Software review: Mac OS 10.5 Leopard

The latest edition of the Macintosh operating system -- Leopard -- has been out for a month or so now, and i've been using it for a couple of weeks. My oppinion? It seems pretty good, although certainly not a revolution in computing. It seems to introduce mainly small changes.

Best features (IMHO):

- Screen sharing. VNC style remote control of another Mac on your internal network, or even over the net (although i've not tried that). This feature works beautifully. It has saved me switching my monitor back and forward between my two computers every 5 seconds.

- PDF annotations in Preview. Circle, underline, highlight, and comment on any piece of a pdf file. I wish I had these features while I was doing my honours research this past year.

Over-rated:

- Spaces. Multiple virtual desktops. Nifty, but I can't find any useful way to use it. I can never remember which virtual desktop I was working in. Ended up turning it off.

- Stacks. Pop-up display of folder items from the dock. Looks cool, but I've not found it overly helpful. Maybe I'm just stuck in my ways.

So, I'm glad I upgraded, but Leopard doesn't seem to be anything spectacular. Although, I think we'll see Leopard come into its own when software developers begin to take advantage of the improvements to CoreImage , and the other hidden bits and pieces.

Ghost-busters: debunking of the blue petrol station ghost

There's some footage doing the rounds on YouTube that people are claiming shows a blue ghost haunting a petrol station.

Here's the video as featured on a news bulletin:



What do you reckon? I don't think it looks overly ghostly, but what could it be? It moves like an insect, but are there many blue insects? A fault in the camera's sensors could colour the insect blue, but the blueness seems to follow the insect around. It could be blue plastic, but the movement doesn't seem consistent with something that is being blown around.

Well, if it's too hard to work out in 5 mins, it's gotta be a ghost, right?

Not so fast. Here's a video that gives a brilliant explanation [via skepchick.org]:



I'm really impressed by this second video. It is very well thought out.

Recommended viewing: Angels in America

For Australians with access to digital television, the ABC is showing the Angels in American miniseries again on ABC2, tonight (November 29th) at 9.30pm. If you've never seen it before, I highly recommend it.

Set in 1980s New York, it deals with the political, social, psychological/spiritual impact of the AIDS epidemic on the gay community. The play won a Tony and the miniseries won an Emmy.

In my opinion, it's a modern classic, up there with Death of a Salesman.

(UPDATE: Erk informs me that it can also be seen via Foxtel, as Foxtel re-broadcasts ABC2)

The Answer to Pop Quiz #1

The results are in for our inaugural Pierian Puddle pop quiz.

The question was:

"A bat and a ball cost $1.10. A bat costs $1 more than a ball. So how much does a ball cost?"

The results were mixed. We had one correct answer, one smart-arse answer, and one incredibly wrong answer. However, the answer that we didn't get at all, was the answer that most participants gave in a recent study using this question (Frederick, 2005).

Most people, it seems, give the incorrect answer '10 cents'; indeed, that was my first answer too.

But think about it. If the ball costs $0.10, and the bat "costs $1 more than the ball", then the bat must cost $1.10. Together that equals $1.20, not $1.10. So the right answer is that the ball must cost "5 cents".

It took me ages to work that out. I was so sure that "10 cents" was the answer. Indeed, according to the author of the study, most people get this question wrong because the intuitive answer ("10 cents") comes so easily to mind -- $1.10 splits so easily into $1 and $0.10. Because it seems so easy, most of us fail to carefully vet the logic of our answer.

So to those of you who got the question right, it might suggest that you are quite cognitively reflective -- you rationally think through things and don't succumb to the intuitive answer.

References

Frederick, S. (2005). On the ball: Cognitive reflection and decision-making. Journal of Economic Perspectives.

The right to bare arms?

Word has it that the US Supreme Court is going to take another look at the 2nd ammendment of the US constitution and give an opinion on what 'the right to bear arms' really means. Personally, I'm convinced that the founding fathers made a typo.

Election wrap-up

Oh what a night! Labor has swept into government with a massive 6% swing, and for the first time in Australian history, the incumbent prime minister has lost his seat.

A few observations from election night:


- The Prime Minister elect will mirror the former PM in many ways. Notice that Rudd has already adopted Howard's trademark gold tie.


- There's something about being the Member for Bennelong that seems to provoke the two-arm celebratory wave.


