Not really a rant so much as an opinion-dosed observation...
I landed upon a YouTube video of American's eating food from British McDonalds. To be honest I think it was amusing, especially the last sound bite* of the video.
As you can expect, the comments section was a mess of nation-based bigotry. It amused me that one person pointed out:
"... You want talk about how
americans piss you off? People from UK Piss me off. Any american that
goes there gets shit talked 24/7 do we shit talk people their? no. They
just are jealous of our country to be honest. That's the only reason I
can think of, as to why dumb ass british people make fun of americans
all time." - AnimeGirl
To be honest, I think AnimeGirl was generous to us Brits in assuming that the root of this anti-American sentiment is jealousy. Many, many British are overtly, and mindlessly of the British-is-best camp. Maybe this is a psychological compensation for the fact that -geographically- the British Empire waned long-ago; however, my personal experience of 26 years living in the UK has led me to the alternative conclusion that we deride the Americans not because of jealousy, but because we're gits. Brits will gladly deride any culture, even ourselves. To an extent, I think there is even a perverted sense of pride in this stance, but I don't count myself among that number.
I lived for a year in Japan initially out of curiosity, but I moved out here more permanently in part due to feeling fatigued at the general hostility one encounters in the UK. I can remember no instance of even being so much as unduly criticized here in Japan, let alone outright insulted, by a stranger. There are likely other factors at work**, but as it stands every year here reinforces the illusion that the gits are more numerous in the UK. Whether or not the same is true of America, I couldn't say. I've only spent a week (working) there. The only observation I was able to make was that people seemed more keen to interact than in the UK***.
Anyway. To regain some balance to the topic, perhaps I'll switch sides of the fence again when I've been here 20 years; there's only so different people can be while sharing >99.9% of their genetic data, and Japan, like anywhere, has its problems. No doubt gits will be gits in different ways depending on their culture. But hell, at least we're not at war, and hell, I have the freedom of time to write such a flaccid rant inspired by YouTube comments (never a good start to a discussion), and you had the time to read it. Apparently that's progress. What a strange world we live in.
* in a punning mood today, sorry..
** e.g. perhaps people are less inclined to insult a foreigner here either due to anticipated lack of understanding or reciprocation of the hostility; or differences in my commuting habits etc. Additionally, I've heard that my racial profile gets a better deal than some of the other minorities.
*** About which I hold the paradoxical view that this is both a good thing, but at the same time I don't like talking to strangers very much.
Sunday, December 14, 2014
Sunday, November 30, 2014
Why atrocities occurred in the Far East, why it still matters, and what we should do about it
Yesterday I watched through a BBC documentary on war crimes committed by Japan during WW2. The documentary discusses -in sometimes horrifying detail- the crimes against humanity committed by the Imperial Army of Japan. I think it is a pretty good introduction to the subject, and to summarise further, part 1 frames the atrocities in the context of increasing militarism in Japan, increased brutality of training in the Imperial Army, and nationalist/imperialist propaganda, before embarking on a tour of the first half of Japan's war with acts of brutality being the landmarks.
After watching part 2 (which completes the tour by focussing on the horrifying result of the belief in death-before-dishonour, as well as some of the American-inflicted suffering of the Japanese), I sat thinking about how it is both sides were willing to indiscriminately kill civilians.
As part 1 illustrated, POWs were treated very well by Japan during WW1, I'm not sure if this extends to non-Europeans, but it goes some way towards confirming that the Japanese are not intrinsically inhumane (I sincerely hope this doesn't need stating, but there it is anyway), but rather the social environment at the time was the root cause. Looking at the domestic history of Japan, it seems fairly obvious this was the case; however, why did America end up indiscriminately firebombing Japan?
