I think I may have mentioned somewhere that I put on science fiction conventions. If I haven't mentioned that, well, now you know. I work on the local Houston one, ApolloCon, and sometimes do some other things. This last weekend, was the most recent SMOFCon. Now, a SMOF is a Secret Master Of Fandom, and a SMOFCon is a convention where people who run conventions get together to talk about it with each other.
One thing I did not expect was the unofficial activities. I'm not talking about Saturday night's "probability and statistics seminar". Rather, I'm referring to the way SMOFCon was used to troll for volunteers. It makes sense, after all, because most of the people at SMOFCon are either working on a WorldCon or are experienced at working on a WorldCon and those who are in the former group are always looking for those in the latter group to come join them in whichever one they're working on now. However, I hadn't considered it in just that way.
This year's theme (SMOFCon apparently always has a theme associated with it) was Time Management and people were talking about (well, were supposed to be talking about--it didn't always happen that way) time management. Tthe panels I attended were interesting and intruiging. The problems associated with getting things done with the hard deadlines that cons are always going to have are a lot like those in the software business. Cons are often worse because the people are volunteers and they're expected to have lives that occasionally take priority and so don't always get things done when they're supposed to.
Since it was my first time there and I had very few things to say about time management that weren't being said by the panelists, and because I didn't want to occupy anyone else's time with my minutiae, I sat and listened and didn't say anything inside the panels. Just now, I figured that I have a blog so I can say anything I want and it won't interrupt anybody, so I'm doing it.
So here goes: I have often said that, for a software project, the only meaningful percentage of completion is 100, and even that might not be meaningful. What I mean by that is estimates of how far along the thing is are useless (not just practically or usually, but completely and totally unusable crap) until the very end and sometimes people will say something is finished, but it isn't really. So, you can't trust anything that isn't claimed to be done yet and you have to somehow independently verify the completion of stuff.
The problem, of course, is that a two year task has a single point of completion, and so there's only a single place to check for completion. If the end of that two-year task is two weeks before the con, then you don't want to find out then that the person who was supposed to be doing that task didn't actually do any of it. Although the proper area for this discussion is more people management than time management, the same solution was offered multiple times. Although none of the people talking about it used the term, that solution is "inch pebbles", as in milestones but smaller and more often.
The idea is to break tasks down into small chunks that can be verified and, from time to time, verify that the tasks are progressing satisfactorily. It is important that the chunks be small and that they be truly independently verifiable. Fortunately, since most tasks associated with working on a con are tasks that involve communications among departments, the independent verification is kind of built in. With software projects, one schedules demonstrations to the same end.
I like studying how other people do their jobs, and one of the reasons that I like doing that is because I can often apply lessons learned from other people to do my own job better. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that this can flow in the other direction, too.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Cheap Microwave Gear?
In my last blog post, I mentioned my conversation with Andy W5ACM at a Houston QRP Society meeting where he challenged me to make contacts through OSCAR-51 before criticizing it. That conversation has borne more fruit by sparking another idea, and I thought I'd write it down before I went on to
work on other things.
That conversation, now nearly three months past, was a general condemnation of what I saw as the direction of AMSAT in the late 1980's and early 1990's. Back then, the thrust seemed, to me, to be toward satellites with high (40,000km+) apogees and S-Band (2400 MHz) equipment. Back then, I saw that as suicidal because S-Band transceivers were not available to the radio amateur at any price and one would pay several times the cost of a VHF transceiver for an S-band transverter.
Since that time, some radios have had support for L-Band (1300 MHz) as an option, but I still know of no options for S-Band except upconverters and downconverters which allow the use of a VHF or UHF radio on the S-Band.
Anyway, since I was trying to make contacts through satellites, I thought it would be a good idea to subscribe to AMSAT's "amsat-bb" mailing list. The amount of noise in that list's signal is not bad for a general discussion mailing list, and it had an announcement a while back that I found interesting.
You see, it turns out that a guy named Paul Wade, W1GHZ has designed some transverters, and announcement was made on amsat-bb for a group putting together a group buy of parts to kit out transverters based on his design. I briefly considered the ordering some of the kits which, sadly, I decided I couldn't afford right now, but the important thing to understand about these kits is that you can build an L-Band or S-Band transverter based upon them for around $100 each, plus whatever you consider a couple of hours of your time to be worth, and for a hobby activity I consider my time to be worth a negative amount.
Another reason that I decided to pass on one of these kits is because of how they work and what, precisely, they do. You see, they are cheap because they use inexpensive non-microwave components and printed circuit boards and deal with the losses that those choices imply by inserting cheap and readily-available MMIC (Monolithic Microwave Integrated Circuit) amplifiers. Local-oscillators suitable for use in microwave transverters have proven to be a problem in the past, but if you use a frequency that is a multiple of a frequency that is commonly used in desktop computerers, that's not a problem any more.
What is a problem is the fact that the frequencies of the oscillators and such were chosen to translate the output of a 2-meter (144-148 MHz) transmitter into the small signal part of the L-Band and S-Band and, well, I'm interested in signals in the satellite part, not the small signal part. To use the L-Band converter to work AO-51, I'd need to drive it with an FM transmitter on 116.7 MHz. Of course, I don't have a transmitter that emits anything on 116.7 MHz, let alone FM. (It's in the aircraft band, and airplane radios are AM.)
So, what to do? I could modify my IC-706MkIIG such that it isn't restricted to just transmitting within the ham bands, but I'm not really that enthusiastic about opening up my main radio and taking a soldering iron to its innards. I could also find a different oscillator frequency that would just happen to be cheap, common, and which had a harmonic that feel into the range of about 1120 to 1125 MHz, but I gave that up after about an hour. Besides, it occurred to me, the venerable Icom wasn't necessarily the appropriate equipment to drive a transverter. Transverters don't need a lot of drive and typically can't deal with very much driver, and so I'd have to do something to ensure that I didn't accidentally blow up whatever transverter I got.
I then observed that this wasn't a problem on receive because lots of radios have general-coverage receivers so it doesn't matter if a downconverter puts the signals I'm interested in at some frequency I wasn't allowed to transmit on. What I needed, I thought, was a special purpose exciter that could generate FM signals (or, really, any mode) on any frequency from 100 MHz to 150 MHz but which wouldn't generate too much power for the upconverter to handle. I thought that would be an appropriate companion device for those really cool transverters.
With that in mind, I set out to see if anyone has done this already, and I couldn't find where anyone had. However, what I did find was that all the hard parts are done. A search for "exciter transverter" led me to a 1993 QST article by Rick Campbell KK7B "A Multimode Phasing Exciter for 1 to 500 MHz". To be honest, I don't think that it's really an exciter. I think that it's really just a modulator that needs a carrier signal (two of them, 90 degrees out of phase, to be specific) to modulate.
So, where to get the carrier signal? It would be best if the frequency were synthesized and what I know about PLL-based frequency synthesizers suggests that they really aren't all that easy to work with. Then, I remembered hearing about a technology called DDS, for "Direct Digital Synthesis", which is a radically different technology for synthesizing a signal than using a PLL, but had the limitation of requiring that the signal be lower in frequency than a reference, and so was limited to relatively low frequencies.
When I searched for "direct digital synthesis arrl" (because "direct digital synthesis" isn't specific enough and the other article was found at arrl.org) the first link was to an article in the current (or next--it isn't clear) issue of QEX magazine about a device based upon a thing called the "NimbleSig III" DDS synthesizer, designed by Thomas Alldread VA7TA.
