You Know What’s Amazing?

This:

It’s amazing to me how much technology has changed the world just within my lifetime. Hell, just within the last couple of years.

Art has always pushed the boundaries of technology, even if that technology was little more than powdered pigment blown onto a cave wall with a hollow reed. But now, now artists can create entire worlds.

The above short film, Legacy, is the third such created by Grzegorz Jonajtys, a 36 years old VFX artist and animator/director from Warsaw, Poland who now lives in San Francisco. He’s no amateur, having worked on a number of high end projects for Digital Kitchen, Cafefx, Syndicate, and Industrial Light and Magic, but still – Legacy is what he does in his spare time, and his second short film, Ark, won the Siggraph Electronic Theater Best of Show Award in 2007 and was nominated for a Golden Palm at Cannes.

Even ten years ago, the depth and lifelike detail of a little film like Legacy would have been impossible - short of several million dollars and a cadre of special effects wizards – and it still wouldn’t have been as good. These films and those like them represent an emerging generation of artists who use computer systems, software, and the Internet as a medium of expression - as paint is for painters and clay is to sculptors.

While it’s true that nearly anybody can create realistic images using tools like photoshop and digital animator, it takes an artist and a story teller to do what Jonajtys did above.

I wonder if some day, little films like this will be regarded the same way sketches and doodles by Van Gogh, Da Vinci, or Picasso are regarded today?

Scientists, Smart But Oh So Dumb

For the last two weeks the history channel has been advertising an upcoming episode of their show Universe.

Specifically, the ads are for this evening's episode - entitled Sex in Space.

The brilliant physicist and Universe regular, Michio Kaku, is quoted in the short version of the ads saying, "The future of the human race may come down to one question: Can we have sex in outer space."

The implication being, of course, that sex simply may not be possible in zero-gee. And if we can't do it, well, we can't colonize space and sooner or later we'll use up the Earth and that, as the scientists say, will be that.

The long version of the ad shows people attempting to mimic the physical motions necessary for sex in the zero-gee environment of G-Force One, the civilian version of NASA's Vomit Comet. The narrator's voiceover talks about how difficult it is to just maintain position and a grip on your partner.

NASA denies that it has actually studied space sex in detail, and the Russians are even more tight lipped. The ESA, like Europeans themselves, has a more casual attitude towards micro-gravity sex studies - at least admitting that they're interested in such things. Despite this, the ESA studies haven't done much more than show a drop in male astronaut testosterone levels during space flight. However, a number of male shuttle astronauts report what they call the Viagra effect of weightlessness resulting from the redistribution of fluids within the human body due to zero-gee. Apparently, a number of male astronauts experience a certain form of persistent embarrassment that is usually reserved for 14 year-old boys called to the front of the classroom.

Human bodies are designed for gravity, a constant 9.81 meters per second squared, and those big muscles are a danger in space. Start losing control, or get just a little too enthusiastic, in zero-gee and not only are you likely to bounce away from your partner at the most inopportune time, you're very likely to bash your brains out on the equipment racks. Those having sex in space might be well advised to wear helmets and knee pads. Supposedly, there have been studies showing that sex in zero-gee will require the use of Velcro and elastic belts or bungee cords. During this episode of Universe, scientists speculate about foot holds like the kind on water skis, hand holds like the kind used to help handicapped folks into and out of bath tubs, padded tunnels, special suits, and duct tape (it's like the Force: it has a light side, a dark side, and it binds the universe together, and it could very well be the key to sex in space helping the Jedi steady their light-sabers so to speak).

