Articles

 1234567  Next page Last page (287 Pages)

News Yesterday
 
Published by marco on in Design

 A rather interesting article about innumeracy on ABC News was almost completely overshadowed by a layout dominated by advertisements for other products also available from ABC. Anyone happy to read content for free online should also be prepared for a shameless onslaught of self-promotion, but does it have to be so ugly? The page is broken into dozens of blocks (listed below), which seem to only coincidentally line up or share a common style.

Take into account that most of the blocks are independently animated and the overall effect is dizzying. As you can see from the screenshot, the article ends up split into four nearly independent blocks on the page—and is then split into four similarly delightful pages. As with most online articles, the printable version is a safe refuge. Or you can use the Readability bookmarklet to clean things up.

List of page blocks

  • Banner ad
  • Site banner (with search controls & some vestigial top-level menus like “ABC” & “ESPN”)
  • Menu bar (pretty comprehensive, though with a few “main” links added to The end of it, like “Good Morning America”)
  • Other articles in this section (represented as a thin, horizontal bar and flying in the face of all design and usability trends)
  • Finally, the article itself
  • Then a toolbar for the article (sharing, print, email, etc.)
  • A block containing more related links (with thumbnails!) cutting the article off
  • The article continues
  • Floated in on the left is a block with “Sponsored links”
  • A comments area
  • Another block below that with “More Coverage”
  • A Web 2.0-style footer with most of the menu repeated in static “fat footer” form
  • Dominating the right-hand side are several blocks:
    • One with even more related links, this time videos
    • Yet another ad for “Good Morning America”—which smacks of desperation
    • Another block with more links from this section
    • A block with completely unrelated slideshows
    • Another sharing (e.g. Facebook) block (as if the article toolbar above wasn’t enough)
    • A block of “Most popular” links
    • ESPN Headlines
    • A Digg applet showing “Most Dugg Stories on ABC News”
    • Some advertisements
    • More “sponsored links”

Sweet Lord! Almost maximum redundancy achieved. I didn’t even have the heart to try to validate the page. Talk about a page designed by comittee.

 
News 4 days Ago
 
Published by marco on in Science & Nature

If you’ve been looking for an introduction to Quantum Computing and how it surpasses our current binary computing, the article A tale of two qubits: how quantum computers work by Joseph B. Altepeter (Ars Technica) is a great place to start. The language is about as accessible as it’s going to get and there are helpful diagrams sprinkled throughout. For example, the engine of a quantum computer—entanglement, and its result: “action at a distance”—is analogized thusly:

“Imagine if someone showed you a pair of coins, claiming that when both were flipped at the same time, one would always come up heads and one would always come up tails, but that which was which would be totally random. What if they claimed that this trick would work instantly, even if the coins were on opposite sides of the Universe.”

 Partial and Full DecoherenceThe final two pages delve into the quantum physics and present some of the main concepts—and equations—which is where things get a good deal hairier, if it’s been a long time since you’ve seen notation of this sort. However, any discussion of quantum physics soon blurs the line between hard, measurable physics and philosophy. At some point, the equations abandon us and it becomes very difficult to know what’s going on or even to know what we know about what’s going on or to be able to trust that which we observe or that which our carefully planned experiments observe because even our most careful selves are still influenced by us being ourselves and being constrained by the physical system in which we enjoy degrees of freedom.

Scientists have already reached the point where they are presented with an “equation [that] means that every part of the experiment, even the experimenter, are all part of a single quantum superposition.” (Emphasis in original.) Heisenberg showed long ago that an observation influences that which it observes; in the world of quantum computing, the systems—or superpositions of states—being observed are so delicate and involve such miniscule energies that the measuring instrument exerts an even greater influence because the energy introduced into the system by the act of measurement is disproportionate to the energy of the system itself. The really strange thing is that if, as stated above, the experimenter is part of the superposition, all attempts to follow the chain of superposition to find an end where there is a so-called collapse of the waveform and things are decided one way or the other—à la Schroedinger’s cat—have failed to find it.

The article concludes:

“Maybe, at some point, it all gets too big, and new physics happens. In other words, something beyond quantum mechanics stops the chain of larger and larger entangled states, and this new physics gives rise to our largely classical world. Many physicists much smarter than myself think that this happens. Many physicists much smarter than myself think it doesn’t, and instead imagine the universe as an unfathomably complex, inescapably beautiful symphony of possibility, each superposed reality endlessly pulsing in time to its own energy. To be honest, we just don’t know yet.

