. It's hard to describe, but the desktop seemed to be flipped 180 degrees, and the icons themselves were inverted. The entire desktop was also completely unresponsive. I couldn't click anything, nor would the keyboard or any of my short cuts respond!

Very strange, though I had an inkling it had to with my various desktop modifications. A close up on the Gnome menu:

What next?

Strange looking, hmmm? That's what I thought. However, this isn't the first time I've totally borked my Gnome desktop, so I knew what I had to do to reset it. I restarted and used grub to enter recovery mode which allowed me to boot into a command line interface (Tip: You can also try CTRL-ALT-F1 to get to a command line).

I then gained root access with a sudo bash command, and made a backup folder. From there, a copied the following four folders: .gnome2, .gconf, .gconfd and .gnome_private into the backup folder (Tip: You can use cp -r to move directories and their contents recursively).

I then used rm -rf to remove each of the folders (Don't do this as root from your / directory lest you delete your entire file system!)

Upon rebooting, Ubuntu decided it needed to do a disk check. Considering my last few hard reboots, this was expected:

After it was finished (~20 minutes), I booted into Gnome. My customized desktop was gone *but* everything was still oddly "inverted":

Still borked, apparently. The only other thing I could think of that might be causing such an odd issue is my custom Xorg.conf file, as these haven't officially been in Ubuntu for a while.

So I booted back into the terminal and removed it. And voila! I was presented with:

First thoughts on 10.04

As Bender would say, we're back baby! I then tried restoring my old Gnome settings from the backup (with the removed Xorg.conf, after backing up the current settings first), though this caused my Gnome to freeze on restart, so I put the old desktop back. Still, if you run into a similar issue, I recommend simply trying to remove your Xorg.conf first before resetting Gnome. I'll spend some time with the new Gnome theme before I decide how I want to customize it. So far it's pretty spiffy, if odd looking, not sure if I'll get used to the window controls being on the left side of the screen! No problems with my wi-fi, connected with no issues. My sound isn't working, though I have yet to figure out why, and I'll need to figure out how to bring back my extended display, such is the price you occasionally pay for trying out the latest and greatest. Still, the OS itself seems solid enough though (blazing fast on this outdated hardware!), and I look forward to playing with it more. Hope this post gives a hand to any others who run into the odd display issue I did!

Where are all the Canadian game shows?

2010-04-28T19:50:00.006-03:00

Greetings everyone!

As you probably already know, I am indeed quite a geek. One of the many things I enjoy in my geeky livelihood is television -> usually science fiction and fantasy, but I also some comedy's, dramas, action stories, etc.

Another type of television program I am a fan of is game shows. I've been watching game shows for as long as I can remember, and although I don't like all game shows, I usually find them to be quite entertaining. Specifically ones that involve trivia, or other tests of skill.

But I also have a pretty big problem with game shows. I can't get on them! Why might you ask?

Most major game shows in the US are open to residents of the United States. Usually any resident of legal age can apply to be a contestant, and are allowed to participate if chosen. However, with some notable exceptions (e.g. The Price is Right, Jeopardy!), these shows restrict their contestants to residents of the United States. Thus, most other countries have adopted their own versions of various game shows for their own citizens. Survivor alone has over forty international versions.

But what about Canada? There is no Survivor: Canada that I'm aware, nor is there a Canadian Family Feud, Wheel of Fortune, or Let's Make a Deal. Sure, as I mentioned a few US game shows do allow Canadian contestants, which is great, and although I don't think it's likely I'll ever make to Los Angeles, I'll be sure to apply for them if I do.

But what's the deal with Canada? Why won't Canadian networks create their own, big budget prime time game shows open to Canadian residents? We can't get on the US shows, and other countries have their own versions, but why not us? I call B.S. We're simply left in the dust when it comes to Canadian game show opportunities. Do Canadian networks simply think they wouldn't be profitable enough? I'd watch, and I'd bet you could find many others that would too.

Sure, on occasion a big US game show gets ported over to Canada such as Deal or No Deal, Are you smarter then a fifth grader?, and Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? But not permanently, instead we are left with only "five special episodes". Although I applied to be on these when they were offered, I was not selected nor do I have the chance to try again due to their short life spans. And although Toronto may be a bit easier to get to than L.A., wider spread adoption of such shows would promote more opportunities for Canadian contestants from various backgrounds and locations.

Interestingly, there have been permanent French Canadian versions of game shows such as "Big Brother", "Wipeout" and "Wheel of Fortune" on the major French networks. Although I applaud these efforts, they still have a way to go, and are not applicable to English speaking residents.

It wasn't always this way. In the past, Canadian networks used to indeed produce and develop their own game shows, such as "Definition" and "Acting Crazy". And even today, all hope is not lost. Some very cool Canadian game shows exist in (somewhat) regular production such as Cash Cab and Qubit. Although not quite as "big budget" as major US network shows, they are still well worth watching although getting on them (especially Cash Cab) may not be so easy.

So come on Canada. Let's get the major Canadian networks such as CTV, Global and CBC on board. We need more Canadian game shows! We don't need to just copy US game shows, we can develop our own innovative and exciting shows that other countries will try to copy. And we don't even need many, I'm not greedy, just a few that are consistent, i.e. don't go away so quickly. They don't even need to be the same all time, maybe a Canadian Survivor one season and a Canadian Big Brother (or my personal favorite, Canadian The Mole :) another season. However it's implemented though, I'm getting tired of seeing only American game shows with the odd Canadian contestant. I want to see a persistent prime time high-prize Canadian game show, made by Canadians and for Canadians that actually sticks around.

Well that's my dream anyway :), how about you?

Exploiting Kernel Null Dereferences

2010-04-13T18:59:00.003-03:00

From the Ksplice blog comes a fantastic article about Exploiting NULL references in a kernel module to gain root access (or more...) over a system. It's a fantastically written piece, and easy to understand even for non-guru hackers. I recommended taking a few moments out to giving it a read!

Check it out here:

http://blog.ksplice.com/2010/04/exploiting-kernel-null-dereferences/

Where am I? Lost of course!

2010-02-09T19:09:00.005-04:00

Namaste!

Yes, I know I'm starting this post with the same thing hundreds of other, admittedly much better, Lost blogs all over the interwebs have. It's the start of Season 6, the last season, and after patiently waiting months, we finally got the season premiere, LA X, last Tuesday.

Now of course, Jay's Desktop isn't a lost blog. It's also not a blog about Lost (see what I did there?). Rather, its a "post-about-anything-Jason-thinks-is-nifty" blog. And Lost is certainly something nifty.

I originally didn't watch Lost when it first aired. It's not that I wasn't interested, I was just busy with other things (school, friends, *cough* world domination *cough*) and never had a chance to catch it. Finally, in first year of university, I rented Lost season 1 over spring break (*cough* loser *cough*) on DVD and enjoyed it quite throughly. From then on I made it a point to watch all of season 2. Like many others, I feel the show hit a low spot around season 3. Many people I knew who also watched the show began stopping around this time. Unlike many others though, I kept watching, especially after Flashes Before Your Eyes. Even if it was at a low point now, I knew it would be coming back, and come back hard. I wasn't disappointed.

Lost was a great character story for sure, but what I really loved was the mystery. The feeling of "weirdness". For the first several seasons, the science fiction/fantasy element, though clearly present (the Numbers, the monster), was somewhat subdued and in the background. Like many others, I was quite shocked at the end of season three: so much to the point that for a few moments, I though they'd retconned Kate and Jack knowing each before the crash. I did indeed notice Jack's out-of-time phone, but chalked it up to a production error (tsk). But as it sunk it, it began to make sense, and finally, The Constant, seemed to solidify it: time travel! Yes, now we're in the right territory. I was very happy to see the sci-fi elements brought to the foreground, including not only consciousness time travel but physical time travel and other superpowers as well (e.g. Miles, Jacob). I haven't been disappointed since!

Finally onto some season 6 ideas! I'm assuming you've seen LA X already. These are some ideas I came up with while watching the premiere, though they are unlikely to be unique and I certainly don't have an answer for every mystery, nor would I like too. These are just a few thoughts I had. I'm posting them for posterity purposes, sort of a "let's see how right I was" when it's all said and done.

1. The Island is isolated in time and space. Although the previous season dealt with time travel, this one seems to be dealing with parallel universes ("flash sideways" as the producers have coined them). There seem to be at least two universes: the island universe where the characters crash, and the alternate universe where they didn't. My prediction however is that there is in fact only one universe: the universe where the characters didn't crash created by Juliet's detonation of Jughead. The bomb did indeed reset the timeline, but the Island due to its "special" nature, and the island only, was isolated from the changes in the timeline (like how the Enterprise-E didn't disappear when the Borg went back in time in Star Trek: First Contact). The island exists itself in a sort of bubble universe. Thus, if the characters on the island were to leave, the universe they would encounter is one where flight 815 never crashed, and each one of them would have a duplicate.

2. I think it's inevitable that by the end of the series, one of more characters on the island will leave and discover this, only to return. The two groups/timelines will converge, either by meeting or at least observing each other. The characters on the island will decide to stay (hopefully happily) on the island in the end while the characters off the island will have the lives enriched for meeting their on-island counterparts.

3. The missing coffin and knives are two special items that link the timelines together. When flight 815 passed over the "island" in the timeline where the plane never crashed, these items disappeared, since they were so important to the island's isolated timeline.

