[stultz]
Jacob Stultz
[jstultz@gmail.com]
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
S.B. EE/CS 2007
M.Eng. EE/CS 2008
Operating Systems
System Architecture
Resume

Others:
Nater
Adam Mccaughan!!!
David
Okie
Zach Jones
Pam
Sarah Shapiro
Alissa
Amanda
George

Comics:
Achewood
Perry Bible Fellowship
Penny Arcade
xkcd

Links:
Beta Theta Pi at MIT
SomethingAwful Forums
ArsTechnica

Older
Thursday Aug 28 2008, 3:09 AM
Aaron Sorkin is writing a movie based on the founding of Facebook.

The best way for me to express my sentiment for this development is graphically:

Really? A movie about Facebook?

2008-08-28 15:50:44
alissa
ew. people suck.

Respond

Tuesday Aug 26 2008, 11:05 PM
zwieselite: the downsides of putting your life up on the internet in public
newsielover: it's not fair
newsielover: fucking
newsielover: arg
newsielover: i need to get out of a field that uses the net
zwieselite: you should go into the field field
newsielover: hahaha
newsielover: what does that mean?
zwieselite: farming
zwieselite: duh
2008-08-26 23:51:11
Sarah
I thought you meant, like, the field of understanding fields. Like human resources. Or something. Don't mock me. Jerk.
2008-08-27 01:46:22
Jacob
I wasn't mocking you I was just very proud of my joke in my sleep deprivation induced delirium.
2008-08-27 17:50:36
radmike
I think I was somewhere in between, the science of studying physical fields (including farming fields, but maybe just a nice empty meadow too).

That is a nice field.

Respond

Tuesday Aug 26 2008, 5:26 AM
OpenOffice.org is one of the most overrated, buggy, and frustrating pieces of software I've ever had the displeasure of having to use.

Honestly, having to pay for MS Office is unfortunate, but goddamn is it heads and shoulders above OpenOffice.org.

Though, I hear good things about Word Perfect 98.

2008-08-28 12:53:23
David
I prefer ClarisWorks

Respond

Thursday Aug 14 2008, 7:55 PM
What is the most crooked angle for a rectangle?

Respond

Tuesday Aug 12 2008, 10:27 PM
By the way, for anyone who doesn't already know about it (probably most of you since I think I neglected to really tell anyone that I'd made it), you can easily view the most recent updates to all blogs on the site by visiting all.twosense.org.

Also, all blogs have an RSS feed located at http://[blognamehere].twosense.org/rss.php

Respond

Tuesday Aug 12 2008, 10:09 PM
In the past week or so, I've noticed that gas prices have gone down significantly pretty quickly. I'm sure a lot of people are really happy about that; while I have to admit that it is particularly good timing for me since I'll be driving to California in about a week and a half, I don't think it's a good thing.

Oil is pretty central to the economy, and so from an economic standpoint, I do think that really high oil prices are a bad thing. High gasoline prices, on the other hand, I don't really care about. As far as I'm concerned, if high gasoline prices cause people to drive more efficiently that's great. If they cause people to drive less, that's great as well, from a number of angles: energy, pollution, traffic. I'm personally fine with paying a price premium to drive when I have to or really want to, so I'm not going to bitch and moan about high gas prices and let it affect my political decisions or opinions more than more pressing issues like education and foreign policy.

This leads me to a recent political fiasco regarding fuel mileage and tire pressure, so I've decided to talk a bit about fuel mileage in general, starting with this Obama tire pressure thing. For those who didn't hear about this, recently Obama stated that if everyone in the US inflated their tires properly, the reduction in our oil consumption resulting from that would exceed the amount of oil we would net from new offshore drilling for 10 years. Following this, the McCain crew along with a bunch of other Republicans, (Rush Limbaugh, etc) jumped on a bandwagon making fun of Obama for this, including distributing tire pressure gauges labeled "Obama's Energy Plan." They find the situation completely absurd, apparently, because they can't imagine how the pressure of a car's tires could affect the car's mileage.