“But as far as we’ve looked, it’s turtles all the way down.[1]

How the hell are you supposed to build a computer based on that? We know how to build 2- and 3-qbit computers, but the 100-qbit computer will likely have to wait until we can answer some of the seemingly unanswerable questions outlined above. As with every generation that looks up toward the next, just before a quantum leap of intuition and reasoning, it seems impossible. But imagine how impossible all that we take for granted today would seem to someone from just a century ago. Maybe humans in just a few generations will take “acting outside of the superposition of reality” for granted and be able to perform the most breathtaking calculations in no time at all. More likely, though, they’ll be taking quantum computing for granted and most will be using it without even knowing it—perhaps to make the Genius mode on their iPods seek out much cooler playlists.

[1] A phrase from the book Yertle the Turtle by Theodore Geisel aka Dr. Suess.
 
News 6 days Ago
 
Published by marco on in Sports

Short Track (or How Sports Works for the uninitiated)

Short track speed skating got the short shrift right up until the end from Eurosport. Apparently, there was a bit of a controversy with one of Apolo Anton Ohno’s races. More details are available in the article, Apolo Ohno Disqualified in 500 Meters, Wins Relay Bronze (Fanhouse)

I didn’t see the video because of the blanket NBC hatred for non-US residents and the NBC stranglehold on video content from the Olympics.

That does not prevent me from having an opinion, of course.

I think the other skater isn’t really allowed to say anything one way or the other, even if he wanted to. The judges and video replay have the last word and that’s it. If someone could say, yeah, but, regardless of what the video shows, I know I fell on my own, then it open the door to manipulation. In this one particular case, it might be considered justice, but it would open the door to manipulation if a skater’s opinion mattered in the outcome of the race.

Also, in the heat of the race, it’s nearly impossible to accurately remember what really happened – your mind makes up a lot of stuff to fill in the huge cracks yours senses leave. A skilled questioner could get the “honest” guy to both admit and deny that he fell on his own … all within a quarter of an hour. That’s why the judges and video evidence override everything.

That’s just sports, man. Ireland’s not going to the world cup because Thierry Henry from the French team batted in the tying goal to qualify – and deny France. The referee didn’t see it, though every camera on the planet did. There’s no video replay in soccer, so that’s that. The call stands … because that’s the rules. Ohno understands the rules because he’s a sportsman … people who care about sports once every two years during the Olympics are not and that’s why there’s almost always an uproar whenever they perceive something as unfair. The athletes, on the other hand, mostly understand that the system’s not perfect and that the ball bounces one way one day and another the next. If it’s randomly imperfect, that’s fine; as long as it isn’t biased.

Closing Ceremonies

It’s pretty much a ritual that you first trundle out the organizers of the thing, Rogge closes ‘er down, the next city gets the torch (as it were) and the outgoing hosts put on a kitschy show, complete with native talent (again, as it were).

Noteworthy was that VANOC CEO John Furlong—the head of the organizing committee from start to finish, all 14 years worth—somehow let himself be pressured into speaking French—for what must have been, like, the first time in his life—in front of a crowd of dozens of thousands in the stadium, and upward of billions planet-wide. This author, in a recent article (Englisch wird die Arbeitssprache), gave EU commissar Günther Oettinger a pass on his abysmal English. However, the reasoning there was that Herr Oettinger is actually pushing for more English in Germany and so should take the first steps himself, regardless of how poorly he speaks it.

It’s a complete mystery why Mr. Furlong agreed to humiliate himself by speaking what we will grudgingly admit was French. The reactions were not gentle, as documented in Closing Ceremonies: The Live Blog by Andrew Coyne (Macleans):

“National unity set back 30 years. […] Question: what’s worse? No French, or Furlong French? Moliere dying several more deaths. […] Tribute to the deceased Georgian luger. Furlong’s Georgian is better than his French.”

