Thursday, November 5, 2009
Al Gore says "orthogonal", "peer-reviewed", no wonder he didn't get elected
Watching Al Gore on Channel 44. He uses words such as "orthogonal" and "peer-reviewed." No wonder he didn't get elected. Too smart for his own good.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Idea: Ad-supported MBTA schedule displays and call-in system.
Problem. No schedules for city T (trains) or buses in Boston.
Solution. Ad-supported (the MBTA (T) is strapped for cash) video screens and call-in mobile numbers that provide this information. GPS on all trains and buses that locates them on maps (MASCO has this for the LMA buses).
Solution. Ad-supported (the MBTA (T) is strapped for cash) video screens and call-in mobile numbers that provide this information. GPS on all trains and buses that locates them on maps (MASCO has this for the LMA buses).
Idea: Cheap, safe long-term city-wide rodent control.
Problem. We have a lot of mice and rats in urban areas such as Boston and New York. Pest control is expensive and uses poisons.
Possibilities: Natural extermination/pest control. There are virtually no mice or rats in certain areas of London (near Crystal Palace Park) or Bangalore, India. Why? Simply because the foxes in Crystal Palace Park and the stray dogs & crows (which are raptors or birds of prey) in Bangalore pretty much decimate the rodent population. The only rat I ever saw in Bangalore was the silhouette of the tail and the rear end of one flying away as the rest of it was in the maws of a flying crow. Kinda disgusting but cool. Unscientifically confirmed my hypothesis that Rentokil would go out of business if we brought this concept to the US.
Solution: have stray cats & crows in the city. Stray dogs can get dangerous and foxes don't seem to be a good solution for cities. They appear to be wild and stay away from humans unlike dogs. Cats appear to be a good solution: stray cats will thrive on the rodent population, won't attack people and self-regulate their population (more rodents, more cats; less rodents, less cats).
Note: Since I wrote this, I have read that cats do bite people sometimes. The incidence seems to be a lot less than dog bites, though. If cats were bred for rodent control, spayed/neutered and sent out to hunt, monitored via GPS and given rabies shots, it might work better. Would that still be cost-effective?
Possibilities: Natural extermination/pest control. There are virtually no mice or rats in certain areas of London (near Crystal Palace Park) or Bangalore, India. Why? Simply because the foxes in Crystal Palace Park and the stray dogs & crows (which are raptors or birds of prey) in Bangalore pretty much decimate the rodent population. The only rat I ever saw in Bangalore was the silhouette of the tail and the rear end of one flying away as the rest of it was in the maws of a flying crow. Kinda disgusting but cool. Unscientifically confirmed my hypothesis that Rentokil would go out of business if we brought this concept to the US.
Solution: have stray cats & crows in the city. Stray dogs can get dangerous and foxes don't seem to be a good solution for cities. They appear to be wild and stay away from humans unlike dogs. Cats appear to be a good solution: stray cats will thrive on the rodent population, won't attack people and self-regulate their population (more rodents, more cats; less rodents, less cats).
Note: Since I wrote this, I have read that cats do bite people sometimes. The incidence seems to be a lot less than dog bites, though. If cats were bred for rodent control, spayed/neutered and sent out to hunt, monitored via GPS and given rabies shots, it might work better. Would that still be cost-effective?
Bikes should go on sidewalks, against traffic and thru red lights
This is in response to the inflammatory article "Boston's unruly riders" in the Boston Globe (Aug 7, 2009).
(Full disclosure: I love riding bikes and have been doing it almost all my life. I'm equally happy riding on the sidewalk or weaving through incredibly dangerous traffic in New Delhi)
THE MAIN POINT: bicyclists tend to disregard laws that disregard common sense. furthermore, there are nice bikers are not-so-nice bikers. ditto for pedestrians and cars. And Segway riders, joggers (man, they're annoying!) and wheelchair/scooter riders. Don't penalize the whole crowd for the actions of a few.
