Blog

Cyclists, you can add this to your cool accessories file. (Though I imagine some may want to include this to the “Would I really continue to wear this after a few weeks?” department as well.)

Check the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brSyZ5l-Yr0

It’s a common complaint from riders that cars all too often don’t account for how fast bikes can go. The backstory on the development of the Speed Vest is an interesting read. Based on the open source Arduino electronics platform and powered by a 9 volt battery, it’s a clever piece of gear.

rs
www.rahulsood.com

Earlier this week marked the 26th birthday of the venerable compact disc, better known as the CD.

But does anyone still listen to the majority of their music on the format? While reports of its death may be greatly exaggerated, I’m willing to bet that to many people, the CD isn’t the first format they have in mind when thinking about listening to their favorite artist.

At last check, CDs still account for the majority of the music industry's recording revenues – but sales surely ain’t what they used to be. Me personally, I’m an mp3 kind of guy. Having my whole library on my Zune or even streamed throughout my home is pretty much where it’s at.

Still, there’s something to be said about the physical aspect of popping in a CD and listening to an album the whole way through. Or even burning a mixed CD to play in the car.

What do you guys say? Do you still buy CDs regularly?

rs
www.rahulsood.com

Earlier this year, it became illegal to talk on a cell phone while driving in California unless you're using a hands-free device. As a result, sales of Bluetooth headsets ‘round these parts have skyrocketed. But which ones are the best? Hard to know, right? No two people seem to use the same headset, everyone hates theirs (and if they don't, the people on the other end of the phone do), and many reviews seem to contradict and negate one another. It's frustrating!

An important little factoid missing from most Bluetooth reviews is that no matter how great a Bluetooth headset may be, and no matter how many friends, family members, or reviewers love it, its performance is ultimately dependent on your cell phone and the quality and quirks of its particular Bluetooth implementation. As a result, a headset may sound wildly different on different phones.

So how on Earth are you supposed to make an educated purchasing decision? Here's how:

1. Go to a large reputable site like CNET.com and read the Bluetooth reviews. That's a no brainer. But here's the pro tip: Pay very close attention to the user reviews. Sure, trusting user reviews can be a gamble, but with headsets it often pays off. The more current, positive user reviews a Bluetooth headset has, the more likely it is to work well on a wide range of phones. And, of course, always keep an eye out for users who have your specific phone. If several of them are in love with a given headset, chances are decent you'll be right there with them.
2. Look for headsets that ship with multiple, different-size ear cushions and ear clips. Your ears are unique (just like beautiful snowflakes!), and the more customization options you have, the more likely you'll be to find a comfortable fit.
3. Pay a little more and buy at retail instead of online. Why? Because 30-day return policies are your friend. Most stores offer full refunds on Bluetooth headsets and you may have to try several (I tried four) before you find one that's just right (enough) for you. (You can do the same thing via eTailers, but you'll often have to pay for return shipping and the time between deliveries makes the process a chore.)
4. Be selfish. No headset is perfect, and some that sound great to you (good speaker) may sound terrible to the people you're talking to (bad mic). Personally, I err on the side of selfishness. First and foremost, I need to be able to hear clearly, and so I'm willing to make the folks on the other end of the line suffer through a little road noise while I'm driving so long as they can still understand what I'm saying.
5. Brace yourself for mediocrity. No matter which headset you buy, some days it's going to sound like crap. Bluetooth signals are relatively weak, and sometimes there's static. Sometimes callers will sound like they're speaking into a toilet bowl, and so will you. No headset is 100% perfect 100% of the time.

So there's my advice. It's based on weeks of trial and error on my part and I hope it helps make your quest for a Bluetooth headset a little less painful than mine was!

And in case you're wondering which Bluetooth headset I ultimately went with: BlueAnt's Z9i. It's very small, light, loud (enough), and most folks say that I sound pretty good most of the time. I also tried the Jawbone 2 (didn't fit my ear and voices sound 'tinny'), Plantronics' Voyager 520 (too much interference), and Motorola's H715 (awesome speaker, tons of volume, but the mic picked up way to much road noise, so folks had a hard time understanding me when I was driving).

Recently, George Gueorguiev, a Voodoo technician from Calgary wrote an interesting post on our message boards about the difference in performance between dedicated AGEIA PhysX hardware and PhysX-enabled NVIDIA hardware. Since not everyone who reads the blog reads the boards, I thought I'd re-run his post here. What follows isn't conclusive (George only tested on one config and with synthetic benchmarks), but it's a fun, informative read none the less.

