Microsoft Tag vs. QR tag

Micro$oft Tag



QR Code


Many short-sighted (and lazy) organizations are quickly jumping on the Micro$oft Tag bandwagon because Micro$oft gives them ready-made statistics and data and tools to manage it. They don't seem to realize that all the same data could easily be obtained on their own servers without exposing themselves or their customers to the security risks involved with the Micro$oft system.

The Micro$oft Tag can allegedly hold more data than the QR code, but what's actually true is that the Micro$oft Tag is just a link to data on their server, so even though the actual code holds less data than a QR code it can retrieve more data. In actual practice, that doesn't seem to happen, though. And while generating a Micro$oft Tag requires licensing their technology, generating QR codes is free and can even be done on the Web. (See here, for example.)

The biggest difference between the two codes is what you don't see: Micro$oft tracks everything related to their tags (including your gps location if available) the instant you scan them, while QR tags can only be tracked if you allow them to be. Micro$oft wants to own all the data related to mobile barcode scanning so they can sell it. QR codes simply give you plain text information encoded within the graphic itself. Micro$oft Tags require an Internet connection to Micro$oft's servers to decode, QR codes are totally offline. Micro$oft Tags (and their apps) are a huge security risk, QR codes are not.

I am amused at the person that goes at great length into all the encryption that can be done with Micro$oft Tags (and avoids the fact that the capability to encrypt QR tags DOES EXIST) and ignores the fact that it's utterly irrelevant. QR codes are offline, and therefore communication encryption is irrelevant because zero information is being transmitted. As for the the information in the code itself, why anybody would want to encrypt that is totally beyond me, as it utterly defeats the purpose of the code, and there are *much* better ways to send "secret messages"...

Then there's the fact that the Micro$oft Tag app requires permissions that it has no legitimate reason for needing, and those permissions allow them to track things on your phone (including your location and phone call details) that have nothing whatsoever to do with the tags themselves.

Bottom Line: Do everybody a favor and stay as far away from Micro$oft Tags as you can get.

The Real Dope: This is a very real opportunity for Micro$oft to challenge Google in the consumer data business, but in a far more insidious and nefarious way. Be afraid. Be very afraid!

Links:
QR Code
Microsoft Tag (also inappropriately named High Capacity Color Barcode by Microsoft)

Amazon's (Mis)Fire

Amazon's new Kindle Fire is a huge disappointment. I'm not going to prognosticate; as far as I know, there are millions of clueless souls out there who will shell out their hard-earned cash for a product that is almost totally useless. Any other tablet out there can do anything that the Fire can do, and even the cheapest, most limited hardware out there can do a whole lot more than the Fire. Without a front camera, GPS, bluetooth, card slot and Android Market, what's the point? Really? Somebody please tell me!

I could understand a full-color Kindle that otherwise only does what any other Kindle can do. But something that runs Android should be able to do at least a majority of the things that other Android devices can do. This one can't. It's a one-trick pony that can't even do its one trick particularly well, certainly no better than any other device. With its LCD screen, it doesn't even have the advantage of outdoor readability as does a regular Kindle. Even at $199 there are cheaper tablets that can do absolutely anything the Fire can do, and a whole lot more besides.

Bottom Line: Attempting to confine a huge market into a small proprietary space is rarely successful.

The Real Dope: This is yet another attempt to take an open market and turn it into a closed, proprietary one. The hardware of the Fire is so amazingly limited that it is unlikely to have any long-term effect on any market. It's not worth hacking for full-fledged Android because the result will be so limited by absent hardware. Somebody at Amazon has lost their mind.

Seein' ain't believin'

Okay, so there's this article on Gizmodo about a supposed "optical illusion"...

Here's proof that it is not an illusion and is in fact just a matter of physics:

The original image (click to embiggen):

My version of the image (click to embiggen):

Note that the colors are identical, they are just arranged differently. Especially note that the center squares at the bottom are not only the same color, they actually still appear to be about the same color even though they are "surrounded" by different colors.

