Aendrea

4/03/2013

What's going on here? A few days ago, I asked GMX for a list of IP addresses from which my account was accessed. They gave me 3 IP addresses, 165.123.237.31, 209.85.223.26, and 66.220.147.245. And this is where this story gets twisted. While the first one was me, the second one was registered to Google, and the third one was registered to Facebook.

How could this happen? I've never linked GMX to either Google or Facebook. I've neither set up a POP/IMAP connection between Google and GMX nor a Facebook App connection between Facebook and GMX. While it is possible that those IPs could have belonged to someone else in the past, but this could not be the case because big businesses almost always use static IP and Google and Facebook have been around for a while. So something phishy is going on here.

1/06/2011

The New Facebook Messages @Facebook.com

Uninstall Integrated Adobe Flash from Google Chrome

Today, I uninstalled Integrated Adobe Flash from Google Chrome, as part of my '11 "Quitting eating while watching" commitment. At first, the uninstallation process seemed complex, but it turned out to be simple in the end.

1. Type in and go to "about:plugins" on Google Chrome. You can see the Integrated Adobe Flash plugin for Chrome, and enable or disable it here. But this was too easy and accessible for me to make my quitting meaningful. So I went steps further.

2. Uninstall Adobe Flash from the system via Windows Control Panel. This will remove Flash from Internet Explorer.

3. Find and delete Integrated Flash for Chrome plugin files. This will remove Flash from Chrome. As the chart shows, for Windows the files are gcswf32.dll and npswf32.dll.

4. Check "about:plugins" again. It will show that Flash is gone for good. Now, it's measurably more difficult and inaccessible to use Flash.

Uninstalling Flash from Chrome is my first step toward "Quitting eating while watching." Instead of watching, I plan to do other things. I have yet found other things to do while eating, so for now my eyes and ears will pay attention to the food. Still, I think uninstalling Flash from Chrome was a good first step forward. Without the constant distraction, I could finally see my environment, hear my thoughts, and enjoy the food.

MetroTwit.exe: a resource hogger

I liked MetroTwit. The Metro UI was attractive. But its cons outweighed its pros.

MetroTwit is a resource hogger. I don't exactly know why it hogs resources but my guess is either that a piece of the code is on an infinite loop or that the program is a tweet hoarder. Actually, the latter does not make sense because a tweet is a 14 Unicode characters while the program took 450 MB of RAM in an hour. It does not add up.

Whatever the reason is, for now, I am off MetroTwit. There just isn't a good Twitter client for both Mac and PC.

Facebook Profile Hack

Lifehacker Guest Writer Application

Stepcase Lifehack Registration and/or Application

Apple is genius. But that's equal parts good and bad.

Their hardwares are beautiful. Their softwares are simple. Apple is genius. But their genius strategy has good and bad implications.

The first point of attraction is of course the hardware. No Windows machine offers the kind of integrated art/science that Mac machines offer. Mac machines are pleasing to the eye. No wonder, because, at Apple, engineers follow designers.

The second point of attraction is the software. Mac OS is the OS for everyone, really. As a child of Unix, it meets the needs of superusers. Logic and Final Cut make things easy for musicians and directors. Ported Adobe Creative Suite and Microsoft Office Suite serve night owls and early birds. And the easiness and the prettiness of Mac give its users some happiness while they do the things they have to do. This happiness is something Windows could not provide since XP.

I believe this is because Windows, essentially, plateaued since they switched to NT kernel in XP. While this switch generated great happiness to everyone who used PC back then, since then, no significant changes came to Windows. It still had registry problems, firmware problems, driver problems, and other problems that arose from platform fragmentation. Mac, on the other hand, listened to users and got rid of these problems by integrating their products.

Like I wrote before, Mac made things easy and pretty. By integrating their products, by supplying a complete set of pretty hardware and easy software, Apple made it unnecessary for users to get rid of problems. Apple did it for them. Superusers didn't have to search the web for solutions to system problems. Apple supplied all the resources like firmware and drivers in a single disc. Non-superusers didn't have to search for superusers because Apple made installation/uninstallation as simple as drag-and-drop. No registry meant no indexing so Macs didn't require the periodic maintenance that Windows required. So dumb people didn't require smart people to fix their computers.

