Amazon's Unboxed should be called "Not Ready"

When I heard about Amazon’s new video downloading product called “Amazon Unboxed”, I figured I’d give it a try.  The only criticism I heard was that it took too long to download a show, but I regularly record and watch shows days after their broadcast, so that wasn’t a big deal to me.

To test out the system, I downloaded an episode of Mythbusters, a 45 minute show (no commercials  ).

First problem:  content availability. There was very little content available. It reminded me of what I see when I use Comcast’s OnDemand service:  Most of what I want to see isn’t available.

Next problem: download speed:  It was pretty obvious from my download session that they were limiting my download speed to some ridiculously slow number, which they didn’t do for downloading the software itself.

Next problem:  Fast Forward didn’t work.  Even though they had a Fast Forward button, and a way to move the play point to anywhere in the video, they didn’t work.  Clicking the button didn’t change the play position, and moving the play point resulted in it immediately snapping back to the beginning when the recording started to play.  I ended up watching the first half of the show multiple times .

Next problem:  Running the diagnostics destroyed my copy of the show.  When Fast Forward refused to work, I ran a built-in diagnostic of the software.  It found no problems, but trashed my copy of Mythbusters!  On the plus side, they allow you to re-download the show (after all, I bought it!), but that meant having to deal with the slow download yet again.

Final problem (the last straw):  The whole recording refused to play!  The first time I watched the program, I got about 30 minutes (2/3, remember no commercials), and then stopped watching.  After that, the program would only run about 20 minutes through (which I had to watch again, see above), and then ended!

That was it, I’d had enough at this point.  I had been skeptical of Amazon’s ability to really deliver here, since I know their attention to their customers is almost nonexistent.  They lived up to my low expectations.  Hopefully, Rhapsody will offer video downloads soon…

9/12/2006 10:17:26 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00)      Comments [0]  technology | TV

Strange Computer Myths

Joel Spolsky posted an interesting entry to his blog today.  He’s using a Mac Pro from home, and is wondering why “people” say that Macs never crash, since his unit is requiring a hard reset about every two hours.

I’m constantly amazed at the number of people who believe that the Mac is un-crashable.  The same thing about Linux systems.  I used to be a system operator for several Unix-based computers, and we were happy if our systems didn’t crash each day.

I’m also entertained by the new Mac commercials, since they do such a good job of ignoring the current state of the art in computer software …

9/11/2006 11:57:47 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00)      Comments [0]  technology

Agile Architect? Oxymoron? Maybe not...
Sam Gentile posted an interesting article on agile architects. For those of you who were never happy with XP’s early “organic” view of architecture (apparently a growing group), you should read this.
9/7/2006 1:29:58 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00)      Comments [0]  development

Fall Season Early Results

The Fall Season’s slowly creeping its way upon us, and since Fox has been good enough to start up early, I’m living up to an earlier promise to post my reactions/impressions of the new season.

Prison Break:  For those living under a rock, or who don’t own a TV (you know who you are), Prison Break is a Fox series about, guess what, a prison break.  This is its second season, and its been much better than its last.  I know a lot of folks enjoyed season 1, but I got tired of all the “prison” stuff.  This season, they’re out and on the lam.  So far, I’ve been enjoying it:  good action, good drama.

Vanished:  Fox’s (and the season’s) first new series.  It’s a pretty ho-hum show.  I watch it because Ming Na is in it, and I’m a big fan.  However, the show has potential (lots of secrets under the covers), and could get better.  I’ll keep watching and hoping for now (at least until the competition starts).

Standoff:  I shudder at the idea of a hostage situation each week.  Seems like a lot of tension.  So far, the show seems okay.  I’m not too hot on the romance between the two main characters. It’s okay as “back story”, but I hope they concentrate on the crises.

House:  I don’t watch it.  I know, I’m a communist. I find it boring.

Bones:  Second season for this show.  Dr. Brennan is still as asocial as last season.  She’s interesting to watch, since she's a “geek’s geek”, and displays all of the anti-social behaviors stereotypically common to the genre.  Yes, I said “all”. There’s no way a real person could function the way she does.  Once you realize that, the behavior goes from “annoying” to “entertaining”.  She has a new boss this season who’s a much better foil for her than last season’s boss.

Justice:  I think of this show as “Just Ice”.  It’s extremely superficial, with no real drama to the cases. If you like to watch naive lawyers fooling themselves and slimy lawyers, you might like this show. Might.  I’ll watch it until something better comes along, which will be any day now; it won’t take much.

