The problem:
As much as I love my Toshiba, it has its quirks. My first major problem (some months ago) with the Toshiba was what I would be inclined to call "touchscreen spasm". The problem with touchscreen spasm is that when it occurs not only the touchscreen, but the mouse, too, becomes basically useless (because the mouse cursor position is affected by the touchscreen). I forced a hard restart to temporarily alleviate the problem; however, the problem kept returning. One time it happened in the middle of some unsaved work, and after having "a bit of a moment", I endeavoured to fix the problem.
The "solution":
Being ostensibly a work machine and equipped with a mouse, it was inevitable that the touchscreen had to go, and my "fix" basically involved disabling the touchscreen drivers. This is actually a fairly easy job, you simply go through the device manager and disable the touch screen from the "Human Interface Devices"; however, if you too are caught in the middle of work, you can easily do the same thing without using the mouse:
1) Windows+X - brings up a small admin menu
2) Select Device Manager by pressing M, or by using the up key on the keyboard and hitting ENTER.
3) (Once Device Manager has started,) press TAB to switch focus to the device list
4) Scroll down to "Human Interface Devices" and expand it using the right key
5) Select HID-compliant touch screen and press ALT+ENTER.
6) Press TAB to highlight "Disable Device", then hit ENTER.
Note: When researching the problem, I noticed that for some touchscreens the name of the touchscreen might not be "HID-compliant touch screen". Hopefully it will be something equally straight-forward, if not, then you'll have to turn off/on interface devices one-by-one making sure that you don't turn off the keyboard (although, the keyboard should be listed under "Keyboards" not "Human Interface Devices" - still, things might differ depending on the device).
The conclusion
I would have expected Toshiba to build their hardware somewhat more robustly, but for the price and specs of my machine, I still feel I got a good deal; there seems little requirement for a touchscreen on a laptop which doesn't even fold flat, and while it was cool for a while, Windows 8 software is rarely touch-friendly enough to be worth the hassle.
Showing posts with label technology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label technology. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 23, 2015
Thursday, March 5, 2015
3D: film gimmick, gaming fantasy?
Occasionally I remember a conversation I had about games in which, on discussing how I'd tried out 3D glasses (imagine the old red/blue things) with some games, I was told "3D can stay the f*** out of my games. I was taken aback at the time, and it still seems odd to me now; enough that I've mulled it over sufficiently to want to rant about it.
It's popular these days to either love or hate 3D; however, I think that to do either of these things for all 3D media is misguided.
I can think of some compelling arguments for why 3D simply isn't a good fit for a lot of cinema. Much media has gotten used to being presented from one direction; cinematography and TV is filled with scenes where everything is essentially occurring well away from the camera (in TV shows, especially live ones, this is so prominent that I'd argue this is a significant reason for the relative lack of 3DTV adoption). Additionally, depth isn't a hugely important dimension in storytelling in most films.
As the technology becomes more familiar, I think this will change to some extent. Watching Lindy Beige (not necessarily a film expert, but he is a persuasive talker) in his video on the introduction of 48 fps (particularly his point near the end about zooming techniques), it seems to me that cinematography techniques will always take some time to adapt to new technology. By extension, I think cinema can adapt to 3D... When it feels it necessary. After all, there are numerous theatrical styles, but there are not all adopted all of the time.
The goal behind 3D, in my opinion, is to draw the viewer into the experience. If you were to think of this in theatrical terms it would similar to invisible theater, which brings the action right in front of you. It must be spectacularly difficult to produce a story that is spatially distinct, which you can navigate and interact with; however, games take such an idea and allow you to experience it at your leisure.
In most games, you become an actor in the theater. It thus makes sense to me that if you are an actor in the story then this story should be occurring all around you. What's more, gamers have had the freedom of exploring their game worlds in 3 dimensions (albeit via the 2D of their screens) for years, and while I think 3D is going to take time to mature in the cinema, games developers have been thinking in 3D constantly for years now. Even some existing games would work spectacularly well.
