Hey Renn! - Computer Programming and Network Engineering

Why the heck are we still depending on usernames and passwords?

2008-03-24T03:43:46Z

We've heard it day-in and day-out: it's Web 2.0; the age of AJAX and the mobile desktop. We're moving into the future; plain 'ole hypertext is a think of the past. But with all the things moving into the future, why the heck are we still logging into websites like we were since the dawn of the web?

We went from text-only interfaces to full multimedia content; to flash applications and Java applets... you'd think we could have progressed in the realm of authentication technology.

I can't even begin to tell you how annoying it's become to log into my favorite websites every single time. Sure, I use cookies just like everyone else does, but on the occasion I'd get logged out, and then it's the game of geez, which password did I use again?

If you're like me, you've got about four levels of passwords: there's that special, short, throwaway password you use for sites you don't care about that make you register (I most certainly will be touching on that concept in a future post); there's the bit-more-secure password you use for most of the sites you visit, forums, and the like; there's the password you use for your e-mail account, which is significantly more secure; finally there's the password for your bank account(s), PayPal, etc. Obviously, for forums I administer, or have more than regular member access on, I use a different password. My servers all use different (and fairly complex) passwords, too, but in general terms, you can shove my usage into the four categories. Not only is this method terribly insecure (if someone were to phish my easy password, they could potentially be able to access all of my accounts on that security level), but also extremely inefficient. Forgotten passwords are the number one more frustrating thing for most users.

Registering for sites is also a pain; it's always the same thing: request username, enter password, enter e-mail; verify e-mail address, activate account, start posting / access content. Why do I have to keep doing this every single time I want to establish an account on a website? There has to be a better way.

And thankfully, there is; the only problem is, no one uses it.

Actually, there are several solutions, each with their own advantages and disadvantages. My favorite, and the one I see as having the most potential, is Microsoft's CardSpace. CardSpace basically works on the concept of virtual identity cards, much like the cards in your wallet would be used to establish identity. Microsoft even made a user interface specifically to emulate the look of "cards". This works psychologically: much like you can recognize your wallet by opening it, you can recognize the CardSpace UI, and the cards in it. This prevents phishing through familiarity, where anything missing (or anything additional) would alert the user that something is amiss.

There are two kinds of identity cards you can have in CardSpace: self-issued cards, or managed cards. Self-issued cards are ones you create yourself. These would take the place of the standard registration template. Sites would request a card, and you can send them a self-issued card with only the fields you want sent (most self-issued cards can contain information like address, phone number, etc., but you wouldn't want to send that data to most places). Voila, you're registered! Future visits to that site would just authenticate using the same card.

Managed cards are a bit more complex. These cards would be "issued" by an authoritative organization, such as a bank, a government, or a workplace. These cards would contain additional information (such as employee ID, driver's license number, etc.), and can be used to log into those respective networks. But these cards also have some other abilities. Take, for example, a managed card issued by a financial institution, such as American Express. When you go to purchase something, instead of filling out all that information, like every other time, you can send the site your American Express card. This card would be signed with a special token, that would then be used to charge your actual card. It would be a one-time use token, authenticated by you and American Express, so not only does the site you're buying from not get your credit card number (only a one-time use token), they can be absolutely sure that it belongs to the person sending it (unless their computer got compromised; but that's a different topic for another day).

I love this technology. Best of all, it's available now, and it's available with every version of Windows after XP SP2. The browser plugin only works in IE, but there's one available for FireFox. There's even an implementation for Linux that's fully-functional.

So why don't people use this?

I'm guilty of not using it for my sites too. I think it's because it's confusing for most people. Most people have never even heard of CardSpace, let alone have used it. I doubt most people even understand how the technology works.

I think that a major push in this area is required. Rolling out this technology on sites all over the world will create that familiarity that people need in order to become comfortable with an identity system. If the big sites start implementing it, the smaller sites will follow. I have heard rumors that Windows Live is going to be using CardSpace soon, so that will definitely create a precedent for other sites to begin using the technology as well. CardSpace is an ingenious solution in this world of "Web 2.0", where we need a system of federated identity. It is absolutely critical that we move away from traditional authentication systems; they're old and fundamentally broken.

So what does the next decade hold?

2008-03-16T06:10:45Z

The sun of early morning softly warms your face as you and your companions make your way through the silent forest ever so carefully. The silence is a welcome change from the previous day, where one of your party members, a stout and annoying dwarf, wouldn't stop making distasteful jokes.

You casually glance over at him. His features are stern and focused, which is odd, even for him -- especially out of combat.

"Gyran, you're not very talkative," you say to him, half curious of his demeanor this morning.

"Don't encourage him," scoffs your other companion, a lude and faithless mercenary by the name of Dagon.

"Something's not right," the dwarf replies, ignoring the mercenary's quip. "I can't place it."

Suddenly, a sharp sound. Dagon motions for everyone to take cover as he slowly unsheaths his sword.

You settle behind a bush and eye the distance. You see Dagon moving out, slowly, in an attempt to investigate.

"That idiot," you say under your breath. "Where's he going?"

An arrow whizzes past Dagon's head, narrowly missing. He falls flat on the ground and rolls to the side. Three armed men appear: two with swords and one with bow and arrow. The dwarf rushes out to engage them.

"Damn it!" you mutter. You've surrounded yourself with fools.

Both Dagon and Gyran swing their swords high and low, parrying the blows from the two armed strangers. The third, with the bow, stands back and watches. Now you have your target.

