Train To Zone!

The obligatory link: French train smashes world speed record

I'll state from the start, they're talking about the speed record for trains on rails. Thus, the speed records for the magnetic-propulsion train tests in Japan don't count. Still, the train in question came within about four miles per hour of that record. (357mph versus the maglev record of just under 361mph in 2003.) For comparison, from Wiki, the world land speed record is currently 763mph for four-wheeled vehicles (the unlimited classification) and 351mph for motorcycles.

Over The (Lap)Top

The obligatory link: The first million dollar laptop

I suppose if you can have a thousand dollar pizza, you can have a million dollar laptop, huh? The only thing remotely interesting to the technology geek in me is the 128 gigs of solid-state disk space. One would hope the rest of the specifications are also top-of-the-line, given the price, but the article doesn't mention anything other than the drive space, and the 17" screen (nice for a laptop, but not really what I'd call luxury...).

Burning Corn, Sweet Corn

The obligatory link: Corn prices making Coke gulp

As a car guy, I've long been skeptical at best about ethanol. (Yes, this is related, just bear with me.) It requires a lot of energy to make, and a gallon of it only packs 2/3rds of the energy contained in a gallon of gasoline. Needless to say, that alone makes me not the biggest fan in the world.

Now, however, comes the above article, where we find out that Coke is considering a move away from high-fructose corn syrup as its primary sweetener in the Coca-cola blend because... surprise... corn prices are rising due to more of the crop being devoted to the production of ethanol. This is one of those bizarre unintended consequences, and while it's not a really major one in the grand scheme of things, it makes me wonder... "Just what else might happen because the government is subsidizing ethanol, that we haven't even remotely considered?"

Making The Roads Less Safe, One Call At A Time

The obligatory link: Another Driving Distraction: Thank SameLane

I read the article about this new technology, the ability of people to call other people's cell phones on the highway by seeing and keying in their license plate, and I thought, "You know, this is just terrible enough an idea to catch on."

Think about it for a moment, and I'm sure you can come up with generally the same list of issues I did. It's an additional distraction for the driver, and then there are the real issues: Think about the possibilities of this for use in road rage or stalking. Do we really have to go borrowing trouble like this?

For extra credit, try to guess how long it will take for the government to step in on this. I'm guessing about a day after the first person gets run off the road by someone using this wonderful new technology. Feel free to offer up your guesses.

An Inside Look At The Technical Revolution

The obligatory link: A Cost Analysis of Windows Vista Content Protection

The linked article and the quotes at the bottom of the post are the work of Mr. Peter Gutmann.

Warning, this is extremely geeky. If the link title did not immediately draw your attention, I wouldn't suggest going back to it now. For those who are still left, though, the article is almost a play-by-play of Vista, and the current evolution of Operating Systems and content protection. There are enough amusing anecdotes and quotes to keep it interesting... if you're into technology.

For those who want the boiled down version, here you go: Microsoft went so incredibly overboard on the content protection for Windows Vista that many of the systems work very poorly, if they even work at all. Take the idea of buying a brand new model of car the day it comes out, multiply by 20 or so, and that's the amount of headache Vista is causing at the moment.

To put it in the words of the article writer, "Just to make this point clear, the level of security that Vista is trying to achieve to protect video and audio is more extreme than anything the US government has ever considered necessary for protecting its most sensitive classified data."

Finally, a few selected quotes, both for humor and informative value:

"Amusingly, the Vista content protection docs say that it'll be left to graphics chip manufacturers to differentiate their product based on (deliberately degraded) video quality. This seems a bit like breaking the legs of Olympic athletes and then rating them based on how fast they can hobble on crutches."

"If it's possible to convince Vista that what it's communicating is premium content, the video (and/or audio) surveillance content will become unavailable, since it's unlikely that a surveillance center will be using DRM-enabled recording devices or monitors. I can just see this as a plot element in Ocean's Fifteen or Mission Impossible Six, “It's OK, their surveillance system is running Vista, we can shut it down with spoofed premium content”."

"I can just imagine the corporate sick day that must have taken place at ATI, nVidia, Intel, VIA, and SiS when it came time to put someone's name to this gem, which gives Hollywood veto rights over your production lines and sales and distribution channels."

