- The contact syncing mechanism had a problem in which when I deleted 200 contacts from my gmail list, I could not get the G1 to also delete the contacts. I tried clearing the 'data' from the Contacts app (under settings->applications), but that didn't work. Ended up doing a factory reset of the phone and starting over.
- Visual voicemail would be great, but Phonefusion requires an SMS for each voicemail, and also it reroutes voicemail to its own server. :(
- Considered apps:
- chompsms
- missed call
- any cut
- astro (file manager)
- toggle settings
- quickpedia
- chompsms
- chompsms
- Installed apps:
- Xtremelabs Speedtest
- Tetherbot (from here) - update: actually, I may go with this or this
- t-mobile hotspot
- sms popup
- power manager
- Xtremelabs Speedtest
Thursday, December 25, 2008
T-mobile G1 new phone setup
I've been working on getting my G1 up and running productively. Some notes on my experience:
Howto create custom csv file to upload into gmail contacts
I recently got the T-Mobile G1 phone and wanted to transfer my contacts from my old phone to the G1. The G1 syncs its contacts with gmail contacts, so I added them there. How I pulled my contacts from my old Motorola E815 phone into a CSV is a tale for another blog, but it was painful. Gmail has a page: http://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=12119 that's supposed to specify how to create a csv file suitable for upload to gmail, but I found it useless because it didn't clearly define the set of acceptable field names. In the end what worked for me was to first export a contact from gmail into a csv file in Outlook format. The first line of that file has all of the field names. I found that the gmail importer was robust to reordering of the field names and omitting field names. It looks like there isn't an easy way to merge these contacts uploaded with email contact entries that already exist.
For the record, here are the field names for Outlook's CSV format that gmail understands:
For the record, here are the field names for Outlook's CSV format that gmail understands:
Name,E-mail Address,Notes,E-mail 2 Address,E-mail 3 Address,Mobile Phone,Pager,Company,Job Title,Home Phone,Home Phone 2,Home Fax,Home Address,Business Phone,Business Phone 2,Business Fax,Business Address,Other Phone,Other Fax,Other Address
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Comparison of historical financial data accuracy among three providers
I had been using Yahoo finance's historical data for some quantitative modeling I have been dabbling with. At one point, I noticed that that for two assets, Yahoo did not report closing prices on the same set of days. That is, there was a day in which Yahoo reported a closing price for one but not the other. So I started investigating the extent of data inconsistencies and here's the upshot:
I compared two historical data sources and used a third to resolve disaggreements. The first is
Yahoo's historical data, which is free and is based on Commodity Systems, Inc. (CSI). The second data source is Xignite, which costs about $160/month and is based on some combination of DDF, Reuters, and Zacks. When the two sources disagreed, I resolved it by consulting a third, marketwatch.com, which is free and based on Interactive Data Pricing and Reference Data. The comparison was of market days as well as closing prices.
Here is the abbreviated raw output of my comparison script for two assets: VEURX and VBISX (Vanguard funds)
In general, over a bunch of assets, it seemed like Xignite's data was more buggy than Yahoo's. The caveat here of course is that marketwatch is an independent data source. I think it is because it sometimes agrees with Yahoo and sometimes with Xignite, though that's not conclusive.
I compared two historical data sources and used a third to resolve disaggreements. The first is
Yahoo's historical data, which is free and is based on Commodity Systems, Inc. (CSI). The second data source is Xignite, which costs about $160/month and is based on some combination of DDF, Reuters, and Zacks. When the two sources disagreed, I resolved it by consulting a third, marketwatch.com, which is free and based on Interactive Data Pricing and Reference Data. The comparison was of market days as well as closing prices.
Here is the abbreviated raw output of my comparison script for two assets: VEURX and VBISX (Vanguard funds)
desktop:~/finance$ ./st.py veurx
Xignite/VEURX(2008-11-20 - 1994-01-04) vs Yahoo/VEURX(2008-11-13 - 1990-11-01)
WARNING: Xignite/VEURX is missing date 2006-01-13, present in Yahoo/VEURX and marketwatch.
