I think quite conceivably, many of us these days comfortably seated in front of the idiot box, watching the Olympics, feel that our side is not represented, none of the activities we participate in daily have found a place in the grandest sporting event known to man. There is no pie eating contests, no cross country shopping, no bar brawling. A large chunk of the population is sidelined, as far as their ambitions and dreams are concerned. I'm here to make the case for a wildly popular activity among the masses, I'm also here to explain why it never made the cut.

We're all very comfortable and familiar with sleep, it's often what gets us through the day when all else fails. Sleep is a healthy, wholesome activity in which we engage with enthusiasm. Given how often we practice it, everyone of us would be eligible for a tryout for the Olympics. But most impressive, no doubt, are those who can sleep through very long periods of time. I don't have the numbers on me but I imagine the official world record for sleeping at length is a very impressive one.

Thus the case is made, napping would be a natural addition to the highly acclaimed Olympiade. So why is it missing? Well, unfortunately the noble sport of napping has certain practical inconveniences. For instance, it requires very knowledgable and dedicated, not to mention enduring, commentators. Imagine a 34h napping event, how many cups of coffee, buckets of water and slaps in the face would that command? Quite a few. Secondly, the sport would require highly sophisticated equipment to determine a contestant's physical state. Faking sleep is, of course, very trivial. So it would require sensors for monitoring brain activity and the works. Hand in hand with blatant cheating goes the issue of doping. For an unrestricted event, the organizers could distribute sleeping pills and simply award the medal to the contestant who slept the longest but still woke up. Otherwise a lack of pulse would be awarded with disqualification.

So there it is, sports fans, the reason why our beloved sport will never be cheered on by the masses, why our athletes will never receive the glory their skills deserve.

I was fairly skeptical, I mean Men in Black and all I thought this was gonna be a forced sequel to that series. But it's not, in fact it's a decent movie. What surprised me the most was the story being interesting and it made pretty good sense, which is not something I can say for most movies seen these days. The idea of Sonny passing on the message is a good one. The world of robotics stands on its own to feet in this one, it actually makes me believe the story. What a refreshing change! Obviously, Will is still being Will :cool: but it's less about him this time and more playing towards the story.

The movie also has a few other strong points. First of all, those cars were very cool, taking Audi TT to the max, I like that idea. Then the motorcycle racing was done well, the sound effects, closeups, very enjoyable. Then there's the fight scenes, which I think were done very well. Violence towards robots, that's quite an ingenious concept, it's a victim less crime. ;)

But no review would be complete without pointing out some apparent flaw. Isn't it a little curious how easily they found out that VIKI was the mastermind behind the revolution? I mean the whole building was built around computers but isn't it a little suspect that there's just one computer controlling everything? Wouldn't it make more sense to have various systems doing specialized things? I mean the whole one system controls everything is such a predictable conspiracy concept. Or is that supposed to be the beauty of it?

8/10

It must have been about 15 years ago when the madness struck in Norway. 10kr became 9.95, 100 became 99, 1000 became 999. I would like to know which moron came up with this ingenious sales gimmick. It clearly has stuck, because after so many years it's still around. But is there a documented case of even one customer who fell for it? I find it hard to believe that any sane person, with or without the basic grasp of arithmetic (but with a working knowledge of how currency works however, in as much as the two can be separated), would fall for this trick.

It's obviously not a discount, because that would involve lowering the price by a distinguishable amount. Instead, we pay 9.95 instead of 10, which is a bipolar aggravation. Firstly, if you don't have the change, the cashier will still customarily ask you for it. Secondly, not having the change means you are getting it with every purchase. And it doesn't take a financial analyst to realize that the change we are walking around with is worthless. It's not enough to pay for anything and if you want to actually spend it, you have to keep saving up for some period of time before you have enough. Unless you keep it around for the sake of that cashier, if you give them change, they will reward you with a bill. But then you do need change in the first place to complete that transaction and walk away in satisfaction. So there is no getting away from it.

But the question remains, what is the purpose of this annoyance? And if there actually is a purpose for it, perhaps it's now, 15 years later, safe to say that it's outlived its function? Wouldn't we all be happier going back to paying 10? I would like to see a store open with that motto, we don't give you change. Everything costs a full amount, 10, 20, 50. No more change. I think it would be a tremendous success.

I don't think many people give much thought to walking, it's such a simple, straightforward activity that there's not much to it, on the surface at least. Yeah, that's until you encounter people with poor walking etiquette. They come in all shapes and forms. Most distinct are those who walk too fast or too slow for you to keep up. Somehow they are oblivious to the fact that different people may enjoy different speeds of walking. It's mostly the fast walkers who do this, if they looked to the side for a minute they would see you taking giant strides trying not to fall behind. But even if they look, it's one of those disapproving looks, could you pick up the pace a little bit you think? The fast walkers are easily identifiable, they always have a purpose to their walking. These aren't the people who go window shopping, no they keep their eyes fixed on their destination. No change of course being made here. Time is money.

