“Can I help you, sir?”, the man behind the counter asked.
“Uhm, yes, so, I need a bike,” I uttered, “I guess I’ve come to the right place.”
He smiled and showed me around the huge three-storey bicycle shop. He was in his early thirties, had a ring beard, and was slightly taller than me. An engaging salesman, not pushy though, and willing to listen to my situation and offer good advice.
“I don’t have a lot of options in your price range, but I can show you some discounted bikes, and if you’d like to try one you can take it out for a spin.”
After some browsing I chose a nice black Cannondale bike, which seemed sturdy enough for the mountain work here in Pittsburgh.
“But, how does it work with biking? I mean: there are no bike lanes.”
He leaned in and gestured with his hands.
“You basically just act like you’re a car. Traffic lights, turns, right of way, it’s all the same as for the cars.”
I nodded in agreement.

Thirty minutes later I was walking through Squirrel Hill district, but now with a bike fitted with a kickstand and click-on lights. Perhaps it’s because I am Dutch, but I already missed biking after being in Pittsburgh for a couple of days. I am not the walking type of person, and I developed a severe disgust for buses. Why? I had to ride them to get to school for years: two hours, or more, a day. Missed connections, too hot or too cold inside, traffic jams, abrasive bus drivers: I’d seen it all and I didn’t want to go back there.

I mounted the bike, soaring down Squirrel Hill to Oakland. Oh my God, this was going pretty fast. What they call a `hill’ here is practically a mountain for Dutch standards. No wonder everyone’s wearing helmets here: I’d bought one even though I always thought these things look pretty uncool unless you were doing the Tour de France. I applied some pumping braking techniques and all was well. Or not? Suddenly the six-lane street narrowed into three one-way lanes: not in the direction I was going. I stopped near a junction and approached a middle-aged fellow biker standing near the traffic light.
“Sir, can you help me? I need to cross through Oakland for about a kilometer or so,” forgetting that he probably didn’t have the slightest clue what a kilometer was, “but this is a one way street, so how do I go from here?”
He looked at me intently.
“Well, you could take the pavement, but if you’d want to do it the official way you’d have to take a right here and turn left at the next intersection and continue on Fifth Ave.”

Alrighty, I thought, let’s not anger the abundant police around here. I took a right, then a left, turning onto the crowded three-lane Fifth Avenue. I cycled for a bit, keeping to the rightmost lane, but soon realized I had to take a left somewhere. Huge American cars were soaring by my left side, one just narrowly missed me. Hold steady, remember what he said: “act like a car”. I took a deep breath, extended my left arm, and: lo and behold, the car to my left made room for me so I could change lanes. After crossing one more lane, I turned left. Phew, after just a couple of blocks more I was back at the hotel.

People are often surprised that I do not own a single Apple branded product: how can someone that holds a degree in Human Media Interaction not have at least an iPod? Perhaps it is time for a brief explanation.

Did Apple invent the mouse? No, that would’ve been either Stanford, Xerox or Telefunken, depending on what you define as a mouse. But did Apple popularize the mouse? Yes, sir. And that is, and has remained, the strength of Apple throughout the years. Take something that is either obscure or that seems past its peak point and make it into something everyone wants to have. The grey laptop becomes the MacBook, the clunky walkman becomes the iPod, the drab PC becomes the iMac, the aging mobile phone becomes the iPhone, the failing tablet PC becomes the iPad: iWant!

Granted, Apple is good at making stuff that is easy and intuitive to use. They are willing to take risks with their designs which differentiates them from other major hardware manufacturers. They are also known for their decent hardware and software support. So far, so good, so what’s the catch?

An often cited reason for not buying Apple hardware is that it is overpriced. This is especially true for laptops. Go to any other manufacturer and you will get a machine with equivalent specifications for a third or half cheaper than Apple’s offerings. In this regard: I always find it puzzling that so many students buy Apple machines. To find the reason for this we have to dig a little deeper. Although the days that Apple was making products for the niche of graphic designers and artists are over, they continue to have this exclusive air and feel to them: buying an Apple is like joining a club or becoming part of a family. Apple is one of those companies that successfully sells not only a product, but primarily a feeling.

