Sorry for the lack of posting lately. I've been sidelined by some kind of nasty bug. It started as a sore throat last Friday night and developed to the point where I could barely speak yesterday and today. It seems to be getting a little better, and none too soon as I'm about to go completely nuts from being home all this time (not to mention being either too tired or too zoned out to think or write).
I hope it gets better tomorrow, since I have a vacation day and it sucks to be sick on your own time. :)
So it appears that the Democrats have taken their ball and run off to New Mexico in a huff. Quite frankly, I hope this little stunt backfires on them, but that remains to be seen. I find it quite fascinating to watch them, though. Their complaints hold little water with me and my sympathy quotient towards them is in the negative range. It seems to me that they have little to complain about, since they did the same thing with redistricting when they were in power.
But it got me to thinking about the law and programming. In some ways, the law (and in Texas, the state constitution) is the set of programming instructions (code) that is used to run the government and society. The problem in this case is that the code allows for the system to be compromised by the operators. What we need is a set of code that specifies how the districts are to be mapped that the users can't game. Specifically, we should gore everyone's oxen and come up with a system that creates districts strictly on the basis of population and does so in a way that can't be gerrymandered.
What I'm getting at is that we should encode a specific algorithm for districts into the law (or most likely in the constitution, given the odd way that Texas is run). This algorithm would provide the set of steps needed to map the state into a set of districts that each had an equal number of people, regardless of current or past political affiliations or racial breakdown.
Of course all the special interest groups would come out wailing that we're disenfranchising minority voters or some similar nonsense. Frankly, I don't care because this modern day segregation crap is starting to get on my nerves. We're all Texans and it's about damn time that we started remembering that. Racial politics is the politics of segregation and discrimination and it's high time to consign that crap to the trash pile where it belongs.
The FBI has quietly requested that the FCC rule that Voice over IP (VoIP) services fall under CALEA (the federal statute that requires communications providers to provide the ability for the FBI to tap all calls). This would require broadband and VoIP providers to reengineer their networks to allow this kind of surveillance.
Representatives of the FBI's Electronic Surveillance Technology Section in Chantilly, Va., have met at least twice in the past three weeks with senior officials of the Federal Communications Commission to lobby for proposed new Internet eavesdropping rules. The FBI-drafted plan seeks to force broadband providers to provide more efficient, standardized surveillance facilities and could substantially change the way that cable modem and DSL (digital subscriber line) companies operate.The FBI also contends that if the providers can't provide access to individual users' data streams that they must be given access to the whole pipe.
The new rules are necessary, because terrorists could otherwise frustrate legitimate wiretaps by placing phone calls over the Internet, warns a summary of a July 10 meeting with the FCC that the FBI prepared. "Broadband networks may ultimately replace narrowband networks," the summary says. "This trend offers increasing opportunities for terrorists, spies and criminals to evade lawful electronic surveillance."
In the last year, Internet telephony (also called voice over Internet Protocol, or VOIP) has grown increasingly popular among consumers and businesses with high-speed connections. Flat-rate plans cost between $20 and $40 a month for unlimited local and long-distance calls. One of the smaller VOIP providers, Vonage, recently said it has about 34,000 customers and expects to have 1 million by late 2004.
According to the proposal that the FCC is considering, any company offering cable modem or DSL service to residences or businesses would be required to comply with a thicket of federal regulations that would establish a central hub for police surveillance of their customers. The proposal has alarmed civil libertarians who fear that it might jeopardize privacy and warn that the existence of such hubs could facilitate broad surveillance of other Internet communications such as e-mail, Web browsing and instant messaging.
The FBI appears to have first presented its proposal to the FCC last year. But in the July 10 and July 22 meetings, the bureau extended it to say that if broadband providers cannot isolate specific VOIP calls to and from individual users, they must give police access to the "full pipe"--which, by including the complete simultaneous communications of hundreds or thousands of customers, could raise substantial privacy concerns.I tend to have an instinctive reaction against giving such broad capability to any law enforcement agency, and I also have an instinctive distrust of the FBI given the serious problems that they have yet to address. My anarchist tendencies tell me that this would open up a market for an anonymous peer-to-peer VoIP program that included strong encryption. Let the FBI tap all they want, but (so far) there's nothing that says what we're sending back and forth has to be readable.
A summary of the meeting prepared by the FBI said the FCC could "require carriers to make the full pipe available and leave law enforcement to perform the required minimization. This approach is already used when ISPs provide non-CALEA technical assistance for lawfully ordered electronic surveillance."
Tom Clancy's new book, The Teeth of the Tiger, will be released on August 11. Even after Red Rabbit I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. I've got my copy on order at Amazon.
I've already read the first chapter in PDF format (which Amazon gives you when you order the book), and I'm ready for more.
