Throughout his entire campaign, new President-elect Donald Trump talked repeatedly about the need to defend America's infrastructure against cyber warfare. He insisted that America was being hacked constantly, that we were weak and being exploited by foreign governments, and he would =spend a lot of money to reduce the risk of that continuing to happen.
But what is the real risk of cyber warfare? The truth is that the fear of cyber threats isn't nearly as large for the government and their secured compounds and infrastructure as it should be for normal, everyday Americans.
2016 saw the number of connected devices increase to 6.8 billion, a 30% increase over 2016. This is a massive, exponentially growing number of ways to make our private information and subsequently our entire lives vulnerable. Millions of cyber attacks are launched daily by criminals and hackers attempting to get into your Facebook account, your bank account, or, even worse, your phone.
What's truly terrifying about the everyday risk of these attacks is that they're so preventable, yet so many do nothing to fight against them. Not to victim blame, but a little bit of security against a common criminal and you're a lot better off to not get hugely inconvenienced.
First, make sure you have two-factor authentication running on every website that allows you to have it. This means that when you try to log onto a site with your username and password, it will also do something like shoot you a text with a code to enter. This means that even the craftiest of hackers cannot get into your account, because they'd have to get access to your phone first.
Second, ensure that you aren't using the same password on different websites. Many websites are compromised by criminals that sell the username and password combinations on the black market to the highest bidder. You want to make sure that you're changing your passwords somewhat regularly, but also that they are unique to that particular site.
These tips should help you guard against the real threats that are out there on the internet. We should be focused less on terrorists hitting our power plants and more on giving ourselves a little personal peace of mind.
Tuesday, November 22, 2016
Monday, November 21, 2016
Virtual Reality and the Chase
2016 has been the year of virtual reality, and as the holiday season approaches and we begin to look back and reflect on the year, it's a good time to evaluate the promise of VR and whether we've anywhere near approached it.
The year saw the release of three major headsets in the VR market: the Oculus Rift, the HTC Vive and the brand new PlayStation VR.
While the first two are headsets specifically made for beefy, gamer-ready desktop PCs, the PlayStation VR is a headset made exclusively to connect to Sony's PlayStation 4. This means it specifically is skewed towards gamers and games, and less towards the social experiments, video watching experiences and early access playgrounds of the more expensive headsets.
This is a double-edged sword, as while games are great, focusing towards them exclusively keeps you limited in scope. Every game developer seems to be making a VR demo for the PS VR, but not too many are actually making full game experiences. Many people seem excited to play a Final Fantasy XV demo on the PlayStation, but how many are going to play a brand new, original title made for such a headset?
While the PS VR specializes, the Rift and the Vive are, even months after their release, blank slates. Tiltbrush VR allows creative and non-creative users alike to paint the skies around them with color and grace. Rec Room allows VR owners to come together and play games in a social environment like darts and ping pong. Adrift is a beautiful, incredible space adventure about the fearfulness of actually floating along in zero gravity amidst a station that is collapsing quickly.
At the end of the day, all these headsets are chasing something. They're looking for new kinds of experiences that people haven't had yet, that will make people crave more. The sort of blockbuster hit like Super Mario Bros. or Microsoft Word that opens eyes to the prospect of the platform and creates a need that sells more headsets and inspires more of those same experiences.
Whether this will happen remains to be seen. But in the meantime, the chase is fun to follow.
The year saw the release of three major headsets in the VR market: the Oculus Rift, the HTC Vive and the brand new PlayStation VR.
While the first two are headsets specifically made for beefy, gamer-ready desktop PCs, the PlayStation VR is a headset made exclusively to connect to Sony's PlayStation 4. This means it specifically is skewed towards gamers and games, and less towards the social experiments, video watching experiences and early access playgrounds of the more expensive headsets.
This is a double-edged sword, as while games are great, focusing towards them exclusively keeps you limited in scope. Every game developer seems to be making a VR demo for the PS VR, but not too many are actually making full game experiences. Many people seem excited to play a Final Fantasy XV demo on the PlayStation, but how many are going to play a brand new, original title made for such a headset?
