DWP - Futurist At Large

A Direction for Near Future Tech

With current technology there is a trend towards the combining of functions and technologies. Perhaps it is not a "Swiss Army Knife" of technology we are looking at, but when you look at all that is being included in some items like your typically carried Cell phones -- there is a lot there.

I believe that all Cell phones include a phone book in them to record the numbers of calls coming in or going out. This is of course more convenient when tied in with the service of call display which many if not most subscribe to or have included in their service. Most if not all the phones also have some sort of calendar function in addition to a watch function and at least rudimentary alarm function if not one that can be programmed in conjunction with the calendar. Combining these they often have a virtual appointment book ability which would have been the envy of any business executive 20 years ago.

Nearly everyone could if they wish, have access to voice mail as well for missed calls or be able to forward calls to or from a regular phone service to their mobile one. They also have options to send or receive text messages. The price for them of course varies depending on service contract and location. (Not to mention date, phase of the moon, tide, which direction the last dark bird flew past your gaze...)

Those are pretty well standard sorts of communication things you might expect.

A bit more than that are Internet capabilities including being able to access eMail, Internet Chat services, and actual World Wide Web access. You might pay a bit heftier dollar for that ability and even more if you would like to be able to plug your portable computer into your cell phone whether it is a Notebook or Net book computer.

Beyond that... many of not most cell phones have the ability to take digital photographs if not short digital videos. It seems to me that the 1 Megapixel resolution level is very common if not greater. That is a log greater than most people might need for use in digital images for the Internet. Of course we are not talking about the needs of photographers here.

The phones -- and we aren't talking about the expensive sort really -- very often include the ability to download and play games in addition to other things like "ring tones" and background art for the control screen that nearly all phones have. That is the same screen you screen your digital pictures and videos on as well as check your messages and everything on.

The phone as well can often be used to play music on and can do well as an mp3 player with only the addition of decent headphones or earbuds.

All those things on fairly normal cell phones.

Then we get to the "smart phones" which are virtually tiny computers with complete keyboards or alternate methods for data entry. Some have nearly gone away from keys completely opting for total touch screen control -- that allows for the entire top surface of the device to be used as the device screen. Those can act as total digital assistants... or PDA -- Pocket Digital Assistants -- like the Palm Pilots of all. They seem to have superceded the Palm Pilots if you ever try go shopping for them.

The mp3 player has expanded as well to include the abilities to record sound like a portable voice recorder. The mp players also routinely include FM radio recievers and have enough memory to allow them to carry digital computer files within -- thus acting as "pen drives" or "memory sticks". Of course the mp3 players themself can use memory cards which gets sorta circular. The mp3 player also expanded into playing video and being an mp4 player. This is where they overlapped or became or inspired or...(?) the portable video player. The really nice ones also forgo the buttons for touch screens... and are nearly identical to the cell phones with the same screens. They just don't have the cell phone function. Though the mp3/video player ones did gain the wireless networking capability tha allows them to comunicate wirelessly and hence the good ones can access the Internet and do everything else those cell phone ones can do. They even play the same games in the same ways... and I believe from the same sources. Did I mention the phones can download and play the same videos the video players can?

Then there are the portable game players -- they have gotten more and more powerful and gained the ability to network wirelessly as well, and you can access the Internet as well as computers with them. Many of them have touch screens and they can be used to play videos or watch pictures on -- much like the mp3/video playes I have mentioned and the cell phones.

There are also eBook players out there whose purpose is to hold and display eBooks in various formats. They connect either through networking cables or more commonly now through wireless networking.

I might finally mention the digital picture frames which are very limited and the PDAs that I think morphed into the "smart phones" and mostly disappeared.

Perhaps the edges between these things are very much blurring -- especially if you take into account the notebook/laptop computers and their slightly smaller cousin the net book. I do see a direction that things might take with this blurry tech fog.

I think that people will start thinking of what their primary focus is and then go for the device that handles that best. Then they will purchase a device that does that best -- meaning with all the features of that dedicated device -- and have that device fitted with all the other features that would be convenient not to have to carry as separate devices.

Here is an example of what I am speaking:

Let's say I have a hobby that is photography. I would go to a camera shop and purchase a nice camera. It would have the lenses or a lens system that I would want. (I am not a photographer, so please bear with me as I am not so conversant with the terms and stuff.) Having chosen the camera I would also have a camera that would have digital memory for digitally recording the images as well as recording them on film. (Providing it took film photographs as well as digital ones.) It would be able to record sound and some video as well. The camera would be able to play mp3 files as a music player through headphones or ear buds although they might be bluetooth wireless ones. I would also be able to watch video content on the display screen of the camera if I should so choose. The camera would also have wireless networking to connect with WiFi hotspots or my computer and if I should choose I should be able to activate it to a cell phone plan and use it as a cell phone with a handy blue tooth headset. Not to mention using the camera for "texting" messages or as an address or date book.

