Archive for the ‘Geeky Pursuits’ category

What you likely don’t know about Net Neutrality

January 2nd, 2011

Budding Web Surfer

Net Neutrality: keeping the web free for the next generation (Photo by Ilya Haykinson on Flickr)

A recent Rasmussen poll showed that a mere 20% of us are following the debate on Net Neutrality.  Meanwhile 54% are opposed to the FCC making any Net Neutrality regulations, while 21% were in favor.  A likely explanation is that most Americans don’t really understand what Net Neutrality is.

The FCC recently approved a new slate of so-called Net Neutrality rules.  The new rules ensconced a few tenets of Net Neutrality, but also propped open the door for companies to engage in some very non net neutral business models.  The result being that almost everyone wound up unsatisfied by the result.  Still, the vote came down strictly along party lines which bolstered the perception that Net Neutrality is a liberal vs. conservative issue.  Net Neutrality is often positioned as a government takeover or government regulation of the Internet.  It’s not either of those things, nor is it particularly political in a left vs. right sense.  But those perceptions are driving public opinion nonetheless.

The question is, what is Net Neutrality, independent of any specific proposed policy or rules?  At its core, Net Neutrality is simply freedom of the Internet.  It is a belief that Internet network access is a public resource that should not favor any content over any other.  That as a user of the Internet, you should be entitled to access any site or service with the same pricing and speed from the provider of that connection.

This means that your Internet Service Provider (ISP) cannot charge you more for using Yahoo! than Google.  It cannot provide speedy access to Netflix while throttling Hulu.  It cannot make it prohibitively expensive to do online banking with Citibank, while providing bargains for banking with Chase.  It cannot prohibit you from accessing The Drudge Report because it doesn’t like its political views.  As far as the network is concerned, traffic is traffic, and no preferential treatment shall be given.

The talk of government regulation of the Internet is not really accurate.  It sounds as if the government would be regulating content.  Instead, Net Neutrality proposes that the government regulate ISPs to insure they do not regulate the content of the Internet.  Net Neutrality is about insuring freedom for consumers and making sure ISPs don’t take that away.

Analogies have been made to the power company charging you more to run a TV than a washing machine, or giving you a discount for running Maytag appliances.  Rather, you pay for the kWHs you use, rather than whether you burn them using your PS/3 or your dishwasher.   Net Neutrality is simply ensuring that same agnosticism applies to your ISP.

In fairness, most ISPs have not yet tried to implement service structures that would not be net neutral.  However, there have been a few trial balloons floated, so there is justifiable reason for consumers to be concerned.  This is the primary motivation for trying to get Net Neutrality rules into effect now, before ISPs change to content biased business models.  It wil be much more difficult and much more disruptive to companies to force them to change after the fact rather than putting rules in place up front.

Viewed another way, Net Neutrality is like the Second Amendment, albeit for Internet rights rather than gun rights.  Your right to access the Internet content of your choice shall not be infringed.  This sort of basic freedom should appeal to card-carrying ACLU members as much as Tea Partiers.

So why does anyone oppose Net Neutrality?  Profit.  Being an ISP is a profitable business.  Demand is increasing while costs are decreasing, meaning that profit margins continue to rise.  A fast Internet connection is becoming a near must-have for households.  It’s like a car or a TV.  Most families would not chose to live without it.  So while ISPs are making good money with today’s net neutral business models, they fully recognize there are opportunities to make even more money by shifting to less content neutral pricing.

But wait, shouldn’t the free market sort all this out?  As a consumer, why would you opt for a restrictive ISP over a more open one?  The reason being that the vast majority of America lacks any serious market competition in the ISP space.  Only 4% of the market is served by 3 or more ISPs, while 78% is served by 2 ISPs.  If free markets were operating in the ISP space, you would not expect America to rank 28th in global speed of Internet connections while having comparatively more expensive ISP service.   The markets should have sorted that out by now as well.