"From a chess-playing perspective it appears that the content owners' threat modelling never went any further than “ Hey, I can move my rook over there!”. There doesn't seem to have been any consideration of what could happen during any subsequent moves, or maybe no-one wanted to think about it. "

"The worst thing about all of this is that there's no escape. Hardware manufacturers will have to drink the kool-aid (and the reference to mass suicide here is deliberate [Note L]) in order to work with Vista"

Finally, in a grand display of scientific geekery merging with technological geekery to form a giant mecha of omni-geekery, we have this gem, the explanation of Note C: "Note C: In order for content to be displayed to users, it has to be copied numerous times. For example if you're reading this document on the web then it's been copied from the web server's disk drive to server memory, copied to the server's network buffers, copied across the Internet, copied to your PC's network buffers, copied into main memory, copied to your browser's disk cache, copied to the browser's rendering engine, copied to the render/screen cache, and finally copied to your screen. If you've printed it out to read, several further rounds of copying have occurred. Windows Vista's content protection (and DRM in general) assume that all of this copying can occur without any copying actually occurring, since the whole intent of DRM is to prevent copying. If you're not versed in DRM doublethink this concept gets quite tricky to explain, but in terms of quantum mechanics the content enters a superposition of simultaneously copied and uncopied states until a user collapses its wave function by observing the content (in physics this is called quantum indeterminacy or the observer's paradox). Depending on whether you follow the Copenhagen or many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, things then either get weird or very weird. So in order for Windows Vista's content protection to work, it has to be able to violate the laws of physics and create numerous copies that are simultaneously not copies.
(Someone has pointed out that Microsoft is trying to implement a quantum encryption channel in software that attempts to make premium content non- observable, detecting problem states and discontinuing transmission if any are observed)."

Those Who Do Not Remember The Past...

Are doomed to repeat it: British Skynet Satellite Launched

Well, now we know who really started Skynet, don't we? Just remember, when robotic killing machines are out hunting down our friends and families, we can thank the British for it. Okay, Terminator references aside, what they've actually launched is a directable communications satellite. A nifty piece of technology, to be sure. Just... let's keep this a secret from anyone named John Connor, shall we?

Yesteryear's Sci-Fi Is... (#3)

The obligatory link: Israel unveils portable hunter-killer robot

For your peace of mind, just assume I offered up a Terminator reference here, and that it was either exceptionally funny or not depending on your preferences. Now that that's out of the way, let's see what nifty stuff the article says this little machine can do:

• It can move "undeterred by stairs, rubble, dark alleys, caves or narrow tunnels"
• It can act "as bomb-sniffing and bomb disposal equipment"
• And, it can "carry an Uzi machine-pistol or plant a grenade"

Yesteryear's Sci-Fi Is... (#2)

The obligatory link: A missile punch at bullet prices

Yes, I know, from the dateline on the article, I got to this one late. Still, it is an interesting little article. Starting from the chatroom for Constitutional Public Radio, we got on the topic of various rotary cannons last Thursday. Naturally, that got the Wiki juices flowing freely, and several clicks down the line from vulcan cannons, I ended up with this.

Essentially, the Navy is working on a railgun. To put it in easier terms, it's a gun that fires bullets using magnets instead of gunpowder. Of course, being the Navy, they're doing things big. What we're talking about here is a ship-based weapon capable, according to the article, of Tomahawk cruise missile ranges, with about two minutes faster time-to-target, for $1000 a shot (as opposed to the approximately $1000000 per shot for the Tomahawk), and approximately the same amount of destructive force.

From the article: "Garnett compared that force to hitting a target with a Ford Taurus at 380 mph. "It will take out a building," he said. Warheads aren't needed because of the massive force of impact."

Of course, they're talking about 2020 or so on this project, so we're certainly not there yet. Still, it's cool all the same.

Voice... err... Video Overload?

The obligatory link: Videos have Net bursting at the seams

Essentially, we have people saying that the 'net is going to explode due to the fact that we're all YouTube addicts, hogging the bandwidth. I'd link the Daily Show clip of "The Internet Is A Series Of Tubes" here for added levels of sarcasm, but that's been pulled due to copyrights (as expected). That's rather aside from the point, though.

Here's the meat:

Having monitored Internet growth for a decade, Odlyzko said he sees parallels now to earlier ploys from telecom executives. Nearly five years ago, when computer users started to hold voice conversations using Internet telephony, industry insiders fretted that bandwidth demands would exceed capacity, he said.

People have a bad habit of going broke underestimating the resilience and expansion of computing power over time. Until we actually see the internet browning out from overuse of linking YouTube videos, I'm not buying it. Until then, please follow this link and watch every video that's still up.

