Posts tagged: commentary

I’m Sorry, but Windows Vista still seems too slow

authorKeithius | January 14, 2008

I was downloading a file in Windows Vista today - I would say it was a “medium-sized” file that took no time at all on my super-fast cable modem connection to download.

However, once it was done, this popped up:

Calculating Time Remaining

This new dialog took longer to calculate the time remaining to copy the file from whatever insane temp folder Internet Explorer had used to its actual user-selected destination than it did to download the original file (which was not that small).

I just don’t understand why this takes so long! It literally took less time to download the file from the Internet than it did to put it in its final destination. Shouldn’t the reverse be true?

Yet another reason why I am not upgrading to Vista. With any luck, by the time I’m forced to upgrade, Microsoft will have come out with Vista’s successor - which I hope will be, y’know, better than its predecessor (unlike Vista itself).

They Don’t Make ‘em Like They Used To

authorKeithius | January 13, 2008

Yesterday I found that the Belkin Wireless Router I’d been using as a wireless access point had completely died on me. It simply would not power on - I don’t know if the problem was in the device itself or in its power adapter, but in either case - I had no wireless in my house. While this isn’t a problem for me personally (my computer is hard-wired into the network), it is a problem for Amanda, who often works from her laptop at home - and that connects wirelessly.

With a snow storm (supposedly) on the way, and thus the possibility that she’d be working from home, I needed to get wireless access working again.

First though, a little background.

I’ve been using a Netgear RT314 4-port 10/100 Ethernet Router since around 1997, and I’d never had any problems with it. Being that a router is generally a solid-state electronic component, I had always assumed all routers (and switches and hubs) were just the same - they’d die when their electronics shorted out, but if that didn’t happen they’d last basically forever.

About 2 years ago a good friend of mine got me the Belkin wireless router - I don’t now recall what model (it’s in the trash). Ironically, it didn’t work well as a router - in fact, it didn’t work at all as a router. I never had a high regard for the Belkin brand (as far as routers go, anyway) so I just switched it to “wireless access point mode,” a feature that was very handy. In this mode, all the “router” features were turned off, and it functioned just like a simple wireless access point. Perfect!

So when the Belkin died, I was in no rush to buy another of the same brand - and given the choice between the other 2 leaders (Netgear and Linksys), I’d personally go with Netgear - so that’s what I did.

Given that I had no problems with my current router, I was hesitant to go out and buy a whole new router - why buy what I don’t need, right? But to my surprise, simple, dumb wireless access points cost more than a similar wireless router! So, given the choice between paying more for less, or paying less and getting more, I opted for the latter and picked up a Netgear WGR614 Wireless-G Router. I suppose you could call it the spiritual decedent of my venerable old RT314.

Now, I could have used the new router as a wireless access point and not given up my old RT314 - it would’ve been a little weird, but it would have worked. However, after much consideration, I finally decided to retire the RT313 and let the new kid on the block take on the leading role.

Whatever anyone else says, the setup for the Netgear is quite simple. (Simpler than the Belkin’s setup - which was awful, that’s for sure!) I of course skipped the whole “insert this CD before attaching your router” instructions - I’m a professional IT-type person; I know how these things work.

My old Netgear used the 192.168.0.x IP address range- unlike the dominant Linksys, which always used 192.168.1.x. (I know this because I’ve set up VPN access for people before, and having the right subnet makes a difference.) I was therefore surprised when I noticed the new router used the 192.168.1.x range - I guess they decided to jump on the bandwagon with that one. Still, I like being different (and I have other reasons), so I switched it back - fortunately they still let you do this.

After that, it was just a simple task of entering all my settings from the old router - port forwarding mostly, and of course the whole reason for doing all this - wireless! The web-based configuration for Netgear has gotten a bit “flashy” compared to the old RT314, but that’s to be expected, I suppose. Still, it worked well, no problems and no surprises.

So now, the job of my Internet gateway (starkeith-gw.starkeith.net) and my wireless access point (Aether) are being performed by one device.

As time goes by, we’ll see how well this new router holds up. I’ve heard stories of routers that need to be reset every few days, or that die out after a certain amount of data/packets are sent, or other such nonsense. I think many of these problems come from newer routers and devices trying to do too much, or being made with firmware that was rushed into production, without proper testing.

My old RT314 never had to be reset. Ever.

Oh, I’d had to reset modems before - cable modems (back when cable Internet was still very new) and DSL modems (from time to time) - but never the router.

We’ll see if this new one holds up to the high standard set by its predecessor. Here’s hoping!

Why do Governments and Corporations become Evil?

authorKeithius | June 20, 2007

The corporate motto of Google, Inc. is “Don’t be Evil.” While this might seem like playful banter from an amazingly successful company, it actually says something deep and meaningful about human society - namely, that organizations; be they corporations, religious groups, or governments; over time become “evil.”

Why is this? No corporation starts out with the intent of becoming evil, governments are not (typically) founded to repress their people. So why does it happen?