0. BICYCLES ARE NOT THAT DANGEROUS. Lets look at numbers. motorcycle liability insurance is about $140 a year, a TENTH of what car insurance costs. why? probably because cars are TEN TIMES more likely to cause serious accidents. I would argue that bikes on sidewalks are less dangerous than motorcycles on streets. Wonder if any insurance company offers liability for bicycles.
1. ON SIDEWALKS, pedestrians should have right of way over anything on wheels. this includes bikes, trikes, wheelchairs, scooters, motorized wheelchairs and segways. or should everything on wheels be sent to the street? okay then, there goes 80-year old grandpa in his wheelchair, in the bike lane, with an SUV next to him, belching out fumes, keeping him company. there's always a disrespectful fellow or two out there who goes on sidewalks too fast, but the majority don't behave this way, and educating the others would help keep the "risky" situations down. What about joggers? Some of them are quite annoying, brushing past you, slamming into you, expecting you to get out of their way (no, they should run around you).
2. SIDEWALKS ARE SAFER. riding on sidewalks is safer. bicyclists intuitively calculate the risks, which is why they do it: bicyclist + car = death. bicyclist + pedestrian = a few minor scrapes.
3. GOING AGAINST TRAFFIC. being able to see oncoming traffic that weighs a lot more than you do is safer for the bicyclist, especially when there is a bike lane. Flip side: approach velocity is higher, so in case of a collision, the damage to the biker is higher.
4. RUNNING THRU STOP LIGHTS & STOP SIGNS. stop lights and signs are annoying enough for people in cars. they are quite costly for bicyclists (in terms of energy) who have to lose momentum and build it up again. again, if they're safe and careful, they can use common sense to figure out if the oncoming traffic is low or high, slow or fast, and decide whether to go thru the red light or not. don't pedestrians do this all the time? jaywalking happens. so does "jayriding".
5. WHAT ABOUT LOUIE? finally, should Louie (boston's famous shouting tricyclist) be given a ticket because he barrels down a sidewalk? or are pedestrians just understanding, smile a bit, and get out of his way?
IN SUMMATION, we don't need ham-handed laws because of a few idiots. we're rule and law happy as a nation and perhaps need to revert to simpler principles that revolve around common sense. Just like boats do: big boats give way to the smaller boat. If you see a bigger boat, try to get out of its way. Similarly, pedestrians are #1 on the sidewalk. Everyone else should go around them.
(Full disclosure: I love riding bikes and have been doing it almost all my life. I'm equally happy riding on the sidewalk or weaving through incredibly dangerous traffic in New Delhi)
THE MAIN POINT: bicyclists tend to disregard laws that disregard common sense. furthermore, there are nice bikers are not-so-nice bikers. ditto for pedestrians and cars. And Segway riders, joggers (man, they're annoying!) and wheelchair/scooter riders. Don't penalize the whole crowd for the actions of a few.
0. BICYCLES ARE NOT THAT DANGEROUS. Lets look at numbers. motorcycle liability insurance is about $140 a year, a TENTH of what car insurance costs. why? probably because cars are TEN TIMES more likely to cause serious accidents. I would argue that bikes on sidewalks are less dangerous than motorcycles on streets. Wonder if any insurance company offers liability for bicycles.
1. ON SIDEWALKS, pedestrians should have right of way over anything on wheels. this includes bikes, trikes, wheelchairs, scooters, motorized wheelchairs and segways. or should everything on wheels be sent to the street? okay then, there goes 80-year old grandpa in his wheelchair, in the bike lane, with an SUV next to him, belching out fumes, keeping him company. there's always a disrespectful fellow or two out there who goes on sidewalks too fast, but the majority don't behave this way, and educating the others would help keep the "risky" situations down. What about joggers? Some of them are quite annoying, brushing past you, slamming into you, expecting you to get out of their way (no, they should run around you).
2. SIDEWALKS ARE SAFER. riding on sidewalks is safer. bicyclists intuitively calculate the risks, which is why they do it: bicyclist + car = death. bicyclist + pedestrian = a few minor scrapes.
