On being a cyborg

Today’s bi-hourly deluges precipitated the purchase of an umbrella: not for my own sake, but on account of the constellation of electronic gadgets that now follow me about as I walk a broken bicycle to Cowley, or carry groceries back from Sainsbury’s to Church Walk.

There is a lot of talk these days about combining all the gizmos a person is likely to carry around into one all-purpose device. Sometimes, people term this amalgamation an ‘iPod killer.’ Personally, I don’t think it will ever fly, except with the nerdiest of the nerds. As it stands, there is a very solid chance that at least one among my digital camera, music player, or mobile phone will be broken at any particular time. If I had to mail all three to Stoke-on-Trent for three weeks every time one failed, I would soon be living a quiet and pictureless life.

Moreover, all three devices are designed to become obsolete as quickly as possible. Or, at least obsolete enough to make you buy a snazzier new model. Given that the development cycles in telephones, cameras, and music players are unlikely to sync up, you are assured of either having at least one device well behind the times, or being bankrupted by the need to constantly upgrade your all-singing whatsit.

Really, I do my mobile phone an injustice in lumping it together with the sometimes problematic camera and perpetually fault-prone iPod. Since Claire gave it to me, I haven’t had the slightest difficulty with it. Some might consider it a staid sort of item, with capabilities that do not extend beyond sending text messages and making the very occasional telephone call, but perhaps therein lies the secret of its durability. In contrast to my Palm Pilot – which is languishing in a box in Vancouver, bedeviled by problems of all varieties – my Moleskine paper-based day planner has performed flawlessly since purchased.

Skiing, Yetis, and Windows 3.1

Being a fairly computer-friendly crew, I am sure many readers will remember the venerable Windows 3.1 operating system. Many will also be likely to remember the greatest game ever produced for that OS: SkiFree, created by Chris Pirih. The game was notable not for graphics or gameplay (your little sprite would descend ski tracks of various varieties, avoiding obstacles) but because of how it ended. Without fail or exception, the player would always be devoured by a yeti after skiing far enough.

Now, the video game that cannot be won has a long history. There is no beating Tetris – only delaying failure – and the same is true for an enormous number of relatively simple games, which generally become faster and more difficult as they progress. The most addictive contemporary example is probably Bejeweled. The choice to end SkiFree through the fangorious devouring of the player was a particularly bold and, dare I say, brilliant move. Indeed, it is the only reason I have the slightest recollection of having played it.

My experience with this game may also partly explain why I continue to find Yetis such amusing creatures.

Major vulnerability of mechanical locks

Open pin and tumbler lock, from Wikimedia

To those who retain faith in mechanical pin and tumbler locks, a bit of information on the bump key as a means of picking them may unsettle you. It’s a hot topic on many of the news aggregation sites online at the moment (Metafilter and Engadget 1 and 2, for instance), but those who don’t frequent such sites may find it helpful to know. Perhaps the biggest issue is that this technique does not produce signs of forced entry, which may cause problems when making insurance claims.

This Dutch television segment shows how absurdly easy it is to open even quite expensive locks using a key cut in a particular way, an object to whack it with, and no skill whatsoever. Definitely enough to make a person fearful for their laptop, music equipment, etc. That is especially true in an area that has as high a burglary rate as North Oxford. Just last night, Emily saw someone trying to get into her flat. Thankfully, the front door of our flat uses horizontally-oriented “dimple” keys (Mul-T-Lock brand), that are somewhat less vulnerable to this attack (see the last PDF linked at the bottom of this post). Even so, our internal doors, as well as basically all the ones in Wadham College, use the pin and tumbler design vulnerable to bumping. Here is another video on how to make and use a bump-key. Apparantly, anyone with a file, a reasonably steady hand, and a bit of time can make their own.

The alternatives generally advanced to get around such vulnerabilities are other sorts of mechanical locks, electronic access control systems, or systems that use both mechanical and electronic elements (a system used increasingly often in cars). While they do have problems of their own, electronic access control systems do have many appealing features. In particular, if one were to use low-cost RFID tags or simple swipe-cards with a pre-set code as an authentication token, it would be easy to maintain a database of allowed and disallowed keys. If you lost your keys, you could disable that one and issue yourself a new one. Likewise, temporary keys could be issued to people, and restrictions could be placed upon the hours at which certain keys could be used. Features like these are what make keycard based systems so appealing, as well as common in commercial settings.