So, I searched for "NimbleSig III" and found an amazing device that can generate two signals each with a specified independent frequency and phase shift at anywhere from 100 kHz to 200 MHz. Um, wow. This is just what the doctor ordered and why the preacher danced. Combined with KK7B's device, I can use it to generate AM, FM, SSB, CW and anything else that can be derived from those over the entire desired 100 MHz to 150 MHz frequency range. Of course, these things aren't available assembled, or as kits, but as bare printed circuit boards, and they use all surface-mount parts. I've never done surface mount, but this is a powerful inducement for me to try.
The thing is, although I haven't tried to price the parts just yet, I can probably build each one of these devices for around $100. So, I could build an S-Band or L-Band transmitter for less than $300 and get the downconverter I'd need, so I can receive, too, for free. I wonder if anybody's done this?
work on other things.
That conversation, now nearly three months past, was a general condemnation of what I saw as the direction of AMSAT in the late 1980's and early 1990's. Back then, the thrust seemed, to me, to be toward satellites with high (40,000km+) apogees and S-Band (2400 MHz) equipment. Back then, I saw that as suicidal because S-Band transceivers were not available to the radio amateur at any price and one would pay several times the cost of a VHF transceiver for an S-band transverter.
Since that time, some radios have had support for L-Band (1300 MHz) as an option, but I still know of no options for S-Band except upconverters and downconverters which allow the use of a VHF or UHF radio on the S-Band.
Anyway, since I was trying to make contacts through satellites, I thought it would be a good idea to subscribe to AMSAT's "amsat-bb" mailing list. The amount of noise in that list's signal is not bad for a general discussion mailing list, and it had an announcement a while back that I found interesting.
You see, it turns out that a guy named Paul Wade, W1GHZ has designed some transverters, and announcement was made on amsat-bb for a group putting together a group buy of parts to kit out transverters based on his design. I briefly considered the ordering some of the kits which, sadly, I decided I couldn't afford right now, but the important thing to understand about these kits is that you can build an L-Band or S-Band transverter based upon them for around $100 each, plus whatever you consider a couple of hours of your time to be worth, and for a hobby activity I consider my time to be worth a negative amount.
Another reason that I decided to pass on one of these kits is because of how they work and what, precisely, they do. You see, they are cheap because they use inexpensive non-microwave components and printed circuit boards and deal with the losses that those choices imply by inserting cheap and readily-available MMIC (Monolithic Microwave Integrated Circuit) amplifiers. Local-oscillators suitable for use in microwave transverters have proven to be a problem in the past, but if you use a frequency that is a multiple of a frequency that is commonly used in desktop computerers, that's not a problem any more.
What is a problem is the fact that the frequencies of the oscillators and such were chosen to translate the output of a 2-meter (144-148 MHz) transmitter into the small signal part of the L-Band and S-Band and, well, I'm interested in signals in the satellite part, not the small signal part. To use the L-Band converter to work AO-51, I'd need to drive it with an FM transmitter on 116.7 MHz. Of course, I don't have a transmitter that emits anything on 116.7 MHz, let alone FM. (It's in the aircraft band, and airplane radios are AM.)
So, what to do? I could modify my IC-706MkIIG such that it isn't restricted to just transmitting within the ham bands, but I'm not really that enthusiastic about opening up my main radio and taking a soldering iron to its innards. I could also find a different oscillator frequency that would just happen to be cheap, common, and which had a harmonic that feel into the range of about 1120 to 1125 MHz, but I gave that up after about an hour. Besides, it occurred to me, the venerable Icom wasn't necessarily the appropriate equipment to drive a transverter. Transverters don't need a lot of drive and typically can't deal with very much driver, and so I'd have to do something to ensure that I didn't accidentally blow up whatever transverter I got.
I then observed that this wasn't a problem on receive because lots of radios have general-coverage receivers so it doesn't matter if a downconverter puts the signals I'm interested in at some frequency I wasn't allowed to transmit on. What I needed, I thought, was a special purpose exciter that could generate FM signals (or, really, any mode) on any frequency from 100 MHz to 150 MHz but which wouldn't generate too much power for the upconverter to handle. I thought that would be an appropriate companion device for those really cool transverters.
With that in mind, I set out to see if anyone has done this already, and I couldn't find where anyone had. However, what I did find was that all the hard parts are done. A search for "exciter transverter" led me to a 1993 QST article by Rick Campbell KK7B "A Multimode Phasing Exciter for 1 to 500 MHz". To be honest, I don't think that it's really an exciter. I think that it's really just a modulator that needs a carrier signal (two of them, 90 degrees out of phase, to be specific) to modulate.
So, where to get the carrier signal? It would be best if the frequency were synthesized and what I know about PLL-based frequency synthesizers suggests that they really aren't all that easy to work with. Then, I remembered hearing about a technology called DDS, for "Direct Digital Synthesis", which is a radically different technology for synthesizing a signal than using a PLL, but had the limitation of requiring that the signal be lower in frequency than a reference, and so was limited to relatively low frequencies.
When I searched for "direct digital synthesis arrl" (because "direct digital synthesis" isn't specific enough and the other article was found at arrl.org) the first link was to an article in the current (or next--it isn't clear) issue of QEX magazine about a device based upon a thing called the "NimbleSig III" DDS synthesizer, designed by Thomas Alldread VA7TA.
So, I searched for "NimbleSig III" and found an amazing device that can generate two signals each with a specified independent frequency and phase shift at anywhere from 100 kHz to 200 MHz. Um, wow. This is just what the doctor ordered and why the preacher danced. Combined with KK7B's device, I can use it to generate AM, FM, SSB, CW and anything else that can be derived from those over the entire desired 100 MHz to 150 MHz frequency range. Of course, these things aren't available assembled, or as kits, but as bare printed circuit boards, and they use all surface-mount parts. I've never done surface mount, but this is a powerful inducement for me to try.
The thing is, although I haven't tried to price the parts just yet, I can probably build each one of these devices for around $100. So, I could build an S-Band or L-Band transmitter for less than $300 and get the downconverter I'd need, so I can receive, too, for free. I wonder if anybody's done this?
Thursday, September 17, 2009
AO-51 Success!
This evening, I was able, using the AO-51 satellite, to successfully communicate with KG6NUB who is near the San Francisco Bay area of California. Hooray! I don't know what I'm going to do with myself now that I've achieved the goal of making a satellite contact.
Use the satellite to work some more stations, I guess. Maybe use different satellites. I've been working toward making satellite contacts with my own station for almost 30 years, and it has finally worked.
Tonight's success was made possible by the fact that sometimes AO-51 is set up for "QRP" (low-power for non-ham types) operation. In QRP mode, it does not require that I set a PL tone, so I can use my old TR-9000 as the transmitter, which puts out 10 Watts, the maximum allowed, but doesn't have PL tone capability. However, it does mean that I can't use an amplifier or an antenna that isn't omnidirectional. In fact, here is a picture of my transmitting antenna:
It's just a dipole, made of some leftover 12-gauge house wiring, that's hung from the ceiling.
Here's my receiving antenna. Actually, there are three antennas in this photo.
The antenna on the right is a "Texas Potato Masher" which I built wrong, so it doesn't really work. Over the next little while, I'll be figuring out how to fix it. On the left are two "Arrow" antennas built on the same spar, a piece of 3/4 inch square dowel. Perpendicular to the plane of the photo is the 2-meter antenna, which I can't use when using AO-51's QRP mode, and the 70-cm antenna is at right angles to it so you can just barely see it. The 70-cm Arrow is the receiving antenna that worked well enought. I can't seem to work the satellite when it is west of me, but north west to north seems to work okay. My guess is that it's due to the trees to the south and southwest.
