So Windows Vista had finally launched. There are news that indicates consumers are more interested about discounted gadgets (to promote Windows Vista) than the operating system itself. But that's okay, I am not writing tonight to bash Microsoft...well not directly. This evening I saw on TV this Apple ad making fun of Vista; I laughed my head off. While I searched for this ad online I also came across what appears to be a Vista ad. I'm not sure if this one aired on TV due to its length; in Melbourne we have a much shorter and to-the-point version. Comparing the two commercials is like pitching an iPod against a Zune. The Apple ad is short and humorous, and it sends a simple but strong message to the audience. This is just like the iPod -- its interface is clean and simple yet leaves a lasting impression. In contrast, the Vista ad tries to inform you of all its features while confusing you with the spinning people. It bores the life out of the viewer, who ends up not remembering, or caring about, any features. It is not unlike the Zune, which is overall a good media player that does everything it promise and does them well, but I would struggle to find a feature in the exceptional category.
It is therefore no surprise that nowadays nearly every new Apple product creates a hype, while the Microsoft equivalent turns considerably fewer heads and only out of necessity. Steve Jobs understands that marketing to the average consumer is more about the image than the product itself. It's not about making the best and coolest products but convincing the consumers your products are the best and coolest, although it certainly helps if you actually produce the best and coolest gadgets. To the modern teenager, appearance matters more than extra functions, and commercials are no different. An operating system should be marketed as delivering a unique experience or even lifestyle rather than the winner of a features race. Apple clearly gets this but I'm not sure about MS.
I also want to state that I'm not a fan of either company. I don't intent to upgrade to Vista until I absolutely have to (then again there is always Linux), and I have no plans to buy an iPod or Zune -- I just found my small-time-Korean-company-brand mp3 player with a whooping 128MB of flash storage. When in doubt, look under the bed.
Wednesday 31 January 2007
Tuesday 30 January 2007
Meeting The Saleperson
I have a funny habit of paying more attention to marketing pitches than I should. The pitch can be about anything: obtaining my vote for the student union, getting me to donate to a charity, even converting me to a Mormon. It doesn't matter what -- I just can't resist stopping and listening to what they have to say. Part of the reason maybe me feeling impolite to ignore even a stranger, but it can equally be my subconscious curiosity at work.
Since most passers-by ignore salespeople, they get quite excited when someone actually stops and listen to their pitch. I'm not a marketing person, but logic tells me that the longer a subject stays and listen to your pitch, the more likely you will succeed. That is, unless I am the subject.
The problem (for the salespeople at least) is that I don't consider myself an impulsive "buyer". I will in fact go further to declare that I don't like being told what to do, so any attempt at persuading me is likely to fail or even backfire. Perhaps the only time someone can convince me is if I already had the desire to buy or carry out that very same thing they are pitching. Despite having made up my mind before they started talking, I will listen to them and will not interrupt unless I'm in a hurry. That's right, I let them talk all they want, knowing they will never reach their goal. To make matters worse, if they ask me a question, I will respond in a positive way rather than sounding bored or irritated (again, to be polite). This of course encourages the salespeople and gives them more hope. Then comes the moment of truth, where, having expressed so much interest during the conversation, I am fully expected to commit and seal the deal. As it turns out, I will tell them bluntly that I am not interested and walk away without making any promises.
This may sound like a perverse practical joke, and someone actually wrote to the newspaper suggesting everyone give salespeople the "treatment". However this has never been my intent, even though I prefer they stay off the streets and my front door. It's just that once I started listening I do get interested in the information they gave but not the sale. Maybe secretly I hoped one of these guys can really convince me to move away from my status quo, so I gave them plenty of talking time to make their attempt. This has yet to happen.
Since most passers-by ignore salespeople, they get quite excited when someone actually stops and listen to their pitch. I'm not a marketing person, but logic tells me that the longer a subject stays and listen to your pitch, the more likely you will succeed. That is, unless I am the subject.