Yes, there will need to be adaptations, but mostly nothing that wasn't already on the to-do list: more detailed actors and props, better physics implementations, and more attention to details such as the placement of actors during important plot points (For example, in Skyrim you may sometimes find other actors or props obscuring your view of someone you're in conversation with). Very few things need to change in games that would be unnecessary if 3D didn't exist.
So, I still disagree that 3D screens/goggles are in any way bad for games. Luckily for those who think otherwise, implementing such technology requires almost no changes to the mechanics of a game, so we both get what we want.
But anyway, give it another 5 years, and no one will want to consume 3D games on a 2D screen any more.
It's popular these days to either love or hate 3D; however, I think that to do either of these things for all 3D media is misguided.
I can think of some compelling arguments for why 3D simply isn't a good fit for a lot of cinema. Much media has gotten used to being presented from one direction; cinematography and TV is filled with scenes where everything is essentially occurring well away from the camera (in TV shows, especially live ones, this is so prominent that I'd argue this is a significant reason for the relative lack of 3DTV adoption). Additionally, depth isn't a hugely important dimension in storytelling in most films.
As the technology becomes more familiar, I think this will change to some extent. Watching Lindy Beige (not necessarily a film expert, but he is a persuasive talker) in his video on the introduction of 48 fps (particularly his point near the end about zooming techniques), it seems to me that cinematography techniques will always take some time to adapt to new technology. By extension, I think cinema can adapt to 3D... When it feels it necessary. After all, there are numerous theatrical styles, but there are not all adopted all of the time.
The goal behind 3D, in my opinion, is to draw the viewer into the experience. If you were to think of this in theatrical terms it would similar to invisible theater, which brings the action right in front of you. It must be spectacularly difficult to produce a story that is spatially distinct, which you can navigate and interact with; however, games take such an idea and allow you to experience it at your leisure.
In most games, you become an actor in the theater. It thus makes sense to me that if you are an actor in the story then this story should be occurring all around you. What's more, gamers have had the freedom of exploring their game worlds in 3 dimensions (albeit via the 2D of their screens) for years, and while I think 3D is going to take time to mature in the cinema, games developers have been thinking in 3D constantly for years now. Even some existing games would work spectacularly well.
Yes, there will need to be adaptations, but mostly nothing that wasn't already on the to-do list: more detailed actors and props, better physics implementations, and more attention to details such as the placement of actors during important plot points (For example, in Skyrim you may sometimes find other actors or props obscuring your view of someone you're in conversation with). Very few things need to change in games that would be unnecessary if 3D didn't exist.
So, I still disagree that 3D screens/goggles are in any way bad for games. Luckily for those who think otherwise, implementing such technology requires almost no changes to the mechanics of a game, so we both get what we want.
But anyway, give it another 5 years, and no one will want to consume 3D games on a 2D screen any more.
Monday, March 2, 2015
Breathing life into sluggish Android devices: Samsung Galaxy Fame GT-S6810P
Another departure from all things Japanese to talk about making technology easier to manage. In particular, I want to commit to writing the method for installing a fresh operating system on the Samsung Galaxy Fame GT-S6810P (before I forget it). Off-the-shelf, it is atrociously slow, but it can be improved a lot by installing Cyanogenmod 11 on it (nothing miraculous, but it feels much more responsive).
All of the necessary information can be found on this thread; however, having never tampered with my phone at all, it took me a while to get the job done, plus having just installed cyanogenmod on my Nexus 7 I had gotten cockey and by skipping a step got the "status 7" error, which was caused by having the wrong recovery for this installation (see below).
Before proceeding, as with the thread above, you tamper with your phone at your own discretion, preferably with a backup phone on-hand in case you screw up, because I can't help you if you do. Phones come in many models, and some may not be compatible with the following instructions, if you attempt to tamper with your phone without being sure you wont brick it, then it is ultimately your fault when it dies.
0a) Turn on USB debugging on the phone
0b) Get a copy of adb. You can use adb by going to the command prompt, navigating to the folder where you have adb, and then just typing adb and a command. E.g.
0c) Get the USB drivers for your phone! I'm not sure if I needed them, since adb recognized my phone without them, but I installed them anyway, so I recommend it.
