I gave my 9 year old, 3rd grader son a copy of The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe for Christmas. He has already consumed it. So, perhaps the entire boxed set of books should have been purchased. The books aren't expensive, but they are cheaper all at once rather than one at a time.
Perhaps the book should have been called The Wardrobe, the Witch, and the Lion, as that is the order that they appear in the story. Would that have been written by Lewis S. C.? Clearly, the writer wanted the lion to get top billing, rather than a box.
This particular purchase was inspired by the newly released movie by the same name. It could be pointed out that this isn't the first time the book has been made into a movie, just the first big budget production.
I had never read the books, but had read some other C. S. Lewis works, and had some idea what it might be about. So, though my 9 year old started reading it first, i borrowed it while he slept and finished it off. When he was finished with it, we saw the movie together.
It should be noted that the book isn't that long. In fact, it is about the same length as a screenplay. So, there is no need for the movie to cut anything. And, they didn't. They did add some explicit background at the beginning explaining why the kids were sent away that wasn't in the book. They added an exciting river scene as well. There were a small number of other minor changes.
One change made for the movie was that Aslan, the king lion, is supposed to be frightening as well as good in the book. Yet, no one is obviously scared out of their wits, even when seeing him for the first time. That certainly could have been done in the movie. Perhaps they wanted a true G rating. That's probably why the battle scene has so little violence and no gore at all. Compare that with The Return of the King. This is a choice, probably made for monetary reasons, but welcome for parents of smaller children who want to provide some entertainment for their kids.
As a modern, high budget film, the special effects were mostly excellent. We've come to expect this, and perhaps are spoiled. So, when they use a real dog and just animate the mouth for speaking, it looks so old school. This film has lots of talking animals. And, kids love that sort of thing, for no apparent reason.
The book/movie combination is a great combination. It is an opportunity for parents to read the book to their smaller children before letting them see the movie. For parents of slightly older children, promising to show them the movie after they've read it is a powerful incentive. The combination has special powers to improve reading enjoyment and comprehension, not just for this story, but for stories to come. I've followed this strategy with the first four Harry Potter Movies, when I read the book aloud. This is the first story where my son could reasonably read the book himself.
Saturday, December 31, 2005
Thursday, December 29, 2005
What I Don't Like About The Web
Web pages seem to be created by web designers and web developers using local network bandwidth, brand new high end computer hardware, with the latest web browsers that are loaded with every imaginable plug-in. Web pages seem to be never tested in any other environment.
For users at businesses, high speed network connectivity with hardware that is three years old or less seems to be the norm. These users often put up with slow pages, but the web sites often at least work.
One should be able to use Netscape 3.1 on my 1987 vintage Mac II, with my 2400 BAUD external modem, and pages should come up quickly. OK, so the real time kids games won't happen. Also, it doesn't matter that movies would take forever to download. The '87 Mac won't show them anyway, despite the fact that Quicktime was originally written on the 1987 Mac II. A 16.7 MHz 68020 just doesn't have the horsepower for full screen movies, without regard to video acceleration. For that matter, it takes an eon just to decode and display a full screen jpg image. Still, one ought to be able to read text with a few pictures without the thing locking up, requiring a reboot. I should be able to connect to my bank without Java, Javascript or Flash, and get my balance, and make simple transfers. And next year, one should not have to upgrade my computer, operating system, and browsing software just to do it. Netscape 3.1 understands forms, images and styled text. That's where almost all the content on the internet that is at all interesting is still.
OK, maybe 19 years is too much backward compatibility. The web isn't even that old. Perhaps it is amazing that such a machine could ever surf. But ten years isn't out of the question. That puts the bar at 1996. The web existed then. Any browser built back then that can cope with styled text, images and forms should be fine. In particular, Lynx is text only. It knows how to ignore styled text, and images, and handles forms. I can't use it with my bank, because it does not handle Javascript. Yet, my bank ends up using simple forms to actually allow account balances and transfers. Lynx is good enough to show the cnn.com article about newly discovered rings around Uranus. Laugh if you like. This is content.
While we're at backward compatibility, consider PDF documents. One should not post PDF documents that absolutely require the most recent version of the acrobat reader. In particular, I shouldn't have to upgrade to the new version, because zero cost isn't zero cost. Adobe has started inserting adware into their free readers, and on a slow modem, it still takes roughly forever to download the new version. Further, most people on the internet are incompetent to install anything properly. That's right. Most people do not upgrade their computers in any significant way. They either get a friend who is competent to do it for them, or they don't upgrade. Richer people actually buy a new machine when it gets infected with malware, and abandon the old stuff to their basements. I'm not making this up. The upgrade and install burden becomes huge for the competent. Perhaps I should start charging. I don't want a shrubbery. Perhaps pizza.
So, here's an offer. Point me to your web site. I'll test it with Netscape 3.1, 4.7, Netscape 6.x, Lynx, and a couple versions of Firefox. I'll also test with a 33 MHz 486 with 16 MB RAM on a 2400 BAUD modem. Not only that, but I'll test with the '87 Mac II on a 14.4 KBAUD modem. All on a slow modem. My modem is 56K BAUD, but my SBC, sorry, AT&T, (it is hard to keep up with this merger nonsense thing too), phone line is so poor, that 5600 BAUD is not possible. Mostly, 28.8 KBAUD is all i get. I'll tell you in no uncertain terms what is wrong with your site, and all you need to do is send me $100. Cheap.
For users at businesses, high speed network connectivity with hardware that is three years old or less seems to be the norm. These users often put up with slow pages, but the web sites often at least work.
One should be able to use Netscape 3.1 on my 1987 vintage Mac II, with my 2400 BAUD external modem, and pages should come up quickly. OK, so the real time kids games won't happen. Also, it doesn't matter that movies would take forever to download. The '87 Mac won't show them anyway, despite the fact that Quicktime was originally written on the 1987 Mac II. A 16.7 MHz 68020 just doesn't have the horsepower for full screen movies, without regard to video acceleration. For that matter, it takes an eon just to decode and display a full screen jpg image. Still, one ought to be able to read text with a few pictures without the thing locking up, requiring a reboot. I should be able to connect to my bank without Java, Javascript or Flash, and get my balance, and make simple transfers. And next year, one should not have to upgrade my computer, operating system, and browsing software just to do it. Netscape 3.1 understands forms, images and styled text. That's where almost all the content on the internet that is at all interesting is still.
OK, maybe 19 years is too much backward compatibility. The web isn't even that old. Perhaps it is amazing that such a machine could ever surf. But ten years isn't out of the question. That puts the bar at 1996. The web existed then. Any browser built back then that can cope with styled text, images and forms should be fine. In particular, Lynx is text only. It knows how to ignore styled text, and images, and handles forms. I can't use it with my bank, because it does not handle Javascript. Yet, my bank ends up using simple forms to actually allow account balances and transfers. Lynx is good enough to show the cnn.com article about newly discovered rings around Uranus. Laugh if you like. This is content.
While we're at backward compatibility, consider PDF documents. One should not post PDF documents that absolutely require the most recent version of the acrobat reader. In particular, I shouldn't have to upgrade to the new version, because zero cost isn't zero cost. Adobe has started inserting adware into their free readers, and on a slow modem, it still takes roughly forever to download the new version. Further, most people on the internet are incompetent to install anything properly. That's right. Most people do not upgrade their computers in any significant way. They either get a friend who is competent to do it for them, or they don't upgrade. Richer people actually buy a new machine when it gets infected with malware, and abandon the old stuff to their basements. I'm not making this up. The upgrade and install burden becomes huge for the competent. Perhaps I should start charging. I don't want a shrubbery. Perhaps pizza.
So, here's an offer. Point me to your web site. I'll test it with Netscape 3.1, 4.7, Netscape 6.x, Lynx, and a couple versions of Firefox. I'll also test with a 33 MHz 486 with 16 MB RAM on a 2400 BAUD modem. Not only that, but I'll test with the '87 Mac II on a 14.4 KBAUD modem. All on a slow modem. My modem is 56K BAUD, but my SBC, sorry, AT&T, (it is hard to keep up with this merger nonsense thing too), phone line is so poor, that 5600 BAUD is not possible. Mostly, 28.8 KBAUD is all i get. I'll tell you in no uncertain terms what is wrong with your site, and all you need to do is send me $100. Cheap.
Sunday, December 18, 2005
State Of Fear
Part of the danger of reading several books at the same time is that more than one can be finished in a short period. So it is now. At random, then, this is a review of Michael Crichton's State of Fear. Only a few of the books in the works are dead trees, and this one was an audio book, checked out of the local library, and consumed, mostly, on the way to or from work.
The plot revolves around global warming, ecoterrorism and related topics. A significant amount of science is bandied about. All of the standard tricks for making a point in science (even when the point is out and out wrong) were used, and many were explained. The author argues from an unpopular point of view, namely, that Global Warming isn't a threat, that it is ill defined and, by the way, evidence for it is difficult to come by. The idea seems to be to make the reader uncomfortable. If that goads the reader into learning some real critical thinking, and perhaps even doing some real research, perhaps this is a good thing. However, The Andromeda Strain, and Jurassic Park were more enjoyable. At least in these books, one could easily tell where the science ends and the fantasy starts.
There was also a break in the suspension of disbelief. One of the characters was supposed to be a mega genius and expert in a variety of fields, including computers. This happens to be an area of expertise for me. The expert just didn't get it. Honey pots and Trojan horses were particularly badly mishandled. These items were not critical to the plot, and proof reading by someone who uses computers for something other than just word processing could have improved the narrative significantly. If the expert wasn't very good with computers after all, then perhaps he wasn't competent in other areas. Without competence, the whole thrust of the novel unravels. Come to think of it, computers weren't handled all that well in Jurassic Park. Perhaps this proof reading thing will have merit in the future as well.
