Archive of blogs by Saul

Champagne

Fri, 04 Sep 2009 09:47:25 -0400

New Year's Eve was only a few weeks ago and images of it are still fresh in my memory. I can't think of the holiday without associated it with champagne – a rather expensive bubbly alcohol that has become associated with wealth and power. Oddly enough, champagne hasn't always been held in such high regard.

So what is champagne exactly?

A perhaps oversimplified answer is: carbonated wine. Fermentation, the process of turning the sugar in grapes into alcohol, gives off carbon dioxide as a byproduct. Normally this carbon dioxide is undesirable, and its presence in finished wine is considered a sign of a wine of poor quality (this still holds true today for non-champagne wines), and for this reason, early champagnes were not held in the same regard as they are today. Early champagnes were the result of incomplete fermentation, that would continue after the wine had been bottled and hence the carbonated wine. Champagnes existed at least as far back as the 1500s, and by the 1700s the technique of a “second fermentation” to help ensure the carbonation was being used. Not too much has changed in the few hundred years since, except the automation and ease with which it is made.

A few interesting points:

Champagne originated in the Champagne region of France, from which it gets its name. By law, only carbonated wine made in that region can have the name “champagne”. Carbonated wine from other regions and countries must use other names, most commonly “sparkling wine”. So sparkling wine and champagne only differ in where they were made.

Because of the carbonation, champagne bottles must be made of thicker glass and better corks than regular wine to accommodate the extra pressure. Before the second fermentation technique was perfected, many champagne bottles would explode from the extra pressure, making it rather dangerous to walk through a champagne wine cellar.

Champagne first become associated with wealth and power due to its use when anointing new French kings.

Pondering the purchase of a house? Part III

Fri, 04 Sep 2009 09:46:13 -0400

So you've taken care of all the purchase fees. You have your mortgage and know how much your month to month payment is. What other fees can you expect now that you own a house?

Utilities:

You'll need to pay a monthly gas bill. Most houses use gas for the furnace, many use it for the hot water heater, and some even use it for some appliances like a gas stove. At the moment, gas works out a bit cheaper than electricity, so stick with a gas furnace and water heater if you can. Even if you don't use any gas, expect to pay the $17/month administration fee.

You'll also need to pay your monthly hydro bill. This will include a fee for the electricity you use and for the water you use. This bill will vary a lot depending on whether you heat your house and/or water with electricity. Use energy efficient appliances and fluorescent light bulbs to help keep the bill low.

Expect the bills to come to a combined few hundred dollars and if you don't own your own hot water heater, expect to pay ~$12+/month in rental fees on top of that.

Property tax:

This is charged by your city and works out to 1-2% of your house price per year, and often includes “education fees” that subsidize local schools. You usually pay your property tax in 4-6 lump sum payments throughout the year.

Services:

Most people pay a monthly fee to maintain a phone (~$25/month), internet (~$35/month), and cable (~$40/month). A VoIP phone will help you save a bit on phone costs ($10/month with Acanac) and many find they can live without cable.

Condo/maintenance fees:

If you have a condo, expect to pay monthly fees to maintain the property and services like lawn care. Typical fees are in the $200-$300 range, but are specific to each condo corporation. If you don't pay condo fees, you should be putting aside a bit of money each month to have ready for house repair and maintenance. This will include replacing the roof, repaving your driveway, and dealing with a leaky basement.

Insurance:

Most people buy house insurance to cover the house and possessions in the house (in case of fire, flood, theft, etc.), as well as liability. The latter will protect you in case someone falls, injures themselves on your property and then sues.

Maintaining a house is not cheap. The larger the house, the higher your property tax and utility bills will be, and the more you'll need to pay in general maintenance and repair. Owning your own home is often more expensive than renting, unless you have a family or rent out extra rooms.

History of audio recordings

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 06:16:28 -0400

We take for granted the ability to record sounds. Everyone owns (and probably hates) an answering machine. Most people know of records, used to record music, poetry and other performances, that gave way to 8-tracks, which were replaced by cassettes, CDs and now flash-memory players. But the ability to record sound is actually a rather new invention.

Edison is credited as the inventor of the first device to record and play sounds, known as the phonograph. He invented it in 1877 and it was the invention that first gave him real fame, although it certainly was not his first invention. However, devices to “record” sound predate his invention by just a bit.

A 10 second recording of an anonymous singer singing “Au Clair de la Lune” from 8 April, 1860 has very recently made big news. The recording was made on a machine known as a phonautograph, invented by Édouard-Léon Scott de Martinville in 1857, which was designed to turn sound into a visual representation not intended to be played back. The idea behind the device is simple: sound causes the device to vibrate, and these vibrations are imparted to a writing instrument that draws them onto a length of paper. With the help of modern computing, these visual recordings have been converted back into their original sounds and cleaned up a bit to remove noise and inconsistencies in the sampling rate of the recording.

This finding predates the previous earliest (playable) recording from 1978 and Edison's oldest recording from 1888 (of a Handel concert). Though Edison is not credited with having created the oldest recording, no one contests that he should still be credited with inventing the first machine to both record and play back audio sounds.

For those interested in hearing the “Au Clair de la Lune” and other early audio recordings, you can find them at this website:

http://www.firstsounds.org/

Space tourism

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 06:14:53 -0400

The chance to go somewhere where few other have gone. Weightlessness. A view of the Earth from space. There are many reasons that make the idea of travelling into space very attractive, and more than just a few companies are realizing the commercial potential of space tourism.

Okay, so the idea of travelling, or rather site seeing, in space isn't exactly new. Some of the great fiction writers like the late Arthur C. Clarke, Roald Dahl (if you don't believe me, give Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator a read), Larry Niven and of course Gene Roddenberry. We've even gotten to the point where we're comfortable enough with the idea that we can even satire it. Futurama is the prime example, where the even the Moon has been turned into a tacky amusement park.

What's a bit more interesting is that within the last 10 years, this has started to become a reality. Dennis Tito became the first space tourist in 2001, spending just under 8 days in space at a cost of ~$20 million. (Okay, some like to argue that there were earlier tourists, others like to argue that since he conducted experiments in space that we he wasn't really a tourist. He just paid for his own ticket.) Since then, a few other people have followed in his footsteps, paying for the privilege to go to space.

Right now the race is still on for the first private company to offer commercial trips into space. At the moment there are roughly half a dozen companies hoping to test out their ships within the next few years. Virgin Galactic, one the companies, has already taken reservations at a cost of $200 thousand each. Ideas of space hotels and paid space walks have also been proposed.

With the Federal Aviation Administration estimating space tourism to be more than $1 billion market by 2021, we'll likely see more companies trying to edge their way into the market and hopefully a drop in the expected price for a ticket into space.

Pondering the purchase of a house? Part II

Fri, 04 Sep 2009 09:45:18 -0400

In my last post, I went over some costs to consider before buying a home. In this post I will talk about the ever important mortgage. Let me start by defining a few key words:

amortization period:

This is how long you expect to take to pay off the entire mortgage. Common lengths include 10 and 25 years, and just recently a 40 year period was introduced by some banks. The longer you the period, the more you'll be paying the bank in interest.

term period:

You don't sign up for mortgages with banks for the full amortization period. Instead, you sign up for fixed terms that typically range from 1-10 years. After the term is up, you can change banks, terms and usually interest rates. The longer the term, the higher the interest rate will be. If interest rates are high, you might want to go for a shorter term and hope that the rates drop. If rates are very low, you want to lock yourself in for a long time to prevent paying more when rates rise.

Some hidden fees:

Many banks will require (and charge) you to have the house assessment by someone they approve to ensure that they are happy with the expected value of the house versus the size of the loan you want.

It is important to note that if you don't make a down payment of at least 25% of the purchase price (i.e. you borrow more than 75% of the house cost), you are considered a high risk mortgage and will have to pay out “insurance costs” of an extra few percent of the house price. (You never see this money again.)

Terminating a mortgage before the end of your term, for whatever reason, will result in penalty fees. Essentially they'll charge you a fraction of the interest that you would have ended up paying during the remainder of your term.

Most banks require you to make a monthly payment where a fraction goes toward paying off the interest on your loan, and the balance goes toward paying off the principle (i.e. the actual loan amount). The more you pay against the principle, the shorter your amortization period. Mortgages work on exponential, meaning that when you first start out, most of your payment (2/3rds) goes toward interest and only 1/3rd goes toward the principle. As you finish paying off your mortgage, almost all your payment will be going toward the principle.

X PRIZE Foundation

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 06:13:20 -0400

The X PRIZE Foundation is a not-for-profit organization that offers large cash prizes for the achievement by the first group/person to successfully complete a set goal. The basic idea is to encourage radical breakthroughs in technological advancements through competition. The inspiration for the organization came from the different prizes offered in the early 19th century to encourage advancements in aviation, and the Orteig Prize in particular, which offered $25 000 for the first non-stop flight between New York and Paris. Funding currently comes from large companies after which the prizes are typically named. Prizes that have been offered and awarded already are the Ansari X PRIZE and the Archon X PRIZE. Prizes currently being offered that have not been won yet are the Progressive Automotive X PRIZE and the Google Lunar X PRIZE.

Ansari X PRIZE

The goal of this prize was to inspire advancements in the area of space. The $10 million prize was awarded to Burt Rutan for his SpaceShipOne, which achieved the goal of launching a reusable manned spacecraft into space twice within two weeks.

Archon X PRIZE

This was also a $10 million prize, and was designed to inspire advancements in medicine (genomics in particular). The prize was won by Stewart Blusson for building and using a device to sequence 100 human genomes within 10 or less day, with only an allowable error of once in every 100 000 sequenced bases, covering at least 98% of the genome, and costing no more than $10 000 USD per genome.

Automotive X PRIZE

This prize was inspired by global warming concerns and a need for improvement in the automotive industry. This is actually two separate competitions: a mainstream class and the alternate class. The prize moneys will be given for the design of the first commercially viable super-efficient vehicles that will achieve 100 MPG, in addition to a few other criterion depending on the class type.

Google Lunar X PRIZE

This $20 million prize is again designed to encourage space advancements. The objective for this competition is to land a rover on the moon that can rove at least 500 m and transmit back high definition images and video.

Windows Vista

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 06:11:35 -0400

It’s been well over a year now since Microsoft rolled out its new operating system, Windows Vista. Aside from the usual updates in eye candy, the operating system was supposed to focus on security improvements and cut back on the malware and other issues that have plagued their previous operating systems.

So, what have they achieved?

Well, in the eye candy area they offer new transparencies, much sexier icons and even a side bar for “gadgets”, not to mention a new splash screen as you load up. Yes, if you haven’t noticed, I don’t think too highly of Vista. Everything they offer as “new” features has long since been done already with 3rd party support in XP or by another operating system like Mac OS or Linux. In terms of their added security, anyone who has seen the Apple commercials making fun of Vista with a security guard asking whether to “cancel or allow” every other second has a pretty good idea of what it’s like. On top of being just plain annoying, it also blocks a lot of other 3rd party legitimate software from running that include a lot of rather useful stuff. So Vista = more annoying and allows you to use less software.

But haven’t they now fixed that with their service pack 1 (SP1) that was just released?

If Microsoft were a good company, absolutely we should expect that. But we know better. Apparently service pack 1 has cause many programs that are supposed to be “Vista compatible” and that used to work fine to suddenly stop. It’s annoyed people enough that there are even official recommendations out there not to apply the updated:

http://slashdot.org/articles/08/03/23/181210.shtml

So once again, nicely done Microsoft!

But, it can’t really be that bad, can it?

Let me put it this way, Microsoft, In attempt to appease annoyed customers, has just announced that they will be offering free support to all Windows Vista users for SP1. On top of that, they had intended to stop selling and supporting Windows XP by now. But, because people hate Vista so much and would prefer to go back to XP, they have been forced to continue selling and supporting it. After having spent half a day last week downgrading a laptop from Vista to XP, even though the laptop manufacturer does not officially support XP, I still have to say it’s worth it because Vista is so frustrating.