On the other side of the equation you have the slow walkers. And this isn't about physical ability or endurance, these people just refuse to speed up no matter what the situation is. It's like going faster would conflict with their religious beliefs, it's not being done. And sometimes you need to pick it up a little, when you have to get somewhere on time. These people never worry about getting anywhere on time. Whatever happens happens. 8 or 8.30, what's the difference anyway? And they are so attached to this notion of never doing anything quicker than they normally do at their casual pace that it's downright hard to shake them. Only a serious threat of missing out on something, or better yet facing a penalty for being late, will sway them from their comfortable path.

Too fast or too slow, that's fairly obvious all things considered. But that's not all, there are certain variations of these trends. For instance, there are people who tell you they can't keep up with you. But instead of stopping or slowing down, like any rational person would expect, they walk at the same speed you do, only 2m behind you to prove their point. Not surprisingly, this doesn't work cause if you can walk at my pace, walking behind me is just a question of displacement, not velocity.

More annoying yet are people who refuse to align with you for any reason at all. If you're walking for more than 30 minutes, inevitably at some point one person will stop for some reason. The excuses are many, tying shoelaces, looking at something you pass by the road etc. Now what would good etiquette entail? Nothing more than slowing down or better yet waiting for that person. It's not rocket science after all. But some people never do that, if you stop you have to race back to catch up with them. And even if you try to influence them, very suggestively stop when they stop to show them how it's done, they don't care. Yes, I see that but I'm not interested. And these people generally don't care about alignment at all. If you stop and don't catch up with them, they will keep walking. Similarly, if they stop and you don't wait, they don't catch up either, just carry on at their own pace.

That is a strange phenomenon. If you're supposed to walk with someone and they have to stop for something, you keep walking and they're too stubborn to catch up with you, then you just end up walking at the same pace several meters apart. Apparently, some people don't see anything wrong with that. And it's too embarrassing to have to point that out, it's just walking after all.

Having used a computer the past 11 years of my life, I've come across a plethora of install programs for various software. The absolute majority of them are a pain in the ass, let's face it. The simplest kinds of software, like Winamp, don't exactly require a lot of configuration options, but even those are a pain to use a lot of the time. Very rarely do I see an install program that caters to the user. The occurence is borderline miracle, in fact.

But worst of all, the operating system category. Any OS I have tried my hands on had a fairly long install procedure and just about everyone of them was painful. To make this more intuitive, I'll try to categorize a little.

1. buggy software
This is an immediate show stopper in many cases. If you can't even get the install program to run, there's little hope for you. I've had many experiences of this kind. Off the top of my head, the Windows XP installer will not run if you have a somewhat custom partition scheme with Linux partitions. It won't give you an error (that would be too convenient after all), so the best thing you can do before starting the install is to wipe your drive and try again. I had a reiserfs partition on mine drive, perhaps that's what did it. Another fond memory was the RedHat installer (think it was 8.x), which wouldn't start anaconda because the hardware detection failed at the pcmcia step. Passing the nodetect flag to the kernel didn't work and trying to omit this step was theoretically possible but required a fair bit of skill and determination to hit that F8 none too early and not too late. Finally I did succeed but it took a good hour to get there.

2. horrible design
This is the most prominent deficiency install programs possess. Around 10 out of 10 times, the dialogs are laid out in such a manner that makes it a pain in the ass to use them. The most glaring error is the notion that thou shalt not be blessed with the privilige of navigating both forward and backward in the install steps. Some installers give you an overview of the steps to be carried out first, guide you through them and then offer you a possibility to review your choice. But these are a minority among installers. In many cases, such as the Sun Solaris install I'm conducting at the time of writing, give no such privilige. If I press the wrong key by mistake and bypass the hardware autodetection, there is no way at any point in the installer to go back and fix it.

3. missing functions
In some installers, certain basic functions are just missing. Most recently, when conducting and install of Fedora Core 2, I selected to install no boot loader at all, awaiting the prompt at some point in the install process that would allow me to generate a boot floppy. But it never showed up, it was gone. And given that making a boot floppy in FC2 is as simple as typing one single command, it probably wouldn't have been too much of a problem to throw it in there or at least not take it out. Meanwhile, getting a FC2 bootdisk was far more involved than one might imagine, so in the end I was forced to run the install again, just because that step was missing.

4. bad interface
For those of us who have installed a few programs in our time, the interface of the installer is a key issue in determining how much time and aggravation goes into installing a certain piece of software. For Windows programs, the blatant lack of keyboard shortcuts is a real pain, although this applies to a wide range of "mouse-driven" installers. Omission of reasonable defaults is another annoyance, forcing you to type in or select a certain setting you use over and over again, which might as well have been made easier to define.

5. inflexibility
A close cousin of #2, this one is just about omnipresent. And for once, you can justify that being so, because installers give you a limited set of options to choose from, no matter how you look at it. You would have to do everything manually to allow any possible configuration. So I will go lightly on this step, because it's a tricky one. However, some installers are truly egregious when it comes to giving the user basic flexibility. Things like offering only ext2/3 for filesystem when the distribution has built-in functionality for reiserfs is annoying but no show stopper. But not allowing a custom location for installation destination certainly is.

Apart from the practical side of facilitating a large volume of installs with a well designed interface, the installer is also the first piece of your software that clients see. Evenso, it often seems to be the most neglected of them all. You would think any software vendor would want their software to be easy to install, if not pleasurable. But if the vendors had conducted any kind of feedback program on the installers, they would very well know (perhaps they do) how bad those installers really are.