I am a none-of-the-above

I was registering Pownce when I noticed this,

which is good. The service isn’t as good though. It gave me a 500 when I was trying to post a flickr link.

Windows XP Service Pack 3 available for download

Download link

Via: bink.nu

為何他會離開你

為何他會離開你　誰叫你自己不會飛
常纏在一起　會換來危機
他找你　不找你　你不智地對他生氣
問他等於問你　當我問候你

雙眼像鑿滿傷悲　誰又敢深愛你但未怪你
昨天那天真的你
若是還有骨氣　拿回纏他的心機
拿去愛惜你　怎可洩氣

原來擁吻　如不放　錯在你

例句：「見鬼勿Ｏ嘴，潛水怕屈機」

蘋果日報「隔牆有耳：做人別太 HKEAA」二零零八年四月二十七日

⋯⋯考試及評核局（HKEAA）忽然追上潮流，喺試題中玩潮語，點知錯漏百出𤓓到爆。

⋯⋯試題包括一個潮語解釋表，說明上述潮語含意，好似指「喪」有「極其」、「誇張」意思，不過卻將「屈機」誤解作「玩遊戲者因無法取勝而屈服」，唔少考生見到考評局知少少扮代表，當場喪笑。

⋯⋯好多人恥笑考評局，指該局自創例句：「見鬼勿Ｏ嘴，潛水怕屈機」最爆，以為有幾個潮語就係潮，其實冇人明。

後補：YouTube 影像。

A “stolen” display

I just moved my father’s rarely used 24" display to my room.

巴士發展計劃

剛剛從香港交通資訊網下載了 2008–2009 年度元朗區巴士路線發展計劃，我第一次閱讀同類文件。所謂的發展，實質是重組。不過「重組」太中性了，中性會比巿民作縮減班次、取消路線等負面聯想，所以要用一個正面的字眼，聯想到只會作中性聯想。無論如何，內容不少利益考慮。

我發現：

• N968 計劃改為 N368，由西隧改為行紅隧，原因十份明顯。不過節省的隧道費沒有回饋巿民，仍收 31 港元，總站遷往中環。深夜多從灣仔、銅鑼灣區回元朗，應該比以前快一點點，但就肯定沒有空座位。
• 264M 計劃改經元朗 13、14 區。新路線應該經十八鄉路吧，那些新興建的巴士站終於有人使用了。

計劃搬網址

我計劃搬網址，很有可能用 WordPress。我在頭痛網誌的設計，更頭痛的是網誌標題。

有一個想法用「和而不同」。我想，為網誌立一個標題，亂找些奇異的組合，甚麼「程式員之死」的就太求其了。美中不足的是，這個標題太理性，不適合我。

另一個是「樽裝咖啡」，好處是沒人用來作網誌的標題，而且副題可以是「但咖啡可注入這汽水樽　情感藏不了」，帥呆了。不過從歌詞找靈感，太 expected 了，而且會容易令人誤會這是人家的附屬網誌。

無論是那一個標題，意思是一樣的。

品牌概念

我覺得好靚。

我覺得無線有做過㗎，亞視就應該放棄咗。

踩場

透過小奧私陸，看到另一篇討論 Firefox 未來方向的文章。我深感作者未掌握實際情況而散播 FUD，所以我做出令人討厭的事：將人家的網誌當成自己的網誌，怒寫幾百字以表己見。

Chris Beard's article on blurring the border of the browser has nothing to do with Firefox becoming another Netscape Navigator. After all, he didn't say Mozilla is going to add Mail, Calendaring et cetra, to the Firefox that you use and love (not me, I use Safari). Firefox's philosophy has always have been cutting down functionality without making the browser unusable.

If you notice it, you'll see that Firefox's interface is built from XUL. This very same language can be used by websites like Google to build applications that look like, well, applications, not a website inside a browser. Consider Google making a Thunderbird-like e-mail client for its GMail service, hosted on Google's web servers, with the speed and responsive of Thunderbird, now you understand what I mean. Another good example is Songbird, which is essentially a different XUL coat over the same Firefox core.