1) I downloaded ODIN 3.07 (don't forget to virus scan the file, and be careful where you download ODIN, as my internet security went haywire on a couple of sites).
2) I followed the instructions on this post
2a) I flashed CWM6 using ODIN (turn off the phone. Plug the phone in, then hold the power, home and vol down buttons at the same time - keep holding until the download mode appears - then, in ODIN, add the CWM6 tar file to the PDA section of ODIN and click start)
2b) in command prompt I ran adb like so:
Now my phone works better than it has ever worked before. It's slowed back down a little after I choked it with all my "must have" apps, but it is still faster than before the tampering.
All of the necessary information can be found on this thread; however, having never tampered with my phone at all, it took me a while to get the job done, plus having just installed cyanogenmod on my Nexus 7 I had gotten cockey and by skipping a step got the "status 7" error, which was caused by having the wrong recovery for this installation (see below).
Before proceeding, as with the thread above, you tamper with your phone at your own discretion, preferably with a backup phone on-hand in case you screw up, because I can't help you if you do. Phones come in many models, and some may not be compatible with the following instructions, if you attempt to tamper with your phone without being sure you wont brick it, then it is ultimately your fault when it dies.
0a) Turn on USB debugging on the phone
0b) Get a copy of adb. You can use adb by going to the command prompt, navigating to the folder where you have adb, and then just typing adb and a command. E.g.
cd C:\Path\To\ADB
adb devicesthe "adb devices" command queries for the plugged in android devices. If you dont see your phone on the list, you will need the USB drivers for the phone.
0c) Get the USB drivers for your phone! I'm not sure if I needed them, since adb recognized my phone without them, but I installed them anyway, so I recommend it.
1) I downloaded ODIN 3.07 (don't forget to virus scan the file, and be careful where you download ODIN, as my internet security went haywire on a couple of sites).
2) I followed the instructions on this post
2a) I flashed CWM6 using ODIN (turn off the phone. Plug the phone in, then hold the power, home and vol down buttons at the same time - keep holding until the download mode appears - then, in ODIN, add the CWM6 tar file to the PDA section of ODIN and click start)
2b) in command prompt I ran adb like so:
adb reboot recovery2c) this reboots the phone into CWM6, a recovery system. From here you can sideload a second recovery which is either more compatible with the phone, or more compatible with the Fame version of Cyanogenmod 11. This is achieved by selecting the menu option to install a zip by sideload, then use adb again:
adb sideload C:\Path\To\Recovery\GFameAngerManagementRecovery.zipand when that is finished:
adb reboot recovery2d) install cyanogenmod through sideload again:
adb sideload C:\Path\To\Cyanogenmod\cm-11-20150129-NIGHTLY-nevisp.zip3) At this point, I rebooted the phone (adb reboot) to check that it was usable. Sure enough everything was working. However, there were no google apps. Thankfully, the author provides a link to the google apps on his post (same post as before). This can be installed by sideloading as before (reboot into recovery, then use adb to sideload it in)
Now my phone works better than it has ever worked before. It's slowed back down a little after I choked it with all my "must have" apps, but it is still faster than before the tampering.
Wednesday, January 21, 2015
Why the Asus Transformerbook T100A isn't a work machine
These words might be redundant already, but I've seen it is still on the shelves, I have some words of warning as I lay my faithful Asus Transformerbook T100A to rest...
Recently, I upgraded to a Toshiba Dynabook N514/21K. To my eyes the specs between it and my Asus Transformerbook T100A are almost identical; dual core processor, identical screen resolution, Intel HD graphics (Skyrim on low settings with algoBoost seems to work OK on both), sizeable HDD disk space. However, what difference there is in specs has a huge impact on your experience.
The main difference between the machines is that the Dynabook came with an extra 2GB of memory, and doesn't have the 16GB SDD drive.