And, in ‘ey, John FurLONG, kest keh yu coll dat, Fran-say, eh? (Digital Citizen), which comes out swinging already in the title, but also offers a possible reason for this Francophonic catastrophe:

“Probably pressured to include more French in the Closing Ceremonies by the Conservatives trying to get votes in Quebec, as Heritage Minister James Moore tried by speaking out after the Opening Ceremonies (CBC), John could not have faked an English speaker reading French for the first time ever any better. […] ome francophones have loudly voiced their disappointment at the lack of French at the Olympics Opening Ceremonies. Well, I hope they’re happy now. (Emphasis added.)”

If you’re in the States, you can find the video on NBC’s site. The rest of the world can try to find it on YouTube, but it’s kind of a moving target. If you speak or even just understand French, it’s worth it, though.

 
News 2 weeks Ago
 
Published by marco on in Philosophy

The Catholic Church is a force for good in the world (Intelligence^2) is a debate between Archbishop Onaiyekan and Ann Widdecombe (for the Church) and Christoper Hitchens and Stephen Fry (against the Church). The link has all of the videos linked in from YouTube[1] and it’s worth watching all of it, especially since the audience gets to vote twice: once at the beginning and once at the end.[2]

It is interesting not because those supporting the Church actually argued well, but because those against the church did. Stephen Fry (video below), in particular, was absolutely brilliant in his writing, his diction and his conviction.

The Archbishop is flat-out terrible, if not completely embarrassing. His argument is, essentially, “if the Catholic Church were not a force for good, he would not have devoted his entire life to serving it.” That was the sum total of the Archbishop’s nuance; essentially arguing that people should simply take on faith that the Church is good. Objective evidence from throughout history doesn’t enter into it if you just believe that the Church is good. Ann Widdecombe was more forceful, but hardly stronger. She was very spiteful and lit into Hitchens ad hominem rather than actually addressing any points either he or Fry made. She niggled about Fry’s definition of purgatory—like, who gives a shit exactly what kind of fairy dust they use there?—but completely ignored his taking offense that it considers him an abomination because he’s gay. In a similar vein, she attempts to countermand certain points (the Pope hid Jews in the Vatican during WWII) without addressing the overall trend that history suggests (the Church did not take an official stance against Nazi Germany out of fear). In a nutshell:

“Widdecombe insists that the actions of the Catholic Church in the past should be judged with a degree of historical relativism; they were not the only people to murder and torture those deemed guilty of wrongdoing.”

Fry counteracts this whole line of reasoning wonderfully in the debate portion:

“Well, if the Church can’t be better than the rest of the human race at a given point in time, then what in heaven’s name are they good for? (Emphasis in original.[3])”

If you don’t watch the whole thing, at least invest twenty minutes to watch the two videos below, if not for his arguments, then simply to watch a master of the English language at work.

Stephen Fry – The Catholic Church is not a force for good in the world – part I by Stephen Fry (YouTube)

The Catholic Church is not a force for good in the world – part II by Stephen Fry (YouTube)

The debate is best summed up with a citation from the debate portion, in which Fry responds to Wittecombe’s derisive defense of Church policy.

“I make no apology for apparently not understanding the philosophy of Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustus of Hippo … or the council of Trent or the other extraordinary conventions and rules of Limbo. Don’t tell me that there’s some magisterial and mystical reason behind Limbo that I’m too stupid to understand. That’s not good enough; it really isn’t.”

[1] High definition versions are also available at Daily Motion: Hitchens (20') and Stephen Fry (19')
[2] The initial vote was 678 For, 1102 Against, Undecided 346; the final vote was 268 For, 1876 Against, Undecided 34. Though Fry and Hitchens clearly did good work, the massive change is wholly attributable to (A) how indefensible the Church’s basic argument is and (B) what a bad job the Archbishop and Madame Widdecombe did of muddying those waters. Instead, they went balls out and mocked people for not understanding their fairy tales precisely enough or not simply taking the Church’s goodness on faith. Well done.
[3] This portion is cited from memory because the author was too lazy to scrub his way through the video looking for the relevant citation. It’s not like he didn’t try; and the author is quite sure that the paraphrase is quite close enough.
 
Published by marco on in Sports

TV Coverage

 The only reason anyone can niggle about anything about TV coverage is because it does so many things right.[1] And, if you don’t like what Eurosport is showing, switch to another channel that’s showing something else. Other channels, like ORF (Austrian), the triad of Swiss channels (SF, TSR, TSI), and ARD (German) are also showing nearly nonstop coverage. You may not get it in a language you understand – and you may have to adjust your sleep schedule – but if it’s happening, at least one channel is showing it live. And at least one channel will show it at some point in the next 24 hours (with few exceptions).

