Amit's Thoughts: review

From Amit’s Thoughts

TiVo Features I want #

Over the years Tivo has added lots of features to the product. Unfortunately I'm not interested in most of them. Things I don't care about:

• Swivel Search
• Guru Guides
• podcasts
• Discovery Bar
• KidZone
• radio stations
• games
• TivoCast
• Photo, music, video streaming from my computer

I do like the internet guide loading (so I don't need a phone line), the Netflix/Hulu/Amazon streaming, and support for HDTV (Cablecard).

What I'd really like are features without funny names:

• When I press a button on the remote, the Tivo should react instantly.
• No more waiting. When I change a season pass or settings, I shouldn't have to wait for the Tivo to do its calculations. It should let me continue while it works in the background.
• When I delete several shows in a row from a folder, the Tivo shouldn't get confused. I sometimes find that it tells me the group is now empty, and I have to go out and back into the group to see the remaining shows.
• When I add a show to be recorded (or a season pass), I want to choose a folder. I don't want to use the folders by show name; I want to choose folders that mean something to me, like “history shows” or “time travel movies”. This didn't matter when the capacity was 40GB but the more storage there is, the more useful folders become.
• Instead of assuming I receive all 500 channels, ask me which level of Cable TV I subscribe to, so that I can see just the 100 channels I actually get. Every channel change can be relative to that list. Right now, most channel changes are irrelevant to me, and end up adding channels that I don't actually get.

I suspect that as a company gets larger, it's easier to get management to approve people working on features with names than on features without names. However, this is pure speculation on my part.

Labels: review, speculation

Microwave Oven controls #

In the old days, microwave ovens had dials. You turned the dial to the amount of time you wanted it to run, and then it ran. Life was simple.

These days, microwave ovens have lots of buttons. Yes, there are more features, but it's also much more confusing, especially for the simple use case.

The microwave I have has the best of both worlds. For the simple case, it uses a dial. For the extra features that are rarely used, it uses buttons. The dial has a good feel to it, and it has discrete stops (not continuous). The stop size increases as the time increases:

• From 1 to 10 seconds, it's rounded to the second.
• From 10 seconds to 1 minute, it's rounded to 5 seconds.
• From 1 minute to 5 minutes, it's rounded to 10 seconds.
• From 5 minutes to 10 minutes, it's rounded to 15 seconds.
• From 10 minutes to 30 minutes, it's rounded to 30 seconds.

Consider the alternatives. If it had been linear, with high precision (1 second), I'd have to turn the dial for a very long time to reach 10 minutes. In addition, my compulsive behavior would have me fiddling until it's exactly 10:00 minutes, not 9:57 or 10:02. If it had been linear, with low precision (10 seconds), I'd have no good way to specify durations such as 15 or 45 seconds. I'd end up running it and watching it the whole time, stopping it at the right time.

I love using this microwave oven. For most needs, I can turn the dial, then press Start. Rarely do I have to use the other buttons.

Update: [2013-03-14] The updated model is the Panasonic NN-SD997S, $187. There are also some less expensive ones as well that feature the dial.

Labels: review

Experiences with my Macbook Air #

Nearly two years ago, I got a Macbook Air. It's been nearly two years, and here are my thoughts:

Labels: mac, review

Online map sites #

I love maps. I especially love online maps. They let me zoom, pan, and change the features being displayed. Google Maps was truly wonderful after using Mapquest, etc., for so many years. Microsoft and Yahoo also have draggable maps now.

