I Am. When?

Welcome to I Am. When?

nospam@example.com (Andrew Maxim) — Fri, 10 Apr 2020 17:28:00 -0400

Thanksgiving

nospam@example.com (Andrew Maxim) — Thu, 25 Nov 2010 08:30:00 -0500

Compared to the other nations of the Earth, the United States of America is a young and inexperienced country; while the land has seen its fair share of much older nations rise up on its soil, the country itself is still in its youth. Despite our young age, this is a great nation full of know-how, ingenuity and purpose.

Throughout the history of this nation there are two phrases, historical quotes if you will, that exemplify this drive, determination, and ability to overcome obstacles. The first occurred on July 20, 1969 at 4:18pm EDT when Neil Armstrong announced to the world, "The Eagle has landed." The second occurring each and every Thanksgiving morning as a country proudly declares, "The Turkey is in the oven."

Happy Thanksgiving.

The Tattoo

nospam@example.com (Andrew Maxim) — Sat, 18 Sep 2010 12:50:00 -0400

Before I get into the whys and hows of getting my tattoo, let me start off by saying that if you live in the Tampa Bay area, or can get here, and are thinking about a custom tattoo, go see JD (John Dixon) at Psychotic Ink in St Petersburg, FL. JD has a relaxed, laid-back attitude, is a great artist and does phenomenal work. He is one of those rare people that are truly "about the work."

Now onto the story:

About 20 years ago, I had decided to get a tattoo. I just wanted one for no better reason than "because." At the time, I drew up a custom piece that was centered around my joining the Navy as a Nuclear Electronics Technician. The drawing was a skeleton of an American Bald Eagle perched on a typical "Navy" anchor ("USN Nuke" written on it) with a mushroom cloud in the background. I had planned on getting the tattoo on the left side of my chest; however, for reasons I won't get into, I never got the tattoo.

A few years later, while I was stationed in Virginia Beach and still had the tattoo itch, I scheduled an appointment six months out with a tattoo artist up in northern Virginia. The tattoo was to be the album cover of Glenn Danzig's Black Aria (art by Michael Wm. Kaluta). This was at a time before MW Kaluta had decided to extend the drawing from the album cover to include the full wings, etc. and when tattoo guns were no where near what they are today. As a result, there were very few tattoo artists who could handle the size and detail I wanted (plus finishing the "missing parts" of the drawing), which was probably why the one I found was booked out six months in advance. Once again, this tattoo was going to be on the left side of my chest. Well, as luck would have it, come the time of my appointment I got stuck on duty all weekend and had to cancel.

Flash forward to the year 2010 and someplace in the back of my mind is still the itch for a tattoo. I still like the Black Aria cover; it is a terrific art and I love the good versus evil concept. But it has been done many-times-many times and I needed something original, something unique to me. Age and wisdom also have told me that the human body changes on a fairly consistent basis, so the location of the tattoo (whatever it was) should be someplace where those physical changes would be at a minimum (see the Blob's tattoo in the Wolverine movie for an example of what I am talking about).

While the tattoo itch was still someplace festering in my mind, it was something I hadn't really thought about in nearly 15 years time, so I felt inspired when the idea to get my tattoo struck me. "Andrew," my mind said, "take off that bra and panties, someone is coming." Wait. Sorry. Wrong conversation.

"Andrew," my mind said, "you are obsessed with gravity. You should get a tattoo on your back having to do with gravity, and what better representation of gravity than a Black Hole."

"Really?" I replied.

"Of course. Chicks will dig it!"

I had to admit my mind was correct. I am obsessed with gravity. Mostly about it being broken or rather that the formulas that represent gravity are broken. My mind was also correct in its assumption that it would be cool, so I set to working out the concept for this tattoo.

The concept for the art came to me pretty quickly (apparently, my mind had been hard at work on it for a long time while I was off doing other stuff): the personification of a Black Hole (or avatar), similar to the gods of old representing the human form of a phenomenon. Apollo is the god of the sun and, thus, represents what the sun would look like in human form. Hades is the god of the underworld and, thus, represents what the underworld would look like in human form. Wil Wheaton is the god of gamer geeks and, thus, represents what the gamer geek would look like in celebrity form (I know Vin Diesel is a gamer as well, but he does not look like a gamer geek in celebrity form, more like what gamer geeks look like in fantasy form, i.e. Den from Heavy Metal).

With the concept worked out, I only had one problem before I could get inked: I lost the ability to draw nearly 20 years ago (my belief is I gave it to my daughter when she was born). I had an artist in mind who I thought could handle creating my vision, but it was a student from one of my classes who I never ran into anymore and had no way of getting in touch with. I was pretty much screwed. This was a piece of art that was going to become a permanent part of my body and not something I could trust to just anyone. So onto the back-burner the tattoo idea went.

A few months later, toward the end of my spring semester of classes, luck intervened and I ran across a student drawing his final exam for an art class. His work was great and so I struck up a conversation with him about doing a custom piece and the concept of my tattoo. Long story short, he agreed to draw it up, gave me his email address and asked me to send over a photo of me in the pose I was thinking of for the Black Hole avatar.

Instead of snapping off a photo, I decided to use Poser 3D and Photoshop to produce a better visual of what I was talking about. The image to the right is what I came up with and I emailed it off to the artist with an explanation. Basically, the idea is the avatar coming out of a physical Black Hole (with muscles straining against the gravitational forces) to devour a star. Pretty neat, right? My computer graphic kind of sucked, but it was just to visualize the concept and show the pose I had in my mind.

While I waited for a reply from the artist, I set to work on researching tattoos, inks, and tattoo artists. I read up on the composition of inks (allergies), care for tattoos, and began looking for an artist who did good gray-wash tattoos (using only black ink) in the local area. I spoke with everyone I knew who had gotten tattoos in the area and looked at the portfolios for each of the artists who did the work. Again, this was going to be a permanent part of my body so I mentally critiqued the hell out of everything and everyone.

Time passed and I never heard back from the young artist I had met at school. Luck again intervened though as the tattoo artist my ex-wife (and still friend), Suzi, and her boyfriend, Carl (who is covered with tattoos), recommended was supposed to be a terrific artist. They both said that if I give him the concept and told him to put his own spin on it, it would be great. I was very impressed with the work of his I saw and setup an appointment to discuss the idea. Shortly thereafter, I had an appointment to get inked with JD at Psychotic Ink.

On the day of part one of the tattoo, my best friend (and fellow Pirate), Liz, and (then) girlfriend, Catherine, both came to watch the festivities. I am still of the opinion that they both came to see me in pain and were hoping for a good show of blood spurting and cries of agony. I disappointed on both fronts. Liz did bring her digital camera along so I have the following pictures to present (everyone say "Thank you, Liz").

From left to right: (1) This is the finished outline for the body and the "scratches" JD made to record where he would detail later. (2) A bunch of the body filled in just before a break. (3) An up close shot while on break. Getting pretty red, eh?

(4) JD at work. (5) Almost done with the first portion. A little blood up in the star. (6) The first portion finished. Looks awesome, right?!?! Check out how red it is and the little blood specks.

I went alone for the second part of the tattoo, mostly because it was in the middle of a work day, but also because I think Liz and Catherine got too much enjoyment from my pain. As a result, there are no pictures of the second portion being completed. I will say this though, aside from the outline of the formula lettering, JD free-handed the entire second half of the tattoo. In case you can not tell from the pictures above, he also free-handed all the detail for the body of the avatar and star.

