Just tried to finish off the falling object math game that I've been working on for ExeLearning to complete the little pack being made. Objective: small sprites falling against a background of around 640x480 at maybe 10-13fps.
Thought - let's test the performance of that - jQuery based animation (which is using DOM) - can just cope with one small moving sprite across a 640x480 background object if you hack jQuery.js to change the hardcoded refresh time (13ms which is really not needed)... But if you just try to introduce a second sprite... again hopeless situation.
Thought - what about canvas? Wrong concept... the scaling in it means that it thinks on every paint request to scale it... Performance so bad I have to ctrl+alt+erase to restart. You can look at http://wiki.laptop.org/go/HTML_canvas_performance but even after that it improves - to the point where you desperately need to click on move away...
Thought - what if we could keep all the animation within an iframe? That way the repaint area could be constrained, images that needed scaled by the XO would be scaled only once. Progress! We have half way a little bit jerky animation. Take the iframe back down to 400x400 and we have what looks like decently smooth acceptable arcade kind of animation.
There also seems to be a difference between using the jquery animate method and using setInterval yourself (just to be on the safe side I stored the position of the sprite as a variable instead of retrieving, parsing, then setting again the css property).
And there you have it - now several million times (instead of seventy million or however many times found on your normal laptop) the computing power used to go to the moon can in fact be used to create an arcade game in the browse activity on the XO.
Saturday, 24 April 2010
Saturday, 20 February 2010
The Corporation Movie is unfair
Just finished watching the corporation as a public sector friend of mine suggested... well...
Interesting film well put and persuasively conveys a point of view... but the token nature of covering both sides of corporations is a little disappointing from such a serious undertaking.
Given the evolution of CSR over the last 30 years (and there’s both real CSR and greenwashing) why is there so little coverage of this in the film?
It’s interesting that there’s almost no coverage or quantification / rankings of CSR between different companies...
There are socially responsible stock indexes (such as FTSE4Good) that generally outperform others; and those companies practicing green-washing generally get exposed and generally don’t benefit by doing so in the way that those who really conduct business ethically do. Those companies that have nice words and in practice ride rough shot over anything contrary to their short term gains typically wind up near the bottom of such indexes or excluded.
No mention of things like Business in The Community’s Corporate Responsibility Index (http://www.bitc.org.uk/integration_and_advice/cr_index/cr_index_2008/cr_index_08.html) and different auditing techniques... Volumes of journal articles and practice completely neglected. A lot more than a non-responsive security system shown in the film.
The notion that corporations are legally obliged to place short term financial gains before all other interests is totally untrue. That public corporations are often short term by nature of their stockholders could be argued, but by this argument could one explain how corporations also make massive long term investments in infrastructure, factories and the like which take 20 years to pay back?
So.... Now available on itunes (from Apple Corp) , put together and spread by technology (developed by various corporations), all of which cost more to develop than one or a small group could possibly accept unlimited liability for and would be difficult to judge by any entity government or otherwise if allowing those people to incorporate for that innovation is in the public good...
Forum Post on film's website
Interesting film well put and persuasively conveys a point of view... but the token nature of covering both sides of corporations is a little disappointing from such a serious undertaking.
Given the evolution of CSR over the last 30 years (and there’s both real CSR and greenwashing) why is there so little coverage of this in the film?
It’s interesting that there’s almost no coverage or quantification / rankings of CSR between different companies...
There are socially responsible stock indexes (such as FTSE4Good) that generally outperform others; and those companies practicing green-washing generally get exposed and generally don’t benefit by doing so in the way that those who really conduct business ethically do. Those companies that have nice words and in practice ride rough shot over anything contrary to their short term gains typically wind up near the bottom of such indexes or excluded.
No mention of things like Business in The Community’s Corporate Responsibility Index (http://www.bitc.org.uk/integration_and_advice/cr_index/cr_index_2008/cr_index_08.html) and different auditing techniques... Volumes of journal articles and practice completely neglected. A lot more than a non-responsive security system shown in the film.
