Wearable technology (like smartwatches or Google glass) has become the latest subject dominating the technology news.
The latest development?
Circuit board fabric.
Unlike the previous devices, this development actually interests me.
A visor or watch that acts like a smartphone? Not interested.
A shirt that that can be used for electronics? That I find interesting. The fabric itself wouldn't be enough for ac an actual computer (at least not for the foreseeable future) but it would provide a framework for electronic devices to communicate with each other.
Among other things, the fabric could facilitate biometric monitoring for law enforcement or military personnel.
The current round of "wearables" are just run of the mill electronic devices given a different form. The circuit broad fabric has the potential to lead to different types of devices.
That's why it interests me.
Showing posts with label technology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label technology. Show all posts
Wednesday, September 3, 2014
Wednesday, July 16, 2014
Best Rickroll Ever
For those of you not familiar with the term, Rickrolling refers to tricking someone into viewing this:
The fact that the song currently has 85 million hits should tell you how popular Rickrolling people has become.
This one might be the best one ever.
Someone at Bishop Fox (a digital security firm) has found a way to Rickroll Chromecast users.
The method has to do with the way the Chromecast devices works when it first connects to a network.or, more importantly, when reconnecting after losing its connection to that network or to the Internet.
The Chromecast device works like an unsecured wireless router when first connecting. During this period it can be told to connect to any wireless network within its range. The device can also be told to disconnect from the network to which it is currently connected using a wireless signal.
This means it is possible to tell a Chromecast device to disconnect from the owner's wireless router and connect to yours instead. After doing this, you can tell it to show to whatever video you want the owner to see.
Including Rick Astley.
The fact that the song currently has 85 million hits should tell you how popular Rickrolling people has become.
This one might be the best one ever.
Someone at Bishop Fox (a digital security firm) has found a way to Rickroll Chromecast users.
The method has to do with the way the Chromecast devices works when it first connects to a network.or, more importantly, when reconnecting after losing its connection to that network or to the Internet.
The Chromecast device works like an unsecured wireless router when first connecting. During this period it can be told to connect to any wireless network within its range. The device can also be told to disconnect from the network to which it is currently connected using a wireless signal.
This means it is possible to tell a Chromecast device to disconnect from the owner's wireless router and connect to yours instead. After doing this, you can tell it to show to whatever video you want the owner to see.
Including Rick Astley.
Wednesday, June 25, 2014
Thoughts on the Supreme Court Aereo Decision
The Supreme Court released its Aereo decision today. They ruled 6-3 that Aereo's business model constituted Copyright infringement.
The ruling held that Aero rebroadcasting copyright material fell under the "public performance" definition of the 1976 Copyright Act. The relevant clause made it illegal "to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work ... to the public by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public are capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places at the same time or at different times."
Here's a translation of that clause for those not familiar with legalese .
It is illegal to copy a broadcast containing copyrighted material and then rebroadcast that material to the general public. The manner of receiving the broadcast and the number of people receiving it are irrelevant.
Given this, I think it's fairly obvious that Aereo's business model violated the 1976 Copyright Act. They were streaming copied versions of copyrighted material over the Internet.
The dissent held that Aereo's business model was no different from the videocassette recording industry business found legal in the 1984 Betamax case. I have to disagree with Scalia on this one (I don't do that very often).
There is a key distinction between the technology involved in the Betamax and Aereo cases. In the Betamax case, the recorder was located in the user's home. With Aero, the material was stored on Aereo's servers, and the streamed over the Internet when the user wanted to watch it.
When someone used a videocassette recorder, everything is done in the privacy of the home and more importantly, there is no rebroadcast of the material. Aereo recoded the material on their servers and then rebroadcast it.
The fundamental flaw in Aereo's business model is that is involves streaming the copyright material over the Internet after it has been recorded. This constitutes a broadcast, or as the law puts it "a performance." It is the streaming video portion of Aereo's business model that distinguishes it from technology used in the home to record television shows and is what makes Aereo's actions illegal.
The ruling held that Aero rebroadcasting copyright material fell under the "public performance" definition of the 1976 Copyright Act. The relevant clause made it illegal "to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work ... to the public by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public are capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places at the same time or at different times."
Here's a translation of that clause for those not familiar with legalese .
It is illegal to copy a broadcast containing copyrighted material and then rebroadcast that material to the general public. The manner of receiving the broadcast and the number of people receiving it are irrelevant.
Given this, I think it's fairly obvious that Aereo's business model violated the 1976 Copyright Act. They were streaming copied versions of copyrighted material over the Internet.
The dissent held that Aereo's business model was no different from the videocassette recording industry business found legal in the 1984 Betamax case. I have to disagree with Scalia on this one (I don't do that very often).
There is a key distinction between the technology involved in the Betamax and Aereo cases. In the Betamax case, the recorder was located in the user's home. With Aero, the material was stored on Aereo's servers, and the streamed over the Internet when the user wanted to watch it.
When someone used a videocassette recorder, everything is done in the privacy of the home and more importantly, there is no rebroadcast of the material. Aereo recoded the material on their servers and then rebroadcast it.
The fundamental flaw in Aereo's business model is that is involves streaming the copyright material over the Internet after it has been recorded. This constitutes a broadcast, or as the law puts it "a performance." It is the streaming video portion of Aereo's business model that distinguishes it from technology used in the home to record television shows and is what makes Aereo's actions illegal.
Saturday, May 31, 2014
New FCC Broadband Rules
Via: The Washington Post and Digital Trends
The FCC has proposed redefining the term "Broadband".