It sounds like Apple did a good job, but their good job has a bad implication. Apple's "easy and pretty" strategy makes its smart users dumb and dumb users dumber. Macs produce less problems. Less problems means less questions. And less questions mean less intellect. Admittedly, this is a good thing for people who are not technologically inclined and do not care about computer education. They can just focus on doing their jobs on a easy and pretty machine. To those who are technologically inclined and care about computer education, this means a bad thing. With the advent of iOS and Mac App Stores, Apple will reduce the number of hackers in the world.

Of course, I am aware that I am assuming a few things here in making this argument. One of my assumptions is that users first learn about computers by playing with programs. Eventually, after a thousandth time of manual installations/uninstallations, the user would have a basic understanding of how computers behave. They would know some programming and markup languages, even. I believe this is a reasonable assumption about computing. With the App Stores, however, I assume the user would never learn anything about computing. They'd essentially be zombies with credit cards, clicking/tapping icons for an instantaneous amusement. Thus the App Stores will prevent the coming of future generation of hackers.

My argument is that a world of hackers is better than a world of zombies. I have no doubt that capitalists prefer a world of zombies over a world of hackers. Zombies follow the rules, pay for things, and cause no trouble. Hackers, on the other hand, never adhere to the Terms of Agreements, never buy the latest bundle of Windows or the package of Family Guy DVD, and never stop jailbreaking the iDevices. But these seemingly bad things are actually good things. In a world of hackers, all these bad things will result in a net positive instead of negative, for intellectual competition between hackers will yield better intellectual properties for the consumption of the general public. It would mean better trade agreements, better IP laws, better protection of copyrighted materials, and better scrutinization of black hats. Id est, hackers will check and balance themselves. In a world of zombies, on the other hand, the general public will be ruled by an oligopoly of technocrats. It may be a peaceful world, but it will be a stupid world, prone to an insidious exploitation.

My argument, however, is a value judgment. I am perhaps biased against stupefying computer users because I identify myself as a computer geek. Maybe the App Stores are not so bad. Maybe they are the products of computing evolution. Maybe they are the solution for IP violations. By regulating IPs in a closed hegemonic platform and by making this platform too easy and pretty to cultivate hackers, the App Stores solve the problem of piracy and thus create a safe market. And in this market, the consumers gain from the accessibility to products, the producers gain from the protection from piracy, and Apple gains a whopping 30% from every transaction between them. In the Android Market, too, Google gains 30%. It's a win-win-and win for everyone involved, especially Apple and Google. I see a potential problem with this, but not everyone might share the same concern. I leave it up to you to form your own opinion.

Titles or Titles?

The Chinese Government is Unfairly Protectionist

It's simple really. While America is open to and accepts competitive Chinese goods and services (comparative advantage = labor intensive), China is closed to and rejects competitive American goods and services (comparative advantage = technology intensive). For example, many Chinese firms export manufacturing goods to America, but not many American firms export communication services to China. That's not because American communication services can't scale to China. It's because the Chinese government is unfairly protectionist.

Here is a real world example. America accepts Foxconn whereas China rejects Facebook. While the Chinese government allows Apple to outsource its manufacturing jobs and sell its products in the Chinese market, it does not allow Facebook to do anything in China. Why? Because, to the Chinese government, Apple is beneficial in some ways while Facebook is beneficial in no way. Apple employs and trains Chinese workers. Facebook, on the other hand, doesn't do that.

There are 1.3 billion people in China. It requires elementary intellect to figure out that Facebook, Twitter, and Google have an enormous incentive to get in touch with that population. And they do everything possible to cater to their linguistic and other accessibility needs, but they are just not allowed to enter their market. Instead, the American companies are censured from the Chinese market. And in absence of Facebook, Twitter, and Google, there arise the Chinese copies of them: Renren, Weibo, and Baidu. The American companies, in effect, lose 1.3 billion customers in this rigged game. Not only that, they also lose their time-sensitive momentum and their intellectual properties.