In answer to the question that everyone asks, "Not bad and like a son of a bitch." The question, of course, is "Did the tattoo hurt?" The first portion wasn't bad at all, except for the outline of the hand that crossed over the edge of my shoulder blade. The second portion made me want to cry like a hungry-hungry baby, particularly where the tattoo goes onto my side.

There was one time during this whole ordeal that I did cry out like a little girl and that was when I had Catherine put a liquid compress on the first portion of the tattoo the night after it was done. The compress was freezing cold and I am man enough to admit that I screamed; to which she apparently received great enjoyment as I was greeted with the sound of giggling.

Anyway, that is the story of me getting my tattoo. I will add that the tattoo is on the left hand side of my back, instead of centered for two reasons: (1) I thought the bony spine would hurt too much (it didn't hurt bad at all) and (2) I needed room to put the correct formula for gravity once I create it. And that is my story.

Oh, here's the picture of the tattoo two days after it was finished (still a little red). I am incredibly happy with how it turned out and the work JD did. It really is much better than I could have hoped for and captures my vision perfectly. Thank you for enduring the pain with me. Enjoy.

Getting Into Graduate School - Part III

nospam@example.com (Andrew Maxim) — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:55:00 -0500

Maximizing Your Bachelor Degree

This last, and long overdue, part on getting into a good graduate level program covers the seldom mentioned criteria that many (most? all?) schools use when selecting candidates for entry: the value of your bachelor degree. The obvious side of this would be knowing that some schools are considered better than others, but that knowledge doesn't do you much good unless you plan on transferring to one of those "better" schools. Instead, we will focus on the courses that make up your degree.

Take a minute and dig out the requirements to earn your degree at your current school. It should consist of a bunch of required courses, a few courses you can pick and choose from, and "other" courses. These other courses could be anything from courses to meet the minimum credit requirements, to liberal art courses (such as needing 3 communications credits that could come from a variety of places), to specialized focus courses for your given degree. Hold onto that list. Open a new web browser and go to the undergraduate program for your major at one of the colleges on your graduate school list. For instance, if you are currently attending Brown with a major in Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon is probably on your list of graduate schools, so head over to the CMU Computer Science undergraduate website.

Once you have found your way to the undergraduate program website, see if you can find the degree requirements for your chosen major. Every college website I have been on has those requirements posted someplace, usually as a PDF file. Found it? Now compare the degree requirements from your current school to those of that prospective school. More than likely, unless they are both state universities within the same state, you will see several differences between the degree requirements. Your school might require one semester of Chemistry, while the other school requires two; or maybe your school allows you to choose between three advanced programming topics such as Compiler Design, Database Management Systems, and Operating Systems, while the other school requires Operating Systems. These differences are actually pretty damn important in the aspect of graduate school acceptance.

One of the things selection committees ask themselves when they are selecting candidates is the simple question, "Would our school have conferred a bachelor degree to this candidate?" It is a very simple question that equates to whether or not you meet the course requirement for their undergraduate program, and if not, how far off are you. Basically, the reason for this course requirement evaluation is that if you are "not ready" to be conferred a degree from their undergraduate program, how could you be ready for their graduate program? How can you jump into a Microwave Engineering class at the graduate level, when you haven't even taken a Signal Theory course at the undergraduate level?

Hopefully you have guessed by now that this is the last area where you can improve your odds of being accepted into the graduate school of your choice. It will take a little work on your part, but that acceptance letter and accompanying fellowship is worth the couple hours that it will take you to start comparing all of the graduate schools on your list to your current degree requirements. A spreadsheet program is good for this, find the undergraduate degree requirements for your major from each of the graduate schools on your list and start recording the absolutely required courses and the ones you have several choices from. Compare each of these schools to your current degree requirements: where there is overlap you are good, where there are differences you need to do some work.

This is where your optional courses come in handy. Using one of the above examples, if your school says you need at least one course from the following: Compiler Design, Database Management Systems, and Operating Systems; and several of the schools on your list all require Operating Systems; the choice should be clear as to which course you will be taking. There will likely be a few courses from other schools that don't directly correspond by name to a course at your current school, but more than likely there really is a course that is the same. Start by reading the course description and see if you can find a match by description. Additionally, many schools have online credit transfer evaluators. These transfer evaluators can be priceless in matching up Course A from your school to Course B at another school.

When you are finished you might be able to use the spreadsheet you put together to rule out a school or two from your graduate school list. Any school that doesn't even come close to a match to your current school (and the others) should probably get struck off your list. Some schools are designed for themselves and, while they may admit you, are going to require you to take a bunch of undergraduate level courses before letting you work on your graduate degree. Avoid that problem and just strike those schools from your list.

Your ultimate goal is to wind up with an undergraduate course list that not only meets your bachelor degree program requirements but also meets or exceeds the degree requirements from all the graduate schools on your list. Meeting those degree requirements will go a long way towards getting into those graduate schools, or at the very least, not being rejected out of hand. It also shows foresight on your part, as well as a desire to learn and succeed, and that is what graduate school is all about. Good luck.

Quack Science

nospam@example.com (Andrew Maxim) — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 14:12:00 -0500

xkcd had this great comic strip up today (shown above). Of course it got me thinking about how I have been neglecting my own pet physics notions and that I really fall into the same realm as the comic (what scientists respectfully call "quack science") with those notions. Let's face it, I do not have a degree in Chemistry or Physics (let alone a PhD), but I do have a few things going for me.

First, I have studied all the stuff I spout off about before I spout off about them. Actually, I studied advanced physics some 15+ years ago. Now, the ideas I come up with... well that is another story, but I do at the very least make sure I know what I am talking about before I talk about it.

Second, and this is actually one of the more import points, is that I outright asked for help/confirmation/criticism right when I came up with my idea in my first physics article entitled Spacetime and Quantum Mechanics. I even went so far as to sit down with the head of the physics department at a local college. It was what that physicist said that made me start my next series of posts on the subject, but we will get to that later (hint: he pissed me off).

Third, I am smarter than the average bear. Actually, my IQ is someplace well over a 100 points above average. To my surprise, there really was an "off the charts" when it came to intelligence quotients, so while I do not know my exact IQ as a result of this, I can comfortably say that I am probably smarter than any other scientist you have met. Unless you had met Tesla when he was alive and then I might have to amend my last statement. Of course Tesla practiced Quack Science, so I am good with that.

Lastly, after never getting any type of solid answer and/or feedback from any physical science type people, I have intentionally left tidbits of information out of each of my physics entries. I had hoped at least one person might bite and point out the opening I left so that I could start a discussion, but we already know no physicists (or even chemists) read my blog. It was a futile attempt, I know, but it had to be done.

So in the name of real science, let's correct a few of those wide open holes I left for the science community:

Orbitals Do Not Exist
Every Chemist, Physicist, Engineer, and (hopefully) first year college student (in previously mentioned fields at least) know that Orbitals Do Not Exist. They don't. Orbitals are graphical representations that correspond to the statistical likelihood that you will find an electron in a given area around the nucleus of an atom. They aren't real, they are statistics that say "yep, 90% of the time an electron is gonna be here if we look."

The problem is with the "if we look" part above. In order to see where an electron is (or was) you hit it with a light particle. Electrons travel very fast, so it is no longer there before you even had a chance to record the spot. Worse than that, when you hit that electron with a light particle, you transfer energy to that electron so that it is now travelling completely differently than it was previously. Basically, by looking at the electron path, you change that electron path. Oops. So scientists use orbitals because they have never been able to accurately predict the exact orbits (i.e. they have no mathematical law).

