Category: technology

Categories
technology

Free conference calling for facebook

Recently noticed that Iotum have released a free conference calling application for the facebook social network. More information can be found here
It’s currently only available to facebook users in the US and Canada but the next release will permit International conference calling to members of your social network. Throw in something like Skype Prime and you have the basis for an online consultancy. Network, refer, advise and receive payment all through the same social networking site. Potentially, the future of consulting 🙂

Categories
technology

The Vault

While reading this article on the reg, I had the strange sense that we’d all been here before. In my opinion the real issue is storing documents in unencrypted binary or textual form. Especially, with the popularity of XML-based document formats this is a bit of a nightmare.
If you analyse a system like FreeNet it works by anonymising and encrypting the information contained within the network. Therefore, if I encrypt information on my network such that reliable estimates suggest it will take hundreds of years to crack the encryption (e.g. 2KB asymmetric keys), even allowing for Moore’s law then surely the holding party can’t really claim to be in “possession” of the information. The are in possession of bits and bytes which have the “potential” to become the information. They have an intermediate form and are therefore less in possession of it than a telephone wire is in possession of a document you send via facsimile.
So one solution is the secure “vault” concept which Gaisan did some work on the distant past. The vault is a remote data store where you and only you can read your information. There are no back-doors or concerns that competitors, authorities or anyone else can read your information. There’s no “forgot my password” admin function. Access to the vault is via a dedicated “black-box” which is tamper-proof, EM shielded. Your keys are stored on smart cards and retrieval/decryption of vault information is based on presenting the correct smart card.. Different keys are used at different times and the “box” contains an algorithm to enable information to be retrieved from the “vault”. Vault space was “leased” for an appropriate period of time, which could be no more than a few seconds in an “information sharing” scenario. We had a few other ideas which I’d rather not discuss in this freewheeling blog but the overall goal as to enforce storage of anonymous bits with no idea of where they originated from and what they may be.
I’m more convinced than ever that clear-text storage of corporate information on external servers is a big legal problem and should be avoided at all costs.

Categories
technology

Where’s the “Hasta la Vista” ?

R has got a new machine running Vista Pro. The machine is a big improvement on her venerable old laptop and she’s delighted that for once she’s the one with the fancy new toy as I seem to get one every other week. I’m a geek (see earlier post) so I can’t help it.
Now you’ll have heard a lot about Vista if you’re in any way techie but here’s my first impressions.
It looks a lot slicker. The transparent windows do make everything look a lot cooler. For once my PC can favourably compare with a Mac in terms of 80% of the UI. However, I can’t help but wonder if this is because 80% of the UI looks so damn Mac-like? It’s a thought but I’m not alone here.
It’s not all fun & games. The first problem I notice is that having run it on two machines now I’ve found that it really really needs 2GB of RAM to provide speedy performance. Otherwise you spend too much time looking around at the pretty performance bar (which actually isn’t, more on this later). The second is that the UI is genuinely confusing for XP and Win2k users. It’s not just R, I got to observe a whole bunch of users trying to come to grips with the new layout. I’d argue it’s better but it’s certainly different. PC users have essentially gotten a lot of “same” from microsoft in terms of start menu, file menu’s, explorer etc. They were all thrown by “different”. Now back to the performance bar which is actually a glorified strobing hourglass. A feature I hated on the Mac as I really want a performance bar to tell me how long more I’m going to have to wait for whatever OS trickery is going on to finish.
The third problem is poor UI design in places. Many have written about the shutdown menu including Joel Spolsky & one of it’s original authors Moishe Lettvin. It’s woeful. Absolutely staggering that a company with Microsoft’s resources could produce something so bad and incredible it took 24 people to do it. I don’t hold with Joel’s opinion that it’s due to the ability of new Microsofties. I think it’s more to do with a management structure of dense inscrutability. I witnessed R & chums spend at least 15 minutes trying to figure out how to turn the thing off. That was with prompting. It’s not the only weakness with UI consistency being a major failing across the board. I reckon this is down to the difficulties in porting OfficeOS to any new version of Windows. Office has become so big, bloated and unwieldy to maintain that updating it’s UI to match the new Aero UI engine must have been a nightmare. So much so that it’s only half done.
On the plus points, it’s more stable, more appealing and easier to manage than previous versions of Windows. If Microsoft’s objective was to justify the upgrade then they’ve definitely succeeded. However, if their objective was to better OS X then they haven’t. It’s still the more consistent and unobtrusive UI.

Categories
technology

The case against Steorn

Deliberately misleading title for this post. The truth is that I’m a believer. This must be qualified as I’m not sure they know what they’ve actually done or the exact/proximate principles upon which it works. It’s interesting though that the arguments against Steorn should be looked at dispassionately. Here’s the arguments against from Wikipedia.

  1. Instead of opening up their technology for public inspection, Steorn has pitched their claim directly to the media. This is considered by Dr Robert L. Park, a professor of physics at the University of Maryland at College Park, to be an important indicator that a scientific claim lies well outside the bounds of rational scientific discourse.
  2. Steorn’s claim violates the first law of thermodynamics. Many ordinary people and established scientists including Leonardo da Vinci have attempted to do this for centuries and failed.
  3. In particular, Steorn claims to violate the law using “a way to construct magnetic fields so that when you travel round the magnetic fields, starting and stopping at the same position, you have gained energy”. Magnetism is a conservative force, so it is well established that the energy of motion which one gains when two magnets attract or repel is exactly equal to the energy needed to restore the starting position, no matter how you arrange the magnets.
  4. In view of the fundamental nature of the laws of thermodynamics within physics,
    overwhelming evidence would be required to support Steorn’s claim that these laws have been violated. No such evidence has been provided.

1 – Dr. Park’s reasoning is sensible but not conclusive in and of itself.
2 – Ignore the DaVinci comments. Most scientists I know realise that his contribution to science is far far below his contributions to art. So let’s deal with the first law of thermodynamics. (“The increase in the internal energy of a thermodynamic system is equal to the amount of heat energy added to the system minus the work done by the system on the surroundings.”) In an age where there exist many scientific phenomena which are not fully understood can we really consider the first law of thermodynamics to be inviolable? If we do then how do we define “surroundings”? We don’t have a GUT, we don’t have an independent reference frame so it’s all observational. In light of this it’s very difficult to say that so-called “energy from the void” theories and apparatus are unworkable as we can only talk about observed energy transfer. Try getting a string theorist to define “surroundings”!… Don’t think we’ve reached our zenith of knowledge yet just like we hadn’t in 1905 when classical mechanics was revealed to be inadequate and relativity was born.
3 – It’s possible their mechanism to achieve the end result (apparent perpetual motion) is not well explained in their documentation for deliberate or accidental reasons. This is not cold-fusion. According to the company they’re repeating the experiment every day. I just don’t think these guys are cranks. However, it’s important to note that they CAN’T PATENT THIS SYSTEM IN ENTIRETY until they understand roughly how it works. Patents generally can’t be granted if they violate physical laws. So I’m guessing they’re getting their scientific evaluators to help make their case.
4- Agreed. So let’s wait and see.