Before you can react, however, a fourth stranger assaults you from your flank, pushing you on the ground. He holds his sword high and prepares to swing. You gesture as he executes the blow. His blade glances off the air a few feet above your head. Your next gesture sends him flying backward, his surcoat set aflame.

You turn your attention to the man with the bow, but before you could act, a beeping noise interrupts your thoughts. It's your phone, reminding you of your date.

"Pause game!" you shout. The action freezes. The sounds of battle stop. You look out to the assailants engaging your companions: one of them is mid-air, clearly the result of a strong push by Dagon. The other is parrying a blow made by Gyran. You begin walking towards your companions, who ask you what's going on.

"It's time for my date," you explain. "Sorry. We should save here and get back to it tomorrow."

"Sounds good," says Gyron, who in reality is a friend of yours from work, and who isn't really a dwarf but a six-foot tall, thin mechanical engineer.

You bid them farewell before issuing a command. You open your eyes and find yourself on your bed in your apartment. You remove the electrodes from your head and walk over to the bathroom -- it's time to get ready.

Does this story seem far-fetched? According to Ray Kurzweil, leading inventor and futurist, it isn't. In his video at the TED conference in 2005, he discusses how technology will transform us in the next couple of decades. He postulates that by the mid 2020s, we will have mastered how the human brain functions, allowing us to create fully-immersive experiences, such as what I just described above. While the example I described is clearly an exploration of its entertainment value, the applications of such a technology are well near limitless. There would be no need to continue commuting to work, for example, when you can just enter a virtual office from home. The possibilities are so exciting and amazing.

He also goes on to say that by the mid teens (circa 2015), we will have been able to almost perfect artificial intelligence (the date he gives for full turing-complete AI is in the early 2020s), which in and of itself will lead to some fascinating developments in assisting us in our needs.

If he's right in his predictions (he's been right before, which should say something about how accurate he is), I have to say that I will be excited for that day, and I will be lucky to live to see those kinds of developments.

These sort of technologies are not without some concern, however. A fully-immersive world will no doubt change a lot of the ways we live in our less-than-perfect "real" world. Large population centers would no longer be necessary, as most people wouldn't have to live near their jobs anymore. Material things, such as nice clothes, cool gadgets, big houses, fast cars, and that sort of thing would become a thing of the past; you could have all you wanted in this "fake" world.

But is that better?

Escaping reality by drowning onesself in a fake world is not necessarily a solution to the problems one may have, or the problems society may have; however, if one looks at the sole purpose of "living", from a non-religious standpoint (and perhaps with a capitalist spin on it), one's sole purpose is to achieve wealth and live a life of doing whatever one wants. You could have both of these in this world without any work whatsoever.

Artifical intelligence also brings a whole new aspect into this world, especially if it's turing-complete -- which is to say, a human being cannot tell if it is communicating with a machine or another human. With a full range of emotions, needs and wants, etc., an AI would in essence "be a human". This may be disconcerting to some (I think it's pretty darn cool), but it also poses the question of whether or not an AI deserves recognition as a sentient being. Star Trek and other sci-fi shows explored the concept of recognizing AI rights, but it was largely a postulation of what it might be like. I believe if Kurzweil is right about what the future holds for us, we'll actually see the beginnings of such a question (though, he predicts that it will only be in the latter part of this century where it actually becomes recognized -- i.e., robots achieve recognition as sentient beings).

What makes Kurzweil far more convincing than other futurists, is his use of scientific data in his calculations. For example, he notes that his predictions on a paradigm shift in processor models happening in the mid to late teens is because of his analysis of Moore's law. He believes (and so do many others) that Moore's law will only hold up so long, because transistors can only get so small before they become so small you can't make them work anymore. He believes that the paradigm will shift soon.

"Moore's Law of Integrated Circuits was not the first, but the fifth paradigm to forecast accelerating price-performance ratios. Computing devices have been consistently multiplying in power (per unit of time) from the mechanical calculating devices used in the 1890 U.S. Census, to [Heath] Robinson" machine that cracked the Nazi code, to the CBS vacuum tube computer that predicted the election of Eisenhower, to the transistor-based machines used in the first space launches, to the integrated-circuit-based personal computer." (Source)

In other words, Kurzweil thinks that something will come to replace the integrated circuit in the next decade or so, based on the mathematical models he's observed. In his presentation (linked above), he talks about a lot more things, too, but he doesn't make his predictions based on what he'd like them to be; he talks about models he's deduced from data, and all of the models he's analyzed seem to say that technology is exponentially becoming more and more advanced. He's underlined this point by saying it took over half a century to fully adopt the telephone. The cell phone was adopted to almost universal use over the course of ten years, and there are now more mobile phones in use worldwide than landlines (2.68bn vs. 1.27bn) (Source).

Whether or not these advances will come to pass, I believe the next thirty years will be very exciting indeed. We will be exploring and achieving things that we never thought to be possible today, just like in the 50s, when people had no idea we would have what we have today.

Case sensitivity isn't a problem in 2008

2008-03-14T10:52:06Z

Jeff Atwood wrote a while ago about the supposed evils of case sensitivity in modern programming languages, such as C#, Python, and PHP.

On one level, he's absolutely right about the messiness of case-sensitivity: it requires a lot more concentration to program than it would if identifiers were case-insensitive (like Visual Basic).

