Except, what if you want to run native applications? What if something requires a much higher level of performance than JavaScript can provide?

Turns out, Google thought about this long ago: they recommend using NativeClient. Right now, though, it's a download for your operating system of choice (Win, Lin, or Mac). The implication, though, is that it will be part of Chromium OS. This could be the missing key for filling in the gap between web and local performance issues and interfaces. Would we ever see a version of Premier, or even Photoshop, written to support such an environment? Yeah, probably not. But it could enable such types of applications and games that require more than what a Javascript environment can handle.

Yet, it could still be delivered through the network, so updates are always applied. Local caching can fill in for when the network isn't available (which happens, regardless of how pervasive it becomes).

But, is it enough? I suspect it would be for most folks. But, for creative folks, back-end business work, engineering, development, and other things, it won't be enough for a while.

And where does Java fit in to this? It fills the gap -- plus some -- on Android.

Have a look. That's just not a very good showing for a system that's documented to be on the other end. I used a tool called namebench, which is open source and created, apparently, as a Google 20%er project.

For kicks, I decided to run this on a dedicated server I have.

These results had a better ranking for Google DNS, but equally slow responses. That's a bit strange. It is interesting, though, that many servers are quite slow, but highly dependent on where you are and who your ISP is.

So, just why is Google Public DNS so slow, anyway? Why isn't it leaps and bounds better than other DNS servers? Is Google slacking? Or is there something else at work here? I can't imagine they'd put this out without running their own tests...

For instance, you can start a new Incognito session with Chrome, login to a different GMail accounts, and then close the session without ever worrying about your primary tabs getting confused with Reader, Calendar, GMail, etc.

This works because the cookies and session information isn't kept. On Chrome, though, it is shared with all incognito tabs that are running at once until they are closed. This means you can only do one additional session at a time (in addition to your primary one). But, it's often faster than opening a new browser.

Truth is, I've been really busy with lots of other stuff. I also have other outlets for writing that are soaking up a lot of my writing energy. Check them out:

• Developer.com Articles on Android Widgets (written with my wife, Lauren Darcey):
• Creating an Android Widget
• Handling User Interaction in a Widget
• Handling Lengthy Operations in a Widget
• Working with Android Calendar Entries
• Writing on our Android blog
• Guest Blogging with my wife at Network World
• Writing a new Android Book, Sam's Teach Yourself Android Application Development in 24 hours, also with Lauren Darcey

Over at the Chrome Techa blog, they ask if you'd take a free netbook from Google. I would. Why not? Chrome OS basically just runs Chrome. I use Chrome. So what's wrong with that? More machines accessing the net gives Google more revenue. Why? They have such pervasive advertising that simply getting more people online is good for them.

But would Apple and Microsoft just roll over and die? Probably not. In fact, Apple has over $23 billion in cash and short term investments, while Microsoft is sitting on nearly $37 billion. There are just 304 million people in the US. Technically speaking, these three companies could subsidize netbooks for every single citizen -- and have cash left over. And, the idea being, they'd make money on each one and thus, come out in even better financial situations. Crazy, huh?

Sure, that probably doesn't make sense for them to do at that scale. There would also need to be pervasive Internet access for all which is, arguably, a much larger cost (maybe whitespace spectrum tech will solve that?). Still, it's an interesting concept that, if implemented on even a small scale, could really change computing for the masses. It'd be considered a disruptive marketing tactic -- something all of these companies have done.

We finished one book (buy it here!) and are starting another.

We have an amazing vegetable garden going. The June rains helped keep things watered with lots of visitors around. They also slowed down the growth, since we didn't get as much sun as normal.

We're heads down with software consulting, heads up with our own software projects, and some other small writing. Hopefully there will be more to report soon on those last two. ;)

In the middle of all of this, we're trying to get out more. Working from home is great: you don't have to leave to go to work, you don't waste time commuting, and you can do more. It also means you're at the same location every day. We've begun geocaching as a way to get out to fairly random locations we haven't been to. That's been fun, though continuing to find the time for it isn't easy. At least, with this, we can find our way out. :)

It's clear, though, that one thing hasn't happened: blogging. I share items on Google Reader, post quick thoughts on twitter, and share more personal things on facebook. Big thoughts, though, are just getting lost in the mix. Sorry.

