Posts
It continues to amaze me how poorly so many people understand economics and government.
Where I live, as with very nearly every other state, we have budget problems. We have things that need money spent on them, and the state doesn't have the money to do so.
Services cost money. Plain and simple. We need road work. We need police. We need fire/emergency help. We want good schools. We want a working court system. These things cost money.
There are groups which advocate more government-run activities, and groups which oppose such.
I am in neither. Government should do some things, and not others. Government should do things where all citizens need exactly the same thing at all times, or as close as is feasible to provide. (By "do" here, I could mean "regulate", as well, where the actuality is performed by some other organization, like your electricity supplier).
If you want, for example, snow removal service during the winter...that costs money. That could be commercially provided, but how would that get done? I want all the roads I am likely to use to be plowed right away. And my driveway. I don't care about other people's driveways, nor do I care about roads I don't use...Except that maybe I need for others to be able to use those roads in order to make deliveries I will need access to, like the grocery store. "Stock up in advance" you might say...and that certainly works to an extent, given that where I live snow generally doesn't last too long (although it has been known for one single snowfall--a blizzard--to last a couple of weeks). But there was a time when I lived in Massachusetts, in 1994, and there was 9 (yes, nine) feet of snow that winter (two years later it was ten). That snow didn't all melt away for four months. Not really feasible for me to "stock up" (although the Pilgrims must have done so somehow). I can't get to work without plowed streets, so that blizzard here in 1996, which the county did not deal with effectively, kept me stuck at home for a week.
So I am willing to have some tax dollars go to providing this service. Lacking a county-funded provider of snow removal, I'd have to get all my neighborhood together, and we'd have to pool to hire someone, or buy the plows ourselves to fit the pickup trucks of those who live in the neighborhood. The question then is what do you do about the people who live in your neighborhood who don't want to pay for this? The government has some measure of coercion it can apply, but you do not. Do you just pile up the snow in front of their driveway? Suppose they need an ambulance?
So this is a thing that government should do, or regulate. It will work best if there's a single provider, for uniform results.
In contrast, trash collection is done differently. There are county-gov sanctioned providers of collection service, I pay the provider directly, there is competition, it's not too expensive, and I could change providers if I wished. What I can't really do is let trash pile up, if I wished to not pay for it at all, although that's mostly because I don't *want* it to pile up. I recycle a lot of stuff, but that's the same service provider there. I could take recyclables to the center, for free, and if I could keep my packaging-materials limited to paper, I could probably go without the trash service; paper I could burn, or compost to an extent. Could snow removal work the same way? Maybe...it's an expensive business to be in, you only need it a few times/year, whereas trash service is every week. I'd be willing to do some plowing of the neighborhood, and maybe bit beyond, but no way I'm plowing the highways. I think that could work, except for those folks who would want it done but not pay for it.
Government needs to do other things, too, but plenty of folks don't want to pay for those things.
So what I'd like to see...recall how we keep hearing that the "states are little experimental test areas where ideas can be tried out" ?
Let's try out the idea of zero government.
No taxes. No laws. No police. No courts. No water/sewer service (unless you dig well, septic). No electricity (except self generated). No roads except those you create yourself. No trash collection, no snow removal. No regulated businesses. What would that really look like? Who would live there?
Partly it would look a lot like "the wild west": the guy with the biggest gun and greatest willingness to do grievous harm to others will be in control. Most people would get along with each other ok, I expect, but they'd also become victims.
But it'd be an interesting experiment. Could it work?
This idea was triggered by a couple of things: one was some interviews with protesters in DC a week ago, and there was this one woman who said she wanted government out of her life completely. The guy with the mike/camera didn't pursue that far enough, but I suspect she doesn't *really* want government entirely out of her life, because she does want water, sewer, trash, snow, electricity, police, etc. She might want her taxes to be zero (who doesn't?) but she probably doesn't understand what all those taxes actually pay for. My impression is that most folks don't.
And of course going along with the "pay for it" issue, you also hear "waste, fraud and abuse". I really think that's a euphemism for "fire people", but since we can't seem to figure out who to fire, let's just fire them all.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Java 3D software
Was trying to do the 3D thing again a few weeks ago. It's got to be possible.
I was trying to get my wireframe globe working (actually, someone else's code).
So it turns out not to be too hard, but there are a couple of subtle parts, and I did not find the right explanation on-line anywhere.
There are four parts involved:
The online help doesn't mention those .jnilib files, despite their presence in the library downloads. Your java command-line has to mention the jar files, of course, but NOT the jnilib files, but the jnilib files have to be in $CWD, or the same folder as jogl.jar
So it's really not very hard, but I spent a lot of time not getting that figured out.
On windows/linux, there are also some .dll or .so files that appear relevant.
On my mac, just things in the list above. Works great, and instantly.
I also found this, http://worldwind.arc.nasa.gov/, which is like google earth (except older)... Except that there's a java version, with Swing and AWT versions of an embeddable panel that you can pop into your app. Works great!
So now I have NASA World Wind in an app. This is the other reason why I needed to figure out the 3D library files. It does, of course, use NASA's servers, but hey--NASA owns a lot of imagery n stuff, like the Blue Marble pix...have a look at the demos page. Lovely stuff.
That said, I don't like how part of it works...the part about making my own layer. I ought to be able to create a layer, populate with the items I want drawn, and it should draw them. That seems not to even be part of the concept. GAK! It appears that you have to serve results from a Web Feature Service, and connect a layer to that. NOT what I want, at all.