Let's assume you're asked to run a bombing mission over civilian area during a war. Whether you agree is probably going to be based on: 1) whether you are blindly obedient, 2) whether you feel the mission will prevent defeat/danger to your homeland or allies, 3) whether you respect the people who will die. That is the order I would have written those items had I not watched the documentary, but now I think 2 and 3 are in the wrong order. Firstly, its evident that the Japanese soldiers -revelling in their early victories- had a contempt for their victims. But to an extent the same contempt is shown by the Allied soldiers, and while this is usually towards the Japanese soldiers, it seems that the bomber pilots (if not contemptuous) were indifferent to whether their targets were military or civilian, and they surely could not have been concerned for the safety of their homeland while dropping bombs on an increasingly crippled Japan, right? Perhaps they just wanted a quick end to the war to save their comrades the risk of being shot down, but even so, to weigh the lives of so many civilians (arguably they don't know how many civilians they will end up killing; however, I expect these people were fairly conversant with the power of their weaponry) against their comrades still hints to me of a disdain (or at least indifference) towards their victims.
OK, so what does this matter? Well firstly we can say with relative certainty from the above that atrocities will occur when there is disrespect for the opposing side, and these atrocities become worse with increasing disrespect, and increasing distance. Asking combatants to "please, very kindly respect the people whose government you are at war with" is just plain stupid because soldiers have a job which is psychologically devastating (killing people and exposure to mortal danger - how is that better than minimum wage?), which will inevitably lead to some level of unwanted behaviour, and when such behaviour is not systematically guarded against, and additional negative propaganda is imposed on top of that, you get the Imperial Japanese Army.
In other words, any war will lead to some atrocities, and propaganda makes things much, much worse. The problem is we have a number of warmongering nations (I'm looking at the US and UK here, but things have gotten more complicated than I've had time to keep up, recently), and a number of nations with state-run media (China, and Russia are often accused, but they're not the only ones). The examples in brackets are unlikely to go to war right now, but situations change (Japan was allied with the UK in the first World War, and with the Nazis in the second).
In this respect, the relative (and mutual) animosity* between Japan and China has to stop, because in the remote possibility that a war did happen between them, it would be terrible.
But what should we actually do? Well, here I think some politicians should take heed of a psychological experiment called "Robber's Cave Experiment". In that experiment, it was found that a group of boys separated from each other would naturally come into conflict when competing at given tasks, but that this could be overcome by integrating the groups and having them work towards common goals.
Translated to the world stage, this means we need to focus less on the transgressions made against each other, and more on cooperating on common goals. Note this doesn't mean letting ourselves get trodden on, but simply that we shouldn't ostracise countries because they do not conform to our expectations, rather we should use some of that energy create more opportunities for collaboration.
To an extent this is already happening due to trade. Trade has become essential to our societies, and this necessitates some degree of cooperation. When we go into our favourite shop, where we have a good relationship with the owner, and we comment that the paint job on the door looks like it needs redoing, that owner is far more likely to take on that information than if we said the same in a shop where we have no such relationship.
We all want the world to change for the better, and we want to do it now. Unfortunately, we simply cannot do it directly, the relationship must be built first, otherwise our clamouring for change simply drives us apart. Even when we have the power to impose the change, has this really worked for us in the past?
The problem with this is implementation. There is little we can do but vote for the moderate political candidates, promote tolerance, and focus on the benefits of collaboration (trade, science, and the arts are all exceptional examples).
*I've heard a number of my Japanese friends talk about the Chinese is really quite disturbing ways, and you really don't need to look hard to see that the Japanese are thought less-than-well of by a proportion of China too. Then again, perhaps looking harder would reveal otherwise.
After watching part 2 (which completes the tour by focussing on the horrifying result of the belief in death-before-dishonour, as well as some of the American-inflicted suffering of the Japanese), I sat thinking about how it is both sides were willing to indiscriminately kill civilians.
As part 1 illustrated, POWs were treated very well by Japan during WW1, I'm not sure if this extends to non-Europeans, but it goes some way towards confirming that the Japanese are not intrinsically inhumane (I sincerely hope this doesn't need stating, but there it is anyway), but rather the social environment at the time was the root cause. Looking at the domestic history of Japan, it seems fairly obvious this was the case; however, why did America end up indiscriminately firebombing Japan?