4. Either the Numbers have changed, or their effects have changed in the new timeline. This appears to be evident by Hurley still winning the library but still being "lucky". I don't have much more detail on this one, but several other blogs have pointed out a few new reoccurring numbers. It still remains to be seen what numbers Hurley used in the new timeline, but I doubt he got them from the mental institution (who in turn got them from the radio signal).

5. Rose and Bernard are Adam and Eve. This theory has been around for sometime, but I think everything we've seen in season 5 next to confirms it. Though Jack and co. have returned to the present, I think that although Rose and Bernard were also transported to the island in the "bubble" universe (instead of the island now on the bottom of the sea), they remained in the 70's (or even further back in time). They will eventually move to the caves and die together peacefully. The stones I don't understand though (maybe Jacob gives the stones to them?). In a way, Rose and Bernard will serve to prove Jacob's point against his enemy, that humanity is worth something after all.

6. Back to number 2, Off-island Jack will restore off island Locke's ability to walk, and off-island Locke will return to the Island to stay, maybe even gaining old-Locke's memories. In the end though, John and Locke will be friends and definitively on the same side. In fact, have you ever noticed that:

This works on so many levels! All the mysteries solved right there :) It's going to be a fun ride.

Extending your desktop to TV with Karmic Koala

2010-01-30T18:37:00.008-04:00

Introduction

Ever since I've been using Ubuntu on my original laptop, I've been having great fun poking and prodding with its configuration, getting it to do some pretty fantastic things! My eventual goal is to turn this machine into a full fledged Linux-based HTPC (Home Theatre PC), and have been working on the project on and off to achieve that goal.

I don't have a high definition television, but the laptop comes equipped with a S-video out port, perfect for connecting the PC to my standard definition television. When I used to run openSuse, I had the proprietary ATI drivers installed and could use aticonfig to turn the extended desktop on and off.

Problems

Since switching to Karmic, I haven't quite been able to get this to work. The ATI drivers don't come installed by default, and they aren't open source anyway. I did make an attempt to install the drivers, but the OS seemed to ignore them and continue to use the open source drivers. I didn't want them unless necessary anyway, but the question remained: how to configure extended desktop without ATI config?

...and solutions!

The answer lies in the X Resize and Rotate Extension (RandR), or xrandr. If you run xrandr from Terminal, you should see something that looks like this:

Screen 0: minimum 320 x 200, current 1280 x 800, maximum 1280 x 1280
VGA-0 disconnected (normal left inverted right x axis y axis)
LVDS connected 1280x800+0+0 (normal left inverted right x axis y axis) 0mm x 0mm
1280x800 59.9*+
1280x720 59.9
1152x768 59.8
1024x768 60.0 59.9
800x600 60.3 59.9
640x480 59.9 59.4

On my laptop, LVDS refers to the LCD screen. Listed there are a number of possible resolutions and screen refresh rates.

To activate your S-video out (or VGA), you'll need to add a display mode for it. Use the addmode function of xrandr for this:

xrandr --addmode S-video 800x600

In this case, I want to set an S-video out mode of 800x600 resolution. You should then see the mode if you run xrandr again:

S-video disconnected (normal left inverted right x axis y axis)
800x600 60.3

In order to actually use the S-video out, there are a number of options. The simplest is merely to activate it:

xrandr --output S-video --mode 800x600

But not quite...

This'll clone the desktop onto the S-video out. Unfortunately, since the LCD is running at 1280x800, you'll only see the top-left 800x600 pixels of your LCD display. This isn't particularly useful now is it? You can use the --pos YYYxZZZ option (e.g. --pos 100x100) option to move the output display around, but you'll still always be missing some of the screen.

Unfortunately, it was at this point that I hit a road block. I could clone the output, and move it around, but not get a dedicated output for the S-video out. What I decided to to was alter the command a little, I would turn off the LCD display, set the resolution to 800x600, then send it via the S-video:

xrandr --output LVDS --off --output S-video --mode 800x600

Now, I could have either a 1280x800 desktop on my LCD, or an 800x600 desktop on the TV. Not exactly what I wanted, but still sufficient for watching movies, videos, and even using the desktop on the TV.

Eventually, I realized what had to be done in order to extend the desktop.

Make the "virtual desktop" (amount of screen area) bigger
Use the --pos command to move the S-video output to the right of the LCD desktop.

xrandr has a --fb command for increasing the size of the "Frame Buffer" (the virtual desktop size). Alas, everytime I would try to change it, I'd get an error like this:

xrandr: screen cannot be larger than 1280x1280

Xorg.conf

Doing some searching, it seems the best advice was to configure the virtual desktop size in the Xorg.conf file (so the virtual screen size would be set while X server was starting). But hold on a moment...Ubuntu did away with Xorg.conf files in version 9.10! What to do? I made a few attempts at writing an Xorg.conf file by hand, but was always missing something causing my machine to reboot in "Low Graphics Mode". And my searches for changing the frame buffer without an xorg.conf, including a post on the Ubuntu forums, revealed no results.

Luckily, I found a post today on how to generate an xorg.conf from your current configuration. Essentially:

1. Reboot. When in grub, select to boot in recovery mode.
2. After logging in to a command prompt, run:

sudo Xorg -configure

3. This will create a xorg.conf.new file for you, likely in your home directory.
4. As root, copy this file into your /etc/X11/ folder (remember: back up the old one if there's already one there!)
5. Rename it to xorg.conf
6. Open your favorite editor (you can run startx now and do this from X Windows if you don't want to from the command line)
7. Find the "screen" module.
8. You'll see listed a number of display sections like so:

SubSection "Display"
Viewport 0 0
Depth 24
EndSubSection

To the most common ones (or even just the ones you'll use), add the following line:

Virtual 2080 800

9. Save, and restart.

Upon running xrandr at a command line now, you should see your virtual desktop has changed:

Screen 0: minimum 320 x 200, current 1280 x 800, maximum 2080 x 800.

You can now use the --pos to set your S-video output to 1280x0, which will put the video output to the right of the current desktop and Volia! Extended Desktop! You can now drag windows over to it (such as videos), full screen them, move them, even see your desktop effects!

Wrapping it up

To prevent having to use xrandr all the time, I made a few simple scripts for configuring the TV Out.

1. Go into your home folder. Create a folder called "Scripts".
2. We're going to make three scripts:
One for turning the TV out on in Extended Desktop, One for Clone Mode, and one for turning it off. First the deactivate script:
3. First, deactivate: In gedit (or another editor), paste the following into a text file:

xrandr --output LVDS --mode 1280x800 --output S-video --off

This'll deactivate the S-video and make sure your LCD is the main display. Save it as "Deactivate_TV_Out" or something alone those lines.

4. Now, activate in clone mode:

xrandr --addmode S-video 800x600
xrandr --output LVDS --off --output S-video --mode 800x600

and save as "Activate_TV_Out_Clone"

5. Finally, extended mode!

xrandr --addmode S-video 800x600
xrandr --output S-video --mode 800x600 --pos 1280x0

Call it "Activate_TV_Out_Extended"

6. For each file, right click and go to "Properties".

7. Under the permissions tab, click to allow for executing as program.

You can now click each of those to move back and forth between the various mode. Sometimes, you might have to deactivate the TV-out in order to activate it in a different mode. You can make shortcuts to these scripts, or as I did, set keyboard shortcuts:

1. Go to System->Preferences->Keyboard Shortcuts
2. Go to Add.
3. Give the shortcut a name "Activate_TV_Out_Extended", and point command to your script, e.g.
/home/jason/Scripts/Activate_TV_Out_Extended.
4. Do this for each of the other two scripts.

Make sure to use unassigned shortcuts, I used Ctrl-F1, F2 and F3 respectively. I am a bit unsure of including the "xrandr --addmode S-video 800x600" each time the script is run, but it doesn't seem to cause any problems. Without the mode being added, activating the TV out won't work. If I do find a way to keep the mode consistent, I'll update it here. Good luck, I hope others find these instructions useful (provided without any guarantees)! To end my post: something I haven't shown you yet on my blog: Jay's Desktop! I suppose it's about time =P.

Take care everyone!

Tweeting...From...Space!

2010-01-25T19:16:00.002-04:00

First, human kind gazed into space.

Then, human kind sent objects into space.

Then, human kind sent itself into space.

Then, human kind landed on another world.

And now...

Human kind can tweet....from space!

Yes, despite the lack of air that might be required for more traditional tweeting, extra-terrestrial electronic tweeting is alive and well! Just ask astronaut TJ Creamer, who thanks to him, you can follow someone not on planet Earth.

As a self described geek, this combines at least two of my various obsessions: The Internet and Space. Col. Creamer's older posts appear to him working on getting it working: presumably tweeting by a proxy on earth. But now the middle man can be cut out, at least mostly so. One site suggests that the tweeting (and web access in general) is actually done via taking control of a computer on the ground, ala remote desktop.

Nevertheless, allowing astronauts to have internet access on the ISS can only help to further and promote space travel. With access to resources like Twitter, Facebook, even VOIP products, hopefully astronauts won't feel quite so isolated, which may encourage more travel. Let's just hope they don't get any viruses. But then again, they should probably be using Linux anyway :).

Geeks and Nerds

2010-01-20T18:31:00.001-04:00

I remembered reading this on some miscellaneous website several years ago. I'm not sure who the original author is, but several sources point to Craigslist.

The article is written from a female's point of view, discussing the merit's of various "personality" types. As a self defined geek, I find the article quite a good read, and something others many benefit from as well so I'm re-posting it here. I also find it quite accurate, though personally I'd pick a can of apple or peach juice over Mountain Dew :).

