I was thinking about how it was unfair that blind people aren’t allowed to drive cars just because they can’t see anything. I guess it is important to be able to see where you are going and where things are on the road. Not driving is one solution, but I have scienced together a better solution.

Lots of modern cars come equipped with all kinds of sensors to help bad drivers not crash all the time. One of these devices is the parking sensor, as seen below.

Look out!

So they have already adapted sonar to be used in cars, so all we need to do is put a bunch of more powerful sensors all over the car to generate a map of the environment. Here’s a technical diagram I made in Paint:

Scientific diagram

From the data generated by the sensors, we can create a 3d soundscape with objects represented by different tones. All we need now is a good set of 7.1 headphones to send the generated soundscape through.

When this system is implemented, we can stop discriminated against blind people or people who just want to read a good book on the road. Bats, dolphins, and submarines can see with sound and now you can, too!

Filed under: Commentary, General by StevoTVR
No Comments »

I made a previous post making the case for legalizing marijuana, but I’ll go one big step further and say that all recreational drugs should be legal to use. Before that, though, I want to clarify that I don’t use any recreational drugs, and generally disapprove of their use (especially the addictive drugs). Though a little LSD never hurt anyone…

It’s a fact that people all over the world have access to these substances whether they are legal or not. The government can’t control them to any degree of effectiveness. Prohibiting a substance simply gives up all control of the substance to the criminals.

Allowing a reputable company produce potentially harmful substances sounds infinitely better than trusting criminals to do the same. I believe that if drugs are legalized, it would not only make them safer to obtain and use, but it would put dealers out of business and drive away the cartels.

It’s also my opinion that people should be allowed to put whatever they want into their bodies, as long as doing so doesn’t put others in danger. If they do something bad while under the influence, then they accept responsibility for those actions.

Filed under: Commentary by StevoTVR
No Comments »

I’ve been playing with Google+ since I got an invite a few days ago. My first impression was that it was a much simpler version of Facebook with a few major differences. The most obvious is the procedure for adding people to your network, which involves circles. Read their site for details about all the features.

What I like about Google+, at least in its current state, is its simplicity. It doesn’t have a bunch of noisy apps that I have to hide. It’s simply people talking to each other using words, which is how I think it should be on a social network.

I don’t know what to think about the circles yet, since I don’t have a lot of people on there yet to sort. I do like the fact that you can use it like Twitter by adding people to a circle to follow their public posts, or like Facebook where they also add you to make it a two-way connection. I also find the interface fun to use…

What I don’t like about Google+ is that there’s barely anyone I know on there yet, and a social network is less useful if you don’t know anyone. Hopefully that will change soon.

People are referring to Google+ as a Facebook replacement. However, that can only be true if the majority of your Facebook friends make the switch. Most mainstream users aren’t going to want to maintain two social profiles, and I just don’t see the majority of these users abandoning Facebook right away. I think a lot of the less technical users are perfectly content with Facebook, and will require much motivation to make the switch.

By the way, my profile can be found in the links on the right. Also, comment here if you want an invite!

Filed under: Commentary, Misc. Reviews, Reviews by StevoTVR
No Comments »

…is that they help people forget about the terrible diseases they prevent.

Some people have an unfounded fear of the vaccines that outweighs their fear of the diseases. This is illogical and borders on insanity. All of these diseases have a risk of death, while the vaccines have a risk of minor adverse reactions like rashes. I don’t know about you, but a rash sounds better than death.

From what I can see, the anti-vaccine argument is based on beliefs rather than facts, with oversimplified pseudoscience used to back up those beliefs. The argument is treated like a religion to believers and no amount of evidence will convince them that it is wrong.

Based on my observations, when the anti-vaccine parent is presented with too many facts, they put up the “my child, my decision” defense. When it comes to issues like violent video games, the internet, and curfew I can respect that. However, when it comes to matters of life and death, that defense simply does not work.

Not vaccinating an individual not only exposes that individual to unnecessary risks, but also exposes the surrounding population to increased risk. To justify this, there better be strong evidence that the vaccines are unsafe, and that evidence has yet to be presented.

To be honest, I found this topic difficult to research and I don’t claim to know all the facts. I’m still not sure how much risk all the vaccines actually have. I do, however, know that the scientific consensus is that the benefits of the vaccines greatly outweigh the risks, and I trust science over paranoia.

Sources (of inspiration):

• Measles outbreak hits Europe, most cases in France; WHO blames lack of vaccinations
• The anti-vaccine movement as a religion with Andrew Wakefield as its prophet?

Filed under: Commentary by StevoTVR
No Comments »

Don’t taze my junk, bro?

What’s with this sudden uproar about airport security recently? Every day I see multiple articles and stories about the terrible things the TSA is doing to travelers in the name of security. Take away all the weighted words and claims of constitutional rights being violated, and these stories simply come down to whining.

People are referring to the pat-down searches as “groping,” “fondling,” or “sexual assault” when none of these terms are accurate. There’s nothing sexual about these searches. There may be incidental touching of the genital region, but they are only interested in any foreign objects that may exist. If contact with gloves and several layers of fabric between you is considered sexual assault, I don’t want to know what you think of a standard physical exam.

