This blog will not be updated starting from June 2008. [Ok... I was too lazy to do this till today]
Posts that were never complete but will always remain in my head:
- A Tale of Two Sisters
-
[I cant think of a better way to end this but I shall keep the site as such to remember my younger days of insight/ignorance]
Its been a long time since I made any comments showing how busy I was for the past year or rather how bored I am now. As such, here I am sharing some interesting observations about this year’s Singapore Science and Engineering Fair 2008 (SSEF) registration as there is always something to talk about SSEF registrations.
One thing that makes this year different from most of the history of SSEF is its tighter screening which results in a greater number of projects being removed from the fair. While many, including myself, think that it would be a real pity to remove the good works of many, I think that its more of a practical constrain of space and human resource that makes it impossible for everyone to present. I would really like to illustrate this point with an example: while my group and I got into SSEF 2007 with a project that (literally) counted cells (using a hemocytometer under the light microscope), others who did stuff like luciferase/vectors/transduction etc was not able to get past the first round. The increase in standard is really a surprise and has increased the causalty rate from almost negliable to 41% this year (Table 1, below):
| Total applicants* | Approved applicants | Causalty rate | VJC total applicants | VJC approved applicants | VJC Causalty rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 422 | 249 | 41% | 53 | 36 | 32% |
*after removing duplicates and spam
This is unprecedented in SSEF history before (at least not that I known of)! I vividly recall that my first SSEF project in SSEF 06 was they first year the screening system was implemented, where few projects that were affected/removed. This sentiment carried on to last years SSEF 07 where the it was relatively unheard of that many projects where removed; of course there were some for both years. But this year, the 41% casualty rate seems to be quite high and its effects could be felt quite soundly.
Of course, here let us focus on our own school. We can see that the causalty rate is quite high at 32%, which is almost 1 in 3 projects. Nevertheless, the sliver lining is that VJC’s average casualty rate of 32% is lower than the total average of 41%. I think that it would be interesting to see how this compares to others schools so did anyone did anything for the other schools? (please do share if you have, thanks!). To be honest, I am still not very sastified with a 32% casualty rate which is not very confidence inspiring fact for next years’ batch. Nonetheless, its the quality that matters not the quantity but with VJC’s decreasing trend of medal tally fro 4 consecutive years, things are certainly not bright.
Statistics do not represent everything, and I think that the numbers do not show us a complete picture. For example, some projects are inter-school projects involving members from more than one school, so to avoid double-counting, I simply took the school as the school the project is registered at. Also, some people did 2 or more projects so the statistics really do not give you the individual causalty rate but the project causalty rate.
I think that SSEF 08 would be very interesting; the bars are raised and the standards have shot up. This time round its not going to be so easy to maintain the standard but we should take it on a postive light, that winners can be very well convinced that they are up to the mark. On VJC’s side, this year might be a very decisive year as the first batch of Integrated Programme (IP) reach their 4th year (IP4/JC2) and are competing with the IP and non-IP projects from other schools so whether the effectiveness of the IP is something worth looking out for. Finally what I really hope is that VJC would break her 4 consecutive years of drop (have 3 or more if you can afford it, but we are really broke here) and win a nice set of medals, ideally surpassing the 2004 year or at least get a silver and beat the 2005 year. All the best to VJC in this year’s upcoming SSEF!
In a short window of 4 days 4 new mid-professional range cameras were released, 2 by Canon, the mid-range 40D and the pro-range 1Ds Mark III on 20th August 2007 and 2 by Nikon, the mid-range D300 and the pro-range D3 on the 23rd August 2007. For more information there is always dpreview.com but here are some of my initial thoughts about the cameras.
Canon 40D versus Nikon D300
Megapixels: In terms of megapixels, 10mp for the 40D and 12mp for the D300 translate to a insignificant difference in resolution between the two, so no one will ever lose sleep over the pixel count.
