Well, I am alive and blogging. It is a new year, one that brings as much hope and fulfilment as the last one (lots of hope there!), the big 2009. I can vaguely remember a kid that computed his age for the year 2000 and thought "I will be old enough to go to Mars!", but apparently, no human is old enough yet.

So what am I planning this year? Getting back on track would be a good idea. Stop wasting time that I don't have and if I have and waste, then I don't deserve. My book? Ahem. Let's hope I get inspired beyond the mere autobiographic. My AI MMORPG WMATCL project? I still have to design an AI that is worthy of its name. My job? Well, it's still there. I find myself wondering why? from time to time, but I guess it is good to have a job in this troubled time. My blog? Well, I intend to spice it up, but I need to actually do interesting stuff for that. I will update it with info gathered from a new Windows Forms application that I am building as well as information about the ReportViewer control that I've finally managed to use and to love/hate. My personal life? I have reached that point that many people find themselves at without really understanding how they got there. I've made the compromises that make one accept their life "as is" and postpone who they are. Sometimes that "myself" I have imprisoned deep inside growls and pulls on the bars. But maybe he's there for life (pun intended). Then again, maybe not. He feels more and more like a stranger now.

Oi! What's with the depressed text!? Forget all that! It's a new year! Happy new year!!! [Party trompet and silly face]

You probably know Melissa Auf der Maur as the bassist of the band Hole. She was the cute skinny redhead. She also toured with Smashing Pumpkins for a while. I don't remember where I've heard of her, but I got her album and listened to it and I really enjoyed it. Here is a taste of her music from her (so far) only album Auf der Maur.

About a second album, I am quoting Wikipedia:In a 2007 interview, Auf der Maur announced that she had finished her second solo album which would go hand in hand with a graphic novel and a concept film, the release dates of which are unclear. The album will be released under the name of MAdM, whereas the comic and film will go by Out of Our Minds, or OOOM for short. A website containing teasers of the projects, as well as a movie trailer, was launched in August, 2007 and can be found at xMAdMx.com

Enjoy!

Hi, I am working on a new blog format. As I am lazy and a complete html and CSS noob, it will take a while. Please, feel free to comment on the new look. Actually, feel obligated to do so! :)

Well, I just said I can't wait for the third book, haven't I? :) Anyway, Dexter in the Dark was a bit of a disapointment to me. Apparently, Dexter's inner demons are just that, demons, liked to some ancient deity from the times of Solomon called Moloch which is like an alien parasite thing. Really... What did Lindsay do? Read Snow Crash? Watch Fallen? Try to mix Stargate Goa'ulds with Wicker Man and Eyes Wide Shut? Geez!

When I was getting so comfortable with the character of Dexter, thinking that Jeff Lindsay was a genius for portraying a type of character I was always thinking of writing, he just takes all that inner maniacal urge that both empowered and limited the character and transforms it into an external, fantasy like thing. Bad writer, bad!

Anyway, that doesn't mean I didn't enjoy the book. I just think that when the third series of the TV show became too far fetched, they were still safe when compared to it. I mean, until now Dexter was a brilliant guy with a dark path and also with a sort of artificial morality, mix in some police stuff, some blood spatter, the weird police seargent sister. It was a perfect setting for introspection and solitary struggle. I loved that! And now demons? As Doakes would have put it "the hell for?".

The fourth Dexter book is supposedly due for february 5th 2009. I hope Lindsay abandons the weird supernatural crap and instead focuses on Dexter's training of his adoptive children into the art of killing. Otherwise I can only see it turn toward so many bad directions like Blade or Hellboy or other green "hybrid saves the planet" thing.

Dearly Devoted Dexter is much darker than the first Dexter book. Maybe it is just because all the facts about Dexter are clear and it starts with a gruesome murder, insane special forces style. The title comes from the fact that he helps his sister, now partially in the loop about his Dark Passenger, to solve the newest serial killer case. Of course, Deb, now a seargent after Laguerta has died, has a personal stake in this, since one of the people the murderer abducted and intends to do bad things to, is her boyfriend, with whom she is very much in love.