And they're right, the situation is completely absurd. But not the way they think. It's absurd because Obama is absolutely correct. Tire pressure does affect gas mileage, and you should most definitely make sure that your tire pressure is correct, if not for energy reasons, then for cost reasons or safety reasons. It's absurd because Obama is correct that this would save more than new offshore drilling would produce, and yet the Republicans are still in favor of the drilling. I don't think Obama is saying so much that inflating tire pressures is the solution to our energy issue, but that if something so little, so simple, and so straightforward would help us more than offshore drilling... maybe said drilling isn't such a good idea after all.

Of course, it seems that a lot of people are eating up what the Republicans are saying, because apparently they also find it absurd that tire pressure can affect gas mileage that much. I'm sure the Republicans knew that, but what I haven't been able to decide yet is which would be worse: they are completely aware that they are completely wrong, and are saying it anyway because they know people are gullible, or they have no idea that they are completely wrong, and are really that stupid to have not researched the facts before trashing Obama for saying that.

Enough talk about tire pressure politics. There are a few other things related to gas mileage that I've seen or heard of people doing or saying recently that aren't the brightest, but are forgiveable for people who don't know too much about cars. The first: premium gasoline. A lot of high performance cars (luxury/sports cars, cars with turbochargers/superchargers) require premium gasoline. This is because they compress the fuel/air mixture in the engine more before igniting it because that generates more power. Premium gasoline is better in these situations because it has a higher resistance to spontaneous ignition (ignition without a spark, aka autoignition), and if lower octane g asoline is used in those engines it might detonate when/where it shouldn't, causing engine damage.

I've seen articles from various sources recently telling people that their cars can still run on lower octane gasoline even though the manufacturer recommends premium, suggesting that they could save some money by buying the cheaper gas. It is generally true that in newer cars, running lower octane gas won't damage the engine; the car's computers are smart enough to change the engine timing to deal with it. However, the critical flaw in this argument is that it reduces the engine's power output and efficiency. With gas prices at around $4 right now, and premium gasoline about $0.25 more per gallon, you'd save around 5% on each tank of gas. That's great, except you probably lose around 3-4 MPG, which on most cars on the road translates into around 10% lost on each tank of gas. If your car is supposed to take premium, give it premium. Probably more importantly, if you could afford a car that requires premium gas, you can probably afford the extra 5% on gas.

Heard any of this stuff about cars running on water? HHO? It's completely fucking bogus and thermodynamically impossible. The claim is that you can equip your car with these kits that use electricity generated by your cars engine to electrolyze water into hydrogen and oxygen, which is then injected into your engine's combustion chamber along with the gasoline, improving power and gasoline fuel efficiency. In other words, getting something for nothing, and a violation of the first law of thermodynamics. Supposedly there are tons of testimonials saying that it really wor ks, but my theory is that they are all people who are too embarrassed to admit that they spent a ton of money on wh at amounts to snake oil.

Another thing that people are doing in desperation to save money is purchasing new fuel-sipping cars or hybrids. If they are doing this and were already going to purchase a new car anyway, then fine, that's a great idea. But it seems that a lot of people have bought big trucks and SUVs in the past 10 years, and are now desperately trying to get rid of them so that they can buy a Fit or Prius or whatever. If you don't believe me, take a look at cars for sale on Craigslist. Buying a new car solely to save gas is a poor idea. There are two reasons why you would do this, and they are both bad:

