Jeremy's almost but not quite entirely moribund blog

Playing Portal 2 co-op on LAN, with one account

2011-10-11T21:21:00.004-06:00

My wife bought me Portal 2 a few months ago, and I thoroughly enjoyed the single-player campaign. The puzzles are clever, and there are lots of 'em. The story is funny and engaging, and the voice acting is superb. The procedural music adds a lot of atmosphere. I particularly liked the historic Aperture Science Innovators levels deep underground.

After completing the single-player game, I wanted more. My wife suggested that our 7-year-old boy would enjoy playing co-op with me. I said it probably won't work unless I register another Steam account and buy another copy of the game... but I did some Google searches and found that offline LAN play is possible with a single copy. There are varying instructions given, and some work better than others, so I decided to record the best way here. Specifically, if you do it right, Atlas (the blue robot) can save progress and earn achievements. (They can't both do it, because only one can be connected to Steam at a time.)

Start with the guest machine (this machine will play P-body, the orange robot):

Launch Steam in offline mode.
Start Portal 2.
Enable the developer console (under advanced keyboard options). This only has to be done once.
Enter the developer console by pressing the back-quote (`) key, to the left of the number 1.

Now, on the host machine (this machine will play Atlas, the blue robot):

Launch Steam in online mode.
Start Portal 2.
Enable the developer console (again, this only needs to be done the first time).
Select "Play cooperative game" from the main menu.
Select "Standard co-op"
Wait for the "Invite friends" page to appear. It's okay if the page is empty.
Enter the developer console by pressing the back-quote (`) key.
Type sv_lan 1

Back on the guest machine:

Type connect (IP address of host machine)

And then on the host:

Type map mp_coop_start (for the calibration level, if you haven't played before), or map mp_coop_lobby_2 (for the hub)

Using these steps, I am able to play co-op with my son, and still save progress and earn achievements on my account (I play as Atlas).

Windshield wipers

2009-07-25T17:12:00.003-06:00

A few months ago, the windshield wiper switch on my 2000 Honda Civic broke, resulting in funny behavior like the blades stopping the second you let go of the lever, even in the middle of the windshield, and when you pull the lever back to squirt the windshield, it'd keep squirting forever until you push it back.

The car was due for a safety inspection, and I figured it wouldn't pass in this condition. I picked up a new switch at the local Honda dealer and installed it this morning. The wipers worked like they should, but the windshield squirty-things didn't squirt.

Just yesterday I topped off the wiper fluid, so I knew that wasn't the problem. This pointed at the pump. Looking under the hood, I couldn't even see the pump. Only the top of the reservoir poked through the maze of frobnitzes and gormishes. Looking up from below, I couldn't see it either. I was worried I'd have to remove the front bumper, but it turned out the pump is situated just in front of the front wheel and is accessible through the wheel well once the cover is removed. I picked up a new pump at AutoZone (which was much less expensive than the switch, interestingly enough), drained the fluid into a bucket, and swapped pumps. Now I can squirt the windshield again; in fact, the new pump almost overshoots the windshield entirely. I guess it's a little more powerful.

With a working windshield wiper system, I took my car to Jiffy Lube for the inspection, and they told me my blades needed replacement... so one more trip to AutoZone.

Side note: Jiffy Lube also told me my air filter needed replacement, and they offered to do it for $15. I declined, because I knew the air filter is easy to install, so I thought I'd save a few bucks. Until I saw what the new air filter cost at AutoZone: $15. I guess next time I'll just let Jiffy Lube do it.

I also replaced the cabin air filter and windshield wiper blades on the family van. And my Civic has a door that won't open from the outside... maybe I'll make a clean sweep of it and look at that this evening.

Aren't cars fun?

Making Vista x64 print to an XP Home box

2009-07-11T10:49:00.002-06:00

My printer, an HP Laserjet 1012, is connected via USB to my desktop computer, which runs Windows XP. The printer is shared from the desktop, and my wife regularly prints to it from her Eee PC (also running XP) and the MythTV box (running Linux, of course). No problem setting either of these up.

I was just working on a document on my shiny Dell laptop that runs Windows Vista x64 Edition, and I had a bear of a time getting it to talk to the printer. It sees the printer in the Add Printer Wizard, but when I go to install it, it claims it couldn't find a suitable driver, even if I point it directly at the Vista x64 driver I downloaded from HP's website.

I thought, maybe if I plug the printer directly into the computer, it'll let me install the driver--so I yanked the USB cable from the desktop and plugged it into the laptop. It saw the printer appear, chewed on this information for awhile, and then told me it couldn't find a driver. So I pointed it at the one I downloaded, and lo and behold, this time it worked.

So I reconnected the printer to the desktop and went back to the Add Printer wizard, figuring this time it'd realize the printer was installed and not complain about the lack of a driver. Nope. It still complained that there was no suitable driver, even though a suitable driver was already installed. Stupid Windows.

I did some Googling and found the answer: lie to Windows and say you're adding a local printer, on a local port that happens to be named \\server\printername. This way it noticed that the appropriate driver was installed, and it actually completed the installation and printed.

Stupid Windows.

New phone: Tracfone LG 600G

2009-07-04T10:41:00.013-06:00

EDIT: Before writing this, I created ringtones and wallpapers, and even compiled software and transferred it to the phone, but I didn't actually try talking on it. Har. Guess what? It doens't work. It makes and receives calls, but a few seconds into it, it drops the call, then the phone reboots. Sigh...

UPDATE: Tracfone sent me a replacement phone and everything works now. They were pretty quick about it, and they compensated the minutes (and more than compensated the airtime) that I lost after activating a phone that didn't actually work as a phone.
---

I had been using Virgin Mobile for two and a half years, and I recently decided it's time to switch to Tracfone. My main complaint with Virgin Mobile was lousy coverage. The VM phone didn't get service in the building I work in, or in any of the quasi-rural spots where I go to see stars (when I got stuck in the snow late at night in Provo Canyon last year, I had to rely on a camper whose phone actually worked there).

My wife switched from a Sprint monthly plan to Tracfone six months ago, and its coverage is much better. With my Virgin Mobile service about to expire, and finding that I could get better coverage for less money, I decided to take the opportunity to switch to Tracfone myself.

I'll diverge for a moment to discuss pricing. On Virgin Mobile, I had to pay $20 per 90 days to keep the service active. Minutes were 18 cents per, and text messages 15 cents (this tripled from 5 cents when I started with VM). Coincidentally, $20 per 90 days is about what I had to spend anyway - meaning I averaged 8 or 9 minutes per week - I don't talk recreationally, but it's invaluable for logistical-type things. FWIW, this was a grandfathered rate at the time I quit VM; they've upped it to 20 cents per minute these days.

With Tracfone, there are a dizzying array of pricing options, and on the surface they look more expensive than Virgin Mobile - however, the key is their "Double Minutes for Life" feature. Buy a more expensive phone than the generic $10 models, and effectively minutes cost half as much, for the life of the phone. I paid $40 for the LG 600G at Target, and it includes double minutes. This means a 60-minute card (which adds 90 days of airtime to your service), priced at $20, would yield 33 cents/min otherwise - but just 16.7 cents/min on this phone - a better deal than Virgin Mobile. Higher value cards have a correspondingly lower cost per minute; the one-year-of-service card, which at $100 gives you 800 (doubled) minutes, yielding 12.5 cents per minute. Also, there are often promo codes* you can enter to get even more bonus minutes with a purchase; I used a 200-minute code, meaning I got a total of 1000 minutes (400 * 2 + 200) for $100 - 10 cents per minute. Not too shabby.

I also got an additional 100 bonus minutes for porting my number from Virgin Mobile and activating a one-year card. The porting process, which their web site said could take 7-10 days, actually took less than one. I sorta hoped it would take longer, because I didn't get the chance to burn off my remaining Virgin Mobile balance - oh well. :) My only complaint here is that they called me at 7:15 AM to complete the process by entering a few thousand numbers into the "code entry" fields.

So, on to the phone. My curiosity was piqued when I saw my wife's w376g and saw what looked like a standard USB mini-B socket on it - it'd be nice to transfer files to and from the phone without paying for airtime, I mused. But not with that phone - the USB port has been crippled on that phone, and is only good for charging. Bleh. The 376 also has Bluetooth, but it's crippled too, and is only good for a headset.

The LG 600G, on the other hand, doesn't pretend to have a USB port, but what it does have is non-crippled Bluetooth. It's possible to create ringtones (.mid or .amr) and graphics (.jpg) and send them to the phone without paying a dime. It's also possible to download pictures from the camera over Bluetooth. What's more, you can actually develop and distribute software that runs on the phone, using Java Micro Edition. Not common features in a $40 no-contract phone.

Trying to actually use the Bluetooth features has been a bit of an adventure. I'm using my work laptop, a MacBook Pro, to transfer stuff to the phone since none of my personal machines has Bluetooth. I prepared a bunch of my astrophotos for the phone, cropping and downsampling them to 128x160 for the screen, and then I sent 'em all over to the phone in one batch ... except that it didn't quite work. One, the phone prompts you to confirm each individual transfer, and two, when I sent multiple files over in one batch, the MacBook seemed to send File 2 before it finished sending File 1, leaving File 1 truncated (easily visible in JPEG files). I don't know whether this bug is Apple's or LG's, but for the time being, files must be sent one at a time. (I'll try other Bluetooth software and see if this changes.)

When typing text messages, the 600G has what's called "T9" mode, which lets you press each key once instead of multiple times to pick the correct letter. It uses a dictionary to figure out which word you meant. So to type "hello", you just type "43556", not "443555(wait)555666". It's quite nice, until you come up with a word that's not in the dictionary, but that doesn't happen often in my experience.

I downloaded the Java ME SDK, compiled a "Hello World" sample, and sent it to the phone and ran it. It worked. I haven't thought of a killer app to write for it yet, but it's nice that I have the ability to program this thing. It's somewhat limited, however, since the thing only has 4MB of storage (an iPhone it is not). There are a whole bunch of downloadable games for the 600G here.

Just for grins, I'll include the backgrounds I created for this phone...

_{*I didn't actually get the 200 promo minutes at first, but I sent Tracfone an email and they were credited to my phone the next day. I got the code I used from Tracfone's own web site, but I suspect it was out of date, because a different code was shown elsewhere on their site.}

Vizio VO37LF 37" 1080p LCD TV

2009-01-17T15:03:00.008-07:00

Last week I bought and returned a 37" Toshiba HDTV due to unacceptable lag when gaming. Since that time I've searched the web a lot, but I haven't really found any credible information on the amount of lag found in other models - so I figured I'd just have to spin the wheel again and hope for the best. So I spent the store credit I got for returning the Toshiba on another 37" LCD - this time the Vizio VO37LF. It cost $40 more than the Toshiba ($690 total), but it's 1080p.

And I'm happy to say, despite not having a Game Mode per se, the Vizio is worlds better than the Toshiba for gaming. Rock Band 2 (Wii, 480p over component) lag calibration worked out to 30ms video / 20ms audio (vs 50ms video / 100ms audio on the Toshiba in Game Mode).

I played a couple of songs in DDR Supernova (PS2, 480i over Component) and got a AA on Difficult, beating my old record I got on the 20" CRT! Not a bad first impression.

As far as picture quality goes - upscaled SD is sharp, maybe a little too sharp (text looks great and is much more legible than the 20" tube; some graphics look blocky, though). OTA HD looks pretty nice too, maybe not quite as nice as the Toshiba, but I haven't played around with the settings much (and the quality of the feed has a big impact, I'm sure).

Things I have not yet tried: Watching DVDs (the PS2 can allegedly do this in 480p; if it doesn't I might have to grab an upscaling HDMI player). Connecting a computer (it can supposedly do 1080p over VGA).

Update: I watched a few minutes of Apollo 13 on the new TV. The PS2 does indeed play DVDs in progressive-scan, and it looks great. Very detailed - you can read the labels on the spacecraft buttons and probably count the actors' eyelashes in close-up shots. From a normal viewing distance on the couch, it looked almost indistinguishable in quality from OTA HD. I have no need for an upconverting DVD player - from a 480p signal over component, the TV does a good enough job of it on its own.

Update 2: I plugged a MythTV box into the VO37L via the VGA port. It works beautifully at 1920x1080. My Tux Racer framerate at this resolution is poor (GeForce 6150 integrated video isn't up to HD gaming), but HD content in MythTV look great and plays back smoothly at a little over 50% CPU utilization (Athlon 64 3200+). Note: You can perform an auto-adjust with the remote control (top item in the on-screen menu) to get the TV to re-sync to the analog video signal. I had to do this while displaying a test pattern to get the picture lined up exactly with the edges of the screen.

Update 3: The TV resolves pixel-perfect 1920x1080 from my laptop via both VGA and HDMI inputs. (I had to play with my video driver's underscan setting to get it to do this over HDMI, but this is the computer's fault, not the TV's.)

Also, I've noticed a few defects with the display:

Two dead pixels (dark, not bright, so they're not covered by Vizio's "no bright pixels" promise). These are, however, not noticeable from a normal viewing distance (and not noticeable at all unless there's a bright background).
A bright spot at the top of the screen, just left of center. It's only visible when the screen is black, and looks like a reflection - except it's there even when the room lights are off.
Brightness falls off a bit on the extreme left and right sides of the display. Not noticeable while watching TV, but a slight distraction while using the TV as a computer monitor.

Toshiba 37AV52U - bought and returned

2009-01-10T16:55:00.002-07:00

I've been wanting to upgrade my 20" tube TV for quite awhile now. Lately my wife has been expressing a desire for a bigger screen too, mostly to improve Wii gaming with friends over. So I decided to take the plunge. I picked up a Toshiba 37AV52U (37" 720p LCD) for $650 at Costco. Then returned it hours later. Here's why.