I have to admit that I too like nice looking things and prefer brand name products over nameless equivalents. Nevertheless, even though MacBooks look gorgeous: I don’t have one. I think that Apple’s reputation for developing new and innovative products is nowadays a large factor in propelling their newly launched products to the forefront more quickly than those of other companies. Let’s face it people: Apple doesn’t hold a patent on good design, intuitive interfaces, and solid hardware. There are other companies that put out good well-designed products too, but people are less willing to consider them, since it is `not Apple’.

Design and reputation apart, my real gripe with Apple is their highly proprietary nature. They control everything from the nitty gritty details of the hardware to the highest levels of software. The main advantage of this model is that they have complete control over the user experience, which allows them to create coherent well-integrated products. The downside is that this level of control makes their systems very inflexible and stifles innovation by others. My primary reason for not buying Apple products is that I do not want to end up trapped in their proprietary, closed, and highly controlled ecosystem. Perhaps it is time for Apple to open up. They’ve garnered a large enough following to be able to do this, and it would no doubt be appreciated by many users.

Would I ever buy an iPod, iPad, MacBook, or other Apple product? I am not very brand loyal when it comes to computer stuff. Whenever I make a buying decision I evaluate competing products in a particular category based on their merits. If an Intel processor offers more bang per buck than one from AMD, I’d buy the Intel one and vice verso. In Apple’s defense: if I would have to buy a tablet now then it would certainly be an iPad. However, this is not because it is Apple, but because it is presently the best and most feature complete product in that particular category. I think that is a legitimate reason to buy a piece of hardware.

My advice: dare to honestly compare products, don’t get trapped in fanboyism: don’t buy Apple because it’s Apple, don’t become like this:

Video hosted by YouTube. Copyright © The Onion.

What do I think of the future of Apple now that Steve Jobs resigned as CEO? I think they will continue to do just fine. They have good bunch of professional people there, and there are and will continue to be, plenty of folks looking out specifically for their products. However, as in any industry, the niche of producing highly desired consumer products will undoubtedly be populated in the future by companies that we do not yet even know: the Oranges.

Seven hours before the previous post I was waiting at the end of a long security check line right before the gate. An elderly American couple joined behind me. We briefly exchanged looks. “Are the lines always this long?”, I asked. “No idea, it’s the first time we’re passing through here”, they replied. The two of them had just completed a trip through eastern Europe and were headed back home. They asked me how the `polders’ were created and how tulips are grown: typical. As I was explaining something about dikes our conversation was interrupted by a security officer as we’d reached the front of the queue.

I sat down in the overly filled waiting room after passing through a fancy full body scanner and being patted down. A fragile gentleman, sitting perpendicular on a bench to my right, was anxiously shoving his laptop around. I was checking the news on my smartphone, but stopped as his behaviour attracted my attention. He seemed to be in his mid fifties, had a short gray beard and glasses, and was tall and thin: could have been a professor. He stood up and nervously waited until a confident ground stewardess crossed his path. His voice was trembling.
“Sorry, I can’t access the WiFi here and I have to let me wife know that I switched to a different flight.”
The stewardess explained there was nothing she could do for him, leaving the man behind in an even more anxious state. I stood up and walked to him.
“Can I help your sir? I have Internet access on my phone, you can use it to send your message.”

I boarded the plane and approached the row I was supposed to sit in, but two guys occupied it, one of whom was in my seat. I was about to say something, but heard a pleasant, but serious female voice behind me and turned around.
“Are you guys supposed to sit here?”.
I looked at her: American, dark blond, late thirties, tired. She would be my travel companion for the next eight hours or so. Her vibe was formal and distant, but accommodating. She was on her way home to Boston, where she’d lived most of her life despite being born in New York, returning from a business trip to Belgium. She had been partying till the early hours with colleagues the day before: that’s why she looked tired.
“So, do you like beer or wine?”, I asked.
“Uhm, both, my husband actually works in liquor distribution, so I get to try a lot of things.”
She smiled broadly. This was a woman who’d probably enjoyed lots of wild partying and drinking during her early twenties, before sailing to calmer waters as she approached thirty.
“So, yesterday, you alternated between both beer and wine?” I said playfully.
She laughed.
“No, no, just had Belgian beers.”
Her two children were now with her husband in Finland, but would return in a week or so. She would have some time to party with her girlfriends in Boston. I told her to get some sleep during the flight. Honestly, I had slept terrible the night before, so this way I could also recharge.