The notion that corporations are legally obliged to place short term financial gains before all other interests is totally untrue. That public corporations are often short term by nature of their stockholders could be argued, but by this argument could one explain how corporations also make massive long term investments in infrastructure, factories and the like which take 20 years to pay back?
So.... Now available on itunes (from Apple Corp) , put together and spread by technology (developed by various corporations), all of which cost more to develop than one or a small group could possibly accept unlimited liability for and would be difficult to judge by any entity government or otherwise if allowing those people to incorporate for that innovation is in the public good...
Forum Post on film's website
Wednesday, 17 February 2010
Cultural translation machine?
Exactly, well isn't always so exact...
One of the interesting things I find in Persian is that it generally isn't that exact. When asked where something is, rather than saying in the basement next to the stairs on the left, one would say just "it's down" typically.
If communication is the process of giving and receiving a message then there is the problem of cultural perception glasses putting the message out of tint.
Perhaps the fact is that more explanation is required and expected, so perhaps what we need is a standard for a 'cultural dictionary'. It is one thing to translate the words. It is another to convey the true meaning, the whole message. Yes it would be better to really understand completely and adjust and adapt, but sometimes we don't always have that much time. Learning a language takes quite some time, understanding a different way of thinking and truly accepting it, well this is something different. Just going over the notions of intercultural exercises isn't really addressing the issue.
Particularly when expatriates need to lead teams in different countries and react accordingly, what we really need is a dictionary. For example it isn't unknown for Germans to be found just a little bit too much to the point. Then others get upset, then that takes time to recover, well ultimately
Something like
Or....
On the one hand over simplistic, but a starting point. When you go to a country you would obviously try to avoid doing something that is considered taboo there (we hope) like kissing in public where this isn't allowed. Frankly sometimes I just have too many other things to think about, and when that's the case, I fall back into my own culture without realizing.
The spoken word may not be that high a percentage of communication overall, but it is what nails the details. Or so we think. But then it doesn't when we use the same language but at the same time a different language.
Hmmmm.... Thoughts anyone?
One of the interesting things I find in Persian is that it generally isn't that exact. When asked where something is, rather than saying in the basement next to the stairs on the left, one would say just "it's down" typically.
If communication is the process of giving and receiving a message then there is the problem of cultural perception glasses putting the message out of tint.
Perhaps the fact is that more explanation is required and expected, so perhaps what we need is a standard for a 'cultural dictionary'. It is one thing to translate the words. It is another to convey the true meaning, the whole message. Yes it would be better to really understand completely and adjust and adapt, but sometimes we don't always have that much time. Learning a language takes quite some time, understanding a different way of thinking and truly accepting it, well this is something different. Just going over the notions of intercultural exercises isn't really addressing the issue.
Particularly when expatriates need to lead teams in different countries and react accordingly, what we really need is a dictionary. For example it isn't unknown for Germans to be found just a little bit too much to the point. Then others get upset, then that takes time to recover, well ultimately
Something like
| German 'Meaning' | English 'Way of saying' |
|---|---|
| That was very bad / awful work. | "That wasn't what we needed to do. We have a lot of room for improvement and we gotta do better next time" |
| What the hell are you doing? That's stupid! | I don't see any sense in doing that |
Or....
| British 'Meaning' | Afghan Way of Saying |
|---|---|
| We must do this exactly like that... | This thing is very important. It's needed for x/y/z. Talk through the steps. Quiz understanding. Check at regular intervals. If we do a different, this would cause this problem, if we do b different, that would cause that problem... |
| That was very good - we should continue like that | This thing done like this will bring benefits x/y/z ... has been well done... |
| We should invest in this | There is a very good opportunity here - if we can work together we could benefit... |
On the one hand over simplistic, but a starting point. When you go to a country you would obviously try to avoid doing something that is considered taboo there (we hope) like kissing in public where this isn't allowed. Frankly sometimes I just have too many other things to think about, and when that's the case, I fall back into my own culture without realizing.
