New Technology Meets Old Technology

An old technology for catching fish could be observed with the aid of Google Earth. This fish trap, believed to be 1000 years old, is a giant array of stones formed in the shape of a Vee.

Fishes are supposed to get caught in the structure as the tide flowed out. But due to it’s massive weight, it has been sinking into the sand and in its current state, the trap is not as effective anymore.

Since it is now submerged deeper than at the time it was built and since it is a big structure, you cannot easily observe this if on the water. But with the help of an aerial view like that from Google Earth, the outline could be seen clearly.

Perhaps there are other structures which would just look like natural formations if seen on land but would reveal otherwise if seen from Google Earth. With this tool, a lot of people could try amateur archaeology at the comfort of their homes.

Sadly, Google Earth is not only used to make beneficial discoveries like this or to search for evidence regarding the lost city of Atlantis. It is also used in other mischievous ways such as looking for lead roof tiles to steal.

Substituted Service of Court Process via Facebook

It seems that service of court process via Facebook has now been accepted as an alternative mode of service in New Zealand. This illustrates that case law is dynamic and alive, and is in touch with the current trends in society.

I was pleasantly surprised by this development. Pleasantly, because that's the way case law should be—evolving and relevant. Surprised, because the legal profession is not the most enthusiastic when it comes to embracing new technology.

There are fundamental reasons for this hesitation to embrace new technology. The legal profession is traditional in a lot of aspects. For instance, the language commonly used in court and in pleadings and contracts contain a lot of Old English phrases and terminology. Usage is also distinctly archaic though there are talks of changing this.

This traditional image can also be perceived from the layout of a court room to the pillar and scales logo of almost anything connected to the profession. Almost anything connected to the legal profession shouts of adherence to tradition. (which might include the traditional typewriters :) )

In addition, unlike most other professions, the legal profession is essentially backward-looking. Medical and engineering practitioners are forward-looking in the sense that they focus on what could be done instead of what has been done.

Doctors, for example, would try to discover new ways of combating illness and engineers would try to discover new ways of producing stronger polymers and alloys. Legal professionals, on the other hand, whether members of the bench or of the bar, routinely look back at what has already been decided keeping the doctrine of stare decisis in mind.

But times change and the legal profession has to keep up. Moreover, people should not be allowed to circumvent the law and escape legal procedure when modern technology is available to prevent the same. This new interlocutory order is a step in the right direction.

Nobody should be allowed to willfully disregard legal procedure by actively evading conventional service then cry foul when substituted service is made.

Anyway, if someone does not want to be served via Facebook, they always have the option to update their current address in the court records so that court process could be served in the conventional way. Failure to do so stinks of bad faith. No court would allow the service of a process through the Internet or even through substituted service when ordinary service would suffice.

The Star Wars Anti-Missile Program Might Be Fighting a Different War

The smart guys and gals behind the 1980s missile shield are attempting to build a Weapon of Mosquito Destruction in the hope of winning a war which has been fought for quite some time now.

This war against malaria has silently claimed more lives than any other war had. It does not respect POW’s, it does not follow any rules of engagement and it definitely does not spare non-combatants—including women and children. I believe that this is the war we should be fighting in—a war against all mankind, not among them.

Of course, technology is at the heart of this war. This new weapon is supposed to work by locking-in to the sound generated by the mosquito’s wings and shooting it with a laser beam ala Death Star. Needless to say, a computer does the detection of the sonar source, the aiming and the activation of the laser.

I am just wondering how the technology would be implemented. Would it be packaged as an appliance which would sit in your living room and buzz the heck out of a squadron of flying mosquitoes, or would it be placed on board a satellite in low earth orbit ready to decimate mosquitoes to extinction?

Interestingly, Mr. Gates is funding the project. That means there is a big chance that Microsoft will be the company tasked to provide the embedded software or operating system of this device.

One final question, will there be a remote control reset button that goes with the device? You can’t simply go near it to press it’s reset button if it hangs and decides to shoot in every direction, you know. With the remote, at least you can reboot it behind cover. :)

The Operating System Wars

There are endless exchanges around the internet about which is better—and a lot of it is either of the Windows versus Linux or the Windows versus Mac variety. Reading through all of those arguments could keep anyone busy for quite some time.