Let's assume you're asked to run a bombing mission over civilian area during a war. Whether you agree is probably going to be based on: 1) whether you are blindly obedient, 2) whether you feel the mission will prevent defeat/danger to your homeland or allies, 3) whether you respect the people who will die. That is the order I would have written those items had I not watched the documentary, but now I think 2 and 3 are in the wrong order. Firstly, its evident that the Japanese soldiers -revelling in their early victories- had a contempt for their victims. But to an extent the same contempt is shown by the Allied soldiers, and while this is usually towards the Japanese soldiers, it seems that the bomber pilots (if not contemptuous) were indifferent to whether their targets were military or civilian, and they surely could not have been concerned for the safety of their homeland while dropping bombs on an increasingly crippled Japan, right? Perhaps they just wanted a quick end to the war to save their comrades the risk of being shot down, but even so, to weigh the lives of so many civilians (arguably they don't know how many civilians they will end up killing; however, I expect these people were fairly conversant with the power of their weaponry) against their comrades still hints to me of a disdain (or at least indifference) towards their victims.
OK, so what does this matter? Well firstly we can say with relative certainty from the above that atrocities will occur when there is disrespect for the opposing side, and these atrocities become worse with increasing disrespect, and increasing distance. Asking combatants to "please, very kindly respect the people whose government you are at war with" is just plain stupid because soldiers have a job which is psychologically devastating (killing people and exposure to mortal danger - how is that better than minimum wage?), which will inevitably lead to some level of unwanted behaviour, and when such behaviour is not systematically guarded against, and additional negative propaganda is imposed on top of that, you get the Imperial Japanese Army.
In other words, any war will lead to some atrocities, and propaganda makes things much, much worse. The problem is we have a number of warmongering nations (I'm looking at the US and UK here, but things have gotten more complicated than I've had time to keep up, recently), and a number of nations with state-run media (China, and Russia are often accused, but they're not the only ones). The examples in brackets are unlikely to go to war right now, but situations change (Japan was allied with the UK in the first World War, and with the Nazis in the second).
In this respect, the relative (and mutual) animosity* between Japan and China has to stop, because in the remote possibility that a war did happen between them, it would be terrible.
But what should we actually do? Well, here I think some politicians should take heed of a psychological experiment called "Robber's Cave Experiment". In that experiment, it was found that a group of boys separated from each other would naturally come into conflict when competing at given tasks, but that this could be overcome by integrating the groups and having them work towards common goals.
Translated to the world stage, this means we need to focus less on the transgressions made against each other, and more on cooperating on common goals. Note this doesn't mean letting ourselves get trodden on, but simply that we shouldn't ostracise countries because they do not conform to our expectations, rather we should use some of that energy create more opportunities for collaboration.
To an extent this is already happening due to trade. Trade has become essential to our societies, and this necessitates some degree of cooperation. When we go into our favourite shop, where we have a good relationship with the owner, and we comment that the paint job on the door looks like it needs redoing, that owner is far more likely to take on that information than if we said the same in a shop where we have no such relationship.
We all want the world to change for the better, and we want to do it now. Unfortunately, we simply cannot do it directly, the relationship must be built first, otherwise our clamouring for change simply drives us apart. Even when we have the power to impose the change, has this really worked for us in the past?
The problem with this is implementation. There is little we can do but vote for the moderate political candidates, promote tolerance, and focus on the benefits of collaboration (trade, science, and the arts are all exceptional examples).
*I've heard a number of my Japanese friends talk about the Chinese is really quite disturbing ways, and you really don't need to look hard to see that the Japanese are thought less-than-well of by a proportion of China too. Then again, perhaps looking harder would reveal otherwise.
Friday, September 12, 2014
Background checks for renting in Japan
Summary for applying for an apartment in Tokyo
-Have your proof of income ready
-Easiest if you're an employee
-Bring your bank books and any relevant invoices etc.
-Be ready to substantiate your reasons for moving
-Be ready to share relevant contact details
-Be prepared to wait ~4 working days for the application to go through
-Be available. You will likely be called by guarantor companies, management companies/landlords
There are a lot of articles, forum posts etc. on renting apartments in Japan, all of which are pretty easily accessible from Google; however, I thought I'd share my experience on background checks for renting, which I couldn't personally find much information about.
So, I'd found some places on athome.jp that I liked, emailed the estate agent involved, and arranged a meeting. As seems pretty typical, none of the places I'd found were available, but they showed me some other places instead. I found one I liked, and we headed back to the office to start the application.