I'm into rhythm games (DDR, Rock Band). These are sensitive to lag--if the TV delays the picture or sound, the game suffers. I picked this model specifically because it has a game mode, intended to minimize lag. Well... even in game mode, this TV's lag is unacceptable.

Rock Band 2's auto-calibration (using the sensors on the guitar) measured about 50ms of video lag, and 100ms (yes, a full tenth of a second!) of audio lag. In game mode. This is on a Wii connected via component cables, running in progressive-scan mode. That amount of video lag is passable, but not great, especially for a "game mode"... but a triple-digit audio delay is just plain unacceptable. That would mean during drum fills in Rock Band, the sound would come out like a third of a beat behind.

I tried DDR too, and got a D on a song that just yesterday I got a AAA on using my tube TV. Clearly Toshiba's game mode is not as effective as Sharp's. Actually, game mode had zero effect with progressive scan video. With 480i video, it made the picture flickery and unwatchable, and probably decreased lag to the same miserable 50ms that you get in any case with 480p.

It's a shame, really ... because other than for rhythm games, this TV would be great. Discounting lag, it does a fantastic job deinterlacing and cleaning up SD signals, and over-the-air HD channels looked simply jaw-dropping.

Guitar Hero World Tour PS2 - First Impressions

2008-11-18T19:51:00.004-07:00

Don't know if I've mentioned it on the blog before, but I'm somewhat of a Rock Band addict. Drums are my specialty (I've five-starred 55 of the 58 on-disc songs, 32 of them gold). I can also hold my own on guitar and bass (the zigzags in GG&HT are all that stand between me and beating the expert guitar tour).

Anyhow, I have a PS2 (which I also use for DDR every morning) and can't justify buying a PS3 or 360 just for Rock Band (as I can't imagine what else I would do with one--I'm not really into video games anymore, and I can't remember the last time I put a non-rhythm game into my PS2--it's probably been at least a year). I'd like Rock Band 2... but it's not out yet for the PS2. Meanwhile, Guitar Hero World Tour is out, but I was skeptical about buying it (1) due to the imperfect mappings on a Rock Band drum set and (2) due to some reviews I've read saying the product is a little buggy.

And today I came home from work and found my wife rented the game for me. I hadn't even thought of that option. Anyhow, I've played it a bit, and I don't think I'll be buying it. It's not pretty:

The game assumes you have a widescreen TV. If you don't (and I don't), everything is squished. Unlike Rock Band, there is no 4:3 option.
The game assumes you have a large TV. And I don't. Legibility is poor.
The kick pedal bar is purple. The background is purple. It's not very visible. Sometimes I missed a bass drum note just because I didn't see the purple bar.

Okay, so far, the problems could be mitigated by getting a big widescreen TV. I've been considering that for some time now, my main holdup being lag (DDR, which I play every morning, unfortunately does not have robust lag calibration options, and I play for AAs...) But there are other problems with this game:

Saving the game takes ridiculously long--like 15 seconds--easily 3x as long as Rock Band.
The game is slow. Loading songs takes ages.
The user interface is unresponsive. The game frequently freezes and hiccups while scrolling through the song list. It feels like browsing the web on dial-up.

So all in all, the game is unfriendly to non-HDTV users and feels rough around the edges. It doesn't feel like a good investment, particularly when Rock Band 2 has so many of the same songs. (RB2 doesn't have Hotel California and Sweet Home Alabama though - GHWT gets some points for having some songs that the average person has actually heard before.)

As for drum gameplay--it'd be better with the real GHWT kit of course, but it works with the Rock Band kit. It's a little strange having the crash cymbal be the blue pad instead of green (you almost never use the green pad in GHWT, at least on the easier songs). The star power thing is a little difficult to pull off (you have to hit blue and yellow at precisely the same time, interrupting only one note in the track, and if you screw it up you lose your multiplier). And I believe (but haven't gotten there to see yet) that fast songs like Everlong will need to be played left-handed (because GHWT doesn't switch the red and yellow pads in songs with hi-hat rolls, which they don't need to do because their yellow pad is above the red one, not to its right).

So anyhow--my first impressions weren't that great--it feels slow, unresponsive, and rough around the edges, and if you don't have an HDTV, this game wasn't made for you. But I've got the game for another couple of days, so maybe it'll grow on me.

Edit: Second Impressions

Played for another couple of hours. Here are some nice things I found:

In solo play, the instrument you're playing is mixed louder (like in GH2 and probably other GH games). I like this. I can actually hear the real drum part over the clacking of my RB1 drum set.
In the 5-to-4 condensed drum tracks, sometimes yellow+blue combinations come down the pike. I was worried these would be effectively mandatory star power activation points, but they're not--hitting this combination when it's notated doesn't engage star power.
Open-strum bass notes are a fun addition. The first one threw me off, but I picked them up pretty quickly after that.
There are a couple of classical songs included, such as Fur Elise. They sound like bad midi files, however. Probably because they are. I guess they're an example of custom songs you can make--and that is a nice feature that Rock Band does not have (on any platform).

And some more complaints:

After you pick guitar or bass in quickplay, you can't change this selection. A note at the bottom of the screen says the red button goes back, but it doesn't. Probably a bug.
I found the unlock-all cheat code and dove into the hard songs in Quickplay. As predicted, Everlong murdered me in about ten seconds, in part due to the fact that you indeed have to play it left-handed on a Rock Band kit. I thought I might be able to work around this by switching to Lefty mode, but...
In solo quickplay (unlike in group quickplay), you can't choose handedness before the song. And if you try to switch to Lefty mode in the pause menu, it makes you restart the song (and wait through the interminable load screen again). And although the hi-hat roll is right-handed in this configuration, the left hand is forced to do all the other work, so it's not really a good workaround.

And some neutral observations:

The timing window is looser than Rock Band. Fills and flourishes are easier to hit. On the other hand, the fail meter goes down faster when you miss notes. The net effect of this, in my opinion, is to make easy songs easier and hard songs harder.

First Impressions: Dell Studio 17 laptop

2008-10-17T10:01:00.008-06:00

Dude! I got a Dell! (Update: And I wish I hadn't--see the keyboard notes in bold below. Sigh...)

Heh.

Lately I've been looking to replace my five-year-old HP laptop with something a little more modern, something I can edit photos on and occasionally work from home on. Since my employer has an employee discount deal with Dell, I thought I'd check out their machines.

I was looking for something with a Core 2 Duo processor, 17" screen, keyboard with numeric keypad, > 250GB hard drive, and a decent video chip (not any Intel GMA, and I'm kind of scared of nVidia at the moment, so that leaves ATI). And it just so happens that the only reasonably priced laptop I found meeting these specs is the Dell Studio 17, so that's what I got.

Interestingly enough, I didn't actually get an employee discount because I bought a refurb from the Dell Outlet, which the discount program does not apply to. Oh well - it was still about $100 cheaper than a new one would have been even with my 7% discount - and more importantly, it could ship immediately, whereas a new machine would have taken about 10 days to build, and I wouldn't have gotten it in time for Microsoft's PDC conference, which my employer is sending me to in a little over a week.

Here are the speculations:

Core 2 Duo T5750 (2.0 GHz, 667MHz FSB)
4GB DDR2-667 memory
320GB 5400RPM HDD
17" 1440x900 display (no dead pixels!)
Radeon HD 3650 video chip
Fingerprint reader (le woot; I didn't even notice that until after I ordered)

The machine is Web 2.0 Green (when you order from the outlet, you take what you can get; I actually delayed my order a bit when I logged in earlier and only Flamingo Pink was available). (Okay, they actually call it Spring Green, and my wife says it's not bright enough to be Web 2.0 Green and I should call it 1973 Green instead. But at least it's not pink.)

The machine set me back $769, which isn't bad at all for those specs. Of course it was a refurb, but it showed only very minor signs of use (and a green "refurb" sticker on the bottom).

Windows Vista Home Premium came installed (sigh, just the 32-bit version, so it only sees 3.5GB of the installed 4GB of memory). The Windows Experience Index scores are as follows:

Processor: 4.9
Memory: 4.5
Graphics: 5.7
Gaming: 4.9
Hard disk: 5.3

First impressions:

The display is big, bright, and looks nice and sharp. The text is small enough that I don't regret not being able to find a machine with a 1920x1200 WUXGA screen in the outlet store - I don't really feel cramped at 1440x900 like I was afraid I might.
The keyboard has a good feel to it.
Update: The keyboard feels nice to type on, but I've discovered since that it's terrible for gaming. Just awful. It seems, quite often, to not notice that a key has been released, leaving you spinning in circles until you press the key again so it can see the release event. Also, it cannot register certain combinations of 2 keys on the numeric keypad - 7 and 9 for one, and 3 and 4 for the other (the latter seriously impacting my ability to play Descent... sigh...)
Update Update: It's not just games. If I type "34", "65", or "97" on the laptop's keypad, it does not register the second number if it is pressed before the first key is released (this happens often without me even trying). Also, if I type "456", I see "4536". This is a serious design flaw in the Studio 17's keyboard. Serious enough to make me wish I hadn't bought this thing (but probably not serious enough for me to take the 15% restocking fee and two-way shipping hit). Sigh... I'm never buying a Dell again. This corner-cutting is unacceptable.
There actually was not a lot of crapware preinstalled.
The sound is... disappointing. Hollow. Granted, these are laptop speakers we're talking about, but I'd expect better from a laptop of this size. Also, it clicks occasionally while playing sounds. Frankly, my 5-year-old HP Pavilion ze4240 sounds better. Maybe with driver updates and some tweaking I can improve things. (The Bass Boost feature in the mixer helps quite a bit.)
The fans are pretty nonintrusive, and the laptop doesn't get too hot. (We'll see if that changes when I run some 3DMark tests later on.)
The recovery partition is a whopping 10GB, only half full, and it's positioned before the C: partition, which has two downsides: (1) it's in the fastest part of the disk, despite never being used, and (2) I can't just delete it and subsume it with ntfsresize. Oh well, I'm probably going to do a clean install of the x64 version of Vista anyway, if I can get Dell to send me a disc.

Astronomy in the morning

2007-04-07T08:18:00.000-06:00

Astronomy in the morning
Originally uploaded by jpstanley.

I had a good observation session this morning.

Went out about 5:30 AM. The summer stars were up. I flipped through my copy of Turn Left At Orion and looked for targets. First up was M13, the star cluster in Hercules. My first view of this cluster was in a 25" Obsession, and it knocked my socks off. In my 4.5" Newt, it's a tiny fuzzy blob. I'm sure the bright gibbous Moon didn't help.

Next, I pointed at Alberio, the colorful optical double in Cygnus. Very pretty.

Flipping through my book, I found my next target--Epsilon Lyrae, commonly known as the "Double Double". I remember having difficulty resolving this last year, but this morning, I had no problem at all--I saw four cleanly separated, perfectly circular stars with textbook Airy discs. I guess I did a decent job collimating it the other day despite my lack of a fancy laser thingy. I was so impressed with the Starblast's performance that I almost felt bad about ordering that apochromatic refractor the other day. Almost. (It's set to arrive on Tuesday, hopefully soon enough I can catch M42 and M45 before they're gone for the season. Wish me clear skies.)

Anyhow, I flipped through the book looking for my next target, skipping over any marked "dark skies" since, although the skies are seldom dark in my backyard, right now they were definitely not dark by any stretch since I could read the book without my flashlight. I come upon another double star in Cygnus, so I look in the book to see where it is relative to Deneb and Sadr, then I look through my finder and... whoops. Where's Deneb? The sky had gotten bright enough that I couldn't see any stars at all with the naked eye. But I looked back through the eyepiece, cranked the R.A. knob, and there was the Double Double. I tracked it for awhile, and then decided I should get in a look at Jupiter before it got too bright for me to find it. Jupiter and its moons looked quite nice against a light blue background.

My final stop was the Moon, and considering how good Epsilon Lyrae looked, I thought I should try for a picture. That's what you see here.

Review: Virgin Mobile Kyocera Oystr

2007-01-13T08:02:00.000-07:00

I hate cell phones and everything about them. Actually, mostly I just hate cellular service providers. I hate how they won't tell you what their monthly rate actually is--only the "base" rate before any "surcharges" they can tack on at a whim, making it impossible to know how much the phone will actually cost before committing to a service contract, and also giving the provider the ability to effectively raise your rate while you're locked into the contract.

My wife has wanted me to have a cell phone for some time now, and I've always resisted. But with the baby coming in a few months, she couldn't wait any longer--she bought me this:

It's a Kyocera "Oystr" with a Virgin Mobile prepaid by-the-minute plan. Phone calls cost 18 cents per minute, text messages 5 cents each, and you have to pay a minimum of $20 per 90 days to keep your account active. That would be a lousy plan if I intended to use the phone for recreational talking, but since we got it primarily for logisitical/emergency stuff, it's probably cheaper than a monthly plan.

(Actually, minutes cost 14.4 cents each since my wife got a $50 prepaid card on sale for $40 at Target. I was a little worried when I saw that the printing on the card indicated it expired a week ago, but Virgin Mobile accepted it as payment anyway.)

The Oystr's styling is a little garish, but I've seen much worse. Feature-wise, it's pretty good for a $20 phone--it has a color screen, speakerphone, web browser ($1.00 per day or 500KB, whichever comes first), text messaging, games, voice dialing (which I haven't tried yet), and I think maybe you can talk on it too. Good enough for what we need it for. There's no camera, but I doubt I'd be satisfied if there were one, especially since there'd likely be no way to get pictures out of the phone without paying. (Another thing I hate about cell phones. Every little button push costs money.)