All three antennas are mounted on an altazimuth mount I build based on a similar mount described on the AMSAT site. The main difference is that I built mine to be all PVC since I didn't feel like paying for a metal tripod.
The antennas and mount and a duplexer, a piece not shown, are the culmination of several weeks of effort, and it all worked. Like I said, I don't know what I'm going to do with myself, now.
Use the satellite to work some more stations, I guess. Maybe use different satellites. I've been working toward making satellite contacts with my own station for almost 30 years, and it has finally worked.
Tonight's success was made possible by the fact that sometimes AO-51 is set up for "QRP" (low-power for non-ham types) operation. In QRP mode, it does not require that I set a PL tone, so I can use my old TR-9000 as the transmitter, which puts out 10 Watts, the maximum allowed, but doesn't have PL tone capability. However, it does mean that I can't use an amplifier or an antenna that isn't omnidirectional. In fact, here is a picture of my transmitting antenna:
It's just a dipole, made of some leftover 12-gauge house wiring, that's hung from the ceiling.Here's my receiving antenna. Actually, there are three antennas in this photo.
The antenna on the right is a "Texas Potato Masher" which I built wrong, so it doesn't really work. Over the next little while, I'll be figuring out how to fix it. On the left are two "Arrow" antennas built on the same spar, a piece of 3/4 inch square dowel. Perpendicular to the plane of the photo is the 2-meter antenna, which I can't use when using AO-51's QRP mode, and the 70-cm antenna is at right angles to it so you can just barely see it. The 70-cm Arrow is the receiving antenna that worked well enought. I can't seem to work the satellite when it is west of me, but north west to north seems to work okay. My guess is that it's due to the trees to the south and southwest.All three antennas are mounted on an altazimuth mount I build based on a similar mount described on the AMSAT site. The main difference is that I built mine to be all PVC since I didn't feel like paying for a metal tripod.
The antennas and mount and a duplexer, a piece not shown, are the culmination of several weeks of effort, and it all worked. Like I said, I don't know what I'm going to do with myself, now.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
I have heard the satellite, and it's AO-51
I am a radio amateur. My call sign is KA8KPN, and I've been licensed for almost 30 years. Lately, I've been attending QRP meetings. Now, QRP is an abbreviation that means "low power radio" and I got to the meetings because the guys there are enthusiastic about radio. I'm not particularly interested in operating at reduced power, but I like talking to people who do things, and these guys do lots of things.
Anyway, I opened my big mouth and started spouting off about what's wrong with ham radio satellites. Now, this being Houston, there are lots of guys around here who work for NASA and who are big into space and the ham radio space program is called AMSAT, short for AMateur SATellite. It would be expected that at least a few of the hams at a ham radio meeting inHouston would be big in AMSAT, and AMSAT basically sets the direction for ham radio satellites for hams all over the world.
So, naturally, my assertions did not go unchallenged, and one person in particular objected to what I said. Andy, I'll call him, (mostly because that's his name,) suggested that before I criticized what's available I should try to make use of it. Now, that there is what we in the business call "good advice" and although I think most of his objections had more to do with my lack of skill in explaining what I thought than they did in my thoughts being dim, I was fully prepared to follow his advice, and he said that I should try to operate a satellite called AO-51, otherwise known as "echo", before I started dissing the FM satellites as requiring no skill.
My first action on agreeing to this plan of action was to attempt to assemble a station from items I had available. My workhorse radio is an Icom IC-706MkIIg, which does everything that I need, radio-wise, even for satellites. These satellites use VHF and UHF frequencies, and I have a dual-band UHF and VHF antenna, although it is a (semi-traditional) mag mount car antenna on top of a filing cabinet. Anyway, I set it up and listened for a pass and was disappointed.
Now, when an experienced ham such as myself fails to achieve communications over microwaves, he usually points the finger first at the antenna, and so that is precisely what I did. It makes sense, for a mobile antenna is not usually well suited for the satellite operations. However, better antennas tend to be expensive, or a lot of work, or both. I thought a simple homemade dipole might be enough and I built one for the 435 MHz downlink using some 14-gauge house wiring I happened to have lying around and a dowel rod I bought at the local big-box home center. Over the weekend, I was encouraged to hear FO-29 (a Japanese Satellite, that uses similar frequencies) using this antenna, and this morning I heard several QSO's (or "conversations") on AO-51.
Now that I can receive, I need a transmitting antenna. It's complicated by the fact that I only have one radio that can be used for transmitting to AO-51 and that is the IC-706. If I could use a different radio, I could easily use a separate antenna, but I can't. I'm looking to not spend any more money until I have achieved success, so I'm looking at using some more wire on the same dowel rod and, well, we'll see. If it works, then maybe I'll build a short Yagi beam antenna to make the signal strong. If it doesn't work, well, then I don't know what I'll do.
More, as it happens.
Anyway, I opened my big mouth and started spouting off about what's wrong with ham radio satellites. Now, this being Houston, there are lots of guys around here who work for NASA and who are big into space and the ham radio space program is called AMSAT, short for AMateur SATellite. It would be expected that at least a few of the hams at a ham radio meeting inHouston would be big in AMSAT, and AMSAT basically sets the direction for ham radio satellites for hams all over the world.
So, naturally, my assertions did not go unchallenged, and one person in particular objected to what I said. Andy, I'll call him, (mostly because that's his name,) suggested that before I criticized what's available I should try to make use of it. Now, that there is what we in the business call "good advice" and although I think most of his objections had more to do with my lack of skill in explaining what I thought than they did in my thoughts being dim, I was fully prepared to follow his advice, and he said that I should try to operate a satellite called AO-51, otherwise known as "echo", before I started dissing the FM satellites as requiring no skill.
My first action on agreeing to this plan of action was to attempt to assemble a station from items I had available. My workhorse radio is an Icom IC-706MkIIg, which does everything that I need, radio-wise, even for satellites. These satellites use VHF and UHF frequencies, and I have a dual-band UHF and VHF antenna, although it is a (semi-traditional) mag mount car antenna on top of a filing cabinet. Anyway, I set it up and listened for a pass and was disappointed.
Now, when an experienced ham such as myself fails to achieve communications over microwaves, he usually points the finger first at the antenna, and so that is precisely what I did. It makes sense, for a mobile antenna is not usually well suited for the satellite operations. However, better antennas tend to be expensive, or a lot of work, or both. I thought a simple homemade dipole might be enough and I built one for the 435 MHz downlink using some 14-gauge house wiring I happened to have lying around and a dowel rod I bought at the local big-box home center. Over the weekend, I was encouraged to hear FO-29 (a Japanese Satellite, that uses similar frequencies) using this antenna, and this morning I heard several QSO's (or "conversations") on AO-51.
Now that I can receive, I need a transmitting antenna. It's complicated by the fact that I only have one radio that can be used for transmitting to AO-51 and that is the IC-706. If I could use a different radio, I could easily use a separate antenna, but I can't. I'm looking to not spend any more money until I have achieved success, so I'm looking at using some more wire on the same dowel rod and, well, we'll see. If it works, then maybe I'll build a short Yagi beam antenna to make the signal strong. If it doesn't work, well, then I don't know what I'll do.
More, as it happens.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
A Review of Inglourious Basterds
In summary: It's not really my thing. Spoilage happens.