During the application (which took about an hour) I filled out a couple of forms. You might save a minute or so by knowing your birth date in the Japanese calendar. You'll probably save considerably more time if you're not self-employed. I am self-employed, so I also had to show reasonable proof that I could make the rent. I had 2 months worth of invoices (they would have preferred 3) and my bank book, of which they took copies.
They also wanted to know the reason I was moving to Tokyo. Now, in my head, the reason is that I'm more likely to find a research position in Tokyo than in rural Japan; however, in actuality I'm only in relatively preliminary discussions with one of the professors over here. Nonetheless, I opened my big mouth, assuming any old reason would do. This actually ended up with me having to provide the aforementioned professor's contact details (thankfully the professor is a nice guy, and was willing to help out), and these were not just retained by the estate agent, but passed on to both the guarantor company and the apartment's management company. To try and avoid making myself look like a complete ass from my prospective professor's point of view, I stressed to the estate agent, guarantor company, and management company that unless something firm was decided upon, my main subsistence was from my translation work.
At some point, and I don't recall exactly why, the estate agent took a copy of my PhD certificate. It was probably relevant to something I said.
After making the application on Saturday, I got phone calls from the guarantor company and management company on Monday and Tuesday, respectively. Basically they just went over the contents of the forms I'd filled on Saturday, and concentrated on the weakest part, being the reason for moving, to which I basically said moving to Tokyo will also be helpful for my translation work, but I intend to do research if possible. I think they were also keen to double check my earnings.
On Wednesday, I got the call from the estate agent to say the application had been successful. Just 4 days from applying! I'm pretty thrilled about that: I thought they were going to keep me hanging for at least a week, and I was half-sure they were going to reject it.
On reflection, I'm not sure how useful my case is. I imagine most people will not be self-employed, which will mean they have all the proof of income and reasons necessary to make things as smooth as possible. Also, perhaps having a professor (and a PhD) to vouch for me made a difference? Mine is a pretty unique case, so all I can really offer in advice is to have all your proof of income and be ready to substantiate your reasons for moving. For example, I really should have contacted the professor beforehand.
Still, as far as time scales go, you can probably expect to wait just a few days for the check to go through before you know you'll be able to move in.
P.S.
Lastly, if possible, I advise using a Japanese-speaking estate agent, I went both the a gaijin-friendly and to a normal estate agent, and found that the normal estate agent tended to have the better deals, or in the very least was more inclined to show them to me. If you have the patience to go to 2 or 3 estate agents, then I would highly advise it.
Oh, and never take flats on the ground floor. Maybe my nose has been over-sensitized by damp, dingy England, but the first-floor apartments I viewed universally smelled of mold. Given that I've lived in a house for the last year, and that the ground floor here is fine, I didn't really believe it, but having actually gone to 3 first-floor rooms and taken a good whiff (as well as inspect the cupboards for mold, and found it in 2 of them: use a torch or the light on your phone and look at the corners of the most difficult to clean part of the cupboard, usually the underside of the lowest shelf to the floor -ignore any strange looks from the estate agent- any fluffy specks that come off when applying pressure with your finger are probably mold), I'm never going to consider a ground-floor room again.
-Have your proof of income ready
-Easiest if you're an employee
-Bring your bank books and any relevant invoices etc.
-Be ready to substantiate your reasons for moving
-Be ready to share relevant contact details
-Be prepared to wait ~4 working days for the application to go through
-Be available. You will likely be called by guarantor companies, management companies/landlords
There are a lot of articles, forum posts etc. on renting apartments in Japan, all of which are pretty easily accessible from Google; however, I thought I'd share my experience on background checks for renting, which I couldn't personally find much information about.
So, I'd found some places on athome.jp that I liked, emailed the estate agent involved, and arranged a meeting. As seems pretty typical, none of the places I'd found were available, but they showed me some other places instead. I found one I liked, and we headed back to the office to start the application.
During the application (which took about an hour) I filled out a couple of forms. You might save a minute or so by knowing your birth date in the Japanese calendar. You'll probably save considerably more time if you're not self-employed. I am self-employed, so I also had to show reasonable proof that I could make the rent. I had 2 months worth of invoices (they would have preferred 3) and my bank book, of which they took copies.