So despite having a stupid name and Storm Trooper aesthetics, the Oystr seems to be a workable phone with a good feature set for the price. I just have one major complaint with it--the bundled ringtones, wallpapers, and "screen savers" (what the heck?) are all absolutely horrid. I'm convinced Virgin Mobile hired someone on the Windows 3.1 team to create the user interface--the plaid background and the colors reminiscent of "Hotdog Stand" bring me right back to 1993. Not only that, but the "superphonic" ringtones sound like the PC speaker sound driver on a 386SX. I'm certain Virgin Mobile bundled such awful graphics and sounds intentionally, so they could try and sell you decent ones for $2.50 each.

The pink skulls-and-roses background seen here is seriously the least visually offensive background that comes with the phone (click for a larger view):

At least the phone let me replace the "Virgin Mobile" welcome tag with something more appropriate.

The bundled ringtones include a generic monophonic annoying beepy-thing and three irritating "superphonic" ringtones that would not appeal to anyone over the age of 12. So if you decide to buy one, be sure to factor an additional couple of bucks for a ringtone that won't make your ears bleed. Just be sure to get a polyphonic one, not a "superphonic" one. I made the mistake of buying a Babylon 5 soundtrack ringtone, which sounded very nice on the computer, but was so badly clipped as to be virtually unrecognizeable on the phone, even at minimum volume. I suspect the audio file itself was shoddily processed, because it sounded much worse than the bundled "superphonic" ringtones (which already sound pretty bad). I wrote to Virgin Mobile support asking for a refund for the defective ringtone, which they refused. (I'm not surprised. That would go against rule of acquisition #1, after all.) I also asked whether it's possible to upload my own ringtones or graphics, and they said it is not.

Still needing a ringtone that would not infuriate me every time I heard it, I spent another $2 on a polyphonic one that sounds like an old rotary phone ringing (and it actually sounds the same on the phone as it does on the web preview, if you can believe that).

So now I have a cell phone. I don't know how long I'll keep it--the beauty of the prepaid by-the-minute plan is that I can ditch this one easily if I find a better deal somewhere else. The next phone I buy, however, will need to accept custom graphics and ringtones--and do so in such a way that I don't have to pay every time (i.e., USB or Bluetooth--not over the cellular network). It'd also be nice to be able to transfer address book entries from a PC, because typing on the little cell keyboard makes my fingers hurt in short order.

Tax brackets, for dummies

2006-12-20T07:41:00.000-07:00

I recently agreed to do some consulting work for a company I used to work for full-time. Yesterday, I talked to my neighbor, an accountant, about the tax implications of being an independent contractor in addition to earning a regular paycheck. One of my concerns was that earnings from my contractor work would push me into a new tax bracket and I could wind up consulting for less than nothing after Uncle Sam took his cut.

Well, turns out tax brackets don't work that way. If my total income breaks $100 into the next tax bracket, only that $100 is taxed at the higher rate.

Okay, that's good to know. Now all I have to worry about is the Alternative Minimum Tax...

More fun with Windows Vista

2006-12-17T19:03:00.000-07:00

A few more notes on Windows Vista:

Installing a real video driver fixes OpenGL. Neither NVIDIA nor HP provides a driver that works out of the box, but I just snagged the latest ForceWare driver and manually added the PCI ID of my video chip to the nv_disp.inf. Works like a charm.
You can turn off the User Account Control obnoxiousness. But then you have to turn off Windows Secuirty Center alerts too, because otherwise it will annoy you about it with a red taskbar icon until you change it back. There's no way to tell the Security Center to ignore this one warning (like you can for firewall or AV).
Unlike XP's Luna theme, which gave you exactly three colors to choose from (Bland Silver, Drab Green, and Retina-Burning Blue), Vista's Aero lets you pick any color you want. It also lets you use the Windows 2000 look, but they took out most of the color schemes. THEY KILLED EGGPLANT!!111eleventyone
There's a funny surprise in the EULA. You are allowed to use Vista (Ultimate) inside a virtual machine--but you are NOT allowed to use any DRM'd media inside the virtual machine. Microsoft apparently only wants to let people use DRM protected by physical TPM chips gooped up with epoxy. They'll never learn.

First look at Windows Vista

2006-12-16T22:05:00.000-07:00

Today I got my first look at Windows Vista (on a company-owned laptop). Impressions:

Aero Glass looks nice. Very smooth and polished, and a definite step up from XP's Luna theme. I think it also bears a strong resemblance to another operating system sold by a company named after fruit, but that shouldn't surprise anybody. The Win+Tab rolodex-style window switching isn't nearly as cool as Apple's Expose feature, for what that's worth.
Solitaire has been seriously overhauled. (For the first time in, what, 15 years?)
Microsoft went and hid all the preferences again. It took me forever to figure out how to prevent it from hiding filename extensions from me.
File copying in Explorer has been improved somewhat--if it can't read a single file, it lets you retry or skip rather than just blowing up. (Finally catching up with DOS there.) Explorer's old functionality bothered me so much I went and wrote my own copy utility. Vista is halfway tolerable, although it has some quirks and it still nags you with eleventy billion different "Are you sure?" messages. Fortunately, PerigeeCopy seems to work on Vista... ;)
User Access Control (UAC) is downright obnoxious. A popup repeatedly prompts you to confirm seemingly random operations such as changing the system font size. Fortunately, it can be turned off.
There's a built-in benchmark that assigns a numeric score to your PC. My laptop (actually, it belongs to the company I use it to do consulting work for) scores 4.5 (which is pretty downright l33t--they say 5 is a top-of-the-line rating).
OpenGL is totally, totally b0rked. IIRC, Vista implements OpenGL as a wrapper on top of DirectX, and it's garbage. Even a dirt-simple game like Descent I (d1x_oglmw) is unplayable. (It works fine on XP on the same machine, which has a GeForce Go 7600 256MB video chip, for what that's worth.) Perhaps a real video driver (instead of the one that came with Vista) would fix the problem. It'd be nice if I could find one. Neither HP nor nvidia.com has a Vista driver for the GF7 Go series yet...

Looks like I'll get the 400D/Rebel XTi after all

2006-09-23T15:11:00.000-06:00

dpreview.com has their review of the Nikon D80 up. I was looking forward to this review not because I plan to buy that camera, but because I figured they'd compare it with the Canon Rebel XTi, which I was considering. I wasn't disappointed.

The information I was most interested in finding is the actual sensitivity of the XTi at various ISO settings. In the past, Canon's DSLRs have been 1/3-stop more sensitive than indicated. There was some concern on the dpreview forums that the XTi was actually 1/3-stop less sensitive than indicated, which would have been a deal-breaker for me since low-light photography and astrophotography are high priorities.

Anyhow, the professionals have spoken. The 400D/XTi is not less sensitive than the 350D/XT. The table at the top of the noise comparison page shows the XTi still maintains the +1/3 EV sensitivity margin from previous Canon DSLRs. The darker images people have noticed compared to the 350D/XT must be a difference in tone curve, not sensor sensitivity. Since the older camera was known for blowing out highlights, many view the change as a good thing.

The noise comparison on that page looks quite favorable for Canon; even though Nikon achieves numerically lower noise values at ISO 800-1600, they achieve it by blurring away detail. The XTi certainly has the edge. The ISO 100 studio comparison also shows a slight advantage for the XTi in terms of image crispness as well.

In fairness to Nikon, the D80 looks like a very solid camera overall; it certainly has advantages over the XTi (the major one being the D80's larger, brighter viewfinder), and any image quality deficiencies compared to the XTi are extremely minor and would only be noticeable to pixel peepers such as myself. :) The main drawback to the D80, for me anyway, is that it costs $200 more than the XTi (which already strains my budget for accessories).

EDIT: Turns out Phil was initially wrong--the XTi is 1/3 stop less sensitive than the XT after all. In other words, ISO 1600 is ISO 1600, not ISO 2000. Not a huge difference, but a bit of a let-down, and a lesson on why not to be an early adpoter. (Says the guy who bought a 2007 Toyota Sienna on January 1, 2007.)

Canon's new compacts: A comedy of errors

2006-09-15T07:41:00.000-06:00

Upon reading of Canon's newest batch of compact digital cameras, I was immediately impressed how they took a dumb idea and made it even dumber. Behold the "digital teleconverter"--a fixed 1.4x or 2x digital zoom. I can't fathom why this made sense to the Canon marketroids, because I imagine the intersection of (the set of people that use digital zoom) and (the set of people that know what a teleconverter is) is empty.

While the "digital teleconverter" misfeature will be roundly ignored by photo enthusiasts, the Powershot G7--premeiring the new DIGIC III processor--has already become the target of rage and scorn on the dpreview forums. This camera has everything one would expect in a G-series camera--minus the flip-out LCD, fast f/2 lens, top status LCD, infrared remote, and RAW support. But at least it has a hot shoe.

A new feature the DIGIC III models support is "face detection", a feature first seen on Fuji's F6500. Seems gimmicky to me, but who knows, maybe it cuts down on missed focus when you're shooting faces. (Who knows what it does when you're not.) Still, if Canon were to copy one feature from Fuji, I'd prefer it to be the low-light performance of Fuji's Super CCD sensor. I agree with dpreview that that sensor deserves a better camera, and one with Canon's feature set (that is, on their less dumbed down models) would fit the bill nicely.

Speaking of low-light performance, the DIGIC III chip also features "enhanced noise reduction" that supposedly allows "acceptable" ISO 1600 performance from a 1/2.5" CCD. I personally think they'd be better off engineering a compact low-noise sensor using their famous CMOS technology--even if it means a reduction in pixel count--but of course that wouldn't fly with the unwashed masses who think 10 megapixels in a camera the size of a deck of cards is a good idea. One thing Canon has had going for them in the past was relatively unobtrusive noise reduction--they'd let the picture get grainy and preserve detail rather than blurring it away in a watercolor-like mess (like, say, Kodak and Panasonic). I'm not impressed by their talk DIGIC III's "more agressive noise reduction"--agressive NR is generally considered a Bad Thing by those in the know. We'll have to wait and see if this new processor is able to tame the firestorm of noise inherent in these atom-sized photosites without blurring detail too much.

Oh, and computer control. Since I downloaded the Canon SDK, I receive status e-mails from them occasionally. Yesterday I got a message about SDK support for the newly announced cameras. The Rebel XTi will be supported, of course. As will the G7 and the A640. That's it.

The A630 and A710 IS will not be supported. I'm a little surprised about the A710 IS, but the A630 doesn't surprise me too much, since the A610 lacked computer control capability as well even though the A620 was supported.

Oh, now I see the pattern. Axyz models will only be supported where y is an even number. Naturally. Now it all makes sense.

Update on the DSLR choice

2006-09-04T12:20:00.000-06:00

dcresource.com has their review of the Pentax K100D online. A few disappointments:

No backlight on the status LCD - could make it difficult to use in low-light situations
Noise levels, while nearly comparable to Canon with shorter exposures, seem to degrade noticeably in longer exposures - not good for astrophotography
Slow autofocus in low light
Shallow buffer

So that would push me toward the Canon 400D, except that I've read on the dpreview.com forums that the new Rebel is 2/3 stop less sensitive than the 350D. In other words, while the noise levels at "ISO 1600" are comparable between the two cameras, the 350D is actually shooting at ISO 2000, but the 400D is only doing ISO 1250. So Canon's claim to increase resolution without increasing noise levels is a steaming pile of marketing. (I guess I shouldn't be surprised; they did the same thing with with the Powershot S3 IS.)

I'm interested to see a more scientific test of the sensitivity difference. For available light and astrophotography, both high priorities for me, this could be a deal-breaker for the 400D. Disappointing, too, because the improved AF system, deeper buffer, and wider LCD view angle would all be nice to have.

Stupid megapixel race. The 400D would have been a better camera had it kept the 8MP sensor from the 350D, but they needed those additional 2 megapixels to match up on paper with Nikon's D80 and Sony's A100. Even if squeezing them into the sensor actually does more harm than good.

That leaves me looking at the 350D now. Hopefully its price will come down now that its new and "improved" successor is on the market...

Thoughts on upgrading to a DSLR - EOS 400D or K100D?

2006-08-26T10:02:00.000-06:00

I've had my Powershot A95 for a year now, and while I've certainly enjoyed using it (and I've used it a lot; my ~1400 photos on flickr are evidence of this), I've been running up against its limitations. For indoor portraits, it's not sensitive enough to take a short enough exposure without using the flash, and its flash invariably causes horrible redeye, not to mention the harsh shadows and unnatural flat look caused by direct flash. So my only really good shots of the kids have been made either outside with clouds diffusing the sunlight or inside when I can herd them to a room where sunlight happens to be shining through the window. Even with bright afternoon window light, I still have to crank the ISO speed to 100 or 200. In an ordinarily-lit room, with the lens wide open and at ISO 400, the needed exposure time is usually on the order of 1/15 to 1/10 of a second--which, with a tripod and a subject that can hold still, is passable (though the pictures will be very noticeably noisy). But with hyper little kids, it's out of the question. This limits my possibilities in taking good candid shots.

I should also mention astrophotography. My A95 does surprisingly well considering it's a compact camera--I've even managed to take a few half-decent photos of the Milky Way. With a single shot, taken at f/2.8, 15 s, ISO 400 to let in as much light as possible with my camera, the Milky Way only barely registers. Brightening it only brings forth a mess of noise. But several shots added together to increase the signal-to-noise ratio produce a half-decent photo. Here's the result of 16 such shots added together:

It's still pretty noisy. Noise reduction software can help a bit. But what I really need for this type of shot is a more capable sensor. My first thought was to get a Canon Rebel XT. Its 8MP CMOS sensor at ISO 1600 has noise levels comparable to my A95 at ISO 200. And its exposure time is not limited to 15 seconds. With the kit lens, it'd take in a wider chunk of sky too. The bigger sensor also allows artistic depth of field effects (blurring the background of a portrait in order to bring out the subject).