The 2 vs 4 GB problem is fairly intuitive for anyone who has had a few computers in their time, and to be clear 2 GB is not enough memory to run Windows 8 stress-free. If you utilize the machine for work then this becomes problematic whenever you want to browse and use other programs at the same time. Web browsers these days love to fill up the RAM, and websites are getting heavier all the time (my subjective feeling). If you're working then maybe you have a tab for your email, maybe even a music site to make the work experience more palatable, and in the foreground whatever office programs you might be using. Add in Skype, Dropbox, and a few other minor programs, and that is about the limit of the Transformerbook's abilities. I would invariably have task manager open in the background ready to zap Skype or any other program when the computer inevitably froze up.
The SDD drive is another problem that I didn't really anticipate since the Transformerbook comes with an extra, sizeable HDD. However, the OS is installed on the SDD, and every now and then you will come across a program that just demands to be installed on the same partition as the SDD. This lead my SDD to fill up within weeks of purchasing the computer and subsequent file juggling to keep it clear. A more careful person might not have this problem, but I like to think I'm not entirely careless either.
The added advantage of being able to use the Transformerbook as a tablet isn't enough to justify it as a work computer. In fact it is the very tabletization that made the Transformerbook a failure in this regard, mainly in that the SDD is too small, but also because tablets are so difficult to upgrade. My new Toshiba has accessible RAM and HDD slots (I'm not sure of how much RAM it can actually take, but 4GB is enough for me... for now).
Additionally, the webcam doesn't work correctly out of the box (this is fixable, mind), and the microphone is terrible, meaning even something simple like Skype requires using a microphone (I count myself lucky for having kept the mic+earphones from my old HTC tattoo).
That said, the Transformerbook can handle less intensive use very well, so long as you're not multitasking, it can manage MS Office, video, even games as recent as Skyrim (damn, is it 4 years ago already?) on lower settings. Plus, audio-wise, the Transformerbook sweeps the Dynabook off its feet (I now have a set of speakers, the first time I've felt compelled to by speakers for a laptop since 2007 - oh dear Toshiba, oh dear). The Transformerbook's reduced size also means it is much more portable for use with presentations etc. But not great for use on-the-go as the Transformerbook's screen doesn't tilt quite far enough backwards for comfortable use on the lap.
So my closing remarks on the Transformerbook: A great laptop/tablet for messing around, but a stress-magnet when you need to get things done.
Recently, I upgraded to a Toshiba Dynabook N514/21K. To my eyes the specs between it and my Asus Transformerbook T100A are almost identical; dual core processor, identical screen resolution, Intel HD graphics (Skyrim on low settings with algoBoost seems to work OK on both), sizeable HDD disk space. However, what difference there is in specs has a huge impact on your experience.
The main difference between the machines is that the Dynabook came with an extra 2GB of memory, and doesn't have the 16GB SDD drive.
The 2 vs 4 GB problem is fairly intuitive for anyone who has had a few computers in their time, and to be clear 2 GB is not enough memory to run Windows 8 stress-free. If you utilize the machine for work then this becomes problematic whenever you want to browse and use other programs at the same time. Web browsers these days love to fill up the RAM, and websites are getting heavier all the time (my subjective feeling). If you're working then maybe you have a tab for your email, maybe even a music site to make the work experience more palatable, and in the foreground whatever office programs you might be using. Add in Skype, Dropbox, and a few other minor programs, and that is about the limit of the Transformerbook's abilities. I would invariably have task manager open in the background ready to zap Skype or any other program when the computer inevitably froze up.
The SDD drive is another problem that I didn't really anticipate since the Transformerbook comes with an extra, sizeable HDD. However, the OS is installed on the SDD, and every now and then you will come across a program that just demands to be installed on the same partition as the SDD. This lead my SDD to fill up within weeks of purchasing the computer and subsequent file juggling to keep it clear. A more careful person might not have this problem, but I like to think I'm not entirely careless either.
The added advantage of being able to use the Transformerbook as a tablet isn't enough to justify it as a work computer. In fact it is the very tabletization that made the Transformerbook a failure in this regard, mainly in that the SDD is too small, but also because tablets are so difficult to upgrade. My new Toshiba has accessible RAM and HDD slots (I'm not sure of how much RAM it can actually take, but 4GB is enough for me... for now).