  • Cost: Your Lincoln Navigator is costing you too much money in gas, so you decide to sell it for $3500, at least $6000 under Kelley Blue Book value, since the market for gas guzzlers is so shitty because of high gas prices. So you successfully sell the car to someone who apparently needs a luxury SUV, and you purchase a Prius for $25,000. At this point you are out $21,500, so you better hope you save a lot of money on gas. Well, you're in luck, because your Navigator got 13MPG, and your new Prius gets 46MPG. So how many miles do you have to drive to make up the difference? At $4, I figure about 96,000. Hope you do a lot of driving, and keep in mind that's a pretty extreme example. If you bought a regular small car that got just say, 35MPG for about the same price as the Prius, you're looking at more like 111,000 miles. If you buy that car with financing for 5 years, you're going to have to be driving around 20,000 miles a year to make it worth it. That's about what I did last year, but that was with two trips across the entire country.
  • Environment: I'll make this one a bit shorter, and with fewer numbers, and with a bit more handwaving because this one's a bit less clear. The general gist of this is that it takes a whole lot of energy and resources to build a car, so if you go out and buy a new car just to save gas/the environment, you're probably not helping it out that much. Of course, if you're already going to buy a car, and choose to get a Yaris instead of a Hummer, yeah, that was probably a good call. But maybe if you really care about saving the environment, you should get a used Honda Accord. Or a bicycle.

Here's an actual tip that might help you, though. If you've got an electronically fuel injected car (pretty much anything made in the last 20 years), when you're slowing down to a stop, you'll save more gas by leaving the car in gear than you will by putting it in neutral or disengaging the clutch. The reason why is pretty simple; most fuel injected cars completely stop injecting fuel a short bit after you let off the throttle completely, and just let the force of the wheels turning keep the engine going, at least until the engine gets down to idle speed. In neutral or when the clutch is disengaged, though, the engine has to burn fuel to keep the engine running at idle speed because there is nothing else to keep it going.

Of course, how can I talk about fuel-saving tips without mentioning hypermiling? Hypermiling is basically doing as much as possible to get maximum fuel efficiency, and some people actually turn this into a sport/contest. A lot of what they do is pretty smart and clever, but some of it is stupid, obnoxious, or just straight up dangerous. These tactics include: drafting really closely, cruising (mostly down hills) with the engine off, driving below the speed limit, and overinflating tires. Don't do that shit.

2008-08-12 23:38:51
jdubbs
hilarious and informative.

can't fucking wait for you to get on the better side of the country.
2008-08-17 12:21:26
Sarah
No, don't leave.
2008-08-17 23:32:03
Jake
Ever since we talked about the fuel-injection thing, I've been wondering about a common move I use driving to lab. I need to make a left turn off of memorial drive, and there's an extra lane for it that ends with a stop light right before hitting the opposing mem drive traffic. I'm usually doing around 50mph when I'm coming up on that turn, but a couple hundred yards before I'll put the car in neutral and coast until I have to hit the brakes doing about 20 at the red light. If I were to leave my car in gear, I'd definitely slow down a lot faster, so I've gotta keep my foot on the accelerator for longer. While I'm coasting, I'm paying for the engine to idle, but it's only around 1500rpm, whereas i'd be doing 2500-3000 rpm if I were in gear. I figure this is more efficient, because if I'm paying the friction to turn the engine over one way or the other, I'm best off doing it at the lowest rpm. What do you think?
2008-08-18 15:08:08
Jacob
You might have to let off the gas a little bit later, or you might just have to brake less. Just remember that while coasting in gear, regardless of engine speed, you aren't using any fuel. Keep it in a high gear to coast further.

Respond

Tuesday Jun 10 2008, 4:54 PM
I was getting money out of an ATM today to pay for the MA inspection for my car, and spent a few minutes failing to do so because it looked like the screen was dead. Then I realized that I was wearing my sunglasses, and that the screen must be horizontally polarized. So I took off my polarized sunglasses, and got my money.
Science...?

After getting my inspection completed (which I passed), I was reading the sheet of paper that they gave me as a receipt, and noticed that the Massachusetts law allowing consumers to cancel car purchases if the car fails inspection within 7 days is called, I shit you not, the "Massachusetts Lemon Aid Law."

2008-06-12 07:45:22
Josh
Hah - two short great posts in a row.