A DSLR is definitely the way to go for highest-quality photos, but it has some cons as well: DSLRs are expensive and bulky. Interchangeable lenses yield a lot of possibilities but cost individually as much as a compact digicam. Pictures must be composed through an optical viewfinder, which is not nearly as handy as my A95's flip screen LCD, although it's probably a plus when it comes to focusing through-the-telescope, where the digicam's blocky LCD makes accurate focusing difficult.

I've saved up $1000 for the purpose of buying a DSLR (actually, it was originally a telescope fund, and I've waffled a bit on how I want to spend it). A few months ago, Canon was running a $100 rebate on the Rebel XT, and I seriously considered buying one, but that model was showing its age, so I decided to wait and see what Canon had up their sleeve this fall. I already got bit by this last year, when shortly after I bought my A95, Canon announced the A610/620, which answer all of my gripes with that camera (slow AF, purple fringing, lousy movie mode) and add a longer zoom and bigger LCD, not to mention the custom timer mode--I seriously considered upgrading specifically for the ability to have the camera take several shots on one click; it'd take the effort out of shooting constellation stacks and it'd eliminate the need to run back to the tripod between family shots.

So anyhow, Canon's new Rebel XTi (aka EOS 400D) has been announced. Its new 10MP sensor is interesting, but slightly worrisome; since it packs more pixels into the same space as the old Rebel's 8MP sensor, it could decrease light sensitivity and increase noise. Canon says they've reduced the space between microlenses to compensate, and the new sensor is a match for the older one despite its smaller pixels, but I'll have to see that for myself when dpreview.com and dcresource.com get their reviews online. The dust removal feature looks interesting but not compelling. The improved autofocus (borrowed from the 30D) addresses a common concern about the Rebel I've read in the forums and IMHO is the only reason to consider the XTi over the XT.

I'm also seriously considering the Pentax K100D. This camera costs less than the XT, and is in stores now, but is still new enough that it hasn't been reviewed by dpreview or dcresource. It has several advantages over the Rebels:

In-body CCD-shift image stabilization (works with all lenses, but is an expensive per-lens feature with Canon)
Larger, brighter viewfinder (good for manual focus on stars)
Accepts AA batteries, NIMH rechargables are much cheaper and more easily available than Canon's proprietary Li-ion units
I like the status LCD on the top. The XT puts in on the back, and the XTi gets rid of it altogether

Its cons are:

Less resolution (just 6MP)
Poorer high-ISO performance (though I have yet to see a direct comparison)
Slower AF (though this is still anecdotal since the big sites still haven't posted reviews)
No cheap fast prime lens like Canon's 50mm f/1.8 is available (if I get a Rebel, I'll get one of these for indoor portraits)

At least the K100D seems (still, anecdotally) to have fixed the lousy JPEG processing of the *ist series. (I actually considered getting a *ist DL--it offers unbeatable value--but my main turn-off was the stupid name.)

So anyhow, that's where I stand. Whew, that was a lot longer than I thought it would be. Thanks for reading my novel, if you've read this far. :)

No ketchup? What's become of me?

2006-07-22T19:32:00.000-06:00

Chicken curry on brown rice
Originally uploaded by jpstanley.

I must be getting old.

A few weeks ago, I went to a Thai restaurant (Bangkok Grill at about 8th South and State in Orem) with some co-workers and I couldn't believe how good the pineapple curry was.

The next day, the wife and I dragged the kids to Carls Jr. for dinner. I used to live on that stuff when I was single... but now I find it just nasty. It's like eating cardboard dripping with ketchup and mayonnaise. McDonalds is similar... I just can't eat that stuff anymore.

I still visit Taco Bell altogether too often, however, so I'm not quite a geezer yet.

Anyhow, I'm writing all this because I'm still surprised that I'd cook, eat, and enjoy something that looks like this. It's exactly the sort of thing I'd politely eat two bites of as a teenager and then sneak off to Burger King. Oddly enough, the revelation that I really, really like red bell peppers came while I was eating lunch at Tucano's, one of those Brazilian grill places where they come around with skewers of bleeding cow flesh. I didn't find the various cuts of beef memorable, but the grilled peppers were great!

Microsoft's "My Private Folder" uses rootkit techniques

2006-07-10T12:47:00.000-06:00

So my boss told me about Microsoft's new "My Private Folder" applet that it's offering to "genuine" Windows XP customers, and I decided to take a look at it. It's kind of like TrueCrypt, only worse.

TrueCrypt (along with commercial tools like BestCrypt) do a loopback mount of an encrypted volume. Microsoft's "My Private Folder", on the other hand, creates a hidden folder and uses rootkit techniques to hide its contents from the Windows API (I verified this with Rootkit Revealer). It does encrypt file contents (not through EFS, interestingly enough), but it leaves names, sizes, timestamps, etc. unencrypted, so an attacker capable of circumventing the rootkit (such as by booting to Knoppix) can discover the names of all your hidden files.

I have at least three questions about this:
1. Microsoft already has EFS. Why reinvent the wheel?
2. Why use a rootkit in the first place, when using a loopback image is simpler and more secure?
3. How long before this rootkit gets exploited by malware? [EDIT: I did some more digging and this won't be as trivial to exploit as the Sony/XPC rootkit. The rootkit not only hides existing files in "My Private Folder", but it prevents you from creating them as well.]

My new video card

2006-03-15T08:17:00.000-07:00

My new video card
Originally uploaded by jpstanley.

Update: xpcgear.com finally told me that they're unable to get any stock on this card, so they refunded my money.

So I ordered the card from zipzoomfly.com, and here it is. This one actually works!

Fun with video card (or lack thereof)

2006-03-04T08:13:00.000-07:00

I got sick of the noisy fan on my GeForce FX 5900XT, so I sold it on Craig's List and bought this beauty: A Gigabyte GV-N66256DP. GeForce 6600, 256MB DDR, and no fan. It might not have the raw pixel-pushing oomph of the 5900XT, but it more than makes up for it in pixel-shading finesse, handily outrunning any FX card on newer titles. And there's no noisy fan to seize up and die in six months.

Too bad it didn't work.

I ordered from xpcgear.com (a store I hadn't heard of) since they had the best price and seemed to have positive reviews. They shipped promptly, but I could tell when I got the card that it wasn't new, despite being advertised as such. The retail box was not shrink-wrapped and showed interior damage. And the computer doesn't POST with the video card installed. Actually, I discovered it will start up if you unplug the auxiliary power from the video card, but then it won't run stably (BSOD after BSOD). I suspect that xpcgear.com shipped me a card that had been returned previously, although they deny this.

A week after I received the card, I finally got an RMA number from xpcgear.com. They said if they received the card by March 8, they'd send me a new one immediately. I got them the card on March 1. And... they're backordered. Since they can't ship me a replacement promptly, I asked for a refund... but they don't give refunds, only exchanges for the exact same item. (Note to self: Do not buy from a store that will not refund your money when you return a defective item.) I'm afraid I could be stuck with this 16MB Vanta LT card I fished out of my closet for months. At least web browsing performance is tolerable with this card (if I turn off smooth scrolling).

I'm considering buying the card from another store and then selling one of them if/when I finally get the one I bought from xpcgear.com. NewEgg.com doesn't stock this card, but ZipZoomFly has it (but to add insult to injury, ZZF jacked up their price $10 after I bought from xpcgear.com).

New Mac Mini gets downgraded graphics

2006-02-28T14:21:00.000-07:00

So Apple just announced the new Mac Mini systems built on Intel processors. They feature a new higher price and Intel GMA950 graphics chips using shared memory! Blech! And I thought the ATI 9200 chips in the old Minis were bad enough... at least those had dedicated graphics memory (some with 64MB).

And the entry-level unit (now at $600) still doesn't include a DVD burner. And you have to pay $800 to get one with a Core Duo chip. At least they all have gigabit Ethernet now.

Moonlight madness

2006-02-16T21:06:00.000-07:00

Moonlight madness
Originally uploaded by jpstanley.

The sky is clear and calm. The fog and haze have been cleaned away by a recent storm. The moon hasn't risen yet. Perfect conditions for stargazing--If it weren't for those obnoxious searchlights.

Advertising searchlights absolutely infuriate me. It's extremely selfish and audacious of Park's Sportsman to ruin the sky for miles around to try and bring people to their store. What gives them the right to invade the sky over my own home?

I've bought from this store before, but I won't do so in the future.

On a lighter note, I find it mildly amusing that the moon isn't actually actually going to rise until their "moonlight madness" sale ends...

Review - Meade Telestar 60AZ-A2

2006-01-21T06:44:00.000-07:00

Why is it that when someone says "Don't touch that; it's hot", we always have to find out for ourselves and end up getting burned? I'm an astronomy newbie. I've had 10x50 binoculars for several months and I bought my first telescope a few weeks ago--an Orion StarBlast 4.5 EQ. This review is about my second telescope, an impulse buy, a cheap 60mm department store refractor. I'd read in many "first scope" guides to stay away from department store scopes and that cheap scopes do more to kill the hobby than promote it. So when I saw the Meade Telestar 60AZ on the shelf for $39.95, I had to see what all the fuss was about. At least this scope has a well-known brand name and it doesn't advertise ridiculous magnification levels on the box. And it comes with two 1.25" eyepieces too.

My "real" telescope, the StarBlast 4.5 EQ, is reasonably portable, but not as "grab and go" as I would have liked. The mount is a bit awkward and doesn't collapse well for travel. I thought the Telestar would be easier to toss in the trunk and take camping or whip out at a moment's notice to catch a glimpse at, say, Saturn poking through the clouds. Or set up alongside my "real" scope to let my 3-year-old daughter look at the moon through a conveniently located eyepiece. Also, I could see if my Expanse eyepieces would help it out any, and I could try out its eyepieces in my StarBlast and get a few new magnification levels out of it. Also, with its alt-az mount and right-side-up (but horizontally flipped) image, it'd make a better terrestrial scope than my StarBlast.

So I assembled the Telestar and took it outside. Although it had been cloudy most of the day, it was clear at night (the telescope gods smiled upon me a second time!), so I set it up next to my StarBlast and did some comparative observation.

The first thing I discovered was that the Telestar's mount fully lives up to the reputation of department store telescope mounts. The slightest touch sets the scope vibrating for 5 seconds or more, compared to the StarBlast's EQ-1 which damps out in 2 seconds or less. Also, the Telestar's altitude adjustment doesn't work well--it slips easily and its slow motion knob is unsteady. Once I got the scope pointed at my target and tightened the knobs, it held its position reasonably well, but it's hard to adjust. That's one reason the Telestar works best with low magnifications--you won't have to adjust the scope as often. (Another reason is of course its small 60mm aperture...)

I don't care for the 5x24 finder scope, which has extremely narrow eye relief and is set up for the right eye, whereas my left eye is dominant. It's also a pain to align accurately. The red-dot reflex sight that came with my StarBlast is much easier to align and use.

Although the mount and finder leave something to be desired, the scope's optics are actually pretty decent. The objective is a 60mm fully-coated achromatic. Focal length is 700mm. Two eyepieces are included, Meade MA25mm and MH9mm. According to the eyepiece buyer's guide on this forum, those letters stand for Modified Achromatic (fully coated Kellner) and Modified Huygenian. The 25mm eyepiece is sharp and clear (to my inexperienced eyes at least), but has a pretty narrow field of view. The 9mm eyepiece is a bit fuzzy and has poor eye relief, but what can you expect when you could easily spend several times the cost of the whole telescope on one good eyepiece.

My first target was the bright 16-day-old Moon. I was impressed with the clarity and detail I saw through the 25mm eyepiece--I'd say it rivaled the view through the StarBlast. Even at 9mm, I was hard pressed to call one scope's view better than the other's. Neither of my telescopes is suitable for high magnification, so I can't comment on that, but for observing the whole disc of the moon, the Telstar does a decent job.

Next, I pointed at Saturn. It was tiny but sharp at 28x, and at 78x, the rings were clearly visible. I didn't notice offensive color fringing. Again, the view was comparable to my StarBlast (although my StarBlast was much easier to point at Saturn and keep there). Next, I popped in the 2x Barlow that came with the Telestar. I was not surprised that the results were a dim, blurry mess--156x is too much for a 60mm scope. Which is just as well, because the included Barlow is 100% plastic (including the lens). Even in my StarBlast, the Barlow does nothing but add psychedelic color fringing.

My next target was M45, the Pleiades, which was near the zenith and quite difficult to point the Telestar at. I had to lie down on the ground to get my eye under the finder scope, and the finder's field of view is so small that the Pleiades fill it entirely. The view through the scope's 25mm eyepiece was an improvement over my 10x50 binoculars at least in terms of how many stars I could see, but I couldn't see the whole cluster at once. The StarBlast provided a wider, brighter, much more satisfying view.

I decided to check out M42, the Orion Nebula, next. Here again the StarBlast wins hands-down. With the Telestar, I could make out the dim outline of the brighter part of the nebula. It was more than I could see through my 10x50s. But it was not as grand as what I could see through the StarBlast, with which I easily resolved the stars in Trapezium. They all blurred together in the Telestar. [UPDATE: On a night of good seeing I could resolve Trapezium easily with the Telestar.]

The bottom line? This department store scope provides serviceable optics for the moon and other bright objects at a very low price, but it's held back by an unsatisfactory mount. If the mount worked better, I'd feel comfortable suggesting it to friends who have a passing interest in astronomy but don't want to spend hundreds of dollars on a "real" telescope just yet. But this scope is difficult enough to point at a target and keep steadily there that I understand why people say department store scopes can frustrate beginners and be harmful to the hobby.