Last night was a great night for Labor, but also a great night for 'bone-heads'. If you watched the ABC TV election coverage last night, you might have noticed the record number of people making faces, waving, and holding up giant Rudd heads in the background. The crowd in the tally room were also making a lot of noise, and at one point Kerry O'Brian got quite annoyed. In the future I think the ABC will want to do election coverage from a controlled studio, A) because of the bone-heads, and B) because the rumour is that the Australian Electoral Commission are planning to no-longer make use of an actual tally-room in the future in favour of a virtual tally room.


When the previous Labor prime minister, Paul Keating, won in 1993 he called it a win for the 'true believers'. That was code for a promise to govern from a foundation of Labor ideology. Rudd, however, borrowed Howard's line, and promised to 'govern for all Australians'. So expect to see a very conservative policy - a small target approach. The 'true believers' will have to look to Julia Gillard for traditional Labor values -- she's the 'light on the hill'.

Human Space Invaders

I'm struggling to come up with something shiny and new for today's post, so I thought I'd just go with a classic. The following is probably my favourite YouTube videos of all time.

Pop Quiz #1

Here's a simple maths problem. Have a go. I dare you.

"A bat and a ball cost $1.10. A bat costs $1 more than a ball. So how much does a ball cost?"

Easy, right? Fill in your answer below:
(UPDATE: The bloody form still won't work, so we'll just adopt an honour system, whereby you give your answer in the comments section, without copying off others)


Stay tuned for the results.

Imaginary Friends

Many children have, at some point, had an imaginary friend. 46% according to one study (Pearson, Rouse, Doswell, Ainsworth, Dawson, et al., 2001).

But what I want to know is: do kids ever have imaginary enemies?

References

D Pearson, H Rouse, S Doswell, C Ainsworth, O Dawson, K Simms, L Edwards, J Faulconbridge (2001). Prevalence of imaginary companions in a normal child population Child. Care, Health and Development. 27 (1), 13–22.

An insiders guide to how-to-vote cards

Once upon a time, I used to be a member of a now largely defunct minor Australian political party. And for a couple of elections I was one of those annoying people who stand outside the polling booth handing out how-to-vote cards.

A quick primer on how-to-vote cards:

Australia has preferential voting. When filling out a ballot paper, voters don't merely vote for one candidate, but rank all of the available candidates in order of preference. This means that you can support an unpopular candidate but still influence which of the front-runners will ultimately win. This is because if your first choice can't win, then your second choice counts as a full vote. And if your second choice can't win, then your third choice counts as a full vote, and so on.

That's how it is for the House of Representatives election, anyway. It's more complex for the Senate, although still a preferential system.

With preferential voting, voters are free to distribute preferences however they like. However, the political parties also like to make recommendations. So on election day, each party organises to have people handing out how-to-vote cards outside polling booths around Australia. These how-to-vote cards are a last ditch attempt to impress voters with a nice photo of the candidate, win their vote, and influence their preferences.

Now, the electoral act prohibits any campaigning within the designated polling booth. Therefore, how-to-vote card handerouterors (is that the term?) have to lurk outside the entrance. There's usually half a dozen at each polling location. Waiting, ready to pounce. The poor voters have to run the gauntlet.

In my experience as a handerouteror, there are 4 kinds of voters when it comes to how-to-vote cards:

1) No card McGees - these voters keep their heads down and try to run the gauntlet, refusing all how-to-vote cards.

2) Angry no card McGees - these voters refuse all cards, whilst abusing the how-to-vote-card handerouterers ("You're corrupt bloody mongrels, the lot of yehs. I'm not voting for any of yehs. Grumble grumble...")

3) Proud Partisans - refuse all cards except that of their favourite party. These voters are happy to make their allegiance known.

4) Aquiscents - take a card from all of the parties, not wanting to offend anyone.

5) Recyling Acquiescents - take a card from all of the parties, then return them on the way out, in the interests of recycling.

Why do voters have to put up with this? And aren't how-to-vote cards a huge waste of paper? Why not just change the electoral act to allow parties to poster their recommendations on the wall inside the booth? Why not just have a copy of each card available in each of the little cardboard cubicles?

