Of Bits and Grit

Jeremy Kirk wrote in Infoweek yesterday,

"In just three years, the bytes of data generated by digital cameras, mobile phones, businesses IT systems, and devices will equal the number of grains of sand on the world's beaches."

His reference is the IDC White Paper (PDF): "The Expanding Digital Universe: A Forecast of Worldwide Information Growth Through 2010", published March of this year. The report itself-- though an absolutely fascinating read--makes no mentions of sand nor beaches. What it does name is an estimated 988 exabytes of digital information will be "created captured and replicated" in the year 2010. This is a sixfold increase from the amount of similar data calculated for 2006.

So how does Mr. Kirk make the leap from this abstract information measure to the real and concrete aggregate (puns intended) of grains of sand? His calculations for this number and therefore the comparison are not presented in his article. So I must intercede with my own:

• The size of a grain of sand is 0.25mm (range of .0125 to .25mm, I choose the larger for a lower total #)
• The shape is cubic for 1 grain of sand (for efficient packing, raises the number by x2 perhaps against a fractal packing of 1.2 to 1.4 space factor over the 1.0 of the cube)
• There are 1.5 million kilometers of shoreline (not all sand, but okay, presume 90% are)
• It is 50 meters from waterline avg for a "beach" at low tide (that's a WAG if I ever heard one. The "breadth" of a beach is also a fractal measure.)
• The beach consists of the first 1 meter depth of sand (the deeper you go, generally the rockier the sand becomes, but there is still sand in most places at 1 meter, so this is Very conservative, perhaps by a factor of five or more.)

With the above suppositions we calculate to: 4.8 x 10^21 grains of sand. In binary storage terms, that's about 4.8 ZB or "zettabytes"). Remove the wiggle room I gave myself in the WAG for shoreline percentage of sand and for packing of grains and you're still in the 4.0 ZB range.

So based on my admittedly gross calculations of sand grains, Mr. Kirk is off by a factor of 41. A small factor, one might consider, but when you're in the exabyte range, it adds up pretty quickly. Especially since the IDC whitepaper says that the rate is "sixfold between '06 and '10". With a linear growth rate (which is very likely wrong, it is probably log), the 4.8ZB figure won't be reached for 21 more years afterwards. Even with Log rates of increase, it would be nine years later, or 2019 when we'd have bit-to-grain veridical veraciousness.

So how could the Infoweek article be so far off the mark in this punchy but inaccurate lead to the article? The difference is obviously in the calculation for number of grains of sand. I've laid out my suppositions here. But what of Mr. Kirk? A quick Google on the question at hand and we can see that Mr. Kirk undoubtedly was "Feeling Lucky" and picked his "grains of sand" measure from the University of Hawaii (UofH) web page. The results given here co-incide nicely with the exabyte figure from the IDC paper.

But I don't accept the UofH presumptions, and therefore reject the results. Compare the reasoning of UofH--which is obviously concerned with methods and not results for this specific scientific quandry--to the methods described above. Massively different estimates in all dimensions on the UofH page leads to a number of 7.5 x 10^18, a number "close enough" for mister Kirk to correlate to the information space data in the IDC paper.

I conclude accepting the UofH values without criticism as sloppy research. Their example was used to show methods and so less that rigorous methods were used to determine the inputs to the calculation. I stand by my estimates, which were independently (cough) arrived at within a similar discussion which tries to map number of stars in the universe to these same grains of sand (I'm beginning to think that Blake's meme, mapping sand to the size of big things, like the Universe, has truly escaped the farm).

Other calculations support my findings with an 18% similarity (3.2 x 10^21), so I feel I'm on solid ground. Well, as solid as shifting sands and fractal coastlines can be.

Discussion

Of course, the real question (provided to me by my friend and colleague Michael Ellard) is this: When we get to the saddle point of sand and data, how much memory (computer chip) space will be necessary to create/store all that data?

I don't have the answer, but I can consider the problem.

• The size of the store =>
• size of the chip =>
• size of the die =>
• number of die on a silicon wafer =>
• size of the silicon wafer =>
• number of grains of sand to make all those wafers.