However, the same could be said for long identifiers. Up until recently, using char* lname was much more acceptable than char* lastName, and this was done for a number of reasons -- mostly brevity and speed.

But as applications and their codebases became increasingly complex, and the understanding of said code was more important than the speed at which it was written, we started to implement some rules. The only issue with this is, is now there are a lot more places where programmers can disagree on what is right and what is wrong. Regardless, most programmers tend to agree that variable names should reflect what is stored in the variable, even if that means writing isAutoCompleteEnabled instead of auto_en. The side effect of this is that now you have to type more.

What solution did most IDEs implement? Type-as-you-go auto-completion. This was a feature I loathed when it first came out. It was distracting and seemingly unnecessary. We've had auto-complete for a while, when it came to member completion and function tips; that of course didn't bother me at all... but that box popping up every time I typed was annoying.

I soon learned I was wrong, however. I became more comfortable with using longer identifiers, because I wouldn't have to type the whole thing every time. Now typing something as simple as

private void Foo(string bar)

became as easy as typing

pr voi Foo(str bar)

. This is exactly why case sensitivity no longer matters. Auto-complete eliminates the need to be 100% accurate in your casing. Just type the first few letters of your identifier and hit space (or tab).

I still believe case sensitivity is terribly important, and that's for a number of reasons. One is the use of constants. A constant is typically IN_ALL_CAPS with underscores for spaces; however, constants consisting of a single word are common. Take the following example:

private const double DELTA = 1.112; /* Code */ private void ComputeMouseMove(Point current, Point start) { Point delta = start - current; }

We can immediately see the problem. Whatever we use the constant DELTA for doesn't matter; the fact is, we cannot use any other variable called delta anymore for fear of shadowing the constant. With case sensitivity, this no longer is an issue.

Another example of where case sensitivity is important is during the use of private fields and public properties of a class. There are a number of schools of thought on how this should be handled. The three most popular ones are: prefixing your field with an underscore, such as _enabled. This is my preference for the most part. Another is prefixing your field with m_, such as m_enabled. Finally, there is simply naming your field, such as enabled with no identification. While this can conflict with variable names called enable in the local scope of a function, people who use this method do not object to implicit shadowing, and know they can access the class field by using this.enabled.

Let's take the final example and use it to construct a property:

private bool enabled; public bool Enabled { get { return enabled; } set { enabled = value; } }

In this example, case is extremely important, as it allows us to use both enabled and Enabled without conflict.

Because of type-as-you-go auto-completion, case sensitivity is no longer tedious, and allows for programmers to be able to leverage the flexibility and versatile nature of a case sensitive language, such as C# or C++, without worrying about messing up variables, such as SignOn and Signon.

Why Apple's elitism and obsession with control is hurting them

2008-03-13T09:52:58Z

Up until recently, I've been a Windows user, solely. I avoided Linux like the plague (as a workstation operating system), because it still has a long way to go before I consider it anywhere close to acceptable. My friend and business partner, Jeff Wilson, put himself on a trial -- set up Ubuntu Linux and embark on a 30 day no-Windows journey. His criteria: get it up and running with all of his hardware (which isn't anything special; he had a standard on-board sound card, WiFi, LAN, and a SATA hard drive). He also wanted to get WINE up and running so he could play World of Warcraft.

The end result? Failure. He ran into several snags, and it took him days to get it even "sort of" set up to the point where he could run World of Warcraft. And he's not an idiot; he's a computer scientist with extensive experience with Unix operating systems, and a lot of programming experience.

First there were wireless problems, and then sound was a major snag; it just wouldn't start working. Drivers here and there; this patchy solution and that patchy solution. Finally he got it to work after a couple of days.

Slowly, WoW came online, and then there were problems with Ventrillo.

Ultimately, he gave up. It was just too much trouble. I don't see how Linux can be pushed as a consumer operating system when it doesn't just work. Some setup, I suppose, is acceptable (though, not even Windows really requires any sort of setup to get working... just install and then run Windows Update), but almost a week of problem after problem? No way.

Anyway, my bashing of Linux shall be saved for another day. This article isn't about that. NB: I respect Linux as a viable server OS, and I use it on some of my servers (though most of my servers run FreeBSD). I encuraged him to write about his experiences, and he simply said, "It was an epic failure."

Though, he's assured me, he'll put something up. At that point I'll write about my experiences as well, and why I feel that it's totally not ready for the mainstream.

If you asked me a year ago what my view on Apple and the Macintosh platform was, I would have told you, in no uncertain terms, why they were the epitome of evil. It was a knee-jerk reaction, naturally, being a Microsoft supporter for the majority of my life, and not really using anything else as a day-to-day operating system. It was wrong, and I see that now.

About a year ago, I was in need of a laptop. I searched high and low, and none of them had what I wanted: compact form-factor, good battery life, and no hassle. All I needed it for was word processing and basic internet usage, and I couldn't find anything that was exactly what I wanted. So, my friend suggested to me a Mac laptop, and I scoffed at him at first, but he's been chipping away at me over the past year or so, saying how awesome Apple is and stuff like that... so I decided to try one at Fry's, just so I could tell him that I tried one and he'd get off my back.

My try with the laptop was pretty good, so I decided to take it for a test-drive. I could always return it if I didn't like it.

