After spending some time with my nephew, Zack, who happened to turn one year old last week, and watching the vivacity at which he soaks up the knowledge of the world, I have decided a few things. If I ever have children (oh heaven help the world), I will do the following:

I must create an educational, enriching environment

My nephew is constantly interacting with things, people, and places. His first experiences are incredibly important and shape his perception of them throughout his entire life. That’s why I probably won’t just turn on the television to a random station while I play with with my kid or let him/her crawl around with wild abandon. Classical music or an audio book of A Brief History of Time will be playing in the background. Also, I’ll read to him from my biochemistry book every day. He’ll grow up to be a genius! Genius, I say. I don’t want to buy a bunch of kiddie toys that flash, glow, and speak nonsense in 4 different accents, when something constructive will do just as well.

No swearing and no bad words

My wife and I will converse in as many different languages as we know

Children soak up the nuances of language incredibly fast and they learn quickly if languages are spoken often.

My son/daughter is getting my guitar… whether or not he wants to play it is his choice

I’m a bit dogged after today’s work day, so this is all I have energy for right now!

This is one of the better posts at Lifehacker, a popular technology blog. If you’ve got a mac, try some of these suggestions. I can guarantee you’ll have fun with them, especially number 10.

Anyone who frequents this blog with any regularity will probably figure out that I love Skitch. In fact, I’m a bit of a Skitch whore.

What is Skitch? I will answer this question in the only appropriate way – with a Skitch:

OK, obviously Skitch can be used for things that are useful beyond drawing stick figures of aliens. But you get the idea!

I could even say that the program’s icon is super cute; so cute, in fact, that it may induce severe nausea.

Oftentimes when people try to make a decision about whether or not something is better than something else, they’ll perform a study comparing the two “somethings,” whatever those happen to be.

For example, if you’re got to type a paper but don’t have any word processing software installed, you might try NeoOffice and comparing that to Microsoft Office. This could be considered a study, because you’re trying to figure out which one best suits your needs. If you’re reading an article in the Journal of Bacteriology, the authors might be examining the growth rate of a particular bacterium in several different types of media; they’re trying to figure out which media best supports the growth of that bacterium. If you’re a technology geek (and I can’t deny that I’m a technology geek, for better or for worse) you might try to find out which computers, Macs or PCs, people like better.

The point is, regardless of the question proposed, the researcher needs to think critically about how the study should be conducted and what, exactly, it is trying to answer. Some sample points to consider: Can I collect the data in an unbiased fashion? How precise/accurate are the data collecting tools? Can the results be reproduced under slightly different conditions? What are the defining characteristics of comparison, and can they be extrapolated beyond the scope of the data being collecting? Can we draw broader conclusions? If so, why?

Failure to ask these questions can lead to the spread of misinformation, as conclusions are drawn beyond what the data is able to suggest.

The people who read studies need to ask these questions, too. Read any study with these questions in mind. It’s not a skeptical frame of reference; it’s only thinking critically. Often, there are many correct ways to go about doing things. There are also many wrong ways to go about doing things.

And there certainly is a right way and a wrong way to go about comparing technology products. This lead to myself, and more than a few others, calling into question the results of a probably-not-so-scientific study on the “usability” of Macs versus the “usability” of PCs performed by the guys and gals over at Popular Mechanics.

Uploaded with plasq’s Skitch!

The article is headlined Mac vs. PC: The Ultimate Lab Test for New Desktops & Laptops. Yet it is not the ultimate lab test; to call it even a good lab test would be a stretch of blind optimism.

The Popular Mechanics crew recently compared an iMac and a Macbook to a Gateway One and an Asus M51SR notebook, respectively. Then, they went on to compare hardware specifications, user ratings, and application performance across the four machines. The full article can be found online here, and I encourage you to read it before continuing, although I will attempt to make things clear enough so that you’ll understand my main points of argument even if you haven’t read the article yet.

