Home // Archive by category "Cool stuff"

Don’t Blink

Though I loved Dr Who (Tom Baker jelly-baby stylez, yo) as a kid, and still think it a cool show, I haven’t actually watched the new ones.

Until today.

Today I watched part of "Blink", an episode from series three (somewhat oddly named, as David Tennant is in fact the tenth Doctor).

ER. MAH. GERD.

I have to say, the Weeping Angels absolutely eat the Daleks for breakfast in terms of scariness, cleverness, coolness, spine-tinglingness… Holy. Hell. Such a brilliant concept, and really really well done. My hair stood on end just thinking back to it as I started this post. Awesome.

Thus, today I have ordered series 3 on dvd. 8)

Oh, also: David TENnant is the tenth Doctor. Haha. xP And according to IMDB, at age 3 or 4 he decided to be an actor, inspired by (dun dun dunnnnn) Doctor Who. How super-cool is that?

Numbers Geekery

I was supposed to be reading A Storm of Swords (I have to catch my sister, and stay ahead of my wife…) but I caught up in thinking some more about a geeky bit of number play (aka what I think maths should be) that I started thinking about yesterday. So I thought I’d type it up and post it, because I think it’s neat. – Not that it necessarily has any point, or is original, or even especially clever; it’s just a fun neat pattern, and that’s what I like about maths: patterns and fun.

On a related note, I would suggest reading A Mathematician’s Lament by Paul Lockhart.

Anyway, what did I notice? (I’m glad you asked … or bothered to keep reading, at any rate).

The first thing I noticed was that if I subtracted the sum of 1 and 3 (i.e. 4) from 13, I got 9. Then I thought about other "teens", and found the same thing; e.g. 18 – (1 + 8) = 9. I thought that was pretty cool, and started wondering about other 2 digit numbers:

Pretty neat: if you take a two digit number, add the digits, and subtract that from the original number, you get a factor of 9. What factor of 9 do you get? Why, however many tens you had in the original number. I like that. So, what about 3 digit numbers?

So … you still get factors of 9, but no longer the number of tens in the original number. In fact, after some thought it became apparent that what you get is the highest factor of 9 that is less than the lowest number of that decade. That is, for 100-109, the highest multiple of 9 that is less than 100 is 99, or 11 x 9; for 200-209 the highest multiple of 9 that is lower than 200 is 198, or 22 x 9; for 360-369 the highest is 351 (39 x 9), and so on.

Heh – and it didn’t take much at all to work out that last multiple of 9: I simply subtracted (3 + 6) from 360 – being very sure the result would be a multiple of nine.

Fail. Once I started looking at the higher 200s I found that my "highest multiple of 9" idea was wrong. Clearly wrong. Maybe I shouldn’t have been surprised, as it didn’t seem especially easy to explain, nor elegant. Rather what seems to be the rule, is that the factor of nine is found with the hundreds and tens columns: the hundreds becomes tens, and then adding the digits in the hundreds and tens columns gives the ones for the factor. Gawd that sounds messy. Example then:

No easier to explain, perhaps, but it "feels" to me to be more elegant.

So. Fun with numbers. I said earlier that it might not have any point – but in a way that’s the point: it’s just fun, and it doesn’t need to have any sort of application.

Moves Like Haile (I wish…)

I went for my second run today. I headed out on the same route as last weekend, and was quite pleased with how I did. I got further up the last hill before giving in and walking, and when I reached the top, instead of collapsing against the nearest tree, I started running again, and got to the end of the fire trail, turned around, and ran back. While I did chunks of walking on the return journey, I ran more of it than I did last week – which was reflected in the fact I went further, in 5 minutes less. :D

My calves did let me know almost immediately that they hadn’t yet quite recovered from last weekend’s working-out. This unfortunately did mean the run wasn’t quite as enjoyable as it could have been, as I was conscious of my calves for most of the run. On the other hand, that led to quite focused consideration of my stride, which was interesting.

One particular thing I noticed was that the more like Haile Gebrselassie I ran (or rather, tried to run :P ) the more comfortable my calves were. The only problem was that after a few km of running, I lacked the cardio-respiratory oomph to do so for very long at all, and so had to revert to slower and smaller strides, not picking up my feet behind anywhere near as much.

I mention Gebrselassie not because he’s unique in his running style, but simply as an exemplar of excellent (and beautiful) running, and one who I have been checking out in videos lately. It was really interesting to me just how much better it felt to run like that – and particularly how much more comfortable my (quite sore) calves felt.

