Nokia N8

I am not one to worry too much about trends. I tend to define my own trends. I don't buy into the masses just because the masses say to do so. That being said, the iPhone hype is one thing I choose to not take a part of. I don't necessarily dislike Apple, neither am I a hater of Apple, because I'd much rather use their computer hardware than any other manufacturer. However, I don't necessarily buy into their mobile devices, mainly the iPhone. Just not what appeals to me.
I have been following Nokia handsets for a long time. I love their handsets, I love Symbian (call me an idiot, or crazy) but it is a very intuitive mobile operating system. The "aesthetics" aren't pretty like iOS 4 and some Android phones, but it runs like I feel it should.

The Nokia N8, due to release in October, is the most excited I have been over a phone since the last Nokia N-Series device, the N900. The N8's spec sheet is massive. Just to list a few, the N8 includes:

• 12 MP Carl-Zeiss camera with 720p video recording and Xenon flash
  
• 3.5" Capacitive OLED touch-screen
• HDMI out with Dolby Digital Plus audio
• Pentaband UMTS radio (in other words, practically worldwide 3G data)
• ARM 11 680MHz along with dedicated 3D graphics accelerator
• Bluetooth 3.0
• 802.11 b/g/n WiFi
• Symbian^3 operating system

Nokia manages to stuff a huge camera sensor (1/1.83″ for those who know) this impressive mobile, along with 720p video capture. Anodized aluminum body gives it a high-quality feel that is resistive to scratches, and a now-standard front-facing camera for video calling.

One aspect I have found to be utterly amazing is the support for a Bluetooth keyboard ... and mouse. I found this on YouTube, and I must say, that add an entirely new aspect for this device. Also, according to the user manual, standard video out is supported with the 3.5mm jack, if an HDMI input is not within grasp. Couple that with the fact that the entire user interface gets exported to the external display, it is hard to imagine this device not being a workhorse for business travelers, whether it be viewing presentations, checking emails on a hotel television, or enjoying a movie in HD. With remote desktop capabilities, this can also be a mobile office access point, complete with the Bluetooth keyboard and mouse.
Now, all this hype, I do have concerns, as a loyal S60 user for the past few years. The GUI is not a work of art, but I love it's functionality. Although my Nokia E71 is now over two years old, it performs very well, even with newer apps geared toward higher-specification mobiles. RAM management works fairly well with the E71, and since the platform is essentially the same for the N8, along with improved RAM and hopefully more efficient management, it should be a great device to multi-task with, even with a small battery by standards set forth by Apple, HTC, and Motorola.
I would love to see a US carrier pick up the N8, however. I feel the pre-order price of $549 is great, but with taxes, it would climb to over $600, and a carrier could lower that for more people to attain. I still think at $600 for a completely unlocked world phone, it is a great deal.
App availability is another cause for concern, although my tastes do not lie a lot with the apps Android and Apple have out. A few games already run on the Qt framework that are popular (Angry Birds, Doodle Jump) and there are utilities like JoikuSpot, PuTTY, and Shazaam are nice to have, and should be available for the N8 out of the box, along with Opera's Mobile 10 browser, which is much nicer than the current browser Nokia has for S^3 (MeeGo's browser will be the winner for mobiles).

I may get a lot more attention with the new N8, if I do indeed purchase it, since it is not an iPhone 4, or any of the 5.000 Android devices out right now, but I bet that there won't be much hype for the non-technically enhanced population, since you won't be seeing N8 commercials during Jersey Shore or Glee, but I don't let that affect my feelings towards a phone I know I want to buy with out adverts harassing me.

The N8 is poised to win - and hopefully in about a month, I will be able to review it in great detail, and hopefully win some followers in the process.

My Beef: ESPN

Just read this interesting article concerning ESPN's "The Decision", which was a pure travesty concerning sports. I've been disgusted with the LeBron way ever since he said (and I paraphrase), "If I wanted, I could score every point." Now, he is under some of the heaviest scrutiny of his young career over his behind-the-back way of signing with the Miami Heat.

Can I blame the guy? Hardly, since we, as a society, have gone down the road of 24 hour coverage of everything from the Gulf Oil Spill to Lindsey Lohan's prison trip. I can say that mass media is not about newspapers and magazines anymore - they go out of date too fast in today's world. The world wide web has taken media to new heights, which is a shame for some mainstays in the printing press world - local Sunday papers hardly get late sports scores in, much less the latest word from Paris Hilton, Paris France, or the French Open.

