Posts
http://www.yankodesign.com/2007/06/26/cellphone-inspired-by-chinese-scrolls/
http://forum.xcitefun.net/the-scroll-cell-phone-concept-t43523.html
Sunday, February 3, 2013
OLED mobile, scroll-style phones
http://www.yankodesign.com/2007/06/26/cellphone-inspired-by-chinese-scrolls/
http://forum.xcitefun.net/the-scroll-cell-phone-concept-t43523.html
Friday, February 1, 2013
Netflix data tracking
video behind the scenes of Netflix tracking
http://whatsthebigdata.com/2012/12/24/data-science-at-netflix-with-elastic-mapreduce/
Netflix data tracking
http://www.salon.com/2013/02/01/how_netflix_is_turning_viewers_into_puppets/
How Netflix is turning viewers into puppets
"House of Cards" gives viewers exactly what Big Data says we want. This won't end well
I hit
the pause button roughly one-third of the way through the first episode
of “House of Cards,” the political drama premiering on Netflix Feb. 1.
By doing so, I created what is known in the world of Big Data as an
“event” — a discrete action that could be logged, recorded and analyzed.
Every single day, Netflix, by far the largest provider of commercial
streaming video programming in the United States, registers hundreds of
millions of such events. As a consequence, the company knows more about
our viewing habits than many of us realize. Netflix doesn’t know merely
what we’re watching, but when, where and with what kind of device we’re
watching. It keeps a record of every time we pause the action — or
rewind, or fast-forward — and how many of us abandon a show entirely
after watching for a few minutes.
Netflix might not know exactly why I personally hit the pause button — I was checking on my sick son, home from school with the flu — but if enough people pause or rewind or fast-forward at the same place during the same show, the data crunchers can start to make some inferences. Perhaps the action slowed down too much to hold viewer interest — bored now! — or maybe the plot became too convoluted. Or maybe that sex scene was just so hot it had to be watched again. If enough of us never end up restarting the show after taking a break, the inference could be even stronger: maybe the show just sucked.
In 2012, for the first time ever, Americans watched more movies legally delivered via the Internet than on physical formats like Blu-Ray discs or DVDs. The shift signified more than a simple switch in formats; it also marked a major difference in how much information the providers of online programming can gather about our viewing habits. Netflix is at the forefront of this sea change, a pioneer straddling the intersection where Big Data and entertainment media intersect. With “House of Cards,” we’re getting our first real glimpse at what this new world will look like.
Netflix might not know exactly why I personally hit the pause button — I was checking on my sick son, home from school with the flu — but if enough people pause or rewind or fast-forward at the same place during the same show, the data crunchers can start to make some inferences. Perhaps the action slowed down too much to hold viewer interest — bored now! — or maybe the plot became too convoluted. Or maybe that sex scene was just so hot it had to be watched again. If enough of us never end up restarting the show after taking a break, the inference could be even stronger: maybe the show just sucked.
In 2012, for the first time ever, Americans watched more movies legally delivered via the Internet than on physical formats like Blu-Ray discs or DVDs. The shift signified more than a simple switch in formats; it also marked a major difference in how much information the providers of online programming can gather about our viewing habits. Netflix is at the forefront of this sea change, a pioneer straddling the intersection where Big Data and entertainment media intersect. With “House of Cards,” we’re getting our first real glimpse at what this new world will look like.
Andrew Leonard is a staff writer at Salon. On Twitter, @koxinga21.
Wednesday, January 30, 2013
North Korean Prison Camps
My thoughts:
I can only imagine that the reason for not liberating North Korea would be the instant conflict we would face with China and their allies. N. Korea's condition has gone on for so long, it makes clear when we intervene for political gain, and that anyone touting moral obligation to justify other invasions is working spin, has another political motivation, or simply perceives limited consequences (I recall someone arrogantly claiming that we would be in and out of Iraq in three weeks, and everyone was glued to their tvs watching the initial invasion set to symphonic music).