Things are promising to get a bit hectic for at least the next month. I have two months of crap to stuff into a one month bag (unless our project managers can pull a rabbit out of their hats and convince the customer that their proposed delivery date is delusional).
At the same time, I have been prequalified for a mortgage loan so I'll be house hunting. So when I'm not at work I'll probably be checking out houses and neighborhoods. I'm going to be looking in Roanoke, Keller, and possibly Flower Mound. Keller is most promising, given the current housing market it looks like it's possible to get more house for the money there.
I'd been piddling around with the idea of buying a house for months, but what finally motivated me to get moving was the fact that mortgage rates are starting to go up again. I'm looking forward to having my own place. At the same time, I'm dreading the move. I originally moved into this place because I was going to graduate school at UNT part time and it was convenient (and the rent was cheap). I've been here for a little over eight years now and I've accumulated more stuff than will reasonably fit. Packing up all this crap is going to be a major pain.
This is to serve as a final reminder that The Bitch Girls will be particpating in the Blogathon tomorrow. They're raising funds for Locks of Love, which is a charity that provides hairpieces for children who have lost their hair permanently due to a medical condition.
If you can spare a few bucks, sign up to sponsor them. It's for a good cause. Not to mention that we've been promised something cool involving a digital camera if the sponsorship hits $1000 (only $156 to go).
I'm about to torture an analogy to death, but bear with me...
The shooting in New York yesterday got me to thinking about the way our society treats guns and the crazy idea that we can somehow create a "bubble" of safety which is free from all harmful elements.
For some time now I've thought about violent crime in a way similar to disease. The agents of the disease can be thought of as malevolent microorganisms that are damaging the host organism by harming the individual cells that make up the whole. We can choose a couple of alternative ways of dealing with this problem: 1) sterilization (the boy in the bubble method), and 2) immunization (distributing the means of counterattack and prevention throughout the body). I am of the opinion that the second option, as related to a distributed defense (i.e. a pack not a herd, to borrow a phrase) is ultimately better.
The first option, sterilization, means attempting to prevent the disease causing elements from even getting into the body. In real life this is manifested in airport screening, metal detectors at courthouse entrances, gun-free school zones, the federal statute against having a gun in a postal facility, etc. From my vantage point these methods have not only failed miserably, but they make the problem worse, since they create zones of increased vulnerability. In fact, we seem to see more cases of mass shootings in gun-free zones. I tend to think that this occurs because the killers, while mad or insane, do engage in some calculation about the relative chances for success of their plans. Especially when they're trying to make a big splash. Which would make more noise in the press? A story about a mass murder or a story about an armed citizen stopping an attacker (no need to answer that one, since we know how the media will report each one already). There will always be holes in the "bubble" that will be exploited by those with evil intent. Let's be honest with ourselves and admit that a perfect barrier is not possible (if you think it is possible, solve the problem of drugs getting into prisons first and get back to me).
Immunization is not necessarily a perfect defense. It requires distribution of the means to respond to the threat throughout the body of the people. It does not always work. There may even be times when innocent people are killed. This is comparable to real immunization, where a vaccine sometimes kills people. Unfortunately, we live in the real world, where there are no perfect solutions. But this does have the advantage of not having to rely on the convenient fiction that it's possible to screen out all threats and live happily within a bubble. While microorganisms can't think or weigh the consequences of their actions, criminals sometimes do. Not only does having a distributed defense allow for swift preventative action against criminals, it can act as a deterrent, lowering the chances of success and dissuading some from committing certain types of crimes. And for those criminals who don't get the message, it removes them from the pool of criminals, so they won't be around to commit future crimes.
Would an armed citizen have been able to stop yesterday's shooting? I don't know. Apparently there was also a cop there, but he was not able to react until it was too late. But according to the accounts I read there were other people, private citizens who were disarmed by the state, who saw the shooter before he started shooting. If one of them had been armed, perhaps the concilman would still be with us (and arguing for more gun control, as he was wont to do).
I made the decision some time ago to take responsibility for my own protection. I don't intend to rely on others to protect me. But more than that, I know that I can't rely on others to protect me. Police have no duty to protect any individual citizen. Those who advocate calling 911 and sitting back to "let the police handle it" are missing an important point. Once you call 911, what are you going to do until the police get there? Talk to them? Throw the phone and run? Face it: you're on your own.
I take this responsibility seriously. I go to the range at least once a week. It takes time and money (I probably spend $30 to $40 per week on range fees and ammo). But I consider it an investment well spent.
Understandably, not everyone is ready to make this kind of decision. I won't be so crude as to imply that these people aren't citizens, as some over-the-top pro-gun advocates have done. However, I would caution these people to get out of the way of the rest of us. The doctrine of prior restraint against law-abiding citizens is getting people killed.