Additionally, the webcam doesn't work correctly out of the box (this is fixable, mind), and the microphone is terrible, meaning even something simple like Skype requires using a microphone (I count myself lucky for having kept the mic+earphones from my old HTC tattoo).
That said, the Transformerbook can handle less intensive use very well, so long as you're not multitasking, it can manage MS Office, video, even games as recent as Skyrim (damn, is it 4 years ago already?) on lower settings. Plus, audio-wise, the Transformerbook sweeps the Dynabook off its feet (I now have a set of speakers, the first time I've felt compelled to by speakers for a laptop since 2007 - oh dear Toshiba, oh dear). The Transformerbook's reduced size also means it is much more portable for use with presentations etc. But not great for use on-the-go as the Transformerbook's screen doesn't tilt quite far enough backwards for comfortable use on the lap.
So my closing remarks on the Transformerbook: A great laptop/tablet for messing around, but a stress-magnet when you need to get things done.
Saturday, August 9, 2014
Technology and translation
Before I got into freelance translation, I thought of it as completely detached from computer translations. Indeed, when we talk about Computer-Assisted Translation (CAT), we are not referring to a computer translating for us, rather we're referring to the fact specialised software is used to assist in the translation.
Every now and then, I come across some complaints in the translation industry about technology, usually this centres on CAT tools, but here is an extreme example: In it, a translator is described who essentially was using a typewriter and fax machine into the age of email and word processing. Granted, to continue doing that, they must have been both an excellent translator and precise typist; however, resisting technology in today seems like a very, very bad idea.
Let me explain. A good CAT tool today will analyse the sentence you are currently translating, search through your previous translations, and if a decent enough match is found, it will automatically perform a translation. This spares the translator anything between 10-100% of the time translating that sentence (depending on how well the current context matches the context of the previously translated sentence). Clearly, anyone already using such tools has a competitive advantage in terms of speed. They can also offer lower rates.
The problem with CAT tools is that often one is forced to offer a lower rate, because the translation agencies know the translator is doing less less hours of work for the same work. Thus, you either keep up with technology or spend longer on a project for which you'll be paid less. At the moment, the situation isn't too bad: only one of the agencies I work for requests a lower rate for translations due to the CAT tools' ability to assist with some of the document.
However, are CAT tools going to become more or less efficient at this? I think you can guess the answer. At the moment, the CAT tool spiel touts that they make translation 20% faster (or more, depending on which spiel you're looking at). As technology progresses translators will be spending less time translating, and more time checking the CAT tool's work.
Then of course, at some point one of the big technology companies is going to come out with a computer that can do the whole thing for you, then we'll only need to review. Seriously. Did you imagine 15 years ago that you could ask a phone the weather, or mark appointments in the calendar for you? I'm possibly not being realistic*, but it is undeniable that the situation can only become more technology dependent.
*I imagine that when it comes to increasing translation speed, CAT tools will find it progressively difficult as they push past +50%. But machine translation is a bit of a black box to me: words go in one side and half-understandable gibberish comes out the other. The problem is that machine translation only needs to get to the point where words go in one side and really bad English comes out the other before one can basically say "we don't need translators any more! But we are hiring reviewers!". There are already companies that offer human-edited machine translations. The other problem with this being a "black box" is that is difficult for people on the outside to work out when the algorithms are going to reach that level of proficiency.
Every now and then, I come across some complaints in the translation industry about technology, usually this centres on CAT tools, but here is an extreme example: In it, a translator is described who essentially was using a typewriter and fax machine into the age of email and word processing. Granted, to continue doing that, they must have been both an excellent translator and precise typist; however, resisting technology in today seems like a very, very bad idea.
Let me explain. A good CAT tool today will analyse the sentence you are currently translating, search through your previous translations, and if a decent enough match is found, it will automatically perform a translation. This spares the translator anything between 10-100% of the time translating that sentence (depending on how well the current context matches the context of the previously translated sentence). Clearly, anyone already using such tools has a competitive advantage in terms of speed. They can also offer lower rates.