The bottom line being that government rules enforcing that ISPs honor Net Neutrality wouldn’t be required if instead government required that ISPs unbundle their services and sell wholesale network access to small ISPs such that true competition existed in the market.  Either method works, and many other countries have successfully implemented the unbundling regulations.  However, American ISPs are understandably opposed to either option, and both options require some level of government intervention.  The alternative is that we simply have to trust that ISPs will be good citizens and not place profit motives over the interests of their customers—and history suggests that the customers rarely end up on the good end of that bargain.

Net Neutrality is not about restricting the Internet or your ability to post or access content on it.  On the contrary, its only goal is to ensure your continued ability to surf without restrictions or penalties.  While some government rules do impose constraints, Net Neutrality is one of those that promotes and ensures freedom.  What could be more American than that?

In Case of Emergency: Remove Bra

September 25th, 2010

There are any number of reasons women are good to have around.  Here’s something to add to the list.  In the event of a disaster with lots of airborne particulates… say a volcano, a dirty bomb, a collapsing skyscraper, or even a fire… your honey’s undergarments may be the key to both of you surviving.  That is, assuming she’s wearing the Emergency Bra.

This bra not only lifts and separates (or whatever it is bras usually do), but its cups are haz-mat breathing filters.  It may be quickly disassembled into two functional and sexy masks.  The theory being that when the alternative is sucking in lungfuls of radioactive dust, most anyone’s willing to have a red laced boob cover on their face.

This puts women at a unique advantage in a disaster situation.  As the inventor of this multi-tasker explained:

Ladies and gentlemen, isn’t that wonderful that women have two breasts, not just one? We can save not only our own life, but also the life of a man of our choice next to us.

So be on your best behavior boys.  When the apocalypse comes, you don’t want to be in the dog house.  And hopefully, the emergency bra won’t be in the laundry basket.

Luddite politicians

September 23rd, 2010

We all remember Senator Ted Stevens trying to explain the Internet as a “series of tubes“.  And the Supreme Court’s recent faux pas while trying to get a handle on this text messaging thing.   Well it turns out that technophobia isn’t a new phenomenon in Washington.

Back in 1930, the Senate tried to ban dial telephones because they felt it was inappropriate and wasteful to do the work of operators themselves. The resolution, which passed, read:

Whereas dial telephones are more difficult to operate than are manual telephones; and Whereas Senators are required, since the installation of dial phones in the Capitol, to perform the duties of telephone operators in order to enjoy the benefits of telephone service; and Whereas dial telephones have failed to expedite telephone service; Therefore be it resolved that the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate is authorized and directed to order the Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Co. to replace with manual phones within 30 days after the adoption of this resolution, all dial telephones in the Senate wing of the United States Capitol and in the Senate office building.

At the time, they stated a hope the telephone company would take a hint and give up nationally on this foolish roll-out of phones people had to dial themselves.  The horror.

So yes, let’s listen to these guys on technical issues like ACTA, broadband initiatives, intellectual property laws, and cyber-security. At least we can take solace in knowing that being a Luddite is apparently a longstanding job requirement.

The perils of popularity

September 20th, 2010

Sick BoyIn our ongoing series of scientific studies proving the obvious, comes news that popular people get sick first.  Duh.

What may be slightly less obvious is that health agencies might benefit from identifying and monitoring these social butterflies.  After all, they are like the proverbial canaries in the coal mine.  If some epidemic is going to run through a community, these soldiers can be expected to step up and take one for the team.

Those of us more socially challenged individuals may also take solace in our relative good health.  Sure, we may not get invited to any of the cool parties or get mobbed with hugs when we walk into a room.  But when all you Paris Hilton wanna-bees are on your deathbed, we’ll be hale as a horse, ensconced in our geeky dens full of Fritos and flat screens.

Remember: there’s an upside to everything if you squint hard enough and tilt your head just right.

The lighter side of poop

September 16th, 2010

Being #2, you try harder.  So the folks doing poop research were not about to sit idly by while other researchers made electricity from pee.  Hence, the Park Spark project which is turning poop into light.  Ahhhh, the glamor of science.