For those who actually like Vista, power to you. For almost everyone else, hopefully Microsoft will eventually be able to salvage something useful from this miserable operating system. Or better yet, maybe they’ll finally lose the market to Mac OS or Linux.

Blu-ray woes

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 06:10:20 -0400

It’s been official for a little while now that Blu-ray won the race for the next generation format. HD-DVD is taking its place next to Beta as just another failed technology that caused early adopters to waste a lot of money. But, unfortunately, all is not well in the world of Blu-ray. Dr. Gertrude Neumark Rothschild has recently filed a law suit against the major manufacturers for copyright infringement. This includes big names like Hitachi, LG, Motorola, Nokia, Pioneer, Samsung, Sanyo, Sharp, Toshiba and, of course, Sony.

Who is this Rothschild anyway?

She’s a PhD in chemistry from Columbia that has worked at Sylvania Research Laboratories and Philips Laboratories. She holds a few patents including ones on the production of wide band-gap semiconductors in the blue/ultraviolet range, which is likely the one that she is using to sue the big companies.

What does this mean?

Well, the case is still under investigation, but if she wins it means that these companies will either have to stop producing/selling these products or pay her royalties for using the patent. This will probably be in addition to damages that they will owe her for products already sold. For the end consumer, this will likely mean that Blu-ray devices will be more limited as to who produces them, and quite potentially more expensive as they increase the price to cover the extra royalty costs that the manufacturers will now owe. (Yes, the bill would probably be passed on to us, the consumers.) And don’t worry, this patent dispute probably covers the same technology in HD-DVD, so even if Blu-ray had lost, we probably would still be dealing with this exact same problem.

Before anyone panics over this, let me reiterate: As of right now, the patent dispute is still under investigation. No one has won/lost it yet.

Pondering the purchase of a house? Part I

Fri, 04 Sep 2009 09:44:11 -0400

Many people debate whether it is better to rent or take the leap and actually buy a place of their own. Almost no one who decides to buy actually has all the cash needed, and so enter the concept of the mortgage. Borrow from the bank today, pay for it tomorrow and many years to come. Buying a home and getting a mortgage can be a pretty scary thing, and there are a lot of hidden fees to consider. I want to spend the next few posts explaining what I learnt from my experiences in Ontario so that you don't get caught off guard.

In this post I'll go over some fees that you'll need to pay in addition the purchase price and mortgage fees:

lawyer fees:

You'll need to pay a lawyer a few thousand - even if you don't get a mortgage. He'll go through the paperwork needed to transfer ownership of the home, ensure that there are no legal issues with the property or seller, and make sure that the purchase is legal and recognized by the city.

land transfer tax:

This is how Ontario makes it's money – you have to pay the province ~1% of the purchase price of the house. (Yes, you still have to pay the seller the FULL purchase price.)

house inspection:

At a cost of $300-400, you'll want to get a house inspector to take a look a place and any faults it might have. Signs of a leaking roof or basement, bad wiring and other problems tell you that the house might be a bad investment.

moving expenses:

You'll need to pay movers or rent a truck yourself to move all your belongings from your previous home to your new one. Depending on how much stuff you have, how far you need to travel, and who does it, this will probably cost you $500-$5000.

refunding the previous owner:

Stuff like property tax, condo fees, hot water heater rentals, etc. all have to be paid in advance. If the previous owner has made payments toward months when you'll be living in your new house, you'll have to refund them up front. More on these costs later.

You do NOT need to pay your realtor as the buyer. The buyer and seller realtors make their money by splitting the commission from the house seller.

Arthur Clarke

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 06:08:43 -0400

At the age of 90, Arthur C. Clarke died on 19 March 2008. While he hardly died young, it is always a bit of a shock when someone so monumental dies. Clarke is best known for his novel 2001: A Space Odyssey and movie by the same name that was created in collaboration with Stanley Kubrick.

So you might be wondering what this is during in a blog about science and technology.

Well, Clarke is one of the classical examples of how science fiction heavily influences science, helping to turn it from fiction into science fact. The book was written in different forms from 1948 and published in the now familiar novel in 1968. This was a year before humans even stepped fit on the the moon (20 July, 1969) yet Clarke described events occurring on the moon and much deeper regions of space in erringly accurate ways. Jokes were even made on early space exploration missions of discovering giant black monoliths. For a book that is 50 years old, it still does an amazing job of predicting technology, such as computer advancements and communication, and I would recommend that everyone read it.

Besides his work on fiction, Clarke is also known for proposing the idea of geostationary satellites. In a 1945 paper titled “Extra-Terrestrial Relays” he theorized the idea of the ideal telecommunications relay by having a satellite orbit the earth in synchronization with the rotation of the Earth, always keeping it above the same region. This style of orbit prevents “blackout periods” where communication with the satellite is lost because it is being blocked by the Earth itself. While it is probably doubtful that his work directly led to the modern telecommunication satellite networks, geostationary orbits are still sometimes referred to as Clarke Orbit or the Clarke Belt to honour him.

The world is definitely a richer place thanks to the work of Clarke.

Security versus personal freedom

Fri, 04 Sep 2009 09:43:08 -0400

We are living within a time of major changes in ideology when it comes to our personal freedom. Some of the main pillars of the modern world and democracy are the rights of an individual, no matter who they are or where they came from, to equality and opportunities, especially when it comes to freedom and ownership. There is supposed to be no person with absolute power to search or control you without just cause and proper protocol. Laws, the justice system, and police forces are supposed to be in place to ensure this. But modern terrorism is changing everything.

So much has happened so quickly that I don’t think most people really appreciate what has happened. In the extreme, people in the US are being locked up without formally being charged with anything nor given a fair trial (or any trial at all). The US government has also been invading privacy by listening in on calls etc., without following proper protocol of declaring just reason and getting the right levels of permission.

On the low level, we now submit to personal searches of ourselves and our belongings. Borders and airports are the most noticeable. We allow ourselves to be questioned. Our bags are x rayed and often openly searched (even multiple times on a single trip by different agencies) with or without a meaningless request for our permission. If you step through a metal detector and set it off, most people don’t even blink as they are either imaged to a level where their entire naked (face blurred) body is available to a screening officer, or simply patted down across their whole body. Just imagine that happening randomly on a street. Not so pleasant, and doesn’t exactly leave you much privacy. Imagine having to submit to things like this for every building and area you enter. Some countries are already like this!

I want to complain. I want to say we should be fighting back and stopping this. But the feedback I get from most people is “I’d rather go through this and feel safe.” I guess the question will come back to how far officials can go to invading our privacy before we would rather have more privacy than a bit more security.

Genetically modified food

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 06:06:26 -0400

I touched upon genetically modified (GM) foods a bit when talking about organic food and again when talking about golden rice, but I want to spend a little more time explaining it. GM foods aren't all bad as some would have you believe, but they do have some risks associated with them.

Let's start with the basics again. Most people are comfortable with the idea of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) at the blueprints for life. It's in plants, animals, and, yes, that includes us humans. Portions of DNA can be broken down into genes which form the “useful” bits. These genes code for proteins that are needed to create an organism, determine how it functions, and how it looks.

The first GM food was a tomato designed to delay its ripening process, produced in the early 1990s. By remaining unripe, it was easier to transport and more resistant to bruising. This is essentially the idea behind GM. We find something very useful or beneficial, often within one type of organism, that we would like to see in a different one. Another example is if one type of food produces a natural pesticide, it would be very beneficial if our primary food crops could also create their own natural pesticide. By finding the gene that controls this pesticide production, it can be copied into the DNA of one our primary crops, adding the gene into it. When this GM crop is grown, it will now produce the natural pesticide.

The advantage here is obvious. We can include beneficial traits into our food making it easier and safer to grow. In the case of golden rice, where the gene to produce the precursor for vitamin A was added, it can also make the food more nutritious to eat. Since all genes are made of the same things, GM ones included, your body can't tell them apart and they can't directly harm you when you eat the food.

However, there are potential dangers. GM isn't always an exact science. Often other genes are transferred along with the desired one. If these additional genes produce undesirable results, then the resulting GM food may not be beneficial. In addition, the result of the new gene itself may not be exactly as expected or desired. This includes both the response within the GM food as well as within the environment and food chain resulting from it. Another potential problem is if the GM strain of the food starts to compete with the original form. There is always the chance that the GM food will start to dominate pushing the original strain to extinction. While this isn't necessarily a bad thing, especially if the modified strain offers many advantages without any detrimental aspects, most people would agree that the loss of the original is undesirable. Because of the potential of these last two problems, the growth of GM food is often heavily regulated and large efforts are made to keep them separated from natural vegetation.

So are GM foods good or bad?

Well, there is no single answer to such a general question. There are many good GM foods. Golden rice is one such example. Other results are not as good. The first GM tomatoes were very expensive and did not perform as well as other naturally occurring types, making it a failure. Essentially each GM food must be looked at on an individual basis – no different from normal non-GM foods!

Wireless VoIP

Fri, 04 Sep 2009 09:42:00 -0400

I've certainly made no secret of the fact that I am not a great supporter of cell phones. What bugs me most, is that even with the cheapest plans, or pay-as-you-go, and never using your phone, expect to pay $10+/month. If you plan to actually use the phone, a more realistic number is $40/month. That's not cheap, and for the $500/year I'd shell out in fees, I could buy a nice toy. It also hurts to have to pay ~30 cents/minute for a local call, when most land lines will only charge you 3-4 cents/minute for long distance all across Canada and the US. The response I get from most people is essentially “I want the service and there are no alternatives”.

Not so anymore. Enter the era of wireless VoIP.

Hopefully most people are familiar with voice over IP a.k.a. VoIP. Essentially your voice is digitized from your phone/microphone and sent to another person's phone via the internet rather than traditional phone lines. This service is cheaper than a traditional phone line ($10/month with Acanac) and usually includes long distance within Canada and the US, as well as all traditional phone features like voice mail and caller display. Your “phone line” also isn't restricted to your house, but can be used from any location provided you have internet service.

A few companies have come out with wireless VoIP devices over the last few years. These devices use rechargeable batteries are rely on WiFi signals for internet connection. Once up and working, they are essentially the same as a cell phone.

Pros:

VoIP service is very cheap compared to cell phone plans. $10/month will cover everything, versus $40+/month for a cell. You can also use the same account as you use at home, so the $10/month will cover both your “land line” and your “cell”, and people will only need a single number to reach both.

Cons:

Wireless internet coverage (free or otherwise) is growing, but is not everywhere quite yet. You also might not want/be allowed to connect to the wireless connection at your work. So you will likely find yourself being “off the grid” for large portions of the day (but that's what voice mail is for), or ducking into internet cafes to make a call. VoIP wireless devices also tend to be a bit larger than most cell phones.

I haven't actually taken the plunge into the world of wireless VoIP yet, but I am strongly eyeing eBay auctions for the Linksys WIP330 . With one of the 500 free VoIP accounts from Acanac, I can have a separate cell number and everything. If it works well, I think $10/month for the service will be more than worth it compared to the costs and benefits of a cell phone.

More to come when I've managed to buy one.

Google mail has IMAP!

Fri, 04 Sep 2009 09:41:01 -0400

Yes, Goolge mail a.k.a. GMail has IMAP now... and has had it since last September. Okay, I might not be the first one to have noticed it, or to report on it, but I am certainly among those who are very excited over it. Truthfully, I was holding back on switching to a GMail account until it was actually offered. (Fear not – I reserved my GMail username years ago.)

So what is IMAP exactly... well, it's like webmail but without the need for a browser. Using almost any email software out there, you can set up the account and read your mail. You can also do this from any computer, as well as multiple computers without worrying that your mail will only appear on some computers. If you reply to an e-mail on one, it'll also show up that you replied on all computers.

