My iPhone 4 now reports 4-5 bars at my apt with AT&T. I suppose I should have been more suspicious. Could Apple really have improved the antenna that much? In comparison, at work, a good coverage area, I have yet to be able to get the bars to disappear. Sometimes, they don’t even drop at all, even with the phone crammed in my left palm.

Anyway, Apple’s comments also seems to fall in line with Anandtech’s comprehensive review (dB measurements and all), which notes that the 5th bar represents a disproportionately wide range of signal. So basically, it’s showing that you have 5 bars, when you don’t. Either Apple just made an innocent mistake, or they were trying to be sneaky and fake a much larger improvement in antenna design than there actually was. For the Apple haters, the latter should do nicely.

In any case, it’s not exactly long term yet, but to follow up on my other post, I’ve had the phone for over a week now, and I’m quite happy with it. With the Speed Test app I’ve been able to pull 2 megabit, and push 1.2 megabit (all dependent on ATT’s coverage of course, but the new iPhone supposedly has an improved chip for faster uploads). Battery life has been much, much better than expected. I used to keep my 3G on 66% brightness, and with normal use, the phone would last about 1.5 days. But I don’t even bother with the 4 – 100% brightness all the way. And it still lasts longer than the 3G did. I haven’t run it dry yet, but based on the battery indicator, it looks like the 4 should last at least 50% longer than my 3G. The Anandtech review shows some impressive benchmarks for more info on that.

It happens on other phones but it definitely is accentuated on the new iPhone if you bridge the two antennas on the left. Merely contacting the two antennas at the same time isn’t enough – I tried putting my fingers on the two antennas as close as possible without covering the gap, and the connectivity sustained. You have to cover the gap. I suspect it will only strongly affect left handed folks who choose not to get a case.

Still, a pretty big design flaw. I get the feeling someone overrode the engineers and made an artistic design decision, because it seems like a fairly trivial issue to overcome. Cover the gap in plastic or glass? It would have messed with the clean design, but eh, people eat up some ugly android phone designs, so I doubt people would have given too much of a damn about an extra panel of glass or plastic.

I predict next year’s phone will have some kind of cover over the gaps.

I told myself if the antenna issue was major, I’d just return the thing, but given that I’m right handed, I suspect it won’t affect me too much. We’ll see what happens in the coming weeks.

On another note, I’m pretty happy with the phone. My coworker showed me Family Guy Blue Harvest on his, and it looked amazing. Video call, while gimmicky, was still quite cool.

For example, last week I went to the BNP Paribas Open in Indian Wells, CA. I knew it was in the desert somewhere, and didn’t have the full address, so I put in Indian Wells, CA. Google then assumed I meant the significantly further, unincorporated community between Sequoia National Forest and Edwards Air Force Base, and gave me directions based on that, rather than the much, much closer Indian Wells by Palm Springs. Thankfully we only drove the wrong way for about 5-10 miles before we realized what was happening.

Here is what you get if you search for Indian Wells, CA with Google maps on the iPhone or at google.com: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Indian+Wells,+CA&sll=33.688907,-117.832607&sspn=0.008659,0.013754&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Indian+Wells,+Kern,+California&ll=35.771029,-117.957458&spn=1.080783,1.760559&z=9. Or just try the search yourself. Today is March 21, 2010, btw, just in case this behavior becomes obsolete one day.

This is what you get when you search at bing: http://www.bing.com/maps/#JnE9eXAuSW5kaWFuK1dlbGxzJTJjK0NBJTdlc3N0LjAlN2VwZy4xJmJiPTQ5Ljk3MjM3Mjc0NjEyOCU3ZS04OC4wNjM3NTEyMjElN2UxMy41Mjg0NDQ0MTkzNjAxJTdlLTE0Ny4xMjYyNTEyMjE=. Bing nicely points out that there are two possibilities.

So now I suddenly remembered how I was unable to find another address several weeks ago. My aunt invited me to a dumpling-making party in celebration of Chinese New Years. In an email, she gave me the address as “412 Broadway, Anaheim, CA 92805.” Much, much more complete than “Indian Wells, Ca.” We never found the place however. Fast forward to today. I found a paper invite, with an even more complete version of the address. “412 EAST Broadway, Anaheim, CA 92805.” Oh, damn. Again, if you dump “412 Broadway, Anaheim, CA 92805″ in Google, it will spit out one location. Bing will point out that there are two.