There's a good answer to that actually. The major parties can afford to pay people to hand out cards at every single booth in Australia. However, the minor parties, not having much money, have to rely on party members and volunteers (like me) to hand out cards, and there's just not enough to go around. Thus, minor parties can only afford to have how-to-vote cards at some booths. The minor parties would much prefer to just post voting recommendations inside the booths. But it's only the major parties that have the power to change the electoral act.

Surprisingly, how-to-vote cards make quite a difference. My minor party did much better at booths where its how-to-vote cards were handed out.

But I wonder what effect the quintessential polling booth sausage sizzle has on election outcomes? Factor that in Antony.

P.S. For any would be handerouterors out there, a tip: the spot closest to the entrance is the best. Yours will be the last card they get, and therefore will likely be on top of the pile.

Patent giveaway #2 - Sleep TV Remote

Here's another free idea for a useful invention:

A TV remote control that detects when you fall asleep and pauses the video/dvd/tv so that you don't miss anything.

Falling asleep during a narrative can be quite traumatic. You wake up with such a sense of confusion and discontinuity.

It could also be hooked up to the ratings system, to give TV stations a better idea of what is actually getting watched, rather than what is slept through.

P.S. I'm feeling lazy today, so this is actually a repost from the old blog.

Interesting Vocabulary #1 - 'Bacon'

The internet age has given us wonderful new terms like 'google', 'blog', and 'spam'. And there's a new term that's rising in popularity: 'bacon'.

'Bacon' is, in fact, related to 'spam'. It refers to emails that clog up your inbox that aren't quite spam because either a) you've willingly signed up for them but now find them annoying, or b) they're sent to you by people you know (e.g., annoying forwarded jokes, cat pictures, or invitations to add the latest Facebook app to your already overcrowded Facebook profile.)

So there we have it! 'Bacon'! See if you can work it into your conversation this week.

And now might be a good time to point out that you can sign up for daily email copies of this blog by clicking on the subscription link on the top right corner of this blog's main page.

Steven Pinker on the decline of violence

I'm developing a teenage-girl-esq obsession with the cognitive psychologist and popular science writer Steven Pinker (he's so intellectually dreamy!). He's got quite a talent for finding some sense in the mysteries of human behaviour and communicating these insights in a super accessible way.

In the following video (that I was delighted to discover this morning) he gives a really interesting 15 minute talk on human violence. He argues that contrary to popular belief, violence is in decline. He then looks at some of plausible theories of why this might be.


http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/163

I'm particularly intrigued by one of the theories that he briefly addressed: the notion that modern humans enjoy their own lives more (thanks to the comforts of modern living), they value their own lives more, and this leads them to place greater value on the lives of others, making them less violent.

How would you test that? Would you expect to see a correlation between subjective wellbeing and humanitarian attitudes? Or between self-esteem and humanitarian attitudes?

Pet Peeves - Misleading Facebook ID Photos

This might be a bit controversial, but is it just me, or is it really annoying when people use photos of people (or pets) other than themselves as their Facebook ID picture?

I mean, I can understand why people do it. Your Facebook profile picture is quite prominent, so you might like to put up a photo of something really important to you -- your children, a pet, Britney Spears.

But it's really confusing for the rest of us, particularly when you're trying to find someone who you've not seen in a while that has a common name.

What's even more confusing is when there's more than one person in the same picture with no way of telling which person is the owner of the Facebook profile.

Just something I had to get off my chest.

Some classic optical illusions, MTV style.

Chris over at Mixing Memory (a very cool blog, by the way) posted this youtube video featuring some of my favourite optical illusions all wrapped up in one very funky video package.

I'd love to see something like this shown at cinemas before a movie.

Oh, and turn up your speakers for the very chic soundtrack.

Patent giveaway - Credit cards with screens

With rising levels of consumer debt plaguing the nation, here's a free idea for the banks and credit card companies: make credit cards with a digital read-out. A little LCD screen would do the job, or even better, why not incorporate the new eInk technology.

You see, although credit cards are very convenient, they don't provide you with any information about how much you've spent or how much you've got left to spend. (At least with cash, you can feel your wallet lighten with each purchase.) A little screen built into a credit card could make your financial info available at a glance.

It's such a good idea (if i do say so myself) that I'm surprised it hasn't been invented already.

