Check out these pictures from where I used to work. They were posted by Guy Kawasaki. He's some guy who worked at Apple, wrote some books, and did some stuff. The one thing that's a little confusing from this blog post is that it's not Xerox PARC anymore. It's just PARC.



Above is the view from my old office at PARC. I have this image backed up somewhere but it would take forever to find it. So I resorted to good old archive.org for a backup copy. For some reason they didn't store a lot of the pictures, but they did keep this one.

If you read this post or the one before it then you're probably pretty well acquainted with my lunacy. In any case, I have been keeping an eye out for pictures of balls in books. I have definitely noticed a higher than random probability of finding red stars on balls. So maybe there really is a strong prototype for balls with stars. That could definitely explain the particular event that I wrote about.

That's really the interesting thing about it though. It's hard to prove that this is the explanation. I know there has been much ink spilled on both sides of issues like this (luckily, no ink was shed in the writing of this blog). Many have said outright that research into topics like this is a waste of time. The thing I like about it though is the unresolved ambiguity. It leaves open the possibility for unknown phenomena. Is it all the usual science that we're comfortable with? Or is it something weird that's still unknown? Given that elephants probably communicate through their feet, I don't find it too hard to believe that humans, who are more subtle than elephants (apologies to Doug Adams), can communicate more than we thought with facial expressions or some other mechanism we haven't discovered yet.

I am just on the verge of submitting this to Science and Nature so you're really getting a sneak peek here. This is huge. If you've got an infant in your life (or anyone else in diapers, for that matter) then you'll want to listen closely. I have discovered the secret to optimal wiping. Feel free to just refer to it as "the secret".

Why might you be interested in optimal wiping, you ask? It could just save the world as we know it, by reducing deforestation and global warming and the real estate bubble and who knows what else. OK smart guy, I hear you saying you don't care about any of those things. So let's just say you're stranded on a deserted island with one baby wipe left and your kid is covered in a gigantic turd. Got your attention now, don't I? I thought so.

OK, so here it is. Instructions on optimal wiping. First, make one good pass with the wipe. You want to use up all of one side. Now, carefully fold it in half so that the two, erm, soiled sides fold together. The trick here is that you've often only got one hand, since the other hand is often suspending or restraining various baby appendages. So folding with one hand takes some practice. You'll probably want to get a doll and some wipes and block off a weekend to really master it. Once you've got that step, it's all blue skies and green lights. Just repeat the process - wiping and folding in half. Wipe and fold. Take a look at the fancy-pants figure:



I know what you're asking yourself now, heady with your new found power and feeling like maybe you could go on folding in half forever. You're asking yourself, "Is there no limit to all this wiping"? Well, let me just reign in that optimism there, Mr. Zeno. Your good friend, Mr. Mathematics, just happens to have something to say about this. Let's take a look at the theoretical limit:



OK, so doubling your wiping power ain't so shabby either, now is it. But not so fast, smart guy. That was the theoretical limit. For the actual limit, we have to reference the super duper expert scientists here. So the actual wiping area is AT MOST:



I think that should set a few things straight around here. I actually haven't calculated the exact folding limit of your standard huggies/Costco wipe. I'm guessing it's more like 8 rather than 12. But I leave that as an exercise for the reader. Bonus points for calculating the limits of Tucks medicated pads. Now go out into the world and start folding your wipes into microscopic proportions!

Oh, and thanks to David Tucker for suggesting a formula.

A while back I read the science fiction book 'Spin'. It won a Hugo award, which is kinda like the Oscars for science fiction literature. I'm sure these awards are tainted with politics just like the Oscars and everything else. But I still find them to be helpful in choosing books to read since I don't follow Science Fiction that closely. It also helped that my cube neighbor, Charles, recommended and let me borrow the book.

If you read a little bit of science fiction, you'll probably start to see variants on the same ideas reused across many books. That's, of course, because it's hard to think of new ideas. One of the things I liked about Spin is that it has a couple great science fiction premises that I hadn't read about anywhere else. That by itself was worth reading the book for me. I also wasn't able to guess what was behind the spin, almost right up to the point where it was spelled out for me. Even better, the premise has a certain logical purity to it that was pretty satisfying once I got it. Now, I'm not saying that I think the ideas in the book are actually feasible. In fact, it seems exceedingly far fetched to me at this point. But what good is science fiction without a heavy dose of speculation.