I’m starting to wish Apple would decouple the iPhone from Google maps and allow the user to specify a different map app (is there a way that I don’t know of?). But the Google maps integration is so good. All your contacts show up as bookmarks in your google maps if you have addresses listed for them, and you can access their phone number straight from the maps app, too. Handy if you’re about to arrive and need to call.

The story, which was picked up by national news outlets including The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal, detailed the accounts of local business owners who said that sales reps at the popular user-generated review site offered to move negative reviews of their businesses if they advertised.

Anyway, today, my friend told me about how one of his (very legitimate) reviews got removed:

A:
oh hey apparently yelp is like, fuckin 1984 shit
maybe that’s not the right analogy
they went all china censor on me
back in august 07 i went to this bed and breakfast in monterey bay, and it was dirty and filthy and had clogged plumbing and no toilet paper and BEBBUGS IN ALL THE BEDS
woke up in the middle of the night like omfg wtf and just left
so i wrote this harsh ass review of it on yelp, and posted pics of bedbugs

Ron Hsu
they deleted the review?

A
and a few weeks ago
i got an email
from “Frank @ yelp hq” saying they were removing my pics from that business because they “fall outside our local business photo guidelines”
a couple of days ago, i got a personal message on yelp from the owner of the business offering a free night’s stay at his business (which, since I went there, has apparently undergone new ownership and a total renovation) so that i might have a better experience and change my rating
i wrote him back saying thanks, if i ever go to monterey again maybe i’ll take you up on your offer
and for now i’ll add a line to the beginning of my old review saying “note: i haven’t been back, but apparently there is new ownership and the place has been renovated”
and today, i got a message from “Casper @ Yelp HQ” telling me that one of my reviews was deleted “because it lacks a first-hand experience of the business”
and i was like what the fuuuuuck how was my review not a first hand experience of hte business
it was ANYTHING but secondhand
smells like BS to me
i suspect you can pay off yelp or bitch to them or do something shady to delete bad reviews
which, of course, defeats the purpose of yelp in the first place

http://www.yelp.com/biz/the-inn-at-del-monte-beach-monterey-2

check it
only 5 reviews
used to be 6
mine got killed
they have to be a yelp sponsor of some sort to be able to list that “grand opening! rates start at 79!” ad rectangle right?
the only review from the last two years is from someone with 2 reviews, who just started yelping in january 2010
fiiiiishy fiiiiishy
yeah yelp sold out or something, cus that is bullshiiiiiit
i sent a message to that hazel q chick, yelp oc community organizer or whatever, no response
dunno if she has any power or say in the first place
but yeah, bullllshiiiit
“your review was deleted because it lacks a first-hand experience of the business,” LOL

Ron Hsu
actually i had just read an article about something like your experience a few days ago

The only legitimate rationale I can think of is the new ownership angle, and thus, perhaps, my friend’s review no longer counts since he hasn’t been to the “new and improved” version.

SQL Server Management Studio 2005 forgets password

As does the 2008 version. I ran into this issue and was (not) surprised to find that the bug dating back to version 2005 had still not been fixed.  Hey, at least you can delete some files to fix it though.

Edit: Just to make it more clear, from Voot’s post in the link above, you need to go to C:\Documents and Settings\[USERNAME]\Application Data\Microsoft\Microsoft SQL Server\100\Tools\Shell

and delete SqlStudio.bin.

Make sure SSMS is not running when you delete it. Fire up SSMS again. All your credentials will be gone, so you’ll need to reenter them, but it should remember them from here on out. I have no idea what causes it to initially mess up.

On another note, it’s not often you see a woman write something like the following (what can I say, there’s not that many women in my field):

It doesn’t take too long to set up a tool to monitor a file or directory – you can download FileMon from:

http://www.microsoft.com/technet/sysinternals/FileAndDisk/Filemon.mspx

The Connect to Server dialog can pop up in different situations where there is no security context for the connection to use. If you use registered servers (and save the password there) when you view the registered servers, select a server in the Registered Servers task pane and then click New Query on the toolbar or Right Click, Connect, Object Explorer or New Query which will result in connecting under the security context you used when registering the server. If a server isn’t selected, there is no security context available so the Connect to Server dialog pops up. I haven’t heard of passwords  being “lost” or “forgotten” using the registered servers task pane and saving registration information there.

Good info.