The truth is that it's not really an "illusion", it's just a matter of reaching the threshold of granularity beyond which individual colors are no longer perceptible and they are "mixed" or "averaged" instead. The exact same principle is at work in your computer monitor and your inkjet printer and nearly every other representation of color in the universe.

Lest you respond with "that only applies to things that are smaller than the resolution of your rods and cones", I must remind you that different wavelengths of light are bent to different degrees by prisms and lenses, and the very first thing that meets light as it hits your eyeball is in fact a lens. As an eyeglass wearer, I can tell you that my eyeglass lenses do that to a degree that is not only perceptible on a much larger scale, it is at times frustrating and aggravating. So yes, the different colors are actually mixed by the lens of your eyeball before it ever gets to your retina, and it is in fact a matter of physics and not only a matter of subjective perception or "how your brain works".

It is interesting to me that the shrunken versions above (before you click on them) exaggerate the effect even further, by making the colors in the spirals appear different than the colors in the original version. (Compare the spiral with the boxes to the right in my version to see what I mean.) That's because the optical properties become more pronounced and the compression algorithm that resizes the images does the same thing digitally that your eyes are doing physically. After all, you can't say "the computer is fooled"; it's just following a set of rules analogous to a lens: Pixels get averaged with their neighbors.

Bottom Line: Don't believe everything you read - especially on the Internet!

The Real Dope: Be cautious of "plausible" explanations. Often people are deliberately leading you astray, but even more often they are just clueless know-it-alls trying to bluff their way into respectability.

Lucas' Let-Down

All the hate being spewed at George Lucas for updating the original "Star Wars Trilogy" is both tiresome and puzzling. Tiresome because everybody and their dog loves to chime in, puzzling because some of it is from people who should know better.

For anybody who's not familiar with the subject, when they decided to remaster and re-release the Trilogy a number of years ago, Lucas seized the opportunity that new technology afforded to update and insert a few scenes. Some of the special effects were redone and a few critters were digitally inserted, and one scene in particular was re-edited to have Greedo shoot and miss Han Solo before being decimated. (See Han shot first and changes in Star Wars re-releases).

So the gist of the chorus goes something like this: "How dare George Lucas ruin my life by altering the subject of my favorite childhood memories!" A common refrain is "George Lucas stole my childhood!"

My response is: "Really?" George Lucas "stole your childhood"?

First, in order for that to be anything close to true, you would have had to not experience childhood. Not only is that obviously not the case, anybody who has this attitude is clearly still smack in the middle of their childhood, regardless of the fact that they may be middle aged....

Second, how pathetic do you have to be to be so immersed in a fantasy world that changes to a film blow your world apart?

Third, few ever get the chance to revise and re-release films in order to more closely match their own vision and imagination. The bottom line is that the Star Wars Universe belongs to George Lucas and no one else. Fanfic notwithstanding, it is George Lucas' imagination that spawned the idea and the original stories, and he has every right to do whatever he wishes with them. I for one am happy for him that he got a chance that few (if any) others have. After all, when classic films are remade, frequently they are no better than the original and all too often they are not as good. But the remakes are often very successful and sometimes even applauded. So what's wrong with an individual getting a rare chance for a "do-over" to overcome limitations of the original project and express his personal views more clearly?

And lastly, shame on those who are themselves artists or creative types and should understand that sometimes their work suffers because of limitations of many different kinds, including fiscal, technological, temporal, and sometimes even the political climate of the day. Haven't you ever wished that you had a chance to change something that you did in the past? Or are sour grapes keeping you from admitting that sometimes hindsight is better than foresight, and second chances shouldn't be wasted?

Bottom Line: If ever there were truth to the expression "Get a Life!", it's regarding this issue.

The Real Dope: Unless it is specifically designated as Nonfiction or Documentary, it's all about escape and fantasy, not realism. If you get lost in the contradictions, errors or craftmanship of a piece of art, you're not only missing the point entirely, you're really doing harm to your own experience of life.

