Assembling an iomega Mac Companion Enclosure

One of the big-ass hard drives we use for backup has started to make scary noises. Not the kind of sounds you want to hear from a drive that holds important data for our family and for a few of friends around the country as well. It was time to start looking for a replacement drive. One thing I wanted to do was have a clear upgrade: with the new setup I will not have to fear the catastrophic consequences of a single drive failing.

A note on levels of catastrophe: some might think that losing backup data is an inconvenience. In the same way you could think that losing the co-piolot of an airplane is an inconvenience. But with the backup compromised, risk of disaster has gone up exponentially. At Muddled Ramblings and Half-baked Ideas we take that shit seriously as we skulk in our secret bunker, buried deep beneath a trailer park next to a sprawling cemetery, ready for the Zombie Apocalypse to begin.

There are fancy enclosures that hold several drive units and use a variety of schemes that fall under the general acronym RAID to protect data from the failure of a single drive. Most of those enclosures have loud fans, and all of them cost a lot of money. Where does a cheap bastard go when he wants RAID 5, quiet and cheap? He buys a bunch of inexpensive but high-quality disks, puts them in inexpensive but high-quality quiet enclosures, and uses SoftRaid to turn them into a single virtual disk with reasonable protection from disaster.

After a little research, I found the right drives (Seagate bulletproof datacenter-rated blah blah blah) and the right enclosure: the iomega Mac Companion. What is great about this enclosure is that it has TWO firewire connectors, so you can daisy-chain them and connect many drives to a single firewire port on the host computer. Music to cheap-bastard ears, and not found on other enclosures at any price. Plus, you can buy them cheap on eBay in any quantity you might want, while supplies last.

There’s a catch, of course: iomega is defunct, and never officially sold this enclosure without a drive already installed. The packaging looks as though they might have been planning to sell empty enclosures, but the documentation (and even some of the text on the box) is clearly written with the assumption that the drive is already in there and everything is assembled.

So, you have packaging clearly designed to contain an empty, partially-disassembled hard drive enclosure, and instructions clearly for a pre-assembled unit. Weird. Perhaps some last, desperate attempt to sell an inventory of enclosures the company could no longer afford to fill. The only intern left to handle the packaging had no idea what to do about the instructions. We’ll never know the whole story.

But there’s a glut of quite capable hard drive enclosures out there now, and I bought some of them. As for assembly, there are no instructions. Not in the box, not online. You’re on your own, buddy. Until now! By my third enclosure, assembly was actually pretty easy. As a public service to anyone else who might have jumped on this deal, here are step-by-step instructions. You don’t have to thank me, it’s what I do.

Step 0: Survey the stuff.
When you open the box you will see parts in two groups: the top and the bottom. The bottom section includes the plastic base, the metal housing, and the circuit board, which is attached to the bottom of the aluminum inner shell. The top section has an aluminum inner shell top and the plastic lid for the enclosure.

Let’s take a moment to visualize the final product. A hard drive mechanism, inside a protective metal inner shell, inside a sturdy enclosure with lights on the front. With that in mind, we will be building from the middle out. (Yes, I thought of Silicon Valley when I wrote that.)

Step 1: Start by disassembling the bottom parts even further. Carefully pop the plastic base out of the outer metal housing, then slip the circuit board with inner shell off the plastic base. This is the step that took me three tries to learn. After this, everything is actually pretty obvious.

Step 2: Set the hard drive onto the white shield over the circuit board and slide it forward onto its connector.

Step 3: Slide the top inner shell over the drive unit with the little pigtail cable sticking out the slot in the side. At this point, you have something that looks like this:


Step 4: If you look at the picture, you will see a screw holding the drive in place. The enclosure does not include the screws, but they are a standard size. I’m not sure what size, because I had some in my hardware collection, but you can figure that part out. In fact, in the first drive I assembled, I didn’t use any screws at all. I resolve to not use that drive as a maraca, and all will be well. But if I had it to do all over again, I’d screw those bad boys down.

