By request of Waxy reader Logan Ingalls, I spent most of the day tracking down the origins of the Plane On A Treadmill physics puzzle/meme. I figured this would be simple, but six hours later, I’ve combed through archives of the web, Usenet, magazines, academic journal, physics websites, and hundreds of discussion forums looking for the source.

There have been a couple thought experiments that came close, but still different enough that they can’t be considered the source. Jason Scott found this Usenet post from September 1990, which sounded promising:

There is nothing special about the ground as a reference plane! Consider a large flatbed truck moving at 80 mph from east to west. Does the truck’s velocity have ANY effect on the airplane’s ability to fly? Now try to land on the truck….the velocity of the truck becomes *real* important!

O.K., I’ll carry my reductio-ad-absurdum one step more. I mount the entire state of california on a conveyor belt. Initially my conveyor belt is at rest. I take off, climb to some high altitude, and then key my mike 4 times which sets the ground into motion. Does my plane suddenly stop flying?

Very similar, but key differences in the question (and a five-year-gap before it caught on) suggest that this didn’t inspire the puzzle.

So, where did it come from? The earliest reference to it that I can find is this post to the PhysOrg Forums, dated July 19, 2005. It seems unlikely that some random poster on a physics message board would have invented it, but as far as I can tell, this is the case. Update: Its appearance online goes back to a Russian discussion forum in 2003. Read the updates at the bottom of the post for more.

I’ve tried to contact “dirak” through the PhysOrg site to get a decisive answer, but since he hasn’t posted a new message since July 2006, I think I’m out of luck. Looking for his username turns up some Slashdot submissions, all anonymous, and that’s about it. I’d even tried to contact the PhysOrg forum creators, but they’re extremely protective about their own privacy, too. As a desperate measure to locate the PhysOrg folks, I then tried to track down the freelance writers that wrote for PhysOrg (through Myspace and Facebook), and am waiting for those leads to respond. Update: Dirak responded! Read the updates below.

There’s no reference to the puzzle anywhere before July 2005, and no reference to it again until October 2005, suggesting that the rapidly-expanding PhysOrg thread led to users cross-posting it to other forums to get advice.

One of the earliest references is from November 15, 2005 on this discussion thread from Flightinfo.com, a popular aviation forum for serious pilots. Often cited in other messages from 2005, the Flightinfo thread was eventually removed from the site entirely in late 2006. On November 27, it spread further when an AVWeb columnist wrote a long article (also now offline) about how the controversy was spreading in the pilot community.

At this point, it was appearing on several message boards, inspiring heated debate everywhere it went. In December 2005, the question was posed to the Straight Dope discussion forum with no clear answers. A few weeks later, Cecil Adams himself addressed the question in his February 3, 2006 column. Cecil’s syndicated column broke the question into the mainstream. A few days later, Jason Kottke started his obsession with the question and the rest is history. Mythbusters’ elaborate tests were intended to answer the question for good, but it seems to have only strengthened the resolve of its detractors.

So until I hear back from “dirak,” or manage to contact PhysOrg, I’m going to consider this case closed. (Needless to say, if you can find an earlier reference or have any other information, please let me know.)

Updated February 7: Unbelievably, “Dirak” (his real name’s Andrew) responded to my private message through the PhysOrg forums! He says, “Yes, I’m sure I was the first who brought this topic to the English-speaking internet. However, I wasn’t the one who invented this question. I’m half-Russian and I read about it on one of Russian forums back in 2005.”

He continues, “I looked for that thread for you, here it is (it’s in Russian). The first guy (shipwreck) wrote about it in 2003 and in his first post he says that they were arguing about it in his college. shipwreck is an unregistered user on that board, so I’m not sure if it’s possible to contact him at all. Hope this helps you.”

Incredible. So, this brings its appearance online back to August 4, 2003. Any Russians out there want to carry on the search? Trying to contact “Shipwreck” would be the next step.

Also: Want me to research another meme? Email or IM me and I’ll give it a shot. Whee!

Yesterday, I released six years of piracy data for your bemusement and data munging. But what does it all mean? Well, let’s start with a couple questions.

1. Is the MPAA doing a better job at preventing screeners from leaking online?

It’s hard to say. There are a couple weeks left, but so far, less than half of the 32 Academy screeners have leaked online. But yet, all but four three of the 34 nominated films are available in DVD quality right now, either as a screener or retail DVD. (Lars and the Real Girl, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, and The Savages are the only films that haven’t leaked online in any form.)

If you look at the chart, it doesn’t seem like much has changed in the time it takes for films to leak online.

So what’s really going on here?

2. Is the MPAA preventing overall piracy of Oscar films?

No. 148 out of 151 of Oscar-nominated films from 2003 to 2007 were available in DVD quality (either leaked retail or screener DVDs) by Oscar night. The films are getting leaked just as quickly as ever, but apparently not through Academy screeners. This could be because watermarks and recent court cases are acting as an effective deterrent, but I think it’s attributable to two other reasons, which I mentioned in my post yesterday.

First, the gap between theatrical releases to retail DVD is getting shorter. (Note: I’m going to use the date the retail DVD was leaked as an approximation of the official DVD release date.) In the last five years, it’s gone from an average of about four months to about three months, and continuing to shrink.