That was actually the point of this article. That there really is a mathematical formula that can accurately predict the orbit of an electron in an atom, and even model it through a graphical computer algorithm. But I lack the math background to come up with that exact formula thus far (I am working on it), so I threw everything out there that any scientist would need to know to create that model. No one has created that model because they all suck (partially joking).

The Nature Of Light
Pretty much everything I covered in my slit experiment section is dead on, except for the small part I left out to hook in a physicist: The actual wave disruption patterns created by light; i.e. the areas where overlapping light particles that cancel out, much like two waves on an ocean reaching the same point. It's kind of a big one, so I figured I would get at least one comment out of it. But no...

Anyway, the problem with this whole wave cancellation pattern thing of light is that all particles do this. Light, electrons, alpha particles, etc. Any free particle does this. The question is: why? The answer is NOT because they cancel each other out like the waves on an ocean, but rather because two particles occupying the same space are not the same thing as one particle.

Confused? Ignoring for a second the whole fusion thing, if you perform the slit experiment using hydrogen particles (not alpha particles, but actual hydrogen) and you recorded the pattern that the hydrogen hits a plate at, you would get a wave formation similar to light (and electrons and everything else). The reason is that you are looking for hydrogen atoms. When two hydrogen atoms occupy the same space, they are no longer hydrogen atoms. Instead you have one helium atom, but you weren't looking for that, you were looking for hydrogen. So you get a wave pattern on your plate, with blank areas wherever helium happened to have formed instead of the expected hydrogen. Same thing happens with light; you are looking for red laser light and instead get something else in those areas. Not cancelled; changed.

Einstein, bless his little heart, sort of understood this when he said that light can be treated as both a particle and a wave. EVERY particle can be treated as a wave, so he was dead on. But treating something like a wave and it actually being a wave are two totally different things. When you actually get down to the nitty-gritty of how light (and every other particle) behaves, you can just use that instead of wave mechanics.

This leads me to Einstein, or rather the religious zealot following of his theories in the science community. Whenever I have spoken with a physicist about my theory it inevitably winds up with the physicist saying these exact words, "because Einstein said so." Yea, that's solid science for you. Didn't work for my parents as a reason for anything, won't work for a physicist either.

Now, don't get me wrong, Einstein was brilliant and advanced physics a ton. Not as brilliant as Tesla, but that is neither here nor there. The problem is that he was wrong. The second problem is that his theories cover every possible contingency (almost) so that he can't be disproved. Thus, my own theory has to sit in limbo until he can be disproved, which set me about all the rest of these posts I have been covering. In order to prove my own theory, I have to disprove Einstein on several fronts.

Lucky for me, I do have a way of doing that. Unlucky for me, I do not have the time, money, or equipment to do that. As I mentioned once before, a modified Shapiro experiment will disprove Einstein (and most current physics theory). So here it is:

1. Put a satellite in low orbit around Jupiter (big enough gravity force that it should show the Shapiro Time Delay effect).
2. Sync the clock on it without using Einstein's theories to do so (which is what has allowed for GPS satellites to have their clocks in sync) by sending several signals and responses back and forth until you get it right.
3. When the satellite is alongside the planet (by line of sight) in that low orbit, you ping it with a radar signal.
4. Instead of an echo, the satellite waits until a specific time (synced to time on Earth as mentioned above) to respond back. That response is just the time that the satellite received the radar ping, and nothing more.

What the results should (will) be is that the signal to the satellite takes less time than the return signal, despite the distances being the same. If I am right (and I am in this case), this would disprove the whole space-time thing and allow my theory to actually be taken seriously. But, someone needs to run the experiment first, and what are the chances of that?

The nice thing is, despite my not having the resources or academic clout to get my theory out there and accepted, I know it is true (or as close to true as science can ever be). This means that someday I will get to utter those words to the physics community that I have said to every other community I have disagreed with: "I told ya so." And I am good with that (for now).

Getting Into Graduate School - Part II

nospam@example.com (Andrew Maxim) — Sat, 24 Oct 2009 11:11:00 -0400

Improving The Odds

Continuing on from where Part I left off, we should have narrowed our list of potential graduate schools down to a reasonable size. A list of about ten schools would be ideal; not that you will be applying to all ten, but because we will be whittling that number down a bit during the next part of this series.

There are several things admissions boards look at when approving or denying applicants. Most criteria should be pretty obvious such as grade point average, GRE/GMAT scores, letters of recommendation, and essays. I can't offer any help on your GPA, it is either good enough or it is not. Likewise, you are on our own for the essay portion of any application, although I will point out that there is no such thing as an "optional essay" for grad school admissions. The other two common criteria I can offer a little advice on.

First, your GRE or GMAT scores. These are pretty standard tests covering math skills, verbal skills (definitions), and writing skills. You are on your own for the verbal section, as either you have a strong vocabulary or you do not. The other two sections I can offer advice on. The math and writing (quantitative and analytical) sections of the test are based on courses you should have taken by the end of your freshman year; the end of your sophomore year at the latest. The topics are Precalculus Algebra and English Composition. Remember those? The sooner you take the GRE or GMAT after finishing those (types) of courses the fresher it will be in your head and, hopefully, the better you will do on the test.

I tend to recommend taking these types of tests sometime between the beginning of your sophomore year and the end of the first semester of your junior year in college. Everything is still fresh in your head and if you mess up, it gives you plenty of time to brush up on a topic and retake the test. GRE and GMAT scores stay on record for five years, although many graduate schools require tests to be taken within two or three years of your application date. Given that you will be applying to a graduate program sometime in the first semester of your senior year, tests taken during your sophomore year should still be valid for almost all schools.

Moving onto letters of recommendation. This is an area where you can greatly hedge your bets for graduate school admissions, assuming you aren't in your senior year of college already. You will generally need two or three letters of recommendation from either your professors or employers. Unless your employer is a college professor or is world-renowned in the field you are intending to study, you should stick with letters of recommendation from your professors. They carry much more weight, assuming the professor actually knows who you are and is willing to write you a good letter of recommendation.

Of course, not all professors carry the same weight in a given field, so here are some guidelines for what you should be looking for in a letter writer. Your academic advisor should be the first name on your list of references. Ideally, the other two professors will teach upper level courses in your chosen field of study, preferably they will teach graduate level courses in that same field as well. Research professors, who are not too busy, are a great reference. The professors who other students say are "too tough" or "grade harshly" are great candidates as well. Alumni from a school you are applying to is a bonus. If you are lucky enough, Nobel Laureates are the best choice possible.

The simple thing to do is pick out three professors at your college who meet as much of this criteria as possible and enroll in their courses. Enroll in as many of their courses as you can, even if it means taking a class at 7:00am instead of 1:00pm. Make sure you stand out in these classes by asking intelligent questions, offering answers, getting good grades in the class, and going to the professor during his/her office hours for help or advice (even if you do not need it). Tell your professors about your plans for graduate schools and get their advice. If he/she is a research professor, ask him/her if you can volunteer to help with his/her research. These things will help ensure the professor knows who you are and, more importantly, wants to write you a good letter of recommendation for graduate school.

Next up I will cover those things that admissions boards look at that are not so obvious. Until then go take your GRE exam and start endearing yourself to some of your professors.