The problem (for the salespeople at least) is that I don't consider myself an impulsive "buyer". I will in fact go further to declare that I don't like being told what to do, so any attempt at persuading me is likely to fail or even backfire. Perhaps the only time someone can convince me is if I already had the desire to buy or carry out that very same thing they are pitching. Despite having made up my mind before they started talking, I will listen to them and will not interrupt unless I'm in a hurry. That's right, I let them talk all they want, knowing they will never reach their goal. To make matters worse, if they ask me a question, I will respond in a positive way rather than sounding bored or irritated (again, to be polite). This of course encourages the salespeople and gives them more hope. Then comes the moment of truth, where, having expressed so much interest during the conversation, I am fully expected to commit and seal the deal. As it turns out, I will tell them bluntly that I am not interested and walk away without making any promises.
This may sound like a perverse practical joke, and someone actually wrote to the newspaper suggesting everyone give salespeople the "treatment". However this has never been my intent, even though I prefer they stay off the streets and my front door. It's just that once I started listening I do get interested in the information they gave but not the sale. Maybe secretly I hoped one of these guys can really convince me to move away from my status quo, so I gave them plenty of talking time to make their attempt. This has yet to happen.
Friday 26 January 2007
Disturbing Windows Vista Facts
I have already established why I will not actively adopt the new OS and so wouldn't normally give any further reasons. However, what I have just found out can only be described as disturbing and thus deserves some mention. All of the following is based on Peter Guttman's A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection. Guttman listed many problems created by Microsoft's efforts to protect "premium content", which are implemented in their upcoming OS. In particular, two of the problems seem to affect me the most, given I won't be playing back HD videos in the forseeable future.
The first is that Vista will apparently check the hardware up to 30 times a second to make sure no one suddenly tempers with it. Although one may argue that the polling will not cause noticeable performance degradation, the knowledge that a process is continually doing extraneous things in the background doesn't sit well with me. Although I routinely run a lot of background applications to heavily customise my Windows interface, at no point do I allow non-productive applications idling in memory. If a program is not doing something useful to me, it must go immediately, and that includes virus scanners and firewalls. The polling imposed by Vista clearly violates this principle.
The second problem is that Vista requires hardware vendors to implement the so-called "tilt bits" which detects "suspicious" fluctuation in say the voltage level of a connection pin. This is to prevent someone from intercepting the data by tapping into the wires between a component and the motherboard. The name "tilt bits" clearly comes from the tilt function in pinball machines. Unfortunately, most of the time such electrical fluctuations are perfectly innocent. My speaker "clicks" whenever the fridge turns on and I won't be surprised if that also affects the computer power supply. Now I have no idea how sensitive these tilt bits are. It may be that normal household related fluctuations are tolerated so I may never experience an unexpected shutdown due to this "feature". Still, I am not very happy that the new OS may, however remotely, render my upgraded system less stable.
So if before I was unwilling to upgrade to Vista because I don't like the activation "feature", now I am just plain scared, and I'm not even trying to play any video on it! As Guttman have noted, if MS could just direct their efforts at locking down the system from hackers rather than the users, Vista would've been much more secure. If they marketed these technologies as ones that protect me from viruses, I can at least find one reason to upgrade. Right now I have negative reasons.
Oh and one more thing. All those restrictions they place in every HD video disc and related devices will not prevent piracy at all. You see, the system works by encrypting everything on the disk and different players (models) will have different keys to decrypt it so that if one particular device is compromise they can in theory lock these affected players out of future contents (whether they will really do that is another question). Each manufacturer will need to apply for their own key so it's not like anyone can get their hands on a valid key.
What I think will happen is this. Some Chinese pirates will probably get a working key by either bribing a (Chinese?) company or pretending to be a legitimate vendor. Once they get the key they can just use it to decrypt every movie that comes their way and then crank out a million copies of the movie without any protection. No one will be able to figure out who did this because the discs only contains unprotected video. Even if they find out the offending vendor and revoke its key, the pirates will just bribe someone else. I don't believe there will be any shortage of vendors willing to leak their keys, because the MPAA just can't control every vendor and every worker in the industry, and we all know that everyone is susceptible to bribery.
Basically the whole scheme will not work. And all Microsoft managed to do here is scared me away from their already overpriced and featureless OS.