Conversely if my prime usage were as a student, perhaps all of these functions might take place through a portable computer -- probably a net book for portability -- that I would use for all those functions.

I guess the idea sort of falls apart if you don't want to carry the large item everywhere, like when you don't want to carry the net book to everything, or the camera, or the digital tape recorder, or the electric guitar (with the phone etc. built in...)... But for the photographer, videographer, reporter, author, or other person who always carries their tools around with them...

Hmm, I guess they aren't building them into paint brushes or pens quite yet... but how about those scientific or engineering calculators... they still make calculators don't they?

Later!
~ Darrell

158.

Going the Extra Mile - Accessible Often Means Roundabout

The Long Way Around

While sometimes a person might complain when there are no accessible facilities available, it can seem like you are looking a gift horse in the mouth with you complain about the facilities that exist. It can be rough to miss a connection on a bus because you were taking the extra fifty or even hundred metres required to reach an elevator or ramp.

True, a person might say "you should have started out earlier" which might have some truth to it --  but when connecting from one service to the next, you only have a certain amount of time to travel from one mode to another whether it be from bus to train or train to bus or even bus to bus or train to train. When service is every 3-5 minutes it is not so bad, but when service is less frequent than every 15 minutes it can make a large difference.

When you can't run for a bus it can be very frustrating for one to leave when you are so very close at hand -- travelling from one place to another within the station or terminal.

Some places just aren't designed well for people who aren't travelling well on foot. It is like the designers don't actually have a clue what it is to use these facilities if you need the accessible facilities. Perhaps this is just the case. Perhaps they really do need people who use the facilities to be a part of the design and not just part of town hall meetings and open houses on getting building permits approved.

(image to right from Wikipedia)

I know that there is the issue of keeping wheelchair friendly ramps at a slope that is safe and without too long straight lengths and such forth. But sometimes thing should be planned out better. I hope that things are getting better. I also hope that there is planning included for (in no particular order and not inclusive) people with babies in strollers and carriages; people with other impairments such as visual; people with luggage; people with small children; and so many other situations other than a business person on the way to work with a brief case and maybe an umbrella... for that matter... rainy days can sure be a problem with people not having a thing they can do with a wet umbrella.

An example of bad design is a "Skytrain" station built in the late 80's or early 90's which straddles a major highway interchange and bridge entrance ramp system. The station does have escalators and an elevator to take people up to the elevated track level -- but -- the elevator is on the side of the highway interchange the "Park & Ride" is on while the Transit Loop for catching buses is on the far side. The work-around is to call for a "Handi-dart" bus to come and transfer you from one side of the interchange to the other. Handi-dart is the part of the local transit system that picks up disabled people who are typically unable to ride normal public transit.

The station should have had an elevator designed into both sides. It is not a matter of there not being room. It might have meant a couple fewer parking stalls in the design of the "Park & Ride". I guess nobody on the design team considered that a person who would require the elevator might be taking the bus to continue their journey? It is good that the stations can be built elevated so that they can be above roads and thus make a smaller footprint on the urban groundspace -- But the disabled are often the folk on the low incomes that use the transit system most... perhaps not in a wheelchair, but sometimes a person who gets around with a cane or walking stick has problems with stairs and escalators?

We need more than work-arounds!

Later!
~ Darrell

142.

Electronic Coveralls

Why I Want a Cellphone

I have told many of my friends and my relatives in the past that I really do not need a cellphone. I still really do not need one, but I think I want one and I have my reasons. It isn't really to chatter with to friends, relatives, business contacts, or even enemies. I want one to reduce clutter. Just the way a pair of coveralls will cover and protect both your pants and shirt with one garment instead of a work smock and work pants, I want a cellphone to cover a few bases.

You see with my writing I like to have a camera at hand. I also want to have a source of radio-music and other audio at hand including a voice recorder. I use an mp3 player for voice recording, FM radio access, and for listening to audio books and music as well as for using as a USB flash drive. It would also be nice to carry a digital phone book, date book, and calculator. I could carry a digital camera, mp3 player, and some sort of PDA. But considering I would probably be content to be carrying around a digital camera that was 1 or 2 Megapixels, a halfway decent cellphone might cluster all those functions into one device.