(Image is of me at Mt Washington on an amazingly clear day. (c) 2009 by Lauren Darcey.)

But why is it normally considered a bad luck day? Apparently, one of the earliest written references was from 1869. That doesn't date back very far. However, Friday may have been seen as unlucky since the 14th century and The Canterbury Tales. The term "Black Friday" has been associated with stock market crashes and disasters since the 1800s. Apparently, on October 13th, 1307, the Knights Templar, a very wealthy and powerful group formed to protected pilgrims during the Crusades, were mass arrested. It was, naturally, a Friday the 13th.

Combined with fear of the number 13, one can see how it might be viewed as an unlucky day. It's interesting, then, that the popularity of the phrase, "Friday the 13th," may barely date back century.

Also interesting is the fact that a 13th occurs on a Friday more than any other day of the week - 14.33% of all thirteens of the month vs 14.25% for the least appearances on both Thursday and Saturday. Although a Friday the 13th occurs only once every 212.35 days, if it occurs in a February, such as today, it was also occur the following March. The longest you have to wait between Friday the 13ths is 14 months and the next time that will happen is after a Friday the 13th in July, 2012 -- the next one won't be until September, 2013 - thirteen! :o

Source: Wikipedia

Without looking, I don't even know if one comes with Vista or Windows 7, by default. I didn't even know about this one until I started seeing words defined in Spotlight, either. It also serves as a thesaurus, too.

But wait, there's more! Did you know it also has Wikipedia? This is pretty cool stuff! I don't know that I'd use the Wikipedia part more than just searching in Google, but it's neat. Unlike the Dictionary and Thesaurus, though, the Wikipedia portion requires a web connection. A locally cached version would make it super cool -- and, then again, super big.

However, this is for a good reason. It's name is Nomans Land, aka "No Man's Land." From 1943 to 1996 it was used for bombing practice and may have unexploded ordnance. It's 5km off the southwest side of Martha's Vineyard, so should be visible from there. Learn more at the Wikipedia page on it plus find it on Google Maps.

Have you found anything of interest on the map lately? Browsing around is surprisingly fun!

Chances are, you don't even realize which system you're using. I didn't.

Quick, what's the name for 1,000,000,000,000?

How about 1,000,000,000?

If you said "one billion" that's the American and scientific counting system. If you said "one thousand million" you probably learned in Britain before 1974. Finally, if you said "one millard" (or maybe "one milliard", my sources are inconsistent) you're using the European system.

A billion isn't a billion the world around.

Why is this important? Because you might be off by many orders of magnitude when thinking about such things as national debts. If you hear that the US is giving out nearly a trillion dollars, you might think that's 10^18th (uhm, this: 1,000,000,000,000,000,000). In our system, though, that's a quintillion. A trillion is a million times less! That is, it's 10^12th (1,000,000,000,000). That's a huge difference!

What gives?

Simply put, one counting system bases the number prefix on one less than the power base 1000. That is, the American system is based on 1000^n where n minus 1 determines the prefix to use. So, for instance, 1000^4 is a trillion. Note the "tri" part of trillion and 100^7 is a septillion, and so on.

The other system, though, can be thought of as based on the power base 1000000. That is, 1000000^3 is one trillion in this system and 1000000^7 is a septillion. For those number with that land in between the powers, you put a thousand in front of it or it's an "ard" instead of an "ion" (the actual suffix is llion or tillion, depending on other rules from latin).

Also interesting, but slightly unrelated, is that the latin prefixes are exhausted for powers greater than 1000000 (e.g. 1000^1000001 and higher ("one thousand to the power of million one")). At that point, the last prefix -- millia -- starts repeating. Also, at the point, human brains explode trying to imagine what these numbers might mean. Seriously. According to Wikipedia, there may only be 10^80 atoms in the observable universe. Really, that's a small number -- only one hundred quinvigintillion.