The first is that Vista will apparently check the hardware up to 30 times a second to make sure no one suddenly tempers with it. Although one may argue that the polling will not cause noticeable performance degradation, the knowledge that a process is continually doing extraneous things in the background doesn't sit well with me. Although I routinely run a lot of background applications to heavily customise my Windows interface, at no point do I allow non-productive applications idling in memory. If a program is not doing something useful to me, it must go immediately, and that includes virus scanners and firewalls. The polling imposed by Vista clearly violates this principle.
The second problem is that Vista requires hardware vendors to implement the so-called "tilt bits" which detects "suspicious" fluctuation in say the voltage level of a connection pin. This is to prevent someone from intercepting the data by tapping into the wires between a component and the motherboard. The name "tilt bits" clearly comes from the tilt function in pinball machines. Unfortunately, most of the time such electrical fluctuations are perfectly innocent. My speaker "clicks" whenever the fridge turns on and I won't be surprised if that also affects the computer power supply. Now I have no idea how sensitive these tilt bits are. It may be that normal household related fluctuations are tolerated so I may never experience an unexpected shutdown due to this "feature". Still, I am not very happy that the new OS may, however remotely, render my upgraded system less stable.
So if before I was unwilling to upgrade to Vista because I don't like the activation "feature", now I am just plain scared, and I'm not even trying to play any video on it! As Guttman have noted, if MS could just direct their efforts at locking down the system from hackers rather than the users, Vista would've been much more secure. If they marketed these technologies as ones that protect me from viruses, I can at least find one reason to upgrade. Right now I have negative reasons.
Oh and one more thing. All those restrictions they place in every HD video disc and related devices will not prevent piracy at all. You see, the system works by encrypting everything on the disk and different players (models) will have different keys to decrypt it so that if one particular device is compromise they can in theory lock these affected players out of future contents (whether they will really do that is another question). Each manufacturer will need to apply for their own key so it's not like anyone can get their hands on a valid key.
What I think will happen is this. Some Chinese pirates will probably get a working key by either bribing a (Chinese?) company or pretending to be a legitimate vendor. Once they get the key they can just use it to decrypt every movie that comes their way and then crank out a million copies of the movie without any protection. No one will be able to figure out who did this because the discs only contains unprotected video. Even if they find out the offending vendor and revoke its key, the pirates will just bribe someone else. I don't believe there will be any shortage of vendors willing to leak their keys, because the MPAA just can't control every vendor and every worker in the industry, and we all know that everyone is susceptible to bribery.
Basically the whole scheme will not work. And all Microsoft managed to do here is scared me away from their already overpriced and featureless OS.
Wednesday 24 January 2007
Interacting With Computers
I recently received an invitation to a concert in my email. The invitations were managed by the online service Evite. The system keeps track of who's going and who isn't. A closer look showed you can even elect to join a carpool. At that time I was undecided about my attendance so I held back from replying. And promptly forgot about the whole thing. When I checked my email again two days before the event, I discovered the system had sent additional reminders to my email. Going back to the invitation page showed about 50 people said they would show up, 3 wouldn't, and over 300 people yet to reply. Having made up my mind to not go, I decided to join the 300 people and left the website without replying. Better to say I missed the email than to explain why I don't want to fork out $15 for a concert I might not like and with no prospect of meeting someone familiar.
If instead my friend invited me over the phone I would have to make up an elaborate excuse, or would even decide to go. So you see there is a difference in response depending who is asking the question: a machine or a person.
I am not trying to dismiss systems such as Evite. These systems are very useful when managing a large event. Computers (or machines in general) are very good at keeping track of things, doing repetitive tasks and they also scale well. Imagine the difference between manually calling up 50 people and 5000 people. For the computer, however, it is still just one click. There is definitely a good reason to use a computer-based system to help manage social events.
Where machines fall short, however, is the responses they get from clients (e.g., the invitees). In the example I have given, I was a "not yet reply" even though I was definitely not going. Most of the people on the invitation list also failed to reply. I cannot say for sure, but people may have given the invitation less thought because it was sent out by a machine to their email account. Additionally, because the entire reply process is managed by a computer, some people may have ignored it.
We definitely treat a computer and a human being differently, even if they are performing the same interaction with us. Sometimes I would add an item to the "shopping cart" just to find out the shipping costs and other info not present in the product pages, even though I never intended to buy the item. Now how many people will deliberately bring a product they will definitely not buy to the checkout, and at the last possible moment tell the store assistant they don't want it? We also feel less guilty lying to a computer. When I applied for Pandora, I just used a random US zip code to "prove" I live in the US. Had the signing up process been conducted over the phone, I doubt I would lie so readily to the operator.