To explain this, we need to think of corporations, religious groups, and governments as something more than just “organizations.” When a group becomes large enough, it ceases to be a simple group and takes on a “persona” of its own - in effect, becoming a “person.” (Corporations are explicitly people - they are legally structured as such to protect the people who work for them from being liable for the corporation’s actions - at least, mostly.)

Now, most people are inherently “good,” more or less. So how can an organization built up from good people become evil?

When a group becomes large enough, it ceases to be the sum of the wills and desires of the people within it, and instead becomes the sum of the “wills” and “desires” built into it by the rules and regulations that organize it. In corporations, this is the by-laws and the desire of stockholders for higher profits and a return on their investment. In governments, this is laws and regulations. Even when started with the best of intentions, unless those intentions are explicitly written into the very fabric of the organization (i.e. the rules, by-laws, or whatnot), there will be no trace of those intentions in the final “product,” that is, the organization that is created over time by those rules.

Try to think of an organization you think is “evil.” Maybe it’s Microsoft, or maybe it’s Exxon, or a RJ Reynolds (the tobacco company), or even the United States Government. Now think of that company as if it were a person unto itself. Try to describe it as if it were a person, with feelings and intentions and desires. You’ll see some very startling results. The “person” you’ll find yourself describing is single-minded, with no morals, no concept of right or wrong - just a single-minded intent for profit (in the case of companies) or control (in the case of governments).

This is why they are evil. They were all founded with the best of intentions, by generally “good” people. They may even still be controlled by generally “good” people, but they have taken on a life of their own. Without explicit restraints, they will pursue their goals without concern for anyone or any thing. They are not people, after all - they are something both more and less than a person. A juggernaut, sacrificing whatever stands in their way. Even when people try to do good things, the overwhelming pressure of their “goals” (i.e. profit or control) leads them to do things that no one would expect a person in their right mind to do. Corporations destroy environments, cheat and lie to gain market share, and destroy lives. Governments try to control every aspect of their citizens’ lives, and regulate everything in sight.

Now, you might try and stop me here and say that things aren’t as bad as I’m suggesting. Corporations haven’t reduced the Earth to a smoldering wasteland, after all. However, corporations have external limits and restraints placed on them by governments - generally representing the will of the people, but not always - and these limits and restraints, if you look at them closely, are almost always in the realm of what, for lack of a better term, I will call “morality.” When it comes to governments, we (here in the US at least) are lucky that our particular system of government has checks and balances on its own power built right in to help keep it under control, and representing the will of the people, rather than its own overwhelming desire for power. Although these checks and balances will eventually fail - after all, “morality” was not written into the constitution, and without it, even the best system will fall into tyranny. (The only “outside” influence for governments is, ironically, revolution by its people or, in a lesser sense, conquest by another country.)

This is a sobering thought, but there is a grain of wisdom in it as well, one that Google has taken to heart (although I don’t know if they fully appreciate it). The only way to prevent organizations from becoming evil is to imbue them with a sense of morality from the start - be it a corporate mantra to “not be evil,” or explicit restraints in the form of constitutions, amendments, by-laws, or what have you.

Of course, it is not just the nature of organizations to become evil in and of themselves - there are always some “bad seeds” in there somewhere, people with “evil” intentions do slip between the cracks, and it is their intentions which become amplified and personified by the group. What is the saying, “those who most desire power are least qualified to possess it?” Without explicit protection against “those who most desire power,” most organizations will end up in the control of such people - those who are, by definition, the least qualified to possess it.

It will be interesting to watch events unfold in the near future for me. I predict that we are on the verge of some radical changes in our society. Government has gone from a very good thing into a very “bad” thing. I look at the actions of the United States worldwide lately, and see only an organization seeking to maintain its own power, its “status quo,” while systematically taking control away from its own people, and regulating every aspect of their life - for no other reason than “government exists to govern.” This principle, taken to its logical conclusion, leads us down a road towards a future shockingly like the future predicted in George Orwell’s 1984. Similarly, corporations will continue to behave like spoiled children, with no concern for others - sacrificing innovation, the environment, and employees - all in the name of the almighty dollar. Even with a caring and understanding CEO, a corporation cannot escape its will, because a CEO is typically beholden to a board of directors, which is in turn beholden to stockholders, who are - in a large, publicly traded company, anyway - a large group. And as we have seen, large groups, large organizations without “morality,” always end up being… evil.

More on the “Missing Children”

authorKeithius | June 7, 2007

From Bruce Schneier’s blog:

We are rearing our children in captivity — their habitat shrinking almost daily.

In 1970 the average nine-year-old girl would have been free to wander 840 metres from her front door. By 1997 it was 280 metres.

Now the limit appears to have come down to the front doorstep.

[...]

The picket fence marks the limit of their play area. They wouldn’t dare venture beyond it.

“You might get kidnapped or taken by a stranger,” says Jojo.

“In the park you might get raped,” agrees Holly.

Don’t they yearn to go off to the woods, to climb trees and get muddy?

No, they tell me. The woods are scary. Climbing trees is dangerous. Muddy clothes get you in trouble.

One wonders what they think of Just William, Swallows And Amazons or The Famous Five — fictional tales of strange children from another time, an age of adventures where parents apparently allowed their offspring to be out all day and didn’t worry about a bit of mud.

