Phoned Medion because their data CD for this el cheapo car GPS system was just ejecting after ~10 seconds when I put it in my Macbook. The guy says "well it's not designed to run on Apple computers, we can't support them. You'll need to use a Windows machine."
So I says "wtf do you mean? All the computer is for, is to transfer map files from the CD onto an SD card which goes in the device. If it's not running any software on the computer then why would it matter what operating system I had?" and that was pretty much where I lost him. Figured it was some kind of completely braindead and needless copy protection that failed on OS X machines and went looking for torrents... unsuccessfully.
Then stuck in a DVD today and the same thing happened - doh! - just the disk getting pulled in, faint clicking for 10 seconds then the disk ejects. I tilt the laptop and hear something sliding about in the drive. Shit! Did some belt or mounting snap off?
Checking prices on eBay for a new 'superdrive' - cheapest is about €45 with postage, not bad but ouch, and opening the machine to swap DVD drives is a slog.
Maybe I can at least shake the broken object out of the drive and see if it's really screwed or maybe a fragment of a broken CD or something...
Hold the laptop with the DVD slot facing the floor, tap gently for 20 seconds, poke around in the slot with a playing card and what comes out?
A poxy 2c coin. Children FTWTF. Works now tho!
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Sunday, November 08, 2009
Funny Chinese expression of the [arbitrary time period]
显怀 (xiǎnhuái): To look pregnant / Obviously pregnant
Thursday, October 29, 2009
An entertaining exchange between Irish Youtubers
In a video of a Garda car apparently being burnt out while the Gardaí were busy raiding a house in Limerick (I guess?), a heated and very entertaining exchange on the subject of dole spongers and caviar developed. This is the kind of ridiculous but witty banter that I'd miss if I left Ireland:
chris2009xx (2 weeks ago) +3
sound like traveller dole skangers, we have to pay for your dole which you use to buy hash then you have loads of children for the child benefit and retire at 15 and go into fas centres then when 18 comes you sponge the dole then have children and the trend continues. you scum get council houses and wreck them we pay for them to be done up then. then you claim footwear allowance and use the money to buy more hash, then we pay to feed you in prison, you even get free runners/trainer shoes there
eiregc09 (2 days ago) +1
and you know all about it dont ye while your sitting at home drinkin your glass of champaigne and eating your caviar you sound like a right fuckin guard thinkin your all posh ye fuckin ignorant stuck up cunt im not even from limerick and its none of your business anyway proctor do ye know who proctor is remember that fool out of police academy the film
richieobrien1 (2 weeks ago)
u wouldnt want to be talking bout me..im working full time since i left school at 18..ive a good job too..
gobsiter (1 week ago) +1
dealing is not a job
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Nice latency
Tracing route to www.l.google.com [66.102.9.147]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 136.206.48.254
2 1 ms <1 ms <1 ms 136.206.13.254
3 2 ms 1 ms 1 ms 193.1.244.37
4 1 ms 10 ms 1 ms inex.google.com [193.242.111.57]
5 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 72.14.239.132
6 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 72.14.232.235
7 3 ms 2 ms 2 ms 64.233.174.18
8 1 ms 2 ms 2 ms lm-in-f147.1e100.net [66.102.9.147]
Trace complete.
Pinging boards.ie [89.234.66.107] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 89.234.66.107: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=60
Reply from 89.234.66.107: bytes=32 time=2ms TTL=60
Reply from 89.234.66.107: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=60
Reply from 89.234.66.107: bytes=32 time=3ms TTL=60
...Ok, it makes no noticeable difference that latency is 20ms lower here than at home, but it looks cool!
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
Speed reading: can we significantly increase reading rate without losing comprehension?
No.
There is no quick fix, according to current scientific evidence. The popular techniques suggested by speed reading books (e.g. elimination of subvocalisation, avoiding regressions or "back-skipping" by force of will or by hiding "already read" words with card, trying to take in more words per fixation and reducing the number of fixations) all do more harm than good, either reducing comprehension, reading rate or both.