I have some other things I want to do in 3D, so I need to go back to the wireframe globe and start there...the first thing I have discovered is that OpenGL *still* can't draw a general filled polygon properly. This is fargin' horrifying. That is a solved problem, people. Use it!
I was trying to get my wireframe globe working (actually, someone else's code).
So it turns out not to be too hard, but there are a couple of subtle parts, and I did not find the right explanation on-line anywhere.
There are four parts involved:
- Your code
- JOGL.jar
- libjobl.jnilib
- the O/S libraries
The online help doesn't mention those .jnilib files, despite their presence in the library downloads. Your java command-line has to mention the jar files, of course, but NOT the jnilib files, but the jnilib files have to be in $CWD, or the same folder as jogl.jar
So it's really not very hard, but I spent a lot of time not getting that figured out.
On windows/linux, there are also some .dll or .so files that appear relevant.
On my mac, just things in the list above. Works great, and instantly.
I also found this, http://worldwind.arc.nasa.gov/, which is like google earth (except older)... Except that there's a java version, with Swing and AWT versions of an embeddable panel that you can pop into your app. Works great!
So now I have NASA World Wind in an app. This is the other reason why I needed to figure out the 3D library files. It does, of course, use NASA's servers, but hey--NASA owns a lot of imagery n stuff, like the Blue Marble pix...have a look at the demos page. Lovely stuff.
That said, I don't like how part of it works...the part about making my own layer. I ought to be able to create a layer, populate with the items I want drawn, and it should draw them. That seems not to even be part of the concept. GAK! It appears that you have to serve results from a Web Feature Service, and connect a layer to that. NOT what I want, at all.
I have some other things I want to do in 3D, so I need to go back to the wireframe globe and start there...the first thing I have discovered is that OpenGL *still* can't draw a general filled polygon properly. This is fargin' horrifying. That is a solved problem, people. Use it!
Saturday, September 12, 2009
recent reading, again
Guns of the South, by Harry Turtledove.
It's one of those alternate history things. Actually this is "MAN IN THE HIGH CASTLE" redux. This is pretty detailed on the historical accuracy...imagine what might have happened if someone had time-traveled from 2010 back to 1864 and given Gen Robert E Lee 100 thousand AK-47s and unlimited ammo. Would the south have won?
Damn right. Those guns, while not 2010 state of the art, were 100 years in advance of the standard single-shot manual-load rifles of the 1860s.
So I found this book offensive...not the part about the south winning...given the AK-47 premise, that was inevitable. This seemed overmuch like "how to write a book in 1992 in which you get to use all those words and ideas from 1864 that are clearly offensive now, like the infamous 'N-word'".
It of course opens with some history, although not enough of the history that you remember what the fight was really about, from both sides. This is more just about the battles (quite lopsided with the arrival of AK-47, which was superior to hand-loaded single-shot Enfields/etc in every way you can think of, and not manufacturable anywhere in the world at that time (the south had insufficient manufacturing to make weapons/etc as it was, so there really was no way they were going to win). The suppliers of these guns are some unhappy white folks from South Africa, who are so resentful of the black takeover there, that they think altering history will help them. They pay in gold, which has serious value, as opposed to Confederate money, which, as the saying goes, "wasn't worth the paper it was printed on".
The author clearly doesn't understand time-travel paradox well enough to explain that part. He also misses the relevant background history (Missouri compromise [1820], Dred Scott[1857], etc); it's not like that info is hard to come by.
He also mostly bypasses the "why" of confederate secession. It was, from the southern side, presented as "those people can't tell us what to do", and "the federal government cannot tell the states what [not] to do"...the one thing the federal government was trying to do was tell the southern states they couldn't allow/continue/expand slavery.
(look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_events_leading_to_the_American_Civil_War, for the Wikipedia pages on this whole thing)
So: the south: "it's all about states' rights", the north: "it's all about slavery"
Really: it was both, of course. It was all about the right of southern states to sanction (and tax) the ownership of one human being by another.
Don't kid yourself, blacks weren't liked up north. They just weren't slaves.
So at the end of the book, the confederate government, now with Robert E Lee as president, learns how they have been manipulated by the South Africans, and learns a good bit about the future, decides that slavery must be eliminated. (That seems unlikely, to me, given that the elimination of slavery occurred because the South lost the fight. Dramatic military superiority would change the equation quite a bit--the military's strength is more or less untouchable.)
Like this is really somehow different from what the north had been arguing for some decades? "It's ok to eliminate slavery if WE decide to do it, not if THEY tell us to do it". So what happens when one of the southern states decides to secede from the confederacy? All the same arguments could be made over again ("we don't want some other states telling us what we can/can't do"). The southern states were not terribly unified amongst themselves; if you're willing to secede once, you're willing to do it again.
Author does cleverly manage to work in a variation of the infamous "battle of the crater" near the end. That was amusing...it's a little different, of course, because in the story the "civil war" is over by this time, so this battle is against the South Africans. Who, despite the radically superior technology (i.e., things more advanced than an AK-47), are numerically too small to win a war with any attrition. I actually thought this the best part of the book.
'twere better all around had no slaves ever been brought here. The real problem is that a lot of people are lazy enough want others to do their work.
Of course, the situation in the Confederacy wasn't nearly as simple as you were taught it in school. There were plenty of "Unionists" in the south who opposed the secession, and some actually fought against the South while living there.