And is there a saddle point there? At which point will all the grains of sand of all the beaches of the world intersect with the need for computer chips to store all the information we are creating.

At that point, the entire world will be the computer.
And the answer will be: 42.
Q.E.D.

iDon't need an iPhone

Yet another "cute" iPhone blog title. Sorry for that.
I'm going to chime in with MHO on the iPhone. Because that's what blogs are for, of course.
I was amused some friends waited in line for it on the first day. For 12 hours. Only to get just a 3 hour jump in use. Yes, on the people who didn't wait in line but just walked in before store closing and picked one up. Same price, no special deal. The line thing would have been worth it (I suppose) if there had been the kind of distribution problems that seem to always beset the console gaming industry. I guess Apple is just better at volume production than Nintendo? Or distribution? Or the boxes were smaller so they could fit more on the trucks?

But I digress.

I checked out the iPhone, in-person, the First Day (well, ,+1, the First Full Day). I hefted and touched and web-surfed with a co-worker's, and then again, and perused other features, later at the iStore. It is certainly an impressive piece of kit, but it would have to be more open than it is to really be a PDA (or laptop replacement). Which it isn't being touted as--except that it could be...almost.

Or it would need to be in the price range of my $100ish RAZR 3X. For the price, it really just doesn't do enough, as surprising as that sounds. Rather enough of what I would want, or enough more than I already have. The $300 delta is too much a premium to be able to find my playlists easier or zoom in on pictures. 802.11 and web browsing is interesting, but maybe only painless enough (repeated café logins with the virtual keyboard? no thanks!) when city-wide wifi is finally done. If I'm at home I'll use my laptop for real surfing, and if I'm at work...sorry! Have to log into the VPN and I'm just not of the Crackberry generation. Using the stylus with my Handspring was painful enough to tap through the keyboard (hey, what happened to the Newton's handwriting recongition software? Slap that onto the iPhone and now you're getting closer!). I don't "text", and I barely talk enough on the cell to really have to carry one around. I let my full-sized qwerty do my talking any my full-size Firefox do my browsing, thank you.

That's not to say I can't imagine an iPhone or some other multifunction device that I would want to have. Merely the presence of OS/X behind the iPhone is soooo tantalizing. But there needs to be more convergence. To review:

Home convergence = big screen + video storage + DVR + game + 2-way (windowed web browsing) + one remote :^)

Portable convergence = cell phone + music player + GPS + eBook reader + 2-way + really, really good voice recognition or some kinda better keyboarding for my finger size.

The thing that gives me hope this convergence will happen and the fruit on this branch of the technology tree will ripen is that almost everything on the wishlist for laptops 15 years ago you can now get for well less than $1000. Maybe not the 12h battery, but almost. So I use my desk computer for the bigger screens (2 of 'em), but I really, really could use my laptop for everything, work & play. So I expect to say the same thing about my future laptop and some future iPophoVidder.

But not yet.
Unless...it were about $100. Just wait until AT&T gets their rebate fingers on this in a handful of months from now....

The Far(ther) Flung Future
What would be really cool is just a "mesh" of personal products. Your bluetooth earbud(s) talk to your phone when it is in range, and your laptop's or desktop's or home media center's music/video inventory when you're near those things (or they stream through your phone, I don't care how it works!). Your phone doesn't have to come out of your pocket unless you want to look at the screen to know where you are, or to use it as a remote for your laptop (mouse/pointer) or to push/get media content from some other device in your mesh. You could ask for your phone screen to pick up whatever video media content you're streaming and keep it going as you walk to the fridge, but IMHO, that's what a "pause" button is for.

Digression: When I was younger I didn't want to put down my paperback for anything, but I rarely get that deeply engaged anymore. A pause button for video works fine for me.

And, finally, big screens are sooo good now (really, 1080p I didn't have on my desktop workstation monitor 10 years ago!) you can really read text (appropriately driven). So an eBook interface would be cool, there, too. I may not read Harry Potter in the living room with the family ("Dad! Go Back! I wasn't done with that page yet!"), but I can see reading in bed getting a whole lot more comfortable. I could use my iPhone to advance the pages or select chapters, or even serve the book's display to my bedroom LCD display's 802.11 or Bluetooth receiver.