WARNING: Xignite/VEURX is missing date 2004-05-26, present in Yahoo/VEURX and marketwatch.
WARNING: Xignite/VEURX is missing date 2004-02-25, present in Yahoo/VEURX and marketwatch.
WARNING: Xignite/VEURX is missing date 1995-07-12, present in Yahoo/VEURX and marketwatch.
Xignite/VEURX leads with 5 extra points
Yahoo/VEURX goes further back 802 points
BAD DATA on 1994-02-08
Yahoo= 0.00350 Xignite=-0.00083 1994-02-08 1994-02-08 8.60000 8.57000 12.04000 12.05000
Xignite is the outlier
BAD DATA on 1994-02-09
Yahoo=-0.00465 Xignite= 0.00000 1994-02-09 1994-02-09 8.56000 8.60000 12.04000 12.04000
Xignite is the outlier
BAD DATA on 1994-03-01
Yahoo=-0.01175 Xignite=-0.02843 1994-03-01 1994-03-01 8.41000 8.51000 11.62000 11.96000
Xignite is the outlier
BAD DATA on 1994-03-02
Yahoo=-0.01665 Xignite= 0.00000 1994-03-02 1994-03-02 8.27000 8.41000 11.62000 11.62000
Xignite is the outlier
BAD DATA on 1994-03-04
Yahoo= 0.00963 Xignite= 0.00000 1994-03-04 1994-03-04 8.39000 8.31000 11.68000 11.68000
Xignite is the outlier
BAD DATA on 1994-03-07
Yahoo= 0.01192 Xignite= 0.02226 1994-03-07 1994-03-07 8.49000 8.39000 11.94000 11.68000
Xignite is the outlier
BAD DATA on 1994-05-26
Yahoo= 0.00239 Xignite=-0.01954 1994-05-26 1994-05-26 8.39000 8.37000 11.56936 11.79995
Xignite is the outlier
BAD DATA on 1994-05-27
Yahoo=-0.01073 Xignite= 0.01127 1994-05-27 1994-05-27 8.30000 8.39000 11.69969 11.56936
Xignite is the outlier
BAD DATA on 1994-06-27
Yahoo= 0.00000 Xignite= 0.01317 1994-06-27 1994-06-27 8.10000 8.10000 11.56936 11.41898
Yahoo is the outlier
BAD DATA on 1994-06-28
Yahoo= 0.01605 Xignite= 0.00260 1994-06-28 1994-06-28 8.23000 8.10000 11.59944 11.56936
Yahoo is the outlier
BAD DATA on 1994-07-18
Yahoo= 0.00000 Xignite= 0.00993 1994-07-18 1994-07-18 8.59000 8.59000 12.23104 12.11074
Yahoo is the outlier
BAD DATA on 1994-07-19
Yahoo= 0.00815 Xignite=-0.00164 1994-07-19 1994-07-19 8.66000 8.59000 12.21099 12.23104
Yahoo is the outlier
BAD DATA on 1996-02-20
Yahoo=-0.01214 Xignite= 0.00000 1996-02-20 1996-02-20 10.58000 10.71000 15.09505 15.09505
Xignite is the outlier
BAD DATA on 1996-02-21
Yahoo= 0.00567 Xignite=-0.00699 1996-02-21 1996-02-21 10.64000 10.58000 14.98949 15.09505
Xignite is the outlier
BAD DATA on 1998-05-19
Yahoo= 0.01495 Xignite= 0.00000 1998-05-19 1998-05-19 19.69000 19.40000 27.32290 27.32290
Xignite is the outlier
BAD DATA on 1998-05-20
Yahoo= 0.01524 Xignite= 0.03048 1998-05-20 1998-05-20 19.99000 19.69000 28.15558 27.32290
Xignite is the outlier
[ ...... omitted rest for brevity ....... ]
TOTAL: Yahoo=1.51066 Xignite=1.51084
desktop:~/finance$ ./st.py vbisx
WARNING: Fabricating data for Yahoo/VBISX on 2003-11-28
Xignite/VBISX(2008-11-19 - 1994-03-10) vs Yahoo/VBISX(2008-11-10 - 1996-06-20)
WARNING: Xignite/VBISX is missing date 2004-05-26, present in Yahoo/VBISX and marketwatch.