And apparently there was something known as the "Twenty Negro Law" whereby one military-age male was exempted from serving in the Confederate Army for every twenty slaves owned on a plantation. Of course it was only the wealthier who owned slaves, and they tended to be those in state legislatures, too, and therefore could vote themselves these kinds of exemptions...resulting in the actual conscription being the poor, fighting for the rich, to preserve the rich folks' way of life of owning slaves. (see HERE, and HERE for the exact wording, which is a bit obtuse)
It's one of those alternate history things. Actually this is "MAN IN THE HIGH CASTLE" redux. This is pretty detailed on the historical accuracy...imagine what might have happened if someone had time-traveled from 2010 back to 1864 and given Gen Robert E Lee 100 thousand AK-47s and unlimited ammo. Would the south have won?
Damn right. Those guns, while not 2010 state of the art, were 100 years in advance of the standard single-shot manual-load rifles of the 1860s.
So I found this book offensive...not the part about the south winning...given the AK-47 premise, that was inevitable. This seemed overmuch like "how to write a book in 1992 in which you get to use all those words and ideas from 1864 that are clearly offensive now, like the infamous 'N-word'".
It of course opens with some history, although not enough of the history that you remember what the fight was really about, from both sides. This is more just about the battles (quite lopsided with the arrival of AK-47, which was superior to hand-loaded single-shot Enfields/etc in every way you can think of, and not manufacturable anywhere in the world at that time (the south had insufficient manufacturing to make weapons/etc as it was, so there really was no way they were going to win). The suppliers of these guns are some unhappy white folks from South Africa, who are so resentful of the black takeover there, that they think altering history will help them. They pay in gold, which has serious value, as opposed to Confederate money, which, as the saying goes, "wasn't worth the paper it was printed on".
The author clearly doesn't understand time-travel paradox well enough to explain that part. He also misses the relevant background history (Missouri compromise [1820], Dred Scott[1857], etc); it's not like that info is hard to come by.
He also mostly bypasses the "why" of confederate secession. It was, from the southern side, presented as "those people can't tell us what to do", and "the federal government cannot tell the states what [not] to do"...the one thing the federal government was trying to do was tell the southern states they couldn't allow/continue/expand slavery.
(look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_events_leading_to_the_American_Civil_War, for the Wikipedia pages on this whole thing)
So: the south: "it's all about states' rights", the north: "it's all about slavery"
Really: it was both, of course. It was all about the right of southern states to sanction (and tax) the ownership of one human being by another.
Don't kid yourself, blacks weren't liked up north. They just weren't slaves.
So at the end of the book, the confederate government, now with Robert E Lee as president, learns how they have been manipulated by the South Africans, and learns a good bit about the future, decides that slavery must be eliminated. (That seems unlikely, to me, given that the elimination of slavery occurred because the South lost the fight. Dramatic military superiority would change the equation quite a bit--the military's strength is more or less untouchable.)
Like this is really somehow different from what the north had been arguing for some decades? "It's ok to eliminate slavery if WE decide to do it, not if THEY tell us to do it". So what happens when one of the southern states decides to secede from the confederacy? All the same arguments could be made over again ("we don't want some other states telling us what we can/can't do"). The southern states were not terribly unified amongst themselves; if you're willing to secede once, you're willing to do it again.
Author does cleverly manage to work in a variation of the infamous "battle of the crater" near the end. That was amusing...it's a little different, of course, because in the story the "civil war" is over by this time, so this battle is against the South Africans. Who, despite the radically superior technology (i.e., things more advanced than an AK-47), are numerically too small to win a war with any attrition. I actually thought this the best part of the book.
'twere better all around had no slaves ever been brought here. The real problem is that a lot of people are lazy enough want others to do their work.
Of course, the situation in the Confederacy wasn't nearly as simple as you were taught it in school. There were plenty of "Unionists" in the south who opposed the secession, and some actually fought against the South while living there.
And apparently there was something known as the "Twenty Negro Law" whereby one military-age male was exempted from serving in the Confederate Army for every twenty slaves owned on a plantation. Of course it was only the wealthier who owned slaves, and they tended to be those in state legislatures, too, and therefore could vote themselves these kinds of exemptions...resulting in the actual conscription being the poor, fighting for the rich, to preserve the rich folks' way of life of owning slaves. (see HERE, and HERE for the exact wording, which is a bit obtuse)
Friday, August 14, 2009
The Philosophy of Engineering (part 2)
What does it take to motivate engineers? (Or anyone, for that matter)
I.e., what can I do to motivate engineers?
Will it take an Advanced Degree (TM) to figure this out?
Let's start with: what motivates me?
Me: interesting problems to solve. I like solving problems, I like making things. Things I like making have included some of my furniture (actually quite a few pieces), computer programs, electronics, model railroad stuff...there have been other things as well (deck outside house in Dallas).
I got started down the engineering path by about age six because I watched my dad fix things, and I was intrigued at the insides of things. At age 14, I found out that engineering pays better than most other jobs, which certainly clinched that.
So let's speculate that most engineers are motivated by having interesting problems to solve. A good team has an interesting large problem to solve, and many smaller ones that can be handled on an individual basis. A problem that *can* be understood, and a solution that *can* be found without it taking forever, materials and tools to go from the beginning to the end, and the satisfaction of having succeeded and producing a final widget--one that people actually use and like.
What of other folks, for whom the challenge of the problem is not sufficient? Do they need a $ incentive? What other incentives might there be? Formal recognition?
Here's a reference that covers similar territory. Actually, it *really* covers the same territory, except they left out problem challenge (unless you say challenge=creativity, then it's "internal"). Here's the detail.
Another link HERE has a really good first comment:
"People also get motivated when they are working for a leader who has the following traits:
Why do you/I/we care?
"Employees who are motivated are willing to invest discretionary effort to go above and beyond the call of duty." (HERE)
That's something you want.