I was planning a trip to Mount Saint Helens recently and tried out some online maps:

• Google:
• Yahoo:
• Microsoft (Live):

There are three things I really want to know when visiting Mount Saint Helens:

1. Roads. I want to know how to get there. Only Google shows the roads clearly. Yahoo shows dark gray on medium green, which is barely visible. Microsoft shows dark gray on medium gray, which is even worse, and nearly impossible to find unless you already know where to look. Just try to find the western end of NF-99 on Microsoft's maps. None of the services offered as much information as the park maps.
2. Terrain. I want to know where the volcano is and where the crater is. Only Microsoft shows this at all, and it shows it beautifully. I can see the ravines and mountains and river valleys. It's great! Yahoo and Google show nothing about terrain in their maps. Instead, you have to switch to Satellite view, which works for this volcano, but no match for the clarity of Microsoft's maps. (I'm sure terrain slows down Microsoft map loading quite a bit though; maybe it should be an optional layer.)
3. Stops. I want to know where I can stop, take pictures, go on a hike, etc. None of the three mapping sites I tried have this information; I instead got some of it from the park map. Another way to get this data would be from geotagged images; if I could see the most popular spots for photos, I'd know where I should go.

The other thing you might notice from these three maps is that Microsoft's typography is excellent. Google has a nice font but surrounds the text with bright yellow or white to increase contrast, which is quite distracting. Yahoo's text is decent and has less distracting contrast. But Microsoft's text is really nice. Instead of a white border they use a subtle white shading to increase contrast. It's very clean. They also use different fonts for different types of features — compare “WASHINGTON”, “Mount St Helens National Volcanic Monument”, “Spirit Lake”, and “Mount St Helens 8365 ft”. It looks more like a “traditional” map than Google or Yahoo.

In the end I used the park map for roads and features, Google maps for driving times and directions, Microsoft maps for getting a general sense of where the scenic areas are, and my Rand McNally U.S. Atlas (paper, not online) to find out which routes were marked “scenic”.

I also visited the Seattle area, and compared the maps:

• Google:
• Yahoo:
• Microsoft:

In urban areas Microsoft continues to have good typography with labels that are easier to read than Google's or Yahoo's. They also seem to be placing the labels more intelligently to avoid drawing over important areas. Microsoft also has labels for more items on the map. The terrain doesn't play a role here, although the east side of Mercer island has terrain that explains why the roads curve so much. Google's roads are easiest to see. Yahoo shows each city in its own color, which can be useful at times, and it also makes highway entrances easy to see. Microsoft shows more roads (faintly), which gives me a better sense of which areas are sparse/industrial and which areas are dense/residential.

Which site do I use most often?

In general I get more information out of Microsoft's maps than Google's or Yahoo's, but Microsoft has a few annoying implementation details that keep me from using their maps more: (a) their awful browser detection script rejects me unless I lie about my user agent, and (b) I get a stupid dialog box asking me to install a Windows 3d plugin … even though I'm not wanting 3d, nor am I using Windows. There are things about each of the three that I like, but in the end I'm still using Google's maps most often. It's fast and the roads are easy to see, especially in cities.

Update: [2007-11-30] Google now has a “terrain” map mode that gives me what I liked from Microsoft Maps:

Go to Google Maps

Labels: review, typography

Review: Oggz, Laserpod, Mathmos Color Bubble #

I've been looking for interesting lights to use at night. I wanted something colorful, not too distracting, and ideally, portable. I bought 3 Oggz, a Laserpod, and a Mathmos Color Bubble.

Oggz

Oggz are soft egg-shaped lights that you can hold in your hand. They slowly change colors, from blue to green to red and back (this is not configurable). There's a switch on the bottom to turn them on and off. You can place them on the base to have them run continually, or you can just pick them up and take them with you (the battery lasts 6–8 hours). When you put them back on the base they'll recharge. There are a few downsides of the Oggz:

• You can't adjust the color changing. It would've been nice to have a way to pause it, so that you could keep it at a certain color.
• The switch at the bottom is not easy to turn on in the dark. I used the Oggz as nightlights for a while, and until you turn them on you can't see the switch, which you need for turning them on.
• The red light is much darker than the green and blue. This means the overall brightness changes, not just the color. This is especially unwelcome when you're using it as a nightlight, because your eyes adjust to the blue and green brightness, and then you get plunged into darkness when it cycles to red.