The studies in the field of International Economics reveal that, in the long run, protectionist policies indeed benefit the growth of domestic infant industries. So, from the Chinese's perspective, their protectionism makes sense. But it does not make sense in the perspective of the world. The world loses so much while the Chinese gains. The Chinese government is a definitional hypocrite if it argues for free trade in one area and defends its protectionism in another area. The world, too, deserves some wag of the finger for arguing for free trade while not being its defender. In America's perspective, in order to save America from its 13 trillion dollar debt, the American government must shoulder against foreign governments for brutally fair trade agreements and property rights laws. And then heavily subsidize student education and worker training. Only after that, America will profit from specializing in comparatively advantageous industries.

11/18/2010

Bain & Co.

I missed my Bain & Co. interview, apparently. I did not know about it. I thought Bain didn't invite me.

Here's what happened. On September 16, I applied to Bain and BCG via PennLink and their respective websites. On September 25, PennLink informed me that both Bain and BCG rejected me. I was devastated. But then after a while, I was not so devastated anymore and started paying closer attention to my schoolwork, instead of obsessing about emails from Bain or BCG. Apparently, eleven days later, on October 6, Bain sent me an email invite to an interview. And I missed it by accident and did not know about it until now.

Today, I called the recruiter who sent me that email invite. I explained to her my situation, how I thought I deserved another shot at Bain. She said she will talk to her boss. So I thanked her for listening to me and hung up.

I do not know what will happen to my application to Bain. I very much hope they find some inappropriate humor in my gravely unfortunate situation. One thing I learned through this, though, is that PennLink is not trustworthy. To the person who clicked the box "Not Invited" next to my name on September 25, I thank you for your inattentiveness. My life just became a little harder and a lot more interesting.

10/20/2010

Motivation is useless.

Let's think about motivation.

I think motivation is useless. Generally, there is no one source of mental energy that lasts throughout our endeavors. Of course, emotional events produce some motivation but these are rare and only momentary. For example, you may watch a uniquely moving movie and be motivated to produce (study, work, work out, et cetera), but sooner or later, the movie will not motivate you anymore. This is inevitable. Therefore, I argue that, given the scarcity of time, using time to look for a rare and momentary motivation is irrational.

Instead, using that time to learn to produce without motivation makes more sense. And learning to produce without motivation entails two lessons: one, movement is inertial; and two, the objective is to acquire the ability to create an "accident."

First, we need to internalize the concept that movement is inertial. People tend to have this notion that great motivation renders great production, but this is nonsense. Motivation temporarily renders some production, if at all. What is sensible is the notion that great production renders more great production. For example, it is easier to go directly from reading to writing than to have a break for playing in between them. Here is a more elaborate example. Consider which sequence is easier to complete: (1) study for a test - take the test - do homework; or (2) study for a test - take the test - watch television - do homework. The answer is (1), and this is because there is a domino effect. We feel that extending production without a pause is relatively easier than restarting production from a pause. This teaches us that we should try to avoid pauses between productions and keep productions in a series.

Next, we need to learn how to create what I call an "accident," the initial spark to start a chain production. An accident, in this purpose, is a string of small behaviors that triggers a small production in harmony. For example, in order to start writing a research paper, I may execute the strings [use restroom, wash hands, apply hand lotion], then [get coffee, open a book, read some] and then [power computer, play favorite music, run textedit]. When practiced, this method proves to be easier to complete than executing each behavior one by one or executing only the first and the last behaviors. Creating an accident, as you can see, is an intentional grouping of behaviors such that each string increases the momentum toward the next string. Executing behaviors in this manner generates a potential for a chain production and eliminates the need for a motivation.

I leave you the references in the form of imperatives. I hope you never waste time again on looking for a motivation.

Think domino theory, positive feedback loop, and self-fulfilling prophecy. And think Pavlov.

10/11/2010

Blogspot Dashboard Widget

In Motion

Wearable Display Mobile Computing

The key is the software. Especially the input/output software. When the wearable display mobile computing industry appears, the key will be in the innovative and intuitive handsfree input/output software.