Enjoy!

In the wide world of dating, there are many options. Do you go for the flashy guy with the smooth smile, or the dude in the corner typing away on his laptop? The following are reasons why I think my fellow females should pay more attention to the quiet geeks and nerds, and less attention to the flashy boys.

1.) While geeks and nerds may be awkward, they’re well-meaning 9 out of 10 times. That smooth dude with the sly grin and the spider hands? Wonder what HIS intentions are… plus, I’ve never had a geek guy not call me when he said he would. Score major points THERE.

2.) They’re useful. In this tech-savvy world, it’s great to have a b/f who can make your laptop, desktop, and just about anything else that plugs into a wall behave itself.

3.) They’re more romantic than they’re given credit for. Ok true, their idea of romance might be to make up a spiffy web-page with all the reasons why they love you, with links to pics of you and sonnets and such… but hey. It lasts longer than flowers, plus you can show your friends.

4.) Due to their neglected status, there are plenty to choose from. You like ‘em tall and slender? There are plenty of geeks/nerds who are. You like ‘em smaller with more meat on their bones? Got that too.

5.) They’ve got brains. Come on now, how can intelligence be a bad thing?

6.) Most are quite good at remembering dates. Like birthdates and such, especially if they know it’ll make you happy. Due again to their neglected status, they’re more attentive than guys who “have more options”. Plus, with all that down time without a steady girlfriend, they’ll likely have mental lists of all the things they’d love to do once they GOT a girlfriend.

7.) Sex. Yep. Sex. I’m not really familiar with this myself, but I’ve friends who’ve been intimate with geek guys and it’s raves all around. They say a virgin wrote the Kama Sutra… all that time thinking about sex, imagining sex, dreaming about sex, (they are male after all) coupled with a desire to make you happy? Use your imagination.

8.) They’re relatively low-maintenance. Most can be fueled on pizza, Twinkies and Mt Dew. No complicated dinners needed here, so if you’re not the best cook, eh. Can you order a pizza?

9.) Most frequent bars as often as slugs frequent salt mines. You won’t have to worry much about your geek guy getting his “groove” on with club hotties because, frankly, he’ll be too busy rooting around under his computer wondering where that spare cable went. You won’t have to worry about him flirting with other women because, 9 out of 10 times, he’ll zip right by them in a perfect b-line towards the nearest electronics store. I’ve seen this happen.
Me: “Eww. Victoria Secret’s Models… They’re so skinny. How is that feminine? You can see her ribs!”
Geek Guy: “ooooooo…”
Me: “Hey!” *notices he is staring lustfully towards the computer store*
Geek Guy: “What?”
Me: “Never mind…”

10.) Although he may not want to go to every outing with you, you can arrange swaps, as in, you’ll go to his Gamer Con dressed as an elf princess if he’ll take you to the ballet. Plus, if he doesn’t want to go someplace with you, you won’t have to worry much about what he’s up to. You’ll probably come home to find him asleep on his keyboard in a sea of Mt. Dew cans with code blinking from the screen. It’s ok. He’s used to this. Just toss a blanket over him and turn out the light.

11.) His friends aren’t jerks. I can’t stress this enough. You’ll more likely get “Omg! A GIRL!! Can I see?!” than “Hey hot stuff back that ass up here and let me get some grub on…” They’re awkward geeks too and will, 9 times out of 10, treat you with the utmost respect and, more than likely, a note of awe. A cute girl picked one of their clan to date? It could happen to them! Hope! Drag some of your single girlfriends over, open up a pack of Mt. Dew, crack open the DnD set and get working. Nothing impresses geek guys more than a girl who can hack-n-slash (well ok maybe if she can code… a geek can dream).

12.) They’re rarely if ever possessive. They trust you, so you can be yourself around them. You like to walk around the house in a ratty t-shirt for comfort? He won’t care. He does too! They won’t get pissy if you don’t wear make-up or don’t want to bother primping your hair. If you gain a few pounds, they won’t try their best to make you feel like crap.

13.) They’re usually very well educated. Physics majors and the like. See #5. You won’t have to listen to him blathering on about his car (ok maybe a little), he’ll have loads of other interesting things to talk about. Politics, world events, how much the chicken burgers down at the local place rock, so long as you douse them in hot sauce…

14.) You’ll almost never have to hear, “Yaw dawg whazzap!!” plop out of their mouths. Unless it’s in jest. They spell properly, use correct punctuation, and are able to tell the difference between the toilet and the floor. They almost never get “wasted”, so you won’t have to worry about coming home to find him and his friends passed out on the floor amidst a pile of beer bottles. Mt. Dew cans, perhaps…

15.) And the final reason why geeks and nerds make great boyfriends: They actually give a damn about you. Not how you look (though that’s a plus), not how skinny you are, not how much make-up you primp yourself up with, but they like you for you. That kind of thing lasts longer than “DaMN baby you got a fine ass!!!” Believe me.

New Virtual Box version fixes Gnome display issues

2010-01-15T19:14:00.001-04:00

Happy Friday!

As a frequent user of virtual machines, I find myself quite impressed with their usefulness. Virtual machines allow you to emulate entire other operating systems within a host operating, called a virtual machine. You can even carry virtual machines with you from computer to computer and always have a custom system set up for your needs. Three common Virtual Machine platforms include Virtual Box, VMWare and Windows Virtual PC.

Due to it's freedom and flexibility, I tend to choose Virtual Box over option options. It has an extensive suite of features including seamless mode, mouse/keyboard integration, various device support and many more. It's also available for free under the personal use and evaluation license, and also has an open source edition.

One minor problem I've been having with Virtual Box involves the GNOME desktop environment used in many Linux distributions including Ubuntu.

The problem being that when one saves the VM execution state, and then resumes that state, the GNOME desktop graphic set (that is, its look and feel) appears to mysteriously change. Here's how it should look (click on the image to enlarge):

and after returning from a saved state:

As you can see, a number of icons have changed including the mail icon, terminal icon, network, sound, recycle bin. I would have to shut down GNOME and restart it (log back in) in order to restore their icons to the normal state.

I spent some time trying to figure out what was causing the odd issue, but to no avail. Nevertheless, I'm happy to report that upgrading to Virtual Box, 3.1.2, appears to fix this issue. Upon resuming from a saved state, the icons are no longer changed, or if they are, will immediately revert to the correct form! Fantastic!

HP Pavilion tx2617ca Review

2009-09-15T01:38:00.000-03:00

Raison d'etre

I'd been in the market for a new laptop for a while, but was holding off until the end of school to get one. I first spotted the tx2617 in December at Staples Business Depot, but spent some time considering other options, eventually picking it up in April 2009.

The tx2617ca is a "convertible tablet PC". The machine functions just like a normal notebook: but the screen has the ability to swivel 180 degrees and fold down over the keyboard to be used as a "tablet": A pen-input based computer.

I wanted a tablet computer for a number of reasons: Mainly, I am constantly taking notes and have a hard time keeping track of them: they either get lost, ruined or eventually buried in a binder in a box who-knows-where. And when I need to reference one again, I'm forced to dig though the myriad of papers dotting my apartment floor to find the one I need. I also loved the idea of reading web pages, e-mails, and e-books like actual books, doing digital drawings, and wanted a small form factor for high portability.

Being a computer scientist (and all around geek), a digital solution seemed right up my alley. I'd actually first seen Tablet PC's in Grade 10 (around 7 years or so ago) and was obsessed with them since then (Penny's computer book from Inspector Gadget anyone?). But buying one was hardly in my price range then (or now for that matter, but more on that). When I did purchase my first laptop in my first year of university, I strongly considered getting a tablet: but they were still pricey and underpowered compared to other machines on the market: I needed something more powerful, essentially a portable desktop replacement to replace my clunky (but reliable) Dell machine tower that served me through out high school. Although I was attracted to a slate-style model, I really need a keyboard for coding if nothing else. So I held off on the tablet for a few more years.

Fast forward to 2009. School was ending and I had some extra cash in my bank account. I had committed to buying a tablet PC. But a quick look at what was available left me in the dust: the majority of tablets I'd seen were still in the whopping $2000 price range. I did manage to find a online few for thirteen to fourteen hundred, before tax/shipping/warranty's/etc. Then I remembered the tx2617ca I'd seen and did some research.