The same thoughts apply to Somalia - short-sightedness will ultimately lead to that region being a huge problem as the pirates grow in power and alignment with Islamic militants. As is true with the cartels in Mexico and C. America - our preoccupation with capturing the Latino vote blinds us to the concern of the crossover in cartels to the U.S. due to a lack of security and permissive policy.
http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/generations-of-chem-experiments-and-torture-the-horror-of-north-korean-prison-camps
And believe us, hell isn’t nearly strong enough of a word. According to reports from defectors, citizens are tossed into camps on any official whim, with most offenders being taken away for being even minutely critical of Kim Jong Il’s regime. But it’s not only the supposed offenders that are sentenced to a life of intense slave labor and malnourishment that only ends in death from exhaustion or random execution. In order to purify offenders’ blood of anti-government discontent, officials throw three generations of their family in to join them in suffering senseless torture, eating rotten food and the occasional feces and horrifying ‘scientific’ experiments involving chemical and biological weapons.
In its 2004 documentary Access to Evil, shared above, the BBC chatted with Kwon Hyuk, a former military attaché at the North Korean Embassy in Beijing. Hyuk, who changed his name, was also the former chief of management at Camp 22. He defected upon seeing the light, but his descriptions of experiments he watched over are simply horrifying. Entire families, along with random single prisoners, were (and possibly still are) placed in giant glass boxes. While pumping in poisonous gasses, scientists stood on top of the box, recording the reactions of the dying families below.
“I witnessed a whole family being tested on suffocating gas and dying in the gas chamber,” he said in the BBC doc. “The parents, son and a daughter. The parents were vomiting and dying, but till the very last moment they tried to save kids by doing mouth-to-mouth breathing.”
Perhaps even more frightening is Hyuk’s admission that he felt absolutely no remorse at the time for any of the prisoners. According to him, they were simply enemies of the state, and deserved to die.
The BBC also talks to Sun Ok-Lee, who was one of the few prisoners to be released from the camps after it was deemed she was sufficiently reformed. While talking of the torture she endured in her seven years there, she describes an experiment she took part in.
“An officer ordered me to select 50 healthy female prisoners,” she said. “One of the guards handed me a basket full of soaked cabbage, told me not to eat it but to give it to the 50 women. I gave them out and heard a scream from those who had eaten them. They were all screaming and vomiting blood. All who ate the cabbage leaves started violently vomiting blood and screaming with pain. It was hell. In less than 20 minutes they were quite dead.”
Most of the info on the camps from the interviews in Access to Evil were corroborated by a 2008 Washington Post story on Shin Dong-hyuk, the only person known to have successfully escaped from a North Korean prison camp. Dong-hyuk was actually born in his camp. At one point he was tortured and locked in an underground room for seven months because his mother and brother were supposedly hatching an escape plot. He later saw them both executed.
The importance of the Daily Mail‘s report is that it lends a whole lot of weight to past prison camp reports. North Korea has always denied the existence of the camps, and with independent verification impossible in a country that so tightly controls foreign press, there’s always that shadow of a doubt (At least in the public eye. It’s hard to imagine that the imaging resources of Google Earth outpaced government agencies in discovering the camps). Hell, 2008’s Vice Guide to North Korea provided some of the most in depth information on the country many people had ever seen and it required journalists to sneak into the country and, as VICE is apt to encourage, leverage hard partying to gain exclusive access to information. What’s paramount, as grinding diplomacy plods back and forth in the region, is reminding the public of the existence of these horrors is key in pushing leaders to demand concessionary change.
I can only imagine that the reason for not liberating North Korea would be the instant conflict we would face with China and their allies. N. Korea's condition has gone on for so long, it makes clear when we intervene for political gain, and that anyone touting moral obligation to justify other invasions is working spin, has another political motivation, or simply perceives limited consequences (I recall someone arrogantly claiming that we would be in and out of Iraq in three weeks, and everyone was glued to their tvs watching the initial invasion set to symphonic music).