Currently, ISP companies have to supply 4 Mps download and 1 Mps to meet that definition. The FCC has proposed altering that to 10 Mps or even 25 Mps.
There are people rejoicing about this online because it will force ISP companies to spend money on infrastructure.
Think about that for a minute. Do you really think it's a good idea for the Federal Government to have the ability to force American companies to spend billions of dollars?
And it gets worse when you realize that this is being done to benefit two companies: Google and Netflix.
The Government imposing a burden on one company in order to provide a beneficial result to another company is not what is supposed to happen in a free society.
Netflix and Google (through YouTube) combined account for up to 40% of current Internet companies. They are the ones that need the additional bandwidth, but instead of paying for it themselves they have gone to the Government and apparently found a way to force other companies to pay for the infrastructure they need for their businesses.
Getting the Government to force other companies to pay for your business expenses is nice work, if you can get it.
It gets worse when you realize that Google is not just a content provider. It is an ISP itself, and in direct competition with the companies hit by this regulation. The new rules would not affect Google as an ISP provider largely due to the nature of its Internet Service. It only provides service in a few small areas with high population densities.
Why does that matter? Well as someone pointed out in the Washington Post comment section, there is a big difference to providing Internet service to an area with dense and sparse populations.
The average connection speed in South Korea is 50 Mps. Roughly 5 times that in the U.S. South Korea has a population on 20 Million people in an area the size of Wyoming.
Wyoming's Population is just over 500,000. When you break it down on a population basis, the Infrastructure needed to provide service to Wyoming is 40 times as expensive as it is to provide the same service to South Korea.
An ISP could provide 50 Mps service in Wyoming. It would just have to charge 40 times as much as those in South Korea to do so.
This brings us back to Google and its "Internet Service".
Google Fiber is only available in 2 cities right now and one of those helped with financing. The exact amount of aid from Kansas City is unknown, but it runs into the millions.
Other ISPs have to pay 3%-5% of subscription revenues from customers. Google got a waiver. Other ISPs cannot put their wires on municipal utility poles. Google was allowed to do so free of charge. Kansas City also agreed to provide electricity and space for Google's equipment, free of charge.
Now Google has gone to the FCC and apparently gotten it to force other ISPs to pay for the Infrastructure Google wants to use as a content provider. How much help do you think they will get from Government?
Google has perfected getting someone else to pay for its business expenses. When the Government is involved it's called "Corporate Welfare."
The FCC has proposed redefining the term "Broadband".
Currently, ISP companies have to supply 4 Mps download and 1 Mps to meet that definition. The FCC has proposed altering that to 10 Mps or even 25 Mps.
There are people rejoicing about this online because it will force ISP companies to spend money on infrastructure.
Think about that for a minute. Do you really think it's a good idea for the Federal Government to have the ability to force American companies to spend billions of dollars?
And it gets worse when you realize that this is being done to benefit two companies: Google and Netflix.
The Government imposing a burden on one company in order to provide a beneficial result to another company is not what is supposed to happen in a free society.
Netflix and Google (through YouTube) combined account for up to 40% of current Internet companies. They are the ones that need the additional bandwidth, but instead of paying for it themselves they have gone to the Government and apparently found a way to force other companies to pay for the infrastructure they need for their businesses.
Getting the Government to force other companies to pay for your business expenses is nice work, if you can get it.
It gets worse when you realize that Google is not just a content provider. It is an ISP itself, and in direct competition with the companies hit by this regulation. The new rules would not affect Google as an ISP provider largely due to the nature of its Internet Service. It only provides service in a few small areas with high population densities.
Why does that matter? Well as someone pointed out in the Washington Post comment section, there is a big difference to providing Internet service to an area with dense and sparse populations.
The average connection speed in South Korea is 50 Mps. Roughly 5 times that in the U.S. South Korea has a population on 20 Million people in an area the size of Wyoming.
Wyoming's Population is just over 500,000. When you break it down on a population basis, the Infrastructure needed to provide service to Wyoming is 40 times as expensive as it is to provide the same service to South Korea.
An ISP could provide 50 Mps service in Wyoming. It would just have to charge 40 times as much as those in South Korea to do so.
This brings us back to Google and its "Internet Service".
Google Fiber is only available in 2 cities right now and one of those helped with financing. The exact amount of aid from Kansas City is unknown, but it runs into the millions.
Other ISPs have to pay 3%-5% of subscription revenues from customers. Google got a waiver. Other ISPs cannot put their wires on municipal utility poles. Google was allowed to do so free of charge. Kansas City also agreed to provide electricity and space for Google's equipment, free of charge.
Now Google has gone to the FCC and apparently gotten it to force other ISPs to pay for the Infrastructure Google wants to use as a content provider. How much help do you think they will get from Government?
Google has perfected getting someone else to pay for its business expenses. When the Government is involved it's called "Corporate Welfare."
Thursday, May 29, 2014
A Prosthetic Leg That's Just Too Cool For Words
I came across this while checking out my RSS feed today: a prosthetic leg design for rock climbing. This isn't normally the type of subject I comment on but this one is in a class by itself.
Beyond the fact that it allows amputees the ability to engage in physical activity they wouldn't normally be able to participate it, it's just cool looking.
For some behind the scene information on its development, check out the project's design page on Behance.
Beyond the fact that it allows amputees the ability to engage in physical activity they wouldn't normally be able to participate it, it's just cool looking.
For some behind the scene information on its development, check out the project's design page on Behance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)