The price according to Staples website changed significantly over the few weeks I'd been checking it out: from $1049 to $999 to $849. Online information and reviews seemed scarce at best, which could be a good or bad sign. I'd figured the machine was still decently new, and so there hadn't been too much comprehensive testing, yet. I did find its feature list however, and they were sending me to that geeky place known as "specification heaven":

Product Name tx2617ca
Microprocessor 2.10 GHz AMD Athlon X2 QL-62 Dual-Core Mobile Processor
(the marketing jazz says Turion but the system itself says Altlon)
Microprocessor Cache 1 MB L2 Cache
Memory 4096 MB (max)
Video Graphics ATI Radeon HD 3200
Video Memory Up to 1982 MB
Hard Drive 250 GB (5400 rpm)
Multimedia Drive LightScribe Super Multi 8X DVD±R/RW with Double Layer Support
Display 12.1" WXGA High-Definition HP BrightView Widescreen Integrated
Touch-screen, Convertible Display (1280 x 800)
Network Card Integrated 10/100/1000 Gigabit Ethernet LAN
Wireless Connectivity Wireless LAN 802.11a/b/g/n
Sound Altec Lansing speakers
Keyboard 101-key compatible
Pointing Device Touch Pad with dedicated vertical and horizontal Scroll Up/Down pad
PC Card Slots One ExpressCard/34 slot
External Ports
* 5-in-1 integrated Digital Media Reader for Secure Digital cards, MultiMedia cards, Memory Stick, Memory Stick Pro, or xD Picture cards
* 3 Universal Serial Bus USB 2.0
* 1 VGA (15-pin)
* 1 S-video (7-pin)
* 1 RJ-11 (modem)
* 1 RJ -45 (LAN)
* 2 headphone-out
* 1 microphone-in
* 1 notebook expansion port 3
* Consumer IR
* Integrated Stereo Microphones
Dimensions 8.82"(L) x 12.05"(D) x 1.23" (min H)/1.52" (max H)
Weight 4.56 lbs
Security
* Integrated Fingerprint Reader
* Kensington MicroSaver lock slot
* Power-on password
* Accepts 3rd party security lock devices
Power
* 65 W AC Adapter
* 6-cell Lithium-Ion (Li-Ion)
Operating System: Windows Vista Home Premium 64-bit with Service Pack 1

Perhaps not the top of the market, but considerably more juice then my previous machine, and easily passing many notebooks at the time. With my previous machine getting on its last legs (at least until I give it a planned overhaul later in the year), I really liked that this machine had potential to replace it, not just supplement it. My first worries however were screen and keyboard size. I wasn't sure if 12.1 inches would cut it, coming from a 15.4 inch screen. And smaller screens usually meant smaller keyboards: something I dreaded from those nasty looking "netbook" keyboards.

When I went to have a closer look: there were none there! The machine was listed on the shelf, now for $899 on "clearance". But there was no machine there, so I had to ask. I was in luck: one left (probably the original demo machine). I asked to have a look at it: the screen really didn't feel small and I was pleasantly surprised to find a very full sized keyboard most of the alpha numeric keys actually being larger then those on my 15.4 inch notebook, at the expense of some smaller function and specialty keys. Since this was the last one left, I knew if I didn't buy it now I wasn't likely to find another any time soon, so I rang it up and it came home with me. I still had 14 days to return it if I felt the screen size would be a deal breaker. Finally, on to the heart of the review!

External case:

The machine itself feels very strong and well built. No flex on the case, and the swivel hinge feels very solid and doesn't seem to have loosened much at all in three months. No odd noises or clicky-ness, I'd be lying if I said the fan was silent, but its not too bad, it just gets loud when doing something processor intensive... The screen also feels very strong, its recessed in a bit from the case:

There are enough ports to keep you going: Gigabit Ethernet, 3 USB, SD card reader, 15-pin D-sub, 7 pin S-video. I really like the S-video since I only have an older standard definition TV set, it works great for watching movies, DVD's, etc (hopefully if I ever get a higher definition TV I can use the VGA). The optical drive works well, though I haven't used the Lightscribe functionality:

Also, the machine comes with a small media remote, which works great (especially when connected to a TV for watching DVDs, etc), though I'm still trying to customize its functionality a little more. It also has a finger print reader that you have to enroll your finger prints to use, though it only seems to pick mine up once every 3 tries or so, though I believe that's more my own fault. The stylus has a perfect resting place at the bottom of the keyboard, which is easily accessible no matter what orientation you're using the computer in.

It comes with a lanyard connecting it to the computer, but I don't use it since I found it got in my way when writing. Nevertheless, it's spring loaded and can fly quite the distance if you're not careful. One thing I don't like about the case is how the air vent and power connector are on the left and right sides of the machine (facing the screen) respectively:

Although fine when in landscape mode, when using my machine as a tablet, I'll most often have it in portrait mode (like a piece of paper), which means that you are either blocking the power connector, or partially blocking the air vent. Chalk this one up to poor choice on the part of the designer, though I tend to have the machine on the battery when I'm using it in portrait mode, so I use it with the connector facing me. Secondly, although quite light at about 5 pounds, I find the machine just a tad heavy to hold in portrait mode for too long (like a book). I find myself having to balance it against my legs, arms, or chest (hence why blocking the port or the vent is a problem). The screen has media keys which work good, as well as quick keys for screen rotation and Windows Mobility center. There are also "DVD" and "Quick Play" keys, but these only work if you use the HP Quickplay software (I don't), nor have I found any way to reprogram them. There are also media keys on the screen which function the same as the "FN" media keys on many laptops:

The memory, wifi card, and hard drive are all accessible from the bottom. The optical drive also snaps in and out with the flick of a switch: this came in very handy a few days ago when the tip of a 3.5 mm jack broke off in the audio out and rattling around inside, I was able to get it out simply by taking out the optical drive and guiding it through the slot:

The screen and video:

The 12.1 inch screen actually runs at the same resolution as my 15.4: 1280x800. The means I get the same screen real estate as on my old screen, albeit things being are a bit smaller. After a few hours of using though, I hardly noticed the screen size: it was plenty big for email, web browsing, and standard work (e.g. coding). I haven't done significant gaming on it, but it works good for our Stronghold Crusader and Civilization 4 LAN parties. Movies play no problem, and the ATI video card handles video output and dual desktop without issues (important for me). The screen is bright, but difficult to see in sunlight, even at maximum brightness, which is one thing I don't like. The second thing I dislike about the screen is the viewing angle. The horizontal viewing angle isn't too bad (from a standard notebook point of view), but the vertical angle is terrible. I would like to be able to see what's written on the screen in portrait mode when its just laying on my desk to the right of me, but you pretty much have to have it directly in front of you to see, and even then, your head needs to be tilted almost directly over it. I suppose it could be argued a good thing for privacy reasons, but I'd personally prefer the better angle. This is fine for a regular notebook, but not a tablet.

Comparison of viewing angles:

It also attracts dust and smudges like a magnet: be sure to have a cloth with you for cleaning readily (one was provided in my box with the machine). Note that the screen is not multi-touch, unlike the newer TX2's (something I'm afraid I'll regret with Windows 7).

The keyboard:

As mentioned above, I like the keyboard a lot, the keys are all plenty large for use. I do have some issues with the specialty keys, at the top right of the keyboard are the "pg up/dn/home/end/insert/del" keys. I find myself having to memorize the location of these keys because its impossible to read the text on them at a standard use distance. The F-keys are little easier to read than the other keys, and I do understand this choice so that the alpha numeric keys can be larger. I would have liked to see more shortcut keys on the screen itself, specifically for scrolling documents when reading them, since using the on screen scroll bar in tablet mode can be awkward.

Stylus and Touchpad:

The touchpad is completely covered in recessed dots, I'm not sure if this is supposed to make it more comfortable or easy to use, to be honest I hardly notice it. There's a button at the top to turn the touchpad on or off, as well as a vertical strip for scrolling. The touch pad works fine and is easy to use, but there's nothing spectacular about it either.

The stylus is awesome. It's thin and light (about the size of a mechanical pencil), easy to write with. The screen can pick up the stylus' location when hovering above the screen, same as a mouse's "hover function". The right click button is a bit hard to use, since I rarely pick up the pen in the right orientation to push it (you can also right click by holding the pen on the screen for a few seconds). You can also "erase" by using the opposite side of the stylus, which is neat though sometimes you have to press a bit hard.

The speakers and audio:

I'm impressed with the output from the Altec Lansing speakers, though I don't use them on a regular basis, most of the time I use the audio out, either hooked up to a pair of headphones (once again, a great pair of HP headphones came with the computer), or my TV. There's a third "HD" audio port, but I rarely use it. I'm honestly not sure what's its supposed to be used for (I don't think it supports 5.1 or anything that I can find).

Microphone and Webcam:

The computer has duel microphones built in above the screen, along with a webcam. The microphones pick up sound okay, I use it to chat on Skype with little issue, but you can't keep your mouth too far away. The webcam has a good picture, though I can't figure out if there's a way to "rotate" the image, otherwise you appear at the wrong angle when using it in other orientations.

Speed:

The machine is quite speedy, the Athlon X2 is a desktop level processor. I usually keep it throttled with Vista's power options to about 35% with no noticeable degradation in performance (except for some movies and games, for which I'll put it up closer to normal). The machine has 4 GB of ram, and a 250 GB, 5400 rpm drive which I haven't had any trouble with. I have two partitions of roughly equal size (not including the recovery partition), one for Windows + software, and one for documents (I prefer this setup to protect data should I need to reformat the software partition). Visual C# is a tad slow compiling and running, though no slower then my old machine (I blame it more on .NET). I of course removed all the unnecessary bloatware from the machine as well as start up programs, and run CCleaner on a regular basis.

Wifi:

The wireless works good and has great range (better than my old machine), it's draft-N though unfortunately I haven't had the opportunity to a connect to draft-N router to see just how much faster it is. Curiously, the range on the WiFi is considerably smaller when it tablet mode, it doesn't seem any slower, but you have to be closer to the access point to connect (preferably in the same room). My guess is it has something to do with the placement and orientation of the antenna getting less signal when in tablet mode.