Now we're talking.

As long as I don't get interrupted by a phone call.

Interact 10 ways: cool photographic art on the web

There's nothing I can say that will make the experience of the Flash applications on this website any cooler, so you just have to check them out for yourself. Give yourself some time. If it isn't obvious at first, take the time to figure it out. Then take more time to really immerse yourself. Totally worth it.

Interact 10 Ways.

Awesome.

Chiming in on HD-DVD v. Blu Ray. The "format wars" won't be "won" by the actions of anyone who really cares.

At the root, the only ones who care if there is actually an HD-DVD versus Blu Ray format war are those who've taken sides already and are really worried that they've made the wrong choice--or worse, feel the need to make others see that the choice they made for themselves is The Right Choice for everyone else. This is the bane of the early adopter. So in the first few months I can see their angst. Because an overwhelming tide (I'm thinking MS-DOS versus CP/M) will just crush the opposition and early capitulation before large capital investment is a likely reality.

But we're past that point in history now. The war, if you can characterize it as such, would have to be of type trench. As in "down in the trenches" or "an entrenched position". They're both in for the long fight. Both sides claim better numbers, in actual and in trends than the other. More units, by geo, in title sales, in number of committed studios providing content, by user rentals, etc., etc. To cut to the chase here, I strongly believe that both formats will be here for a while.
More about what "a while" is, below. But lets dig into the arguments in this "war". A little battlefield analysis, if you will.

Posts on Cnet Reviews makes me wonder if the Blockbuster Blu-Ray rental numbers are because people had PS3 w/players and realized, "Hey! I can play a movie on this, let's go rent one." Versus a person who buys a standalone player with the idea they'll be building a library. For Blockbuster it doesn't matter, they just need to stay on the trends and offer the right rentals for their customers, but for those who are trying to look into their crystal balls and figure out the future of Blu-Ray or HD-DVD, it does matter how PS/3s are counted. Which is to say, as long as (or if ever) game console owners buy a significant % of movies as standalone player buyers, then the whole "which is better" discussion for Xbox360 v. PS3, has to be a part of this one. I suppose what may eventually drive which standalone HD disk player I buy will be what game player I buy. If there's a game on the PS3 or on XBox360 I REALLY want to play (GT-5 or Halo-3?) I might pick up that console--and it doesn't make sense to get it without the highly-subsized HD disk player. But then, after having it, possesion will be a great reason to buy the other format in a standalone player! So PS3 sales might drive HD-DVD player sales! What a crazy world.

Another tack in the battlefield is to focus on the formats and relative merits of each. There's the size argument. Blu-Ray holds more--but riposte: HD-DVD 2 or 4-layer can hold more or both DVD and an HD version on the same disk. As for me, size doesn't matter (no jokes, please). I don't look at a movie title and see how much free space is left-over on the disk. The movie producers aren't going to edit their films for the theater with disk space in mind. And Lucas and Scorcese might care if their 7.1 had to be thunked down to mere 5.1, but few consumers will. What percentage of DVDs still play out of two speakers? VHS has had to deal with limited length, as does DVD, as will any capacity media. Pournelle's rule: Content grows to exceed capacity. Corners will be cut, compromises will be made, few will notice. Do I care if an HD disk also has DVD on it? Maybe, if my old DVD player will play that disk and I haven't bought an HD-DVD player yet, and there's some other compelling reason to get the HD version given that I don't have the player yet.

I do agree with some arguments made about 2nd disks and extra content. I agree in that they are valid observations: HD-DVDs will probably have to (for a while) bundle a second piece of media for extra features to not skimp on the sound and encoding possibilities for the main feature. But I disagree that that is a liability in the war. Already in the current DVD titles there are single disk movie-only versions and multi-disk special editions for a few $ more. Some of this has to do with Wal-Tar-Cost-mart wanting to keep that $15.99 price point. Some of it has to do with Blockbuster and Netflix shipping one disk or two. At some point in the future this won't be an issue, but I'll return to that later.