Yesterday was my wife's birthday, and she decided that she wanted me to take her to the movies. She wanted to see "Inglourious Basterds", the latest Tarantino film. Apparently, one of her friends had told her about it and she wanted to see if the friend was describing it correctly, or some such. We saw it at the Alamo Draft House at West Oaks Mall. I had potato skins and a Cobb salad and some iced tea that I would come to regret. My wife had fried pickles, the barbecue quesadilla and the Gunness milkshake.
To say that Quentin Tarantino is one of the defining movie directors of our time is to damn with faint praise. However, I was less impressed with this effort than I could have been. The story was interesting and the movie was violent, but the pacing was glacial. I estimate that the plot was better suited to a 23-minute "Hogan's Heroes" episode than a 149-minute big-screen movie.
I suppose that was deliberate. My understanding of Tarantino is that he is considered an actors director, and good acting requires screen time in order to emote. However, I have to wonder about the amount of time spent justifying German and French characters speaking English (only a few minutes, to be sure) when the entire scene in the basement bar is not only nonsensical, but no attempt is even made to justify completely irrational behavior on the part of serious professional protagonists. Surely professional spies, and any spy that remained alive in Nazi-occupied France for two years would be a seasoned professional, would have aborted the meeting before any of the bad stuff had a chance to happen.
The poor British officer served only as cannon fodder for the spaghetti-western gunfight in a basement. He, and that scene, could have been left out of the movie entirely and an hour or so taken off the running time with no loss to the plot or the characterization. Supposedly competent characters suffer huge lapses of judgment and the whole thing didn't work very well for me.
Not that the movie was especially bad. No, I didn't want the three hours of my life back like I did with "Masterminds", and the film did have its moments. Tarantino films always have their moments, it's just that they were too few and far between for my taste. I also learned that eating salad doesn't really work in a darkened theater.
Yesterday was my wife's birthday, and she decided that she wanted me to take her to the movies. She wanted to see "Inglourious Basterds", the latest Tarantino film. Apparently, one of her friends had told her about it and she wanted to see if the friend was describing it correctly, or some such. We saw it at the Alamo Draft House at West Oaks Mall. I had potato skins and a Cobb salad and some iced tea that I would come to regret. My wife had fried pickles, the barbecue quesadilla and the Gunness milkshake.
To say that Quentin Tarantino is one of the defining movie directors of our time is to damn with faint praise. However, I was less impressed with this effort than I could have been. The story was interesting and the movie was violent, but the pacing was glacial. I estimate that the plot was better suited to a 23-minute "Hogan's Heroes" episode than a 149-minute big-screen movie.
I suppose that was deliberate. My understanding of Tarantino is that he is considered an actors director, and good acting requires screen time in order to emote. However, I have to wonder about the amount of time spent justifying German and French characters speaking English (only a few minutes, to be sure) when the entire scene in the basement bar is not only nonsensical, but no attempt is even made to justify completely irrational behavior on the part of serious professional protagonists. Surely professional spies, and any spy that remained alive in Nazi-occupied France for two years would be a seasoned professional, would have aborted the meeting before any of the bad stuff had a chance to happen.
The poor British officer served only as cannon fodder for the spaghetti-western gunfight in a basement. He, and that scene, could have been left out of the movie entirely and an hour or so taken off the running time with no loss to the plot or the characterization. Supposedly competent characters suffer huge lapses of judgment and the whole thing didn't work very well for me.
Not that the movie was especially bad. No, I didn't want the three hours of my life back like I did with "Masterminds", and the film did have its moments. Tarantino films always have their moments, it's just that they were too few and far between for my taste. I also learned that eating salad doesn't really work in a darkened theater.
Friday, April 3, 2009
H-Plan Frustration
I work for a company that does its payroll and benefits through Administaff. Actually, this is the second company I've worked for that did that. The other one was long ago and is best forgotten.
Anyway, after the great implosion at my employer, Administaff has been scrambling to ensure that they will continue to be paid to do the payroll and benefits for us, and so they're doing these meetings every other week where they extoll the virtues of Administaff, and one of the things they are proudest of was what they call "The Marketplace".
"The Marketplace" is, simply put, a place where Administaff client companies sell each other things at a discount, and one of the organizations that offers a discount is Toyota. In Toyota's case, they have what they call the "H Plan".
Last Friday, they had training that touched on "The Marketplace" and I had been thinking ahead to the time when my daughter or stepdaughter will be driving and they're going to need a car to wreck. I'm currently driving a 1998 Mazda 626 with a hundred and mumblety-thousand miles on it and I was thinking that it would be a fine idea to get a new car for me to drive while the new driver wrecks a car that doesn't cost so much. I figure if I do that, then I can (maybe? please?) justify getting a car that only I can drive. That is, a car with a clutch, just like I had when I was learning to drive back in the stone age of the early 1980's.
You should know that I'm not someone who makes a decision like this at the last minute. I considered the question of the last vehicle I wanted to buy (NOT the 626!) more than a year before circumstances forced me to purchase it and a year and a half before I expected to make the purchase. I think that a multiple thousand dollar purchase is worth some study and reflection. So, I'm not likely make rapid decisions about major purchases mere moments before walking out to actually buy whatever it is, and when making plans for anything there is nothing more necessary than information.
So, I logged on to the Administaff employee Web site, went into "The Marketplace" and, after fiddling around and finally finding the link to Toyota for the special offer, I went to the link and selected a car. I picked a new Matrix because I kind of liked the looks of the Matrix some years ago and, well, what the heck? A fellow can dream, can't he? So, I made a selection on Toyota's Web site with the make, model, engine, transmission, color, and so forth, and I clicked on the "Submit" button.
The problem was, instead of being told how immediately much the car cost, I was presented with a Web form in which I was prompted to enter contact information. Now, being the Web-savvy individual that I am, I knew exactly what this meant: I was going to have to interact with a salesman. Crap.
Now, I don't have any specific objections to salesmen. Thomas J. Watson Sr. once said that the salesman is the hero of the American dream because nothing gets done until something gets sold, and I really believe that. However, in this case I was reluctant to click on the second "Submit" button because, well, because I was going to wind up having to talk to someone that I couldn't help but disappoint because I wasn't intending to buy now. I don't like disappointing people.
Nevertheless, I persevered. I clicked on the form and waited. I immediately received two emails. One was an automatic "I got your email, and I'm going to read it real soon" message and the other said, in part.
So, I did the hour or so of digging around on Toyota's site to find the base equipment of the various models and all the available options and I sent them to the fellow, and I started the email with this paragraph:
So, my response was this:
I mean, why even engage a human until there is some point subject to negotiation or until there are papers that someone has to make sure are signed? What is the point? While I'm thinking about it, why should this fellow get any commission from the sale? All he did was spend less than a minute asking me questions and treating me like a village idiot while I did all the work! The only answer I could come up with that makes any sense is that "H Plan" isn't really a discount at all and they need to engage a salesman so that he can apply high-pressure sales tactics to induce me into buying something I don't want at a highly inflated price. If "H Plan" was even a halfway decent discount, then they would be falling all over themselves to make sure I knew what the price was so that I could go out and compare it to other dealers' quotes and find out for myself how good a deal it was.
It seems to me that the Internet changes things. It used to be that you needed a salesman to guide a customer through the sales process. He answered questions like what options were available and what effect the various selections had on the sales price and made recommendations when the purchaser wasn't clear in his own mind about what his wants and needs are. But I'm the one doing all that in this case. Is it really to my advantage to have someone working on the deal whose main interest is in making sure I get ripped off for as much money as possible?