The initial implementation is a street light in a dog park.  The project encourages you to contribute your dog droppings to the natural composter, which then siphons off the methane gas to fuel the light.

But this is only the prototype.  And there’s noting special about dog poop beyond the fact that dogs have figured out how to train humans to clean it up for them.  Recycling being as popular as it is, it won’t be long before there are poop powered lights throughout your neighborhood.  I suppose eventually there could be a direct sewer feed, but early adopters will likely have to settle for curb-side donations.

I can see it now.  Grab the newspaper and tuck it proudly under your arm as you announce to the family, “I’ll be back in a bit… I gotta top off the street lamp.”  Make no mistake, this movement will say way more about you than a Prius parked in the driveway ever could.  You’ll be the talk of the cul-de-sac.

A warrior’s phone

August 27th, 2010

Klingon App

There's an app for that...

Kahless says that Palm’s WebOS is the phone of choice for true Klingon Warriors.  This is evidenced by the recent homebrew app that provides your Palm Pre or Pixi with a true Klingon font as well as a translator to help you write Hab SoSlI’ Quch! in response to your friend calling you a petaQ over SMS.

I’d install this myself, but alas I have no friends both geeky enough and cool enough to have this app and a WebOS phone. I guess that will save Kim some eye rolling though.

Besides, it would cut into my time playing Angry Birds which is surprisingly life consuming—if only because I’m hoping if I ever get to the end of the game, maybe it will tell me what those poor little green pigs ever did to piss off those birds!  They are after all, very very angry, to the point of being suicidal.  Although I guess maybe it’s homicide as you have to launch the birds.  But they volunteer for the duty so there’s still a high level of dysfunctional bird behavior to explain here.

Excuse me while I pee in my phone

August 25th, 2010

Pee's Electric

Photo by Andy Martin

Chemists are working on two different approaches to generate electricity from urine.  While your pee doesn’t have enormous amounts of pent up energy, you do have enormous amounts of it.  Collectively, humans excrete over 10 billion liters of the stuff every day.

Gerardine Botte, a chemical engineer at Ohio University, is working on using urine to generate hydrogen, which could then be used in conventional hydrogen fuel cells.  The advantage of urine over water is that it requires only 25% of the energy required to liberate the hydrogen from a water molecule as from a molecule of urea.  This makes the process much more energy efficient.

Even more interesting is the work of Shanwen Tao of Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh, UK.  Tao is developing an electrolytic cell that directly converts urea to electricity.  The power outputs are relatively low so you’re unlikely to power your home with the family toilet anytime soon.  But it is about the right level to power small electronic devices.

If this works out, you may never have to leave the couch again.  Rather than getting up for a potty break, you just whizz in the phone or the remote or the DVR, or whatever is looking low on juice.  Who says the future doesn’t sound exciting?

God Reduces Distress for Believers

August 9th, 2010

God BrainA study published in Psychological Science shows actual brain wave evidence that thoughts of God have a calming effect on the brain.  However, this only holds true for those who believe.  And given that some 85% of the planet holds some sort of religious belief, that’s most everyone.

More interesting is that for atheists, the study showed the exact opposite.  Given a stressful situation, thoughts of God actually increased the subject’s anxiety.  The unanswered question is whether this is a cause or effect.

Is it because you don’t believe in God that thoughts of God are stressful, or is it that you don’t believe in God because thoughts of God induce stress.  I’m unaware there is a definitive scientific answer to this question, but personally I believe it’s the latter.

In my life, I came to accept the non-existence of God entirely because the world made a lot more sense to me that way.  The existence of God in this world was extraordinarily confounding.  It wasn’t remotely comforting.  It made me want to confront the deity and yell, “What the hell were you thinking?”  A world without God, governed only by the laws of nature, was much more comforting.  It was simply less stressful.  And so I went there.