Quality is an issue to many early adopters, those who believe their purchases and opinions might sway the tide, but we're just climbing to the middle of the adoption curve and they and the long tail that follows is who the market will pay attention to. Look at DVD Superbit sales or other high-quality encodings. They don't outsell the other versions. I guess I'd pick the high quality version of a DVD if it were near the same price, but I wouldn't pay a lot more for the difference, because generally I don't notice the difference! You have to watch these versions side-by-side or look at screen captures to notice the differences. Ditto 5.1 v. 7.1 Dolby Tru-Dolby or 1.3HDMI SuperDooperDoolby-THX-whatever.

Perhaps a better comparison would be between Pan-Scan and widescreen editions (when on separate disks). Both are available at the same price. The choice by the discriminating consumer is always for the "higher quality" widescreen (fidelity to the original). But I bet many fullscreen titles still outsell widescreen because of perceived value. Parents want Bambi to fill the screen, and don't care about the director's vision for framing. Nor the audio quality, for that matter (portable, or in-car DVD players, anyone?). Early adopters of HD players will cringe, but they've already demonstrated their interest in the higher quality format, so they're not representative of The Great Unwashed Indiscriminate Viewer. A super-size fast food meal doesn't sell because it is better, after all.

Consider the generally mediocre quality of digital music. The biggest seller (via iTunes) isn't the best quality. Mediocre digital music sells because of price and availability, irrespective of the rants of cognescenti who'd only listen to a ripped CD if it was in lossless .wav format (only to be trumped by vinyl-draggers and tube amplifier snobs).

So if, and I think we can all agree on this, volume will ultimately be the self-reinforcing feedback in the market, then it won't be number of disks or features or two more channels of sound or lossless versus lossy. It will come down to price and availability. Availability of the players, and Cost-Wal-Tar-co are going to have a lot to do with that. And availability of the titles. So far, I'm seeing that the titles I would replace in my DVD collection are on HD-DVD, but that's just my past tastes showing. Of the new titles coming out, it is a pretty even split, and that's too bad for me. Because after all, all said and done, its really about the movies you want to watch and having something to watch them on.

My gut is that neither of these formats is going to go away. Seems to be plenty of room for three game consoles. Seems to be plenty of room for iMacs and PCs to be in the market. Cell phone technologies, iTunes and MP3s. The world is big enough and there are enough consumers now that it doesn't have to boil down to one standard. One may grow to be bigger (due to price and availability, not specifications), but the other will still be around. Uh, unless Sony quits altogether, that is. Hmmm... where would we be if they had just stuck it out on the Betamax thing?

And to further put the idea that the format "wars" are going to result in a winner, consider what happens if both get supplanted? Does anyone really think that either of these formats will last a "long time"? Certainly not as long as DVD, nor even VHS. Because we all know that network capacity is growing and magnetic disk prices are falling much faster than the optical disk formats can change. Sony and MS both know this. As does Comcast and AT&T. Media questions will drop out of the picture in a few years and then we really can have a debate about encoding and compression and quality as effect delivery times. Watch it realtime, starting Right Now, in LowDef, or let it start streaming to store and your cell phone will ring when you can start watching it. Or you can call your microwave back and tell it to go ahead and start the popcorn.

So the prescription is to buy one or the other for The Now, or at some price, to get some specific content, or features, or quality, or fewer disks, or whatever floats your boat, and enjoy! Because just like my 8-track player, and my VHS deck, and my SNES, they'll all be relegated to the recycler (or to the grandkids room) well before their usefulness has run out to make room for The Next Big Deal.

How many online forum group members does it take to change a lightbulb?

Compliments of joke-of-the-day.com :

How many online forum group members does it take to change a lightbulb?

1 to change the light bulb and to post that the light bulb has been changed.

14 to share similar experiences of changing light bulbs and how the light bulb could have been changed differently.

7 to caution about the dangers of changing light bulbs.

27 to point out spelling/grammar errors in posts about changing light bulbs.

53 to flame the spell checkers.

41 to correct spelling/grammar flames.

6 to argue over whether it's "lightbulb" or "light bulb"...another 6 to condemn those 6 as anal-retentive

2 industry professionals to inform the group that the proper term is "lamp".

15 know-it-alls who claim *they* were in the industry, and that "light bulb" is perfectly correct.

156 to email the participant's ISPs complaining that they are in violation of their "acceptable use policy".

