Under a Gibbous Moon

GM is developing its next generation heads up display system. Unlike previous systems, this will use a system of specially treated glass and small lasers to utilize the entire screen as a display.

In addition to the gauges, this system will enable the driver access to enhanced night vision capabilities. Cameras mounted on the car will locate road features (signs, lane striping, etc) and “highlight” them on your windshield.

I imagine this type of technology will enable integration with GPS systems so that way the directions will be drawn directly on the windshield, notification of other vehicles in the car’s blind spots, and the ability to send nasty messages to the windshield of the guy who just cut you off.

Technology like this is very exciting, even if it is probably a decade or more away for cars that regular people can afford. Of course, with such advances, it must be said, where the hell are my flying cars?

Tweet this!

Gnome, for those who don’t know, is a Graphical User Interface for Linux. It’s the default GUI that ships with Ubuntu. I’ve used Gnome off and on for several years and for that time it has been reminiscent of Mac OS.

The main task bar runs along the top of the screen with another bar running along the bottom that lists the various windows that you have open. A whole gallery of widgets can also bad added (along with additional bars) to further customize your experience. Gnome also supports multiple virtual desktops which I find to be exceptionally useful to organize all the different programs and windows that I have running at any given time.

Gnome 3, which will come by default with the next version of Ubuntu, is available for testing via the following code:

sudo apt-get install gnome-shell

This will install the proper packages, then restart and run

gnome-shell –replace

This will close out your Gnome 2.x and start Gnome 3. Gnome 3 is a complete overhaul. The first thing that you will notice is that there is no longer a bottom bar. The application menu has been replaced with an Activities menu. When you drop it down there is a menu on the left that has all of you applications and recent documents. On the right, the space is used to display your desktops and thumbnails of all the windows contained within. This screen is now used to switch between running applications (you can also bring up this menu with the Windows key or switch applications with alt-tab as usual). Virtual desktops are no handled more fluidly with a ‘Plus’ button to add more desktops and then each additional desktop having a minus button the remove it.

The system setting have been consolidated under the user menu in the upper right corner. There is also a sidebar option for those who can’t get by without some type of bar on the screen.

Now, for the things I don’t like. Most of these complaints, I believe are do to it not being fully integrated into the distribution. The IM button is gone and there doesn’t seem to be a way to customize the activities button. Of course, this completely different way of organizing your desktops introduces a learning curve to Gnome 3.

I do like it, I wonder if it is such a good idea since it could add yet another hurdle to adoption by Windows based users. I’ve alsoread of graphics instability (though haven’t experienced any) but that is probably due to its relatively early development phase and will hopefully be ironed out by the final release.

The recent document menu, which is something that the Gnome developers are obsessed with, is far too prominent. It takes up almost half of the application menu. While hopefully it will be customizable but I doubt it given that the Gnome developers have been unwilling to even give you the option to turn it off.

Finally, you cannot kill a window from the activities menu without bringing it into focus first. This just adds completely unnecessary step to something that people do very regularly.

In conclusion, I do like Gnome 3. The new interface is slick, much faster, and I see how it can be a dramatic improvement over other GUIs that I have used. It currently has some shortcomings that I hope will be addressed in future releases, particularly with regard to being more customizable.

Tweet this!

Recently, on Twitter, I responded to Anil Dash’s rather acerbic comment (which her promptly rescinded, no doubt under duress when when Apple’s stormtroopers kicked in his door) on how Apple periodically likes to make their products incompatible with everything else. I commented back about how my Bose Sound Dock will not charge my iPod Touch.

Thirty-four minutes later, I was contacted by Bose Service who stated that they had seen my tweet and wanted to help. I figured what the hell. I figured that they were maybe handing out adapters to fix the problem (either for free or a small charge) but no, after a little back and forth I found this out.

So here I am, stuck with a less functional sound dock with my only option being to spend $99 to “fix” it or just buy a new one. Ya, thanks but no thanks.