Nonetheless, I recognize I am in a minority.  It has always seemed to me, and now this study confirms, that most people find great comfort and solace in God.  Their world’s made more sense to them.  I’ve also always believed that the specific God was less important than there simply being a higher power.  People who are devout Christians in America would doubtless be devout Muslims if only they had been born in Dubai.  The comfort of their religious beliefs on their minds would be the same.

All of this reinforces my firm belief that the so-called new atheists who would opt to convert believers to atheism are on a fool’s mission.  For most people, atheism would be an untenably stressful situation.  Would they adjust?  Maybe to a degree, but I think the brain is somewhat hardwired to believe or not.  Forcing either side to accept the other is a pointless imposition of stress with no net gain.

At some level, people seem to instinctively seek out what they need to make their world make sense.  For most, that’s a belief in God, but for some it’s not.  Proselytizing from either side is not just annoying, but is likely destructive.  Live and let live.  You have to do what works for you.

The Wheels on the Bus

August 8th, 2010

They go round and frickin’ round!  Paul Stender and his team from Indy Boys Inc. have built a good old fashioned school bus that tops out at 367mph.  Why?  If you have to ask why then you just understand the true nature of men.

The bus sports a jet engine off of a phantom fighter plane and consumes 150 gallons of fuel in just a quarter mile run.  There are frickin’ flames coming out the back.

To put this in perspective, if my kids could ride this bus to school they’d arrive in just under 23 seconds.  That is, assuming you ignored acceleration and deceleration times, stop signs, and well… corners.  Not to mention it would take 1380 gallons of fuel for each trip which I’m sure would have an impact on my school taxes.

But it’s still awesome…

Breaking News

August 5th, 2010

From this morning’s newspaper:

A 14-year-old girl who was reported missing by her family after she texted them that she had been abducted by two men was found a day later in the home of a man with whom she’d apparently been chatting on MySpace.

Wait… people are still using MySpace?

The Journey of Science

August 1st, 2010

SheldonA new model of the universe has been proposed by Wun-Yi Shu, an associate professor at National Tsing Hua University in Taiwan.  It has the potential of supplanting the Big Bang Theory as the standard accepted model of cosmological origin.

In the new theory, the universe has no beginning and no end.  Things we currently understand as constants such as the speed of light and gravity, become variable.  And time and space as well as length and mass become interchangeable in much the same way that the famous E=mc^2 equation allows energy and mass to interchange.  It’s heady stuff, but it eliminates the  need for dark energy and solves the supernovae red-shift problem that plaque current models.  On the other hand, it doesn’t offer any clues about the cosmic microwave background radiation which has been repeatedly observed and the Big Bang explains nicely.  So it is fraught with its own issues.  Still, it’s one of the more radical yet plausible ideas to arise in cosmology in decades.

Should Shu’s new model bear out and the Big Bang gets pushed to the dustbin a couple of significant problems arise.  Minimally (and perhaps most importantly) would be the fate of the TV show. It’s not at all clear that Sheldon would ever recover.  But I think the larger issue could be the perception on the part of the non-science community that somehow this shows that science itself is somehow flawed.

Science deniers have long clamored that cosmology, biology, geology, and other sciences are flawed because there are things the current theories of science cannot explain. This is most often used as an argument for why supernatural forces are behind the inner workings of the universe.  But sometimes they are also used as political levers such as is the case with the global warming deniers.

My fear is that should a major current theory like Big Bang be proved false, this will be spun as a huge “I told you so” by those who would seek to discount science in general.  How can scientists be trusted that evolution is true?  After all, these were the same folks who said Big Bang was true and look what happened to that!

Ironically, scientists would view the demise of a major theory in favor of a new and better one as a validation of the success of the scientific method.  This is exactly how science is supposed to work.  A theory is used to comprehensively explain all the known data.  But invariably, as more data is gathered, holes begin to show up in the theory.  In some cases, the theory is expanded, but in other cases, whole new theories are required.  Quantum physics is a great example of a whole new theory created to explain behavior that Newtonian physics could not account for.  At present, both these theories exist in parallel, but physicists recognize that eventually they must somehow be reconciled.