...

Yes, this all sounds exactly like web mail. So what are the advantages?

Well, most webmail accounts are horrible. Granted, GMail has a pretty good interface, it still is missing a few things. Selecting and moving messages, adding files and many other things aren't quite as simple through webmail as the simple click or drag in a mail program. If you have multiple accounts, mail software will also let you access all of them at once and have a common address book. It also allows mail to easily be moved or copied between accounts. This is definitely not possible on webmail. And, of course, there is also the advantage of not having to have a browser open. In many situations, using (or abusing) an internet connection with a browser is highly frowned upon, but using a mail program is not.

Okay, IMAP might not be for everyone. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there for whom web mail is better. But for those of use who need to have multiple e-mail accounts going (work, home, etc.), and who have been moving their e-mails from account to account as they've been changed over the years, IMAP is the way to go.

Quinoa, Golden Rice, and Plumpy

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 06:04:58 -0400

The population of the world is roughly 6.6 billion and it is expected to hit 9 billion by 2050. That's a lot of people. And most of them live in poverty. Feeding everyone is a big problem. Feeding everyone and preventing malnutrition is an even bigger one. A healthy diet consists of a number of things including calories (i.e. energy for your body to run), amino acids that form the building blocks of your body, vitamins, and essential minerals. If any of these are missing from your diet, it leads to severe health problems and even death. So it's not surprising that people have been searching for cheap and easily accessible food to feed to the populace that will prevent malnutrition. I want to focus on three “complete” foods: quinoa, golden rice and plumpy'nut.

Quinoa:

This is an naturally occurring plant that originated in South America. The seeds form the primary crop, although the leaves of the plant are also eaten. The seeds have a high protein content, a balanced set of essential amino acids, and it's a good source of dietary fibre, phosphorus, magnesium and iron. It is gluten free making it easy to digest. It also has a natural bitter-tasting coating that prevents the crops from being ravaged by animals and other scavengers (this coating is removed during processing).

Golden Rice

With large portions of the population being concentrated in Asia, it is not surprising that rice is a staple for many people. While rice is a good source of calories, it doesn't contain much else. Ingo Potrykus and Peter Beyer genetically engineered rice to produce beta-carotene, a precursor to vitamin A, within the rice grain (it is already naturally produced in other parts of the plant) and dubbed the results “golden rice” due to the resulting colour. The result is considered a major breakthrough and has helped to fight vitamin-A deficiency within the world population. However, problems include the resistance to genetically modified food and the fact that golden rice is still missing many other essential parts of the diet.he population of the world is roughly 6.6 billion and it is expected to hit 9 billion by 2050. That's a lot of people. And most of them live in poverty. Feeding everyone is a big problem. Feeding everyone and preventing malnutrition is an even bigger one. A healthy diet consists of a number of things including calories (i.e. energy for your body to run), amino acids that form the building blocks of your body, vitamins, and essential minerals. If any of these are missing from your diet, it leads to severe health problems and even death. So it's not surprising that people have been searching for cheap and easily accessible food to feed to the populace that will prevent malnutrition. I want to focus on three “complete” foods: quinoa, golden rice and plumpy'nut.

Plumpy'nut

Also known as Plumpy. This falls into the different category of Ready-to-Use Therapeutic Food. It's designed to be a cheap famine relief food that can be given to a populace to immediately combat malnutrition rather than a long-term solution. Since it is hard to over eat, and does not go bad easily with a shelf life of 2 years, it can be handed out without need of further supervision. However, unlike the other two mentioned foods, this is not a crop but rather a commercial product and requires industry/factory to produce, making it limited for any long-term solution.

DVORAK is not QWERTY

Fri, 04 Sep 2009 09:39:00 -0400

I think most people take their keyboard for granted. I doubt many look down and actually ponder why the keys are laid out as they are. I'm hoping to change that – at least for a minute.

For those who haven't studied up on their keyboard, theres probably better than a 99% chance that you're using a QWERTY one. Look at the top left letters on your keyboard and as you read them right to left, you should see the letters q-w-e-r-t-y on the top row, and hence the name. This keyboard design was created in the 1860s for typewriters. Originally the letters had been arranged alphabetically, but this led to problems when letters close by were pressed at the same time; it caused the typewriter to jam. So, the letters were rearranged to prevent this from happening. Many people claim that it was done to intentionally slow people down when typing, others just claim that it was meant to split up letters that were commonly typed together. Whatever the reason, this keyboard has become incredibly popular, and is used on most keyboards for no other reason than that everyone uses it.

DVORAK is a different keyboard layout created in the 1930s. It was designed to try to maximize the efficiency of typing by putting the most commonly used keys in easily accessible places, and trying to arrange them such that a person types from the outside (pinkies) in (toward the pointer fingers). (If the last part doesn't make sense, try tapping your finger one by one starting with your pointer outwards toward you pinky. Try again starting with your pinkies and moving toward your pointer this time. Much easier the second time, no?) DVORAK's claim to fame is that the fastest recorded typer used its keyboard layout. Many people also claim an improved efficiency when using it.

So should you switch? Well, since most keyboards out there are only set up for QWERTY, if you can only type with DVORAK, you won't be able to type on most keyboards. If you already know QWERTY, you're also going to have to deal with the steep learning curve of actually learning how to type in DVORAK, which would most certainly slow you down. Then there is also the problem that some people report forgetting how to type using QWERTY after learning DVORAK. This goes right back to the problem of not being able to use most of the world's keyboards.

If you're curious and really want to improve the efficiency of your typing, go ahead and try out DVORAK. If you're happy with your current typing skills and really only want to learn one keyboard, I wouldn't worry about learning it, but it's always good to at least know that it exists out there.

Hemp

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 06:03:35 -0400

Hemp gets a lot of publicity thanks to the US, which is trying to suppress Cannabis as a drug (i.e. marijuana), and advocates who see its potential uses in industry. The term “hemp” actually refers to all strains of Cannabis, but in an attempt to distance it from psychoactive drugs, it is used only in conjunction with strains that have industrial rather than drug uses.

Is hemp dangerous?

The psychoactive ingredient in marijuana is delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). This exists in all strains of hemp, BUT to very different amounts. Cannabis used in the drug industry contains 20-30% THC. Legal limits in plants used for industrial in the EU and Canada are set at 0.3%. That's 100x less. Effectively, industrial hemp could never be used in the drug industry.

What are its uses?

Hemp is used in the food industry in a similar manner to the soy bean. Seeds can be eaten raw, turned into a “milk” and derivative products, or even used to harvest oil. Rich in omega fatty acids, amino acids and minerals, these products offer many health benefits. The seed yield from hemp plants is very high, making it cheap and cost effective to grow.

Hemp is also used in more general industries to form fibres for clothes, paper and other uses. It can also be used to form plastics and turned into biofuel. Hemp requires minimal amounts of pesticides and is one of the crops that can replenish soil with nutrients and nitrogen, important when maintaining farm land.

Does it have a future?

Yes. Hemp products continue to gain in popularity. As oil becomes more scarce and farming practises must be maximized, hemp products will be ideal to full demand. Laws in the US and other countries are continuing to become more relaxed, allowing the growth of hemp for industrial uses much easier.

Emulation is the highest form of flattery

Fri, 04 Sep 2009 09:39:57 -0400

I first entered the world of video games over 20 years ago with the Nintendo Entertainment System (NES to most people) back in the late 80s. Games like Mega Man, Zelda and Dragon Warrior kept me mesmerized. I quickly jumped on the bandwagon when the Super Nintendo came out, picked up both a N64 and a Playstation, and still keep up with video games today. Every now and then though, I miss the old classics and wish I could play them again. Luckily for me, good console emulators have been around for about 10 years now.

The name comes from the fact that computer software is used to emulate the hardware of the video game console. By reverse engineering the console, people with a lot more computer skills than I have are able to put together these emulators and then release them to the public – usually for free. Emulators are typically one game console generation behind. Currently everything up to the N64 is emulated (practically) perfectly with working GameCube emulators existing, but not running at full speed. Once you have an emulator, you'll also need copies of your old games to play on them. These come in the form of ROMs (read only memory) for older cartridge-based ones, and normal game CDs/DVDs for never ones.

Emulators exist within a gray area of law. While the emulators themselves are quite legal, they can easily be used to break laws via the ROMs and games. If you download a ROM, or copy a game without actually paying the copyright owner the appropriate fee, or outright buying a copy of the game (such as second hand cartridge), you are violating copyright laws. For this reason, emulators are never distributed with games, and it is considered extremely inappropriate to ask for them.

I think emulators are amazing because it is getting increasingly harder to be able to use older hardware (have you tried hooking an NES up to a modern TV?), and a lot of older hardware doesn't work well any more – if it ever did in the first place. (How many people remember blowing on NES cartridges, or had a saved game battery backup die?) It has opened the door for fan groups to translate Japanese-only games into English for the English speaking community to enjoy. Final Fantasy V was available in English from the fan group RPGe long before Square translated it.

Nintendo has caught on to the advantages of emulators, and now lets you download older Nintendo games on the Wii. A few other companies have re-released older games for modern systems, relying on emulators included on the game to enable it to be played. I don't think it will be long before we see entire libraries from older consoles being released for purchase by game companies.

Insect surveillance

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 06:02:03 -0400

I recently brought up the idea of human cyborgs – but I completely forgot to talk about insect ones! Imagine putting implants into an insect... and then adding the functionality of a remote control. This is exactly what has the US military interested. The first step is to put implants that allow audio and visual feedback. This turns the insect into a standard “bug” (sorry for the bad pun). Adding additional implants to actually control the insect turns it into the perfect spy. A fly on a wall is transformed into, well... the perfect fly on the wall, listening in on private conservations and meetings!

This isn't the first time that these ideas have surfaced. Previous interest has centred around controlling larger animals such as rats. Larger animals have some advantages: a heightened sense of smell, better hearing or eyesight all help in the location of many items. Research is still continuing in this area with a potential application of searching for survivors in the rubble of bombed structures. Use of a shark, dolphin, or other aquatic life also enables expansion into the underwater world. However, the larger size of these animals tends to make them less inconspicuous and hence the interest by the US military into the smaller insect world.

So how close are these ideas to reality?

Well, a rat with a camera strapped to it is a reality already. Controlling the rat is a different issue. While training the rat is possible, this is simply behaviour modification, which is very different from being able to control their movement via a remote. Adding cybernetic implants to insects is almost certainly limited to science fiction for the moment, but with the ever decreasing size of technology, don't count out the idea of strapping a camera to the back of a beetle. As for the fly on your wall, I don't think you need to start worrying about what you discuss in front of it quite yet.

For a little more info, check out this news article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/technology/technology.html?in_article_id=527328&in_page_id=1965

Carbon credits

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 06:00:16 -0400

I've written about global warming before. Still big news. Greenhouse gases are still a big problem. In an over simplified explanation: we release these gases into the atmosphere. They cause heat generated by the sun's rays to be trapped on the Earth rather than being radiated back out into space and the average temperature of the Earth starts to rise. Since carbon dioxide is one of the main greenhouse gases that are being blamed, the concept of “carbon credits” has been created in an effort to force everyone to cut back

Each country must regulate the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere. In turn, each country must designate a set number of allowable carbon units to businesses. These businesses now have two options: either they can ensure that their setup is environmentally friendly enough that they fall within their allowable limit, or they must spend money to buy extra carbon credits to cover the excess gases their business will be releasing.

So why go this route?

Well, most countries responsible for carbon emissions are capitalistic in nature. By creating the concept of carbon credits, businesses are forced to add greenhouse gases to their financial considerations. If they are environmentally friendly, they can make more money by selling off extra credits. If they are not, it will cost them real money. In theory, the number of carbon credits will stay fixed, while the need for them will continue to grow. This should cause the cost of carbon credits to increase, forcing companies to continually become “greener”, and preventing the increase of greenhouse gases.