3. GOING AGAINST TRAFFIC. being able to see oncoming traffic that weighs a lot more than you do is safer for the bicyclist, especially when there is a bike lane. Flip side: approach velocity is higher, so in case of a collision, the damage to the biker is higher.
4. RUNNING THRU STOP LIGHTS & STOP SIGNS. stop lights and signs are annoying enough for people in cars. they are quite costly for bicyclists (in terms of energy) who have to lose momentum and build it up again. again, if they're safe and careful, they can use common sense to figure out if the oncoming traffic is low or high, slow or fast, and decide whether to go thru the red light or not. don't pedestrians do this all the time? jaywalking happens. so does "jayriding".
5. WHAT ABOUT LOUIE? finally, should Louie (boston's famous shouting tricyclist) be given a ticket because he barrels down a sidewalk? or are pedestrians just understanding, smile a bit, and get out of his way?
IN SUMMATION, we don't need ham-handed laws because of a few idiots. we're rule and law happy as a nation and perhaps need to revert to simpler principles that revolve around common sense. Just like boats do: big boats give way to the smaller boat. If you see a bigger boat, try to get out of its way. Similarly, pedestrians are #1 on the sidewalk. Everyone else should go around them.
Net neutrality: select cafeteria style, instead
Net Neutrality seems to mean many things to many people. To me, it means this: I pay for service which should include basic QoS for various applications, none of which should be hobbled by the ISP. I should be allowed full use of my bandwidth, with no restriction on the applications I choose to use.
Just to be clear: ISPs should NOT be allowed to select which applications get priority -- one should be able to use contracted bandwith how one likes. you can use your metered electricity how you want, and the same should apply to your bandwidth.
Other than that, I should be able to buy bandwidth for specific applications if I choose, cafeteria style. This will make for better pricing models & better routing algorithms.
Just to be clear: ISPs should NOT be allowed to select which applications get priority -- one should be able to use contracted bandwith how one likes. you can use your metered electricity how you want, and the same should apply to your bandwidth.
Other than that, I should be able to buy bandwidth for specific applications if I choose, cafeteria style. This will make for better pricing models & better routing algorithms.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Formula Dispenser: Stupid invention, better solution
Quickly now, which is the better invention for dispensing baby formula scoops conveniently and accurately? The Scoop 'n Sift or the Baby Buddy?
£2 ($3.50) or 
£40 ($65)?
Hint: The first one. The second one, the overdesigned solution called the Bottle Buddy from BabyBuddy, was on the BBC's Dragon's Den (US version "The Shark's Tank") and got thumped off, booted off. Well deservedly. My solution? A set of 5 different sized scoops. Take out the scoop that's right for your baby or for the feeding, and just use that one. No mess, no fuss. And a heck of a lot cheaper.
This is why one must, again and again, step back and ask: What's the problem here? How do I solve it? Have I lost sight of what's needed? Otherwise one winds up inventing the Bottle Buddy and is laughed at by real people. Or attracts other silly people who like buying gadgets that they then put, barely used, in a dusty kitchen drawer.
The silly invention, the £40 machine, dispenses exact numbers of scoops of baby formula at correct weights for busy parents. Parents who can't keep track of counting scoops ("Oh no! Did I put in 4 scoops or 7?"). Parents who might underpack or overpack the scoop (according to their website, scoop weight can vary from 2.8g to almost double, 5.6g). Apparently, according to medical research, not using the exact scoop weight can make babies obese, leading to a successful acting career as the new Robbie Coltrane or John Goodman.
Enter the Scoop 'n Sift. This could probably be sold for £2 ($3.50) at Sainbury or Walmart.
How it works:
(1) Scoop Ring. Get a set of scoops of various volumes on a ring. See image of set of measuring cups on a ring, above. The same thing, except that the cups are much smaller. Busy parent selects Scoop #4 if baby wants 4 scoops. Do not use scoop yet. Now, the busy parent uses the...