Despite these minor problems, I do like the Oggz.

Laserpod

The Laserpod contains a red laser and blue LEDs, plus a diffraction crystal and a cover. The lights rotate slowly. You can use it in several modes:

• Uncovered, the Laserpod will project lights onto the ceiling. It's not bright enough to see except at night with all the lights off. Covered, the Laserpod will project lights onto a frosted dome (it comes with two, one tall and one short). When covered it's easier to see the patterns.
• Red light only, you will get the laser beam, which is either bright points or laser lines. You can also turn on blue LEDs to add to the ambience, but they don't project any sharp patterns. There is no mode to use the blue LEDs without the red laser.
• Unfiltered, the Laserpod will project its laser as points onto the ceiling or one of the covers. It's more interesting to use the diffraction crystal, which will turn the points into cool patterns. You can also use your own objects; I tried a small crystal I have and was able to split the laser points into lots of dots moving around on the ceiling.

Pictured is the Laserpod with only the red laser on, the diffraction crystal, and the tall cover. That's my favorite of the many ways of using it. Unfortunately the motor can be loud at times, so I can't leave this on at night when going to sleep, and it's dark enough that it's not really useful to leave this on during the day or in the evening with other lights on. So I find that I rarely ever have an occasion to use it. For the high price, the noise, and the lack of brightness, I cannot recommend the Laserpod.

Mathmos Color Bubble

I don't have a picture of this, but you can see one at ThinkGeek. I was hoping for something that addressed the flaws of the Oggz. The Mathmos bubble can be turned on or off with just a squeeze, according to the product literature. However, it's a bit tougher than that because the squeeze has to be on a particular side of the sphere. Given that spheres have no sides, it becomes hard to find the right place when it's dark. It's always blue, not changing colors or brightness, so it's a better nightlight than the Oggz. Unlike the Oggz, which can be recharged simply by putting them down, the Mathmos has to be plugged in with a special cable. The Mathmos has a nice soft feel like the Oggz, but it's significantly heavier. The Oggz are light enough and feel durable enough that I am comfortable throwing them across the room; the Mathmos is heavy enough that I won't play with it the same way.

Conclusion

I like the Oggz most of all. They're much cheaper than the Mathmos and there are three of them, not just one. The egg shape is a little nicer than a sphere. The Laserpod is the most expensive of all, and after the initial coolness wore off, it just hasn't been enjoyable. I recommend the Oggz.

Labels: review

Second Life: Svarga #

If you're in Second Life, you should check out Svarga [SLUrl]. It's an exotic jungle island with pathways, towers, musical instruments, isolation room, fountains, temple compound, secret underground chamber, lookout posts, a second island, and even its own ecosystem (birds, bees, flowers, plants, trees, weather). There are lots of details that are easily missed the first time through. When you get there, be sure to take the guided tour by sitting on the hovering tour chair.

Svarga is my favorite place in Second Life. Unfortunately it may not be around for much longer.

Labels: review

Review: Deck Legend Keyboard #

I've been looking for a new keyboard for about a year now. I'm picky about keyboards. I want them to have a good feel: when the key is sent to the computer, I want to feel something in the key. I was reading reviews on Dans Data and found this:

It's a proper long-travel keyboard with good tactile feedback - not quite as positive as buckling spring, but rather quieter - and impressive durability stats.

—from this review of the Deck Keyboard.

That seemed promising. Dan's site also includes this page about “clicky” keyboards, so I know he has good taste in keyboards. That review, along with several others, convinced me to buy the Deck Legend keyboard, even though it wasn't in any stores, and I couldn't try it out first. I also liked the company's attitude. They give you instructions on disassembly, removing keycaps, adding lighting, and so on. And they don't void the warranty for modding. I wasn't planning to do any of these things, but it made me feel better about the company.