Where do the carbon credits come from?

Well, as mentioned before businesses are allocated them. If a business doesn't use them all, they can be sold to others for a profit. In theory, there could be companies that are set up solely for removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere effectively creating new carbon credits. As carbon credits become more expensive, these companies would base their business plan off of removing carbon dioxide at a cheaper rate than they would get form the resulting carbon credits.

Is this the right way to regulate greenhouse gases?

Only time will tell..

Wikipedia -almsot prefect Part II

Fri, 04 Sep 2009 09:37:55 -0400

In my last post, I was turning a critical eye to some of the flaws of Wikipedia. In this post I want to add a few additional comments.

Problem 3: Volunteers aren't afraid to lose their jobs

There has been a very recent good movement toward general Wikipedia policies, guidelines and “accepted” actions, but at the end of the day there are a lot of rude and juvenile members (and these include administrators) with their own agendas. This has caused a lot of would-be (and probably great) contributers to be pushed away and disillusioned with the idealistic goal of the site. It has also allowed certain biases or “versions” of the truth to be pushed forward over others. Without fear of any real consequences, people can add and write anonymously as they wish. While some things may be corrected or disputed, many sneak their way into articles and aren't noticed right away, allowing a bias to be built. Even if edits are noticed, if their are enough who support the bias, we run into the same problem as previously described – the “truth” is open to a vote.

Problem 4: Interest, not need, governs the article

Since no one is being commissioned or forced to write articles, information only gets added about items that people about which want to write. There is an amazing disparity between pop culture articles and slightly more relevant ones. Just take a look at “astronaut” or “human spaceflight” versus “Startrek” or “Starwars” and their supporting pages.

I'd like to repeat that I think Wikipedia is great and I rather do like it – but only as a casual reference. Anyone who tries to use it in an argument or to prove a factual point runs the risk of finding themselves to be gullible. At the end of the day, I won't trust anything on Wikipedia without verifying it with a more trustworthy source.

What's on your mind?

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 05:58:36 -0400

Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) has been around for a while now. Like normal MRIs, it is able to make an image of your brain. Unlike normal MRIs, it can also look at what parts of the brain are using more oxygen, which indicates which parts of the brain are being “used” for a specific task. That's practically mind reading, isn't it? Well, not quite. There is still a big step between knowing what general parts of the brain are used for what tasks and learning how they correspond to different thoughts, but researches at the University of California at Berkley have taken a small step forward in this area:

http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/03/mri_vision

Essentially they just did the tedious task of making a large database of people looking at various images and recorded down which parts of the brain responded. Using this database, they compare it with an “unknown” brain map and try to predict what the person is looking at. Supposedly their success has been very high – much to the surprise of the researches.

So what are the uses?

Seeing into people's dreams is a big area of interest, and there is even the possibility of “recording” them. On a less scientific note, it can also be used by advertisers to see which images get the best brain “response” to maximize their effect. A long way down the line there is also the possibility of helping those disabled in one form or another with the technology.

What are the limitations?

Human sight is very complex and what the brain thinks it sees is not what was actually there. This process can only see what the brain perceives, preventing it from being a “truth” machine. fMRI machines are also large and expensive, and they require subjects to lie down in them and remain very still. Don't expect to see a small portable version in the foreseeable future – or ever!

Canadian car dealers

Thu, 03 Sep 2009 14:53:32 -0400

In my last post, I talked about the soaring Canadian dollar that is on parity if not surpassing the value of the US dollar. I mentioned that a lot of it is due to the fact that most stores bought their current stock when the Canadian dollar was worth less, and so to make a profit (or even just break even), they must still sell their items with a high price tag. There is one major sore spot in all of this though – Canadian car dealers.

Like I mentioned before, this isn't new - most items have a larger Canadian price tag for the same thing. The big difference is that while people might just grumble and let it slide on items at are $10+ (like a book) or $100+ (like electronics), when it comes to $10 000++ for a car it hurts a little too much to silently take it. A number have people realized that the savings that are possible by crossing the border, buying the same model car and importing it back ($14 000 according to one guy: http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8TON0483.htm), but unfortunately this door has quickly been closed on us. A lot of manufactures have told American dealers to refuse sales to sell to Canadians – which they are now doing. In addition, a lot of dealers are refusing to honour warranties for “US cars” imported to Canada.

I want to believe that this is simply a matter of the manufacturers trying not to lose money previously invested in a weaker Canadian dollar, but I just can believe it in light of steps taken against Canadian buyers in the US. The companies are making the same money whether it is a Canadian or American buyer, and at the very least must honour warranties no matter where the car is taken. Manufacturers have also been too silent for it be anything other than price gouging.

Canadians are left with no choice but to refuse to buy cars until dealers ensure that the market is a little more fair. A few dealers have realized that all of this is losing them money, and a few have offered money back/financing incentives, but even this does not properly close the gap between US and Canadian prices. Worse than that, these dealers are making it sound like they are doing buyers a favour rather than just being slightly (but still not really) fair. (Our marketing friends from Evil University at work again!)

If you're in the market for a new car and don't want to be ripped off, you should try to hold off as long as possible until the Canadian market catches up to the dollar, or start looking for the next loophole to buy a car from the US.

Electronic tattoos

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 05:57:12 -0400

Part human, part machine. Cyborgs have been popularized in Bladerunner and Terminator, they exist as cylons in Battlestar Galactica, the borg in Star Trek, and even Darth Vader is technically one. I don't think we're at the level where reality can match any of these fictions, but we're not as far off as some might think. Here is an article that describes a an electronic tattoos:

http://www.physorg.com/news122819670.html

The device is made of flexible silicon and silicone. It is designed to fit just under the skin above the muscle and features a touch screen as well as a display that acts similar to tattoo ink. The device has two small tubes that connect to a vein and an artery allowing blood to flow through a cell that converts blood glucose to energy. You literally fuel it with the food you eat. The device also has ability to wirelessly communicate with other devices.

Possible benefits include continual testing of the blood for any potential problems or disorders. Possible problems that I can think of include an immune response to a foreign object in the body, loss of sensitivity to the area and just preventing the thing from getting damaged. There is also the question of obsolescence. With the rate that technology changes and improves, will people find themselves being constantly cut open to have their hardware replaced with the latest? We already have people addicted to plastic surgery; will we now have people addicted to “cyborg implants” too?

Just to be clear though, this is just a concept and not a reality yet. Don't expect to see anyone walking around with one of these devices any time soon. We are still many years away. I think the concept is cool, but I'd certainly be very hesitant to jump on the cyborg bandwagon.

The Canadian dollar soars like an eagle

Thu, 03 Sep 2009 14:52:26 -0400

Maybe I should say that the Canadian dollar (CAD) soars like THE eagle. Yes, the Canadian dollar has seen a lot of activity lately and most of it has been in favour of Canada over the US. About 2 months ago we saw the Canadian dollar get as much as $1.10 US dollars (USD) – a modern-day high, which is pretty amazing if you think that just back in 2002 we got as little as $0.61 USD. As I sit and write this, the Canadian dollar is sitting roughly at parity with the US dollar. (Actually, I just checked and it is worth just over a US dollar.)

The general assumption is that this will lead to cheaper goods for Canadians and is a good thing for Canada.

Not necessarily so.

People have realized, to their dismay, that most items that have a US and Canadian price on them still have the Canadian price being higher. This is largely a reflection of the fact that most places have to buy their stock many months in advance. If they bought it when the CAD was much lower, the item effectively cost more than it does now and they need to sell it at the same otherwise they'll lose money. To see prices dropping, we'll need to see the CAD do well against the USD steadily for 6 months or even more.

In terms of a strong CAD being good for Canada, we must remember that a large part of our industry is designed to export goods to the US. A strong dollar means that the US has to pay more for the same goods. This can lead to a few possibilities: they'll decide it's cheaper to do it themselves, look to another country that might be cheaper, or simply buy less. All of these will hurt Canadian industry and the Canadian dollar. Many businesses rely on the fact that the USD is typically worth much more than the Canadian.

In the short term, the high CAD will make many Canadians happy as they make their purchases, but it has yet to seen whether this will be helpful or hurtful to Canada as a whole.

It's the small things

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 05:54:57 -0400

I just spent a couple of weeks in the southern US and I was struck by a few simple gadgets that make life a bit easier. These aren't anything exceptionally high tech or anything that is exclusive to that area, but they are things I just haven't seem much of in Ontario but make a lot of sense.

Parking sensors in parking complexes:

At the entrance of all the parking complexes are large digital signs that show exactly how many parking spots are still free and on which floor they are located. No more guessing if you'll find a spot and no more slow circling as you figure where the last couple of spots might be.

Automatic change dispensers:

When you buy something from a store the clerk only hands you bills. Any other change that is in the form of coins is automatically dispensed from a machine. This saves a lot of time as you don't have to wait for the clerk to count out the small stuff. I haven't seen anything for coin counting on the other end (as you take it out your wallet to pay), but that would be the next logical step to me.

Garburators:

These are definitely available in Ontario and I know some people have them, but not on the same level as down there. Everyone seems to have one down there. While some areas have introduced the green box, for areas that haven't these little machines act as a very good way to keep organic waste out of the garbage. Shredding it and sending it out with the biological waste will allow it to be biodegraded.

None of these are exceptionally brilliant or groundbreaking gadgets, but they certainly make life a little bit easier and more pleasant. And at the end of the day, it's the small things that make us happy. Here's hoping these things become more mainstream in Ontario – or at least in my life!

The uncanny valley

Thu, 03 Sep 2009 14:51:27 -0400

The new Beowulf movie has really caught my attention. I haven't seen it yet, but it is definitely on my list of to-see movies. Looking at all the previews, I think that it is really cool that all the famous actors have been “digitized” in a 3D animation style. However, I can't help but also find it a little creepy as I watch them move. Sadly... this effect is actually well known and is called the “uncanny valley.”

The basic idea is that when we see something that is very obviously non-human but that has some human characteristics, these humanoid characteristics stand out and we can relate well to them. A great example of this is a teddy bear dressed up in clothes. (Most people find this cute.) As something gets closer and closer to resembling a human, without fully emulating it, the few non-human traits stand out and it these that we notice. This leaves us with an uneasy feeling, and it is this that tends to give us the “creepy feeling” when watching things like Beowulf. (This might also explain why so many people find Stephen Harper so unsettling...)

This isn't the first time that this effect has occurred. Final Fantasy the Spirits Within, The Polar Express and even Toy Story suffered from this. Two approaches have been taken to try to solve for this. The first is simply to try to improve the technique, making the representation human enough that the uncanny valley is overcome and we no longer find it creepy. The second is to actually movie away from realism and make the characters more cartoon-like. The second technique was used in such movies as The Incredibles.

As movies, games, and even robots keep pushing forward, trying to make their animation, graphics and final product more life-like, we'll be hearing more and more about the uncanny valley. I suggest that the next time you find something human-like a bit creepy, try to stop and figure out what exactly about it you find so disturbing – it might surprise how small the problems can be.

Santa catch-22

Thu, 03 Sep 2009 14:49:24 -0400

Christmas is practically upon us. The decorations are up. The commercials are annoying everyone. The weather is even playing it's part and there is snow on the ground (at least where I live). And, of course, there is a Santa in every mall sitting on a chair ready to have hundreds of strange children sitting on his lap and have a picture taken.

After all the years of Christmas, I still find the idea of Santa to be very odd. He obviously has little-to-nothing to do with the birth of Jesus. The image of a “jolly” man in red and white is a fictional image put forward by a man named Thomas Nast and popularized by Coca-Cola ads. And let's be honest, while he might have had roots in Saint Nicholas, the image and idea that exists today is almost entirely fictional.