Here's one more from News.com(.com). According to this article Amazon.com is in the process of creating a searchable text index of the contents of a number of nonfiction books. This would allow the user to enter a search term and get back books that contain the term in their text, along with a short excerpt from the book to show the context in which it was found. Amazon itself is not saying anything about it, but it appears to be scheduled for activation on their site in the fall. I like the idea, since it would allow me to see if the book is truly relevant to the topic I was looking for. Of course this wouldn't necessarily be helpful for doing immediate research (i.e. I'm looking for something right now), since I'd have to wait for the book to be shipped to see all of it.
Here's an interesting article about spam and the Direct Marketing Association's attempt to water down any anti-spam legislation. Particularly interesting is their self-serving definition of spam.
Robert Wientzen, president of the Direct Marketing Association, has an unusual view of what types of junk e-mail qualify as spam.Somebody needs to tell this wanker that it's spam if I say it's spam. And I have a simple rule to determine whether I say it's spam: If I didn't ask for it and it's likely to part me with my money if I take up the offer, then it's spam.
Wientzen said during an appearance on CBS News last week that spam is only "e-mail that misrepresents an offer or misrepresents the originator--or in some way attempts to confuse or defraud people."
Let's parse that sentence closely. The DMA claims that unwanted e-mail is spam if, and only if, it happens to be fraudulent or confusing. Because the DMA's members are legitimate, established businesses, Weintzen tells us, their unsolicited e-mail entreaties to us shouldn't be considered spam.
You'd think these idiots at the DMA would have learned from the national do-not-call registry that if you piss off enough people that sooner or later your deep pocket lobbying efforts will become ineffective. And it definitely doesn't sound like they understand just how much people loathe spam.
If I had my way spammers would be hung from their toes and bled slowly. I guess Weintzen is lucky I'm not in charge. :) In the meantime, I guess I'll just redirect all my spam to him. He shouldn't object, as long as it's not misleading. Right?
An inventor has patented a way for people to send cash anonymously online. The device is kind of like an ATM in that it both accepts and dispenses cash (as well as coins in this case). The article is a bit sparse on the details, but I'm assuming that one would deposit cash and get a receipt with a code. The code would then be sent to the payee who could go to another machine to obtain the cash.
I actually like the idea, since it would allow me to bypass PayPal and to avoid leaving a money trail (if I so desired). I cancelled my PayPal account because I just didn't trust them anymore (I also cancelled my eBay account for the same reason--I lost confidence in PayPal when eBay bought them and of course the way they changed their AUP didn't help). This looks like it would also be a convenient way to get money to people quickly, if needed.
As I see it, the major stumbling blocks for this concept are that this machine would need to be widely adopted (so it would be convenient to use) and I would expect that banks might not want to be involved with it (since they seem quite content to spy on you for the government; they wouldn't want to upset their masters by contributing to anonymous payments). There is also the fact that cash becomes inconvenient to handle in large amounts (and tends to set off alarms with the aforementioned bankers when withdrawn).
Anyway, I wish him success with the endeavour. Anything that we can do to win back a little financial privacy is a good thing.
I've previously written about RFID tags and their privacy implications. Today, Slashdot had this article that includes details of a scheme being introduced in England that would snap your picture when you remove a tagged item from the shelf and then use that to identify you at checkout (supposedly to match you to the item to prevent shoplifting).
Alan Robinson, manager at the Tesco store on Newmarket Street, Cambridge, seems excited about this store's current trials of RFID tags in Gillette Mach3 razorblades. Speaking to Smart Labels Analyst magazine in April this year, he said: "We are cooperating with this trial in every way we can - we would like to be a test bed for many more trials of this kind." He adds: "We haven't had a single customer ask what the tag is doing in their packet of razors!" Notoriously subject to theft (small, expensive and easily resold), these blades were tagged by Gillette, which earlier this year ordered 500m radio-frequency ID tags from the aptly named Alien Technology Corp. At the Tesco Cambridge store, reports the magazine, a camera trained on the Gillette blade shelf, and triggered by the tags, captures a photo of each customer who removes a Mach3 pack. Another photo is taken at the checkout and security staff compare the two images to ensure they always have a pair.The two passages I've added emphasis to are quite telling. No privacy concerns my ass. These guys are the perfect examples of retailers who are eager to track your every move and link it all together to either market more crap to you or blacklist you from their stores. And don't think that the blacklisting will be confined to just shoplifters for long. Complained about the service the other day and caused an employee to take too much time (but you don't usually buy a lot of stuff in the store)? You will be flagged as a costly complainer. When you show up at the store next time they may try to drive you away, since you're not worth enough for them to waste their time with you. I know one person that Fry's would probably love to keep out of their computer section (since he is known to them for questioning them about every sale item; which is quite aggravating to them, since their sales are often deceptive).
