Take a close look at the chart below (from this article), which shows the market share of operating systems as measured by the number of “computing platforms” (personal computers, laptops, tablets, smart phones, etc.) that use them. Note that this same graph using a metric of operating system revenue or profit would look very, very different (for instance, Android would be zero, since it's free). There's also something else odd here: Linux is missing except for Android.
One thing that jumped out at me is very personal: this chart almost exactly captures the range of time of my own interest and involvement with personal computing platforms: I first built a “personal computer” in 1974, just one year before the beginning of this chart. That year would have been 100% “other”, because the only commercial personal computers were offerings like the MITS Altair; brands that never took off. Most personal computers then were home-built, as my first few were.
The big story here is the rise and fall of “WinTel” (Intel chips running Windows). I'm not sure precisely how these WinTel numbers were generated, but they must include MS-DOS computers as well, because Windows certainly didn't have significant market share in 1985, let alone 50% (Windows really didn't take off until the release of Windows 3.0/3.1 in 1990). But this is a quibble - rename it “Microsoft and Intel” and it's clear. Two or three years ago, the WinTel share slipped below 50% again, for the first time in nearly 30 years. In the technology world, that's an extraordinary run. Furthermore, if this graph were in operating system revenue instead of device count, WinTel would still be over 50%. Amazing!
But the device count for Android and Apple matter. Android is entirely smartphone and tablet, and the Apple count is dominated by IOS (its operating system for portable devices). The Mac OS/X count is tiny by comparison. All these devices require applications, and the ecosystem of application developers is rapidly growing for portable devices. I'm not sure the traditional application development world is shrinking – I suspect, in fact, that it's still growing. It's just that the portable device application development world is growing much faster yet. Why does this matter? The success of those applications is what really drives the operating system penetration. Apple and Android are perceived as “sexy” platforms to write for right now, and Windows is perceived by most developers as “legacy” and, well, stodgy.
Monday, June 3, 2013
Don't Ever Talk to the Police...
Great advice, presented in an engaging fashion. If you've never delved into this before, you'll likely be surprised...
On a related note: my own experience with juries is limited to the several times I've been in a jury pool (but never selected), and the six months I once spent as the U.S. Navy's “liaison” to the courts near Bremerton, Washington. Those experiences leave me with just one clear thought: if I'm innocent, I don't ever want to be tried by a jury in the U.S. I'd much rather take my chances with the judge...
Sunday, June 2, 2013
400 Years...
About 400 years ago, a glacier on Ellesmere Island in Canada grew and ran over a clump of moss. Fast forward to today, when the glacier retreated back over that moss it ran over. What do you suppose happened?
Some of it sprouted. Four hundred years under the ice, and it was still viable.
Mighty Moss. Is there anything it can't do?
Some of it sprouted. Four hundred years under the ice, and it was still viable.
Mighty Moss. Is there anything it can't do?
That Old Chestnut...
...might be coming back soon to a forest near you. American Chestnut, that is – the one practically wiped out by an invading fungus from imported Japanese Chestnuts. Clever geneticists have modified American Chestnut DNA to include resistance to that fungus, and it looks possible that a reintroduction could succeed.
Until the anti-GMO crowd starts squawking, anyway...
Until the anti-GMO crowd starts squawking, anyway...
Labels:
American Chestnut,
Botany,
Tree
Not True...
Last week Covered California officials were crowing about how the Obamacare health insurance exchange prices turned out to be less than the pre-Obamacare prices. I dismissed that as ludicrous on its face, but didn't dig in to find out how they got those numbers. Now others have done so, and as I expected, the Covered California claims are bogus. Basically, they compared 2013 individual rates to 2014 employer rates – very much apples and oranges. But it made a good sound byte, and the lamestream media faithfully picked it up and repeated it – so now all the low information voters are convinced their insurance rates are going down.
They have a surprise awaiting them.
Not a happy surprise.
California. Doom...
They have a surprise awaiting them.
Not a happy surprise.
California. Doom...
Labels:
Healthcare,
Obamacare
FJ Cruiser: Console Nose...
The platform will extend forward a bit more in between the front seats, to nest up nicely with the center console. To do this, I built a “box” that extends forward from the forward bulkhead of the platform. This box has to fit around some curved parts of the truck – not too hard if you have a profile gauge...
| The sides of the console nose box, attached to the forward bulkhead... |
| Attaching the front of the console nose box. The cutout is for a utility box to hold four 120V outlets that our inverter will power... |
Labels:
FJ Cruiser
FJ Cruiser: Hidden Hinges...