What matters on the Internet is information, and car dealers aren't comfortable with that. No longer can they rely on "I need to ask my manager about that" because I can get a dozen price quotes in a day or so and nobody who wants to stay in business is going to worry too awful much about whether or not I'm ready to buy right now. Heck, I can even hire someone to go out and find me a good deal on exactly the car, make, model, options, color, etc. that I'm looking for. It's a game changer, and if a dealer has even half the brains God gave a gnat, they automate the whole thing to avoid wasting a human's valuable time. Put all the available options and such on a Web site and when the user clicks on "quote", out pops a quote. If I was trying to sell anything on the Internet, that's how I would do it because when I BUY anything on the Internet, that's how I want it done.
It's disappointing to me that I didn't get the information I want, but I did learn something valuable. I learned that I have no desire at all to ever buy a vehicle from that dealer under any circumstances. If they're going to treat me like crap, there's no point in even attempting to do business with them.
Anyway, after the great implosion at my employer, Administaff has been scrambling to ensure that they will continue to be paid to do the payroll and benefits for us, and so they're doing these meetings every other week where they extoll the virtues of Administaff, and one of the things they are proudest of was what they call "The Marketplace".
"The Marketplace" is, simply put, a place where Administaff client companies sell each other things at a discount, and one of the organizations that offers a discount is Toyota. In Toyota's case, they have what they call the "H Plan".
Last Friday, they had training that touched on "The Marketplace" and I had been thinking ahead to the time when my daughter or stepdaughter will be driving and they're going to need a car to wreck. I'm currently driving a 1998 Mazda 626 with a hundred and mumblety-thousand miles on it and I was thinking that it would be a fine idea to get a new car for me to drive while the new driver wrecks a car that doesn't cost so much. I figure if I do that, then I can (maybe? please?) justify getting a car that only I can drive. That is, a car with a clutch, just like I had when I was learning to drive back in the stone age of the early 1980's.
You should know that I'm not someone who makes a decision like this at the last minute. I considered the question of the last vehicle I wanted to buy (NOT the 626!) more than a year before circumstances forced me to purchase it and a year and a half before I expected to make the purchase. I think that a multiple thousand dollar purchase is worth some study and reflection. So, I'm not likely make rapid decisions about major purchases mere moments before walking out to actually buy whatever it is, and when making plans for anything there is nothing more necessary than information.
So, I logged on to the Administaff employee Web site, went into "The Marketplace" and, after fiddling around and finally finding the link to Toyota for the special offer, I went to the link and selected a car. I picked a new Matrix because I kind of liked the looks of the Matrix some years ago and, well, what the heck? A fellow can dream, can't he? So, I made a selection on Toyota's Web site with the make, model, engine, transmission, color, and so forth, and I clicked on the "Submit" button.
The problem was, instead of being told how immediately much the car cost, I was presented with a Web form in which I was prompted to enter contact information. Now, being the Web-savvy individual that I am, I knew exactly what this meant: I was going to have to interact with a salesman. Crap.
Now, I don't have any specific objections to salesmen. Thomas J. Watson Sr. once said that the salesman is the hero of the American dream because nothing gets done until something gets sold, and I really believe that. However, in this case I was reluctant to click on the second "Submit" button because, well, because I was going to wind up having to talk to someone that I couldn't help but disappoint because I wasn't intending to buy now. I don't like disappointing people.
Nevertheless, I persevered. I clicked on the form and waited. I immediately received two emails. One was an automatic "I got your email, and I'm going to read it real soon" message and the other said, in part.
Before I can send you a quote I need to know:Okay, I can understand the requirement for more information. Well, no, I can't. I mean, it must have taken the fellow all of 30 seconds to dash off the email and it's going to take me an hour of digging just to find out the options that are available. If he's getting paid to help me, shouldn't he, well, you know, HELP? And what is the emphasis on the "available only through me" bit. It was in the email three times, almost like he was trying to implant the idea in my head that I was getting a special deal, which I thought I was already.
Automatic or manual transmission?
Power windows and locks?
1.8 or 2.4 engine?
Lighter or darker colors?
Any other features?
Your H Plan price is an employment benefit just like a 401K or medical plan and it is available only through me.
So, I did the hour or so of digging around on Toyota's site to find the base equipment of the various models and all the available options and I sent them to the fellow, and I started the email with this paragraph:
I don't think I'm ready to buy just yet. I'm just looking around and seeing what's up.I was hoping to forestall any pressure to come in and buy right now because I'm just making plans, not trying to take on another car note. Unfortunately, that turned out to be the wrong thing to say because the response I got was this:
Please get back to me when you're ready to buy. There's no sense quoting prices now, because they might change -- and rebates could change, too -- by the time you're ready.Well, no SHIT, Sherlock! Now, not only am I out the hours of my time figuring out on my own all the crap that an actual salesman would be helping me with if I came to the dealer, and not only did I come away after doing 90+% of the work without getting the actual information I set out to get, but I also got to get treated like an especially slow three year old. Who would have thought that the actual price might possibly change between when I make the plan and when I execute it. Well I would! Sheesh!
So, my response was this:
No thank you. I'm sorry to have wasted your time.The more I thought about this, the madder I got. Why do I have to talk to a human to find out how much the damned car cost? Supposedly, "H Plan" is a formulaic deal where he just puts the numbers in and out pops the price! Couldn't this fellow be replaced by a simple shell script? Why isn't this fully automated?
I mean, why even engage a human until there is some point subject to negotiation or until there are papers that someone has to make sure are signed? What is the point? While I'm thinking about it, why should this fellow get any commission from the sale? All he did was spend less than a minute asking me questions and treating me like a village idiot while I did all the work! The only answer I could come up with that makes any sense is that "H Plan" isn't really a discount at all and they need to engage a salesman so that he can apply high-pressure sales tactics to induce me into buying something I don't want at a highly inflated price. If "H Plan" was even a halfway decent discount, then they would be falling all over themselves to make sure I knew what the price was so that I could go out and compare it to other dealers' quotes and find out for myself how good a deal it was.
It seems to me that the Internet changes things. It used to be that you needed a salesman to guide a customer through the sales process. He answered questions like what options were available and what effect the various selections had on the sales price and made recommendations when the purchaser wasn't clear in his own mind about what his wants and needs are. But I'm the one doing all that in this case. Is it really to my advantage to have someone working on the deal whose main interest is in making sure I get ripped off for as much money as possible?
What matters on the Internet is information, and car dealers aren't comfortable with that. No longer can they rely on "I need to ask my manager about that" because I can get a dozen price quotes in a day or so and nobody who wants to stay in business is going to worry too awful much about whether or not I'm ready to buy right now. Heck, I can even hire someone to go out and find me a good deal on exactly the car, make, model, options, color, etc. that I'm looking for. It's a game changer, and if a dealer has even half the brains God gave a gnat, they automate the whole thing to avoid wasting a human's valuable time. Put all the available options and such on a Web site and when the user clicks on "quote", out pops a quote. If I was trying to sell anything on the Internet, that's how I would do it because when I BUY anything on the Internet, that's how I want it done.
It's disappointing to me that I didn't get the information I want, but I did learn something valuable. I learned that I have no desire at all to ever buy a vehicle from that dealer under any circumstances. If they're going to treat me like crap, there's no point in even attempting to do business with them.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Road Trip Wednesday
Today, my wife, son, younger stepson and I went to Gonzales, TX. Their claim to fame is that the Texas Revolution started there when Santa Ana wanted his cannon back, and 18 Texans from Gonzales stood off 150 Mexican dragoons. I also note that Gonzales is near Luling, and we ate at the Luling City Market. Not the Luling City Market in Houston, but the one actually in Luling.
