I had a little bicycle accident today. Nothing really bad. I was riding back from a meeting, going to my office. This is normally a 15 minutes ride, from my advisor’s office to mine… had it not been for a hole. It appears to have been left by a road crew at some point. It’s a perfectly rectangular hole, blocking about half the shoulder. It’s conveniently located right in the middle of the nice wide shoulder there, exactly where you’d want to ride. To make it even worse, the hole is not very deep and not very wide, so you don’t tend to see it, so you don’t tend to see it far ahead of time. So I went right over it, had a short discussion with gravity and lost. Three cars were nice enough to stop, wondering if I was ok. This was nice. Nothing incredibly bad happened, only annoying.
More importantly, this made me think I should write this post about whether one should wear a bicycle helmet. I had been, for years, a strong supporter of bicycle helmets. Then I read a well formulated opinion which made me doubt bicycle helmets. I ran numbers on the back on an envelope two days ago which are making me reconsider again. I’m now pretty convinced bicycle helmets are indeed useful for most people riding bicycles. The justification below the fold.
I’m writing this post using my brand new Aopen motherboard. (Nothing to brag about, it’s a quick thing I found on ebay that would support my athlon 64 single core socket 939. If you have no idea what I’m talking about, just know that a very important part of my computer died unexpectedly and I had to replace it.)
I was stunned when the motherboard died. To be honest, there were some signs before the whole thing died. It really started with keyboard problem. Keys would get stuck. Not physically stuck, just virtually stuck. The keyboard wouldn’t stop typing a particular key, even though the key itself would depress. Bizarre. Then I couldn’t access the bootloader using the usb keyboard, but it would still boot. I could access the bootloader when the keyboard was plugged in ps2. Then it wouldn’t boot when plugged in ps2, but would boot in usb, still no bootloader access. Then it wouldn’t boot at all. (Again, if you don’t understand a word I’m saying, just think weird problems that seem keyboard related, but not really. In the end, the computer didn’t work at all.)
I’m trying to make a short story here, so let’s just say that I fiddled with everything, cleaned all the guts of the computer, took everything out, put it back in, still no can do. So after going through swapping all the parts I could and trying to narrow in on the problem, I figured the problem was the motherboard. So, onto ebay, find a motherboard, order, ship, wait…wait…wait…wait… install new motherboard, it works.
Except I still have keyboard problems.When a keyboard is plugged into usb, I can boot, but I usually can’t access the bios nor the bootloader. When plugged into ps2, I usually get a “keyboard error or no keyboard” error or a “keyboard locked, unlock the key” error.
It’s bizarre to say the least. I also spoke to a friend (who also lives in the desert in Los Alamos) and he has very, very, VERY similar problems. We were both speculating that static electricity was the problem, but couldn’t really say why, especially since these were keyboard problems. I think I have an explanation.
It is indeed static electricity (at least, in my theory). Keyboards are basically two large thin sheets of plastic one of top of each other separated by a little space. (There’s actually third sheet of plastic in the middle witha bunch of holes in it.) The top and bottom sheets have a bunch of electrical circuits on top and on the bottom, so that when you press a key, the top and bottom sheets meet across the non conductive middle one, contacts meet, current passes, etc, etc. The point is that you have these really large sheets of plastic suspended in mid-air, almost. It only touches plastic pieces, but most importantly, plastic of a different kind.
Now here in the desert (well the high desert in New Mexico), the air is really dry, especially at this time of year. Right now, we can get to 5 to 15% of relative humidity during the day. That’s really dry. With dry air, you can get charge buildup on the different materials. For example, people here get really annoyed because they keep getting shocked when touching the car door. Literally dozens of times a day. (It really annoys me at least.) Plastics can build up charge quite easil. So there you have those really big sheets of dry air in conditions favorable to building a static electricity charge. So you end up with these three sheets of plastic which, by design, can’t touch each other, in really dry air. So they get charged.
NOW!!! Dust gets attracted to statically charged objects. (That’s actually a good trick to dust off things around the house.) So these three sheets of plastic end up covered in dust. Dust can be conductive. And so you end up with essentially random short circuits in your keyboard.
Now the problem remains to explain why there’s a different behaviour between the ps2 operation and the usb operation. There’s also the question as to why the problems would occur more often at boot time.
I have personally no idea and I welcome idea. Some of my suppositions is that the usb connection is low-powered when compared to the ps2 operation and also there could be a sutained high current at boot level in either or both of those connections. This current might disappear after the OS loads. I don’t know. I’m just throwing ideas out there.
In any case, all this to say that when you have a computer in the desert, you should keep your keyboard clean. Now if only I could find an appartment in the US without carpet everywhere, that might help.
[Update 1 (May 23 2008) : New motherboard and still have intermittent problems at boot. Bought a cheap wireless keyboard and mouse to test my theory. No luck. Well, that was a nice theory while it lasted. In any case, dust in keyboard does not break things even in the desert.]