In conclusion, computer systems are very efficient at managing social events and/or collecting information from correspondents. However, it seems they can seldom evoke a sense of urgency and at times even honesty like a human can. In some cases it is in the interest of the correspondent to reply promptly and honestly (e.g. to prevent fines or committing fraud) and the above doesn't matter too much. In less formal occasions a person can probably command a more timely and accurate answer than his electronic counterpart.
If instead my friend invited me over the phone I would have to make up an elaborate excuse, or would even decide to go. So you see there is a difference in response depending who is asking the question: a machine or a person.
I am not trying to dismiss systems such as Evite. These systems are very useful when managing a large event. Computers (or machines in general) are very good at keeping track of things, doing repetitive tasks and they also scale well. Imagine the difference between manually calling up 50 people and 5000 people. For the computer, however, it is still just one click. There is definitely a good reason to use a computer-based system to help manage social events.
Where machines fall short, however, is the responses they get from clients (e.g., the invitees). In the example I have given, I was a "not yet reply" even though I was definitely not going. Most of the people on the invitation list also failed to reply. I cannot say for sure, but people may have given the invitation less thought because it was sent out by a machine to their email account. Additionally, because the entire reply process is managed by a computer, some people may have ignored it.
We definitely treat a computer and a human being differently, even if they are performing the same interaction with us. Sometimes I would add an item to the "shopping cart" just to find out the shipping costs and other info not present in the product pages, even though I never intended to buy the item. Now how many people will deliberately bring a product they will definitely not buy to the checkout, and at the last possible moment tell the store assistant they don't want it? We also feel less guilty lying to a computer. When I applied for Pandora, I just used a random US zip code to "prove" I live in the US. Had the signing up process been conducted over the phone, I doubt I would lie so readily to the operator.
In conclusion, computer systems are very efficient at managing social events and/or collecting information from correspondents. However, it seems they can seldom evoke a sense of urgency and at times even honesty like a human can. In some cases it is in the interest of the correspondent to reply promptly and honestly (e.g. to prevent fines or committing fraud) and the above doesn't matter too much. In less formal occasions a person can probably command a more timely and accurate answer than his electronic counterpart.
Saturday 20 January 2007
A Scary Thought
I have just watched The Ring 2, a sequel of the famous The Ring (the original Jap version). This means I have watched all three thrillers in the series, and believe me it was scary even watching in daylight. Anyway I couldn't help but had a silly thought. As you all know, the stories revolve around people mysteriously dying after watching a certain video tape, and the first movie came out in 1998. What if everything happens about 7 years later, and some stupid kids decided to post the video on YouTube...*gulp*
Thursday 18 January 2007
Let's Not Buy Any More Music
This is not an attempt to advocate illegal music downloads. As a matter of fact, I am going to discuss why you might be able to satisfy most or all of your music needs via free and legal means.
Over the last two years or so, many music-related online services have cropped up, many of them free. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to infer such free services will have some kind of limitations in terms of access or functionality. Of the ones I am going to talk about next, the limitation is that you cannot choose the exact song to play. This means my solution is not going to work if you must decide the next 10 songs you will listen to, but if all you need is some music that suits your taste, it is not a bad way to do it, especially given its cost.
The first such service I ran into is the popular Pandora. This neat service will play songs that are musically similar to a song or artist you nominate. You cannot choose the song to play, or skip too many songs in a short period of time, but you can finetune your "station" by giving songs a thumbs up or thumbs down.
Another service I have recently discovered is the AOL Radio, which plays XM radio stations. I believe XM radio is a digital radio service in the United States but it really doesn't matter here -- you just get music for free! I was actually able to find an anime and Japanese pop station, so there should be a station for everyone. Here you only get to choose the genre and there is no opportunity for finetuning the station. Occasionally you will be subjected to audio ads, but that is tolerably infrequent.