Apple: Beauty Is Only Skin Deep

Let's face it: Apple products are for Luddites. Here's the typical Apple product user's comments:
1) It's slick, smooth and attractive. It's stylish.
2) I don't have to figure things out.
3) I don't have to make choices.
4) I don't care how the thing works. I just want it to work.
5) It's easy.
6) It's intuitive.
7) "The technology gets out of your way."
8) It doesn't crash.
9) It doesn't get viruses.
10) It's better for graphic/video editing.

And the truth:
1) Well, if you like staring at a blank sheet of paper or a blank wall, then Apple's your thing. Minimalism at its worst. Style over function. One (or few), button that forces you to go deep into submenus or scroll forever to get to what you want to do, or it's just not there at all. Personally, I prefer to be able to tell the top from the bottom, and to me style means form, not formlessness.
2) Because there's nothing to figure out. What you see is what you get, and since Apple tells you what, where, when and how to think, it's easy.
3) Apple forces you to do things one way: their way. If your mind doesn't work exactly the same way, that's tough. Forget about alternate ways of doing and getting at things.
4) Ultimate luddite attitude. It might take some modicum of effort to understand what's going on. And then other people might ask you the questions that you're asking everybody else. Instead of understanding so that you never have to ask a question... The fact is, if you understand just a little about how the thing works, not only will it no longer be this vague scary thing but you'll know much better how to make it work for you. You'll be able to do things that right now you can't even imagine.
5) It's easy because there's nothing to it. Literally. Want to change your wallpaper on your iPhone? Tough! Apple makes things easy by not allowing you to do anything different or useful with their products.
6) If by "intuitive" you mean totally illogical, backwards, disorganized, limiting and inefficient...
7) This one really makes me stabby. The only way for "technology to get out of your way" is for you to not use technology. Which in most cases means you'll take ten times as long, have a far less polished and professional result, and everyone will laugh at you. Yes, poorly written and buggy programs can be frustrating and take more time and energy than they should. That's the beauty of non-Apple products: they all give you lots of choices, so if one program or app doesn't work well, just ditch it and find something that does. With Apple products, your choices are quite limited. They have a much smaller market share, so they're not worth many developers spending lots of time and energy on. The iOS situation is only slightly different: they claim many more apps in their App store, except most of them are fluff or identical to most of the others only with a different "skin". Apple's requirements are such that doing something truly unique and different with an iOS device is pretty much impossible.
8) This one is just an out-and-out lie. I've watched Apple computers crash and burn in just as many ways and just as many times as the others. If yours hasn't crashed then it's probably because it's still pretty much the way it came out of the box, with nothing else ever having been installed. Windows machines are just as reliable if treated the same way. And Linux (which Apple stole for OS X) crashes too.
9) Because they are not a target because they are too few to spend the energy on. And there do happen to be a few, it's just hard for them to spread because... wait for it... there isn't a big enough presence on the Internet for them to consistently and effectively network with each other. If they were the dominant product, they would not be any less susceptible to malware than the current dominant product is.
10) This has almost never been true. Apple hardware has always been less powerful (and at a much higher price point) than PC hardware, and much less flexible. The limiting factor has been software, but even that is mostly a self-perpetuating myth. People who want to be "cool" and "elite" always have used Apple because they knew that most people didn't and therefore wouldn't know any better than to believe them when they made those claims. There was a time in the video and photo industries when Apple was where most of the companies were putting their efforts and money, primarily because of the myth, but that hasn't been true for a very long time. Apple tried very hard to keep things in their court with with nearly proprietary hardware (remember Firewire? and they're still trying with stuff like Display Port), but fortunately the horse has left the gate and with the speed of technological progress companies are gradually finding out (are you listening, Sony?) that striking off on their own is a waste of resources and finding common ground is a much better solution.

Now, what's the truth with Windows machines?

First, a little clarification: "crash" doesn't mean what it used to. Neither does "bug". Way back when, when a computer crashed you didn't just reboot and go right on working. When a computer crashed, you lost everything and had to start over from scratch. You had to buy new and very expensive components, crack open the case and swap them out, and when you finally got the hardware going again you had to load the OS, then your program, and then start over from scratch with entering data again. Nowadays hardware rarely fails catastrophically, and even if it does it's relatively cheap, simple and painless to replace. In the early days of hard drives, they failed often and completely. Now it's rare for a hard drive to fail (unless it's a Western Digital - I haven't had a WD drive that *didn't* fail since ~1999), and there are so many truly easy ways to back up your data that if you lose any data at all, you have no one (and no thing) to blame but yourself. Back in the early days, a computer bug was an actual bug that got into the machine and shorted it out. Now it's just an inconvenient hiccup in a program that doesn't cause harm to the hardware and usually has a workaround.