The platform I'm building will have two hinged doors, one on each side of the truck. The door will open up, like a chest, to provide access to the storage area below. The top of these doors is the platform for our dogs to lie on. This posed a bit of a design challenge: we wanted the doors to be hinged, but we really didn't want the hinge to be sticking up out of the platform, as an ordinary hinge wood.
I found a hidden cabinet hinge that would work for our purpose, made by SOSS. They're available in multiple sizes, including one that was perfect for us. Installing these would be a bit tricky, though – you can't just mount them to the plywood that makes up the door. I got a piece of red oak 2 x 2, finished on all four sides (it's really 1 3/4 inches on a side). That's plenty strong enough to mount the hinges into, and easy enough to attach to the plywood (some screws and glue will do the trick). But the hinge needs to be mounted with its centerline just 1/2" below the surface of the door. Since the door is made of 1/2" thick plywood, that would mean that the hinge's centerline would be right at the joint between the oak and the plywood, and half the hinge would be in the plywood – that's not going to be very strong.
So I decided to make an oak “biscuit” for each hinge. This biscuit would be a half inch thick (to match the plywood's thickness) and about 5 inches long. A couple of matching notches in the plywood would allow the plywood and the oak to mate up properly. Then the hinge would be mounted in solid oak, nice and strong.
Time to fabricate this:
I found a hidden cabinet hinge that would work for our purpose, made by SOSS. They're available in multiple sizes, including one that was perfect for us. Installing these would be a bit tricky, though – you can't just mount them to the plywood that makes up the door. I got a piece of red oak 2 x 2, finished on all four sides (it's really 1 3/4 inches on a side). That's plenty strong enough to mount the hinges into, and easy enough to attach to the plywood (some screws and glue will do the trick). But the hinge needs to be mounted with its centerline just 1/2" below the surface of the door. Since the door is made of 1/2" thick plywood, that would mean that the hinge's centerline would be right at the joint between the oak and the plywood, and half the hinge would be in the plywood – that's not going to be very strong.
So I decided to make an oak “biscuit” for each hinge. This biscuit would be a half inch thick (to match the plywood's thickness) and about 5 inches long. A couple of matching notches in the plywood would allow the plywood and the oak to mate up properly. Then the hinge would be mounted in solid oak, nice and strong.
Time to fabricate this:
| First step for the oak biscuits: rough cut a piece of 2 x 2 to give me boards about 3/4" thick... |
| Close up view from the side of my redneck mill, where I'll be putting the rough-cut boards... |
| After a little practice, success! The end of this rough-cut board has been milled to exactly 1/2"... |
| The same board, now completely milled... |
| After milling the two boards, I looked like this from head to toe... |
| The two milled "biscuit" boards, next to a pair of 2 x 2s. The red oak is a pleasure to work with... |
| The biscuits are cut; now it's time to mount them. I'm drilling the pilot holes for the #12 wood screw; absolutely essential in hardwood... |
| A mounted biscuit, glued and screwed... |
| Laying out the hinge locations for a pair of oak frame pieces - one for the door, one for the stationary part. These must match up precisely, so the layout must be made with great care... |
| Let the drilling commence! |
| First I drilled three deeper holes, to match the deep part of the hinge. The drill press makes it easy to drill to a particular depth with its adjustable drill stop... |
| Next comes four shallower holes to match the rest of the hinge... |
| Then comes some tedious work with a chisel and hammer, to make the shape of the hole match the shape of the hinge... |
| After a few minutes of chisel work, the hole starts to look like the hinge might actually fit in it... |
| The end result: a nice, tight fit for the hinge. It's actually quite strong even before putting in the screws! |
| A biscuit notch! |
| Then two notches... |
| But the notches have round corners, and they need to be square. Time to sharpen up the chisel! The perforated metal is the surface of a diamond hone, which works beautifully on the chisel... |
| Corner on the right, nice and square. Corner on the left, not so much. Not yet, anyway... |
| The first test fitting. The round mallet is a perfect “bonker” for encouraging the pieces to mate up... |
| A little bit of sanding and we've got a perfect fit... |
| Laying out the screw holes... |
| Drilling the screw holes with a tapered, countersunk bit... |
| Lots of lovely screw holes, all ready for gluing and screwing... |
Labels:
FJ Cruiser
FJ Cruiser: Attaching the Platform Ribs...
