I Am. When?

Calendar ver 2.1.3.

nospam@example.com (Andrew Maxim) — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 15:02:00 -0800

An updated version of the Proverbs PHP Web Event Calendar is now available for download from the link in the menu bar above (The one labeled Proverbs Calendar). The update includes two new language pack files (Portuguese and Hebrew), as well as a few changes to the way the language pack files are handled. Most notably, each language pack file now controls the HTML charset values for the calendar to allow each language to be displayed correctly.

Thank you to Paulo Roberto Gaefke for providing the Portuguese file and Oleg for providing the Hebrew file.

Calendar ver 2.1.2

nospam@example.com (Andrew Maxim) — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 08:53:44 -0700

A quick note to let you all know that I have uploaded an updated version of the Proverbs PHP Web Event Calendar. The only change between 2.1.1 and 2.1.2 is the replacement of the Dutch and German language files to, hopefully, much better versions.

A big thanks to Jesse Wilson for the updated Dutch language pack file and Wolfram Schulz-Zander for the updated German language pack file. Of course every entry could very well say "Eat at Joe's Fish and Chips" and I would never know. But we'll trust that they have created better translations than previously provided through whatever online service I used way back when.

Enjoy.

Getting Into Graduate School - Part III

nospam@example.com (Andrew Maxim) — Thu, 31 Dec 2009 13:55:00 -0800

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 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.

Norwegian Language Pack

nospam@example.com (Andrew Maxim) — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 15:54:40 -0700

I just received an email from Asbjorn Aamot of www.aa-mot.net that contained a new language pack file for the Proverbs Web Event Calendar. Asbjorn was kind enough to translate the language files to Norwegian (Norsk).

The calendar has been updated with the new language pack file and is ready for download. Many thanks to Asbjorn for taking the time to create the new translation file.

Quack Science

nospam@example.com (Andrew Maxim) — Mon, 14 Dec 2009 14:12:00 -0800

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 -0700

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 -0700

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...

The Nature Of Light

nospam@example.com (Andrew Maxim) — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 19:55:00 -0700

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 6 - User Permissions

nospam@example.com (Andrew Maxim) — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 23:32:00 -0700

I skipped ahead in Part 2 of my Computer Security 101 entries to cover passwords, or rather passphrases, despite it falling out of line with an outside-in approach to security. Entering into the actual desktop arena, I am going to skip ahead of a few items to cover the important field of User Permissions.

Assuming you have followed the best practices I have outlined previously in parts 1 thru 5, in order to gain access to a desktop a malicious person would need to either bypass your firewall, hack your wireless, plug a hard-line into your network or be sitting directly at a workstation. From there they would then need to begin cracking the various passphrases on your computer or network to do any major damage. While these are all possibilities, they fall in the realm of highly improbable; again, assuming you have followed the prior posted best practices. Instead the real threat comes from you: the user.

I'm not referring to malicious users, but rather the unintentional threats presented by your own daily activities, curiosity and, to a lesser extent, lack of knowledge. It is here that the greatest potential for attack on a computer system lies. It is here that most breaches in a system occur. Here be users.

User permissions are probably the most under managed and over looked area of computer security, both at the home computing level and within enterprise organizations. Users break things. Users also bring in spyware, adware and viruses. The sad thing is that with proper user permissions most problems can be averted.

I will give an example of just how effective proper user permissions can be:

A while back my daughter had started to use my laptop to work on school projects. Being a person in general and a teenager in particular, she used the laptop for other things as well, such as going to her MySpace page. One thing lead to another and I was removing all sorts of spyware and trojan viruses from that laptop by the time she left that weekend. Yes, one weekend and the laptop was a cesspool.

Now, to put things in perspective this laptop was running the latest in enterprise level virus scanning software, as well as several anti-malware programs. All software and definitions were up to date. Yet, in a short 48 hours it was covered with all sorts of nasty little buggers. The reason? The account she was using had administrator level permissions. That was it; that was the security breach.

Mind you, the rest of my home network kept that laptop from "spreading the disease" or becoming a bot for malicious users, but it was a reminder to myself as to just how important user permissions can be. Since that time she has been setup with a user level account and there has not been a single instance of reinfection. If that is not enough convincing, let me point out that because she has effectively commandeered this laptop, the only account to logon for weeks at a time is hers. She is also not one to update the virus definitions, nor can she with her user permission level (as I said, enterprise antivirus software). But the laptop remains clean as a whistle, all thanks to reduced user permissions.

The lesson to be had here is that everyone should be performing their day to day computer activities with a computer account granted as minimal of permissions as possible. In the Windows environment this means being part of the "User Group", as opposed to the default in a home computer that dumps accounts automatically into the "Administrators Group."

