Category Archives: General

I have a Tivo Series 2 that I bought when the model was new. For the most part, I have been very satisfied with the Tivo service … but not so much lately. There are now many sources for video that I would like to watch on the TV, and the Tivo box is not useful for those new sources.

Still … my Tivo box is relevantly old, and you might expect new features to be introduced mainly on new boxes. This is not a complete excuse – the Tivo is basically a small computer with a hard disk and a network connection. A software upgrade on the old boxes could do quite a lot, within the hardware capabilities of the box … and I was paying a subscription fee.

My old non-HD TV finally died, and bought a new HDTV. Time to upgrade the DVR. Do I want to buy a new Tivo? The new Tivo seems a bit … limited? If I buy the full-up version with the most cost-effective service, the cost is a bit under $900 (without discounts). Do I trust the Tivo company and brand enough to spend that money of their box? Maybe.

When the Google TV announcement came out, that was enough to defer upgrading the Tivo until I saw Google’s product.

In the time between, the (not so) good folks at Tivo changed my mind.

Near two months back, the Tivo folk starting sending nasty emails, claiming my credit card was about to expire, and … let’s just say I did not appreciate the tone. Somehow they had decided my credit expired, two months before the actual expiration. The updated credit card arrived at the usual time, but by then the Tivo folks had sent a month’s worth of nasty emails. Just after I got the updated card, I went to the Tivo site, and updated my credit card information with the new expiration.

About a week later I got another nasty email from Tivo. I sent a response.

Guessing I might have made a mistake, somehow, I went back to the Tivo site, and updated my credit card information … again. Noticed all the fields on the web form offered auto-complete, so obviously I had been to the site recently. (I reset all the saved information in the web browser a couple months back, as a part of testing some of my software.) After submission, I checked the result carefully to be sure that their web application reported success – and it did.

About a week later, I got an even less pleasant email from Tivo. I sent a response, then I called their support phone number.

Has the Tivo company has gone sour? I have noted a pattern where a business with substantial cash flow is bought out, and the new owners cheapen the product and/or service (presumably with the hope of boosting profits). Customers eventually notice, and start to go elsewhere. In response, the owners further cheapen the product (in hope of maintaining profits on smaller revenue?) … and the business does badly.

Has the Tivo company been bought out, or adopted the same philosophy? That would explain the slow change in technology, and the unpleasant customer service.

As a good customer, I did exactly what I should, when I could. Personally, I would rather not do business with a rude company. On the phone with Tivo support, I did not appreciate the assumption that the mistake was mine. (I suspect most customers surrender on this point.) I want Tivo to fix the problem, and to not be rude to good customers. I refused to update my credit card information over the phone. Instead they could tell me when they fixed their broken web application, and I would (for the third time) update my information there.

Today it seems they turned off my Tivo service. The fault is theirs for losing a good customer. Probably not a loss. For now, I can wait to see what the Google folk (and associates) deliver.

Ran across this when reading a product description on Amazon.

This item is not for sale in Catalina Island

What?!?

Note that Catalina Island is a modest-sized inhabited island off the coast of the most populated part of southern California. About the only industry on the island is catering to tourists. There is nothing special about Catalina. My measure of a clear day is when I can see Catalina when coming down the hill from my house.

Turns out, there are quite a lot of mentions, all in advertisements and product descriptions, and no apparent explanation.

Something smells funny.

As a guess, it looks as though this could all have a common source. All the references I found are roughly similar structure – as though somewhere the odd item were getting inserted into a stream of product information, which was in turn transformed and piped to a variety of destinations.

Someone trying to be clever?

Attempted to comment on Gosling’s post.

Not that you likely have any shortage of suggestions – but if in your shoes I would take a close look at the zoo that includes RepRap, CupcakeCNC, and a host of related devices. Feels very much like the experimentation with small microprocessor-based computers of the late 1970′s. Maker’s Faire is next month (in the SF area), so there will be lots to see first-hand. Whether you are interested in building small fabricators, or in the software (and these devices are very software-intense) … this is very, very interesting stuff. Just as small computers transformed the world over a couple decades, I expect this smart, small-scale, on-demand fabrication will transform manufacture.

The automated response:

Your comment was marked as spam and will not be displayed.
Comment contains blacklisted/ignored words

What exactly in the above comment is likely to be taken as spam, and/or blacklisted??

After a bit of experimentation … it seems Gosling does not like me. Guess that is an achievement of sorts.

Airplanes have always always been an interest, since I was a kid (though theoretic, not actual).

Simple basic facts about aeroplanes: long thin wings tend to more efficient (aerodynamically, not structurally) than wider/thicker/shorter wings. For much the same reason – propellers are more efficient than jets. Ducted fans are less efficient than propellers, but more efficient than pure-jet engines. Turbofan engines are basically ducted fan turboprops. Gains in jet efficiency over than past few decades are in part due to higher bypass turbofans (basically moving from pure jets closer to propellers).

Even propellers are not ideal. Swirling a couple curved sticks of metal through the airstream at high speeds is going to chew up energy without adding to propulsion. Many-bladed turbofans chewing through the airstream have got to be worse. Lots of energy wasted – could there be a more efficient way? Nothing especially obvious … or something better would be in practice.

Ideally we would like a way to throw back the bulk of an airstream without lots of extraneous physical churning. The only certain way we know is to use propellers – like oars in water. Could there be another way?

There is a well-known phenomena in Physics known as “electric wind”, that moves air without physical contact, but is by no measure efficient. Is there any way this could be used?

Is there any way to efficiently push an airstream without physical contact?

The “electric wind” is a stream of charged particles. A magnetic field deflects an charged particle moving through. The deflection exerts a force on the magnet (assuming the force is not sufficient to capture the charge). Movement against that force consumes energy. That energy presumably could accelerate the charged particles.

The mean free path of a charged particle at normal atmospheric pressures is short. Any accelerated ion would give up about half it’s energy at each collision. Short mean free paths mean many collisions. The net result would be (presumably) to accelerate a bulk of the airstream. Maybe.

Magnetic fields deflect charged particles. Strong magnets rotating on opposite directions could deflect and accelerate, then re-deflect and further accelerate charged particles – maybe. Would the result be significant? Would the result be efficient? I have no idea.

This might be an approach only possible if the “controller” is sufficiently smart, and with quite intense magnets (superconducting?). Matching the acceleration and deflection of charged particles through alternating magnetic fields through changing atmospheric conditions may not be possible with simpler control.

Is a “magnetic propeller” is practical possibility?

Just arrived in email.

Billed To:
preston@bannister.us
Preston Bannister
14 Vallecito
Foothill Ranch, CA 92610

Order Number: MGLN2G836G
Receipt Date: 11/19/09
Order Total: $4.99
Billed To: MasterCard …. 1234

Item Number
1

Description
변환기, v1.0, Seller: Wang Xi|299225365 (4+)

Unit Price
$4.99

Write a Review
Report a Problem

Subtotal: $4.99
Tax: $0.00
Order Total: $4.99

Please retain for your records.
Please See Below For Terms And Conditions Pertaining To This Order.

Apple Inc.
You can find the iTunes Store Terms of Sale and Sales Policies by launching your iTunes application and clicking on Terms of Sale or Sales Policies

Answers to frequently asked questions regarding the iTunes Store can be found at http://www.apple.com/support/itunes/store/

I do not have iTunes installed. Both my desktop and laptop are running Ubuntu Linux. Also I cannot read Chinese Korean, so I do not know what was ordered. The “Report a Problem” link asks me to install iTunes.

I am guessing the iTunes store has a (big!) problem.

Update:
No charges have appeared on my credit card (so far).

I eventually found a “support” link for the iTunes site where you fill out a form to send email. Had to lie a bit as you cannot complete the form without indicating the OS on which you are running iTunes. Linux is not offered as a choice. The first email from Apple was not useful (“run iTunes to check on your account”, grrr). I replied with a copy of the receipt, and they did … something.

If no credit card charge appears, my guess is the Apple caught the problem part-way through.

Got an email from another iTunes customer who also got a receipt with the exact same mysterious item. Interesting.

Update (2):
The charge just appeared on my credit card, so it is not clear the exchange with iTunes Support addressed the problem.

Update (3):
Shortly after my last email (where I again described the problem, and added the other guy’s receipt), Apple Support sent an unexpected email refunding the charge to the other guy! Right. Half-successful?

Upgraded my desktop from Ubuntu 9.04 to 9.10. That was a mistake. I could really use an “undo” button right about now (as ZFS users have for large scale file system changes).

The problem is buttons. A change in GTK+ 2.18 broke Eclipse, and anything based on Eclipse.

There are a number of bug reports tracking this problem. On the Eclipse site look at:
Bug 291257 – [Widgets] Buttons functionality problem with GTK+ 2.18

There is a work-around offered on the above ticket (setting the GTK_NATIVE_WINDOWS environment variable). It seems to work for some. For others – myself included – it causes another severe problem (for which there are other bug reports).

#
# A fatal error has been detected by the Java Runtime Environment:
#
#  SIGSEGV (0xb) at pc=0x00007f30eb1e7f7a, pid=4766, tid=139848919398672
#
# JRE version: 6.0_16-b01
# Java VM: Java HotSpot(TM) 64-Bit Server VM (14.2-b01 mixed mode linux-amd64 )
# Problematic frame:
# C  [libpango-1.0.so.0+0x24f7a]  pango_layout_new+0x2a
#

Strictly speaking, this is a bug in GTK. A new version of GTK shipped that was meant to be compatible, but instead broke existing applications (at the very least those based on Eclipse). The application use of GTK might (or might not) be considered in some way improper, but practical considerations should be dominant.

Fixing this in GTK will in one step remove the problem in all currently impacted applications. Fixing this in Eclipse will only help new and newly updated Eclipse installations. Existing Eclipse-based applications will continue to be impacted until (and if) updated by their respective developers.

Other related/duplicate bug reports:
Buttons in Eclipse not working correctly with GTK+ 2.18.1-1
Eclipse loses button events with swt-gtk in karmic
GDK_NATIVE_WINDOWS=1 still required for some dialogs
Breaks Default button in some eclipse dialogs (and rcp apps)

Ran across a copy/article on extracting oxygen from moon rocks. The interesting bit:

New Device Extracts Oxygen from Moon Rocks | Universe Today
Fray anticipates that three reactors, each a meter high, would be enough to generate a ton of oxygen per year on the Moon. Three tons of rock are needed to produce a ton of oxygen, and in tests the team saw almost 100% recovery of oxygen, he says.

The comments got the math badly wrong. Poking around the web I got some rough numbers:

• ~0.25 liters / minute – oxygen consumed for human at rest.
• ~5 liters / minute – oxygen consumed for athlete / heavy exercise.
• ~1.43 grams / liter – oxygen gas at Earth sea level pressure.

Barring any dumb math errors on my part, that translates to….

• ~636,000 liters / year – the ton of oxygen produced by the above-mentioned generator.
• ~131,500 liters / year – oxygen consumed by a person at rest.
• ~4.8 person-at-rest-years of oxygen generated every year.

Assuming that a “real” space habitat would also have the means to recycle oxygen from exhaled CO², that is a lot of oxygen!

What is the real need for that much oxygen? Outside use as rocket fuel (or other manufacturing process), the main need would be to supply air for expanded living space. Assuming ~3 meter ceilings, we need ~3000 liters air for each square meter of living space. So one generator would allow expanding the living space by ~2000 square meters / year.

Not bad. And that is just one reactor (and essentially a prototype, at that).

Only one part of the equation (for habitat supply needs), of course. For practical purpose, would be nice to also have some nitrogen in the air. Not sure where that would come from. Do any moon rocks contain nitrogen? Water is also needed. Barring any fortunate discovery of water on the moon, we could synthesize water given a source of hydrogen. Do any moon rocks contain hydrogen?

Several months back, I wrote up a speculation about the granularity of what we call “reality”. Since then I have tended notice more those instances of a perceptual gap – where my mental record departs from the smoothly deductive model of reality.

(An odd trap, when deductions – of a sort – lead to speculation that perceived reality may not follow a deductive model.)

What do I mean by a “deductive model of reality”?

If I cannot find object, search repeatedly in all the locations I expect, and eventually find the object in plain sight in a place I looked many times before – I assume by deduction that the object was in fact there all along, and I somehow missed it. By somewhat-conscious choice the episode is recorded in my memory as “the object was always there, and I somehow failed to see it”. By choice I reject from recall an instance of “the object appeared where I had looked before” – as impossible.

Along the same lines – if you and I have different memories of an event, I assume that one (or both) of us were mis-remembering, and there was – by deduction – a single true objective reality of the event.

A good practice in science is to occasionally question (and re-verify) your assumptions. What could I expect if my speculation about a “granularity” of reality might be somewhat true? With that question in mind I now more often tend to mark the mismatch between memory and “objective reality”.

An aside – At one point I wondered if the deductive the model of reality was a learned behavior – and that question suddenly invoked a faint memory of adopting a choice of interpretation, as a child. Is the memory real? I do not know.

Again, without any sort of test, there is no reason to treat this speculation as anything more. To be clear, I most firmly believe in the deterministic model, and not the speculation. But I also now have this persistent ghost of a question….