Getting Into Graduate School - Part I

nospam@example.com (Andrew Maxim) — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 10:35:00 -0400

Selecting the Right Graduate School

Before you begin applying to Masters or PhD programs at any graduate schools, the first thing you need to do is figure out which schools are right for you. Selecting the right school is not as easy as it might first appear and should be a continuing process right up to the point that you start submitting applications. This seems like the logical place for me to start talking about the application process for graduate programs.

The best time to start looking into graduate programs is during the second semester of your sophomore year in college (undergraduate program), and no later than the second semester of your junior year. There are many reasons for this that I will cover in part II, but for now, I'll just say that it allows for proper planning. Suffice it to say that this will (should) be an evolving process throughout your school search and the sooner you begin the process, the better prepared you will be.

I hate making lists and doing pros and cons type of stuff; they work for many people but I am not many people. There are times that they are a necessary evil and choosing a graduate program is one such time. This is a list that you will want to keep for a while and make changes to on a semi-regular basis, so I would suggest using a spreadsheet program like MS Office Excel or OpenOffice Calc. (Just for the record and to keep the FTC happy, I have received no endorsements from either product manufacturer, but I would be happy if Microsoft wanted to give me tons of cash or even free software to plug their products. Actually, to be completely honest, I'll whore myself out to any company that makes a good product.) Where was I? The list, that's right. You will likely wind up with a few lists of stuff when going through the grad school selection and application process, so find something to keep all this information in, even if it is just a college composition book.

The first thing you need to figure out for yourself is the age old question, "What do I want to be when I grow up?" In this case, you also want to ask yourself, "How will a graduate program help me get to that goal?" Sounds kind of silly, but when you really analyze those questions you might be surprised by the truthful answers. Many people who email me asking for advice do not have a solid answer for the first question, let alone the second. You need to be very specific in your answers, and not just "Cause I like tinkering with electronics." I will use myself as an example throughout the remainder of this discussion so you can get a better idea of what I am talking about for each step.

What do I want to be when I grow up?

A research professor in the field of robotics.

Notice I didn't say, "I want to work with robots." I was more specific than that but really not specific enough, so I should ask myself, "Why?" and revise my answer to the following:

A research professor in the field of robotics at a top research university. I do not want to build industrial robots or even other people's visions of robots, but my own. I want to expand the fields of not only robotics but also artificial intelligence and artificial life. Becoming a research professor will give me the best opportunity to accomplish this goal.

Much more specific than "I want to build robots," don't you think? So now the next question, "How will a graduate program help me get to that goal?"

Obviously to become a research professor I have to meet the basic requirements of being a college professor, particularly a graduate level college professor. A doctorate is required to reach that level, thus I must attend a PhD graduate program. I have three real choices here for graduate studies though:

1. Major in Computer Science (CS)
2. Major in Electrical Engineering (EE)
3. Major in Computer Engineering (CpE)

After digging through all the information I could find, Computer Engineering seems like a nice combination of Computer Science and Electrical Engineering, and, with the right focus, it will give me the best of both worlds to accomplish my goals.

Using a few honestly answered questions I have greatly narrowed down my list of graduate schools that I will want to apply to, so now I can start building the list.

One of the biggest mistakes students make when picking out a graduate school is using school rankings. There are several sources that rank different graduate schools based on all sorts of oddball criteria, including rankings by majors. A second part of this, directly related to school rank, is the schools perceived reputation. This is where the previous questions are going to come in handy to help get rid of many of these top (and very expensive) schools. Simply ask yourself, "Self, to reach my goals, how much does the school ranking and/or reputation really matter?"

The answer should surprise you when you look at it honestly. As an example, let's look at Carnegie Mellon University. In the field of Computer Science and, my previous major, Management Information Systems, CMU is a top ten ranked school year after year. Great. Put it on the list, right? Well, no. This is where you need to go back to the previous questions you have answered.

We'll use MIS as an example here to show why CMU might not be the best choice for a grad school based purely on ranking. If my goal was to work for a power house information systems or computer software company such as Microsoft or Google, than CMU's ranking and reputation will likely matter. If my goal is to work for any other type of company (and most people in any of the IT fields wind up working for companies in other market segments) than CMU's ranking and reputation does not really matter. Why? Because most people outside of the North Eastern states and the IT industry have no clue how great a school Carnegie Mellon is for all things technology related. Trust me; I got a million blank stares when I told people where I was applying last year.

Reputation and school ranking appeals to a very narrow group of people, usually isolated to a specific region of the country or specific industry segment. When it does matter, and here is the big catch, is usually only for your very first job outside of graduate school. Second job at most, depending on the period of time you stay at the first job. Most hiring companies weigh industry experience many times higher than the quality of graduate school you attended, unless you get lucky and interview with an alumnus from your school.

Did you know that the University of Pennsylvania is consistently one of the very top ranked schools for MBA programs? Does it really matter if you plan on working at a television station in Wyoming when you graduate? University of Wyoming will likely carry just as much weight for that job and probably give you a better chance of landing the job because of school relationships and increased chance of interviewing with an alumnus from UW.

In a nutshell, the only times these lists of school rankings or perceived reputations matter is in very isolated instances:

1. Regional Job Markets. If you plan on working near where you graduate from school (i.e. you love that part of the country).
2. Jobs within a very specific industry that will know the reputation of the school.

With what I just said, you might be asking yourself why I applied to CMU for the MSIT program. Well, you can read the full account in my entry entitled, oddly enough, Carnegie Mellon (or "Why I want to attend CMU"). Basically, I needed a distance learning program and wanted a program that would challenge me. CMU met both criteria.

Moving on to making our list of possible schools, we have all the information we need to start the selection process and narrow our list down. I will start with a list of my selection criteria, your criteria may (and should) vary, but the process is the same.

1. Must have a Computer Engineering PhD program.
2. The computer engineering program must include a good focus on robotics and artificial intelligence.
3. Because I want to teach at a top research university (notice I didn't say top ranked university), schools that have good robotic research professors should be included in the list.
4. Must be someplace I would want to live for the next three to seven years.
5. Must be someplace I can afford to attend; a high percentage of fellowships is a good criteria for this one.

This should give me a list of a bunch of schools right off the bat. Start off with the first criteria, in this case, "Having a CpE PhD program." Then go down the list and cross off schools. You will have to do a lot of research for each school to cross check against your list of criteria. As you go down your list of criteria and create your list of schools (and then cross them off), include notes as to why that school is included or rejected. This list will change over time and you will forget reasons that one school is on the list versus another.

Ultimately, my list would look something like this (in no particular order):

1. Stanford University (A top research university)
2. Iowa State University (Doing great research in the field of robotics, particularly Alexander Stoytchev)
3. U.C. Berkeley (A top research university)
4. M.I.T. (Incredible robotics program and I love New England)

My list of schools that I might want to attend for my PhD is actually a little longer and I did not include the schools I rejected in the list, but you get the idea. You might notice CMU is not on the list and that is because I hate Pittsburg and would not want to live there for seven years. Maybe there is a little resentment for being rejected from the MSIT program, despite that rejection causing me to refocus my goals to something that I am ultimately happier with.

And there you have Part I of Getting Into a Graduate School. While it might be a little tedious, going through and listing out requirements is a big help in narrowing your focus. More importantly, asking yourself some leading questions and being brutally honest with your answers is the biggest aid in selecting the right school. Good luck with your research...