They also wanted to know the reason I was moving to Tokyo. Now, in my head, the reason is that I'm more likely to find a research position in Tokyo than in rural Japan; however, in actuality I'm only in relatively preliminary discussions with one of the professors over here. Nonetheless, I opened my big mouth, assuming any old reason would do. This actually ended up with me having to provide the aforementioned professor's contact details (thankfully the professor is a nice guy, and was willing to help out), and these were not just retained by the estate agent, but passed on to both the guarantor company and the apartment's management company. To try and avoid making myself look like a complete ass from my prospective professor's point of view, I stressed to the estate agent, guarantor company, and management company that unless something firm was decided upon, my main subsistence was from my translation work.
At some point, and I don't recall exactly why, the estate agent took a copy of my PhD certificate. It was probably relevant to something I said.
After making the application on Saturday, I got phone calls from the guarantor company and management company on Monday and Tuesday, respectively. Basically they just went over the contents of the forms I'd filled on Saturday, and concentrated on the weakest part, being the reason for moving, to which I basically said moving to Tokyo will also be helpful for my translation work, but I intend to do research if possible. I think they were also keen to double check my earnings.
On Wednesday, I got the call from the estate agent to say the application had been successful. Just 4 days from applying! I'm pretty thrilled about that: I thought they were going to keep me hanging for at least a week, and I was half-sure they were going to reject it.
On reflection, I'm not sure how useful my case is. I imagine most people will not be self-employed, which will mean they have all the proof of income and reasons necessary to make things as smooth as possible. Also, perhaps having a professor (and a PhD) to vouch for me made a difference? Mine is a pretty unique case, so all I can really offer in advice is to have all your proof of income and be ready to substantiate your reasons for moving. For example, I really should have contacted the professor beforehand.
Still, as far as time scales go, you can probably expect to wait just a few days for the check to go through before you know you'll be able to move in.
P.S.
Lastly, if possible, I advise using a Japanese-speaking estate agent, I went both the a gaijin-friendly and to a normal estate agent, and found that the normal estate agent tended to have the better deals, or in the very least was more inclined to show them to me. If you have the patience to go to 2 or 3 estate agents, then I would highly advise it.
Oh, and never take flats on the ground floor. Maybe my nose has been over-sensitized by damp, dingy England, but the first-floor apartments I viewed universally smelled of mold. Given that I've lived in a house for the last year, and that the ground floor here is fine, I didn't really believe it, but having actually gone to 3 first-floor rooms and taken a good whiff (as well as inspect the cupboards for mold, and found it in 2 of them: use a torch or the light on your phone and look at the corners of the most difficult to clean part of the cupboard, usually the underside of the lowest shelf to the floor -ignore any strange looks from the estate agent- any fluffy specks that come off when applying pressure with your finger are probably mold), I'm never going to consider a ground-floor room again.
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.
Tuesday, July 15, 2014
Japan "Enters the era of smartphones"
According to BBC News, Japan has freshly entered "the era of smartphones", and now everyone is worrying that we'll all be bumping into each other over here because we're too inconsiderate to look up from our LCD displays while crossing the street.
I'd like to point out that, if Japan has really been slow to adopt smartphones, there are two very good reasons for this:
1) The preexisting phones in Japan were unimaginably superior to the pre-smartphones of Europe. I remember coming to Japan for the first time in 2007 and being amazed at the capabilities offered by my Japanese mobile. In addition to the basics such as a camera etc., it had navigation (maybe GPS, or perhaps based on triangulation of transmitters), and email. My wife -then girlfriend- had a slightly better mobile that supported even nicer features such as TV: it honestly made phones on the UK market look absolutely laughable.
According to the wiki, the iPhone came out that year, but it was at least a year before it even entered the Japanese market. And if you already had a decent "standard" Japanese mobile, you might wonder at the advantage in getting an iPhone back then. In fact, according to Wikipedia "In 1999, the Japanese firm NTT Docomo released the first smartphones to achieve mass adoption within a country".
Basically, either the features Japan's phones were too competitive compared to our notion of "smartphones", or they were already fully-fledged smartphones. Effectively, Japan was using smartphones before anyone else. Maybe they weren't touch-screen, but they were powerful beasts for their time.