The answer is actually quite simple and I think everyone involved already knows it: It all depends on the task you are trying to accomplish. As to why the question still gets asked despite the universality of the simple answer is a question to which I have no simple answer.

It is imperative that you must determine your task first before you decide on a tool to use; otherwise, you might end up using an industrial chainsaw to cut your grass instead of simply using a lawnmower.

The failure to define a task first is one of the main reasons for a lot of those disagreements. A participant insisting that Windows is better and another insisting that Linux is the best could both be correct as the former could have been referring to Windows’ prowess in developing .Net applications while the latter could have been referring to the openness and flexibility of Linux.

Once the task has been defined, selection becomes easier. Say you want to edit html code and text with BBEdit or TextMate, then use a Mac. If Bluefish or Quanta Plus is your thing, Linux is the way to go. Finally, if you’re all for UltraEdit, TextPad or EditPlus, Windows is where it’s at.

Well, you could say that it’s not that simple all the time and you’d be right. However, your options will at least be clearer and your arguments, saner once the elusive task has been properly defined. But then again, where’s the fun in that?

Twitter is One Hot Social Networking App

This is not news. Twitter is really one of the hotter apps in the Internet today and a lot of people I know are happily tweeting away.

But with a limit of 140 characters max, it is a great limitation for me. It’s not a bad thing for sure specially by judging the number of its users. It’s just that I personally have difficulty expressing my ideas in a small number of words.

While I’m learning to write shorter posts lately, I’m not yet very good at it. If you browse my archives, my older posts seem to be a little bit on the longish side. I always need a word count tool to remind me when the time comes to ease up on the keyboard and prune some words.

It really is true, at least for me, that a shorter post does not necessarily take a shorter time than a longer post. My posts normally start out long and I have to take additional time to make it shorter. But that’s if I am not in a hurry.

The French mathematician and theologian, Blaise Pascal had it right when he said: “I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time.” This thought is echoed in various forms by other notable men such as H.D. Thoreau, Voltaire, Augustin and Mark Twain (you can read about it here). I guess this guys would not have been a fan of Twitter also even had Twitter existed during their time.

Maybe, once I learn the art of keeping it short, I could follow y’all in Twitterland.

Megapixel Count Is Not an Accurate Determinant of Digital Camera Quality

In most engineering and scientific applications, quantitative analysis almost always take precedence over qualitative analysis. The latter only takes a supporting role, if ever, in decision making.

Part of the reason is that qualitative analyses or tests are usually subjective and varies from person to person hence, it does not offer a very solid foundation from which to base decisions on. It is better to base decisions on something which everyone has a common idea.

If you are a chemical engineer tasked to procure a pump for, say, corrosive liquid transfer, you’ll find it easier to defend your choice if you have the metrics. Suggesting that pump A will increase your production capacity “because it has an output of 50 gallons per minute more than the other option” is better than “because it generates a louder sound hence, it must be pumping out more”.

Had you used the latter argument, another colleague of yours might say: “yes, the sound pump A generates seem louder but that of pump B has a higher pitch so pump B must be pumping out more”. Another might say that she does not hear any difference. Now you have a problem.

In digital cameras, however, it would seem like we are better served if we take a different approach and give qualitative analysis more weight than quantitative analysis.

The often used metric in determining the perceived picture quality of digital cameras is the megapixel count. But this is not accurate. More megapixels does not mean better picture quality.

Picture quality is more dependent on sensor size, sensor sensitivity and lens quality than on mere pixel count. But sadly, these qualities do not have convenient metrics which could be used for comparison; that’s why most people still use megapixels in comparing cameras just like they would use horsepower in comparing cars.

Marketing takes advantage of this and more models are released with more megapixels as the main attraction. Other companies are also forced to release models with more megapixels to keep up with the competition.

But there is a downside. A point is reached when adding more pixels would decrease picture quality instead of increase it because each individual pixel sensor will be smaller, less sensitive, and generally have lower quality than larger ones.