The same thoughts apply to Somalia - short-sightedness will ultimately lead to that region being a huge problem as the pirates grow in power and alignment with Islamic militants. As is true with the cartels in Mexico and C. America - our preoccupation with capturing the Latino vote blinds us to the concern of the crossover in cartels to the U.S. due to a lack of security and permissive policy.
http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/generations-of-chem-experiments-and-torture-the-horror-of-north-korean-prison-camps
Generations of Chem Experiments and Torture: The Horror of North Korean Prison Camps
Yesterday the Daily Mail in England broke the news that North Korean prison camps had been found on Google Earth. North Korea has long denied the existence of prison camps in its supposed utopia, but even as far back as 2004 The Guardian was reporting that the camps held an estimated 200,000 citizens. 50,000 of them, all deemed enemies of the state even though many had been actually born inside, are in North Korea’s most notorious hell, Camp 22.And believe us, hell isn’t nearly strong enough of a word. According to reports from defectors, citizens are tossed into camps on any official whim, with most offenders being taken away for being even minutely critical of Kim Jong Il’s regime. But it’s not only the supposed offenders that are sentenced to a life of intense slave labor and malnourishment that only ends in death from exhaustion or random execution. In order to purify offenders’ blood of anti-government discontent, officials throw three generations of their family in to join them in suffering senseless torture, eating rotten food and the occasional feces and horrifying ‘scientific’ experiments involving chemical and biological weapons.
In its 2004 documentary Access to Evil, shared above, the BBC chatted with Kwon Hyuk, a former military attaché at the North Korean Embassy in Beijing. Hyuk, who changed his name, was also the former chief of management at Camp 22. He defected upon seeing the light, but his descriptions of experiments he watched over are simply horrifying. Entire families, along with random single prisoners, were (and possibly still are) placed in giant glass boxes. While pumping in poisonous gasses, scientists stood on top of the box, recording the reactions of the dying families below.
“I witnessed a whole family being tested on suffocating gas and dying in the gas chamber,” he said in the BBC doc. “The parents, son and a daughter. The parents were vomiting and dying, but till the very last moment they tried to save kids by doing mouth-to-mouth breathing.”
Perhaps even more frightening is Hyuk’s admission that he felt absolutely no remorse at the time for any of the prisoners. According to him, they were simply enemies of the state, and deserved to die.
The BBC also talks to Sun Ok-Lee, who was one of the few prisoners to be released from the camps after it was deemed she was sufficiently reformed. While talking of the torture she endured in her seven years there, she describes an experiment she took part in.
“An officer ordered me to select 50 healthy female prisoners,” she said. “One of the guards handed me a basket full of soaked cabbage, told me not to eat it but to give it to the 50 women. I gave them out and heard a scream from those who had eaten them. They were all screaming and vomiting blood. All who ate the cabbage leaves started violently vomiting blood and screaming with pain. It was hell. In less than 20 minutes they were quite dead.”
Most of the info on the camps from the interviews in Access to Evil were corroborated by a 2008 Washington Post story on Shin Dong-hyuk, the only person known to have successfully escaped from a North Korean prison camp. Dong-hyuk was actually born in his camp. At one point he was tortured and locked in an underground room for seven months because his mother and brother were supposedly hatching an escape plot. He later saw them both executed.
The importance of the Daily Mail‘s report is that it lends a whole lot of weight to past prison camp reports. North Korea has always denied the existence of the camps, and with independent verification impossible in a country that so tightly controls foreign press, there’s always that shadow of a doubt (At least in the public eye. It’s hard to imagine that the imaging resources of Google Earth outpaced government agencies in discovering the camps). Hell, 2008’s Vice Guide to North Korea provided some of the most in depth information on the country many people had ever seen and it required journalists to sneak into the country and, as VICE is apt to encourage, leverage hard partying to gain exclusive access to information. What’s paramount, as grinding diplomacy plods back and forth in the region, is reminding the public of the existence of these horrors is key in pushing leaders to demand concessionary change.
Monday, January 28, 2013
Cyber War On the US Has Begun
http://www.infoworld.com/d/security/unseen-all-out-cyber-war-the-us-has-begun-211438
By Bob Violino
By Bob Violino
Security pros and government officials warn of a possible cyber 9/11 involving banks, utilities, other companies, or the Internet
The Senate’s immigration plan
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/01/28/the-5-most-important-sentences-in-the-senates-immigration-plan/
The 5 most important sentences in the Senate’s immigration plan
Posted by Ezra Klein
Have you read the Senate’s bipartisan immigration-reform framework yet? At four pages, it’s a quick and clear read. But because it’s only four pages, quite a bit is left unsaid, or undefined. So here’s what you should keep a particularly close eye on:
1) “Contingent upon our success in securing our borders and addressing visa overstays.”