While the PS VR specializes, the Rift and the Vive are, even months after their release, blank slates. Tiltbrush VR allows creative and non-creative users alike to paint the skies around them with color and grace. Rec Room allows VR owners to come together and play games in a social environment like darts and ping pong. Adrift is a beautiful, incredible space adventure about the fearfulness of actually floating along in zero gravity amidst a station that is collapsing quickly.
At the end of the day, all these headsets are chasing something. They're looking for new kinds of experiences that people haven't had yet, that will make people crave more. The sort of blockbuster hit like Super Mario Bros. or Microsoft Word that opens eyes to the prospect of the platform and creates a need that sells more headsets and inspires more of those same experiences.
Whether this will happen remains to be seen. But in the meantime, the chase is fun to follow.
The Microsoft Surface Studio
At the October 26th Surface event, Microsoft announced quite a few new products and accessories from their first-party line of elite computing devices. While Microsoft has always been in the software market with Windows, it wasn't until the past few years that they've become a behemoth in the hardware market as well.
One of the biggest announcements at this particular press conference, though, was the Microsoft Surface Studio PC, an all-in-one computer, the first one ever released by the company.
The heart of the Surface Studio is a vision: get a beautiful, colorful 28" display in front of you and make the rest of it as minimal as possible. Two simple metal spokes that allow you to pivot the screen at any angle and a stylus pen to draw on it like a canvas. A wireless keyboard and mouse with the same color scheme as the computer itself. A powerful computer that you won't want to walk away from.
The Surface Studio is yet another example of the flexibility of the PC market. A machine made for creative professionals, it really shows you the extreme ideal of what a computer could be for an architect or an artist.
Microsoft is showing up to do what Apple won't. The most beautiful screen on the market. A gigantic touchscreen with a bundled pen. A device to compete with an illustrator's Wacom Cintiq in the exact same price range. In terms of progress, I'd say Microsoft is showing quite a bit of competence.
One of the biggest announcements at this particular press conference, though, was the Microsoft Surface Studio PC, an all-in-one computer, the first one ever released by the company.
 |
| The Surface Studio / Courtesy of Microsoft |
The Surface Studio is yet another example of the flexibility of the PC market. A machine made for creative professionals, it really shows you the extreme ideal of what a computer could be for an architect or an artist.
Microsoft is showing up to do what Apple won't. The most beautiful screen on the market. A gigantic touchscreen with a bundled pen. A device to compete with an illustrator's Wacom Cintiq in the exact same price range. In terms of progress, I'd say Microsoft is showing quite a bit of competence.
What is Space-Based Solar Power?
Space-Based Solar Power (SBSP) is one of the most exciting promises of our near-future. It directly and supremely harnesses the eternal power of the sun by launching satellites with large panels out beyond the Earth's atmosphere and then beaming the full energy of sun rays down to the surface.
It sounds insane, I know. Absolutely crazy. But it's actually a lot closer than most think!
The basic premise of the SBSP concept is that the sun shines brighter and with more energy outside Earth's geosynchronous orbit than anywhere within or under the Earth's atmosphere.
The only reason that we have a breathable planet at all is because of immense gases that cling to the surface of the Earth. These gases also dilute the sun's energy in order to prevent active radiation damage like most plant and animal life would encounter in the vast emptiness of space.
When you put solar panels in space, whether on a satellite or on a cosmic body with no atmosphere then you can capture a much stronger and concentrated form of energy at a much higher rate than you can with even the best panels here on Earth.
As we reach towards the future, what is now currently a pipe-dream being researched by national space programs will eventually turn into a massively lucrative investment for the private sector. Coal, oil and natural gas will be forgotten about entirely as we look to the stars to solve many of humanity's biggest problems.
It sounds insane, I know. Absolutely crazy. But it's actually a lot closer than most think!
 |
| Concept Illustration of Suntower / Public Domain by NASA |
The basic premise of the SBSP concept is that the sun shines brighter and with more energy outside Earth's geosynchronous orbit than anywhere within or under the Earth's atmosphere.