The main issue with the comparison between the iMac and the Gateway One involves the dissimilar hardware in each. The iMac comes packing a 2.4 GHz Core 2 Duo, while the Gateway One sports a 2.0 GHz Core 2 Duo. RAM also varies widely, with the iMac containing 1 GB and the Gateway 3 GB. Then, application performance was measured.

Uploaded with plasq’s Skitch!

Uploaded with plasq’s Skitch!

Uploaded with plasq’s Skitch!

Looking at the raw data, you can see that the iMac posted a faster time than the Gateway One in nearly every test. Does that mean that Leopard runs and loads applications faster than Vista?

No, of course not. In this study, how can you separate the variance due to hardware differences from the variance due to the operating systems? You can’t, even though we see this assertion on page 4 of the Popular Mechanics article:

“Leopard OS trounced Vista in all-important tasks such as boot-up, shutdown and program-launch times.”

They then make the following boneheaded statement:

“We even tested Vista on the Macs using Apple’s platform-switching Boot Camp software—and found that both Apple computers ran Vista faster than our PCs did.”

Of course Vista will run faster on the iMac than on the Gateway One; The iMac has a faster central processing unit! If Popular Mechanics is interested in testing the speed of the operating system, then they’ve got to run each OS on the same hardware.

While the application performance section is by far the most quantifiable data obtained in this study, the computers compared were of unequal hardware specifications, and this makes it difficult to draw conclusions. Is the iMac’s faster (by one second) Microsoft Office load time due to its 400MHz processor advantage? Maybe. What about its 1.5-second advantage in Photoshop loading time? Perhaps. Or does OSX Leopard just load applications faster than Vista? Who knows. Never mind the vast differences in Mac and PC versions of programs similar in name. Microsoft Office 2007 might sound a whole lot like Mac Office 2008, but in reality they are two different programs with different sets of features, despite producing the same types of document files.

The author attempts to rationalize the hardware differences between the machines as “not a heck of a difference in this age of dual-core chips.” How much is a “heck” of a difference?

Apparently, it’s about 1.5 seconds.

To come up with a decent comparison of which machine really is faster, Popular Mechanics needs to compare application load times and scripted processes across Macs and PC with identical hardware specifications, manufacturers, and brands. Only then can it be determined if any performance differences are due to the Leopard operating system or the Vista operating system. Still, it’s impossible to determine if the performance differences are due to the operating system alone or the efficiency with which that particular program was coded and compiled.

The usability tests were even more ridiculous:

“Our testers were instructed to divorce themselves as much as possible from their previous technological preferences and rate their experiences with each computer’s software and hardware.”
Humans are notoriously bad at being completely unbiased, random, or objective. This fact is well-known but not well understood. We’re even worse at attempting to distance ourselves from prior experiences. So why should we expect that the panelists in this study were able to wipe their memories of previous computing experiences?

Never mind the number of testers they used. The article doesn’t mention this information. “A panel” could be three, or ten, or one hundred. Can you generate statistically significant data with only three values? Probably not. With ten? Yes, but those 10 panelists better be representative of the population. With 100? Yes, it becomes much easier to generate reproducible data with that kind of n.

But I digress, and this rant is leaning towards the long side of things. Popular Mechanics is not the battlefield where Macs and PCs wage war to the bitter end. The conflict is best left to the users themselves, who will vote with their hearts and with their wallets.

Some would consider this computer nothing more than a gateway drug Apple passes out to weary PC users as it hears the remote din of Vista’s dissent from the masses. Yet they would be only half correct, for the Mac Mini is much, much more. The machine represents Apple’s finest attempts to craft a light, low cost system for the everyday user and, by and large, Jobs and company have succeeded in this effort. Despite Apple’s best intentions, however, the Mac Mini is not without its faults, quirks, and quibbles, but the fact remains that the engineers in Cupertino has crafted a beautiful computer that shines brightly regardless of its diminutive size or minuscule footprint.