Yet for all the fiction, parents all across the country try their hardest to convince their children that he exists and will be bringing them presents. I just can't help but wonder why. As far as I can see, these parents have caught themselves between two evils. Either they can lie to their children, realizing that one day their children will realize it was all fiction and have a part of their childhood forever shattered, or they can be the “cruel parent” that “ruins” Christmas for their children by telling them that Santa isn't real. I can only imagine how hard and confusing it must be for children of the latter while talking to their friends. Whom do they believe? Their parents who say he doesn't exist, or their friends who will make fun of them and call them stupid for not believing in Santa? I'm sure this has led to many a fight during recess.

And so I find myself coming full circle... It seems cruel to me to have this invention of Santa, lying to children about him, but how can the image of Santa be changed or even removed without being even crueler to generations of children?

Salting the road – it brings tears to the eyes

Thu, 03 Sep 2009 14:47:33 -0400

We were recently hit by a major storm in southern Ontario. There was snow everywhere. The cars were having trouble going. The weather was miserable. Yes, winter is effectively here. Unfortunately this also means that the city is dumping salt all over the roads and sidewalks again – something which I absolutely hate.

The basic idea:

Salt water has a lower freezing temperature than regular water. Dump salt on the road, it mixes with the snow, forming salt water, and the the snow/ice can no longer freeze. This is a good thing.

The cost:

Anyone who has a car knows how the salt can eat through the body. It also ends up coating your boots, clothes, and – until there is a proper rain storm – the roads and sidewalk as well. The rain leads to secondary environmental problems. Road salt effectively ruins nearby soil. Most people notice a dead-zone border at the edges of their lawn where the grass won't grow. You can thank road salt for this. These are definitely bad things.

Alternative:

One option to cut back on the salt is to use an abrasive, like sand. (Some salt does need to be added to it, but not much.) The abrasive improves traction, preventing the snow and ice from becoming slippery. In cities where winter temperatures drop below the freezing point of salt water, salting the roads is useless and they have to resort to sand. Unfortunately, in cities where it doesn't get as cold, salt is the cheaper option and so it is what is used.

Between a bit of bad soil and people hurting themselves, I'll definitely vote for using salt. If possible, I'd like to see sand used instead, but i know most cities mismanage their money and can't afford it. However, what aggravates me is seeing cities workers being lazy and resorting to salt rather than actually doing a proper snow removal. When I see large chunks of undissolved salt sitting in a layer of snow, it means that no one bothered to removed the snow and too much salt has been applied. There is simply no excuse for this.

What happened to personal jet packs?

Thu, 03 Sep 2009 14:41:09 -0400

Watching cartoons as a young child, the idea of flying around with my own personal jet pack really appealed to me. There have been a lot of fictional work depicting them, but I think The Jetsons is what did it for me. Well, The Jetsons was created a rather long time ago and I have been waiting very patiently. Ideas of invisible cloaks, holograms, and wireless communication devices have all made steady progress from science fiction to science fact and have had a few minutes in the limelight, but jet packs, on the other hand, have had very little press. When was the last time you heard of a company working toward developing one?

Okay, to be fair, people have worked on them over the years. During World War II, Germany developed one. The 1960s saw American companies working on them, and even today there is still some work toward a “jet belt.” But, to be honest, no one really has faith in them any more.

Why?

There are a few reasons. First off, they are very dangerous. At the altitudes for which they'd be used for flying, a parachute wouldn't have enough time to slow a person down and prevent harm. Imagine running out of fuel a few stories up. If you're lucky, you might just end up with a broken bone.

They are not easy to control. We already have enough car accidents every day. Now imagine trying to “drive” something that is much harder to manoeuvre. We'd see people crashing into each other and messing up their landing all over the place. I'm not sure any company would want to offer jet pack insurance because of the associated costs and risks.

Speaking of cost, buying a jet pack and keeping it going would be incredibly expensive. On top of that, the fuel supply also does not last very long. We're talking about a few minutes at most. Would you really want to spend $10 000 - $20 000 on something that wouldn't even be able to take you to work and back?

I hate to admit it and crush one of my childhood dreams, but I just don't think jet packs are going to be coming out any time soon. They are just too dangerous and too expensive for someone to develop them commercially, and for the average person to use.

Fluorescent power

Thu, 03 Sep 2009 14:39:39 -0400

In my last post, I looked at one of two types of lighting that is replacing tradition incandescent light bulbs: LEDs. In this post, I will look at fluorescent light bulbs - the second option.

Fluorescent lights have been around a bit longer than LEDs, dating back to the mid-1800s. By the mid-1900s they were being used in industrial and school settings, thanks to their reduced cost compared to incandescent bulbs. However, fluorescent bulbs were very large and needed special fluorescent light fixtures.

People also tended to dislike them because of a few issues: Like LEDs, they didn't produce the “white light” that people desired. (Many people complain that they don't look “pretty” under fluorescent light.) There is a noticeable delay between turning a switch and see the lights go on. There is also a “flicker effect” that occurs due the use of AC electricity. (The bulbs actually turn on and off very quickly creating a strobe-like effect.)

Fluorescent bulbs have effectively been “reborn” over the last couple of years thanks to the introduction of the “compact” version of the bulb. It is able to plug into a normal light socket. It gives light closer to the desired “white” colour. Newer ones don't have a noticeable delay when turning on. And, perhaps most importantly to those sensitive to the flicker, it's frequency has been increased to the point where even people sensitive to it would have trouble noticing it. (Flash a strobe light fast enough and it doesn't look like it is strobing any more – it looks like a normal light!)

These newer compact bulbs, like LEDs, only cost a small fraction of what it takes to run a regular incandescent bulb. And, unlike LEDs, they are replacing traditional incandescent bulbs because the cost of the fluorescent bulb itself is quite reasonable.

If you haven't already switched your house over to fluorescent light bulbs, you should. The reduction in your hydro bill over the years will more than make up for the initial cost of the bulbs.

The LED revolution

Thu, 03 Sep 2009 14:37:40 -0400

We've recently seen an explosion of fluorescent bulbs and LED-based light for home use. Both are alternatives to the traditional incandescent bulbs that Edison so famously invented as he ushered in the age of electric lights. They're popularity is based on the fact that they use a lot less energy than incandescents. So why are they so special? Well, both have advantages and disadvantages, but it is only the latter, LEDs, that I want to focus on right now.

LED stands for light emitting diode for those who don't know. They've been around since the 1920s and have commonly been used on electronics and devices, usually as an indicator light showing whether a switch/device is on or off. Their use has slowly expanded to street signs, traffic lights, back lighting for electronic devices, and - what most people probably associate them with now – flashlights.

They have been gaining in popularity because of the very low energy requirements for the light they give off. It is so low that I can take batteries that no longer work in other electronic devices, place them in my LED flashlight and still get many hours of light out of it. It has also allowed for a lot of hand-crank flashlights to hit the market. Trying to power a traditional incandescent bulb with a hand-crank would be very tiring and not very useful. LEDs also emit light of very specific colours. This means that they can be used to create real blue/green/red rather than using a filter, which blocks and wastes a lot of potentially-useful light.

So why haven't LEDs replaced normal light bulbs everywhere?

Well, they are expensive to buy. The initial investment for LED lights to replace a single light bulb would not be too appealing to most people. LEDs, like regular diodes, also only work for current of a specific polarity. This means that the AC current that comes from your wall socket will not provide the correct electricity to run the LED. The DC current from a flashlight's battery does, on the other hand. LED bulbs designed to be plugged in would need an AC/DC adaptor like you see on most electronic devices. Not so practical. The fact that LEDs only produce light of a specific colour means that is also isn't ideal for producing the “white” light that people like to use. (There are ways for getting around this though.)

I think LEDs are great for flashlights. If you're not using an LED one, you're wasting a lot of batteries and should replace it. (A hand-crank one is even better!) However, I don't think we'll be seeing any LED light bulbs any time soon.

Political correctness – not in the world of skinny people

Thu, 03 Sep 2009 14:35:32 -0400

'Political correctness' seems to have had quite a few meanings over the years. I don't really want to argue what it means exactly or should mean. I'm just going to assume that it implies a sensitivity toward others that are different from you, and trying to be careful of a choice of words or what you imply when talking about them. For the most part, I think this is a good thing. You can't stop people from being being cruel or racist, but you can stop them acting on it and show that society won't tolerate it from them.

Some people argue that this is a forced censorship or simply tries to block the truth. I will only agree with this in extreme cases. If it has been measured that men are taller on average than woman, it isn't exactly insensitive to make this statement. However, a man going up to shorter woman and laughing at them and calling them 'midgets' most certainly is.

Where things become more unclear is when some statements are okay from certain individuals, yet not okay from others. A great example is the recent movie Borat. The main character makes very antisemitic comments, however, because it is actually a Jewish writer and actor, he can get away with it. Had this been written and made by a Muslim person, it wouldn't never have made it to theatres.

Even more confusing is that people seem to think it is okay to point out difference if they they might find it desirable for themselves. Obesity is a big problem within society at the moment, and so most people are quite sensitive about not pointing out how overweight a person may be. However, those who are skinny often have their weight pointed out. These are usually accompanied by a light joke. I would consider these comments and jokes about skinny people to be just as cruel and just as politically incorrect as pointing out an overweight person.

I think this is an area where society hasn't really caught up. Some people are happy and comfortable being very thin or overweight, but many people are not. I don't think it okay to joke about a person being skinny just because you may wish you could lose a few pounds yourself. It is no more socially acceptable to point out a skinny person as it is to point out someone who is obese.

Cell phones – the good

Thu, 03 Sep 2009 14:36:36 -0400

In my last post I brought up a few of the problems that have arisen thanks to cell phones. In retrospect, I might have been a bit too harsh. Cell phones have allowed for a lot of benefits that I don't think should be ignored.

Land lines are not always possible. If someone is out camping, hopelessly lost in “the middle of nowhere” while driving, or even in a remote region of the world without telephone capabilities, it is nice to know that there is always a method of last resort to call for help. You'll need to be able to get reception on your phone of course, and that last option will definitely require a pricey satellite phone, but it is possible. Better yet, your location can also be determined from your cell phone, which is great if emergency crews need to get to you and you can't direct them.

The added features to phones have also provided unexpected benefits. Specifically the addition of cameras to phones have helped solve crimes. In a number of cases, a victim or witness was able to capture a picture of the criminal, allowing it to be used to later identify them. The ability to mail them off to people means that you need only a few seconds to distribute the picture, lest the criminal try to take your camera from you (or worse) to evade being identified.

While constantly be available by a cell phones has its disadvantages, it also does have a lot of advantages associated with it as well. I may disagree with it, but nervous parents the world round are probably rather thankfully that they can track their children at any given time by giving them a cell phone. And I do mean track quite literally. Disney now offers cell phones with a GPS locater that parents use to get their child's location. I find the fact that a person's every move can be tracked just a little scary, but then again, I'm not a paranoid parent.

So, there may be too many cell phones floating out there in the world. They may be misused. They may cause some harm. But I can't deny that they do offer a lot of benefits too.

Cell phone over population

Thu, 03 Sep 2009 14:34:23 -0400

Wall Street is a great movie from back in 1987. It stars Michael Douglas playing an uber powerful (and mean!) business man. What I like most about this movie, is watching Douglas's character, Gekko - the epitome of wealth and power - show off his cell phone... which looks like a giant brick attached to a humongous briefcase that he has to carry around. That was only 20 years ago. Cell phones are now owned by anyone and everyone, and can come in some of the most absurdly small sizes. But is this a good thing?

Let's look at the manufacture of cell phones first. Many have used coltan in the design, a metal that is mined in third world countries like Congo. Much like conflict diamonds, the demand for coltan has lead to a lot of problems and political conflict. More cell phones means more problems. Not a good thing.