I really don't want to make many calls... even a low minute regular plan is a bit extravagant to me so I am looking at pay-as-you-go or "no contract" cellphone plans. I don't need to web surf, though it would be nice to make the odd emergency call and to be able to text message the transit info for the schedule of the next 6 buses to come through at the stop I am standing at. I think it also would be neat to be able to read eBooks on.

I know I'll probably pay between $100 and $200 for the phone instead of getting it "free" on a 3 year plan, but I'll also probably only be paying $10-$15 per month if that... Hmm... now how soon 'til it balances out?

Later!
~ Darrell

141

__________
Unattributed images are from Image*After.

A Different Perspective

Looking at Things From a New Angle

I think there has been a change in how many people look at things in the Western World. For much of the 20th Century -- up until the 1970's or 80's we were very much driven by paper. If we were doing a report or take notes we would write it on paper that was oriented vertically. Our TV's and movie screens however were oriented horizontally. The current terms used for these orientations -- at least in the world of the Internet, so far as I know -- are "Portrait" (image to left by DWP¹) and "Landscape" (image to right by DWP¹).

Where this comes important is when video digital terminals and later personal computer monitors came into common use. The terminals and monitors were nearly all in landscape orientation. There were a few notable exceptions I'll get to. This wasn't of great importance until people began to be able to compose documents on the computer or electronic word processor. The screen just didn't fit the printed word on paper. Paper of course normally in publication is in the portrait orientation.

To begin with there was little issue because people wrote on the computer and what they wrote was really not in the same format as what they expected to see printed on paper. Good "word processors" would have a tool for previewing what the printed document should look like and it was okay if this just took up a portion of the landscape oriented screen. Later word processing software and office suites -- to be joined with actual "Desktop Publishing" software -- actually was WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get). That meant that what you saw on the screen more and more resembled what was actually going to be seen on paper and at full size. Of course the screen went one way and the paper the other. For the most part that has just been accepted and programs have included modes that let you see shrunken versions that will fit on the monitor screen or just let you see a part of the page. Sometimes it is nice to see a two page or even multi-page preview on screen to see how things fit together as a whole document.

Apple did take a step forward with their Portrait Display for the Macintosh²³ (image to right - image from "myoldmac.net"). It was monochrome like the original Macs and since so were printers at the time, black print on white screen was just fine. (or many shades of grey) There also was pride on very white screens if I recall the term "paper white screen. There were also monitors developed that would rotate from landscape to portrait orientation. I think that the portrait oriented monitors were/are mostly used by people who do a lot of desktop publishing.

With the ability to have multiple monitors hooked up to computers now and shared desktops and so forth, there is a resurgence in use of portrait oriented monitors. (image to left - image from "MacNN Forumsª")  Probably the new thin designed screens also makes it easier to design and implement considering the lighter components inside without the hefty cathode ray tube (CRT) and transformers.

Note how the second portrait monitor fits so nicely to the left of the main, quite large monitor.

Consider this though: will there be a bias when people design pages, for them to design to the landscape page more often now than the portrait? I got to thinking about that a few years ago when designing event posters for the museum I volunteer at. (The Port Moody Station Museumº) I was designing the posters to fit on regular "letter" sized paper and thought about how we orient such stuff on the paper. Often maps will go landscape while small posters go portrait. When people put together websites although the screen tends to be landscape, the pages tend to either be designed to fit one page landscape or extend portrait style.

I was wondering if people seeing more and more things in text on a landscape screen would be tending to design documents on that landscape orientation? I know some things just fit better one way or the other. Many people do read things more easily in narrower columns so a wide page is a problem. (Sorry but I can't cite a source at the moment on that, it is something told me by teachers and I have read in articles on learning disorders. It has to do with the eye skipping up or down a line more easily on long lines.) But a wide page can take multiple columns like the news papers have.

Still I think people are more used to scrolling down a long web page than across one. Though the trackpad on my Macbook and the MightyMouse I bought for it can scroll horizontally with equal ease, most mice I have come across are intended to scroll vertically. I wonder though if younger people have less bias against horizontal scrolling and horizontally presented pages? Of course... do people have any bias at all in either direction? .

Later!
~ Darrell

134.

__________
¹ "DWP" -- That's me.

² "myoldmac.net -- Apple Macintosh Portrait Display -- Buy it!"

³ "Apple Portrait Display" MonitorWorld.com.