Needless to say, I still have it. It's a great product. Shit just works, and I don't have to mess with this setting, or that setting, etc. After years of using Windows, I realized why people like Macs. Obviously, I could never give up my Windows, because while I think that Windows is inferior in many aspects, OS X has its own set of problems. Not to mention, OS X doesn't support a lot of the games I like to play; additionally, it doesn't have Visual Studio, and regardless of how much I like Apple now, I can't give up my .Net platform.

My experience has been mostly positive. I use my Mac when I'm away, or in class, or doing things which don't require my 17" monster Alienware laptop. I use my desktop when I'm programming, or playing some Steam game, etc.

Not long afterward, I bought an iPhone, because it's just so cool. I'm very happy with the phone, though there have been some quirks, like with any first generation product, but overall it's been a great experience.

But underneath all this Apple-love, there's something sinister. Something with Apple isn't quite right. They released their SDK for the iPhone (only after lots and lots of protesting from people, by the way), but there are lots of restrictions, causing some to criticize Apple's tactics.

A few issues are major problems in my eyes:

Apple controls what applications are allowed to be installed via its AppStore, exclusively;
Apple reserves the right to ban certain applications for being illegal, malicious, unforeseen, privacy concerns, pornography-related, or bandwidth hogs;
Commercial applications must be sold via the AppStore, and Apple takes a 30% cut;
Applications are not allowed to implement a plugin architecture;
Applications may not be allowed to run as a background process;
Battery-intensive or CPU intensive applications may not be allowed by Apple.

Apple puts themselves as the gatekeepers in what is allowed on the phone. They reserve the right to say what can and cannot be allowed on the phone. They automatically insert themselves as the middle-man in transactions. They restrict background processes, which are sort of important to a lot of people. I also have a problem figuring out with with what they mean by "unforeseen"...

Apple and Jobs want to "protect" people from bad experiences with software, hence their efforts to curtail what can and cannot be done. Jobs didn't want to implement Flash for the iPhone because he believes Adobe has allowed Flash to become "too bloated". Flash is an important aspect of the Internet, and as much as Jobs doesn't like Flash (don't get me wrong, I don't like it either...), he shouldn't be able to tell me what I can and cannot put on my phone. It's just absolutely ridiculous.

I understand it's their product, but it's my phone. When I buy a car, I can do whatever I want with it (within applicable laws), and the manufacturer can't do shit. Why is Apple allowed all this power? Their elitism is destroying what respect I have for them.

I was discussing this issue with my friend, who works for Apple, and he disagreed with me on any number of terms. That doesn't surprise me, nor should it anyone else. Most people who've grown up with Apple and started on Macs, and are big fans of the company, are perfectly fine with being told what's good and bad, and submitting themselves to the "protective shield" of Apple. Much like a partisan can be blinded by his or her political party, willfully ignoring the weaknesses of his/her own party, or the strengths of the opposing party, Apple fans have allowed themselves to be blinded.

Discovering Apple, and using their products, has allowed me to see the problems I had in my blind love of Microsoft. I realized that I was wrong in a lot of respects. But, I'm not blinded by a love of Apple either, which means I am, finally, for the first time in my life, at the very center of the Mac/Windows religious wars. I am finally afforded a glimpse into the the flaws and superiorities of both Windows and OS X. I think this has given me a unique perspective on all these things: they all suck. Okay, maybe that's not a unique perspective, but it's unique to me, because I think it allows me to make better decisions on what I think about things.

A major put-off when it comes to Apple in the eyes of the PC community is the company's elitism, and the snobiness and hypocracy of their followers. That's a stereotype to be sure, but it's fuled by a lot of Apple users I've encountered over the years. I admit that I wasn't too cordial to them either, but I can admit that I've made a mistake. I don't think many of them can.

Their hypocracy stems from the fact that everyone complained, including Apple (both the company and their fans), that Microsoft bundling so much software with its system is anti-competitive: IE, FrontPage Express, Works for Windows, Windows Media Player, etc. FrontPage Express was removed, and so was Works. Windows Media Player is no longer available in Europe. IE can now be uninstalled. What about Apple, though? Safari, iWeb, Pages, iTunes... and then of course iDVD, GarageBand, iPhoto and a slew of other applications. Where's the outcry? Nowhere.

It's okay if Apple does it, but God help you if you're Microsoft.

Using the excuse of "but Microsoft is bigger, and own more marketshare than Apple" is hypocritical. I don't care if they do; you said it was wrong for MS to do it, so it's wrong for Apple to do it. Period. Not to mention, Apple causes more vendor lock-in than Microsoft does. But that's okay too, because it's Apple.

I like Apple, and I want them to succeed. I like Microsoft, and I want them to succeed. I'm excited for the next generation iPhone, and I'm excited for Windows 7.

I don't like Apple's hypocracy though. I don't like being told what I should and should not have on hardware I paid for. I don't want to be "protected" by "Almighty Jobs". I want my Flash, I want my Java, and I want free reign on a piece of hardware I spent almost $500 on. This is not a lease; this piece of aluminum and plastic was not licensed to me. It's not software, either.

I hope that the more users Apple picks up, many of them being PC people that are drawn in by amazing gadgets such as the iPhone, the more Apple will be forced to do the right thing. There are a lot of Apple fans who think Apple can do-no-evil, but soon there will be a lot more "casual" Apple customers, and then perhaps Jobs' elitism, and his company's elitism, won't be so off-putting.

Otherwise, other companies are going to step up and begin innovating on the mobile platform. Apple opened the door to other manufacturers finally being able to not be quite so controlled by the networks, and soon we'll see some amazing things out of places like Nokia, Sony, and Motorola.

