Archive for the ‘Science & Tech’ Category

Sticking your CAC in the Pooter for Uncle Sugar

Tuesday, October 12th, 2010

So I finally broke down and started writing tutorials about how to use your DoD CAC in conjunction with Linux and Mac OS X (and other Unixes as I get more test systems assembled…). Since Fedora 13 pretty much took the cake for this year’s kickass Linux distro I wrote instructions for 32-bit Fedora 13 first. Next up will be 32-bit Ubuntu 10.4 LTS, then 64-bit Fedora 13, 32-bit Ubuntu 10.10, 64-bit Ubuntu (probably 10.4 LTS first), Fedora 14, and Mac OS X somewhere in there as soon as I get my hands on a test system.

The main guide portal page can be found here:

It turns out that a huge number of people in the military have been waiting to get above the Windows scramble and move on to Linux or Mac OS X. The awareness of Unix-type systems in this generation is pretty amazing considering recent history (it is equally amazing that almost nobody knows what BSD is anymore). The one thing holding them back is an unfounded fear of not being able to access DoD web apps such as DTS, AKO/DKO and RMT. Another thing they fear is losing the ability to play DVDs on their computers because they have heard the evil (and tragi-comic) rumors that playing DVDs on Linux is hard to do and makes your palms hairy. (Of course, they could always dual-install… and doing it with a new harddrive is so easy my tech-uninterested wife can do it.)

I cover all of that in the tutorials and its pretty easy. If I got paid to maintain this stuff by DoD then I would go as far as writing GUI Python scripts to make the installations cake for everyone the way Anonymouse used to. But alas I spend an inordinate amount of time doing this and its all for free — and the solutions are half-way to the level of user-friendliness they could be. Actually, that I don’t get paid for this and it is a concrete service realized by many servicemembers sort of pisses me off when we have literally millions a year getting pissed away on bad projects all over the place. If DoD would consider the utility of standing up a development house of, say, 10 top-level open source developers (the sort who can demand low-six-figure salaries) and a person who can bridge the gap between combat operations and military experience and the open source world (hint: this would be someone just like me…) they could safely switch most of their infrastructure and save roughly $15,000 per seat (this figure comes from my signal officer’s quote for how much it costs us to put a single computer on the network) in recurring site licenses, security and maintenance across the force.

(Where I work right now there are about 300 computers deployed on the NIPR. Just switching that single building over would pay for three times the development group I am discussing, so fix-figures for no-shit developers is actually extremely cheap and you could get the right people, not the inept folks who bumbled through development of crap like DTS and said they had a product worth releasing…)

The fact that the MPAA and RIAA have so much political clout is something I would ordinarily have blogged about by now. I have not… yet. Instead of writing yet another rant-on-the-web-about-the-media-industry and thereby merely regurgitating all of the great points both personal and legal that have been better stated elsewhere, I think it would be more interesting and productive to abstain (though ranting about it is tempting) and instead examine the fundamental trends which will eventually render all such efforts at controlling individual and independent mathematical achievements impossible and unenforceable in the future.

There are some great points to be made and some incredible busines opportunities emerging as the nature of the world changes and art, math, social interaction, thought and even evolution (in some senses) become digitized, mathematical processes. Give some thought to this. Depending on where your social and/or religious emotional investments lay this is very exciting, frightening, unstoppable or something which must be fought. Whoever though math machines could be so controversial?

Internet Censorship and Social Circumvention

Tuesday, August 31st, 2010

A long time ago John Gilmore (same link at, in case Wikipedia gets defaced again) observed that the internet tends to perceive censorship as network damage and routes around it. An incident in China this week has proven that not only is that the case, but it also appears that under certain social conditions the internet not only perceived censorship as damages and finds ways to circumvent it, but that official censorship can easily cause the censored data to proliferate at a far greater rate than if left alone.


The even which brought this to my attention was the internet rumor in China that Zhou Xiaochuan (the Governor of the Central Bank of China — a fairly high ranking governing party position) had charges brought against him for losing $430 billion in Chinese government money on U.S. Treasury Bill investments, had disappeared and was making an effort to defect to the United States. There are, of course, many levels at which the details of this story do not make sense, beginning with the idea that a $430 billion loss on U.S. T-bills was even possible, but the idea that a leading party figure may have gotten on the wrong side of the controlling party in China and was making an attempt to flee to the West is not completely without precedent and not outside the realm of solid possibility.

Where the rumor started is a little difficult to track down, but that doesn’t really matter. It was discussed all over the social networking and alternative media (Chinese blogs, etc.) as well as brought up in web chat rooms and in-game chat all over the country. The government tried to shut the discussion down and the attempt failed miserably despite the state directed deletion of web pages, official censorship instruction to media outlets and search filters which blocked or blanked web searches related to Zhou’s name, the Central Bank of China, etc. All of this was futile, of course, as censoring team chat inside of an application such as World of Warcraft would be extremely difficult for anyone to pull off effectively and censorship of phone and text conversations related to such a limited topic without a blanket disruption of all data service is impossible.