It was most marvelous. You buy the meat in the smokehouse and when they open the smokers, the most amazing smoke comes boiling out. I ate too much and didn't even contemplate despoiling it with sauce.
And we saw the cannon in the museum in Gonzales. It was just a tiny little thing. T-Bob took pictures and is going to write a report for school when it starts up again Monday, after spring break.
It was most marvelous. You buy the meat in the smokehouse and when they open the smokers, the most amazing smoke comes boiling out. I ate too much and didn't even contemplate despoiling it with sauce.
And we saw the cannon in the museum in Gonzales. It was just a tiny little thing. T-Bob took pictures and is going to write a report for school when it starts up again Monday, after spring break.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
It was a simple plan. Really.
The plan was very simple. The main server at my house is called chromite. It had two hard drives in it, both of them 60 GiByte IDE drives arranged basically as a 20 Gig root partition and 100 Gig worth of an LVM (Logical Volume Manager) volume group, partitioned out into a number of partitions. The problem was twofold. First, LVM offers no redundancy or error recovery at all, and one of the drives is throwing sporadic errors. Second, we were running out of space.
I priced tape backups and such and, well, that's not an option. Now, I understand that RAID isn't backup, but it's a whole lot cheaper to install a RAID array and be careful about deleting stuff than it is to put together an effective backup plan. So, the plan was to buy a 5-drive hot-swap drive bay and some SATA drives. Originally, the plan was to use 300 GiByte drives in 900 GiByte RAID-6 array, but when my wife pointed out that "18 is hard drives" (our anniversary is in February) that got upgraded to 500 GiByte drives (refurbished 500 GiB SATA drives are $50) in a 1500 GiByte array, and that was the plan: Just chuck a mess of drives into the existing computer and go off all happy.
Then, I started thinking about it. If I put the new drive bay and drives into the existing computer, the computer would be down while I did all this and got it all to work. Also, I noticed that I had a computer that hadn't done anything since the hard drive failed at last year's Apollocon and then I noticed that the current chromite had 512 MBytes of RAM and it wasn't possible to add any more.
At that point, I hatched the plan. Max out "dragon" (the name of this computer with the failed drive) with new RAM and the hot swap bay, get it all set up and put chromite's drives in it. At which point, I could move the data off the iffy hard drive and onto the new drive array and Bob's my uncle. At that point, I put the drive array into Dragon's case and, well, it didn't fit. Dangit! So, I had another computer lying around (called "megaman") with a slightly larger case, and an older motherboard. After swapping the motherboard out and putting the drive bay in, and spending $80 on 2 Gigs of DDR RAM, I plugged it in and turned it on and...got sparks. Dang power supply was bad.
A trip to the store to get a new power supply and some time to install it and, after determining that I had the wrong cable plugged into that four-pin socket by the CPU, it came up and ran. Whew! No damage. (Such a relief) Okay, at this point, all five drives had arrived, and I put the two SATA adapters into the computer and put all the drives in and turned it on and...it wouldn't boot. Damn.
The thing is, taking one of the drives out of the hot-swap bay caused everything to work. Shoot. Maybe it's the SATA adapter. So, back to the Micro Center to buy a $45 SATA card (it was the only one we could find that adapted SATA into PCI, which is what I needed) and, oh, what the heck, I'll buy another gig of RAM. Total, about $100. I think I actually bought the blank back plates the previous time.
The only problem is that it didn't change the behavior of the computer. Two SATA adapters, no boot, but using only one the system came up just fine. I fiddled with GRUB and tried every option I could think of, but no joy. I did find out a lot about GRUB that I'd forgotten since the last time I'd had to actually understand what was going on.
At this point, the conclusion was inescapable: The BIOS was screwing it up, somehow, so I needed a new BIOS. I downloaded the image and put it on a floppy and ran the "Q-Update" and, I had the wrong BIOS image. After downloading a new image, one that matched this time, and running the "Q-Update" program and it said it worked. Now to reboot...why does it say it's looking for a BIOS image on the hard drive?
Crap! I bricked the board! A quick google got me a list of instructions of how to burn a CD-ROM to recover from the situation. Now, I have CD-ROM's and burners and such and, shoot, I couldn't get the disk out of the DVD-ROM I'd been using and, well, I kind of destroyed the son-of-a-gun trying to get the disk out. Never mind, I saw DVD+-RW/Dual layer drives for $25 at the Micro Center, so it's time for another road trip. (Oh, and I'd been having trouble with the RAM, so I also bought a $5 can of compressed air to blow the ram slots clean.)
The only problem is that I never figured out how to burn the CD properly to make it all work. At this point, I had a choice: I could spend a lot more money and just scrap the existing motherboard, CPU, and RAM and almost certainly get it to work or I could try to unsolder the BIOS chip (it's a Gigabyte GA-7N400L which has the BIOS soldered into the board) and order a new one or, well, something. I don't know.
The thing is, even if I got the motherboard working and the BIOS updated, it might not ever properly build whatever table it's mangling so it might never work with the SATA drives, so I punted. I went to Fry's (I prefer Fry's for motherboards because they're all laid out on the display and it's easy to find options.) Of course, I took a list of characteristics of the GA-7N400 (AMD Socket A, DDR RAM, etc) so I could find a motherboard that might reuse the CPU and RAM and I wouldn't have to pay so much. Of course, all the motherboards are DDR2 or DDR3 and Socket A is positively stone age. Fortunately, they sold me an "open box" CPU and RAM for a substantial discount. Still, with the CD and DVD blanks I also bought, I got out for $260.
The thing is, it all worked. The system came up and ran and was fast, when I finally got the hard drives moved, it just worked. The actual moving of the server was an anticlimax, and the system just sits there chugging away much faster than it ever did before with the blinkenlights on the hard drive array flashing impressively.
Too bad I wound up spending three or four times what I had expected to for the whole thing. Not to mention the hours of my life spent in frustration, but I'm much better now.
I priced tape backups and such and, well, that's not an option. Now, I understand that RAID isn't backup, but it's a whole lot cheaper to install a RAID array and be careful about deleting stuff than it is to put together an effective backup plan. So, the plan was to buy a 5-drive hot-swap drive bay and some SATA drives. Originally, the plan was to use 300 GiByte drives in 900 GiByte RAID-6 array, but when my wife pointed out that "18 is hard drives" (our anniversary is in February) that got upgraded to 500 GiByte drives (refurbished 500 GiB SATA drives are $50) in a 1500 GiByte array, and that was the plan: Just chuck a mess of drives into the existing computer and go off all happy.
Then, I started thinking about it. If I put the new drive bay and drives into the existing computer, the computer would be down while I did all this and got it all to work. Also, I noticed that I had a computer that hadn't done anything since the hard drive failed at last year's Apollocon and then I noticed that the current chromite had 512 MBytes of RAM and it wasn't possible to add any more.
At that point, I hatched the plan. Max out "dragon" (the name of this computer with the failed drive) with new RAM and the hot swap bay, get it all set up and put chromite's drives in it. At which point, I could move the data off the iffy hard drive and onto the new drive array and Bob's my uncle. At that point, I put the drive array into Dragon's case and, well, it didn't fit. Dangit! So, I had another computer lying around (called "megaman") with a slightly larger case, and an older motherboard. After swapping the motherboard out and putting the drive bay in, and spending $80 on 2 Gigs of DDR RAM, I plugged it in and turned it on and...got sparks. Dang power supply was bad.