To be completely clear, when I say "everyone," I mean everyone. At the home level a simple user account should be used for 99.999% of your activities. At the corporate level, every employee should be performing their work using a simple user account. This includes department heads, vice presidents, and even IT personnel. Especially IT personnel and most especially developers. 99.999% of all your activities at your desktop can be accomplished using a standard user account.

In order to cover the 0.001% of the time where less restrictive permissions are required, companies have an IT staff to handle things. And those IT personnel should have a second account with appropriate permissions to be used strictly for performing these 0.001% tasks. Home computers should be setup in the same manner as IT personnel: one User level account for everything and one Administrator level account for stuff not covered by everything.

I have heard all sorts of complaints and excuses in the past as to why "so-and-so" is a local administrator on their desktop, or why a developer needs to be an administrator, or why it is inconvenient to have to switch user accounts. To these excuses I say a nice resounding "Bull Shit."

Inconvenient is a home user having to spend $65 an hour to clean all the malware off their computer. Inconvenient is trying to fix your credit after your identity has been stolen. Inconvenient is having your company blacklisted on Spamhaus because a developer's computer is sending out spam thanks to a virus. Inconvenient is having to explain to your customers how their personally identifiable information might have been lost as part of a recent security breach. Inconvenient is going before a judge to explain your company's negligence. These things are inconvenient; having to log off your computer and back on with a different account to install new software is not.

There are other areas of user permissions aside from the simple User versus Administrator, but that really becomes a case by case kind of thing. The best rule to follow is to start off with the most restrictive level of permissions for each person possible and then tweak things as needed. You might get yelled at for a person's lack of access to something, but you are not going to get subpoenaed; and any yelling stops when you fix the problem.

Herbert 1701 Species C Generations 4 - 6 Builds

nospam@example.com (Andrew Maxim) — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 17:01:00 -0700

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.

Computer Security 101 - Part 7 - Personal Firewall

nospam@example.com (Andrew Maxim) — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 16:09:00 -0700

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.

Proverbs Web Calendar 2.1

nospam@example.com (Andrew Maxim) — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 07:40:00 -0700

Sometime around the end of 2001 I volunteered myself to write a script for team NHB's website, which was the Half-Life TFC clan that I competed with at the time. The web server the script would be running on was Linux based, thus the script had to be written in PHP and capable of using text files or a mySQL database to store the information. It was to be used to show the team's schedule for practices, competitions, etc. I suppose Perl was an option at the time, but even in 2001 PHP was a phenomenal programming language.

That script eventually became the Proverbs Web Calendar 1.0 and was released publicly Dec 31, 2001 on the Proverbs, LLC website; back then located at www.proverbs.biz. After a few updates, one major security flaw, and a few bug fixes over the course of several months, something I was definitely not expecting happened: the calendar became a popular download. Immensely popular.

At the time, around May of 2002, the websites touting the "most popular web event calendar" were bragging about 10,000+ downloads per year. Five months after the initial release and I was seeing 5000+ downloads a month, not to mention being inundated with questions, comments and suggestions from users of the calendar. I was particular amazed at the number of overseas users that were writing to me for help or with suggestions.

All of those suggestions, a few code snippets other developers submitted and some modifications of my own became Proverbs Web Calendar 2.0, released in December of 2004. This was a complete rewrite of the prior web calendar and was one of my first attempts at using classes in PHP. Thanks to the suggestions and help from a couple Dutch and German college students, this was also my first foray into a multilingual application.

Here we are over four years since I last touched the web calendar and almost eight years since its inception. In all that time the calendar has been downloaded over 200,000 times, been ported by other developers to additional platforms and toolkits, as well as having been outright stolen and rebranded by a few other companies. To my surprise it is still downloaded on a regular basis and I continue to receive the occasional question or two regarding the calendar; mostly having to do with the calendar not working correctly with newer web browsers and CSS2.

On that note, everyone will be happy to know that I finally got off my ass and took a look at the code this past weekend. A few tweaks here, a couple rewrites there, a new file or two, the removal of a couple files and for the first time in four years there is a new version released. Not wanting to load my computer down with a ton of different Internet browsers, I only tested with IE6, IE8 and FF3.5. I imagine the calendar should, once again, behave correctly with the majority of modern browsers, but let me know if you hit any problems (I am aware FF3.5 scrolls too far in the schedule page, but that is a FF issue with CSS2).

Anyway, I now proudly present the Proverbs Web Calendar version 2.1. Enjoy.

Herbert 1701 Species D

nospam@example.com (Andrew Maxim) — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 17:01:00 -0700

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.

Herbert 1701 Species D Generations 1 & 2

nospam@example.com (Andrew Maxim) — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 17:01:00 -0700

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.

Computer Security 101 - Part 8 - Malware

nospam@example.com (Andrew Maxim) — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 17:00:00 -0700

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.