On the positive side, now that the name has been pronounced by an actor, I can, with confidence say that I know how to pronounce Michael Crichton's name. It is pronounced Michael Crichton.
The plot revolves around global warming, ecoterrorism and related topics. A significant amount of science is bandied about. All of the standard tricks for making a point in science (even when the point is out and out wrong) were used, and many were explained. The author argues from an unpopular point of view, namely, that Global Warming isn't a threat, that it is ill defined and, by the way, evidence for it is difficult to come by. The idea seems to be to make the reader uncomfortable. If that goads the reader into learning some real critical thinking, and perhaps even doing some real research, perhaps this is a good thing. However, The Andromeda Strain, and Jurassic Park were more enjoyable. At least in these books, one could easily tell where the science ends and the fantasy starts.
There was also a break in the suspension of disbelief. One of the characters was supposed to be a mega genius and expert in a variety of fields, including computers. This happens to be an area of expertise for me. The expert just didn't get it. Honey pots and Trojan horses were particularly badly mishandled. These items were not critical to the plot, and proof reading by someone who uses computers for something other than just word processing could have improved the narrative significantly. If the expert wasn't very good with computers after all, then perhaps he wasn't competent in other areas. Without competence, the whole thrust of the novel unravels. Come to think of it, computers weren't handled all that well in Jurassic Park. Perhaps this proof reading thing will have merit in the future as well.
On the positive side, now that the name has been pronounced by an actor, I can, with confidence say that I know how to pronounce Michael Crichton's name. It is pronounced Michael Crichton.
Friday, December 09, 2005
Intelligent Intelligent Design
I've finally gotten through reading an interesting blog on Intelligent Design at Carl Zimmer's The Loom. Carl starts it off by quoting someone name David, and responding. The rest follows.
In it, someone named John A. Davidson explains his Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis (PEH), which says that evolution happened at one time, but has stopped. In particular, PEH predicts that no new information is added to genomes, only subtraction is possible. Presumably, this allows for a creator to have put all the information into the DNA of all species, but no further information will ever become available. This is a testable hypothesis, and is the first I've encountered from the Intelligent Design group.
Unfortunately, John A. Davidson states the evidence that would be required for PEH to be falsified, which just isn't how science works. He suggests that one would have to find a mammal species that is new since historic times. Such a species would be considered new if hybrids between it and a related species produces sterile offspring.
With this criteria, one would not expect John A. Davidson, who says he's had that name since 1928, to survive long enough for the evidence he seeks to become available. He asks for hard work. And, if restricted to working with mammals, it could take a very long time.
I haven't read John A. Davidson's published papers. Still, it seems odd that he presents no evidence for offering this hypothesis. Evolution appears in the fossil record, and is shown to take a long time. One wouldn't expect much speciation in the relatively short span of human history, even from a large pool of species. Since absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, it seems clear that something more convincing is required. After all, since the fossil record indicates continuing evolution for the entire history of life on Earth, it seems odd that it would come to a stop in modern times, just for humans to witness. What, exactly, is the proposed mechanism? Well, that there is a Designer, who designed all life, and has stopped working at it. If true, and there is no evidence that it is, what evidence is there that the Designer has stopped designing?
There was a complaint on the blog on why only mammals are considered, to no response. Mammals typically have long generations. For example, humans require nearly 20 years for a generation. Microbes have been shown to adapt to new hostile environments in just 600 generations. But that would require 12,000 years for humans, which makes it unlikely that speciation would happen in the small window made available. Now, many bacteria divide asexually, which has not been shown to generate new genetic information as quickly. And, you can't call the new bacteria a species, and certainly not with the reproductive test proposed. For asexual bacteria, each individual with a mutation can be thought of as a new species. Scientists don't do that, as it isn't a very useful definition. Also, 600 generations yields small changes, and no one would consider the result as a new species.
So, when sea snakes were proposed as a newly recent species, it was ignored.
Dogs and cats were dismissed, too. Dogs were dismissed as wolves. However, wolves may just be feral dogs. Recent evidence suggests a northern Mongolian wild dog species as the origin of domesticated dogs. Is there any hybridization information?
Yet, a paper on gerbils (later referred to as voles) was proposed, and it looks as if it should be a nail in the coffin for this hypothesis. It looks to be time to admit it, and move on to another hypothesis.
Yet the lid should be closed only by showing that there is indeed new useful information produced for the genome of some organism. This wasn't discussed. At least for microbes, every time a microbe becomes resistant to some new antibiotic, one could argue that new useful information is gained. One must, however be careful that it isn't just old information that was turned off, and is now switched back on. So, the critter should be sequenced before the experiment begins, and when it becomes resistant, it should be sequenced again. We might even learn what allows the resistance, which could be quite valuable. Perhaps this has been done.
As a computer nerd who has worked with very simple genetic algorithms, it is pretty clear to me that new information can be generated by simple mutation. Genetic algorithms are very good at searching for solutions to problems. One only needs a test for goodness of a solution. The more sensitive the test, the more efficient the search. The solutions represent new information in the genome.
Yet life doesn't just use random mutation. The complexities are numerous. For example, genetic information can be moved from one species to another by viruses. Also, since DNA operates at the molecular level, it has access to the molecular machine. It appears to be able to find novel ways to interpret the genetic information available, by altering the interpreter. My computer doesn't do that, because I didn't tell it to.
The complexity of life puts the Evolution debate out of the depth available in the thinking of popular culture. It is desirable that reliance on some authority is poor, so what it takes is an experiment anyone could perform at home with inexpensive equipment, in kit form. Ideally, one could put methane, argon, and some other gunk in a sealed test tube, heat it, cool it, zap it with electricity, etc., and in a few days at most, life would exist, where there was none before. And, this life would be detectable unambiguously. Anyone could do it. And even this would be an incredible stretch for popular culture. Since such an accessible experiment won't be available any time soon, the popular culture is effectively shut out of any such debate. Since it appears that the Intelligent Design debate is squarely pointed at popular culture, and lacks the depth needed for science, that it was never intended to be or become science.
One last point. In the referenced blog, there is some name calling. It starts soon in the blog, but no one took the bait. At post 17, John A. Davidson refers not to Darwinism, but NeoDarwinism as the rival hypothesis. This is quite an insult for someone born in 1928, but probably not for anyone much younger. It refers to Eugenics, with all the racial prejudice and such, and which was used by the Nazis to justify the slaughter of millions in gas chambers. Nice. This was John A. Davidson's second post to this thread, and no one had yet responded to his first. So, it was an unprovoked personal attack. There are actually two attacks here. The second is that he uses the word Darwinism as an ideology. But Darwinism isn't an ideology. Science isn't based on faith, it is based on evidence.
If one edits out the name calling and follows the scientific arguments, there does seem to be real value here. Some of the more subtle Intelligent Design arguments are presented and refuted. One might post such an edit, but one would be in constant fear of misrepresenting someone. For myself, the content is good, but not worth that much effort and risk.
In it, someone named John A. Davidson explains his Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis (PEH), which says that evolution happened at one time, but has stopped. In particular, PEH predicts that no new information is added to genomes, only subtraction is possible. Presumably, this allows for a creator to have put all the information into the DNA of all species, but no further information will ever become available. This is a testable hypothesis, and is the first I've encountered from the Intelligent Design group.
Unfortunately, John A. Davidson states the evidence that would be required for PEH to be falsified, which just isn't how science works. He suggests that one would have to find a mammal species that is new since historic times. Such a species would be considered new if hybrids between it and a related species produces sterile offspring.
With this criteria, one would not expect John A. Davidson, who says he's had that name since 1928, to survive long enough for the evidence he seeks to become available. He asks for hard work. And, if restricted to working with mammals, it could take a very long time.
I haven't read John A. Davidson's published papers. Still, it seems odd that he presents no evidence for offering this hypothesis. Evolution appears in the fossil record, and is shown to take a long time. One wouldn't expect much speciation in the relatively short span of human history, even from a large pool of species. Since absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, it seems clear that something more convincing is required. After all, since the fossil record indicates continuing evolution for the entire history of life on Earth, it seems odd that it would come to a stop in modern times, just for humans to witness. What, exactly, is the proposed mechanism? Well, that there is a Designer, who designed all life, and has stopped working at it. If true, and there is no evidence that it is, what evidence is there that the Designer has stopped designing?
There was a complaint on the blog on why only mammals are considered, to no response. Mammals typically have long generations. For example, humans require nearly 20 years for a generation. Microbes have been shown to adapt to new hostile environments in just 600 generations. But that would require 12,000 years for humans, which makes it unlikely that speciation would happen in the small window made available. Now, many bacteria divide asexually, which has not been shown to generate new genetic information as quickly. And, you can't call the new bacteria a species, and certainly not with the reproductive test proposed. For asexual bacteria, each individual with a mutation can be thought of as a new species. Scientists don't do that, as it isn't a very useful definition. Also, 600 generations yields small changes, and no one would consider the result as a new species.
So, when sea snakes were proposed as a newly recent species, it was ignored.
Dogs and cats were dismissed, too. Dogs were dismissed as wolves. However, wolves may just be feral dogs. Recent evidence suggests a northern Mongolian wild dog species as the origin of domesticated dogs. Is there any hybridization information?
Yet, a paper on gerbils (later referred to as voles) was proposed, and it looks as if it should be a nail in the coffin for this hypothesis. It looks to be time to admit it, and move on to another hypothesis.
