January 2005 Archives

On a whim, I bought a cheap digital photo frame from Woot!, intending to load it up with photos and give it to an inlaw as a geeky gift. Once it arrived and I showed it to my wife, she suggested that unless I wanted to get tech support calls on a weekly basis, I just keep it and put it in my office at work. She's wise, my wife.

So, I dumped about 100 photos onto a spare CompactFlash card I had (THAT'S why I keep pieces of kit around for years in drawers) and put it in my office. I set it up to cycle through the images, displaying each for 30 seconds. Since the screen is only about 3" on the diagonal, I expected it to be an idle curiosity of which I'd soon tire and forget. I was wrong.

It's been in my office for a while, now, and I catch myself, every so often, glancing over to see an image that makes me smile. It's not a long, doting study -- just a quick dart of the eyes -- but it's enough to evoke a fond memory or a brief chuckle at some funny moment long since past.

Would I have spent the $100+ that most of these things run for? Probably not, but for what I paid, it's been a pleasant surprise. It also makes me realize that it'd be cool to get a discarded 14" or 15" low-res LCD monitor that somebody no longer wants, craft up a little box that would just feed images to the monitor, and hang it on a wall as a decent-sized digital photo frame. Or, better yet, the little box would just tap into my PC using Bluetooth and grab the images off my HDD -- no sense duplicating the data if you don't hafta. It'll happen...probably sooner than I expect, too.

I found this photo today and it just cries out for some funny caption/quote/whatever, so leave a comment with your best shot.

Every time I sit down at a PC and every time I walk into my office at work, I'm struck with a fundamental decision: consume or produce.

I'm talking about information. Any minute can be reasonably and justifiably spent either consuming information, such as reading research papers, news sites, emails, blogs, etc., or producing new information, such as writing my own papers, putting up blog entries, leaving comments on blogs (hint, hint), composing an email, and so on.

Some people are very content to be primarily, if not entirely, consumers. They feel little or no need to share their knowledege, opinions, and thoughts with others. Some are more biased in the opposite direction, churning out an unending stream of content. I personally try to maintain a balance, but I have no idea where that balance should be, or even if there is an ideal point. I know I'm somewhere in the middle between these extremes, but I can easily spend a day consuming and not producing at all if I don't watch myself. This blog is one example of how I try to shift back towards the middle.

A related question is this: do we actually need so many people producing content? A decade ago, the number of "voices" in the world was a fraction of what it is today, and the majority of those voices had a local audience rather than the global audience the Internet affords now. Are we better off for this shift?

Well, on the plus side, the more opportunity there is for people to express themselves, the less likely we'll be that injustice and general badness (where's my thesaurus?!) will go unnoticed. Giving a voice to the repressed, the depressed, or the angry fosters assistance and coping. In addition, the more we know about each other, the better able we should be to understand and appreciate each other, and that should hopefully move us towards a calmer, more peaceful world.

On the negative side, and going back to my original point, a minute spent producing content is a minute spent not consuming someone else's content. So the time I spend writing this blog entry is time I'm not reading about someone else's scientific discovery, social plight, or philosophical outlook. While some education comes from writing, consuming generally offers a better opportunity for gaining knowledge and improving oneself.

But, if nobody produced, there'd be nothing to consume. And, if one consumes nothing, one is unlikely to be able to produce much content of value. So there has to be a balance, which leaves me back at my original question: consume or produce, read or write? Every minute is precious...how will you spend the next one?

Call me lonely, but unregistered comments are enabled again. They still require moderation, so if you want your comments to show up without a delay, register with TypeKey (it's FREE!).

As you may know, three friends and I ran GearBits, a tech-oriented blog, for about 15 months. In June, we put it on hiatus because real life was getting in the way of our posting (darn you, real life!). Since then, I've started this personal blog on my home machine, but I'd like to somehow combine them so that what was posted on GearBits isn't lost.

GearBits was run using Movable Type 2.66, which was free for multi-author, non-profit blogs, and is hosted on a friend's machine (thanks, Hal!). This blog is powered by Movable Type 3.x, which is not free for multi-author blogs, and is hosted on my own webserver at home. I don't really want to have to pay just to keep archived material in its original form, but I would like to retain its structure.

Also, GearBits got, and still gets, a fair bit of traffic, so I'd like to serve those readers with some new content. But, I don't want to have to maintain two separate blogs. Does anyone have a solution/suggestion for migrating GearBits?