But different people have different motivations, and need different incentives. From some recent reading on this (related to above links), money appears to be one that doesn't work too well. I can't say that a tiny amount of money would get my attention...you'd have to offer at least $50k to even get my attention, and more like $100k to get my participation. Maybe if I had some debt issues...but $1000 doesn't do it for me.
Getting one's paycheck is a motivator, of course, but you really need to like your work to go beyond that. What makes that happen?
Probably you want a suite of incentives, to get folks going. Recognition for performance. Influence over what gets done. Money. "Internal" reasons (see that first link above; this includes a number of factors, I think, good mgmt, good team, creative challenge...).
So how to do you define those incentives? Recognition could be as simple as a thank-you from the boss...but that could be pretty hollow, too. A private thank you for something that no one else even knows about, and then nothing...why bother? I want something a little more serious than that.
I.e., what can I do to motivate engineers?
Will it take an Advanced Degree (TM) to figure this out?
Let's start with: what motivates me?
Me: interesting problems to solve. I like solving problems, I like making things. Things I like making have included some of my furniture (actually quite a few pieces), computer programs, electronics, model railroad stuff...there have been other things as well (deck outside house in Dallas).
I got started down the engineering path by about age six because I watched my dad fix things, and I was intrigued at the insides of things. At age 14, I found out that engineering pays better than most other jobs, which certainly clinched that.
So let's speculate that most engineers are motivated by having interesting problems to solve. A good team has an interesting large problem to solve, and many smaller ones that can be handled on an individual basis. A problem that *can* be understood, and a solution that *can* be found without it taking forever, materials and tools to go from the beginning to the end, and the satisfaction of having succeeded and producing a final widget--one that people actually use and like.
What of other folks, for whom the challenge of the problem is not sufficient? Do they need a $ incentive? What other incentives might there be? Formal recognition?
Here's a reference that covers similar territory. Actually, it *really* covers the same territory, except they left out problem challenge (unless you say challenge=creativity, then it's "internal"). Here's the detail.
Another link HERE has a really good first comment:
"People also get motivated when they are working for a leader who has the following traits:
1. Good memory
2. Genuine interest in people
3. Integrity
4. The ability to communicate effectively
5. Decisiveness
6. The ability to relax
7. Genuine enthusiasm."
This is about teamwork and good leadership. Good management. I can't argue with that, having had both good and bad (which is separate from experience, although there is a correlation). More detail can be found HERE.
There are probably some other ones...More are listed HERE.Why do you/I/we care?
"Employees who are motivated are willing to invest discretionary effort to go above and beyond the call of duty." (HERE)
That's something you want.
But different people have different motivations, and need different incentives. From some recent reading on this (related to above links), money appears to be one that doesn't work too well. I can't say that a tiny amount of money would get my attention...you'd have to offer at least $50k to even get my attention, and more like $100k to get my participation. Maybe if I had some debt issues...but $1000 doesn't do it for me.
Getting one's paycheck is a motivator, of course, but you really need to like your work to go beyond that. What makes that happen?
Probably you want a suite of incentives, to get folks going. Recognition for performance. Influence over what gets done. Money. "Internal" reasons (see that first link above; this includes a number of factors, I think, good mgmt, good team, creative challenge...).
So how to do you define those incentives? Recognition could be as simple as a thank-you from the boss...but that could be pretty hollow, too. A private thank you for something that no one else even knows about, and then nothing...why bother? I want something a little more serious than that.
The Philosophy of Engineering (part 1)
A year or two after I joined my current employer, I became interested in what I now call the "Philosophy of Engineering".
What is that exactly? Let me offer an example...
In 1992/3, I worked on a health-care project. It was 10-20 years ahead of its time then, and still is, although the concepts behind a little of it are now being talked about, and some of the associated hardware has come to exist since then...
That project was a team effort--the best team I have worked in ever.
Immediately upon joining my current employer, I was in a new team. One which I have since described as "five guys with the same charge number"; not really a *team*, as I had just experienced it. I was the latecomer, and I ended up with the largest responsibility: integration and delivery and support...
I don't recall that this second team ate lunch together more than 3 times over 20 months. I don't recall that we ever held anything resembling a design meeting/discussion, or really anything I associate with a good team. So that was the worst team I've ever worked on.
I've been on various in-between ones since then, or solo. All have their little problems, none are perfect.
So what is it that makes for a good team? Does it take an Advanced Degree (TM) to figure this out?
Crucial elements:
You need someone (at least one, but not very many) who is the keeper of the vision. That person is often (around here) known as a "Principal Investigator", which is not necessarily the same as a System Engineer, although it could be the same person. The PI should do things like define the concept being attempted, create/locate/define/refine examples like "use cases", make presentations to existing/potential customers, and could offer implementation suggestions. I've never quite had exactly that kind of PI, yet.
You need a System Engineer, who can figure out exactly how to implement the vision. This has often been my role.
You need an implementation team. These folks are not keepers of the vision, and they are not decision makers about system block diagram kinds of things (although they might be); these folks are the ones who create what the SE decides should be created. I've been this person too, although most commonly I am a combination of SE and implementor.
You need a good Program Manager. This guy deals with the financial aspects, meetings with customers, marketing, personnel...all that mgmt jazz. The PM should not be the SE, probably should not be the PI (although that is common).
The last actual team I worked on (2004/5) had a decent PM, a not-so-great PI (only did about half the job), myself as SE, and one implementor guy (so of course I did a lot of implementation). That was actually going well until the PM found himself unable to continue in that role (he commuted in from a ways off, and then his wife got pregnant with triplets). The new PM was a jerk, really unsuited to the role, not interested in the project, obnoxious in meetings. I had tried to get someone else to take the role, but that person was not yet interested/ready to do that. My involvement faded out, and the project died within a year after I wasn't working it any more.