I'm still working on the platform/storage compartment for the FJ Cruiser. A few days ago I completed the “ribs” that connect the fore and aft bulkheads. The connection between these pieces has to be strong, but removable (to allow access to certain parts of the FJ, for repair or modification). To make these joints, I used a pair of angle iron brackets permanently attached to the bulkheads, spaced so that a rib could slip between them. Bolts hold the rib in place. The process looked like this:
| Marking the centers of the holes needed, with an automatic center punch... |
| The angle iron brackets in place, bolted and glued to the forward bulkhead... |
| Assembled - a nice, strong joint! |
Labels:
FJ Cruiser
May Mornings...
Several mornings a week, Debbie and I have been walking up the dirt road that goes past our house and up toward Skyline Truck Trail. It's good physical therapy for her, good exercise for me, and it's often quite pretty – scenery and sometimes flowers. Here's a few snapshots from that walk over the past week or so:
| From our front yard, as we set out one morning... |
| San Diego's famous "June gloom", at our altitude, is more like "June morning mists". We have this sort of thing nearly every morning, but it's never the same from day-to-day... |
| We never tire of the mists. I'd love to have a time-lapse movie of them... |
| From the very top of the road, looking east into the end of Lawson Valley, with Lawson Peak on the horizon. Gaskill Peak is just out of the frame to the left... |
Palo Verde Tree...
Several years ago we bought a Palo Verde (Desert Museum hybrid) tree from Kniffings and planted it in our front yard, next to our hummingbird feeders. We'd read that the blooms attract hummingbirds, and the twiggy aspect of it seemed like it would make good perches for them. It's a native to arid regions with high drainage, so it should do fine in our yard even without irrigation.
We can report now that on all counts the Palo Verde excels. It's thriving – growing faster than the references say it should, and putting on quite a show with its flowers for several months out of the year. Right now it's in prime:
We can report now that on all counts the Palo Verde excels. It's thriving – growing faster than the references say it should, and putting on quite a show with its flowers for several months out of the year. Right now it's in prime:
| It's about 12 feet tall now. The tall trees behind the gazebo are 50' to 60' tall eucalyptus... |
| Standing next to a branch, when you look down you see the branch covered with blooms, and the ground littered with the earlier blossoms... |
| Get down on your knees, and you see a carpet of dessicated petals... |
| Thousands upon thousands of these right now, visited frequently by hummingbirds, bees, and big fat black bumblebees... |
Saturday, June 1, 2013
Courage...
Some old 8mm film, reunited with a WWII veteran who appears in it, leads to a fascinating story about an American reconnaissance plane pilot who flew more than 50 missions over Nazi Germany in an unarmed, unarmored British Spitfire modified to take reconnaissance photos. Awesome.
Friday, May 31, 2013
Mind Blowing Science...
Here's one of those science and technology advances that just plain blows my mind: we can now image individual molecules and atoms as they participate in chemical reactions.
When I was first learning about science, in the '50s and '60s, I'm sure most scientists would have flatly stated that such a thing was impossible. Most likely they'd cite the fact that the atoms and (most) molecules were smaller than the wavelength of any conceivable radiation that might be used to image them (and certainly smaller than the wavelength of visible light). Therefore imaging wasn't possible. Simple!
But wrong. The advent of atomic force microscopes (which don't use any radiation to create their images) completely changed the context – and the impossible became possible. Now you can buy such a microscope, if you've got a few hundred thousand dollars to spare (though I did find a used one for just $32,500).
Awesome!
When I was first learning about science, in the '50s and '60s, I'm sure most scientists would have flatly stated that such a thing was impossible. Most likely they'd cite the fact that the atoms and (most) molecules were smaller than the wavelength of any conceivable radiation that might be used to image them (and certainly smaller than the wavelength of visible light). Therefore imaging wasn't possible. Simple!
But wrong. The advent of atomic force microscopes (which don't use any radiation to create their images) completely changed the context – and the impossible became possible. Now you can buy such a microscope, if you've got a few hundred thousand dollars to spare (though I did find a used one for just $32,500).
Awesome!
Labels:
Awesome,
Microscopy,
Science,
Technology
War on Drugs...