The next one is not really an online service -- it is your plain old FM radio station. Of particular interest are the community stations. These are not-for-profit radio stations that relies on volunteer and donations (I would expect they get some Government support as well) for their operations. What sets them apart from commercial stations is the lack of ads and a more diversified selection of genres. Because they do not need to maximise profit they can move away from the mainstream stuff and have programmes say in foreign languages. The other point I want to make is online radio. For me this means I can listen to Hong Kong radio in real time, therefore getting the latest in the Canto-pop scene, which admittedly is on its way down.
I find that these three types of music services can satisfy my music needs most of the time. If I am after English songs, I can turn to Pandora and AOL radio. This works for me because I don't really have any favourite bands or artist so a genre is good enough for me. If instead I feel like some Chinese programming I tune in to HK radio streams. As with everything else in Hong Kong, when a new song arrives it creates much hype and is played hourly, but in a matter of weeks another batch of new songs will arrive and the "old" songs are soon forgotten. So at its height a new song gets played so often I can always listen to it without downloading the song, and by the time it is phased out, I am "done with the song" and will have no desire to own it.
I am not saying there are no exceptions to the above. I am a loyal fan of The Corrs and have bought all their recent CD albums. Occasionally a good Canto song will also warrant a CD purchase. However, 99% of the time I can live happily on free, radio-style music services. I don't have a lot of control over what I listen, but that might actually be a good thing. Try it and you'll see what I mean.
Over the last two years or so, many music-related online services have cropped up, many of them free. It doesn't take a lot of imagination to infer such free services will have some kind of limitations in terms of access or functionality. Of the ones I am going to talk about next, the limitation is that you cannot choose the exact song to play. This means my solution is not going to work if you must decide the next 10 songs you will listen to, but if all you need is some music that suits your taste, it is not a bad way to do it, especially given its cost.
The first such service I ran into is the popular Pandora. This neat service will play songs that are musically similar to a song or artist you nominate. You cannot choose the song to play, or skip too many songs in a short period of time, but you can finetune your "station" by giving songs a thumbs up or thumbs down.
Another service I have recently discovered is the AOL Radio, which plays XM radio stations. I believe XM radio is a digital radio service in the United States but it really doesn't matter here -- you just get music for free! I was actually able to find an anime and Japanese pop station, so there should be a station for everyone. Here you only get to choose the genre and there is no opportunity for finetuning the station. Occasionally you will be subjected to audio ads, but that is tolerably infrequent.
The next one is not really an online service -- it is your plain old FM radio station. Of particular interest are the community stations. These are not-for-profit radio stations that relies on volunteer and donations (I would expect they get some Government support as well) for their operations. What sets them apart from commercial stations is the lack of ads and a more diversified selection of genres. Because they do not need to maximise profit they can move away from the mainstream stuff and have programmes say in foreign languages. The other point I want to make is online radio. For me this means I can listen to Hong Kong radio in real time, therefore getting the latest in the Canto-pop scene, which admittedly is on its way down.
I find that these three types of music services can satisfy my music needs most of the time. If I am after English songs, I can turn to Pandora and AOL radio. This works for me because I don't really have any favourite bands or artist so a genre is good enough for me. If instead I feel like some Chinese programming I tune in to HK radio streams. As with everything else in Hong Kong, when a new song arrives it creates much hype and is played hourly, but in a matter of weeks another batch of new songs will arrive and the "old" songs are soon forgotten. So at its height a new song gets played so often I can always listen to it without downloading the song, and by the time it is phased out, I am "done with the song" and will have no desire to own it.
I am not saying there are no exceptions to the above. I am a loyal fan of The Corrs and have bought all their recent CD albums. Occasionally a good Canto song will also warrant a CD purchase. However, 99% of the time I can live happily on free, radio-style music services. I don't have a lot of control over what I listen, but that might actually be a good thing. Try it and you'll see what I mean.
Tuesday 16 January 2007
An Edgy Post
I thought I had missed tonight's Late Show but a careful examination of the TV timetable showed it was supposed to run for three hours. What? The networks can never run such good shows excessively; if anything, Dave must usually give way to cricket or rugby, which consistently goes overtime. This has got to be a mistake. Indeed it was a mistake. Instead of the Late Show, I got some infomercial promoting "Get The Edge". This is where I should introduce Anthony Robbins.