The key word in the framework is “contingent.” Everything is contingent upon the securing of our borders. But how will we known when our borders are secure? “Our legislation will create a commission comprised of governors, attorneys general, and community leaders living along the Southwest border to monitor the progress of securing our border and to make a recommendation regarding when the bill’s security measures outlined in the legislation are completed.”
As Greg Sargent writes, “The fate of immigration reform, then, largely rests on what this commission looks like, who is on it, and what metric it uses to decide when the border is secure.”
2) “Our legislation also recognizes that the circumstances and the conduct of people without lawful status are not the same, and cannot be addressed identically.”
There’s a lot you have to do to qualify for the path to citizenship in this bill. “Go to the back of the line of prospective immigrants, pass an additional background check, pay taxes, learn English and civics, demonstrate a history of work in the United States, and current employment, among other requirements.”
But that’s not true for everyone. The framework makes clear that the law won’t treat all undocumented immigrants identically. The obvious exception is children, and sure enough, they get a special mention: “individuals who entered the United States as minor children did not knowingly choose to violate any immigration laws. Consequently, under our proposal these individuals will not face the same requirements as other individuals in order to earn a path to citizenship.”
The more unexpected exemption is agricultural workers. “Individuals
who have been working without legal status in the United States
agricultural industry have been performing very important and difficult
work to maintain America’s food supply while earning subsistence wages.
Due to the utmost importance in our nation maintaining the safety of its
food supply, agricultural workers who commit to the long term stability
of our nation’s agricultural industries will be treated differently
than the rest of the undocumented population.”
3) “Our new immigration system must be more focused on recognizing the important characteristics which will help build the American economy and strengthen American families.”
Perhaps the key architectural question in building a new immigration system (as opposed to figuring out what to do with the failures of the last immigration system) is deciding whether we’ll focus our visas on drawing needed skills (for instance, by favoring immigrants with advanced degrees or who work in sectors, like agriculture, where we need more labor), emphasizing family unification or something else.
This paper mentions both family reunification and skills. And to some degree, that’s fine: We don’t need to choose simply one or the other. But since we’re not moving to an open-border policy, the fact that we’re offering a limited number of visas will mean that we have to choose how many of them go toward reuniting families and how many go toward filling our perceived economic needs. Those ratios are left undefined in this framework, but they’ll be one of the most hotly contested elements of the actual law.
4) “Our immigration proposal will award a green card to immigrants who have received a PhD or Master’s degree in science, technology, engineering or math from an American university.”
Remember when Mitt Romney said, “If the [immigrant] student does so well that they get an advanced degree, I’d staple the green card to their diploma”? This law basically does that.
5) “Our proposal will provide businesses with the ability to hire lower-skilled workers in a timely manner when Americans are unavailable or unwilling to fill those jobs.”
This refers to some kind of guest worker program, though the details are sparse and the language is vague. The section mostly focuses on the hoops employers would have to jump through, including demonstrating “that they were unsuccessful in recruiting an American to fill an open position and the hiring of an immigrant will not displace American workers.” But guest-worker programs are always controversial, and how big this program is, how difficult the qualifications are, who qualifies, etc., are all left unresolved in this paper.
As just one example, consider the complexities in implementing this sentence, which is all the paper says about how to move out of the guest worker program and into green-card status: “Permit workers who have succeeded in the workplace and contributed to their communities over many years to earn green cards.”
The 5 most important sentences in the Senate’s immigration plan
Posted by Ezra Klein
Have you read the Senate’s bipartisan immigration-reform framework yet? At four pages, it’s a quick and clear read. But because it’s only four pages, quite a bit is left unsaid, or undefined. So here’s what you should keep a particularly close eye on:
(Erik S. Lesser/Associated Press)
The key word in the framework is “contingent.” Everything is contingent upon the securing of our borders. But how will we known when our borders are secure? “Our legislation will create a commission comprised of governors, attorneys general, and community leaders living along the Southwest border to monitor the progress of securing our border and to make a recommendation regarding when the bill’s security measures outlined in the legislation are completed.”
As Greg Sargent writes, “The fate of immigration reform, then, largely rests on what this commission looks like, who is on it, and what metric it uses to decide when the border is secure.”
