2.7 Trillion Digits of Pi -- With a Desktop Computer!

French computer programmer Fabrice Bellard has announced a new record for approximating the value of pi to 2.7 trillion digits. This is not that surprising. Approximating pi is a common and somewhat competitive challenge. Last August, for instance, in Japan, Daisuke Takahashi calculated the value of pi to 2.577 trillion digits. What caught my eye, however, was that Bellard computed and checked his result on a desktop computer costing less than 2000 euro. It took him 103 days to compute and another 28 days to check all of these digits. By contrast, former record holder Takahashi needed only 29 hours. He used very powerful computers, though. To this Blind Bambi, Bellard's achievement of this new world record, using only a common desktop computer, is quite amazing.

Olympic Cash Clash

Tonight, I was looking at tomorrow's Parade magazine (it comes with the advertisements for my local Sunday paper that are delivered on Saturday). I read an article by Jamie McEwan on the disputes between the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the United States Olympic Committee (USOC). U.S. television deals for Olympic coverage are big money (NBC paid $820 million for this year's rights) and the USOC owns the Olympic brand in the U.S. Apparently, the USOC, though, allows the IOC to broker U.S. broadcasting rights in exchange for a 12.75% share of the revenue. The USOC also gets 20% of the IOC's worldwide sponsorship income. The IOC is also upset about USOC efforts towards a deal for an Olympic cable-TV network. Most of the 205 Olympic nations provide government funding for their Olympic committees, but the U.S. does not. It sounds like the IOC feels like the USOC should find their funding elsewhere and not leverage the sponsorship deals that the IOC believes belong to them. For the USOC (and hence American athletes in the lower profile sports) to be funded differently, however, would be a major cultural change for American amateur sports. It sounds to me, that the leverage the IOC has, however, is their ability to keep U.S. cities from hosting the Olympics.

Racist Cameras

Today, on Time.com, an article by Adam Rose reports that the face recognition technology implemented in some new cameras to improve both the convenience and results of the photographers that use them may be optimized for Caucasian faces. For example, the camera seemed to be malfunctioning for many users with Asian ethnic backgrounds. Before I read this article, I would have thought that a photographer could be racist but not his camera. As our gadgets get smarter, however, if we are not careful, they can implement both good and bad characteristics of an almost human nature (even if unintentionally).

Migration to Myopia

In the 1 January 2010 edition of "Science" magazine, I read that scientists at the National Eye Institute in Bethesda, Maryland, have concluded that Americans are getting ever more nearsighted. Apparently, in the early 1970s, only about 25% of the U.S. population could be classified as myopic. In the early 2000s, however, that number climbed to nearly 42%. Donald Mutti, a vision scientist from the Ohio State University in Columbus, believes that a lack of outdoor exposure, is most likely the problem. Research has not yet figured out, though, what about being outdoors (e.g., increased light levels, more use of the eyes in viewing distant objects, etc.) seems to protect our close vision. Experts (and non-experts) have always suspected that a lot of "near work" can lead to myopic tendencies, but recent studies have failed to support any such association. Therefore, I guess we can continue to work on our computers, text on our cell phones, and do any other type of "near work" but it would be best for our eyes to do so in an outdoor venue. For me, it's way too late. I have been nearsighted for most of my life, and I continue to get worse over time. I guess that's appropriate for a Blind Bambi.

White House Worth Wilts

So, apparently even the White House is not immune from the slump in the housing market. According to a U.S. News and World Report article, which references a report by real estate website zillow.com , our Presidential mansion is worth $23 million less than it was just a year ago. Even so, its value, estimated at $308,058,000, makes it the most expensive residence in the United States. Its 55,000 square feet of indoor space, 132 total rooms, 35 bathrooms, 16 bedrooms, three kitchens and 18 acres of premium downtown Washington, DC land would fetch a good price on their own merits, but Zillow applied a maximum historical premium on top of that in calculating their appraised value. Just for some fun numbers, if the property was sold at this price, a prospective buyer would need to have $62 million saved up for a 20% down payment and make $53.3 million in gross income a year to qualify for and afford a standard 30-year fixed-rate mortgage payment of between $1.25 million (at 4.5% interest) and $1.48 million (at 6% interest). Even this Blind Bambi understands that the White House would and should never be offered for sale, but it is interesting to ponder who might afford such a property. Those at the top of Forbes list are obvious candidates. Would it be beyond the reach of a bailed out bank or Wall Street executive and his or her bonus?