Mind you, that really cool health-care project got killed, too, although that was because too many managers wanted control of it, not because it wasn't going anywhere.
So I'm thinking next time I'm in at the beginning, I'm going to specify exactly who/what I get on my team, else I'm not getting on it myself.
What is that exactly? Let me offer an example...
In 1992/3, I worked on a health-care project. It was 10-20 years ahead of its time then, and still is, although the concepts behind a little of it are now being talked about, and some of the associated hardware has come to exist since then...
That project was a team effort--the best team I have worked in ever.
Immediately upon joining my current employer, I was in a new team. One which I have since described as "five guys with the same charge number"; not really a *team*, as I had just experienced it. I was the latecomer, and I ended up with the largest responsibility: integration and delivery and support...
I don't recall that this second team ate lunch together more than 3 times over 20 months. I don't recall that we ever held anything resembling a design meeting/discussion, or really anything I associate with a good team. So that was the worst team I've ever worked on.
I've been on various in-between ones since then, or solo. All have their little problems, none are perfect.
So what is it that makes for a good team? Does it take an Advanced Degree (TM) to figure this out?
Crucial elements:
You need someone (at least one, but not very many) who is the keeper of the vision. That person is often (around here) known as a "Principal Investigator", which is not necessarily the same as a System Engineer, although it could be the same person. The PI should do things like define the concept being attempted, create/locate/define/refine examples like "use cases", make presentations to existing/potential customers, and could offer implementation suggestions. I've never quite had exactly that kind of PI, yet.
You need a System Engineer, who can figure out exactly how to implement the vision. This has often been my role.
You need an implementation team. These folks are not keepers of the vision, and they are not decision makers about system block diagram kinds of things (although they might be); these folks are the ones who create what the SE decides should be created. I've been this person too, although most commonly I am a combination of SE and implementor.
You need a good Program Manager. This guy deals with the financial aspects, meetings with customers, marketing, personnel...all that mgmt jazz. The PM should not be the SE, probably should not be the PI (although that is common).
The last actual team I worked on (2004/5) had a decent PM, a not-so-great PI (only did about half the job), myself as SE, and one implementor guy (so of course I did a lot of implementation). That was actually going well until the PM found himself unable to continue in that role (he commuted in from a ways off, and then his wife got pregnant with triplets). The new PM was a jerk, really unsuited to the role, not interested in the project, obnoxious in meetings. I had tried to get someone else to take the role, but that person was not yet interested/ready to do that. My involvement faded out, and the project died within a year after I wasn't working it any more.
Mind you, that really cool health-care project got killed, too, although that was because too many managers wanted control of it, not because it wasn't going anywhere.
So I'm thinking next time I'm in at the beginning, I'm going to specify exactly who/what I get on my team, else I'm not getting on it myself.
Thursday, July 23, 2009
The cutting edge is in my rear-view mirror (TM)
I needed a motto, and that one came to me 30 mins ago. I like to think of myself as doing programming few others are doing; examples available upon request.
a few months ago came this one: Cloud Computing: not as scary as you might think.
that one was intended as humor...
a few months ago came this one: Cloud Computing: not as scary as you might think.
that one was intended as humor...
Sunday, July 19, 2009
politics 2
so Sen (R) Jeff Sessions, of Alabama, doesn't like Sonya Sotomayor, a non-white, non-rich non-male as a Supreme Court candidate.
born in Selma, Alabama, according to his wikipedia page...you'd think he'd have a better appreciation...but...
is anyone surprised? The guy's an insensitive jerk. Why is he still in office? Why did he ever GET into office?
born in Selma, Alabama, according to his wikipedia page...you'd think he'd have a better appreciation...but...
is anyone surprised? The guy's an insensitive jerk. Why is he still in office? Why did he ever GET into office?
Saturday, July 18, 2009
Star Trek movie 2009
OMG was this good. Better than I was expecting, really. I was afraid it was going to be "Star Trek kids".
They did of course have to show the one and only Starfleet Academy episode of Kirk's of any significance: Kobayashi Maru. Really, no way to do this timeframe in his life without it, that would have really been ripping off the audience. I did think he was a little smug about it, though, eating the apple...there should have been a point at which he say something more like "when faced with that kind of impossible situation, change the rules".
Only complaint: they missed a couple of opportunities for the various characters to say a phrase permanently associated with them: "Dammit Jim, I'm a doctor, not a ___" -- Bones did *not* say a variation of that in the movie, and he should have...and Spock should have said "Fascinating" or "indeed" or "that would not be logical" at some point. Scottie did at least say "I'm givin her all she's got, captain"...[later: upon watching DVD, Bones *does* say it: "I'm a doctor, not a physicist"]
Otherwise, damn near perfect. Except for being a parallel-universe Starfleet...I mean, Spock's mom dead? Vulcan destroyed? How will there be the "Amok Time" episode now? I thought for sure the movie denouement was going to be the time-travel-to-set-things-back-on-track sort of thing...[apparently, from an interview, this change was deliberate, allowing a retread of some familiar things, with a different approach]
But nonetheless...this bodes well for a sequel working out well...and I cried at the end when Nimoy said the opening words: "Space, the final frontier. These are the voyages..."
They did of course have to show the one and only Starfleet Academy episode of Kirk's of any significance: Kobayashi Maru. Really, no way to do this timeframe in his life without it, that would have really been ripping off the audience. I did think he was a little smug about it, though, eating the apple...there should have been a point at which he say something more like "when faced with that kind of impossible situation, change the rules".