Even if sex is possible in space, nobody may want to have any according to those who've been up there. There's no privacy in space habitats for one thing. Not only are you in close proximity to your shipmates, but you're also being monitored by about 9000 NASA engineers, scientists, doctors, administrators, and very likely the accounting department. So unless you've got the inhibitions of a zoo monkey, be prepared to have the whole world evaluate your technique. In zero Gee, fluids make your face swell up, often giving you a perpetually stuffed up nose. Sniffing and mouth breathing are generally not considered particularly sexy. So far, there isn't a hell of a lot of hygiene in space either, no showers, just the occasional wet nap bath - after a while you're going to smell like combat boots on patrol in Mosel. A significant fraction of spacefarers experience zero-gee motion sickness - difficult to get aroused when you're suffering projectile vomiting, nausea, fever, and shrieking diarrhea. And even if you do mange to keep your lunch down, well, there are other hazards involving the human intestinal track. Air bubbles, for example, tend to remain in solution without gravity. Which means that every swallow of water contains lots of air - which in turn results in, uh, well, gas. Lots of gas. Skylab astronauts reported farting 500 to 600 times a day. Mix that that with some of those Russian freeze-dried borscht and pickled cabbage meals on the ISS and you have a pretty damned effective birth control shield.

Basically what is comes down to here is that sex in space would be a lot like doing it with a Botulism victim in a ripe port-O-potty on a hot summer day with the entire crowd from Woodstock waiting in line outside the door and cheering you on. Toss in a trampoline, a streaming webcam, and the chance of being permanently maimed and you're pretty much right up there on the shuttle.

So, this then is the concern. Scientists just aren't sure the human race will ever have sex off-planet.

Hah.

Scientists.

Smart guys, no doubt. But have you ever seen one get laid? Yeah, not so much.

Trust me here - people will find a way. They will. People have had sex in refrigerators, bathtubs, trains, drains, and covered in calf's brains. They've had sex with a nun, on a bun, and by the ton. They've had sex dangling from parachutes, in speedboats, upside down in closets, in a crate, on the deck of a rowboat covered in bait, and the backseat of a Volkswagen Beetle on a double date. And I have it on good authority that more than one person had sex with a botulism victim in a ripe port-O-potty at Woodstock while the crowd cheered them on.

Trust me here, NASA Scientists, people will find a way to have sex in outer space.

Send up a couple of seventeen year-olds and order them to stay away from each other.

I give it one day before you find them sharing a spacesuit doing the Bristol Palin.

Really, guys, don't worry about it.

Constitutional Spam

Jeremy Jaynes walked out of prison yesterday.

Never heard of Jeremy Jaynes?

Chances are you've gotten email from him, especially if you have an AOL account.

Jaynes was the first convicted felony spammer. He was sent to prison for nine years by Virginia Circuit Court Judge Thomas Horne in 2004 for sending thousands of unsolicited, anonymous emails to America Online users. He claimed it was his right to do so under the 1st Amendment.

Yesterday, the Virginia Supreme Court agreed with him, and today he is a free man.

Yesterday, the Virginia's high court reversed itself and struck down a state anti-spam law, passed in 2003, declaring that the law violated Constitutional First Amendment rights to free and anonymous speech.

There is no doubt that Jaynes committed the act for which he was convicted - he sent over 10,000 emails from his home systems in a 24-hour period - in fact he did it at least times in a 30 day period - the emails were unsolicited with randomly generated blocked return addresses and fraudulent IP originators. When police raided his home, they discovered hundreds of compact disks containing over 176 million full e-mail addresses, 1.3 billion user names, and other private account information for mostly AOL subscribers. The information had been stolen from AOL by a former employer and bought by Jaynes. Jaynes was fully aware of the nature of the stolen information. Jaynes then used this information to send tens of thousands of unsolicited emails advertising a FedEx refund claims product, a Penny Stock Picker, and a Internet Browser History "Eraser" via disguised email and multiple Internet addresses.

Neither the possession of stolen information nor his subsequent use of the information is in question.

The question is whether or not Jaynes was protected under the Constitution when he choose to become a spammer.

While that Virginia Supreme Court agreed that Jaynes' actions were egregious, they ruled that he was indeed protected under the Constitution.