If Apple doesn't stop soon, they'll lose the customer base they helped build.

Of course, if you talk to any Apple fan, they won't seem to have a problem with that. "Apple's not about lots of customers. We're not like PC users," one of them said to me. "We know what's good, and we'll stick with Apple no matter what. If you want something less than superior, you can go somewhere else. Apple doesn't need those people anyway."

Beware this eBay scam

2008-03-11T13:14:32Z

I can't say I've actually been specifically targeted for a scam before, so I didn't actually know how it worked, but recently I was "lucky" enough to find out first hand.

I put up a listing for my Alienware laptop, which I want to sell so I can buy a new one. It's in very good condition, and decently powerful and customized from its stock model, so I put up the starting bid at $850, and put up a buy-it-now at $1000, hoping someone would acknowledge the deal and buy it. Bear in mind I bought it for nearly 3k, so selling it for 1/3 the original price is generous, to say the least.

I was surprised when it was purchased 4 hours later, and I was very happy. I sent out the invoice, thanked the buyer, and awaited payment, while I planned out what I was going to do with the laptop to get it ready (wipe drives, format, install stock OS, etc).

About an hour later, I receive a notice from eBay saying my listing was cancelled because the buyer's account was accessed fraudulently.

Damn it, I thought. I can't catch a break; now I have to relist it.

I decided to wait until I got back to my house before I did it, since when eBay cancels a listing, it's totally deleted, and there's no "relist" option, and I didn't want to start writing everything from scratch (at home I used Turbo Lister, which I figured saves my listing for easy re-use). Not long after I received the cancellation notification, I got an e-mail from PayPal, saying that some $1000 (+ what I assumed was for shipping) had been transferred to my account. I also received an e-mail from the buyer, telling me payment was sent and that I should ship the laptop to "her friend who is graduating in Nigeria".

Uh oh.

If the fact that eBay cancelled the listing hadn't already raised a red flag, the fact that the thing was supposed to go to Nigeria should have.

I logged into my PayPal account to check for the grand, which I was going to return since I assumed that the person was using a compromised PayPal account. After I logged in, I see no money. Hmph... but I thought they sent me money... ?

I check the e-mail more closely. Towards the bottom it says something along the lines of, "your payment will be held in a secure account until we receive confirmation that the item has shipped. This is to protect the buyer, blah blah"

Yeah, PayPal doesn't do that. Not to mention there were a couple of spelling/grammar errors in the instructions on what to do next.

Checking the e-mail headers, it turns out the message came from a gmail account.

I was just about to go forward it to PayPal's fraud department when ping! another e-mail. This time from eBay, telling me that the listing cancellation was a "mistake" and that I should feel free to continue the transaction. It made mention of a "data base error 903", which completely doesn't make any sense... plus, hasn't "database" been one word since the 80s?

So after contacting eBay's fraud department, PayPal's fraud department, and Google's mail abuse team, I sent the "buyer" a nice note, which, in so many words, said something to the effect of, "over my dead body you'll get the laptop". I also pointed out to him/her that he/she is a douchebag and should be subjected to no uncertain pain, both physical and existential.

Afterward, "she" threatened me with calling the police if I don't ship the item.

Yeah, 'cause even if you had cause, you'd call the police in Nigeria?

So, be aware of these kinds of things. The e-mails I got looked official. In fact, I had to do a double-take, since I half-believed them... It looks like these guys are after expensive commodities, and they'll use phished accounts to do it. Make sure you always get your money before you ship, and that you ship to the buyer's verified address ONLY.

Now I have to re-list the item... at least eBay's going to refund me the listing fees.

Why I envy the next generation

2007-12-13T09:08:43Z

This past decade has been an exciting time to live. I'm speaking strictly about technology, and about the advances we made in the past ten years. Not everything is worth praising, but most of it is pretty noteworthy.

We saw what was originally a small network developed by ARPA flourish into the immense interconnection of computer systems known as the Internet, and how it has become a staple of the worldwide culture.

We saw the coming of the first of the 3D engines, and the debut of the titles that would define an entire generation of gamers: Half-Life, Quake, Counter-Strike, and Unreal Tournament, just to name a few. In 1997, we barely had 3D cards, let alone an engine that could harness that sort of power. Now, it's become second nature. What do you think people in 1997 would have thought we would see in 2007? In those days, it was news that Microsoft purchased $150 million in shares from Apple Computer, to save them from bankruptcy, and when the term weblog was coined by Jorn Barger.

We saw the coming of cellular phones, and devices that give us the Internet in the palm of our hand, wherever we may walk. We saw the dawn of satellite TV, hybrid cars, the popularization of "broadband internet", Skype and other voice-over-IP technologies, high-definition video, proximity authentication technology, MP3s, and USB thumbdrives. And let's not forget the iPod or the iPhone.

We saw many things, and will see many things. Automation of every-day things is becoming more and more of an important thing. We've already seen the beginnings of a complete transition to a cashless society (I use my check card all the time). We've already seen the dawn of fiber internet in our own homes (a la Verizon FiOS). We've already seen robots that can balance, and some others that can walk. How far away are we from artifical intelligence, at least to the extent where robots can learn to do basic tasks, and also learn from their mistakes? We're working on it.