It is interesting to develop the Dexter character in this way, especially since he is described as totally indifferent to the horrible fate of people he doesn't care about, yet he is still compelled to help his sister out.

I was a bit disapointed by the police work involved. If I were to believe Lindsay, the Miami police are a bunch of morons, following (badly) a set of procedures without any real talent other than badmouthing.

Elements from this second book in the Dexter series were clearly used in the series, but it is already a completely different story. The FBI agent that Deborah briefly dates in the series was inspired by the character of Kyle, shady government agent that she falls in love with in this book. The stalking of Dexter by the grumpy seargent Doakes is also mirrored from this book, although the motives and the outcome are completely different.

Again, the series evolves the Dexter character more and the story is more complex than the book, but by now it is obvious the TV show and the book are going in completely different directions.

All in all, a bit better than the first, darker, but also funnier. I have never laughed as much reading a book for a long time. Can't wait for the third book now.

I have been watching this TV Series called Dexter and slowly but surely I fell in love with it. It features a psychopathic serial killer that has a hobby of killing other killers. The story is long and I suggest you watch it to get it fully. Anyway, the series has reached season 3 and stars Michael C. Hall, which you may recognize from the Six Feet Under TV series. I've also noticed that the series is based on a book! So, naturally, I got the book and started reading it. It's Michael C. Hall on the cover there.

Darkly Dreaming Dexter is the first in a series of Dexter books by Jeff Lindsay. While it starts pretty much the same as the series, the series quickly moves away from the script in the book. However, the spirit is there, even if, of course, they had to make the lead character a little more likable in the series and the whole thing less bloody.

Imagine an emotionless killer, raised by his cop father to kill according to a code and also to be thorough and attentive to the details so that the police wouldn't catch him. He is also working for the Miami police department as a blood spatter analyst. The inner dialogues are really delicious, the way he sees the world as a cynical dark Data is both funny and deep. Lindsay manages to portray an alien being, silently watching the world we take for granted, hunting on the edge of our own morality.

And while I do enjoy the book, I have to say that the series is more complex and the story a bit more realistic. So, there, finally a movie or series that surpasses the book!

We are working on these projects in which people either receive an email with an invitation or they register on a web site or they simply play and expect an instant result. What is the best way to compute the chance of winning?

Case 1: People register then, at a certain date, an extraction of prizes takes place. Ah, this is the best and simple situation. You have the list of players, the list of prizes. Just do an index = Random(0,number_of_players) and if index is smaller than number_of_prizes, you know the person won a prize. A second random on the number of prizes will determine the prize itself. The win probability is number_of_prizes/number_of_players.

Case 2: People enter a site that allows them to play instantly and win a prize. Here the problem is trickier. While the algorithm is basically the same, prizes over people, you don't have the total number of players. There are some subcases here based on the following parameters:

• The win campaign lasts for a certain amount of time or is indefinite
• The prizes must all be given at the end of the campaign or not
• The players play after they have received an invitation (email, sms, etc) or just randomly coming from ad clicks or for some information on the site

.

Let's assume that the campaign doesn't last for a finite time. The only solution is to pick a win probability and be done with it until you remain out of prizes. You always compute this by considering the number of people playing over a period of time, in other words the speed of people playing. However, in this case the only thing influencing the selected probability is a psychological one: how many people would need to win in order to have a marketing effect?

Now, if the campaign does have a finite time, you would use the speed of the people playing to determine the total number of people that would play. Let's assume you know people are visiting your site at an average rate of 1000 per hour, then you see how many are playing and you remember this percentage, so you can estimate the number of players per hour, then you just multiply that number to the total number of hours in the campaign. Again, we get to the prizes over people formula.