Then there’s the claims that these searches somehow violate the Constitution. If you can point out the part that grants you the right to unconditionally board commercial aircraft, then you might have a case. The only real right you have here is the option to not fly.

The good news for people who prefer not to be touched by strangers is that there’s new technology that can see through your clothes without any contact required. But wait, it turns out people have a problem with this as well. I guess the main issue is that these images are too revealing. However, from what I read, it turns out that the people seeing these images are far away and can’t see the subject’s face. So I don’t see that as an issue. Another argument is the health risks from radiation exposure, but you’re already exposed to more radiation in a few minutes of a flight. What’s a little extra going to do?

The truth is that some people will do bad things given the opportunity. History shows us that commercial flights are a target, so now we have these new rules to go by when we choose to travel by air. One person can threaten the lives of every other passenger and potentially others. So in order to board a flight, you have to prove that you don’t have any dangerous objects. Deal with it.

However, maybe there are arguably better alternatives to the current strategy, as I’ve read in this interesting article about Israel’s airports.

And I’ll close with this link to a humorous anecdote.

Filed under: Commentary by StevoTVR
2 Comments »

Internet piracy has been a huge problem ever since residential connections were fast enough to make it practical. Now it is trivial to download practically any commercial content for free, whether it’s music, movies, or software. Whether or not someone pirates now comes down to a moral issue.

One of the most common rationalizations for piracy I hear is that everyone does it. It seems that most pirates are in this mindset, especially in the younger demographic. While it may be true that piracy is very popular, that is in no way a valid justification. If everyone does it, then everyone is guilty just the same.

Another rationalization is that downloading a digital copy of something does not actually cost anyone anything. However, the fact is that when you buy a hard copy of something, you’re actually paying for the production costs of the content, not the physical medium. This rationalization does not hold up to any amount of scrutiny; I don’t even know why I addressed it.

Regardless of which rationalization(s) one subscribes to, most don’t seem to recognize digital piracy as theft. Most offenders are otherwise honest, law abiding citizens. So it is interesting to me how these same people can have no moral objections to piracy, which simply comes down to taking commercial property without paying for it. I guess it’s a moral blind spot.

DRM (A Solution?)

In response to rampant piracy, publishers have responded to the problem by attempting to stop it directly. This has resulted in often misguided attempts at controlling the flow of data in the form of DRM (digital rights management) schemes.

The problem with DRM is that it puts unnecessary restrictions on honest consumers, such as how many times data can be transferred between devices. Worse yet, it hardly makes a dent in preventing piracy. All it takes is one smart pirate to bypass the protection, and it is now available to the rest. DRM is ineffective.

Unfortunately, piracy cannot be stopped. As long as the opportunity exists, people will steal. Digital piracy is easy for anyone to do and it’s a very low-risk crime, so it is here to stay.

A Real Solution

So what is the solution? There are many more clever things that artists and publishers are doing that I recognize as effective solutions.

The first step is acceptance. Publishers need to accept that piracy will happen, and incorporate this assumption into their plans.

It is important to make it as easy and accessible as possible for consumers to purchase content. For music we have individual track downloads via services like iTunes and Amazon. For movies we have Netflix, which allows unlimited instant streaming with a subscription.

In the case of music, artist are turning to alternative income sources and relying less on record sales. This includes live performances and merchandise sales.

Something else that helps offset the damage is to make use of online social media for viral advertising. Not only does this save on advertising costs, in the case of music it can also make consumers feel closer to the artist, which probably helps deter piracy (people might feel more guilty).

Unfortunately, there’s not much that can be done about software piracy. Possibly moving commercial software into the “cloud” might work. Commercial software has bigger problems anyway, since free and open source software is surpassing the quality of commercial products.

DO NOT PIRATE

The best solution to piracy is for the individuals to stop doing it. The less piracy that exists, the more profitable the business is. Not only will this increase the quality of content, it will allow more variety in the content. In terms of music, this can translate to lesser known artists getting more exposure.

If you are guilty of piracy yourself (even I was at one point), I urge you to stop now. If you can’t afford all the music you’d like to have, there are alternatives such as Internet radio (Pandora, Last.fm) and subscription based plans. There’s just no excuse for piracy.

Bonus: Amusing Anecdote

I am subscribed to the official Valve mailing lists for HLDS, which is the server software for their games. Everyone once in a while, a user will pop in asking why their cracked server isn’t working. When they’re are told that they won’t get support from official channels, they usually act all surprised. They’re usually from another country where it seems piracy is an expected behavior.

I just find it funny when someone expects to get official support for their pirated software. That’s like stealing a car and then asking the owner why the stereo doesn’t work.

Filed under: Commentary by StevoTVR
No Comments »

The other day I was reviewing some of the tutorials I’ve written over the past few years and found something disturbing. For some reason I decided to copy the introduction paragraph into Google to see what appears. I expected to see my site and maybe some tutorial link listing sites, but I found something more…

I followed the link to some tech forum and found my tutorial posted there in its entirety, without any mention of the source. I was a little shocked by the blatant plagiarism of content, so I registered and posted my displeasure in a reply. Curiosity then had me searching my other tutorials to see what else may have been ripped off.