109 to post that this group is not about light bulbs and to please take this discussion to a lightbulb group

203 to demand that cross posting to hardware forum, off-topic forum, and lightbulb group about changing light bulbs be stopped.

111 to defend the posting to this group saying that we all use light bulbs and therefore the posts *are* relevant to this group.

306 to debate which method of changing light bulbs is superior, where to buy the best light bulbs, what brand of light bulbs work best for this technique, and what brands are faulty.

27 to post URL's where one can see examples of different light bulbs.

14 to post that the URL's were posted incorrectly and then post the corrected URL's.

3 to post about links they found from the URL's that are relevant to this group which makes light bulbs relevant to this group.

33 to link all posts to date, quote them in their entirety including all headers and signatures, and add "Me too".

12 to post to the group that they will no longer post because they cannot handle the light bulb controversy.

19 to quote the "Me too's" to say "Me three".

4 to suggest that posters request the light bulb FAQ.

44 to ask what is a "FAQ".

4 to say "didn't we go through this already a short time ago?"

143 to say "do a Google search on light bulbs before posting questions about light bulbs".

1 forum lurker to respond to the original post 6 months from now and start it all over again....

Bluetooth Stereo Headsets

My new phone, a Motorola V3xx, purchased a week before all this iPhone mania, supports A2DP for stereo listening over Bluetooth, so I went shopping for some stereo headphones. There is additional opportunity for techie satisfaction here as I've been pondering for months--if not years--the prospect of wireless headphones for my home theater. I often like to watch old movies late into the night, or just catch John Stewart before turning in. In either case, the television is on much later that everyone else in the house's bedtimes. So not only would I need a Bluetooth headset for pairing with the music-phone, but also a transceiver to act as a base for the home theater receiver output.

I started with Fry's, to get a sense of what was out there, to be able to look at the size of the thing and some instant comparison pricing. My list of features is essentially what I named above, but of course it would be great to also have phone answering features. Now I don't get a lot of calls, fewer if everyone who ever calls me is within the house, and fewer still if they're asleep. But I occasionally work at home, forwarding my office phone to my cell. Working at home is a great time to listen to music, streamed from the home theater or from the laptop. Being able to hear an incoming call is pretty important in that situation.

There were a few interesting models of stereo bluetooth headsets with microphones on the shelves at Fry's.
One was Plantronics Pulsar 590A: enabling anything with a 3.5mm jack (iPod, home theater headphone jack). The price was $90 less than that shown on the Plantronics site. This comes with a bluetooth "hockey puck" transeiver, for plugging into line-out devices, a Bluetooth bridge, as it were.

There's also a little confusion over the downline model for Plantronics, the Pulsar 590E. It isn't clear if it is the same

headset as the 590A, but simply without the transceiver. As it is going for $77, that appears to be a big discount.

On the other hand, the Motorola Data Sheet describes the "590 Line" and the only call-out is that the "E" doesn't

come with the transceiver. So I'm inclined to believe that "E" is for economy--no transceiver.

It appears the hockey puck is battery powered, the data sheet says nothing specific about charging the hockey puck or a power supply for same. I couldn't find in the data sheet if the transceiver has recharge capability, or if it just holds batteries. Without a plug-in solution, it wouldn't be good for home theater. I also wonder about having to re-pair with the puck. If it is battery-powered then it probably has a temporary pairing profile.

The Plantronics one looked like it had the best phone support as it had an extendable boom mike to put the microphone right at your lips rather than a bud hanging lower.

And then there's the Motorola HT820, which was considerably cheaper, $90, but again no transceiver. Motorola does have one, the DC800, which goes for about $65. This puts the two together above the Plantronics bundle.

I almost got--but then didn't get--the Motorola, because Fry's didn't have the "Home Stereo Adapter", DC800.

This is the combo that I want, so I can use my bluetooth headset for watching TV at night in silence.

I've confirmed that the DC800 has a power supply, so it is good for the home theater.

I found a bundle on Amazon that makes the pair $133, which is about $15 more than the Plantronics 590A bundle.