As promised, a big hello to ya. :-)

The recently announced Konica Minolta DiMAGE Z5 looks like a potentially awesome camera.

With CCD-based anti-shake, a 12X optical zoom lens, high-quality VGA movie capabilities, and a host of other yummy features, this could be my next camera. While I certainly don't need 5 megapixels, the other specs seem just about perfect. If it included a remote control and had a swivel LCD on it, I would have nothing left to nitpick about. Well, except for the fact that the Z5 is definitely a weird-looking camera.

Once reviews start coming out, I'll definitely be paying attention. While my current camera, a Canon S1 IS, is nice, it has a couple of shortcomings (e.g., slow/inaccurate focus, bad red-eye, need to have the lens hood on to use screw-on filters) that are getting old fast.

I keep a small journal of ideas for novels that I'll never write. One idea I entered into that journal almost a year ago was about a college computer science student. For a computer science class project, he writes a Trojan that enters a victim's computer and, if there's a webcam connected, makes images from the webcam available to the Trojan's controller. He was then going to use that Trojan to uncover some sort of plot...the details weren't all that solidified yet.

Anyway, given those thoughts of mine, I was floored last week to read about this Spanish computer programmer who basically did just what I described. Apparently, he wrote it in 2003, even before my journal entry, but wasn't caught until this month. Apparently, he could control the webcam on an infected computer and activate it -- sending the video stream directly to himself -- at any time.

So, if you have a webcam, point it at the ceiling when you're not using it...just to be safe. ;-)

Michael Powell, Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, announced last Friday that he will be stepping down from that post. Powell, son of Secretary of State Colin Powell, leaves a mixed legacy.

His most public action was to increase the fines for indecency on radio and television stations by several magnitudes. And you know, that's just what the networks needed, because they're already doing so great competing against cable and satellite. I'd much rather he imposed fines for excessive "reality TV" programming, but maybe that's just me.

While he did do some technology-friendly things, such as nixing a proposal to regulate VOIP, he won't be remembered fondly by most of those who appreciate the First Amendment. Most notably, he bent over backwards to please the MPAA and put into regulation the stipulation that all video-receiving devices must make provision for the dreaded "broadcast flag" by mid-2005. Yes, even though the movie industry keeps reporting record-breaking revenues and profits year after year, Powell thought they needed some help in making sure that consumers aren't allowed to watch what they've already paid for unless the MPAA says it's OK again. Brilliant...thanks a heap, pal.

In reaction to my previous post, "Why Satellite Radio Is a Temporary Fad", Davy Fields sent me the following interesting comments:

"Although, I do think Sirius and XM are going to stick around as the content providers for internet music, I think they're also positioned well to jam themselves in enough cars for a few years they'll stick around: for every wired person like us who has the personal music collection they'd love to access on the road, there's ten people with a cassette deck with one tape in it and an AM/FM radio player in their '92 Taurus... I think the XM/Sirius Box is the Tivo equivalent of car audio... sure, On-demand programing of audio would be better (i.e., the equivalent of pulling up your home music library through your mobile tricorder-box we'll all have in ten years), but a lot of people would love just a little unit to shove in the dash with buttons that can give them a bunch of what's essentially better radio stations from them, which isn't exactly a dramatic change of their business model, and that's why I think they'll be here a while."

I think Davy and I don't fundamentally disagree. While he's a bit more optimistic about the potential market for satellite-based radio (but are all those ambivalent Taurus drivers willing to subscribe to a music source?), we both seem to believe that Sirius and XM will have to expand their business models a bit to become sustainable on a longer-term basis. Of course, if their strategy is just to get bought out by ClearChannel or another mega-conglomerate (i.e., media juggernaut), then maybe what they have now is enough. I still think some form of terrestrial, Internet-compatible wireless will be satellite's biggest competitor...eventually, anyway. Time will tell...

Saw this in the Photos section of Weather Underground

Source

Last night, I cobbled together a video of Sam's first 2 months to give as a DVD to my in-laws (who we're going to see this weekend). It's made up of still photos and some short videos I shot with our digital camera. It does have a good soundtrack, though. :-)

If you want to download it, right click this link and select "save as": Sam-First_8_Weeks.wmv (high-res WMV, 59 MB)

I made it using three tools: I organized and selected the photos and clips using Picasa 2. I arranged the media, added transitions and the soundtrack, and created the WMV file using Windows Movie Maker. Then, to author the DVD, I used Ulead Movie Factory. Of course, I'm sure this all could have been done more easily using a single piece of software, but I don't have such a program. Any suggestions?