Miscellaneous Crap

nospam@example.com (Andrew Maxim) — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 07:11:00 -0700

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?

Spacetime and Quantum Mechanics

nospam@example.com (Andrew Maxim) — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 17:21:01 -0700

Hypothesis: The faster an object is moving relative to a source of energy/force, the less influence said force exerts upon the object.

Can some physicist explain to me what is wrong with the above hypothesis (postulate) and why it doesn't get rid of quantum mechanics and spacetime entirely? Thank You.

Classical Mechanics Rule

nospam@example.com (Andrew Maxim) — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 01:25:00 -0700

In the entry I Bit My Tongue Off, I spoke about getting thoughts on my brain and needing to let them out. Well, this hypothesis is one of those things. It has had me bouncing ideas off people all day. It has had me reading up on physics, which I have not studied since Nuke school in 1992. It has wormed its way so far around my brain that I just climbed out of bed to write about it.

I do not know if my hypothesis holds water or not. I do not know if it is even an original idea or not, but it is stuck in my head and so I have to try and find out. Let me start by stating the hypothesis again.

Hypothesis: The faster an object is moving relative to a source of energy/force, the less influence said force exerts upon the object.

At this moment, to me, it really is not a hypothesis. More of a postulate (meaning it is a given, a natural fact). But it disrupts so much of the world of physics that I can not assume it to be a fact. Even I am not so arrogant. Ok, maybe I am. So allow me to explain what this hypothesis implies.

Quantum mechanics is a sub-field of mechanics in the realm of the physical laws (physics), the other being Classical mechanics. Quantum mechanics deals with really really tiny things (atomic level and below), while Classical mechanics deals with normal sized things. Basically, everything you can see falls under classical mechanics, everything too tiny to see falls under quantum mechanics, and they both have entirely different rules.

The reason for these two sub-fields is that when physicists (like Einstein) try to explain the behavior of atomic sized particles they run into road blocks with the classical mechanics (the laws and theories people like Newton came up with). The rules seemed to not apply, such as how an electron can just fly around the nucleus of an atom without a degrading orbit (i.e. why doesn't the electron get sucked in by the electromagnetic force of the nucleus). Like good scientists, they made up new rules: Quantum Mechanics. And rather than dealing with absolutes (or things that make sense), quantum mechanics deals mostly with probabilities (or guess work).

Yes, I know; that is a little over simplified and not completely accurate. Bite me.

The implication of this hypothesis is that the classic rules (Classical Mechanics) apply to really tiny things once again. It means that time is linear (no more spacetime). It means that faster than light travel is possible. It means there is only one universe. And it means if you can get going fast enough, you can travel straight through a planet without messing up a hair on your head. Pretty cool, right?

The thing that has really kept this thought going in my head is that all of the evidence I can find to support quantum theories also support (prove) this hypothesis. Even better, the stuff I can find that throws a wrench in quantum mechanics support this hypothesis. I have to go with Occum's Razor on this one.

Let's just cover one of the founding principles of quantum mechanics: stable electron orbits. According to classical mechanics the electron should get sucked in by the nucleus of an atom because of electromagnetism. They don't, so obviously classical mechanics don't apply. Unless you throw in the above hypothesis and then things start to make sense with classic physics.

1. Fact: Electrons travel extremely fast. They travel even faster in an atomic orbit than free flowing. Let's call the speed of an electron M.
2. Fact: Electrons are negatively charged. Protons in the nucleus of an atom are positively charged. This generates an electromagnetic field producing a certain amount of force. Let's term this force X.
3. The amount of force applied to an object varies with things like distance to the source of the force, etc. Let's call the actual applied force on an object A
4. As M approaches zero (0), A approaches 100% of X
5. As M approaches infinity, A approaches 0% of X

The faster the electron travels, the less the electromagnetic force can influence the electron. Electrons do not travel at 0; they travel very fast relative to the nucleus of an atom. Considering the base strength of X is not super strong and with the electron traveling at electron speeds, A has barely enough influence on the electron to keep it in any kind of orbit at all. Just enough force under normal conditions.

Electrons also do not travel in consistent orbits, but the nice thing about an orbit is that the speed relative to any given point on the edge of a nucleus varies. As an electron gets closer to the nucleus, its speed relative to the closest point of the nucleus increases; farther away and it decreases. This provides for a natural adjustment to the change caused in A due to varying the distance between electron and nucleus.

In layman's terms: if you are standing still, I can reach out and grab you with my hand and pull you towards me. If you are walking past me at 3 mph, it is more difficult to do. If you are running at 50 mph, I will probably just break my hand trying. Not an exact comparison, but enough of an analogy that the point should come across.

Anyway, that is the basis of the hypothesis. It explains a lot more than what I have here, but this will work for the time being.