It’s important to understand that this is not a bad thing.  Rather, it is the very definition of scientific progress.  As we observe more, our explanations (theories) get revised.  This is not a step backward, but a leap forward.  Science will never understand and explain absolutely everything.  That’s not a failure, it truly is an opportunity, and the whole raison d’être for science.

And if Sheldon is half the scientist he’s portrayed as, he’ll be leading the fight to have the show’s name changed.  But don’t worry, he’ll still have oatmeal on Mondays.  Let’s not get all crazy here or anything.

Time in a Bottle

July 28th, 2010

TardisTime travel is one of those things that seems so simple until you think about it too much and then your brain just hurts. It isn’t so much the mechanics of traveling in time.  It doesn’t really matter if you prefer to travel in a DeLorean, a phone booth, a TARDIS, or a starship slingshot around the sun.  In a pinch you can even use an enchanted pocket watch or even the occasional hot tub.  After all, while Einstein’s relativity predicts it should be possible, his equations didn’t specify the type of vehicle required.  Yet it’s the mind bending implications of what happens once you do start hopping about on the timeline that are really interesting.

The implications of being able to travel in time depend entirely on the assumptions you make about how time is woven together.  And this is something humans currently don’t understand, which gives you a lot of latitude to be ridiculously creative.  This is maybe why it is a frequent dinner table topic at my house.

Most often in fiction, time is seen as a dependent tapestry of sorts.  If you go back and make changes, then your future is disrupted.  The most obvious problem here being the famed “grandfather paradox.”  Suppose you went back in time and killed your grandfather before your father was ever born.  Then you would not have been born.  So you couldn’t have gone back in time to kill your grandfather.  So he’s still alive, and you are born… except that you killed him.

There are other silly implications of the tapestry model which Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure had great fun with, and Dr. Who inexplicably adopted for their most recent season finale.  Assuming you have access to a time machine, you can effect instantaneous changes to the present by simply deciding that at some point in the future you’ll go back into the past and effect the change.  Suppose you find yourself locked out of your house.  You could decide that later today you’ll pop back to yesterday and hide the spare key under the plant on the porch.  Voila!  The key is now there when previously it wasn’t.  So basically, as soon as you get your hands on a flux capacitor, you can perform magic.  Cooler yet, you will have always been able to perform magic.  And since you can’t, it means you never will.  Another dream shot to hell.

To get around this, some physicists have proposed a quantum model of time.  Essentially it posits that time is not linear, but rather branches out at each instance to allow for all possible outcomes.  So when you go back and make a change, it’s not really a change since both the reality with the change and without the change co-exist.  Aside from the brain cramp induced by trying to conceive of a tree with infinite branches each in turn having infinite child branches and so on out until infinity, this creates the WTF paradox.  In essence, any time you are confronted with a decision, it doesn’t matter what you do because the mere existence of the decision point means you made all available choices in one of the parallel universes.  So why sweat the choice?  I mean, WTF?  Is your grandpa alive or dead?  Well, yes.

Along comes Seth Lloyd at MIT who has another model for all this timey-wimey stuff.  Since quantum outcomes are all probabilistic, Lloyd’s theory is that probabilities are altered to prevent paradoxes.  That is, the universe actually enforces rules against time travel paradoxes by making paradox inducing actions improbable.  This is all predicated on the existence of “closed timelike curves”.  These structures are information pathways across space-time that link paradoxical events.  In essence, should you try and go back and kill your grandfather, the chances of the bullet being a dud or the gun misfiring become a statistical certainty.  Basically, the universe will simply not allow you to ruin your grandmother’s day.

Einstein’s equations allow for these closed timelike curves, and Lloyd’s team has even done some experiments with photons demonstrating that quantum statistics are demonstrably altered when paradoxical possibilities are introduced.  This is a far cry from proof about how time works, but it is one of the more promising steps I’ve seen, and so far it makes my brain hurt less than the other possibilities.  And understanding the nature of time is somewhat of a prerequisite to doing a time-ship conversion on an old British police box.