A spokesman for Tesco confirmed that this set-up is in operation. He says: "Generally in retailing, razorblades are stolen more than other products, but that is not why we are doing the trial. We have plenty of security measures in place to stop things being stolen. [This trial] is not to do with security or theft, it is a supply chain trial." According to the spokesman,"there are certainly not any privacy concerns" in relation to these tags. He adds that there is plenty of in-store signage indicating the supermarket's use of CCTV cameras.
Still, customers might not infer from this information that these cameras are being used to take a digital photo of them each time they lift a Gillette razorblade from the store's shelf - it only takes one to prompt the camera - and again when they present the pack at the checkout. Tesco says that the photos are "temporarily stored", but does not specify for how long. However, Smart Labels Analyst magazine explains that this system enables the store to "blacklist certain shoppers and keep an eye on them". In his interview with the magazine, Alan Robinson recounts an occasion when his Cambridge store was able to show the police a photograph of a shoplifter in the act of removing two packets of razors from the shelf: "The police were completely flabbergasted, having never seen anything like it in their lives."
I just hope this never makes it here, but I'm not confident that the people in England will make enough fuss about it to make the trial unsuccessful. They've gotten so used to meekly submitting to surveillance schemes that I fear for them as a people.
The rest of the article has more information about loyalty cards, which also makes for interesting reading.
The Fort Worth Zoo was quite nice, although I would want to wait for cooler weather before going back. The temperature was above 100 °F by the time we left. Most of the animals were hiding in the shade and trying to keep cool.
We kind of wished we could make like the rhino and just sit in a nice cool pool:
Afterwards, we went to the gun show at the Will Rogers Center, which was only a mile or so north of the zoo. So not only did my friend experience her first zoo she also went to her first gun show. I made another acquisition, which I will add to my gun page in a few days.
After that I went to a friend's housewarming party in Dallas. I finally made it back home and into bed around 2:30am after a round trip of around 160 miles. Oh, and to give you an idea of just how "pleasant" our recent hot weather has been, it was still in the upper 80's when I got home.
Unless I get some free time tomorrow afternoon, it's likely that I won't update tomorrow or Saturday. I'm planning to go to the range after work tomorrow and then I have to get up a little early on Saturday.
I was speaking to a friend on Tuesday evening and was amazed to learn that she has reached the age of 23 and has never been to a zoo. So, we're going to go to the Fort Worth Zoo on Saturday morning and then to the gun show in the afternoon (she's never been to a gun show either and the zoo is less than two miles from the Will Rogers Center). After that is another friend's house warming party starting at 6:00 (in Dallas). Saturday is going to be a long day away from the computer and away from home. It'll be a nice diversion, although it's going to involve a lot of driving (about 130 miles round trip).
While I've got gun shows on my mind, I should point out that there will be a show in Ft. Worth this weekend at the Will Rogers Center.
*Yet Another Evil Loophole Gun Show
I just learned that the Great Western Gun Show has moved from California (spit) to Fair Park in Dallas. The show had run into some problems with the anti-gun nitwits in Los Angeles county. Although the show's promoters had won the court case and gotten a damage award against the county, the county made it clear that they would continue to harass the show in an effort to drive it out of business.
LA county's stupidity is our gain. The promoter's plan is to start with a smaller show and work back up to their previous level. They plan to have 2500 tables at this show (where they had 5000 previously). Even so, with 2500 tables I suspect that I'd succumb to MEGO† syndrome long before I saw everything
The show will be held Friday, November 7, 2003 through Sunday, November 9, 2003 (unlike the regular shows around here, they'll be open all day Friday).
I've updated my gun show page to include this show and a link to their site.
†MEGO=Mine Eyes Glazeth Over
Kevin (from Wizbang Blog) left this link in the comments section at a small victory.
In the case of Robert M. Peters Sr., size does matter.I'm trying to resist the urge to make fun of the guy's name...
The 47-year-old locksmith from Bangor is accused of exposing himself to a client on June 12, 2002, while making a house call in Bethlehem. Peters' trial began Monday.
The victim testified that she and Peters were sipping tea after he finished installing a deadbolt lock when she saw Peters' semi-erect penis sticking three inches past the bottom of his shorts.
That's impossible, according to defense attorney Gary Asteak.
"She's mistaken," Asteak said. "He's not that big."
According to Asteak, physician Eric Schoeppner examined Peters and found his penis is only 1 inches long when flaccid and four inches erect.
Just to make sure the measurement wasn't a mistake, the doctor administered Viagra to Peters and measured again. The penis was still four inches long, Asteak said.
You sure learn interesting things reading weblogs.
I knew that they sometimes went for skimpy outfits (and improbable chest measurements) in some anime, but I didn't know it went that far. And what's up with the whole tentacle thing?