Miscellaneous Crap

nospam@example.com (Andrew Maxim) — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 07:11:00 -0400

Forty. That is the minimum number of hours I am working each week, usually it is more. Sixteen. That is the number of credit hours I am enrolled in at school this semester. What does this have to do with anything except as an excuse as to why updates to this here blog-thingy are so few and far between? The answer, simply put, is to let you all know just how insane I really am. Bonkers.

Aside from all that I have been emailing with a few people on the Proverbs Web Calendar 2.1. A long time ago, in a life far, far away, I goofed in my coding. In my own defense, the part I goofed on was how the web event calendar handled some of the special characters in languages other than English, and I only speak English (as can be seen by how poorly translated the language files are). So a few boo-boos slipped past and some language packs did not work correctly.

The good news is that I took a little time away from my very busy schedule and fixed those "undocumented features." While I was fixing that problem, I went through and made a few other minor changes to the event calendar. The full list of changes is included in the download or on the calendar page up there ^. Just like that and we are now up to the Proverbs Web Calendar version 2.1.1.

Segueing back to emails, ever since I did my entry on Carnegie Mellon I have received many emails from students seeking help and guidance. At first glance, I would have to ask myself why someone would want advice on getting into a graduate program at a school like CMU from a person who got rejected, but that is just me. As luck would have it, the first glance is not really accurate as I have accumulated a ton of knowledge on how the admissions process works with graduate schools and have been providing helpful advice for almost a year now.

Of course with my current work/school schedule I have had limited time to respond to emails in a timely fashion. What I thought I would do instead, at least on this subject, is to compile all that knowledge into one place. A repository, as it were, of the accumulated knowledge for getting into a good graduate program. Now if only there was a place where I could host such a repository. A place where people can come and freely read my advice. A place people could find easily enough with a quick search. A place where people could then contact me if they had further questions on the subject. It is too bad that such a place does not exist.

Oh wait...

I should have that entry composed, compiled, and coordinated this coming weekend. So if you ever wondered how the graduate school admissions process worked, you will have your answer in a few short days. Maybe it is "many" short days. Perhaps, for the sake of an honest assessment of my schedule, I should be calling them "long" days. Anyway, stay tuned for a few updates to I Am. When?

Herbert 1701 Species D Generations 1 & 2

nospam@example.com (Andrew Maxim) — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:01:00 -0400

The previous Herbert robotic life-forms all had a single logic circuit and while some made use of different components, the results were the same from a logic point of view. If the robot has enough power then do something. Not a very exciting logic circuit, but something necessary for all life, even artificial life. We can continue to use this simple logic design in one form or another, even with very advanced life-forms. Slightly modified it can become: If you are hungry then eat. For now we will leave it as is and continue by adding more logic circuitry to the robots.

The simplest logic circuits available are the same as the logic operators taught in any introductory computer class: NOT, AND, OR & XOR. These logic chips can be made to suit the purposes of the next stage in robotic life-form evolution, but would require a lot of additional support circuitry. Lacking space on the demo platform, we will instead opt for an integrated circuit that can accomplish our next task: which direction is the better power source?

To answer this question Herbert 1701 Species D will make use of a comparator chip. In simplest terms, a comparator takes two inputs and determines whether one input is higher than the other. Generally the inputs are voltage levels that are being compared. The comparison between the two voltages usually produces one of two outputs, either a ground level or an open circuit.

For Herbert 1701 Species D Generation 1, the two inputs will be the two variable voltage levels coming from photodiodes (and yes, the schematic shows the photodiodes properly biased for this purpose). This is similar to the variable levels used to "steer" Species C, only the voltage is going into the inputs of the comparator chip instead of the current going to the base of a transistor. The output from the comparator feeds the transistor used to turn a single motor on or off. In order to control both motors, and thus turn left and right towards a brighter light source, a dual comparator is employed with the second pair of inputs flipped from the first pair. The output of the second comparator then controls the other motor.

The dual comparator used is a LM393 variant. I tested out several different manufacturers and models of dual comparator chips using a simple distance test from a dead stop with no power. After three minutes in low light, I measured the distance that the robot platform had travelled. The winning dual comparator is a Texas Instruments TL393, which I had floating around in a parts bin. It is now an obsolete part, but with an inch more travel distance than the next closest chip it seemed worth keeping in the circuit. I did not test the newer LM393 from Texas Instruments, but I would imagine it would be an improvement over the TL393. One surprise was the TL393 outperforming the LM393 from National Semiconductor, which is usually the de facto standard for these types of ICs.

The Herbert 1701 Species D Generation 2 robotic life-form is a slight improvement over generation 1. The only additional circuitry is two more photodiodes, one for each side of the robot. Actually, the two original 180deg photodiodes were moved to point to the sides and the new photodiodes are angled forward. These additional photodiodes provide two benefits: First, the extra diode in series results in lower overall current levels and increased the distance test by nearly two inches. Second, having diodes point at the sides allows for a better comparison of light levels versus diodes only facing forward.

Herbert 1701 Species D

nospam@example.com (Andrew Maxim) — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 17:01:00 -0400

As life would have it, the Maxim Maxim kicked in during my search to find the items needed to create a proper Photovore competition arena. I had figured the 250W halogen bulb would prove the most difficult to find, but it was the first item knocked off my list. The "common items" -- such as wooden dowels or Melamine board -- seem to be outside of my reach; short of paying a hefty shipping cost. Instead, I have decided to move on.

Based upon the tests and competition I was able to perform with the Herbert 1701 Species C robots it was pretty clear that the variable trigger solar engine is the route to go, proving far superior in most tests, particularly low-light and bright-light conditions. Therefore, this will be the species and generation that continues forward. At least for the time being.

Seeing as I have little wish and no money to create new circuit boards for each generation of the Herbert 1701 Species D robots, I have opted to build a simple test platform. While this is nothing fancy -- consisting of a solder-less breadboard, a sheet of plastic, a wheel and some motors -- it will work for the purposes of testing different circuitry configurations, as well as varying components.

As can be seen in the platform images, I have built out the variable solar engine using the Maxim MAX8212 voltage monitor. Throughout this species of Herbert artificial life form I will continue to use this same circuit and will be changing around everything else.

What is that "everything else" exactly? Additional logic, a.k.a. a bigger brain. All the prior generations and species of Herbert robotic life forms have included a single logic circuit. This logic circuit came in the form of the solar engine used to power the Herberts. In a logic diagram it would simply be the question, "Do I have enough power?" Nothing complex, but still a logic circuit. The rest of the previous designs contained no other logic circuitry. Even the light detection for the motors was not a true logic circuit, instead being an analog change that produced a slightly modified outcome.

That all is changing with species D, as I add the next logic circuit to this infant species. Basically Herbert will be going from a robot with a brain of less than a single neuron, to a robot with a brain of, well, still less than a single neuron. But that neuron is growing in ability.

Sometime over this next week I will get the schematics posted, as well as an explanation for what went where and why. Until then, let logic be your guide.

Oil and Water

nospam@example.com (Andrew Maxim) — Wed, 05 Aug 2009 07:51:27 -0400

Oil and water do not mix. It is just one of those chemical composition things. You can pour them both into the same container and the water will settle to the bottom with the oil floating on top of it. Shake the container up and after a few minutes they will revert back to layering; oil on top and water on the bottom. Separate entities in the same container.

Both compounds are needed in this world. Water quenches thirst and is needed to survive. Oil, among other things, lubricates the gears and joints for movement. Even once you have both in the same container you can still separate them back out again and they will fulfill these basic tasks just as well because they do not mix.

