Types of stereoscopic 3D displays

Posted on 2010/09/10 by richardykuo

There are many different ways to individually send an image to each of your eyes.  We talk about the different technologies that exist below. 

Active shutter
In combination with a pair of powered glasses, these displays work by switching very rapidly between the left and right eye images.  The glasses shutter each eye very quickly in tandem with the screen so that only the correct image is seen by each eye.  So while your regular TV might refresh 60 times per second at maximum, a 3D TV would have to refresh at 120Hz in order to get 60 frames per second to each of your eyes.

If you are looking at the current crop of 3D TV’s, then you’re going to end up with an active shutter device.  Why is this?  I’ll explain in more detail later, but in essence active shutter displays are the cheapest way right now to get 3D into the home.

One point of confusion that we need to clear up here is that just because a TV says it is "120Hz" or "240Hz" does not mean it is 3D capable.  Most of these TV's accept only a 60Hz input and do processing to interpolate the frames in between up to 120Hz.  If you are buying a truly stereoscopic 3D capable active shutter display, it will be marketed as 3D capable and it will consequently accept a true 120Hz input.

Polarized
In combination with a cheap pair of polarized glasses, these displays actually display the left and right eye images at the same time.  However, the left eye image is polarized in an “opposite” way to the right eye image.  The polarizing filter in each lens is then able to let all of the desired image to its eye while blocking out the opposite eye’s image.

In theaters, this is usually accomplished by running two separate projectors with different polarizations.  In the home, there are certain types of monitors that accomplish this by alternately polarizing every other row of pixels in a 1-2-1-2 pattern.  Unfortunately, as you might guess, this halves the effective resolution of your display while viewing in 3D.  I believe full resolution displays of this type also exist, but since twice the pixels are required, no full resolution display for the home has mainstream pricing.

It is actually possible to set up a dual projector rig in the home similar to a 3D setup in theater.  However, this requires two projectors to be driven independently and in sync by the same computer.  In essence, this approach is very hacky and requires a lot of cooperation between computer, video driver, software and projectors … making it unlikely to work well in more than a few cases.

Anaglyph
Anaglyph 3D technology shows both left and right images on the display at the same time, but each eye's image is encoded with a different color mapping.  Different color lenses are present in the glasses used to view the image … hence the iconic red and blue glasses … one color for each eye.  Newer implementations have used different image coloring, claiming to be superior to the red and blue lenses.  This may be true, but in no way does any anaglyph technology hold a candle to the other display technologies mentioned here.

Anaglyph display technology was popular mostly in the 80’s and all the way back to the 50's … mainly because it requires no unusual display technologies at viewing time.  Any display can display in anaglyph mode.  Due to the state of display technology, this was the public perception of “3D” viewing for a long time.  The glasses used for this are also extremely cheap … essentially being just some colored cellophone and cardboard.

Anaglyph technology suffers from severe color distortion and crosstalk between left/right eye images … which can really give you a headache.  This technology doesn't even make a pretense at trying to get it "correct" … it just shoots for creating some illusion of depth.

Head mounted displays
These are basically powered glasses or helmet like devices that actually contain a separate display for each eye.  While theoretically the least prone to problems, the main problem with these is that they are expensive and displays have not been miniaturized to a usable point.  So far only 720p per eye has been achieved and costs run into the thousands.  Of course, only one person can use these at a time and doing so is completely anti-social.  And, if the head mounted display is not sufficiently miniaturized, it can result head and neck strain for the wearer.  But, of all the stereoscopic 3D approaches, it is worth noting that head mounted displays are an approach that can actually create a perfect stereoscopic 3D image for the viewer.

Auto-stereoscopic displays
Auto-stereoscopic displays are termed so because they hold the magical promise of being able to show you something stereoscopic 3D without making you wear glasses.  Typically, this works because the display literally angles half of its pixels to the left eye and half to the right eye.  While this obviates the need for glasses, it also means the effective viewing position is extremely constrained.  In practice this limits the number of viewers to one and also cuts the effective resolution of the display in half.  As such, auto-stereoscopic displays are more useful in a handheld or certain computing contexts.  For example, the Nintendo 3DS is probably going to be the most mainstream example of auto-stereoscopic technology for the next few years.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

The complete guide to understanding stereoscopic 3D

Posted on 2010/09/10 by richardykuo

I first got into the whole idea of stereoscopic 3D in the home when nVidia announced their 3D Vision technology back at the beginning of 2009.  I actually built a high end gaming rig and bought the special monitor and glasses just to see what it was all about.

While It was a worthwhile and immersive experience, but certainly not without its problems.  Needless to say, I've learned a lot about just how stereoscopic 3D works in the mean time.  Based on my experience, I strongly feel that the industry doesn't do nearly enough of its job in explaining why viewing things in 3D doesn't just "work" quite the way you might expect … and that's why you're reading these articles now.
 
Quite frankly, I've been sitting on these blog posts for a while because there's so much to write and expound on that it just seemed overwhelming.  Finally, I decided to just break things down a bit and get this out piece by piece.  I'm going to start with a quick overview here and then roll out a few detailed articles explaining the rest of what I have to say.

Stereoscopic 3D technologies exist in order to create the illusion of depth for the viewer. The basic principle of how any stereoscopic 3D technology works is that, for any given scene, a separate left and right view of that scene is presented to each of your eyes.  That’s it.  That’s how the real world works too.  When this is done properly, the viewer perceives the illusion of depth, which enhances the feeling of realism and engages the viewer in a way that cannot possibly be accomplished by viewing a traditional 2D image.

Does it work?  Absolutely.  It’s the difference between seeing a cathedral on paper and actually seeing it in person.  Or seeing a picture of a rock vs seeing the depth and texture in the palm of your hand.  Stereoscopic 3D imagery engages your senses more fully in a way that traditional 2D images and video cannot.  It really does enhance the viewing experience.

I’m writing this document to educate people on the issues they are likely to encounter when evaluating or purchasing a 3D display.  There are a lot of different gotchas when it comes to the current state of the art in 3D displays … and, surprisingly, I don’t see many of them being written about or covered in much detail.  In short, 3D displays don’t work perfectly today, and you should be aware of the limitations.  Nobody likes to buy a TV for thousands of dollars and be surprised when something doesn’t just work the way you want it to.