In effect, the consumers will suffer from this pixel count war. This has to stop. But before that will happen, consumers should know that pixel count is not the be all and end all in terms of picture quality. Then, they must be willing to trade pixel count for lens quality and other features which have more direct bearings on picture quality.

When the marketers realize this, they will hopefully change their focus to more substantial features. As it is today, competition among camera makers is harming consumers instead of benefiting them.

Lists of Text Editors

I am very much fond of text editors. It could be because the way I use a computer mostly revolves around creating plain text files or editing text for transferring to or further processing with other applications. Aside from Firefox, a text editor is the application I really need to have in my computer.

Since there are many different ways of working with text, no one editor can be all things to all people. Because of this, and the fact that text editors are relatively easy to make, there is an abundance of text editors in the Internet. Most of these are free or at least have a trial version.

Due to this abundance and my need to work with text, it has been a hobby of mine to collect and play with text editors. I would download new text editors or newer versions of those I already have and use it for a while. And like a game, I would rank them in my system and bump others up or down. Some get uninstalled.

My current favorites are TextPad and EditPlus. These are great shareware programs that deserve a lot of attention. PSPad and Notepad++ are not far from the list and these are free.

But the growing number of text editors make it hard to keep track of them all, much less to be informed of worthy new comers. Luckily, I found these lists:

• TextEditors.org
• Wikipedia List
• Wikipedia Comparison

So, for those of you who, like me, are fond of these useful tools, that should keep you busy.

Don't Mess With Dreamweaver

I found a controversial blog post in PC Pro. In that post, Tom Arah made a bold statement that Dreamweaver is dying. That made me say: "Dreamweaver? Dying?".

He supports his claim by saying: Dreamweaver is for static sites and static is out, dynamic is in; and it is flawed in posting content (which happens to be king) and making it easy to search. He ended it with the following: "Dreamweaver is dying. Long live Drupal."

Wow! That was heavy. After reading the post and browsing through the comments (there are a lot of them), I learned something: Don't mess with Dreamweaver. The exchange is also entertaining, in a different sort of way.

I am not saying that he is wrong or that he is right. It's just that there are better ways he could have said what he wanted to say if he only thought a little more carefully. I myself am a victim of that sometimes. (that's why I said I learned a lot)

Bashing Dreamweaver is a little bit like bashing Emacs or Vim. It is difficult to expect the [Emacs|Vim] user to respond rationally to such an attack specially when you consider the fact that they truly (and rightfully) believe that their tool is very useful and that they have spent a considerable amount of time learning to use it effectively. The same also applies to Dreamweaver except that the user not only spent a considerable amount of time learning the thing but also spent a substantial amount of cash for the license. Once you understand that, you will see the comment area of that post in a different light.

My own thought on the matter is that Content Management Systems like Joomla and Drupal can coexist with webpage editors, like Dreamweaver and Expression Web, and HTML editors like TextPad and EditPlus; and, no, you can't compare CMS with Dreamweaver just like you can't compare apples with oranges. There may be some changes in the roles Dreamweaver plays with the introduction of CM systems but CMS certainly does not render Dreamweaver irrelevant or obsolete.

Finally, We should make full use of all the tools that are available to us instead of bashing those which we do not use (specially if those tools have an army of loyal users). Instead of putting down things, let's look for new or productive ways to use them. Tools like Dreamweaver, Expression Web, Joomla, Drupal, TextPad and EditPlus help make our Web development tasks easier. As such, they are our friends. We do not put down friends—we use them. (kidding) :)

Should Apple Continue Building New Generations of Mac Mini?

Every PC company like IBM, HP, Acer and Dell has an entry-level system. These systems are normally positioned in the lowest rung of the ladder in terms of cost and, as a result, features. The idea is to build a low cost system in order to lower the consumer’s barrier of entry to a company’s product line.

Like the others, Apple also needs to have, and in fact has, an entry-level system. Currently, it is the Mac Mini. However, I would venture to say that in the case of Apple, the Mac Mini is an unsuitable choice for their entry-level system.

Sure, the Mac Mini is the cheapest system Apple can make which would allow new users to see for themselves what the Apple camp looks like and which would hopefully win them over. On the surface, that seems reasonable enough but looking closely, it is flawed.