2) Utilising smartphones to their full potential requires a decent internet connection, and the mobile companies over here are very happy to charge an extraordinary amount of money for this service. There is very little choice when it comes to data plans, and if you go with one of the "big 3" providers here, you options are all or nothing. I'm not sure if this has been the case previously (there is a 6 year gap between 2008 and 2013 where I was in the UK), but I suspect expense will have been a big motivator for holding onto older mobile technology.
---
With that out of the way... I do wonder about the whole "dumbwalking" thing. I guess with the increases in functionality, there is a greater likelihood that people will be walking and doing something on their mobile, especially now things like LINE allow you to message without spending any yen. Increased adoption of phones in general is also likely to be a big contributor (even my 10 yr old nephew has a dumbed-down phone). Nonetheless, Docomo's simulation of everyone crossing the road while staring at their phones is really just a bit of sciency fun. I'm sure the simulations may have some use when realistic parameters are used, but you don't need me to tell you that most people will actually be looking where they are going. This is illustrated very cutely in the end of the BBC's article, where the author sets himself the goal of walking across a busy junction, deliberately not looking up from his phone, and the fact that "I'm sure I'm going to get hit, but after a few seconds I relax. It's OK. Everyone's reacting for me", and "It's so silly I have to look up". This is how the real world works: people try to get out of the way, but they are generally aware of the need to stop, and look up when necessary.
To be honest, its a nice little article, but I just get the feeling the author is trying to write life into an issue that simply doesn't exist.
Then again, I've yet to live in Tokyo.
I'd like to point out that, if Japan has really been slow to adopt smartphones, there are two very good reasons for this:
1) The preexisting phones in Japan were unimaginably superior to the pre-smartphones of Europe. I remember coming to Japan for the first time in 2007 and being amazed at the capabilities offered by my Japanese mobile. In addition to the basics such as a camera etc., it had navigation (maybe GPS, or perhaps based on triangulation of transmitters), and email. My wife -then girlfriend- had a slightly better mobile that supported even nicer features such as TV: it honestly made phones on the UK market look absolutely laughable.
According to the wiki, the iPhone came out that year, but it was at least a year before it even entered the Japanese market. And if you already had a decent "standard" Japanese mobile, you might wonder at the advantage in getting an iPhone back then. In fact, according to Wikipedia "In 1999, the Japanese firm NTT Docomo released the first smartphones to achieve mass adoption within a country".
Basically, either the features Japan's phones were too competitive compared to our notion of "smartphones", or they were already fully-fledged smartphones. Effectively, Japan was using smartphones before anyone else. Maybe they weren't touch-screen, but they were powerful beasts for their time.
2) Utilising smartphones to their full potential requires a decent internet connection, and the mobile companies over here are very happy to charge an extraordinary amount of money for this service. There is very little choice when it comes to data plans, and if you go with one of the "big 3" providers here, you options are all or nothing. I'm not sure if this has been the case previously (there is a 6 year gap between 2008 and 2013 where I was in the UK), but I suspect expense will have been a big motivator for holding onto older mobile technology.
---
With that out of the way... I do wonder about the whole "dumbwalking" thing. I guess with the increases in functionality, there is a greater likelihood that people will be walking and doing something on their mobile, especially now things like LINE allow you to message without spending any yen. Increased adoption of phones in general is also likely to be a big contributor (even my 10 yr old nephew has a dumbed-down phone). Nonetheless, Docomo's simulation of everyone crossing the road while staring at their phones is really just a bit of sciency fun. I'm sure the simulations may have some use when realistic parameters are used, but you don't need me to tell you that most people will actually be looking where they are going. This is illustrated very cutely in the end of the BBC's article, where the author sets himself the goal of walking across a busy junction, deliberately not looking up from his phone, and the fact that "I'm sure I'm going to get hit, but after a few seconds I relax. It's OK. Everyone's reacting for me", and "It's so silly I have to look up". This is how the real world works: people try to get out of the way, but they are generally aware of the need to stop, and look up when necessary.
To be honest, its a nice little article, but I just get the feeling the author is trying to write life into an issue that simply doesn't exist.
Then again, I've yet to live in Tokyo.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)