The spoken word may not be that high a percentage of communication overall, but it is what nails the details. Or so we think. But then it doesn't when we use the same language but at the same time a different language.
Hmmmm.... Thoughts anyone?
Friday, 5 February 2010
Multi active effectiveness?
If we accept that in many places the practice of doing quite a few things at once, having people coming and going, and 'flexible' timing are the norm, and will continue to be, then we need to grapple with the challenge of how to effectively achieve change and carry out projects anyway.
Well, first what the heck do we mean by effectiveness? I guess to attempt to accomplish a given objective using the minimum required resources (time, money, assets, etc).
So we have some key challenges here:
Well technology gives us an answer to the first issue. Now everything I need to do 99% of my jobs is sitting on my laptop - so anywhere anytime I can just get on with something that I need to be doing (coding, writing, whatever).
Sometimes things that we are relying on may or may not happen as planned. Clearly then we need to throw out Just in Time (JIT) methods. One of the pre-requisites of JIT is to have an extremely reliable supply chain, otherwise the overheads saved are going to be a lot lot less than the wastage / cost of not having the item / stock etc. that we were relying on.
Personal followup - this is a tricky one. Somehow it feels like this could be automated, but I'm sure that an automated phone recording just would not have the same effect as actual follow-up / checks. So I better budget it in my plan. Padding schedules to account for this is legit.
On the frontier in the developing world many places are running like this. Too often my first instinct was to try and fight all of the above. Yet this all too often might be just a painful failure.
Actually the funny thing is this - in an environment of uncertainty where things may or may not come together; it actually makes rather a lot of sense to have quite a few different things going on at once. Putting all the eggs in one well defined clearly planned basket may have a much higher chance of failure than other places. So rapidly changing plans and possibly having a few extra plans is pretty sensible really...
Well, first what the heck do we mean by effectiveness? I guess to attempt to accomplish a given objective using the minimum required resources (time, money, assets, etc).
So we have some key challenges here:
- We need to try and avoid time spent 'waiting' going to waste
- What we rely on may or may not appear as planned
- Sometimes a lot of personal follow-up is required
Well technology gives us an answer to the first issue. Now everything I need to do 99% of my jobs is sitting on my laptop - so anywhere anytime I can just get on with something that I need to be doing (coding, writing, whatever).
Sometimes things that we are relying on may or may not happen as planned. Clearly then we need to throw out Just in Time (JIT) methods. One of the pre-requisites of JIT is to have an extremely reliable supply chain, otherwise the overheads saved are going to be a lot lot less than the wastage / cost of not having the item / stock etc. that we were relying on.
Personal followup - this is a tricky one. Somehow it feels like this could be automated, but I'm sure that an automated phone recording just would not have the same effect as actual follow-up / checks. So I better budget it in my plan. Padding schedules to account for this is legit.
On the frontier in the developing world many places are running like this. Too often my first instinct was to try and fight all of the above. Yet this all too often might be just a painful failure.
Actually the funny thing is this - in an environment of uncertainty where things may or may not come together; it actually makes rather a lot of sense to have quite a few different things going on at once. Putting all the eggs in one well defined clearly planned basket may have a much higher chance of failure than other places. So rapidly changing plans and possibly having a few extra plans is pretty sensible really...
Saturday, 23 January 2010
More historical rambling...
It seems to me that society's habit to somehow looses it's ability to consider the real value of a "revolution" is as strong as ever...
I remember back in history class learning how in the 1840s railway mania gripped the UK as building a railway (like making a dot com company) was deemed somehow a magic ticket to get rich. Unfortunately for some three railway lines going the same way wasn't quite such a magic ticket to get rich.... nor was the sail powered loco... or the rocket powered one...