Anthony Robbins produces CDs that inspire people to be empowered and become successful in life. How does he do it? By (presumably since I did not get my set of CDs) making them feel confident about themselves and somehow persuade them get off their butts and do that thing they've always wanted to do. I think he mentioned doing things little by little in the segment. So far everything makes sense, but my question is why do we need someone telling us that? Can't we figure that out ourselves? Robbins claims he knows some tricks that can save you time (from having to figuring it out yourself), which does help, but ultimately if you have something you want done the most obvious course of action is to actually do it. There is no way around it. If you are not motivated enough then think about the consequences of inaction. If even that doesn't motivate you then clearly you're dreaming so wake up and think of something practical to do.
The fact that a lot of people apparently benefited from this program proves one of a few things:
1) Robbins' program is a "wake up call" for them, meaning they are initially lazy;
2) they need someone, preferably one with credibility, to tell them they can achieve their goals, meaning they are a sad, superficial bunch who cares about what others think of them over their own well being;
3) the laziness in 1 is overcame by the fact that they had already paid for the program, so better get the money's worth by following it[1];
4) the belief that Robbins' program must work since he had a good track record boosted their determination, something also achievable if one feels confident about himself in the first place.
None of these are convincing me the program gives me things I don't already have or can never come up with on my own.
Besides, who is he to dictate that I should want to become successful, that I should want to be happy, that I should want to have a healthy romantic relationship and subsequently a family? Of course people who do not wish to be successful will not buy these CDs. Those who do should understand they can only achieve their goals by doing some work. If they need someone to coach them through that, well, refer to (1).
Having argued that the program should not be useful to anyone, I admit this is not the case in reality, because sadly a lot of people nowadays fall into the categories (1) and (2). They are too lazy to pick themselves up after a fall, and needs someone like Robbins to give them a lift, so kudos to him.
One last interesting point. Such a promotion segment is never complete without some testimonials. So three people who became successful after joining the program made their cases in front of the camera. The ironic thing is that small subtitles ran across the screen stating that, "Result are not typical. Individual results may vary." This liability waiver effectively nullifies any persuasive power the testimonials are supposed to have. I don't know why they put them on.
1 Note that it is economically incorrect to think that. Money already paid out is sunk and should not affect future decisions.
Anthony Robbins produces CDs that inspire people to be empowered and become successful in life. How does he do it? By (presumably since I did not get my set of CDs) making them feel confident about themselves and somehow persuade them get off their butts and do that thing they've always wanted to do. I think he mentioned doing things little by little in the segment. So far everything makes sense, but my question is why do we need someone telling us that? Can't we figure that out ourselves? Robbins claims he knows some tricks that can save you time (from having to figuring it out yourself), which does help, but ultimately if you have something you want done the most obvious course of action is to actually do it. There is no way around it. If you are not motivated enough then think about the consequences of inaction. If even that doesn't motivate you then clearly you're dreaming so wake up and think of something practical to do.
The fact that a lot of people apparently benefited from this program proves one of a few things:
1) Robbins' program is a "wake up call" for them, meaning they are initially lazy;
2) they need someone, preferably one with credibility, to tell them they can achieve their goals, meaning they are a sad, superficial bunch who cares about what others think of them over their own well being;
3) the laziness in 1 is overcame by the fact that they had already paid for the program, so better get the money's worth by following it[1];
4) the belief that Robbins' program must work since he had a good track record boosted their determination, something also achievable if one feels confident about himself in the first place.
None of these are convincing me the program gives me things I don't already have or can never come up with on my own.
Besides, who is he to dictate that I should want to become successful, that I should want to be happy, that I should want to have a healthy romantic relationship and subsequently a family? Of course people who do not wish to be successful will not buy these CDs. Those who do should understand they can only achieve their goals by doing some work. If they need someone to coach them through that, well, refer to (1).
Having argued that the program should not be useful to anyone, I admit this is not the case in reality, because sadly a lot of people nowadays fall into the categories (1) and (2). They are too lazy to pick themselves up after a fall, and needs someone like Robbins to give them a lift, so kudos to him.
One last interesting point. Such a promotion segment is never complete without some testimonials. So three people who became successful after joining the program made their cases in front of the camera. The ironic thing is that small subtitles ran across the screen stating that, "Result are not typical. Individual results may vary." This liability waiver effectively nullifies any persuasive power the testimonials are supposed to have. I don't know why they put them on.