So… the rumor grew. And it grew on the back of the fact of censorship itself. The censorship was giving fuel to the fire. A common conversation between conspiracy minded internet users goes something like:

“Hey, I just heard Zhou Xiaochuan got in trouble for losing a bunch of state money and defected to the U.S.! He’s disappeared and now the government is trying hard to shut the story down. Tell your friends!”
“I don’t beleive that, that’s gotta be bullshit. He’s a bank governor, why would he defect?”
“You think it’s bullshit? Try searching for his name anywhere on the net. It’s all blanked or blocked. You can’t even get a return for a search on him from financial websites.”
…does a search… “Whoa! Something must be going down, because you’re right, I can’t search for him anywhere!”

And thus the Internet Hate Machine drives on and smacks the face of the state censors who are inadvertently acting to proliferate information on the social layer by trying to censor it at the technical layer.

This sort of phenomenon is having and already has had a huge effect on the way information relays and proliferation play out across the world. Free societies have largely already explored the new dynamics and have adapted — which was an easy thing for, say, the U.S. to do as the government there doesn’t make much of an effort to censor anything, ever. But in societies such as China and Russia where inforamtion censorship is a key element of social control, and social control is something that their existing political power structure absolutely must maintain to effectively run the state, the effects are going to become increasindly interesting and unpredictable as economic, social and military stresses increase over the next few years.

The issue I wanted to discuss is the idea that censorship can backfire, particularly in an environment which has tuned itself to expect a high level of governmental and institutional interference with the free exchange of information and ideas. As a side note it is interesting to learn that the U.S. government refuted the rumor itself today though an official refutation by the Chinese government has not yet been made. Could he have defected? Maybe. A single person defecting, though this person is a significant player in the Chinese government, is not as important as the overall dynamic of how internet rumors can undermine any information control scheme and that any efforts at control have a high chance of backfiring and expanding the influence and distribution of the rumor.

AIDS Research Declining: Perspective of a Former AIDSVAX Investor

Thursday, July 23rd, 2009

An almost comical article was released by the AFP today trumpeting the first human clinical trials of an African-developed AIDS vaccine. While on the surface this certainly sounds great and hopeful, the fact is the vaccine trial is not only likely of very little statistical significance (the pool of patients is only 48 people) the real research money — and therefore the real brains — for AIDS prevention research is in other areas.

But why would AIDS research money be in any area other than vaccines these days? Just a few years ago several now-forgotten subsidiaries of the most respected pharmaceutical companies were hard at work trying to develop a vaccine for AIDS. This was natural as every human in the world was a potential (and almost certain) customer, so even a very cheap vaccine would see at least 6 billion units sold as quickly as they could be produced. This is not even counting the market position one would have for the duration of the patent’s life, as the vaccine would almost certainly be a worldwide child vaccination requirement.

The fact that the vaccines never made it to market (and most never even to trials) and the striking reality that nearly all of these companies or subsidiaries no longer sponsor AIDS vaccine research or in some cases even exist is a testament both to the difficulty of this sort of research and the negative effects of intellectual property threats from a huge number of sources.

The basic problem with medical research is that it simply is not free. A common misconception in the pharmaceutically un-invested public is that pharmaceuticals are produced by companies which are dark, evil and seek to control life, death and the money involved with those two. People further assume that somehow the sort of extremely difficult and exhaustive research required to develop truly innovative and life-saving drugs and techniques is not worth the enormous effort (represented by money) required for such research and that companies have no right to recoup the billions they spend annually on such research by charging market prices for drugs.

The drug research industry has seen a huge contraction in recent years, particularly in areas such as AIDS prevention research and drugs simply because they are afraid of investing the time and money required to produce a stable product only to have their intellectual rights trampled and product stolen.

But that’s ridiculous!” was the first response I got to this. It is not. Consider that every populist government on the planet and nearly every left-leaning political party or private organization has plainly stated that any technical knowledge which has the potential to reduce or eradicate AIDS will and must be appropriated in the public interest. No compensation is mentioned here and none is intended. The image of drug companies being only after money (as if that were somehow a crime and against the public interest) and therefore evil greatly assists this assertion and has, indeed, protected such policies and the men who promote them from any backlash. They have, in fact, usurped the moral high-ground and made their intended theft appear moral — and amazingly made working hard and spending money to eradicate AIDS with the expectation of being compensated for this effort appear evil. Amazing, isn’t it?

French and Canadian health consortia have both stated that they will strike the intellectual property rights of whatever company first successfully develops an AIDS vaccine within their jurisdictions. Under their proposed programs government-subsidized generic drug makers are the ones who will provide the “public service” of producing at-cost generic AIDS vaccinations for everyone. This sentiment sounds great to anyone not actually involved in trying to find an AIDS vaccine… or to anyone who lacks an understanding of how all the medical miracles we take for granted today have come into being (not to mention the mountain of other miracle gadgets that make modern life what it is… from elevators to airplanes).