All in all, the coverage is suffering from the awkward time difference and some mysterious scheduling decisions. The lack of snow and ridiculously high temperatures are having less effect on the quality of their coverage than an overarching love for all things involving cross-country skis. It’s absolutely unbelievable just how much coverage cross-country skiing gets—the pursuit, the sprint, the classic, the freestyle—and its kindred sport, the biathlon. Sure Majdic won a bronze after breaking four ribs just before the race, but it’s not going to happen again: You can look away for a second.

What they do well is show all of the athletes from all of the countries, with very encouraging and fair commentary throughout. The British commentators are hilariously encouraging for their own athletes—“and here’s Britain’s number one skier, Chemmy Alcott […]”—they rarely, if ever, detract from others. And they know their sports, every last one of them. They know who won what where about almost every single athlete; they seem to appreciate how hard it is to even finish seventh once in a world-class event.

The scheduling is killer, though. Though some of the events happen right in European prime-time, many happen in the wee, wee hours of the morning. Speed skating and short-track speed skating are two sports that have gotten tremendously short shrift on all of the channels here (French, German, English, Austrian all carried very little so far). And then, when you’ve watched a full complement of Olympics on Saturday night and get up on Sunday morning to see what you missed when you slept[2], they repeat all of the stuff you saw the previous evening instead of serving up fresh content. It’s somewhat inexplicable.

Nonetheless the coverage is apparently worlds better than some other countries[3] from which I’ve heard reports. There is very little advertising, and a full focus on the sport: Only short interviews and only with athletes—no human-interest bullshit—and usually only after they’ve actually done their event instead of asking them insipid shit about whether they’re nervous or whether they want to win a medal.

Which brings us to the final question of financing model for Eurosport: It’s a complete mystery. Americans are raised to think that sports must consist of 50% commercial content in order to be worth airing. Perhaps the Europeans simply subsidize the hell out of Eurosport so that they do a good job of showing the Olympics rather than struggling to beat a Euro or two out of it. If that’s a socialist wasteland, then I’m staying put, even if just for the Olympics coverage.

Ice Hockey

Krueger’s[4] got his boys all fired up, but they ended up in a tough, tough bracket, playing against first the U.S. then Canada. A 3–1 loss to the U.S. was fair, but Switzerland comported themselves well and certainly were more aggressive on the forecheck. They also managed the final goal to avoid the shutout, which is always good for morale. Next up was a game against Canada that went to a shootout, where NHL star Crosby showed why he gets paid crazy money by finally getting one past the Swiss goalie Hiller.

The U.S.–Canada game was the best so far: It was a pretty impressive performance by both sides. The third period was an offensive tour-de-force, and Miller was super-strong in net, whereas Brodeur was, for once, merely mortal and made at least one costly floppin’-around-on-the-ice error. During the third period, Brodeur was better, but it harked back to his early days with the Devils, when he was stopping 13 shots a game (don’t get me wrong, I was a fan). The Russia/Czech game on the same day (the day of rivalries) was good, but not cracking and the promised Sweden/Finland showdown was more about seething hatred than a great matchup: Finland was outclassed the whole way and took a lot of sniping, nasty penalties (including a game misconduct in the Olympics!).

Ski Jumping

What can you say about Simon Ammann that hasn’t already been said? He put down the two biggest jumps on both hills and strolled his way to two gold medals, head and shoulders above all the rest. The only one who even comes close is Adam Malysz of Poland. All the others are fighting in a single-medal event where the winner gets bronze.

The Austrian jumping team and sports federation showed horrible judgment in complaining about Ammann’s ski bindings, as they must have known they hadn’t a prayer of getting him—or his equipment—disqualified. They must also have strongly suspected that their pathetic attempt at psychological warfare wouldn’t shake him at all. Instead, they got a lot of bad publicity and took home the “sore loser” award (though an Austrian did manage the Bronze in the big hill).

Europort, ordinarily above such things, was inordinately interested for days—even after they’d showed interviews with Olympic officials saying it was all hogwash. Their cameramen focused telescopically on Ammann’s bindings for days; it was kinda funny, actually.