Frames per second: The interesting comes at fps, where the 40D scores insignificantly higher at 6.5fps than the D300 at 6fps without the battery grip. However, with the battery grip added, the D300 can perform at 8fps which is considered yesteryear’s benchmark for a professional action camera. Considering that both the 40D and the D300 are only mid-range cameras, such high fps can really serve the needs of many, for example the sports amateur.
Autofocus: The D300 has 51 focus point with 11 being cross types while the 40D only have 9 focus point albeit all being cross type. This, in theory, should mean that the D300 has a faster and more accurate autofocus system and gives the D300 an advantage over the 40D in action shots. The positive thing about both cameras is the inclusion of cross types (and many of them too) which (in theory again) should translate to a more efficient autofocus system.
LCD Monitor: The D300 has a stunning 3.0inch which has 922000 pixels packed into it, which gives a resolution of almost 1mp. Constrast that to the 40D which only has an aboe average 3.0inch LCD with 230000 pixels. The D300 thus should give us a more detailed view of the photos even after much magnification.
Liveview Implementation: While the 40D adopts the flip-the-mirror-up-then-autofocus-and-metering-then-flip-it-down approach, the D300 uses a constrast detection mode which is typical of how the average digital compact work. The later approach should provide for less shutter lag (if well implemented) than the 40D’s liveview, though its worth noting that liveview is always slower than using the good old optical viewfinder.
Viewfinder: The D300 has a 0.94x magnification but with a frame coverage of 100%, compared to the 40D which have a slightly better 0.95x magnification but with only 0.95x coverage. The D300 should give a bigger view and finally we are seeing 100% frame coverage instead of having to worry about the small thin perimeter which is not captured by the viewfinder.
Others: Sensor cleaning and also weather-proofing is another feature of both cameras. While older generations of Canon cameras with sensor cleaning (e.g. Canon 400D) did not have a reputation for being extremely effective, we would have to wait for reviews to see if the sensor cleaning in the 40D (and of course the D300) is effective or not. Weather proofing is a “important” feature too, since can be considered a distinguishable feature (arguable though) that seperates mid/pro-range from entry-level cameras.
Price: The 40D is competitively priced at only USD1299 while the D300 is a lot more at USD1799. Whether the USD500 is justifiable for the advantages the D300 have over the 40D might be debatable, but most people who shoot Canon would probabaly go for the 40D while the Nikon shooters would probabaly go for the D300.
EDB Dialogue and Roundtable Session 2007 was held on 21st July, from 8.30 to 11.30 at the Intercontinental Hotel Singapore ballroom. The session is organised by the EDB (Economic Development Board), a government organisation that is responsible for making Singapore attractive to business investments. Mr. Lim Siong Guan, chairman of EDB, gave a talk on career and scholarship choices and also participated in the discussion. Students from various top junior colleges were also present, and the entire ballroom of around 30-40 tables were occupied.
8.10am
Upon arriving early at around 8.10am, I scouted the area around Intercontinental Hotel Singapore in an attempt to determine the shortest route to Bugis MRT station, which was the closest train station nearby. I discovered something interesting on the way: a table filled with donation tin cans, which I infer means that there would be some donation drive where people would be carrying tin cans around to ask for money. I also went exploring around the hotel to see if Bugis Junction and the hotel were connected; unfortunately, I was unable to find any connection.
8.20am
After exploring the hotel, I decided to head to the ballroom which was at level 2. To my surprise, there were already a crowd of at least 30-40 people scattered all around the waiting area outside the ballroom. I registered immediately and was given a postcard of which I was instructed to place in a glass bowl in a table opposite the reception table which would be used for a lucky draw. I was a bit lost on what to put on the postcard (which now acts as a lucky draw coupon) but decided that the logical thing to do was to put my name and my school.
