first 2016 race one week away

I have a 5k race to run exactly 1 week from today and I don’t feel very ready.

I have a darn cold. Last year when I had a cold I swore that I would get a flu shot this year, but did I? Heck no. Next year FOR SURE. Flu shots are not 100% effective, of course, but so far they seem to be working for my wife and daughter. They both received shots and have no cold. Cam and I did not get shots and we have both come down with colds. My worst day was last Wednesday, 4 days ago, so hopefully I am on the mend. I have high hopes that I will be mostly better by race day.

I have big plans for my little running hobby this year. I’m already signed up for 6 races and will probably add another 1 or 2. The big news, though, is that I plan to participate at the 2016 BC Masters Outdoor Track and Field Championship.

I’ve written previously about how I planned to participate in the 2016 Americas Masters Games when they come to Vancouver in late August. The fact that these world class games were coming to Vancouver just seemed like too good an opportunity to pass up. Well, I’ve changed my mind a little. The Americas Masters Games are probably just a little too far out of my league. I’ve decided to do the BC Championships first and then make a final decision on the Americas Masters Games. The BC Championships are 2 months before the Americas Masters Games, so I will have plenty of time to make up my mind. Currently I doubt that I will attend the Americas Masters Games, but I’m still open to the possibility.

At the BC Championships, I’m planning to do the 100 m, 200 m, 3000 m, and long jump. I have never attended a track and field meet before, so I’m pretty stoked.

2016 Iowa caucuses

The long wait is finally over and the Iowa caucuses have at last been held. The US media has gone on a bit of a reporting frenzy, which is to be expected, I guess. What I am finding strange, however, is the media’s focus on who “won” each caucus. They’re going on and on about it. “Cruz Wins,” in giant headlines. On the Democrat side it was up in the air for quite a few hours, which gave the pundits plenty of time to obsess about it, but it was finally determined that Clinton won. Again, giant headlines, “Clinton Wins.”

CNN feature story hours after Iowa caucus

CNN feature story the day after Iowa caucus

Why the focus on who won? This is the first of 52 separate votes. At the end of this process, who won each individual state will count for nothing. What matters are the delegate numbers, and when it comes to delegate numbers there were no clear winners. On the Republican side we had basically a 3 way tie (Cruz-8, Trump-7, Rubio-7), and on the Democrat side we had basically a 2 way tie (Clinton-23, Sanders-21).

In my opinion the real story here is Rubio’s strong 3rd place showing. He is said to be the establishment’s choice. Could he also end up being the choice of the anti-Trumps? That would make sense, actually, since Cruz isn’t much better than Trump, frankly. If the Republican establishment and the anti-Trumps both get behind Rubio, he could easily end up taking the nomination.

On the Democrat side much ado is being made of Sander’s tie. However, he was expected to do well in Iowa. He is expected to do even better in New Hampshire, which is up next. Overall, however, Clinton is expected to prevail. So Sanders taking an early tie doesn’t mean much.

I mean, come on; it was one vote! There are 51 more to go.

It’s like they did a coin toss before a football game, to decide who gets first carry, and the analysts start talking about all the momentum the team that won the toss has.

We need more primaries under the bridge first. For the Republicans, New Hampshire votes on February 9th, two states vote on the 20th, and then 15 states vote on the 23rd. That’s when it will make sense to talk about momentum.

On the Democrat side the first multi-state vote is on March 1, at which point a total of 16 states will have voted. Again, that’s when some meaningful analysis regarding momentum can be made.

I can’t wait for the 23rd, frankly. This is fascinating stuff.

Apple creating ‘truly wireless’ charging technology

Today I came across a classic example of how misinformation is disseminated on the internet.

The title of today’s blog post is taken from an article that was advertised in my facebook feed. It seemed interesting, so I checked it out. The article, posted on gmanetwork.com, claimed that not only was Apple creating a ‘truly wireless’ charging technology, but that it had been reported on Techcrunch that “the wireless charging technology can work over long distances.”

Now here’s the thing: I know a thing or two about physics, and I can assure you that this will never happen. They will never invent a wireless charging technology that will allow consumers to charge their iPhones and iPads over long distances. It’s just never going to be practical. Apple may be good, but they can’t change the laws of physics.

So, okay then, let’s track down how this nonsense got started.

The link they gave as their source was for Techcrunch’s twitter feed, and sure enough it contains a video report titled ‘Apple creating long-range wireless charging tech.’ In the Techcrunch report they stated

“Apple is building technology that would allow iPhone and iPad owners to charge their devices wirelessly without needing to plug them into the wall or even on a charging mat. This is according to a report from Bloomberg which claims this wireless charging technology could work over long distances as well, although how long those distances are was not specified.”

As we can see, Techcrunch is indeed saying wireless charging would occur over “long-range” and “long distances,” citing a Bloomberg report.  They provide a link to the report:

Apple Developing Wireless-Charged iPhone for as Soon as 2017

Here’s what the Bloomberg article had to say on the topic:

“Apple is exploring cutting-edge technologies that would allow iPhones and iPads to be powered from further away than the charging mats used with current smartphones…”

That’s it! There is nothing at all about “long-range” or “long distances.” In fact, the Bloomberg report explicitly states “a distance of about 1 meter,” and cites a patent application from Apple for “Wireless power utilization in a local computing environment.” The patent describes a system that could power a mouse and keyboard within roughly a meter of a base.  When it comes to the truthiness of the Techcrunch report, we immediately see there are two problems:

1. A meter is not “long-range” or “long distance.”
2. A mouse and keyboard use far less power than is required to charge an iPhone or iPad.

In other words, the Techcrunch report is nonsense. They grossly misrepresented the report on Bloomberg.

The report on Bloomberg has been widely cited. Many other websites have made the same error. Here are some other headlines:

Report: Apple developing long range wireless charging tech for iOS devices

Bloomberg: Apple developing extended range wireless charging

Apple reportedly developing long range wireless charging technology for 2017 iPhone

Bloomberg: Apple working on wireless charging at-a-distance

That last article ridiculously says:

“Not to be confused with existing wireless charging solutions that depend on contact between a surface of the device and a specialized charging mat, at-a-distance charging means your phone can charge while it is still in your pocket.”

That’s truly comical. It is highly unlikely that they are ever going to wirelessly charge iPhones in your pocket.

The system described in Apple’s patent is one for powering low power devices within a meter or so of a base. Charging an iPhone would need at least 10 times more power. It would need to be closer to the base, and it would need to be correctly oriented. I would also have health concerns. Are we sure it’s completely safe to sit in such a high strength magnetic field? Personally, I would wait until such a device has been in widespread use for years and proven completely safe before I would use one.

There’s also the issue of devices that are sensitive to magnetic fields. A magnetic field strong enough to charge a phone in a person’s pocket could also erase the magnetic strip on their driver’s license and credit cards.

Anyway, this whole story is a great example of how misinformation is spread through today’s media. You start out with a story that says one thing, and then other websites get it wrong. Today’s news sources just aren’t very careful when repeating information.