The Bitch Girls are going to be doing a 24 hour blogathon on July 26th for the charity Locks of Love. Locks of Love provides hairpieces for children who have lost their own hair because of medical conditions (and who wouldn't otherwise be able to afford one).
It's not something I would have thought of, but on further reflection, the aesthetic is important too. I think this is especially so for children who live in a harsh world where they are judged ruthlessly by other children. I've signed up as a sponsor. If you can afford it, head over and pledge your support as well by sponsoring them.
This looks like another argument for staying single (at least if you're a man):
Creative genius and crime express themselves early in men but both are turned off almost like a tap if a man gets married and has children, a study says.Of course, I suppose none of this matters for me at this point, since I'm 33. I think I'd be willing to take the tradeoff for marriage. Now to find a libertarian-leaning gun-loving woman....
Satoshi Kanazawa, a psychologist at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand, compiled a database of the biographies of 280 great scientists, noting their age at the time when they made their greatest work.
The data remarkably concur with the brutal observation made by Albert Einstein, who wrote in 1942: "A person who has not made his great contribution to science before the age of 30 will never do so."
"Scientific productivity indeed fades with age," Dr Kanazawa says.
"Two-thirds (of all scientists) will have made their most significant contributions before their mid-30s."
But, regardless of age, the great minds who married virtually kissed goodbye to making any further glorious additions to their CV.
Within five years of making their nuptial vows, nearly a quarter of married scientists had made their last significant contribution to history's hall of fame.
"Scientists rather quickly desist (from their careers) after their marriage, while unmarried scientists continue to make great scientific contributions later in their lives," says Dr Kanazawa.
The energy of youth and the dampening effect of marriage, he adds, are also remarkably similar among geniuses in music, painting and writing, as well as in criminal activity.
We went to the Dallas Boat Show on Saturday. I'm generally not much of a lake-goer, but I wouldn't mind having a Sea-Doo Sportster 4-TEC. It's not too big, yet it has a 155-hp engine and it can seat four. Of course, I don't happen to have $18,000 laying around, so I suppose I won't be getting one any time soon.
One of the good things going on in the jet ski industry recently has been the introduction of four-cycle engines (and the 4-TEC is a four-cycle). It's been done because of emissions rules, but I like it for convenience. I hate having to mix the oil with the gas and I hate breathing the smoke. I guess it comes from too many dealings with two-cycle weed trimmers over the years.
I decided to get out of the house on Friday and my choice of diversion was The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. I'd noticed that this movie had gotten some bad reviews. I decided to disregard these reviews and went in with an open mind.
If you're looking for Shakespearian drama that examines weighty issues, this movie isn't for you. But it was a good bit of eye candy and it had plenty of action. The only thing that bothered me a bit was the speed of the action at times. It seemed a little too fast (or perhaps the camera was too close). Some of the action got a bit blurry.
It appears that Susan Smith is on the market (provided that incarcerated child murderers are your kind of thing). She looks mighty happy in that picture (certainly not like someone who is being punished). Despite her assertion that she'll always "hurt for the pain" she's caused, I don't believe it. It's too bad she didn't get to ride the lightning.
Link via Michele at a small victory.
A couple of days ago, Kim du Toit called for volunteers to assist people who are interested in learning to shoot. I sent Kim my contact information, but I'll reiterate the offer here.
I live in Denton, but I can get around to just about anywhere in the D/FW area. I'll provide one of my guns (I recommend .22 pistols for new shooters, though), eye and ear protection, ammo, and the range fee as well as instruction on the basics of shooting safely. So far I've helped teach five people how to shoot.
I just need to recruit a couple more people into the gun culture and I'll get that toaster oven. :)
People are now using the 3-D engines from some video games to make movies.
The fledgling art of using 3-D computer games to make animated movies is coming of age.I recently built a new game PC with a GeForce FX 5600-based video card. The software that came with the card included several demos, including one called Dawn, which features an animated pixie that is rendered in real time (in particular, the skin shader is impressive). Here's an image from the demo (there's a video available at the above link as well):
Around the world, increasing numbers of would-be movie moguls are utilizing the 3-D graphics engines of games like Quake or Unreal to produce animated movies -- at a fraction of the money spent by studios like Pixar.
Known as machinima ("machine cinema"), the relatively new, no-budget genre has yet to produce a blockbuster of Finding Nemo proportions.
However, machinima is maturing so rapidly, some predict it will soon be a major force in animation, especially with the imminent arrival of a new generation of hardware and software promising an era of photo-realistic "cinematic computing."
Link via Slashdot.
Update: Nvidia has release a new chipset, the 5900, with some new demos. In particular, the Last Chance Gas demo has a pretty good lighting model.