Although I liked the plot devices by themselves, I thought they also gave the book an interesting perspective on the universe. I don't want to spoil the plot so I won't say much more about this. I just found it cool to put myself in the mindset of the Spin world, thinking outside the usual constraints.

Alas, my review is not all positive. I thought the book's biggest weaknesses were some of the clichéd interactions between the characters. At one point towards the end of the book, one of the characters actually says something like, "you always were the strong one". That's a line straight out of a Lifetime channel movie if I've ever heard one. Of course, real life people do talk in clichés like this, since people are often not very creative. But if I wanted to hear that kind of dialog, I'd go watch some Oprah or eavesdrop at Starbucks.

On a related note, a couple characters had ridiculous catharses towards the end of the book that I found to be a distraction from the main storyline. I guess these were included to give the book some extra literary weight. Obviously I don't think they were successful and wouldn't add anything even if they weren't so contrived.

Overall though, I'd recommend the book. It may start you thinking.

It's probably not too surprising that kid's books are gimmicky. You've got your tissue paper guy. And the lithograph guy. And then you've got the authors with story gimmicks. Like If You Give a Moose a Muffin or If You Give a Mouse a Cookie or the soon to be released "If You Give a Rat Some Poison".

The gimmick I've been reading a lot of recently is Curious George. If you haven't read the books, I'll give you a summary of every single one. George is curious causing him to get in trouble. After a stern lecture, George is back in action to save the day. Everyone forgets about the trouble he caused earlier and he ends up a hero.

First of all, is that really a good lesson to teach kids? The implication is that if you screw up, you better walk on water soon. I guess it's not too big a deal. It is just a monkey.

Anyway, my real issue is with this man with the yellow hat. Has there ever been a less responsible pet owner? This guy leaves George unattended in some stellar situations. You can imagine the hilarity that ensues when the yellow hatted one leaves George alone in his friend's pharmacy ... with a loaded handgun. That George is a rascal.

I recently finished reading a book called "The Time Traveler's Wife". It was one of the few books I've bought on a whim at the store. The last one I bought on a whim was "The Kiterunner" which I'd recommend if you haven't read it. The Time Traveler's Wife took me about a year to read. I can't ever remember taking even half that long to finish a fiction book. Having said that, you might think I hated it. I definintely didn't. It had some great insights into human relationships. The writing was also very well done in places.

For the first half of the book, the premise seemed really goofy to me. Basically it is a time travel romance novel. I wasn't really used to the introduction of a classic science fiction mainstay in such an otherwise mundane love story. I was also really worried starting out that the time travel would be totally ridiculous and filled with classic logical flaws. However, I think the book effectively avoided these pitfalls. By the end of the book, I was pretty comfortable with the time travel and I thought it gave the book a real tragic edge.

One complaint about the story in general was that it projected a sense of intellectual snobbery. I got the distinct impression that the author is one of those people who carries a library tote bag and needs to tell everyone how she doesn't own a TV (insert obligatory Onion ref). I'm sure the author giggled with delight when she thought of a plausible reason for one of the main characters to have an aversion to TV.

My biggest problem with the book was that it poorly developed the conflict. That is why it took me so long to read. The "reading group" questions at the end suggest that various events in the book were subtly foreshadowed. I guess maybe that is what is supposed to keep you interested. But for me it was way too subtle. There was absolutely no conflict for the first 80% of the book. It was like a breathless kid telling you a story that ends up being a series of events with no real point. "This happened. Then this happened. Oh, and then this crazy thing happened."

I think the book could be altered in very minor ways to introduce the conflict much earlier and make the story much more compelling. An example that comes to mind is one of my favorites, "A Prayer for Owen Meany". In this book, the main character also has visions of his future. However, these visions are revealed much earlier and the story has a great sense of building towards a climax. The Time Traveler's Wife develops this same sense but not until about the last 20% of the book.

I am somewhat skeptical of most vitamins and herbal supplements. The evidence is constantly changing as to how much of which thing you should be taking. And from personal experience, the only difference I've ever seen from vitamins is a change in urine color. It's funny though that vitamin advocates are always so dogmatic about their supplement of choice.