In Boston I was waiting in the non-US passport immigration line. I felt like a second class citizen. A girl queued behind me. I said the obvious.
“So, you’re not American either?”
She smiled.
“No, no, I am from Germany.”
“Cool, I guess that makes us neighbours, as I am Dutch. Where in Germany are you from?”
Turns out she was a biology student from Hannover visiting her father in Boston. I asked her whether she thought biological systems had a discreet and finite number of arrangements. She didn’t think so.

After passing through immigration I walked to an elevator to switch terminals. A man in working clothes handling a cart with utilities was standing there: waiting. He was impatiently tapping his right foot.
“The elevator is taking its sweet time”, I said.
“Yeah, yeah, it is”, he replied.
He was tall, strong and his hands had a thick layer of callus. He’d been working at Boston Logan for twenty years and told me about the new parts that had been recently built as we crossed the footbridge together.

Upon reaching the other terminal I joined the next security line followed by a cute American girl. She eyeballed me, I don’t remember what I said, but we were quickly engaged in conversation. Her parents had a business in Slovenia and she was headed there. She was flying first to Amsterdam in the exact opposite direction as I had shortly before. Before I knew it we’d reached the point where I had to take off my shoes and pass through security. I walked through the metal detector, but froze in the middle.
“What are you doing, buddy?” The TSA officer laughed, “just walk all the way through.”
The full body scanners had confused me.

I boarded my final plane that would fly from Boston to Pittsburgh. I installed myself in the window seat and waited until the person supposed to sit in the aisle seat arrived. Let me just say it was a well `rounded’ American. We had a brief chat.
“I am originally from Chicago, but I am living down south now, people are far more relaxed there.”
“So, you traded the Gangsters for the Cowboys?”, I replied.
He chuckled.
“I am from the Netherlands”, I said.
“Great, Amsterdam, I’ve been there, love the place. The women were good, if you know what I mean.”
He looked at me with beady eyes and blinked as he nervously twitched his thumb and index finger.
The plane was having delays. A lady, and her luggage, were `offloaded’. The weather got rough and stormy, further delaying take off. He was getting annoyed.
“Shoot me in the neck, it’s always the same, one thing goes wrong: this lady, leading to five other things. Dammit.”
The plane took off and flew to Pittsburgh. But once there, we had to wait to actually land. Maintaining a holding pattern we flew through storm clouds. Turbulence: the small airplane was shaking violently. I had to hold on to both the left armrest of my seat as well as the head support of the seat in front of me. People exchanged frightened glances. The American next to me was unsettled.
“We’re circling”, he said.
“Yes, it appears so”, I replied.
He shook his head in silent disapproval. We landed nearly an hour later than planned.

The bus from Pittsburgh Airport to the Oakland neigbourhood was stuck in a heavy traffic jam with five other buses blocking an intersection. I was tired: just let me reach the hotel, so I can sleep.
“Is it always like this?”, I asked an Indian guy sitting behind me.
“No, no. In the year I’ve been here, I’ve never seen a traffic jam this bad.”
The bus was delayed about twenty minutes or so. When I reached my stop I walked together with an Egyptian student who would stay at the same hotel. He’d been there before and was hoping for a `clean’ room this time. I wasn’t reassured, but luckily my room turned out to be nothing to complain about.

How many lives did your cross during your last trip?

… or roughly 10 kilometers above the ground, that’s where I am now as you are reading this: in an airplane following one of the North Atlantic Tracks. In two hours I will be landing in Boston, going through security checks, and transferring to a national flight to my final destination: Pittsburgh. Since few people, me included, have an intuitive feeling of where that actually is: it’s on the east side of the United States, in west Pennsylvania: here. The timezone used there is Eastern Standard Time: six hours before Central European Time. So, if you’re in Europe: I will actually be in Pittsburgh by midnight your time.