However, it is very important to know how people are deciding the participate in the extraction!

If it is just a game added to one's site, then the people are coming and going based on that site's popularity and hourly/daily distribution (since the number of visitors fluctuates). So just computing this from the first hour of people coming to the site and playing doesn't help, but it might when using the first day and maybe the first week. One week of statistical data is best to estimate the number of people over time. Then the formula is number_of_prizes_available_per_week/people_visiting_per_week. Where the number of prizes available per week is either the total number of prizes over the finite campaign time or an arbitrary number chosen by the campaign creator.

If, instead, people are being invited to play, as following an email promotion campaign, let's say, then they will come as soon as they read their email. That means they will flock to your site in the first hours, then just trickle in the next week, then nothing. That means that estimating the total number of players from the first hour or day is not really feasible unless you are certain of a statistical distribution of people playing games after email campaigns. It is difficult as different messages and designs and game types might attract more or less people.

A mixed hybrid can also exist, with a game on a site that also people are invited to play over email. Then all the parameters from above must be used. In any case, the best estimation I can think of comes from the total of players in similar campaigns. The more similar the better.

But what if ALL the prizes must be given to people, as required by law or simple common sense (so as not to be seen as keeping some for you or your friends)? Then one can adjust the probability rate to suit the extraction speed. The same prizes over people formula is used, but only on the remaning values. The probability of winning is given by number_of_remaining_prizes/number_of_remaining_people.

But that has some disadvantages. If the number of total participating people is badly estimated it will result into a roller coaster of probabilities. People playing in the first part of the campaign would be either advantaged or disadvantaged than the people in the last part as the total number of players is being adjusted over time to compensate for the first bad estimation.

Let's do a small example:

	Day 1	Day 2	Day 3	Day 4	Day 5	Day 6	Day 7
People playing	7500	1000	400	300	200	300	100
Percentage	75%	10%	4%	3%	2%	3%	1%
Estimated total players	15000	25000	12000	11000	10000	10000	10000
Estimated remaining players	7500	16500	3100	1800	600	200	100
Remaining prizes (day start)	100	50	47	42	36	27	13
Win probability	0.66%	0.30%	1.52%	2.33%	6.00%	13.50%	13.00%

As you can see, the people playing first were screwed pretty much, because it was expected the total players to be 15000 and the distribution closer to linear. After half of them played in the first day, panic made them all increase the expected players to 25000, while thinking what to do. Then they realised that the distribution of players is affected by the fact that all play after reading their emails and then they will probably not come play anymore. They adjust the win probability every day and as you can see, it is good to play in the last days.

But what would have happened if 1) they knew the percentual distribution of players would be 75,10,4,3,2,3,1 after an email campaign and 2) the total number of players will be a percentage out of all emails sent and so they estimated 10000 people playing and the right distribution?

	Day 1	Day 2	Day 3	Day 4	Day 5	Day 6	Day 7
People playing	7500	1000	400	300	200	300	100
Percentage	75%	10%	4%	3%	2%	3%	1%
Estimated total players	10000	10000	10000	10000	10000	10000	10000
Estimated remaining players	2500	1500	1100	800	600	300	100
Remaining prizes (day start)	100	25	15	11	8	6	3
Win probability	1.00%	1.00%	1.00%	1.00%	1.00%	1.00%	1.00%

Even if computing every day the number of remaining prizes over the remaining players, the probability was constantly 1%. Of course, one could say "Why didn't they stick to their 0.66% probability and be done with it? Like this:

	Day 1	Day 2	Day 3	Day 4	Day 5	Day 6	Day 7
People playing	7500	1000	400	300	200	300	100
Percentage	75%	10%	4%	3%	2%	3%	1%
Estimated total players	Not important
Estimated remaining players	Not important
Remaining prizes (day start)	100	43	40	38	37	35	34
Win probability	0.66%	0.66%	0.66%	0.66%	0.66%	0.66%	0.66%

Everything is perfectly honest, only that they remained with a third of prices on hand. Now they have to give them to charity and be suspected of doing this on purpose for whatever distant relative that works at that charity.