Technology That Talks Back

The obligatory link: Talking Urinal Cakes Offer Drinking And Driving Advice

Well, why not? Our cars can talk to us. Our computers can talk to us. Why not talking urinal cakes? Is the fact that the government in New Mexico is wasting taxpayer money on this, compared to people spending their own money on something they want a good enough reason for you? ... Because it sure is for me.

Y'know, I suppose I could try to go the nice road and say that NM is trying an interesting technological solution to the problem of drinking and driving... but I won't. The only people this will stop are the people who still have enough reasoning left after their time drinking to summon up a cab, or other mode of transportation that they don't have to pilot personally. Pretty expensive way to spend 10K$, isn't it... as a back-up for the people who know better?

Sick, Twisted Scam - Be Forewarned

The obligatory link: New Phisher Tactic: Pay Me Or I'll Kill You

From the same kind of low-life scum that cooked up the Nigerian e-mail scam, undoubtedly. Not to mention, yet another good reason not to open e-mail if you don't know the sender.

In any event, since the article was so good as to give us a sample of the main body of the scam mail in question, we can do something about it without having ever received one personally. If you don't know the general procedure to set up rules in Outlook, please refer to this post. Now, instead of checking the box "which has an attachment", we're going to choose "with specific words in the body". Adding a couple of the phrases from the mail in question will do. I'd choose "Do not contact the police" and "I turned out to be a betrayer", since they're not so common that they might accidentally filter legitimate mails from people, but the choice is yours. Continue with the rest of setting up a rule, and apply it.

Science and Technology

A few disparate stories of interest, or at least amusement.

Obligatory link #1: Riddle of Homer's Odyssey island solved?

The short version: A group of Britons think they may well have found the location of the island of Ithaca.

Obligatory link #2: Hitachi develops system that reads what people think from their blood flow

The short version: They hope to adapt this knowledge into technology to allow the handicapped to control various devices by thought, after a fashion. Very cool.

Obligatory link #3: Doom for Hubble's iconic pillars

The short version: We won't see a visual difference for another thousand years, but the hydrogen formation referred to as the Pillars of Creation is almost certainly already destroyed. (Speed of light thing... The images are good, though.)

Obligatory link #4: Two charged with hacking into high school computers to fix grades

The short version: Are they going to go after Janek's little black box next? It's on the table, between the pencil jar and the lamp.

Time For More Spam Fighting

The obligatory link: "Image Spam" could bring the internet to a standstill

Well, the title is certainly overhyped. Beyond that, though, it offers a chance to hand out another tip or two to Outlook users as to how to sort out the junk.


The easy way about it is to go to Tools, Rules and Alerts, New Rule..., Start from a blank rule (radio button), Check messages when they arrive, Next, Step 1: Select condition(s), check the box "which has an attachment", Next, Step 1: Select action(s), check the box "move it to the specified folder", Step 2: Edit the rule description, click on the underlined word specified, select Junk E-mail from that list, Finish.

Now, if your friends send you mail with attachments, you can get around this by creating a new rule for each of their e-mail addresses that automatically puts a copy of any mail from them into the inbox (or any other specified folder), regardless of whether or not it would be sorted into Junk by the previous rule. To do this:

Tools, Rules and Alerts, New Rule..., Start creating a rule from a template, Step 1: Select a template, Move messages from someone to a folder, Step 2: Edit the rule description, click the underlined phrase "people or distribution list", input an address, OK, click the underlined word "specified", select Inbox (or the folder of your choice), OK, Next, Finish. Repeat as necessary until you've added all the people you so desire.

Alternatively, if your friends only send you large images, compared to the images in spam which, from my search through ~1000 in my Junk box, tend to be between 3k and 30k, you can add the condition "with a size in a specific range" to the first rule you created to filter mails with attachments to only filter out mails with small attachments. (The text generally will not account for a great deal of file size.) This is a more questionable tack to take, however, and I'd suggest just leaving it at the first two steps. Really, it depends on how inclined you are to play with the settings to get the results you desire.

Yesteryear's Sci-Fi Is...

The obligatory link: How things work: Electromagnetic catapults

As usual, it's exceptionally cool to watch things I've appreciated in the past as science fiction in the process of becoming science fact. Now, if we can just get the anthopomorphic robots to use with the EM catapults, we'll have something.

Meanwhile, elsewhere, we have this: Metamaterials found to work for visible light

The upshot here, amongst the many possible application of such things? Two words: Cloaking technology. C'mon, if that can't get the geek in you going, what can?