The problem with CAT tools is that often one is forced to offer a lower rate, because the translation agencies know the translator is doing less less hours of work for the same work. Thus, you either keep up with technology or spend longer on a project for which you'll be paid less. At the moment, the situation isn't too bad: only one of the agencies I work for requests a lower rate for translations due to the CAT tools' ability to assist with some of the document.
However, are CAT tools going to become more or less efficient at this? I think you can guess the answer. At the moment, the CAT tool spiel touts that they make translation 20% faster (or more, depending on which spiel you're looking at). As technology progresses translators will be spending less time translating, and more time checking the CAT tool's work.
Then of course, at some point one of the big technology companies is going to come out with a computer that can do the whole thing for you, then we'll only need to review. Seriously. Did you imagine 15 years ago that you could ask a phone the weather, or mark appointments in the calendar for you? I'm possibly not being realistic*, but it is undeniable that the situation can only become more technology dependent.
*I imagine that when it comes to increasing translation speed, CAT tools will find it progressively difficult as they push past +50%. But machine translation is a bit of a black box to me: words go in one side and half-understandable gibberish comes out the other. The problem is that machine translation only needs to get to the point where words go in one side and really bad English comes out the other before one can basically say "we don't need translators any more! But we are hiring reviewers!". There are already companies that offer human-edited machine translations. The other problem with this being a "black box" is that is difficult for people on the outside to work out when the algorithms are going to reach that level of proficiency.
Thursday, August 7, 2014
Fix zoomed-in webcam on the Windows 8.1 Asus Transformer Book T100
A departure from my usual forays into all things Japanesey (unless you count the fact my Asus Transbook T100T is the Japanese version), I thought I'd go over how to fix the camera on this forsaken device*.
My advice is basically a duplicate of stuff already out there, but somehow I managed to miss it the last couple of times I googled, so if there's a chance it will make the info more available, perhaps it's worth the blog post.
Anyway, if you try to use Skype with the webcam on the Asus Transbook T100T, you'll find that a cropped section of the webcam's total field of view is displayed; it appears as though the webcam is zoomed in.
If you download ManyCam, install it, and run it, Skype gives the option (Tools-Options-Video settings-Select Webcam) of using "Manycam Virtual Webcam". Just like magic, the field of view is repaired, and the "zooming" effect gone! ... Assuming of course that you have the same problem as I did.
So what happened? As has been discussed previously (link), this may be a driver problem. Metro's camera program shows the webcam working normally. However, Skype doesn't appear to have the same access as that Metro app, so we provide it an alternative source (ManyCam) which does have proper access to the webcam. Whether or not this is a driver issue seems like speculation to me, but in any case the workaround sorted this problem for me.
* I actually love my Asus Transbook.. It's constantly starved of memory, could do with an extra USB port, and I went through such hell to get the thing to wake up from sleeping for extended periods of time that I manually disabled the sleep function and made the power button act as a hibernate button. However, it runs Skyrim, and all manner of goodness, whilst being capable of handling my research, translation and surfing needs, and still functions as a decent Windows tablet with a decent battery life.
My advice is basically a duplicate of stuff already out there, but somehow I managed to miss it the last couple of times I googled, so if there's a chance it will make the info more available, perhaps it's worth the blog post.
Anyway, if you try to use Skype with the webcam on the Asus Transbook T100T, you'll find that a cropped section of the webcam's total field of view is displayed; it appears as though the webcam is zoomed in.
If you download ManyCam, install it, and run it, Skype gives the option (Tools-Options-Video settings-Select Webcam) of using "Manycam Virtual Webcam". Just like magic, the field of view is repaired, and the "zooming" effect gone! ... Assuming of course that you have the same problem as I did.
So what happened? As has been discussed previously (link), this may be a driver problem. Metro's camera program shows the webcam working normally. However, Skype doesn't appear to have the same access as that Metro app, so we provide it an alternative source (ManyCam) which does have proper access to the webcam. Whether or not this is a driver issue seems like speculation to me, but in any case the workaround sorted this problem for me.