Plus, it has cool lighting. Each key is individually lit by an LED. There's also brightness control. And you can install custom keycaps like a skull & bones. It's a “cool” keyboard.

So I ordered it.

Unfortunately the keyboard doesn't feel good to me. It feels very mushy, and there's no feedback when a key has been pressed. At all. In short, this keyboard feels awful. When I press down on a key, it sends a signal to the computer with no "click", and then the key goes "thud" at the bottom.

I returned it.

This makes me quite sad. I really like the company and this keyboard seemed promising. I'm now hunting for another keyboard but haven't found anything really nice. The Logitech Dinovo looks interesting, except the reviews say that it drops keystrokes (it's wireless) and the shift and spacebar keys are hard to press after a few months.

Labels: review

The Singularity is Not Near #

I'm reading Ray Kurzweil's book, The Singularity Is Near, and finding it somewhat persuasive. However every once in a while something just looks wrong, and that upsets the persuasivity.

In Chapter 1, he shows various “significant” events in history, like the invention of writing, the development of fire, the Cambrian explosion, etc. He uses the timing of these events to show that change is accelerating:

Image courtesy of Wikipedia.

The thing that occurred to me when looking at the choice of events is that it's a natural tendency to view the world logarithmically. For example, if you ask most Americans about places in the world, they will be able to name the places very close to where they live, the towns nearby, the state, the large cities in the USA, a few very large cities around the world, a few large or important countries around the world, and then places like “Africa” and “Asia”. If you plot the places on a logarithmic chart, you'll get something close to a straight line. If people name astronomical objects, it will be the ones close to us (like planets), the Sun, some nearby stars, and maybe some galaxies. But it won't be some planet in some other galaxy. If people name biological variants, it'll first be the ones close to us (various races of humans), then types of mammals and maybe reptiles, then “fish”, then “bacteria”. It won't start with various species of bacteria or fish. This is because things that are physically or conceptually farther away are resolved in the brain at a lower “resolution”. The closer something is to you, the finer granularity you use to distinguish it from other things.

The same is true for time. For example, Kurzweil's choice of events includes the Cambrian explosion at a very coarse granularity. It doesn't include development of limbs, eyes, skeletal system, muscles, or other events that would've been considered significant if the list was developed back then. Those changes are all grouped together. Similarly, if the list had been developed around the time multicellular life developed, it would have included significant achievements like the development of cell walls, a nucleus, ribosomes, etc.

Things that are farther away are resolved in the brain at a lower “resolution”. The brain's use of variable resolution means that changes from the past are grouped together into larger units, and that makes it look like change was occurring more slowly in the past. I do believe that change is accelerating, but it's not accelerating as quickly as Kurzweil believes.

Labels: future, review

The Singularity is Near? #

Something I don't understand from Ray Kurzweil's arguments about the “Singularity”: he says that we're in the “knee” of the growth curve:

... exponential growth is seductive, starting out slowly and virtually unnoticable, but beyond the knee of the curve it turns explosive and profoundly transformative.

There's a big problem with this idea.

Exponential curves do not have knees.

Exponential curves are scale-free. If you replot them at a different scale, the knee will appear to be in a different place. Furthermore, the knee will always appear to be near the right edge of the curve, so you'll always think the knee just occurred recently.

I searched Google to find any page on how to define the “knee” of an exponential curve, but did not find one. I only found one page that even mentions the issue. Why aren't people pointing this out? Am I missing something? Only Steve Jurvetson, in a comment on his own blog, says:

For almost any issue, the “knee in the curve” occurred in the recent past, and history before that seemed pretty flat. But, of course, there is no knee or inflection point or “hockey stick” in an exponential curve (when plotted on log paper, this more obvious). Roll the clock forward 5 years, plot again, and the perceived “knee” on a linear graph will have moved forward 5 years.