Only complaint: they missed a couple of opportunities for the various characters to say a phrase permanently associated with them: "Dammit Jim, I'm a doctor, not a ___" -- Bones did *not* say a variation of that in the movie, and he should have...and Spock should have said "Fascinating" or "indeed" or "that would not be logical" at some point. Scottie did at least say "I'm givin her all she's got, captain"...[later: upon watching DVD, Bones *does* say it: "I'm a doctor, not a physicist"]
Otherwise, damn near perfect. Except for being a parallel-universe Starfleet...I mean, Spock's mom dead? Vulcan destroyed? How will there be the "Amok Time" episode now? I thought for sure the movie denouement was going to be the time-travel-to-set-things-back-on-track sort of thing...[apparently, from an interview, this change was deliberate, allowing a retread of some familiar things, with a different approach]
But nonetheless...this bodes well for a sequel working out well...and I cried at the end when Nimoy said the opening words: "Space, the final frontier. These are the voyages..."
Friday, July 17, 2009
Monty Python
a personal favorite for years...my son is properly fond of them as well...spouse too.
this is hilarious:
click here for MP game fun
this is a hilarious YouTube piece:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luVjkTEIoJc
and this is another one...it starts slow, but just you wait:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enlyHAJfwyI
this is hilarious:
click here for MP game fun
this is a hilarious YouTube piece:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luVjkTEIoJc
and this is another one...it starts slow, but just you wait:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=enlyHAJfwyI
recent reading...
Julie Czerneda's "Stratification" trilogy 1-3, which are actually 1-3 of 9, where 4-6 were published some years ago...and she's working 7 now...kinda like Star Wars, eh?
These were pretty good...I don't remember 4-6, so I guess I'm going to have to go read those again...
These were pretty good...I don't remember 4-6, so I guess I'm going to have to go read those again...
Monday, July 13, 2009
computer games on Steam
Steam is of course the service from Valve (Half-life)...this seems to be working pretty well overall.
I snagged some of the game demos, which weren't too bad. I punted one or two right away for being too short, but others were ok.
There's this one series you can get all of for $15, and the demos are decent, called "Alien Shooter" in which have to eliminate aliens from an underground facility or two. Alien Shooter Revisited is the original with newer artwork, AS 2 has a bit more interesting "inventory" system, and Zombie Shooter is essentially the same game except with Zombies. How much better can a game get than whacking umpty-thousand zombies with nifty weapons?
however...Alien Shooter Revisited has flaws...one of which is disastrous...on level 5, near the end, there's this yellow forklift, and if you run to it, you can get math-locked onto it. No way off, which means there's a serious path-finding error combined with what is probably a 3D-model-positioning error, so that you go through a tiny little gap that the path-finding can't get out of. Has happened to me twice now, I've sent a msg to the devs, and I am done playing that one.
Had the same problem with AS 2, got math-trapped in an odd spot. I can't even allow a monster to kill me, their "AI" is too stupid to path-find closer to me.
Apparently AS 1 has a couple more expansion packs, and Zombie Shooter 2 is due out soon.
I snagged some of the game demos, which weren't too bad. I punted one or two right away for being too short, but others were ok.
There's this one series you can get all of for $15, and the demos are decent, called "Alien Shooter" in which have to eliminate aliens from an underground facility or two. Alien Shooter Revisited is the original with newer artwork, AS 2 has a bit more interesting "inventory" system, and Zombie Shooter is essentially the same game except with Zombies. How much better can a game get than whacking umpty-thousand zombies with nifty weapons?
however...Alien Shooter Revisited has flaws...one of which is disastrous...on level 5, near the end, there's this yellow forklift, and if you run to it, you can get math-locked onto it. No way off, which means there's a serious path-finding error combined with what is probably a 3D-model-positioning error, so that you go through a tiny little gap that the path-finding can't get out of. Has happened to me twice now, I've sent a msg to the devs, and I am done playing that one.
Had the same problem with AS 2, got math-trapped in an odd spot. I can't even allow a monster to kill me, their "AI" is too stupid to path-find closer to me.
Apparently AS 1 has a couple more expansion packs, and Zombie Shooter 2 is due out soon.
Jason Bourne...
Robert Ludlum is one of my all-time favorite writers...he was a master of the conspiracy story...
The Bourne Identity was perhaps the most intense story I've ever read...
So I was excited when my wife came home with the "new" Jason Bourne story, "The Bourne Legacy", by Eric van Lustbader. Pretty sure I've read some of EVL's scifi/fantasy stuff at some point, but I don't own any...suggesting it was short stuff, or uninteresting.
Well, this book stars Bourne...but it's not Ludlum, it's not a Ludlum-style conspiracy...it's really more like a recent James Bond (hm...note the initials on both of them) film. Other than the lack of explosions at the end of the book, it really felt like Bond movie with fewer overall scene locations.
I thought Bourne got into too many fights where he got hurt a bit more than I thought appropriate. He seemed more fight-savvy in the Ludlum books.
It is based on the very early Bourne history, as David Webb, prior to his training that turned him into Bourne. Some of that didn't hang toegether as well as it needed to...
Apparently EVL has written several more Bourne books since this one...well, this story was ok, just not RL. Maybe I'll read the next one, but only as a used pb, not a new one. And maybe not any time soon, I have A LOT of other stuff to read already on a shelf here.
The Bourne Identity was perhaps the most intense story I've ever read...