So, you must be wondering: that’s all nice, but why are you on a transatlantic flight headed towards Pittsburgh, anyway? If you’re thinking: not for the “quality” in-flight food, popping eardrums, and cute flight attendants^[1], you’d be right. I will be at Carnegie Mellon University (CMU) in Pittsburgh for several months as a Visiting Scholar, specifically at the Language Technologies Institute, and more specifically with Jamie Callan and the students working with him.

Roughly that means that I’ll be collaborating with students, getting an impression of CMU and the people there, all whilst continuing my own research on peer-to-peer web search engines. Of course: I have some time to explore Pittsburgh and other parts of the United States as well. Expect some US focused blog entries the coming months.

As most people that leave their home country for an extended time to go off to a far away place, I too am thinking mostly about what I am leaving behind: friends, family, roommates, a familiar environment. The fact is that when I return none of these will be the same anymore. Truth be told: they would also not remain static when I would have remained here. However, due to the gradual changes this would be far less noticeable. One thing is for certain: by the time I get back I will have changed as well …

Among all the 3D super hero blockbuster violence of late, there is: Super 8. A science fiction drama created by J.J. Abrams perhaps best known for creating Lost, Cloverfield, and the most recent Star Trek instalment. Good science fiction does not revolve around using impossible physics and technology just for the sake of it, but rather: using these as backdrop in stories about the human condition. Does Super 8 succeed in this regard, or is it just a special effects extravaganza?

Joe lost his mother in an accident and now lives alone with his father: deputy Jackson. The deputy does not appreciate that his son hangs around with his film making friend Charles. Nevertheless, Joe, Charles, and other friends continue making their zombie movie together. The title of the movie is a reference to the 8mm film they use. If you want to see the end result of their movie project: be sure to stick around after the credits start to roll. Super 8 starts with building a good back story and carving out plausible characters. Things start getting fishy after a train derails while they are filming. Although somewhat over the top, the excellent cinematography and sound mixing makes this part both enjoyable and startling. However, effects aside: It is really the acting talent of the youngsters that carries most of the movie. All of them are well cast and play their roles to near perfection.

Steven Spielberg was involved as producer and his signature is clearly visible in some of the story telling: a good mix of light hearted scenes and typical young folk banter combined with suggestive science fiction elements leading up to a grand finale. The movie conveys the feeling of being young and exploring the world very well which aids in pulling the viewer into the story. I do not want to give too much away, but Super 8 contains elements of both Lost and Cloverfield. The pacing is excellent throughout, although more reminiscent of typical drama than typical science fiction. There are some key emotional scenes which could have been made more believable, and perhaps some parts contain too much touch of Spielberg’s early movies. Nevertheless, Super 8 is an enjoyable ride for science fiction lovers, but perhaps a bit too slow for the typical popcorn crowd. For those that are not afraid of depth: this is a movie that actually dares to tell a story instead of resorting to screaming computer generated imagery and contrived cardboard characters. Recommended!

Rating:  

Official Site | IMDB | Wikipedia

Trailer hosted by YouTube. Copyright © 2011 Paramount Pictures

Eric Schmidt, the former CEO of Google, caused a big stir when he remarked: “If you have something that you don’t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn’t be doing it in the first place”. Connected to this: a friend recently asked me the question: If we would place camera’s everywhere that would track your every move continuously, as in George Orwell’s 1984, why would that be a problem, other than it making you feel uncomfortable? What are the rational arguments against constant nation-wide surveillance?

It might seem as if twenty-four hour surveillance everywhere is a good idea. Admittedly, security camera’s are often initially installed for good reasons: safety and security. The recordings can be used to prosecute criminals and perhaps even to detect situations about to spin out of control: a hot topic. Schmidt’s argument is really a variation on the old adagium: “if you are doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear”, right?