* I actually love my Asus Transbook.. It's constantly starved of memory, could do with an extra USB port, and I went through such hell to get the thing to wake up from sleeping for extended periods of time that I manually disabled the sleep function and made the power button act as a hibernate button. However, it runs Skyrim, and all manner of goodness, whilst being capable of handling my research, translation and surfing needs, and still functions as a decent Windows tablet with a decent battery life.
Sunday, July 6, 2014
Translating typos with Google search
Its probably fairly evident that I love Google's services by now, and I thought I'd just highlight a particularly useful feature in Google search.
When translating documents upwards of 10000 characters (10+ pages long), the chance of finding a typo somewhere is not by any means small. I have on numerous occasions banged my head over a frustrating translation, where a word would simply not make sense in context.
My usual procedure is to double tap Ctrl+C to bring up Golden Dict, into which I've plugged in an offline version of the indispensable WWWJDIC, which will resolve 90% of my queries immediately. If this fails, I alt-tab to my browser where Weblio is waiting with a whole host of dictionaries (including WWWJDIC, and the Life Sciences dictionary by Kyoto University), which will catch the remaining 9.9% or so (and also tends to give some very nice technical usage examples).
If a word fails at this point, frustration sets in as I splice and dice the word to see if the supposed word is actually 2 or more words strung together, but even this will not help if the word is a typo.
In this case, there are few options left available, but a Google search is often invaluable, not only providing some nice usage examples, but sometimes even finding a definition in some obscure internet glossary. In the case of typos however, Google will automatically search using the "correct" spelling. At this point, the fact the search term is actually a typo becomes clear and we can start at the beginning with the correct term*. Lovely! Imagine trying to work this out for yourself with paper dictionaries back before computers were on hand. Eugh.
A word of warning, though. Google love search terms that are common, and it isn't necessarily obvious whether the Google search is deciding against using your search terms because of a typo, or because it is just prioritising what it thinks you want to read about.
*Today I came across "胚葉体形成" in a source document, which can be split into "胚葉" germ layer, "体" body, "形成" formation, which I initially translated as "germ layer formation", but was unhappy with the context, and while dropping "body" improved the flow I wasn't happy about it: "body" could have referred to cells in a germ layer. I decided to Google the term and see if there was a useful precedent, only to be bombarded by results for the similar: "胚様体形成". At this point, I realised "胚様" and "胚葉" are homophones, and that this may be a typo. Sure enough typing in "はいよう" with Microsoft Japanese IME puts "胚葉" at the top of the candidate suggestion list. "胚様体形成" translated to "embryoid body formation", which fit better into context.
When translating documents upwards of 10000 characters (10+ pages long), the chance of finding a typo somewhere is not by any means small. I have on numerous occasions banged my head over a frustrating translation, where a word would simply not make sense in context.
My usual procedure is to double tap Ctrl+C to bring up Golden Dict, into which I've plugged in an offline version of the indispensable WWWJDIC, which will resolve 90% of my queries immediately. If this fails, I alt-tab to my browser where Weblio is waiting with a whole host of dictionaries (including WWWJDIC, and the Life Sciences dictionary by Kyoto University), which will catch the remaining 9.9% or so (and also tends to give some very nice technical usage examples).
If a word fails at this point, frustration sets in as I splice and dice the word to see if the supposed word is actually 2 or more words strung together, but even this will not help if the word is a typo.
In this case, there are few options left available, but a Google search is often invaluable, not only providing some nice usage examples, but sometimes even finding a definition in some obscure internet glossary. In the case of typos however, Google will automatically search using the "correct" spelling. At this point, the fact the search term is actually a typo becomes clear and we can start at the beginning with the correct term*. Lovely! Imagine trying to work this out for yourself with paper dictionaries back before computers were on hand. Eugh.
A word of warning, though. Google love search terms that are common, and it isn't necessarily obvious whether the Google search is deciding against using your search terms because of a typo, or because it is just prioritising what it thinks you want to read about.