Please tell me where this hypothesis is wrong or what I am missing. Thank You.

Orbitals Do Not Exist

nospam@example.com (Andrew Maxim) — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 13:31:00 -0700

Once upon a time in the land of Bohr's atom, scientists tried to explain electrons floating around the nucleus and came up with the magical faerie tale of orbitals. Orbitals are on par with medieval Christian medicine; that is, the physicians explained ailments in terms of demons, curses and sin. Sometimes the physicians got lucky with the diagnosis and treatment, but there was no concrete method to prove when they were wrong, it was just the sinner’s disbelief that killed them, not a misdiagnosis. You have just got to love absolute truths. Orbitals are one of those truths.

Orbitals are a faerie tale. A story. A guess. An educated guess perhaps, but a guess all the same. When you describe something as being "90% likely to be located someplace in this region" you are guessing, just like medieval physicians did. They based their guess work on the religion of the Christian God; modern scientists base their guess work on one incorrect theory, which in turn grew to hundreds and thousands of incorrect theories. Or at least, incorrectly based theories.

Let's put a little truth back into those theories. For simplicity's sake we are only going to talk about the "original three" subatomic particles: electrons, protons and neutrons. The remainder of the particles actually fall in line and make much more sense with what I am going to point out. Ready then?

Electron's move in logical, predictable orbits around the nucleus of an atom.

Bold and brash, right? Wrong. Here's the simple understanding of it all.

1) Electrons are influenced by the positive-to-negative electromagnetic pull of the nucleus of the atom. Given this, an electron should get sucked into and become part of the nucleus of the atom (this is why physicists first started to make stuff up).

2) The distance between the source of a given force and an object the force is acting upon changes the strength of that force. Meaning an electron located in North Carolina is not going to get sucked into the nucleus of an atom located in Virginia. Still means that electron is going to get sucked into its own nucleus though.

3) Enter my Hypothesis (I'm about ready to do a nice write up to move this officially to a theory, as well as a slight rewrite to bring it more inline with scientific wording): The faster an object is moving relative to a source of energy/force, the less influence said force exerts upon the object. You can read my initial write-up entitled Classical Mechanics Rule to see how this affects an electron. Basically, electrons move too damn fast to allow the electromagnetic pull of the protons to suck it into the nucleus; instead the force gets reduced thanks to the electron's speed and a stable orbit is created.

Based on this first part, a hydrogen atom in a complete void would have an orbital pattern that looks exactly like what everyone thinks an orbit should look like. There is even a mathematical formula for this orbital pattern, because it is the same mathematical formula for any circular orbit. Of course, not all atoms are hydrogen atoms and none reside in a complete void, nor are all hydrogen atoms simple one proton nucleus atoms. This is where things really are complicated. If only there was a mathematical formula that could accurately describe that complicated orbit just as well as one describing a circular orbit, but surely if there was such a mathematical formula someone would have come up with it by now (and won a Nobel Prize as a result).

The good news is there is one. The even better news is that, to my knowledge, no one has won a Nobel Prize for it yet. There might have been, and I just missed it, but given that the world is still using (and teaching) quantum physics, I am fairly certain that no one has released said formula. What is the mathematical formula then? I don't know. Crap, so much for that Nobel Prize.

Alright, that is partially a lie or I wouldn't be bothering to write up an entry about all this. I know almost all the pieces of the formula, or rather I know what all the pieces are and the mathematical formulas for most of those pieces. Being a nice person, and thinking science should be expanded for sciences sake, here are the components that make up the mathematical formula of a stable orbit (planets, electrons, black hole event horizons, etc):

1. The mathematical formula for a standard orbit (Trigonometry, baby).
2. The mathematical formula for force applied based upon distance (available in Physics or Chemistry books incase you don't know it by heart).
3. The mathematical formula for force applied based upon speed (yea, this is the missing one, but can actually be easily figured out. Heck, someone might actually know it already, but if not, there are simple experiments).
4. The mathematical formula for force applied to an object through specific barriers (neutrons are a barrier, as are certain solar phenomena).
5. The constant values of each force for each object.
6. The speed of each object.

Pretty simple right? Number five is a "gotcha" in that not only does a proton pull on an electron and a star pull on a planet, but electrons repel one another and planets have gravitational forces of their own. Number six is an easy one, except when additional energy is applied, but that can be factored in; we do after all know the speed of an electron in a vacuum, and, well, between the electron and the nucleus is a vacuum (pretty clever).

When you throw all this together you can model a complete, stable orbital system. Sooner or later I will get around to producing this formula in its entirety. Of course this will require all the textbooks to be rewritten as well as many of the existing theories (like, because I mentioned them previously, a ton of the stuff on black holes), but that is what science is all about. Change based on new information, and currently the new information is that Orbitals do no exist. Do the math and you will agree.