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.

2

How Secure is Your Smoke Detector?

heartbleedYou probably heard about that HeartBleed thing a few months ago. Essentially, the people who build OpenSSL made a really dumb mistake and created a potentially massive security problem.

HeartBleed made the news, a patch came out, and all the servers and Web browsers out there were quickly updated. But what about your car?

I don’t want to be too hard on the OpenSSL guys; almost everyone uses their code and apparently (almost) no one bothers to pitch in financially to keep it secure. One of the most critical pieces of software in the world is maintained by a handful of dedicated people who don’t have the resources to keep up with the legion of evil crackers out there. (Google keeps their own version, and they pass a lot of security patches back to the OpenSSL guys. Without Google’s help, things would likely be a lot worse.)

For each HeartBleed, there are dozens of other, less-sexy exploits. SSL, the security layer that once protected your e-commerce and other private Internet communications, has been scrapped and replaced with TLS (though it is still generally referred to as SSL), and now TLS 1.0 is looking shaky. TLS 1.1 and 1.2 are still considered secure, and soon all credit card transactions will use TLS 1.2. You probably won’t notice; your browser and the rest of the infrastructure will be updated and you will carry on, confident that no one can hack into your transactions (except many governments, and about a hundred other corporations – but that’s another story).

So it’s a constant march, trying to find the holes before the bad guys do, and shoring them up. There will always be new versions of the security protocols, and for the most part the tools we use will update and we will move on with our lives.

But, I ask again, what about your car?

What version of SSL does OnStar use, especially in older cars? Could someone intercept signals between your car and the mother ship, crack the authentication, and use the “remote unlock” feature and drive away with your fancy GMC Sierra? I’ve heard stories.

You know that fancy home alarm system you have with the app that allows you to disarm it? What version of OpenSSL is installed in the receiver in your home? Can it be updated?

If your thermostat uses outdated SSL, will some punk neighbor kid download a “hijack your neighbor’s house” app and turn your thermostat up to 150? Can someone pull a password from your smoke detector system and try it on all your other stuff (another reason to only use each password once)?

Washer and dryer? The Infamous Internet Toaster? Hey! The screen on my refrigerator is showing ads for porn sites!

Everything that communicates across the Internet/Cloud/Bluetooth/whatever relies on encrypting the data to keep malicious folks away from your stuff. But many of the smaller, cheaper devices (and cars) may lack the ability to update themselves when new vulnerabilities are discovered.

I’m not saying all of these devices suck, but I would not buy any “smart” appliance until I knew exactly how they keep ahead of the bad guys. If the person selling you the car/alarm/refrigerator/whatever can’t answer that question, walk away. If they don’t care about your security and privacy, they don’t deserve your business.

I’ve been told, but I have no direct evidence to back it up, that much of the resistance in the industry to the adoption of Apple’s home automation software protocols (dubbed HomeKit) are because of the over-the-top security and privacy requirements. (Nest will not be supporting HomeKit, for instance.) In my book, for applications like this, there’s no such thing as over-the-top.

1

Another Baby Step Toward Email Privacy

Email is frightfully insecure. Anything you write can and will be read by any number of robots or worse as it bounces across the Internet. Gmail? forget about any shred of privacy. While the Goog champions securing the data as it comes to and from their servers, once it’s there, your private life is fair game.

It doesn’t have to be that way. We can encrypt the contents of our emails so that only the intended recipients can read them. I’m not sure how many more embarrassing corporate, government, and university email hacks will have to happen before people start to take this seriously, but remember, those were only the illegal hacks. Other people are reading your emails all the time already. This bothers me.

Sorting out a solution to this problem has been like having a big jumble of puzzle pieces on my coffee table, and while I’ve pushed the pieces around to get them to fit together, it’s become apparent that there’s a piece missing — until (perhaps) now. To understand the puzzle piece, it’s easiest to start with the hole it needs to fill. Some of this you may have read in posts from days of yore.

Here’s a simplified illustration of how email encryption works. Picture a box with two locks, that take two different keys. When you lock the box with one key, only the other key can open the box again. If you want to send me a message, I give you one of the keys, and you put the message in the box and lock it. Since I’m the only one with the matching key, only I can unlock it. Sorry, Google! You just get gibberish.