Slashing Prices on Space Shuttles

On USAToday.com, I saw a short article entitled Recession Special: NASA Cuts Space Shuttle Price, by Marcia Dunn. Apparently, NASA is trying to unload the 1970's era Space Shuttles that they no longer need. Dunn reports that Discovery is already promised to the Smithsonian Institution, but Atlantis and Endeavour are up for grabs. In this tough economy, the price tag has supposedly dropped from $42 million to $28.8 million apiece. It sounds like there may be quite a bit of interest, especially because of the lowered prices. Now, I don't have the room nor the money to consider such a purchase. Even if I did, however, although it would be very cool, that seems like a lot of money unless you really need a retired spaceship. I'm just a Blind Bambi, though. What do I know? I think I'll just go see the one at the Smithsonian.

Is Football Action Packed? Maybe Not So Much.

In today's Wall Street Journal, David Biderman provided a very insightful time analysis of NFL football coverage. It turns out that in the typical game, the average amount of time the ball is in play on the field during an NFL game is only about 10 minutes and 43 seconds. In a typical broadcast, this leaves 174 minutes of "other" coverage. As many as 75 minutes, or about 60% of the total air time, excluding commercials, is spent on shots of players huddling, standing at the line of scrimmage or just generally milling about between snaps. Surprisingly, network announcers showed up on screen for just 30 seconds, while shots of the head coaches and referees took up about 7% of the average telecast. Among the sampled games, ESPN showed the most replays, Fox was the leader in showing players on the sidelines, and CBS devoted the most time to cheerleaders (a mere 7 seconds). Next time, I think I'm going to hurry a little less when fixing a sandwich, getting a drink, or taking a bathroom break.

Where's Your Spam Coming From?

For Americans, here's a trend we can be proud of. Apparently, in 2009, the 6.6 trillion spam messages originating from the United States was down 20.3% from the previous year. In fact, eSecurityPlanet.com author Sean Michael Kerner, citing statistics compiled by Cisco, reports that Brazil's spam output, up 193%, rose enough for it to claim the 2009 distinction as "top spamming" nation. In the big picture, I'm not sure that this result means anything terribly significant. Regardless of where you are in the world, it is likely that your future includes more undesirable spam than you want. On the world-wide web, geographical source probably changes little about the nature of and exposure to spam. This Blind Bambi just finds factoids like this interesting and wanted to share.

Smarter Search Engines?

Scientists at Cornell University have been given stimulus funding to create search engine software that can learn from users by noticing which links, from the list of returned results, that they click on and how they modify their query when they are not satisfied with the outcome of the original search. This is kind of cool, but, if they are successful, what is the next step in smarter search engines? I'm thinking maybe a brain wave detector to figure out what I want to search for and then both automatically format and submit the query on my behalf. For a Blind Bambi like me, though, this complexity probably isn't necessary. A simple random query generation tool may be all that's needed to capture my crazy search interests.

The Physics of Liquid Droplets

According to Physics textbooks (and practical experience), if I want to slide a box across the floor, I will have to apply more force in order to get a heavier box to move than that required to slide a lighter box across the same floor. A team of scientists at Lamar University in Beaumont, Texas, however, published a report, in the 25 December 2009 issue of Physical Review Letters, on a seemingly similar situation, where this same concept does not apply. They measured the force required to push a millimeter-sized droplet across a solid surface and found that a droplet hanging upside-down from the surface needed more force to get moving than a droplet resting its weight on top of the surface. One theory for this is that the differences in molecular orientation between "hanging" and "resting" droplets may change chemical interactions between the solid surface and the liquid. All I know is that this Blind Bambi is glad that there are people much smarter than I to figure things like this out.