There has also been much debate over the health effects of cell phones. Most transmit on the microwave frequency band. So every time you put a cell phone to your head, you are putting a microwave right next to your brain. Some have claimed that this has lead to an increase in brain tumours in the populace, while others claim that the power is so low, it doesn't cause harm. Most studies seem to support the latter, but that doesn't mean we might not find health related issues later.

The social impact of cell phones has been incredible. People are now expected to be reachable 24/7. We've lost our “offline time.” Cell phones users also tend to disturb those around them. It is almost impossible to go see a movie or listen to a lecture without someone's phone inappropriately going off and disturbing the whole room. In the extreme case, many blame certain traffic accidents on drivers who have divided their attention between driving and talking on their phone. Many countries and regions have actually banned talking on a cell phone while driving because of this.

In truth, I think this topic is a little too complicated for a simple yes or no answer, but I hope I have given you a few potential negative aspects to think about.

Gillian Gibbons in Sudan

Thu, 03 Sep 2009 14:33:25 -0400

For those of you who haven't heard yet, Gillian Gibbons is a British teacher that went to Sudan to teach at a high school there. She allowed her students to name a Teddy Bear 'Muhammad,' and, as a results, she has been charged and found guilty of “insulting religion.” She was sentenced to 15 days imprisonment and deportation. Some members of the Sudanese population have demanded she be executed for her crime.

I have heard a number of people discussing this here in Canada, who have expressed shock and an inability to understand a society and religion that would value a name over the life and safety of a human being. At first, I must admit, I was one of these people.

I've had the opportunity to discuss this with a Muslim friend, who has helped me understand things a bit better. First off, Sudan is currently feeling resentment toward the Western world and its role in politics over Darfur. This incident is very much a statement made by those Sudanese that they still have control over matters within their own country and will not tolerate Westerners breaking their laws and interfering with how they run their country. Had there not been this prior political conflict, this would probably have been a very minor event, and quickly forgiven by acknowledging the ignorance of a foreigner who meant no harm.

More importantly, what we need to realize is that these actions, especially the demands for death, are just the response of a few extremists. They most certainly do NOT reflect the views and wishes are all Muslims nor all Sudanese. We must be very careful not to judge a religion or a nation based on the acts of a few.

Christians can look to the Crusades and the Inquisitions for instances when extremists have been in power, leading to quite a bit of torture and bloodshed. I think everyone would agree that this is a poor reflection of Christians around the world, or even the specific countries where these things occurred.

Jews need only look to the Torah to see that activities that justify (and actually led to) being stoned to death, including homosexuality, adultery, cursing God, and even being “a rebellious son.” I'd don't think the vast majority of Jewry would support doing that, and would feel more than a bit frustrated if the world were to judge them based on that.

As residents of Canada, we can all look to the imprisonment and abuse of Japanese-Canadians ~60 years ago during WWII, when extremists in society forced the government to rob people of their freedom and their basic treatment as human beings.

Americans can look to the present and the poor treatment of Iraqis by a handful of cruel soldiers. Again, the vast majority of Americans do not condone this.

I just hope that everyone takes a step back to understand what exactly is happening, and does not make sweeping comments or actions against Muslims or Sudanese that they do not necessarily deserve.

Organic food mania

Thu, 03 Sep 2009 14:19:40 -0400

I always pass by the organic food section in the store, look at the larger prices and wonder is it really worth it. The very fact that there is whole sections dedicated to it means that is has to be popular with a lot of people, and someone is making big $$ from it. So... why are people spending so much on it? Well, I've heard a few different arguments.

“I don't like chemical on my food and stuff.”

Okay, it used to be that organic food was grown without pesticides and other such stuff. That's not so true these days. Technically it just means the pesticides come from “natural” sources, rather than being synthesized in the lab. However, it is true that you'll be reducing the amount of pesticides you eat if you switch to organic produce. One figure I've seen is a reduction by 2/3.

“I don't want to eat genetically modified food.”

For those who don't know, all living things have genes. So, both genetically modified and genetically unmodified food have them. These genes do absolutely nothing to you. You're body has no clue whether the plant came up with the genes, or whether someone “modified” them, so worrying about your heath because you're eating them is pretty meaningless. What you can worry about is these strains of food getting into the wild and competing with the natural strains. There is the potential of the natural strain being forced into extinction. However, whether this is a good or a bad thing is an argument for another day.

“It's better for the environment”

This point is still heavily under debate and is not clear. Some people argue that the soil is healthier because of the reduced pesticide and fertilizer use, even being better for water retention and therefore drought years, but others argue that the food production is reduced overall. Less food production means that more land is required for the same amount of food, and so problems created by farming in general increase, negating the positive just mentioned. On a similar note, some say that organic food uses less energy in the production, but others argue that it uses more energy overall since it is typically transported from lots of smaller farms, rather than one central one.

Personally, if I were really worried about pesticides in my diet, I'd switch to organic food, but I don't think it is really helpful for anything else. I still feel that most of the hype over organic food is more of a fad than because of anything truly beneficial.

A great mind, or a great PR manager

Thu, 03 Sep 2009 14:18:16 -0400

Think of a great scientist. What is his name? What did he do?

Odds are that you are thinking of Einstein. Now let's try this again. Think of a second scientist.

Not so easy this time, is it? Okay, maybe Newton came to mind. Maybe Kepler? Archimedes? Kalvin? Maybe you have a female role model in Currie? All of these people have one thing in common. They're all long dead. Can you even think of a living one?

So why is it that we know so much about Einstein and almost nothing about any other scientist, including ones alive now? Is he really so great among them that he dwarfs them all?

I am going to have to say no.

In my opinion, Newton was probably a greater scientist than Einstein. Hawking is probably just a good if not better too. (Hey this scientist is still alive!)

So why focus on Einstein so much?

Einstein was a scientist that the public could relate to. He had a sense of humour. He could talk to the average person. He wouldn't shut himself up in his lab, but involved himself with the politics and the world at the time. In short, he had great public relations. Newton on the other hand was noted as being eccentric and there are even rumours that he prided himself on being a virgin. Not really a people's man! And Hawking... well, I think we all have trouble relating to someone who suffers so badly from Lou Gehrig's disease.

So, in short, our ability to even remember a scientist seems to be connected more with our ability to relate to him, and has less to do with his actual achievements. So don't downplay the work of anyone, just because you don't know who they are. And for those striving to become a scientist... try to leave your lab and interact with others once in a while!

Space pens

Thu, 03 Sep 2009 14:16:25 -0400

“Did you know that NASA spent millions designing a pen that writes in space? Yeah, Russia decided not to waste the money and just uses pencils.”

I heard this story recently... again. Unfortunately it's still isn't correct, and won't be correct no matter how many times I hear it. NASA, like so many organizations out there (government or otherwise), does NOT have money to go around wasting like that and did not contribute a cent to the development of these pens.

The “space pen” was invented by a guy named Paul Fisher and marketed by his company. The pen works using pressurized nitrogen gas behind the ink, all kept inside by a tungsten carbide tip. Putting pressure on the tip breaks the “air-tight” seal and allows the ink to come out. These pens are supposed to be able to work in extreme temperatures, on different surfaces, underwater, and yes, even in zero gravity. They supposedly have a longer shelf life and more ink than a standard ballpoint pen too.

Fisher realized the marketing potential in calling it a space pen and gave some to NASA to take up on a mission. NASA liked them (and now uses them, along with the Russian space program) and that was the birth of a very lucrative marketing campaign. Fisher has milked this for all it's worth and even has “special edition NASA” pens for sale.

Oddly enough, this urban legend uses a lot of other incorrect ideas. Ballpoint pens don't need to gravity to work (other wise it'd be impossible to write at all when you turn the pen around and write upside down) and could be used, and space agencies avoid using pencils because of the fear of the combustible pen + graphite, as well as small/sharp tips that could clog equipment if the the tip broke off. (Imagine pencil shavings in space!) Grease pencils and plastic slates are the other alternative to space pens.

It should be noted that this author does not own a space pen, nor has he used one, but would gladly accept donations of them.

Diamond mania

Thu, 03 Sep 2009 14:14:09 -0400

I haven't been in the position myself, but a number of friends have recently “popped the question” and so have had to go ring hunting. North American culture these days practically demands that any engagement ring contain a diamond... or at least something d***close. How many commercials have you seen on TV that imply 'give her a diamond otherwise you don't really love her'?

(On an interesting side note, this diamond custom in roughly 100 years old. It became somewhat popular in the 20th century and de Beer's, one of the biggest diamond producers, pushed it further into the mainstream with a very successful advertising campaign.)

For those who can't/don't want to shell out for a traditional diamond, there are 2 main options:

Diamond simulant

These look like diamonds, but fundamentally are different materials with different properties. The two mains properties are the hardness, these stones tend to scratch or crack more easily, and the refractive index. The later is what determines how light will “bounce around” inside the stone, giving it the classic diamond sparkle that everyone seems to like so much. Cubic zirconia is probably the best known of the diamond simulants.

Synthetic diamonds

These look like diamonds, smell like diamonds, sound like diamonds, taste like diamonds, and yes they ARE diamonds, with all the normal diamond properties, including hardness and refractive index. The difference is that these weren't formed over ridiculously long periods of time inside the earth and then mined out. They were created in a laboratory over a period of a period of a couple of months. So how can you tell the difference between these and traditional diamonds? Well, it turns out that the laboratories where they are grown are actually cleaner than natural environments. This causes LESS impurities to be present in synthetic diamonds, and using very sophisticated equipment, it can be determined which were created naturally, and which synthetically based on this.

The advantages of going this route? You pay less or get a larger rock for the same money. Many diamonds are mined from countries in political turmoil, and buying their diamonds funds wars and oppression of the populace.

Considering how hard and the level of sophisticated equipment required to differentiate a “real” diamond from these, I'm still surprised at how many people insist on only the real thing. 99.9% of the people receiving these stones would never be able to distinguish what type of stone they received without paying for an expert's help.

The diamond industry

Thu, 03 Sep 2009 14:15:06 -0400

In my other blog, I recently posted about synthetic diamonds and their role in engagement rings. So what do diamonds have to do with technology and the present? Well rings are not the only use of diamonds, of course. The strength of diamonds have led to their use in tools, especially for mining and cutting. (Diamond tipped tools are very nice things.) There is also a very large potential for diamonds in the semiconductor industry. Yes – in electronic devices and computers!

Let's start out by exploring 2 methods that can be used to synthesize diamonds to gain insight into how they can be used:

High temperature & pressure:

Created in the 1950s, this method tries to replicate some of the conditions under which natural diamonds are made. Using really high temperatures and pressures, graphite is converted into very small and impure diamonds. This technique produces diamonds that are useless for jewelry but enabled the synthetic diamond industry to enter into the tool manufacturing industry.

Chemical vapour deposition:

About 30 years later, this technique emerged. It uses a carbon-based gas and hydrogen under low pressure and relatively low temperatures (compared to the last method). The process breaks down the carbon-based gas and causes the carbon to be deposited mostly as graphite but some in diamond form too. They hydrogen gas removes the graphite leaving the diamond. If this process is left long enough, a large diamond can be grown.

It is this second process that has allowed synthetic diamonds to enter the gemstone industry and semiconductor industry. By creating large and pure diamonds, they can be used for rings and other jewelry.

By growing diamonds in a specific shape, diamonds can be used to create heat sinks, or even semiconducting chips. One of the biggest concerns with computer components today is the amount of heat being produced. Since diamonds are hard and heat resistant, computer components made out of diamonds could be pushed further allowing greater performance. Chemical vapour deposition will overcome the main problems of using diamonds: the cost of getting a diamond large enough to use, and the difficulty of cutting the diamond into the correct shape. The diamonds can be cheaply grown into the correct shape and size.