Yet the lid should be closed only by showing that there is indeed new useful information produced for the genome of some organism. This wasn't discussed. At least for microbes, every time a microbe becomes resistant to some new antibiotic, one could argue that new useful information is gained. One must, however be careful that it isn't just old information that was turned off, and is now switched back on. So, the critter should be sequenced before the experiment begins, and when it becomes resistant, it should be sequenced again. We might even learn what allows the resistance, which could be quite valuable. Perhaps this has been done.
As a computer nerd who has worked with very simple genetic algorithms, it is pretty clear to me that new information can be generated by simple mutation. Genetic algorithms are very good at searching for solutions to problems. One only needs a test for goodness of a solution. The more sensitive the test, the more efficient the search. The solutions represent new information in the genome.
Yet life doesn't just use random mutation. The complexities are numerous. For example, genetic information can be moved from one species to another by viruses. Also, since DNA operates at the molecular level, it has access to the molecular machine. It appears to be able to find novel ways to interpret the genetic information available, by altering the interpreter. My computer doesn't do that, because I didn't tell it to.
The complexity of life puts the Evolution debate out of the depth available in the thinking of popular culture. It is desirable that reliance on some authority is poor, so what it takes is an experiment anyone could perform at home with inexpensive equipment, in kit form. Ideally, one could put methane, argon, and some other gunk in a sealed test tube, heat it, cool it, zap it with electricity, etc., and in a few days at most, life would exist, where there was none before. And, this life would be detectable unambiguously. Anyone could do it. And even this would be an incredible stretch for popular culture. Since such an accessible experiment won't be available any time soon, the popular culture is effectively shut out of any such debate. Since it appears that the Intelligent Design debate is squarely pointed at popular culture, and lacks the depth needed for science, that it was never intended to be or become science.
One last point. In the referenced blog, there is some name calling. It starts soon in the blog, but no one took the bait. At post 17, John A. Davidson refers not to Darwinism, but NeoDarwinism as the rival hypothesis. This is quite an insult for someone born in 1928, but probably not for anyone much younger. It refers to Eugenics, with all the racial prejudice and such, and which was used by the Nazis to justify the slaughter of millions in gas chambers. Nice. This was John A. Davidson's second post to this thread, and no one had yet responded to his first. So, it was an unprovoked personal attack. There are actually two attacks here. The second is that he uses the word Darwinism as an ideology. But Darwinism isn't an ideology. Science isn't based on faith, it is based on evidence.
If one edits out the name calling and follows the scientific arguments, there does seem to be real value here. Some of the more subtle Intelligent Design arguments are presented and refuted. One might post such an edit, but one would be in constant fear of misrepresenting someone. For myself, the content is good, but not worth that much effort and risk.
Thursday, December 08, 2005
Bumper
With no crisis at home last night, thoughts drifted over dinner on what should be done to consume the evening. There would be nearly three hours to kill. That's long enough for a movie, and it would be well deserved, given the spate of must-do-it-now tasks that have consumed my waking time for the past week or two. Time for a fun job.
My new car (it's new to me) arrived with the front bumper hanging not quite right with hastily applied bailing wire. It was my bailing wire and tools, though someone else performed the task. The car is in the garage already, and this task doesn't require the engine to cool first, so the task can start right away. One thing that makes the task potentially fun is that though it has been on my TO DO list for some time (really, it would have been more comfortable to do this task in August or September than wait until chilly December), the job was never really very high on the priority list. It isn't a safety issue, it's cosmetic - at least, that was the theory.
Now it should be noted that all the really successful car repair tasks have required that some injury is exacted. It's best if blood is drawn. It helps, too, if some muscles or other are in agony for days. That's my experience. Anecdotal evidence, to be sure, but frequently, if there was no injury, then the repair will require more attention soon. So it is that complete success can be reported due to the chunk of flesh gouged out of my left thumb. Oh, happy day.
So it may be perhaps surprising, but this task was begun with some giddy anticipation. This kind of activity is really quite enjoyable, more or less. A fun job indeed.
The first step was to inspect the damage. After a cursory inspection, it was concluded that to do a better job, the bailing wire needs to be cut. This was done with some reluctance. Cutting it means that the car is no longer drivable, and it has been in use as my commuting vehicle for about a week now. However, my previous car still runs, though it requires considerable repair also. One of the things it needs is a cabin heater blower, so there is little heat, and it is December in Michigan, after all. Still, it is available should this task remain unfinished before bedtime. So with as much courage as could be mustered, the wire was cut. The wedding bells are now audible, my marriage to this job is consummated.
The bumpers on this 2000 Saturn SL are really a fairly thin plastic veneer covering the somewhat more substantial impact point. The idea appears to be to use cheap and easily replaceable parts that will absorb impact energy. The main absorbing material is styrofoam. In an real accident, this bumper will need to be replaced (that is, if the car isn't totaled). So the up side is that replacement won't cost that much. The down side is that any little fender bender may require full replacement. It is not a five mile per hour bumper. This may be news. The US law requiring that bumpers be able to survive five mile per hour impacts was passed with much fanfare. However, it was rescinded without much fanfare. As a guess, most people probably think that a mild impact won't cause any damage to their vehicles.
With the wire cut, the right side of the bumper hung mostly to the floor. There were four plastic screws holding the bumper up in the middle of the car, and they were removed in just a few seconds. The rear bumper was recently fixed, which uses the same sort of fasteners, so my experience accelerated this task. With these removed, the whole right side of the bumper was on the floor. This exposed the styrofoam impact material. Though there is evidence of a front impact, it appears that it was minor, and the impact material is intact and fully functional. It is good to know this. Were it compromised, it would have to be replaced. This is a safety issue, after all. The plastic veneer is not, though it may be aerodynamic and aesthetic. This information might not have made it to me if someone else performed the job.
A further inspection of the veneer shows that it there used to be four plastic screws holding it to the vehicle on the underside. Also on the underside are three attachment points with bolts. There were also four plastic screws holding the right side on, and a metal plate with two bolts securing it to the frame. The plate is gone, along with the bolts. They might have been torn from the vehicle. Yet, the front damage was so slight, that it is possible that the plate was removed manually. Most of the screw holes have been torn through, so even if the screws were available, they wouldn't work. There is also a large tear in the plastic of the right wheel well. The only usable connection is the center underside bolt. Everything else will require a jury rigging somehow.
The center bolt was easy to remove and secure. A jack was used to prop up the bumper while the rest of the task proceeded. The emerging strategy was to cut small holes with a drill, and use bailing wire to tie it to whatever is handy. This worked quite well. A couple of attempts had to be retried, as bailing wire becomes somewhat brittle when twisted too much. Several new techniques were explored, with varying degrees of success. The large tear was repaired with four stitches of wire, for example. These stitches in the inside of the wheel well are the only really visible uses of bailing wire. The job mostly looks professional. Most of the repairs appear to be at least as secure as the original fasteners. The bumper was quite snugly attached on the right side. The missing metal plate wasn't replaced, so this was the most worrisome part. All in all, a good job, with a total cost of $0.00.
The total task exceeded the available time by an hour. That just means that bed time was pushed back by that much. This was worth it, as the job was finished, leading to some satisfaction. Besides, it would be available for the morning commute, and the thick frost on the other car would not have to be scraped off. Yet, there still was a lingering negative feeling, which took a few minutes to identify. And my wife is entirely to be blamed for it. On multiple occasions after finishing such a task, she would complain with a litany of other tasks that went undone. It was as if my time was wasted on this task instead of others. Demoralizing doesn't cover this attitude. Even though this behavior was stopped entirely over a year ago, the long term damage is done. It was the gift that keeps on giving. Here's the real damage. Rather than perform this task which gives me real pleasure, and which turns out to be vital to the running of the house, i'm often so depressed, i'd rather do nothing of value so that i'm not wasting my time, not doing some other task. Feh. There are many fun things one could be doing at any given time in life, and you are missing most of them.
My new car (it's new to me) arrived with the front bumper hanging not quite right with hastily applied bailing wire. It was my bailing wire and tools, though someone else performed the task. The car is in the garage already, and this task doesn't require the engine to cool first, so the task can start right away. One thing that makes the task potentially fun is that though it has been on my TO DO list for some time (really, it would have been more comfortable to do this task in August or September than wait until chilly December), the job was never really very high on the priority list. It isn't a safety issue, it's cosmetic - at least, that was the theory.
Now it should be noted that all the really successful car repair tasks have required that some injury is exacted. It's best if blood is drawn. It helps, too, if some muscles or other are in agony for days. That's my experience. Anecdotal evidence, to be sure, but frequently, if there was no injury, then the repair will require more attention soon. So it is that complete success can be reported due to the chunk of flesh gouged out of my left thumb. Oh, happy day.
So it may be perhaps surprising, but this task was begun with some giddy anticipation. This kind of activity is really quite enjoyable, more or less. A fun job indeed.
The first step was to inspect the damage. After a cursory inspection, it was concluded that to do a better job, the bailing wire needs to be cut. This was done with some reluctance. Cutting it means that the car is no longer drivable, and it has been in use as my commuting vehicle for about a week now. However, my previous car still runs, though it requires considerable repair also. One of the things it needs is a cabin heater blower, so there is little heat, and it is December in Michigan, after all. Still, it is available should this task remain unfinished before bedtime. So with as much courage as could be mustered, the wire was cut. The wedding bells are now audible, my marriage to this job is consummated.
The bumpers on this 2000 Saturn SL are really a fairly thin plastic veneer covering the somewhat more substantial impact point. The idea appears to be to use cheap and easily replaceable parts that will absorb impact energy. The main absorbing material is styrofoam. In an real accident, this bumper will need to be replaced (that is, if the car isn't totaled). So the up side is that replacement won't cost that much. The down side is that any little fender bender may require full replacement. It is not a five mile per hour bumper. This may be news. The US law requiring that bumpers be able to survive five mile per hour impacts was passed with much fanfare. However, it was rescinded without much fanfare. As a guess, most people probably think that a mild impact won't cause any damage to their vehicles.
