mongooseblog

One eye-opening presentation from last week’s Mission: Possible retreat (in which the futures of two extensions to IMSA were discussed) highlighted the discrepancy in the approach to education taken in the U.S. versus that taken in other countries. Max started off by asking us to consider the following sample science question from the ACT (click for the full-size image):

The correct answer is (D). Sadly enough, this question does not require real knowledge of science, only enough to be able to interpolate from data in a table.

He then showed us a question from the national exam in Singapore:

I don’t even know that the concepts needed to answer this question are even taught to most U.S. high school kids. And maybe that’s the point. (For what it’s worth, I predict I would very well poop in my pants if I were presented with this question on an exam. Speaking of–it’s time to go back to panicking about the MCAT.)

“Lost in Translation” is a beautifully simple story of two people searching for that certain something that’s missing from their lives. Scarlett Johansson and Bill Murray play Charlotte, a twentysomething recently-married philosophy graduate trying to find her calling, and Bob, an actor past his prime reduced to advertisements in Japan for Suntoury whiskey. Through the course of the movie, the two of them find that they have much to learn from one another. Both serve as mirrors for one another in that they see what was and what will be, but the paths of discovery that Charlotte and Bob embark upon would not be possible were it not for the present circumstances that bring them together and the amplification of their despondency by the surroundings of Tokyo and Japanese culture. Their relationship grows as close as is possible without breaching their own vows of fidelity to their spouses; were the age gap between them smaller and their external responsibilities fewer, no doubt would they be well-matched together.

The reward of the movie (and my favorite part) comes at the end where, after a week, they must go their own separate ways. The intensity of emotions as Bob and Charlotte both understand what they have found–that they have been found–and what they must inevitably give up is palpable as they say good-bye to each other, first in the hotel lobby and then finally in the middle of a busy street. Murray’s Bob and Johansson’s Charlotte feel incredibly perfect together, no doubt intensified by the exaggerated foreign land/foreign culture setting, but you’re not conscious of any sort of artificiality in Sofia Coppola’s writing or direction. And yet, they’re incredibly different, not meant to be together, an idea captured on screen as they hug good-bye and we see Scarlett raised on tiptoes to meet Bill, almost lifted off the ground by his embrace.

Both Scarlett Johansson and Bill Murray give wonderful performances in “Lost in Translation.” Charlotte is vaguely reminiscent of Johansson’s Rebecca in “Ghost World“, but her disaffectedness is more personal and more imminent here; her search for purpose is more easily related to here being a lost young adult than being an angst-ridden teenager. Bill Murray shows versatility in playing a character much more subdued than was found in his past comedic work; his performance comes off as feeling completely natural. Traces of his comic nature can still be found and they are put to good use, further illustrating his disconnection with his surroundings without distracting from the story or becoming a sideshow in itself.

“Lost in Translation” is a very touching story, and one that I’m sure all of us can relate to. The theme is common and yet will mean different things to different people. Watch it, and read it for what you will: translation, like interpretation, is subjective and personal. You will hear what you need to hear and take home the story (and the meaning) that makes sense to you.

Slashdot has an article about the first (or one of the first) Linux-powered handheld software radio. Most of those commenting are right on target, highlighting the world of opportunities software-defined radios open up. By interfacing a computer to a generic RF transceiver, one can pretty much do anything they can think of doing. Some, though, don’t really understand what’s going on, imagining instead computers that are turned into glorified FM radios that are already cheaply available. A bit of education is necessary at this point.

Traditionally, wireless is done mainly through hardware, from the simple Heathkits of yore, to homebrew radios and commercially-available radios that cost hundreds of dollars and use internally-developed ASICs (application-specific integrated circuits) for processing. Building such transceivers (I use the term ‘transceivers’ to further clarify that this is NOT something like writing a program to function as a mere broadcast-FM receiver) from scratch can become an expensive task and requires a lot of knowledge of practical electrical engineering.

In contrast, there are tons of software programmers out there, and all the knowledge they need is an understanding of the protocols that encode useful information on an electromagnetic wave. Proven digital-to-analog converters (DACs) are freely available, as well as the hardware to transmit and receive an RF signal. Coming up with applications to take advantage of them is as “easy” as writing a program to do the encoding.

Most radios are built to handle only certain types of communication, such as FM/AM broadcast, FM two-way communications, or digital CDMA/GSM communications such as what can be found on your typical mobile phone. Technology is progressing rapidly–analog wireless communications has been replaced by digital protocols, and of the digital protocols, the prevalent mode is determined (at least in the United States) by market forces. Changing carriers from, say, Verizon to AT&T (which is a switch between communication protocols) requires you buy a completely new phone, which only through the grace of subsidies doesn’t hit your wallet as much as it potentially could. Any switch or upgrade requires new equipment, which means more cash down the drain.

Imagine, then, if switching were as easy as downloading a firmware update. That is one facet of the promise that software-defined radios offer. The whole package becomes modular, and what’s more, each module is accessible to the consumer. Replacing an obsolete module doesn’t require purchasing a completely new package.

For those of us who like to tinker, this allows us to do much, much more than we could before. We now become limited only by the transceiver hardware. Any mode of communication is theoretically possible. All we need is a computer. Debugging projects become a whole new ballgame–it now becomes a matter of tracking down coding errors instead of isolating faults in circuits (did I solder that component correctly? did I accidentally shock that chip? did I read the schematic correctly?) and you don’t need an oscilloscope or network analyzer to debug your project (though they are certainly useful).

Already, people are exploring the potential of software-defined radio. For amateur radio enthusiasts, there is the Flex Radio and a 2-meter transceiver kit. The GNU Radio Project is putting together an HDTV receiver for your computer.

Hey, the sky’s the limit. Just bring your coding skills and a book on communication theory (appropriate transceiver hardware extra), and you can make anything from a simple FM receiver to even a Wi-Fi device.

I can definitely say that working here has given me the opportunity to see certain things through other people’s eyes. Cooper, to an extent, has offered me similar chances, but not like here. Recent discussions, both with my peers in the department and ongoing discussions at my old high school, have made me look at my current situation with a different point of view.
(Continued)