There are ways you can force the two to combine, to bond as it were, but in doing so you wind up with neither water nor oil. Instead you have something else. Something that neither quenches your thirst nor provides lubrication for movement. A bastardized compound.

Science and religion are the same way. When you pour both into a person they will naturally settle, just as oil and water. Religion, like water, flows deep into a person and quenches their thirst; while science, like oil, will stay above it and lubricate the mind. Separate entities in the same container.

Only, for some strange reason, many people think they should not be poured into the same container at all. This is fine for a lot of people, filling themselves with either the water of religion or the oil of science. And it would be all well and good except you get many misguided individuals who believe there is no place for the other entity. How many scientists throughout the ages have been told time and again that they will burn in hell if they do not accept this deity or that god? How many students of religion have been told that there is no god? Each side attempting to force out one entity or the other. So much for freewill (which mind you both sides believe they possess or there would be no need to express their own views onto others).

For some even stranger reason there are even more people who attempt to mix the two. To rectify science with their god and their god with science. Evolution and creationism are a very good and on going example of this. Evolution is a scientific theory that attempts to show and understand how all creatures came into their current state of being. Creationism is a faith-based belief that all creatures were created by a god. The first lubricates the brain to think and learn. The second quenches the heart and soul with belief in a greater purpose.

And then there is Intelligent Design. The combination of the two. Forcing oil and water to bond until it is a new and different compound. In doing so there is no longer a separation of religion and science, and the new compound neither quenches one's soul nor lubricates one's mind. Combinations such as this serve no purpose within a person, but instead are a bastardization of wasted water and oil.

Within my own self I allow both entities to exist. The waters of religion and the oils of science. There is no need for me to compare or contrast the two. There is no need for me to rectify one with the other. They are separate and do not mix. I am happy to leave it as such. Faith is not science, nor is science about faith; why should I force one out or attempt to combine them? Just as water does not contradict oil, religion and science do not contradict one another because there is no overlap; they each remain distinctly different and separate. The waters of religion quench my heart and soul, while the oils of science lubricate my mind. Oil and water do not mix; and that is why I am a Pastafarian.

Computer Security 101 - Part 8 - Malware

nospam@example.com (Andrew Maxim) — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 17:00:00 -0400

I might as well just come right out and say it upfront, during Part 2 of this series on Computer Security I lied when I spoke about the most common methods a malicious person uses to get a user's password. In this day and age of rapid information and application sharing, the number one method of gathering user passwords is through viruses and spyware. I would hazard a guess that it is also the number one method of gathering information for identity theft as well.

I am sure that some organization or another has put together specific definitions of what constitutes a virus versus a bot versus something else. For simplicity sake I'll provide my own definitions:

Virus - any malicious program capable of automatic self replication between computer systems, either through network links or removable media. Viruses can range from harmless pranks to programs that destroy computer files.

Spyware - any computer application or portion of an application that is designed to gather personally identifiable information from a computer. This can range from gathering the information on what websites you visit to recording usernames and passwords entered into various programs or websites.

Adware - any computer application designed to automatically display advertisements on your computer or redirect your web browser to alternate (competitor's) websites from the page you intended.

Bot - any computer application designed to perform nondestructive tasks on a computer system without the user's intervention. Bots can range from small programs that download and install other programs automatically (without the user's knowledge) to programs that perform coordinated attacks on Internet websites.

There will be a test on these definitions later, but to make things easier until you have each committed to memory we will just lump all of the different bad computer programs together and call them Malware. There are a few different ways that Malware can wind up on your computer: you could install it without knowing as part of another application (usually happens because you illegally downloaded something using Limewire or as part of a Torrent file), you could unintentionally install it thinking it was something else (again, Limewire or Torrents, but also email attachments and popups on websites), it could be automatically installed from a website through an active exploit in another application already running (Flash player, Firefox, etc) or it could replicate itself through removable media.

So how do you stop all these little bugs from getting on your computer? As luck would have it, I put together a list of simple methods to ensure your computer stays bug free, in order of effectiveness. In case you got confused by that last bit stating "in order of effectiveness", let me make it easy on you, DO ALL OF THE FOLLOWING. Or keep paying people like me gobs of money to clean your computer for you.

1. Follow the instructions outlined in the article Computer Security 101 - Part 6 - User Permissions.
2. Install and regularly scan using a reliable Antivirus program on your computer. For home use I currently recommend Trend Micro, for corporate I recommend Symantec Antivirus Corporate Edition (Endpoint Protection).
3. Install and regularly scan using a reliable Antispyware program. Many of the antivirus programs are including other forms of malware in their detection base, but having something dedicated to spyware detection and removal is still a good call. For either home or corporate I recommend Spybot Search & Destroy.
4. Check for and install updates and security patches for all programs on your computer. Microsoft can do this automatically for Microsoft programs (Microsoft Update) as can other applications, but some programs like Flash or Shockwave players need to be updated manually. Update and update often.
5. Do not go to mainstream social networking sites that allow user uploadable content (Facebook, MySpace, etc). If you go to these sites you will get Malware infections. Period.
6. Do not open email attachments from people you do not know. Do not open compressed file attachments (ZIP, RAR, etc) from anyone.
7. Do not share removable media with people or between multiple computers. Think of your thumbdrive in the same terms you do safe-sex and ask yourself, "Do I really want to put my thumbdrive into that computer without knowing where the computer has been?"
8. Rule #7 goes for downloading online content through programs like Limewire or Bit-Torrent files. You do not know where those files have been and are just asking for trouble.
9. Follow the instructions outlined in the article Computer Security 101 - Part 6 - User Permissions.
10. Do not go to mainstream social networking sites that allow user uploadable content (Facebook, MySpace, etc). If you go to these sites you will get Malware infections. Exclamation Mark.

On the subject of antivirus programs, there are many on the market. Some people hate the ones I have mentioned screaming "bloatware" or sighting some review from a fringe computer magazine. These are the same people who think Firefox is inherently safer than Internet Explorer. Facts do not affect these people, and thank the gods for that because I make a killing off cleaning the malware from their machines after they install some fringe antivirus program (I now charge double per hour on their repeat cleanings when they refuse to listen and install some free antivirus program instead).

A note on antispyware programs as well. Spybot Search & Destroy is one of the exceptions to the rule on "you get what you pay for," because it is free and it outperforms every other program on the market. Despite being free, they do accept donations and I strongly encourage you to make a small donation just so we can keep this great product around. Just make sure you download it from the Safer-Networking.org website and not just whatever website Google search pulls up.

These are the basics that will help keep your computer safe from Malware, although really it comes down to a bit of common sense. Unfortunately, people rarely use common sense when it comes to their computer systems and that is why I continue to make the big bucks.

Stay safe out there.

The Nature Of Light

nospam@example.com (Andrew Maxim) — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 19:55:00 -0400

At 8:00am I wake up, drink some coffee, shower and am into work at 8:30am. You work directly with me and spend the entire morning from 8:30am until 12:00pm along side me, following my every movement. At 12:00pm we go to lunch together, returning to work at 1:00pm. From that time until 5:00pm you never leave my side. At 5:00pm we leave work and head out to dinner together where we discuss the day's findings and observations. At 9:00pm we depart the restaurant and each head to our separate homes. At 9:15pm I have a few glasses of mead at home and go to bed at 9:30pm.

