General

Not a Good Year for SCI-FI

Felipe Martino Gagno Ceotto — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 16:47:04 GMT

I'm going to be brief here, but I have to say that 2008 has not been a good year for science fiction. No, I'm not talking about bad movies or lack of good books or anything like that, I'm talking about much greater losses: in March we lost Sir Arthur C. Clarke, one of the greatest writers in the genre, and now, in November, we lost Michael Crichton. It's so weird, Michael Crichton was young (66 years old), looked a lot younger than that and seemed to be well and fit, but unfortunately what nobody knew is that he had cancer and was fighting a private fight with it, which he has lost.

I remember reading The Andromeda Strain when I was a kid, it was the second book of sci-fi that I remember reading, right after Isaac Azimov's I, Robot, and those two books got me hooked. And I don't even consider him "just" a sci-fi writer, because he had so many other great novels that escaped this genre, like Rising Sun and The Great Train Robbery, and I liked them all.

I would like to pay my respects to him and to say that I am very sad for this loss, the second great loss to sci-fi and to good literature this year.

TV Ads

Felipe Martino Gagno Ceotto — Fri, 16 May 2008 16:11:15 GMT

I, together with the majority of the 60 million people living in the UK, watch TV on a regular basis, and I am not here to complain about the declining quality of TV over the years or the general quality of TV ads, as you might think due to the title of this article. I actually think that we do have good TV ads in place today, together with some bad ones as there will always be, and today's TV experience can be pretty selective, with satellite and on demand content, which makes watching good TV a possible choice. I am here to ask a question: do the TV networks think we get deaf when the ads kick in???

I am asking this because most of the channels I watch, if not all, put the volume up so much when there's an interval for ads that I have to keep putting the volume down whenever the show I'm watching goes to the interval, and back up when it comes back, and that is really really annoying. I guess they think most people will get up and go do something else during the intervals and they need to listen to the advertisements from farther, which I don't know if it is true but it is certainly not the case for me. What ends up happening is that I turn the volume down so much during the intervals that I don't get to watch the ads at all, therefore ruining the purpose of the whole thing for the network and the sponsors of the shows. And also managing to keep me annoyed, which also ruins the purpose of watching TV (but I keep watching it anyway...).

So I guess that as with many other means of trying to enforce something that people have not asked for, this one is not only annoying but also a failed one, and the only ones who can't see that are the TV networks. Actually, I'm making a big leap here assuming it is really a failed one and that most people don't get up during the adverts. So, to add at least some facts to this article, I'm stopping now and asking people in my office what they do. Pause here.

Ok, so I've asked people around here (not many people, and definitely not a statistically reliable sample, but who cares?) and 71% of them wait for their show to start again (unless they need to go to the toilet), and 29% will definitely get up. Of the people who wait in front of the TV, more than half change channels quickly because the adverts are too annoying, and I'm suspecting here that part of that annoyance is because of the unbearable loudness. So my theory might as well be correct, that turning the volume up during the adverts is just making people annoyed and it's not being effective in getting the commercial message to people.

Hey, I'm not saying that we should get the commercial message, I don't want people to go buying things they don't need. It would be much better if we could watch TV without any ads, but since we can't, we might as well try to get them to be less annoying! But this is exactly where TV differs more from the Internet: even if all of you (three people - hi mom! hi dad!) who are reading this agree with me, there is no easy way to get the message to the TV networks and try to make them change. But if by any chance you have a contact with the guy with the hand on the volume button there, please, put some sense into him. :D

And, by the way, what's with adverts for dental products? Do they have to be so bad all the time???

Sir Arthur C. Clarke

Felipe Martino Gagno Ceotto — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:41:09 GMT

Today I read the news that Sir Arthur C. Clarke died yesterday, aged 90. I can't begin to say how sad that makes me, and I decided to write a little about it here, my way of showing my respects to him.

From the great Science Fiction authors that had a big influence in my childhood and my teenage years and that helped shape the geek I am, he was the last one alive. I can't help thinking that from now on there won't be new books by him, that his production of amazing stories that would bring me not only a lot of entertainment but also a lot of knowledge, is no more.