So Avatar, the anti-corporate-excess, anti-unregulated-mercenary, anti-imperialist, anti-war, anti-materialism, anti-racism, pro-environment, sci-fi action adventure romance just passed $1.1 billion not too long ago (and stands as the fastest movie to hit a billion). Not too shabby, especially for sci-fi, which traditionally does not have wide appeal. I guess James Cameron knows how to make a movie.

Personally, I think Avatar is the best action/adventure movie I’ve ever seen. There, I said it. I think I’m a picky bastard, too. It easily tops Dark Knight for me, another movie that ranked highly with me. I loved Dark Knight, but DK is totally consumed by raw negativity (And I can be a jackass). There’s no rest, no break, no salvation. Just cynical bleakness. It’s a great window into the darkness, but as a result it just lacks balance, and that gets wearisome. I’m not surprised that men seem to favor DK more than women (in my personal sphere).

Avatar on the other hand has superb, technically accurate action (yet it’s an anti-war film; just like in Terminator 2, Cameron is so good at annihilating things while simultaneously being against it), but it also has a pretty well developed romance, for a movie that’s supposed to be action/adventure anyway. As Kim Masters of the Daily Beast wrote, “Cameron’s genius is this: He makes movies for women disguised as movies for men.” I’m sure the girls will say that it can’t match The Notebook or something like that (haven’t seen it, don’t want to), but that would probably throw off the balance for the men. But with the girl…er, female power, and the love story in Avatar, I’m not surprised that Avatar is doing quite well with women, probably not to the extent of Titanic, but still, I’ve heard plenty of women who want to and have watched Avatar multiple times.

Basically, the only way I can fathom someone not liking Avatar is if they hate fun and adventure—and love (or if one is diehard conservative, more on that below). If one finds such things abhorrent, then yes, Avatar is a bore. Hell, even A.O. Scott of the NYT liked it, and that mother is one of the snobbiest, high brow pro-reviewers I’ve ever seen. For the rest of us, I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: Avatar, at the moment, is the closest any of us ghetto 21st century folks will get to experience what it’s like to travel to another planet. You’re buying a ticket for an experience, a trip almost (especially when seen in 3D). Along the way, there’s a universally appealing story. So, relax, and enjoy the ride!

But is it just the effects, and the wonderful immersive 3D? I’m not sure anymore. I read an argument somewhere that movies don’t make over a billion dollars on effects alone, that Avatar is connecting with people at an emotional level somehow. I think I must agree. It definitely made me question whether I need to make so many unnecessary gadget purchases, and rekindled my doubt about the role of the cubicle in my life. Apparently, in China, some interpreted it as representative of the battle between real estate developers, and impoverished homeowners.

The most major initial criticism I hear is the simplicity of the story. Yes, it is simple, but it’s also epic, truly epic. “Epic” gets tossed around a lot these days, particularly with action/war movies, but Avatar is a true epic in the old school sense. Love, culture, and war. All in 2 hrs 40 minutes. It wasn’t totally predictable either, as some claim, especially towards the end. And it’s also complete. No further sequels are needed or alluded to. I’m actually hoping there won’t be any, because I wouldn’t want the franchise to be destroyed like so many others due to crappy sequels. While I love the characters in Avatar, their story is over. Unless Cameron can pull another miracle.

Besides, it’s how a story is told that is important. That’s all epic storytellers have really been doing for the last few millennia anyway, adding their own permutations to common storylines, or telling the same story, but better, like different productions of the same musical.

But I would also argue Avatar’s story is not significantly simpler than most movies out there anyway. I think it was just an easy aspect to criticize, especially by people I like to call the “nouveau intelligentsia,” who make the argument without really considering if it’s fair or not (especially Will Heaven’s poor argument that Avatar was racist, but more on that later). Because most movies aren’t that complicated, especially in the genre Avatar is in, and such movies definitely didn’t get as much heat. Success attracts disdain I guess.

Yes, in other movies, the dialogue can be more sophisticated, but unlike most other movies, Avatar pushes hard on multiple, relevant contemporary themes simultaneously (as previously listed). In this sense, I honestly think Avatar is actually quite sophisticated. Avatar tends to expound its themes through visuals, instead of telling through dialogue, letting the viewer stew on it later, like a painting (indeed one guy interpreted some 9/11 imagery that I hadn’t thought of, and that I don’t think Cameron intended, though he found it interesting). Of the recent “good” films I’ve seen lately, District 9, Dark Knight, Inglorious Basterds, Up in the Air, I think Avatar generated more introspection and personal thought. Basterds came close (but in a negative way. More in its own review). Up in the Air was an interesting character sketch, but hey, I’ve got my own issues to deal with, and if I want to waste my time to see you conquer or deal with yours, I’d only want to see it once.