Since the last performance bump, which replaced Intel’s Core Duo with the speedier Core 2 Duo, the performance of the Mac Mini has become quite respectable for daily computing tasks that the average home user might perform, such as web browsing, photo managing, music playing, DVD watching, light website creation, and document editing. Here’s the Mac Mini doing the latter.

Uploaded with plasq’s Skitch!

Additionally, the iPod shuffle-esque Apple remote is included in the package. The included Front Row application, serving as a full-screen photo, movie, and music center, supports the Apple Remote. It’s a particularly neat addition if you’ve got a large HTDV television or monitor. Other noteworthy uses entail controlling Keynote presentations with the Remote, but chances are, most users will see the Apple Remote as a small novelty bonus and nothing more.

The Mac Mini comes with a host of bundled software that is immediately useful and pertinent to the daily tasks most people expect the computer to perform. The software installation CD comes with demo versions of Microsoft Office 2004 (which runs through emulation using Rosetta, unfortunately) and iWork 08. That’s about it for the trial plugs, fortunately, as full versions of Front Row, iWeb, GarageBand, iDVD, iPhoto, and iMovie are present. Leopard comes complete with Mail, Safari, iTunes, iChat, and Time Machine, which has gotten tons of press coverage already. In short: if you don’t back up your files already, visit Best buy, nab an inexpensive external hard drive, and use it with Time Machine; you’ll be glad you’ve got it running when you accidentally delete your entire thesis (trust me, it happens). Lastly, CD burning is integrated into the Leopard operating system, so no third-party software is required if you need to duplicate some files in a pinch.

As I become older and consequently more reflective of the events I attend and the people I encounter, my hobbies and passions tend to remain the same. However, I sense that my relationships with the things I spend my time on change drastically. I suspect this is the case with most people; it is most likely a sign of maturity or experience, which allows me to view the world from new perspectives.

One of my long time hobbies has been running. There has been much said about this sport (much of it more insightful than anything I could ever come up with), relating the truths of what running means to various people. To this end, I’ve long wondered what running means to me.

A visual representation of my running, according to Nike:

Uploaded with plasq’s Skitch!

My first encounters with the trail came not from some romantic desire to push myself to the outer boundaries of physical and mental limits , but from a simple need of doing something — anything — to keep myself active and sharp during youth. Running, to me, was an act of rebellion against the strict order of daily life. We’re all forced to wake up, shower, prepare breakfast, attend classes, go home, study, and repeat, but lacing up my shoes and hitting the trial was an activity without structure and a call to something wilder beyond normality. The feeling was something incredible at that time. I did not think; I only ran until my legs and chest burned. It was not a pain but a satisfaction.

I wanted to be good at something. It didn’t matter what it was, but I wanted people to look at me and say that I’ve accomplished something. My body and mind just happened to be well-suited for this task.

Some eight years later, running means something quite different to me. I run not for the admiration of others, but only for the reflection and introspection time that it provides. My mile times are not as important as the act of running itself. It is a chance to enjoy nature, listen to the breeze, put on some music, and to capture images and experiences that are uniquely my own.

The ample time I spend running has given me much time to think. For a long period of time, I have wanted to capture these experiences in photographs and compile a sort of “runner’s journal,” not primarily with words, but in a sort of photo-montage set to music. The only problem with this idea is that it’s not quite practical to carry a digital camera out on a 10 mile romp through the forest.

I may entertain this idea sometime, though. I’ll see.

Rheumatoid arthritis is a complicated disease of the immune system that affects over 2 million Americans. Though its cause is unknown, it is believed that rheumatoid arthritis is caused by an excess of the protein tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-a). This TNF-a excess can cause an autoimmune response, damaging healthy tissue and leading to swelling and joint pain. Often, permanent joint damage can occur within the first 12 months.