Pass the salad please?

Bloody Data Plans

July 12th, 2010

Back at the dawn of computing we had dial-up service (with acoustic couplers for my fellow old geeks out there). Sure it was slow, but it was portable in a way that we’ve lost with current data plans. That is, as long as you knew your access number and login credentials, you could connect any device you wanted to the network. Companies even facilitated this portability by providing local access numbers or toll-free numbers so you could connect anything from anywhere you had a phone line.

When broadband came into our homes, by it’s nature it was anchored to a single location. Providers initially toyed with charging for each connected computer, similar to the way the phone company of my youth used to charge for each telephone in the house. But that quickly gave way to allowing home networking and allowing you to connect all your devices over a single broadband connection for a single price.

Cell TowerThen along came cell phones and wireless service.  Initially, as a second phone service, and often a second company, cell phones charged independently from your home phone.  Further, the need for each phone to have a publicly known number and for calls to be connected to the device reasonably meant that each phone was billed separately.  This would have been analogous to adding a second phone line to your house.

However, phones have now progressed to where even calling them phones is a bit of an anachronism.  They are small handheld computers or data devices.  Even voice services, thanks to Skype, Google Voice and other mobile VoIP services, flies over the data side now.  And data networks are inherently organized such that multiple devices can connect without additional service provider overhead, the same as they do in the broadband case.

Further, people are now more likely to have multiple devices to connect.  Sure, they have a smartphone, but increasingly they also have an iPad or Kindle, and maybe a wireless data card for their laptop or a MiFi.  Although one of the largest barriers to people grabbing on to all these tech options is that the wireless providers are still insisting that each device is a separate phone line and needs a separate wireless plan.  There’s no technical reason for this, but it helps them pad their bottom line.

Adding to the confusion is the roll-out of various 4G services.  This means wireless data at DSL speeds.  Given that many people have already tossed their landline phones as a cost saving measure, how long before people start to wonder why they pay for broadband at home when wireless service in the house is just as good?  But under current business models you’d be back to paying to connect every device in your house as a separate billable connection.

At some point, it seems that either competition, regulation, or a maybe a consumer revolt should come along and start consolidating all the data plans.  Voice, texting, television, broadband data, and wireless data are all just different content running over the same network.  It makes no sense to pay multiple connection fees to the same thing.  There needs to be a new pricing model.

Ideally, I want to pay a flat fee for access to the network.  That could be at the family, household, or even at the personal level.  But having paid that fee, I can use data anywhere on any device I choose.  I can talk, text, blog, or watch TV.  Data is data.  Then in addition, I’m fine with certain content providers charging for access to their content.  NBC might choose to offer their programming free and offset that with ad revenue, while the New York Times might charge $2/week to see their articles.  Meanwhile the Travel Channel will sell me a season pass to Man vs. Food.  Then it becomes my choice.

Right now, a great deal of the innovation happening in this country is happening in the wireless application space.  Cloud computing, tablets, netbooks, smartphones are all offering to make our lives more connected with more access to our stuff in more places.  But the advances are being dramatically gated by the lack of affordable data connectivity.  As I’ve said before, the Internet is every bit as vital a part of our national infrastructure as electricity.  We can’t afford to treat it more casually.  And the challenges we face are not simply technical, but are business model challenges as well.

Car Tech

July 8th, 2010

Ahhhhh… back from my break.  And there’s nothing like a long stay at the lake to get you back to your roots.  That is, your auto mechanic roots… specifically when the boat won’t start.  You always feel good when you’re at the boat ramp, with the trailer dunked deep in the water, and you twist the key and hear… nothing.  Crap.