Heat:

The heat from the machine is something that concerns me and I'm keeping an eye on. Although it doesn't get nearly as warm as my old laptop, it still gets a little warmer then I'm comfortable with. Although the case itself doesn't feel too warm, Speedfan tends to read between 55-60 degrees C, which seems quite warm. When the fan comes on, it pumps considerable waves of hot air out of the unit. The case also seems to get hotter when the processor revs up, such as during a virus scan. When in tablet mode, the screen also gets noticeably warm around the fan to the point it can be uncomfortable to rest your wrist on, which worries me (likewise the keyboard is warm going back to notebook mode). My guess this is due to the processor in the machine, and I keep the processor throttled even when plugged in to try to manage this. I have a few cooling pads, which I use if it's doing something processor intensive, but prefer not too so as to keep the smaller form factor (it's awkward to write on in tablet mode with the cooling pad because of the height raise).

Battery life:

My battery usually gives me about 2.5 to three hours of light use with the processor throttled. Obviously more would be better, but as mentioned the Athlon X2 is a desktop level processor so it sucks down a lot of juice, even when throttled. I also stretch this out by going to standby whenever not in use. So far, I've been happy with the trade off, though I might consider buying a second, stronger battery, I've also heard Windows 7 is getting more juice out of the batteries which I'm looking forward to trying.

Software and Tablet usage:

As mentioned above, I removed the bloatware upon installation, leaving mostly just Windows Vista Home Premium installed, along with the software I use. I was nervous about Vista at first from what I'd heard and having only used XP on my previous two machines. I was pleasantly surprised though, I've had few issues with Vista itself, though I am considering getting Windows 7 when it's released (having unfortunately missed the "grace" upgrade period of course), specifically for its touch screen features (even without multi-touch). One issue I did have is with Windows Media Center: it likes to crash a lot, so I've since switched since to Boxee, which works well expect I can't figure out how to get it on the external display without cloning. To be fair, I it would be cool to get a rockin' custom Linux distribution running the whole thing (I'd totally make it look like LCARS...), but since I do use it for mild gaming, that wasn't really an option anyway. Plus, my research indicates that touch support for Linux is barebones at best, especially with handwriting recognition (something which Vista absolutely shines at). Instead, I'm using VirtualBox to do Linux work, which even lets me use the stylus in Linux with no problems.

Using the machine as a tablet is pretty much everything I hoped it would be, in no small thanks to Vista's touch support. Vista comes with Windows Journal for hand writing documents, which works well enough, though I use tend to use Office OneNote instead because of its organizational abilities.

It's easy to write notes, diagrams and keep them all together. I'd like to set up some sort automatic note backup for important documents though. I love reading PDF's and E-books, I switched to Foxit reader over Adobe though, I find it works better with the touch screen and Adobe was crashing on me a lot. I also frequently use it in tablet mode just for general browsing, if I don't have to do a lot of text input. And even for text input, you have a couple of options. Usually, when the focus is in any sort of text box, an icon pops up allowing you to use the tablet features to enter text. I was quite shocked how easily Vista could recognize my (considerably bad) hand writing, without even running the training samples. There's also an on screen keyboard which I'll switch too from time to time, though to be fair for any long amount of typing, I'll convert to notebook mode.

I prefer hand writing when jotting and working though ideas so I can incorporate diagrams, etc, but prefer typing more formal notes (such as summaries, etc). Now, I can have both together and well organized. I could pick up using the stylus for touch input almost instantly, though I find using my finger a challenge and needing some practice: scroll bars for instance are hard to use unless you use your fingernail, as is anything small like tray or tool bar icons. Nevertheless, I do find myself often using the touch screen controls instead of the touch pad even in notebook mode, especially if I'm sitting up and its on my lap. In addition, it can be hard to "drag" things with your finger since you have to press a bit hard which creates more friction, thus it's tougher to move your finger. Note that there are two ways you can calibrate it: either for finger or stylus. Unfortunately you don't seem to be able to use both at the same time: if you calibrate for touch, your stylus is less accurate, and if you calibrate for stylus (like I usually have it), your touch is less accurate.

Here's some handwriting in Onenote:

Viewing a webpage (my blog! :)

Vista does do a few odd things with the screen: the rotate button always rotates counter clockwise, though I'd prefer it to rotate clockwise. It's also always trying to enforce what orientation it thinks it should be in instead of what I want it in (for example, I'd like it to automatically go to portrait mode when converting to tablet, instead of landscape like it insists on). It should either be controllable, or just let me choose the rotation by hand. Another quirk is that sometimes one of my "power/network/volume" icons will mysteriously disappear on boot and I have to restart to get it back. When turning on the external display, sometimes I have to click the command twice for it to actually activate, which I find odd. I do love that the remote simply sends KeyPress messages to the WndProc, so I can easily write support for it into my own programs such as my media player.

Summary:

Main Pros:

* Sturdy build
* Powerful machine for all around use
* Touch/Tablet features are fantastic
* Gigabit Ethernet and wireless N
* Media remote/video out

Main Cons:

* Heat issues
* Poor viewing angle
* Heavier than I'd like for use in tablet mode

I am mostly happy with the machine so far and hope I'll get a lot of use out of it. I'll keep my blog updated on new information about it if I have any to share! Thanks for reading, hope this review might help some people out in the future. Take care!

Microsoft Office deal for university students: just $64 purchase price

2009-09-02T20:15:00.001-03:00

Hi everyone,

For the last several years now, Microsoft has had a promotion on called "The Ultimate Steal": Basically, if you're a student a participating university (including my alma mater STFX), you can purchase complete Office 2007 Ultimate (not crippled in any way) for just $64. After verifying your attendance (which in most cases seems to be simply automatic with a valid school's email address), you can enter your payment information and get a download of the installer file along with a license key. I purchased this last year and have been happy with it ever since. Personally, I shelled out the extra $13 for a backup CD that came in the mail: and I'm glad I did as I lost the installer file, haha. Office 2007 has a lot of great features to get school work done: for me, the scripting abilites in Excel make for a great way to write quick data crunching programs and you can't forget Powerpoint for printing off those lecture notes. I think it's a great piece of software in general, and though I might not think it's worth anything close to the suggested retail price ($679.95 USD, ouch), it's definately worth $64, if it's a piece of software you think you'd like (and/or like bargins).

But wait! If you are thinking of buying it, you might do yourself a favor by checking out some of the great, free alternatives including OpenOffice.org, Abiword and Google Docs. I've used all the free alternatives, each of which has their own strengths and faults (as does Office of course). It won't cost anything to use them and you might just end up liking them enough to save the money all together. But if you feel they just won't cut it for you, Office is ready for your download (note: I don't think the Mac version is available in the offer, but I'm not sure so you should double check if you're an OS X user). I also wouldn't suggest trying this unless you can prove your enrollment if necessary, lest you end up with a much larger charge then you expected! I was fully enrolled at the time though and was never asked to send anything in.

Have a good year everyone!

Solution to the "Missing Square Problem"

2009-07-22T13:38:00.001-03:00

Solution of the Missing Square Problem
Jason D.

Have you ever seen this "puzzle" floating around before?

This problem appears to make no sense what so ever…two triangles of apparently equal dimensions, consisting of smaller segments, appear to cover less area when rearranged differently...where did the missing block go?

Go ahead and try it for yourself (I used cut outs from graph paper as a starting point). Then come back and see if your solution agrees with mine!

The solution:

First, lets examine the larger rectangles. Each covers and area of (13 * 5)/2, or 32.5 square units.

The areas of the individual segements:

Blue: (2*5)/2 = 5 square units
Green: 8 square units
Yellow: 7 square units
Red: (3*8)/2 = 12 square units.

The sum? 32 square units. *GASP* neither triangle corresponds to the sum area of the segments.

In the top triangle, the area subtract the area of the yellow and green segments gives us 17.5 square units.

In the bottom triangle, this identical calculation yields 16.5 square units.

The different of course being *drum roll* one square unit. But WAIT! There's more.

The ratio of the full triangle is 13:5, the blue 5:2 and the red 8:3. These are NOT equivalent ratios.

We can look to our good friend Pythagoras:

Given the hypotenuse of each triangle is the square root of the sum of the other two sides squared, the hypotenuse of each triangle is:

Full Triangle: √194

Red: √73
Blue: √29

If this “triangle” is all that it seems, the hypotenuse of the red and blue triangle would equal that of the full triangle.

√73 = 8.5440037453175311678716483262397
+ √29 = 5.3851648071345040312507104915403
= 13.92916855245203519912235881778

√194 = 13.928388277184119338467738928513

So close! But the factor is in fact off by .00078027526791586065461988926674228

Lets look closely at the slopes.
Full Triangle : 5/13 = 0.38461538461538461538461538461538
Red Triangle : 3/8 = 0.375
Blue Triangle: 2/5 = 0.4

If this were what it looked like, then all the slopes would be equal. However, The blue triangle is steeper then the red, which is not as steep as the full triangle. This means that the hypotenuse formed by the two smaller triangles is not straight, and thus “slopes in” on one triangle and “slopes out” on the other.

The hypotenuse’s have different slopes, as the angles are different.

For n >= 5, this discrepancy is basically unnoticeable. But for n=4, n=3, you can see it quite clearly.

From a different perspective:

Still not convinced?

Pretty nifty. But wait just a darn tootin' minute…look at those numbers… 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13

Look familiar?

So if you’re still wondering where the missing block went, Fibonacci ate it.

The End.

Funny Out-Of-Office E-Mail Auto-Replys

2009-07-18T05:14:00.001-03:00

Out of office replies can either be really useful (for you) and really annoying (for the people getting the reply).

To keep them from getting too angry (or not angry enough), here are some good responses to provide to people looking to contact you with some humor before you get back (hopefully).

Enjoy!

Office 2010: The Movie

2009-07-09T13:57:00.001-03:00

Hi all!