What I couldn't tell at the store (and I haven't read the data at the links above) is if you can use these headsets for "chat" mode on a PC, that is, does the bluetooth headset shim both the Windows microphone driver as well as the headphone driver.

I also read a review on Amazon of the Motorola set that there is a delay if used during gaming or watching

video (0.5 sec is a lot). I don't know if that applies to all Bluetooth headsets, but this would be a deal-killer for me

I'd go insane if lip-sync were out on all television/movies I watch.

Naturally this all assumes your PC has bluetooth. Or you'll need yet another dongle, maybe the PC850 by Motorola.

Others that I saw at Frys:

This Jabra model, for $110, or $40 less than the Plantronics 590A, but no transeiver.

There was a Creative Labs CB8100, but it was headphones only with no voice/call support and pretty pricey.

The MOTOROKR S9 was also available, about the same price as the other call-enabled headsets, but it has

this behind-the-head+earbud design that I'm not sure I could hang with. Hard to tell where the microphone would

be, but there isn't anything forward of the ear, so it can't be that good. I think it also has worse battery life. If you

like in-ear buds rather than over-ear cups, this might be better.

Another very-lightweight, on-ear, behind-head configuration was the Nokia BH-501:

This uses the standard Nokia AC3 charger--I must have 1/2 dozen of those for various phones over the years.

Then there was one Motorola (model I forgot) which looked like a typical 1-ear "borg" Bluetooth earpiece, but then it

had another one, smaller, in the same box. I assume it xmitted wirelessly between the two halves. The obvious

benefit here is that you could use the one-earpiece for driving or when the headset would be inapropriate. What

wasn't obvious was: recharging, delay between units, battery life. These may be old stock (and therefore not A2DP)

because they're not even listed on Motorola's site. They're kind of like this Jabra set. But I'm pretty sure there was no wire between the units (or some damn clever and intentionally deceptive packaging). Though this one looks like the second plugs into the first, so you can still have that one-ear configuration.

Going even smaller, there are lanyard+earbud models from a couple of manufacturers. Sony Ericsson has these.

Jabra has this one, the BT320s. Very interesting, you can use your own earbuds (probably wouldn't power bigger drivers) with it. So if you like the feel of your in-ear Shures or other $100 earbuds, you can keep them. You'd pair it with this transceiver. And here's one that pairs with your phone, but plugs directly into your music source (and has longer battery life). Okay, that last one was a bit off-topic, because it isn't really a wireless headset anymore, just a phone set inlined with some wired earbuds.

So it seems there are lots of choices; this would be an area where it would be great to be able to try them out

for sound quality, latency, and fit/feel. I'll probably start with the Motorolas as the sweet spot in features (transceiver

station, durable design) and price.

New Corralaries to Murphy's Laws

New Corralaries to Murphy's Law:

Remember: Murphy was an optimist!

Law of Mechanical Repair: After your hands become coated with grease, your nose will begin to itch. Corralaries: your cell phone will ring or you'll have to pee.

Law of the Workshop: Any tool, when dropped, will roll to the least accessible corner.
Corralary: Any fastener, when dropped, will land in/under: a.) an inaccessible crack or hole, b.) deep dirt or rocks that are the same size/color as the fastener c.) if working on a motor, into the motor. d.) if working on a boat, into the water. e.) if working on a plane, somewhere into the cowling where it will cause a loud rattle once airborne.

Law of Probability: The probability of being watched is directly proportional to the stupidity of your act.
Inverse Corralary: There will be no one around to witness some brilliant act that you'll never be able to reproduce in a thousand years.

Law of the Telephone: If you dial a wrong number, you never get a busy signal.
Corralary: When you get a new phone number, you will realize you transposed two numbers only after you've given out the wrong number to everyone.

Law of the Alibi: If you tell the boss you were late for work because you had a flat tire, the very next morning you will have a flat tire.
School Excuse Corralary: Unexcused absences will be more than the number of possible relatives' funerals.

Law of the Bath: When the body is fully immersed in water, the telephone rings.
Shower Corralary: When needing shampoo, you will find only conditioner. And vice-versa.

Law of Close Encounters: The probability of meeting someone you know increases when you are with someone you don't want to be seen with.
Corralary: The closer the person you know is to your spouse, the more attractive the person you're with will be.