ª "The New Power Mac Picture Thread -- Page 13" blakespot; Sept 29, 2006, 6:00 pm: MacNN Forums

º "The Port Moody Station Museum Blog" 2734 Murray Street Port Moody, British Columbia, Canada (604) 939-1648 run by the Port Moody Heritage Society

Blinders - To See or Not to See

Today's Fashion Frames -- Glasses Bring Focus

Perhaps I am old-fashioned, but I like my peripheral vision. That is your ability to see things to the side of you while looking straight ahead. It helps you avoid people running lights or climbing into your blind spot while driving and enhances your shoulder checks. It also lets you know when someone has come up beside you when it is too noisy to hear them. Peripheral vision does that sort of thing for you.

(Reading glasses -- image to right from Image*After)

But looking at fashionable frames on the typical glasses I see more and more people wearing I see frames with temples that seem to block most peripheral vision except maybe from gophers and pigeons sideswiping you. Temples -- by the way - are the side arms of the glasses that go from the hinge part back and over the ears. My Mom worked for an optometrist and glasses manufacturing company for a while and she passed on some of those terms to me.

For myself I have gone to thinner and thinner temples and thinner frames. My frames are a bit ancient... I guess not too many are wearing glasses from the 20th century... and have metal frames all around the lenses and metal temples. I am wearing them in many of my biography pictures I have in my columns. Mine aren't as frameless as the ones above and to the right.

The ones I see more and more often on office people, news reporters, and fashion conscious folk are like the ones to the left. (image to left -- image from iOffer). I do admit they can look sharp. Sometimes they seem a bit odd when the lenses are frameless and have these massive wide temples. They can almost look like the person isn't wearing glasses at all, just the wide dark temples sticking forward from their ears like errant combs or pens.

Still I wonder at how much peripheral vision they remove. I do see from my looking for example photos of the wide templed glasses that the narrow templed ones are still there and still stylish enough. That is a relief for I fear my old faithful frames should likely be replaced soon.

But I wonder... are those blinders good or bad... are there so many distractions in the workplace that people need blinders so that they can focus on their work and the job at hand? Perhaps with a cellphone in one hand and a latte in the other while walking to the subway -- I hope not while driving -- they need a way to focus on the sidewalk ahead with fewer distractions. Just like the draft horses of the past...

Later!
~ Darrell

132.

Undisabling -- Maintaining Accessability II

Doing More Than Minimum

A few years ago a new "super store" was opened locally and it was a great success in most ways. They did follow some new design ideas that are being incorporated more often now for the environment. They also probably help the bottom line...

One in particular is the incorporation of parking under the grocery store. A "super store" basically is a grocery store expanded to include much of a department store -- and in fact a department store and grocery store to rival a warehouse store or big box store. They are reminiscent to me of the old department stores that included a grocery store which rivalled any grocery store chain's store.

In this case of this new store's opening, that is one of the things that people were critical about. It wasn't that valuable space was saved in putting parking under the store, but rather that access to the store was made by ramps.

Other stores of near identical design had been built in Metro-Vancouver without so much complaint, but this one had a small difference -- this one did not also have elevators. The other stores all had elevators in addition to the ramps. The ramps are fairly gradual in slope and not too much effort for an able bodied person to climb. I think perhaps people with health issues might find them a bit taxing though. There are also stairs, I believe, though it has been a little while since I was there. People wanted to know why elevators were not included in this store and the reason given by the chain: "City bylaws did not require us to have elevators so we did not include them."

I think that it might be very important for municipalities, provinces, countries and other levels of government to have laws establishing minimum levels of compliance for such things as whether a building has elevators or what degree of slope an access ramp might have, but even if these might differ from area to area, certainly what should also be looked at is function. I can understand that having or not having an elevator does change the cost of a building, but especially when we are talking about a chain that has designs already made for the same or similar store with elevators, why not include an elevator simply to make the store more functional?

The cynic in me can think of reasons/excuses why not to put one in. One that comes to mind is that if you put one in, then you are liable for any accidental injury that it will cause. Of course you could always counter that with how many accidental injuries might be caused by not having it. I'm not a lawyer so I am probably naive in that counter argument.

What reminded me of this was a situation of someone I know who has been sick and in the hospital for a while. They have been doing fairly well with their artificial leg, but after recent surgery just are not up to climbing stairs or long ramps. Normally they use canes but for the moment they are using a walker. They aren't going out much but they have to go to the Doctor from time to time -- of course Doctors just don't make house-calls. The issue is that to get from the "Handicapped Parking" stalls to the door, a person has to negotiate either a long ramp or stairs.