The Mac Mini does not really allow users to experience what it feels to own a Mac which is more than simply running MacOS X. A big part of it is the pride of owning something beautiful sitting atop your desk and feeling the elegantly designed keyboard and mouse.

Picture this: I have a PC system. I interface with it using a generic keyboard, a generic mouse and a boring LCD. The ugly gray box of a CPU case is hidden somewhere under my desk or my computer table.

I hear all about the elegance and ease of use of the Mac and decide to try it. I go for the entry-level Mac Mini,  of course, as I’m not sure if I’m going to stick with a totally different system which runs a totally different set of software. I then integrate it with my current setup by replacing my old CPU box. I would probably put it in the same place where my old gray box had been or maybe behind the LCD so as not to clutter my workspace.

Sure enough, when I boot it up, I am greeted with OS X instead of Windows. Then, I start to use it with the same mushy keyboard and stare at the same old boring monitor. By the way, the mouse still skips. I still interface with the same three out of four components.

The difference is just one component—and a small one at that. Moreover,the replaced component had not even been much visible to me anyway since it had been hiding under my desk. So, practically nothing really changed aside from the new OS and the fact that I cannot run my old programs. But a well designed OS, such as OS X, is not supposed to get in the way between you and your applications; so I don’t notice the OS too much either except during booting up.

Now answer this: Had the Mac Mini given me a reasonably Mac-like experience like it should have?

You can say that I could buy Apple components to go with my Mac Mini, but since Apple does not have entry-level monitors, I would end up just slightly less than the next higher level system. Not very good for an entry-level.

Apple themselves had been emphasizing that they are a hardware company, not a software company and their choice of an entry-level system should reflect that. The current one does not. The statement it makes goes something like: “Our new product is Mac OS X Leopard. You can try it using your current setup if you just buy this neat add-on to your system—the Mac Mini.” It would seem like the Mac Mini is just there so that you can try the MacOS X. Definitely not the message they want to impart.

If that is all their entry-level system can do, how could they compete with the currently popular practice of installing a legal copy of OS X in a regular PC? (Yes, it’s doable, though somewhat within a legally gray area; and the procedure is floating around the Net for a while now.)

I believe they got it right in the past when their entry-level system was the eMac—and the iMac before it (not the current iMac). Those systems are full-on Apple systems that give you a more complete Apple experience at a low price.

Apple should discontinue further production of the Mac Mini and should instead build a system similar in concept to the eMac and the iMac before it.

Linux on Your Desktop? Why not?

When most people use their Windows computer, it is usually for a small set of applications only. Not all computer users treat their computers as a laboratory of sorts where a lot of programs reside for testing and experimentation. For most of them, the computer is just a means to an end, a tool to get some job done--like getting a date on Facebook.

On top of this list of applications, most probably, is a Web browser for browsing the Internet and updating their Facebook profile. Another application might be a mail client for checking mail from POP and IMAP servers, though others might just use their browsers specially if they happen to use web mail. Some would also want an instant messaging client running in the background just to make sure they don't miss anything. Finally, there is the word processor and spreadsheet for the more mundane tasks (read: work).

If this type of user describes you, then I have some great news for you. You can do all of the above (and more) with Linux! In fact, even if you work with video or animation, are a hardcore gamer, or a graphic artist, Linux can still work for you. There are some animations nowadays that are being created using Linux boxes, and the Wine project makes games like Counter-Strike and others available on Linux. There are also alternatives for those who do graphic designs and desktop publishing.

But let's go back to the casual user, which comprises most of those using a computer. For all of you, Linux is a viable alternative. The only question now would be: "If I can do the things I usually do in both Windows and Linux, why would I switch?".

Well, first of all, everyone wants to be free and in the software world, Linux is freedom. There is no vendor lock-in in Linux. You are free to use whatever technology you want to use. In the Windows world, some things just go well together—specially if they belong to the same company or a deal between them is in place. Microsoft products, for instance, work well among themselves but does not play nice with other technologies.