I found that this same site had copied several other tutorials without giving credit. So I replied to each one with an increasingly harsh tone. In that process I also found some other sites that had done the same thing, but I didn’t feel like going through the trouble of pursuing each one.

After a little bit, I received a message from the site owner (who was the poster of most of the offending posts):

“Hi

[redacted] is a 100% non-profit (non-advertising) organisation formed to help the engineering community. Hosting for the site and every other expense is covered within our team. We do not earn monet form the site in any mean.

However, I apologise for the misbehaviour. We might have missed the copyright status of your articles. Forgive us for that. Link to your site is added at the end of every page that was copied.

I would like to welcome you to work with [redacted] to share knowledge beyond borders, limits, etc….

Best Regards,

[redacted]“

That last part is funny. The rest is just bullshit. It doesn’t matter if you make money, you don’t just copy someone’s work without attribution or permission. I thought this was just common knowledge or at least common decency, but I guess I was wrong…

Sharing knowledge is great, and there’s nothing getting in the way of doing that without committing plagiarism. I think the standard excepted method is to post a short excerpt along with a link to the source. Remember those tutorial listing sites I mentioned? That’s exactly what they do.

Anyway, I write tutorials primarily to share knowledge. I also do it to gain exposure, which of course requires that people know that I was the one who wrote it. The positive side of this is that someone found value in my writing, so I must be doing something right. I just think that people should respect the author when they find something useful.

Filed under: Commentary by StevoTVR
4 Comments »

Here in California, one of the popular topics is immigration and protecting our borders. People are always talking about how to deal with illegal immigration. However, I find the concept of national borders flawed.

When land is originally purchased or granted, it makes sense because it comes from the government. What doesn’t have a solid explanation is how the government can claim ownership of the land in the first place. I guess it basically comes down to calling dibs on an area.

The only thing allowing us to safely claim our territory is the ability to enforce the claim with force from the military. On a moral standpoint, one can choose not to recognize the borders that separate nations. Obviously, the real world is a different story.

In an ideal world, any person should be allowed to move to any part of the planet as they wish, restricted only by what is physically possible. It shouldn’t matter where they happened to be born. But in reality, we are all restricted by some invisible hypothetical lines dividing the earth.

It’s also interesting to note that many other species of animals have the same tendency to claim territory and protect it with force.

On Immigration

I find it silly that we go to such great lengths to control who can cross the border. We put up these massive walls and devote a lot of resources to patrolling those walls (mostly talking about the US/Mexico border; I don’t know much about the Canadian border). I think it sends a really negative message to put up walls to keep people out.

I understand the need to control the flow of people into the country, but it should be for the right reason. The only reason I support is the protection of the citizens from criminals and terrorists. Since this is far from an ideal world and people want to do bad things, protecting the borders is a necessary evil.

An example of a reason I don’t support is that the immigrants will “take our jobs.” I just think this comes from an unfounded sense of entitlement. And I obviously strongly disagree with any racially motivated reasons.

Filed under: Commentary by StevoTVR
No Comments »

Why? People ask this simple question every day, but they can never get the real answer. You can follow the chain of causality until you reach a dead end, where pure randomness takes effect. At this point, there is no reason. This is also where the Universe is open to interpretation.

So what are the possible interpretations of randomness? I can see two main sides to this question. One could argue that it is the work of a divine force (God), and is the vehicle with which it interacts with the physical world. Others would counter that there is no evidence of this, and that randomness is just what it is (arbitrary). I argue that either of these arguments is valid, since the truth is unknown and unknowable.

This is something people need to understand when it comes to arguments between science and religion. For example, it is because of the above statements that evolution and creationism are not mutually exclusive. It is pretty obvious that every animal didn’t just appear out of nowhere as they are today, and that evolution does in fact occur.

The question that remains is whether the initial series of random events that created the first organism was under the control of some form of intelligence. This is something science is unable to answer.

So what is your interpretation?

Filed under: Commentary by StevoTVR
No Comments »

I’ve never really paid too much attention to politics. I’ve always found it boring and irrelevant to my life. It seems to always come down to arguing about who is right and who is wrong on questions that have no right answer. Since there is no right answer, people tend to pick a side arbitrarily and stick with it. This essentially forms two teams in a big glorified game, the outcome of which is capable of affecting the lives of everyone in the country and sometimes more.

It’s not really a bad thing in and of itself, since voters want two choices. So having two main groups to pay attention to makes it more likely that voters can make an informed decision. So the way the process works for electing government officials seems to work alright.

The problem lies in the way laws are created. It seems that the people in congress are disconnected with reality, so all they have is the game. Their goal is to keep their team in the lead by any means necessary. This is usually a good thing because it means they’re making the decisions that they think most people want, which is their job as a representative of the public.

It’s when the game has nothing to do with what is good for the public, that the game is a bad thing. Like when they add in some extra, unrelated crap to a bill just to sneak it into law.

Anyway, the real point I’m trying to make is that politics are a little silly.

Filed under: Commentary by StevoTVR
No Comments »