Step 5: Slip your well-shielded hard drive assembly back onto the plastic base. Fiddle with things until the connectors line up with the holes in the base.

Step 6: The circuit board on the end of that pigtail cable hanging out the side actually has four LED’s on it. The tiny circuit board fits into a slot in the plastic base. Note that there is a wee indentation in the board at one end; that part goes DOWN, where it seats neatly on a plastic fin:


Step 7: Now it’s time to put the outer metal housing on. There’s an odd plastic bit you set aside earlier with four little shafts sticking out. Those go into the holes in the front of the housing, and as you put the housing down over the plastic base the odd plastic bit will slide into the holder directly in front of the circuit board from step 6.


Step 8: At this point, everything is connected and should be functional. Before passing the following Point of Maybe-No Return, I plugged in each unit and made sure it spun up happily.

Step 9: Snap on the lid. You’re finished! Woo!

I have no idea how to remove the lid again; and hopefully I’ll never have to learn. Now I have a lot of room for data. Setting up my poor-man’s RAID will likely have to wait until next weekend, and hopefully will be simple enough that I don’t need to write a how-to. In the meantime, I hope this is helpful to those who find themselves with a question mark hovering over their heads as they stare at the parts they have just received.



My spelling correcter just changed m’fuckin’lord to mmfnuckin’lord. It does not change m’fuckin’ to mmfnuckin; the lord part is apparently important. I’m sure there’s something to learn from this.

So close…

About to purge the last of the Windows from the house, and say goodbye to the flimsy crap Asus laptop. The last task: getting it to talk on the network so we can move everything over.

It worked on the network two days ago. It has all sorts of other problems, far too many to enumerate here, but at least we were able to move files.

Now, not so much. Along with this happy message:

A problem is preventing the troubleshooter from starting.

Yay Microsoft!

Will the World Break in 2016?

Well, probably not. The world isn’t likely to break until 2017 at the earliest. Here’s the thing: Our economy relies on secure electronic transactions and hack-proof banks. But if you think of our current cyber security as a mighty castle made of stone, you will be rightly concerned to hear that gunpowder has arrived.

A little background: there’s a specific type of math problem that is the focus of much speculation in computer science these days. It’s a class of problem in which finding the answer is very difficult, but confirming the answer is relatively simple.

Why is this important? Because pretty much all electronic security, from credit card transactions to keeping the FBI from reading your text messages (if you use the right service) depends on it being very difficult to guess the right decoder key, but very easy to read the message if you already have the key. What keeps snoops from reading your stuff is simply that it will take hundreds of years using modern computers to figure out your decoder key.

That may come to a sudden and jarring end in the near future. You see, there’s a new kind of computer in town, and for solving very specific sorts of problems, it’s mind-bogglingly fast. It won’t be cheap, but quantum computers can probably be built in the near future specifically tuned to blow all we know about data encryption out of the water.

Google and NASA got together and made the D-Wave two, which, if you believe their hype, is the first computer that has been proven to use quantum mechanical wackiness to break through the limits imposed by those big, clunky atoms in traditional computing.

Pictures abound of the D-Wave (I stole this one from, but the same pic is everywhere), which is a massive refrigerator with a chip in the middle. The chip has to be right down there at damn near absolute zero.


The chip inside D-Wave two was built and tuned to solve a specific problem very, very quickly. And it did. Future generations promise to be far more versatile. But it doesn’t even have to be that versatile if it is focussed on breaking 1024-bit RSA keys.

It is entirely possible that the D-Wave six will be able to bust any crypto we have working today. And let’s not pretend that this is the only quantum computer in development. It’s just the one that enjoys the light of publicity. For a moment imagine that you were building a computer that could decode any encrypted message, including passwords and authentication certificates. You’d be able to crack any computer in the world that was connected to the Internet. You probably wouldn’t mention to anyone that you were able to do that.