When Chris said blurring the border, he means something like making Songbird to be more common. Not Netscape Navigator. In other words, these most likely will interest developers rather than end users. : )

End users might notice a behaviour change. For now people access GMail, they open up Safari (oops, I mean Firefox) and go to gmail.com. They do this because they think GMail is a website that they need Firefox to browse it. What Chris envisioned is that GMail (as an example only), if written as an XUL application, what people do is to open the GMail application, rather than opening Firefox. One less redirection there and people probably likes simpler ways of doing things. And of course, that GMail application is hosted on the web, and so Firefox is just the same little fox.

By then, probably you'll still need to open up Firefox to view regular websites. I dare say Firefox will not have tons of functionality added to it by then. So you don't need to worry so much.

The Weave is interesting because, if you think about it, Firefox works like an Operating System. Weave, like .Mac, enables user to bring their profile with them, so that they can be in the same environment, wherever they go.

然後我再回應：

照 Chris 所說的，Firefox 仍會是網站（或網站式服務）之間的橋樑，只是他希望用戶用這條橋樑之時，未必一定會留意到這條橋其實正是 Firefox。換句話說，我們沒有必要在這條橋上刻意掛上廣告，標示這條橋是 Firefox。反而使用者可以當這條橋是隱形的，因他們只求跨過這條橋。

或者你未有留意，其實這些 XAML/XUL 的技術已經放到現在的 IE/Firefox 瀏覽器之中，你可以試試這個例子。我想，Chris 希望做到的是將 Firefox 的邊框消失，另內容可自成一個好像是獨立的軟件。因此，你所擔心的事，其實已經發生了，只是表達手法的問題。

這有點像微軟將 IE 的技術整合到 Windows 之中，使有些軟件可以使用到 XAML （XUL 的對手技術）。當然，我想 Mozilla 的開發者會將這個整合比起微軟做得更穩定、更輕快。

對於使用者而言，其實他們要做的工作比起應用程式的本身來得重要。如果他們只想用 GMail 寄送電郵，但要他們開一個叫 Firefox 的軟件，指示它到特定的位置，再使用服務，其實是多一層的不便，只是大家習慣了而已。

即使到將來 Chris 所說的願景，仍然會有一個叫 Firefox 的瀏覽器，像現在的一樣，或可能加上一點必要的功能。這個瀏覽器仍會讓一般使用者使用來瀏覽網頁。但使用者不知到的是，他們慣常所用的電子郵件軟體，其實是用上了 Firefox 的核心技術，不竟，整合是要避免使用者看到那個分隔。

希望這些到可以消除你擔心的問題。簡單點說，就是你不會看到分別。

在商而言，微軟有 XAML 技術，Adobe 有 AIR 技術，都和 Firefox 的技術有相似的功能。Firefox 既然是開放源始碼，又是跨平台的軟體，加入這個巿場確有其優勢和必要。這可以提供一個免費、開放、跨平台的選擇給開發者，最終得益的也是使用者。

我想，我的朋友對此事認識更深，本人在此只為無聊。

My Nokia N80 is sick

A few days ago my Nokia N80 is beginning to get sick. The screen is blank when slid. The “Clear” key and two of the navigation buttons don't work when slid open. Nokia doesn't repair it without me paying $1700.

I don't know if I should buy a new phone now. Especially when the phone is just around the corner.

I miss my Nokia N80.

Mobile Internet

I was discussing with my college friends in the library yesterday about the deployment of free Wi-Fi hotspots in government venues. Basically they argued that the deployment of free Wi-Fi hotspots in more locations will diminishes the benefits of 3G networks, and hence making deployment of 3G networks irrelevant.

My stance was at the other end of the argument—3G networks is relevant and it is not a niche market. In a way, if two kinds of technology compete with each other, you can always say one diminishes the benefits of another. However, I would rather believe that the two wireless technologies are not competing with each other—arenʼt they supposed to complement each other?