This was the first boat dunking of the year, and it turned out that somewhere over the long winter the power to the ignition was lost.  Likely a critter in the barn who chewed a wire in the harness somewhere.   Not a big deal, but a pain when everybody wants to go out on the water.  Not to fear, we had the full squad on the job:  Grandpa, me, and both of my boys.  Tools and meters were flying.  It didn’t take too long to diagnose the problem, but we spent way too long looking for where we were losing power.  Unfortunately, the path the wires take from the motor to the console is not readily accessible.

Finally, I suggested that since we don’t have power in the ignition, but we do have power other places in the console, we just patch power in where it’s supposed to be.  The boys listened intently while Grandpa and I talked it through and agreed it was a reasonable fix.  Grandpa headed back to the barn for some supplies, and my youngest proceeded to explain why he thought this was a good solution as well.  His rationale quickly faded from a restating of the plan to listing the technical resumes of his grandfather and I, and that if we thought it was a good idea, then he thinks it’ll probably work as well.  It was cute, but I’m still not sure who he was selling the pitch to as it was just his brother and I there.  Anyway, it worked, so I guess he was right.  And we were all on the water well before dinnertime.

In somewhat related news, the Senate voted in favor of a bill affirming that consumers should have more choice in where to have their cars repaired.  This is a big deal for independent repair shops and shade-tree mechanics alike.  If signed into law, it would require manufacturers to sell diagnostic data and tools to anyone at the same price they charge their dealers.  This is noteworthy on two counts.  First, it is a boon to consumers who are currently locked in to having certain repairs done by the dealer because no one else has the tech to work on their cars.  But almost as significant is that this was a pro-consumer move by the Senate which is decidedly not in the interest of big business.  Granted, it’s not like they stood up to an oil company, but it’s a start.

Audi CamThen in the TMI category comes the Audi Cam.  This is a well intentioned but misguided attempt to take the anxiety out of car repair.  Audi mechanics in Germany will start wearing helmet cams allowing customers to view and hear their car repair in real time from the mechanic’s point of view.  Now maybe German auto-techs are a different breed than their American counterparts, but I’ve worked in this business, and I don’t think customers should have a audio feed unless there’s a guy somewhere manning the censor button on a 7-second delay.  Further, while viewing the process might be informative to customers who know their way around a car, most will have no idea what they are watching.  I can envision the check-out process now taking forever as customers ask about that thingy they saw you remove and hook that other thingy with the wires to when the meter went boing-de-boing.  I feel for the techs.   It makes me glad the only ones I have to explain my fix-it actions to anymore are my kids.

Type This

June 25th, 2010

I learned to type on a typewriter sometime after they became electric but before they had spell checkers.  I was never very good at it, but it got me through a metric boat load of term papers. Particularly important since my handwriting has been pretty illegible since I learned to hold a pencil.

In college, I learned to program in a variety of arcane languages all of which depended on entering large quantities of numbers and special symbols into a keyboard.  Touch typing was pretty useless, at least the version I was capable of because I never really got much past the letters and an occasional period or comma.  Out of a sense of self preservation I developed my own technique that involves 4 fingers and one thumb across two hands and requires me to stare at the keyboard while I type.  I can still manage 30 wpm which gets me by for what I do and provides an unnatural source of amusement for Kim who can type 1,530 wpm while looking at me, carrying on a conversation, and knitting an afghan.

Anyway, along came 2-way pagers, smartphones and other things that forced me to learn to type with just two thumbs.  The technique is different enough to require a learning curve, but I managed.  Still, I’d barely hack out a sentence while Kim explained the finer points of why the Celtics have been the dominant force in basketball for the last 3 decades with just two digits.

Well, now we’re up for stage 3.  The Swype technique.  The new Droid X phone is sporting a new keyboarding method where you don’t touch each letter of the word, but rather trace a path through all the letters of the word.  Samsung and HTC are also planning offerings.  This is the method that recently shattered a text messaging speed record. And yes, here’s yet another learning curve, but I’m hopeful as this seems somehow different enough to maybe give me an edge.  Oh who am I kidding?  She’s gonna smoke me again.

Swype