World Cup 2010 and Referees

Every one seems to be frustrated by the frequency of mistakes of referees in the important matches. FIFA insist on not allowing the referees use video recording and other technologies means to resolve the problem. It is simply ridiculous to reject the means at hands to make huge improvement. Yes, injustice is part of life, and mistakes are inevitable even equipped with the best technology. Accepting the status quo is another matter. Most of the mistakes nowadays are so obvious to everyone in the world in front of the screens, but not those referees in the field. Do they need such information most? It takes only a second of replay to find out that the first goal of Argentina today should be discredited, but after we saw the replay, we witnessed that referees discussed it for another minute surrounded by feverish members from both teams and made the wrong call. What is the justification of refusing the access of such information to the referees in the field when they need it, especially when the rest of the world can see it? 

iOS 4

Updating my iPhone 3gs to iOS4. The jailbreak crashed weeks ago after updating Stanza. The phone died totally. I restore the iPhone to official os. With the multitasking and folders of iOS 4, less need to jailbreak. Will jailbreak if I am going abroad. Before that, I will stick with the official OS for a while. 

My Father's Day Essay for the WSJ, Bryan Caplan | EconLog | Library of Economics and Liberty

Bryan's Father's Day Essay for the WSJ, Bryan Caplan | EconLog | Library of Economics and Liberty

I kinda like Jason's comment:

A bigger problem, I think, is that behavior genetics currently answers questions too crudely to be helpful to parents.

Can't parents who drop $100,000+ on a high status college education expect better outcomes for their children than parents who don't provide this opportunity? Logically, you would think that parents who provide costly opportunities would be dramatically affecting their child outcomes. But behavior genetic studies suggest that parental socioeconomic status doesn't do much.

Why not?

Is it because the poor parents are spending proportionately more on opportunities than rich parents? Or is it because children somehow compensate in proportion to their own abilities (e.g. making due with student loans)? Or is it because the supposed advantages of fancy colleges are a spurious reflection of student ability (consistent with Dale and Krueger)?

Behavior genetics doesn't yet help distinguish between explanations like the first and third AFAIK. But if parents take the research to indicate something like the third explanation, when the true explanation is the first, the consequences of that misinterpretation could be severe.

and:

By the way, this is one problem I potentially have with Dr. Caplan's new book. He is advocating the idea that behavior genetics indicates parents can invest less in their children without consequences. While I do suspect this is true, the same research could conceivably be indicating the opposite. Which would mean that Dr. Caplan's suggestions could be harmful.

I worry the money investment less. I probably gonna support my kids the best I can afford and the best they can get into. The implication in Bryan's essay that the education is less important than the gene, so parents can skip the nightly reading without feeling guilty troubles me more. Education is one of the most important part of raising the kid. I don't need statistics to tell what a nightly reading can do. I can see it, and I love it.

I'd like to see the original research, but I am still in doubt.

A best father's gift

Wall Street Journal gave me a best father's gift: a relief from the stress of raising kids.
The Case for Having More Kids - WSJ.com

Father's Day is a time to reflect on whether you want to be a parent—or want to be a parent again. If you simply don't like kids, research has little to say to you. If however you're interested in kids, but scared of the sacrifices, research has two big lessons. First, parents' sacrifice is much smaller than it looks, and childless and single is far inferior to married with children. Second, parents' sacrifice is much larger than it has to be. Twin and adoption research shows that you don't have to go the extra mile to prepare your kids for the future. Instead of trying to mold your children into perfect adults, you can safely kick back, relax and enjoy your journey together—and seriously consider adding another passenger.

Thank you Bryan! I am watching World Cup 2010 on the couch with my son. At least I can rest my mind for today. This does not mean that I agree with you though.

I was wrong about Apple iPad | Betanews

I was wrong about Apple iPad | Betanews

Keyword: Immersion.

But I missed the iPad and couldn't quite say why at first. I didn't need the device. Functionally, iPad overlapped with smartphone and laptop.

I was wrong. On further reflection, I realized that iPad offers fresh functionality: Immersion. I find there are fewer reading distractions, and content is better presented than on a laptop and browser. I'm more focused and retain more of what I read. For reasons not easily explained, I find myself more thoroughly reading iBooks than defaulting to the skimming I sometimes do with physical books. Part of this immersive experience is the technology, but also how iPad is used. Apple's tablet is a sit down and focus device, as much because of size and shape as screen and user interface. The totality -- physical design and software benefits -- is immersion.

I would rather call it user experience, not functionality. And Steve Jobs got it right again, user experience is more important than functionality or the spec sheet.

Pre-order Iphone 4? Good luck!

It is a mess. After the pre-order going alive, ATT server seems unable to handle it, and gave various error messages. Later, to make matter worse, an alleged privacy breach followed by server shutdown. It is up now, but still unable order the much anticipated iPhone 4.

Is this bad for Apple, or it does not matter?

Gizmodo used words like  a total disaster, well, they have reasons to be angry. 

Wireless LAN security myths that won't die | ZDNet

Wireless LAN security myths that won't die | ZDNet

Waste of money, resources, time

• MAC filtering
• Disable DHCP and use Static IP addresses
• Signal suppression with expensive paint or antenna placement

Worse than no wireless security at all

• LEAP (adding EAP-FAST to the list)
• SSID Access Point beacon suppression (or "hiding")

Has nothing to do with security mechanisms

• Just use 802.11a or Bluetooth

I am using two of them: MAC filtering and hiding SSID. I think the key message in the article is clear and valid:

Any benefit against casual bandwidth thieves is already covered by real security measures... [and] they don't make you harder to hack.