At some point in the discussion they mentioned that the current pricing of mobile Internet access through the 3G networks is too high for use by the general public. A person having a 3G mobile phone equipped with Wi-Fi transceiver can always find a hotspot to access the Internet, so that they can avoid the high price of transmitting over the cell phone network. They also assumed that hotspots are widespread (or will become widespread soon enough) that people can always find one nearby. Together with the low price of using a Wi-Fi network and now the government actually provided the service for free, people donʼt need 3G networks.

They also suggested that the seemingly lack of popularity in accessing the Internet with a cell phone is an evidence that mobile Internet access isnʼt popular among the general public. Instead, more people bring their laptops to coffee shops and restaurant alike to surf through a Wi-Fi connection. Whatʼs the point, I reckon they believed, of having a ubiquitous Internet connection anyway? It isnʼt necessary

Having bought a 3G cell phone with a Wi-Fi almost two years ago, and switched back to a 2G network recently, it is difficult for me to argue otherwise. The reason for my switching was not of the pricing or of the speed—I considered the pricing acceptable I would say. For $38 a month ($10 less if on a contract) I could use 20MB of bandwidth daily. Never on one day did I exceed that bandwidth limit. I did not like it for three reasons: 1) They added a hideous red toolbar on top of every page, and there was no way to turn it off; 2) the pricing was not fair, namely it only covers browsing, not downloading, chatting et cetra; 3) most importantly, it is not enjoyable to surf the Internet with my Nokia N80. It is easy to understand—how would surfing the Internet with a numerical pad and four-way navigation buttons be enjoyable? Not to mention the phone does not have enough processing power to render many web pages, and N80 is a powerful smart phone by comparison.

Not if compared to the iPhone though. I donʼt want to repeat the whole argument of accessing the Internet with the iPhone. I just want to say that if it is not making mobile Internet usable, nothing is. I believe that the lack of popularity in using the mobile Internet isnʼt limited by what you can do while you are on the road or the pricing being extravagant—itʼs limited by the device.

And frankly it is unfair to compare the current 3G networks with the future Wi-Fi networks. Iʼm sure that pricing for both will go down. Iʼm sure both will be available in more locations. Iʼm sure that both will be faster. Not just one but another as well.

Before I go into the idea of the two wireless technologies complementing each other, lets consider for a moment that they are competing. If they are, the question would be whether people will find it worthwhile to pay more for a ubiquitous service that is actually slower. And if yes, how much more money? How much more available? How much slower?

Letʼs consider these with the technologies of today. Consider a person having a cell phone that makes the mobile Internet actually usable. For as low as $28 a month he gets 20MB of daily usage and $68 for unlimited (applies to browsing only, extra charges for other use). If you look at Wi-Fi, PCCWʼs unlimited plan is priced at $98 a month (available to Netvigator Broadband users only). Gov Wi-Fi is free, of course, but they are only available at government venues.

My friends suggested that in the future more hotspots will be deployed at less the fees. Firstly I doubt whether our government will deploy them in more locations, as doing that would result in criticisms of the government being interfering with the free market. Nor will PCCW makes it free for them being a commercial service provider. Municipal Wi-Fi or public contributed hotspots maybe the way out, but they wonʼt be in the near future, if at all coming.

So is ubiquitous worth it? Iʼll share a few personal experiences.

• One day I have to send an e-mail on the road and it is rather urgent. I was in a hurry as I was running late. I ended up sitting on the bench trying to access the Internet through one of those telephone booths. People looked at me as if they havenʼt seen people using a laptop on a bench in a train station (me neither). (Speaking of which, the signal from telephone booths isnʼt strong enough. Usually I canʼt receive the signal just across the four-lane roads.)
• Another time I was on the streets looking for the bus route and bus stop for some destination. I didnʼt bother heading to a nearby Starbucks, not to mention taking out a laptop and looking for a telephone booth.
• I was on the streets with nothing to do one day and I was thinking maybe I could go to watch a movie or something. If only I could check out what a theatre is showing I donʼt need to go there and found out I was not interested in any of them.