Of course, there’s a catch. How do I get your half of the key pair to you? If I put it in an email, any bad guy could switch the key before it got to you, and then your secret message would only be readable by the bad guy. He’d probably pack the message back up and lock it with my key and send it on, so I might not notice right away that that the message had been intercepted.

What’s needed is either a foolproof way to send my public key to you, or a way to confirm that the key you got really came from me.

If there were a foolproof way to send the key, we’d dispense with the whole lockbox thing and just send the original message that way. So until that foolproof way arrives, we are left with the need to authenticate the key I send you, through some trusted, hard-to-fake source. There are competing ways to accomplish this, and they all have flaws. This is the hole in our jigsaw puzzle.

The most common way key-verifying is done is through a series of Certificate Authorities, companies entrusted with issuing and verifying these keys. This works pretty well, as long as every single Certificate Authority can be trusted. The moment one is hacked, the entire system has been compromised. Guess what? CA’s have been hacked. There are also several governments that are CA’s, meaning those governments can listen in on any transaction on the Web today that uses https:// – which is just about all of them. Any of those entities could send a fake key to you and your software would trust it. I don’t know which makes me more nervous, that China is on the list or the United States.

So if you can’t collectively trust a few hundred companies and governments, who can you trust? There are several competing systems now where you and all your friends only have to trust one company. As long as you and I both set up with that company, they will quite effectively safeguard our communications. Your privacy is as good as the security and integrity of a single corporation — unless a jealous government shuts them down, anyway, or they get bought by a less-scrupulous company, or a pissed-off engineer in their IT department decides to drop their corporate pants. Having a single entity hold all the keys is called the “key escrow problem”.

At the far end of the spectrum is crowd-sourcing trust. There exists a large and (alas) floundering network of people who vouch for each other, so if you trust Bob and Bob says my key’s OK, you can choose to trust my key. I’ve tried to participate in the “Web of Trust”, and, well, here I am, still sending emails in the clear.

But now there’s a new kid in town! I just got an invitation to join the alpha-testing stage for a new key-verification service, keybase.io. Let’s say you want to send me a message. You need the public key to my lockbox. You ask keybase for it, and they send you a key. But do you trust that key? No, not at all. Along with the key, the server sends a bunch of links, to things like this blog and my twitter account. The software on your computer automatically checks those links to see if a special code is there, and if it is, invites you to go and look at those links to make sure they point to things I control. You see the special code on Muddled Ramblings or Twitter or whatever that only I could have put there, and you can feel pretty good about the key. You put your own stamp on the key so you don’t have to go through the manual verification again, and away you go!

There are more features to prevent bad guys from other shenanigans like hacking my blog and twitter before giving you a fake key, but you can read about them at http://keybase.io.

The service is still in the pre-pubescent stage; I’m fiddling now to see if I can use keybase-verified keys from my mail software. Failing that, there are other methods to encrypt and decrypt messages you cut and paste from your email. Kinda clunky.

Having set up my keybase identity, I have been given the privilege of inviting four more people aboard. Good thing, too, since otherwise I’d have no one to exchange messages with, to see how it works. I’d be grateful if one (or four!) of y’all out there would like to be a guinea pig with me. Drop me a line if you’re interested. Let’s win one for the little guy!

Note to Pillsbury:

It’s time to revive Space Food Sticks.

2

When Phones and Cars DO Mix

I’d heard whispers about it in the shadows, seen the knowing glances between those in the loop, and recently I’ve become one of them. I’m a Wazer.

I am required to be at an office during what we call ‘normal business hours’. That means I’m driving to my office in the morning and home from the office in the evening, along with all the other NBH drones. Some mornings, the 12-mile trip can take an hour. That’s not good.

Along my route are some key decision points. It’s shortest to turn left at Curtner, but that ramp onto the freeway can get massively backed up, to the tune of fifteen minutes. On those mornings it’s better to stay on the surface streets for an extra mile.

But which mornings? How can I tell in advance whether Curtner is a mess? Enter Waze, the social mapping service. Waze takes real-time data from drivers like me and finds the fastest route to work (and, perhaps more importantly, home again). Sometimes those routes use streets I never would have thought of, but I ignore the advice at my peril. (Monday, I thought I knew better than Waze. Boy was I wrong.)

Waze is a bit quirky; right now it tries to steer me around one intersection at all costs — including cutting through a cemetery as an alternative. I have no idea why it developed an allergy to that right turn, and I suppose a true Wazer would log in and fix the map. Even the maps themselves are crowdsourced. It’s pretty cool.

You should be aware, however, that Google just bought Waze for a cool 1.1 Billion, so as I drive I’m telling the Goog where I am. If you use Google maps you’re already doing that, however, and I think this is a case where a voluntary surrender of personal information (with a very short useful shelf-life) actually makes the world better. Perhaps I just think that way because I really hate traffic. I decline to advertise my location on Facebook, and I hope all you have more common sense than to do so.

Another very useful phone-related product I came across recently is actually a gadget/app combo. You may have read recently that I’ve been tinkering with my car so that it will pass the California emissions test. I made some repairs and pulled the fuse that powers the onboard computer and counted thirty seconds, which should reset it. Even if the Check Engine Light is off when I get to the smog place, if there are old error codes in the computer’s memory, I will fail. Again. I know this because that’s why I failed the first time. The Check Engine Light had been on, and that was enough.

So I cleared the computer. Probably. Maybe. After my first round of repairs the light came back on (I had broken a plastic bit during the first operation) so I made my second repair and pulled the fuse for 30 seconds. Once again, there was no way to tell if I had actually cleared the memory. Just in time, help arrived via the U.S. Mail.

You see, during this whole process I was frustrated that I couldn’t just check the damn computer myself. (Once you fail smog, all except a few specially-designated repair places aren’t even allowed to hook you up. Bah!) Then while reading a Miata forum I found a discussion of which OBD tools worked with 1999 Miatas. A light turned on over my head. I could buy my own damn code reader! That had quite truthfully never occurred to me. I went to Amazon and started looking around. There was one hitch that made me hesitate: Units were either a) really expensive; and/or b) not sure to work on my car. Although there is a standard connector, different cars communicate with different protocols. I didn’t want to spend a bunch of money for something that didn’t know my car’s dialect.

Then I came across one that was both cheaper than any of the others AND low-risk! BAM! For $21 bucks I bought the Elm327 WIFI OBD2 Car Scan Tool. There’s a cheaper BlueTooth version, but there was some indication that it might not work on all iOS devices. Why is this one more likely to work with my car? Here’s the thing: The gizmo doesn’t know diddle about protocols. That’s software. So if one phone or computer app can’t talk to my car, another will. And now the UI can be presented on a sophisticated touch-screen computing device, rather than a cryptic LCD readout with arrow buttons for controls.

When the ELM-327 arrived I splurged and got one of the most expensive apps available to talk to it, based on reviewers saying it worked no problem with their ELM-327’s. Ten bucks. For a total outlay of $31, I had a scan tool that not only worked far better than dedicated devices costing hundreds of dollars, it had a better UI, and could even display a host of real-time data as I drove around! Speed, rpm, air volume, battery voltage, and more. Some modern cars provide a ridiculous amount of information through the OBD port. The app I chose, OBD Fusion, can log data and even superimpose that info onto a map. Racers, apparently, love this stuff.

My smog guy was really impressed as well. He actually laughed when I revved my motor and the virtual tach needle swung upwards. He was excited that he could prescreen customers in the parking lot, quick and easy. I expect he owns one of these now.

And in fact I had not successfully cleared my computer by pulling the fuse, but with my gadget and my app I cleared the old codes and ran the car until all tests had come back green.

This tool is a game-changer for even an unsophisticated home mechanic like me. Knowing the code and being able to look up the repair on the Internet literally saved me hundreds of dollars. (I know because I once paid hundreds of dollars only to have the problem return a few months later.) It also confirmed that my speedometer is a wee bit off.

And next road trip I’m totally going to make a map of engine RPM along my route. Because the world needs to know stuff like that.

5

The Ascendant Science

Medicine, it seems, is always the last science to the dance. While one guy was establishing the principles of electricity, one of his friends was being bled to death in the name of medicine. When radioactivity was discovered, health practitioners killed countless patients with it.

For most of the history of humanity, doctors were quacks. All of them. The discovery of tiny creatures that live inside us revolutionized the medical biz, but compared to the physics industry and its spinoffs, medicine was still mostly chanting and waving rattles.

Early in the last century, physical science went through a boom so loud our ears are still ringing today. The second half of the 20th century saw technology go nuts as those fundamental discoveries reached market.

That wave gave us the machines we needed to finally dig deep into how we work as organisms. Allow me to tell a rather long story to illustrate.

I have been working to lose weight. If you use the Internet, you’ve seen ads that read, “New scientific breakthrough can help you shed pounds!” and shit like that. I have long made a point of ignoring those ads, but I became curious about the scientific breakthrough. One night I clicked one of the ads.

I was presented with a video. Generally, when I want the answer to a specific question, I HATE video. But in this case, I understood that the video existed for the very reason I dislike them: the producer wants me to go through a lot of shit before providing me the nugget I want. From their point of view, video is perfect.

With the sound off, I watched as cartoon people were drawn and erased, showing a variety of body forms. Finally, a word came on the screen: Leptin. I stopped the video and fired up Wikipedia, where I was offered an explanation with lots of words I didn’t know. I knew enough of them, however, to understand that leptin was created by fat cells, and when leptin levels go up enough to be noticed by the brain, you feel full, and your metabolism cranks up. Injecting leptin into obese mice helps them lose weight; it doesn’t work so well in humans. Also, leptin was found in the 1990’s.

Then there’s Ghrelin, identified about ten years ago. Ghrelin makes you feel hungry, and slows your metabolism. The Wikipedia article about ghrelin identifies exactly which gene builds it, how it’s matched with a (perhaps unused) counterpart, and where it binds to receptors in the brain. There are drawings of the damn thing.

I trust the drawings, but it all seems vaguely magic.

I think this is just the beginning. The human organism is the most complex thing in the known universe, but we’re starting to figure out how it works. Next comes how to fix it when it’s broken; how to address the exact problem without mucking with other systems. We will move from drugs to viruses — those that attack specific bacteria and those that give the host the ability to produce a particular protein. It’s pretty cool.

That technology explosion? We’re starting to feel the biology echo, and it’s going to change everything.

Christian Mingle, Random Numbers, and Prayer

I typed the above title into my bloggotool a few days ago, thinking I’d get back to it when I had time. I vaguely remember the point I was going to make. Let’s see how this goes.

Christian Mingle is an online matchmaking service for Christian folks. It makes sense; there are a lot of people for whom a partner must be of the same religion, and it wouldn’t surprise me if same-faith relationships tend to last longer (though there is likely precious little in the way of unbiased data on the subject — it’s one of those simple-sounding propositions that turns out to be a bitch to measure. But I digress…).

Anyway, my memory of the site’s tagline is fuzzy, but it’s something like, “find God’s match for you.” So you see, they are presenting themselves as an agent of God, a conduit that allows the Big Guy to work his subtle magic. I’ve heard crazier things. But then I thought some more (perhaps too much), and I realized that most likely they apply mathematical comparison algorithms to find the best matches, as do the rest of the matchmaking sites. In fact, they are probably a branded front end on one of the other major services. It’s all math, and it’s deterministic. The same data in will produce the same result. If God wants Sally to be with Jorge, but the numbers say she should be with Marcel, what’s He gonna do?

Although random numbers in computers aren’t truly random, they’re unpredictable enough that a deity could jigger them now and then and no one would be the wiser. If Christian Mingle threw a lot of entropy at the problem, they could create the wiggle room God needs to work His will. Clients would fill out a detailed questionnaire, send it in, and Christian Mingle could match them up randomly and bickety-bam, God’s will is done. Sally’s with Jorge.

(Note that God’s will does not necessarily translate to what’s best for the individuals involved.)

Generating the random number is much like prayer, except that now we have a machine to perform that tedious task for us. We are appealing to a higher power for guidance, trusting ourselves to His plan. For marketing, I would suggest to Christian Mingle that they substitute the phrase “Divine Guidance” for “Random Number” in their brochures.

Meanwhile, I’m going to go home and whip up a quick “pray for my soul” script. I have a feeling I’m going to need it.

iTelescope

I was reading up on the big-ass comet (who’s name is not actually ISON) heading our direction, and the article mentioned that the discovery had been confirmed by iTelescope (among others). (REAL QUICK digression: I really like the word “precovery” — Once the discoverers said, “hey, there’s a comet there!” other astronomers were able to use data gathered before the official “discovery” to confirm the finding. Precovery.) So anyway, Since I work at the company that invented put-an-i-on-it product naming, I had no choice but to look into this iTelescope thing. I had this idea that maybe there were a million webcams all pointed at the sky, and with the combined computing power of the participants a useful image could be inferred.

Of course, I was wrong. It was early in the morning and the caffeine hadn’t reached the critical parts of my brain — the parts that would have considered the logistical nightmare my “global fly-eye” idea would entail. Maybe in a few more years…

But what I did find is entirely cool, and has the benefit of actually working. iTelescope is a cooperative that has some 20 pretty-dang-good telescopes, and for a fee you (yes, you) can use them to take pictures of the sky. (The difference between ‘telescope’ and ‘camera’ is all in the lens.) iTelescope has three facilities around the globe (New Mexico, Spain, and Australia), so it’s always night somewhere. You control the telescope over the Internet and download your results. Oh, these times we live in. (In these times, it must also be said: you retain all rights to the photos.)

How much does it cost? That depends on the telescope you choose and the phase of the moon. Prices start in the neighborhood of seventeen bucks an hour and go up from there. That seems like a lot of money, until you consider what it would cost to get these images on your own. Eleven (at least) have even been honored as APOD.

It feels odd to think of it as ‘photography’ when you’re so disconnected from the camera – heck, you’ll probably never even see the telescope you’re using. Many of the other decisions one makes in terrestrial photography are moot as well — there’s no depth of focus to deal with, for instance. Someone else has set up the camera; all you have to do is point it. Except, when you look at the gallery, you see that there are many images that combine dozens of exposures, some with different filters, sometimes with different data coming from different telescopes. Dang. Seriously, how many photographers have access to such a vast array of gear? (Answer: now, we all do.)

There is still an art to getting that spectacular deep-space image, and just as a fashion photographer has assistants to handle the details, iTelescope users have the iTelescope staff and a helpful Web robot. Good times, my friends. Good times.

2

Safety Features that Frighten Me

Honda has a new safety package on some of their cars. The ads go something like, “Sooner or later you’ll be driving when you’re on the verge of falling asleep. Sooner or later you’ll make a sudden swerve across several lanes of traffic. Sooner or later you’ll be driving and not watching where you’re going. Our car has technology to make it safer to do those things! Yay Honda!”

Wait… what?

Already there are people out there, who, when the moment comes to make a life-and-death decision, will, because of this technology, be more inclined to choose death. Death for themselves and for those around them. Death for me, perhaps. Some of those people will choose death anyway, but now, with the assurance that their car is looking out for her, a teenage girl will veer across four lanes of traffic and be represented at her prom by a table with her photo on it, with candles and little mementos. Elsewhere, some guy is going to decide to cover an extra hundred miles while his wife sleeps in the passenger seat, confident that his car will wake him up, and he will leave his children orphaned.

This technology is part of a larger, encouraging trend towards cars that drive themselves, that plan ahead long before the desired exit, pull over when the human monitor is asleep, and talk to each other to warn of obstacles and negotiate safe passage. Steps like the ones Honda has introduced are valuable in reaching that goal.

But these intermediate steps? I don’t want them on the road with me.

Data Centers and the Environment

Greenpeace has been outspoken recently, denouncing Apple for having inefficient, carbon-spewing data centers. There are worse offenders than Apple, but let’s face it, when the protest is at Apple, more TV cameras show up, and there’s a better chance of making a national story. Also, Apple has certainly had room for improvement in this area. On top of that, as Apple goes, so goes the industry. Directing protests at Apple makes perfect sense if you’re Greenpeace.

For a while now, Yahoo! has been at the top of Greenpeace’s eco-friendly data center list. The guy that built those data centers now works at Apple, and I heard a talk from him yesterday. It was really interesting, and I got the feeling that the environment was important to him personally; that he saw better, cleaner data centers as his legacy.

Mostly I’m going to talk in the abstract here, and when I do mention Apple I’m going to be careful to only say things that I can find in public sources.

I’ve always thought of data centers (warehouses filled with humming computers) as being pretty clean, except for all that dang electricity they suck up. It turns out there are other issues as well, and Greenpeace would do well to broaden the scope of their scrutiny. For instance, modern data centers use a crap-ton of water (that then has to be treated), and they have (literally) tons of lead and sulphuric acid onsite. There’s a bunch of ways besides just consuming electricity that the huge server farms popping up everywhere can hurt the environment.

But let’s start with electricity. There’s no getting around it, computers need the stuff. Data centers are not rated by how much computing power they contain, but by power consumption. Keeping the computers cool is another massive power drain, but it’s WAY better than it used to be. One simple shift made a big difference: cool the computers directly, rather than the room (or even the cabinet) they’re in. Physical changes to allow heat to escape through convection also save a lot of energy. So that’s good news.

Also good news is the efforts of some companies (well, I assume more than one) to provide their own power, onsite, to remove the need for batteries and backup diesel generators. Apple has built a huge fuel-cell plant and a large solar generating farm at its new data center in North Carolina (I’m pretty sure this is where Siri lives). Fuel cells still put out CO2, but Apple is getting their fuel from “biomass” — methane coming out of local garbage dumps. The logic is that putting that gas to use is better than letting it loose in the atmosphere. CO2 bad, CH4 worse.

Now, don’t get all misty-eyed at Apple’s greenness. They do this stuff to make money. If you had a big pile of cash at your disposal, wouldn’t you spend it now to gain immunity from energy price fluctuations in the future? You bet your sweet ass you would. If you can do it in an environmentally responsible way, all the better. (Fuel cells are definitely not the cheapest solution short-term.) But as Apple’s new data centers come on line at a ridiculous rate, Greenpeace is finding less to complain about. And that’s a good thing for everyone. Greenpeace can say, “See? We influenced this giant company and now they’re doing the right thing.” Apple can reply, “We would have done it anyway. It’s good fiscal sense.”

Either way, it’s still a good thing. Although, there’s no getting around the fact that these server farms still use an enormous amount of energy. Even “green” energy puts a burden on the environment — something people seem to forget. So, let’s not get complacent here.

Oh, yeah, and the water thing. Apple’s newest data centers don’t use any. The only burden on the sewer system is the toilet in the office. Take that, Yahoo!

1

Another Product for Parents

If I had teen-aged children, I’d pay to have a phone-jamming device installed in my cars.

Filed under Get-Poor-Quick because most parents would not want to be prevented from using the phone and texting while driving, either.

Seriously, NASA?

You may have heard about the impending arrival of our latest robotic explorer on Mars. The goal of this mission is to finally find those elusive six-armed ten-foot-tall green men and the super-hot (though delicate) princesses that current theory says have to be up there somewhere.

First, Curiosity has to land safely on the red planet. I have to confess that I’m a wee bit skeptical about this plan. I’ve linked to a video below, but before you go there, allow me to enumerate the stages of the landing.

  1. The mother ship releases the landing system. This is pretty routine at this point, and assuming no miles/kilometers snafus, should be all right.
  2. The craft hides behind its heat shield as it streaks through the atmosphere – this also fairly routine, except this time the payload can shift around behind the shield to get a little bit of steering. But it can’t see anything because it’s behind a heat sheild.
  3. Mars’ atmosphere is not thick enough to provide all that much braking, so now it’s time to deploy a parachute! I imagine the (estimated) shock of opening the chute has been tested many times, but needless to say, not in an atmosphere as thin as Mars’. So it’s all been simulations on the individual parts.
  4. As soon as the ‘chute is open, the heat shield has to go, so the lander can see the ground with its radar. This is the kind of thing that seems simple but so often turns out to be the killer. One explosive bolt doesn’t fire, and all is lost.
  5. But hold on, there, sparky! The parachute is still dropping too fast, and there’s not enough control over the landing spot. Now it’s time for… rockets! Controlled by computers! 500,000 lines of code! Holy crap. Several things have to happen at almost the same instant: all four rockets fire and the parachute is released.
  6. First maneuver: dodge the parachute. The lander will have to juke to the side. Remember, this machine has not been tested in conditions anything like Mars.
  7. Safe and stable, the lander will pick a sweet spot to set down the rover. It will not have help from humans.
  8. Oh, if only it were that simple. There’s a problem with dust, you see, if the rocket-powered hoverboard gets too close to the surface. (How close is too close? Well, now, how fine is the dust right there? How windy is it? Guess we’ll find out.) Rather than land on rocket power, our little miracle will hover and lower the rover on ropes. (How windy is it again? Are there any conditions the software wasn’t tested for?)
  9. After that, all that can go wrong is that the ropes fail to disconnect or the hover-thingie explodes and crashes onto the rover.

Right here I was going to say, “What? no ______s?” but I couldn’t come up with anything to put in the blank. (I’m sure lasers, ultrasonic beams, and explosives are all used in there somewhere.)

Here’s the promised link: Curiosity Before Mars: Seven Minutes of Terror

The entire sequence lasts seven minutes and we’re fourteen light-minutes away from Mars. We won’t hear anything back until the rover is either free and ready to roam or a twisted pile of junk. NASA is calling the seven minutes of descent “Seven minutes of terror.”

Now, there are a lot of smart people at NASA, and I’m sure I’m not going to come up with an alternative they haven’t considered. But really, I have to wonder if this is the result of solving a bunch of little problems instead of stepping back and reassessing the fundamental goal. Soft landing in a chosen spot without messing everything up with dust. Seriously, there has to be an easier way. It might involve a big-ass zip-lock bag.

Still, all this crazy complexity and systems that could not be tested in the actual environment has a pretty good chance of success. We’re actually getting pretty good at virtual testing, and engineering to amazing tolerances. I’ll be checking in on Sunday to see how the whole things plays out, and hopefully we can finally find that valley with the jewel-encrusted cliffs of solid gold.

The New Magic

I don’t actually have any use for this device, but I can still marvel at the amazingness of it:

Magic!

This little puppy acts just like an ordinary storage chip for your camera, except it’s also a WiFi transmitter that automatically copies your pictures to your home computer or phone and clears the space for more pictures. With the WiFi you can also have the chip guess roughly where it is in the world, and tag your photos with the location. You can even have it upload to Picasa or whatever automatically. (Though anyone who posts every picture they take to Flikr without first editing is someone who’s photos I will never view.)

Remember when we had WiFi cards that we could stick in the side of a computer with the antenna poking out? That was pretty cool. Now this tiny chip does the same thing, only it integrates with your photo software. Holey Moley.

Technical quibbles: it only works with JPEGs (even sharing on your own network, which strikes me as odd), and the SD form factor doesn’t work in all cameras. There are adapters, however.

Back when they thought we’d have atom-powered flying cars, they didn’t think of this stuff.

I Want to SEE Moore’s Law

When I first pulled my iPad out of its box and held it, I said, “This little thing has more computing power than most spacecraft.” Pretty sure that’s true; most spacecraft are pretty old and it takes a long, long time to get a chip certified for space. Still, It’d be fun to have some facts. There’s no single metric to compare computers, but I’d still be interested in a chart of computer power through the ages. How does my iPad compare to an IBM 360, a classic mainframe (it’s no contest, really, but how many times faster is the iPad)? How far to go yet before my phone threatens Cray’s numbers?

Somewhere out there, some geek/historian must be compiling this kind of info. I searched a little bit but it was all about fastest on the planet. Consumer devices (other than game boxes which are only compared to other game boxes) need not apply. But those guys are missing the true revolution: that our phones and cars and DVD players are wicked-fast computers. Supercomputers are being measured in petaflops these days. Big Whoop. I’ve got a phone that can understand my words.

1