Saw this today on Beyond Binary, and just had to share it. Probably one of the best commercials I've seen a long time, and not just for computer products. I had a grin on my face the whole time, who know Office could be so exciting? Well, there was that flight simulator back in the day...

Anyway, check out the full video at the link above or directly on YouTube. And don't forget to check out the official site.

Enjoy!

The Lego Computer...and more wacky cases

2009-06-27T05:14:00.001-03:00

I was a massive Lego kid as a child. Whether it was space ships (which it usually was) or cars, air planes, or bionic suits, I had an active imagination and Lego skills to boot. Others liked K'nex or Megablocks but for me it was Lego all the way.

Which is why I really liked seeing this in my feeds: a computer case made entirely out of Lego!

Now believe it or not, this isn't the first Lego case I've seen. There are two other neat ones here and here.

In fact, I think case modding is really cool and something I hope to get into in the future. The site I linked to above, http://www.mini-itx.com, has a number of unique cases created around the "Mini-itx" form factor: a full fledged x86 computer on a mother board no more then 17 by 17 cm square. Given it's small size, it can be built into a variety of unique cases, though full size boards are also put into modded cases. I suggest to browse about the site and get some ideas for your own! Something a little nicer to look at than the traditional boxes :)

New Asus design = Commodore?

2009-06-26T20:53:00.001-03:00

Last week, I posted about new technology (Twitter) being used on an old platform (Commodore 64). Today I saw a video from CES (Consumer Electronic Show) 2009 for a new "Netbook" style Asus computer: using a design that reminds me a considerable amount or the Commordore 64 and Vic 20 form factors. If you remember: the entire computer was housed entirely in the "keyboard" assembly, with all the ports directly on it, which hooked up to an external display. Asus new design also takes a full sized keyboard (albeit much smaller then the Commodore case) and sticks an entire computer in it...albeit with a small touch screen display on the side, about the size of a regular PDA screen. Together you have a light weight machine about the size of a keyboard capable of web browsing and email checking as well as other common activities which is entirely mobile.

I think the really neat thing about these machine though is the video outputs it carries which allow it to hook up to an ordinary sized screen. The keyboard has a HDMI connection which would (in theory) allow for some high definition videos to be played like a media player. The second laptop is also nifty: the regular touch pad replaced with a touch screen which can run its own independant computer which perform tasks without the main computer ever being booted.

The video for the Asus machines is here: http://video.itworldcanada.com/?bcpid=7044989001&bctid=6615176001

Also on the go are two new Thinkpads: one nice and small and the second extremely large with a secondary pull out screen. You can check them out here:

http://www.itworldcanada.com/a/Daily-News/064c775d-1de1-4b86-aecc-6aefd25031f3.html
http://video.itworldcanada.com/?bcpid=1886192401&bctid=6617585001

Tweeting on the Commodore 64

2009-06-15T20:48:00.000-03:00

Hi everyone!

A fast note today to share something I think is extremely neat:
Using Twitter from your very own Commodore 64!

Yep, that's right. The ingenious Johan Van den Brande has created a Twitter client so you can view your friends updates and update your own twitter from the C64's beautiful 320 x 256 display!

Of course, you need a few hardware and software tweaks for an internet connection in the first place. There's a lot more information plus screen shots/videos on the site here:
http://www.vandenbrande.com/wp/2009/06/breadbox64-a-twitter-client-for-the-c64/

Granted, my first computer was a Commodore Vic 20, not a C64, but seeing those screen images sure brings back fond memories! Enjoy.

Things that aren't standardized but should be

2009-06-04T19:22:00.000-03:00

Hello everyone! Something a tad different today. Are you familiar with the International Organization for Standardization? Well, they're an organization responsible for publishing "standardizations" of various things which can be used internally for interoperability/communication purposes. For example the "ISO 7001" standard for public information signage defining a common set of symbols so people understand where certain facilities are even if they don't understand the language.

There are still many things not standardized and things that arguably shouldn't be.

I developed this list last summer for fun, things which have no standardization but, just maybe, should have some :). Enjoy! Note: most of the numbers have some connection to their "standards" but they might not be obvious at first ;).

ISO 0000 - Pronouciation of the word "ISO"
ISO 1337 - Short hand, alpha numeric language used in internet communication
ISO 1984 - Tetris
ISO 2063 - Warp Drive
ISO 7448 - Toilet Paper Quilt Patterns
ISO 6463 - Telekinesis
ISO 3141 - Pi
ISO 7399 - The Perfect Mate
ISO 77468 - Fingerprint
ISO 43278 - Love
ISO 98669 - Lust
ISO 12080 - Blood Pressure
ISO 666 - Evil
ISO 6663 - Length of time you may be left waiting
ISO 733 - Length of time to use the bathroom
ISO 2583 - Color of the sky
ISO 25324 - Smell of body odor
ISO 221 - Random Algorithm

What would you like to standardize? Let us know, and take care!

Using recovery partitions: curiosity + boredom can be a bad combination.

2009-05-23T16:43:00.000-03:00

Hi everyone!

For the last couple of years, I've always tried to keep my operating system and installed components on a separate partition from my data. This way if I had to reinstall the operating system, I could just format and reinstall on the system partition, leaving the data unharmed.

Now, if you are installing from an OS disk (say, a Linux CD or a Windows disc), usually their installers allow you to select what partition to install to, leaving the others untouched. But, for a number of years now, computers do not come with OS reinstall discs (if you are using Windows). Instead, they come with "recovery partitions". This has both good and bad aspects: you don't have to worry about discs getting damaged or losing them, but you also have to make sure your hard drive doesn't get physically damaged.

The other annoying aspects of recovery partition is they don't just reinstall the operating system. They also reinstall all of the bundled software the PC manufacture installs (sometimes called 'bloatware') in order to make the cost of the computer cheaper (check out PC Decrapifier for a nice way to deal with this software). Still, it's better then not being able to reinstall the OS at all. Now, I've used my XP recovery partition a few times and always left my data partition untouched. Since getting my new computer, I had yet to separate the partitions as I haven't had time. I used Vista's built-in partition tool to do this (I had used some third party tools in the past). Vista's tool is decent, but it has problems, if you are having trouble using it I suggest this link. So after spending a few hours preparing everything I partitioned. As I was about to transfer my data over to the other partition it suddenly occurred to me: what if the new recovery partition I was using didn't discriminate against partitions? That is, what if it decided to ignore my partition and erase the entire hard drive (minus itself)? Well that wouldn't be good. After doing some googling I couldn't find a straight answer. I was really curious. And I was bored. So I booted into the recovery partition. I'd only intended to go enough through the process to see if there was an option or anything which indicated what partition it would install on. Unfortunately, one click too many, started the process and I couldn't cancel it. I hadn't moved my data yet. Oh dear.

Fortunately, the laptop is still new and there really wasn't anything on it I couldn't do without losing. Quite ironic how my attempted security precaution ended up making me lose my data! Not that I'm saying it's a bad precaution. BUT if you do decide to use it, it shouldn't be your only precaution, you should have other data backups in place. And, you should confirm that your specific recovery partition won't destroy other partitions. Hopefully with a less direct method then it took me :). If you are using Linux (with naturally keeps data on another partition), this shouldn't be a problem, and I believe (though I am not certain) OS X would also allow you to select a partition. I actually only did a recovery on OS 9.0 before and I only had one partition at the time. So I think it's a good idea, but not perfect.

A day or so later and things are back the way they should be. Hopefully I won't have to do it again, but it was a good experience, though one I hope others won't have to repeat. I probably could have come up with a better way to test, what might be another way to test your recovery partition without using it? Someone once told me if an asteroid destroyed your house and you couldn't get your data back you weren't prepared enough. Hopefully you have a few copies of things that are important :). Cloud storage in the future might help with this as well.

Take care all!

Trouble with delivery services

2009-05-20T22:39:00.000-03:00

Good day, everyone!

I've recently been engaged with a rather difficult time with the delivery services. I began to think about the whole concept of delivery services and the internals of how they work. But first, what have my experiences been?

This is my second use of this service. The first was in 2006 when I ordered my first laptop computer from TigerDirect.ca. I was very excited as this was the first (or one of the first) time I made a purchase from the Internet. I got my "tracking number" from UPS and really liked being able to watch its progress on the Internet. I watched excitedly as it was transported from its shipping location (in Ontario I think) through the country to the town where I lived.

I had been given and expected delivery date (but not time, more on that later). I waited patiently in my apartment for it to arrive, but no one ever came to my door. The next day I logged in to check where it was. The status was no longer marked as "in progress", but rather marked as delivered. I didn't have my package. The name under the "signed by" was "WANG". Suffice it to say, I began to feel a little panicked. I paid for my laptop but didn't have it and it was marked as delivered. What was I to do?

I was still going to school at the time (this was the week before spring break), so in between my classes I was trying to get on the phone with them to track the package down. After a few days and hours on the phone, I finally tracked down my package to a distribution plant in a neighbouring town. Turns out, the driver came to my apartment building but only knocked on the door of the "upper level" (I lived in a basement apartment). My neighbour upstairs had a visitor who simply informed the driver that no one by my name lived in the building. The driver simply wrote "wrong address" on the package...and somehow Wrong turned into Wang and thus it was "Delivered to: Wang" (this after I looked in the phone book for Wang's, none of whom had my laptop, haha).

