I sharpened a pencil today

It had been a while.

I'm not an artist; and, I don't often write in my planner or journal with a pencil since they tend to smudge, and you have to keep resharpening. But there was a a time...

 ...when I was pencil-writing all the time.

When I first started in IT, I was a "programmer", usually termed a "developer" these days, and we wrote "code". In pencil, on paper, with gridlines intended to help guide writing things properly.

Wow, when you think about it.

I'd sit at my desk, coding, thinking out and writing down the program instructions to tell a computer what to do to solve whatever it was I was asked to. Control trains on railroads, at first. Then, later, telephone business problems, like producing bills for printing, or reports of customers and what they spent, what they used, what they had installed. In pencil, on paper.

I went through a lot of pencils, and erasers, of course. ArtGum or PinkPet, both worked pretty well. What didn't was the eraser on the end of the pencil, too abrasive, it'd go right through, or at least also erase the lines of the printed form.  Especially after two or three times.

I'd switch back between using a wood pencil, with it's sharpening ritual and wonderful just-cut wood smell, and a Pentel mechanical pencil, one of those .7mm blue ones, when it got hot & heavy, and I didn't think I could spare time to get up / down for a visit to the copy room and pencil sharpener.

We'd write all the code for a program, on paper. You learned to leave space for additional code in case you forgot something. You learned to use "subroutines", modular code, to perform functions, and coded on separate sheets of paper, again to leave room for modifications if these came up.  Funny to consider now, but composite design, object orientation, and these other modern notions may have had their root in people just getting annoyed at having to erase and rewrite so much stuff when they ran out of room.

What's with all the pencil & paper? For developing computer software? Why didn't we just type them in, you ask?

Because...no one had a workstation, at least not one of their own. You'd code on paper, and when ready, reserve time on one of the handful of "terminals" so you could use a text editor to type in your code. Then, run a "compile" to turn the code into an executable program or find your coding or typing errors. If you were able to get a clean compile, you'd use the workstation to run and debug your program.

It was considered bad form to sit there and hog a terminal if you had lots of changes & fixes; you were supposed to get a printout and return to your desk to work out corrections, new logic, whatever. With more pencil and paper.

Wow, you say. They really did it this way, back in the day? Dang. How old are you? Where they didn't even have PCs yet?

Pretty old, I guess. Because: working with pencil & paper, and typing things on one of a pool of shared workstations, was a huge improvement over working with punched cards.

Punched cards? Seriously?

Well, yeah. When I was learning "computer programming" in college, you'd write up your code on paper, but then sit down at a punch-card machine and type in your code. Each line went on one card. If you had a typo, you'd toss that card and try again. When you were done, you'd have a deck of cards with your code. It was not good to drop them, or get them out of order.

You'd take your deck of punched cards with your code, insert them in the right spot into a "compiler deck" (a huge stack of cards, usually in a box), then load the entire stack into the card reader to compile your code into a program. If you got a clean compile (no typing or syntactical errors), you'd combine the compile deck with more cards to actually execute it against test data. And it this case too, you'd return to your desk with your results printout, and work through the errors and changes. On paper, with pencil. To return again to the card punch to make changes, and go through the process again.

All this, from sharpening a pencil today.  In this very visual, workstation-enabled world we have now, it really does seem like...ancient history. 

Simply...amazing.

We recently took a road trip to Milwaukee and back, visiting my brother and his wife, and giving our two big dogs a chance for some fun on the lakeshore. And I had some thoughts on the long drive.

We're traveling in a 2.3 liter (140 cubic inch) 6-passenger "microvan" that's cruising along with interstate traffic between 75-80 mph. With a cargo of two humans and a couple of 100-lb dogs, it's capable of 26-28 mpg at these speeds, 30-32 mpg if speed is reduced to 60-65 mph. Should the opportunity present itself or be required, it's fully capable of operating above 100 mph for extended periods, with probably 120-125 mph as a maximum. On just it's small, 4-cylinder engine.

At the moment, it's being kept to a particular speed, 78 mph let's say, by its "cruise control" function, a set of sensors that monitor speed, engine loading, and other factors, and one or more microprocessors (computers) that make sense of these inputs and regulate the engine so that it maintains that speed. A tap on the brakes turns it off; I can tap the controls to increase the desired speed up a mile-per-hour, or down one.

Elsewhere: another set of computers is controlling the engine's operation. Sensors are providing feedback about exhaust gas temperature, water temperature, fuel mixture, exhaust gas composition, throttle position and movement, and other factors to a set of microprocessors that control when the spark plugs fire, when the fuel injectors open and close to provide the right power for this combination of factors. Subject to change in the next split second.