I’ve heard and read the rant (from pro and semi-pro photographers) that the “rise of the amateurs” will destroy photography. Photographers complaining about how flickr will destroy photography. Mostly, the rant is about stock photographers’ loss of a business model. The argument I’ve heard goes like so:
“Amateurs and enthusiast will take millions of pictures. Every once in a while, they will be lucky and get a good shot, which means that with so many amateurs, there will be still a lot of good enough images made. These amateurs don’t know how much images are worth, so they’re going to sell them for almost nothing. Buyers will get used to buying cheap images and will demand lower prices. Pro stock photographers will be out of a job and so there will be no photography left.” (It’s a generic argument, I can’t seem to find an example of someone actually blogging this, probably because they’ve been drowned in the sound of happy amateurs rejoicing about microstock agencies. Bear with me.)
This scenario may well happen one day. I’m not saying this will undoubtedly happen, only that’s it’s a possibility. The problem with the argument is obviously that it equates pro photographers with photography. If the doomsday scenario unfolds, there will be no professional photographers left, but there will still be plenty of photography being done. This scenario may also well not happen. For one thing, it’s hard to give a particular amateur a particular assignment and get an excellent picture out the end, which brings me to my point. How do you connect amateur artists with other amateur artists in a digital age such as ours? We have amateur musicians and amateur photograpers, both without much ressources. We also probably have more of both because new technologies have made it possible for more people to participate in the online environment. Are the “risen amateurs” doomed to fail, a passing trend, or is there a real way for amateur artists to interact with other amateur artists in order to create more?
Here comes a recent experience of mine.
I discovered the website pixish. It’s still in beta, but the concept is interesting. There are two classes of users (and you can be both). One publishes images, the other one posts assignments. So there I was a few days ago, looking at assignments, when I came across this (fairly typical) assignment for an aspiring musician, Andrew Combs.
Need album artwork for my record that will be recorded this summer. Was going to do it myself, but figured it might be interesting and fun to see what others have to offer.
My music is in the folk/americana genre, if that helps at all. I like photography, illustrations, or mixed media. Some other artists whose album artwork I find great would be Steve Earle (particularly the artwork of Tony Fitzpatrick), Bruce Robison, Sam Baker, Wilco, The Rolling Stones, The Byrds, Elvis Costello, Glen Phillips, The Jayhawks, Josh Ritter, Buddy Miller, Lyle Lovett, and Neko Case. Im sure there are many more…
I also love holga photography.
You can listen to my music @ myspace.com/andrewcombsmusic
Maybe that will help or something.
The winner will receive $50.00 via paypal.
Thanks,
Andrew Combs
I actually went and listened to some of his songs on myspace, some of which I thought were pretty good. And I started getting an idea about an image that could make great cover art. I’ll try and find time to set it up and do it. It may not get picked. I may not even have enough time to do it. We’ll see. But the point is that I found an unlikely source of inspiration and a possible avenue for collaboration. An aspiring musician and an amateur photographer who, at first sight, have nothing in common and no way of meeting. Imagine for a second that I submit something for that assignment and that he accepts it. Not only do I make 50 bucks, but we, amateurs, will have created something more, art which didn’t exist before.
Even if all pros disappears, I don’t think the rise of amateurs will signify the end of art. The way artists interact and collaborate will change for sure. Art will change, but art will survive.
People have lately been talking about “computing in the cloud”. I hate that sentence. Nonetheless, what I’m guessing they’re referring to is “using the internet as an infrastructure design component in computing systems”. I’m not happy with that either. For one, as a scientist, the word “computing” has a rather precise definition which can’t be equated with facebook and flickr. Alas, let us forget my petty scientific objections and look at the idea itself.
“Computing in the cloud” seems to refer to a number of different concepts most of which would appear to “blend the desktop with the internet”. Essentially, when you would be working on your computer (referred to as the desktop), you would really also be working on the internet. Instead of “computing in the cloud”, you may have heard “software as a service”. In this case, you wouldn’t install applications on your desktop. Rather, you would log on to a website, which offers one or more “software”. You never own the software, you never install it, you upload your data to their servers and do your modifications there.
Adobe has talked about “software as a service” for photoshop, for example.
There have also been recent news reports (see here and here for examples) of microsoft coming out with “Windows Live Mesh”. If I understand anything of the press releases, the service would essentially link your desktop to servers accessible over the internet, so that your “desktop” is shared across the web and when you modify a file at work, you also modify it at home. Magically. It appears you could also elect to share parts of your desktop in “social networking” of some sort.
I see two main problems with these ideas, however neat they may be. One is monetization and the other is ownership.