Or course, even after finally tracking it down, I had to get them to deliver it to me. At least this time they knew I was in the basement, but I only had a day (the Friday before I was expected to leave for the week). My brother's family had been planning to pick me to take me back...but the package would arrive anytime between 7 am and 5 pm. What was I to do? Well my drive arrived in the afternoon and, very nicely and patiently, they stayed and helped wait for my arrival. I felt really bad about asking them to do this, but really didn't know what else to do. So we waited...and continued to wait. Finally, we had to get on the road and really just couldn't wait anymore. I understood completely, I would just have to figure something out. We were literally on our way out the drive way when the delivery truck showed up. I was so happy nothing else was really mattering at the moment, my frustration with UPS fading away. I signed for the package, and held it on my lap in the backseat the entire way home cramped along with my friend who'd come to visit and my niece. I had my laptop and was good to go. You'll actually be hearing more about the laptop I purchased in future blog posts. Back to the matter at hand.

Fast forward three years. I've since purchased a new convertible Tablet PC and am in the process of designing a customized case for it (which I also hope to make the topic of some future blog posts). Since the case would be made of fabric, and designed in such a way as to use the machine while inside the case, I was worried about blocking the ventilation on the bottom of the machine. So I decided to purchase a cooling pad (my third, having two for my previous laptop) to build into the case. I wanted to keep using my previous pad (the first of which having broken), so I began the search for a new one. After considerable deliberation I finally decided on a Vantec LapCool 3. More on that later. I ordered it and paid for it, only to realized it was being delivered by UPS. Well, this time it would be getting delivered to my Mom's house, out in the open with visible house number signs, so it couldn't be so this time around, right? Of course, my Mom also couldn't be home all day waiting for some driver to arrive. So, I decided to call UPS and have the package delivered to the UPS store where I could go pick it up. Unfortunately, due to a mis-communication, I thought the package had gotten delivered and cancelled the request. I was wrong, and stuck without my package. Heading into the store, and providing my tracking number, I was informed that my package would actually be over at the distribution center which was closed for the weekend. I had to leave town, but my family members graciously agreed to go pick it up when they reopened. They opened. They went. The package? Not there. Apparently it had been shipped back the store I'd just visited on the weekend. In fact, the package had been in the very store when I was there. I'm really not sure why this information wasn't known while I was in the store. Nevertheless, the people at the distribution plant apparently thought the package had been picked up by me on the day I went. Strange. So, after paying a small "storage fee", my package was finally release and is now in the hands of my family. Unfortunately, its in another town. I intend to send them a few dollars (adding yet another shipping cost) to send it to me (either by Canada Post or the Bus service, both of which I have shipped with before and had no problems).

Now I understand that the folks at the delivery company see many packages a day, and that mistakes are bound to happen. To be fair, the people I dealt with at the company were quite friendly, and they agree to reimburse people for last packages if they cannot be found. This isn't so much a critique on them but rather on the process. Think about delivery to people's houses. This seems great in principle, but how well does it really work in practice? There are so many things that can go wrong, I'm not sure this is really the best idea. Assuming that the drivers know the streets of the areas they deliver in (which isn't too unreasonable), many houses don't clearly have house numbers visible. In fact, at my mom's house, multiple attempts to clearly display our house numbers haven't worked because they keep disappearing. Assuming the correct house had been found: what about time? How are you supposed to ensure that you or someone is there to take delivery during that time? Most people work during this time, and many others live alone and simply cannot be there.

So it’s a good idea, in theory, but it just doesn't seem practical to me. There are a few ways we can make it better. For example, having packages delivered to work. Unfortunately, you can't always change your delivery address from your billing address (i.e. credit card) very easily. And you might work somewhere that doesn't want this being done. I think the best thing is that if you are going to be delivering over an area, and if direct delivery is impractical, the best solution is to allow the customer to conveniently pick up the package on their own time. Of course, the places to pick them up must be common enough that it’s not too difficult or costly to get them, and where they can be operated at non-standard hours. The other services I mentioned seem to have a little of each, but of course you can't always choose who you want something to be shipped to you buy. Nevertheless, there's always room for improvement. I don't see any reason I was told my package wasn't there when I went to look for it, despite the fact that it was. Well, I should have it soon, so hopefully no harm done, but I will likely continue to try to use alternate services in the future. How do you deal with such restrictions on package delivery?

Take care all.

Gmail notifier curiosity

2009-05-14T18:10:00.000-03:00

Hello everyone!

I've been an avid user of Gmail for at least four years. When I switched over completely to Gmail in 2006, one of the things I didn't want to give up was the "notification" of new email I enjoyed through using Outlook (I wanted to use webmail alone, I didn't know about IMAP then).

Later, I found out about Gmail notifer which is a great solution. It sits in your system tray and once provided log in information will notifier you of new email. This worked great since my school email account was routed through gmail so I never had to check either by hand.

About 6 months ago, I created a second email account for more "official" communication. Since I hadn't been using it much, I wasn't checking it as often and got a wake up call when an important email came through that should have seen sooner (it worked out in the end anyway). Still, I wanted to be able to be notifed of email from both accounts. One obvious solution was to imply foward (or import) email from one account into the other: but I was hesitant on this for two reasons: 1) Despite Gmail's excellent searching abilities, I really wanted the accounts seperate; 2) I've had trouble in the past sending email out of a gmail account "from" a different account. My school email had a lot of trouble with spam filters because of this.

I was sure there would be a way to make Gmail notifer be able to handle two accounts: simply running two copies in my tray seemed the simplest solution (since each would have its own log in credentials). This seemed to work all right except for one cavet: Notifer would get "confused" on which account it was supposed to handle. Meaning that even if notifer would check two accounts at once, if I tried to open an account by double clicking the icon, it would go the the default account (what ever account I was logged into on the browser, regardless of what one was clicked).

My solution was then to always keep one account logged into in Firefox, and IE always logged into the other account. Again...this didn't quite work. If I had notifer "pointing" to account A and IE "pointing" to account B, then notifer would always notify me of the account that I was logged in with IE, regardless of what credentials I had actually supplied to notifer.

Strange huh? I thought so too, it seems as though somehow the IE login over rides Gmail. Oh well, seems as no matter what I would have to check at least one account by hand. I did try using another POP-tray notifer, but just couldn't find the simplicity of notifer with multiple accounts.

Don't get me wrong, I still think Gmail notifer is a great solution in many cases. Personally, I've gone back to using Outlook so that I can easily manage both accounts (and get notifications from both on time) along with my calendar. And using IMAP, they continually stay syched, so I always have access to my email history regardess of if I'm using Outlook or the web interface. This is a pretty good solution and I'm happy with it.

Take care everyone!

Thoughts on 'Star Trek'

2009-05-12T19:44:00.000-03:00

Hi everyone! Recently on the weekend I had the opportunity to view the new "Star Trek" film, the 11th film in the movie franchise. I would like to share some thoughts on the film itself, as well as my personal 'Star Trek' history.

I can't recall exactly when I begin watching Star Trek, though a few clues I do remember help me to narrow it down. The first Trek I remember watching clearly is Star Trek: The Next Generation, and the first episode I can remember clearly is the one where Data begins to dream (Birthright, which also happened to be a DS9 crossover). This episode aired in 1993, the same year that a new broadcast station called MITV (later, Global) came to my hometown which aired The Next Generation (we did not have cable television and watched three over-the-air broadcast signals), which helps me pin this year down as my first 'real' exposure to it, at the age of 7 years old. I was immediately attracted to it, and continued to watch the newest episodes until its conclusion in 1994. I have clear memories of watching the TNG finale episode with my brother, something which was very exciting. The following year (1995), I watched the series premiere of Star Trek: Voyager and I think around that time (or earlier) I started watching DS9. I remember that both DS9 and Voyager aired consecutively on Saturday nights at 7 and 8 pm. I watched both of them until their finales, and reruns of TNG were aired Saturday afternoon at 4 and 5 pm, which helped me get caught up on earlier episodes. The Original Series also aired on CBC on Saturday's at 3:00pm which I watched too. Yep, that pretty much means at one point every Saturday I would watch 5 hours of Star Trek. I was quite happy. Anyway, coincidentally in 1995 another of my favorite programs began to air called Sliders. But more on that later, suffice it to say it would around this time my love of the science fiction/fantasy genre (as I also started watching Hercules and Xena around that time) which today continues to be a 'staple' so to speak of my life.

Back to the matter at hand, I consider myself a fairly involved fan of the franchise, buying (and building out of wood) my own Federation starships, toys and action figures, posting on forums and rewatching episodes many times. I even once had a homemade visor so I could be Geordi for Halloween. I'm certain there are bigger fans then I, but I have a broad range of knowledge across all five series and ten movies whereas other people may be more limited to subset. Admittedly, I was not a huge fan of Star Trek: Nemesis. I liked it for sure, but judging that I have only seen it a small handful of times (compared to the many times for the other TNG films at least) it just didn't seem to have as much draw as the other films. I was excited for the eleventh film as soon I heard it was in production, though like many fans I think, most of my hopes were for a DS9/Voyager film.