The problem with the Virginia law, according to the Virginia Supreme Court ruling, was that it was too broad in scope. Virginia's anti-spam law, the Virginia Computer Crimes Act Code 18 2-152.1 through 18 2-152.15, as currently written, outlaws all forms of unsolicited bulk email (providing the bulk email passes certain thresholds), not just commercial content. In other words, the act infringes on both anonymous political and religious free speech. From section [22] of the ruling,

"The IP address and domain name do not directly identify the sender, but if the IP address or domain name is acquired from a registering organization, a database search of the address or domain name can eventually lead to the contact information on file with the registration organizations. A sender’s IP address or domain name which is not registered will not prevent the transmission of the e-mail; however, the identity of the sender may not be discoverable through a database search and use of registration contact information.12

[12: In this case Jaynes used registered IP addresses, although the domain names were false.]

As shown by the record, because e-mail transmission protocol requires entry of an IP address and domain name for the sender, the only way such a speaker can publish an anonymous e-mail is to enter a false IP address or domain name. Therefore, like the registration record on file in the mayor’s office identifying persons who chose to canvass private neighborhoods in Watchtower Bible & Tract Society v. Village of Stratton, 536 U.S. 150 (2002), registered IP addresses and domain names discoverable through searchable data bases and registration documents “necessarily result in a surrender of [the speaker’s] anonymity.” 536 U.S. at 166. The right to engage in anonymous speech, particularly anonymous political or religious speech, is “an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment.” McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm’n, 514 U.S. 334, 342 (1995). By prohibiting false routing information in the dissemination of e-mails, Code § 18.2-152.3:1 infringes on that protected right. The Supreme Court has characterized regulations prohibiting such anonymous speech as “a direct regulation of the content of speech." [emphasis mine]

Frankly, I think this is a load of crap. I think anonymous statements, religious, political, or otherwise are the ultimate form of cowardice. Personally, I doubt that the founding fathers intended freedom of speech to be used as a mechanism to annoy the hell out of the citizenry with anonymous junk mail, electronic or otherwise - especially considering that they themselves risked freedom, liberty, and their own lives by making political statements inciting revolution against the Crown. However, the traditional interpretation of the Constitution guarantee's the people to be anonymous if they so choose, a while I don't agree with the mindset behind it, it is the law of the land and must be upheld.

My formal legal training is restricted to use of deadly force in civilian/military applications and while I am certainly no expert on either the law in general or Virginia law in particular, it is fairly apparent to me that despite widespread condemnation, the Virginia Supreme Court is, of course, correct in its ruling. SCOTUS has repeatedly upheld the right of the people to make anonymous political and religious statements, and the Virginia law clearly violates that right as written.

However, I don't think the spirit of the Constitution guarantees anybody the right to infringe on my privacy or deluge my inbox with unsolicited electronic scams - including religious and political crap that I'm not interested in. It may be your right to speak your mind, anonymously or otherwise, but it is also my right not to have to put up with it, and when you insert your garbage into my computer so that I have to deal with it that's exactly what you're doing.

This is going to be an difficult problem to fix, it's not enough to simply change the law's wording to address only commercial bulk mailings. Jaynes' case not only points out a flaw in the law, it is a call to arms for clever and persistent spammers. See, because this was not Jaynes' first appeal, and this appeal was a major long shot requiring the Virginia Supreme Court to reverse itself - something courts are loath to do - and as such it serves as an inspiration for other spammers.

Because of the complex, convoluted, rapidly evolving and highly technical nature of electronic communications, there will almost always be a loophole for a clever and tenacious spammer to exploit. I can think of a dozen off the top of my head - declare yourself a religious organization for example, or an independent political organization, and claim your spam is fund raising in support of your beliefs - no different from Girl Scouts selling cookies online. Forgive me if I don't outline my other suggestions here, I have no intention of helping the spammers.