Not too much unlike the idea that the Internet, without applications, would make the travel agent that runs a website (lastminute.com) more valuable than British Airways (which was profitable at the time as far as I remember) who happen to own a fleet of jet aircraft...
Now if we consider 1:1 computing in developing countries and the empowerment that we could deliver to educating the children who are in amongst the worst imaginable circumstances to shape their own destiny, well, let's learn from the dot com revolution, it won't magically take care of itself. Some was the case with the railways. Before it could really work all the edges needed rounding off, everything needed sorted out (finance models and the introduction of shareholders for example had to change almost completely, management, the works...)
The revolutions do in the end of course change the world dramatically, perhaps not quite as quickly as expected, and perhaps after a bit of finishing work, perhaps in other ways... but in the end they do.
I remember back in history class learning how in the 1840s railway mania gripped the UK as building a railway (like making a dot com company) was deemed somehow a magic ticket to get rich. Unfortunately for some three railway lines going the same way wasn't quite such a magic ticket to get rich.... nor was the sail powered loco... or the rocket powered one...
Not too much unlike the idea that the Internet, without applications, would make the travel agent that runs a website (lastminute.com) more valuable than British Airways (which was profitable at the time as far as I remember) who happen to own a fleet of jet aircraft...
Now if we consider 1:1 computing in developing countries and the empowerment that we could deliver to educating the children who are in amongst the worst imaginable circumstances to shape their own destiny, well, let's learn from the dot com revolution, it won't magically take care of itself. Some was the case with the railways. Before it could really work all the edges needed rounding off, everything needed sorted out (finance models and the introduction of shareholders for example had to change almost completely, management, the works...)
The revolutions do in the end of course change the world dramatically, perhaps not quite as quickly as expected, and perhaps after a bit of finishing work, perhaps in other ways... but in the end they do.
Saturday, 16 January 2010
Amazing Similarities...
"As yet, however, we have but vaguely appreciated the importance of "the larger question fo increasing our national efficiency.""
Hmmm... national efficiency, resources coming in, not the visible outcomes we expect, could be Afghanistan 2009 for sure...
But that was FW Taylor writing in 1903. But there's plenty more similarities between the time that Taylor was writing and right here right now in Afghanistan (and other developing countries I assume). The family, extended and honour was more important. Most of the same kind of shops were all in the same place. Most workers were not used to working in managed environments.
To what extent does modern management theory originating from studies on western (or at least relatively secure and wealthy societies) where their parents were working in what we would recognize as a managed environment apply to a post conflict S. Asian society? To what extent are more humanist theories really relevant here?
What Taylor saw was mostly people whose skills had been passed down by rule of thumb through the family. Sounds familiar. Generally expertise / expectations were not really out there...
Even if someone is completely motivated; then how can he/she accomplish reasonable results if the benchmark is not really known, the job not really designed, and the person's efforts, for lack of experience, possibly quite misdirected...
Actually my unscientific guess would be if we could achieve Taylor / Ford level efficiency in Afghanistan we'd be flying high by comparison.
In my opinion much of what Taylor was criticized for afterwards was actually ignorance of what he really said, that the interests of the employee and employer must be in alignment, and the positive outcomes, must be shared. If we don't forget this, then there's every reason to believe that these methods could be a more mutually beneficial way forward superior to more humanistic thinking. Set against a backdrop of rote learning how can one expect the results you look for by applying mostly coaching models etc?
Go to many offices and one will find plenty of folks just sitting on MSN and there are plenty of staff assessment forms and all the rest of it. Taking what Taylor says, checking out how much one *should* expect, then sharing improved outcomes, the result would likely be better.
Given how close the outside environment there would be to what we see out here, is turning the clock back a moment the way to move forward faster?
Hmmm... national efficiency, resources coming in, not the visible outcomes we expect, could be Afghanistan 2009 for sure...
But that was FW Taylor writing in 1903. But there's plenty more similarities between the time that Taylor was writing and right here right now in Afghanistan (and other developing countries I assume). The family, extended and honour was more important. Most of the same kind of shops were all in the same place. Most workers were not used to working in managed environments.
