Slow Toys at Play

Trying out the new camera on some of the toys in the office. The trebuchet and the Zero blaster.

You need to a flashplayer enabled browser to view this YouTube video

You need to a flashplayer enabled browser to view this YouTube video

Both filmed at 420 fps.

Not Inherently Naughty

Little Bits

littleBits is an opensource library of discrete electronic components pre-assembled in tiny circuit boards. Just as Legos allow you to create complex structures with very little engineering knowledge, littleBits are simple, intuitive, space-sensitive blocks that make prototyping with sophisticated electronics a matter of snapping small magnets together. With a growing number of available modules, littleBits aims to move electronics from late stages of the design process to its earliest ones, and from the hands of experts, to those of artists, makers and designers.

You Just Made the List, Buddy

Adobe Updater popped up on my computer this morning, telling me to update Acrobat, and for once this didn’t happen while I was actually using the program or my browser — it seems to usually check only when the program is in active use for maximum inconvenience. So I installed the patch, and descended into hell. Once the updater was done, it re-launched the program, which was suddenly possessed. Besides the head spinning, pea soup spewing and saying, “your mother sews socks that smell,” it proceeded to open every goddamn pdf file on my computer. OK, not strictly true — it stopped when it reached 50, because that’s the limit on open files. But when I clicked on the error message, it just came up with another one, because it was continuing to try and open more files. Killing and relaunching the program just repeated the experience.

After Googling and being unable to uncover any instance of this happening (so there’s no posted solution), I tried to contact Adobe through their website. They want you to register for online help, and this requires that you opt-in to their spam.

optin

There’s no way to say “don’t contact me.” Screw you, Adobe. I’ll reinstall.

aka The Big Captain Crunch

But Rich Hall snigletified this first: The Cheerio Effect

In fluid mechanics, the cheerio effect is the tendency for small wettable floating objects to attract one another.

[…]

The phenomenon of molecules clumping applies to any (macroscopic) object that floats or clings to the surface of a liquid. This can include a multitude of things, including hair particles in shaving cream and fizzy beer bubbles. The effect is not noticeable in boats and other large floating objects since the force of surface tension is relatively small.

All is not well in Cheerio-land, however. Cheerios might be considered a drug, in a daft legalistic way similar to how tomatoes are a vegetable.

Throwing You a Curve

The break of the curveball illusion.

In baseball, a curveball creates a physical effect and a perceptual puzzle. The physical effect (the curve) arises because the ball’s rotation leads to a deflection in the ball’s path. The perceptual puzzle arises because the deflection is actually gradual but is often perceived as an abrupt change in direction (the break). Our illusions suggest that the perceived “break” may be caused by the transition from the central visual system to the peripheral visual system. Like a curveball, the spinning disks in the illusions appear to abruptly change direction when an observer switches from foveal to peripheral viewing.

Time Sink

I’ve long since passed the point when celebrating a birthday is a big deal — the last party I had was for #30, where we all dressed in black to mourn the passing of my youth. Fortunately the rumors of its death were greatly exaggerated (at least the behavioral part). But I used this year’s birthday as an excuse to buy a high-speed video camera (Exilim EX-FH20). It arrived a few days ago and I’ve been playing with it a lot. Soon, perhaps, I’ll actually install the user’s manual from the CD and read it.

So expect some postings of things gratuitously shot in slow-motion, with no real point to them (in stark contrast to so many of my posts) other than some thing shot in slo-mo look pretty cool. I suspect that many of my belongings will end up broken, but that that the destruction of my property will be exceeding well-documented.

Here is an early attempt, lighting a match in a candle flame, at 1000 fps.

You need to a flashplayer enabled browser to view this YouTube video

Potpourri for $200

Lots of great stuff on kottke recently

Dan Baum: The Following Account of My Short Career at The New Yorker Ran as a Series of Tweets on May 8, 11, and 12, 2009

Three tweets: (Thufferin’ Thuccotath!)

of arms. Tom Wolfe is right, I think, when admonishes young writers to ignore the old advice about “writing what

you know,” and instead write about what you don’t know. If you have to learn about something from scratch, he

argues, you don’t bring any lazy preconceptions. John said I was welcome to give it a try. “Think about trying a

Advice from Rat Traders

Our program is a professional service to the financial industry; rats are being trained to become superior traders in the financial markets. Using our own methodology in accordance with well-established animal training techniques, our subjects learn to recognize pattens in historical stock and futures data as well as generating trading signals. We provide solutions for tick based trading data and day based data. RATTRADERS rats can be trained exclusively for any financial market segment. They outperform most human traders and represent a much more economic solution for your trading desk.