Fashion House: My God! The show looks like porn!  I don’t mean the explicitness (though they sure take every advantage to show women running around in their underwear), the production quality is so cheesy that it really does look like (clean) porn! The acting is not as bad as daytime soaps.  It’s not holding my interest, though.

Desire: This is the other My TV Network show (5 days a week, with a sixth recap show).  After my Fashion House experience, I don’t think I’ll even bother with this show.

That’s it so far. 2 weeks to the big premiere week.

 

9/7/2006 11:00:22 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00)      Comments [0]  TV

I've had my Runway ego stroked
Hey, hey, hey!  Michael Rucker, one of the producers of Project Runway and a blogger,  just posted my comment in his blog!  Oh, the head rush!  Still, it was weird seeing my comments in print since the name came last. While reading it, I was thinking, “boy, this sounds familiar”.
9/7/2006 10:17:47 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00)      Comments [0]  TV

What a difference a dot makes
Today, JetBrains released Resharper 2.0.1.  Boy, what a difference that “.1” makes! I’ve had a love-hate relationship with Resharper 2.0.  On the one hand, I don’t want to live without its features (I would say “can’t”, but come on! Its just software).  On the other hand, various parts of the system were so buggy that I avoided using them (including the tabs on their test runner).  Well, I just ran through 2.0.1, trying all the problem areas, and they’re all fixed!  Oh joy, oh joy.  So, if you’re not using Resharper 2.0, run (don’t walk) to their web site and get a copy now.
8/25/2006 3:19:21 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00)      Comments [0]  development

The Optimization Jones

Many developers, especially C/C++ developers, are fixated on optimizing their applications early.  Bob Martin has an excellent post on performance tuning that everyone (especially the above named folks) should read.  It reinforces my philosophy that optimizing for speed (as opposed to readability, maintainability, and flexibility) is something that should be saved for the end when you know you have a problem and can spend the time to figure out the (real) solution.

For all of you now going “but, but, but”, please keep in mind that I’m not saying that you should be stupid about performance.  Here’s a good rule of thumb.  When you’re doing the early optimization (or thinking of it), if you feel proud of how neat it is, its too much.

8/25/2006 2:12:41 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00)      Comments [0]  development

Software and the Runway

Last month, I posted my “Runway crazy” piece, and Jennifer (hi, Jennifer! Thanks for reading!) commented that she’d like to hear more about the parallels between software development and fashion design (that sounds weird, even to me!).  Now, I’d thought that I’d already written about this, but apparently not.

Here goes…

One of the first things that struck me about Project Runway when I watched the first season (available on DVD!), was “Hey! we do the same thing in software!  In software development, we start with an overall concept (often from a “customer”), then plan out the steps, execute the steps, make final changes due to usage, and voila: software.  In design, they do the same thing: take a concept, construct a pattern, assemble the outfit, fit the outfit.

The designers even face similar constraints: 

• What fabrics should I use (software technologies: web, desktop, java, etc.)?
• How much time do I have (schedule)?
• How do my skills at sewing, pattern making, etc. impact the schedule (experience, training)?

As an aside (but not really), the Software Development conference used to have a feature called the “C++ Superbowl”.  Developers from each of the C++ compiler/IDE vendors would go head-to-head to develop a series of application challenges.  This was done in real time, on stage, in front of an audience.  I thought that it was incredibly exciting.  With the death of C++ as a major development language, the Superbowl was discontinued, but I wish that they’d bring it back.  It was great to see how the various products could be used for the challenges, and it was also great to see how capable the vendor teams were.  For the record, Borland won almost all of the challenges, until they stopped participating (due to their own internal problems).  Also for the record, the think that killed the Superbowl was Sun’s lawsuit that broke off the main Java vendor, Microsoft.  This basically made the Superbowl irrelevant.

Back to Runway:  I’d recommend anyone that develops IP of some kind (software, hardware design, fiction, etc.) watch the show.  There’s much to relate to.

8/25/2006 11:30:06 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00)      Comments [0]  development | TV

They're Baaaaack!

Looks like Borland’s coming back in a big way!  They’ve announced the return of the “Turbo” line of software. You can see the offering here.  I’ve got to admit, I’m pretty excited about this. We could see the return of the old Borland again.  I’m hoping that they’re going to work toward growing the non-MS use of .NET/C#.

I also noticed an interesting thing:  There was no mention of JBuilder or Java development.  It could be that JBuilder is either staying with the parent company, or going its own separate way.