1 Note that it is economically incorrect to think that. Money already paid out is sunk and should not affect future decisions.
Monday 15 January 2007
The Tech Path of No Return?
All too often I hear people describe a particular technology as "once you try this you can't go back!" or "I can't live without it." Sometimes they say it as though I too will get hooked had I decide to "take the plunge". I can't disagree more.
I believe that people can and should adapt to the situation, whether it is taking a turn for the better or worse. I remember one time in Melbourne a fire broke out in a natural gas facility causing it to shut down and leaving the region without gas for several weeks. For most homes this meant their cooking stove and water heater ceased working unless they operated with electricity. Did anyone starve to death because of this incident? Apparently not. Restaurants simply had gas delivered in large metal cans. We were even able to have hot water baths by boiling water with our electric kettles. Sure it was inconvenient as hell, but we survived.
Now most conversations don't involve such serious disasters as losing an entire utility service. They are usually about broadband vs. dial-up internet, flat panel high-def TV sets vs. standard ones or storage capacity of mp3 players. The second of these was brought up in a recent conversation. I didn't fight hard for my point (people who wants to convince you so badly usually don't like being proved wrong), but my take on this has always been the content coming before the picture quality. It's good to have better pictures, but even without that luxury the point of the program/movie still gets through. I doubt the high-def version makes us more emotionally affected by the scene.
I read about the mp3 player topic on a newspaper column, which explained why older players were not suitable for working out. It started out with CD players skipping which is a fair point, but then went on to assert that early mp3 players could only hold enough songs for maybe one or two workouts. The author effectively implies it's annoying having to frequently upload different songs onto the players. To me this is just frivolous whining. One could also find it annoying to have to plug the player into a computer before they can transfer songs, or that the songs have to be downloaded with a computer or acquired from a CD. Why can't songs just come to my mp3 player automatically, without so much as a voice command? Indeed, as technology progresses, these seemingly unreasonable demands will become the very reasons you will want the latest gadgets, according to the media promoting the products. In the middle of this is the implied notion that one should not go backwards in technology, mainly because older technologies are worth very little these days and companies need high margins for their goods (of course the official reason will be going back is sooo unbearably inconvenient).
As an argument, I lost my mp3 player a few months ago and fell back to the bulkier MD player. Instead of drag-and-dropping songs onto the player, I now need to record it from the computer speakers. It's a pain-in-the-you-know-where but I'm not complaining because I have adapted to it. I just need to allow more time for the process.
Note: having said that I am looking to buy a new mp3 player, but for a different reason: it's simply impractical to record hour long podcasts onto an MD, and repeat it four times every week.
I believe that people can and should adapt to the situation, whether it is taking a turn for the better or worse. I remember one time in Melbourne a fire broke out in a natural gas facility causing it to shut down and leaving the region without gas for several weeks. For most homes this meant their cooking stove and water heater ceased working unless they operated with electricity. Did anyone starve to death because of this incident? Apparently not. Restaurants simply had gas delivered in large metal cans. We were even able to have hot water baths by boiling water with our electric kettles. Sure it was inconvenient as hell, but we survived.
Now most conversations don't involve such serious disasters as losing an entire utility service. They are usually about broadband vs. dial-up internet, flat panel high-def TV sets vs. standard ones or storage capacity of mp3 players. The second of these was brought up in a recent conversation. I didn't fight hard for my point (people who wants to convince you so badly usually don't like being proved wrong), but my take on this has always been the content coming before the picture quality. It's good to have better pictures, but even without that luxury the point of the program/movie still gets through. I doubt the high-def version makes us more emotionally affected by the scene.
I read about the mp3 player topic on a newspaper column, which explained why older players were not suitable for working out. It started out with CD players skipping which is a fair point, but then went on to assert that early mp3 players could only hold enough songs for maybe one or two workouts. The author effectively implies it's annoying having to frequently upload different songs onto the players. To me this is just frivolous whining. One could also find it annoying to have to plug the player into a computer before they can transfer songs, or that the songs have to be downloaded with a computer or acquired from a CD. Why can't songs just come to my mp3 player automatically, without so much as a voice command? Indeed, as technology progresses, these seemingly unreasonable demands will become the very reasons you will want the latest gadgets, according to the media promoting the products. In the middle of this is the implied notion that one should not go backwards in technology, mainly because older technologies are worth very little these days and companies need high margins for their goods (of course the official reason will be going back is sooo unbearably inconvenient).