I'm only on page 10 in Kurzweil's new book, The Singularity is Near (which I received at the Accelerating Change 2005 conference), and his opening argument is suspect. This is going to leave a bad taste in my mouth as I read the rest of the book.

Labels: future, review

Current.TV is clueless #

I went to Current.TV's web site to see what this new TV station was about, what kind of material they showed, and whether I received it.

1. What is it about? They have an about link at the bottom. It has a reasonable page about them. Good.
2. What kinds of shows are on it? The main portion of their home page shows what's on now and what's coming on soon. You can click on a time and it'll show you what's on. However there's just the name of the show and no description. Furthermore, the show name (image) is clickable, but nothing happens when you click (at least in Firefox). It's done in Flash and has lots of graphics and animation but nothing useful. Bad, but it's possible they just haven't finished the implementation.
3. How do I watch? I wanted to know whether I received this channel. I clicked on find the channel here. It's a pop-up window. It states, “To find out if you get CURRENT, please identify your cable or satellite provider.” So far so good. I put in my cable provider. It then wants my name, address, phone number, email address, and year of birth. Bad. It considers 1900 to be an invalid birth year. After I fill out the form, it gives me this:

   Welcome to CURRENT - a new conversation with TV. Thanks to Comcast we can connect with each other and really interact. Who knew it could be so good? Check out the Studio to find out how to start the convo. Looking forward to it.

   If you do not currently subscribe to Comcast and are interested in getting CURRENT, please call 1-800-945-2288.

   This is completely useless. What does it even mean? It didn't answer my question. It ends up telling me what to do if I do not subscribe to Comcast, even though I told it that I have Comcast. (That's Comcast's 1-800 number.) Bad.

Why don't they tell you what kind of programming is on? Why are they trying to discourage and confuse me when I try to find out how to watch them? So far I'm not impressed. When it comes to their web site, they seem clueless.

Update: [2005-07-31] I discovered (after discovering that “Current TV” is very hard to search for) that Comcast does have Current TV in my area, but it costs extra. Comcast's confusing site does not tell me how much it will cost, nor which package includes it, but from reading various message boards I think I figured out what I would need to order. It's $23.86/month extra to get Current TV. I'm not going to pay that much. Why isn't it in the standard cable package?

Update: [2005-08-01] For Comcast viewers, they no longer have the form you have to fill out to find out how to watch. And it no longer has the confusing message about Comcast. Yay. For other folk, you still get the stupid form.

Update: [2005-08-02] It turns out not only have they fixed the form, they've admitted that it was bad. Double Yay!

Labels: review

TiVoToGo dead on arrival #

I finally got the TiVoToGo upgrade. Nothing worked for me.

• The TiVo tells me to get TiVo Desktop.
• The TiVo Desktop installer tells me that I don’t have a working codec, and that “older” computers “may” not have one. My computer is 18 months old. I guess that’s old. The installer tells me to get the Microsoft Windows XP Video Decoder Checkup Utility.
• Microsoft’s web site tells me to verify my installation of Windows XP to combat piracy. Um, why is piracy my problem to solve? And how is this going to combat piracy when there’s an option to bypass the check?!
• The Video Decoder Checkup Utility tells me my codec is incompatible with Windows Media Player 10, and that I can go to the vendor’s site to get an update.
• The vendor’s site link takes me to a generic page listing what DVD products I can buy. I have no idea what I’m supposed to do here.
• I try continuing with the TiVoToGo installer. It now asks me for a Media Access Key, and it tells me two ways to get it.
• One way is to go online. I don’t know how to log into their site; I don’t think I have an account.
• The other way is through the TiVo: “Go to TiVo Central, select "Messages & Setup," select "Account and System Information," and then select "Media Access Key."” There is no such menu option on my TiVo.

So I have no codec, and I have no media access key. I don’t really know what I’m supposed to do. It’s really not worth my time to figure this out. So no TiVoToGo for me.