With the wire cut, the right side of the bumper hung mostly to the floor. There were four plastic screws holding the bumper up in the middle of the car, and they were removed in just a few seconds. The rear bumper was recently fixed, which uses the same sort of fasteners, so my experience accelerated this task. With these removed, the whole right side of the bumper was on the floor. This exposed the styrofoam impact material. Though there is evidence of a front impact, it appears that it was minor, and the impact material is intact and fully functional. It is good to know this. Were it compromised, it would have to be replaced. This is a safety issue, after all. The plastic veneer is not, though it may be aerodynamic and aesthetic. This information might not have made it to me if someone else performed the job.
A further inspection of the veneer shows that it there used to be four plastic screws holding it to the vehicle on the underside. Also on the underside are three attachment points with bolts. There were also four plastic screws holding the right side on, and a metal plate with two bolts securing it to the frame. The plate is gone, along with the bolts. They might have been torn from the vehicle. Yet, the front damage was so slight, that it is possible that the plate was removed manually. Most of the screw holes have been torn through, so even if the screws were available, they wouldn't work. There is also a large tear in the plastic of the right wheel well. The only usable connection is the center underside bolt. Everything else will require a jury rigging somehow.
The center bolt was easy to remove and secure. A jack was used to prop up the bumper while the rest of the task proceeded. The emerging strategy was to cut small holes with a drill, and use bailing wire to tie it to whatever is handy. This worked quite well. A couple of attempts had to be retried, as bailing wire becomes somewhat brittle when twisted too much. Several new techniques were explored, with varying degrees of success. The large tear was repaired with four stitches of wire, for example. These stitches in the inside of the wheel well are the only really visible uses of bailing wire. The job mostly looks professional. Most of the repairs appear to be at least as secure as the original fasteners. The bumper was quite snugly attached on the right side. The missing metal plate wasn't replaced, so this was the most worrisome part. All in all, a good job, with a total cost of $0.00.
The total task exceeded the available time by an hour. That just means that bed time was pushed back by that much. This was worth it, as the job was finished, leading to some satisfaction. Besides, it would be available for the morning commute, and the thick frost on the other car would not have to be scraped off. Yet, there still was a lingering negative feeling, which took a few minutes to identify. And my wife is entirely to be blamed for it. On multiple occasions after finishing such a task, she would complain with a litany of other tasks that went undone. It was as if my time was wasted on this task instead of others. Demoralizing doesn't cover this attitude. Even though this behavior was stopped entirely over a year ago, the long term damage is done. It was the gift that keeps on giving. Here's the real damage. Rather than perform this task which gives me real pleasure, and which turns out to be vital to the running of the house, i'm often so depressed, i'd rather do nothing of value so that i'm not wasting my time, not doing some other task. Feh. There are many fun things one could be doing at any given time in life, and you are missing most of them.
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
Chicken and Egg
Which came first, the Chicken, or the egg? When i a little kid, and was asked that question, i answered fairly quickly - the egg. My reasoning then was that chickens are likely a relatively modern species, and that there were likely older species that you wouldn't call chickens that laid eggs.
Of late, a new Archaeopterix fossil, with a well preserved foot, strongly suggests that birds are descendant from dinosaurs, with much less possibility that they predate dinosaurs - perhaps being completely missed in the fossil record. The foot isn't a modern bird style perching foot with a hind toe that points backwards. It looks more like a dinosaur foot, which leaves something for birds to evolve on their own. In any case, if dinosaurs came first, then since they laid eggs, the egg came before all birds, not just chickens. That's what i suspected when i was a little kid. Now i've seen evidence that my hypothesis was correct.
Note - i prefer to say that the evidence suggests rather than i believe, if for no other reason than that if better evidence becomes available, i can say that i wasn't wrong given the evidence available, its just that the new evidence is better, and, no, i haven't changed my mind, i've always tried to use the best evidence. Also, i'd like to think that i'm trying to learn science, rather than just religion. Science isn't a matter of faith. In my opinion, scientists don't believe in Evolution, the evidence suggests (demands) that this theory is correct. While there could be a theory that fits the evidence better, none has been suggested. The nay sayers might say, Evolution is just a theory, however, in science, a theory has lines of reasoning, but also a body of evidence that supports it. A hypothesis is the thing that just has the lines of reasoning. So, the nay sayers are suggesting that Evolution is just a hypothesis, which is silly. Evolution is more like gravity. It doesn't speak, but commands attention.
Of late, a new Archaeopterix fossil, with a well preserved foot, strongly suggests that birds are descendant from dinosaurs, with much less possibility that they predate dinosaurs - perhaps being completely missed in the fossil record. The foot isn't a modern bird style perching foot with a hind toe that points backwards. It looks more like a dinosaur foot, which leaves something for birds to evolve on their own. In any case, if dinosaurs came first, then since they laid eggs, the egg came before all birds, not just chickens. That's what i suspected when i was a little kid. Now i've seen evidence that my hypothesis was correct.
Note - i prefer to say that the evidence suggests rather than i believe, if for no other reason than that if better evidence becomes available, i can say that i wasn't wrong given the evidence available, its just that the new evidence is better, and, no, i haven't changed my mind, i've always tried to use the best evidence. Also, i'd like to think that i'm trying to learn science, rather than just religion. Science isn't a matter of faith. In my opinion, scientists don't believe in Evolution, the evidence suggests (demands) that this theory is correct. While there could be a theory that fits the evidence better, none has been suggested. The nay sayers might say, Evolution is just a theory, however, in science, a theory has lines of reasoning, but also a body of evidence that supports it. A hypothesis is the thing that just has the lines of reasoning. So, the nay sayers are suggesting that Evolution is just a hypothesis, which is silly. Evolution is more like gravity. It doesn't speak, but commands attention.
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
With Malice, toward none
I mentioned that I'd been doing some reading on Intelligent Design over lunch. I said that I hate to refer to these people as ID'ers, because they aren't the designer(s) in question.
The reaction was "nor are they intelligent". Also, "Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity."
My reply was that at least one ID'er was obviously very careful, and managed to use, on average, more than one specious argument (pun intended without apology) per sentence. It's hard to even know where to begin to argue with it. With someone that smart, concluding malice is unavoidable.
To which, the guys said, "Well, then, they're dammed to Hell."
The reaction was "nor are they intelligent". Also, "Never attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity."
My reply was that at least one ID'er was obviously very careful, and managed to use, on average, more than one specious argument (pun intended without apology) per sentence. It's hard to even know where to begin to argue with it. With someone that smart, concluding malice is unavoidable.
To which, the guys said, "Well, then, they're dammed to Hell."
Thursday, December 01, 2005
End User License Agreement
I'd heard this some time ago as a Swedish joke. Its really a Stupid joke, rather than a slam on any nationality. There is no attempt here to make it generic. Generic jokes end up like this:
Ethnic #1 goes to her Rabii...
On with the joke.
Ollie visits Sven, who is busy in the back yard sawing wood with a cross cut saw. Ollie says to Sven, "Sven, that looks like hard work. Why don't you get a chain saw?" So Sven goes to Sears & Robuckson and buys a chain saw. Later Sven is talking to Ollie. "That chain saw is no good. Its even more work than the cross cut saw. I'm going to return it." Ollie is amazed and says, "Sven, you've got to show me this chain saw. They're wonderful. There's no way it won't save you work." So the next day Ollie visits Sven and Sven shows Ollie the unit. Ollie says, "It looks like a good one to me". He picks it up and pulls the chord. The chain saw roars to life. Sven says, "What's that noise?"
When people purchase new stuff, a computer, an iPod, a child's toy, they often come to me with questions on how to get some feature to work. These are people who see me pick up some item and make it do something they've never seen it do. They figure i'm some sort of technology genius, and figure i know everything. By the time they ask questions, the documentation, which has never been opened, is gone - misplaced or even thrown out. Sometimes the item has been partially disassembled, with parts missing. They expect me to fix it. Its really frustrating, as its often something i've never seen before.
When i ask for the documentation i sometimes get puzzled looks. "Nobody reads that stuff". And i reply that i even read the Warranty and License Agreements.
I'm not a lawyer, so maybe i don't get all the nuances out of the License Agreements. Most of them say that you must agree that the seller is absolved of any liability stemming from your use of the product, within the limits established by local law (which may not absolve them of any liability at all). Typically these License Agreements only pertain to software aspects of the product. Software is treated differently from other works of engineering. Why is that?
One reason is that software makers demand it. Software is hideously complicated, and errors are difficult to detect and impossible to avoid. The software that guides the Space Shuttle into space is thought to have around 50 errors. One might expect that if such a thing is known that every effort would be expended to find these bugs and fix them, so that we don't lose a multi billion dollar orbiter and seven astronauts. The fact is that the bug count is an estimate. There is no direct evidence for any of these bugs. And every expense has been spent looking for them - something like $10,000,000,000. Even Microsoft does not have enough money to eradicate every bug from Windows. If Windows had to be bug free in order to go on the market, it wouldn't go on the market. Hence the demand to be exempt from liability.
Why is software so hard to make error free? Well, for one thing, its more complicated than any other engineering task. A 747 has something like 10,000,000 fasteners. But most of these look like each other, with only dozens of different kinds. In contrast, software consisting of a million lines of code would have a dozen routines acting like glue, which would be called many times throughout the rest of the code. Very few sections of the code would look like other sections. So there are tens of thousands of modules, all of which may interact in odd ways with every other module. The 747 is looking pretty simple by comparison.