With that in mind, please read the following articles.

  1. Stereoscopic display technologies
  2. Visual anomalies (or stereoscopic 3D is not perfect)
  3. Gaming in stereoscopic 3D
  4. Social issues with viewing in 3D (or why inviting everyone over to watch the Super Bowl in 3D might not work as well as you’d hope) (TBD)
  5. Frequently asked questions (TBD)

Thanks for reading this guide. I hope you'll come out of this feeling a little more confident about any future stereoscopic 3D purchase and avoiding all of the surprises I've encountered along the way.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

On the pursuit of happiness

Posted on 2010/07/13 by richardykuo

I attended a talk today by Tony Hsieh of Zappos fame.  He's out plugging his new book "Delivering Happiness".  Thankfully, rather than this being a generic leadership talk, I found myself pleasantly surprised at the amount of research that Tony has done and the effort to which Zappos has gone to integrate a lot of research takeaways into actionable items for their company.  I recognized a lot of the observations that Tony had made in forming his own opinions on company culture, and so a lot of what he said rang true.  And not in a trite manner.

So, long story short, I'm pretty sure I'm going to get around to reading this book.  But first, I thought it might be useful for me to expound here on the subject of happiness.  Fair warning … some of this is derived from my own reading … some of it was jogged by Tony's talk.

Being a little unhappy is good.  And necessary.  The desire to be better or to improve the state of things requires a certain level of dissatisfaction with the status quo.  To be perfectly content means that there is no possible betterment to be had … and paradoxically, that is something one rightfully should not be too happy about.

Happiness reverts to the mean.  There are plenty of studies out there indicating that individuals aren't any happier now than they were 50 or 100 years ago, despite vast increases in the standard of living.  Objectively, we should be happier.  In truth, once we rise up Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, much of our happiness is actually determined by our relative wellbeing compared to others.  If you've never heard of a plasma TV, it doesn't factor into your calculation of happiness.  The instant your neighbor has one, you may damn well want one as well.

Happiness can be measured along simple vectors.  The prior point about reverting to the mean isn't saying that you can't really be happier.  Many measurements of happiness look at your quality of life in several areas.  Personally, I like the simple areas … health, wealth, and love.  Health … does your body get in the way of your ability to do things?  Wealth … can you buy the things you need or desire?  How do you socially compare to others?  And love … do you have or are you easily capable of pursuing a fulfilling relationship?

However you measure your happiness, it's generally important to balance the different factors.  They are interrelated and ignoring one area will drag down the other areas of your life.

Personally, I view the health and love areas of happiness as the ones that have some fixed level of maintenance.  Perhaps another way of saying it is that there are decreasing returns as you allocate more time to them.  Wealth is where all the self actualization and learning occurs.

People have different time orientations when it comes to achieving happiness.  It's also worth mentioning that different types of people approach the achievement of happiness in different ways.  Specifically, some people have short term or impulsive orientations to happiness, whereas others have more long term or measured orientations.

The implications of this are quite interesting.  Can you name some extreme examples of short term oriented people?  Let's try.  Drug addicts.  The next hit is always just around the corner.  Assholes.  These are the kinds of people that cannot help but insult you or cut others down to make themselves feel better.  Cheaters.  They have to win now no matter what the risk could be.  The problem with this mindset is that the short term "hit" of whatever behavior in question always goes away, requiring another "hit" or, eventually, more extreme behavior to generate feelings of happiness.  Short term happiness orientation tends to result in all kinds of socially unacceptable behavior.  Do an exercise and consider some of the people that you don't particularly like.  Are they short term oriented?

Long term orientations are healthier … the ability to forgo happiness now for greater returns in the future.  This is usually associated with higher self esteem … in other words, some inner core of positive happiness that isn't fully associated with your actions in the past hour.  Consequently, there is also a lack of need to continually replace that emptiness with harmful short term behavior.  It goes without saying that you want to be on this side of the fence.  I'm not sure if one can simply be told "this is the right way to behave", however … I think most people simply *are*, or evolve here over time if they are lucky.

On a side note, observing this characteristic in people is, not surprisingly, an unusually powerful way of predicting how someone will react in a particular situation.  It is one of a few major factors taught in some law enforcement programs for "reading" people.

So how do I end up applying this happiness stuff to my life?  Well, first of all, I try to spend some appropriate amount of time on the health and love areas of my life.  As far as happiness and wealth … I view that as more of a journey.  The understanding that some level of dissatisfaction is appropriate actually minimizes the impact of that dissatisfaction on me.  I don't strive to be perfectly happy, and I don't assume that if I reach some level or accomplish some "thing", that it will keep me happy forever.  Instead, I strive to constantly move from one level to the next.  And this doesn't mean a job … it means whatever task or objectives you've set for yourself to accomplish.

Refer to the chess kids in The Art of Learning for the negative aspects of focusing just on outcomes and not the process.  It's the moving through the process that is important.  Reaching new levels of understanding or skill will come naturally as a consequence.  In other words, focus on the journey, not the destination.

P.S. If you made it all the way to the end of this, I was pleasantly surprised to discover that Zappos offers the book Tribal Leadership for download as an audio book.  Probably worth getting!

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Learning Circuit Design

Posted on 2010/07/04 by richardykuo

Prior to picking up the Boxster as a real track car, I built a pretty cool setup for sim racing.

I settled on using Forza Motorsport 3 with multiple Xbox 360's.  This game is neat in that it supports multiple monitors for a panoramic view.  In conjunction with the proper wheel, it also supports true clutch manual shifting action.

For the cockpit, the Obutto.  The steel frame cockpit is only 300 dollars … a relative bargain compared to all other cockpits.  It doesn't look quite as nice as some, but it functionally gets the job done, and it actually has a real car seat in it.

The steering wheel and pedals … Fanatec 911 Turbo S wheel and Clubsport pedals.  Much stronger force feedback than the Microsoft steering wheel, and, again, it supports a clutch.

Put it all together, and you have something like this.