American Information Consumption

Last month, researchers at the University of California, San Diego published a report entitled "How Much Information? 2009 Report on American Consumers. As one would expect, this report indicates that, in 2008, U.S. residents consumed an incredible quantity of information from radio, television, computer, newspaper, mobile telephone, and other sources. It was interesting to me that they presented these same information consumption results using three different measures with significantly different effect (at least from my perspective). In hours, Americans consumed information for about 1.3 trillion (1,300,000,000,000) hours, an average of almost 12 hours per day for each of us. The detailed breakout was 4.91 hours of TV, 2.22 hours of radio, 1.93 hours of computer, 0.93 hours of computer games, 0.73 hours of phone, 0.60 hours of print media, 0.45 hours of recorded music, and 0.03 hours of movies. In words, Americans consumed 10,845 trillion, which works out to about 100,000 words per American per day. The breakout here was 44.85% of words were consumed from television, 26.97% from computer, 10.6% from radio, 8.61% from print media, 5.24% from the telephone, 2.44% from computer games, 1.11% from recorded music, and .20% from movies. Computer games, recorded music, and radio, therefore, appear to be lower word per minute information sources. Finally, in data bytes, we consumed 3.6 zettabytes (3,600,000,000,000,000,000,000 bytes) or about 34 gigabytes per person each day. Using this measure, graphical information dominated. 54.62% of this information represented computer games, 34.77% represented television, and 9.78% represented movies. All other information sources (computer, recorded music, radio, phone, and print media) added up to less than one percent of the information total when measured in bytes.

Mistaken Fortunes (And Not)

Talk about differences of fate. Here are two storys of incredible odds for large payouts and their association with a mistake. In the first, Rob Anderson, of Georgetown, Kentucky, made a quick stop on Christmas Eve to get a couple of lottery tickets as stocking stuffers. Instead of the three single $1 Powerball tickets he requested, the clerk mistakenly printed a single $3 ticket with three lines of numbers. He decided to keep the mistakenly printed ticket and got it in addition to his stocking stuffer tickets. As the mistakenly printed ticket made him and his wife the winner of a $128.6 million jackpot, his was the kind of mistake we all dream about. In England, however, Cliff Bryant placed two £5 accumulator bets on snow falling across 24 towns and cities in the North and Midlands on Christmas Day. He believes he won a long odds bet worth £7.1 million ($11 million). Unfortunately, the bookmaker, Ladbrokes, is refusing to pay, claiming the bet was accepted by mistake. Instead, the company has paid out on the single bets which it says are relevant – a sum of £31.78. This poor bloke is seeking legal advice, but unless he gets a favorable ruling, his instant fortune has been negated rather than created by a mistake.

How Violent of an Influence are Video Games?

I was scanning the December 4th issue of Science magazine and came across a short summary entitled "Doom Didn't Make Me Do It." It explained that much study has been expended on the subject of whether or not violent TV programs and video games cause people to be violent. Now, Christopher Ferguson, a psychologist at Texas A&M International University has published a graph showing that video game sales have soared and youth violence has actually decreased. He contends that this demonstrates that lab-based experiments showing increased "aggression" from exposure to violent TV programs or video games may bear little relationship to actual violence. Others contend that this graph does little to dispel their belief that early viewing of violence by children will likely negatively influence later behavior. What makes sense to me is that this is just a piece of a much bigger context. Most people would probably advise avoiding activities which teach young children inappropriate aggression or desensitize them to violence. If TV programs and video games are the major influence in a young person's life, though, I don't think many people would see that as a good situation. It seems to me that, in most real world situations, children are also going to be heavily influenced by the way they are treated by others and how they see adults and their peers around them behave toward each other. It seems to me that these studies cannot adequately factor in variations in this bigger contextual environment. Also, it occurred to me that an increased allotment of time to video games gives people less time to perform real-world violent acts. I'm not saying that this is the best way to keep kids off the streets and out of trouble nor the worst. It may or may not have the positive character building aspects that we often attribute to sports, clubs, or other activities, but like these, video games and TV programs are a time commitment of sorts. My philosophy is that, in many things (not all) moderation is a good approach. With kids, video games, and TV, that is kind of where I fall. I'm not sure that it is necessary or helpful to shelter children from everything bad on TV and/or video games. Neither would I advocate unfiltered access to things such as TV and/or video games. What seems most important to me, however, is to provide them a greater context which teaches them the values that you feel are important.