I now know about Rheumatoid arthritis because I attended an arthritis-awareness fund raising event at Atascadero Lake Park today. In addition to supporting research and funding initiatives directed towards finding a cure for arthritis, I participated in a short raffle along with several hundred other attendees.

Surprisingly, I won something from the raffle! I was sitting on the grass, petting an Australian Shepard dog (adorable, I might add) when I heard my name called! It seems as though I’ll be spending one hour at the Ohana Bodywork & Message Therapy, all expenses paid.

A large part of graduate school is the work, research, and written documentation of one’s thesis. For the better part of the last six months, I’ve struggled not with the work or research portions, but with the written portion.

Why, you might ask? Is not the written portion simply a detailed account of what was hypothesized, performed, and accomplished?

And I’d say, “Yes, but…..”

The main problem with the written portion is the incredible number of citations that must be present throughout. In the early pages of the literature review section of my thesis document, there is nearly one citation per sentence. And really, it can’t be any less; anything that I write about must be referenced extensively from previous workers in the field.

Keeping track of these citations is enough to drive a person batty.

With a suggestion from an advisor in the department, I turned to EndNote.

Anyone who has used EndNote probably agrees upon two things. First, the program’s strength lies in its ability to format citations according to hundreds of specific journals (many of which have each their own citation format). Second, the ease and rate at which EndNote can corrupt its own library files can and probably has sent many a graduate student off the deep side.

I’ve experienced no less than three corrupted libraries since I started using EndNote about four months ago. This corruption rate is ridiculous. There’s no reason why a piece of database software (which is essentially what EndNote is) should fail so heartily. When it crashes, it doesn’t go quietly, either. It takes your entire citations library with it.

What about that library recovery feature in the menu bar? It’s never worked for me. I’m sure it’s good for something… just not this.

These frustrating experiences has wasted alot of my time and effort. That’s why I decided to find another citation database program… like this one.

Uploaded with plasq’s Skitch!

Right now, I’m using a combination of Word 2008 and Papers. I wanted something that runs natively on Mac OSX, so I wouldn’t have to go into my XP partition every time I needed to work on the thesis. So far, the combination works handily. Papers certainly has its quirks (and so does Word 2008, but that’s another topic altogether), but both have gotten along reasonably well with one another so far.

This blog post does a great job of explaining how the two work together. If you’d like to use them, follow the instructions and things should go great! I used them without a hitch.

Here’s a picture of my Word 2008 + Papers goodness.

Uploaded with plasq’s Skitch!

I’m proud and incredibly satisfied as I write the following words. After roughly 6 months of work, dozens of formula/recipe revisions, and a few seemingly insurmountable obstacles, my team and I have completely finished our entry in a national food product development competition sponsored by a major ingredients manufacturer/supplier. We shipped it yesterday, and it should arrive at the intended destination around 10:00 a.m. today.

Understandably, I will provide no details about this contest until the whole competition is finished, so that any non-disclosure clauses in the entry form will be upheld. However, I can say that our product was super indulgent to the point of excess, and to my (admittedly biased since I worked on it so much) taste buds, the flavor is rich and powerful; I can’t think of any existing product in its category that tastes as rich or as fresh. Plus, its appearance is adorable, both in the package and out.

My team expended much energy during the course of development. It takes an incredible amount of passion and craftsmanship to recreate in the physical world what one sees in his or her mind. What we envisioned is exactly what we saw sitting on the table in front of us at 1:30 a.m. two days prior.

The desire to create and compare with such perfectionistic mentality is uniquely human. It borders on narcissism; this obsession with pushing one’s own idea as if it is the best or most effieicnet way to do something. Magnificent products are created by people who believe firmly in the way things should work, taste, and feel. I strongly believe that our product reflects the care, energy, and passion that we poured into it.

That is all for now. My life is calling… the laundry, the dishes, the orchid which I need to water, my relationships with friends and family… they are all calling me back. I will go knowing that I gave my best attempt at making something great, and something that I will be remembered by.

Until next time…