UPDATE: I've had this scope for a few weeks now. It doesn't get used as often as my StarBlast, but I've found that its mount is almost tolerable if you tighten everything up often. It also works better with my Expanse eyepieces (the ones that came with my StarBlast)--they're heavier than the half-plastic included eyepieces, and they make the scope less top-heavy.

Here's a picture of the Moon I took through this scope and its 25mm eyepiece:

Review - Orion Starblast 4.5EQ Telescope

2006-01-06T19:12:00.000-07:00

Well, I finally took the plunge and bought a telescope--an Orion Starblast 4.5EQ. This scope combines the tube from Orion's famous Starblast Astro "mini-Dob" with an EQ-1 equatorial mount, and it also upgrades the eyepieces to the "Expanse" line to take better advantage of the scope's wide field ability.

I figured the scope would be a good compromise between aperture and portability--big enough to let me see some deep space objects, but small enough to pack along on our family trips out to the country. And the tube is just about the right size, but the mount is bulky and awkward and doesn't collapse well, so it remains to be seen if I'll be able to fit it into our compact car with all the kids and stuff. I might have to partially disassemble it to do it.

Speaking of assembly, the manual is a little inadequate. Assembly instructions are a little vague, referring to several parts by name without clearly identifying them. There is a picture, but it has a dozen arrows pointing at it and it isn't clear what's what. Also, the packaging must have changed somewhat since the manual was printed, because several parts weren't where the manual said they were. For instance, the manual said to remove the bolts from the tripod legs, install the legs on the mount, and then replace the bolts--but the bolts weren't on the tripod legs to begin with. They were in a little bag.

Once I found all the parts and made sense of the instructions, though, everything went together well. The mount operates smoothly and seems reasonably sturdy. The slow-motion controls make it quite easy to center the target in the eyepiece. I just have one complaint about the mechanical operation of the mount: the counterweight shaft gets in the way of the right ascension cable fairly often. Speaking of which, the R.A. cable can be attached on either side of the mount--"whichever is most convenient", the manual says, which can be translated as "you'll find yourself moving it from one side to the other several times per night (don't drop the thumbscrew in the grass)". With the scope pointed south, I have to disconnect the cable entirely because it's blocked on one side by the counterweight and on the other by the OTA. Maybe I should have just gotten a Dob. ;)

Enough about the mechanics; it's time to talk about the optics. Fortunately, the telescope gods smiled upon me and I was blessed with clear skies the first two nights after my scope arrived. (Tonight, the third night, is cloudy, which is why I'm typing this review instead of looking at the stars.) This is my first telescope, so I don't have much of a frame of reference to compare it to other than my $30 Simmons 10x50 binoculars (which, though cheap, were great for introducing me to the sky, although difficult to hold steady).

The Starblast 4.5EQ comes with two eyepieces, a 15mm and a 6mm Expanse (mine are actually labeled Ultrawide, but I've read they're the same thing). In conjunction with the 450mm focal length of the scope, these yield 30x and 75x magnification, respectively. Eye relief is good--I can look through either eyepiece with my glasses on and see a wide field. The 6mm EP is prone to "blackouts" if I'm not looking directly into it, though.

The first target I pointed at (after my abortive attempt at polar alignment) was the waxing crescent Moon. It was stunning! The clarity and contrast blow away anything I've seen before. Mountains and craters popped out with stark relief. I might have to invest in a lunar filter, though, since even at about 1/3 full, it was uncomfortably bright.

Next on my tour was the Pleiades. They took a bit of effort to find, but once I did, I wasn't disappointed. I didn't see any nebulosity (I imagine I'd have to go to a dark sky site) but I did see an awful lot of stars--many more than I could see through binoculars.

I swung around to the Orion Nebula and the view was quite nice. The small white fuzzy blob I remember seeing in my binoculars was... well, a bigger fuzzy white blob, but a very pretty one. I could make out the shape pretty well, but I knew enough not to expect to be able to see colors like you see in long exposure astrophotos.

About this time I realized Saturn was up, so I took a look. I was a little disappointed--Saturn was miniscule. Switching to the 6mm eyepiece upgraded it to maybe just tiny. Before I bought the scope, I read a review where someone wrote that the Cassini division was easily visible. I'm guessing he used a much nicer eyepiece than the stock units and/or a Barlow. I couldn't see the Cassini division at all, although I could easily see the gap between the planet and its rings. I'm not sure how many of Saturn's moons, if any, were visible, because I was too busy staring at the rings to look for them. To be fair, the seeing wasn't very good--Saturn visibly shimmered at 75x, so maybe the Cassini division would be visible under better circumstances. I'm tempted to get a 2x Barlow to help things out a bit.

Early the next morning, I took my scope out and looked at rising Jupiter. The four Galilean moons were easily visible. No surprise there, since I could see those just fine with my binoculars (assuming I could hold them steady enough). Jupiter itself was a featureless white disc for the most part, but I think I caught a fleeting glimpse of the cloud bands once or twice.

Next I decided to point at the Mizar/Alcor double in Ursa Major. I remembered reading that Mizar itself is a double, and I wondered if I'd be able to see it. The answer is: yes, easily. Comparing what I could see with the Starry Night software, I found that 10th magnitude stars were visible.

I have yet to catch Venus--it's pretty low in the sky now, so I might not be able to see it for a few months. I almost saw it yesterday evening, but it ducked behind clouds just as I found a line of sight between the trees, houses, and power lines.

Perhaps tomorrow I'll look at snowcapped Mt. Timpanogos and see how my scope performs on terrestrial objects. Upside down, obviously, but my real intent is to get the finder scope aligned properly by pointing it at something that doesn't move. It's been a little touch-and-go thus far, as I've had to hunt a bit before I could bring what the red dot pointed at into the eyepiece.

All in all, I'm happy with my new scope. The mount is a little awkward, but works smoothly (when the counterweight shaft doesn't interfere with the R.A. cable, anyway). It's not quite as portable as I'd hoped, but it's not too unweildy either. I'm no expert, but the optics look great to me. The moon is spectacular. Stars are crisp and bright. The focus is a little touchy, though--it can be difficult to get the image just right. The wide field view takes in a lot of sky, which is nice for deep sky objects (can't wait to see Andromeda from a dark sky through this scope) but not ideal for planets.

UPDATE - Feb. 8 2005

I've had the scope for over a month now. I still take it out just about every clear night (and many clear mornings). I got an Orion Shorty 2x Barlow, and that helps with lunar/planetary viewing. Some new observations:

Jupiter - I could see four cloud bands pretty well. The Galilean moons are, of course, easily visible, though they appear starlike (I can't resolve them into discs).
Mars - I got my scope too late for the opposition. Mars is just a little orange ball, but I think I might have glimpsed Syrtis Major.
Saturn - On a night of good seeing, I could easily resolve the Cassini division. I even dragged my wife out and she saw it too. It was visible even without my Barlow (at 75x).
Venus - Seen as a beautiful crescent in the early morning sky.
Andromeda Galaxy - I could only see a faint smudge of light, but I haven't had the chance to see it from a dark sky site yet. My best view of the galaxy still belongs to my 10x50 binoculars.
Orion Nebula - Recognizeably the same thing as you see in astrophotos, though faint, colorless, and not as expansive. The four stars in Trapezium resolved nicely.
The Moon - This telescope has unfolded a whole world up there! With good atmospheric conditions, the scope provides crisp, bright views at 150x that make it look almost like you're peering through the window of the Apollo CSM. Mountains, "seas", and countless craters just pop out at you.

Here's a photo I took through the eyepiece:

Torturing defenseless hard drives, part 2

2005-12-28T12:28:00.000-07:00

The movie I mentioned in my last entry is complete. Enjoy.

Torturing defenseless hard drives

2005-12-24T08:29:00.000-07:00

A couple years ago, I was working on a disk imaging utility and I needed to deal with bad sectors gracefully. I rummaged through a box of old drives my company had tested software with years earlier and found several that worked fine, several that didn't work at all, and none in between.

Since I couldn't find a drive that mostly worked but had a few bad sectors, I decided to make one. I pulled the cover off a 120MB (yes, megabyte) Maxtor hard drive and started it up, thinking the dust would kill it quickly, but just maybe I could test my imager with it once or twice before it died.

It ran flawlessly for a week with the top off.

Eventually, I scratched the platter with a screwdriver, and that killed the drive stone dead.

Anyhow, a few days ago I got to thinking, wouldn't it be cool to take a picture showing the moving read/write head assembly? So I opened up a 100MB Seagate drive I had laying around and took some pictures:

But I wasn't satisfied with the lighting, the reflection of the wall trim and power cable in the platters, or the boring two-head pattern. So I decided to fix those things and do it again. I brought in an extra lamp to light up the corner of the room, and I taped white paper to the wall to eliminate unwanted reflections from the platters.

To ensure I'd have a pretty head pattern to photograph, I actually wrote a DOS program in Borland Turbo C++ 3.0 (vintage 1992) using Extended INT 13 BIOS calls to read specific patterns of sectors--some linear sweeps, some sinusoids, and some random shuffles.

Anyhow, I was all ready to go, but the poor 100MB drive I'd used earlier somehow didn't work anymore. <sarcasm>I can't fathom why.</sarcasm> So I needed another drive to torture.

So I went to a local used computer parts shop and bought the smallest, cheapest used hard drive they had--a 1.6GB Maxtor 71626AP--for the princely sum of $5 (with a 90-day return warranty which I intended to nullify post haste). I brought it home, hooked it up, and tested it out a bit. And almost immediately, it made nasty noises and Windows reported bad blocks. Mind you, I hadn't opened the cover yet! I just had to make sure the drive would obey my commands so I could take some nice pictures and video footage of the heads in action.

So I took the drive back and they swapped it for another 1.6GB hard drive, a Samsung this time. Plugging the drive back in at home, I found that this one wasn't even recognized.

So I went back a third time, enjoying the irony of the situation. Here I was, trying several times to get a working hard drive so that I could almost certainly kill it. Anyhow, the store clerk traded the second broken hard drive for a third--a 2GB one this time. Fortunately, this one actually worked. Well, for the moment, at least.

I pulled the cover, plugged in the drive, and powered up the machine. It spun up beautifully. Then I ran my little DOS program I call "hddance", and the heads moved exactly the way I expected them to. I enjoyed the view, took some pictures and some video footage, and considered my $5 well spent. Then I put the drive's cover back on and reformatted it to see if it would still work. Two bad clusters. But it might still have some life in it, if I decide to take naked hard drive pictures again (I certainly wouldn't trust it with any data). Then again, the 100MB Seagate I photographed first didn't have any bad sectors immediately after the fun, but the next time I tried to turn it on it wouldn't even spin up.

Anyhow, here's a photo of the 2GB Samsung:

Once I get around to editing the video footage I took and figuring out how to host it, I'll post the live-action movie. The noise the hard drive makes is almost as interesting as the visible motion.

For now, here are more photos of these drives.

Corporate citizenship, or lack thereof

2005-11-10T18:40:00.000-07:00

Mark Russinovich has analyzed the SonyBMG DRM uninstaller and concludes, "Without exaggeration I can say that I’ve analyzed virulent forms of spyware/adware that provide more straightforward means of uninstall.".

In his Freedom to Tinker blog, Ed Felten summarizes why he now considers SonyBMG's DRM to be spyware:

In all the discussion of the SonyBMG software, I’ve been avoiding the S-word. But now it’s clear that this software crosses the line. It’s spyware.

Let’s review the evidence:

* The software comes with a EULA which, at the very least, misleads users about what the software does.
* The software interferes with the efforts of ordinary users and programs, including virus checkers and other security software, to identify it.
* Without telling the user or obtaining consent, the software sends information to the vendor about the user’s activities.
* No uninstaller is provided with the software, or even on the vendor’s website, despite indications to the contrary in the EULA.
* The vendor has an uninstaller but refuses to make it available except to individual users who jump through a long series of hoops.
* The vendor makes misleading statements to the press about the software.

This is the kind of behavior we’ve come to expect from spyware vendors. Experience teaches that it’s typical of small DRM companies too. But why isn’t SonyBMG backing away from this? Doesn’t SonyBMG aspire to at least a modest level of corporate citizenship?

XP Automatic Updates annoyances

2005-11-09T10:03:00.000-07:00

Two aspects of Windows XP Automatic Updates drive me batty.

One is the popup box that harasses you every 10 minutes after an update has been installed until you reboot.

The other is the fact that Windows will kill all processes and reboot the machine when doing a scheduled update overnight. Several times after I thought I had shut down my computer for the night, I've returned in the morning to find it was still running, with an instance of Notepad prompting me to save my changes to a scratch document. I say "no", and then the computer shuts down, and I have to wait for it to shut down and start up before I can get to work. While on the other hand, if a Windows update is pending, Microsoft couldn't care less about your data or any running processes and will just kill them all at a whim so it can patch itself against the latest security overrun and show the media that Microsoft is Serious about Security.

Fortunately, both these annoyances can be solved with a registry hack:

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Policies\Microsoft\Windows\WindowsUpdate\AU]
"RebootRelaunchTimeoutEnabled"=dword:00000000
"NoAutoRebootWithLoggedOnUsers"=dword:00000001

EMI: We don't use rootkits

2005-11-07T09:05:00.000-07:00

Record company The EMI Group has distanced themselves from the Sony DRM controversy by stating that they don't use rootkits.

"The content-protection software that we're using can be easily uninstalled with a standard uninstaller that comes on the disc. EMI is not using any software that hides traces of the program. There is no 'rootkit' behavior, and there are no processes left running in the background," said an EMI spokesman in a statement.

I don't blame EMI for capitalizing on Sony's mistake, but EMI isn't much better, since they still make you install third-party "content protection" software to use the CD in a computer. Perhaps it's less virulent than Sony's, but it still serves no purpose other than to reduce the CD's usefulness, punishing paying customers while doing nothing to stop piracy.