I would like to add a note that I don’t just a problem with Bose (though I am severely disappointed with their “in ear head phones” that only stay in when you sit perfectly still”) on this but also with Apple. It takes real disdain to hand out licenses to make third party accessories and then fuck them over like that.

In this case, Apple screws over the accessory maker who then screws over their existing customer base. Like they say, shit rolls down hill.

Tweet this!

A new article from Wired showcases the 2011 Ford Mustang which comes standard with a 305 horsepower V6 and has an EPA rated highway mileage of 31.

One of the first comments struck me as interesting.

Posted by: fletc3her | 03/4/10 | 4:50 pm |

I think it’s great that the auto industry is starting to improve mileage even in sports cars and muscle cars. But, I do wonder what the actual day to day mileage of one these cars will be. If you push the car to get the advertised 0-60 speed then you are not going to get the advertised mileage. Less powerful cars force the driver to drive efficiently simply by virtue of not having enough horsepower to waste a lot of gas.

He says that less powerful cars force the driver to be more efficient because it simply does not have the power. Apparently he believes that an increase in horsepower necessitates a drop in fuel economy. It is true that they tend to be highly correlated but vehicle performance is more complicated than that.

For a brief primer, horsepower is a measurement  of work with work being force expended over a distance. The next big engine measurement is torque. Torque is a measure of instantaneous force and typically refers to a twisting action, in the case of an internal combustion engine, the crankshaft acting upon the input shaft of the transmission.

Torque is then multiplied through the gears in the transmission (or divided in the case of an overdriven gear). It is then multiplied one last time in the rear differential before being divided by the wheels (think of them as really big gears).

The power output of the engine varies with engine speed, torque reaching its peak before horsepower. When these peaks are reached varies from engine to engine but it is the gear multiplication that picks up the slack at low engine speeds.

The reason that this is important is that the engine is most efficient when it is producing the most power. This is why mileage in the “city” is always worse than “highway”, you are constantly running the vehicle through the lower and less efficient RPMs. An excellent example is watching the black smoke on a diesel from a stop. Diesels are very inefficient at low RPMs and the momentary black smoke is cause by a lot of unburnt fuel. Physics also comes into play, with regards friction and momentum (it takes a lot of energy to move a vehicle from a stop than it is to just keep going).

This brings me back to my earlier point about “forcing efficiency”. Smaller displacement engines (four cylinder and even smaller six cylinder) have very high power peaks four, five, and even six thousand RPMs. The little power that the engine does produce does not actually come into play for a long time. As stated earlier, this is overcome through the use of aggressive gearing. This has the dual purpose of multiplying torque and spinning up the engine faster.

The interesting thing about this, is that the smaller engine (in a similar weight and shaped vehicle) is working harder than a larger engine would. It uses less fuel simply by virtue of having a smaller displacement.

This comes back the Mustang mentioned in the beginning of this post. It (and the new Camero) are part of a new breed of small displacement, high power engines. While this is not a new trend (think of when the Mustang dropped the 5.0 for the 4.7). it has been accelerating due to rising fuel costs.

This extra power, gives you the ability to motivate the vehicle with less effort (fuel) which is why you are now seeing amazing performance in vehicles with mileage ratings once associated with compact cars.

Tweet this!

This is a fascinating article, I am fairly certain that very few people have been so completely wrong about so many things in such a short period of time. While, in the comments section, many, many, many people have piled upon the author for this work, I personally have thrown back my memory to that prehistoric time, 15 years ago…

The Internet circa 1995

It was around this time that I saw my first commercial for the Internet. It wasn’t for any specific company (that I can remember) nor did they seem to be selling anything. The scene was at a rather quiet house party. The lights were low and a couple were talking in one corner he hands her (or vice versa) a piece of paper on it with his/her email address on it (a what!?). The tag line of the commercial was that one day our email address would be more important than our phone number. (continue reading…)

Tweet this!