Whether it be eyeglasses or contact lenses, soon the mobile computing industry will direct itself to using a type of wearable display. That means that the output devices for the future mobile computers will be more or less the same. And that implies that the strategic area for competition will be in the input devices and the i/o software. I imagine that the new generation handsfree i/o softwares will use different combinations of input interfaces to compete for dominance. Far far into the future, the i/o software could use a BCI to create the "computer in the brain" experience for the user. For example, the i/o software may use an EEG to interpret my thought command to search Google for the nearest pizzeria, and then it would use the wearable display to give me the search results. (It could not send the information directly to my awareness via "thought" channels because the EEG does not have the capacity to manipulate brain signals.) But before that time comes, mobile computers could use some other physical interfaces to communicate with the user. For example, I can imagine an input system that uses a motion sensor attached to the index finger so that it can interpret my "writing in the air" as typing. This device could also be used as a pointing device for the displays. Or the input system for wearable displays can be as primitive as using a touchscreen for the mobile computer in the user's pocket and using the wearable display as a secondary display in clone mode.

What made the iPhone is not the hardware but the iOS that revolutionized the way we use touchscreen displays. I suspect that the wearable displays, such as the eyeglasses display or the contact lens display, will face the same fate. How the future i/o softwares use various input devices to control the revolutionary wearable display will be what sets the products apart.

5/25/2010

Toward Brain-Computer Interface (BCI) Personal Computers (PC).

The next revolutionary stage of personal computing for me would be when Brain-Computer Interfaces (BCI), devices that can interpret human cognition using methods such as EEG/MEG/MRI/fMRI, are dominant over other interfaces in personal computing. Looking at the exponential growth of technology over the last century, chances are that full-featured BCI PCs (PCs that use BCI) will appear in the consumer market in the next 50 years. But looking at the failure of the flying cars or the fact that Apple took 3 years to bring multitasking to iPhone OS, that prediction of 50 years might be unfounded. I wonder what kind of form a commercial BCI PC would take, whether it would be invasive like the Matrix's simulated reality or non-invasive like the thought-controlled wheelchair of X-Men's Professor Xavier. Of course, in real life, the wheelchair would be controlled by something more realistic like brainwaves, not superhuman mind power. I suspect that there will be both invasive and non-invasive BCI PCs and that they won't be significantly different from one another. Much like how we have different forms of computers that are essentially similar today. Today, I wanted to write about the things we might see on the road to BCI PCs and the things that are preventing BCI PCs.

I have always thought that the final barrier frontier of human-computer interaction would be when there are neuroprosthetics or cyber prosthetics for the eyes, for the ears, and for parts of the brain. They are the only three places in our body in which our visual and auditory perception can be intercepted, interpreted, and interfered by a computer. Sight and hearing are important because they are the primary communication media between humans and computers. The remaining three senses, touch, smell, and taste, can never comprehend an *.avi file. Prosthetics for the eyes, the ears, and parts of the brain are available today, but those that are available now are rudimentary, are independent from one another, and are not anymore functional than the real biological organs. Perhaps when they could emulate the real organs perfectly, they could further advance to the point where it can be used as parts of a full-featured BCI PCs. But before we get there, I think we may see some devices that may provide near-BCI PC experience. Two of these devices that are available today are the chunky bluetooth earpieces and the dorky computer-glasses. Not so cool. But imagine a James Bond style stereo earpieces and a transparent contact lens display that use wireless energy transfer for power and wireless communication technology to connect to the mobile computer in your pocket. The earpieces would play background music in low-volume while letting external auditory stimuli to permeate thru, and the transparent contact lens would fake display imaginary objects like a Facebook or VNC window over real world objects. Cool, no? Augmenting the eyes and the ears with devices that can augment sight and hearing would be a milestone achievement for human-computer interaction, and I don't think they are that far away. At least the non-invasive ones are already here.

Looking at the currently available products in the market, I assume that it is easier to have a computer understand brain signals than to have a brain understand computer signals. In the market, there are several products that can be controlled by brainwaves using electroencephalography (EEG), but there are significantly fewer products that can control brainwaves. In other words, we have succeeded in transferring data out from the brain using machines, but we have not yet succeeded in transferring data into it. In other other words, we have an I/O issue, and I don't think this is an easy problem to solve. Solving it would require completely understanding visual phototransduction and auditory mechanotransduction, when we don't even know where consciousness is from. As such, I believe it is safe to assume that when we first see BCI PCs that use the human brain as its input device, we will see them use a kind of a monitor and a kind of a speaker as their output devices. And we will use our eyes and ears as our input devices and our brain as our output device. That is a disappointment because it falls a bit short of having a computer in your head. However, if the things I said in the previous paragraph happen, we might see EEG-controlled transparent contact lens displays and James Bond bluetooth stereo earpieces, which don't sound so bad at all.