Per the Red Book specification, computers can read audio CDs. Any effort to make a CD unreadable in a computer must of necessity cripple one or the other. I'm not interested in buying a crippled CD that I can't use how I want, and I'm certainly not interested in paying a record company to compromise my PC with malicious software.

The Malware Company Responds

2005-11-07T08:32:00.000-07:00

First 4 Internet, the UK-based company behind Sony BMG's malicious DRM, responded to Mark Russinovich's blog entry, calling his assertion that their rootkit unloader can crash the system "pure conjecture". Mr. Russinovich has posted a scathing reply that includes a screenshot of a BSOD caused by F4I's rootkit driver. He also calls them out on their refusal to acknowledge the security and stability risks posed by their software, and he criticizes them for acting like an adware company and making it extraordinarily difficult to uninstall.

Mr. Russinovich concludes:

Instead of admitting fault for installing a rootkit and installing it without proper disclosure, both Sony and First 4 Internet claim innocence. By not coming clean they are making clear to any potential customers that they are a not only technically incompetent, but also dishonest.

Read the full article.

Sony's reaction: Not nearly good enough

2005-11-03T20:39:00.000-07:00

In response to criticism about its rootkit-installing CD, Sony and First4 Internet (its UK-based subcontractor that actually wrote the malware) have released a patch that will allegedly uninstall the rootkit, so that files, processes, and registry keys starting with $sys$ are no longer hidden from the user. The patch does not uninstall the malware, however--it still spies on executing process and continuously saps system resources, it still interferes with normal operation of the CD-ROM drive, and there's still no way to completely uninstall it without contacting Sony BMG and inviting spam from them.

Sony needs to release full instructions on how to completely uninstall its DRM malware. (An executable will not do, since that would require us to trust that it works, and Sony has clearly betrayed that trust.) If removing that malware means users can no longer listen to CDs, then Sony needs to accept returns with full refunds for all its affected ~~victims~~customers.

I personally will not purchase media from Sony or any of its subsidiaries again until Sony does the following:

Acknowledge that its DRM does indeed pose security and stability risks and publicly apologize for it
Recall all CDs and DVDs that install DRM solutions that interfere with the normal operation of the computer, including but not limited to the following actions:
- Hide processes, registry keys, or files from the user or operating system
- Hook kernel interfaces
- Install any code of any kind that runs in ring 0, including but not limited to filter drivers
- Monitor processes that are not its own
- Constantly consume CPU and/or memory resources
- "Phone home" in any way, shape, or form
- Cannot be completely uninstalled through normal means
Promise never to ship such DRM solutions again

Good reads on this subject:

When Vendors Install Malware (eWeek)
The Cover-Up Is the Crime (Wired News)
SonyBMG and First4Internet Release Mysterious Software Update (Freedom to Tinker)

UPDATE: Sony's "patch" doesn't uninstall the rootkit after all! It just turns off the $sys$ cloaking. And yet Sony continues to insist their DRM is "not a security risk" and is "not malicious". These statements are blatant lies. As the author of the blog linked above writes,

Anything that alters the underlying functionality of our computer at the kernel level compromises our security. Anything that does it without our knowledge to prevent us from using our computers as we like is malicious.

Spyware vs. Spyware

2005-11-02T08:05:00.000-07:00

It's been known for awhile that Blizzard Entertainment uses spyware ("Warden") to ban cheaters from World of Warcraft. And yesterday I wrote about how Sony install spyware to prevent copying CDs.

Well, it was bound to happen. People are now using Sony's rootkit to hide their cheat programs from Blizzard's Warden. I love it!

Sony music CD installs malware

2005-11-01T04:28:00.000-07:00

I've always thought copy protection on music CDs was counterproductive. It makes no sense if you think about it--the labels hope to increase CD sales by producing broken CDs that won't play in your computer or iPod.

Well, in the music industry's latest efforts to prevent people from buying CDs, Sony sells CDs that install malware on your computer. In this article, Windows guru Mark Russinovich describes a rootkit he found on his computer and eventually traced to software installed by a CD sold by Sony BMG and ironically entitled "Get Right with the Man". He describes what this Sony Spyware does--queries all process on your computer several times per second, consuming 1-2% of your CPU even when you're not playing a CD--and how it uses techniques commonly associated with malware to hide itself from the user--as well as antivirus software.

Way to reward your customers for being honest, Sony. A Slashdot post puts it eloquently:

The people being hurt by this DRM software are people who have already communicated their intent to do the right thing by purchasing the CD. Sony has just guaranteed that a lot of people will never make that mistake again.

Welcome to a Brave New World: People who pay for their music get viruses, while people who download it at no cost from illegal sources get clean MP3s that they can freely copy and use on whatever devices they own.

So what happens next?

Will the media pick up on this? Will antivirus and antispyware programs detect and remove Sony's rootkit? Or will they all turn a blind eye to it for fear of being sued under the DMCA?

The best thing for Sony to do at this point would be to apologize publicly and issue a recall on all malware-infested CDs. Otherwise they'll never live this down.

Celestial Vandalism

2005-10-22T09:13:00.000-06:00

Celestial Vandalism - Bigfoot Corn Maze
Originally uploaded by jpstanley.

In this season of corn mazes and haunted houses, I've noticed an explosion of an intrusive and obnoxious form of advertising. Searchlights pierce the night sky from a dozen locations across the Wasatch front, broadcasting the location of yet another autumn attraction.

These lights waste energy, distract motorists, and ruin the view for stargazers. They can also fatally disorient migratory birds.

What gives these companies the right to invade the night sky over thousands of homes for miles in every direction?
The night sky belongs to everyone. The use of searchlights for advertising is celestial vandalism.

To stem a jalapeño

2005-10-15T21:23:00.000-06:00

I made some tomatillo sauce today. This recipe is known to be a little spicy, but the sauce wound up being palate-scorching. Turns out when I read "2 jalapeños, stemmed", I took that to mean "cut off the stem" when in reality it also means "cut out the seeds and membranes while you're at it". Whoops. A few teaspoons of sugar calmed it down a bit, but that was still probably the spiciest burrito I've ever eaten.

It's Not Just a Candy Bar

2005-09-29T18:47:00.000-06:00

Over Labor Day, my family went on vacation to rural Leamington, Utah, where I saw an awe-inspiring view of the Milky Way. The glow of countless unresolved stars in the plane of our galaxy can't be seen from most suburban and urban areas (including my backyard) because it is washed out by light pollution. After that trip, I wondered if I could see that view again without driving a 160-mile round trip.

Last Saturday, we visited my grandparents in Stansbury Park. As we were leaving, I glanced up to the sky to see how it looked compared to my hometown. At first I was disappointed, not seeing any more stars than I'm used to. But then I had the presence of mind to put something solid between myself and my grandfather's driveway floodlights.

Shaded by some large bushes, I looked up to the sky again, and as my eyes adapted to the darkness, I saw dozens of stars pop into view--followed by the Milky Way. I couldn't see the detail I saw in Leamington, but the glowing band was unmistakably there.

As we came around the mountain on Interstate 80, it was quite literally like night and day. I couldn't believe how bright the sky was over Salt Lake County. But I got to thinking, if the shadow of the Oquirrhs could allow me to see the Milky Way in Stansbury, maybe I could see it from Provo Canyon, just minutes from home.

Last night I went up into Provo Canyon, stopping at a view area for Bridal Veil Falls. Sure enough, I could see the Milky Way--better than in Stansbury, in fact. The sky toward the city was totally washed out:

...but when I looked away from the city, the sky was dark enough for nature's lights to shine:

Click the picture for a larger view. It doesn't look like much here, but my camera really isn't sensitive enough to pick up the Milky Way behind Cassiopeia. It was a splendid view. Don't take my word for it, though. Take some time on some clear, moonless night to get out of the city and look into the universe!

Orem City Maimed My Tree

2005-09-26T17:44:00.000-06:00

The City of Orem sent some people to "trim" the tree in my front yard today... because it was blocking a streetlight. In my opinion, the shade from the leaves made the streetlight almost tolerable, but then, I've already shared my opinion about these garish fixtures.

My tree was there first... and Orem said they'd work around existing trees. (They also said they'd install dark-sky sensitive lighting, which they obviously didn't.)

So here's the damage:

Way to beautify the city, Councilmember Sandstrom.

Good thing the tree wasn't under a set of power lines. Utah Power mercilessly slaughtered many of my neighbors' trees that happened to be under some high tension lines--most of which were maybe 30 feet below the wires--and the employees were outright hostile to the affected homeowners. At least the Orem City employees were polite.

The old one-two

2005-09-22T08:10:00.000-06:00

As I write this, the third-most powerful hurricane in recorded history is barreling toward Texas, taking aim at all the refineries that Katrina missed. Experts are predicting gasoline prices could jump to $4 to $5 per gallon by next week.

My take? Well, we've got to be weaned from fossil fuels somehow. I personally expected it to be a gradual process, but maybe being pummeled by hurricanes until the oil infrastructure is destroyed will be a more effective motivator for alternate energy sources. Or maybe this time next year we'll all be living in caves.

Garish (but Decorative) Streetlights

2005-09-13T23:47:00.000-06:00

Light Pollution
Originally uploaded by jpstanley.

Here's a photo of one of these streetlights I've been complaining about.

Glare? Check.
Light trespass? Check.
Sky glow? Those power poles are 60 feet high. Check.

Although in hindsight I think my letter to the Mayor was worded rather harshly, I still stand by everything I said. These streetlights are about as awful a design as you could concoct. Gross negligence.

UPDATE: Light Pollution in Orem, Utah

2005-09-07T07:26:00.000-06:00

I'm a resident of Orem interested in both astronomy and photography. Over Labor Day weekend, my family went on vacation to the rural town of Leamington (near Delta), and while I was there I spent several hours enjoying night sky sights I can't see from home thanks to the light pollution.

I didn't realize just how bad it is here in Orem until I came back from vacation and looked up at the Summer Triangle, vividly remembering the spectacular light the of countless stars in the Milky Way I had seen there days earlier--and seeing only a handful of washed-out stars in their place.

Here is a pair of photos of the constellation Orion, taken with the same camera and exposure settings, that show just how bright the night sky is here in Orem (bottom) as compared to Leamington (top):

Click the picture for a larger view.

I wish I had a picture from before Orem's streetlights went up to compare to this one. These streetlights waste a tremendous amount of energy lighting up the sky, and their glare blinds drivers and pedestrians as well, making them worse than useless. It's a shame that the Orem City Council acted with such reckless disregard for energy efficiency, utility, and the natural splendor of the night sky when they chose this design.

UPDATE: I did some Googling on this subject and found something that makes me even more angry: The City Council "outright disregarded" arguments about glare and light trespass from the street lights. Paul Witte writes in the utah-astronomy mailing list:

[T]he lighting is HORRIBLE! I have driven by these new lights at night and the glare in your eyes makes it difficult to see the road. I've also seen that some people who have the streetlights in their front yard have hung blankets in their windows. The sad thing is there were several people from UVAA (Rich Tenney & Mark Dakins among them) who took the time to attend the city council meetings and specifically warned them about this stuff. They outright disregarded everything they said. I'm just glad I don't live in Orem anymore or I'd be investing in some black paint and/or a shotgun.

It's one thing if the council members were just uninformed about the issues of light pollution (in which case they shouldn't have been making decisions about street lights in the first place, but since when are decisions made by those who are qualified to make them anyway?). But to find out that they were informed of the issues and they ignored them just makes my blood boil.

I am a selfish, insensitive clod

2005-08-29T20:54:00.000-06:00

Upon reading the news of Hurricane Katrina, I hate to admit my first concern was not for the hundreds of people who probably lost their lives. Or the thousands of people who lost their homes. No, being the insensitive clod that I am, the first thing I thought was, this is going to send gas over $3 a gallon.

I don't know why I'm so caught up in every movement of gas prices. It's not like I drive a whole lot. I work one mile from my house. And more often than not, I walk anyway. (In fact, twice now I've left my car parked for days at a time and then discovered I left the dome light on and the battery was dead.) Sure, oil prices will drive other prices up due to the expense of shipping things, but at least I still have a home to come home to. (It'll probably cost $200 a month to heat this winter, but, again, I think I'll live.)

Rinse, Lather, and Reboot

2005-08-13T22:47:00.000-06:00

Today I helped my brother-in-law wipe and restore his laptop in response to a stubborn piece of malware or three. To prevent things from recurring, I thought I'd get all the patches installed, turn on the SP2 firewall, configure Internet Explorer in "High" security mode allowing exceptions only for Windows Update, install Firefox as the default browser, and instruct him to use it exclusively.

Downloading updates after a new Windows install is a huge hassle. First, Windows Update needed to download a newer version of itself. Then it needed to reboot the system. Next, it downloaded 29 updates totaling 60 megabytes. I figured that must be the infamous Service Pack 2. Okay, we'll just let it go while we go have dinner, come back to it, and we'll be done. Nope. When it finally finished 40 minutes later (we were on my parents' 256kbit DSL line), I rebooted it and it promptly popped up the Windows Update screen saying we needed to download SP2--an even larger download than the one we just completed. What on earth were those other 60 megs?! Anyway, I let it download SP2, but I had to leave halfway through. At least I got Firefox set up before I left.

I guess I have my system on auto update and I've never noticed how enormously bloated Windows updates have become. I don't have a particularly fast connection (I also have 256k DSL), but at least it's always on and Windows can sneak in its downloads while I'm away from the computer. My question is, what on earth are dial-up users supposed to do?!

It wouldn't be so bad if you could just push a button and download all the updates in one shot, redialing in case the connection is lost, and disconnecting once all downloads are complete. You could just set it up to run overnight. And hope your ISP doesn't mind. But since Windows makes you download updates, reboot, download more updates, reboot, ad infinitum, that strategy wouldn't work. It'd take days for dial-up users to get all patched up.