The first downside of such conversion is cost: replacing locks is expensive. Secondly, such systems are open to other kinds of attacks that people may not understand as easily. Thirdly, if an electronic lock fails in a profound way (no longer responds to authentication tokens), you have little choice but to break down the door or saw through the frame and bolt. Once again, the nature of security as a perpetual trade-off is demonstrated.

More detailed information (PDF) on key bumping is available from Security.org. Also, from The Open Organization of Lockpickers (TOOOL) (PDF).

Creepy stuff

Who runs http://www.vroomfondel.co.uk? Also, why do they keep scanning through my blog? They do so through this page and seem particularly interested in anything involving NatWest: the bank where I foolishly opened an international student account.

Is anyone else getting several hits a day from these people? I don’t know who they are, but their URL is registered at the following address:

c/o Net Rank
Suite 1c, Western Way,
Exeter,
Devon
EX1 2DE
GB

Suffice it to say, I do not appreciate their attentions, at least so long as I don’t know who they are or what they are doing. If you run your own server, it is easy enough to ban people referred directly from their strange login site. Just add this to your .htaccess file:

RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} vroomfondel\.co.uk [NC]
RewriteRule .* – [F]

Depending how automated the system is, that might foil it. If it is run by a group of people working through that portal, they will be able to find another way to access your site, regardless of the above addition to your .htaccess file.

More trimethylxanthine considerations

While Foosh Mints maintain my energetic support, I feel rather differently about Boots’ ‘feel the difference’ caffeine strips. Each pack includes 28 strips and each strip contains 8mg of caffeine (8% of one Foosh mint). Despite the much lower caffeine content, they taste rather more bitter and generally nasty. They are also slimy and loaded with artificial sweeteners, gelling agents, bulking agents, and glazing agents. Even at the price at which Boots seems to be trying to get rid of them (£1 for three packs), they are not worth it.

I confess to being intrigued by the prospect of caffeinated hot sauce.

Orbital booster idea

I had an idea several years ago that I think is worth writing up. It is for a system to lift any kind of cargo from a low orbit around a planet into a higher one, with no expenditure of fuel.

Design

The system consists of two carriers: one shaped like a cylinder with a hole bored through it and the other shaped like a cigar. The cigar must be able to pass straight through the hole in the cylinder. The two must have the same mass, after being loaded with whatever cargo is to be carried. This could be achieved by making the cylinder fairly thin, by making the cigar longer than the cylinder, or by having the latter denser than the former. Within the cavity of the cylinder are a series of electromagnets. Likewise, under the skin of the cigar. Around the cylinder is an array of photovoltaic panels. Likewise, on the skin of the cigar. Each contains a system for storing electrical energy.

In addition to these main systems, each unit would require celestial navigation capability: the ability to determine its position in space using the observation of the starfield around it, as modern nuclear warheads do. This would allow it to act independently of ground-based tracking or the use of navigation satellites. It would also require small thrusters with fuel to be used for minor orbital course corrections.

Function

The two objects start off in low circular or elliptical orbits, along the same trajectory but in opposite directions. Imagine the cylinder transcribing a path due north from the equator to the north pole and onwards around the planet, while the cigar transcribes the same path except in the opposite direction: heading southwards after it crosses the north pole. The two objects will thus intersect each time they complete a half-orbit.

As each vehicle circles the planet, it gathers electrical power from solar radiation using the attached photovoltaic panels. When the two orbits intersect, the electromagnets in the cigar and the cylinder are used so as to repel one another and increase the velocity of each projective, in opposite directions, by taking advantage of Newton’s third law of motion. Think of it being like a magnetically levitated train with a bit of track that gets pushed in the opposite direction, flies around the planet, and meets up with the train again. I warn you not to mock not the diagram of the craft! Graphic design is not my area of expertise. Obviously, it is not to scale.

The orbits

Diagram of successive orbits - By Mark Cummins

The diagram above demonstrates the path that one of the craft would take (see the second update below for more explanation). The dotted circle indicates where the two craft will meet for the first time, following the initial impulse. At that point, you could either project up to a higher elliptical orbit or circularize the orbit at that point. This process can be repeated over and over. Here is a version showing both craft, one in red and the other in brown. See also, this diagram of the Hohmann transfer orbit for the sake of comparison. The Hohmann transfer orbit is a method of raising a payload into a higher orbit using conventional thrusters.