That being said, I have to express my shame in ESPN these past several years. It's getting to the point, just like with the news outlets like CNN, Fox News, and CNBC, no one ever reports the news, there is always needless speculation, argument, and commentary from people who are deemed "qualified journalists". I feel like for every two stories ESPN "breaks", they bring in two "insiders", as if they really know anymore than the writer at the Associated Press who actually wrote the story that is regurgitated by ESPN. Don't get me wrong, I love to hear opinion and take part in commentary as much as any avid sports fan in the world, but when I turn on my television to the "Worldwide Leader in Sports", give me my sporting news, unabridged, the highlights to all the games, and move on. Often they spend an entire segment on one of the following topics:

1) Brett Favre
2) LeBron James
3) Boston/New York/Los Angeles sports
4) The NFL

The fact they begin their NFL Mock Draft special DURING the NCAA Tournament is ridiculous - the fact they don't air the tournament is no reason not to cover it 90% of the time. I love the NFL, but I want my basketball front and centre when its March/April.

Then comes LeBron James. When I found out that he asked ESPN for a full hour to make his decision was absurd, and I am not the only one. The commissioner of the NBA, David Stern, even said "this decision was ill-conceived, badly produced and poorly executed." He has become the black sheep of the NBA for the antics he has displayed - Kobe looks like a saint now, and he is the one building a legacy for himself with five championships now, and it looks as if LeBron is just building a posse for himself.

But, my real beef is still with ESPN. The fact that their own "in-house referee on journalistic matters" called the programme a "failure". I have no doubt it drew ratings ESPN benefited from, but their image as a legitimate news outlet has been tossed out of the window. The whole idea from the LeBron regime was to gain more publicity, get his name out there even more than before, but I fear their decision backfired, because of the newly found hate for James. ESPN could have said, "we are not putting together the staff and production for a television programme, but we will allow you to hold a press conference that we have exclusivity to" or something along those lines. The fact ESPN took this as an opportunity for themselves without foreseeing the effects it would have against both parties involved was selfish, short-sighted, and ill-advised. LeBron may claim himself to be a king, but to allow him to dictate a multi-billion dollar network is rubbish.

I still tune to ESPN nearly every morning, because I want to see scores, highlights, and breaking news before I leave for my job - but writers are always trying to be front and centre with their content, regardless of their bias, which is my main beef with the four-letter.

Tourney Simulator

I created a tourney simulator a year ago that took a basic formula to determine the winner of each game.

The seeding for the individual team will determine how many randomly-generated "draws" it needs to have before they win. For instance, Team 1 is seeded 1, and Team 2 is seeded 16, therefore a randomly generated draw of either 0 for team 1 and 1 for team 2 would indicate a "win". Team 1 would need one win. Team 2 would need 16 to win the matchup. I did this simulation for all first-round matchups (8 games, 16 teams) 100, 1000, and 10,000 times:

1 v. 16

Team 1 -> 100 100.0%

Total Records: 100

2 v. 15

Team 1 -> 100 100.0%

Total Records: 100

3 v. 14

Team 1 -> 100 100.0%

Total Records: 100

4 v. 13

Team 1 -> 99 99.0%

Team 2 -> 1 1.0%

Total Records: 100

5 v. 12

Team 1 -> 93 93.0%

Team 2 -> 7 7.0%

Total Records: 100

6 v. 11

Team 1 -> 93 93.0%

Team 2 -> 7 7.0%

Total Records: 100

7 v. 10

Team 1 -> 73 73.0%

Team 2 -> 27 27.0%

Total Records: 100

8 v. 9

Team 1 -> 61 61.0%

Team 2 -> 39 39.0%

Total Records: 100

1 v. 16

Team 1 -> 1000 100.0%

Total Records: 1000

2 v. 15

Team 1 -> 999 99.9%

Team 2 -> 1 0.1%

Total Records: 1000

3 v. 14

Team 1 -> 995 99.5%

Team 2 -> 5 0.5%

Total Records: 1000

4 v. 13

Team 1 -> 991 99.1%

Team 2 -> 9 0.9%

Total Records: 1000

5 v. 12

Team 1 -> 961 96.1%

Team 2 -> 39 3.9%

Total Records: 1000

6 v. 11

Team 1 -> 896 89.6%

Team 2 -> 104 10.4%

Total Records: 1000

7 v. 10

Team 1 -> 773 77.3%

Team 2 -> 227 22.7%

Total Records: 1000

8 v. 9

Team 1 -> 578 57.8%

Team 2 -> 422 42.2%

Total Records: 1000

1 v. 16

Team 1 -> 10000 100.0%

Total Records: 10000

2 v. 15

Team 1 -> 9997 100.0%

Team 2 -> 3 0.0%

Total Records: 10000

3 v. 14

Team 1 -> 9974 99.7%

Team 2 -> 26 0.3%

Total Records: 10000

4 v. 13

Team 1 -> 9902 99.0%

Team 2 -> 98 1.0%

Total Records: 10000

5 v. 12

Team 1 -> 9600 96.0%

Team 2 -> 400 4.0%

Total Records: 10000

6 v. 11

Team 1 -> 8907 89.1%

Team 2 -> 1093 10.9%

Total Records: 10000

7 v. 10

Team 1 -> 7773 77.7%

Team 2 -> 2227 22.3%

Total Records: 10000

8 v. 9

Team 1 -> 6030 60.3%

Team 2 -> 3970 39.7%

Total Records: 10000

As you can see, not many underdogs winning. So I decided to come up with a historical formula based on these "facts" (via wikipedia):

The #1 seed has beaten the #16 seed all 100 times (100%).

The #2 seed has beaten the #15 seed 96 times (96%).

The #3 seed has beaten the #14 seed 85 times (85%).

The #4 seed has beaten the #13 seed 79 times (79%).

The #5 seed has beaten the #12 seed 66 times (66%).

The #6 seed has beaten the #11 seed 69 times (69%).

The #7 seed has beaten the #10 seed 61 times (61%).

The #8 seed has beaten the #9 seed 46 times (46%).

So, the #16 seed would have to overcome history and win 100% of the "draws". From there, the chances get a lot better for the underdog.

This didn't fare out as well as I thought. Only the 7-10 and 8-9 matchups had the underdogs winning at least one game, and the 9 seed was the only underdog to win the matchup. Maybe once the brackets are released, I can pull things like PPG, PA, and different splits to make it team-dependent.

iPad Madness

Apple Inc. announced their newest mobile device, the iPad on Wednesday in the midst of hype and hysteria that this would be Apple's best device to date.

One problem. This device should have came first in the line of the iPhone devices. The latest iPhone and the iPad share the same OS, with the iPad getting a few updgrades to it's iTunes, and an iBook, Apple's version of the Kindle store. The iPad does everything the iPhone does, just with a bit more exaggeration, such as running Apps developed for the iPhone in full screen, thanks to "double pixel", which sounds like an aspect-ratio preserving stretch. They haven't improved one single point from the iPhone's lacking, yet downgraded most of the iPhone's key features such as:

• Making a phone call
• Taking a picture

The iPhone's early marketing appeal was to only require people to carry one device for everything - phone calls, emails, media player, PDA, etc. With the iPad, you still have to have an iPhone, which was suppose to eliminate the need to carry another device. Granted, most civilized people do not carry a netbook around with them as often as a phone, but Mr. Jobs, I am sure, had the intention for this device to be more prevalent than netbooks and e-readers.

Here is my beef with the idea. I understand the need to "simplify" the device to make it more acceptable for the masses to consume, not just people like myself or Mr. Jobs - geeks. However, somewhere down the line of Apple's philosophy of mobile devices, it included siphoning the money of the non-geeks. iPhone's require two-year agreements, $30/month data plans, and now the iPad comes along, gives out options, but you know that there will be more demand for a WiFi/3G model than the 3G-less model. At $529 - $829 for the totally wireless version, plus a $30 a month data usage charge (would anyone really buy the $15/month package with 250MB of usage?), you are looking at spending $1000 - $1500 over the next two years (according to Engadget calculation) for the iPad and anywhere between $1800 and $3200 for the iPhone.

Again, what was the iPad missing again?

Oh yes, phone functionality. And a camera. Not to mention the shortfalls the iPhone had in the first place:

• No Flash support (HTML5 to the rescue?)
• No true multi-tasking (shame since AT&T lets you "talk and surf the web at the same time")

And what I find lacking in this "magical" device:

• No peripheral ports - everything is "adapter"-ed, ranging from your trusty USB adapter, to the SD reader.
• No HD video out
• Not a true e-book reader - reflective touchscreen, back-lit LCD screen, you will be staying inside to read a book or newspaper.
• Added 3G support is $120 - like I said, siphoning the masses.

Point is, iPhone users are again left with blank stares. What good would this do a current iPhone user, whose population is "expanding, faster than the universe". iPad, with ALL the iPhones capabilities to date would have not been a good enough product, in my opinion, to lure me into wanting one.

Revolutionary? Magical?

No.

NFL's Final Four

With another weekend of blowouts, this year's playoffs have been extremely one-sided. Take away the Chargers-Jets and Cardinals-Packers games, and its a pathetic post-season. However, I am not one to complain about football, especially playoff football. In fact, the ones who do the lashing of "this is terrible football" and "where are the dominate teams like the Steelers of the 70s, the Bears of the 80s and Niners of the 80s and 90s" are radiating bad vibes to what the game has become. Most times, the offense prevails heavily, as in the Saints over the Cardinals in the Divisional Round, or lack thereof as with the Cowboys and Ravens (who amassed an amazing two field goals between them), which speaks praises to what most consider the key to championships - defense.