Virginia's Attorney general is appealing the ruling to the US Supreme Court, but I expect that Jaynes will remain a free man.

At least until Federal law is changed - and considering the level of technical acumen in Congress, I doubt that will be anytime soon.

Here's what I don't understand though, why wasn't Jaynes indicted on state charges of receiving stolen goods? He knowingly and willingly accepted proprietary information stolen from AOL. In fact, unless every one of those billions of names on his CD's lived in the state of Virginia, he's guilty of interstate receipt of stolen goods, making this a felony. The evidence has been both verified and entered into the court and I'm curious as to why Virginia didn't pursue this course of prosecution. Additionally, why was Jaynes not indicted on federal charges of violating the Privacy Act? Hell, for that matter, why wasn't AOL?

Virginia needs to fix their law, but until the US Government brings the full power of federal law to bear, the spammers will remain free and little more than inconvenienced.

Just a suggestion

At a loss as to what to get me for Christmas? You can all chip in and get me this:




This would make me happy, especially if it came with the optional flamethrower and kung-fu grip.

Starship Troopers

One of my favorite books is Robert Anson Heinlein’s Starship Troopers.

Few books, of any genre, can stir controversy the way Starship Troopers has for the last 50 years. People hate it, people love it; few people are ambivalent about it – even those who haven’t, you know, actually read it.

In early the 70’s, when I was a young teenager, I stumbled across Heinlein the local library. Up to that point I had never read much Science Fiction. I had read H. G. Wells The Time Machine in 5th grade and it scared the crap out of me - so I stuck more to WWII submarine stories, the Hardy Boys and Westerns. But one day I passed a rack of tattered paperbacks and a copy of Heinlein’s Farmer in the Sky caught my attention. The cover art was what did it, a big spidery looking purple machine on rocky ground under the light of Jupiter, surrounded by men in spacesuits (fairly obvious in retrospect that the artist had never read the book, or actually knew what Jupiter really looked like). On a whim I read it, and I was hooked. I loved Heinlein, it was like he was writing specifically for me, which in a sense he was, since his Young Adults where intended specifically for the demographic I was part of. Over the next year I read every Heinlein I could get my hands on, including his ‘Adult’ novels. I found that I didn’t, and still don’t, care much for his adult novels (Stranger in a Strange Land does nothing for me) but I loved his Young Adult stories, and I still do. The protagonists in his books were not much older than me, as group they tended to be awkward teenagers who didn’t fit in, they tended to think differently than their peer group, they tended to be talented, they tended to be opinionated, but by and large they stuck to their opinions even if that made them unpopular. They faced adversity, but with brains and wit and quick thinking they always overcame it.

Eventually I got around to Starship Troopers. I loved it. As a kid, what I took away from the book was honor, duty, and service above self, courage in the face of adversity. I hardly noticed the political stuff that others took so seriously, in fact I didn’t really notice it at all. In those days, before Star Wars made Science Fiction generally popular, if you read SciFi, you didn’t talk about it. In an age where man had recently walked on the moon, even my own peer group had little use for “that Buck Rogers Stuff.” It wasn’t until after I joined the Military and saw Starship Troopers on the CNO’s preferred reading list that I started to hear unflattering things about the novel.

Right from the first day I started this Blog I had intended to one day write a rebuttal to the nonsense I’d been hearing both in and out of the military over the last two decades. I intended to go through the novel chapter by chapter and address each of the idiotic statements I'd heard from others over the wardroom table and elsewhere. I intended to do this not just because those statements are wrong (Heinlein was a fascist, its true!), but also because Heinlein had made such an impact on my own life.

As it turns out, somebody beat me to it. In researching this subject online I came across a piece written by Christopher Weuve. I was so impressed by his critical research and solid analysis that I emailed to compliment him on the article and ask for permission to link to it from this site. As it turns out, Chris is an Associate Research Professor at the Naval War College in Newport, RI, one of the finest institutions of higher learning in the world (though he said he wrote the article prior to his tenure there). Chris also turns out to be a dammed nice fellow and he gave me permission to post a link here.