8/9/2006 9:53:53 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00)      Comments [0]  development

Here's an interesting take on Avalon

Miguel de Icaza, the father of Mono, has an interesting take on Avalon (Windows Presentation Framework, WPF). He says that “Avalon is the J2EE of GUI APIs”. For those that don’t know J2EE (congratulations!), this is  not a compliment.  Speaking of someone who’s reaction to Avalon was “man, that’s complicated”, I tend to agree with him. I’d go on to say that its the “Word 2000 of GUI APIs”: it has way more features than the average developer wants to deal with, and in fact gets in the way of simple UI design.

sigh.

8/3/2006 11:50:46 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00)      Comments [0]  development

My Faith in Science has been Restored

And, keep in mind what I just said: Faith in Science.

I’m now reading James P. Hogan’s Kicking the Sacred Cow. It’s an interesting book, a rebuttal of various “popular science” themes, including Evolution, the Big Bang, and (my favorite) Global Warming.  Hogan applies a clear-eyed scientific method to these issues, reporting what experts in the field are saying, instead of what “experts” in other fields are saying.  Apparently, this is an ongoing problematic theme in popular science today: Scientists commenting outside their fields of expertise are just as likely as lay persons (in fact they are lay persons) to go along with public opinion as lay people are.

Here are a few of my thoughts on the subjects based upon what I read:

• Evolution: (surprisingly) There is no scientific evidence that Natural Selection (as currently defined) works. None. Note: this one really rattled me. I knew there were “issues” with current evolutionary thought, but wow!
• Astronomy: Most red shifts are not caused by motion (Doppler shift).  The distance of objects in the universe (and therefore the apparent size / age of the universe) cannot be measured by red shift.
• Global Warming: CO2 emissions actually follow changes in temperature rather than precede them (as would be expected if CO2 emissions were causing warming).  Global warming is (apparently) more correlated with sunspots than increases in greenhouse gases.

Fair warning, this book takes you to the scientific roots of these issues, so its a very dry read. Lots of statistics and such.  And (as the title implies), it completely flies in the face of popular thought regarding these issues.

I highly recommend reading this book! I wonder what Al Gore thinks of it…

7/31/2006 11:18:10 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00)      Comments [1]  general

Pink Panther

I watched Steve Martin’s Pink Panther over the weekend, and I was surprised at how good it was. It was downright hilarious at spots.  When I first heard about the movie, I wasn’t impressed.  After all, how could Steve Martin doing a fake French accent be funny? Especially as funny as Peter Sellers was.  When watching the movie (I was desperate), I remembered the following:

• Peter Sellers was using a fake French accent too.
• There were only to honestly good “Inspector Clouseau” movies: “The Pink Panther” and “A Shot in the Dark” (the best of the series). The other movies were made much later (The Pink Panther was in 1963, The Return of the Pink Panther was in 1975, 12 years later), and were just done to “cash in” on the Pink Panther popularity.

Steve Martin’s take on the character was at least as good as Peter Sellers’ take, and I think the movie was just about as good as the original Pink Panther. Still not as good as A Shot in the Dark, but that was a classic.

Now, I’m disappointed that the movie didn’t do better at the box office, because I’d like to see more from this acting team, especially Steve Martin, Jean Reno, and Emily Mortimer (Nicole).

Come on, Steve! Give us a another one!

7/31/2006 10:07:46 AM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00)      Comments [0]  general

CodeCamp 2.0 was suprisingly good

Frankly, I didn’t have very high hopes.  They cut the camp from 2 to 1 day, the organization showed extreme last-minute-itis, and it was way out in the boonies of north Vancouver (WA, not Canada).

In actuality, it turned out to be at least as good as last year, maybe even better. I especially liked the sessions on Iron Ruby and WMI. Boy, could I have used that WMI knowledge last year!

Now, I’m looking forward to next year’s camp, even if it is back at the WSU campus in Vancouver (a very nice, if remote, campus).

I want to give special kudos to Stuart Celarier and Jason Mauer for putting on such a good show.

That’s not to say that there weren’t some “opportunities for improvement”:

• The agenda came out way late. That needs to be better.
• I never was able to get wi-fi to work there. I know other people were, but they need to be better about helping out there. A few people were helpful, especially Stuart, but other folks just threw their hands up.
• They ran out of sugar for the coffee, and had no creamer at the start. They eventually fixed the creamer issue, but for those of us that can taste the difference, Sweet-n-Low tastes vile.  Yes, I know that this is “extra” stuff, but you don’t want to mess with a techie’s coffee!

But, these were ultimately small issues, and (as I said), it was a good code camp overall.

7/24/2006 5:36:29 PM (Pacific Daylight Time, UTC-07:00)      Comments [0]  general | development