I think it was in the first year of university I heard the dreaded news: Trek 11 was a prequel. A prequel? You mean like Enterprise? I stopped watching Enterprise towards the end of season two, I certainly didn't hate it, it just wasn't holding my interest (I've since watched the remaining season 3 and 4 and was vastly enjoyed them). But I digress: I wasn't thrilled about the idea of seeing characters from the original series played by new actors in an story line that I suspected wasn't going to feel very 'Star Trek'. But, unlike some other fans, I committed myself to reserving judgment until I'd actually seen the film. Time past and I'd gleam a piece of information here or there, but knowledge was few and far between. Then I saw the first teaser trailer depicting the Enterprise construction and heard Leonard Nimoy's monologue and hope began to stir a new. That scene just looked so cool...maybe they could do this after all? If Leonard Nimoy was onboard (as other news sources had suggested) we might just be going somewhere. The subsequent trailers also raised hope that the movie wouldn't just plain suck, but I still had my reservations. There was one question I just couldn't seem to answer: was it going to be a complete reboot of the franchise (that is changing continuity) or not? I couldn't think of how it could be anything but. I then started to think that 'Star Trek' would be a good movie, just not a good Star Trek movie.

I was correct on the first thought. I was wrong on the second. From here I'll say this: some spoilers *are* ahead but I'll try to keep them to a minimum. I encourage you to see the film first. In a nutshell (I am fond of nutshells, btw), I was blown away by just how damn good of a movie, and of a Star Trek film, this just really was. Now granted these are initial opinions, I can't guarantee my thoughts won't change, at least a little, on subsequent re-watchings. First of all, those worried about changing continuity (as I was) need fear not. 'Star Trek' simply takes place in an alternate timeline/reality (read: parallel universe). In fact, some of my favorite Star Trek episodes involve parallel universes (TNG: Parallels, Voy: Timeless, Ent: In a Mirror, Darkly) so its not surprising that such a story line would immediately attract me (could also have something to do with the aforementioned love of Sliders). I largely judged most works of fiction on two principles: story and line and realistic characters. I enjoy other things as well like special effects (if a movie or TV series) and a decent interpretation of science being used, but these are secondary to telling a good story. Star Trek delivers that in abundance. I found myself relating to these characters almost immediately, and was engrossed in what happened to them. Since it's an alternate reality, you don't know how everything is going to turn out after the film, so really anything can happen. It also shows a very interesting side of Kirk, and answers a "What If?" question (that parallel universe stores are famous for), how might he have grown up without the influence of his father? Now, admittedly, my experience with TOS is not nearly as abundant as my experience with the latter series, so some of the conclusions/analogies I draw might have flaws. Now, the Kirk from the movie shares many of the same characteristics as the original Kirk, but he's not quite the same: he's less controlled then the original Kirk, which I would attribute to not having the experience of his father. I was impressed with just how well that idea worked out. I think Spock's history, on the other hand, is largely unaffected by the alternate reality so much of it is probably still applicable to the original Spock. There was one issue I had here: the other Vulcan's "teasing" Spock for being half human didn't seem very Vulcan-like. I can see them acting superior to him, even excluding him, but outright trying to provoke him? I thought it was odd...but it did set up a very important part of the film later. I loved seeing the Kirk/Spock first meeting at Kirk's hearing for the Kobayashi Maru "solution" (something we heard about in Trek 2 and probably happened more-or-less the same way as the original universe).

The remainder of the story line was well done: Nero was believable as a villain, and though the whole red matter/sucked into a black hole/time travel thing wasn't exactly believable, I learned looong ago that suspension of disbelief is important to enjoy fantasy as much I as I do (though its a plus when it's unnecessary). I think my favorite actor-character portrayal was the new McCoy: I loved how his character was interpreted (I think his 'Astrophobia' was downright hilarious), I also liked Scotty, but he wasn't in it as much as I would have liked to see. The rest of the characters were enjoyable to watch as well.

Now onto an important question for probably no one else but me: why was the alternate reality's Enterprise/technology seemingly more advanced then the original? Consider how the NX-01 seemed more advanced then the NCC-1701. One idea is this was at least indirectly due to some change in the original timeline (Borg incursion in 2063, 29th century tech, etc, etc). Of course, in Trek, sometimes time travel changes a reality, and sometimes, it creates a new reality. Now, assuming the NX-01 resulted from a reality change (not new) there are a number of ways we could transition from the NX-01 to the NCC-1701, but I think the best explanation is summed up by "In a Mirror, Darkly": just because the NX-01 looked more advance, doesn't mean it actually was. Now, assuming that the the NX-01 occurred in both realities (Scotty's Archer/Beagle comment seems to support this), then the new Enterprise is a logical transition from the NX-01. Anything that happened between the NX-01 and the building of the 1701 could have changed the design of the ship (Nero's incursion for one). But more importantly, both the NX-01 and the new Enterprise are 'futurized' versions of our technology, where as the original ship were of course futurized versions of 1960's technology. Now anything changing the future technological course between 1960 and 1990's (ahem, Starling anyone?) would impact the rate of technological advancement. In some realities, it would result in our 1701, and in others, a different one.

A few other small plot hole issues: Spock, in a rush to regroup with the fleet, just decides to thrown him off the ship onto a frozen planet? Yea, I don't think so: it was a waste of time and illegal. Should have just sent him to the brig/sedated him. But of course it was an important way to advance the story, so forgivable. A curiosity really. Oh, and exactly how long was Spock stuck on that planet before Vulcan was destroyed? I could be wrong, but it seemed to me he was stuck there a while, long enough to at least try and get some help.

The movie has something for everyone: for sci-fi (but non-trek fans) its a great stand alone sci-fi story: you really don't need to have any pre knowledge of Trek. For action-film people you've got plenty of that too. For others, there's lot of comedy, drama, relationships and a good story. And for the Trek lover: you've still got the ideology that Trek brings to our hearts: hope for the future, survival in the face of danger. Plus, there a number of clever (and not so subtle) nods to 'Trek' in the film: at one point someone will die, and you'll pretty much know who he is and why he'll die the moment you see him :). And there's plenty more.

The last few minutes of the film I kept expecting to see two things that didn't happen, but I thought would have been nice. Originally I expected Old Spock to try and return to the future (that is, his future, not the future of the alternate reality), but the I realized he is better off staying where he is, given what happens to Vulcan. Still, although its implied, I would have liked to see a more direct reference that the original reality Old Spock came from is, indeed, still intact and functioning (minus Romulus of course). And, something I thought would have been a funny line somewhere at the end of the movie:

Kirk: "So they gave us five years huh? We'll do it in three."

All in all, great movie. You might not like it (I know a few people who simply don't like science fiction regardless), but I think many people, old fans and new alike, will enjoy it. If this is the future of the franchise, as long as it continues to be handled well, I for one won't be unhappy. As Picard once said to Data: well done. Don't get me wrong, I'll always hold out a little hope for a new TV series, either in the old reality or the new one, and/or a continuation of the DS9/Voy story line, but we do also have other mediums for those.

Take care everyone.

The Beginning

2009-05-12T03:00:00.000-03:00

Hi there all! Not expecting to have a lot (read: any) readers at this point but I would like to make a preliminary post to start my blog off with...at least for posterity purposes if nothing else!

So who am I? Why am I creating this blog?

Well the answers to those questions are one in the same. You see, I'm a thinker. Something I've noticed about myself is that there doesn't seem to be a moment in my day when I'm not thinking about something. From the time I wake up to when I fall asleep some thought it going through my mind. And they're not just "background" thoughts...I'm very consciously aware of them. I don't know if its like this for everyone or not, but nonetheless, sometimes in order to sort through thoughts you have to get them out of your head. Since I don't have a penseive like a certain white bearded wizard, I'm hoping this blog will help get some ideas out there, and maybe expose a few people to some ideas they haven't thought of before, and if that helps them with their lives, so much the better. And it'll help me too....I often find myself in need of feedback on my thoughts, since I'm often trying to find solutions to problems. I debate things with myself often, but like debugging a program, sometimes you need a second set of eyes to see where a flaw might be. I'm not planning on having a single 'topic' that this blog will be about, the thoughts I have tend to be on a large body of topics, but over time a common theme might develop. I think I'll probalby be starting off a lot of topics with "I think". My first 'real' post should hopefully be up in a few days, I've started thinking about the topic and am just working on how I want to say it...suffice it to say it shall be on a popular movie I recently watched.

In the meantime, please note the following things:

1) This blog will never intend to harm anyone in anyway. I guarentee there's going to be at least a thought or two of mine you disagree on. Disagreement of an opinion should be considered a personal 'attack' on oneself. In fact, I've given that a great deal of thought and at some point will probably write an entire post on it.
2) I'm a scientist. Although I'm a specific kind of scientist, above all else that means I follow the scientific method: observe, hypothesize, test, reformulate. I don't just do this in my work, I tend to apply it to all aspects of my life. In a nutshell it means I follow two principles: logical argumentation and evidence. A logical argument is not proof in and of itself of the reality of what is being argued. Although academically this is often considered the difference between a 'valid' and 'sound' argument, I've found that many people have difficulty seperating the two concepts. Something else that I hope to expand on.
3) I'm a fun guy. I like humor, I like to laugh and make other people happy. I like to help people whenever I can, if it's within my capacity. Is it selfish? Well sure, it makes me happy to make other's happy. But that doesn't mean it should be a 'degredation' of the action. People often tend not to get things I find 'humerous', I don't know if its me or them. Probably both. Sarcasm is something I have trouble with. At times I seem to be able to use it flawlessly, and at others it completely alludes me. I think sarcasm is a decent example of indirectness, another topic I've thought about quite a bit and have some issues with.

Although I hope you will decide to comment, please keep the above in mind, and possibly more things as I think about it. That's it for now, but maybe it'll give an idea of a few things you'll see coming up. I hope you enjoy reading. Take care, everyone.