The basic principle according to which these higher orbits are being achieved is akin to one being a bullet and the other being the gun. Because they have equal mass, the recoil would cause the same acceleration on the gun as it did on the bullet; they would start moving apart at equal velocity, in opposite directions. Because they can pass through one another, the ‘gun’ can be fired over and over. Because the power to do so comes from the sun, this can happen theoretically take place an infinite number of times, with a higher orbit generated after each.

Because each orbit is longer, the craft would intersect less and less frequently. This would be partially offset by the opportunity to collect more energy over the course of each orbit, for use during the boosting phase.

As such, orbit by orbit, the pair could climb farther and farther out of any gravity well in which it found itself: whether that of a planet, asteroid, or a star. Because the electromagnets could also be used in reverse, to slow the two projectiles equally, it could also ‘climb down’ into a lower orbit.

Applications

On planets like Earth, with thick atmospheres, such a system could only be used to lift payloads from low orbits achieved by other means to higher orbits. The benefit of that could be non-trivial, given that a low orbit takes place at about 700km and a geostationary orbit as used for communication and navigation satellites is at 35,790 km. Raising any mass to such an altitude requires formidable energy, despite the extent to which Earth’s gravity well becomes (exponentially) less powerful as the distance from the observer to the planet increases.

A system of such carriers could be used to shift materials from low to high orbit. The application here is especially exciting in airless or relatively airless environments. Ores mined from somewhere like the moon or an asteroid could be elevated in this way from a low starting point; with no atmosphere to get in the way, an orbit could be maintained at quite a low altitude above the surface.

Given a very long time period, such a device could even climb up through the gravity well that surrounds a star.

Problems

The first problem is one of accuracy. Making sure the two components would intersect with each orbit could be challenging. The magnets would have to be quite precisely aligned, and any small errors would need to be fixed so the craft would intersect properly. Because of sheer momentum, it would be an easier task with more massive craft. More massive vehicles would also take longer to rise in the gravity well through successive orbits, but would still require no fuel do so, beyond a minimal amount for correctional thrusters, which could be part of the payload.

Another problem could be that of time. I have done no calculations on how long it would take for such a device to climb from a low orbit to a high one. For raw ores, that might not matter very much. For satellite launches, it might matter rather more.

Can anyone see other problems?

[Update: 7:26pm] Based on my extremely limited knowledge of astrophysics, it seems possible the successive orbits might look like this. Is that correct? My friend Mark theorizes that it would look like this.

[Update: 11 August 2006] Many thanks to Mark Cummins for creating the orbital diagram I have added above. We are pretty confident that this one is correct. He describes it thus: “your first impulse sends you from the first circle into an elliptical orbit. When your two modules next meet, (half way round the ellipse), you can circularize your orbit and insert into the dotted circle, or you can keep “climbing”, an insert into a larger ellipse. Repeat ad infinitum until you are at the desired altitude, then circularize.”

Power conservation through geothermal temperature regulation

For those concerned about climate change or dependency on foreign energy, a home geothermal heating and cooling system may be just the ticket. Such systems take advantage of how the temperature is relatively constant underground, whether it is overly hot at the surface or overly cold. As such, it can be used to heat in the winter and cool in the summer, while using only a minimal amount of energy to carry out the heat exchange. While this is a pretty expensive thing to install in a single existing house after the fact, it seems plausible that it could be scaled in ways that make it economically viable in a good number of environments.

If electricity, oil, and gas really started to get expensive, you would start seeing a lot more such systems. Another example is the pipelines that draw cold water from the bottom of Lake Superior to cool office towers in Toronto during the summer.

Conservation may not be as technologically engrossing as genetically modified biofuels and hydrogen fuel cells, but it is definitely a proven approach.

The awesome power of exponential growth

This blog now has 1/5000th as many registered users as Wikipedia. That may sound trivial, but it should be noted that at the present rate of growth (12.5% per day – welcome Mark), we should have one million in just 99.5 days (by November 13th).

In just 174 days or so, all 6.5 billion human inhabitants of the Earth should have signed up. Don’t be the last!

On audio compression

In the last few days, I have been reading and thinking a lot about audio compression.

Lossy v. lossless compression

As most of you will know, there are two major types of compression: lossless and lossy. In the first case, we take a string of digital information and reduce the amount of space it takes to store without actually destroying any information at all. For example, we could take a string like:

1-2-1-7-3-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-2-2-2-3-4

And convert it into:

1-2-1-7-3-5(13)-2(3)-3-4

Depending on the character of the data and the kinds of rules we use to compress it, this will result in a greater or lesser amount of compression. The upshot is that we can always return the data to its original state. If the file in question is an executable (a computer program), this is obviously required. A file that closely resembles Doom, as a string of bits, will nonetheless probably not run like Doom (or at all).