I was pleased to note that when I did walk briefly, my heart rate dropped quicker than I expected – and quicker than I think it did even a week ago. So I do hold out some hope I might be able to sustain the “Moves Like Haile” for longer as time goes on. ;)

Plus, I’m still enjoying it. In fact I’m finding myself breaking into a run at random times, just because I happen to feel like it at the time. 8)

Eyes of the Young

I was reminded today of a photo I took a few years back, of my daughter at the airport. A few family members had shared on Facebook a photo of a couple of babies, one black, one white, reaching out to each other. This photo.

That reminded me of this photo of mine:

20120325-144611.jpg

We were waiting at the gate, and a woman came in wi her son, who seemed to be around my daughter’s age. There was absolutely no hesitation from either of them; they just got on with playing together.

I wonder when grown-ups will figure it out….

Proper Search – From Google, Even

I’ve blithered before about Google sodding up search, personalising it and “correcting” your input and so forth. I just want to enter search terms, and have a search engine search using those terms. Call me weird, but when I type something into a search box, it’s because I want to search for that word or phrase. I don’t want my search engine making what Google calls:

“…normal improvements such as

  • making automatic spelling corrections
  • personalizing your search by using information such as sites you’ve visited before
  • including synonyms of your search terms (matching “car” when you search [automotive])
  • finding results that match similar terms to those in your query (finding results related to “floral delivery” when you search [flower shops])
  • searching for words with the same stem like “running” when you’ve typed [run]
  • making some of your terms optional, like “circa” in [the scarecrow circa 1963]“

“Improvements”…

Deciding that some of what I type in is “optional”…

Basing the results returned on sites I’ve visited before…

Automatically “correcting” my spelling – from the obscure/technical word I wanted, to some meaningless and out of context foolishness…

“Improvements.” Ok…

20111117-212133.jpg

Anyway, it’s not been just me complaining … well, maybe it has – until recently, when Google did away with the + operator, which previously could be added in front of a word to ensure it wasn’t “corrected”/modified – though that still left all the other “improvements”. Now Google has introduced what it is calling verbatim search, in which none of those “improvements” are made; it simply searches for the terms you type in, and returns the results.

Thank you, Google.

Oh, but … hold on a cotton-pickin’ minute. You can’t set it as default? You have to search, then when the results come up, click on more options or something, and navigate through to “verbatim search”? Sodding pleh.

So. I don’t like that very much. But it turns out I don’t have to. There is a little string, a few tiny characters, that when added to the end of your search string, can make all the difference:

&tbs=li:1

That, my friends, is all you need for searching win.

Update: I’m pretty sure I found that string at Ghacks; I also note that there’s now a userscript called Gooverbatim that adds a “yes, really” button to Google – which obviously performs a verbatim search.

Now, in Chrome, you can set custom search engines. I created one with this string at the end (it also includes another few characters that I added ages ago I think to stop personalised results; I can’t remember … I left them in anyway, though they might be redundant):

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=@search@&pws=0&hl=all&tbs=li:1

Of course you would make it whatever country’s google URL you’re in (or another if you want, I suppose). Set that as the default search engine, and then when you type something into the address/search bar, you’ll get a verbatim search by default.

So. That’s Chrome sorted. What about my other browsers? Atomic on the iPad is easy: custom search engine with that URL: done. Mobile Safari though doesn’t allow custom search engines. Enter Quix.

It can however, be even more betterer. By adding a line to the quix command list (I also deleted a bunch of commands I would have no need for – you can do all that with a simple text editor) you can have it search without having to type ‘g’ before your search terms. The line you need (again, change the country as you wish) is:

* http://www.google.com.au/search?q=@search@&pws=0&hl=all&tbs=li:1 Untriggered search

I would suggest, as well as adding this line, adding &tbs=li:1 to the end of the default search string for google search in the quix command list; that way you still get a verbatim search even if for whatever reason you use the quix command stem (“g”) before your search terms.

You modify the quix command list, upload it (you will of course need somewhere to upload it to), then – in Safari on your computer, not the iPad – go to the Quix extend page, and from there drag the bookmarklet to your browser bar. Synchronise with your iPad (either through iCloud or via iTunes), making sure the info from the computer goes to the iPad (you might need to tick that option in the iTunes “info” pane for your iThing (just realised the iPad isn’t the only iThing with a browser… Come to think of it, it’s not limited to iThings; this is just a JavaScript bookmarklet, so all of my wittering applies to any platform really), and you should have a nice shiny “Quix” bookmarklet in your bookmark bar. Click that, type your search into the box that pops up, and go. Just as quick as the default search box, and proper unmodified search.

I is happy.

Statistical data collected by Statpress SEOlution (blogcraft).