Still more: I'm not using the brakes at the moment. But they, too, have sensors that will monitor brake application and wheel rotation, sending signals to a microprocessor that can interrupt or limit braking force to a wheel that's stopped rotating, or skidding: anti-lock brakes. In slippery conditions, these sensors also feed into the engine controls and interrupt or limit power when a wheel is spinning more than vehicle speed would indicate: traction control. Combined with these, other sensors detect sudden or unacceptable pitch or yaw motions, and feed other microprocessors this information to enable control of brakes or power to assist getting the vehicle back under control: vehicle stability control.

That's not all.

On the console is a small, half-pound device made of glass and alloy. Inside it are more microprocessors and circuitry that are doing some amazing things. For instance, I'm listening to a radio station, and I have a choice of hundreds all around the country because I'm using a "streaming audio" capability. As we drive along, this device is connecting and re-connecting to service antennas over and over again, maintaining a broadband/data connection to allow the radio audio to be transmitted into this device and amplified through the vehicle's sound system.

While we're listening to the radio station, this device is also helping us with directions. It's displaying a moving map of where we are at the moment, what is our next turn and when/where will we need to do so, along with when we should arrive at our destination. It contains maps for the entire country, and is communicating with 3 or more orbiting satellites to receive GPS data for our location as we drive along, and intrepret this data into our speed, direction, and location.

Should someone want to reach us, it can receive their phone call and let us talk to whomever. We can hold this device up, take a photo, and include it in a message to someone, or post it onto a social networking site to share with all our friends. If we tire of the radio station, we can choose another one, or pick from hundreds of songs we may have stored on it and listen to that instead. If we're tired of watching the map, we can have it play a stored TV show or movie for us; well, safely, only for the passengers :-). Or, play a game, solve a puzzle, or read a book whose pages are stored inside it.

All this...is magic. It really is. None of this capability existed when I was born. So many things we use routinely now are so...smart, I guess. So capable, anyway. And so accessible to so many of us. I found it...well, amazing.

On visiting 1971 France

Many of you are aware that I'm a complete gearhead: I've long had a love for anything with an internal combustion engine, and most activities that involve them. Go-karts when I was very young, then minibikes, cars, motorcycles, airplanes.

I have the first car magazines that I bought with my allowance at Katz Drug Co., from 1965, and used to save all of them (before the internet). I devoured all such cover-to-cover, knew most cars & models by sight. I participated in my first autocross 4 months after turning 16, and in my first drag-strip bracket race a couple of months later.

The movie "Grand Prix" was a revelation to me, and my auto-loving friends, when released in 1966. A major Hollywood film, with billboard-relevant actors (for the time), and a huge budget for all the on-location filming and CGI-free racing action. But on subsequent viewings (at the drive-in, and years later on TV), it did/does suffer some from a few quirky technical novelties (multi-screen splitting, where double/quadruple/and more images are presented at once) and a too-drippy love story trying to be woven in. Still though: for me, those 66-67 Formula One cars were the zenith of that series (combining the 3.0 litre engine in cigar-shaped bodies devoid of all the later aero add-ons) and it was/is nice to be able to view them in motion, not just in period photographs.

And all this brings me to 1971, and Steve McQueen's movie, "Le Mans".

So many enthusiasts were waiting for this film, having read snips of pre-release info while it was being made, and with the motoring world just coming off the epic Ford/Ferrari battle for prototype-racing supremacy. McQueen had never been more popular; "Bullitt" was so recent, and indeed its success led to McQueen having the financial wherewithal to get "Le Mans" into production. And, upon release...we were all just blown away. Not a lot of sappy plot for distractions, the stars of the movies were the *cars*, just a we'd have wanted it. The Ferrari 512, and Porsche 917, in their early iterations, howling and dicing on this ultimate circuit for prototype sports cars. 200+ mph straights, incredible soundtrack.

Last winter, Amazon announced pre-orders for "Le Mans" on blu-ray, and I signed up. But what would this be like? Here's a 40-year-old film, now getting recorded on blu-ray with it's ability for incredible detail rendered on modern HD televisions. This film shipped recently, and I got a chance to look at it last night.

"What's it like" is: being transported back in time.

To 1971 France, at Le Mans. And it dawned on me I'd never seen this movie with this clarity of presentation. Not at the box office (how well-focused was the projector?), not at the drive-in (seriously?) and certainly not on TV up to this point. Now, watching on a 1080P fast-scan TV and blu-ray, everything is so sharp. They *did* know how to focus the camera(s) back then; the scenery, cars, people are so sharp, literally "just like being there". Count the rivets in the car bodies, blades of grass, bricks/mortar in the buildings. Astounding.

What does this pose for the future, for folks wondering what it was like "back then"? It appears now we can look back in HD quality, perfectly.

Of scammers, and Corvettes

A few years ago, in 2011, my wife at that time and I were really wanting a Corvette. Specifically, a Z06 Corvette, that aluminum-framed, titanium-suspended, carbon-fiber-bodied version that performs like a 1/3 price Lambo. Yes, that one. They've made the C6 version of it since '06, so some of those, and the '07s, were drifting into price-of-a-loaded-new-Camaro territory by mid-2011. New Z06s are expensive, so they typically go to owners who care for them, a lot, versus falling into the hands of "Fast and Furious" types who flog them. In other words, many/most Z06s have spent a lot of time being cared for and garaged, and that makes for a great used car when they move on.