WARNING: Xignite/VBISX is missing date 2004-02-25, present in Yahoo/VBISX and marketwatch.
Xignite/VBISX leads with 7 extra points
Xignite/VBISX goes further back 575 points
BAD DATA on 2004-04-20
Yahoo= 0.00000 Xignite=-0.00391 2004-04-20 2004-04-20 8.58000 8.58000 15.61512 15.67636
Yahoo is the outlier
BAD DATA on 2004-04-21
Yahoo=-0.00233 Xignite= 0.00098 2004-04-21 2004-04-21 8.56000 8.58000 15.63043 15.61512
Yahoo is the outlier
BAD DATA on 2008-10-31
Yahoo= 0.00101 Xignite= 0.00412 2008-10-31 2008-10-31 9.95000 9.94000 18.22287 18.14801
WARNING: All prices agree with Marketwatch
TOTAL: Yahoo=0.88037 Xignite=0.88195
In general, over a bunch of assets, it seemed like Xignite's data was more buggy than Yahoo's. The caveat here of course is that marketwatch is an independent data source. I think it is because it sometimes agrees with Yahoo and sometimes with Xignite, though that's not conclusive.
Lenovo T500 noise issue
So as many others have reported with other laptops, the Lenovo T500 makes a high-frequency whining noise. After going through at least 6 cases with Lenovo tech-support (they had no idea what to make of it and kept thinking it was the fan), including replacing the fan, it got escalated, and tech support returned the laptop with 'CPU power management' disabled in BIOS. Investigating further, and it looks like alternating the CPU to low power states C4 onwards causes it to make the noise. Thinkwiki has a bunch of suggestions on reducing the noise, but the only one that reliably worked is to prevent the CPU from entering those states. I found this is done either by the BIOS setting change, or I found that plugging in a USB mouse also prevented the CPU from entering the power saving state - as reported by powertop. I'm running Ubuntu on it. I've heard elsewhere people had tricks on windows to tell the OS how to schedule the power cycling, but I haven't tried them.
Labels:
crackling noise,
high-frequency,
high-pitch,
whining
Laptop power consumption
I recently got a Lenovo T500 based on the new Intel 4-series chipset. It's pretty solidly built, except that the display has a dead pixel. My first action was to get it to dual-boot Ubuntu and Vista - the hardest part was getting Vista not to hog the whole disk. Maybe I'll write on that procedure sometime. Also, the laptop makes a high-pitched noise that, after 4 tech-support services, was finally diagnosed as being due to CPU power management. Apparently this happens on lots of laptops. As the CPU goes into and out of low power states (C4 - C6), it emits the noise. Lenovo's 'solution' was to disable CPU power management in BIOS. I installed powertop, a nifty utility to measure power usage (though not sure if it captures ALL power consumed or just a subset) and did the following measurements. The setup was the laptop running on battery power, with gmail running in firefox. I wasn't interacting with it.
I also tried a bunch of the optimizations suggested at thinkwiki, such as disabling pcmcia and usb 1.1, and reducing disk writeback, but it didn't seem to make a difference. Of course, that could be because powertop power reporting does not include those power drains in its numbers.
Mode | Power reported by powertop |
---|---|
CPU power management disabled: LCD maximum brightness | 19.8W |
CPU power management disabled: LCD minimum brightness | 15.2W |
CPU power management enabled: LCD maximum brightness | 18.7W |
CPU power management enabled: LCD minimum brightness | 14.0W |
CPU power management enabled: LCD minimum brightness, RF Kill switch on | 13.0W |
I also tried a bunch of the optimizations suggested at thinkwiki, such as disabling pcmcia and usb 1.1, and reducing disk writeback, but it didn't seem to make a difference. Of course, that could be because powertop power reporting does not include those power drains in its numbers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)