The great Fred Brooks is one of the most ignored luminaries in the practice of computer science. Very sad, really.
So, how do you protect yourself from buggy software? Easy. Buy simpler devices. The number of bugs appears to grow with the size (complexity) of the code. Simpler is better.
Ethnic #1 goes to her Rabii...
On with the joke.
Ollie visits Sven, who is busy in the back yard sawing wood with a cross cut saw. Ollie says to Sven, "Sven, that looks like hard work. Why don't you get a chain saw?" So Sven goes to Sears & Robuckson and buys a chain saw. Later Sven is talking to Ollie. "That chain saw is no good. Its even more work than the cross cut saw. I'm going to return it." Ollie is amazed and says, "Sven, you've got to show me this chain saw. They're wonderful. There's no way it won't save you work." So the next day Ollie visits Sven and Sven shows Ollie the unit. Ollie says, "It looks like a good one to me". He picks it up and pulls the chord. The chain saw roars to life. Sven says, "What's that noise?"
When people purchase new stuff, a computer, an iPod, a child's toy, they often come to me with questions on how to get some feature to work. These are people who see me pick up some item and make it do something they've never seen it do. They figure i'm some sort of technology genius, and figure i know everything. By the time they ask questions, the documentation, which has never been opened, is gone - misplaced or even thrown out. Sometimes the item has been partially disassembled, with parts missing. They expect me to fix it. Its really frustrating, as its often something i've never seen before.
When i ask for the documentation i sometimes get puzzled looks. "Nobody reads that stuff". And i reply that i even read the Warranty and License Agreements.
I'm not a lawyer, so maybe i don't get all the nuances out of the License Agreements. Most of them say that you must agree that the seller is absolved of any liability stemming from your use of the product, within the limits established by local law (which may not absolve them of any liability at all). Typically these License Agreements only pertain to software aspects of the product. Software is treated differently from other works of engineering. Why is that?
One reason is that software makers demand it. Software is hideously complicated, and errors are difficult to detect and impossible to avoid. The software that guides the Space Shuttle into space is thought to have around 50 errors. One might expect that if such a thing is known that every effort would be expended to find these bugs and fix them, so that we don't lose a multi billion dollar orbiter and seven astronauts. The fact is that the bug count is an estimate. There is no direct evidence for any of these bugs. And every expense has been spent looking for them - something like $10,000,000,000. Even Microsoft does not have enough money to eradicate every bug from Windows. If Windows had to be bug free in order to go on the market, it wouldn't go on the market. Hence the demand to be exempt from liability.
Why is software so hard to make error free? Well, for one thing, its more complicated than any other engineering task. A 747 has something like 10,000,000 fasteners. But most of these look like each other, with only dozens of different kinds. In contrast, software consisting of a million lines of code would have a dozen routines acting like glue, which would be called many times throughout the rest of the code. Very few sections of the code would look like other sections. So there are tens of thousands of modules, all of which may interact in odd ways with every other module. The 747 is looking pretty simple by comparison.
Software entities are more complex for their size than perhaps any other human construct because no two parts are alike. If they are, we make the two similar parts into a subroutine -- open or closed. In this respect, software systems differ profoundly from computers, buildings, or automobiles, where repeated elements abound. - Fred Brooks
The great Fred Brooks is one of the most ignored luminaries in the practice of computer science. Very sad, really.
So, how do you protect yourself from buggy software? Easy. Buy simpler devices. The number of bugs appears to grow with the size (complexity) of the code. Simpler is better.
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Thinking is Fundamental
Fundamentalism hampering global climate change efforts
I'd say that words fail me on this, but i'll plow forward anyway. Even a literal interpretation of the Christian Bible, including Genesis and New Testament references, make it clear that humans are given the stewardship of the Earth. Just as the King of a country can cause significant damage, and therefore has management duties, people clearly have a responsibility. If nothing else, it does not make sense to piss in your own bed. So how resistance to stemming radical climate change can be justified is unfathomable.
I'd say that words fail me on this, but i'll plow forward anyway. Even a literal interpretation of the Christian Bible, including Genesis and New Testament references, make it clear that humans are given the stewardship of the Earth. Just as the King of a country can cause significant damage, and therefore has management duties, people clearly have a responsibility. If nothing else, it does not make sense to piss in your own bed. So how resistance to stemming radical climate change can be justified is unfathomable.
Sunday, November 27, 2005
Keep Your Computer Alive
A club that i belong to uses Excel to keep track of members, who had paid their dues, who hasn't, what bills have been paid, etc. Every year, we elect new officers, including treasurer. The bi-laws state that an individual can only hold an office for two years in a row. This cycles in new blood, and is, in general, a good thing.
Now, the new treasurer suggested a fairly minor change to reduce his work load. While that's a good thing, i suggested that it might be worthwhile for someone (me) to volunteer to write up some web based software that would automate some of the tasks. It should be a step up from Excel, anyway. Also, it might allow those of us in the club that don't use Windows to take on this job in the future. I got the strangest reaction. It was as if Windows, no matter what, was the ONLY software that could do the job.
Now, i get accused of being a Mac bigot, or Linux bigot, or Unix bigot all the time. When i mention that Windows is the only OS in common use that suffers from viruses and worms, the Windows bigots come out of the woodwork in defense. Look, get over it, it was just a fact. I don't run Windows at home, because, unlike work where there is a corporate firewall, a help desk, automated virus scanners with updates, and automated patching two or three times a month, and doing this for myself would take too long. I have a computer so i can do some computing. I run Linux because it is easily the most powerful, and i climbed the steep learning curve over twenty years ago. I had a Mac in 1987, when DOS ran on 286's. I never had any need for Windows at home.
I have gotten really tired of the Windows bigots. Perhaps i should just stop helping them when their machines get trashed. Don't ask me, just read my brother's book Keep Your Computer Alive. It's an easy read with entertaining cartoons, and will help you cope with your Windows system.
Now, the new treasurer suggested a fairly minor change to reduce his work load. While that's a good thing, i suggested that it might be worthwhile for someone (me) to volunteer to write up some web based software that would automate some of the tasks. It should be a step up from Excel, anyway. Also, it might allow those of us in the club that don't use Windows to take on this job in the future. I got the strangest reaction. It was as if Windows, no matter what, was the ONLY software that could do the job.
Now, i get accused of being a Mac bigot, or Linux bigot, or Unix bigot all the time. When i mention that Windows is the only OS in common use that suffers from viruses and worms, the Windows bigots come out of the woodwork in defense. Look, get over it, it was just a fact. I don't run Windows at home, because, unlike work where there is a corporate firewall, a help desk, automated virus scanners with updates, and automated patching two or three times a month, and doing this for myself would take too long. I have a computer so i can do some computing. I run Linux because it is easily the most powerful, and i climbed the steep learning curve over twenty years ago. I had a Mac in 1987, when DOS ran on 286's. I never had any need for Windows at home.
I have gotten really tired of the Windows bigots. Perhaps i should just stop helping them when their machines get trashed. Don't ask me, just read my brother's book Keep Your Computer Alive. It's an easy read with entertaining cartoons, and will help you cope with your Windows system.
Saturday, November 26, 2005
See Saw
The other night as i was going to sleep, i heard a noise, which sounded as if it might be on the roof or in the attic. I opened the blinds on the window and waited a bit. The sounds continued above. Fairly heavy, too heavy for a squirrel, not heavy enough for a person. Probably a raccoon. Soon enough, i saw a raccoon climbing off the roof down the Eastern White Pine tree at the corner of the house. The tree was planted about two feet from the house, and now towered above the roof some dozen feet. Then, another raccoon climbed down after it. Very Cute.
In the morning, i looked briefly at the part of the roof visible from the ground. It appeared that there were a couple shingles loose. I thought that i'd have to climb out on the roof when i got home and do a thorough inspection, and possibly some repair.
While out at work, it started snowing. Great. White Thanksgiving. Where's Global Warming when you need it? Not in Michigan.
Thanksgiving day is a holiday - a day off for me. So, out comes the stepladder and saw. First, the top of the tree is removed. That's enough to stop the raccoons. Then the rest of the tree comes down. I count myself lucky that the tree didn't make my basement leak.
There aren't any power tools here, just a cross cut saw. Days later and my forearms are still so sore that i can barely type.
This year has been tough on the trees in my yard. The Emerald Ash Borers killed my front yard Ash trees. The city cut them down and hauled them off.
This summer, the moth infestation was finally defeated. They've been extirpated from the house.
Its not that i hate animals. Even the Ash Borers, which i never saw. My general rule is that only family and spiders are allowed in the house.
However, the turkey was delicious.
In the morning, i looked briefly at the part of the roof visible from the ground. It appeared that there were a couple shingles loose. I thought that i'd have to climb out on the roof when i got home and do a thorough inspection, and possibly some repair.
While out at work, it started snowing. Great. White Thanksgiving. Where's Global Warming when you need it? Not in Michigan.
Thanksgiving day is a holiday - a day off for me. So, out comes the stepladder and saw. First, the top of the tree is removed. That's enough to stop the raccoons. Then the rest of the tree comes down. I count myself lucky that the tree didn't make my basement leak.
There aren't any power tools here, just a cross cut saw. Days later and my forearms are still so sore that i can barely type.
This year has been tough on the trees in my yard. The Emerald Ash Borers killed my front yard Ash trees. The city cut them down and hauled them off.
This summer, the moth infestation was finally defeated. They've been extirpated from the house.
Its not that i hate animals. Even the Ash Borers, which i never saw. My general rule is that only family and spiders are allowed in the house.
However, the turkey was delicious.