Lossless compression is great. It allows us, for instance, to go back to the original data and then manipulate it with as much freedom as we had to begin with. The cost associated with that flexibility is that files compressed in lossless compression are larger than those treated with lossy compression. For data that is exposed to human senses (especially photos, music, and video), it is generally worthwhile to employ ‘lossy’ compression. A compact disc stores somewhere in the realm of 700MB of data. Uncompressed, that would take up an equivalent amount of space on an iPod or computer hard drive. There is almost certainly some level of lossy compression at which it would be impossible for a human being with good ears and the best audio equipment to tell if they were hearing the compressed or uncompressed version. This is especially true when the data source is CDs, which have considerable limitations of their own when it comes to storing audio information.

Lossy compression, therefore, discards bits of the information that are less noticeable in order to save space. Two bits of sky that are almost-but-not-quite the same colour of blue in an uncompressed image file might become actually the same colour of blue in a compressed image file. This happens to a greater and greater degree as the level of compression increases. As with music, there is some point where it is basically impossible to distinguish the original uncompressed data from a compressed file of high quality. With music, it might be that a tenth of a second of near silence followed by a tenth of a second of the slightest noise becomes a twentieth of a second of near silence.

MP3 and AAC are both very common kinds of music compression. Each can be done at different bit-rates, which determines how much data is used to represent a certain length of time. Higher bit rates contain more data (which one may or may not be able to hear), while lower bit rates contain less. The iTunes standard is to use 128-bit AAC. I have seen experts do everything from utterly condemn this as far too low to claim that at this level the sound is ‘transparent:’ meaning that it is impossible to tell that it was compressed.

But what sort to use, exactly?

Websites on which form of compression to use generally take the form of: “I have made twenty five different versions of the same three songs. I then listened to each using my superior audio equipment and finely tuned ear and have decided that X is the best sort of compression. Anyone who thinks you should use something more compressed than X obviously doesn’t have my fine ability to discern detail. Anyone who wants you to use more than X is an audiophile snob who is more concerned about equipment than music.”

This is not a very useful kind of judgment. Most problematically, the subject/experimenter knows which track is which, when listening to them. It has been well established that taking an audio expert and telling them that they are listening to a $50,000 audiophile quality stereo will lead to a good review of the sound, even if they are really listening to a $2,000 system. (There are famous pranks where people have put a $100 portable CD player inside the case for absurdly expensive audio gear and passed the former off as the latter to experts.) The trouble is both that those being asked to make the judgement feel pressured to demonstrate their expertise and that people actually do perceive things which they expect to be superior as actually being so.

Notoriously, people who are given Coke and Pepsi to taste are more likely to express a preference for the latter if they do not know which is which, but for the former when they do. Their pre-existing expectations affect the way they taste the drinks.

What is really necessary is a double-blinded study. We would make a large number of versions of a collection of tracks with different musical qualities. The files would then be assigned randomized names by a group that will not communicate with either the experimenters or the subjects. The subjects will then listen to two different versions of the same track and choose which they prefer. Each of these trials would produce what statisticians call a dyad. Once we have hundreds of dyads through which to compare versions, we can start to generate statistically valid conclusions about whether the two tracks can be distinguished, and which one is perceived as better. On the basis of hundreds of such tests, in differing orders, we would gain knowledge about whether a certain track is preferred on average to another.

We would then analyze those frequencies to determine whether the difference between one track (say, 128-bit AAC) and another (say, 192-bit AAC) is statistically significant. I would posit that we will eventually find a point where people are likely to pick one or the other at random, because they are essentially the same (640-bit AAC v. 1024-bit AAC, for instance). We therefore take the quality setting that is lowest, but still distinguishable from the one below based on, say, a 95% confidence level and use that to encode our music.

This methodology isn’t perfect, but it would be dramatically more rigorous than the expertly-driven approach described above.

Geekiest joke ever

A group of functions are having a party: everyone dancing and having a good time, with the sole exception of a single f(x)=ex who is standing off in the corner by himself. Another function approaches him, hoping to help him enjoy himself more, and asks: “Why don’t you try to integrate?”

In response, the f(x)=ex says dejectedly: “I know it won’t make any difference.”

-100 points to Kathleen for providing the joke that effectively won the geeky joke contest that extended across the whole Scotland trip.