I was driving away from a Best Buy the other day when I saw some kids walking to their mother's car; under their arm was an X-Box 360. They couldn't have been older than nine or ten (and one of them was holding a cell phone), but it made me think -- they don't remember what it was like. I lived through a time when cell phones were bricks, and the fastest computer around was an Apple II. I remember doing logo-writer on an old Apple in 2nd grade. I also remember when I got my first computer, and how happy I was -- it was a 486. I got my first cell phone when I started driving -- sophomore year in high school. I was 16, and it was 2002. Now I have an iPhone, and I couldn't live without it. What did people do before they could call people wherever they were? I don't remember, for sure.

But those other kids never knew.

I don't envy the next generation's ignorance of what it was like in 1996, just as those who lived through the 1970s when there were barely calculators, let alone iPods, don't envy our ignorance of those days; but I do envy what they will get to see after I'm dead.

Our generation, those born in the 80s, up till the mid 90s, will be ones shepherding in the technology that will skyrocket when we're off watching the sun set over our lives.

What possibilities does the future hold? 3D holographic user interfaces? Matrix-esque connections to a world-wide Internet? Or maybe more like the stuff in Neuromancer (electrodes; nothing too invasive)? Newspapers being sold on flexible sheets of plastic that are animated and searchable? Buying stuff with a thumbprint read, a prox card, or a retinal scan? Cars that run on fuel cells, that navigate based on sensors embedded into every inch of the road in large metropolitan areas, completely eliminating not only the need to actually drive, but the whole idea of traffic altogether?

I know I won't live to see a lot, if any, of that. That's why I envy the next generation. Those kids with the 360 walking to their car, and their kids, will be the ones who really know.

We're making advances in technology every year, so I hope I get to see some of the stuff that's slated for the future. Only time will tell.

In the meantime, I'll sit on my "old" Pentium D computer, typing away at my blog, with technology that will be obsolete in a few years, trying to keep up with change. And when I'm old, white-bearded, and wise beyond my years, I can look back at 2007 the way I look back at 1996 now, and smile fondly. I'll give a knowing wink to my grandchildren, and say with a chuckle, "those were the days".

Eidos Montreal to produce Deus Ex 3

2007-12-04T04:49:46Z

I was very pleased to read that a few months ago (yeah, I'm a bit behind), the new Montreal division of Eidos will be producing the third installment of the award-winning FPS-RPG, Deus Ex. If you've never played this exciting title, I highly suggest that you do. The graphics engine is a bit dated, but I don't think you'll be disappointed... unless you don't like RPG-type games with a storyline.

Remember, though -- Deus Ex isn't an RPG per se; it's an FPS/RPG -- that is, it's a first-person shooter, RPG-style. Thus, it has FPS gameplay elements, as well as environment interactivity, making it a hybrid.

It's still one of the best storylines for a computer game that I've ever encountered. The world has huge lore attached to it, and the developers left a nice big chunks of story in the off-the-wall newspapers, character dialog, and datacubes (what are basically equivalent to sticky-notes in the game) that you encounter throughout the world.

While its sequel, Deus Ex: Invisible War, was a bit of a disappointment, it wasn't a title that I wouldn't recommend at least playing once, even if you do you have to use less-than-ethical methods of obtaining it. I won't link to that kind of stuff here, but you know what I mean.

While neither of the original authors of Deus Ex, Warren Spector and Harvey Smith, are involved, the teaser trailer, that was just recently released, gives an interesting glimpse into the world that will be DX:3. As of a couple of days ago, the game just passed its proof of concept stage, which means it's now going into active development. I hope to see something by this time next year.

Here's to another great game in the Deus Ex franchise. This one, I hope, will be better than #2. I have confidence, though, because the ambition of the new Eidos Montreal studio is inspiring.

Hey, can I get some documentation please?

2007-11-29T06:56:29Z

Well, the production cycle has ended, Thanksgiving vacation is over, and I have emerged, triumphantly, as a man with a bit more free time than before.

Though, not for long.

But! In the meantime, when I'm not doing stuff for school or producing projects, I am working on finally putting a vision into reality: a game that draws on strategy, that's not graphics-intensive, that's fairly easy to create, and catchy enough to attract an audience. I'd say more about it, but I want to get something more than the basic framework before I do, just in case this turns into vaporware.

Anyway, so I started researching, over Thanksgiving break, how I'm going to do this, both UI-wise and backend-wise. I was going to use my multi-socket library (I'll release it at some point here, so people can use it for their own stuff), which is a very nice multi-threaded library that uses binary communication for everything. It works, but the problem is, it's going to take a significant amount of programming to get the backend up and running just the way I want it.

So, I looked for alternatives. Something good, not web-servicey, or easy-to-hax. I looked at the old .Net remoting by way of RPC, but I figured that's probably not a good way of doing things. RPC is pretty old, and has plenty of security issues to boot. I finally stumbled upon the Windows Communication Foundation and the stuff you can do with it. Neat! I thought. I've always been a fan of the way remoting does things -- calling a function on the client side and having it seamlessly do stuff on the server side -- but I've never been too keen on the way it operates. WCF saves the day, though, because it has sessions and streams, and callbacks -- three things the traditional remoting model lacked.

But now there was only one problem.

There is no fucking documentation. Sure, a search for WCF will yield results, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about useful pages, that don't just talk about using HTML and SOAP. If I wanted HTML and SOAP implementations of WCF, I'd use a damned web service. Okay, I get that they're not the same; my point is I don't want that. I want a TCP connection; a stream that can be used to pass data back and forth. Why does no one else want that?