Here's one for ya: If we can talk about numbers larger than the number of observable atoms (MUCH larger), what do they represent in the real world?

Sources: Wikipedia, chongo on numbers, Jim Loy, Quadrillion Corp (where I first saw reference to a different system)

We had a few problems with it. First, the battery life was terrible, especially considering we had wireless off (more on that later) and that it doesn't use any power to display a page (I tested this by pulling the battery with a page showing -- pretty fun!). It would last maybe a day or two before needing to be plugged in, so we had to keep it plugged in all the time.

Second, the buttons were all in the wrong places. The page turn buttons ran along the sides and would be clicked by just picking it up. Considering page turning was very slow (distractingly slow), this didn't work so well.

Third, the wireless didn't work. There is no Sprint 3G coverage where we are, apparently, so we couldn't use any of the store features, regularly updated content, the browser, etc. None of that could work.

Finally, it was way too expensive for what it was. The books cost almost nothing to be reproduced in digital form, yet Amazon is charging more than a paperback book ($10) for them. This doesn't work and since they can't be sold, it's money completely gone. Considering renting a book from a library is free, and buying a book for $8 that can be resold for $4 is easily 60% cheaper, this just doesn't work. Then, add on to that $400 and you've got a perfect storm of exorbitant expenses that really don't make any sense at all.

So, when I started hearing about the new Kindle and how it was going to improve upon the last, I was hopeful. Well, all of the details are out today. Sadly, it looks like they've failed to solve any of the problems we had with it.

Second, the buttons appear to be smaller, but in exactly the same places. Grab it wrong and you lose your page. It still looks hard to hold -- and thinner doesn't help that any. I'd be curious in feeling how this has really changed, though, but I swear the hands in all of the pictures are pushing buttons.

Third, they are proud of the fact you don't have to hunt down WiFi. Sorry, but in a place where there is no Spring 3G, WiFi is infinitely easier to find -- such as, in all the local coffee shops, in our own home, and even from our phones (N95 as a router comes to mind, here). WiFi would even allow it to work in other areas. Sadly, this is a deal breaker.

Finally, the price hasn't changed at all. The books are still way too expensive. The cost of a paperback or hardback book is supposed to be where it is because the publisher has to store tons (literally) of books, ship tons of books, and physically distribute them to bookstores at a risk they won't all sell. None of that exists with digital delivery. They should be able to be sold for a song. No, I mean literally -- 99 cents or even two bucks. The royalty structure would have to change so authors got the same amount from them, but even with that I'm guessing the publisher would profit even more than from physical book delivery and with absolutely none of the risk or up front costs of printing a run of books. This is also a deal breaker.

Sorry, but no thanks. We'll continue to use the library for free books, and physical media so we can resell and recoup most of our initial expenses.

That being said, I'm glad the readers are as popular as they are for a variety of reasons. But, I've been continually surprised by how they are popular amongst the non-geek crowd more so than in the geek crowd. Fascinating.

I usually have automatic updating on my systems. This works great for systems I use all the time or that are on all the time (typically the same, these days, since having a machine on all the time is expensive). However, lately there's been a machine that isn't being updated. Why?

The simple answer is: When it does get used, it's not for very long and an update would be very distracting. For me, it's an inconvenience and I just ignore the notices so I can get to what I'm doing on it (watching TV, in this case). By the time I'm done with it, I want it off or I've forgotten that there was an update it needs.

Problem is, I suspect this is how many folks use their primary machines and why they don't get updated. I'm still convinced the a large majority of people who don't update find it far too complex to do. Now, though, I think there may be other reasons. And this is one of them.

Please streamline updates and make them faster. A big part of this would be figuring out how to do them without a reboot. Yes, that's a complex problem. But... figure it out. It will make computers safer, friendlier, and more usable. That's a good thing for everyone.