The very thing that luddites claim to be the downfall of Windows is actually its strength. There are a dozen different ways to do any one thing, so if your mind works a little different than your friend's you can both do things in the way that makes the most sense to you. And that often-overlooked right button on your mouse can speed up your work drastically if you investigate those "context-sensitive menus". Keyboard shortcuts abound, which are even faster and easier and can help alleviate stress on your wrists from all that mousing. And the choice of applications is virtually limitless, with some of the best being free. And unlike files created on Apples, you can work on a Windows PC comfortable with the fact that the result can be viewed pretty much on any device anywhere in the world. Windows runs on just about anything, and drivers for obscure hardware are easy to track down. If you so wish, you can drill down into the most minute details of the way your Windows looks and works and customize it to your heart's content. You have total control. But if you just want to check your email, they're fine for that too.

Here's a news story that resulted from a typical Apple fan mentality:
Chinese Boy Sells One of His Kidneys For iPad 2

Here's a timely comic:
How to fix any computer
And another:
What it's like to own an Apple product

Proof that Apple products are more about style than substance (emphasis mine):
White iPhone finally launching worldwide tomorrow and The white iPhone: Does size matter?

A Little Knowledge Is A Dangerous Thing

Okay, never mind that the title of this post is a common misquote. (See this page if you're curious who originally said it.)

There is a "contest" going on right now to win new Nexus S phones by figuring out puzzles posted on Twitter. Today's puzzle was extremely flawed, including not only a glaring contradiction and error in the given example, but errors in responses to people's answers.

Here's the original tweet:
-------------
@googlenexus
Sample: sbnnn340wd yes, sbnnn233wd no, chwshlkszm yes, chwshlksza no. Pattern=no repeating numerals, at least 1 repeating letter, no vowels
-------------

Clearly, there are no "repeating letters" in "chwshlkszm", so that has to be a "no", but they've indicated it as a "yes". I pointed that out, and this guy responded thusly:

-------------
@awolfman No, you are wrong. Just look into a mathematical formulary under "Permutations with Repetition" which includes things as 12315
-------------

Ignoring the dubious source of a "formulary" (I'm not going to get into what that is or why it's dangerous in this post), there's the fact that there is again clearly no repetition in "12315", so anybody with a little common sense (who didn't already know what the phrase "Permutations with Repetition" means) would look it up and find out what it really means before claiming it as "proof" of something. But no, this guy glanced at something he thought (wished) supported his argument, yanked it totally out of context, and proffered it as proof that I was wrong.

Here's the deal: the phrase "Permutations with Repetition" has nothing to do with and does not describe the form of the example number. Rather, it describes the method by which that number is generated, and in actual fact the resulting number not only has no repetition, it also is not even a permutation.

A true permutation is simply a rearrangement of the order of the digits of the source number, and cannot have any more or fewer instances of any given numeral. The first digit is generated by picking any of the digits of the source number, the second digit is generated by picking any of the digits of the source number except the one you used for the first digit, the third is generated by picking any of the digits of the source number except for the ones you used in the first and second digits, and so on. So 123456, 523416, 214365, 654123 and 654321 are permutations of 654321, but 654421 is not.

So what is a "permutation with repetition"? Simply this: for every digit of the target number, you can pick any of the digits from the source number. The term "repetition" means that (distinctly different from the generation of a real permutation) the method you use to generate each digit is identical to the method you use to generate the previous digit. But there is not necessarily any repetition in the generated number. So it's essentially just a random number constrained by the set of numerals contained in the source number. For example, 4634524, 3245423, and 6235463 are all "permutations with repetition" of 2323546, as are 2222222, 3333333, 43254464, 5555555 and 6666666, but none of those are actual permutations of it, and only the second set have any actual repetition with regard to the number itself.