I scanned the area, desperately looking for familiar faces, and the only one that I could find was Mr Chan Poh Meng, our school’s principle. When I first arrived, he was chatting with some girl which identity I was unable to ascertain. But after registration, I saw that he was all by himself at the balcony looking down at the restaurant on level 1. Being a social person, I decided to be polite and wish Mr Chan a good morning. We talked about quite a bit of things, but there was one point that I wish to specially bring up. Mr Chan mentioned that it was not easy a task having to balance the responsibility of a principle against the popularity with the students. Critics of Mr Chan may say that this a lame excuse for his unwillingness to reward us with half/full days and that it is nothing more then a pretext for his lack of generosity. But I disagree. I believe that a principle or a teacher, even the government, basically anyone with any authority, should get their priorities right, and fulfil their responsibilities even if certain actions are undesirable to the populace. Moreover, I can feel Mr Chan’s sincerity when he was talking me about it; some may say that I am ignorant and was fooled, but I strongly believe that I have at least a minimal level of discernment to differentiate hypocrisy and sincerity. By the way, I decided to self-censor some of my opinions that I have with the previous principle, Mrs Chan, regarding this topic.
8.40am
I parted ways with Mr Chan after he suggested that we should start to make a move since the ballroom was opened. I walked into the ballroom and settled at a table with a group of VJC students. I was wondering about the type of activities that would happen latter after seeing 1) many colourful pieces of paper, 2) writable stickers and 3) many colour pencils and markers. Fortunately, I was to know later that the stickers was just to write your name so that others in your table know who you are and that he paper and pencil was for you to write down questions for the Q&A session later.
The early bird activity was just a 10 question MCQ + 3 free response questions (though one was skipped) on some statistics on EDB. Looks like the participants from others school were well-prepared, as they were able to tell the answers of questions like: the number of employee EDB has, the percentage of GDP that EDB contributed to Singapore and what the TKCL (Trust, Knowledge, Connected, Life) in the World•Singapore plan stands for.
9.00am+
I didn’t check my watch so I ma not that sure on the timing. There was a talk by Mr Lim, chairman of EDB. It started of quite lively then got a tad boring, but I think he sensed it and continued with the rest of the speech in a more light-hearted tone. After the talk was the dialogue session, where one representative from each of the six participating junior college was invited up on stage to ask one question each to the group of 4 EDB officers including Mr Lim. Interesting questions like the failure of the UNSW Asia campus was asked. After the dialogue session was a roundtable session where we got the chance to talk with the EDB officer that was posted to our table. Meanwhile, we got refreshments that were served by Intercontinental Hotel. I had high expectations about the food that were served (since it comes from a hotel after all), and despite being well satisfied, I thought that it could be better. After refreshments and the roundtable session was another round of Q&A, but this time the questions can come from anyone that is present. There was only time for three questions (if I had not remember incorrectly) but there was an interesting question about the Iskandar Development Region (IKR) in Malaysia, that is commonly thought was created to compete with Singapore’s tourism industry, particularly the newly developed Marina Bay area. Mr Lim has a unique interpretation on the topic and stated that we should not always play the game the same way but should recreate the game so as to play well in it. The session ended with a lucky draw. Probability was against me and I failed to get any of the four lucky draw prizes (as usual), especially not the iPOD Nano which some lucky guy from Hwa Chong Institution got it.
11.30am+
Packed all the remaining freebies left on the table and headed home after the session. On the way to the MRT we spotted some students holding donation tin cans, which reconfirm my suspicion of a donation activity going on. Trip home was smooth and I returned home at around 1.00pm.
Ok, so I had high expectations of Vista, which sort of fell in place after using Vista for some time. The Aero interface, while looks fantastic, seems to lack the X factor; the extra something that makes people go “wow”. Then again, there are some interesting things about Vista:
1) 3D Desktop?
I always thought that there was this 3D desktop thing, which meant that there are layers of icons of which you switch from layer of desktop to layer as you need. So I think there are 4 main possibilities why I couldnt find anything about it: 1) there was never such a thing! (and I was dreaming all along) 2) Microsoft secretly removed it (and people forgot all about it) 3) I didnt activate the feature (quite unlike because these weird features are usually on by default) or 4) I misunderstood the 3D desktop for another feature. Nonetheless, in retrospect, a 3D desktop is quite a useless feature, namely because screens are getting wider (so you can fit more in a desktop) and that people usually dont put much in the desktop anyway.