First, on the topic of monetization. I’m not going to say that it will be impossible for to monetize these services. Quite the contrary. I think it will be too easy to monetize these services! It appears to me that the big software companies now want to monetize their software more. Now that most of the people who use a computer know how to get pirated software, I’m guessing we’re either hitting a monetization barrier for the old system or a decrease in monetization possibilities. Essentially, I’m saying that everyone who’s going to buy software already does and the remainder of the market will not pay for your software no matter what. (Or at least, the coming of that day is dreaded.) Hence, you need to find a better way to monetize that segment of the market. What better way then to never actually sell you the software! All we do is sell you the capabilities of the software as an online service. There’s nothing wrong with this approach, were it not for the track record of some of the big guys in the field.
There was a recent announcement from Microsoft (again), saying they will discontinue their “Plays-for-sure” servers on september 1st 2008. The ironically named “plays-for-sure” format was meant to license music to people. You could buy music from microsoft and you had to get a license for every machine you wanted to get it to play on. When the servers go down, you’ll no longer be able to get new licenses and you’ll be stuck playing these files on whatever hardware you have a license for already. (Unless you just go the illegal way and rip the music to another format.)
In the light of the above example (and I’m sure there are others), one can’t help but feeling trapped by the company. Here I am, paying for my online photoshop service and, one day, they decide that stitiching panoramas is too load intensive, so we’ll charge more for it. Hold on. I stitch panoramas all the time! That’s why I pay for the photoshop service in the first place! Or how about microsoft deciding one day that its “live mesh” isn’t profitable enough changes model and just shuts down its servers. I’m planning a 4 month trip around the world soon, do I really want to be in Asia with possibly no access to important data when this happens?
Another problem is that of ownership. It’s quite evident that some segments of the population will never trust other people with their data. I work for a US National Lab and based on the corporate culture here and the type of work we do, I get the distinct feeling we will NEVER be allowed to edit a report on an online version of word. No matter how cool this idea may sound to management and IT. (Think no software updates, ever. Wouldn’t the IT folks be happy about that one!) But aside from government agencies, I can see other people who would feel uneasy about such an arrangement. For example, I make these huge panoramas. (I’ve printed a 48″ long image once and that wasn’t the full resolution, just as large as I could print it.) I’m not making money on these panoramas (although my mom loves them), but I could plan to one day. I don’t really trust online services with my high-resolution originals. I have friends who are actual (paid and professional) photographers. I don’t see them liking such all-encompassing online services so much. To be fair, they have advantages. They could go on assignment in the Sahara with a tiny machine, put the memory stick in there and, voilà, it’s shared with the editor’s desk in Montreal. But does this convenience outweigh the risks? I don’t trust microsoft to never have a glitch and get hacked. Even Google, who so far benefits from still looking largely like the good guy around the block, has seen exploits of the gmail service. There are some things for which I don’t really want to trust a large company like microsoft. Have you ever tried to call microsoft customer service when hotmail failed to work? That’s right. You just said “oh well, it will start again soon.” Now imagine that everything you do on your computer depends on microsoft. I’m not sure I want to go there.
Being a free software advocate and linux fan and user myself, I’m actually not that scared about the possibility of software as a service and “desktop in the cloud” ideas. I have recently convinced a fervent microsoft user and lover friend of mine to use a piece of free software, The Gimp. This friend’s computer was reformatted last week (too many viruses) and I tried to suggest we install linux on a small partition so he can try it out, just to see. You should have seen his reaction. I thought I had sprayed a witch with holy water. You can imagine why it was a big thing to get him to use The Gimp. The Gimp is a free software alternative to Adobe Photoshop. It’s not quite as powerful as Photoshop (currently it only works in 8 bit spaces if you really want to know, feel free to ignore), but for many, many, many people, I’m sure that would suffice. As it turns out, there’s a whole segment of the population who steals software. (Shocking!) When stealing commercial software will not be an option anymore (or not a practical one), a portion of that segment will be convertible to free software alternatives. More users, more testing, more developement, better free software… You get the picture…
Microsoft has recently said they’re thinking of “leasing” as a “service” more parts of windows. Parts you already use. This is probably great news for linux. One of the main barriers to the adoption of linux by normal people and not just the über-geeks is the fact that windows is preinstalled on every…single…pc…you…buy. Every single one of them. People often complain installing linux is hard, people don’t know how to format drives. Guess what? Installing windows is hard too, you just never do it. On top of it, the price of microsoft windows is pretty much always included in the price of the computer. Essentially, it’s perceived as free, when, really, it isn’t completely free. When people start having to pay to convert a jpg to a gif, the cost of windows will become more apparent. Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) alternatives will become more appealing. Essentially, annoyance has a price. The current perceived spending is zero. When the current perceived spending rises, a certain level of annoying will be considered. Annoyances such as “learning the difference between the odt and doc formats”, “learning how to install packages in linux rather than running executables in windows”, etc.