As an argument, I lost my mp3 player a few months ago and fell back to the bulkier MD player. Instead of drag-and-dropping songs onto the player, I now need to record it from the computer speakers. It's a pain-in-the-you-know-where but I'm not complaining because I have adapted to it. I just need to allow more time for the process.
Note: having said that I am looking to buy a new mp3 player, but for a different reason: it's simply impractical to record hour long podcasts onto an MD, and repeat it four times every week.
Sunday 14 January 2007
Time Management
For the past few semesters I had trouble concentrating on my uni work. Things were getting harder and I was doing more subjects than I should. Along the way I made a few attempts to manage my time efficiently. None of them worked really worked. There didn't seem to be enough time to finish assignments and still revise as much as I would like. At least that was what I told myself.
Upon reflection, I found that when I was doing fun things, time passed very quickly without me realising it. So maybe it is not that there was not enough time before. I just wasted more time than I thought I did. Therefore I will now correct this with the most direct method -- I will schedule what I do everyday.
To this end, I divided all the things I can do into three categories or levels: 1, 2 and 3. Level 1 is the "must do" tasks like work and revision. Level 2 are optional but still "good to do" things such as practising piano, reading a novel, coding (a favourite pastime). Level 3 things are true time wasters which are purely for entertainment purposes. Obvious candidates include TV and games.
At the start of everyday (or back from uni) I work out how much time I have left until the end the day, and divide that into three blocks: one for each level. Currently I am trying to put at least 50% of the time into level 1 -- we'll see as time goes on. In any case, I am not going to dictation "when I will do what", but that at the end of the day I should have used the time as planned. Also if a higher level task requires more time I can take hours off the lower levels but not the other way round. I do that to ensure I do not make excuses and "delay" my revision.
Of course there are some problems. The main one is deciding what tasks fall into each of the levels. Even now, I cannot decide where blogging should go. I said level 3 an hour ago, but I am having second thoughts. ^_^
Despite some ambiguity problems, it works. Yesterday I managed to put in 4 solid hours into learn control theories, and I am in the middle of my holiday! It goes to prove that I can concentrate and there is sufficient time. I just need to stop making excuses.
Upon reflection, I found that when I was doing fun things, time passed very quickly without me realising it. So maybe it is not that there was not enough time before. I just wasted more time than I thought I did. Therefore I will now correct this with the most direct method -- I will schedule what I do everyday.
To this end, I divided all the things I can do into three categories or levels: 1, 2 and 3. Level 1 is the "must do" tasks like work and revision. Level 2 are optional but still "good to do" things such as practising piano, reading a novel, coding (a favourite pastime). Level 3 things are true time wasters which are purely for entertainment purposes. Obvious candidates include TV and games.
At the start of everyday (or back from uni) I work out how much time I have left until the end the day, and divide that into three blocks: one for each level. Currently I am trying to put at least 50% of the time into level 1 -- we'll see as time goes on. In any case, I am not going to dictation "when I will do what", but that at the end of the day I should have used the time as planned. Also if a higher level task requires more time I can take hours off the lower levels but not the other way round. I do that to ensure I do not make excuses and "delay" my revision.
Of course there are some problems. The main one is deciding what tasks fall into each of the levels. Even now, I cannot decide where blogging should go. I said level 3 an hour ago, but I am having second thoughts. ^_^
Despite some ambiguity problems, it works. Yesterday I managed to put in 4 solid hours into learn control theories, and I am in the middle of my holiday! It goes to prove that I can concentrate and there is sufficient time. I just need to stop making excuses.
Saturday 13 January 2007
Starting Over...
Just found out Blogger has fell out of beta and I could sign on with my Google account, so I decided to give this a try. I have been wanting to move out of Xanga for a while now because its layout is way too limiting and it has too much bloated crap that I never use. I am going to look into this further and decide whether to take the plunge and switch over.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)