At Microsoft, their head security guy is all about quantum-resistant algorithms. Quantum computers are mind-boggling fast at solving certain types of math problems; security experts are scrambling to come up with encryption based on some other type of hard-to-guess, easy-to-confirm algorithm, that is intrinsically outside the realm of quantum mojo. But here’s the rub: it’s not clear that other class of math exists.

(That same Microsoft publicity piece is interesting for many other reasons, and I plan to dig into it more in the future. But to summarize: Google wins.)

So what do we do? There’s not really much we can do, except root for the banks. They have resources, they have motivation. Or, at least, let’s all hope that the banks even know there’s a problem yet, and are trying to do something about it. Because quantum computing could destroy them.

Eventually we’ll all have quantum chips in our phones to generate the encryption, and the balance of power will be restored. In the meantime, we may be beholden to the owners of these major-mojo-machines to handle our security for us. Let’s hope the people with the power to break every code on the planet use that power ethically.

Yeah, sorry. It hurts, but that may be all we have.

A Secure, Undisclosed Location for my Stuff

I take a bunch of pictures. Each image is many megabytes. It adds up. I have a big-ass hard drive or two, but each image should be on multiple hard drives, and not all in one room.

Then there’s DropBox. That’s a service that makes one folder on your computer also exist out there in what the kids are calling the cloud. Which is cool from a redundancy standpoint, but what I’d really like is to not have to keep the files locally at all. I want something that looks to my computer exactly like a hard drive, but is really some gee-whiz redundant storage solution out there somewhere.

There are a couple of requirements:

  • It really does act just like a hard drive
  • It is encrypted with a key that I generate; the provider does not have that key. No one has that key but me.
  • There is a plan and escrowed funds so that if the host goes belly-up, I get my data back.

I don’t even know where to start looking. Suggestions?

Billion-Person Problems vs. Individual People

I read an article today idolizing Larry Page, head honcho at Google. I have to confess, reading Larry’s quotes, I was pretty damn impressed. Some of his goals are downright “holy fuck, that’s awesome”. If even a small percentage work out lots of people will be helped. Larry calls them his billion-person problems. But…

Can you solve billion-person problems while exploiting a billion individuals?

GoogPut another way: here’s a billion-person problem that Google is central to: the erosion of privacy in the modern age. For instance, Google has taken very seriously securing your information as it travels from your computer to their servers. But once that email hits their hard drives, it’s fair game! As long as no one else can get at your info (well, except governments with leverage over the Goog), all is well with the world.

Before I get too deep in this rant, let me say that the Internet would suck a lot more without Google’s search engine. I use Duck-Duck-Go to exploit the power of the search without yielding up my personal info. I realize that’s kind of like getting sushi and not paying; if everyone did that, search engines would have to start charging for their services and people would be faced with putting a monetary value on their privacy.

And, I think there’s a lot to be said for the way Google runs their company, they way they commit to their managers rather than just making the best engineers the bosses of other engineers. I give them big props for that. That comes from the very top and Larry Page deserves credit.

But now, on with the rant!

What Google knows when you use their payment system (Google Wallet):

Google Wallet records information about your purchases, such as merchant, amount, date and time, method of payment, and, optionally, geolocation.

What Apple (my employer) knows when you use their payment system (Apple Pay): Nothing.

Apple Pay was designed from the ground up so that Apple could not get your personal information. This made it way more complicated to implement and added hardship for banks as well, but it was a fundamental tenet of the system. Apple gets enough aggregate information back from the banks so they can get their fees, but none of your personal information is in that data. In contrast, Google (not just their wallet) has been built from the ground up to collect and sell your personal information.

Of course, the banks still know, and the merchant still knows, and Amazon tells advertisers what’s in your wish list… So it’s not just Google here. But Google has access to information you never intended to be known — a lot of it — and they have a unique opportunity to make meaningful change on this front.