Lori sent me this today...I laughed.

=================

The President, the First Lady, and Dick Cheney are flying on Air Force One.

George looks at Laura, chuckles, and says, "You know, I could throw a $1,000 bill out the window right now and make somebody very happy."

Laura shrugs her shoulders and says, "Well, I could throw ten $100 bills out the window and make ten people very happy."

Cheney says, "Of course, I could throw one hundred $10 bills out the window and make a hundred people very happy."

The pilot, hearing this, rolls his eyes and says to his co-pilot, "Such big shots back there... hell, I could throw all three of them out the window and make four billion people very happy."

According to CNET News, Dell's CEO calls the iPod a fad and dismisses Apple as quaint:

Dell's take-no-prisoners CEO, Kevin Rollins, has seen fads that come and go--and he thinks Apple Computer's iPod may fall into that category. "It's interesting: The iPod has been out for three years, and it's only this past year it's become a raging success,"he said. "Well, those things that become fads rage, and then they drop off. When I was growing up there was a product made by Sony called the Sony Walkman--a rage, everyone had to have one. Well, you don't hear about the Walkman anymore. I believe that one-product wonders come and go. You have to have sustainable business models, sustainable strategy. But don't read that as any sort of disparagement of Apple. They've done a nice job."

I'm not a Mac fanatic -- heck, I don't personally even own any Apple products -- but to claim that the iPod is a "fad" like Sony's Walkman is just stupid on several levels. The Walkman revolutionized personal music. Of course you don't hear about it anymore -- Sony retired the brand because it became so widely adopted as a term that it lost usefulness as a marketing tool. Then, new technology came out to replace audio cassettes. But to think that the Walkman had no lasting effect on consumers is incorrect -- without it, portable music would have been much delayed and we may just *now* be seeing portable CD players come out. And, regarding the iPod in particular, how many consumer devices hold a huge majority of the market- and mind-share and are able to extend that gap year after year? Not many...maybe Apple really is doing it right.

And Kevin, Apple's been around about a decade longer than Dell has and Steve Jobs has personally done more for consumer computing than you will likely ever even imagine yourself accomplishing. To imply that Apple doesn't have a sustainable business strategy sells them short and suggests that you, yourself, don't really have much insight into consumer computing and electronics. But that's OK, really, because your job is to hawk overpriced PCs and peripherals to corporate and government purchasing departments, and that really doesn't require you to understand how the typical consumer or, *gasp*, teenager, thinks about and uses technology.

Oh, and if your idea of being insightful is to toss around overused business jargon, consider this: all my 22-year-old students headed for the fry machine at McD's know those words, too.

Sorry, folks, but I've restricted the comment function such that you'll need to have a TypeKey account to post comments (which I hope you'll do). One benefit to registration is that your comments won't be moderated -- they'll show up immediately. Registering with TypeKey takes less than 30 seconds, so please consider doing so.

Why did I makes this change? I've been getting 10-40 comment spams a day and, even though they don't show up because I delete them during moderation, deleting them still takes time out of my life I'd rather spend on better things (like learning origami or contemplating why Brad and Jen are splitting up).

Anyway, sorry again that I had to do this -- comment spammers should join the ranks of people who should be ejected into space, like those who bash baby sea lions and those who urinate on the seats of public restrooms.

Back in December, I posted an Excel spreadsheet that helped people determine the largest print they can make from a given digital photograph.

I was hoping to create a CGI version of the worksheet so that people could just do it online and not have to bother with Excel. My buddy Bob crafted up a quick-and-dirty Perl script to do just that. After some tweaks, I'm happy to make version .7 beta available here:

Digital Photo Printing Worksheet -- CGI Edition

Since the script is still in beta, it's not quite finished -- I'd like to make it friendlier to the 85% of the world who doesn't use English units as well as make it a bit more visually friendly (I'm considering adding some My Little Pony graphics).

If you compare the recommendations made by the Excel spreadsheet with those made by the script, you might find some differences. I improved the calculations in the script version and haven't yet updated the Excel spreadsheet, so consider the web version to offer better advice.