The only reason that we have a breathable planet at all is because of immense gases that cling to the surface of the Earth. These gases also dilute the sun's energy in order to prevent active radiation damage like most plant and animal life would encounter in the vast emptiness of space.
When you put solar panels in space, whether on a satellite or on a cosmic body with no atmosphere then you can capture a much stronger and concentrated form of energy at a much higher rate than you can with even the best panels here on Earth.
As we reach towards the future, what is now currently a pipe-dream being researched by national space programs will eventually turn into a massively lucrative investment for the private sector. Coal, oil and natural gas will be forgotten about entirely as we look to the stars to solve many of humanity's biggest problems.
Donald Trump on Encryption
Many have forgotten the topic since it was in the news many months ago in early 2016, but encryption was at one point a controversial topic in the American news cycle.
Back in February, the FBI asked Apple, Inc to create a version of its iPhone operating system that would allow the investigators to hack their way into the iPhone 5C of the San Bernardino shooter. Apple refused, saying that the privacy of all of their customers is of paramount interest to them, and they were not going to aid the FBI in creating a precedent where they help law enforcement with anyone they want to get into the phone of.
This turned into a national conversation and debate over encryption, which reached critical mass in the following months. Encryption can be loosely defined in the context of consumer electronics as the process of encoding messages or information in such a way that only authorized parties can read it. In this sense, it means that it's almost impossible to get into someone's locked iPhone unless you have the encryption key (which only Apple has) or you know the password to get into it. Even law enforcement is helpless to get into a well-secured locked iPhone.
Later that February, this same debate became a political issue in the presidential primary. The new President-elect Donald Trump, then just contending for the Republican nomination, made a big splash when he came out against Apple and said he would boycott Apple devices if they didn't give the 'info' to the FBI.
Just like other parts of the campaign, he made a lot of headlines and received a lot of positive press for this stance, despite how popular of a brand Apple is.
What is worrying about this, though, is that encryption is actually a really important technology that is incredibly helpful for the tech community overall. Encryption is the only way we can keep classified information out of foreign hands as a nation. It's the only way we can have secure digital communications, ensuring the same privacy we have when we talk in person with one another.
The fact that our new President-elect was willing to roll over on privacy so easily just a matter of months ago as part of a publicity stunt is very concerning and we need to remain vigilant to show our public officials, especially our soon-to-be commander-in-chief, that privacy is not something to be violated at the first sign of inconvenience for the government.
Back in February, the FBI asked Apple, Inc to create a version of its iPhone operating system that would allow the investigators to hack their way into the iPhone 5C of the San Bernardino shooter. Apple refused, saying that the privacy of all of their customers is of paramount interest to them, and they were not going to aid the FBI in creating a precedent where they help law enforcement with anyone they want to get into the phone of.
This turned into a national conversation and debate over encryption, which reached critical mass in the following months. Encryption can be loosely defined in the context of consumer electronics as the process of encoding messages or information in such a way that only authorized parties can read it. In this sense, it means that it's almost impossible to get into someone's locked iPhone unless you have the encryption key (which only Apple has) or you know the password to get into it. Even law enforcement is helpless to get into a well-secured locked iPhone.
Later that February, this same debate became a political issue in the presidential primary. The new President-elect Donald Trump, then just contending for the Republican nomination, made a big splash when he came out against Apple and said he would boycott Apple devices if they didn't give the 'info' to the FBI.
I use both iPhone & Samsung. If Apple doesn't give info to authorities on the terrorists I'll only be using Samsung until they give info.— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 19, 2016
Just like other parts of the campaign, he made a lot of headlines and received a lot of positive press for this stance, despite how popular of a brand Apple is.
What is worrying about this, though, is that encryption is actually a really important technology that is incredibly helpful for the tech community overall. Encryption is the only way we can keep classified information out of foreign hands as a nation. It's the only way we can have secure digital communications, ensuring the same privacy we have when we talk in person with one another.