The only problem was the shifter.  The Fanatec shifter is just terrible.  It attaches to the wheel, which puts it in entirely the wrong place.  It feels resistant, moves around when you shift, and wears out quickly.

Long story short, I decided to fix this myself.

First order of business … the Fanatec wheel.  Via some helpful reverse engineering, we discovered that the shifter position is represented to the wheel by variable voltages on an X-Y grid.  OK … now we know what needs to happen to create a replacement shifter.

LTSpice is an analog circuit design program.  I learned how to use it over Christmas break.  In the early 90's, we were putting together text files that described circuits.  Now, we have a graphical UI that honestly feels like it belongs back in Windows 3.1 … but I guess it gets the job done.

I used LTSpice to model the X and Y resistor chains that would produce the various voltages.  Some equation solving gave me the resistor values, and running the simulation in LTSpice verified the results.  See the following.

This was sufficient for modeling the analog behavior of the voltages.  It was entirely unhelpful for modeling the behavior of the circuit needed to control the voltages.

I took a gamble and purchased this SST Lightning shifter as the actual replacement.  The shifter is machined aluminum, mountable in several ways, and has 8 switches corresponding to different switch positions.  Based on the individual switch being activated, my circuit would need to do two things.  One, control the voltage being tapped out of each resistor chain.  And two, display an number on an LED representing the current shift position.

I went to work thinking through the design.  Looked at datasheets online over and over.  What a pain this must have been before the Internet!  I bought a bunch of parts from Anchor Electronics, and got to work.  Breadboarding the circuit took the entire MLK weekend.  I made a store run each day due to missing parts and equipment.  After numerous tries, I finally I ended up with this.

Soldering out the connections from the SST Lightning was pretty annoying, but doable. In the end, the circuit worked, but was easy to destroy with an errant step or hand, and messy as hell.  But it worked.

 

After a while, I thought there had to be a better way.  There was.  A printed circuit board.

I eventually descended on Eagle PCB as the design program after doing the requisite Googling.  Great choice, and free for projects below a certain size of board.

It takes a lot of time to figure out the exact parts in Eagle that correspond to the physical parts that you need to wire everything up correctly.  For some of the confusing parts, I used Sparkfun's part library and catalog of parts to make sure that everything would be consistent.

The really nice thing about EaglePCB is that the autorouting function it has automatically finds a way to path the traces between all the parts you have on the board.  For a project with as many chips as I had, it was an absolute necessity.

There is no way to simulate the design behavior in Eagle, just the schematic and layout.  Therefore you just look really hard and end up praying for the best.  I sent the design from EaglePCB off to batchpcb.com, which is an offshoot of Sparkfun that … you guessed it … prints circuit boards.  The lead times are long, but the prices are cheap.  Here's an example of what I sent.

Eventually, I got back my first PCB.  There were some flaws, but very minor ones.  I was able to patch the board with a couple of wires.  Voila … my first clean prototype!

The biggest problem I had at this point was that I had picked a rather poor enclosure, and I had also slightly mislaid the drill holes needed for the screw holes in the enclosure.  In addition, I hadn't placed a reasonable power connector on the board.  The current board would have been entirely sufficient as a one off, but, since the point to me was to learn something, I took a second pass.

I chose this clear enclosure from Sparkfun.  It was much larger than necessary, but it had a single large area for connectors. I also figured that, being vetted by Sparkfun, it would probably not have any odd issues with little things being in the way like the previous enclosure that I had ordered.  So I added a barrel power jack to the layout, fixed the couple of errors that I had made in the previous schematic, and redid the layout for the larger board format of the new enclosure.  Off to batchpcb.com again.

Here you can see the final results.  This time assembling everything worked perfectly from start to finish.  It's bigger, but it is also entirely self contained like any self respecting electronic gadget should be. More importantly, it worked immediately after all the parts were soldered to it.  No fixing up required.

 

So yeah, mission accomplished.  I can make printed circuits now from start to finish.  The funny thing is that I've spent far more time learning and doing all this stuff than I have actually playing Forza.  Go figure.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

iPhone 4 – Quick impressions

Posted on 2010/06/27 by richardykuo

I stood in line for 13 hours to get the iPhone 4.  That was an interesting experience, to say the least … I'll save that for a later post.

My opinion of the iPhone is that the product really came together with the 3GS.  The original iPhone was a revolution in UI and hardware.  The 3G was faster still and brought the App Store to the masses.  But none of this really came together until the 3GS … the phone itself was still slowing down the whole experience.  Speed is important … Google knows this in terms of search results, and it's especially true with phones, where the goal is to use it and be on your way as quickly as possible.

So does the iPhone 4 represent another quantum leap in mobile smartphones?

In short, no.  This isn't necessarily a bad thing.  The iPhone 4 hits on all the important points … things that aren't as sexy to announce, but that we all need.  It is 25% thinner, yet has about 25% more battery life.  The screen has 4 times the pixel density in the same size screen, which, while it is a pleasure to view, does not make it much better for reading things from a practical perspective.   The processor is faster … not like the 3G to the 3GS, but it is faster.  And the phone has twice the RAM, which is noticeable in subtle ways while browsing … pages need to be reloaded less frequently when switching between them.

None of this fundamentally changes the way I use the phone.  Basically, this is how the phone experience went.

I picked up the phone from the store and headed to work.  Waited for the phone transfer to activate itself from my 3GS on AT&T's network and ended up just rebooting the phone to get carrier reception going.

At my desk, I noticed the phone was, in fact, having the dreaded reception issues noted by various pre-orderers … 1 bar in a known 5 bar zone.  I fiddled for a while and watched the bars drop very slowly if held in a certain way and return if held another way.  This wasn't always reproducible, but it was common enough.  Anyway, I had the good fortune to pick up a bumper at the Apple store as well.  I'm not normally a fan of cases … I don't like the extra bulk in my pocket and I think they detract from the industrial aesthetics of the phone.  But, I put on the official bumper and observed the problem was, if not gone, at least tolerable like any other phone.

In hindsight, it's blindingly obvious from an engineering perspective that touching the antenna band is going to mess up the signal.  My understanding of this is that the change may have been mandated by new regulations requiring a minimal amount of radiation near the user's head.  Therefore, the primary reception area is down at the bottom of the phone instead of in the portion where you put your head to.  Antenna design is a black art and Apple probably didn't have time to work out all the kinks before the product cycle was due.