If you're curious about how I calculate the recommendations based on image size, pixels per inch, and viewing distance, check out this excellent tutorial on the science of optical resolution. If you're still curious, I'll send you the script.

If you remember, I was ebaying a U2 Edition iPod and it got bought. Well, the asshat who won the auction never paid me (thanks for nothing, Jay Augstine, 222 N Ocala Rd, Apt 211, Tallahassee, FL 32304). So, I decided to relist the item.

A friend (hi, Hal!) suggested I spice up the ad to differentiate it from all the other U2 iPods up for sale by stating that it was possessed by my dead grandmother or something. It sounded like an interesting idea -- entertaining, at least -- so I put up the following item description:

Rare, Haunted Apple iPod 20GB U2 Edition This haunted iPod is possessed by my dead grandmother. I can hear it playing her favorite songs even though it's never been loaded with any music! I bought this U2 Edition Apple iPod for my grandmother -- she loves music, as the picture below attests (hi, gramma!) -- and I didn't get a chance to give it to her before she died. Somehow, I think her spirit is now inhabiting the iPod because I can hear songs coming from the box! The box has never been opened, but if you hold your ear up to it, you can hear some of my gramma's favorite songs (like "Highway to Hell" and "Born To Be Wild") emanating from the white iPod earbuds inside. I think she would have liked the red and black design of this U2 Edition iPod -- those were the colors she painted her Harley last year. I'm selling this iPod to help pay for funeral costs -- she requested to be buried with her bike and that was expensive. This item is brand new in the box, never opened, and still shrink-wrapped!! If you have any questions, please email me and I'll be happy to answer them. Capacity: 20GB (roughly 5,000 songs) Interface: USB 2.0, FireWire 400, spiritual medium and/or psychic Battery: Internal Lithium-Ion rechargeable, up to 12 hours of continuous playback Audio Support: AAC (16 to 320 Kbps), MP3 (32 to 320 Kbps), MP3 VBR, Apple Lossless, WAV, AIFF, Audible Design: Black face with a prominent red Apple Click Wheel. On the polished silver back are the autographs of the U2 band members (see picture). Dimensions: 4.1" tall x 2.4" wide x 0.57" thick, 5.6 oz. Included: Beyond the actual iPod, included is a pair of the signature white iPod earbuds, a user manual, FireWire and USB2.0 cables, AC adapter, an iTunes Music Store coupon for $50 off the entire U2 music collection, and the soul of my dead grandmother. Shipping Shipping is $19 and I will ship this USPS Priority (2-3 days anywhere in the US) unless you specify differently (and pay any additional cost). I will add postal insurance to the shipping price if you wish to pay for it. NOTE: This iPod isn't really haunted, but it is brand new, unopened (still shrink-wrapped) and otherwise exactly as described.

Now, what's really funny is this email I got from someone who saw the listing:

"Why would you say it was haunted and waste all your time and our time (people reading it all) just to say at the end that it isn't haunted?"

Dear girl, I hear that you can buy a sense of humor on ebay...why don't you look into that? Or, as I said in my reply, were you actually surprised and disappointed that this iPod wasn't, in fact, haunted? I'm not sure which is sadder.

p.s. No, that's not really my grandmother.

I predict that satellite radio, like XM and Sirius, won't be around in 10 years. It will be replaced by a mesh of other wireless technologies, such as cellular and WiMax. Internet access via municipal and private terrestrial wireless will replace satellite radio because the functions of satellite radio are so easily replaced by Internet access. Give me 120kbps data speed to my cellphone and I've already obsoleted satellite radio. Not only would you get access to thousands of Internet radio stations, you'd also get access to your own private music collection (e.g., set up Shoutcast on your home machine and just stream your music on demand). Both of those are much more valuable to consumers than 100 or so moderately tailored, but still rather generic, radio stations only tunable by proprietary receivers.

XM and Sirius might morph into something more than what they currently are (if not at least the two companies merging), but if they don't, their days are numbered. Soon, they'll be relegated to the trash heap of business history like full-service gas stations, the Pony Express, and dial-up Internet.

And he says its better than a Treo...whatever.

Unless you've had your head under a rock for the last few years, you've noticed that a large number of technology goods now come with rebates. Everything from rechargeable batteries to home theater equipment to cellphones has some offer for $5 or $20 or $200 back if you submit a refund request.