The incredible invisible cloak

Thu, 03 Sep 2009 14:13:08 -0400

The idea of invisibility has attracted a lot of people. The Invisible Man was written over 100 years ago by H. G. Wells and has had numerous remakes and rip-offs. (The latest incarnation is the character Claude in the TV series Heroes.) Very closely related is the idea of an invisible cloak, which, when worn, renders the wearer temporarily invisible. Again, this idea has been around for a long time. Star Trek fanatics will familiar with the “cloaking device” used by some of the star ships within the series. Even more recently, the idea of an actual cloak has been brought back into public imagination by the Harry Potter series, in which the invisibility cloak plays a large role.

Trying to move beyond the science fiction and fantasy, there are to main methods that could be used to create a real life invisibility cloak:

1) Bend the light

Objects are perceived as they interact with light rays, specifically when the reflect/scatter them. For an object not to be visible, these light rays would need to be “bent” around it. Can light be bent? Sure, Newton and Einstein both made predictions of light being bent due to gravity. (Newton's ideas had flaws, and Einstein's were later proven.) However, it takes something as massive as a star to bend light just a little bit. Bending light around an object is well beyond our current abilities...

2) Project the image

Rather than trying to bend light around an object, simply have the object project the image that would perceived if the object were not present. The success of this method relies on the quality of the image projected, referring both to the technical aspects of the image and whether the correct image itself is being project. This method is within the realms of current science fact. Researchers at the University of Tokyo have been working on this very idea and even have a prototype:

http://www.star.t.u-tokyo.ac.jp/projects/MEDIA/xv/oc.html

Is it perfect? Absolutely not, but for a first step, it's quite amazing. I can only imagine what will be achieved in the near future.

Einstein - a math GENIUS

Thu, 03 Sep 2009 14:11:44 -0400

A common misconception about Einstein is that he was bad at math, and even that he failed it at one point. I've heard of a lot of people try to justify their poor math skills with a “Einstein failed math, and look how he turned out.” This is blatantly wrong; Einstein was very good at math.

It is possible that this misunderstanding is a results of a short period in Einstein's schooling in which he came into conflict with his teachers. They insisted on a very specific approach to problems that Einstein did not feel was best. However, he neither failed math nor did he even receive bad marks in the subject. He was always noted as excelling in the subject, and received good recommendations from teachers. His theories of relativity (first Special and later General) require a very advanced understanding of math.

With so much wrong information floating around, here are a few facts about Einstein that ARE true:

Einstein and has first wife had a daughter, Lieserl, whose fate is unknown. It is possible she died in infancy or was given up for adoption.

Einstein had 2 sons with his first wife. One was a schizophrenic and was institutionalized, and the second excelled in engineering and from whom there are still living descendants. Yes, there is a Dr. Einstein still out there (and this one is actually an MD, not a PhD):

http://www.clavin.com/clavin_dr/einstein.html

Einstein and his second wife were both first and second cousins. (They did not have any children together.)

Not believing that the universe was expanding, Einstein introduced a “fudge factor” that he called the cosmological constant into his work. He later stated that this was his “biggest blunder.”

A letter co-written by Einstein influenced the US to develop the atomic bomb during World War 2, something which he later regretted.

Einstein did not believe in all the ideas inherent in quantum mechanics, specifically the lack of determinism and only the presence of probability, which are currently accepted as true.

JPG vs PNG: An epic battle for YOUR picture

Thu, 03 Sep 2009 14:10:39 -0400

With the increase in digital photography and the digital archiving of old pictures,the question of which format to store the pictures has come under much debate. Rising from the dust of many arguments comes 2 main contenders: JPG (or JPEG) and PNG.

JPG

The bad:

It is a “lossy” format. That means that every time a picture is opened, edited and resaved, the quality of the image is reduced. If you're saving multiple times within the same editing session, that only counts as a single saving without the multiple decreases in image quality. However, even if you just open the image and then resave it, you lose quality, so it is best just to copy the whole file to a new location, rather than resaving it in a new place.

The good:

Because of the algorithm it uses, JPG files tend to be much smaller than PNG file sizes. You can choose between different levels of quality loss vs file size, but even with a low level of image quality selected, you still get an excellent image for the given file size.

PNG

The bad:

Larger file sizes. At best, you're file size is still 2x larger than the “corresponding” JPG file, and, more typically, this increases up to 10x larger.

The good:

It is a “lossless” format, meaning that no image quality is lost, the image is simply compresses much like a zip file. You can also open, edit and resave the image as much as you wish and it will still be the same image quality as it originally was. Different levels of PNG compression are offered, but these just specify the compression level vs computer time it will take to perform. With the computing power of current systems, there is no reason not to choose the maximum level of compression.

Bottom line:

In short, which format you choose is dependent on the application. If you don't plan to edit the image again and disk space is a concern for you, JPG is a much better choice. If disk space is not an issue and you want to really archive your images without any image quality loss, and you might decide to edit/enhance the image later, then PNG is for you.

Grade inflation

Thu, 03 Sep 2009 14:09:39 -0400

Grade inflation is a very odd phenomenon to me. The source of the problem is that universities have turned themselves into businesses. They need to attract students and keep them, otherwise they lose the money that the government gives them per student, as well as the funds that the students themselves pay. The bottom line is that the students must be kept happy.

Students, like all people, are lazy at heart. If they pay $600+ per course, they don't want to think their money was wasted. A bad grade looks like their money was wasted. A good grade doesn't. So a student gets upset when they get a bad mark. Rather than look at themselves and ask how can I do better, the blame is shoved to the course, the professor, and the university. They complain. The university, not wanting to risk the loss of business, tells the professor that he can't give marks that low. The professor is forced to give higher marks for the same level of work, and students that would formerly have failed, are now given passing marks. Suddenly students are coming out with 90% in every course and they feel good.

And what happens if one school has inflated grades, but another doesn't? What happens when the two are compared by marks alone? Students will be afraid to go to a university without grade inflation because of this. Those universities that tried to maintain some integrity with their marking are now forced to inflate their grades to compete. It's a vicious cycle.

The fundamental question is, of course, how much has the student actually learnt? How skilled are they? When an employer goes to hire them and sees these excellent grades, how disappointed will he be with the performance of the worker?

While we may have a lot of people graduating with excellent grades, these people lack the basic skills that they were supposed to have gained. Since no can be failed any more , even at the university level, we can trust a person with a university diploma about as much as much as someone who has a high school diploma.

What do we do from there? What degree or means of separating the competent from the incompetent is left to us?

Universities need to stop working like businesses. Students that fail to learn the material need to be failed or given poor grades, otherwise university degrees will cease to have any meaning and will just be another piece of paper handed out to anyone who “does the time”, having no bearing on knowledge, skill or ability.

I am at the centre of the universe

Thu, 03 Sep 2009 13:49:39 -0400

I always knew it was true and now I have the scientific proof: I am (at) the centre of the universe!

Most people are familiar with the “big bang”. The universe started out as an infinitely small and dense point and then... bang – matter spread out into the universe as we know it. Einstein predicted that the universe was expanding outward in his general relativity formulae, but didn't believe it and tried to cover it up with a fudge factor known as the “cosmological constant”. Hubble later proved that the universe was indeed expanding, causing Einstein to dub his fudge factor as one of his biggest mistakes.

So what does all this have to do with me being at the centre of universe?

Imagine a balloon. It starts out from a very, very small point-like ball. When you blow it up it stretches out. The spaces between different parts of the balloon get larger as it stretches. Since ll parts of the balloon started out at the same point-like ball, they all started out at the same “centre point”. Trying to ask which point on the surface of the balloon is at the “centre” doesn't really make sense. Again, since all points started out from the same point, it's fair to say that really all parts of the balloon's surface are at the “centre”. The spaces between the different parts just got large. This is a 2D example.

The idea of the universe is the same, it is just 3D. All parts of the universe started out at the same point (the big bang), but the spaces between different parts of the universe have simply been getting larger. So it's also fair to say that all parts of the universe are still at the centre and always will be. The universe itself is expanding, it is not moving out from any “centre point”.

Okay, so I might be at the centre of the universe, but so is everyone else. I don't quite sound as special any more, but it doesn't mean I have to stop saying it.

FYI – the balloon analogy and ideas here are not original. People like Arthur Eddington have been using them as early as 1933.

At the speed of news

Thu, 03 Sep 2009 13:51:17 -0400

Not so long ago, it wasn't easy to get news about anything outside of your own little corner of the world. Merchants and other travelers were valued not only for their items but the news they brought as well. Word of mouth and written letters were the possible ways of passing along the information, but both were still quite slow.

About 150 or so years ago, the world was made a little smaller as telegrams could be sent “instantaneously” over longer distances. This was very quickly followed by the invention of the telephone. About 50-75 years later, the precursor to the modern internet was invented. Skip forward to the modern day and we have cell phones, fax machines, satellite TV, e-mail, and, of course, the world wide web at our disposal continuously feeding us up to the minute news. No longer do major events around the world trickle down to the four corners of the Earth over a period of months and years. By the end of each day, most of the (modernized) world already knows what has happened during the course of the day.

So where am I going with this? Well, this era of “real-time” reporting has brought with it a very interesting possibility: we can track the progress of physical items as they travel throughout the world using the internet. I touched upon this idea with “travel bugs” as part of geocaching. Items are moved from cache to cache and you can track their progress. In addition to this, sites have been set up to track the progress of Canadian money. Ever wonder where that $20 bill in your hand might end up? Nows your chance to find out:

http://www.whereswilly.com/

If your an avid reader, you can also pass your books along to others and see who else has read it, and what they think of it. This site encourages good “book karma”:

http://www.bookcrossing.com/

I like to track items through these three sites and see how they are passed from person to person, or through the mail. I often look at them as a measure of how fast news used to pass through the world and the odd path that it sometimes takes.

Wikipedia -almsot prefect Part I

Fri, 04 Sep 2009 09:36:48 -0400

I remember stumbling upon Wikipedia in its infancy many years ago. Almost no one had heard of it at that stage and the extent of the articles was very limited. Fast forward a few years and we see an entity on the internet that is almost as well known as Microsoft or Google. But Wikipedia doesn't come without its problems.

Before I really begin, let me just say for the record that I DO like Wikipedia and read it regularly. I have created, contributed to and continue to protect many articles. If Wikipedia were to disappear, I would be one of the first to express dismay.

Now that I've said that, let me turn a more critical eye to it. I want to do this a bit thoroughly, so let me make this a two-part post.

Problem 1: Anyone can edit it

Yes, this is the fundamental basis for the site, but it is also a source of frustration. I have seen countless vandalization ranging from rude comments, to outright attempts at wiping out information.

Problem 2: There are no professional editors

Even those good-heartedly trying to add and improve the Wikipedia can do a great deal of harm. I very recently checked upon an article I had created to find that someone had added quite a bit to the article. Unfortunately all the new additions were completely wrong and I had to erase them all. The new contributor dabbled in the area and wanted to help out, but didn't have a proper understanding. Having a specialized expertise in the area, I was able to see that this information was wrong, but the average user would most certainly not have known this and it would have been misled. I think this comic nicely summarizes the problem:

http://www.sheldoncomics.com/archive/071213.html

Stephen Colbert also explained the problem well when he said that users can “vote for the truth”, meaning that if enough people believe the lie over the truth, the article will also be reverted back to state incorrect information, no matter how many times it is corrected.

It's the end of the world as we know it

Sat, 12 Sep 2009 05:58:20 -0400

With all the doomsayers lurking around over the years predicting that “the end of the world is neigh”, I thought it be fun to look at some of the “accepted” end to humanity that have been predicted over the years. Okay, maybe not fun. Probably even a little bit morbid. But interesting nevertheless.

Self destruction:

Ever since the invention of the atomic bomb, people have been predicting that we'll destroy ourselves in an atomic war. If the initial bomb blast doesn't kill us, the resulting radiation levels near the bomb sites, or the the ice age that would likely results from the amount of dust being blown into the atmosphere, blocking out the sun, probably will. On the positive side, unless it is a really large atomic explosion, the earth is likely to eventually come out of the ice age and give birth to a new generation of species on its surface.