Nest, the hot-spit thermostat/smoke detector company was bought by Google. I was discussing it the other day with a co-worker who is a (mostly) satisfied customer. It sounds like a pretty cool system, but I mentioned there was no reason for the damn thing to be in the cloud just to be operated from my phone — it just needed to be part of a personal network that could talk to all my devices. My friend, who has a buddy who works at Nest, shrugged and said, “they have to collect and aggregate data to make the service work right” (or something like that). I accepted that at the moment, but later I realized: NO THEY DON’T. I want my home automation to be based on ME, not some aggregate of other people. And, if they made the data collection voluntary, I might even opt in if it looked like it would help the collective good. It’s something I do.

I voluntarily share personal information all the time. I share my bike rides (but suppress the exact location of my house). I share my image on Facebook. I share biographical data right here on this blog. I probably share more personal information than I should, but I make a big distinction between voluntary sharing (Facebook) and involuntary sharing (having my emails read by a corporation). Even though I don’t use a gmail account, my emails are still read every time I send a message to a gmail user. Does it matter if I’ve agreed to their terms of service or not? No. No, it doesn’t.

Microsoft took a couple of shots at Google a while back, promoting their email and search services as being more privacy-friendly than Google’s. But, amazingly, Microsoft kind of half-assed it (they had a produced-by-local-TV-station look) and they failed to deliver the message effectively, the way Microsoft is wont to do. Still, at least they tried.

If Google would do one thing, a thing that is in their power to do, I will take back everything else I have said about them. If they provide real encryption for their emails — encryption all the way to their servers, encryption they won’t have a key to unlock, so only the intended recipients can read it, I’ll believe that they care about me, and the other billions of people in the world. And it would be a hell of a selling point for gmail.

Calculating Calories is Hard!

I’ve been using both MapMyRide and Strava to track my bicycle rides recently. In addition, I’ve been using the activity app on my slick new Apple Watch. Each estimates how many calories I burned on my ride, but the numbers are very different. For example, on my ride to work yesterday morning:

MapMyRide: 814 Calories
Strava: 643 Calories
Watch: 757 Calories

Dang – those are quite different numbers, especially when you consider that MapMyRide and Strava are using pretty much the same data and coming to very different conclusions. What gives? CAN I EAT THAT DONUT OR NOT?

Strava and MapMyRide use speed and (maybe) elevation change in a formula with the rider’s weight to come out with an estimate of how many calories the rider burned. Strava lets me set the weight of my bike; I don’t know what MapMyRide assumes. I’m pretty confident that neither really uses elevation changes well. And headwinds? Forget it.

Both services can come up with a better wild-ass guess if you use a special crank or pedals that directly measure how hard you are working. They directly measure the output of your muscles, so the only remaining guesswork is how many calories you burned to do that work (some people are more efficient than others). There’s a Garmin setup that will tell you if one leg is doing more work than the other. I have no such device.

The most accurate way available to measure calories burned is to measure how much carbon dioxide one exhales. Rather than measure the work you did, you’re measuring how much exhaust you produced. This is impractical on a bike ride, however.

Which brings me to the gizmo strapped to my wrist. It estimates calories based on my heart rate. I have no idea what formula it uses, but hopefully it incorporates my resting heart rate (which it measures throughout the day) and my weight (which I have to remember to tell it), and maybe even my age. The cool thing is that heart rate is directly related to carbon dioxide production. When I’m riding fifteen mph with a tail wind, I’m barely working at all. When I’m pushing against gale-force breezes at the same speed, I’m huffing and my heart is thumping. To Strava and MapMyRide, the rides look the same. The watch knows the truth.

When WatchOS 2 comes out (the “features we couldn’t get perfect in time for WatchOS 1” release), Strava will be able to access my heart data. I’m interested to see what that does to the numbers.

In the meantime, I’m listening to my watch.