To what extent does modern management theory originating from studies on western (or at least relatively secure and wealthy societies) where their parents were working in what we would recognize as a managed environment apply to a post conflict S. Asian society? To what extent are more humanist theories really relevant here?
What Taylor saw was mostly people whose skills had been passed down by rule of thumb through the family. Sounds familiar. Generally expertise / expectations were not really out there...
Even if someone is completely motivated; then how can he/she accomplish reasonable results if the benchmark is not really known, the job not really designed, and the person's efforts, for lack of experience, possibly quite misdirected...
Actually my unscientific guess would be if we could achieve Taylor / Ford level efficiency in Afghanistan we'd be flying high by comparison.
In my opinion much of what Taylor was criticized for afterwards was actually ignorance of what he really said, that the interests of the employee and employer must be in alignment, and the positive outcomes, must be shared. If we don't forget this, then there's every reason to believe that these methods could be a more mutually beneficial way forward superior to more humanistic thinking. Set against a backdrop of rote learning how can one expect the results you look for by applying mostly coaching models etc?
Go to many offices and one will find plenty of folks just sitting on MSN and there are plenty of staff assessment forms and all the rest of it. Taking what Taylor says, checking out how much one *should* expect, then sharing improved outcomes, the result would likely be better.
Given how close the outside environment there would be to what we see out here, is turning the clock back a moment the way to move forward faster?
Sunday, 10 January 2010
Dysfunctional?
Much has been made of the relative failure to accomplish basic work outcomes with the huge influx of international cash here in Afghanistan...
But what, oh what, is the basis for expecting efficiency and reasonable outcomes from given inputs here? Some people have cried that... let's rewind another step...
What exactly is the priority of society, what has it been? Work? No. Efficiency? No. Family, honor, pride, yes...
Imagine we in the west went to the western world and tried to achieve development 'milestones' of reducing divorce, teenage pregnancies, and the like... How far would we get, even with a huge influx of resources?
Heck, would we even know that much about how to manage any 'resource' to try and achieve milestones like that? Doesn't look like it... So many social care groups, family groups, churches, etc, and are we getting any closer to the 'milestones'?
Hell no... Before university I worked for Turning Point, at the time as I recall the UK's biggest social care provider. I was working mostly with learning disabilities, people effectively without family in many cases... It's a lot more rare that Afghanistan would be, in this regard, so dysfunctional...
It's frustrating to see a dysfunctional situation, in any guise... Here people complain all the time about how dirty Kabul is... then throw trash straight out the car window as they complain. But then don't we bemoan the status of our society as we sexualize materials for a younger and younger target audience and buy glossy magazines (or read it online) about the private lives of celebs?
But what, oh what, is the basis for expecting efficiency and reasonable outcomes from given inputs here? Some people have cried that... let's rewind another step...
What exactly is the priority of society, what has it been? Work? No. Efficiency? No. Family, honor, pride, yes...
Imagine we in the west went to the western world and tried to achieve development 'milestones' of reducing divorce, teenage pregnancies, and the like... How far would we get, even with a huge influx of resources?
Heck, would we even know that much about how to manage any 'resource' to try and achieve milestones like that? Doesn't look like it... So many social care groups, family groups, churches, etc, and are we getting any closer to the 'milestones'?
Hell no... Before university I worked for Turning Point, at the time as I recall the UK's biggest social care provider. I was working mostly with learning disabilities, people effectively without family in many cases... It's a lot more rare that Afghanistan would be, in this regard, so dysfunctional...
It's frustrating to see a dysfunctional situation, in any guise... Here people complain all the time about how dirty Kabul is... then throw trash straight out the car window as they complain. But then don't we bemoan the status of our society as we sexualize materials for a younger and younger target audience and buy glossy magazines (or read it online) about the private lives of celebs?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