This is pretty complicated and controversial stuff for a Blind Bambi like me to ponder. I think my New Year's resolution should be to address less weighty issues in future posts.

Some Interesting Movie Factoids

Happy New Year! My personal outlook for 2010 is very bright and I truly hope that we all make this a very good year.

I really enjoy good (and sometimes even not so good) movies. As a somewhat recession proof industry, the movie industry just had a record breaking year. Even at current box office rates, research firm OTX discovered in a survey that consumers ranked moviegoing as the best value for their entertainment dollar and this has apparently been reflected in the marketplace. According to a Los Angeles Times story box-office revenue was up 8.6% for 2009 in the U.S. and Canada and was projected to ultimately top $10 billion, an all-time record. This article also points out that moviegoers in 2009 viewed a broader variety of offerings. Whereas in the past, a few "mega-hits" accounted for most of the ticket sales, in 2009, an unusually large number of pictures, including "The Hangover," "The Proposal," "The Blind Side" and "Paranormal Activity," played for weeks and netted more than $100 million, based more on buzz via via texting, Twitter and Facebook than traditional movie industry marketing.

Today, I came across an article (10 Things Movie Theaters Won't Tell You) on SmartMoney.com that I found very insightful. If you are interested, I would encourage you to read it. I will, however, attempt to highlight some of the facts provided in this story:

• Revenue from the on-screen advertising shown before the previews start has been increasing by roughly 10 to 15 percent a year for the past several years. In 2003, marketing firm Arbitron peformed a survey that found two-thirds of audience members didn't mind them. Recently, however, more than 3,400 moviegoers cared enough to sign an online petition demanding Regal Cinemas stop showing ads before movies.
  
• Coming digital projection technology may result in major change to the cinema industry. For instance, they may be able to broadcast live events on slow days, when theaters are usually "lucky to fill 10 percent of their seats." If theaters move to an iPod-like movie distribution and projection capability, more opportunities for independent filmmakers to get their work screened could open up.
  
• Theaters pay somewhere between 35 and 70 percent of box office receipts to the studio as a film-rental fee. In most cases, the studio takes the biggest cut in the first week, and the percentage drops from there. Therefore, from the standpoint of the local theater, they make more money if you don't come on opening night.
  
• "Premium experience" amenities (e.g., 3-D, IMAX, etc.) are in demand. Regal Cinemas, for example, had 168 digital 3-D screens out of a total 6,782 screens nationwide by the end of 2008, but plans to up that number to 1,500 in the next few years.
  
• Concessions typically account for about a quarter of total revenue. The amount each customer spends keeps heading steadily upward, from $2.51 in 2004 to $3.09 in 2008.
  
• Despite all indications to the contrary, theaters are reluctant to crack down too hard on the ringing cell phone or the distracting glow of a text message during a movie. They are afraid of customer backlash from the younger audiences who are primarily responsible for these disruptions. Kerasotes Theatres, a Midwest chain with 94 theaters, has tried to balance this somewhat, however, offering an escape from rowdy crowds with its "enchanted evening" policy. At select locations on Friday and Saturday nights, no one under the age of 17 is permitted without an adult into movies that start after 9 p.m.
  
• Protect your hearing. Individual theaters' decibel levels vary, but special effects-laden action flicks, for example, can hit the same dangerous territory as a loud rock concert, thus potentially contributing to hearing loss, according to the Center for Hearing and Communication.
  
• Theaters traditionally bring in 40 percent of their yearly revenue in just three months: May, June and July. The winter holidays are another big period for box office revenue. Things are slowly changing, however, as studios seek to spread their quality releases more evenly throughout the year.
  

I'm not sure that there is anything shocking or surprising here, but this Blind Bambi found it interesting and wanted to share.