Labels: review

Dyson vacuum cleaner #

Jeremy Zawodny’s post about his Dyson reminded me that I too want to say: I love my Dyson vacuum cleaner. I got the red DC07 model (base model + floor cleaner but no animal attachment), in part because I love the color red. (I know, that’s a silly reason.)

Consumer Reports says that it’s not as good as some other (less expensive) vacuum cleaners. However there’s an emotional attachment that many geeks have to the Dyson. I think it’s partly the Dyson story, partly the attachment system (which is annoying but cool), and partly the ease of maintenance. Or maybe it’s because the vacuumed dirt is visible so you can tell that it’s working. I can’t tell, really.

In any case, I like it.

Labels: review

JotSpot #

Jon Udell takes another look at JotSpot.

It seems so simple. I really like what I see. Simple is good. I especially like the inverted creation pattern: normally you create some structure (a database table, a form, a class in object-oriented programming), create new objects using that structure, and then populate them. In JotSpot, you first create objects and can attach structure to them afterwards. I wonder if you can attach multiple forms to the same page. I wonder if the external objects (RSS feeds, Google search) are tied to pages only or if they can be attached to forms, so that they apply to all pages that adopt the form.

So far though JotSpot looks like it’s built for companies to buy. I would like something that I can use for keeping notes among friends, keeping track of my “to do” list (where other people can comment on it), or other lightweight non-commercial uses.

Labels: review

Geomag pictures #

More geomag pictures (see the bottom of the page). I don’t play with my Supermags much anymore, but people in the office do.

Labels: review

Apple Quicktime #

Quicktime is so annoying. Quicktime for Windows uses the Mac interface. Blech. (I much prefer the Mac, but I would rather have consistency when using Windows than to have one app using a Mac interface.)

Anyway, it kept pestering me to upgrade itself. I’m sure that when it upgrades itself it will hook itself deeper into my system, but after many months of pestering I finally upgraded.

The license agreement includes:

THE APPLE SOFTWARE IS NOT INTENDED FOR USE IN THE OPERATION OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES, 
AIRCRAFT NAVIGATION OR COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEMS, LIFE 
SUPPORT MACHINES OR OTHER EQUIPMENT IN WHICH THE FAILURE OF THE APPLE SOFTWARE 
COULD LEAD TO DEATH, PERSONAL INJURY, OR SEVERE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE. 

So are they worried that nuclear facilities are going to be critically dependent on Quicktime?

Labels: review

Supermag vs. Geomag #

I have some more building galleries/instructions thanks to Joo G.

Some building ideas/instructions for Supermag and Geomag: 1 (non-English), 2 (non-English), 3 (very nice! includes description of magnetic forces), 4 (annoying javascript) (non-English), 5 (non-English), 6 (non-English), 7 (non-English, WMV-format videos), 8 (describes magnetic forces)

Nelson M. and Joo G. both point me to Geomag SA, the Geomag site. Apparently the inventor of Geomag and the previous producer of Geomag, Plastwood, no longer get along. Plastwood has abandoned Geomag and come out with their lookalike, Supermag. This would explain the promotional material I've read, in which Plastwood makes it sound like Supermag is the successor to Geomag. It also explains the difficulty of finding Geomags―I'm sure Geomag was scrambling to find a new manufacturer. The catalog includes a list of their sets, including some building image galleries. The Geomag site argues that Geomag is better than Supermag:

1. Supermag magnets are ~25% weaker
2. Supermag magnets are a single bar instead of Geomag, which has two bars (!)

They also describe why they think two different lengths is a dumb idea. The example they give is essentially suppose you want to build something with only one length... you have to buy all these extra magnets that you don't use. True, but with the new Geomag you end up having to buy these "panels" (at least it appeared that the panels were included in sets with rods). I do like having a single length but I can also see some advantages of having two lengths. Their site navigation is a little confusing, but eventually you'll find a gem: Geomag: Come & Play. This part of the site has beautiful diagrams showing how Geomag works, how you should build things, and so on. In particular, they show the two-magnet interior of a Geomag rod. From what I read on their site, Supermag contains a single magnet in each rod. However, it's not clear to me what the difference is in practice. Geomag claims between the magnets is a steel rod. Doesn't this essentially turn it into a single magnet? In any case, the Geomag site is convincing. It matches my own experience with Geomag vs. Supermag: Geomag is generally better than Supermag but Supermag is still decent.