I personally was heavily invested in more than one company trying to develop an AIDS vaccine back in the days when that was a popular and forward thinking thing to do. I invested money not simply because I want to see AIDS done away with (I enjoy philandering enough to have a personal interest in seeing this disease wiped out, after all) but most importantly because I want to see a decent return on my investment capital.

In the end, I have the intellectual and operational capacity as an individual to avoid contracting AIDS under nearly all circumstances, so I am much less worried about contracting AIDS personally than I am getting a decent return on my money. I am not unique in this regard. Saving the world simply doesn’t make you any money. I tried it for years, risking my own life in the process, and you just walk away with divorces under your belt, kids who don’t know you and a home country that “respects” you from afar but doesn’t understand or care to know you as a person anymore. However, investing money in things that are inherently useful (and therefore worth money) is something that is easy to believe in, no matter how cynical the world has made you, and the pinnacle of functionality for humans is something that has the potential to save their very lives from something like AIDS.

But the problem with such a thing is that everybody who doesn’t have anything to do with the effort wants it, and not just wants it bad enough to pay for it (which is your whole angle as an investor) but wants it bad enough to steal it. Enough of them want to steal it that they will vote together to make the process of stealing it legal. So in the end you can invest billions in an AIDS vaccine and the only thing that will ever come of it is for people to not thank you and repay you, but to steal the product of your long labor in a flurry of moral self-certainty and self-righteously call you an “evil pharmaceutical profiteer”. Some way to thank the group who worked so long an hard to save the world from AIDS.

Where is the fun in that? Lose my investment while the bleeding hearts pat themselves on the back for what amounts to intellectual property theft leaving all those who worked hard on the project to wonder what happened and why they are suddenly unable to sit back and enjoy the fruits of their labor instead of looking for jobs or investment opportunities in another sector. After all, once research is proven to be unprofitable, does anyone imagine smart money would continue to fund smart researchers only to repeat the painful experience of being legally robbed? Research is a business and it takes huge sums of money to pay huge teams of talented researchers who can demand appropriately huge salaries for committing years of their lives to this extremely difficult and deep research. Researchers are easy to come by, but motivated, insightful, good researchers of the caliber a private concern are willing to pay top money for are frighteningly rare.

So… to bring a rambling article to its focus: What happened to all those very promising trial vaccines and the companies that were producing them? They all shut down. Funding was withdrawn, people were let go, the information collected across thousands of man-years of research was recorded, sealed and secured probably forever, never to see the light of day. The research is simply too controversial. It appears that nobody is ever going to let an investor or company make a dime off of an AIDS vaccine, at least not while it is still a political topic instead of an actual disease that actually infects Real People(TM) in the minds of billions of people around the world. That means all the money will move into other, less controversial areas of research or different sectors of industry entirely and AIDS vaccines will continue to be a largely neglected area of research.

But what about government grants? Those exist, sure, but they provide a mere fraction of what is necessary for research at this level with any speed. There is not a war against AIDS and AIDS is not threatening the national security of a country such as the US which actually has the means to do something about it. So it will fall to the side in favor of more pressing issues such as people who kill citizens by the thousands with airplanes or other political hot button topics such as making sure that Planet English only produces literature using feminine or gender-neutral pronouns (even when it doesn’t make sense) or global warming (which are far less controversial on the surface, despite being based on far shakier science than AIDS research).

As discussed above researchers are easy to come by — the dirtbag, non-productive type, I mean. The sort of researcher who is content to subsist on government grants which require no real way of quantifying, qualifying or substantiating their research for funding justification (which is what the government grant game is all about) are not the same sort of top-notch engineers and researchers hired by companies who have the private investment capital to pay bigger salaries for bigger brains. Research, just like making drugs, is a business after all, and nobody goes to MIT or interns at the Mayo Clinic to end their life poor, merely happy with the “difference” they made on a crap government salary.

The South African trial in most likely will fail, but the failure being based on an extremely limited group (most trials based on prevention, not treatment, utilize a pool of thousands, not tens, for very good reasons) will be easy enough to publicly misinterpret long enough to attract some unwise investors into impulsively tossing their money away at this company in time for the company to close its doors and stop operating at a realized profit — and yes, halting operations after absorbing free bags of stupid money (as opposed to smart money mentioned above) is a business model, though it’s a swindle, not a productive interprise.

This certainly appears to be a stunt that the media is trumpeting out of sheer hope, not based on concrete and promising data. I hope that AIDS gets eradicated; further, I hope that I can profit from that eradication. I’m happy either way, but something nobody is going to stand by (at least not me) for is to see AIDS get eradicated and the people responsible for the work behind it to get nothing but a smirk, a smile, or robbed in return.