Go, read this. I think you’ll enjoy it. I wish I had written it. Thanks, Chris.

Note: I’ve been meaning to create a link section on this page, pointing to articles and information I fine useful and interesting, Chris’ article will certainly be on that list. Specifically because not only is it an insightful and thorough analysis of a controversial subject that is near and dear to my heart, but also because it is a perfect example of doing the legwork before forming an opinion. Chris tells me he intends to migrate the document over to PMWiki in the near future. I’ll update the link as necessary.

Weekend Stat Update (updated)

Well, so far the statistics I reported last week are holding steady. More traffic in the first 4 hours of this fine Monday morning than I had all weekend.

Again, nothing Earth shaking, but I find it interesting on both a personal and professional level. One of my goals with this site was to learn more about how blogs and other general interest sites attract and maintain readership and how rapidly information propagates through the general data sphere without special effort (there may be a book on this subject in my future). As some of you may know, my professional background is in the field of Information Management and the Perception of Information, and I'm highly interested in how a single site grows and connects to the larger data sphere, how connections develop, strengthen and refresh or fade, attract new connections, decline new connections, and how information moves from one site to another. Specifically I'm interested in the information itself, independent of the site or platform, i.e. when does the information become an entity of its own, and not part of the site or database where it was created? Does this happen automatically? Does it always happen? Does it never happen? Can it be made to happen? Can it be prevented from happening? How does the information change? Etc. If this sounds like I'm talking about Information as if it is alive, I am in a way. It may help to think of how the human brain stores information, maintains it, changes and perceives it over time based on new information and experiences, and how information fades over time without refresh. Personally, though, I tend to think in terms of Object Orientated Programming, where Information and the code for manipulating it are considered to be a single object. The data object can inherit properties from parent objects, can spawn descendants, and can connect to other objects.

I use the stats from my blog as a basis for observation, but I also use a large number of other sites as data points. Both well traveled sites and those that aren't visited often. These are simple observations, not empirical data points, so take the below with a reasonable margin of error.

Couple things I've noticed:
1. To maximize data connections, a blog should post a wide range of topics.
2. To maintain data connections and provide for maximum refresh, a blog must post as often as possible - at a minimum of once per day. More than once per day is better.
3. Controversial topics may develop a momentary boost in connections, but do little to maintain or refresh long term connections. Connections developed from controversial topics tend to fade rapidly unless controversial topics are the norm. If controversial topics are the norm, connections tend to be confined to a specific interest group, and other general interest connections tend to fade rapidly.
4. Humorous content tends to propagate widely, becoming independent of source more quickly than other topics. Humorous content tends to attract, maintain, and refresh data connections more rapidly and reliably than other forms of information.
5. (Update, I had this in my outline [and yes, I do outline more serious posts], but somehow I overlooked it). Feedback. Blogs that tend to attract and hold readers are those blogs that are interactive - even if they don't interact with you in particular. In other words, blogs (and even news or topic specific sites in broadcast mode) that have active comment sections, and especially where the blogger and commenters maintain active dialog with each other, tend to attract and maintain readership. They also tend to generate spontaneous connections to other data nodes. This appears to be true even if the reader is not a commenter him/herself. It may indicate that people are more interested in conversation, instead of simple lecture formats. This is my experience in public speaking and teaching as well. When I taught military doctrine theory, I very much made my lectures interactive as well as dynamic and tied directly to the target audience. I think this is one of the major reasons I was so successful at it.

Tentative Summary: Talk about a number of different things, talk a lot, talk often, sensitive subjects attract new readers, but non-offensive humor keeps them. If you want to become immortal, be funny. Update: Engage in dialog, listen to your readers.

Question: What do you think makes a good blog. Design and layout. Topics. etc