This is not a building which has been retrofitted to allow for the handicapped parking. The building was designed as a medical-detal-legal office building from the start. In the designing didn't anyone anticipate that people who might be going in and out of such a building might actually be disabled and so it might be handy if there weren't major changes in elevation between the parking and the elevator lobby?

Probably the whole design does fit in with the Civic Bylaws and all the minimum standards set by the different levels of government with perhaps a few amendments which were applied for and granted in exchange for other accommodation. But the if the minimum is the bar that people aim for all the time, perhaps the bar has to be raised? -- at least for new buildings.

I can understand that when retrofitting existing structures minimum standards might be what is aimed for -- if at all possible -- but not for new structures. There might of course also be standards for voluntary compliance perhaps?

I am starting to consider if I might change my shopping patterns with a bias toward the more accessable locations. After all, if they are more willing to accomodate people with accessability issues, they probably also will do right by all of their customers.

Later!
~ Darrell

131.

__________
Handicapped signage image from Image*After.

Of Belts and Books, Briefcases and Backbacks... Part-1

Belting One On -- Front Seat Bad-Backseat Good

I come from a reckless generation... perhaps lucky we were wreck-less.

When I grew up, cars seldom had seatbelts as standard equipment -- as I mentioned in "Wandering Wags: Travelling Time With Your Dog" -- with our first car with seatbelts being a '66 Meteor. (image to right -- image from "Winged Messenger - Canadian Cars") That is referring to our Parent's car, that is. Our '72 Mercury was the first care that had convenient seatbelts and we only really started regularly using them towards 1976 or so. Those were such reckless times...

Back then too, my Sister and I considered it a treat to ride up in the front seat with Dad. There really were only a few times when that happened: When Mom stayed home -- she didn't drive and so the passenger seat was Mom's seat; when we went on a long highway trip and my Sister got carsick -- and Mom would have her sit up front with her; when there were more than two guest passengers in the car meaning that the back seat was full so there'd be three up front; and when on a few rare occasions when the trunk was so full of stuff -- like when Grandpa gave Dad a side of beef one Christmas -- that the suitcases took up the half of the back seat that my Sister normally sat on and so she had to sit in the front seat. Those were such reckless times...

(image to left, 1972 Mercury Monterey -- image from "Down On The Street")

I won't say my Parents were neglegent. Things were different in the 60's and early 70's. My Parents were quite strict actually that my Sister and I were to stay seated in the car while we travelled and that we were not to be standing on the seat like it seemed at least half the parents let their children do. They also didn't let us hang out the window like the family dog either like it seemed some families did. Even our dogs were required to keep their heads inside the car... true they were allowed to have their front paws on the back of the front seat so their nose could get out the window, but they had to keep their head in the car.

As time went on, accelerated -- perhaps with my defensive driving courses which my parents thought it was a good idea to have -- I began to figure it a good idea to wear a seatbelt. I worked to get myself into the habit of wearing one which was enforced in Driver Training. I decided I would always wear one driving and that it became part of my driving ritual when I got my first car when I was 17. I have always worn one since if there was a seatbelt and if it was at all possible or prudent. On some jobs as a security officer doing patrols on the dock it wasn't prudent. Driving without wearing a seatbelt feels naked to me.

Airbags seemed like a good idea to me. I did worry about people deciding not to wear seatbelts becausethey had airbags, but... people will be people. I do recall there being discussions early on about the dangers of airbags, but airbags were only found on upscale cars as options. Issues about dangers of airbags to children and smaller adults were something that were in the hands of the people who opted for the airbags. Things were different when airbags started becoming the norm. (airbag deployment image to right -- image from "GarageLibrary.com")

That is history. Since then seatbelt use, like helmet use on motorbikes and now bicycles, has become manditory and enforced by law. (image of child in bicycle helmet to left from "HAMAX") There have been stricter and stricter regulation on seating for children riding in motor vehicles. At first the regulations did rankle me because I was a poor student and though I had a car never had much money and I tended to taxi around friends who did not have cars yet had children. I could not afford to buy carseats for children or modify my older though well loved and cared for cars. Still since then there have been put into place resources for low income families to buy carseats for their kids even if they don't have a car so that they have them when it comes time to transport their children.

I think that carseats are a good idea, just like I think seatbelts are. (image to right from U.S. Census Bureau) I think that other safety equipment like airbags are good things too.

But there is something that has been bothering me... it is about the whole thing of it being a bad thing for children to be in the front seat of a car. I can agree that if the airbag is dangerous to children and small adult, that a child should ride in the backseat. ...but... I think there is a problem -- the problem not being with where the children ride, but why they must ride there. I think that the problem is with airbag design and rather than moving children and small adults out of the front seat, airbags should be made safer!

