Validation (of sorts)

I've been participating in the local BMW club's forum discussions for a while now. Sometimes asking questions, and sometimes offering opinions. Sometimes I even offer my own observations/opinions regarding driving techniques that I've observed, read about, and occasionally tried on my own (with varying degrees of success.)

Recently I started to participate in a particular thread concerning driving technique where the request had to do with the merits and demerits of a technique called "heel/toe" shifting that was being employed by a young, new professional race driver in a front wheel based series. Later in the thread, my statements were (quietly) validated by another driver whom I personally hold in high regard. *giggle* Here's a link to that thread if you are interested: http://www.bmwpugetsound.com/vbb/showthread.php?p=189579

I think this next year I'm going to really have to plan to spend some more time behind the wheel at driving events. Definitely going to have to make it to a few autocrosses (the cheapest way to drive) and hopefully be able to afford to make a couple of club track days... Time to make my magnetic numbers, I guess.

Today's "deep thought"

Well, it's been a fairly slow, although still quite productive day. Unfortunately, there isn't really anything so remotely interesting to say, so there's no deep thoughts available. Sorry for the false alarm. :)

About small digital cameras

Someone asked me about buying a small point & click digital camera today, and I thought the following info might be helpful to others in the hunt for information...

The original question concerned what was better, and how they were different: Digital or Optical Zoom, and what would I recomend...

Here is how I responded (based on a knowledge of the needs of the person I was responing to. Your needs may vary.):
Optical zoom is good, digital zoom is bad. Digital zoom is similar to making an enlargement of the center of a photo -- loss of quality.

Recomendations really depend on budget and preferred camera size. There are some really good cameras in the $300 price range that are small.

A good place to do a little research is on http://www.dpreview.com - has a lot of info to digest, but has some fairly clear explanations of what is what. Also has a decent "buyers guide" that might help, and lots of reviews that you can compare to models that you are looking at.

There's a lot of models. I'd actually suggest going to a big camera store, and talking to someone. Don't let them upsell you beyond your budget. Start with a budget $50 lower than initial planning (for a 512MB or larger memory card and a case.)

Ask to see models that are in the same price range as what they initially show you. Ask why they suggest one over the other. Ask how the different features work, and how to access the menu systems. Especially how to turn on/off the flash.

You want a camera that is in the 3-5 "mega pixel" range (you don't NEED more than that, although if it's within your budget, go for it - more is better, but you pay for it.)

Select a camera that:
1) feels good in your hands
2) is easy to operate (including menus)
3) feels sturdy, operates cleanly, isn't clunky or grindy

PS - in that price range, there will be a great deal of better cameras coming out within the next few years. Don't let them sell you "protection". The cost of the protection is half the cost of a new camera should you actually need to use it. And if you need to use it, there will be newer, better stuff out by then.

This weekend...

This weekend I did quite a lot. I washed both cars and the teardrop trailer. I covered the trailer. We had an IGGY playdate at our home. We went to the farmer's market. We went to the Canine Festival, and talked to a great many people. I returned Chuck's dolly in Snohomish. We washed Sophia. Played with cats, wathced movies, drank wine.

It was a nice movie. Could have been less work, but could have been a great deal more.

And it rained.

Finally.

Have a good week.

It shouldn't be about where it comes from...

On the way home today it struck me that there's a lot of noise in the media these days about "reducing our dependency on foreign oil." I don't think that people are thinking about the right problem description, though.

Here's how it breaks down:
What is the problem? Dependency.
What is it we are dependent on? Oil.
Does where that oil originate really make a difference to the problem? I don't think so.

So, to re-write the better target, it would be "Reducing our dependency on oil." Period.

Does converting farm land into a production method for biofuels really solve that issue? How much of the product would the production process use if it was powered by it's own end product? I mean, how much oil does it take to power the equipment to produce biofuel? How much biofuel would it take if it wasn't using regular petroleum based fuels? Is it a positive net gain?

And that's my food for thought this afternoon.

Let's try this again...

Due to a minor mishap with the pop-up blocker, I lost a post (sigh) so I'll do my best to recreate it here and now. I am going to try taking 5-10 minutes a day to write about random topics. Just an exercise. Hope you enjoy it.

---

What if "signals" were visible?


What if "signals" (radio, cellular, WiFi, ad nauseum) where visible like dust in the air, or fog? Or would it be like a source of dim light? Would we be walking around in a thin haze, or a thick soup? What would the Earth appear to be like from out there? Would it be shrouded in fog, like Jupiter? Would it glow with the signals like a small star?

What would a house, sitting alone on a beach, connected only by hardlines but with it's own WiFi network look like? Would it be hidden in a sphere of fog that increases in density as you get closer? Would it have a texture, throwing out spikes of signal, as the materials of the construction block or weaken the radiating signals? How about a cell phone radiating a Bluetooth cloud, would the people using such devices look like they were enclosed in a soft blue bubble, or even a double-bubble as the headset they were using created it's own secondary cloud?

I wonder what it would have been like to watch the Earth as the proliferation of signals commenced over the last hundred fifty or so years? With the beginning of radio, and then adding TV, microwave, aircraft radar, the advent of cellular, and now WiFi and Bluetooth. How fast is the fog thickening, I wonder?