(2) Sifter. The Sifter is a size 5 or 10 Scoop with a sifting filter at the bottom. It is chained to the Scoop Ring. The user takes more formula than needed in the Sifter, and shakes (sifts) it into the #4 Scoop selected above. Do sifting operation on top of the Formula can so that formula not caught in the Scooper falls back into the can. When the scoop is brimful, viola! We now have a loosely packed #4 scoop.
Why is this solution better? Gee, lemme think. Needs no batteries, costs 20 times less, might take slightly longer per operation (with practice, probably not), addresses the same problems (premeasure scoop, exact weight), is highly portable and travel-friendly.
Sift 'n Scoop improvements. It could use some tweaking, no doubt (e.g. make it a one-handed operation so that the parent can hold a screaming, smelly, puking baby in the other arm). However, the basic idea is sound and simple. Not everything needs a battery.
Other issues. There are other problems looking for solutions. An automated formula mixer (get the water temperature right), automatic rinsing & sterilizing of bottles, disposable bottles, etc. Lots of scope for improvement.
Where to buy. Walmart, Sainsbury, are you listening? I'll take a small royalty per sale, thanks.
£2 ($3.50) or 
£40 ($65)?Hint: The first one. The second one, the overdesigned solution called the Bottle Buddy from BabyBuddy, was on the BBC's Dragon's Den (US version "The Shark's Tank") and got thumped off, booted off. Well deservedly. My solution? A set of 5 different sized scoops. Take out the scoop that's right for your baby or for the feeding, and just use that one. No mess, no fuss. And a heck of a lot cheaper.
This is why one must, again and again, step back and ask: What's the problem here? How do I solve it? Have I lost sight of what's needed? Otherwise one winds up inventing the Bottle Buddy and is laughed at by real people. Or attracts other silly people who like buying gadgets that they then put, barely used, in a dusty kitchen drawer.
The silly invention, the £40 machine, dispenses exact numbers of scoops of baby formula at correct weights for busy parents. Parents who can't keep track of counting scoops ("Oh no! Did I put in 4 scoops or 7?"). Parents who might underpack or overpack the scoop (according to their website, scoop weight can vary from 2.8g to almost double, 5.6g). Apparently, according to medical research, not using the exact scoop weight can make babies obese, leading to a successful acting career as the new Robbie Coltrane or John Goodman.
Enter the Scoop 'n Sift. This could probably be sold for £2 ($3.50) at Sainbury or Walmart.
How it works:
(1) Scoop Ring. Get a set of scoops of various volumes on a ring. See image of set of measuring cups on a ring, above. The same thing, except that the cups are much smaller. Busy parent selects Scoop #4 if baby wants 4 scoops. Do not use scoop yet. Now, the busy parent uses the...
(2) Sifter. The Sifter is a size 5 or 10 Scoop with a sifting filter at the bottom. It is chained to the Scoop Ring. The user takes more formula than needed in the Sifter, and shakes (sifts) it into the #4 Scoop selected above. Do sifting operation on top of the Formula can so that formula not caught in the Scooper falls back into the can. When the scoop is brimful, viola! We now have a loosely packed #4 scoop.
Why is this solution better? Gee, lemme think. Needs no batteries, costs 20 times less, might take slightly longer per operation (with practice, probably not), addresses the same problems (premeasure scoop, exact weight), is highly portable and travel-friendly.
Sift 'n Scoop improvements. It could use some tweaking, no doubt (e.g. make it a one-handed operation so that the parent can hold a screaming, smelly, puking baby in the other arm). However, the basic idea is sound and simple. Not everything needs a battery.
Other issues. There are other problems looking for solutions. An automated formula mixer (get the water temperature right), automatic rinsing & sterilizing of bottles, disposable bottles, etc. Lots of scope for improvement.
Where to buy. Walmart, Sainsbury, are you listening? I'll take a small royalty per sale, thanks.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)