I see many arguments about the back seat being inherently safer from objects penetrating the interior of the car or crumple damage. There is validity there, and long, long ago I recall Mom talking about the front passenger seat being called "the suicide seat" -- though a lot of that was from pre-seatbelt days due to the fact that the front passenger would be catapulted through the windshield since they didn't have anything in front of them to stop them. The driver had the steering wheel and the back seat passengers had the back of the front seat to stop them from hurtling forward... remember this was before people so regularly wore seatbelts.

Okay so there were more dangers in the front passenger seat. That is especially true I know when nobody wears seatbelts. I think though where the argument wears thin is that if the back seat is safer... why let even the driver sit in the front seat? I know that sounds stupid. But if the seat is dangerous, then should anyone be allowed to sit there? Couldn't the front seat be made as safe as the back?

(image to left of forward facing car seat from "AAP -- Car Safety Seats: A guide for Families -- 2008")

I think in part the airbags and shoulder harness in the front seats -- especially for the passenger seat -- were to increase that safety, as were things like padded dashboards and so forth.

I think rather than all the propaganda to push children to the back seat, airbags that are not dangerous to them should be designed! There is a flaw in the airbags if they injure. I would have thought more research would have been done in the time since they were invented to solve this problem. There are better airbag systems coming out now and in development, but I rather think that kids are being asked to sit in the back of the bus.

Later!
~ Darrell

130.

Button Button

Click On This, Drag That

While navigating my browser a moment ago I realized how used to pushing buttons on my computer I had gotten. It is bad enough with the mouse and with the track pad on my MacBook I feel even more like I am just moving my finger on the screen. I fully realize there are tablet PCs, iPhones, Ipod touch, PDA, and other devices with touch screens which are even more directly tactile for pressing and moving things in a virtual environment. I am not even going to get into the VR Visors, helmets, gloves, globes¹, touch tables, and performance art touch screens or the projected interaction advertising systems where you can touch an image projected on floor or wall... or the projected keyboards and screens experimented with that project keyboard and screen on any actual desk surface or tabletop. ...or did I just get into them?

The thing is we have gotten very used to manipulating virtual items. We are used to on-screen controls for things like the VCR and DVD or the Cable-box or... Even the monitors we use most often have on-screen controls even if not touch screen.

Have you ever wanted to use your remote control like a mouse on your TV screen to move things around, like to move a TV logo out of the way so you could read the important subtitle it is blocking? Perhaps you can do it right now and if not you might be able to in future. I am just making an observation about how some of the more technologically comfortable of us might be getting very comfortable with the idea of pushing virtual buttons on a web page or other piece of software. I really look forward to having an electronic desk top... not a desktop on my monitor, but a monitor surface as my desk's desk top. Of course there will be the issue of having real objects placed on top of the virtual objects and I would imagine coasters with felt bottoms would be a must. ...or coffee Verboten! Personally I think any tabletop surface intended for touchscreen monitor use, other than something for the drafts man or equivalent should be designed to cope with things like beverage or spaghetti spills.

...hmm I would imagine that a really good touch screen desk would work around things put on it. Can you imagine your information doing a word wrap around the coffee cup sitting on the desk at the moment so that none of the words end up under the cup? Well, maybe not, but the desktop software would avoid place documents under lamps or stacks of paper if possible... I can imagine the warning message:

*** Warning Desktop Is Dangerously Covered Some Documents Might Be Hidden Please Clean Desk ***

I am sure they could use one of the trademark "you done something naughty" Windows sounds for it.

Later!
~ Darrell

118.

__________
¹ I wrote about a virtual reality globe the Virtusphere July 20 2008.

6 Rings and the Americas

Africa, Europe, Asia, Australia, and "The Americas" -- The Five Competing Continents in the Modern Olympics

Sometimes you hear something and it goes past you -- like "The five rings of the symbol for the 'Modern Olympic Games' representing the '5' competing continents: Africa, Europe, Asia, Australia, and the Americas". (image to left *-- image from Wikipedia)

I pondered 5 continents before of course -- most recently during the current games at times like during the hoisting of the Olympic Flag at the Opening Ceremonies for the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games -- wondering at first that Antarctica wouldn't be included and then considering why they might exclude Australia... Then I thought, "Perhaps they were forward thinking and considered the 'Eurasian Continent'?" I often wondered when I heard the definition in school why Europe and Asia were considered to be separate continents geographically.

I never realized that North America and South America would be lumped in together as one continent.

