Initial iPhone 2.0 app impressions

Here are some of my initial observations about the iPhone 2.0 software:

Settings: Has a "Fetch New Data" item that lets you turn push updates on or off, set data fetch interval (includes the email check intervals for non-push email). Has a new "Mail, Contacts, Calendars" item, which consolidates various items (I think, I don't remember the details of this from the old OS) and includes under calendar "New Invitation Alerts", "Time Zone Support", and "Default Calendar" settings. The latter corresponds to the Calendar app UI now showing the multiple calendars synced from iCal. Played with simplified Chinese international keyboard a bit; neat to be able to draw characters by hand.

Contacts: The iPhone 2.0 software adds a "Contacts" app, which appears to just be a shortcut to the "Contacts" tab in the "Phone" app. We now have search, but it appears to be strangely limited, in that it doesn't search all fields. From playing with it a bit, it appears to search names and company, but not address or notes, for example. At least, this is my tentative conclusion. The on-screen keyboard has a "Search" button, but results update as you type; the "Search" button doesn't seem to do anything.

Calendar: Updated UI includes multiple-calendar awareness.

Maps: UI spiffed up. Circular cross-hairs vibrate as it progressively refines your location.

App Store: It works; looks just like the "iTunes" app.

And some third party apps: BA Flights: Mostly, thought perhaps not entirely, lame. Only lets you search for departures/arrivals within the current month. About what you'd expect: a three-button web app front end.

Talking Italian Phrasebook: Not sure that all of the phrases are correct, but pretty good for free.

Currency: Nothing fancy, just like the Stock app. A nice, simple app.

Exposure: Interface like iPod app. No Flickr upload capability. Not sure I'd pay $3 for Mobile Flickr. Need to compare this to MoPhoTo (which also doesn't seem to support upload).

NearPics: Very slow, and I'm testing via wifi.

Twitterific: Seems fine. Allows "attaching" photos to twitter updates, but I'm not sure this is something I'd like to do often; I think I'd be more likely to photoblog here on Blogger.

So, what do I want?

• Skype! There is an app/service called TruPhone that seems Skype-like. Seems to include the equivalent of SkypeIn for no extra charge. It's in beta, but maybe I'll try it (if it won't insist on calling pay via wifi within the US, given that I have thousands of rollover minutes). I'll report after/during my upcoming trip on my experiences.
• A good photoblogging interface that doesn't force me to switch to another blog platform. In other words, Blogger app.

Neat looking apps that I don't have an immediate need for:

• SignalScope, a spectrum analyzer.
• StageHand, a presentation remote that also displays your talk notes, allows you to highlight/point parts of your slides, etc.
• OmniTuner, which seems, despite the emphasis on guitar, to be a chromatic tuner app. Orfeo is definitely a chromatic tuner, though with less impressive graphics and at twice the price.

And, finally, exactly how many payware tip calculators does the iPhone need? Do people really have trouble calculating tips using a regular calculator (such as the one built into to OS distribution)? Or just ballparking tips in their heads (how difficult it it to figure 10%, then either add in half of that again or double that)?

iPhone 2.0 report

Since I'm in the process of writing my part of a grant proposal before heading off on a trip, I figured, "Hey, why don't I update my iPhone to the 2.0 software?" The software is unofficially available; see this iLounge article for a good summary of how to get it. Here's how things went:

11:55AM: Option-clicked "Check for Update", selected .ipsw file, iTunes extracted update.
11:56AM: iTunes started "Preparing iPhone for software update..."
12:02PM: iTunes started "Updating iPhone software..."
12:04PM: iTunes started "Verifying updated software..."
12:06PM: iTunes started "Updating iPhone firmware..."
12:09PM: iPhone restarting, iTunes sees it, offers to set it up anew or restore from backup. I restored from backup.
12:11PM: iPhone restarting
12:12PM: iPhone reappears in iTunes list. Arrangement of icons same as it was before update. Only immediately apparent differences are "Contacts" and "App Store" icons. Set up synchronization in iTunes to sync all applications. Synced iPhone. 12:30PM: All done, now to see if it works...

More about iPhone apps

Some more-or-less random observations about the available iPhone apps (based purely on their app store descriptions and icons):

• There's a lot of $0.99 apps; I'm not really sure what the rationale is (on the part of the software developer) for not just releasing such apps for free.
• There are many free apps that appear to do the same thing as pay apps. Why would anyone pay for an app that simply produces a white screen to improve the iPhone's ability to act like a weak flashlight?
• Here's my initial list of (free) apps: "BA Flights", "Currency", "Exposure", "Jott for iPhone", "NearPics", "Remote", "Talking Italian Phrasebook". Yes, we're going on a trip.
• Disappointments: no Skype, no official Flickr app (the free version of Exposure is adware).
• A fair number of cute ideas in some of these apps, but I don't think many really take advantage of the synergies available in the full range of iPhone capabilities.

iTunes App Store up and running

Wooo! The iTunes App Store is up! Just use Software Update to download iTunes 7.7, enable "show apps" in iTunes preferences, click on the "Applications" icon, and select "Get More Applications..." (similar interface to podcasts). Can't load the apps yet on the iPhone, since the iPhone 2.0 software hasn't been released, but you can at least browse and make a list (which I will be doing shortly).

Update: You can "purchase" applications and they'll download. This doesn't appear to use the shopping cart, but I've only tried free apps.

Fireworks

The future of video cameras

So, we're getting ready for a trip and really don't feel like lugging our Sony mini-DV camcorder along with our digital camera. Everyone's talking about the Flip Mino, so that would be a possibility. Then again, our still camera has a movie mode, with the same resolution as the Mino (640x480), except that it has a 12X optical zoom, better optics, and a better sensor. It doesn't have much in the way of video compression capability, storing its video as MJPEG (just a sequence of JPEG compressed frames), which means that videos require 1GB per 10 minutes or so. But that's not such a big deal these days. Even though it is discontinued and Konica Minolta is no longer in the camera business, there was a firmware update that allows it to use 2GB SD cards. A quick trip to Costco, and we have enough storage for our trip.

So, it seems that we're on the threshold of major change, not just in laptop computer mass storage, but also in video cameras. For those who need more than a cell phone or Mino -- and who aren't professionals -- what's the motivation behind getting anything other than a good digital camera with video capability? Pretty much every digital camera out there supports at least 640x480, or standard definition. They certainly have the sensors to capture HD. Flash memory prices will be low enough within the next couple years that it will really not make any sense to buy a hard drive camcorder. The only remaining question will be: do you really need to shoot 10 hours of video before the next time you'll be able to dump the video to a computer or DVD burner?

Speaking Respectfully

The title above links to one of the best illustrations I've seen of how to disagree with someone respectfully, even if that respect isn't reciprocated. This is something I should work on.

World RPS Society

Is this for real? Is there really a "World Rock-Paper-Scissors Society"? Is it just an elaborate joke? Would someone really put that much time into such a joke?

Water-fueled car?

Seems there's a company in Japan that says they've built a car that runs on water. Supposedly, they have a "membrane electrode assembly" that breaks water into hydrogen and oxygen; they then use the hydrogen to generate electricity, producing water as the result. Sounds too good to be true? Then it almost certainly is (actually, I would state it more strongly than that). By comparison, cold fusion is very believable. What's really impressive to me about this is the speed of creation of a quality Wikipedia page on the matter. The company had a press release on June 12, 2008, and the Wikipedia page was up on June 14.

Why won't US car manufacturers learn?

Today, we filled up our car's gas tank; it cost $4/gallon for the first time. At Costco. No doubt, in the months and years to come, people may read those last two sentences and wonder briefly if I was bragging about how low the price was.

So, Dodge has release the new Challenger, with an SRT-8 model for 2008 and two down-line models planned for 2009. The car gets 13 miles per gallon (city)! With a 19 gallon gas tank, that means you'll be spending more than $75 every 250 miles to drive this thing. If you drive 12,000 miles per year, that's about $3,700 on gas.

Are US car executive idiots? Yes, I'm not surprised that the 2008 limited edition run of 6,400 cars sold out. But do they really expect this car to sell well over any reasonable model lifespan and production run, given likely future gas prices? And who wants to drive around in a car that looks 30 years old when brand new?

Mac OS X 10.5.3 Update

Apple has released the Mac OS X 10.5.3 update, as of yesterday. This looks like it will be a big win for us Mac users, with stability improvements seemingly throughout the OS and included applications. Notable from my point of view are:

• "Fixes reliability issues with iCal syncing." I use Spanning Sync (click this link to save $5) to sync iCal with Google and back, so I can keep my home and work Mac calendars in sync. This is a topic of conversation on the Spanning Sync blog.
• "Fixes an issue that could occur if two compose windows are open when dragging a file to the Mail icon in the Dock." Actually, I think I ran into this problem with just the main Mail window open.
• "Resolves an issue in which activating an application from the Dock switches to a different space, even if there is a window for that application in the current space." This has been another annoyance for me, such as when I click on the Terminal icon to bring the command line window(s) in the current space to the front, and instead I get switched to another space.
• There's a bunch of Time Machine fixes, which I hope may allow me to get backups over wifi to a disk image on a file server working (finally). I use rsync to mirror my home machine's files, but it would be nice to have incremental backups with rollback, etc.

Hey Bill: why not put your money where your mouth is?

Bill Gates made his annual pilgrimage to DC today to ask the federal government to spare him from raising his employees' wages. He says pay isn't the problem. Bill, if you want us to believe that this isn't just about money, why don't you help out the nearest university campus to you? We desperately want to start science and engineering majors, but the State doesn't have the money to build us a building with labs, buy us equipment, etc. You already employ dozens of our graduates, how about helping us help you with some more? Why not do your part?

IEEE Spectrum: Video Viewer

Here's a very interesting video of the CMU autonomous vehicle they've been developing for the Army. I have mixed feelings about this.

• The chasis is very impressive. This thing would be great at a monster truck rally.
• I don't want to be anywhere near this thing when its gun is loaded. Not based on my assessment of how formidable it will be, but rather how reliably it will function. Shades of ED-209 from "Robocop".
• I wonder how vulnerable this vehicle would be to very primitive countermeasures, like a guy with a can of spray paint.

Math & science: it's good for the economy

An interesting article in that well-known socialist rag, The Wall Street Journal. Math and science do matter, not just for the individuals involved, but for the US economy as a whole. And, despite decades-ago calls to improve science and math education, the US still lags other industrialized nations.

Needing "school math" without using it

I was thinking about my previous posts about the UW College of Education's (CoE's) recent political polemic about so-called reform math. One of their major points is that engineers don't use what they call "school math": they just use computers. Please allow me to outline my own work, which is highly compute intensive and rarely involves what they would call school math, but which nevertheless I could not do without a healthy dose of school math -- not just in my education, but also in my work.

My research is in the area of computational neuroscience, in which I build mathematical models of individual nerve cells (neuron)s and groups of neurons, develop simulation software for single computers and clusters of computers, and analyze data from simulations and also from experiments on actual living tissue. This sort of work is very much like that done by anyone simulating physical systems, be they biological, chemical, mechanical, electrical, etc.

Like the engineers described in the CoE's publication, my work is heavily computational, as it isn't feasible to do this work with pencil and paper, as in "school math". The basics of the mathematical models involve a number of differential equations: equations that describe how some part of the system changes in response to other parts of the system. Now, it turns out that differential equations is covered by a pretty much standard college sophomore mathematics course. So, why isn't the stuff I do "school math"? It's simple:

1. We only cover the mast basic type of differential equations in that class, linear equations. These are actually quite good for describing simple systems: electrical circuits made up of resistors and capacitors, mechanical systems with springs, etc. The advantage of these equations is that we can solve them on paper and they're easy to learn. The disadvantage is that they aren't very good descriptions of complicated systems like neurons (and many other, nonlinear systems). Once we move to nonlinear systems, we almost certainly need to use computers to do numerical simulations.
2. We mostly just solve single equations in that class (there are other classes where we learn to solve groups of differential equations, later on in the curriculum). The systems I'm interested in can have hundreds or thousands of differential equations, and so I have no choice but use computer simulation.

If you were to watch me work, you would see the following (between the long periods of time in meetings, in class, preparing for said things): I decide on a question I'd like to answer, such as how the behavior of a network of neurons changes as some parameter (think: "tuning knob") is changed. I set up the parameters for a simulation or maybe bunch of simulations and, anytime from a few minutes to a few days later, I have some results. I load those results into MATLAB (numerical mathematics software) and plot the results. I then either exclaim, "Wow!", and hurriedly start writing a summary and thinking of what else I need to do to finish telling the story for a publication (rare), or I say, "Nuts!" and think again why the system either displays uninteresting behavior (Who knows; maybe its lack of interest is in itself something noteworthy? Or is that just wishful thinking?) or doesn't behave like the living nervous system. So, the observer sees that I don't "do" "school math". End of story?

Well, not quite. Because the observer doesn't see what's going on "behind the scenes" (i.e., in my mind). First of all, I would have no hope of even being able to start understanding what simulations I need to run without a very firm and extensive "school math" background. For instance, I work with a number of bright undergraduate students in my research. Some of them have math backgrounds that include differential equations and beyond and some don't. This has nothing to do with how smart they are; math beyond calculus isn't required for computer science and so only those students who come to us via a "nonstandard" pathway (e.g., changed major, previous degree/career) will have the more advanced math. Though all of these students can help out in my research, only those with more advanced "school math" are able to understand the underlying mathematical model well enough to mess with that aspect of the project (unless I teach a student some of the required "school math"). After all, unless you want to resort to randomly poking something just to see what it does, you really have to understand what's going on inside it; that's the only way you can intelligently select what kind of "poking" is likely to tell you something interesting. In fact, it's the only way you can begin to ask questions about the system, let alone start formulating experiments to answer those questions.

Even after the simulations are over, I still need to interpret the results, and this requires yet more "school math" running around in my head. What kind of result did I get? What relationship does it have to previous results I've gotten, or for that matter, results others may have gotten? What does this result mean in the overall context of the system in question and the thinks I'd like to know about it/do with it? And so on.

In other words, it is emphatically not the case that the computer has relieved me of the need to know math. All the computer has done is take over the grunt work: it has become an additional tool in my mathematical arsenal. But the computer can't think, and that thinking is where all the "school math" is. It just isn't apparent to the observer because I know it well enough that it happens in my brain automatically. This is no different than the automaticity with grammar that we use in everyday life. Just because we don't carefully label each of our utterances with "subject", "verb", "object" doesn't mean that grammar isn't necessary.

Finally, does this apply to "everyday" engineers, or just people doing research? Of course it applies to engineers (at least those who haven't "moved up" to management)! That's why businesses hire engineers: they need people who can think about solutions to problems and have the depth of background to understand the interrelationships among parts of solutions from "first principles" on up to final product. Some tasks may become routine and thus almost automatic or thoughtless, but its important to have someone who can look at a problem (or a solution proposed by some software) and say, "Wait a minute; something's fishy here." And, in the final analysis, that's the most important contribution of "school math": it is the language of creativity.