-----------------------------------------

Now that NVIDIA has officially/publicly launched PhysX on GeForce (through their latest driver package: 177.83), many people are probably wondering what this means for performance in gaming, since many of us are using recent NVIDIA cards that now support PhysX technology. And, what's the difference between the standalone AGEIA PhysX PCI-Express card, and the now-integrated GeForce PhysX?

Included in NVIDIA's latest driver package, ForceWare 177.83, is the latest version of the PhysX Software, version 8.08.01. That's why the driver package size has jumped to over 100MBs. This driver package supports GeForce 8-series and higher, allowing these cards to do PhysX acceleration. For those who have both an 8-series or higher card and an AGEIA PhysX card, the software allows you to select which device to use for PhysX: the graphics card or the standalone AGEIA card. Does it make a difference?

I ran a few quick synthetic benchmarks, which yielded some interesting results. I ran all these benchmarks on a test system with an Intel Core 2 QX9770 CPU, an AGEIA PhysX PCI-Express card, and either dual EVGA GeForce GTX 280 or a single EVGA 8600 GTS.

I ran 3DMark Vantage's CPU tests (which primarily test physics) on their "Extreme" setting, using various PhysX settings. First I ran the benchmarks with PhysX acceleration running off the 8600 GTS. Then, I disabled hardware PhysX acceleration and ran it in software mode (work is done by the CPU, QX9770). Afterwards I ran the benchmarks with PhysX acceleration being done on an AGEIA PhysX PCI-Express card. Finally, I let 'er rip on dual GeForce GTX 280s doing the PhysX work. At this time I have not yet run any real-world gaming benchmarks, I've only run synthetic benchmarks.

As you can see, the dual GTX 280s run PhysX (in this test) about 263% faster than a standalone PhysX card... impressive.

Below I ran another synthetic benchmark, oZone3D's PhysX FluidMark. The results below pretty much echo the ones above. I ran all of these tests at a display resolution of 2600x1600.

The results above show that dual GTX 280s run PhysX (in this test) about 405% faster than a standalone PhysX card...

In conclusion, it seems that a couple of video card generations ago, a standalone PhysX card did in fact increase performance. This is shown by the fact that it's able to beat out even a QX9770 in PhysX acceleration. Nowadays however, with current generation NVIDIA cards, a standalone PhysX accelerator is no longer necessary. The latest generation of NVIDIA cards, the 200 series, are more than capable of handling both graphics processing and physics. I'm sure we'll slowly see this type of shift towards video cards handling almost everything gaming requires, and CPUs becoming less and less critical towards game performance.

The very thought of something like this has occupied the minds of children everywhere:

Scientists say they're closer to invisibility material
 

Seriously though – can you even imagine the real-world possibilities of something like this? Scientists have been studying the properties of electromagnetism and refractive materials for decades and it would be cool to see something like this come to fruition. Consider, for example, leveraging the metamaterial technology somehow in computers...hmmmm.

I wonder if they’re taking pre-orders?

rs
www.rahulsood.com

Those Opening Ceremonies:

In a word, wow.

The artistry, the pageantry, the pomp and circumstance...whatever.

To me, it was the cool and seamless use of technology behind it all – and from what I understand some of the venues are hermetically sealed, making it easy to breathe inside for the athletes.  Have you been the China?  Go to a crowded area and hang outside all day.  At the end of the day you tend to cough black stuff.

Michael Phelps and his Quest for Gold:
 

Man, is this guy genetically gifted or what? It’s like he’s been doing his best Super Mario impersonation the way he’s collecting those gold coins. Very impressive and makes for compelling TV drama.

The Olympic Venues:

 
The Olympics are always a showcase of sharp looking venues and the WaterCube makes for one of the most intriguing pieces of architecture that I’ve seen in a while. Did some reading up on this unique, organic looking structure and it’s a true marvel. 

The Obscure Sports:

Men’s Field Hockey? Badminton? Water Polo? Really? The Olympics are like the only time when we’ll even think about these events, much less watch them on television.

Beach Volleyball:

 
There’s some guy down the road from me with a beach volleyball court in his front yard.   I live in Calgary, not California.  I thought that was interesting. 

rs