North and South America are as separate from one another as Africa is from Europe and Asia. Something just doesn't seem right to me. Perhaps if I lived in Europe it would make sense to me -- after all we are "The Colonies". Though that doesn't explain why they don't just include Australia as a large Asian Island, larger than Japan or like Greenland is to North America or England to Europe.

Don't get me wrong (I hope I don't end up writing that too often.) I like the flag design and how it looks. I think that 6 rings might not be so bold and esthetically pleasing a design on a flag shape. A longer linear shape would be too wide and a more circular design wouldn't fill the space as nicely.

Are representing the competing continents the real reason for the five rings? Is it just sour grapes on my part -- because I live in North America -- that I think there is something wrong with North America and South America not getting separate statuses as continents... sort of like sitting at the "children's table" at a family get together instead of with the adults?

Isn't it time we get to sit at the Big People's Table and while not redesigning the Rings Design -- reconsider what they represent and not say they represent the competing continents. After all they do represent the coming together of people from around the world from varied cultures and walks of life to compete in unity.

Later!
~ Darrell

PS

IOC**:

The Olympic symbol consists of five interlaced rings of equal dimensions, used alone, in one or in five different colours, which are, from left to right, blue, yellow, black, green and red. The Olympic symbol (the Olympic rings) expresses the activity of the Olympic Movement and represents the union of the five continents and the meeting of athletes from throughout the world at the Olympic Games.

But watch out! It is wrong, therefore, to say that each of the colours corresponds to a certain continent!

117.

__________
* Image of Olympic Rings used only for purpose of artistic review and does not represent any connection to the IOC or Olympics.

** International Olympic Committee - WWW.OLYMPIC.ORG - Official website of the Olympic Movement.

Space the Travelling Frontier

Who Should Foot the Bill?

When we travel around this world, we expect to pay our way, or if we are lucky have someone else pay it for us, but it does get paid for us one way or another. What about situations when a person needs special provisions for travel? Who should pay for those special provisions? Should those special provisions be accounted for in modes of transportation and at whose cost?

Let's take a very simple example - a person in a wheelchair. Our public transit buses have provisions for wheelchairs. The newer buses have low floors and can extend a ramp to the curb with little slope at all. There are two bench seats which fold up against the interior side of the bus and the first forward facing seats fold up for the wheelchair to be strapped in and anchored facing forward. It does mean in the best case that if there is one person in a wheel chair, they take up the same seat space as 4 or 5 passengers would and these also are the courtesy seats for the elderly or disabled. They also request that if in use that the front 10 feet of the aisle not be used for standing passengers and this would be room that perhaps 5 or 6 people might stand.

Do not get me wrong. I am not an ogre who thinks this is wrong or inappropriate. I am proud that our transit system makes allowance for people who are travelling in wheelchairs and in mobility scooters or with walkers. I am proud that there are buses designed to make it easier for the disabled and elderly to get on board whether they are using mobility aids or not. It is a welcome bonus that the same features make it so that strollers and baby carriages can be taken onto the buses easily - not to mention those two wheeled grocery carts and wheeled suit cases. People who do not have cars and can't afford cabs need to carry goods as well as themselves too. The level floor must also make things easier for those with arthritis and who are visually impaired*. (We also have on nearly all our buses bike racks that can be used at least during daylight hours. They allow increased range for those who wish to cycle.)

But I have sometimes wondered, and worried, especially when I was much larger than I am today - what about when I need to take up more than one seat. Do people think I should pay for two fares? I used to be large enough that it would be uncomfortable for others to share a two person bus seat with. I always tried to travel only in off-peak hours for that reason.

That line of thought continues for me when I go to get groceries. I have this two wheeled grocery cart. It allows me to carry groceries that would be too bulky and heavy for me to carry otherwise. But I really can't take it down the aisle of the bus and would have to sit in the front seats - the very same front seats that fold up for a wheel chair. I guess I feel guilty about it. I end up taking 2-3 seats.

Anyway that is something that happens and is a need for people who rely on transit.

Getting around town is something that most people would agree is a necessity. What about getting around the country or from country to country?

Do the disabled and elderly have a right to travel? Of course in many countries nobody actually has a "right" to travel and must get the proper documents to do so, but in those forward thinking countries that allow people to travel, should the disabled and elderly have the same right and should they be held back for financial reasons?