That said, I do have my own supplement dogma. I am a fiber evangelist. That's right, fiber! Here's the thing about fiber that's different from other supplements: you can see it working within a day. There are studies that suggest that it can lower your cholesterol and help you control your weight. The mechanism is pretty easy to understand too. The fiber pushes out the fats and such faster so less of it is absorbed. That's not rocket science.

The problem for me is that I hate eating fibery foods. So instead of trying to change my diet, I started taking metamucil every day. It's not so bad, really. Lest you think this is a commercial or something - I actually don't take the name brand metamucil. I buy a generic equivalent. The best generic prices I've found are at Walgreens. I'd recommend the smooth texture rather than the original. I also go for the kind with real sugar rather than that chemical replacement sugar substitute that causes cancer in laboratory rats stuff. But that's just me.

OK, laser eye surgery made some sense. I could almost understand laser cosmetic surgery. Laser hair removal was getting a little bit weird. Now we've got lasers to quit smoking? Woah, you lost me there. I think we may want to give this some more thought. What are we going to do when these lasers start thinking for themselves. There'll be no stopping them!

I just watched "The Grapes of Wrath" for the first time. I really wanted to like it. I like a lot of other old movies so I don't think I'm just biased against old movies. It's a Wonderful Life is one of my favorites. I also loved Casablanca, Rope, and Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Those were all made in the 40s just like Grapes of Wrath. I even remember liking East of Eden - one of Steinbeck's other novels turned into a movie. But you've probably guessed by now that The Grapes of Wrath just didn't do it for me. Some of the filming was awful. In one scene toward the beginning of the movie, Tom and Casy are walking in front of an obviously fake background. But the worst part is the sound. They sound like they are filming in a bathroom. It's all tinny and echoing. But I could forgive the technical problems since it was only 1940 after all. But the acting was just completely out of control in places. Some of Ma's speeches are just dripping with melodrama. And Tom's speech at the end of the movie about how he'll "be" there in all these different situations like when the police are beating people - that was just way over the top. I wouldn't really make a fuss but this movie is in the AFI's top 25 and in the IMDB's top 200. Come on.

Is there anybody out there who hasn't seen this message or something like it? It's what your DVD player tells you if you try to fast forward through the previews at the beginning of a DVD or if you try to do anything that the creators of the DVD decided is a "prohibited user operation." Apparently none of the folks at the MPAA are parents - otherwise they would have seen the error of this scheme right away. As soon as you tell a kid not do something that is guaranteed to be the first thing they'll want to do. Maybe they've heard of the term "reverse psychology." Guess not.

For those that just tuned in, let me outline the history of DVDs for you and see if this is how you'd do things. Say you want to sell your movies so people can watch them at home. Right off the bat your not sure if this is a good idea because maybe it will take away from your sales of movie theater tickets. Still, you decide to give it a go and sell your movies on CD-sized discs. You're pretty sure there won't be much competition because copyright laws prevent anyone else but you from selling your movies for a really long time. But is that really good enough? What if other people don't sell the movies but copy them and give them away to their friends. Well that would be just as bad wouldn't it? OK, so you have to come up with some way so that people can't copy their movies for friends. Here's an idea, you can use a "secret code" to scramble the movie up. Then only people with the "secret decoder ring" can unscramble it. Then, you will only give the "secret decoder ring" to the companies making player devices for the movie discs. Oh yeah, it's so simple it's brilliant. Wait a second, what if someone takes an afternoon and figures out your secret code. Oh, that would be bad. That would ruin the whole scheme. Hmmm.... What to do? I've got it! You can spend a whole bunch of money to get the government to make it illegal to figure out your secret code. Oh yes, it's perfect. You can name the scheme the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. That sounds very grandiose. People will respect that name. Hold on again, I just thought of something else. This scheme means that you've got a deal with the companies that make player devices for your movie discs. So even though customers will be paying money for the movie, you can determine what people can and can't do. Ha ha, suckers! You should rub it in their faces everytime they turn on a movie by showing that silly copyright law and then not allowing them to skip it. Can you get away with that? Are people really dumb enough and lazy enough to accept it?

The answer of course is no - people are not that dumb and lazy. Someone did figure out their silly secret code very soon after it was released. Unfortuntely, laws in the US often favor the side with the most money so the DMCA is still being enforced here. But you can get the secret decoder ring from people in other countries. Do a google search on "DVD Shrink" or "DVD Decrypter".