понеділок, 31 травня 2010 р.
четвер, 27 травня 2010 р.
I've just understood that Danica Patrick doesn't seem to get any older for more than 6 (7, 8?) years I deal with Godaddy. I just imagine myself attending Godaddy site being an old angry man -- and still seeing Danica there unchanged :).
неділя, 23 травня 2010 р.
Entropy loss problem
Past decades are widely considered as the period of enormous growth of the amount of information available around the world. Though the overall amount of information on the planet has really grown significantly (and continues to grow), a much bigger basis for this viewpoint, as for me, lies in dramatic decrease of entropy in the information data surrounding us.
I cannot say “the entropy in the information surrounding us” as this is not formally correct, because “information” assumes 100% entropy, while abstract “data” may contain no information at all (and thus have zero entropy).
What we have today is enormous growth of the amount of data, not information. We have more books, more music bands, more radio stations, more TV channels. However, all those sources bring us much less information than they used to 50 years ago. Most of the news channels use original copy-and-paste method, obtaining news from a small number of information agencies (e.g. Thomson-Reuters or Associated Press), and only several of them do work on producing something more intellectual than just reproducing the facts. The shelves of bookstores are full of books, but it is quite difficult to choose a good book to read. Finally, I have just entirely stuffed my new 400GB hard drive, but I doubt that my PC contains ten times more information than it used to do with 40GB drive ten years ago.
Why entropy loss is a problem? Due to its flooding effect, of course. There is just too much low-entropy data around us, so retrieving high-entropy data requires more and more efforts to be done. Moreover, certain skills are needed to be able to tell a smile from a veil (C); it is too easy to get led by fake ideals. Finally, the world is not that simple by itself, so why should we make it more complicated by bringing extra trash into it?
I cannot say “the entropy in the information surrounding us” as this is not formally correct, because “information” assumes 100% entropy, while abstract “data” may contain no information at all (and thus have zero entropy).
What we have today is enormous growth of the amount of data, not information. We have more books, more music bands, more radio stations, more TV channels. However, all those sources bring us much less information than they used to 50 years ago. Most of the news channels use original copy-and-paste method, obtaining news from a small number of information agencies (e.g. Thomson-Reuters or Associated Press), and only several of them do work on producing something more intellectual than just reproducing the facts. The shelves of bookstores are full of books, but it is quite difficult to choose a good book to read. Finally, I have just entirely stuffed my new 400GB hard drive, but I doubt that my PC contains ten times more information than it used to do with 40GB drive ten years ago.
Why entropy loss is a problem? Due to its flooding effect, of course. There is just too much low-entropy data around us, so retrieving high-entropy data requires more and more efforts to be done. Moreover, certain skills are needed to be able to tell a smile from a veil (C); it is too easy to get led by fake ideals. Finally, the world is not that simple by itself, so why should we make it more complicated by bringing extra trash into it?
вівторок, 18 травня 2010 р.
Covers: Dust in the Wind, Scorpions
In my opinion, most of the covers cannot compete with the original performances. Still there are some exceptions. An outstanding arrangement of a good old Kansas song, primarily thanks to Adriana’s cello and the keyboards.
неділя, 16 травня 2010 р.
I’ve been watching yet another “Air crash investigations” film yesterday. To make a long story short, the crash (B737 disintegration in the air) has been caused by improper pilot actions in response to airplane roll in poor weather conditions. When the investigators sank deeply into the details of the catastrophe, they found out that all the pilots of the air company (Adam Air, Indonesia) were trained defectively. To be exact, they were trained comprehensively to handle normal situations, while having absolutely no knowledge about what to do in abnormal situations.
Then I have realized that many bricks which our world is built of are quite weak, but no one sees it. A really great number of devices, constructions, rules are designed to work when everything goes as expected, however, they will immediately fail as soon as something starts going wrong. I am concerned a bit about the situation in the information protection field. It is horrible to accept that many software products intending to protect sensitive data do not actually protect it (though giving the illusion that they do). What is the worst, it is almost impossible to detect such weaknesses from the outside, as everything looks good as long as the environment is appropriate. The pilots of Adam Air have performed dozens flights successfully -- thanks to the absence of abnormal situations -- and who could ever imagine that something is wrong? Many of us live beside potentially dangerous objects: various nuclear reactors, factories, dams. Who can be sure that the personnel working there has enough skills to handle all the possible situations? Who can be sure that -20 frost will not break them down due to constructors’ assumptions that “such frosts have never been noticed in this area”?
Then I have realized that many bricks which our world is built of are quite weak, but no one sees it. A really great number of devices, constructions, rules are designed to work when everything goes as expected, however, they will immediately fail as soon as something starts going wrong. I am concerned a bit about the situation in the information protection field. It is horrible to accept that many software products intending to protect sensitive data do not actually protect it (though giving the illusion that they do). What is the worst, it is almost impossible to detect such weaknesses from the outside, as everything looks good as long as the environment is appropriate. The pilots of Adam Air have performed dozens flights successfully -- thanks to the absence of abnormal situations -- and who could ever imagine that something is wrong? Many of us live beside potentially dangerous objects: various nuclear reactors, factories, dams. Who can be sure that the personnel working there has enough skills to handle all the possible situations? Who can be sure that -20 frost will not break them down due to constructors’ assumptions that “such frosts have never been noticed in this area”?
пʼятниця, 14 травня 2010 р.
People are bad risks managers when it comes to estimating real-life risks. They often overestimate the low-probability events, while underestimating the higher-probability ones. One of my acquaintances is extremely frightened of airplane flights. At the same time, he sees nothing critical in drink-driving from time to time. It appeared useless to explain him that he has much bigger chance of getting into a car accident (even not considering drinking) than of being killed in airplane crash.
Most of the people are afraid of dogs, natural disasters, terrorist attacks, hackers, civil wars, disability. Of course, many of those scares are real and justified ones. However, much more dangerous are everyday threats that we usually do not consider at all. Unprotected sex takes away hundreds times more lives than mad dogs do. Smoking will turn you to a disabled person much faster than your old CRT display will (the one that you have finally upgraded to a brand new LCD device, so that your ashtray felt comfortable beside the keyboard). Inability to get rid of stress is likely to kill you ten years before a terrorist blows your car up.
Most of the people are afraid of dogs, natural disasters, terrorist attacks, hackers, civil wars, disability. Of course, many of those scares are real and justified ones. However, much more dangerous are everyday threats that we usually do not consider at all. Unprotected sex takes away hundreds times more lives than mad dogs do. Smoking will turn you to a disabled person much faster than your old CRT display will (the one that you have finally upgraded to a brand new LCD device, so that your ashtray felt comfortable beside the keyboard). Inability to get rid of stress is likely to kill you ten years before a terrorist blows your car up.
вівторок, 11 травня 2010 р.
Sometimes I find myself thinking that modern arts is too ideal to be arts :). The technical quality of modern paintings, music, photography and films just does not leave any chance to find a minimal performance mistake.
That’s why I always prefer live performances to studio records when it comes to music. A common product of studios is something unreal, something too ideal to live together with us in our imperfect world.
That’s why I always prefer live performances to studio records when it comes to music. A common product of studios is something unreal, something too ideal to live together with us in our imperfect world.
Підписатися на:
Дописи (Atom)