Wrong, apart from the technical issue of generating too much data to sort through, the more important ethical problems are the topic of George Orwell’s 1984: it’s all about who controls the information that is collected and the potential for misuse. For those not familiar with the book, the origin of the term Big Brother: it is about a dystopian society of which all members are under constant surveillance, even in their own homes. The government controls, and heavily censors, the flow of information to all citizens even rewriting history, and also dictates not only what constitutes acceptable behaviour, but goes as far as punishing people for what they think: thoughtcrimes. Some parallels with this are also in Philip K. Dick’s short story Minority Report, which has a well known film adaptation. Science fiction apart: history is full of people with good intentions that become corrupted, so it would be rather naive to believe such scenarios will not unfold in reality.

Some years ago I was taught that data by itself has no meaning, it only acquires meaning when you interpret it which turns it into information. The collection of bytes that make up the Internet page you are looking at right now has no meaning without this particular part being interpreted by your browser as text and other parts as images, links, etcetera. This brings me to my main argument: recorded data with an innocent interpretation today, may not be be viewed as such tomorrow. There is ongoing debate as for how long data should be retained, and the benefits of doing so. Keep it longer and you may catch more criminals, but you also open up the potential for unethical or even criminal use of that same recorded data. Misuse need not even be perpetrated by a totalitarian regime as in 1984: data can be stolen or leaked.

A former colleague has written his thesis about the topic of data retention and degradation in light of privacy. The simple fact remains: if something is not recorded anywhere, it can not be used and thus also not be misused. Security expert Bruce Schneier’s stance is that privacy is a basic human need stating that the debate is really about liberty versus control: “Privacy protects us from abuses by those in power, even if we’re doing nothing wrong at the time of surveillance.”

Some rightly point out that security camera’s can provide a false sense of security. It can’t be denied that they discourage unlawful behaviour. However, they are a stopgap solution that does not solve the underlying problem of criminal behaviour, nor did the some 8000 surveillance cameras in London prevent riots. All the money spent on those eyes in the sky had perhaps better been invested in crime prevention and on real cops. While I applaud using modern technology for solving crimes, technology is not, and should never be, an end itself.

I have to say that it surprises me that people are happy nowadays to voluntarily transmit their exact physical coordinates in real-time to all kinds of services: apparantly cameras are evil, but no one appears to see a problem if something is packaged as a cute ‘helpful’ app. Obviously, the concern extends far beyond surveillance cameras alone. We can learn a valuable lesson from an old soul: “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both” – Benjamin Franklin.

A film with a budget of 200 million and lots of gifted people at the helm, but does all this creative talent lead to a good movie? With Martin Campbell as director, best known for GoldenEye and Casino Royale, and Stuart Baird of Die Hard 2, and more recently Vantage Point, as editor, can anything still go wrong?

Perhaps the problem with Green Lantern is not so much with the people involved in its cinematic recreation, but rather: in the source material and the script based on it. While DC Comics is well known for creating both Superman and Batman, Green Lantern does not share a long history of animation series and feature films with those franchises and is therefore less known. This lack of adaptations seems understandable as its back story requires significantly more suspense of disbelief than Superman and Batman combined. An observation that holds true for this movie as well. The fact that a Green Lantern is limited in recreating physical items only by his own imagination is underused in the script. Although, the few times where it is used are admittedly very cool.

Green Lantern starts with a narrative which tells us a bit about the history of the Green Lantern Corps. This is a welcome addition, as the story would be difficult to follow without it. From this we transition to a nice and light part until the main character, Hal Jordan portrayed by Ryan Reynolds, becomes a Green Lantern. Near the middle the movie starts to drag and suffers from taking itself too seriously. The beautiful renderings of the Green Lantern home planet Oa and excellent use of 3D can not disguise a somewhat lacklustre plot. While the movie regains proper pacing after the break, the “this is too easy, what was all the fuzz about?” ending leaves much to be desired: it feels far too rushed.

It is surprising that the more interesting storyline is not about Hal Jordan at all. It’s Peter Sarsgaard that, apart from one cheesy scene, delivers an excellent performance as the son of a powerful senator. His character is an under-appreciated scientific geek: Hector Hammond, who turns into a vehicle for the main villain: the Parallax. The film explores the interesting theme of the fear and hate driven Hammond versus the willpower and courage of the Green Lantern. However, the Hal Jordan character is not carved out deep enough to make this conflict interesting.