Let's consider travelling from one part of a country or large state or province to another. It might not even be a matter of a vacation sort of trip, but perhaps something of a legal nature? Perhaps flying to the capital for some reason. I am not going to make up a reason - let's just say the person in question has to be there and it is not a matter of being invited or requested by the government or a company so it can't be argued to be on their dime. For a person who needs a cane or walker, they have transporter chairs to get you in and out of a plane with little problem. I imagine for most who even require more extensive mobility aids short of respirators it would just be the logistics of making sure their chair is shipped safely to the destination or there are aides to take care of pushing them at the destination if they can not ship their chair.

That is good for short flights at least of up to an hour or two, or even three - but there is the call of nature. Even if they have a transporter chair they can take up the aisle of the plane to the washroom, most - to my knowledge - are not disability friendly. Do they have "handicapped" toilets on planes? Would a person have to rely on adult diapers and catheter for the flight?

Now flight attendants can do a lot and I imagine they are trained to handle a lot of contingencies. I know that whole rows can be converted for people who are essentially in hospital beds. I wonder who pays the extra cost for all the seats and for the conversion if it isn't a matter of using the plane as an impromptu air ambulance?

My question is, should the disabled passenger? Should the government? Should health insurance? Should the carrier as a part of civic duty and "cost of doing business"?

I can't answer that myself really. I do know that often it is the elderly and disabled that are on the lowest incomes and that they have the higher medical bills to begin with if those bills are not being paid for by health insurance or government plans.

There are a lot of things that can get complicated if you become disabled or always have been. I just was thinking about this one.

I am proud to live somewhere where they are trying to see towards transportation needs of all of us and where there is not a huge fight when the city wants to put in curbs at corners that a wheel chair can get up or audible pedestrian signals for the visually impaired.

Just food for thought.

Later!
~ Darrell

45

__________
*Apologies if I am not using the correct terminology.

Grumpy Old Man

Plays Well With Neighbours

I don't like feeling like a grumpy old man - but I feel like that far too often when it comes to getting along with the neighbours of my building.

I am a person who believes that when people must live in close proximity to each other they must make some allowances - bit the allowances must be made both ways. I am meaning in such areas as noise. It would be nice to live in apartment buildings that had 100% noise proof walls, roof, and ceiling, but I think that most do not have that luxury, though modern condo apartments might be closer than older rental apartment suites.

They do have some intelligent designing going on. At least in my building the wall between my bedroom and the next suite is against their bedroom and the wall against my living room is against their next suite's living room. That means noisy room is against noisy room and quiet room is against quiet room - sort of.

When a neighbour puts a high powered stereo or sound system in their bedroom it can be a problem if their sleeping hours are different from yours. You might not want to feel the "Battle of Britain" coming through the wall at 2am when they feel like watching that flick with the base turned up. It is bad enough if it is coming through the living room walls.

If someone has the flu and you hear them coughing all night, you can commensurate with them - you know they are suffering and really would rather not be making such a racket. But they have a choice with the sound systems.

I know that I play my TV, Stereo, and Computer at reasonable levels. If I really wanted to increase the gain I would use headphones probably.

Then there is the matter of heavy feet. If you live on the bottom floor you can clog dance to your heart's content, but if you live over someone else you must be aware that heavy footsteps are heard down below. Even normal walking is heard, but is toleratable. Advantage of bottom floor - clog dancing - advantage of top floor - not worrying about clog dancing neighbours upstairs.

I don't mind if a neighbour has a party occasionally either as long as it might shut down halfway reasonably. Or at least tune down at 10pm from 11 on the amp. to 10 or better 9 in volume... well actually in an apartment building even for a party those higher levels are too high even for a party.

Then there is the matter of recreational substances that are not recognized as legal...

I have chosen not to smoke weed. I am aware of second hand tobacco smoke and I think even most smokers are. Why aren't pot smokers? Or at least it seems they aren't judging by the second hand pot smoke I get into my room at times. I actually get a bad reaction to the stuff. It makes me nauseous and perhaps it is an interaction with some of the medicine I have to take, but I also start having mood swings which I do not care for.

I am really not very happy when that happens.

I live life in my apartment trying to be reasonably quiet. I walk softly, not tippy toeing, but not stomping. I don't slam doors. I don't jump up and down, especially not after 10 pm or before 10 am. If I have a party we turn things down a notch after 10 or 11pm Just as we make arrangements for guests to spend the night if we have any drinking. There's no pot or recreational drugs on the balcony or in the hallway.

Maybe you could say that I am not suited to apartment living... maybe they aren't?

Am I the only one who tries to get along with the neighbours?

Am I the only one who doesn't blast their ears off with loud music?

Or maybe I am just getting grumpy with age... nah, I didn't like it when I was 18 either.

Later!

~ Darrell