Important tip: look for peer-reviewed scientific studies on the subject before accepting the claims of commercial pseudo-scientific books. Also, study skills websites often don't do this, and can publish suggestions which are actually harmful.
There is no quick fix, according to current scientific evidence. The popular techniques suggested by speed reading books (e.g. elimination of subvocalisation, avoiding regressions or "back-skipping" by force of will or by hiding "already read" words with card, trying to take in more words per fixation and reducing the number of fixations) all do more harm than good, either reducing comprehension, reading rate or both.
Important tip: look for peer-reviewed scientific studies on the subject before accepting the claims of commercial pseudo-scientific books. Also, study skills websites often don't do this, and can publish suggestions which are actually harmful.
Friday, August 28, 2009
Three annoying things
1. TV advertisements that say things like "eliminates up to 100% of dandruff flakes" or "up to 100% grey coverage" - typically ads for shampoo and the like.
Like, I can defeat up to 100% of ninjas by doing nothing, since "up to 100% of ninjas" means "x ninjas, where 0 <= x <= the total number of ninjas". A building could be up to 100% demolished by throwing a large rock at it, which is to say that it will be only very slightly damaged. Saying that a shampoo removes "up to" 100% of dandruff is saying nothing.
Stupid wishy-washy meaningless-statement-making assholes.
2. People who stand at a pedestrian crossing but don't hit the button, presumably on the assumption that they will automatically get a green light and the button does nothing but tell them to wait for the scheduled light change which would have happened anyway (which is only sometimes the case).
There are some crossroads where the pattern is like:
(A) west turning south cars only (and pedestrians crossing between NW/NE or NE/SE if the button was hit in the previous A, B or C),
(B) east and west cars only,
(C) north and south cars only.
If a pedestrian hits the light switch on the northwest, northeast or southeast corner, then they can cross at the next A.
What happens about 20% of the time, is that one or two plonkers stand at one of the lights and wait until A, upon which they still don't get a signal to cross because they never hit the button. Then they frown in confusion and eventually jaywalk at the next opportunity, cursing the system. Or you arrive at the crossing, mash the button and grimace at them, having watched them stand there like a muppet for about 30 seconds and miss the crossing timeslot.
Dumb. If you're standing in front of the button, just fucking hit it.
3. People who cross a road and casually hit the button as they walk past, even though they're not going to wait for a crossing signal. Instead, cars and cyclists have to stop and wait uselessly for nobody to cross, since the guy who hit the button is already out of sight, back on the pavement.
If you're going to just cross the road anyway, DON'T hit the fucking button!
Like, I can defeat up to 100% of ninjas by doing nothing, since "up to 100% of ninjas" means "x ninjas, where 0 <= x <= the total number of ninjas". A building could be up to 100% demolished by throwing a large rock at it, which is to say that it will be only very slightly damaged. Saying that a shampoo removes "up to" 100% of dandruff is saying nothing.
Stupid wishy-washy meaningless-statement-making assholes.
2. People who stand at a pedestrian crossing but don't hit the button, presumably on the assumption that they will automatically get a green light and the button does nothing but tell them to wait for the scheduled light change which would have happened anyway (which is only sometimes the case).
There are some crossroads where the pattern is like:
(A) west turning south cars only (and pedestrians crossing between NW/NE or NE/SE if the button was hit in the previous A, B or C),
(B) east and west cars only,
(C) north and south cars only.
If a pedestrian hits the light switch on the northwest, northeast or southeast corner, then they can cross at the next A.
What happens about 20% of the time, is that one or two plonkers stand at one of the lights and wait until A, upon which they still don't get a signal to cross because they never hit the button. Then they frown in confusion and eventually jaywalk at the next opportunity, cursing the system. Or you arrive at the crossing, mash the button and grimace at them, having watched them stand there like a muppet for about 30 seconds and miss the crossing timeslot.
Dumb. If you're standing in front of the button, just fucking hit it.