So I was excited when my wife came home with the "new" Jason Bourne story, "The Bourne Legacy", by Eric van Lustbader. Pretty sure I've read some of EVL's scifi/fantasy stuff at some point, but I don't own any...suggesting it was short stuff, or uninteresting.
Well, this book stars Bourne...but it's not Ludlum, it's not a Ludlum-style conspiracy...it's really more like a recent James Bond (hm...note the initials on both of them) film. Other than the lack of explosions at the end of the book, it really felt like Bond movie with fewer overall scene locations.
I thought Bourne got into too many fights where he got hurt a bit more than I thought appropriate. He seemed more fight-savvy in the Ludlum books.
It is based on the very early Bourne history, as David Webb, prior to his training that turned him into Bourne. Some of that didn't hang toegether as well as it needed to...
Apparently EVL has written several more Bourne books since this one...well, this story was ok, just not RL. Maybe I'll read the next one, but only as a used pb, not a new one. And maybe not any time soon, I have A LOT of other stuff to read already on a shelf here.
Stephanie Plum...pt 2
Plum book #15 was just published last month...got it and read it last week.
Classic goodness, and this time Stephanie's car blows up again. Twice...well, actually it's Ranger's car each time, but still...that was a signature event in the first 10 books, and then it stopped for a while...I emailed and got a rather stupid reply from some worker-bee who wasn't the author. But it's back.
I definitely recommend this, although if you haven't read the others, don't start with this one, you need the character background, and don't worry, the used bookstore has plenty of copies.
Classic goodness, and this time Stephanie's car blows up again. Twice...well, actually it's Ranger's car each time, but still...that was a signature event in the first 10 books, and then it stopped for a while...I emailed and got a rather stupid reply from some worker-bee who wasn't the author. But it's back.
I definitely recommend this, although if you haven't read the others, don't start with this one, you need the character background, and don't worry, the used bookstore has plenty of copies.
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Oh frabjous day! Calloo callay!
(look that up if you don't know it)
So this year I paid more attention to the April calendar and certain "events".
Why?
Well, I think I wrote about this before...apparently in this area (I don't know about elsewhere), beginning about 2 weeks before Passover, and probably for a week or so after, you can actually get what is colloquially (and probably somewhat pejoratively) known as "jewish coke"...
Which is to say, Coke made with sugar.
OMG is that good. I went home and promptly over-caffeinated myself and was awake most of the night (apparently caffeine doesn't pass through me quite so well as it did when I was a lot younger :)
I bought about 45 bottles (it's only available in the 2-liter). Same price. Why can't Coke just go back to that? I called on the phone several years ago to ask about this, but whoever I talked to didn't know anything about the annual recipe change, and I hadn't heard of it yet.
NOT telling you where I got it, I don't need competition next year.
So this year I paid more attention to the April calendar and certain "events".
Why?
Well, I think I wrote about this before...apparently in this area (I don't know about elsewhere), beginning about 2 weeks before Passover, and probably for a week or so after, you can actually get what is colloquially (and probably somewhat pejoratively) known as "jewish coke"...
Which is to say, Coke made with sugar.
OMG is that good. I went home and promptly over-caffeinated myself and was awake most of the night (apparently caffeine doesn't pass through me quite so well as it did when I was a lot younger :)
I bought about 45 bottles (it's only available in the 2-liter). Same price. Why can't Coke just go back to that? I called on the phone several years ago to ask about this, but whoever I talked to didn't know anything about the annual recipe change, and I hadn't heard of it yet.
NOT telling you where I got it, I don't need competition next year.
Presidential dining
Apparently when Obama went to Ray's Hell Burger there last week he wanted some Dijon mustard on his burger. Probably been even worse if he'd wanted the foie gras on it. (I happen to like some funky mustards, and have been known to put dijon on one)
And has since caught A LOT of flack about that, at least from the standard bunch of tired old conservative/republican talking heads. You can tell that their lives are pretty feeble if this is what they need to complain about.
Of course, you can tell this is all out-of-town chatter, because whoever wrote about it couldn't manage to get the restaurant name correct. This is probably the same bunch that thought "Freedom Fries" was a good idea.
---
I haven't been to Ray's HB, which is because I'm not much at my company office the past 3 years...Ray's HB is just up the road a tiny bit. Ray's The Steaks is even closer, and I have been to that, shortly after it opened; it's probably better now, I thought it a shade high-priced and under-good right at the beginning. [later: it IS better now]
And has since caught A LOT of flack about that, at least from the standard bunch of tired old conservative/republican talking heads. You can tell that their lives are pretty feeble if this is what they need to complain about.
Of course, you can tell this is all out-of-town chatter, because whoever wrote about it couldn't manage to get the restaurant name correct. This is probably the same bunch that thought "Freedom Fries" was a good idea.
---
I haven't been to Ray's HB, which is because I'm not much at my company office the past 3 years...Ray's HB is just up the road a tiny bit. Ray's The Steaks is even closer, and I have been to that, shortly after it opened; it's probably better now, I thought it a shade high-priced and under-good right at the beginning. [later: it IS better now]
Gimme that old-time religion
Oh, the irony.
Can you believe this?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8041421.stm
Well, the Catholic Church is certainly an expert at mixing religion and politics--been at it longer than any other organization you can name.
Can you believe this?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8041421.stm
Well, the Catholic Church is certainly an expert at mixing religion and politics--been at it longer than any other organization you can name.
Fallout 3 followup
Have played a decent ways into this...
recall the earlier I wrote that it seemed jerky at times...turns out that my machine has other stuff going on that causes it...not sure what, but as an example, if I let NAV run (which it generally does, overnight), that just about kills F3...even if nothing else is running.