Anyway, I tend not to complain about these things if there's a suitable way to deal with it, and the bumper is just that.  I suspect other people will raise a stink about it.  It is, after all, not unreasonable to expect your phone to have good reception when held in a normal way.  From a design and product release cycle perspective, that's sort of a disaster and I'm curious to see just how Apple ends up handling it. 

Anyway, after getting down to using it, and doing the obligatory demos throughout the day, I found it feeling just like my 3GS.  It does everything my 3GS did, just slightly better.

Multitasking has, so far, done pretty much nothing for me.  Everything I actually needed to multitask was already part of the OS and already multitasking enabled.  We'll see if this changes, but, so far, this addition has not made my mobile life any better.  I can see streaming Pandora in the background will be somewhat useful, and mobile check-ins / GPS announcement and background uploads will be nice whenever apps get around to really doing something interesting here.

The camera is much improved, as is the ability to record HD video now.  I don't use the camera much, tho. And the HD video isn't really accessible unless you pull it off the phone via syncing to your computer.  You cannot upload to YouTube or e-mail clips in 720p … the phone always downsamples it to a very low quality.  That's very disappointing, and I think it needs to be fixed.

Finally, I've tried FaceTime a couple of times now.  It's fun, but not something I need.  If you are addicted to talking to certain people all the time, especially partners or children, you may find this a more engaging way of doing it.  I do think the ability to do this more on the go will increase adoption in a way we haven't seen before.  But it will take time.  Not everyone owns an iPhone 4 yet, and the inability to conference to a PC or Mac is a gaping hole in the strategy.

I feel like we're starting to enter the period with phone hardware where everything that really needed to be in the phone has been added.  Think back to how PC's needed to be expanded with sound cards and network cards.  Now it's all thrown in along with the kitchen sink.  Of course, that's simplifying the issue.  4G speeds will be a huge improvement when it comes out.  There's still a ton of improvements to be made in software and services.  I'm probably missing a few other things as well.

In conclusion, the iPhone is still the best smartphone on the market.  If you have a 2G or 3G model, you will get a lot out of this upgrade.  If you have a 3GS … well, the iPhone 4 is better across the board, but it will not change your life in any particular area.  But if you use your phone a lot, the improvements are not all gimmicks.  They are in key fundamental areas that will be with you in the background, every day.  It may just be worth it.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Track day at Thunderhill

Posted on 2010/06/20 by richardykuo

Intro

A few months ago, I decided that I would attend a track day.  The story of all the stuff I had to do to finally end up at the track is another story … this blog post is going to be about my actual track day experience this weekend.

First of all, the track I ended up at was Thunderhill Raceway Park.  It's really in the middle of nowhere … a good 3 hour drive from Mountain View and 1.5 hours north of Sacramento.  I decided to attend through one of the many driving event/performance driving companies in the area … in this case, Hooked on Driving.  At 285 bucks, this wasn't one of the cheaper events in the area … but as it turns out, we were running with a really high quality group of people … so, depending on your attitude, the extra few bucks might indeed be worth it.  I think I've seen other events run as low as $180.

Second, the car I was taking up was an 2000 Porsche Boxster (non-S).  A fun little car … not too much punch, but good around corners and very balanced with a decent top speed.

The night before

I booked myself a room in Willows, CA (which is the closest town) for Friday so that I could get a good night's sleep before the event on Saturday.  I left Mountain View at 9 PM, stopped for food, and ended up in Willows around 12:20 or so.  It was a clean and uneventful drive and time passed more quickly than I expected.

I ended up staying at the Days Inn, which, despite being the second best rated hotel in the area, still seemed like a slightly dumpy outdoors hotel for around 90 bucks a night.  For a really sketchy budget stay, there are Super 8's and Baymont Inn's around which have pretty bad reviews on the Internet.  Those would run you about 60 bucks.  I'm not very picky at all but, in this case, I decided not to risk it.  The best of the local hotels seems to be the Holiday Inn Express, at around 115 a night.

The morning

The event registration started at 7 AM and driver meetings started at 7:50, so I woke up around 7:10, got dressed and left around 7:30 AM.  With a 10 minute drive to the track, I ended up parking and arriving pretty much right on time.  They handed me an envelope with some event materials and I proceeded to sit down in a rather 70's looking building with a bunch of other people.

David Ray, the event organizer, went ahead and greeted everyone, including sponsors, before sending everyone off with their respective groups.  The event is organized into A (beginner), B, C and D (experienced) groups.  There were also cars with X's on them which I imagine means expert or coach.  I ran in beginner, naturally, since this was my first time out.

You get five 20 minute sessions spread out through the day.  The A group had a bit of extra orientation after the initial sendoff.  Everyone got an introduction to how passing works, how to point people by, where the passing zones were, where to pit in and out, and how the different colored flags at the flag stations work and what they meant.

After that, it was off to the cars.  By the time I had arrived earlier, the covered canopy areas had been taken up and I ended up finding my own parking spot.  At this point, I grabbed my group letter (A) and a random number (64) and stuck them on the upper passenger side of the windshield to mark my car.  This would ensure that the organizers would know what group I was running in and let the photographers later have photographs I wanted already prepared for viewing after the event.  I also ditched everything from the car that might bounce around … one of the requirements for driving on the track.

Soon, it was our turn.  Announcements were made over the PA system for the A group to line up at the grid … an array of about 20-25 cars lined up in columns near the entrance to the main track waiting to enter.  I didn't bother coming into the grid until near the end of the call … they tend to call you about 20 min early and I don't like to spend all that time waiting.

Once you get to the grid, you stand outside your car and look lonely so that a coach will find you.  I ended up with a friendly grizzled old guy with glasses and a white beard.  I would later find out that he was a former race car driver and ran racing teams for a while.  He was also coaching some guy there with a Ferrari F430 Scuderia and Nissan GT-R for some ungodly amount of money.  I felt a little guilty but, obviously, I had really lucked out.