I have previously written about my privacy concerns with Sunglass Hut, and I sent them an email concerning my problems. It's been well over a month and I've never gotten a response. However, their customer profiling activities have continued and they've ratcheted up their marketing to a new level. They sent me a birthday discount coupon, which looked like a birthday card. This did not thrill me, since I never gave them my birth date. The only way they could have gotten this would have been through nefarious backdoor methods (i.e. pulling data from the credit card at the point of sale).
If they think this is going to encourage me to do business with them, they're sadly mistaken. Given their lack of response and their continued unauthorized use of my personal data I have now decided that I will never do business with them again in any form. I will find other places to buy sunglasses (I see that Bass Pro carries Oakleys now, so I may check with them).
Update: I called their "customer support" number. After waiting for 5 minutes on hold for a representative, their system disconnected me. I called back and managed to get someone after a couple of minutes (right about the time I was getting sick of the instrumental version of Bruce Hornsby's "The Way It Is"). I asked how they would have gotten my personal information, including my birthdate. The representative told me that the only way they could get it would have been through the warranty registration. I found this dubious, since I generally don't fill out warranty registrations unless the object in question is of high value. But it's been more than a year, and I can barely remember what I did yesterday, so I didn't argue about it. I just told her that I wanted to be off the mailing list.
In any event, if I did give them my information, and the request for it was presented to me as a warranty registration, then they'd still be using it against my wishes, since I would not have given permission to use it for marketing purposes.
I've been meaning to write about RFID tags since I got an email on Monday about a security hole on the Auto-ID center's website that allowed anyone to access their confidential documents. These documents related to market studies on RFID tags and how they would "pacify" consumers with regards to their "emotional" privacy fears. CASPIAN's email might be a bit breathless and overblown concerning the issue, but the documents are still somewhat damning to the industry. They have since pulled the documents (or fixed the hole), but not before Cryptome mirrored them.
For those that haven't been following the issue, an RFID tag is a small (imagine a grain of rice or smaller) passive (non-powered) microchip that emits a radio signal with a unique identifier when it is hit by a radio transmission in a certain frequency range (it varies for each device). The signal is of very low power and can only be read (at present) within a few feet (once again, this varies by device from approximately 3 to 15 feet). The idea is that these tags can be used to track inventory in stores and warehouses. If you had a case of razors, simply moving the box by an RFID scanner would tell you how many you had in the case. Stores are interested in this technology as a replacement to barcodes (both for automated checkout and for "smart shelves" that could manage inventory).
At this point you may be wondering what the big deal about all this is. After all, it's just a way of tracking products. And at present the trials are just in warehouses (with tags attached to pallets and boxes). However, the industry direction is to push the price of these tags down to less than one cent per tag so that the tags can be embedded in the product (or in its packaging). This level of tracking would be required to realize the goals of automated checkout and smart shelves.
It's at this point that people like me who worry about privacy get concerned. If the tag is not deactivated (in a way that we can trust is permanent) at the point of sale, it leads to the possibility of tracking on a scale that boggles the mind. The RFID tag is different from a bar code in that each and every RFID tag emits a unique identifier. This means that not only does the RFID tag identify the type of an object, it identifies the specific instance of that object (like a serial number). If this is linked to purchase records, it means that anyone with a scanner and access to the records could identify you and everything you have on or about your person.
Of course, the RFID people claim that they would never do this. And I think they may actually mean it. However, I don't trust that the businesses that get their hands on this technology won't abuse it in the future. Also, the RFID people claim that the tags can only be read from a short distance, so it's unlikely that you could be easily scanned. Once again, I find this unpersuasive. Most stores these days have scanners at their entrances and exits that work with the existing inventory control system. In some cases, they force you to walk though a choke-point where the scanner is only a few feet from you. It wouldn't take much to convert one of these to an RFID scanner.
Can you imagine a business that wouldn't drool over the ability to know who you are and what you're carrying when you walk into a store? While some would say that this is good, I don't agree. The potential for misuse is far too high.
Another concern is that criminals could obtain scanners and could instantly know what you're carrying if they got near you. Also, there is concern that new technology could be developed that increased the range of the scanners. The RFID industry tries to downplay this angle by saying that the power of the chips is so low that they can't be read at a distance. And it's true that the chips rely on the EM from the scanner to be activated. However, advances in technology of the receiver might someday allow for greater ranges (or even for the signal to be read through a wall). If that ever happens, and you have a houseful of RFID equipped stuff (provided they aren't premanently deactivated), a criminal could scan your house and know what you had without having to come in.
Or even if the privacy issue is ignored, the potential for wrongful harassment by "loss prevention" types is still there. Imagine if the system wasn't coded correctly (or lost data) and thought that the pair of pants you bought there last week weren't actually sold. You'd be detained by security on the way out and have to prove that you bought the pants you're wearing. If you don't think it can happen, I experienced something similar when I was in college concerning the library's security system and a textbook that I legally owned.