*Today I came across "胚葉体形成" in a source document, which can be split into "胚葉" germ layer, "体" body, "形成" formation, which I initially translated as "germ layer formation", but was unhappy with the context, and while dropping "body" improved the flow I wasn't happy about it: "body" could have referred to cells in a germ layer. I decided to Google the term and see if there was a useful precedent, only to be bombarded by results for the similar: "胚様体形成". At this point, I realised "胚様" and "胚葉" are homophones, and that this may be a typo. Sure enough typing in "はいよう" with Microsoft Japanese IME puts "胚葉" at the top of the candidate suggestion list. "胚様体形成" translated to "embryoid body formation", which fit better into context.
Thursday, May 9, 2013
Care for the elderly HTC Tattoo
So, a little while ago I complained that streaming radio through 3G, while pretty cool, ate my HTC Tattoo's ageing battery for breakfast (link).
I was considering getting a new phone, but since my main gripe is actually the ridiculous battery life, I thought I'd just get a new battery. That is when I found this beast. 2600 mAh, thats 130% more capacity than the normal battery, and is so big it needs an extension to the phone case.
I suspected that my phone would look butt ugly after getting its extension, but actually, the shape is OK. Also, since the phone was quite small to begin with, it remains very manageable, though its heavier now (though it doesn't feel any heavier than my old Nokia brick-phone).
My only concern now is that with its low £15 price tag that it might explode or set my pants on fire (lol). But hey, it would just give me an excuse to get a new phone (Android 1.6 gets tiresome, and it would be nice to have a phone that I can use to wirelessly tether my Nexus 7 to).
I was considering getting a new phone, but since my main gripe is actually the ridiculous battery life, I thought I'd just get a new battery. That is when I found this beast. 2600 mAh, thats 130% more capacity than the normal battery, and is so big it needs an extension to the phone case.
I suspected that my phone would look butt ugly after getting its extension, but actually, the shape is OK. Also, since the phone was quite small to begin with, it remains very manageable, though its heavier now (though it doesn't feel any heavier than my old Nokia brick-phone).
My only concern now is that with its low £15 price tag that it might explode or set my pants on fire (lol). But hey, it would just give me an excuse to get a new phone (Android 1.6 gets tiresome, and it would be nice to have a phone that I can use to wirelessly tether my Nexus 7 to).
Tuesday, May 7, 2013
Paypal nonsense
My frustration demands some venting, so please excuse my tentative inclusion of this post as "technology" related..
I got an email from paypal saying I'd set up some automated billing with ebay, which was not the case. Presumably someone had gained access to my account and set that up "on my behalf", perhaps to make me a more generous person.
But, because I don't like to give money to thieves, I signed in to paypal and changed all my security details to something so unguessable I'll probably have to meditate to remember it. I also sent an email to paypal (was past call centre closing times) to find out what the hell was going on.
Luckily no money had been taken (I find that spectacularly strange, but hey, if the thieves are going to give me a running start, thank you very much...), but the next day I get an email saying (predictably) please phone us.
So, I phone, and explain the situation. They seem confused about the fact I was making an enquiry when clearly no actual transactions had been made, but they were helpful, and assured me that my precautions the previous night had made my account secure again. They also said an investigation would be filed to find out exactly what happened.
Two things greatly annoy me about this: 1) according to the call centre guy, paypal don't track IP addresses. Why not? It would be very handy to know whether the access attempt was made from another country or my own workplace or house. Because if its the latter, it means the security problem isn't isolated to paypal. 2) I get an email saying that my "claim" has been refused following investigation due to lack of evidence...
What? What do they mean my claim is refused? Its not like I'm claiming for an actual commodity, nothing was stolen, I'm claiming so you can investigate, which you say you've done, so what are you refusing?
Well, this is all very gods-damn Zen, isn't it. "If paypal refuses your claim to nothing, what have you lost?". Its so mind-blowingly nonsensical that my shell-shocked brain might just attain full-blown bloody enlightenment.
If someone had taken the time to write a proper email instead of dulling their brain on the problem of "Hmmm, which pre-made email best suits this situation?", then frankly we'd all be better off.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)