Second, the rise of Region 5 DVD transfers from overseas. These DVDs transferred directly from the film source were intended to help them compete with pirates by providing high-quality retail copies of films at the time of the film’s release. Instead, it’s created a huge new method of acquiring films before screeners are even released. (Read more about R5s at Afterdawn.)

Screeners aren’t leaking as often, not because the MPAA’s protecting them better, but because they’ve made the whole process moot by providing higher-quality, easier-to-acquire copies before screeners are released, in the form of R5 and retail DVDs.

Find anything else interesting in the data? Please, comment or send it to me and I’ll add it to this entry.

February 11 Update: The Lars and the Real Girl screener was released. I updated the data.

Every year, the Academy tries to stop Oscar films from leaking online. And every year, they leak all the same. I’ve been tracking Oscar piracy since 2004, but I’ve decided to up the ante, releasing all the underlying data and extending it to 2003. Six years of Oscar piracy data on all 186 nominated films from 2003 to 2008 — including US release dates for Academy screeners, cams, telesyncs, R5/telecines, screener leaks and retail DVD rips — can all be viewed or downloaded below.

View: Google Spreadsheets

Download: Excel (with formulas)

Download: CSV

This year, all but six of the 34 nominated films were available in DVD quality by the last week of January. This is about consistent with past years, but we’re seeing a shift towards studios releasing DVDs closer to their theatrical date. This trend, combined with the new availability of high-quality Region 5 rips from overseas, is making the screener leak less meaningful. After all, why bother releasing the screener if the retail DVD or a direct-from-film transfer is already out?

Collecting this data took me all day, so I’m going to publish my analysis and pretty charts tomorrow. Update: Here’s Part 2, with my analysis and charts.

Continue reading “Pirating the 2008 Oscars (Now with 6 Years of Data)” →

This was my first week of daily blogging, so I thought I’d spend a moment to explain what I’m doing and why.

Very few weblogs do any kind of original research on a daily basis. Most either spend their time repurposing (or just linking to) original research from mainstream media or other sources, or they do commentary and analysis. Their most important role is as information filters, distilling everything going on in the world relevant to their audience and presenting only the good stuff. Finding a great filter is insanely valuable, but at the end of the day, does Waxy Links add anything new to the conversation?

So I’m going to try an experiment this year: publish something original on Waxy.org, every weekday. Not my opinions about news (opinions are cheap) and not just glorified linkblogging, but something new: original research, investigative journalism, information visualization, digitizing dead media, live reporting, or interviews. I’ll also be releasing new applications, interactive web toys, and social software throughout the year, because as much as I love journalism, I love coding just as much.

I don’t know exactly what I’ll do yet, and I don’t have many expectations. I also don’t expect it’ll drive a huge amount of traffic (or money), but I’m pretty sure it’ll be more fun than the alternatives.

This week, I wrote five stories. On Monday, I tracked a silly meme to its source and interviewed the creator, revealing some information that’s never been mentioned online before. Tuesday, I debunked one net legend’s personal ad with solid (and bizarre) evidence that I searched for, and published another that’s never been seen on the web. Wednesday, I exposed a deceptive campaign to lift a respected newspaper’s search engine rankings using social media websites. Thursday, I updated the developing story by interviewing representatives from the newspaper and its consulting firm, and interviewed several community founders about their policies regarding the practice. And today, I posted the MP3s of a rare, geeky album to the web for the first time.

So, a mix of hard and (extremely) soft news. But each story, I hope, added something completely new to the web that wasn’t there before.

That’s it. I hope you stick around. Feel free to ask any questions in the comments.

I was writing a long, interesting article about the Microsoft and Yahoo! merger, with several interviews from insiders at both companies, but I’m already sick to death of hearing about it. So I quit! Instead, here’s Brent “Data” Spiner’s rare 1991 album, “Ol’ Yellow Eyes Is Back.”

Don’t miss “It’s a Sin (To Tell A Lie),” with background vocals by The Sunspots — Jonathan “Riker” Frakes, Michael “Worf” Dorn, LeVar “Reading Rainbow” Burton, and Patrick “I’ve Seen Everything” Stewart.

Brent Spiner – Ol’ Yellow Eyes Is Back (1991)

1. Time After Time

2. The Very Thought of You

3. More Than You Know

4. Toot Toot Tootsie

5. Embraceable You

6. It’s a Sin (To Tell a Lie)

7. Long, Long Time

8. Carolina in the Morning

9. Marie (Randy Newman cover)

10. Zing! Went the Strings of My Heart

11. When I Fall in Love

12. Goodnight, Sweetheart

This album is extremely rare, and I believe this is the first time the MP3s have ever been publicly available on the Web. (I don’t even see it on the torrent trackers.) The cheapest copy of the CD on Amazon is $89.99, but you can generally find it on eBay in the $40-50 range. Since the album’s out of print, I hope Brent won’t mind that I’m releasing it here.

February 7 Update: Less than a week ago, a couple days before this post, Brent Spiner launched his new personal site and released a video on YouTube about his long-awaited concept album, Dreamland. Inspired by Broadway musicals and old-fashioned radio shows, the album is available for pre-order on Brent’s site. Did I mention it features the voice acting of Mark Hamill?