Monday, November 21, 2005
Dictionary
So, i'm teaching my eight year old how to use a dictionary. One of his books has the word gesticulate, so this was an example. One dictionary has to use gestures to help express ones meaning. Pardon me, but isn't gestures a form of the same root word? That's circular. So we looked up gestures, and got movement of the body to express ideas. So, gesticulate could have been movement of the body to express ones meaning. How hard is that?
So, then we looked up desperate, and got rash or violent because of despair. And despair is without hope. So, the entry could have been rash or violent because of hopelessness.
And it wasn't just one dictionary. It is as if all dictionaries are largely copied from each other. The first dictionary was poor because Daniel was pressed for time. He had to get the first edition out get make any money from it, and didn't have time to improve the entries. Later editions kept them because, well, it was good enough for the previous edition.
Feh. The status quo ensures mediocrity at best. I'm having a hard time selling the dictionary idea to my eight year old.
So, then we looked up desperate, and got rash or violent because of despair. And despair is without hope. So, the entry could have been rash or violent because of hopelessness.
And it wasn't just one dictionary. It is as if all dictionaries are largely copied from each other. The first dictionary was poor because Daniel was pressed for time. He had to get the first edition out get make any money from it, and didn't have time to improve the entries. Later editions kept them because, well, it was good enough for the previous edition.
Feh. The status quo ensures mediocrity at best. I'm having a hard time selling the dictionary idea to my eight year old.
Sunday, November 20, 2005
Cold symptom reduction
I'm really over this cold. It ends with this long, drawn out runny nose - post nasal drip. This leads to a persistent cough, which for me can be vigorous enough to cause persistent headaches.
So i went to the drug store to get a cough suppressant - an analgesic. It turns out that all medicines with psuedosendrin hydrochloride are now available by the pharmacist. This has something to do with making illegal drugs, though I don't see how this helps. The procedure is that you examine the cards, and take the one you want to the pharmacist. But all of the analgesics have psuedosendrin hydrochloride these days. Historically, this is the active ingredient in Contac. However, after using it once, it has had no effect on me. I don't know why this is the case, but it is. It no longer dries the sinuses, it doesn't make me drowsy - nothing. I had this idea that if i avoided it for a decade, that it might be of value again. However, though many of the drugs have other active ingredients, the all have this one, so if i want any, i can't avoid psuedosendrin hydrochloride.
I picked up some orange juice, because it was on sale, and went home. I was thinking a little wine might give me some relief, but i didn't have any. So i mixed up a screwdriver - OJ and vodka. I made it fairly weak. To my surprise, it was an excellent cough suppressant. I didn't make so much to make me dizzy, so i was able to get to sleep rapidly. In retrospect, it was one of the best cough suppressants i've had.
Niquil traditionally had a significant amount of alcohol. However, its pretty concentrated, and this detracts from the effect. And, unlike a screwdriver, it tastes terrible. I don't drink vodka that much, but it seems to me that screwdrivers are cheaper, too.
Its great for me, but would i give it to my 8 year old son?
So i went to the drug store to get a cough suppressant - an analgesic. It turns out that all medicines with psuedosendrin hydrochloride are now available by the pharmacist. This has something to do with making illegal drugs, though I don't see how this helps. The procedure is that you examine the cards, and take the one you want to the pharmacist. But all of the analgesics have psuedosendrin hydrochloride these days. Historically, this is the active ingredient in Contac. However, after using it once, it has had no effect on me. I don't know why this is the case, but it is. It no longer dries the sinuses, it doesn't make me drowsy - nothing. I had this idea that if i avoided it for a decade, that it might be of value again. However, though many of the drugs have other active ingredients, the all have this one, so if i want any, i can't avoid psuedosendrin hydrochloride.
I picked up some orange juice, because it was on sale, and went home. I was thinking a little wine might give me some relief, but i didn't have any. So i mixed up a screwdriver - OJ and vodka. I made it fairly weak. To my surprise, it was an excellent cough suppressant. I didn't make so much to make me dizzy, so i was able to get to sleep rapidly. In retrospect, it was one of the best cough suppressants i've had.
Niquil traditionally had a significant amount of alcohol. However, its pretty concentrated, and this detracts from the effect. And, unlike a screwdriver, it tastes terrible. I don't drink vodka that much, but it seems to me that screwdrivers are cheaper, too.
Its great for me, but would i give it to my 8 year old son?
Saturday, November 19, 2005
Missing in action
The Kloves version skips my favorite scene, and lot of other stuff. Bagman and Dobby are gone, as previously mentioned. Also Winky, all the other house elves in the kitchen, S.P.E.W., Percy, Charlie, Bill, Molly, Peevse and all the ghosts (except Moaning Myrtle who does have a part), Mr. Ollivander, the Creevey brothers, Professor Sprout (despite being Cedric's Head of House), Professor Vector, Professor Trelawney, Madam Rosmerta and all of the Blast-ended Skrewts. Sirius is mentioned and speaks, but as for actually being there, not really, but Buckbeak isn't mentioned. Hogsmead was cut too. The twins got plenty of coverage, but no joke shop references. Hermione gets mad at Rita Skeeter, but doesn't get her revenge. The Marauder's Map is not in evidence as well. Nor is there even one mention of Hogwarts, a History.
Honorable un-mentioned is Madam Pomfrey and the hospital wing. Harry doesn't get any of his cuts treated, for example, after the first task. So, when they are in the Gryffindor common room celebrating, he still has all the cuts and such. Part of what makes this movie so scary is that the Tri-Wizard champions could get hurt, and could stay hurt. They didn't mention that there would be any precautions at all. Fleur must have been rescued, however, as she did not finish the second task. I didn't hear what Professor Dumbledore had to say about it for some reason.
The part about Harry's class learning the summoning charm was cut, which means that we didn't get to see Professor Flitwick flying across the classroom. That would have been funny, though there were plenty of humorous parts in the movie to make up for it.
One could go on for pages about what wasn't there. Well, in fact, screen plays are about 120 pages, and the book was 734 pages. So, one might be able to go on for about 500 pages... The book really is better.
Presumably, Kloves has already written The Order of the Phoenix, and they've started filming. Compression won't cover this task. 870 pages down to 120. This book has enormous amounts of non-visuals, which might be cut. Its probably the movie about which i'll know the least before watching it. It could go anywhere. It isn't that clear what is important. For one thing, what is important to the remaining books doesn't have to be important to the remaining movies. And, of course, i've not read book seven, as it isn't out yet. While we owe alot to The Chamber of Secrets, my guess is that book seven will owe alot to The Order of the Phoenix. But which bits?
Honorable un-mentioned is Madam Pomfrey and the hospital wing. Harry doesn't get any of his cuts treated, for example, after the first task. So, when they are in the Gryffindor common room celebrating, he still has all the cuts and such. Part of what makes this movie so scary is that the Tri-Wizard champions could get hurt, and could stay hurt. They didn't mention that there would be any precautions at all. Fleur must have been rescued, however, as she did not finish the second task. I didn't hear what Professor Dumbledore had to say about it for some reason.
The part about Harry's class learning the summoning charm was cut, which means that we didn't get to see Professor Flitwick flying across the classroom. That would have been funny, though there were plenty of humorous parts in the movie to make up for it.
One could go on for pages about what wasn't there. Well, in fact, screen plays are about 120 pages, and the book was 734 pages. So, one might be able to go on for about 500 pages... The book really is better.
Presumably, Kloves has already written The Order of the Phoenix, and they've started filming. Compression won't cover this task. 870 pages down to 120. This book has enormous amounts of non-visuals, which might be cut. Its probably the movie about which i'll know the least before watching it. It could go anywhere. It isn't that clear what is important. For one thing, what is important to the remaining books doesn't have to be important to the remaining movies. And, of course, i've not read book seven, as it isn't out yet. While we owe alot to The Chamber of Secrets, my guess is that book seven will owe alot to The Order of the Phoenix. But which bits?
Friday, November 18, 2005
The Movie
Saw the movie. There were many changes. There have to be changes. There is an enormous amount of compression required. It was nearly startling when a snippet of dialog was from the book. Mr. Bagman was gone altogether. Even Dobby made no appearance. Neville got more lines, though. The dragons were smaller, but the scene with Harry was lengthened. That was probably the only part that was expanded.
Oh, yes. My favorite scene from the book was cut. I expected that. And also, as expected, they could hardly have ruined the movie. However, my local theater made a stab at it. The right side of the screen was out of focus for the entire show. Right. They couldn't protect me from people's cell phones. But I don't want my best views of the show to be on my TV when the DVD comes out. That's not what I paid $8.50 for.
Yes, it was a great movie. Despite having read the book, uhm, four times, there were plenty of surprises.
Oh, yes. My favorite scene from the book was cut. I expected that. And also, as expected, they could hardly have ruined the movie. However, my local theater made a stab at it. The right side of the screen was out of focus for the entire show. Right. They couldn't protect me from people's cell phones. But I don't want my best views of the show to be on my TV when the DVD comes out. That's not what I paid $8.50 for.
Yes, it was a great movie. Despite having read the book, uhm, four times, there were plenty of surprises.
A Sony of My Owny
I used to think that Intel, with its FDIV bug Pentium processor publicity nightmare, was the king of companies for shooting itself in the foot. I now own three original Pentium machines, complete with FDIV bug. Yet, Sony has clearly outdone them. This wasn't a bug. Sony had to go out of their way to inflict this kind of damage.
While Sony has offered to replace the CDs, not all customers will do it. I bought my Pentium machines used. They didn't inform me that they had the FDIV bug. They also didn't have the chips replaced when they used them. Many, many of these CDs will be out in the wild for a long time to come. CDs generally last longer than computer chips.
From their FAQ:
Who cares what the intent was? That's for lawyers to decide. The consumer has to cope with it. The only reason to keep a CD rather than have Sony replace it is so that you have solid evidence for future litigation.