F3 runs ok after a fresh reboot, but of course that's only good for a few hours before it's bedtime and NAV runs. Gad.
And as noted the terrain is kinda boring. There are two flavors: southwest US badlands-looking desert-with-rocks, and bombed-out buildings.
The other thing that is really bothering me right now is that a number of areas are only reachable by going through the subway tunnels...because they are actually separate maps that get loaded. You cannot just walk everywhere, from anyplace to any other place, as you could in Oblivion. This means that if the map marker you have to travel to is on one of those other map areas, you are going to have to figure out what combination of underground travel is going to get you to the right place (GNR is the first one where this is a hassle).
And you can't "noclip" to just fly over the buildings, that doesn't work. Bummer. I'm losing interest...I can't be more than halfway through the main quest, and that's after accidentally short-circuiting some of the early stages.
I wish Starcraft 2 was coming out sooner.
recall the earlier I wrote that it seemed jerky at times...turns out that my machine has other stuff going on that causes it...not sure what, but as an example, if I let NAV run (which it generally does, overnight), that just about kills F3...even if nothing else is running.
F3 runs ok after a fresh reboot, but of course that's only good for a few hours before it's bedtime and NAV runs. Gad.
And as noted the terrain is kinda boring. There are two flavors: southwest US badlands-looking desert-with-rocks, and bombed-out buildings.
The other thing that is really bothering me right now is that a number of areas are only reachable by going through the subway tunnels...because they are actually separate maps that get loaded. You cannot just walk everywhere, from anyplace to any other place, as you could in Oblivion. This means that if the map marker you have to travel to is on one of those other map areas, you are going to have to figure out what combination of underground travel is going to get you to the right place (GNR is the first one where this is a hassle).
And you can't "noclip" to just fly over the buildings, that doesn't work. Bummer. I'm losing interest...I can't be more than halfway through the main quest, and that's after accidentally short-circuiting some of the early stages.
I wish Starcraft 2 was coming out sooner.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
playing Fallout 3
I think I reported earlier how Fallout 3 installs ok, starts up ok, and plays ok *until* you get to this point early where your gf has just told you the cops are coming to arrest you. As soon as you exit your room, some script is triggered and the game crashes to the desktop for me.
So I let my son run it a bit on his computer (32-bit) and do some saves, so I could try to run from one of his early saves...which worked just fine.
In one sense, F3 is "Oblivion with guns". Except that I don't think it's as interesting...and my son has already finished the game, in just a few days...apparently when you complete the central quest sequence, the game terminates. Not interesting.
Have had some trouble with it, in terms of mouse-responsiveness, etc. It feels a little jerky in comparison with Big O.
I don't really/yet like the skill-leveling approach. Big O did this well...I.e., if you spend time sneaking, your sneak skill goes up. In F3, you have to get XP in order to level up, and then have skill points to spend to level-up individual skills. So there's little value to sneaking very much.
Son says you can read multiple copies of a skill-book and increase that skill multiple times.
I haven't gone very far yet, but it's not as interesting as Oblivion. It does have a lot of similarities, but the terrain isn't as interesting or variable (at least as far as I've gone). Looks like burned-out wasteland. Which of course it should, but that's all there is. I'd have definitely gone for more of the Wash DC buildings. It's not like that would be hard to do, since you could go photograph the outsides, and paint those results onto the models as wall textures...and a work acquaintance is telling me he knows how to extract a 3D point cloud from an image sequence taken as you drive past a bldg...instant-3D model!
So I let my son run it a bit on his computer (32-bit) and do some saves, so I could try to run from one of his early saves...which worked just fine.
In one sense, F3 is "Oblivion with guns". Except that I don't think it's as interesting...and my son has already finished the game, in just a few days...apparently when you complete the central quest sequence, the game terminates. Not interesting.
Have had some trouble with it, in terms of mouse-responsiveness, etc. It feels a little jerky in comparison with Big O.
I don't really/yet like the skill-leveling approach. Big O did this well...I.e., if you spend time sneaking, your sneak skill goes up. In F3, you have to get XP in order to level up, and then have skill points to spend to level-up individual skills. So there's little value to sneaking very much.
Son says you can read multiple copies of a skill-book and increase that skill multiple times.
I haven't gone very far yet, but it's not as interesting as Oblivion. It does have a lot of similarities, but the terrain isn't as interesting or variable (at least as far as I've gone). Looks like burned-out wasteland. Which of course it should, but that's all there is. I'd have definitely gone for more of the Wash DC buildings. It's not like that would be hard to do, since you could go photograph the outsides, and paint those results onto the models as wall textures...and a work acquaintance is telling me he knows how to extract a 3D point cloud from an image sequence taken as you drive past a bldg...instant-3D model!
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Idiocy in Pakistan
Today is April 28, 2009. For reference.
What do you think the likelihood is of the Taliban taking over Pakistan this year? How about next year?
Personally, I won't be surprised if it happens this summer.
It *IS* going to happen. Soon. Not enough people there with a clue how bad that is going to be. Or how undifficult to solve. Hard to feel sorry for them...the only really bad part about this is that they'll probably have something in the way of a nuclear device.
Maybe I need to start a pool at work. That'd be interesting.
What do you think the likelihood is of the Taliban taking over Pakistan this year? How about next year?
Personally, I won't be surprised if it happens this summer.
It *IS* going to happen. Soon. Not enough people there with a clue how bad that is going to be. Or how undifficult to solve. Hard to feel sorry for them...the only really bad part about this is that they'll probably have something in the way of a nuclear device.
Maybe I need to start a pool at work. That'd be interesting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)