Now, what is the definition of "repetition"? Answer: Repetition is when identical consecutive patterns exist. A "pattern" can be a single digit, so 22, 222, 2222222, and 22222 are all examples of repetition, as are 123123, 132132132 and 12349929481234992948. But 2032421324 is not, and neither is 1032576891.

Here's further proof: there are only 10 numerals in the "base 10" system that is used worldwide for all day-to-day calculations. But the famous "irrational" constant pi is both non-terminating and non-repeating. So any given numeral occurs an infinite number of times. So the mere existence of multiple instances of the same numerals does not constitute "repetition".

I guess I've beat that dead horse enough: I think that it's immediately and abundantly obvious to most people who look at the pattern "chwshlkszm" that there is in fact no repetition in it.

Bottom Line: Make sure you truly understand a concept before trying to use it in conversation.

The Real Dope: So back to the title of this post. This is the scariest thing about the world today. Information is so abundantly and easily available, but so many people are so disinclined to actually understand anything, because that takes a modicum of time and effort. All they want to do is copy and paste something somebody else has already done for them. The guy that sent that ignorant response is apparently the manager of a software project. And you wondered why your programs/computers were always misbehaving and crashing?

Nexus One Update 2: Froyo, Gingerbread, Honeycomb

It's been a long time since I've posted, due to many factors I don't want to express. Anyway, after waiting impatiently and for far too long for the Android 2.3 (Gingerbread) update, and now having used it for about six weeks, I am less than impressed. What little increase in functionality it brings is more than offset by the host of bugs, many of which were previously solved with 2.2 FroYo. Clearly, the "flagship" has incredibly quickly become a second-class citizen, and Google is putting too much effort into the UI and too little into killing bugs and increasing actual usability. If I could easily flash back to FroYo, I most certainly would. Since I also have a Tablet with FroYo, I can tell you conclusively that the phone UI scales up quite nicely and works quite will on a 10.1" tablet screen, and the hype over Honeycomb's UI is undeserved. The UI is done, folks, let's get to work on the real issues.

Which are:
1) Really? Still no calibration for touchscreen or g-sensors? I've never been able to use Sky Map or "augmented reality" apps because of this issue, and I am very, very far from being alone. The most basic gadgets of the past that had touchscreens had calibration utilities built into the OS, and it's incredibly stupid to have sensors of any type that can't be calibrated.
2) No HID profile? No mouse profile? Granted, phones don't need mice, but they very often do benefit greatly from bluetooth keyboards. And tablets are much more versatile if they support bluetooth mice as well as keyboards. This is actually a case of Google removing something that is already built into stock Linux, and would require almost zero effort to put back in.
3) The Gallery issue of it hanging and crashing is apparently much deeper, because some other apps are apparently affected by the same underlying bug. This was introduced a little while before Gingerbread came along, though. And again, other devices/apps let you specify what directories to search for different types of media. Having the default to be searching everything is incredibly inefficient and ignorant.
4) The official Android Market and GMS apps (Google Mobile Services, meaning the Gmail app, Maps, Navigation, Calendar, Contacts, YouTube and Flash) should be available on every device. Period. The fragmentation that is resulting from forcing other app collections to crop up is a very bad thing, not to mention creating tons of ill will when people buy a device expecting certain basic functionality and find out the hard way that Google has left them out in the cold. It's not as though there aren't workarounds, but in the long run all they do is add to the ill will by forcing inconvenient solutions to problems that are totally unnecessary and indefensible.

And finally, if Google really wants to make Android a success in the long term, they need to completely ban integrated UI "enhancements" by the various manufacturers and carriers, make stock Android the out-of-the box default regardless of the device or where you buy it, and make the various UI skins optional. They also need to remove all apps from the base install so that all apps can be fully upgraded without relying on patches or forcing a reflash of the entire OS (not that it's difficult or dangerous, but it does unnecessarily introduce the possibility of problems) and can be moved to SD as well as not allowing certain noncritical apps to take up space when users really, really don't want them.