I donʼt use the Internet 24/7, but I use it when I need it. And I couldnʼt foresee when I am going to need it. Iʼm going to use it briefly for the moment that I need it. And I need it right then. If this means Iʼm what can only be described as in the niche market, then just be it. This also made the meaning of a niche market, well, meaningless.

Or one might say that it is a niche market because people donʼt need to access the Internet when they need it. In other words: not necessary. This is difficult to argue whether something is necessary for the general public. But I reckon one might argue that it is not necessary to access the Internet after all. Or one might argue that it is not necessary to take the bus when I could walk. I could write another article of this length just devoted to this particular topic. So I am not going to discuss much about this.

And for the two wireless technologies being complement of each other, one way to look at it is that the mobile phone networks are for mobile phones and the Wi-Fi networks are for laptops. (Surprise!) Laptops are bulky and you donʼt want to bring it out everyday. If you use a mobile phone, the 3G networks is adequate for most. Of course the line becomes blur now when laptops become smaller and can be used with 3.5G networks, while mobile phones are equipped with Wi-Fi transceiver. However, this wonʼt make either of these technologies irrelevant, they are good at what they are good at.

Things might change tomorrow. Wireless services are getting faster, more available and cheaper. But as for today, the both are not being kicked out anytime soon.

I think what I dislike about is that people think our government is advancing telecommunications by deploying hotspots. In my eyes, they are at best better than nothing. After all, you should remember that the government did not have any plans rolling out hotspots back then when the ITU conference is held in Hong Kong and attenders complained about the state of wireless Internet access in the city. By that time, municipals Wi-Fi was already being deployed at other cities, Singapore being one example. Our governmentʼs action is slow and I doubt whether they would advance any further when the public has forgotten the reasons they are deploying hotspots at the first place.

Battery-tale

I recently noticed that battery didn't have enough capacity to power the computer for 2 hours after fully charged. When I bought this laptop last June, the computer can be used for 4 hours without recharging. coconutBattery indicated that the battery capacity is now half of the original capacity. So I reckon I should request to have the battery replaced.

Justin had a problem having his battery replaced. He can't get his battery replaced without travelling to the other side of the globe and he argued that the world is not flat. Apple has a pretty good customer service track record in the states. Apparently, this really applies in the states only.

My strategy was to call Apple's technical support. To do that I have to purchase the AppleCare Protection Plan to extend the complimentary telephone support to 3 years. That costs about $2000, which is a pain in the ass. But I have to buy it anyway, so this is a good opportunity to do so.

The staff at the call centre were not helpful (damn!). What they did was to ask me a bunch of questions about battery conditions and my usage pattern, and tell me that "No, you can have the battery replaced." She suggested me to visit the authorised service centre (yes, there is only one) instead.

I took the battery and the computer to the service centre in Times Square. It was a small office. I'm surprised that so many Hong Kongers have bought so many iPods and Macs, what we deserve is a small office for customer service. It is a contractor's office, though. The staff offered to let me leave the battery for four days and it will be sent to Singapore for examination. This is the best I can get. Frankly, as long as they don't tell me to leave my computer with them, I am okay.

Finally, today I visited the service centre again and was glad to hear that they have the battery replaced. I walked out of the office with the brand new battery and as I am typing this, the battery was charged to the full.

They should have just sent me a replacement in the mail and I'll sent back the faulty one. This is such a prevalent practise in the states and Apple do that (in the states). Four days is still too much. I remembered once I took my ThinkPad to a service centre in Quarry Bay and they have the motherboard replaced in four hours. I doubt if Apple's service centre in Hong Kong do anything other than sending faulty units to Singapore.

I won't go so far as to declare that world is not flat.