Improving On Practice

The obligatory link: Robot mother helps South Koreans prepare for birth

No doubt about it, technology is cool. Be it searching out medical cures, flying halfway around the world in a couple of hours, or training doctors for delivering babies. The unfortunate part, of course, is that it's not any kind of remedy to the falling birth rates in the developed world. Still, with all the circumstances that can be simulated with this, without a doctor ever having to encounter it during an actual birth, the bonus to skill and knowledge is obvious.

Safer Than Sharks

The Obligatory Link: Nuclear Power Safer Than Sharks

There is, of course, a pertinent quote to offer:

"The risk of dying in a nuclear disaster was below that of dying from smoking, driving, owning firearms, drowning, fire, electrocution and snake bites, the report said."

Now, the one thing I thought was conspicuous in its absence from the list was lightning strikes. I suppose I could make an allowance for that being lumped in with electrocution statistics... but, naturally, I'm not going to. Of course, due to the wonders of Wikipedia, and the thoughtful article writer, we can make a comparison.

From the article, "There have been 31 direct fatalities from nuclear reactors since 1969 – including the Chernobyl disaster", and "This did not take into account the estimated 4000 people who could eventually die from cancer caused by radiation exposure from the Chernobyl meltdown." So, we'll go with a nice, round 4000, since plus or minus 31 shouldn't put it outside the statistical variance. Compared to the ~6.5 billion people currently living (from the World Population entry on Wikipedia), that's a chance of one in 1.625 million. Divided over the 37-year span, it becomes one in 60.125 million instead.

Comparatively, from Wikipedia's entry on lightning, some 2000 people are struck by lightning per year, with an averaged fatality rate of 29%, for a total of 580 per year. Again, out of the world's population, that's one for every 11.2 million, approximately.

Today in the World of Sub-Orbitals

The Obligatory Link: Supersonic Combustion for a Hypersonic Space Plane

It's always cool to see people now working on things that were yesteryear's science fiction. I mean, seriously, how cool is the thought of being able to go halfway around the world in two hours?

I Have Come To A Decision

Recently, I got a virus. No, not physically, a computer virus. Thankfully, it was relatively benign, as computer bugs go, but getting rid of it was about as easy as getting rid of cockroaches. The bleedin' things'll survive just about anything. However, there's one thing I realized (or, should I say, remembered?) after running far too many spyware killers and anti-virus programs: On a computer, no simple software bug survives a low-level format c:. Hiding in some "good" file, or as an execute line in the registry? Tough to hide when such things get wiped out. Needless to say, it didn't take me long to execute the nuclear option on my hard disk drive.

So, that said, here's the decision: Since I can't guarantee that anti-virus software will be effective in the elimination of threats, nuking the HDD will become a semi-common thing. Further, in the interest of getting back up to speed quickly with such things as additional programs (Firefox, and other like things), install files for them will be kept on a known-clean external HDD (or possibly a flash drive) and used for installation after the wipes.

There you have it - a no-frills approach to computer security. AV software to find the bugs, format c: to sweep 'em away. Not exactly something I would suggest to the average user, but when it comes to the computer, I suppose it's safe to call me an extremist.

Let's Take Five On Spam

First, the obligatory link: Spam Doubles, Finding New Ways To Deliver Itself

A quick show of hands, who doesn't hate random spam e-mail? ... Okay, I know, that was an exercise in getting people to exercise by putting up their hands. Now, if you're still using Outlook, and I'm sure many people don't anymore, let's have at filtering one of the new waves of spam the article talks about. "It's me, WHOEVER", or "Hi, it's WHOEVER". How many people really send you regular messages with such simple key words repeatedly? We can filter these out without a problem.

Go hit TOOLS on the top bar (to the right of FILE), and open Rules and Alerts. Create a new rule, select the radio button Start creating a rule from a template. In the step one area, select the option Move messages with specific words in the subject to a folder. Then, in the step two area, click on the underlined "specific words" to open an input box. Put "It's me" (without the quotation marks) into the box, and hit add. Then do the same for "Hi, it's". If you're so inclined, you can catch additional spam this way by re-intering the same values, but with its instead of it's. Once done, hit OK, and click on the underlined "specified" for the specified folder. In the Choose a folder box, select Junk E-mail, then hit OK. After that, hit Finish, and your new rules are ready to go.

Congratulations, you're now filtering one of the season's dominant spam subjects in minutes! Heh... Obviously, you can repeat the process for any other key words you notice popping up repeatedly as spam. Be careful, though, that you don't accidentally key something to automatically go to Junk that isn't. It just depends on what words appear in legitimate e-mails to you, so don't forget to account for that, or you may end up sifting back through the junk folder to find something a friend or colleague is sure they sent you.