While this is completely unrealistic for my actual schedule and does not allow for separate bathroom breaks at the work place it will suffice for the topic at hand; and that is the nature of light. Of a 13 hour and 30 minute day, you would have spent 12 hours and 30 minutes with me, or 92.6% of my waking day. From the time spent with me you could observe that I am capable of walking in a straight line. As a matter of fact, you could infer that 100% of the time I am capable of walking in a straight line. With me so far?

What you do not see is the 2 minutes when I first wake up and wander to the coffee pot for my first cup of coffee, often bumping into the walls of the hallway on my journey for caffeine. Nor do you see the 2 minutes between when the alcohol from the mead kicks in and I make my way back into bed. For those 4 minutes or 0.49% of the day I am not capable of walking a straight line. 4 minutes of the day that 99.99999% of the world will never observe, unless you were stationed with me in the Navy, at which case you saw me stumbling drunk a lot.

The nature of light is like this. Just as you will never get the chance to observe those 4 minutes where I am incapable of walking a straight line, the circumstances that cause light to behave against the established rules are extremely unlikely to be observed. Thus we infer that light travels at a constant speed of 299,792,458 meters per second and that it behaves like a particle and a wave.

If you have ever met me or read my blog prior to this moment you already know I am going to tell you that light does not travel at a constant speed nor is it both a particle and wave. It is just a particle that usually travels at 299,792,458 m/s. Being who I am, you really should just take my word for it, but I know you will want some sort of proof of this outlandish claim.

The slit experiment is a good place to start. Before I say anything else on the subject, let me just state that the slit experiment, or double-slit experiment, is viewed as a thought experiment by quantum physicists as opposed to actually showing anything explainable. Basically they know that something interferes with the particles of light to make them appear as a wave, but aren't sure why that could be and so call it a thought experiment instead, pretending that light (and other particles) behave as both a particle and a wave.

Now that I have that out of the way if you happen to have access to the proper lab equipment give the following a try:
1. Perform the double-slit experiment, recording the pattern of photons that collect on the screen using the same material for the entire barrier (the thing that has the slits cut in it).
2. Perform the experiment a second time, exactly the same way. You should observe a similar wave pattern formed on the screen.
3. Now replace 1/2 of the barrier (i.e. one of the slits) with a different composition of material, ensuring the slit has the same dimensions and is located in the same location. The result should be a different wave form on the screen from the previous two runs. Cool stuff, right?
4. For something really cool, perform the double-slit experiment in a vacuum using a barrier composed of black body single-walled carbon nanotubes.

Lacking access to a NASA Space Shuttle, astronaut training, lasers and black body material I can't prove what you will see in experiment #4, but what it should be (and I would put large sums of money on this) is a lack of wave forming. You see, the waves of the slit experiment are not formed because light is a waveform, but rather because of the photons coming near and bouncing off a combination of the sides of the slits in the barrier and the molecules present in air.

When light hits a given atom or molecule at a particular angle, it behaves in a very predictable manner. That predictability is tied in to the frequency of the orbits (both electron and nucleus) of an atom. When you remove the deflection from the walls of the barrier using a black body material and the interference caused by molecules in the air, you take away light's ability to mimic wave behavior. Instead you get the real nature of light, which is particles. Now fly up to space and try it out, I'll continue on by covering the speed of light while we await your return.

The first thing I should cover is the law of conservation of energy, which states that energy does not just disappear, or rather does not get used up. Instead energy changes forms, from one type, like kinetic, to another type, like potential. The amount of energy available stays the same.

Photons, or light particles, have a specific amount of energy in the form of kinetic energy. When that photon impacts something, that energy gets transferred to that something, usually in the form of thermal energy (heat). Plants are really good at absorbing all that energy instead of allowing it to become thermal energy, solar cells are not so good. This is why a leaf does not get as hot as a solar cell in bright sunlight.

A photon is only capable of holding so much energy, which as I said takes the form of kinetic energy, allowing the photon to travel through space at a rate of 299,792,458 m/s; usually. It would take additional energy to allow that photon to travel faster than its normal speed, but it can't hold that additional energy. I would guess that super energy saturation is theoretically possible, but unlikely to occur naturally, so light does not travel faster than the speed of light very often (just on open roadways with no police cars around).

Photons can be slowed down though. Light gets affected by intense gravitational forces such as that present in stars and black holes. It also gets affected by planetary gravitational forces, hence the lens effect seen around planets (light gets curved around it). When gravity acts upon light to slow it down, or any moving object for that matter, the kinetic energy does not go away, but rather becomes potential energy. Once the gravitational field is no longer acting upon the photon, the potential energy turns right back into kinetic energy and off the little particle goes.

Now, if you happen to be a physicist reading this you are no doubt spouting off about it being spacetime distortions caused by gravitational fields. Of course no physicists read my blog, or they are too afraid to respond, but in the unlikely event that you are a physicist; let me tell you that you are only spouting off about spacetime because you have been taught it as sound scientific theory. It doesn't really exist.

Ok, ok. Andrew's a whack job. Probably wears an aluminum foil hat to keep out the mind control rays. I assure you I do not, the aluminum foil hat is just fashionable and I only wear it with the proper ensemble. All kidding aside, let's try a thought experiment of our own, assuming you haven't drunk too much of the grape Kool-Aid already.

Assume for just an instant that Einstein had never come up with any of the theories of relativity or spacetime or any of that stuff. You send a radar signal at the planet Mercury and record the amount of time for the round trip. You know the distance to Mercury and the speed of light, so you should have a good idea of how long it should take before you "hear" that echo. Only when you send that radar signal out to Mercury such that it passes very close to the Sun, it takes longer for the signal to make its round trip than it should.

Now either Mercury jumped out of its orbit and further away from Earth for that instant, or something else happened. Disregarding spacetime, make your inference. If you put down the Kool-Aid, you will infer that something slowed down the radar signal, with the likely culprit being the gravitational force of the Sun. We do know, after all, that gravity can affect light particles.

The above experiment should look familiar to physics students, as it is the same experiment used by Irwin Shapiro to test general relativity and produce the Shapiro Time Delay effect. Simply because general relativity is accepted we call it a time delay, rather than gravity slowing down a photon.

The reality is that photons get slowed down by the gravity of the sun. Just a tiny bit, because they are travelling so very very fast to begin with (back to my theory there). Even more so, the photon gets curved ever-so-slightly around the Sun, but luckily enough, on the return trip the Sun curves the trajectory back on path to be received by the awaiting radar dish.

This is all just food for thought for the time being. The proof of this concept comes from a modified version of the Shapiro test and also explains why the frame-dragging effect really occurs. I'll cover that in a later entry, but for now I have rambled on long enough. In the mean time, put down the Kool-Aid and start thinking logically.

Computer Security 101 - Part 7 - Personal Firewall

nospam@example.com (Andrew Maxim) — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 16:09:00 -0400

I already covered firewalls during part 3 of my computer security series, but now that we are focusing on desktop security we once again have to review the subject. For part 3 the firewall topic was in regards to the perimeter, or network; which is usually a hardware based device. In part 7 the topic is desktop or personal firewalls.

I won't bore everyone by going into detail on firewalls again, but if you have not done so already, please read the original topic Computer Security 101 - Part 3 - Firewalls. Instead, I will be covering the importance of having a separate personal firewall on each and every desktop computer.

To most people, including many industry professionals, a personal firewall is considered overly redundant. There is a hardware based firewall keeping your network secure already, why would someone want a firewall running on their local computer? It is also an extra application running on the computer, taking up resources and slowing everything down. So why have one?