A trip to the store to get a new power supply and some time to install it and, after determining that I had the wrong cable plugged into that four-pin socket by the CPU, it came up and ran. Whew! No damage. (Such a relief) Okay, at this point, all five drives had arrived, and I put the two SATA adapters into the computer and put all the drives in and turned it on and...it wouldn't boot. Damn.
The thing is, taking one of the drives out of the hot-swap bay caused everything to work. Shoot. Maybe it's the SATA adapter. So, back to the Micro Center to buy a $45 SATA card (it was the only one we could find that adapted SATA into PCI, which is what I needed) and, oh, what the heck, I'll buy another gig of RAM. Total, about $100. I think I actually bought the blank back plates the previous time.
The only problem is that it didn't change the behavior of the computer. Two SATA adapters, no boot, but using only one the system came up just fine. I fiddled with GRUB and tried every option I could think of, but no joy. I did find out a lot about GRUB that I'd forgotten since the last time I'd had to actually understand what was going on.
At this point, the conclusion was inescapable: The BIOS was screwing it up, somehow, so I needed a new BIOS. I downloaded the image and put it on a floppy and ran the "Q-Update" and, I had the wrong BIOS image. After downloading a new image, one that matched this time, and running the "Q-Update" program and it said it worked. Now to reboot...why does it say it's looking for a BIOS image on the hard drive?
Crap! I bricked the board! A quick google got me a list of instructions of how to burn a CD-ROM to recover from the situation. Now, I have CD-ROM's and burners and such and, shoot, I couldn't get the disk out of the DVD-ROM I'd been using and, well, I kind of destroyed the son-of-a-gun trying to get the disk out. Never mind, I saw DVD+-RW/Dual layer drives for $25 at the Micro Center, so it's time for another road trip. (Oh, and I'd been having trouble with the RAM, so I also bought a $5 can of compressed air to blow the ram slots clean.)
The only problem is that I never figured out how to burn the CD properly to make it all work. At this point, I had a choice: I could spend a lot more money and just scrap the existing motherboard, CPU, and RAM and almost certainly get it to work or I could try to unsolder the BIOS chip (it's a Gigabyte GA-7N400L which has the BIOS soldered into the board) and order a new one or, well, something. I don't know.
The thing is, even if I got the motherboard working and the BIOS updated, it might not ever properly build whatever table it's mangling so it might never work with the SATA drives, so I punted. I went to Fry's (I prefer Fry's for motherboards because they're all laid out on the display and it's easy to find options.) Of course, I took a list of characteristics of the GA-7N400 (AMD Socket A, DDR RAM, etc) so I could find a motherboard that might reuse the CPU and RAM and I wouldn't have to pay so much. Of course, all the motherboards are DDR2 or DDR3 and Socket A is positively stone age. Fortunately, they sold me an "open box" CPU and RAM for a substantial discount. Still, with the CD and DVD blanks I also bought, I got out for $260.
The thing is, it all worked. The system came up and ran and was fast, when I finally got the hard drives moved, it just worked. The actual moving of the server was an anticlimax, and the system just sits there chugging away much faster than it ever did before with the blinkenlights on the hard drive array flashing impressively.
Too bad I wound up spending three or four times what I had expected to for the whole thing. Not to mention the hours of my life spent in frustration, but I'm much better now.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Philosophy, Science, and Religion
Right off the bat, I should make one thing perfectly clear: I'm not a scientist. On the contrary, by training and temperament, if not by profession (I'm a computer programmer) I am an engineer. An engineer is not a scientist, someone who seeks to describe and explain the universe, he is instead a technologist, which is how I describe someone who seeks to invent new things and new ways of doing things. To many people, the line between technology and science apparently doesn't exist. On Slashdot, for example, NASA's achievements are put into the "science" category as are breakthroughs in medical treatments, but those both more properly belong in the 'technology" category, which simply doesn't exist on Slashdot.
The reason I start with the statement that I'm not a scientist is because I intend to be critical of how science is thought of in the modern world, especially by people who like to think of themselves as "progressives", and I want to give people something to complain about at the start rather than making them wade though some tedious logic before reaching a conclusion which
might be outrageous.
Today, I'd like to discuss the relationship among science, religion, and philosophy because some people have some pretty odd ideas about what science is and I hope that I can lay it out in a way that makes my position clear.
Philosophy is a search for truth. No, more than that. Philosophy is a search for Truth. That is, it is a search for things that are true no matter who you are or what your situation is or what you think about the truth that is found. That makes it a superset of both science and religion, which are both means of searching for true things.
By the way, that's what people mean when they talk about science and religion being belief systems. A belief system is a way of evaluating the quality of an idea. The main difference between science and religion lies in the way in which they evaluate ideas. I'm not particularly religious, but it seems to me that in a religion, people evaluate the quality of their ideas by an
appeal to an authority, be it a priest or a religious text, and by how they feel about an idea. In science, one idea is considered better than another if the first idea makes better predictions than the second.
This leads me to the topic of "Global Warming". Actually, I call it the Theory of Anthropogenic Global Climate Change Crisis, or AGCCC, for short. The reason I call it by such a large and unweildy name is to emphasize how fragile the idea is. If the climate, however you define climate, is changing, then mankind is doing the wrong thing only if the change is anthropogenic and only needs do anything about it if it's both global and a crisis. Break the chain at any point, and the theory falls apart.
When talking about AGCCC, many people talk about the "consensus of scientists" as if that had any meaning, from a scientific perspective. Come to think of it, it DOES have meaning from a scientific perspective, but the science in question is sociology, and not climate modelling. The prediction that can be made is that if someone identifies himself as a climate researcher, that
person can, with good reliability, be counted on to say they believe in AGCCC. The problem is that belief is independent of truth and AGCCC is a plausible theory, but there are many plausible things that are false and implausible things that are most definitely true. The question, therefore, remains, is the AGCCC theory true? That is, are predictions made based on the AGCCC theory better than any other theory? In particular, are they better than the
"null hypothesis?"
A consensus is a political thing, so saying that there is a consensus of scientists is making a political statement. Othe statements, like the ones made in this one are rather more religious than scientific or political. Heck, it almost reads like something out of Leviticus. The only problem is, it's got nothing in it but assertions and the conclusions, while plausible, are based upon what, exactly?
The world is fully of plausible things that aren't true and implausible things that are incontrovertible fact. The place where we don't worry about facts and predictions and worry only instead about the plausibility of an idea is religion. In science, true science as opposed to the thing that people in lab coats who preach at us do, we don't worry about plausibility or the appeal of an idea or the charisma of any believer. Instead, we worry about the predictions.
The reason I start with the statement that I'm not a scientist is because I intend to be critical of how science is thought of in the modern world, especially by people who like to think of themselves as "progressives", and I want to give people something to complain about at the start rather than making them wade though some tedious logic before reaching a conclusion which
might be outrageous.
Today, I'd like to discuss the relationship among science, religion, and philosophy because some people have some pretty odd ideas about what science is and I hope that I can lay it out in a way that makes my position clear.
Philosophy is a search for truth. No, more than that. Philosophy is a search for Truth. That is, it is a search for things that are true no matter who you are or what your situation is or what you think about the truth that is found. That makes it a superset of both science and religion, which are both means of searching for true things.