I strapped on my helmet … a Simpson Diamondback.  For fans of Top Gear, this is the same helmet the Stig wears … in other words, pretty high end.  The day was starting out overcast, so I changed out the face shield for the stock clear one instead of the aggressive looking reflective blue shield.  All drivers are required to have some sort of SA 2000 or 2005 certified helmet … you can rent one from the track if you need to, but in this case I had decided to buy and bring my own.  What can I say, I'm a fanboy.

They started out with letting the coaches take the car out for a couple of laps to show you around the track.  Then they switched off and let the students drive around slowly.  I was a little surprised by the couple of blind turns over hills and the relatively sparse need for shifting on the course.  Combined with the total lack of walls, this makes the track pretty beginner friendly.  Anyhow, the session seemed to end just as it was getting started.

After the run, each group goes back to the building to meet up and do a download/debriefing.  The instructor emphasized the need to give point-bys to faster cars and showed a few more basics on apexing, etc.  Most of this I knew from reading up on racing online.

After the download, I had some free time to walk around and look at the other cars.  There was an impressive array of cars here … most quite decently high end.  At least three different Ferrari F430's and an Audi R8 were among the stars, along with more Porsche's than you could shake a stick at, including one brand spanking new Boxster Spyder.  My old Boxster was not going to win any trophies against these beasts, especially with me behind the wheel.

Many of these cars were clearly full-on race cars … carrying full body liveries and being hauled to the track and back in trucks.  This was no joke … lots of money and effort was going into getting these cars onto the track and back.

Second session.  One nice thing I started to appreciate was that Hooked on Driving had placed cones in the proper locations for turn-in points, apex points, passing zones, etc.  However, in this session, I was going into turns way too hot and not using the brakes hard or early enough.  In addition, I was so focused on the road that I really had no idea where the flag stations were.  On the bright side, I didn't really have a problem spotting cars riding my ass and giving them a point by.

We went back to the building for our second download.  Then as were doing the download, we heard thew news come thru that someone in another session had flipped their Acura NSX at Turn 8.  Totaled.  Luckily, the driver walked away fine. 

Right before lunch, we hopped in coach cars to get a ride along with an experienced driver taking the course at speed.  I got in a BMW sedan (not too many Ferrari's to go around, unfortunately).  It seemed pretty controlled and smooth and not as much of a roller coaster ride as I expected, although I was surprised at how much the tires were squealing.  In hindsi
ght, stock tires tend to warn you a lot as you approach their limits, so that was fine.  Still, when I was driving I could barely hear my tires over the wind noise, if at all.

After lunch

Afterwards, lunch.  Pretty generic American style fare … cole slaw, mac and cheese, BBQ, etc.  I was hungry, so good enough.  David Ray gave another quick set of announcements and asked if anyone wanted some advice on particular turns, to which the NSX driver responded "Turn 8!"

I tried to mess around with my iPhone but it was a real waiting game … the Wi-Fi wasn't free and the service was AT&T Edge with terrible service.  Go figure.  Not exactly an urban center, I guess.

Third session after lunch … we really hammered down on my braking … smooth but firm input and release, and braking earlier overall.  Definitely became much more comfortable as the third session ended.  By now, the sun was out and things were toasty.  I also noticed I was getting passed a lot … but by Vipers, 911's, and Ferrari's, so I didn't really feel so bad.

After the third session, I went to gas up.  There's fuel right on site, but at $4.99 per gallon for 91 octane, it was damn expensive.  Still, I bought it.  They also had 100 octane for $7.99/gallon … I really wanted some, but decided not to mess around at that point in time.  Finally, they had 110 octane, leaded … real race fuel that you don't dump in an ordinary car.

I also noted the demographics of the people at the event … nearly all older white males with the occasional wife.  A few asian males, typically younger … no older ones that I saw.  One or two hispanics … no blacks at all.

At this point, the downloads after the sessions were really more optional.  Still, it felt like the sessions felt very quick, even at twenty minutes, and the time waiting between sessions (roughly an hour) also seemed to go too quickly.  I found the time a little stressful … almost like waiting at a tournament would be … but I was enjoying the process of improving on the track.

My fourth and fifth sessions were more of the same … getting better at taking the correct lines, braking enough to smoothly take the line without squealing the tires much, etc.  By the end of the day, I had made a lot of progress and mostly had all the lines down, especially the last tricky ones at 14 and 15.

Post session

At the end of all sessions, the coaches went out again for some fun runs.  The F430 Scuderia was ungodly loud.

The professional photography crew (gotbluemilk.com) was operating out of a trailer and selling your specific photos for 25 a pop or 60 for the whole day's set.  I really didn't have any other options for photos so I went ahead and spent the money.  They burned them to a CD for me and I was on my way.

Another generic BBQ picnic dinner was served at 5:30 … which, oddly enough, I ate ravenously, despite having eaten a full lunch at noon.  Racing actually does take quite a bit out of you.

I suddenly realized I had no idea what my actual top speed or lap times were at the end of the day.  I do know I got up to the top of 4th gear on the long straight, so I estimate that got me to around 115 mph.  Not bad.

Around 6'ish they opened up the track for a free track walk.  People were allowed to walk or bike the track and observe all the little details they can't see when taking the track at speed.  I walked about 3/4 of the track but decided to cut back to my car and head home as the walk was getting exhausting in my casual sneakers … doubly so since I was tired already.  I hopped in the car, gassed up again, and headed home.

I felt a real sense of confidence on the way back.  None of the curves or turns on the street were anywhere near what I had experienced.  I knew what the limits of the car were at high speed now … if there was a need to be worried, I would know it now.

Summary

All in all, I found the experience rewarding and expect to do it at least a few more times.  I feel like my driving ability has increased significantly from one session and will be hammered in solidly in a few more.  On the back end, the mechanical learning I've done on the car has been very helpful to me as well.

Racing is mentally taxing.  However, like everything, it's a matter of pattern recognition.  The initial inputs are overwhelming and you get tunnel vision just focusing on the road.  Experience under fire will turn that into a wider field of perception and muscle memory will simplify the process.