Well, think about it, and let me know what you think. Are there smarter solutions? Is there a web repository of statistical data for things like that?

The story in Claymore was pretty standard: monsters attack people, people are powerless, therefore an organization of hybrids (female warriors carrying deadly claymore swords) emerges to protect people from said monsters. So it's like Blade, in theory. But in reality it has the feel of Berserk (the first cool part, not the crappy lingering mess that it is now). Or you can imagine Naruto, with the monster and everything, fighting against a species of demon foxes. Only without the sillyness and all the mentoring.

I really liked the manga, I can barely wait for it to continue, unfortunately it is distributed like one chapter per month. The 26 episode anime series follows closely the manga story, but unfortunately ends prematurely with a different idea in the last two episodes. Not that it is not a lot better than Berserk leaving us in the dark at the end of the anime or other series that just ended in mid air.

Bottom line, if you liked Berserk, you will like this. If you like Naruto/Bleach, you will like this. I can even throw a little Akira in, to convince you, but it would probably be a stretch :)

Wee! Another Peter F. Hamilton book has been published. This time it is the second part of the Void trilogy, an ongoing series set up in the Commonwealth saga universe, but much later. Many characters are rented from said saga, so it would be a good idea to read that one first. Besides, as is Hamilton's style, the second book starts abruptly from the end of the first one and ends abruptly awaiting the third part.

And, again, like in the Night's Dawn trilogy, the plot is a combination of stories, one set in the technological future of mankind and one in a feudal, fantasy like, universe. Hamilton's talent is to combine these two in a believable common narative. They are not so linked as in Night's Dawn and, I have to admit, I like the fantasy arch better, even if it is the classic Messiah myth. Maybe because it is not contiguous, but rather made up of small stories that have a beginning and an end.

Well, either way, it was a great book and I am waiting for the third part, due to be released in far away late 2009 or even 2010 :(

First of all I want to say that I know I haven't been writing many tech articles lately and I've disappointed quite a few of the people reading this blog. I intend to rectify that, even if I am suferring from one of those dry tech spells at the moment :)

Anyway, about the oil. What if one could replicate the process that creates oil naturally, speed it up, and use it to not only for creating oil, but also for getting rid of a lot of organic waste? The technology is called Thermal Depolymerization and is pattented by the Changing World Technologies company. So, if one is to believe the Wikipedia article, while the test factory and the company itself have had problems ranging from technological hickups, to having to pay for the waste they use as fuel up to neverending complains from neighbours about the smell of bio waste, the technique was shown to work!

So, while the process does allow the production of slightly cheaper oil than the one extracted, it will certainly gain a big boost from the increase of prices in underground oil.

Here is a link to a 2003 interview with the CEO of Changing World Technologies, but utterly demolished by Paul Palmer, a chemistry PhD here. Also, this process is nothing very new or unique! there are other methods that are said to transform organic waste to Ethanol, as described in this link. So, oil may not dead yet.

A new (and old) buzzword: to reinvent. It is always a good thing to reinvent yourself, they say, with the effect of relieving boredom and living a "new" life. You may discard bad or useless things in favor of good things. It is also good to reinvent something somebody else did, like a movie. You take the idea, you remove the bad things, you add good things. But, as in the case of the benevolent tyrant, the definition of good and bad is always fuzzy.

Was it good to reinvent BattleStar Galactica? I say YES! It was (and still is, despite screenwriters efforts) the best sci-fi series out there. Of course, that is my opinion. Was it good to reinvent Terminator, incarnated into a teenage girl looking machine? Ahem. But I still watch it. Was it good to reinvent Superman as a troubled teenager? Puh-lease! Come... on! Nah-uh! (See, I address the younger demographic here).