Megan McArdle (on a roll yesterday) with a piece on the efficacy of the War on Drugs. She's reacting to the graph at right, showing that despite all the costs of the War on Drugs, and despite the incarceration of hundreds of thousands of drug offenders...the price of illicit drugs just keeps on falling.
As usual, Ms. McArdle finds some unobvious angles to ponder...
As usual, Ms. McArdle finds some unobvious angles to ponder...
Labels:
McArdle,
War on Drugs
About Those White House Visits...
Douglas Schulman, the former head of the IRS, visited the White House over a hundred times – more often than any other Obama administration official. Why? We're not being told, and this little factoid is causing a bit of a kerfuffle at the moment. The best analysis I've seen is from the always-interesting Megan McArdle (the world's tallest female econo-blogger).
Peer-Review Effectiveness...
Traditional peer review is still an important part of most branches of science. There are some branches where other mechanisms are advancing (especially in physics, where "crowd sourced" review is making big inroads). The idea behind peer review is simple enough: anonymous, qualified reviewers analyze papers before they are published. If a paper passes review (perhaps with changes or corrections), then it is published; otherwise, it isn't.
But the peer review process itself is obviously not perfect. It has lots of room for bias and subjective decision-making, and a strong bias toward orthodoxy. There have been some studies of the peer review process in the past, and they have shown some problems. Now there's a new study, quite clever, that shows quite convincingly the existence of a bias favoring prestigious institutions and individuals – a very human bias, one we can all understand, but simultaneously one we'd hope science would be free of.
This study started with a group of papers published in prestigious journals, written by the psych departments of prestigious institutions. These papers were modified to show them as coming from fictitious institutions and individuals. No part of the substance of the study was changed, not a word. Then these modified papers were submitted for publication to the same journal that had originally published them.
The first interesting result was that only 8% of the submissions were detected as duplicates. The screening process obviously isn't very robust.
The second interesting result is that 89% of the resubmitted papers were rejected. The primary reason given: “serious methodological flaws”. The simplest explanation for this result is that the prestige of the original submitters affected the reviewer's judgment – exactly that bias that we'd wish wasn't there.
Scientists are humans, too. And peer review isn't all that great a process...
But the peer review process itself is obviously not perfect. It has lots of room for bias and subjective decision-making, and a strong bias toward orthodoxy. There have been some studies of the peer review process in the past, and they have shown some problems. Now there's a new study, quite clever, that shows quite convincingly the existence of a bias favoring prestigious institutions and individuals – a very human bias, one we can all understand, but simultaneously one we'd hope science would be free of.
This study started with a group of papers published in prestigious journals, written by the psych departments of prestigious institutions. These papers were modified to show them as coming from fictitious institutions and individuals. No part of the substance of the study was changed, not a word. Then these modified papers were submitted for publication to the same journal that had originally published them.
The first interesting result was that only 8% of the submissions were detected as duplicates. The screening process obviously isn't very robust.
The second interesting result is that 89% of the resubmitted papers were rejected. The primary reason given: “serious methodological flaws”. The simplest explanation for this result is that the prestige of the original submitters affected the reviewer's judgment – exactly that bias that we'd wish wasn't there.
Scientists are humans, too. And peer review isn't all that great a process...
The Real Cost of Easy Student Loans...
From Cato:
Federal aid for college students, it’s really no secret, is driven by what works politically, not what’s best for students. While logic and evidence strongly suggest that aid mainly enables colleges to raise their prices at breakneck speeds, politicians talk nonstop about aid making college “affordable.” Financial reality simply does not trump appearing to “care.” But on Friday, the Obama administration appears poised to take aid exploitation to a new level.I've written before about the unintended consequences of easy-to-obtain student loans, but here it's been quantified. Note how the costs of universities (both public and private) rises steadily as the amount of aid to students increases. Numerous pieces of evidence (follow the links) provide a compelling case that the easy loans directly increase those education costs. The main driver is simple marketplace economics: the universities compete with each other to attract students, who are, of course, the source of revenue for them. The main way they attract students is to add amenities - and those cost money. To pay for the amenities, they raise prices. This is all basic capitalism, but the government has their thumb on the scale - by providing all that easy money, they've grossly distorted the “buying decision”. Students and their parents don't have to make tough, financial-based decisions about where to go to school, as almost everyone can borrow enough money to go almost anywhere, if they can get accepted...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)