On the other hand, it's clear to me that racing as a hobby is quite a money pit as well as a time investment.  I spent 500 bucks overall just for the one day event itself, not to mention the time to drive back and forth.  Consumables like tires/brake pads/brake rotors and risk of damage to the car + towing costs, etc, also have to be factored in at some point, which just means it really costs even more.

I honestly have drawn some sort of mental analogy right now where cars are a real life version of Pokemon for many of these folks.  The machine is an important part of the equation and that is massively affected by the money involved.  The bottom line is that I'm skeptical that I'll willing to invest either on a long term commitment basis.  But I'm keeping an open mind for now.

We'll see how it goes … my intention is to engage right now at a moderate level until the important learning tapers off.  If I enjoy it more to continue beyond that … then so be it.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

My iPad comments

Posted on 2010/04/12 by richardykuo

For those of you still living in caves, Apple released its iPad last week.

My original opinion of the iPad, upon hearing of the announcement, was that I absolutely did not want one.  I have plenty of experience with Tablet PC's and I did not see any sort of reason to repeat that experience with the iPad.  Tablets are excellent for annotation, art, and not much else.  The stylus is a horrible mode of interaction for a mouse based computing environment.

The turning point for me came when I decided, around early March, that I wanted to subscribe to some magazines and newspapers.  Not being a particularly paper sort, I decided to try getting them on the Kindle.  It quickly became apparent that there was no way that the content was going to look good on a regular Kindle, so I looked at the Kindle DX.  At 489 dollars, the Kindle DX offers a 9.7" e-ink screen over the standard 6" Kindle, and decidedly more screen space as a result.

That price point drove me to look at the iPad.  The iPad is infinitely more flexible … serving as a web browser, media player, mail station, and running thousands of different apps in high color and resolution.  And the base model costs just 499.  The only thing the Kindle has going for it is the e-ink screen, and even the usefulness of that is debateable as reading in white text on black backgrounds on the iPad is quite easy on the eyes.  The supposed battery life advantage of the Kindle also does not exist.  The Kindle aggressively drains its own battery over the course of a week, meaning that it is most likely dead if you don't pay attention to it for a while.  The iPad actually lasts for 10 hours of usage … and it lasts far longer in standby mode that a week if you actually do leave it undocked or charged.  And you are more likely to have it charged because it is useful for other things.

I chose to get the 16GB model.  I just couldn't perceive what I would want out of the larger storage models.

The iPad succeeds mainly on the strength of the software.  The hardware is just what you would have expected … it really is just a large iPhone minus things like the camera.  Where it stops being just a "large iPhone" is that Apple took the time to redesign all the apps for the large screen.  Books look like actual books with bindings and pages sitting on wooden shelves.  Contacts and Calendars have the appearance of large pages flipping and bookmarks and wooden tiling.  Entire photo albums can be previewed and thrown back by pinch/zoom gestures.  The software does just well enough to make you feel like you're playing with a bit of those magic computers you see in all sci-fi movies and tv shows.

With all that said, I have little use for contacts or calendars on an iPad … those belong on my phone.  Photos … not a big deal.  I can check mail on my phone very easily, although mass replying is a different story.  In short, the iPad is still a fancy toy and not entirely practical for most.  But there are no lies about what it does … it is certainly an excellent and well thought out product that should not have to apologize for what it is.

The iPad does enough actually productive things for me to keep it.  These four things are as follows.

One, it is a very nice book reader due to iBooks and the Kindle app by Amazon.  I intend to get rid of my actual Kindle now.

Two, it has exceptional battery life … literally 9-10 hours of continuous mixed usage.

Three, the remarkable lightness makes it a palatable alternative to carry to the coffee shop or a lecture or a friend's house where you might not want to bring a laptop due to bulk and/or battery life.

Four, it does make for an excellent bed/couch surfing companion.

I am not going to count the picture frame functionality, which might appeal to some but not to me.

The unspoken fifth thing here is that the form factor itself, I believe, has tremendous hidden potential.  For use in ambient interfaces where keyboards are not desirable … kiosks, information wall hanging, vehicular control interfaces … the iPad could revolutionize the way we interact with our world.  I believe we're just scratching the surface of what's to come.  But please note that I don't think releasing new apps for the iPad willy nilly just because it has a bigger screen is going to amount to much for most applications.  Sadly, I suspect that is what will happen for a while.  Mark my words, tho … more innovation with the interface mechanics is the key to real progress.

The last thing I want to mention is that the battery life of the iPad points to something fundamentally wrong with today's laptops.  The iPad is pretty damn close to being a useful device for me doing actual work.  With some better native software and web apps, I would have in the iPad an incredibly sleek, instantly responsive, and exceptionally durable and long lasting portable computing device.  Why do laptops last 2-3 hours and feel slower and heavier?  The computing world is doing something wrong here.  I look forward to the day when I feel comfortable doing all my portable computing from the iPad (or an equivalent).

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

Book review – Superfreakonomics

Posted on 2010/01/24 by richardykuo

Freakonomics was an entertaining book of the Malcolm Gladwell variety … unintended consequences of decisions that were borne out by careful statistics gathering made for a quick, interesting, and ultimately, very successful read.  Some years later, we've been given Superfreakonomics.  Being a sequel, the audience should be naturally expecting more of the same.

I'll just state it up front … this book feels like a cash in.  While I found most of the stories I read in Freakonomics to be original, Superfreakonomics has very little in the way of a common theme.  Furthermore, the book devolves from Freakonomics in that it seems to simply talk about interesting stories or experiments.  Most of these have hardly anything to do with economics, experimentation, or carefully selected statistical measurement whatsoever.

A couple of experiments and anecdotes are ridiculously sloppy … for example, studies on the male-female wage gap are considered, and then examples of transgendered subjects are used to change gender while holding other things constant.  I can't even begin to explain how obviously invalid such a "control' would be.  They do acknowledge this somewhat … but then why even bring it up?  It's useless data for a book.

Rehashing old news happens a lot in this book.  For example, the Milgram experiments are discussed, and so are the negative effects of the Americans with Disabilities Act.  The Kitty Genovese murder is discussed as well, albeit in more detail than we typically get and leading to a conclusion a little less cynical than one normally gets out of the subject (the reporters might have manufactured the unhelpfulness of the residents to generate outrage).