Labels: review

Geomag vs. Supermag #

What I've learned so far:

• The supermag long rods are about 0.5mm shorter than the geomag rods.
• The supermag rods are slightly narrower than the geomag rods.
• Due to the tapered ends, you have more flexibility in building things with supermags.
• However, due to the tapered ends, you can't build columns by placing rods end-to-end (they fall apart easily).
• The supermag long rods are slightly weaker than the geomag rods.

Labels: review

Supermags arrived #

I opened up my Supermags on Christmas day. First thought: Yay! The box is unusual in that you have to tear it (it seems) to open it, unlike my Lego sets, which come in boxes you can close again. Inside the box is cheap styrofoam with six compartments, four for the spheres (16 in each compartment), one for the 108 short rods (2 layers, each with 6 rows, each with 9 rods), and one for the 72 long rods (2 layers, each with 6 rows, each with 6 rods). It would've been nice to have a manual with some building suggestions and technical specs. Instead, it's a tiny pamphlet with one suggestion on what to build, a marketing paragraph, and a list of their other Supermag products. Ick.

Something that's really neat about playing with magnets is that they are easy to clean up. You just sweep a magnet along the floor and it picks up all the other magnets and spheres. They even line themselves up to some extent.

One of the dangers of playing with magnets is that they can wipe your credit cards, library cards, hard disks, etc.

Each of the rods is hexagonal, has "Plastwood" (the manufacturer's name) written on one side, and "supermag" written on the opposite side. On the side with "supermag", there is a letter and a number. I start reading them from the short rods ... P8 R3 O1 P4 Q8 Q1 P2 Q3 Q1 Q6 O5 P8 O8 R6 P4 Q4 O1 P7 O4 R5 O7 Q7 R5 O8 Q8 R3 P7. I thought at first that each rod in the set might have a different letter/number pair, maybe corresponding to how they were laid out in the box. However, there are no 9's, and there are 9 short rods in each row. There are 6 rows in each layer but there are only 4 letters (O P Q R). Investigating more, I decided to pull out all the 8's. There are 3 O8s, 4 P8s, 5 Q8s, and 1 R8. No obvious pattern here. Do the letters and numbers correspond to polarity? No, there's no obvious connection. So I'm really not sure what the letters and numbers mean. The long rods have letters S T U V and the numbers go up to only 4.

Labels: review

Cancel your Discover Card #

Since cancelling my Discover Card, I've been receiving nasty phone calls from people at Discover trying to get me to come back. This latest caller was rude/condescending to my wife, then said he must talk to me. He then tried to convince me to keep my account open but not get a credit card. And he'd give me a 0% interest rate. He says I should keep the Discover Card in case of emergency. I keep telling him no, but he keeps pushing. Grr.

Discover, if you're listening, here's a tip: being rude and nasty to potential customers is a bad business strategy.

I'm not the only one who has had bad experiences with Discover Card's customer service folk. Read this letter and this letter and this letter (at PlanetFeedback.com).

Update [2004-08-01]: See this list of bad experiences with cancelling a Discover card.

Labels: review

Cancel your Discover Card #

I tried to cancel my Discover Card. It took 15 minutes of the guy trying to convince me that there's no harm in keeping it, "just in case", that I should use it for everything, that their cash back thing is worth it, that it's accepted virtually everywhere, that it'd ruin my credit history if I cancelled this card, etc. Sheesh. Based on this experience, I'm not going to ever get a Discover Card again.

Labels: review