Because, you see, the people that decide what is good and bad in movies are actually the money people. They look at superficial statistics that only show... money! They make abhorent remakes of decent films (like Indiana Jones 4 - The Rape of Indiana) or they turn every hero into man/woman/teenager/animated-character/doll versions that bring nothing new.

In the case of Star Trek, they made the first low budget series than achieved cult level regardless of bad production values and some ridiculous scripts, then they made a sequel (at that time reinvention was not invented yet) where Patrick Stewart redefined the space captain as a cerebral science oriented man, but with lots of guts, then they started the old routine: make the captain black, make him a woman, replace the ship with a station, then with another ship, but in some other place, etc. They even made a prequel, which, for almost a full season, was decent in both interpretation and scenarios. What was missing, of course, was a teenage Star Trek captain. Well, no more!

"Star Trek", the 2009 movie in the making (and no doubt, with a series looming if money are made), features a young Kirk and (what a fallacy) a young Spock! The director is none other than my least favourite person in the world: J.J.Abrams, the maker of such abismal stupidities (but well received by the general audience) like Alias, Lost and Fringe. The writers are Abramses old team, Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, the brilliant creators of such idiocies like Alias, Fringe and Xena/Hercules!

I am trying to keep an open mind here, but I would venture to guess that the new Star Trek will have big booming sounds whenever something strange happends, will be filled with inexplicable things that will never be explained, except maybe in the movie (but I doubt it, they have to plant the hook for a series) and will have people calling the others by name obsessively, regardless if the need for it arises. So, it may be cool, but I expect to be baktag!

I've listened to this song for a long time now, it was only proper that it would appear on my blog sooner or later. Sandra Nasic sang for Guano Apes and after the band split she released a solo album in 2007 called The Signal which features some good songs, although a little mellow for my taste. You can listen to fragments of some of Sandra's songs on her MySpace site, visit her official site or just plain google for videos like I do :)

So listen to this symphonic Sandra Nasic sound. I wish she would have done more pieces like this.

Brisingr is the third book in the Inheritance cycle (now a cycle because the author could not end the story in only three books). While I enjoyed reading it and I know that Paolini had all the best intentions writing it, I would not recommend it.

I have too little recollection of the first two books, to tell you the truth, but I do remember I was captivated by the action in them, if nothing else. The "magical technology" also had a great lure for me. In the third installment, all of these are missing or of poor quality. Roran is far more interesting than Eragon in this book, while the bad characters have lost a few dimensions (from the few they already had) and have become pathetic. T'Pol (sorry... I meant Arya) is docile and closer to the human heart, making her completely uninteresting, while the elves in general (and Oromir and Glaedr in particular) act like Asgaard on pot.

Why use StarTrek and StarGate terms to describe a fantasy book? Because it seems that's the only real inspiration of the third book of the Inheritance cycle. I could have done without the Doctor Who references in it, as well.

You can see a little YouTube video of Christopher Paolini talking about Brinsgr here, where an "unofficial" fan club is trying to earn money from said YouTube by disabling the embedding option.

A nice song I found myself humming today. I guess I had a reason for it. Hmm.

Zodiac is an environmental eco-thriller. It's Stephenson's second novel and it started in a similar way to The Big U, which I couldn't really read through. But I had nothing else to read so I kept going until it got funny and good. If you read it, try to get over the bad start, because it is not a bad book at all.

The basic plot is that of a pragmatic environmentalist with a chemistry background working against the waste dumping industry. In the end he uncovers a plot of global implications and, of course, foils it. But the story itself is more important than the ending. This is not one of those books you read in half a day, driven by the need to know how it all turns out, but one of those you read waiting to see what the main character is going to do or say next, while going towards the predictable finish.

Here is a much better commentary than mine, what I can say is that the book was definitely not sci-fi, rather a thrill-fiction, but it was well written. It makes for a good train book.