Because I said so. Ha! Seriously, there are many reasons to include a personal firewall in your arsenal for computer security, the primary reason being internal threats. There are a few hundred sets of statistics out there that show the number one source of attack for any company is an internal user. Add to those statistics the attacks brought about by malicious software installed on a computer and you will start seeing numbers over 90% where attacks are from internal network threats.

Speaking of those malicious pieces of software, the days of people trying to destroy data using viruses are long gone. Rather than destroy data, the people who create these malicious programs are usually looking to accomplish one of three goals:

1. retrieve personal data from a computer; any computer. These are not targeted attacks, but rather shotgun blasts of quantity over quality.
2. turn a computer into a mindless drone to perpetrate additional malicious activities. This could range from using an infected computer to attack the Microsoft web servers as part of a mass coordinated DoS attack, to storing child porn on the computer for retrieval by other people.
3. further installations. Often the initial piece of malware that infects a computer is nothing more than a simple program designed to install additional programs. This allows the initial software to be small and appear relatively harmless to many antivirus and antispyware applications, but once a computer is infected, the downloads start commencing.

Perimeter firewalls, even application layer firewalls, do not fully protect against these types of activities, especially firewalls setup incorrectly (you did read the part 3 entry, right?). It is a piece of software on the desktop that becomes the threat, and so it is at the desktop level where the threat can best be mitigated. A personal firewall is one of the mitigaters.

Setting up a personal firewall is easy, especially considering most operating systems come with one already installed. For home use, just deny everything and prompt for overrides (but please read each prompt before approving the override). At the enterprise level, it is easy to deploy firewall settings across multiple computers utilizing group policy objects or the like. Simple, easy, and efficient. For a millionth of a second in application delay, you get a computer that is much more secure from not only external threats, but the far more common internal ones. And that is what it is all about.

Herbert 1701 Species C Generations 4 - 6 Builds

nospam@example.com (Andrew Maxim) — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 17:01:00 -0400

I want to start off by apologizing for an inaccuracy in the Herbert 1701 Species C schematics. I had grown so accustomed to using reverse biased LEDs as photo sensors that I placed the photodiodes in a reverse biased position in all of the schematics. This, of course, is incorrect as photodiodes function in a forward bias position. The charge circuit for Herbert 1701 Species C Generation 6 is correctly biased as it makes use of an infrared LED instead of a photodiode and should remain reverse biased. All of the affected schematics have been updated to fix this screw-up on my part.

Moving on, I have been building out each of the three species C robotic life forms, generations 4, 5 and 6. Although I will not be labeling each as a separate generation, there are many aspects of the mechanical build that are subject to the same evolutionary process that I have been following for the circuit designs. Use of different components and their placement have just as profound an effect on the effectiveness of each Herbert as the initial circuit design, even more so in some instances. Just as with the trial and error used in those circuit designs, the builds have required much redesign and tweaking.

Beginning the design phase, I had decided on an outer shell to hold the various sensors and solar panel in place. I produced this outer shell using a two piece mold process, which will be used for the depictions in the upcoming tutorial. While this design seemed like a good idea in principle, the application left a lot to be desired. Herbert 1701 Species C Generation 4 was the guinea pig for this design and would have likely yelled at me for my idiocy if it were capable of such.

Utilizing this initial build design, I was able to learn a lot about not only the mechanical aspects of these robotic life forms, but also limitations in the electrical circuitry. The first thing I learned is that mechanical engineering is not my strong suit. The second is that an outer shell becomes too cumbersome for a robot that has limited energy resources. Lastly, in a world where the Herberts would be fighting for the best light source, as in a photovore competition, tactile sensors turn the little fellows into complete wimps. This last part is important, as it will be leading into future generation designs (Yes, the schematics are already finished for such. No, they will not be posted until the other kinks in mechanical design are worked out).

Following the above lessons, Herbert Species C Gen 4 received an overhaul. Not only did I remove the outer shell, but the tactile sensors as well (that rhymes). Additionally, the photodiodes have been moved to the bottom of the circuit board to reduce the amount of blinding, or sensor flooding, that occurs (i.e. too much light hitting each sensor so that it doesn't know which side has more light). The result is build #2 depicted below.

Generation 5 was built out identical to generation 4, with the only difference being the actual circuit design. For Herbert Species C Gen 6, the solar panel required repositioning to the front of Herbert to prevent obstruction of the light level sensor in the charge circuit (i.e. the IR LED). I also darkened the area above the photodiodes using electrical tape and placed a divider between each sensor. The results of generation 6 up to this point follows, with these additional changes flowing back to the other two generations.

There will be additional changes to come in these builds, such as blackening the sides of the directional photo sensors, trying out different photodiodes (I have several different parts to try), and, most importantly, moving the motored wheels all the way forward to provide for better weight distribution. For the purposes of testing each species for the natural selection process, these changes seemed irrelevant and will wait.

I performed several tests with each of the generations. The first was a speed test, similar to a solar roller competition. In full sunlight on a flat level surface, generation 4 won out over the short distance of 1 1/2 feet. Its quick charge rate up to 3 volts and efficient energy design kept Herbert rolling along. Generation 6 was a very close second, despite charging to over 6 volts in full Florida sunlight, this generation will continue to run down to a very low voltage (around 1.5 volts) giving it a slower start but continuous stride throughout.

The second speed test was performed over a slightly longer distance of 3 feet, where the clear winner was generation 6. Generation 5 beat out generation 4 by a slight margin, showing that once it had charged fully the first time, subsequent recharges occurred faster and the extra energy allowed for a quicker distance running Herbert.

The next speed test was performed over a 2 foot length on an uneven surface: the walkway in my backyard. About one foot of the test was on a relatively smooth sidewalk, with the second half moving onto a very uneven stone paver. There was a slight gap, about 1/2", between the two surfaces. Again, generation 6 was the victor in this competition. Generation 4 did not finish as it lacked the power to clear the gap between surfaces and instead stalled out at that point.

The last speed test took place near a window indoors on a rainy day across a smooth surface. This test actual took place quite by accident, but brings home the differences between generations. Herbert 1701 Species C Generation 6 was the only generation to start or finish this competition. In the very low light conditions, not even the low voltage generation 4 was able to build up enough of a charge to get moving, whereas generation 6 happily popped along at a rate of about 1 inch per 3 second interval. On a whim, I performed the same light level test using a photopopper from Solarbotics. As with generations 4 and 5, the photopopper never got moving, even with the very low trigger level of the two Miller Solar Engines.

The last competition is the photovore competion, which I will not be running until all mechanical tweaks have been tested. Just to note, in an actual photovore competition each robot is allowed twice the solar panel surface area as is currently in use (read: two solar panels instead of one), but in testing apples to apples I believe one solar panel will show clear results. I will also be throwing the above mentioned Solarbotics photopopper into the arena to provide four competitors total and a good control robot.

So what did we learn from all this? Number one is that I suck at mechanical design and will continue to tweak out and retest the Herbert Species C critters until I am satisfied. The second thing is that the variable charge level of the Max8212 solar engine seen in generation 6 is superior to the set charge level seen in the other two generations, and even the set charge level of a standard photopopper using Miller Solar Engines. At this point it seems obvious to me which generation should progress forward along this particular branch of the evolutionary cycle that is Herbert 1701. Of course, the photovore competion will be the final word in the natural selection process. Stay tuned.