Law of the Result: When you try to prove to someone that a machine won't work, it will.
Corralary: Until they leave.

Law of the Plug: You will always have one less outlet within reach than you have plugs.
Corralary: You will always have one less port available than you have peripherals.
2nd Corralary: You will always be short one type of A/V connector and you will always have one type of connector that you will never use. Between which there will be no adapter.

Law of the Fax: When faxing out a multi-page contract, all pages will go through unattended, except for the signature page.
Corralary: When receiving a fax, all pages will come through fine, but you'll run out of paper on the signature page.

Law of Biomechanics: The severity of the itch is inversely proportional to the reach.
Corralary: The severity of the skin blemish is directly proportional to the proximity of the public event.
2nd Corralary: And proportional to the visibility of said blemish.

Law of the Theatre: At any event, the people whose seats are furthest from the aisle arrive last.
Corralary: And they'll have noisy children.
2nd Corralary: And their seats are right next to you.

Law of Coffee: If you take cream or sugar, the proportions will be exactly right at the moment the server refills your cup.
Corralary: As soon as your coffee is the right temperature, your boss will ask you to do something which will last until the coffee is cold.

Law of Starbucks: When you're in a hurry and want just a drip, the person in front of you is buying for everyone in their office.
Corralary: And they'll buy the last of your favorite pastry in the case.

Law of the Barrista: The likelihood that your drink order will be wrong is directly proportional to how soon you need to be somewhere else.

Law of Lockers: If there are only two people in a locker room, they will have adjacent lockers.
Corralary: And your neighbor will be a senior citizen with no sense of modesty.

Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
Corralary: The less the person understands what they're saying, the more vehemently they will expound upon it.

Law of Lost Shoes: The more shoes one has, the more likely that no match will be found--of the type and color that matches the outfit you're wearing. Pairs of all other colors and types will be everywhere.
Corralary: If the shoe fits, it's ugly.

Law of Replacement Products: As soon as you find a product that you really like, they will stop making it.
Corralary: When replaced under warranty, an indentical model will not be available. Unless you didn't really like that model to begin with.
2nd Corralary: For electronic/computer components, the likelihood that the replacement unit will be functionally identical is inversely proportional to both the critical aspect of the component in a system (video board, memory, tuner/receiver) and its expense to replace/upgrade. See also corralaries of "Law of the Plug".

Damned Pepsi

I just saw the new Pepsi commercial, where the Pepsi ball jumps off the can and in giant form pinballs around San Francisco. Pretty funny, really, and with a catchy tune. Where have I heard this before? "Sam bam blew moi...?" Oh yeah! The Damned had a little song, the english version had the chorus, "Jetboy, Jet Girl". Did Pepsi listen to the english version before they used the French version in the commercial? The lyrics are not exactly Pepsi Generation material.. Or maybe they are in the SF demographic?
The video wasn't up on the Pepsi website as I write this, but it may be soon. Unless they get flooded with calls from french-literate parents who tipped to it during the recent Smallville episode. Interestingly, the music in this version up on YouTube isn't the same. Different geo, different music? It is definitely different; I have it on my DVR and watched it twice. Maybe someone will post the US version.

Intro and Scherzo

This piece of internet flotsam is just a place to record my brittle mind musings. The flit across the consciousness, of the kind probably better not voiced aloud and so finds a perfect place in the blogosphere.

To wit: Marry a 802.11b/g/n receiver and one of those snap-together scale aircraft that you can get from either England or Korea, and fly your toy connected to the nearest wi-fi hotspot. The four-axis controller goes to your PC (laptop, practically) via bluetooth or simple wired usb.

You can tell where I'm going with this: if the aeroplane can host a nose-camera, then you don't even need to be near the takeoff/landing zone, other than for crash recovery and refueling.

What would someone do with this? Other than be 1.) a nuisance to traffic 2.) a brownshirt for the DHS or 3.) an uber-nerd with hacker cred as soon as the video stream is posted to a Tube site. I have no idea. I don't plan on actually making one of these. That's too much work. It's Just An Idea(tm).

Stay tuned to this channel for other brain blurps. At least if I write them down I can stop thinking about them.