2) “Our legislation also recognizes that the circumstances and the conduct of people without lawful status are not the same, and cannot be addressed identically.”
There’s a lot you have to do to qualify for the path to citizenship in this bill. “Go to the back of the line of prospective immigrants, pass an additional background check, pay taxes, learn English and civics, demonstrate a history of work in the United States, and current employment, among other requirements.”
But that’s not true for everyone. The framework makes clear that the law won’t treat all undocumented immigrants identically. The obvious exception is children, and sure enough, they get a special mention: “individuals who entered the United States as minor children did not knowingly choose to violate any immigration laws. Consequently, under our proposal these individuals will not face the same requirements as other individuals in order to earn a path to citizenship.”
3) “Our new immigration system must be more focused on recognizing the important characteristics which will help build the American economy and strengthen American families.”
Perhaps the key architectural question in building a new immigration system (as opposed to figuring out what to do with the failures of the last immigration system) is deciding whether we’ll focus our visas on drawing needed skills (for instance, by favoring immigrants with advanced degrees or who work in sectors, like agriculture, where we need more labor), emphasizing family unification or something else.
This paper mentions both family reunification and skills. And to some degree, that’s fine: We don’t need to choose simply one or the other. But since we’re not moving to an open-border policy, the fact that we’re offering a limited number of visas will mean that we have to choose how many of them go toward reuniting families and how many go toward filling our perceived economic needs. Those ratios are left undefined in this framework, but they’ll be one of the most hotly contested elements of the actual law.
4) “Our immigration proposal will award a green card to immigrants who have received a PhD or Master’s degree in science, technology, engineering or math from an American university.”
Remember when Mitt Romney said, “If the [immigrant] student does so well that they get an advanced degree, I’d staple the green card to their diploma”? This law basically does that.
5) “Our proposal will provide businesses with the ability to hire lower-skilled workers in a timely manner when Americans are unavailable or unwilling to fill those jobs.”
This refers to some kind of guest worker program, though the details are sparse and the language is vague. The section mostly focuses on the hoops employers would have to jump through, including demonstrating “that they were unsuccessful in recruiting an American to fill an open position and the hiring of an immigrant will not displace American workers.” But guest-worker programs are always controversial, and how big this program is, how difficult the qualifications are, who qualifies, etc., are all left unresolved in this paper.
As just one example, consider the complexities in implementing this sentence, which is all the paper says about how to move out of the guest worker program and into green-card status: “Permit workers who have succeeded in the workplace and contributed to their communities over many years to earn green cards.”
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
NYC drinks limit raising questions of racial fairness
If a question is raised about fairness to low income areas or businesses owned or patronized by racial minorities, why not eliminate that factor entirely and focus restricting what people can purchase with EBT cards?
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUGARY_DRINKS_LAWSUIT?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-01-23-06-18-52
Beverage attorney: NYC drinks limit bad for public
NEW YORK (AP)
-- New York City's limit on the size of sugary drinks is an
"extraordinary infringement" on consumer choice, a lawyer for the
American Beverage Association and other critics said in court on
Wednesday.
"New Yorkers do not want to be told
what to drink," attorney James Brandt told Manhattan state Supreme
Court Justice Milton Tingling.
Opponents also are raising questions of racial fairness alongside other complaints as the novel restriction faces a court test.
The
NAACP's New York state branch and the Hispanic Federation have joined
beverage makers and sellers in trying to stop the rule from taking
effect March 12. Critics are attacking what they call an inconsistent
and undemocratic regulation, while city officials and health experts
defend it as a pioneering and proper move to fight obesity.
The
issue is complex for the minority advocates, especially given that
obesity rates are higher than average among blacks and Hispanics,
according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The
groups say in court papers they're concerned about the discrepancy, but
the soda rule will unduly harm minority businesses and "freedom of
choice in low-income communities."
The latest
in a line of healthy-eating initiatives during Mayor Michael Bloomberg's
administration, the beverage rule bars restaurants and many other
eateries from selling high-sugar drinks in cups or containers bigger
than 16 ounces. Violations could bring $200 fines; the city doesn't plan
to start imposing those until June.