Here, I stumbled across a well-written argument by an Amazon customer; I can’t really put it any better, so I’m just going to quote her:

You could boil the plot down to Dances With Wolves does Star Wars in Middle Earth, but that wouldn’t do real justice to this fantastic film. It follows an archetypal storyline (archetype, not stereotype), which may make it feel familiar (or trite, if you are looking for a plot twist a minute). Think Joseph Campbell: the Hero Journey (the basis of tales like Star Wars and LOTR). I think a familiar, archetypal, mythic storyline will draw much more of the audience into this fantastic world than a quirky tale with plot twists. Here in York County PA, tastes run to beer and blue jeans, and it’s hard enough getting them into the theater to see “some weird story about ten foot tall half naked blue guys”. Kudos to James Cameron for creating a tale with relevant issues (decimation of indigenous peoples, our overconsumptive culture, our relationship with tech and the natural world), awesome visuals, and universal appeal.

I’ve got to agree; I don’t think a jumpy or soapy plot would have been appropriate, nor would the sharper, snarkier dialogue of someone like…Joss Whedon. Cameron went for classic epic that appeals to children and adult alike, while hitting on relevant real-world topics, not “hey, that was quirky and interesting, but I have no intention of watching the movie again.”

And Avatar only seemed to get better with another viewing – if you were like me who was kind of cynical about the whole thing at first. From my first viewing, I came away liking the movie, but I was not amazed with it. However, the more I thought about it, the more it grew on me. Then I saw Avatar again and I was definitely hooked. The amazing visual effects definitely do the grunt work, but the attention to detail do as well, like the Na’vi language created by a USC professor, the alien flora and fauna, also created by a professor, and the raw emotion of the actors captured by Cameron’s upgraded mo-cap technology. You can see every expression that the original actor made, but on an alien body. No uncanny valley here. It really helped me empathize with these “space smurfs”, and it definitely put Zoe Saldana on the map for me.

Sadly, Avatar made me realize that there could be tons of talented leading ladies out there that will never get the time of day because of their skin color, unless they get roles like Neytiri. Other than films sketching minority life, how often do you see a colored woman in the lead actress role?

I suppose I should now mention the subset of conservatives that hate the movie for such themes. But they hate most things out of Hollywood, so I don’t want to waste my time. Besides, I think their complaints are legitimate, in the sense that it definitely crosses their ideology. Although I think the movie is less about anti-America, and more anti-Blackwater/Halliburton. And well, if you can still defend either of those, our ideologies are way too different.

Well before I write an actual movie review, I thought I’d throw this up after I went with some IMAX noobs at one of my viewings of Avatar…My friend’s friend waited over 3 hrs in line, alone, being about 20th from the front. What’s he do once he goes in? He sits 4 rows from the front bar. Which is good for a normal theater, but the front bar in a true IMAX is essentially the *very front* (as opposed to a LieMAX).  Head and neck aches ensued. From that position, the 3D didn’t sync on the far right and left unless you actually turned your head to look directly at it. I don’t fault him; he didn’t know any better. Poor guy, all that time spent waiting.

Anyway, this is primarily for Avatar-style 3D, but I suspect movies using that technology will continue to trickle in. A major component of Avatar is the immersion, so you might as well see it as it was intended and see where all that spending went, right? I’ve seen Avatar in 3D from various positions now, and I can tell you that more than any other movie I’ve seen before, positioning really had a large affect on my enjoyment of the film. With regular 2D film, it’s clear that you’re watching a flat projected image coming from a projector. But with “Cameron”-style 3D, the movie makes you feel as if you’re there. Until Total Recall technology comes around, Avatar 3D is going to be the closest to traveling to another habitable planet any of us will ever get. I really don’t think 2D or Bluray is going to do this movie justice.

A true IMAX 3D is the best way to see it in my opinion, despite what I said in the previous post on the differing 3D technology. The IMAX version has the full 1.78:1 (16:9) cut of the film, while the 2D and non-IMAX 3D cuts are 2.35:1. I ran the numbers, and we’re talking about a 25% loss in vertical image going from the IMAX cut to the non-IMAX cut. If anyone knows what cut the LieMAX screens are showing, I’d appreciate it.