That isn't to say I didn't read some interesting things in this book.  We see that teaching monkeys how currency works is possible, and then we learn that the male monkeys eventually start using this currency to pay female monkeys for sex. Oops, I spoiled the ending.  We also learn that kids who are born at such an age that they are oldest right when baseball season starts have a dispropotionate likelihood of being picked.  This continues on a self-reinforcing cycle throughout their later years.  We get a whole slough of interesting data on the economics of prostitution, including a fairly convincing argument that pimps provide more relative value than realtors.

Anyway, to wrap up here … you will learn some interesting things from this book if you read it.  It just doesn't seem in the same vein as Freakonomics.  And you can easily finish it in an afternoon if you're a quick read, so it won't be a total waste.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Book review – The Art of Learning

Posted on 2010/01/10 by richardykuo

On the way back from Houston last week, I dug into The Art of Learning by Josh Waitzkin.  Josh was a remarkably gifted former chess wunderkind in his youth whose exploits were chronicled in the movie "Searching for Bobby Fischer". In an unusual turn of events, Josh changed his focus to tai chi competition in his early 20's and became a world champion there as well.  He now is focused on brazilian jiu jitsu.

The entire theme of the book is essentially that Josh does not feel like he is gifted specifically at chess or tai chi.  He attributes his success to a love of learning and details the specific pieces of it that he has observed throughout his career.

Let's cover a few of the interesting chapters.

Losing to win

Losing is tough.  Nobody really likes it, per se.

On the other hand, you must be willing to lose to win.  It's as simple as that.

Josh tells anecdotes of particular competitors in childhood who collapsed immediately when faced with a truly tough situation or their first big loss.  He also talks about kids who instinctually avoided tougher enemies … partly because the prospect of disappointment from their parents was so daunting.

What Josh did was different.  He sought out unfamiliar competitors and uncomfortable styles of play.  In losing … in exceeding the levels of his comfort and his game … he raised himself up time and time again.

Even in adulthood, he tells the story of a large, dominating individual named Frank who slammed Josh around for months in tai chi training.  Josh willingly submitted to this in order to better himself. In the end, Frank stops practicing with him in just a few fights after Josh finally rises above his level.  Instead of viewing Josh's success as a new opportunity to better himself, he shrinks away.  Frank only likes winning.

To be blunt, I know many people like Frank.  A lot of people derive satisfaction from the act of winning.  I have always felt it is better to appreciate a hard earned victory.  In fact, many of my friends know that I will try certain things precisely because I am terrible at them.  And I have never once been disappointed by my ability to become decent at something with enough effort.

I am freqently disappointed when I see people fail to challenge themselves, even when there is no cost to them at all except a little bit of ego.  If there is nothing to lose, why not try it?  When I truly apply myself to certain problems and find myself overcoming what once seemed incomprehensible and impossible, I feel gratified.  This has ranged from coordination in drumming syncopation to being able to tease out and find a tiny mathematical bug in some MPEG-2 code that was causing red colors to bleed all over the place.  I feel like this lesson is one I've already internalized well, so it was gratifying to see it put to paper. 

Two approaches to learning

This chapter talks about two mindsets to learning.

The first, an "entity" mindset, describes the kind of person that ascribes success to an innate level of ability.  "I am smart at this."

The second, an "incremental" mindset, describes a person that believes success is a result of hard work.  "I should have tried harder" or "I got it because I worked very hard at it".

The research shows that incremental theorists are far more likely to rise to the level of the game.  Entity types are far more likely to have a learned helpnessless response when encountering failure, to the point where, after hitting a roadblock on a tough situation, the loss affects previously mastered problems.

It should come as no surprise that the incremental approach is the better one.  For yourself and with kids, the idea is to compliment effort and speak of everything as a process of effort and time.  Kids are not dumb and know that results matter as well, so you shouldn't dodge the issue when a setback occurs.  Simply consider losses to be part of the learning process and wins to be enjoyed, but in a transient fashion.

The soft zone

The soft approach embraces adversity.  The hard approach resists potential obstacles.  The author compares it to walking in the rain to your car … do you tense up, scrunch over and run to your car as quickly as possible?  Or do you accept the rain and not let it affect you … perhaps even try to enjoy it as you walk?

This analogy resonated with me significantly because, strangely enough, I had found myself recently thinking about this very issue before I even read this chapter.  Why, I wondered, did I tend to try and cover myself and run to the car when it wasn't going to help much at all?  Running does not really keep much drier, but it certainly makes me feel stressed out.  So lately I've taken to simply walking normally and letting the rain fall on me.

Back to the point.  You are concentrating on an important game.  Suddenly, a jack hammer starts going off outside.  Or perhaps some fans start heckling you.  What do you do?

The best players can take the noise and turn it to their advantage.  Spike Lee, for example, would constantly heckle Reggie Miller courtside.  Seems good, right?  Not when you realized that Reggie Miller was using him as fuel for his fire … blowing out the Knicks time after time.

Adversity doesn't go away.  We don't live in a perfect world.  Becoming flexible, like a reed in the wind, instead of fracturing under pressure, is extremely important.  Turning such events to your psychological advantage is a key element of competitive psychology.

Other notes and conclusion

In recounting his road to the Push Hands Tai Chi world championship, I was shocked at the extreme level of cheating present at the Tai Chi world championships in Taiwan.  Pretty much everything you can think of was done to favor the local teams … from changing the rules right at the beginning of the tournament (of course, the local teams knew well in advance), to trying to wear out the foreign teams with another mandatory tournament, to simply not counting scored points.  It was absolutely disgusting to read.

It is a testament to Josh that his extreme depth made him so far superior to his opponent that he was able to overcome truly staggering levels of dishonesty by the officials and still win.  My parents are from Taiwan, even if I'm not, so I feel some sense of cultural embarassment.

The world Josh has lived in is, in a word, intense.  The extreme levels of intensity required to perform at a competitive level are daunting.  I feel as if I should engage in some sort of competitive activity to keep my mind sharp, but my fear is that it will dominate my time to the exclusion of other activities.  Not to make excuses, but considering it further, that's a completely valid problem to have with the whole thing.  What I need is a way to compete without it sucking up too much of my time.  I'm not sure my mindset can handle that, though!