We had created and saved internet searches where the example in question had fallen into our price range. At the time, we had enough going on with a home sale, and home purchase, that springing for a new car wasn't high on the list for a few months. But one "hit" really grabbed our attention, a 2008 Z06  "9,000 miles, one-owner, never wrecked or abused, garage-kept" at 2/3'rds of it's correct market price. Hmmm.  We discussed among ourselves...how bad is the flood damage, who in Nigeria is selling this car for his brother who's in Switzerland but the car is in New Jersey, and so on.

But the ad looked good. The car was in Wisconsin, had a VIN # listed, CARFAX report available, the owner's email id and phone number listed, all on the up and up. I agreed to call the guy and see about it.

Hmmm...the phone number listed didn't work. Maybe a misprint.

But I was doubly wary. That car was priced too low...way too low. Its seller isn't someone's aunt who inherited the car and posted it in the local paper, but someone who's savvy enough to post on Autotrader, knows to list the VIN, etc. And so, is entirely capable of knowing that car's real value. And now, this second strike...a "bogus" or at least non-working, contact number.

I went to work on the VIN next, googling "decode GM VIN number" to get to the official GM site for their codes. GM? Corvette? 08? LS7 V-8? Built in Bowling Green, KY? All these checked out, looked legit. The seller had a CARFAX to share, and of course, there's a CARFAX link right on AutoTrader to check it out. I linked there and typed in the VIN.

Zero records found.

Okay...hmmm. There should be something; the car was sold, was registered, paid sales tax, was serviced by someone, somewhere, was licensed. Something. But this car had no records at all. That's troubling.

I emailed the seller about 10am, telling him the car looked great, and I had a few questions for him (actually, at this point, more than a few), but the phone number he listed in the ad wasn't working.

He mailed back about 4pm, all cheery. The car was still available, he has the clear title, it's in excellent condition, no ding/scratches, all original, never smoked in. He thought he had it sold for a bit more, however that buyer's financing fell through, so he posted a sell-it-quick price since at this point it's the car or his house. So he needs a cash buyer, he says, and if I'm going to be financing then he can't wait that long. He didn't mention the bogus phone number I'd mentioned.

Cash only, eh? Oh boy. (That's not necessarily a deal-stopper, but with the other stuff so far, you can start to see where this is going).

Then, there was what came next. In this not-cheap purchase, you'd think there'd be talk of where the car could be seen, what were my questions about its condition, when did I want to take a look at it, and so forth. He didn't talk about any of that.

What he did talk about was that he had signed up with Google Checkout for protection on the sale, and if I'd email him my Google information, they could set up the transaction. (He also said this would allow me time to come and test drive the car, and provide a 7-day inspection period before they would release the funds to him...I'd missed that part yesterday, and it's complete hogwash, of course).

At that point, I was done, and chuckling. He's a scammer, all right, this is a fake car/offer/whatever.

Out of curiosity, I thought to check out the CARFAX report image he'd sent along with 27 pictures of the car (that he probably got off Ebay last month, when some legit person was selling a snow-bound Corvette). I started looking at it, basically a screen shot of a CARFAX screen display, with much of the images "X"d for not downloading properly. This report said the car had *4* records; how could that be, I'd just run it myself that morning? The four records were all for original sale, and follow-on maintenance, at a Chevy dealer in Puyallup, WA. Really? Oh, so he musta moved to Wisconsin since.

What's that VIN # again? Hmmm...I looked at the report he'd sent, it was off by one digit/letter from what I checked from the AutoTrader ad this morning, an "X" replaced the "5" that it had for the "check digit" value. I tried that new number at CARFAX: "incorrect VIN entered", meaning the check-digit didn't match the rest of the number. So it was a fake VIN on the report, but I mostly knew that already.

One final note: one of the few things that did print on his "CARFAX" report / screen printout was a blue ad box in the left column. It read, "to find other great values in the Clearwater, FL area, contact....". Florida? Um, no.

So I called my wife about 4:45pm to relay this last part of the discussion. We'd been texting off/on a couple of times since that morning, and were already very suspicious that this was a hoax/scam. We concluded that it would be a good karma/samaritan/right thing to do to let AutoTrader know there were some issues with one of its ads. I clicked the original Autotrader link, to get the ad number for my report: gone! "This listing has been deleted by the seller". Guess he got cold feet and moved on, or something.

So the scammers are out there, still, trolling. We didn't bite. I guess he figured there'd be someone willing to toss many thousand dollars into Google Checkout for a great deal on a sight-unseen Z06, that person confident they'd have 7 days to get to Wisconsin to check out the car before the sale was finalized (which: they would not have). But that wouldn't be us.