Now, a cynical person might suggest that the banks and credit companies actually prefer us to be unaware of our spending. But that couldn't be the case, could it? My bank is forever telling me how committed it is to providing me with choice, freedom, and financial security. My bank loves me, and only wants the best for me. So I'm sure it's only a matter of time before we see this technology readily available.

UPDATE 15/11/07: In fact it looks like Visa are planning something like this (or at least were) according to a 2004 report from Engadget.com.

Robo Toddler

New Scientist is reporting on a study into how young children interact with robots. The researchers found children will treat a cute little robot as a peer if it interacts with them in a somewhat human like fashion.

The following video shows the kids hugging, patting, and taking care of their robot play mate.



How cute!

But, what about when the kids grow up? What becomes of the robot?

I'd like to think that it will grow up into the Robin Williams character from Bicentennial Man.

Awkward Moment Insurance Tip #1 - Facebook Birthday Alerts

As someone with a talent for getting into awkward and embarrassing situations, I'm always on the look out for tips and tricks for avoiding, escaping, and preventing these occurrences.

Here's a good one I came across the other day: automated 'birthday alerts' using Facebook.

Forgetting someone's birthday can make for quite an awkward situation, particularly when:

1) the person always remembers your birthday,
2) the person usually gives you a thoughtful birthday present on your birthday,
3) everyone else has remembered the person's birthday and you're the only one in the room without a present, or
4) you share the same birthday with the person.

I've had the experience of being on the embarrassing end of a situation where all four of those conditions pertained. It was INCREDIBLY AWKWARD!

So I was very pleased to find this Facebook app (a third party plug-in of sorts) that monitors the birthday information on your Facebook friends' profiles and then emails you a reminder either on the day, or a week or month in advance (you can configure it in the settings panel).

See, Facebook isn't a complete waste of time.

Inferences of Competence from Faces Predict Election Outcomes

In Australia, we have a federal election coming up. On November 24th, we'll vote for one of the above men to be Prime Minster.

How will we decide? On policy? Party allegiance? Boondoggling?

Perhaps. However, I recently came across a very cool study (Tondorov, Mandisodza, Goren, & Hall, 2005) that seems to show that elections are determined, to a surprisingly large extent, by candidates' facial characteristics -- yes facial characteristics.

Participants in this study were shown pairs of photographs of politicians. Each pair depicted the winner and runner up of from a US Senate or House of Reps race. Each pair was flashed on a screen for 1 second, and participants were asked "which person is the more competent?". Care was taken that the participants had no prior knowledge of the politicians.

Amazingly, participants' competency ratings predicted the winner about 70% of the time. It suggests that our initial intuitive judgments about politicians (uninfluenced by advertising, policy, social pressures, party endorsement etc.) have quite a large influence on who we vote for.

But could competent people just have competent looking faces? Did Howard tame his eyebrows just as he tamed the economy?

And for any non-Australian readers out there, please tell us, from your naieve standpoint, which of the gentlemen shown above looks the most competent?

More on the Tondorov et al. study here and here.

(And for the stats nerds out there: the correlation between the differences in competency ratings and the difference in the proportion of votes between the winner and runner up was .44 -- equivalent to nearly 20% of the variance in the winning margins). That seems quite impressive to me.

References

Todorov, A., Mandisodza, A. N., Goren, A., & Hall, C. C. (2005). Inferences of competence from faces predict election outcomes, Science (Vol. 308, pp. 1623-1626): American Association for the Advancement of Science.

A New Blog Is Born

I've decided to start a new blog to bring in the new year. OK, so I'm a little early, but consider me in 'beta' until January 1. I need a couple of months to find my feet.

Unlike my previous blogs, I'm aiming to keep this one focused, lucid, and regularly updated. My posts will (mainly) focus on:

a) psychology -- cool little ideas, tricks, experiments, and illusions that I've picked up on my travels as a psych student

b) technology -- recommendations of handy gadgets, software, and websites, plus speculation about when we'll finally get flying cars and jet packs

c) nerdology -- that family of interests obligatory for any self respecting nerd (e.g., sci-fi, video games, and propeller hats)

The title of the blog is my attempt at being all literary and sophisticated. It alludes to the Pierian Spring from Alexander Pope's Essay on Criticism. High brow enough for ya?

Stay tuned. If you're into RSS feeds, you may want to subscribe.