For a true IMAX screen, I found 5 rows from the top is very good (this is specifically true of the true IMAX in Irvine. Your mileage may vary). It optimally puts the whole screen in your field of vision, without requiring you to move your neck side to side to see what’s on the left and right. You’re also vertically centered, so you don’t need to crane your neck up either. For all intents and purposes, the top of the IMAX is analogous to the center in a regular theater. So anywhere in the back is good. The front is the face-f**k zone. I got a little dizzy sitting that close. Plus as I mentioned before, the 3D on the sides weren’t syncing sitting that closely unless I physically turned my head to look.

For a regular, non-IMAX screen, the back is terrible. Normally I’d say the back is fine for any other film, but with the immersion factor of Avatar, sitting in the back kind of ruins it. I could see speakers and the walls of the theater in my peripheral vision. It was like watching real life Picture-in-Picture. So in this case, you’d want to sit in the middle, probably near the bar.

I haven’t seen Avatar in a LieMax, but since they’re just up-converted regular theaters, I’d guess the middle would be where to go.

Well, hope that helps some people out there.

“Cameron’s genius is this: He makes movies for women disguised as movies for men.” Definitely a pretty good balance of yin and yang.

OK, I’m addicted. I’ll admit it. I’ve seen Avatar in 3D, three times now. If I know someone that hasn’t seen it, I unabashedly agree to go with them. I’m slightly ashamed, yet the addiction is strong enough that I don’t care. Twice in Imax 3D, and once in RealD. I didn’t know there was a difference, but apparently RealD is superior. Link about different 3D tech. The trade off is that the screen is smaller, and I believe some of the image is cropped = less immersion. I sat in the back for the RealD show and it was like watching a picture-in-picture broadcast. Too much of the peripheral vision was filled by “theater”: speakers, walls, people….definitely sit around the middle or closer.

The 3D…hmm the first time I watched it, I didn’t really think it added all that much. I think it’s because Cameron used it tastefully, did the whole movie in 3D, and didn’t make it in-your-face, save a couple scenes here and there. Hence, since we naturally view things in 3D on a daily basis, I just didn’t notice it and didn’t think it added that much. However, when I saw it a 3rd time at the Irvine Imax 3D, the feed for the left eye was extremely messed up (you can verify by closing each eye individually; the image should be sharp for each). It pretty much ruined all of the 3D. That and the dumb broad next to me who was literally texting on her cell every 5 minutes. I wanted to throw that phone down the stairs. Although I’m guilty of being retarded for not saying anything…

But on the flip side, while constantly fiddling with my 3D glasses, I noticed just how much of the movie was in 3D, and how much of it I was taking for granted. I watched the trailer when I got home, and boy did it look like crap in comparison, like watching some kind of ancient Egyptian papyrus version, or some kind of stone tablet version. I seriously don’t think I can watch this movie in 2D. The bluray isn’t going to do this movie justice, so I figure I should catch it in theaters while I can, until 3D TVs come around. Our kids will wonder how we could put up with 2D TVs.

If you read the first comment in the link above, he mentions a tech called XPAND, supposedly the best of them all. There’s a theater in socal with it…tempted…

http://jalopnik.com/5390929/mustang-crash-gallery/

Do consider a Subie.

http://www.drive.subaru.com/Sum06_WhatsInside.htm

During an extrication seminar I was conducting, several members of an area fire department approached me with a question and a challenge. They had encountered a Subaru Forester involved in a crash and were unable to cut through the B-pillar with any of their extrication tools. Their cutter and their reciprocating saw were both unable to sever the pillar. They actually went back to the junkyard the next day and used a gasoline-powered rotary saw with an abrasive blade to totally remove the B-pillar. They brought it to the seminar to show me.

When I saw the pillar, it was clear that something was different about the Forester B-pillar construction. It was eight layers thick! One of the layers was a round steel rod that resembled a concrete reinforcement bar (rebar). That B-pillar had more layers of steel than I had ever seen in a vehicle.

I do realize that it’s not a totally fair comparison. Who knows if the Subaru’s roof could have withstood the same thing…but it does seem clear that the Subaru has superior reinforcement regardless. So why not? That and…I wouldn’t want a car with a live axle anyway.  I should note that the Mustang had a wannabe rollbar in it, too, that totally failed to do anything.

Now here’s an interesting site: http://www.boronextrication.com/2009/10/2010-ford-fusion-side-impact-protection.html

It’s basically a blog for firefighters showing where to cut up cars during an emergency.