By the way, that's what people mean when they talk about science and religion being belief systems. A belief system is a way of evaluating the quality of an idea. The main difference between science and religion lies in the way in which they evaluate ideas. I'm not particularly religious, but it seems to me that in a religion, people evaluate the quality of their ideas by an
appeal to an authority, be it a priest or a religious text, and by how they feel about an idea. In science, one idea is considered better than another if the first idea makes better predictions than the second.
This leads me to the topic of "Global Warming". Actually, I call it the Theory of Anthropogenic Global Climate Change Crisis, or AGCCC, for short. The reason I call it by such a large and unweildy name is to emphasize how fragile the idea is. If the climate, however you define climate, is changing, then mankind is doing the wrong thing only if the change is anthropogenic and only needs do anything about it if it's both global and a crisis. Break the chain at any point, and the theory falls apart.
When talking about AGCCC, many people talk about the "consensus of scientists" as if that had any meaning, from a scientific perspective. Come to think of it, it DOES have meaning from a scientific perspective, but the science in question is sociology, and not climate modelling. The prediction that can be made is that if someone identifies himself as a climate researcher, that
person can, with good reliability, be counted on to say they believe in AGCCC. The problem is that belief is independent of truth and AGCCC is a plausible theory, but there are many plausible things that are false and implausible things that are most definitely true. The question, therefore, remains, is the AGCCC theory true? That is, are predictions made based on the AGCCC theory better than any other theory? In particular, are they better than the
"null hypothesis?"
A consensus is a political thing, so saying that there is a consensus of scientists is making a political statement. Othe statements, like the ones made in this one are rather more religious than scientific or political. Heck, it almost reads like something out of Leviticus. The only problem is, it's got nothing in it but assertions and the conclusions, while plausible, are based upon what, exactly?
The world is fully of plausible things that aren't true and implausible things that are incontrovertible fact. The place where we don't worry about facts and predictions and worry only instead about the plausibility of an idea is religion. In science, true science as opposed to the thing that people in lab coats who preach at us do, we don't worry about plausibility or the appeal of an idea or the charisma of any believer. Instead, we worry about the predictions.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
I'm (almost) a writer
I wrote an article for Linux Journal magazine and it's been accepted. I don't know when, if ever, they're going to publish it, but it's been accepted.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
What is there to admire about Archie Bunker
I go to the gym most days, and Al, the guy who's always there when I get there at 5:30 in the Blessed AM, often talks to me about stuff that comes to mind. The other day, the subject got around to formulas for various kinds of writing and if you talk about formulaic writing, you have to talk about the television situation comedy.
Sitcoms are formulaic, but the formula sometimes changes. Shows that change the formula are riskier than average, but when they win they're a big win and they can spawn dozens of imitators. One show that changed the formula was "All In the Family". When I mentioned "All In the Family", Al said that he didn't like it because Archie Bunker was bigoted and autocratic and several other things that I don't remember.
But it got me thinking about how such an unsympathetic character could become such an icon. That, of course, led me to think about the other characters in the show, and I think I've figured it all out.
In "All in the Family", each of the four main characters was the embodiment of some characteristic. Edith is wisdom, Gloria is Passion, Michael is Intellectualism, but what is Archie? Archie is Courage or Persistence in the face of opposition. The thing is, narrative is driven by conflict and since the conflict has to be between the members of the household, that means that Archie is going to steadfastly defend a position that is unwise, unenlightened, or passionless. (Actually, since passionless anything is boring, Gloria was rarely at the center of the narrative. Her main reason for existing was to bring Michael in the household. I digress.) Since persistence is often in conflict with the wise or the smart, Archie's actions and beliefs often drive the plot of the show.
In "All in the Family", each character has what I think of as their moment. For me, the defining moment for Edith is when she explains to Michael why he and Archie argue. Michael doesn't want to hear it, but Edith insists because it is important. Archie's defining moment is when he sneaks his grandson Joey out to be baptized against the wishes of the entire family, and Reverend Felcher. ("I hope that took, Lord, because they're going to kill me when I get home.")
Michael's defining moment, at least for me, is when his smarter friend visits. Michael wants to play chess and do "smart things", but his smarter friend wants to just hang out and have some fun. Gloria suggests charades and Michaels is opposed to the idea even as his friend is all for it. This is defining for me because my beliefs are sometimes described as "anti-intellectual", but I think of an intellectual as someone who can't get over how smart he is. At its core, intellectualism is a phony belief in one's own superiority. What matters about the intellect is what you do with it, not using it to prove your superiority. What's important is what problems you solve. I find that a refreshing attitude about intelligence from a not particularly bright, although often intelligence-obsessed, media culture.
So, I think Archie turns out to look pretty good in Media's lens. Yes, he's bigoted and anti-Semitic, but if you're family he'll stand by you (even if your last name is Stivic) because you're family and he won't waver. I get the sense that he's doing his best to be steadfast in a world where his values are out of step with everyone else's, but that's because he's out of his depth or hasn't managed to keep up during a time of rapid change. He's a sometimes inconvenient rock in a river, not a wall.
Sitcoms are formulaic, but the formula sometimes changes. Shows that change the formula are riskier than average, but when they win they're a big win and they can spawn dozens of imitators. One show that changed the formula was "All In the Family". When I mentioned "All In the Family", Al said that he didn't like it because Archie Bunker was bigoted and autocratic and several other things that I don't remember.
But it got me thinking about how such an unsympathetic character could become such an icon. That, of course, led me to think about the other characters in the show, and I think I've figured it all out.
In "All in the Family", each of the four main characters was the embodiment of some characteristic. Edith is wisdom, Gloria is Passion, Michael is Intellectualism, but what is Archie? Archie is Courage or Persistence in the face of opposition. The thing is, narrative is driven by conflict and since the conflict has to be between the members of the household, that means that Archie is going to steadfastly defend a position that is unwise, unenlightened, or passionless. (Actually, since passionless anything is boring, Gloria was rarely at the center of the narrative. Her main reason for existing was to bring Michael in the household. I digress.) Since persistence is often in conflict with the wise or the smart, Archie's actions and beliefs often drive the plot of the show.
In "All in the Family", each character has what I think of as their moment. For me, the defining moment for Edith is when she explains to Michael why he and Archie argue. Michael doesn't want to hear it, but Edith insists because it is important. Archie's defining moment is when he sneaks his grandson Joey out to be baptized against the wishes of the entire family, and Reverend Felcher. ("I hope that took, Lord, because they're going to kill me when I get home.")
Michael's defining moment, at least for me, is when his smarter friend visits. Michael wants to play chess and do "smart things", but his smarter friend wants to just hang out and have some fun. Gloria suggests charades and Michaels is opposed to the idea even as his friend is all for it. This is defining for me because my beliefs are sometimes described as "anti-intellectual", but I think of an intellectual as someone who can't get over how smart he is. At its core, intellectualism is a phony belief in one's own superiority. What matters about the intellect is what you do with it, not using it to prove your superiority. What's important is what problems you solve. I find that a refreshing attitude about intelligence from a not particularly bright, although often intelligence-obsessed, media culture.
So, I think Archie turns out to look pretty good in Media's lens. Yes, he's bigoted and anti-Semitic, but if you're family he'll stand by you (even if your last name is Stivic) because you're family and he won't waver. I get the sense that he's doing his best to be steadfast in a world where his values are out of step with everyone else's, but that's because he's out of his depth or hasn't managed to keep up during a time of rapid change. He's a sometimes inconvenient rock in a river, not a wall.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)