I would go with backing up my data files, and installing Linux. The restored data files will not be able to damage the Linux OS or compromise its security. Some would say that this is draconian. But I look at it as throwing out the festering puss ball with the bathwater.
Who cares? If they were willing to do this once, its not hard to imagine other evil things they may have considered or already enacted.
My discman died. Its unlikely that I will replace it with a unit from Sony. Sony is no longer one of my favorite companies. When Intel had their fiasco, I bought a Cyrix chip powered system. Now that the AMD chips are faster and cheaper than Intel's. its hard to imagine I'll ever buy Intel again.
An overview of the case so far.
Can 500,000 computers all be wrong?
While Sony has offered to replace the CDs, not all customers will do it. I bought my Pentium machines used. They didn't inform me that they had the FDIV bug. They also didn't have the chips replaced when they used them. Many, many of these CDs will be out in the wild for a long time to come. CDs generally last longer than computer chips.
From their FAQ:
3. Some people contend that the software has the features of malware or spyware technology. Was this your intent?
No.
Who cares what the intent was? That's for lawyers to decide. The consumer has to cope with it. The only reason to keep a CD rather than have Sony replace it is so that you have solid evidence for future litigation.
6. If my computer contains the XCP content protection software, how can I protect my system?
I would go with backing up my data files, and installing Linux. The restored data files will not be able to damage the Linux OS or compromise its security. Some would say that this is draconian. But I look at it as throwing out the festering puss ball with the bathwater.
10. What is SONY BMG doing about its future content protection initiatives?
Who cares? If they were willing to do this once, its not hard to imagine other evil things they may have considered or already enacted.
My discman died. Its unlikely that I will replace it with a unit from Sony. Sony is no longer one of my favorite companies. When Intel had their fiasco, I bought a Cyrix chip powered system. Now that the AMD chips are faster and cheaper than Intel's. its hard to imagine I'll ever buy Intel again.
An overview of the case so far.
Can 500,000 computers all be wrong?
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Speaker
The New Testament book, Romans was written by Paul, a saint. Of note is Romans chapter seven, from about verse 15. The King James version has verse 19 as follows: For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. Paul is talking about sin, but hits on a real sticky point of human nature in general. Of course! I'm an adult. If i want to do something, i do it! Right? Wrong. And it doesn't just have to do with sin. Sometimes i feel like watching TV, but i just can't get myself to do it. I have the time, the TV, a good DVD, the energy, but... maybe i'll start reading another book instead. No one and no thing is hurt here. It isn't sin.
And though Paul says he was talking about sin, he was really talking about himself. In every translation that i've seen, his grief comes through. He's grieving for his totally out of control, lost, and thoroughly frustrating existence.
And i grieve for him. He wasn't always exactly right, but when he was right like this, every mistake he ever made could be forgiven. You'll recall murder was part of his life before his conversion. There are hints that there were other things too. And i say, No big deal, Paul, thanks for the inspiration.
I've just finished reading a book called Speaker For The Dead, by Orson Scott Card. If you identify with any of the above, you'll love this book. Unfortunately, you'll have to read Ender's Game first. I found this book to be an insightful, deep, nontrivial book as well. But the two books aren't very similar. Even if you really like one, you may not like the other. My advise is this. If you think you'll like Speaker, then suffer through Ender's Game if you must, but get through it. Then, when you've finished Speaker For The Dead it will feel like a blessing. Speaker For The Dead goes well beyond Romans. One of my many reactions is, who is Card that he has something to add to Romans? One answer is also a question - Who does he have to be? Then, i thought, if Card adheres to the writing school: Write what you know, then all of a sudden, i don't want to know much about Card.
I, of course, liked both books.
And though Paul says he was talking about sin, he was really talking about himself. In every translation that i've seen, his grief comes through. He's grieving for his totally out of control, lost, and thoroughly frustrating existence.
And i grieve for him. He wasn't always exactly right, but when he was right like this, every mistake he ever made could be forgiven. You'll recall murder was part of his life before his conversion. There are hints that there were other things too. And i say, No big deal, Paul, thanks for the inspiration.
I've just finished reading a book called Speaker For The Dead, by Orson Scott Card. If you identify with any of the above, you'll love this book. Unfortunately, you'll have to read Ender's Game first. I found this book to be an insightful, deep, nontrivial book as well. But the two books aren't very similar. Even if you really like one, you may not like the other. My advise is this. If you think you'll like Speaker, then suffer through Ender's Game if you must, but get through it. Then, when you've finished Speaker For The Dead it will feel like a blessing. Speaker For The Dead goes well beyond Romans. One of my many reactions is, who is Card that he has something to add to Romans? One answer is also a question - Who does he have to be? Then, i thought, if Card adheres to the writing school: Write what you know, then all of a sudden, i don't want to know much about Card.
I, of course, liked both books.
Saturday, November 12, 2005
Sick
Day three of this cold. I freely admit that while i did increase my water intake a little in the days just before the symptoms became obvious, it wasn't to the gallon a day megadose that really kicks a cold like this into oblivion. Really, its better than antibiotics. All right, i'm a small sample size, but when i've gone to the doctor to get antibiotics, and when i've just taken care of myself with lots of water, i've gotten better quicker with the water.
And, on the first real day - with the sore throat, i still didn't kick it into high gear. Now i know why. This thing was bound to become a head cold. The sinuses were bound to become clogged, and the pressure was bound to mount. Drinking all that water makes the sinuses go into overtime, dribbling all over. Who wants that?
Well, if i'd thought about it, i would. Getting over it in a couple days rather than letting it drag on for weeks or a month is worth a little discomfort.
The cure for the common cold is as follows.
By the way. I'm not against antibiotics. But unlike water, any particular antibiotic has a dramatically reduced efficacy after even the first use, at least for me. So, they have been of enormous value from time to time, but i'd like to think that there are some i've never used that will be there for me when i need them next. For example, when they removed my gangrenous gall bladder last year, it was likely antibiotics that allowed survival. As a guess, this incident would probably have been death had it happened fifty years ago, penicillin notwithstanding. So, the past fifty years of medical science has done alot for me.
By the way. We hear over and over that its the bugs that become resistant to antibiotics. While this is true, it appears that an individual can do the same. The analgesic Contac was great for me -- once. Now, even decades later, it as no effect. It does not dry me out. It does not make me drowsy. Not even a little. Not even if i take more than it says i should take. Its not true for everyone, and its not true for every medicine, probably for anyone.
The past fifty years has also increased my life expectancy by more than twenty years - possibly thirty. And that's just if one considers heart disease. I eat better and exercise more than i would if i were clueless. And when i'm seventy or so, they can give me bypass surgery, and i'll be OK to 100. This has been a real problem with my genetic family. So, science, which is all about noticing how things work, and then experimenting to see if the guesses are good, is a great thing, and i'm all about it. This is in stark contrast to Intelligent Design, or Scientology, which seem to be about putting your head up your ass.
While i'm not down on religion, it is becoming clear that some religions are better (and worse) than others. Intelligent Design, Scientology, and Fundamentalism in general all suffer from discouraging the faithful from doing any thinking. This is particularly hateful with fundamentalist Christianity, as Christ was all about making people think.
And, on the first real day - with the sore throat, i still didn't kick it into high gear. Now i know why. This thing was bound to become a head cold. The sinuses were bound to become clogged, and the pressure was bound to mount. Drinking all that water makes the sinuses go into overtime, dribbling all over. Who wants that?
Well, if i'd thought about it, i would. Getting over it in a couple days rather than letting it drag on for weeks or a month is worth a little discomfort.
The cure for the common cold is as follows.
- drink a gallon of water a day
- get plenty of sleep
- eat, but avoid sugar
- cover your head and neck for warmth
- dental hygiene - floss, brush, gargle
- if sore throat, gargle with salt, asprin, and/or Chloroseptic
By the way. I'm not against antibiotics. But unlike water, any particular antibiotic has a dramatically reduced efficacy after even the first use, at least for me. So, they have been of enormous value from time to time, but i'd like to think that there are some i've never used that will be there for me when i need them next. For example, when they removed my gangrenous gall bladder last year, it was likely antibiotics that allowed survival. As a guess, this incident would probably have been death had it happened fifty years ago, penicillin notwithstanding. So, the past fifty years of medical science has done alot for me.
By the way. We hear over and over that its the bugs that become resistant to antibiotics. While this is true, it appears that an individual can do the same. The analgesic Contac was great for me -- once. Now, even decades later, it as no effect. It does not dry me out. It does not make me drowsy. Not even a little. Not even if i take more than it says i should take. Its not true for everyone, and its not true for every medicine, probably for anyone.
The past fifty years has also increased my life expectancy by more than twenty years - possibly thirty. And that's just if one considers heart disease. I eat better and exercise more than i would if i were clueless. And when i'm seventy or so, they can give me bypass surgery, and i'll be OK to 100. This has been a real problem with my genetic family. So, science, which is all about noticing how things work, and then experimenting to see if the guesses are good, is a great thing, and i'm all about it. This is in stark contrast to Intelligent Design, or Scientology, which seem to be about putting your head up your ass.
While i'm not down on religion, it is becoming clear that some religions are better (and worse) than others. Intelligent Design, Scientology, and Fundamentalism in general all suffer from discouraging the faithful from doing any thinking. This is particularly hateful with fundamentalist Christianity, as Christ was all about making people think.
Friday, November 11, 2005
The First Task
OK, so The First Task is quite exciting. And, yes, i reread it an extra time or two for good measure, and when i read it to my seven year old, i used a bit of The Hungarian Horntail as a teaser to start things off. His reading has really taken off, now that he's eight, and reading really exciting stories to him is likely part of it. Yeah, he probably stayed up a little later for a few nights when we got to The First Task, but one of the results is that after doing homework (and often before) which is mostly reading, after all, he begs to take a break, so he can read one of his other books. Its very exciting.