3. People who cross a road and casually hit the button as they walk past, even though they're not going to wait for a crossing signal. Instead, cars and cyclists have to stop and wait uselessly for nobody to cross, since the guy who hit the button is already out of sight, back on the pavement.
If you're going to just cross the road anyway, DON'T hit the fucking button!
Thursday, August 20, 2009
Software patents: broad, stifling and unfair
(posted comment on ZDNet article "Examine the patent that made selling Microsoft Word a crime")
The problem with patenting processes or algorithms - not necessarily even in computer software - is that we end up with extremely broad or obvious patents whose sole purpose is to allow the patent holder to eventually sue large companies and get (obscenely) rich, and not to safeguard investment in new inventions and products as was originally intended.
If you write a program using simple common sense and happen to "re-invent" something that's patented, that's a strong hint that the patent is too general or obvious.
This is why we have ridiculous patents on "not having to click on a control for it to display dynamic content in a web browser" (Eolas), or "method of swinging on a swing" (United States Patent 6368227, which in itself should be evidence that the US patent system needs to be destroyed and rebuilt by people with an IQ above 30).
What's next? "A method of lifting heavy objects by using one's legs, not one's back"? Or, following Eolas's lead, "not having to say 'abracadabra' and turn around three times before turning on a computer"?
And how is $280m a reasonable amount of "damages", when i4i has produced nothing that could be damaged? Where is their competing product which is suffering in the marketplace due to competition with the patent-infringing Office?
And to those arguing that Microsoft/everyone should do their "due diligence" by researching patents, have you ever written a computer program? Can you really imagine searching for patents that might cover every single aspect of the code you're writing?
Programmers produce code that solves the problems at hand. They do not think "hmm, maybe what we need is to store some text separately to where the formatting information for that text is stored. That makes sense. Better check if that is software-patented!"
Imagine trying to speak to someone while having to look up every individual word you use to check that it's not in some arbitrary blacklist. It would be an unproductive nightmare.
And on top of that, patent search is extremely difficult because they're often worded in an inconsistent, generic or confusing way.
Software patents do nothing good for anybody other than patent trolls and lawyers. For everyone else in the world, they only hold back science and progress. Get rid of software patents in the US now, and keep them out of the EU too.
The problem with patenting processes or algorithms - not necessarily even in computer software - is that we end up with extremely broad or obvious patents whose sole purpose is to allow the patent holder to eventually sue large companies and get (obscenely) rich, and not to safeguard investment in new inventions and products as was originally intended.
If you write a program using simple common sense and happen to "re-invent" something that's patented, that's a strong hint that the patent is too general or obvious.
This is why we have ridiculous patents on "not having to click on a control for it to display dynamic content in a web browser" (Eolas), or "method of swinging on a swing" (United States Patent 6368227, which in itself should be evidence that the US patent system needs to be destroyed and rebuilt by people with an IQ above 30).
What's next? "A method of lifting heavy objects by using one's legs, not one's back"? Or, following Eolas's lead, "not having to say 'abracadabra' and turn around three times before turning on a computer"?
And how is $280m a reasonable amount of "damages", when i4i has produced nothing that could be damaged? Where is their competing product which is suffering in the marketplace due to competition with the patent-infringing Office?
And to those arguing that Microsoft/everyone should do their "due diligence" by researching patents, have you ever written a computer program? Can you really imagine searching for patents that might cover every single aspect of the code you're writing?
Programmers produce code that solves the problems at hand. They do not think "hmm, maybe what we need is to store some text separately to where the formatting information for that text is stored. That makes sense. Better check if that is software-patented!"
Imagine trying to speak to someone while having to look up every individual word you use to check that it's not in some arbitrary blacklist. It would be an unproductive nightmare.
And on top of that, patent search is extremely difficult because they're often worded in an inconsistent, generic or confusing way.
Software patents do nothing good for anybody other than patent trolls and lawyers. For everyone else in the world, they only hold back science and progress. Get rid of software patents in the US now, and keep them out of the EU too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