I just wanted to give you some cred since nobody is an asshat like me and actually reads your blog via an RSS feed (and therefore gets regular - effortless updates).

technology is shit, and the internet is killing libraries.
2008-06-12 09:38:50
okie
A-FUCKIN-MAZING....A MAZE i like mazes you're a maze you eat maize
2008-06-16 17:39:42
Sarah
I get why it's funny, but can you tell me...what's horizontally polarized mean?
2008-06-16 22:02:10
Nate
I want to horizontally polarize myself and trick everybody in the world into wearing polarized contact lenses. Then I will play tricks on them like turning the page of their newspaper when they're not looking. Or when they're not looking switch their full flavored beer for a light beer. HA HA
2008-06-24 00:57:35
Jacob
Sarah:

Horizontally polarized means that the electromagnetic wave that hits your eye has its electric field varying horizontally, and the magnetic field varying vertically. Light from the sun is polarized in all sorts of random directions, but for reasons that I can't really explain in a succinct manner or without a bunch of math, the majority of sunlight that is reflected off of horizontal surfaces is horizontally polarized. For this reason, polarized sunglasses only allow vertically polarized light to pass through them, to reduce reflected glare off of horizontal surfaces (like the ocean, for sailors, for instance).

Because of the way that LCD screens work, all light that is emitted by them is polarized in a particular direction. The vast majority of LCD screens that I've seen are polarized either diagonally or vertically, and therefore you can still see them through polarized sunglasses (which only block horizontally polarized light)...this might be part of the reason why they're all polarized in that direction. This ATM was the first LCD screen that I've noticed that was horizontally polarized, which is why I didn't figure out the problem earlier. I imagine the reason why this particular LCD screen was polarizied horizontally is to reduce the horizontal viewing angle of the screen, so that people standing near you will have a harder time reading what the screen says (people standing above or below you are of less concern, for obvious reasons)
2008-07-02 00:00:22
Sarah
Now I have a bajillion more questions.

Respond

Wednesday Jun 4 2008, 6:16 PM
I just registered my car in Massachusetts and got my new plates today. My license plate number?

219 AS5

I lucked out big time.

2008-06-16 17:41:26
Sarah
HAHA. My favorite car had 666 plates. My sister stole it to take to WPI. I'm getting a new car this month and am crossing my fingers that the plates are something badass. I usually luck out with that stuff. Like, my extension at work? 6868. Everyone's starts with 68, but mine ends with it too!

Respond

Thursday May 29 2008, 2:54 PM
Here's another thing that I just noticed while trying to find a phone number in one of my emails on Gmail. The mail search feature is kind of shitty; or at least, poorly configured.

I was searching for the phone number I was supposed to call to schedule an appointment to have my adopted kittens neutered and spayed. So, I searched my mail for "neuter" and it turned up zero results. So I spent 10 minutes manually searching through all of my email to find the email.

Turns out the email contained the word "neutered," meaning that Gmail will only match entire words. That might be good for some searches, but it's pretty shitty for email when you're frequently trying to find an old email and you don't remember exactly what it said. I did the same thing a while ago searching for an email about insurance by searching for "ins," and got no results.

2008-05-31 20:13:28
Sarah
That's ridiculous. They're supposed to be the search engine masters.
2008-06-04 08:27:51
Nate
I actually had some similar issues with the gmail search several weeks ago. You have to type your entry exactly as it appears in the email you are searching for. This seems like a pretty obvious issue that should be nearly impossible to overlook. There must be a reason for the search being this way, I wonder what it is.

Also, I keep compulsively checking the 'Don't check this' box then hitting submit and losing my entry. Smart.

Respond

Monday May 19 2008, 12:40 AM
Apparently, this Tuesday is Free Dippin' Dots Day. For those who didn't have a childhood and never went to an amusement park, Dippin' Dots is the self-proclaimed ice cream of the future.

Adam and I want to show up to one on Tuesday, dressed in tinfoil or something and pretend we are from the future.

"Oh thank god, Dippin' Dots, we've been searching for this everywhere! It's my favorite dessert, I was worried you didn't have it back in your time."

2008-05-19 01:36:22
radmike
Like this guy?
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/time_traveler_everyone_in_the
2008-05-19 12:57:55
Nate
No ice cream? Boo.

Respond

Older