5/24/2010

Be friends first, and then get into their pants. Philosophy on Economics on Relationships.

Often, romantic relationships start when one party lays eyes on the other party's pants. They want to get into them. Their pants, I mean. A man will do just about anything to get into a woman's pants, and a woman will too to get into her favorite man's pants. And when they get into their partners' pants, they think that everything will work out and that they will have a real shot at a future with their partners. Sometimes, they think this even before the pants sharing party. This is normal. We all do this. We are all humans, and it's human to let our emotions drive us. There's nothing wrong with this picture at all, except that it's myopic.

Let's ponder. A boy meets a girl. He likes her. He thinks she is the one. He wants to talk to her, play with her, kiss her, touch her, and have a pants sharing party with her. To that end, he tries to impress her. He begins to dress nicer than normal, shaves regularly, and gets contact lenses. He even researches about the things she likes and learns them. He tries to be more likable to her, for her, for himself. When he feels he is ready to sweep her off her feet, he asks her out or even confesses his love for her. Maybe, they get together. And just maybe, they live happily ever after. But more often than not, they don't. After a while, the boy realizes that he can't be honest to her because he wasn't from the start.

It is not possible to have a real future with someone, unless you base that relationship on honest foundations. In the common boy-meets-girl stories, the boy gets the girl, but he does so under false pretensions. In order to get the girl, he becomes who he isn't. He changes to appear more appealing, more sophisticated, and more handsome. When a time comes where the boy wants to share his true self with the girl, he realizes he can't because he never has. Then he wonders if she would accept his true self, the one who doesn't always dress nice, shaves regularly, or wears contact lenses. And the relationship becomes a situation, and the situation becomes detrimental to the boy and unfair to the girl.

Some may say this is a compromise between sexes or genders or persons. Men generally desire a specific kind of women, and women generally desire a specific kind of men. So, in order to get what they desire, they make an effort to be more like what their prospective partners desire. Or, to say it in another way, Person A wants Person B, but Person B likes a specific type, so Person A makes an effort to be more like that type. Person B does the same for Person A. Perhaps Persons A and B find it flattering to have each other make effort to be more suitable for each other. Said this way, the said compromise appears more realistic and acceptable. I agree, but only if this compromise occurs after both parties have consented to the relationship, such that there wouldn't have been an asymmetry of information and adverse selection at the start of the relationship.

I believe it is not only wise but also honorable to try to be friends first. Have honest connections and share true selves. Never lie and never disguise. Don't follow a playboy's ploys and don't assume there is a one-size-fits-all rulebook of attraction. These principles may make it harder for you to be his or her frontrunner suitor, but if the things are meant to be, you would have the relationship you wanted to have. I want to demonstrate this point with a helpful too called the decision tree that is used in the fields of decision theory and game theory. Let's say there are two players in a game where each takes a turn to make a choice, and there are 4 nodes of choices (but symbolically infinite). The choices are all either to lie or to not lie, and the payoffs are such that MyLying(-1 for Me, -2 for You) and MyNotLying(+1 for Me, +2 for You). Then, rollback theorem will say that the point at which there are the most points for both parties is where none of them have lied once. That point represents the ideal relationship. And that's why we should try to be friends with those we like before we try to get into their pants. I am, however, assuming that we don't lie to our friends.

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_asymmetry; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_selection; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision_tree)

Twitter Updates

4/03/2013

3/31/2011

2/22/2011

2/19/2011

2/16/2011

2/14/2011

1/22/2011

1/06/2011

1/03/2011

12/22/2010

12/19/2010

11/25/2010

11/20/2010

11/18/2010

10/20/2010

10/11/2010

10/10/2010

10/03/2010

5/25/2010

5/24/2010

5/21/2010