The fact that our new President-elect was willing to roll over on privacy so easily just a matter of months ago as part of a publicity stunt is very concerning and we need to remain vigilant to show our public officials, especially our soon-to-be commander-in-chief, that privacy is not something to be violated at the first sign of inconvenience for the government.
Thursday, November 17, 2016
Donald Trump and Net Neutrality
When it comes to digital issues and policy, tech enthusiasts' worst fears have come true. The people of the United States have elected Donald Trump.
Mr. Trump, our newly minted President-elect, is a very controversial figure in the tech community. He often shows a complete disregard for regulatory principles in this sector. Instead of defending net neutrality and its implications, Trump seems more worried about entirely different priorities like the security of the conservative media and pleasing lobbyists.
Nowhere is this more clear than in his party's overall position on net neutrality. According to Ars Technica:
"Republicans in Congress have already proposed a variety of bills that limit the FCC’s regulatory authority, eliminate net neutrality rules, or replace the existing ones with rules that are less strict."
So what is this net neutrality that Republicans seem to hate so much? It's the basis of the entire internet as we know it.
The internet, as provided to homes, workplaces and government buildings by internet service providers, moves freely through all pipes and cables the same. This means that Wikipedia loads just as quickly as Facebook, and the Drudge Report loads just as quickly as Vox. As fast as those servers can get the data to you, nothing slows it down or helps it speed up. All traffic is treated the same.
Many companies, specifically internet service providers, want this to change to open up a completely new avenue of control and, thus, revenue. This would mean Netflix would have to pay Time Warner Cable huge sums of money for it to load to Time Warner Cable customers as fast as it does now.
This is a giant problem, mostly due to how much the consumer loses in this scenario. In a world without net neutrality, most of the services that we love today could not have come into being. Facebook never would've come about if it had to pay huge sums of money to load well. Google started as a curiosity by Stanford students; do you think they could've gotten the capital needed to compete right off the bat? No.
Without an open playing field, we lose out on awesome products and services that benefit our life. It's as simple as that, and no amount of moneymaking by big corporations should make the consumer feel better about that. It's our job to let Donald Trump know that he shouldn't weaken the FCC and he should defend what is right in regards to what the majority of people want for the future of the internet.
Mr. Trump, our newly minted President-elect, is a very controversial figure in the tech community. He often shows a complete disregard for regulatory principles in this sector. Instead of defending net neutrality and its implications, Trump seems more worried about entirely different priorities like the security of the conservative media and pleasing lobbyists.
Nowhere is this more clear than in his party's overall position on net neutrality. According to Ars Technica:
"Republicans in Congress have already proposed a variety of bills that limit the FCC’s regulatory authority, eliminate net neutrality rules, or replace the existing ones with rules that are less strict."
 |
| Donald Trump / CC by Gage Skidmore |
So what is this net neutrality that Republicans seem to hate so much? It's the basis of the entire internet as we know it.
The internet, as provided to homes, workplaces and government buildings by internet service providers, moves freely through all pipes and cables the same. This means that Wikipedia loads just as quickly as Facebook, and the Drudge Report loads just as quickly as Vox. As fast as those servers can get the data to you, nothing slows it down or helps it speed up. All traffic is treated the same.
Many companies, specifically internet service providers, want this to change to open up a completely new avenue of control and, thus, revenue. This would mean Netflix would have to pay Time Warner Cable huge sums of money for it to load to Time Warner Cable customers as fast as it does now.
This is a giant problem, mostly due to how much the consumer loses in this scenario. In a world without net neutrality, most of the services that we love today could not have come into being. Facebook never would've come about if it had to pay huge sums of money to load well. Google started as a curiosity by Stanford students; do you think they could've gotten the capital needed to compete right off the bat? No.
Without an open playing field, we lose out on awesome products and services that benefit our life. It's as simple as that, and no amount of moneymaking by big corporations should make the consumer feel better about that. It's our job to let Donald Trump know that he shouldn't weaken the FCC and he should defend what is right in regards to what the majority of people want for the future of the internet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)