The Vikings defense is only so deep, and they are not the Monsters of the Midway style defense. The meat of the team is in the trenches. Outside of the linemen, there are a few good players, but no Mike Singletary or Dan Duerson on this team, although you can argue Jared Allen is as close to any defensive player from the Bears Super Bowl team.

The Colts, not a defensive powerhouse, but did very well in stalling a vastly improved Baltimore offense this season, and forced Flacco to throw more than Cam Cameron hoped for. The lack of a disciplined defense killed the Ravens chances, and the offense was forced into 4 turnovers. The Colts do not have the defense to carry them if the offense is stymied by the Gang Green in the AFC Championship Game. Peyton Manning has to make plays on behalf of the defense, who could get ripped up by the Jets ground game.

As for the Saints, don't expect what was seen against Arizona. This will be a game very similar to that of the Saints game against the Jets early in the season. Well, maybe a few more touchdowns between the two teams, especially since its Brett Favre and not Sanchez, but this will not be shoot-out by any means. I don't know how well the Saints defense can hold up against a very talented group of skill players in Peterson, Rice, and Harvin. Brett Favre has been here plenty of times, and this New Orleans team ... not so much.

NY Jets (+7.5) @ Colts, and I'll take the over at 40

Vikings (+4) @ Saints, and I'll take the under at 52.5

avi2dvd - Shell Script

I created a shell script that allows one to convert AVI files to DVD files and the option to burn them. It is definitely not where I want it right now, but I figured I would publish to the world as version 1.0 and see how much I can grow it. Here is my aspirations for future releases:

1. Allow support for custom directory paths for the DVD files to be stored (currently puts a DVD folder with files in the present working directory the script was ran from).
2. Allow for a plain text file input with the list of file names. Right now, they all have to be put in manually.
3. Allow for some minor authoring of the DVD, such as adding a menu, custom chapters, and more, which will depend on my knowledge of dvdauthor in the near future.
4. Allow option to create an ISO image of the DVD. Again, something I will have to learn.

There are a few bugs I haven't worked out yet, mainly because this program was needed for a friend of mine who needed strict DVD video discs of a bunch of AVI files I had.

• File name cannot contain spaces. This has something to do with my parser I could easily tweak, but just haven't had time. It is a hassle, though, and once I get done with the conversion and burning of 26 avi files, I will begin work on version 2
• The path which the DVD files are placed are merged by every succeeding run of the program, so that is just a feature I will have to add to allow custom paths, and/or auto-generated paths so separate runs are treated as separate project outputs.

If you have any feedback, feel free to email me at kenosando@gmail.com. Also, I encourage any tips and hints regarding my script. Thanks!

Link to the script

UPDATE: I did add a minor tweak - date logging into avi2dvd.log just to show how long the entire process takes

UPDATE2: I added support for custom DVD output path. Still working on handling spaces in file names.

Nokia N900

I was initially excited about the Nokia N97, simply because it combined a touchscreen interface with a physical keyboard, and the fact it was Nokia. However, Nokia's S60 over Symbian OS is not up to speed with today's hardware, and the reviews I read complained about the stoneage GUI and overall environment with the N97.

Enter the N900. Historically, the N7xx and N8xx series have been strictly Internet tablets, WiFi capable only, and based on Maemo, a Linux-based mobile OS. The N900 has changed completely from its last sibling, the N810. It adds GSM and HSPA functionality, the latest version of Maemo (Maemo 5), and Xvid-quality video capturing, geo tagging of photos, which is powered by a Carl Zeiss lens and dual LED flash, and applets that enable you to share all of this via social networks, such as Facebook, flickr, and Twitter.

The announcement came a few weeks ago that the phone will be arriving in US retail stores around the 27 of September. I am hoping that an announcement comes before it is released for sale that the unit is capable of 850/1900 MHz 3G (it only runs 900/1700/2100 right now, which is only supported by T-Mobile in the US ... blah!). That alone is the only deal breaker for me at this point. The price is very reasonable for a powerful Internet tablet that just happens to be capable of making a phone call. The processor speed, memory, and built-in storage are all equal to or slightly greater than that of the iPhone 3G S, and with the capability to expand the memory via microSD, the flexibility of the Linux-based OS, and the fact that this device comes from the world's leader in the cell phone industry, the apparent $600 price tag is worth it.