Microsoft likes to blame lazy unpatched users for the spread of worms and the like, but they certainly don't do much to make the job tolerable. Why are the patches so flipping huge? Haven't they ever heard of binary diffs, like the old DOS games used to use?

More Night Photos

2005-07-27T22:52:00.000-06:00

I really should just go to sleep, but I've been having too much fun taking night photos.

Here's the Big Dipper again. The "low sharpening" mode didn't help much. (Again, you'll probably have to zoom in to see anything.)

And here's a 15-second exposure looking northward along Interstate 15.

The Mount Timpanogos Temple is prominent. Note the dashed orange line--that's a turn signal. And the orange and red lights above the others are marker lights on a semi trailer.

Star Search

2005-07-27T12:30:00.000-06:00

I went out last night and tried my hand at astrophotography once again. This time, I took all my photos with the tripod on cement, and it seemed to work better than last time--only a few images were smeared. And I got some real stars this time! I compared several of my shots against Starry Night and saw very high correlation, right down to the colors of the brighter stars.

This is a shot of the Big Dipper just as it came out of the camera--no ex post facto contrast stretching this time. (Click on it--a lot was lost in Blogger's resizing.) It was taken at ISO 200. At ISO 400, the background was too bright to make out the fainter stars (and the image was even noisier too). I suspect I'd have to go to a rural area, far from Orem's ~~light pollution devices~~ streetlights, in order to shoot at ISO 400.

I think I'd also get better results if I used my camera's "Low sharpening" mode--maybe it wouldn't magnify the noise in the sky so badly that way.

Bad Astronomy

2005-07-26T06:03:00.000-06:00

This morning before sunrise, I mounted my new camera on a tripod and attempted to take some pictures of planets and stars. It didn't work so well. The main thing I learned is that, even with a tripod, 15 seconds (the longest exposure time my digicam supports) is a long time for the camera to stay still. Even though I shot on a 2-second timer so that I wouldn't be touching the camera during the exposure, most of my shots were smeared. I suppose next time I'll (1) make sure the tripod is resting securely on the ground, (2) tighten all the little tripod nuts, and (3) use a 10-second countdown timer to give vibrations time to die down.

Anyhow, here are some photos that turned out okay.

Most of my shots of the Moon turned out overexposed. The photo above was exposed for 1/100 of a second.

This two-second exposure captures the Moon and Mars in the same frame. Of course the Moon had to be very overexposed in order for Mars to be visible. Mars is on the left side, about a third of the way up from the bottom.

And here's a 15-second exposure showing some stars. Well, maybe there are some stars there. Although the other photos are shown pretty much as they came out of the camera (save cropping, of course), this one has been extremely contrast-stretched to make the stars visible. So I can't be sure what are stars and what is just noise.

In retrospect, I probably should have bumped up the ISO level from the default 50 in order to photograph stars. Yeah, that'll increase noise too, but hopefully it will do that before the JPEG artifacts come in and thereby provide a better signal-to-noise ratio.

Anyhow, I wish I could tell you which stars those are, but I can't seem to match them up with anything. I think the camera was pointed west, for what that's worth.

Bridal Veil Falls Showdown

2005-07-23T09:52:00.000-06:00

This morning I took a bike trip to Bridal Veil Falls in Provo Canyon. I took some pictures with my old Samsung Digimax 130 and my new Canon Powershot A95. I'll post a little comparison.

Here's the scene captured by the Samsung:

And here is the same scene captured by the Canon:

Here's a crop from the Canon photo (click to see full resolution):

More fun with Macro mode

2005-07-22T19:57:00.000-06:00

I took some macro shots with my shiny new Powershot A95 camera today. I wanted to see if this camera performs as well as the A80 in this mode.

I think it does.

My Powershot A95 arrived!

2005-07-21T19:48:00.000-06:00

My new Canon Powershot A95 digital camera arrived today! I've already filled and erased the bundled 32MB CF card three times. I'm pretty satisfied with the results. I wasn't at first, until I realized I was taking pictures in a poorly lit room. (Turning on the lights helped quite a bit.) Still, the pictures are a bit noisier than I'd like, but I suppose that's par for the course for a 5 megapixel consumer camera. At least there aren't any obvious artifacts caused by overzealous noise reduction algorithms.

Anyhow, I took some pictures of my son Joshua with both my old Samsung Digimax 130 and my new Canon. It's certainly not a fair comparison, but I have to justify my purchase somehow.

Samsung Digimax 130 - flash on

Samsung Digimax 130 - flash off

Canon Powershot A95 - flash on

Canon Powershot A95 - flash off

Camera Update: Goodbye to Best Buy

2005-07-17T10:48:00.000-06:00

So I decided to splurge a little (okay, significantly) over my $200 budget and get the 5MP Canon Powershot A95. I found new units online for around $260 shipped, but Best Buy advertised $269 on their web site. So I thought I'd save the shipping hassle and pick one up locally. Alas, I found that the $269 price was a web-only deal--they wanted $300 in the store. I might pay an extra $10 for instant gratification, but not $40. So I ordered the camera from zipzoomfly.com instead.

I also e-mailed the following nice letter to Best Buy:

I just came back from my local Best Buy store. I intended to buy the Canon Powershot A95 digital camera, but I found that the price in the store was $30 more than the price advertised on bestbuy.com. Since I had previously called about the Sony Cybershot DSC-S60 and heard that the sale price shown on bestbuy.com would be honored in the store, I was frustrated to find that the same was not true for the Canon. Looking back now, I see that there's no indication on the web site that the Canon's sale price was a web only deal.

The sales associate at Best Buy told me I could order online and then pick up in the store without paying shipping--but that it would take a week before I could pick it up! What a joke!

I decided to buy my camera elsewhere, and I wanted to explain why you lost my sale. What's more, since your web site is apparently not useful in determining your prices in brick-and-mortar stores, I am disinclined to visit your store in the future only to find myself disappointed again.

Why are Microsoft and the MPAA so stupid?

2005-07-15T14:35:00.000-06:00

I just found this story on engadget.com about a new "feature" in Microsoft's upcoming OS: Protected Video Path-Output Protection Management. It will allow content providers to force the OS to refuse to play (or drastically downsample) high definition content unless the signal going to the monitor is encrypted with HDCP (which practically no existing PCs and monitors support, not even big fancy LCDs).

Way to go, MPAA and Microsoft. In a futile attempt to prevent DRM'd content from being intercepted, you've almost entirely eliminated the market for it in the first place. What's next, a monitor with a built-in webcam that shuts the monitor off if it detects you're pointing a camcorder at it?

Which digital camera to get?

2005-07-15T13:45:00.000-06:00

Lately I've been shopping around for a digital camera. I guess the events leading up to it are twofold.

First, I discovered how entirely useless my 1.3MP Samsung Digimax 130 is when trying to photograph in low light. Take the planet pictures--the ones on my blog are frames captured from footage shot by my camcorder. The Samsung won't hold the shutter open long enough to get anything in the same lighting conditions. I found myself digging through the manual trying to find out how to override the automatic settings--but of course there are no manual controls. Now that I know they're missing, I want a camera that can let me pick aperture stops and shutter speeds.

Second (and this is the real deal-breaker), the Samsung can only take decent pictures at 640x480. At full 1280x960 resolution, they look very heavily processed and interpolated. I wouldn't be surprised at all to find that the CCD itself only takes 640x480 and the camera scales the pictures up--they look that bad. Anyhow, since our CompactFlash card died after maybe a month, though, we just used the camera's 8MB internal memory, which could hold 24 or so VGA-quality pictures, and that worked okay for emailing photos and putting them on the web. But when my wife tried to order a print through Wal-Mart's online service, it balked and said we need better resolution.

So lately I've been looking into getting a new digital camera. My budget is about $200. In that range, it looks like I could either get a good 3.2MP camera (the Canon Powershot A510 looks promising, and the Minolta DiMAGE Z10 looks like fun too, but a little bulky), or I could get a lousy 5MP camera (like the Olympus D-595, whose pictures looks absolutely horrible at full resolution, at least in the reviews I've seen). Or, if I stretched my budget just a little, perhaps I could get a promising 4MP camera (the Sony DSC-S60). Maybe the Canon Powershot A520 (the 4MP version of the A510) would be a good choice too, except that its pictures are substantially noisier than the A510 and I'm not convinced a bigger but noisier image is better.

So right now I've pretty much narrowed it down to two choices--the Canon Powershot A510 and the Sony Cybershot DSC-S60. Here are what I see as the pros and cons of each.

Canon Powershot A510 (3.2MP, about $180)

[Pros]
4x optical zoom
Uses SD media
Uses standard mini-B USB cable
Supports aperture priority, shutter priority modes
Has image orientation sensor

[Cons]
Lower resolution than the Sony
Shutter lag ~ 1 second
Flash recharge ~ 7 seconds
USB 1.1 / PTP only
Low fps, time limited movie mode

Sony Cybershot DSC-S60 (4.1MP, about $210)

[Pros]
Good image quality
Shutter lag ~ 0.3 second
Flash recharge ~ 3 seconds
USB 2.0 / MSC + PTP
Slightly larger LCD (2" as opposed to the Canon's 1.8")

[Cons]
3x zoom as compared to the Canon's 4x
No orientation sensor
No aperture priority/shutter priority mode (although it does have a full manual mode, albeit with only two aperture settings to choose from)
Uses overpriced Sony Memory Stick media
Uses all-in-one proprietary video+audio+USB monstrosity instead of a standard mini-B USB cable
"Cybershot" is a dumb name

Right now I'm leaning toward the Sony, mostly due to the low shutter lag and fast flash recycle time. But manually rotating portrait mode images can be tedious, and the Canon's 4x zoom might come in handy to. Same goes for the shutter priority mode. So I haven't quite made up my mind.

This morning I helped fix my grandmother's computer, and I mentioned how I was shopping around for a digital camera. She let me borrow Grandpa's Powershot A80 and I've been playing with it for awhile. I haven't gotten too much figured out yet, but other than the relatively slow auto focus (it's almost a second), I like what I see. I went outside to take a few snapshots, and on my way back in the house, I saw a quarter on the sidewalk. So I put Grandpa's Canon in macro mode and took a close-up.

That's a pretty slick macro shot if I do say so myself. ;)

Venus at Sunset

2005-06-29T23:00:00.000-06:00

Tonight I thought I'd try going out a little earlier to a place with an unobstructed view of the horizon to see if I could catch Mercury, Venus, and Saturn in one photograph. Unfortunately, Saturn was lost in the haze of the sunset--I couldn't see it except with my binoculars, and then only barely. If Saturn were visible in this photo, it would be above the valley about 1/4 of the way from the right edge of the picture.

The bright dot near the top of the frame is Venus, and Mercury is barely visible to the left.

Conjunction of Mercury and Venus

2005-06-29T07:51:00.000-06:00

I took this picture of Mercury and Venus last night with my digital camcorder resting on a music stand. My peach tree leaves are (barely) visible at the bottom of the shot.

If only we'd had a clear sky in the western horizon four nights ago; then I could have got Saturn into the frame too.

DMCA: "Intellectual Property" vs Real Property

2005-06-06T20:58:00.000-06:00

Cory Doctorow of the Electronic Frontier Foundation makes a very effective argument against anticircumvention in a July 2004 speech given to Microsoft:

[A]nticirumvention lets rightsholders invent new and exciting copyrights for themselves -- to write private laws without accountability or deliberation -- that expropriate your interest in your physical property to their favor. Region-coded DVDs are an example of this: there's no copyright here or in anywhere I know of that says that an author should be able to control where you enjoy her creative works, once you've paid for them. I can buy a book and throw it in my bag and take it anywhere from Toronto to Timbuktu, and read it wherever I am: I can even buy books in America and bring them to the UK, where the author may have an exclusive distribution deal with a local publisher who sells them for double the US shelf-price. When I'm done with it, I can sell it on or give it away in the UK. Copyright lawyers call this "First Sale," but it may be simpler to think of it as "Capitalism."

The keys to decrypt a DVD are controlled by an org called DVD-CCA, and they have a bunch of licensing requirements for anyone who gets a key from them. Among these is something called region-coding: if you buy a DVD in France, it'll have a flag set that says, "I am a European DVD." Bring that DVD to America and your DVD player will compare the flag to its list of permitted regions, and if they don't match, it will tell you that it's not allowed to play your disc.

Remember: there is no copyright that says that an author gets to do this. When we wrote the copyright statutes and granted authors the right to control display, performance, duplication, derivative works, and so forth, we didn't leave out "geography" by accident. That was on-purpose.

So when your French DVD won't play in America, that's not because it'd be illegal to do so: it's because the studios have invented a business-model and then invented a copyright law to prop it up. The DVD is your property and so is the DVD player, but if you break the region-coding on your disc, you're going to run afoul of anticircumvention.

That's what happened to Jon Johansen, a Norweigan teenager who wanted to watch French DVDs on his Norweigan DVD player. He and some pals wrote some code to break the CSS so that he could do so. He's a wanted man here in America; in Norway the studios put the local fuzz up to bringing him up on charges of *unlawfully trespassing upon a computer system.* When his defense asked, "Which computer has Jon trespassed upon?" the answer was: "His own."

His no-fooling, real and physical property has been expropriated by the weird, notional, metaphorical intellectual property on his DVD.

He also speaks compellingly against DRM:

When MP3 rolled around and Sony's walkman customers were clamoring for a solid-state MP3 player, Sony let its music business-unit run its show: instead of making a high-capacity MP3 walkman, Sony shipped its Music Clips, low-capacity devices that played brain-damaged DRM formats like Real and OpenMG. They spent good money engineering "features" into these devices that kept their customers from freely moving their music back and forth between their devices. Customers stayed away in droves.