Many of the concepts in the book rang true as soon as I read them.  We learn by practicing and honing our minds to process patterns, not by memorizing rules.  Our brains are essentially big, giant, pattern recognition machines.  Internalizing those patterns is a matter of repetition, deep analysis, and then taking numerical insights to an unconscious level.

To sum up, I absolutely recommend this book.  It gives you valuable no nonsense insight into the m
indset of a winner, and it demonstrates the importance of a healthy and productive mindset.  Josh is phenomenally attuned to his own psychology and is more capable of expressing those thoughts in the written word than most authors I have read.  Easily worth the money.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Optimize your life #11 – A case for a good night’s sleep

Posted on 2010/01/01 by richardykuo

Let me just say this up front.  I love sleep.  Not too much, not too little.  Just a good eight hours of sleep a day.  I don't like forcing myself awake and it really hurts when I do it.

But let's get to the point.  Sleep is important.  And you've heard it a million times.  By now, if you haven't been living in a cave, you've surely read the stories about how studies have shown that naps just after lunch boost productivity tremendously.  Or that driving sleepy (being awake for about 20-24 hours) is the equivalent of driving drunk. In fact, animals kept awake artificially literally die after a couple of weeks.

And yet, I would bet a good majority of you still treat your sleep schedules as disposable and flexible.  Something to be traded against getting more done.  Or something that just has to be sacrificed for other things.

My question to you is this.  Why, as adults, are we so cavalier about our sleep schedules?

Actually, it's not that puzzling.  There are a lot of concrete things that need to get done at specific times.  Waking up for work, dealing with a crying baby, cramming just a little bit extra for that test.  And the downsides aren't that obvious.  Sure, you're a little tired, but you're awake, and still getting things done, right?  Maybe, you don't feel so great, but no harm done.

Well, here's the case for the other side of sleep.  This is the attempt to make concrete what you're actually losing when you trade off an hour of sleep to go to the gym or make an early meeting.

Consider this first.  We evolved sleep.  Yes … in the grand scheme of things, we evolved over many millenia so that we would leave ourselves comatose and vulnerable to predators and attackers for 8 hours a night.  Doesn't sound like a good idea, really.  Why would this happen?  It follows that there have to be some serious, serious benefits to sleep that outweigh the tremendous negatives.

For example, world class Tetris players dream of falling blocks at night.  I assure you that if you invest yourself heavily in any activity, you will probably dream about the activity.  Or perhaps you'll recall when you've had something interesting happen to you one day and that night you awaken groggily finding yourself dreaming about the event. The only difference is that your dream version is oddly twisted or random in nature.  I would argue that your brain is replaying the events of the day because it is wiring you to better handle that situation in the future.

From personal experience, I can also attest to this in a different area.  While Rock Band and drumming may not be what you consider to be the most productive endeavor … you can put that aside and treat it as the mechanics of any activity.  Let me just say that I've had more cases than I can count where I try to play a difficult pattern or song on the drums for hours.  I'll come back to it and nail it the first time after a week.  Or even three weeks.

The big question is "What happened in between?"  I certainly didn't leave off just before the point where I was going to be able to play the pattern and then come back three weeks later and pick up right where I left off.  Something changed while I was not even playing Rock Band at all … my brain and body indisputably rewired itself to better handle that specific activity.  In fact, I have learned more about how I learn from playing Rock Band than I have from other activities, but we'll leave that for another blog post.

The book Brain Rules put a lot of my previous thoughts on this into focus. It's an excellent book that delves into how the brain works, and I highly recommend it.

An anecdote from the book runs as follows.  Students were given a set of problems to answer.  The problems had two approaches.  The first was a standard and traditional approach. The second was a shortcut solution that required some leaps of insight to arrive at.  All students are given 12 hours between the first and second set of problems.  The interesting part, of course, is how the students are divided up; one group simply has twelve hours pass, but the second groups gets 8 hours of sleep somewhere in those twelve hours. 

Controlling for all kinds of variables and run every which way you can think of, the students who don't get the sleep discover the shortcut 20% of the time.  The ones who do get sleep discover the shortcut 60% of the time.

Hmm.  Ever had that "shower moment" when you came up with some really great idea or solution?  It's probably because you took a break and let your brain recharge itself. 

Let's hear about other kinds of evidence.  Sleep deprivation appears to accelerate the aging process.  Healthy 30 year olds restricted to four hours of sleep a night over six days had parts of their body chemistry performing at the level of a 60 year old.  Yikes!  And it takes a week to recover from that.  Want to keep looking fresh?  Get sleep!

Military studies indicated that losing one night of sleep resulted in a 30 percent loss in cognitive skill.  Losing two nights bumped that up to 60 percent.  And, lest you think this doesn't add up … being restricted to 6 hours per night over 5 nights resulted in the same performance as someone who hadn't slept for 48 hours.

Oddly enough, while you may feel like nothing important could be going on while you rest, nothing could be further from the truth.  Your brain is not doing nothing while you sleep.  In fact, based on scans, it is positively hyperactive.  In that context and given everything you've read above, you can form a pretty reasonable hypothesis about what is happening.  Your brain is constantly replaying and optimizing your activities while you sleep in ways that will make you better at them when you awaken.  Researchers can see this behavior in rats traversing a maze.  The neural pattern that fires when they work their way through a maze can be seen firing as they sleep.  Only it happens faster, and thousands of times over.  That's what happening when you dream about skiing, biking, or whatever your choice of hobby is.

The bottom line is that sleep is not just how you rest your body.  Sleep correlates directly with your ability to learn.  And that learning … well, I've said this before, but learning is everything.  Learning is so important that we humanly evolved to put our bodies at risk for eight hours a night just so that we would be a lot better at it.

So my challenge to you is this.  Do everything you possibly can to defend your sleep schedule.  If it's out of whack right now, take some big steps to restore some balance in your life on this front.  It should be clear to you now that getting the proper amount of sleep is absolutely essential to your ability to improve.   Respect that and don't let those precious hours of sleep get taken from you!

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment