Entries from January 2006 ↓

Ever notice that Mercedes cars operate in a different physical dimension? I have a sneaking suspicion that those ingenious German automakers have installed some kind of paranormal module in the chasse, a flux capacitor of sorts. Okay, okay, I’m getting all conspiratorial here, but let’s consider this for a moment.

The Mercedes can create, ex nihilo — as if by spontaneous combustion, parking spots. A parking lot may have twenty spots per aisle, but the resourceful Benz driver will create a twenty-first space. And right across from the Starbucks or, more appropriately, Morton’s Steakhouse. Mysteriously, they never create spots on the far side of the lot. Additionally, these newly-fashioned spots are usually two cars in length, so as to prevent other well-to-dos from interfering with their mystical creation. Fascinating. Indeed, some may argue that these omnipotent vehicles are higher deities.

A Mercedes, equipped with a “fluxury” capacitor (like that?), can travel through time. I have discerned a consistent time shift between traffic signals and the reaction of these opulent entities. When a traffic light turns green, it’s usually a good 5 seconds, give or take, before the car starts moving. Strange. Conversely, when a traffic light turns red, it’s about the same time &mdash 5 seconds, give or take — before a Mercedes even appears to react, i.e. stop. Crossing traffic may have already released the brake pedal (the non-Mercedes species among them, at least). Yet, magically, Mercedeses have that cushion of time. They just gracefully glide through the intersection. For us lesser beings that’s called “running a red light.” But, really, for a Mercedes it’s just a time shift. Everything just slides forward 5 seconds, give or take.

Signaling. Or lack thereof. Okay, this is where my theory falls apart a bit. I think those Germans have a slight flaw in the design of their device. But I bet the module is supposed to signal telepathically to other motorists when a Mercedes intends to turn or change lanes, as opposed to relying on antiquated visual cues. Obviously, they have decided not to install the more traditional directional signal you’d find in earthly cars. I’ve just never seen a Mercedes signal. Anyway, I’m sure this component is in alpha and that they’re working on getting an operational product out on the road soon.

Although it is evident that the Mercedes defies laws of physics, it can also suspend civic laws. Have you ever seen a Benz pulled over by a state trooper? I haven’t. If you have, it must have been a mistake. I’m sure the offending officer is right now on leave without pay. These cars can travel at whole-number multiples of the current speed limit, use the H.O.V. lane with no passengers, or conduct captivating cell phone conversations, hands…ful. And at all times confident that no one dares pull them over.

Indeed, the Mercedes seems protected by a police-repellant shell. Could be that the fluxury capacitor renders the car invisible to police. The glitzy aura of the Mercedes is certainly visible to earthly motorists (doesn’t it just seem to exude a sense of luxury and self-entitlement?). Perhaps the module just emits some hallucinogenic spray that stuns police patrols. I’m certainly not going to try to guess at the engineering marvel behind this feature.

So yes, I’m pretty convinced of this theory, its various flaws notwithstanding. Now, I don’t want to deny other car makers of any due credit. I’m pretty sure that attempts have been made to install this enigmatic device in BMWs, Lexuses, Jaguars, Range Rovers, and other affluent cars. But none of them does it so impeccably, on virtually its entire line.

In all honesty, some may interpret my sentiments as class envy. I just think it’s a misplaced cardinal sin. A more appropriate characterization may be class wrath.

Technorati Tags:
driving, satire

Recently I picked up a copy of Charles Darwin’s masterpiece, “The Origin of Species.” After all, it is hailed as one of the greatest turning points in science, if not biology. It essentially lays the basis for a lot of my own personal work in genomics. Right now, I’m about halfway through the book. Interesting read so far.

While away on a genetics conference last week, I was ambling around the San Diego Zoo. I walked by elaborate monkey and gorilla exhibits. Then I made an interesting observation. It may sound a bit obvious to some, but I never gave it much thought before. How is it that we, humans, are functionally so different than any other species that roams the earth? Genetically, we’re fairly close to apes. In fact, chimps are purportedly closer to Homo sapiens than they are to any other species. Yet, phenotypically — examining our own physical traits and expressions — there is not a single species that is even remotely like us.

Anthropologists have an answer to this supposed quagmire. We developed opposable thumbs as well as a language, and that sets us apart from other creatures. These traits have put us on a trajectory to intelligence and technology. In addition, the fossil record indicates the existence of other homonids (Homo erectus, Homo habilis, etc.), but they are now extinct. While a valid answer, my question is: why are these other homonids extinct? According to Darwin, a favorable trait that is naturally selected will likely be expressed in close varieties of the species where that trait originated. Why is it, then, that no other existing animal species have opposable thumbs or a well-developed language? Why are there no intermediate species between chimps and humans, who might have opposable thumbs, but speak very poor English? Why haven’t other species developed, or at least borrowed from humans, tools for hunting, rummaging, fighting? If Darwin’s conjecture is correct, then there should be other human “varieties” roaming the planet.

It just strikes me as odd that, given the success of our species and the existence of countless other species, there aren’t any close runners-up. No other species seems to have a conscious drive to excel like we do. The gorillas and the bonobos seem quite content in the little habitat the San Diego Zoo has carved out for them.

But these are just some points I’m pondering over as I’m reading the rest of “Origin.” After doing a bit of digging on the ‘net, it seems that Darwin’s follow-up, “Descent of Man,” might specifically address this question.

Technorati Tags:
genetics, evolution

I’ve got a tiff with Apple, Inc. I am admittedly a big fan, so I won’t condemn the whole juggernaut. It’s their notorious customer service department that has me proverbially shaking my fists.

Last week, after a 45 day trial of iWork ’05, the almost-drop-in replacement for Microsoft Office, I decided to shell out 49 educational dollars for a license. Then two days ago Steve announces, among others, the release of iWork ’06. With zealous anticipation, I open Keynote and look for the “Check for Updates…” menu item. But no such item exists. Strange. I then go on the iWork website and search for the Upgrade link. No dice. It then begins to dawn on me that I might have to purchase iWork ’06 separately.

I read all their refund and upgrade policies, and find, to my chagrin, that although Apple offers a full refund for unopened software boxes that have been received within the last 14 days, they offer no refunds for software licenses or software downloads. They also have some 10 day price reduction guarantee. But in my case, the software has been licensed over the last 10 days (and hardly used). I feel gipped.

I called them up and after being shuffled between 3 representatives, got on the line with someone senior enough to conduct a heated argument that featured musings on the information age, an analysis of network bandwidth, and a dispute over the definition of corporate loyalty.

While their argument rested on technical minutiae, I waxed philosophical. They maintained that the policy clearly states that software downloads, including licenses, are nonrefundable. They further stated that there is no way for them to revoke the license key for the older version. When I asked them what good it would be to run the older version when I have the new version, they expressed their concern that I would just give the old license to someone else.

We then got into a diatribe over software versions. I ignorantly purchased iWork ’05 with the understanding that, while its functionality is quite limited related to MS Office, I’ll be readily able to upgrade when the new version comes out. I really like the interface and Cocoa integration, so the functional flaws didn’t bother me that much. But they subscribe to a different philosophy. iWork ’06, which they repeatedly referred to as iLife ’06, is a completely separate product than iWork ’05 — or, as they referred to, iLife ’05.

But I wouldn’t let the truth get in the way. I saw that I had to take a different approach. So I invoked an economic argument. Are they really losing out, I reasoned, by sending me software? It’s not like hardware which they would have to restock. It’s just bits of 0s and 1s. I told them I refuse to pay for iWork ’06. So they’re not losing any money. In fact, by winning their argument they’re only losing a loyal customer. I told them that I sing the Apple tune to my friends and family, and urge them to buy Apple products. And now, all I will do is qualify my Apple endorsements with “… but their customer service ain’t worth a braes farthing.”

Besides a $20 discount on the next purchase, which I told them to keep, they would not budge. In all seriousness, I can understand their position. They have an SOP and they stick to it. But a reputable company like Apple needs to incorporate some accommodation into their customer service procedures. A customer service department is, though on an individual level, the company’s public face. I know better than to judge Apple based on this experience, but I’ll be sure to think twice next time I’d like to purchase a frozen version of their software.

Technorati Tags:
apple, customer service, iwork

The HD-DVD demo during Bill Gates’s keynote speech proves one thing: Microsoft just doesn’t get it.

read more | digg story

Need I say more?

read more | digg story

The Toyota Prius – Gasoline-electric hybrid vehicles can serve as a UPS (Uninterruptible Power Supply) for your house. The Prius, unlike the generator, also has a battery that provides instant, UPS-like power, to your house.

read more|digg story

Now this is “the life”….

read more | digg story