Today, Sony is dead in the water when it comes to walkmen. The market leaders are poky Singaporean outfits like Creative Labs -- the kind of company that Sony used to crush like a bug, back before it got borged by its entertainment unit -- and PC companies like Apple.

That's because Sony shipped a product that there was no market demand for. No Sony customer woke up one morning and said, "Damn, I wish Sony would devote some expensive engineering effort in order that I may do less with my music." Presented with an alternative, Sony's customers enthusiastically jumped ship.

The same thing happened to a lot of people I know who used to rip their CDs to WMA. [Microsoft] sold them software that produced smaller, better-sounding rips than the MP3 rippers, but you also fixed it so that the songs you ripped were device-locked to their PCs. What that meant is that when they backed up their music to another hard-drive and reinstalled their OS (something that the spyware and malware wars has made more common than ever), they discovered that after they restored their music that they could no longer play it. The player saw the new OS as a different machine, and locked them out of their own music.

There is no market demand for this "feature." None of your customers want you to make expensive modifications to your products that make backing up and restoring even harder. And there is no moment when your customers will be less forgiving than the moment that they are recovering from catastrophic technology failures.

I highly recommend reading his entire speech.

Apple switches to Intel: Why?

2005-06-06T14:41:00.000-06:00

So it's official: Apple is switching to Intel processors in their future Mac models.

Why?

The only worthwhile reason I could think of would be to go head-to-head against Microsoft and sell OS X for PC-compatible systems. But they're not going to do that. "We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac", they say. But they won't try to stop you from running Windows on your Intel-based Mac. (Why would anyone want to do that anyway?)

I was thinking about buying a Mac, but now I'm not so sure. I might end up with an unsupported processor two years down the road.

Score another victory for government censorship

2005-06-06T13:14:00.000-06:00

DVD Decrypter has been taken offline by an unnamed company (probably Sony or Macrovision) for violating the EU equivalent of the DMCA's anti-circumvention clause. That program could help you make a copy of a DVD to take with you in the car to protect your investment (so the original won't get lost, stolen, scratched, or warped)--but then, it could also be used to pirate DVDs, so it must be repressed by law. Of course, the studios would rather sell you a second copy if your disc gets damaged anyway, and I'm sure they had that in mind when they purchased the DMCA.

Why stop here? Crowbars can be used to bash people in the head, so why not ban crowbars? Heck, guns are specifically designed to kill people, and they're (with a few restrictions) legal to own. But anything that is perceived to hurt the entertainment industry--ban it, with government backing.

That's the reason I hate the DMCA (and its European equivalent). Corporations can effectively write law, with no debate and no oversight. In the name of protecting their copyrights, they can dictate exactly what you can and can't do in relation to their product, regardless of whether your behavior would actually infringe their copyrights, effectively killing off fair use doctrine. What's more, the DMCA even makes it illegal to make a tool that can be used to circumvent copyrights, or even to talk about methods of circumventing copyrights, in what I see as an egregious violation of the First Amendment right to free speech.

Another casualty of the lawn mower

2005-05-30T20:11:00.000-06:00

Today I mowed down my second sprinkler head this year. The other one happened about a month ago. Naturally, I destroyed the PVC riser as well, so I had to replace that too. And, naturally, I didn't have one at hand, so I had to go buy one. Good thing there's a Home Despot not more than a mile from my house. This time I bought a handful of extra risers, couplers, and a couple pop-up heads that were on sale for a dollar each. I ought to be able to mow down two or three more sprinkler heads before my next trip to the hardware store.

... except that my toilet runs sometimes--the float doesn't float, possibly due to a worn-out ballcock valve, so the water keeps running until I manually yank the float up. Naturally, it only misbehaves when I don't have the cover off to look at it. I'll probably just replace the entire assembly. That's another trip to the store.

Oh, and I need to put a new set of pads in my evaporative cooler. Not to mention replace the copper tube that carries water up to it--I forgot to drain it last fall, and it split in several places.

It's fun being a homeowner.

Product Activation vs. Customers' Rights

2005-05-09T13:35:00.000-06:00

On my work machine, Windows threatened to stop working in 3 days unless I reactivated it--even though my hardware had not changed. This is not the first time I've seen this happen. Fortunately, the online activation went through without a hitch. But what if it hadn't? I might have ended up losing a lot of productivity--not because of any real problem. Only because of an artificial, ill-conceived, and entirely one-sided operating system "feature".

Why should Microsoft even have the right do do that? Once they have your money, what right do they have to unilaterally rescind your right to use the product you paid for?

Fairterms.org has a statement of principles regarding customers' rights which I agree with wholeheartedly. Under the heading "Customers are entitled to control their own computer systems", they have this to say [emphasis added]:

A. Unless a product is clearly labeled as limited to a certain time or number of users or restricted to use on a certain system, sellers must not directly or indirectly disable the product or terminate a customer's rights in the product without a court order. Other legal remedies are readily available to sellers.

I hadn't thought of it that way before, but Microsoft's deactivating your operating system when it thinks your hardware has changed is tantamount to seizure of property without due process.

So why do we let Microsoft get away with this?

UPDATE: I did a little Googling and found I'm not the first blogger to ask whether copy protection is unconstitutional. This blog post suggests that product activation violates the Fourth Amendment guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure as well as the Fifth Amendment guarantee against deprivation of life, liberty, and property without due process of law.

UPDATE II: I found a follow-up to the previous post. Many readers pointed out that product activation can't be considered unconstitutional, because the Bill of Rights only protects citizens against the government. But another reader argued that, since the DMCA effectively gives product activation the force of law, constitutional limits should apply after all.

Another Mac Mini article

2005-04-19T07:01:00.000-06:00

I'm a longtime PC user, and every last one of my computers (with the exception of my laptop) have been custom-built machines--right back to the 286 my grandfather who worked for IBM helped me build when I was 12. Or rather, told me exactly what to do. Things have changed a bit since then--I recall plugging in 16 or so individual DIP packages to install the 1MB of 8MHz memory. A far cry from the pair of 512MB 400MHz DIMMs my current computer uses.

A week or so ago, my wife told me she thought it might be fun to get a Mac Mini. I think her main motivation is that they're supposed to be better at video editing. But I'm open to the idea of having a different computer in the house. And the $500 price looks mighty tempting... until you try and upgrade it.

We'd definitely need a DVD burner (+$100) and at least 512MB of RAM (+$75). And we might as well get the 80GB hard drive as well (+$50). That brings the total to $724. As I don my asbestos-lined jumpsuit (Hi all you Apple fans out there!), let's look at what a similarly-configured custom built PC might cost. (All these prices came from newegg.com as of this morning.)

Price	Part	Part Name	Comments
48.00	Case	CHENBRO Black/White MicroATX Case with 270W Power Supply	Includes front audio, USB, and Firewire ports. Small, but not nearly as small as the Mini.
86.00	Motherboard	ECS "RS480-M V1.0" ATI Radeon XPRESS 200 Chipset Motherboard For AMD Socket 939 CPU -RETAIL	Includes integrated X300-level video; a step up from the 9200 in the Mini, but it uses shared memory, which may not be a disadvantage since the Mini only has 32MB anyway
146.00	CPU	AMD Athlon 64 3000+, 512KB L2 Cache, Socket 939 64-bit Processor - Retail	I'm not all that familiar with the Power line of processors, but I'll bet this is more than a match for a 1.25GHz G4
48.67	RAM	Corsair Value Select Dual Kits 184 Pin 512MB(256MBx2) DDR PC-3200 - Retail	You could go to a full gigabyte for $50 more, compared with the $250 Apple would charge you to double 512MB
56.00	Hard Drive	Western Digital 80GB 7200RPM SATA Hard Drive, Model WD800JD, OEM Drive Only	Faster than the laptop drive in the Mini
53.00	DVD Burner	BenQ Black 16X DVD+/-R DVD Burner support Dual Layer with Software, Model DW1620 PRO BLK, OEM	It's nominally four times faster than the 4x drive that comes with the Mini, but NeroVision Express isn't nearly as cool as iLife '05
91.95	Operating System	Microsoft Windows XP HOME Edition With Service Pack 2 -OEM	Again, not as cool as OS X, but it does the job

That comes to a total of $529.62. Granted, it doesn't have the "cool factor" of the Mac Mini, and it would certainly take up more space on your desk. But it's almost $200 cheaper than a comparably equipped Mini. I suppose when you factor in the software (MacOS X and iLife '05 instead of Windows XP Home and Nero Express), the Mac's increased usability could be worth the difference.

As for me, I think the Mini is a great concept, but a little underpowered even with the upgrades. If there were a model with 128MB video RAM, an 8x DVD burner, and possibly gigabit Ethernet, I'd be sorely tempted to get one... but the only way to get those features from Apple right now is to spend over $1600 on a PowerMac G5.

But to tell you the truth, what I'd really like to see is a Mac barebone system along the same lines as a Shuttle XPC, to which you could add the standard desktop form factor optical drive, hard drive, DDR memory, and optional AGP and/or PCI card of your choice to form a complete system. They could be sold as complete systems too, of course; these would still have the advantage of much-improved upgradeability over Apple's existing low-to-medium-range computers. But this kind of machine would take away from Apple's 100% control over the hardware and software, which could arguably detract from the "it just works" Mac experience. At least, that's what I'd expect Apple to say about it. I'm sure the fat margins on build-to-order upgrades have nothing to do with it at all. ;)

The case of the disappearing music

2005-04-18T08:30:00.000-06:00

If you purchase music today, do you expect to be able to listen to it five years from now?

If it's on a CD, certainly. (Assuming you take care of it, it doesn't get lost or stolen, and it isn't a Mission: Impossible self-destructing CD.)

But if it's purchased online? Not likely.

At the behest of the Recording Industry Association of America, any music you purchase online from an affiliated label will be encumbered with DRM (digital rights management) technology, which is basically intended to tether your music to the computer that downloaded it. There's nothing stopping you from copying the files you download, but they won't be playable anywhere else.

Most forms of DRM allow you to do a limited set of copying; for example, you can make one-way transfers to a compatible portable music player (not just any player; even one that supports the audio format won't work if it doesn't support the DRM), or you can burn the track to CD a limited number of times.

What if you get a new computer? You can back up and restore your licenses so that the DRM will let you play your music on the new machine.

Fair enough? It would be, except that you need permission from Big Brother every time you restore your license backups. According to Microsoft,

You can restore backup licenses a limited number of times for legitimate purposes. When you restore your licenses, your computer must be connected to the Internet. The Player sends a unique hardware ID to Microsoft that enables the company to track how many times you restore your licenses.

...

If you exceed the maximum number of restore attempts that are permitted, the Microsoft service will not process any further restore attempts. Microsoft does this to discourage unauthorized replication of protected media files.

It's nice that Microsoft gets to decide whether or not your continued listening to music you paid for is legitimate.

Well, they're just trying to prevent you from using license restoration as a loophole to allow you to share your music illegally, right? Maybe. But guess what the "maximum number of restore attempts" is. (Hint: it's less than three.)

You can restore your licenses on a maximum of two unique computers. If you replace hardware components in your computer or reinstall the operating system, Microsoft considers the changed computer to be a new unique computer.

Have you purchased music online? Do you anticipating upgrading your computer or reinstalling the operating system more than twice? You have spent real money on a disappearing product. Congratulations!

I own dozens of CDs, but the majority of them I've never listened to in a CD player. When I get a CD, the first thing I do is rip it to MP3 files and then put the original CD away in a closet for safekeeping. MP3 files are much more convenient for me--I can listen to whatever I'd like without looking for the disc, my CDs don't get scratched and worn, and I can take my whole collection on the road with me on only a couple of data CDs--significantly reducing clutter and eliminating the chance that my originals get lost, damaged, or stolen.

The RIAA's website says "If you choose to take your own CDs and make copies for yourself on your computer or portable music player, that's great. It's your music and we want you to enjoy it at home, at work, in the car and on the jogging trail." But it's also the RIAA who is making sure you can't do most of those things with music purchased online.

I don't buy CDs anymore, in part because I now have two small children and no longer have the disposable income I once had, but also because I'm afraid that I won't be able to use them how I'd like. Many newer CDs are encumbered by copy protection technologies that prevent them from being read properly by computers, and that these discs are not always clearly labeled. I am not interested in purchasing such a disc, since the CDs I buy are read exclusively by my computer.

Buying individual tracks for under a dollar each at online music stores would be very attractive--if it weren't for DRM. I like to take my music with me to work or on the road, but DRM shackles me to a very limited number of PCs. I know I could back up and then restore my licenses to my laptop and work machine, but at that point I've used up my licenses. As soon as any of those machines are reinstalled or upgraded, poof--there goes my music on that computer. I am not interested in spending real money on disappearing music.

I don't practice or condone online piracy, but pirated music has one enormous advantage over purchased music--free of DRM, it can be listened to on practically any device. It won't disappear when you upgrade your computer.

The RIAA often whines about how hard it is to compete with free. They've got a point, but they're going about it all wrong. If they offered the ability to legitimately purchase something comparable in quality to what's being shared online, I think customers would gladly pay for it. I know I would. But instead, they offer music that is chained to an extremely limited number of computers, is artificially incompatible with your MP3 player, and that you likely won't be able to listen to at all in five years.

Note to RIAA: You are losing business specifically because of DRM. Allow your customers to purchase non-DRM-encrusted music online--That's how to keep honest people honest.

--

Here are some links to discussions on other harmful effects of DRM.

mp3tunes.com FAQ
DRM is Not Protection From Piracy: Is Protection From Competition
License Revocation - It's kind of like piracy, only they're stealing from you
Fair Use and DRM from the Electronic Frontier Foundation