Well finally, finally, I forraged through enough webspace to get a basic idea of using WCF through TCP/IP. I'm currently writing an article on how to do it, and will post it over to Matt's new site (which I'll write about in length once it officially launches beta). In the meantime, I'm just working, and it's slowly coming along. There are some things I want to take a look at, in terms of WCF, like peer-to-peer TCP, that's implemented as well. I'm afraid, though; it took me this long to find stuff out about regular TCP WCF... I fear what may come if I navigate away to the land of peer-to-peer... though, it is tempting. It's nothing short of awesome, what's been implemented.

I will be releasing the multi-threaded sockets implementation. Watch the "Projects" link on the right if you want it. I have to clean some of the code up, though, because it bears a striking similarity to this fine piece of code:

private delegate void ___UpdateProgress(string newProgress); private delegate void ___IncrementProgressBar(); private delegate void ___ImportDone(); private delegate DialogResult ___RetryRead(string fileName); private delegate void ___ResetProgress(); private ___IncrementProgressBar __IncrementProgressBar; private ___UpdateProgress __UpdateProgress; private ___ImportDone __ImportDone; private ___RetryRead __RetryRead; private ___ResetProgress __ResetProgress; private volatile bool cancelImport = false; private Folder parentFolder = null; public ImportForm(Folder parentFolder, StringCollection selectedFiles) : this(parentFolder) { // Automatically place the files into the import dialog foreach (string file in selectedFiles) lstImportFiles.Items.Add(file); } public ImportForm(Folder parentFolder) { InitializeComponent(); // Init delegates __IncrementProgressBar = delegate() { pbImportProgress.Value++; pbImportProgress.Refresh(); }; __UpdateProgress = delegate(string newProgress) { lblImportProgress.Text = newProgress; lblImportProgress.Refresh(); }; __ImportDone = delegate() { DialogResult = DialogResult.OK; this.Close(); }; __RetryRead = delegate(string fileName) { return MessageBox.Show(this, "Access denied reading '" + fileName + "'", "Import Error", MessageBoxButtons.AbortRetryIgnore, MessageBoxIcon.Exclamation); }; __ResetProgress = delegate() { pbImportProgress.Value = 0; pbImportProgress.Refresh(); }; this.parentFolder = parentFolder; }

Jeff always makes fun of me for my underscores.

Yeah, so I got the iPhone

2007-11-17T09:54:58Z

I decided to give my BlackBerry up for it, and I couldn't be happier. Though, I do miss the push e-mail functionality of the BB, having everything the iPhone has to offer is refreshing.

Also, hacking it to work with T-Mobile helps sell it for me :P

So, Now I'm out $400, but at least I can sell my old MP3 player (plug: buy it if you're interested xD) and my BlackBerry, which should make up for the cost (especially now that I've gotten the unlock code for my BB, so it will work on any network).

I've also installed a utility that "supposedly" mimics push e-mail support with the IMAP "IDLE" command, but it seems to be failing for me.

I'm going to debug it one of these days when I have time.

In the realm of school -- we've been shooting for the past 4 days, most of them at night (or into the night, anyway), so I've been coming home and just falling asleep. Tomorrow I have the final day of shooting at 11pm, and ending at around 9am the next morning.

It's going to be hell, but at least I get to sleep in tonight.

Speaking of sleep... later :)

Check out my Facebook gallery for pics.

Why open source zealots piss me off

2007-11-13T23:48:05Z

I was reading Slashdot today, and I found this little gem about a supposedly leaked "wishlist" of the features Microsoft is going to implement in Windows 7.

Here are just some of the wonderful new gems, according to this list, that should be in Windows 7:

Multi-monitor support for taskbars
Virtual folders / volumes
Back up X-box 360 games to PC
Infinite desktop
Option to re-open closed IE tabs

Okay, excuse me, please, but this is just stupid, and of course if you've followed any of Windows 7's development thus far, you'll understand why this list probably doesn't reflect the goals of Microsoft for its new operating system.

Oh, wait, that's right! It doesn't:

"A Windows 7 insider who wishes to remain anonymous told Ars that the leaked feature list was gathered before any real development on Windows 7 was started, and readers should not expect to see requests from the list necessarily implemented in Microsoft’s next major Windows release."

-- Ars Technica article here, emphasis mine

In fact, it goes on to say that this is a set of feature requests from current Windows users, focusing on what new things they would like to see in the new version of Windows.

Well, shit, homie. Slashdot and its not-so-intelligent user-base got it wrong again. Well, it's not so much that they got it wrong, per se, but that they completely didn't even bother to do research on the topic, and immediately responded with such comments as "half that stuff on their list is already a part of firefox and either a part of many linux distros or easily addable- what is new here exactly?", and my personal favorite:

7 Things for Windows 7

No DRM
No Bloat
No Eye Candy
No ClearType
No Authentication or WGA
No Restrictions for Video or Audio Output
No Search Indexing

I'd respond there, but I don't have a /. account, nor do I want one, because that just encourages their behavior. Let's address the things in his list, shall we?