Only-slightly-3-d art: Simon Schubert (small folds in paper) and Marco Maggi (slides 06-9 through 06-12 are “pencil on aluminum foil”)

Dinner Diffusion, and Difficult Decisions

The DAMOP conference is coming up, and that reminds me of a conference-related phenomenon related to gathering a group to go off to a meal. This doesn’t manifest itself when the conference provides meals, so it wasn’t an issue last fall; when the meals are being served you can just grab some people that you know and sit, or if you are so inclined, sit with some strangers and strike up a conversation. “What is your research” is a pretty safe way to begin. (etiquette tip: if your conversation partner has a really nice pair of research grants, do not stare at or make comments about them. It’s not polite.)

But when left on your own, you have a bit of a problem. The questions of who is going, where you are going (related to what you will eat) and when to go (less of a problem at lunch) all come into play. Usually the “when” is decided first, and you set a meeting spot. Often you’ll have a nearest-neighbor issue, where you ask someone if they want to grab something to eat, and they tell you they were going to meet up with someone else, and so on, or the reverse of that, where some of the people you’ve asked will later approach others.

People start to arrive at the meeting spot, with some distribution of arrival times probably not actually centered on the agreed-upon meeting time. Because of the aforementioned networking, the earliest ones may not know what size crowd to anticpate. People show up and mention who else is expected to arrive “soon,” and then an interesting thing happens: some people will decide that since departure is not imminent, they can run off and do something that will “only take them a few minutes” (make a phone call, drop off something in their room, change the transmission in their car) and the group size can stay roughly constant as people diffuse in and out. You’re kind of stuck if the group size is below critical mass — not really enough people for a good round of discussion or if you’re all colleagues already and there will be nothing new to talk about, so you keep waiting for that fluctuation that brings more people in than out so you can cross that threshold. (for me this is about 6 people or so). However, if the diffusion is happening with more than critical mass, you can either decide to leave for dinner en masse and abandon the people who had diffused out or are late, or some of you can fission out of the group, leaving the remainder as a nucleation site to gather a new dinner crowd.

Once you’ve sallied forth, the other decision needs to be made: where/what to eat. You can wander aimlessly from restaurant to restaurant, which is common especially early in a conference if nobody knows the town. The problem here is that someone will almost always find fault with the restaurant (price, selection, if there’s a wait involved), forcing you to keep moving on to find other eateries, which come with other sets of objections. My personal preference takes me away from seafood restaurants, and I know one or two people with honest-to-goodness seafood allergies who are good allies to have in voting against places that serve only seafood (this was especially handy when I was in New Orleans, pre-Katrina; some places seemed to have crawfish in every menu item). Generally the objections become muted as you get really hungry and/or tired of walking, and you all finally compromise on a place. The other option is to have a restaurant in mind, but if it’s later in the week and you keep gathering different sets of people, there’s the chance that someone will have just been there and will resist going again. I don’t have a real problem with resampling a restaurant if they have a variety of entrées that I like, but will back off going to the OneTrickPony Café on consecutive nights. Both of these problems get worse as the group gets larger, of course.

One thing I’ve discovered is that many people simply don’t like making the decision. They’re happy to go almost anywhere, but don’t want to be a strong advocate of anything because they don’t really have a conviction about it. If you try and form a consensus, (what do you think about Joe’s Steakhouse?) you’ll get a lot of lukewarm responses or very mild dissent, and the consensus-builder won’t get the warm mandate feeling. However, if you just announce “We’re going to Joe’s Steakhouse!” most people will go along, and be glad that someone else made the call. It’s only if someone adamantly opposes the announcement that you need to rethink things. If you can actually be so organized as to make this decision before gathering people for dinner, all the better.

Bon Appétit!

Physics v Chemistry. This Time it's Personal …

Experimental Error: Physics vs Chemistry: Fight!

I often contemplate the differences between these two areas of study. Also, I hear fellow undergrads argue for one or the other, usually divided along the lines of their respective major. Anymore, I think they’re so interrelated that I find it hard to find a difference between the two, except for the phases of matter that they most often deal with.

Same? Different? I think we should forget that, team up, and beat the crap out of biology.