Forced upgrade is another problem you do not have to deal with in Linux. When Microsoft decides to stop supporting XP, what would you do? Shell out more money for the latest Windows version, of course. In Linux, you can upgrade the whole thing, only the applications you use most, only the kernel, only security patches, or anything in between. You are completely under control.

Software quality and security is also great in the open source world. With all those developers having access to the source code, all bugs are shallow. Patches and updates are also issued at a faster rate compared to commercial software thereby ensuring that you are running the latest and most secure version.

Finally, there is the cost. Most, if not all, of the open source and free (as in freedom) software are free (as in cost=$0). You can't beat that, specially in this very challenging times.

These are only a few of the reasons why making the switch to Linux is such a good idea. You can use Google to find a whole lot more. One thing is sure; as a normal computer user, Linux can take you to places you never thought existed. And by the way, while I was finishing this post, my Digg toolbar notified me of a new article in Digg. It is titled: "25 Reasons to Convert to Linux". How timely; I might as well take you there.

Does a Graphical User Interface Really Makes Applications Easier to Use?

A graphical user interface or GUI is almost synonymous to user interface these days. When somebody talks about a user interface, such is almost always automatically presumed to be graphical.

Believe it or not, there was such a thing as command line or text-based interface before the advent of GUIs. That was the type of interface I was accustomed to while still in college. And believe it or not, some people do find them easier to use than graphical interfaces. This is specially true once you know the application’s commands and options.

I even remember the first time I had my own PC—it was a 486 IBM PS/Value Point. Windows 3.1 was hot during that time and came pre-installed in that PC. Since I was used to the empty black screen and blinking cursor of DOS at school, the array of graphical elements—icons, menus, windows, etc., in different colors—made me feel somewhat dizzy.

The first time I was greeted by the graphical Program Manager, I do not know what to do. Had it been DOS, I would have typed turbo or tp when I wanted to run the Turbo Pascal 7 IDE or typed clipper when I wanted to compile some Clipper source code. But with the Program Manager, I do not know what to type and where to type it—there’s no blinking cursor where I know the input should be entered. Then I learned that I have to use the thing beside the keyboard called a mouse.

Now, I am quite comfortable using the mouse for some pointing and clicking, and dragging and dropping. Maybe a little too comfortable that I am beginning to forget the esoteric things I used to do with the command line. But I still miss the speed and efficiency of using the keyboard instead of the mouse for some tasks.

If you are new to an application, I would heartily agree that a GUI would allow you to make use of its basic functionality more quickly. Once you see a scissor icon on a toolbar button, for instance, you immediately know that it has something to do with cutting an object which you have previously selected and storing it in the clipboard. Had that new application been text oriented, you might not know how to start or what command to use until you read the manual—you might not even know the command-line options and parameters to throw; but that’s what the /? and –h switches are for, right?

But once you are already familiar with the application and its features, sometimes the graphical interface gets in the way. I don’t know if you also feel that sometimes. If you do a Ctrl+C and a Ctrl+V instead of going to the menu bar, clicking edit, bringing the mouse down slightly, clicking copy, moving the mouse to the insertion point, going back to the menu bar to click edit again, dragging the mouse down again and finally clicking paste, you know what I mean.

GUIs are also helpful for applications you do not use frequently because you tend to forget most of their functions. Its nice to click a menu option and see a list of what you can do.

This could be the reason why editors like Vim and Emacs are still quite popular in this day of GUIs even if they rely more on user commands rather than point and click functionality. Users of these systems use them extensively (partly because you can use them with practically anything—text processing, source code editing, mail, as an HTML editor, etc.) and hence become very familiar with their commands to the point that it is much more quick and efficient for them to type the commands directly and that a GUI would only get in their way.

What Makes the Mac Great

The Mac has been known for its elegant and easy to use interface. For that reason, creative types like layout designers, writers, desktop publisher, etc., are drawn to it.

Ease of use, however, has a downside. Some of it are achieved by reducing the number of choices or options a user can make. The idea was: less options, less confusion.

This works fine for those with a definite set of feature requirements because once those feature set are provided by the system or its applications, the user is satisfied.