Disease:

Hollywood has played up this idea a number of times in different movies, but the possibility of another virus or super bacteria arising and destroying the earth's population isn't beyond the realm of possibility. It is because of this possibility that plaque-like things such as SARS are able to cause such mass hysteria. Such a virus would likely only affect humans and maybe other primates, but would leave the remaining species on earth unaffected.

Exploding sun:

The sun is just another star and stars eventually die. Current estimates give our sun another 5 billion years of life. While it's probably not the limiting factor in human existence, if we do make it that long on the earth, we're eventually going to have to accept that the sun will die and with it the earth.

End of the universe:

The final fate of the universe is still being heavily debated. Suggested ideas are the “big freeze” where the universe has expanded and spread out to the point where the heat has been spread out as much as possible (i.e. temperature is minimized in the universe) and the universe becomes static and unable to support life... or anything else. The “big crunch” is another idea where the gravitational forces of all matter in the universe causes it to draw in upon itself culminating in the reverse of the big bang. If you think the end of the sun is far away, it is still the equivalent of tomorrow compared to the end of the universe.

Well, don't let this post depress you – tomorrow is another day. (Hopefully.)

The attach of the killer antibacterial

Thu, 03 Sep 2009 13:52:49 -0400

I haven't spoken about our marketing friends from Evil University in while. Today I'd like to look at one of the marketing schemes that was very popular quite recently: antibacterial products.

For a while it was impossible to buy any sort of cleaning product that didn't say “antibacterial” on it. I know; I spent a long time looking for one! All the commercials aimed at selling the products would depict a house full of “germs” waiting to get you. Enter their product and you can wipe down your house making it a perfectly sterile environment.

Okay, I have a few problems with this:

1) Sterile environments are impossible. Bacteria just grows too quickly. Within 20 min, most of what you kill has grown back. (Same idea applies to mouth washes.) On top of that, it only takes one person walking in from a different environment to contaminate it all over again.

2) Sterile environments aren't really desirable. There are good bacteria and bad ones. You don't want to get rid of the good stuff, and getting rid of the bad stuff so that your immune system never encounters it leaves it weak and unprepared when you encounter it later on in life. (Look at the tragedy of what happened to the Natives when the first settlers came.) Many people believe that the sudden increase in allergies like peanut ones is due to overly sterile environments. Without real “germs” for your immune system to fight, it starts attacking odd things like peanut proteins.

3) Soap by its very nature is an antibacterial and antiviral. So either the marketing people are just lying to us and it's the same product it always was, or they're now dumping something nasty and probably unnecessary into their product that I wouldn't want in the first place.

Whatever the truth behind that last point, I personally stay from any product that's labeled as “antibacterial”, and try to give my immune system as least something to keep it busy and “healthy”.

Give a book, get a book

Thu, 03 Sep 2009 13:53:54 -0400

If you're like me, then you like to read for pleasure when you have the spare time. Sure I could borrow books from the library, but I never like to have the return deadline hanging over me with threats of fines, as I read. This is especially annoying if I suddenly find myself swamped with work and no time to read for a couple of weeks. Choosing between returning a unfinished book or paying a hefty fee just doesn't appeal to me.

What are my other options?

Buy them new. I do that from time to time. It supports the author, which is always a good thing, but the price of books do add up with typical costs of $10-$20/book.

Buy them second hand. I do this quite often. I'm lucky in that there are three really good second hand book stores in my city. The big problem here is th e limited stock, as you are reliant on other people within your city bringing them in to sell back to the store.

(Warning: This is the point where I again push the wonders of the internet and show how it has made the world a little smaller.)

That's right, book trading sites have popped up all over the internet. The basic idea is that you put up books you don't want any more, mail them off to other people and get points in exchange. These points can then be used to request books from other members. It's not much different from a second hand book store, except that you “pay” for books by sending yours to other people. The real advantage lies in the fact that you are now dealing with a much larger market, consisting of people all over the world. This makes rarer, and usually out of print, books much easier to obtain. The two most Canadian-friendly book trading sites that have found are:

BookMooch:

http://www.bookmooch.com/

TitleTrader:

http://www.titletrader.com/

I have mailed books off to Australia, Italy, Spain, England, and, of course, the US and Canada. There's just something that find really interesting knowing that someone on the other side of the world is enjoying the same book that I just finished reading.

The failure of public transit

Thu, 03 Sep 2009 13:56:02 -0400

Green house gases. Global warming. Big topics at the moment. One of the culprits behind all this is carbon dioxide and one big source of it that keeps growing every year is cars. Emissions testing and other regulations have been implemented in an attempt to educe this problem, but the only true solution is to stop people using their cars. Enter the idea of public transit.

Sure public transit produces carbon dioxide too, but when you have 50 people sharing 1 car instead of 1 person in 1 car that's a cutback of 50x. Brilliant! So where's the problem? Well let's face it, public transit sucks in most Canadian cities.

With the exception of maybe Toronto and Montreal, public transit just doesn't cut it. Not enough of the city is covered. Buses don't come often enough. And it doesn't run late enough. How can you go out for a proper night of fun when the buses stop before midnight!

So why is it so bad? Like so many things, it comes down to the almighty dollar. Public transit is expensive to run. Unless you have a lot of people using it, there aren't the funds to support it. While the buses may be full during the rush hours, they run empty most of the day, and the night, losing money. Smaller cities can only manage by cutting back on the hours and on the areas they cover... which brings us right back to our problem of bad service.

How can we change this? Well, more money is needed. Lots of public funds are already funneled into it, so we can't really look there. Ticket prices can be raised, supplementing the public funds, but when you're paying $70-$100/month for mediocre service, it actually discourages people from using it and loses more money.

So we're stuck. The average person finds it more reasonable to maintain and use a car than to use the public transit, and so the system fails.

The only way to get out of this vicious cycle is to increase the cost of having a car. When the gas prices rose, we saw more people rationalizing the cost of a bus pass over the cost of gas. If additional taxes or permits are required, this would also shift more people to public transit. The extra permit funds can then be used for the public transit too. London, England has actually used this idea and requires expensive permits to enter the downtown core leading most people to use public transit in the city center.

Realizing that the heart of our problem is that the environment is at odds with money, the question I ask you is: would you be willing to accept new taxes on cars to save the environment?

The Flying Spaghetti Monster

Sat, 12 Sep 2009 05:56:48 -0400

Pastafarianism is a parody religion created by Bobby Henderson in response to the the decision by the Kansas State Board of Education to introduce intelligent design into the school curriculum as an alternative to evolution. Pastafarianism centres around the “Flying Spaghetti Monster” (FSM), an invisible and undetectable deity that created the entire universe “after drinking heavily”. Links to the Kansas decision is made obvious by the statements that the FSM planted all evidence of evolution and uses “His Noodly Appendage” to change any scientific measurements made to support it. Henderson has stated that he created Pastafarianism for his own amusement, but it's subsequent popularity shows that it is a very useful vehicle to show the absurdity of trying to teach a religion as science. (Henderson is very clear that he has no problems with religions themselves, just religions posing as science.)

The big scientific issue with teaching intelligent design is that it is an untestable theory. Unsurprisingly, considering it is a religious concept, intelligent design relies on belief rather than any supporting fact. This is exactly the same problem Henderson created with is invisible and undetectable FSM. He has created Pastafarianism in such a way as to make it impossible to disprove, and any discrepancies can be explained away as being changed by the FSM using “His Noodly Appendage”. Henderson goes one step further and draws attention to a secondary problem in science of confusing cause and correlation. By plotting the number of pirates in existence and the global temperature against each other, Henderson concludes that it is the decline of that is causing global warming.

As Pastafarianism has gained popularity (as a joke!), a lot of related paraphernalia and jokes have popped up. It's now possible to get a FSM car magnet similar to a “Jesus fish” or Darwin fish ones. Henderson was also commissioned to write The Gospel of The Flying Spaghetti Monster with a rather nice $80 000 USD advance. The FSM has found its way into numerous web comics and main stream entertainment like South Park.

Whether you are religious or not, hopefully you have a sense of humour and see Pastafarianism not as an attack on religion, but just a humourous way of viewing what happens when you try to force belief on those who do not share it.

Drinking and driving

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 14:26:20 -0400

Halloween is upon us and of course that means.... that stores already have their Christmas decorations and are starting to set up displays come 1st Nov. Yeah, this is horrible. Contented commercialism to one and all

What frustrates me most about this is what they are selling: Christmas trinkets. Items with no purpose other than to catch the attention of a person for a brief period of time and then be shoved away in a box. Most of these items are pretty tacky. Yes, I said it: they're tacky. Most of you come to this realization too, which is why so many things remain in boxes year after year and then eventually make their way into the garbage.

So they sell useless trinkets that most people end up just throwing away. Worse than that, they pressure you into buying them for other people with a notion that if you don't give a gift to everyone you know, you're a horrible person that doesn't have a giving spirit. So you buy these tacky items for others and they hide them in boxes or throw them out. Vicious cycle.

On top of that is the most evil of creations: the greeting card. You spend $2-$5 on a card, scribble a few words in it and send it off to someone. They read it and then.... keep it forever? Probably not. Throw it out. More likely. Now wouldn't a personalized letter have been better?

I apologize for attacking everyone's favourite holiday, and this problem is certainly not restricted to Christmas alone. Birthdays, Valentine's Day and plenty of other holidays have been over-commercialized. How horrible do you look if you're the only one who hasn't sent a card or a gift?

My suggestion to you: The next time you want to send a card to someone, write them a nice letter instead. It means more and produces less garbage. If you want to give someone a gift, don't buy a trinket just so that you've given them something. Pool your money with other people and buy them something a little more expensive that they can really use and appreciate.

It's time that we cut back on these silly little useless trinkets and gifts that full our stores and garbages.

Tax fallacies – the poor pay more taxes

Sat, 12 Sep 2009 05:55:08 -0400

“Poor people pay more taxes than rich people thanks to tax loopholes and government tax exemptions.”

Feels good to complain about it doesn't it? Not only do the rich make more money, on top of that they even get to keep more of it away from the ever-greedy government! Right...? Well, not quite so true. Let's take a small look at taxes by comparing federal tax rates:

15% on the first $37 885

22% on earnings between $37 885 and $75 769

26% on earnings between $75 769 and $123 184

29% on more that $123 184

It doesn't take much to realize that the more you earn, the more money that you have to pay in income tax, and on top of that, the higher the percentage you have to pay in tax.

Is this an oversimplified view? Absolutely. This is only one of the many income taxes and it does not include deductibles and other types of tax breaks. However, it is still clear: the more money you make the more you owe in income tax.

Where things become more blurry is when we look at the percentage of a person's income that is paid in income tax. While a “rich” person may pay a larger amount in taxes, the percentage of his total income that he pays can be much lower than people in much less financially secure situations. Many have actually criticized the Canadian government for shifting taxes in this respect in favour of the rich. One article claims that back in 1990 the top 1% of earners paid 34.2% of their income in taxes, while the bottom 10% of earners paid 25.5% of their income to taxes, compared to today where 30.5% for the rich and 30.7% for the bottom 10% of earners:

http://money.canoe.ca/News/Economy/2007/11/07/4639072-cp.html

Is this fair? Base morality says no. We have to move away from a society where the rich get richer and the poor only get poorer, creating major class and opportunity differences. Those who have more should be willing to give more to help the greater good of a community. On the other hand, we must also remember that the rich support many tax-based benefits (e.g. road maintenance, garbage collection, educational institutions) and do no necessarily gain any more benefit from them.

This still doesn't excuse the taxations levels, but just remember, if you drive out the richest within your community with pitchforks and torches, you're likely to find all areas and social programs within the community a lot poorer (quite literally) as a result.