There is increasing concern that today’s “cotton-wool kids” are having their development hampered.

They are likely to be risk-averse, stifled by fears which are more phobic than real.

This seems to fit well with what I observed the other day - and it makes me sad.

I Miss my Stick Shift

authorKeithius | May 6, 2007

I miss my stick shift, I really do. I miss being able to row through the gears on a twisty country road. You can approximate a stick shift with a manu-matic (as I have in my Outlander), but it’s not quite the same. In fact, there are some serious shortcomings with automatics of any type, but you can boil it all down to one thing: the ability to select a gear before you need it.

Let me explain. (First, though, a disclaimer - what I’m about to talk about applies largely to small-engine vehicles; i.e. 4-cylinder engines. With bigger engines, the power band is different, so some of the values I’m about to talk about will be different, although much of the same principle applies, it just applies at different speeds and engine RPMs.)

Let’s say you’re cruising around at about 35 MPH. In most cars, this is a gray area for the transmission - you could be in 3rd or 4th gear, depending on certain factors. If you’re cruising along a flat road, your automatic transmission will probably have you in 4th gear - the top gear in many cars - like mine. But let’s say you need to accelerate quickly, maybe to take a corner or zip past someone.

In an automatic, all you can do it put your foot down on the gas to get going. The car will detect the increased throttle and try to respond. Since you are in 4th gear, and probably running around 2,000 RPMs, this is too low for the gear ratio, so the automatic transmission will have to down shift into 3rd, or maybe even into 2nd, depending on how hard you mash the throttle.

Sounds well and good, but what you have to keep in mind is that you’ve already put your foot down - you need to go now. But your car has to wait a moment while it realizes that it can’t go, and then you’ve got all sorts of hydraulic (or, depending on your car, electronic) systems that need to adjust their settings so that the car can shift gears. This takes time - and that is the problem. There’s always a lag with automatic transmissions from when you mash the gas down, to when the car actually responds by shifting gears. Now you’ve wasted a second (or two, if your transmission is sluggish) just sitting there, hardly accelerating at all. This may be fine for around-town driving, but if you like spirited driving, it is no fun at all.

With a manual transmission, you know that you’re going to want to accelerate in a moment - because you are the one who’s going to do it. So you pop the clutch and shift gears, and then, when you mash on the throttle, the car is already in 3rd, and you zoom away - keeping the car’s engine in the “power band” for your engine, with the RPMs tuned just right. Zoom-zoom, baby!

Now, some of the more astute readers out there might think “but you still have a time delay - you have to shift gears yourself, mash the clutch in, move the gear shift lever, and that takes time too!” And you’d be right. But the important thing to remember is that YOU moved the gears BEFORE you needed them (mechanically speaking). With an automatic, the gear change happens AFTER you need it. That difference is what makes an automatic feel sluggish, while the same car with a manual transmission (and a competent driver, of course) feels “sporty” and responsive.

So what about a manual-automatic hybrid, what some people call a “sport-tronic” or “manu-matic” transmission? Just pop the lever over to “manual” and down-shift, right? Well, not quite.

You see, unlike a manual transmission, an automatic transmission is always “in gear,” so to speak. I’ll spare you the technical details of planetary gear assemblies and so forth, but suffice to say that in automatic transmissions, the engine is always connected to the drive shaft. In a manual transmission, by definition, when you push the clutch in, you are disconnecting the engine from the drive shaft. The engine is spinning freely, with no load on it. Because of this, you can use the accelerator to bring the engine up to the right speed (RPM) before you re-engage the drive shaft. Thus, when you let out the clutch, the engine is already at the speed (RPM) you need for the most power. An automatic has to struggle through a (very brief) period of going either too fast or too slow for the gear you are in, before things get back “in synch,” so to speak. (The more technical readers out there are going to take me to task over this simplification - bear with me here guys, I know the details and I know this isn’t exact, but I’m trying to make a point here.)

So there you have it - even with a “manu-matic” transmission, there will always be a delay in power delivery when shifting gears, while a manual gives you the ability to anticipate power needs and shift gears accordingly. When someone invents an automatic transmission that can read your mind, maybe this won’t be a problem anymore, but until then… a manual will always win.

(p.s. Let’s leave out of this discussion the “flappy-paddle” shifting cars that actually do have a clutch, but the car controls it, rather than the driver controlling it via a pedal. These sorts of systems are popular on high-performance - and expensive - sports cars, and they work surprisingly well, but the computer is still in control - not you - even though you can force gear changes with the paddles and get the same benefits described above to having a clutch. Such systems don’t exist in the “average” car yet, and I don’t know if they ever will, due to their complexity. And even if they do work their way down to everyday cars, as I said, the computer is still controlling the clutch, and it will never be as “smart” as you - the driver - nor will it be able to anticipate your intentions the way you, with full manual control over the gear changes, could do.)

Logos | Icons | WordPress Themes

Using Internet Explorer is risky. Click here to upgrade to Firefox, the world's safest web browser for free.