Also, I can't think of anyone that is still writing and that is as good as these writers that I've always praised, and that makes me even more sad. Good Science Fiction is really hard to come across, and these authors that I'm talking about are Philip K. Dick, which died when I was 2, Robert Heinlein, which died when I was 8, Isaac Azimov, died when I was 12, and now Arthur Clarke.

No more new books by these guys, and actually, except of Arthur Clarke, there hasn't been new books by these guys since I started reading them, so, whenever I thought about all that, I always thought "well, there's still Arthur Clarke to create a lot". And he did create a lot, over 100 books. But, again, it is sad that there will be no more. And now I don't have a backbone to guarantee me good Science Fiction books to come anymore.

Of course, William Gibson is still alive and many others, and I count on them to be this good and keep writing, but Sir Arthur Charles Clarke will certainly be missed by me.

Farewell, and I hope that when you got to wherever you are now, you could have said "Oh my God, it's full of stars!"

It's the Parents' Fault

Felipe Martino Gagno Ceotto — Tue, 04 Dec 2007 13:23:15 GMT

I'm always paying attention to news related to electronic games since it is not only something I like but something I intend to get more and more involved as time passes. After writing an article about Game Violence, today I read this other article on BBC about a survey with parents (Games content 'concern parents') and I had an idea from it.

The article, as you can read, shows that the survey demonstrated that kids play videogames on their own most of the time and that the parents are the ones that usually choose what games are suitable for their children. It also shows that 43% of the parents are not aware of the ratings systems that exist for games, to determine the suitability of them.

So my conclusion from this survey is that it is the parents' fault that children are playing games with unsuitable contents for them, because they are choosing games without the proper knowledge about the ratings. Like films, games have their own rating and the industry has been doing a pretty good job with it, which takes us nowhere if whoever is choosing the games don’t know about them.

What is it about games that the parents don't get the knowledge about them that fast? This generation of games is also focused on adults, and videogames have been around for quite some time now, so I would think that parents would know them and know what to do with them for their kids. Even if you're new to it, being a parent is having the responsibility of checking and learning about the things your kids are doing and want to do. I hope that when I'm a parent I will be able to select properly the games for my kids and also play with them, to have some fun and also to check what they're playing.

There is a good website about ratings for games, created and maintained by the games industry, at www.askaboutgames.com, where parents can learn about the ratings systems for games, and it's not rocket science; whoever is used to film ratings will see right through it too.

So, let's not blame the games or the game industry for games with violent contents. We don't blame the film industry for violent films; we just don't let the children watch them so why not do the same for videogames? Eliminating violent games is not the solution. I'm not advocating violence or anything like that, but I'm an adult who likes to play games and I don't want the industry to be limited to create games for adults with good and realistic contents. I enjoy the games for kids too, but not only, and I believe in choice, which is what the parents should be making.

Just Say 'No' to Wikipedia? Are you crazy?

Felipe Martino Gagno Ceotto — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 17:05:17 GMT

According to this article from The Seattle Times a librarian from The Great Meadows (N.J.) Middle School blocked the students from accessing Wikipedia and put signs over the computers saying "Just Say 'No' to Wikipedia". I'm writing here to express my indignation to this attitude, which is very radical in my opinion and reflects a wrong way of educating kids that is often repeated by parents.

Is Wikipedia a reliable source? Should students be allowed to cite it in their papers? In one word, I would say NO. Because everybody is allowed to edit Wikipedia, it might reflect opinions instead of just facts and even these might be wrong, so it can't be used as a reliable source. But - and this is a big but - it is a great place to get a general picture of things and to find the actual reliable sources since there is an effort in Wikipedia to give the sources of what is written there, and those can be cited in the students' papers.

Let's take the Vietnam War article, for example. It has 148 notes and several references, all of them referring to books or sites other than Wikipedia. What is the problem in getting to Wikipedia, getting a general picture of the Vietnam War, getting ideas from what is written there and then going to the real sources cited there to check the facts and get other ideas?

Ok, so, for this Wikipedia is a great source, a source of sources if you will, but the librarian (and, from what I recon, teachers too) is saying that the kids will not do that, they will take what Wikipedia is saying for the final truth and that's it, which I believe. Now here comes what I think it's the mistake: because the kids are doing that, they blocked Wikipedia. This is, for me, the same as forbidding your kid to go out of the house because he or she will cross the streets without looking for cars. Kids do that at first, but then you teach them how to do it correctly. My parents never forbade me of using electronic equipments (the stereo, TV, VCR, etc.), for example, something that was usual for other parents to do when I was a kid; instead, they always took the time to teach me how to use the equipment properly.