The city
Board of Health approved the measure in September. Officials cited the
city's rising obesity rate - about 24 percent of adults, up from 18
percent in 2002 - and pointed to studies linking sugary drinks to weight
gain. Care for obesity-related illnesses costs more than $4.7 billion a
year citywide, with government programs paying about 60 percent of
that, according to city Health Commissioner Dr. Thomas Farley.
"It
would be irresponsible for (the health board) not to act in the face of
an epidemic of this proportion," the city says in court papers. The
National Association of Local Boards of Health and several public health
scholars have backed the city's position in filings of their own.
Opponents
portray the regulation as government nagging that turns sugary drinks
into a scapegoat when many factors are at play in the nation's growing
girth.
The American Beverage Association and
other groups, including movie theater owners and Korean grocers, sued.
They argue that the first-of-its-kind restriction should have gone
before the elected City Council instead of being approved by the
Bloomberg-appointed health board.
Five City
Council members echo that view in a court filing, saying the Council is
"the proper forum for balancing the city's myriad interests in matters
of public health." The Bloomberg administration counters that the health
board, made up of doctors and other health professionals, has the
"specialized expertise" needed to make the call on limiting cola sizes.
The
lawsuit also argues the rule is too narrow to be fair. Alcohol,
unsweetened juice and milk-based drinks are excluded, as are
supermarkets and many convenience stores - including 7-Eleven, home of
the Big Gulp - that aren't subject to city health regulations.
The
NAACP and the Hispanic Federation, a network of 100 northeastern
groups, say minority-owned delis and corner stores will end up at a
disadvantage compared to grocery chains.
"This
sweeping regulation will no doubt burden and disproportionally impact
minority-owned businesses at a time when these businesses can least
afford it," they said in court papers. They say the city should focus
instead on increasing physical education in schools.
During
Bloomberg's 11-year tenure, the city also has made chain restaurants
post calorie counts on their menus and barred artificial trans fats in
french fries and other restaurant food.
In
general, state and local governments have considerable authority to
enact laws intended to protect people's health and safety, but it
remains to be seen how a court will view a portion-size restriction,
said Neal Fortin, director, Institute for Food Laws and Regulations at
Michigan State University.
---
Follow Jennifer Peltz at http://twitter.com/jennpeltz
Hobbyist builds working replica of Iron Man's laser gauntlet
More amazing designs here from Patrick Priebe:
http://www.laser-gadgets.com/laser_gloves.php
Gallery from the article
http://www.gizmag.com/iron-man-laser-gauntlet/25901/pictures
Article:
http://www.gizmag.com/iron-man-laser-gauntlet/25901/
By Ben Coxworth
Given that most real-life superheroes
don’t have the budget of Tony Stark or Bruce Wayne, you would assume
that their gadgetry wouldn’t be quite on par with what we’re used to
seeing in the movies. German cyber weapons hobbyist Patrick Priebe
recently dropped us a line, however, to tell us about his latest
homebuilt creation – a working laser gauntlet, just like the one made
famous by a certain Iron Man.The aluminum-bodied device opens up for the user to insert their forearm, then gently clamps onto it using a spring/lever system. An LED display on the side of the gauntlet lights up once it’s locked in place, letting the user know that it’s ready to go ... and also to look cool, of course.
When the would-be Iron Man wants to zap something, they do so via button controls on the palm-mounted control module. This initially activates a servo, which causes the laser rig to rise out of the top of the gauntlet. Two red lasers on that rig are then used for aiming at the target, after which a thicker blue laser (mounted between them) is selected to deliver the coup de grâce. It may not be a strong enough beam to disable a car or anything, but as you can see in the demo video at the bottom of the page, you wouldn’t want to be a balloon around this thing.
Although Iron Man’s movie gauntlet utilized a red "destructive" beam, Priebe told us that he went with a blue laser because it’s more powerful and more visible. Additionally, a second blue laser is located in his gauntlet’s palm control unit. All four lasers are powered by one 3.7-volt lithium-ion battery, with two smaller batteries powering the LEDs and the servo.
According to Patrick, it took him 120 hours to build the gauntlet – and he wasn’t working from plans of any kind. As with his past creations (such as a coilgun, flame-throwing glove, and rotary blade-shooting crossbow), he’s not about to tell people how to build one of their own. If you contact him via his website, however, he might be willing to make you one ... for the right price.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)