But there are those users who need, say, feature A for determining network connections and a slight variation of the same feature A for checking FTP logs, and so on. The developer cannot predict the different variations this type of users need for feature A. The result is, either the developer tries to implement all conceivable variations of feature A, which would result in bloated software, or the developer would only implement a small set of the variation. In both cases, the end result is sub-optimal. This type of users need more flexibility than ease of use.

For these users, a flexible system is necessary. While this need is satisfied by Linux, FreeBSD and other Unix-like systems, some people cannot stay with these systems alone for long. Even though they needed the flexibility offered by these systems, they do not need that degree of flexibility all the time. Sometimes, they also do mundane tasks with definite requirements which, while doable, is unnecessarily difficult using these systems.

There are two possible solutions for this: the first one is to buy a Mac, and also a PC with Linux or FreeBSD; the second is to configure a dual-boot PC which allows the user to choose either Linux or a more familiar MS Windows operating system.

Obviously, the first option is only for a fortunate few. Most would go with the second option. During boot time the user would choose either an easy to use system or a flexible one. Seems good on the surface—until you decide, in the middle of your job, that you need to work on the other operating system. This would require a reboot and and choosing the other system from there. This is okay if you only have to do that like once or twice a day; but if it is more than that and your boot time is not fast enough, it will start to become a hassle.

But with the introduction of MacOS X, these problems vanish in thin air. Like the previous Mac Classic, it still has the elegant and easy to use interface Mac users come to know and expect. At its core, however, is Unix. It is as easy to use and as elegant as all its predecessors but has the flexibility only Unix (or Unix-like systems like Linux and FreeBSD) can offer. In short, this is the best of both worlds.

So, if your PC is currently configured to dual-boot Windows and Linux or FreeBSD, the Mac could be the best platform for you. Your friends will gawk at that beautiful hardware too.

Netbooks: The Best Tool for Writers and Bloggers

Netbooks may not be the most powerful machines out there. The storage space that comes with them is small and their processing power leaves much to be desired. But they do have a lot to offer—specially for writers and bloggers. The price of these gadgets are also very attractive.

If you really think about it, most gadgets build up on their predecessors. New laptops, for instance, sport higher memories and storage capacities, faster processors, brighter LCDs, etc., than the previous models. Netbooks, on the other hand, seem to go the opposite way. The last time I checked, most have half the secondary storage capacity of regular laptops.

Fortunately, writers and bloggers do not really need the fastest processors and the roomiest hard disk. The slowest processor of even ten years ago is way faster than your average typing speed specially if you factor in the time you spend thinking of what you need to write. Fast computers simply waste processor cycles waiting for your next keystroke.

Hard disk capacity is also a non-issue for most of us—even if what you are writing is a thousand-page book. Plain text, which is what most writers work with most of the time, does not take up much space—even if you include the Docbook or Latex markups (or whatever markup you use).

The software we use are also not hardware intensive. Most of the time, we only need a browser, a text editor, an email client and a blog client. You can install these on a hard drive with modest space and they don’t require much memory to run.

You can even get by with just a browser if that is what you want. You can post entries to your blog with its web interface. If that does not appeal to you, there are a lot of online text editors which you can use to draft your post or your manuscript like EditPad, FCKeditor, and Google Docs. The latter two can be used for more than text editing. (Personally, I’d rather have my stand-alone text editor.) Most email services could also be accessed online without a dedicated desktop client. With these applications, and references like an online thesaurus and dictionary, you only need an internet connection and your netbook. It truly is a Net book.

By giving up features you’re not going to need much anyway, netbooks are able to offer you something you do need—a small size and the right price. In these financially troubled times, the sticker is not something to be easily ignored and that of the netbook is refreshingly affordable.

Believe it or not, the size of the netbook can enhance your creativity. You can bring it with you in the park, the garden, the beach or anywhere your creative juice flows freely. Changing your working environment can sometimes get you through blocks and working in the same corner every time is not the most conducive way to write. A netbook is easier and more convenient to transport than a full-size laptop.

So the next time you write a novel in which the setting is in Italy, you might find yourself there, sitting in a sidewalk cafe, netbook open.