The film makers do a nice job of letting elements early in the movie recur later at appropriate times. As such the movie is easy to follow and understand. Had the main character been more believable Green Lantern would have had a more positive critical reception. Perhaps Ryan Reynolds will be a better fit for the Marvel universe? We will find out when Deadpool (2014) appears.

Rating:  

Official Site | IMDB | Wikipedia

Trailer hosted by YouTube. Copyright © 2011 Warner Brothers

I recently finished viewing the first season of NBC Television Series “The Event”. I’ll try not to give too much away, but its twenty-two episode run reminded me of 24, although: it does not share the “real-time” format for which that series is famous. The first half season of “The Event” also uses elements found in Lost and there are some moments similar to those found in X-Files and The 4400. Regardless of these comparisons, the question is: can the series stand on its own feet?

Belgian series creator Nick Wauters motivated the start of the series: “It’s about a normal guy, Sean Walker, gradually getting caught in a huge conspiracy”. Sean’s girlfriend Leila is kidnapped on a cruise ship which sets the main plot in motion. We also see the story from the perspective of the President of the United States where an airplane on a collision course vanishes right before hitting the ground. The pilot of the plane is the father of Leila, and also a member of a mysterious group of people of whom the majority are imprisoned at a secret facility. The series revolves around the origins and plans of these people, first encountered over 66 years ago, and their leadership, particularly a woman named Sophia.

The Event veers into a wide number of directions early on and there is a lot of jumping around in time: flashbacks. This makes for a somewhat discontinuous and awkward feel as it is not executed as well as in Lost. Add to this that the acting seems somewhat wooden in the early episodes and we have an explanation for why the shows ratings plummeted very quickly. This is not entirely deserved though, as the characters and acting get more believable as the season progresses and the actors grow in their roles. The story is interesting and entertaining, and explanations for what is happening are never too far away, which prevents disappointment over unanswered questions. Nevertheless, there are a few things that are left unexplained. The format changes with less jumping around in time mid-season. Although this makes the series easier to follow, it sacrifices deepening of the characters. Nevertheless, this seems to be a good choice that fits the more action-packed second half of the series.

I was not too impressed by Laura Innes portrayal of Sophia in the early episodes. There is just something off with her voice. However, there is a lot of improvement towards the end of the season when she faces a number of moral dilemmas. Blair Underwood delivers a strong role as the president of the United States, but I was particularly pleasantly surprised by Zeljko Ivanek‘s memorable role as Director of National Intelligence Blake Sterling.

Where 24 provided us with a seemingly superhuman lead character that could solve everything: Jack Bauer, The Event has the somewhat impulsive and clumsy Sean Walker, portrayed by Jason Ritter. Even though the way in which he gets a sidekick later in the season is one of the weaker parts of the overall plot, his clumsiness works surprisingly well for the series, making the character much more believable and not as one-dimensional as Jack Bauer. Add to this that when viewing The Event you swing back and forth between sympathising with the mysterious group of people and the rest of the planet, and you have an entertaining and thought-provoking ride.

Even though NBC cancelled the series after its first season due to poor ratings, there is still a possibility of some type of continuation. This would be justified given the first season’s interesting ending. If you like a combination of action, drama and thriller with a light mystery / sci-fi flavour this is for you.

Rating:  

Official Site | IMDB | Wikipedia

Trailer hosted by YouTube. Copyright © NBC

A well known Dutch supermarket chain has on several occasions handed out soccer trading cards: for each € 10,- you would spend at one of their supermarkets you get a blind packet with five trading cards. So, you do not know the contents of the packets beforehand and therefore may end up with duplicates. These cards were a true hype among youngsters, many of whom clung to buyers exiting supermarkets to ask for their packs^[1]. Because the number of unique cards is finite, a logical question is: how much money does one have to spend before having the entire card collection?

Problem
There are 270 soccer trading cards in total. For every € 10,- you spend you get a pack of 5 (blind) cards. The cards may overlap between packs^[2]. You may not directly buy cards from other parties or trade cards with others (as is common in real life). Your only source of cards is the supermarket itself. How much do you have to spend to get all 270 cards? First try to work out a solution yourself, then click below to expand mine.