At this point, though, it appears that the technology is still too immature to use on store shelves. Wal-Mart, which championed bar codes in the 80's, was hot to use RFID tags, but they've cancelled a trial in one of their stores. They will now focus on warehouse operations. But this doesn't mean that they've given up. It just means that it has been delayed. And I suspect that we'll see a public relations campaign to "pacify" the public's privacy fears in the meantime.
What I find interesting is that while the industry had paid lip service to privacy concerns, they don't seem really interested in killing the RFID tag at the point of sale. They're adding a "kill" feature to some of the new chips, but they want to make you "opt-out" of using the tag, rather than having you opt-in to leaving it active. For me, I want them all dead when I leave the store, and this will be yet another hassle to deal with at checkout. They keep talking about a "smart house" concept where your pantry keeps track of the food and your washer knows the right settings for the clothes, but their own market research (which they conveniently left open for us to read) shows that people think that the concept is ridiculous. If I was prone to conspiracy theories, I'd think that they are looking for a way to spin the technology so that we'll accept keeping the tags alive. Then they would be able to implement the other tracking features that worry people like me. But that's only if I were to buy into conspiracy theories. :)
In the meantime, I'm going to keep watching this issue. If it comes to market, and I don't trust their implementation of it, I'll have to examine how to disable them myself (they say that microwaving works, but that it could set the object on fire, which would be a definite drawback). I suspect that there will come a day when we won't be able to buy an object without an RFID tag in it. We need to be vigilant to make sure that the RFID tags are handled on our terms.
I've been back since Sunday evening, but going out of town always messes up my schedule the following week. You don't realize how much stuff you do on Sunday until you have to do it on Monday and Tuesday.
We fired off approximately one metric assload of fireworks on the Fourth. I got carried away at the fireworks stand and ended up buying way too much stuff (like this and those big "Pluto Invader" rockets).
My biggest mistake, though, was to buy some low-carb chocolate bars. I always seem to forget about the caffeine in chocolate. I don't do caffeine very well (it makes me cranky and irritable) and now I'm going through withdrawal, which includes a massive headache. Ugh...
The cable guy showed up a few minutes early and very quickly confirmed that the line was OK and that the cable modem itself was hosed. He hooked up a new modem and got it provisioned and I'm back in business again. All in all, Charter's support worked well this time.
I'm about to head back to Big Sandy for the weekend. It's time to eat barbecue, drink beer, and set off fireworks.
I'll be back next week. Everyone have a great Fourth.
Scientists at UC Berkeley have proposed a system that would prevent airplanes from flying into certain areas.
They propose modifying the avionics in aircraft so that the plane would fight any efforts by the pilot to fly into restricted airspace. So if a plane was flying with a no-fly-zone to the left, and the pilot started banking left to enter the zone, the avionics would counter by banking right. Lee's system, called "soft walls", would first gently resist the pilot, and then become increasingly forceful until it prevailed.An interesting idea, and marginally safer than other proposals (i.e. remote controlled takeovers or automatic landing systems), but not one that I would want to fly with. But I'm not the only one. The pilots themselves are hostile to the idea, and I don't blame them. However, the scientists don't seem to understand why.
He has yet to convince the people who fly the planes. "In general, pilots are openly hostile," he says. "Frankly it surprises me, because of all of the options that they are facing right now - including being shot at or commandeered from the ground - this is their best one."First, that presupposes that these options are the only ones available. He fails to consider the best option: arming all pilots (which will require getting those idiots at the TSA out of the way). But more importantly, pilots are rightfully reluctant to give up control of the aircraft to the computer.
A perfect example of the disconnect between engineers and (most) pilots can be seen when comparing Airbus verus Boeing commercial passenger jets. It's really a difference in philosophy (and in some ways reflects the problems that have arisen between Europe and the United States recently). The Airbus has hard limits, beyond which it will not go, even if it would be needed to save the aircraft (although they claim that the system tries to prevent the aircraft from getting into those situations to begin with, which is questionable to me). The Boeing uses soft limits, which means that the pilot will receive a warning when the limit is about to be violated, but can still go beyond the limit. It has been shown several times that pilots have saved the plane from disaster by going over the limits, or as one pilot put it.
"Although aircraft structural integrity may be compromised by a G-load in excess of 3.8 Gs, aircraft structural integrity is more severely compromised by terrain impact."All of which is why I am very wary of getting on an Airbus. If there is any choice at all, I won't fly on one.
Ack. I seem to have been infected by a Star Wars meme when naming those last two entries. It probably happened when I was reading the comments on Slashdot to the telemarketer story (someone had "<ackbar>It's a trap.</ackbar>" in their comment).