Skiing

Who would have thought that Bode Miller would finally add consistency to his repertoire and medal in every alpine race so far?[5] All eyes were on Lindsay Vonn, who pulled in an impressive gold medal in the downhill, easily mastering a hill that rattled so many others. Her downhill style is so clearly efficient and fast; Bode’s is much more reminiscent of Franz Klammer, with elbows and poles every which way, a little bit of pinwheeling[6] here and there, but still getting down the hill faster than anyone else. You can kind of only watch him with half an eye because you’re fearing the worst the whole time…and he says it himself: Before the Super-G, he said he would go all out and “either get some sort of medal…or give you guys one of the more spectacular crashes you’ve seen in a while.”

The Swiss team is also back in the hunt in alpine sports, with a lot of athletes in the top ten (women and men) and a gold medal (Defago, downhill) and a bronze (Zurbriggen, combined). They’re at least doing better than the Austrians, who’ve collected a gold (Fischbacher, Super-G), which is kind of the yardstick by which the Swiss ski team measures itself these days, for better or worse.

Sliding Events

After a horrifying start, things have settled down a bit, though there have been a lot more injuries and crashes than other years. The danger prompted one Swiss two-man bob to withdraw, which hurt the team’s chances at a medal (the Swiss came in fourth[7]). Most of the athletes have gotten down without injuring themselves too severely, but that shouldn’t really be the standard. The track should punish with time, not with blood.

Sports with Judges

Every year, it’s the same. This year, it starts with the men, where old legends like Elvis Stojko of Canada crawl out of the woodwork to deride ice skating for crowning Lysacek, who’s doing “jumps Boitano did in 1988”. Lysacek doesn’t do any form of quad, though he does some very difficult triple-triple combinations. Stojko makes the good point that the weighting on the scores is ever-more-heavily skewed toward composition rather than technical skill, allowing the judges to pick pretty much whomever they liked the most, rather than the person who did the best technically. That said, I heard that Takahashi blew everyone away artistically and only touched down once (on a quad, ironically). It’s hard to still get incensed about figure skating judging after all these years of watching excellent performers get hosed one way or another.[8]

On a similar note, there’s the judging in the half-pipe competition. Shaun White was clearly head and shoulders above the others, but Iouri Podlatchikov (Swiss, in fourth, naturally) put in a scorching run on his first attempt. He was in a medal position. Then Scott Lago went for his second run and did well, but not amazingly well. His score was 3 points below Iouri’s, as pretty much expected. Ok, no change in ranking there. Then the eventual silver medalist (Piiroinen, Finland) drops into the pipe and does a run similar to Lago’s; the only difference is that he gets a stunning 45 points for it! For comparison, the mind-bogglingly good Shaun White got 46.8 on his first run. WTF? No one really knew where those extra 5 points came from, but there they were, tacked on by the judges. He must have done something super-special, but even the Eurosport judges were mystified. Podlatchikov failed to top that score and fell out of medal contention.

Conclusion: Judged sports still stuck, even in 2010.

Technology

To end on a good note, the Vancouver 2010 is very well put together. All information is available in a fairly easily understandable structure. Go to the figure skating and you can get all the information you could want about a routine: which elements were done, how many points the athlete got and on and on. For timed events, there are all the split times for all of the athletes. Even during the events, the pages all update in near real-time, showing splits during races only seconds after the they show up on TV. Just click the little plus-sign next to an athlete’s name in an event and dig through the treasure-trove of statistics.

[1] This is a very Euro-centric view. For those living in a capitalist wonderland, a free-market panacea … well, how’s that working out for you?
[2] Head Coach of the Swiss National Hockey Team.
[3] Like a weakling.
[4] Yeah, Costas, I’m looking at you.
[5] Bronze in the downhill; silver in the Super-G; gold in the combined at the time of writing.
[6] “Rolling down the windows” as they’ve taken to calling it.
[7] Switzerland owns fourth place. At least it seems that way. It would be worth a statistical analysis to see which country gets the most fourth places per athlete at the games. Maybe we could start a campaign for a leather medal or something, so the Swiss get more.
[8] Remember Lipinski? What were they thinking? Or Cohen? C’mon. How does Michelle Kwan never get an Olympic gold?

 1234567  Next page Last page (287 Pages)