I think that is the attitude that should be adopted here. Why not teach the students how great Wikipedia may be and what they can and cannot do with it? Teach them that they can search Wikipedia to have an overall view, some ideas, and also to get reliable sources for their papers. That's the attitude that a school should have towards the students and that parents should have towards their children.

New Tumblr

Felipe Martino Gagno Ceotto — Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:08:37 GMT

Hi there everyone.

I'm just writing to let everybody know that I am consolidating my blog with my fotolog and my YouTube into one place alone, where I will also post small things, links and news. This is my Tumblr, which you can access in http://fceotto.tumblr.com. All of these will remain being updated for the moment at least, but the consolidated results will be presented there.

The RSS feed for this one can be accessed here: http://fceotto.tumblr.com/rss

See you there!

Mambo No. 5

Felipe Martino Gagno Ceotto — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 02:19:15 GMT

What's with Mambo No. 5? ("One, two, three four, five") I mean, it's a great song, I love it, but where's Mambo No. 1? ("Everybody in the car, so come on let's ride") I may be crazy and all that, but I like numbered things to come in a good order... ("To the liquor store around the corner")

Mambo No. 5 is a great song by Pérez Prado, who also wrote Mambo No. 8 - makes you wonder about 6 and 7, doesn't it? ("The boys say they want some gin and juice") We know best the Lou Bega version ("But I really don't wanna") that became really popular in 1999. In this case it's not even that bad, maybe these were Pérez' 5th an 8th attempts, maybe ("Beer bust like I had last week") the others do exist but they were never recorded, who knows? ("I must stay deep 'cause talk is cheap")

Getting to the point, why do some people - or companies - screw up so hard the version numbers of their softwares? Like I said, I like ("Angela, Pamela, Sandra and Rita") numbered things to come in at least an understandable order. An example is the McAffee antivirus that if I remember correctly, at some point had the same product divided into two, one for home users and another one for business. ("And as I continue you know they're getting sweeter") It was the same thing but the business version was "4" - even though it was the first so called "business" - and the home version became "8" despite the fact that the previous one was "6". I'm making up the numbers but the situation was exactly this.

("So what can I do? I really beg you, my Lord") It also became really common for companies to change their versioning numbers to years, thanks to Microsoft with Windows 95, but let's remember that ("To me flirting is just like a sport") although Microsoft uses the years to market their product the internal version remains a sequential number, easy to understand - Windows XP SP2 is version 5.1! That's very acceptable, but others that decided to go with the ("Anything fly, it's all good let me dump it") MS flow used just the years, and after a while decided to go back to numbering, calling it 1.0!!!

Come on... Make some sense at least! Anyway, I'm just wining about nothing... :D If I wasn't so sleepy I would go and look for the actual examples of what I'm talking about, showing the applications with all those versioning problems, but who cares? At this hour, I really don't, sorry! If you know what I'm talking about, than you know... If you don't... well. I promise next time I'll write something better.

So... ("Please set in the trumpet!")

Cutty Sark

Felipe Martino Gagno Ceotto — Wed, 23 May 2007 13:15:20 GMT

The Cutty Sark is a ship, a tea clipper and the last one of its type. A clipper is an old type of ship with several sails. The Cutty Sark was built in 1869 and she was being preserved and displayed in Greenwich. The access to her was closed to the public last year to restore her in a big plan that was due in 2009 only, but last Monday there was a fire and a good part of the ship was destroyed.

I have visited the ship while I was living in London and she is very beautiful, giving us a glimpse of those days in a very glamorous way, which is always nice. Now, after some investigation, they are saying that the fire was probably criminal, no accident. My question is: why would someone do that???

I mean, it's not a terrorist act because it doesn't make people afraid, it is not a political act because it doesn't go against or for any political "side" and it wasn't an accident, so, what the hell is the point of doing something like that?! It's just sad! Although I'm not from the UK and the history of the Cutty Sark has nothing to do with my origins directly, it's History in any case and I was very sad to see that happening to such a beautiful monument. I liked to know that she was there for people to see.