Anyway, I am somewhat surprised so far with Charter's support. I expected it to be a crapfest, but they've been pleasant and helpful. They responded to my problem report within a couple of hours. They remotely checked the modem and found that it was reporting a low uptime, so they will send a technician out this evening to look at it. It's possible that the modem is starting to go bad. It's been almost continuously powered on since November, 2000. I also reported a billing problem to them (they started billing me for modem rental, even though I own the modem) and they responded quickly that they'd fix it and research back to credit me for any previous months that were billed.
This makes for an interesting contrast to the trouble one of my coworkers initially had with Comcast. He isn't capable of using DSL (too far from the branch office), so cable is the only viable alternative (satellite internet costs a bundle to install and fixed-wireless has high monthly charges). He tried to use their online form to order their service, but all he got back was an email (two days later) that said they could not process the order "at this time". No explanation was given. He tried calling the 800 number given in the email. After navigating the VRU menus, he was told that his call could not be completed at this time. He finally managed to find their local number and call them directly. The local person was much more helpful and got everything taken care of pretty quickly. I guess they're more motivated to help since they're in a local office where you can go gripe at them in person. :)
It appears that the script kiddies are planning to try to deface a bunch of websites on July 6th.
The government and private technology experts warned Wednesday that hackers plan to attack thousands of Web sites Sunday in a loosely coordinated "contest" that could disrupt Internet traffic.I guess these pathetic fools have nothing better to do than to waste everyone's time and money by monkeying with websites.
Organizers established a Web site, defacers-challenge.com, which was shut down early Wednesday evening. Before it was removed, the site listed in broken English the rules for hackers who might participate. It cautioned that "deface its crime" -- an apparent acknowledgment that vandalizing Internet pages is illegal.
You never really know how secure your webhost is until someone tries to attack it. For now, the best advice would be to make sure you have good backups of everything (including your databases) and to make sure you aren't using any default or weak passwords.
Link via Slashdot.
It appears that the telemarketers aren't getting the message.
Companies that are major users of telemarketing calls are preparing to shift efforts to e-mail and direct mail once a new federal "do-not-call" list takes effect in October, according to a published report.It should be clear from the backlash against telemarketers that a large number of people are not receptive to their message. Why would they think the message would be better received if sent via another medium?
As of Tuesday morning about 12.5 million Americans have signed up to block phone solicitations in the first four days of the program, according to the Federal Trade Commission. Solicitors who call homes on the list after Oct. 1 face fines of up to $11,000 per call. Another 14 million homes are being transferred from state do-not-call registries, and 60 million homes are eventually expected to sign up to block calls by calling the FTC or signing up on its Web site.
The Wall Street Journal said Wednesday that companies such as AT&T and Allstate Insurance are looking to shift some of their sales efforts away from the phone solicitations that have been central to their business plans in the past.
"We plan to shift into other communication mediums, and rely more heavily on traditional TV advertising and e-mail marketing," Allstate acting Chief Marketing Officer Todd DeYoung told the paper. "We also plan to stimulate inbound call volume by doing more directed advertising and more direct mail."
I closely guard my email addresses, and I'm careful to make up a new address for each company I deal with. That way, I can find out who sold my address to spammers, or I can tell which company is ignoring its promises to me. I come down hard on companies that contact me via email without my permission (to the point of redirecting the email to the company's marketing address in one case).
Oh, and this won't be very helpful, either:
The paper said that in addition to seeing more e-mail or junk mail, consumers who call companies on other business may now have to listen to sales pitches while negotiating voice mail messages.If they incoporate this into their VRUs, I'll be more likely to drop out to an operator rather than sit around listening to their crap. This will ultimately increase their costs and decrease customer satisfaction.
On the other hand, a few companies are seeing an opportunity in all this:
But the companies won't drop their phone banks altogether. They believe that those who do not sign up for the do-not-call list will be more open to telephone pitches and that could help their phone solicitation efforts.I don't know if that will exactly be the case, but at least they won't be bothering people who obviously don't want to be bothered.
Link via Slashdot.
For the past couple of weeks I've been having problems with my cable modem. Or more specifically, it appears that Charter has been having problems, because the "cable" light on my modem keeps going off and I lose connection. When it's up, I don't have any problems connecting, so I know my home network is OK. There are no events I've been able to correlate to the outages (i.e. wind, rain, etc). My suspicion is that they're having a problem on their end (although there is a remote possibility that there is a problem with the wire from my house to their local connection point or the modem itself is going out).
Anyway, Charter's support website requires that you install their spyware in order to use their "wizard." Since I won't install that crap (I installed their software package when it first came out and it took over my browser and rebranded it; I had to reinstall Windows to get it back), I had to drop out to their web contact form. This probably puts me somewhere below fungus on their priority list, so I'm not sanguine about the probability of a fix anytime soon. I'll probably have to call them and deal with the level 1 and 2 crap before I get someone who knows what's going on.
In the meantime I probably won't be making too many updates to this site, because everytime I get set to go online at home the cable modem is out.