I'm sure that you, like me, always utter a burdened sigh when facing this dilemma: is it worth my time to complete the rebate materials and mail them in, or am I better off just paying the shelf price and being done with it?

I've figured out that a $10 rebate is the absolute least amount I'm willing to deal with. Considering the time spent filling out the form, photocopying the materials (for backup), and tracking it to make sure I get it, even $10 isn't a very good return on my time. My coupon-crazy wife will even bother to send in $3 rebates, so it really is a matter of personal taste.

So what's YOUR break-even point -- what is the smallest rebate you will bother with, or does it depend on the purchase?

The following is an open letter to anyone trying to submit comment spam to this blog:

Dear Assmunch,

Do not try to submit comment spam for it will not ever appear -- I moderate all comments before they are posted.

So, instead of subverting civilization and generally turning the net into a steaming cesspool of unwanted ads for v1agra and online poker, why don't you go do something constructive with your time. Or, failing that, jump off a bridge. I mean a tall one. One with rocks or broken glass or alligators underneath it.

To reiterate, do not post comment spam. It only wastes your time and nobody (except me, and I'm smart enough not to click on your links) will ever see your insipid ads. Go away, you pinhead.

Now back to your regular programming...

Guess why it's on sale

I came across the following photos at CNET News.com today. The devastation at Banda Aceh, Indonesia is absolutely stunning -- I never thought that much land could be lost in a single event.

Credit: DigitalGlobe

I have a brand new U2 Edition (the gnarly black and red unit with the band's signatures engraved on the back) Apple iPod that I'm selling on ebay. It's so new that it's still shrink-wrapped, for Pete's sake. Check it out.

Update: Sold.

I was sitting in our family room staring at our collection of aging VHS tapes, which consists of commercial copies of major movies as well as the inescapable home movies and other personal memories-on-tape. As I sat there, I realized that a VCR will likely not be in our house a decade from now, yet we will still want to be able to watch many, if not most, of these movies and other videos. So, I started evaluating our options.

First, I could go out and buy AGAIN all this stuff on DVD. While we most likely WILL go out and buy AGAIN many of the commercial movies that we (read "Lori") watch frequently, the problem that remains is that many of these videos aren't available on DVD (e.g., much of our Disney collection), aren't available in any format anymore (e.g., my collection of Ren & Stimpy cartoons), or were never available for purchase (e.g., our wedding video). So, even if I suck it up and re-buy many of these movies on DVD, I still had a problem with a large percentage of our collection.

I could also pay to have a professional service convert our stuff to DVD. However, most services won't touch copyrighted stuff even when you are creating that one "archival" copy that US copyright law fully permits under the doctrine of fair use. Plus, professional services are expensive and they're really only doing something I could probably do myself.

So, I started looking into options for capturing the output of our VHS VCR to DVD. While many USB capture devices will let you convert non-copyrighted stuff (e.g., home movies), most balk at anything with Macrovision copy protection (that's what causes those wavy lines and overall yuckiness you see when trying to copy from one VCR to another).

However, I did find a device, the ADS Tech DVD Xpress, that pretty much ignores Macrovision -- it basically just sends whatever the TV would display directly to your hard drive (via USB2.0) in MPEG-1 or MPEG-2 format. Alternately, you can go direct-to-disc and skip storing the image files on your hard drive, but that option didn't work at all the one time I tried it.

So far, the results have been pretty good. After a short learning curve, I've been able to capture the entire Star Wars trilogy (the first three movies as originally shown in the theaters) at 4mbps. It's not great quality, and on a wide-screen HDTV, the MPEG artifacting is noticeable a lot of the time. I was even able to add some nifty chapter menus, complete with short video clips for each chapter (makes for a very entertaining menu!).

While the quality is about as good as a mediocre tape played on a mediocre VCR, it definitely beats waiting for the magnetic media to whither and die or our VCR to go belly up and not get replaced. I think it will be quite adequate to archive the unreplaceable stuff while we start replacing most of the commercial movies with DVD versions. After all, when you consider the added value of better image quality plus all the out-takes, deleted scenes, and director commentary that DVDs usually offer, $15 doesn't sound like such a bad deal. Sure beats ripping a videocassette to 4mbps MPEG-2!