Thankfully, not all of the ship was burned and there will be a chance to see her restored, although now it will take more time and especially, more money. They are promoting the fund to donate money to the restoration, which is nice. I think they should also create a fund to stop people's stupidity, because that's all this was. Here are a couple of photos I took when I was at the Cutty Sark for the first time, in August 2006:

Some of the news about the fire:

The last one refers to the appeal launched by the Cutty Sark Trust to help their fundraising. If you can and you feel like it, it would be nice to help.

People Should Read More

Felipe Martino Gagno Ceotto — Tue, 15 May 2007 11:32:42 GMT

I'm not talking about books, although I do think people should read more books. I'm talking about text they see on their computer screens. I know that the interfaces today are not the best thing ever, and I know that you should get images and videos instead of text, but there's still no way to do all that in a practical manner, so we still get a lot of text in our computers and we should be used to it, but apparently we are not.

I'm impressed how people just click "ok", "yes" or "next" to the messages they see on screen without even looking at them, to the point that Google puts something like "this is not the usual blablabla" with big letters in one of their installation screens to warn people to read it, and I think that even there they don't read it.

Clicking without reading leads people to get infected with viruses, to install adwares and spywares, or even to miss out features that they could've enjoyed in a software being installed. I always try to put in people's head that they should read what's coming up on their screen before taking an action. And I don't mean that I think people should read the user license agreements or anything like that, because they're usually just boring, but at least take a quick look to check that you're actually accepting a license agreement instead of accepting to install a virus in your computer.

A proof of what I'm saying is a research Didier Stevens is doing. He bought a Google Ad saying "Is your PC virus-free? Get infected here!" and people clicked on it! Come on, people, especially when clicking ADS, you should READ IT FIRST!!! Take a look at an article about it here and the experiment's website here.

Let's start reading, people, and you will make my job a lot easier. :D

Hair Removal Cream

Felipe Martino Gagno Ceotto — Thu, 22 Feb 2007 10:39:00 GMT

"Good morning ladies and gentlemen, today I'm going to write about hair removal creams." "What?!?!?!?!” says the readers.

Hahaha. Yeah, a little weird, I know, and you're probably thinking (hoping, most probably) that despite the title and my first sentence, "hair removal cream" is some sort of analogy to something else. Well, it isn't, I'm really going to write about hair removal creams today. Having established that and having allowed you to stop reading immediately, let me really start.

A while ago, when I was a pre-teen, I read a science fiction short story where two humans invented a beard removal cream as part of a process to prove to aliens that they were intelligent (as any real geek, I'm a great fan of science fiction, but I can't remember the name of this short story or who wrote it and that bugs me a lot, so if you know, PLEASE let me know!). At that time I didn't have any beard yet but once I started to have to shave, I remembered this short story and I thought that this cream would be very handy if it existed, since I hate shaving, it screws up my skin, and most men I know think the same.

Two days ago, I was with my wife at the drugstore and she said she wanted to buy some hair removal cream, instead of the usual blade and stuff, for her. That rang the bell immediately and I stopped her and said "what?!!??!?! Does that exist???” Well, it turns out that it does, it's cheap and so far it seems that it's focused on the female market only, although I need to look a little more. Also, it appears that the creams we've seen cannot be used on the face, but my wife told me that there are some that can.

Amazing, isn't it? So why is this thing not popular among men that don't like shaving with a blade? Maybe it is not considered safe enough yet to use on your face on a daily basis, I don't know, but if you're interested, look into it and let me know! I'll look into it as well, of course, and I'll see if I can try the one my wife bought on me as well, who knows?! Hair removal creams weaken the hair by dissolving the protein structure and softening the hair at skin level, and then the mechanical action of a spatula breaks the hair. Looks simple but if you wanna keep the option of letting your thick beard grow, that might not be so good.

This is probably something that will come pretty soon, a shaving cream that needs no blades. What will become of Gillette? :) They'll probably get into the cream business a little harder than they do now, and I have to hand it to them, they are good. I was a user of the Mach 3 and now I'm using the new Gillette Fusion, and it is amazing, but a beard removal cream would be the state of the art, don't you think?