2) Vista Experience Index
I got only a 5.3?!
Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 (2,4ghz 4mb L2 cache 1066mhz FSB) -> 5.3. 5.3? Why 5.3? At least a 5.5 in my opinion. Anything more than this procesor and it starting to cost too much. I really think the E6600 is fast enough (which is true after using it for some time now) to warrent a 5.5. Maybe its just that there are faster processors coming out that people are willing to spurge on.
Memory: 2gb DDR2 667mhz -> 5.5. Well I am glad it passed my 5.5 benchmark, but i thought that it might be slightly overrated, considering that there are 800mhz ram, and its only 2gb (not even 4 gb!). Maybe it deserves a 5.3 or 5.4?
Graphics: Geforce 8600 GTS -> 5.9. Ha! Finally, a 5.9. I initially thought that the scale was from 1.0 to 6.0, so I thought to myself: “hmm, they are reserving the 6.0 spot for the Geforce 8800″. But there is no 6.0 as of yet, so I am happy with a score of 5.9 anyway.
Gaming graphics: Geforce 8600 GTS -> 5.6. I am sure the Geforce 8800 would get the 5.9 slot. More than contended with 5.6.
Primary Hard Disk: 160gb RAID 0 SATA 3.0gbits (effective 320gb) -> 5.9. Its not very impressive considering the presense of 500gb harddisk and 10k rpm hard disk, so 5.9 may be an overestimation here. Nevertheless, I am glad that I scored an 5.9.
3) Search
Search is horribly fast. Its either me or that I have never seen a search that fast before (maybe because I dont use much of my hard disk). But this is a good news, which means that I can search confidently instead of having to hunt around for files. The downside? It stop searching when you exit the menu! That means that you have to stare at the menu while it search. Switching to another window or even simply viewing the desktop would cancel the search…
4) Compatibility
My old programs (16 bit) dont work or Vista (32 bit)! I was even hoping to install one of my old Windows 3.1 game in Vista, looks like chances are slim. Oh well, looks like we have to search for open source varients of old software…
5) Widgets
They are fun, but like to disappear too often. They just disppear when you press the “show desktop” command which is no fun since I often press that. So I end up with a desktop devoid of widgets, until I open and close a window, after which they reappear.
6) Defragmentation
Never has degramentation became so bad. “Bad” here refers to 2 things: slow and uninformative . It is horribly slow, and I just wonder whether it can beat the Windows 98 degramentor (ok… a bit of exaggeration here). Not only that, it is uninformative. In Windows 98, you actually see a graphical representation of data in the form of blocks, and they are moved around during defragmentation. In XP, it gets a bit worse and all you get is lines (representing data) being moved from left or right or vice versa. In Vista you get, well, nothing at all. All you see is a progress bar that tells you to keep waiting. You dont even know whether its 1% complete or 99% complete, and the program dont tell you.
On another note, it seems that this is done such that degramentation can be done as a background task instead of something that we leave overnight. While I think that this idea is fine, I still think I prefer the old method of deframentating…
7) “switch between windows” command
It is a real fanciful function. The button is by default located beside the start menu together with the “show desktop” button. When pressed, it shows you layers of windows each on smaller than each other, overlapping each other to a certain extent and each succesive window seems to be further “inside” the screen. This is quite fun and impressive but I rather use Alt-Tab, or the simple move-your-mouse-to-the-tool-bar-and-click method.
So am I sastified with Vista? It compares well against XP but I am not so sure for Mac OS X. Nevertheless, given the option between buying a new computer with XP or Vista now, I think you should opt for the Vista one (just remember to dig a bit deeper into your pockets and get a decent processor, memory, graphics card and hard disk).