A few weeks ago, i let him do pretty much whatever he wanted most of the weekend. He read a 197 page book. While its not a book i'd have wanted to read (i was never into ghost stories), its not one of the really easy books either. No pictures. And he spent five and six hours at a time on it. This is a great achievement for someone with a seven second attention span. Really, he must be in the top hundredth of the top percentile of distractability. Brilliant as he is, this is still three thousand times as much work as he can normally do without constant encouragement. OK, he had constant encouragement - but not from me. The book itself was compelling. That, and the great stories he has heard as written by people like Rowling. She's spent over twenty years on this project, and i'm grateful. There are those that want to know what she'll do after book seven. I'll be ecstatic when she finishes book seven, even though she's hinted all over the place on whats in it. For details, please see her collected works.
They talk about the Harry Potter Phenomenon. Kids just pick up the books and consume them. The last time there was anything remotely like it was probably The Lord of the Rings. I started it in forth grade. The Hobbit didn't take that long, but i lost some momentum in the trilogy proper. When i'd finished it, which might have been during high school, i recognized how good it was, and reread the entire series over a Christmas break. As good as The Lord of the Rings is, it hardly compares to Harry Potter. I've mentioned Ender's Shadow, also certainly among the best books ever written, in my humble opinion. But Harry is accessible to a younger crowd too.
A few weeks ago, i let him do pretty much whatever he wanted most of the weekend. He read a 197 page book. While its not a book i'd have wanted to read (i was never into ghost stories), its not one of the really easy books either. No pictures. And he spent five and six hours at a time on it. This is a great achievement for someone with a seven second attention span. Really, he must be in the top hundredth of the top percentile of distractability. Brilliant as he is, this is still three thousand times as much work as he can normally do without constant encouragement. OK, he had constant encouragement - but not from me. The book itself was compelling. That, and the great stories he has heard as written by people like Rowling. She's spent over twenty years on this project, and i'm grateful. There are those that want to know what she'll do after book seven. I'll be ecstatic when she finishes book seven, even though she's hinted all over the place on whats in it. For details, please see her collected works.
They talk about the Harry Potter Phenomenon. Kids just pick up the books and consume them. The last time there was anything remotely like it was probably The Lord of the Rings. I started it in forth grade. The Hobbit didn't take that long, but i lost some momentum in the trilogy proper. When i'd finished it, which might have been during high school, i recognized how good it was, and reread the entire series over a Christmas break. As good as The Lord of the Rings is, it hardly compares to Harry Potter. I've mentioned Ender's Shadow, also certainly among the best books ever written, in my humble opinion. But Harry is accessible to a younger crowd too.
Thursday, November 10, 2005
Fourth Book
Well, i'm sick in bed, and having started the fourth Harry Potter book, and having not much else to do, i've continued reading it. I should mention that i always identified more with Hermione than with Harry. When i saw the first movie for the first time, this feeling was really quite strong. So strong that it had me worried that something was wrong with me. I mean, i'm alot older than my picture - you can see it in my profile. Its totally inappropriate for someone my age to have a crush on an 11 year old - no matter how cute she is.
Eventually, though, it dawned on me that i'd read the book first. It wasn't the cute actress, after all. It was Rowling's book that was so, uhm, enchanting. I had identified with Hermione because she's smart and wise and hard working, and, did i mention smart? Cute helps, but in the book, she's not supposed to be that cute - in fact, she has a little overbite - buck teeth. Fixed in the fourth book, courtesy of the contemptible Draco Malfoy. Did i mention i'm into irony? And ironic justice is the best.
In the wizarding world, knowledge is power - like time is money in the real world. Well, in my world, that is, computer programming, knowledge is power in exactly the same way. The more you know, the more control you have over computers. I mean, computers are perfect slaves - they'll do whatever you want - exactly, to the letter. But if you don't know how to tell them what to do, they can't do it.
Some of this knowledge is telling computers how to do things fast. Let's say that you want a computer to multiply two nine digit numbers together. Well, multiplication is repeated addition. If you have A times B, then you can add A to itself B times in a loop. Now, if you notice, the computer can add A to itself just about as fast as it can add B to itself. So, if A is bigger than B, adding B to itself gets the answer quicker than adding A. But if the smallest of A and B is 1,000,000,000 (because they're both 1,000,000,000) - then it could take a long time. On my computer, it takes about 1.2 seconds, when written in C. The answer is 1000000000000000000, of course. While 1.2 seconds doesn't seem like much, the amount of time increases with the size of the numbers. So, there are other methods that are much faster. One of these takes less than a thousandth of a second - which is to say, my computer performs it so fast that it can't easily measure how long it takes. While i know how to do it this way, my compiler also knows how to do it. Since i know the compiler is competent, i can save some of my time and effort by letting it do it. Naturally, this is a contrived example. But i like to think about these things. Yesterday, i clustered a 2,000,000 row table on my home computer, and reduced a query by a third - that is, it used to take about twenty minutes, and now it takes about thirteen minutes. My computer performs this every day, so it now saves about seven minutes a day. And, i learned a little doing the exercise.
So while reading the book, i remembered that i'd forgotten how often i want to slap Harry for doing something stupid or unwise. It probably won't be in the movie, but Harry is at one point in bed and thinks "Hagrid had a point... they were all right, really, dragons...". And this is after Harry meets one face to face, up close and personal, and was in a continuous panic for days beforehand. At least he'd learned about Rita, and when she asked him for a word, he wisely said, "Goodbye". It was one word, as asked, and very funny, too. So, Harry isn't totally brainless.
So, my favorite part of The Goblet of Fire isn't the chapter entitled The First Task, but rather The Weighing of the Wands. It starts out with Hermione meeting Harry with a stack of toast, so he doesn't have to go down to breakfast. And she says "Want to go for a walk?". Then she tells him what's wrong with Ron, and hands him parchment and a pen to write to his Godfather. So, she's smart, and wise, and kind, and cute, and did i mention smart? And at the end of the walk, Harry obviously should bow to her and profess his undying love - though he doesn't. A missed opportunity, to be sure, and not the first or last.
Its going to be a fabulous movie. There isn't that much they can do to ruin it. Oh, sure, they'll have to cut things. They may even cut my favorite scene. However, i still have the book, and though i'll soon have read it four times, its likely i'll read it again.
Eventually, though, it dawned on me that i'd read the book first. It wasn't the cute actress, after all. It was Rowling's book that was so, uhm, enchanting. I had identified with Hermione because she's smart and wise and hard working, and, did i mention smart? Cute helps, but in the book, she's not supposed to be that cute - in fact, she has a little overbite - buck teeth. Fixed in the fourth book, courtesy of the contemptible Draco Malfoy. Did i mention i'm into irony? And ironic justice is the best.
In the wizarding world, knowledge is power - like time is money in the real world. Well, in my world, that is, computer programming, knowledge is power in exactly the same way. The more you know, the more control you have over computers. I mean, computers are perfect slaves - they'll do whatever you want - exactly, to the letter. But if you don't know how to tell them what to do, they can't do it.
Some of this knowledge is telling computers how to do things fast. Let's say that you want a computer to multiply two nine digit numbers together. Well, multiplication is repeated addition. If you have A times B, then you can add A to itself B times in a loop. Now, if you notice, the computer can add A to itself just about as fast as it can add B to itself. So, if A is bigger than B, adding B to itself gets the answer quicker than adding A. But if the smallest of A and B is 1,000,000,000 (because they're both 1,000,000,000) - then it could take a long time. On my computer, it takes about 1.2 seconds, when written in C. The answer is 1000000000000000000, of course. While 1.2 seconds doesn't seem like much, the amount of time increases with the size of the numbers. So, there are other methods that are much faster. One of these takes less than a thousandth of a second - which is to say, my computer performs it so fast that it can't easily measure how long it takes. While i know how to do it this way, my compiler also knows how to do it. Since i know the compiler is competent, i can save some of my time and effort by letting it do it. Naturally, this is a contrived example. But i like to think about these things. Yesterday, i clustered a 2,000,000 row table on my home computer, and reduced a query by a third - that is, it used to take about twenty minutes, and now it takes about thirteen minutes. My computer performs this every day, so it now saves about seven minutes a day. And, i learned a little doing the exercise.
So while reading the book, i remembered that i'd forgotten how often i want to slap Harry for doing something stupid or unwise. It probably won't be in the movie, but Harry is at one point in bed and thinks "Hagrid had a point... they were all right, really, dragons...". And this is after Harry meets one face to face, up close and personal, and was in a continuous panic for days beforehand. At least he'd learned about Rita, and when she asked him for a word, he wisely said, "Goodbye". It was one word, as asked, and very funny, too. So, Harry isn't totally brainless.
So, my favorite part of The Goblet of Fire isn't the chapter entitled The First Task, but rather The Weighing of the Wands. It starts out with Hermione meeting Harry with a stack of toast, so he doesn't have to go down to breakfast. And she says "Want to go for a walk?". Then she tells him what's wrong with Ron, and hands him parchment and a pen to write to his Godfather. So, she's smart, and wise, and kind, and cute, and did i mention smart? And at the end of the walk, Harry obviously should bow to her and profess his undying love - though he doesn't. A missed opportunity, to be sure, and not the first or last.
Its going to be a fabulous movie. There isn't that much they can do to ruin it. Oh, sure, they'll have to cut things. They may even cut my favorite scene. However, i still have the book, and though i'll soon have read it four times, its likely i'll read it again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