So I dream of the day (there’s my link to my title) the common man will consider foss software as an alternative. To be honest, I don’t think all software will eventually be free. Mass consumption software, I could see. Stuff like The Gimp and Firefox. Specialty software that only a small portion of the society uses may well be software you have to buy for a long, long time. I also dream of the day people realize that and start supporting linux when they sell software.
I’ve just seen this (new?) ad for the discovery channel, and I think it rocks!
People don’t really watch advertising anymore. With all the (illegal) downloads, the Tivos and DVRs, there’s no reason for people to watch advertisement. In light of this, I’ve often said that businesses should start to make art-advertisement (maybe I should call it artvertisement). Adverts I want to watch. Other good examples (if you ask me) are the Cog Ad by Honda, the Sony Bravia “Splashy colours” series of ads and others.
I would add this particular ad to that list as well.
It’s no secret that I love the photography magazine “Lenswork“. The only thing wrong with this publication is that there would never be enough issues in a year.
I received a one year subscription as a christmas gift this year and this second issue and was pleasantly surprised when I read the editorial. The staff of Lenswork decided to pull the magazine from the shelfs. It used to be that there were three ways to buy Lenswork. You could go to a store and find it on the shelf and buy it there (at 13$ and issue). You could go on their website and order a single issue that they would mail to you (at 13$ an issue). Finally, you could subscribe to the magazine and receive it every two months (at an equivalent of about 6.50$ an issue).
This issue’s editorial explains how most magazines only sell about 30% of the issues that go on the shelves and most of the printed copies end up being destroyed. Not very green. As they correctly point out:
That means that 70% of the trees that are harvested, 70% of the paper that is produced, 70% of the ink that is consumed, 70% of the binding, labor, fuel for transportation to and from the printer — 70% of all these resources are wasted, and for a silly reason. As you know, magazines are chock-full of advertising and the rates the publishers charge their advertisers is based on distribution numbers. Therefore, magazines are highly motivated to distribute as many copies as they can. Whether or not they sell is of secondary concern. [Emphasis in original text.]
Hence, in an effort to minimize the environmental impact of the publication, lenswork has decided to stop shipping copies to store. You can now pre-order, before an issue comes out, on their website or subscribe and get it sent to you every two months.
As is also described in the editorial, this is the second move Lenswork makes that goes against conventional business practices. Indeed, there is no outside advertisement in Lenswork. That is, they advertise (discretely) their workshops, but nobody else advertises. Not Pentax, not Canon, not Nikon, not Manfrotto. Lenswork is essentially 100% content. So every time you buy a copy of lenswork, you’re essentially buying a small photography book, with the quality that one would expect.
Needless to say, all of my photography friends can expect copies of Lenswork in the mail whenever I have a reason to send them a gift!
I’ve been reading the new music strategies blog by Andrew Dubber and have been enjoying my read lately. The blog is about the world of online music and the interaction of musical artists, the internet and the fans, to a certain point. I’ve been finding a lot of parallels between Dubber’s world of online music and what I’m trying to express here about scientific communication.
Dubber has gone through the exercise of describing what his conception of online music is. To achieve that goal, he broke it down into pieces. A first post looks at what ‘music’ means. A second post looks at what ‘online’ is and a final post looks at what it means to talk about ‘online music’.
What I found most interesting was about the third post, describing what online music is. The analogy Dubber uses over and over again is to think about the internet as one would think about electricity. It’s a service which allows you to plug-in all the appliances you need and use. It’s standard, so you can build your own appliances to suit your specific needs. Starting from there, it’s easy to understand that the internet is more than “internet explorer, msn and facebook”. (I guess this would have been myspace a year ago, but hey, times change.) The internet is the backbone of the new media applications we use and several unknown applications are just waiting to be created. One of Dubber’s suggestions to artists looking to make use of “the internet” or “new media” is to stop asking “What are the available solutions and how can I use them?” but rather to ask “What are my needs and can I meet them by building a solution that uses the internet as a communication medium?” It makes for a slightly longer question, but a oh so richer set of possibilities.
I think we need to start an analogous process for how we disseminate science. The answer we’ve given to the equation “science papers + the internet = ?” has for too long been, well, “science papers on the internet.”
In computer terms, we’ve updated part of the front end, how we read and get the papers, but we haven’t changed the back end, how we write and publish scientific papers. I think it’s time to start rethinking the vessel, to start to question the packaging, not of scientific papers, but of scientific information.
I’m not saying the project I’m working on will be a revolution from the start, but I do think it should allows us to replicate online something that’s close to what we do now (write, submit, review, rebut, publish) while opening up the possibilities to those who want to explore them. Ideally, different “publication models” will be able to co-exist so that we can simply see what the differences are, what the implications of the new models are and decide.
Recent Comments