No DRM - I'd love to, but the fact of the matter is, piracy is abundant, and there need to be methods of controlling it. It can be abused, of course (hint: RIAA and their bogus lawsuits), but DRM also helps legitimate businesses control their product from falling into a pirate's hands.
No Bloat - *cough*
No Eye Candy - You can turn it off
No ClearType - Is this seriously even on your list? You can turn it off.
No Authentication or WGA - Why not just make Windows free? I agree it's annoying, but it is like, the most pirated software product in the history of the world. I'd bet you'd love to make every piece of software in the world free, wouldn't you? *shakes head*
No Restrictions for Video or Audio Output - I'm in agreement with you here, but when you have 90% of the marketshare, Congress and lobbyists have a lot of say in what goes in your product or doesn't go in your product. Microsoft being a business will cave to the demands because, face it, they want to stay in business. Whether or not I agree with it or not, this stuff is here to stay. I would rather enjoy quality product from Microsoft with a bit of intrusive DRM than that crap-tastic UI and compilefest of Linux.
No Search Indexing - You can turn it off!

Okay, well, I feel better.

Nutjobs.

I hate open source zealots. Yes, open source does work, and there are plenty of successful and useful open source things out there, but literally all the successful ones are backed by for-profit companies that sell proprietary products.

What does that say to you?

Proprietary software is important for businesses to survive in the software market. Open source is like the "free lunch" of this world.

Though, to be fair, it's a lot more filling and lasts a lot longer than a free lunch.

The verdict is in: Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip

2007-11-08T07:42:37Z

I finished watching Studio 60 yesterday, and I have sort of a mixed reaction to it.

The pilot episode was brilliant, and I can understand why a lot of those involved in the creation of the show saw it as an incredible opportunity for a series like The West Wing, but in a different setting. Unfortunately, the second through fifth episodes (approximately) started to make the whole thing go downhill. So much so, that I started to ask myself when an episode was going to be over so I could get on with the next one.

But, I owed it to Aaron Sorkin. The man wrote what could be considered the best serialized one-hour drama of our generation, so I'm willing to listen to what he's got in store for me in his new endeavor. So, I paid attention and kept on going, and after the fifth or so episode, the show got interesting again. Of course, it had nowhere near the allure of The West Wing (and never had a chance, by the way; running a television show is nowhere near as epic as running a country), but the writing was on the level, and that was refreshing. Overall, the show was funny where it should have been, dramatic where it needed to be, and I ended up caring dearly about the characters (which is moreso an issue with TV shows than I thought it would be). I am very happy that Aaron decided to end the show with a resolution (more or less) of all the plot threads that were created over the course of the season. The ending itself was emotionally powerful, and I'm glad that it was written that way, too.

All-in-all, by itself, Studio 60 is well-written, dramatic, funny, and cinematographically pleasing. Unfortunately, because its topic is very nuanced, and the major appeal of the show is the great cast and the writing, I don't think I would be recommending the show to anyone else. In other words, the only reason I even started watching it is because it had members of the cast of The West Wing involved, was directed by Tommy Schlamme (who, by the way, is a brilliant director who is far better than any of the other "A-list" directors out there), and was written by Aaron Sorkin. Because it had the cast of The West Wing, I knew the characters would be vibrant and fantastic. Because it was directed by Tommy Schlamme, I knew I could expect the top-notch shots and angles (and that famous walk-and-talk thing) I've come to love. Because it was written by Aaron Sorkin, I knew that the dialog would be some of the best lines I've ever heard spoken aloud, and the storyline and arcs would be rich with detail and complexity.

That's why I watched the show, not because of the appeal of the genre, or the "idea" of what Studio 60 was.

Compared to The West Wing, Studio 60 cannot stand at all. It is sub-par in almost all aspects except cinematography and acting. Not even the dialog can quite compare to the witty banter exchanged in the halls of the White House.

I have faith in Aaron Sorkin, however. I know he's capable of something extraordinary, and I look forward to what he has in store for me next. Unfortunately, I have to say, that the Studio 60 experiment had failed. And it is with a heavy heart that I had to come to that conclusion.

I fear, though, that it's very difficult to come up with something quite as epic as the idea of walking the same halls as the leaders of our country; being in their shoes, and sharing their hopes and dreams. But, I look forward to the day when I can be even fractionally as satisfied by television as I was with The West Wing. Joss Whedon did it with Firefly. Can Aaron Sorkin do it with his next project?

I certainly hope so.

PS - We're shooting now. I'll have some pics up -- from the set -- soon. I'm excited to be working with the pros and learning a great deal.

BlackBerry needs a Movable Type client

2007-10-30T09:33:49Z

Seriously.

I searched on the Internet for several different clients, so I can try some micro-blogging, as suggested by my good friend and very talented programmer/sysadmin, Matt Beckman.

So guess what I found on Google when I searched for it?

That's right -- nothing! Articles about iPhone getting a Movable Type interface notwithstanding... where's my BlackBerry client?!

I tried downloading and installing Azure, a free blog client for embedded devices that support Java. Supposedly it works on BlackBerry, but it doesn't. The MT forums are no help, either... they're full of people asking the same questions as me, but as of yet, no substantive responses.

Alternatives suggested were installing a Perl script that checks a POP account for new messages and automatically adds new e-mails as entries. Of course, it doesn't support categorizing, tags, or anything else; simply subject and body. Besides the hassle of having to install a CRON job on my server to run the damn Perl script, I hate the fact that e-mail is the only method by which I can post on this thing.

So, solution search two -- WAP site. MT has to come with a WAP site (surprise, it doesn't), but since that was a long shot, I opted for third-party WAP implementations for MT. I found some, including this solution, which seems to be viable. The only problem is, most of the stuff I've read was done something like 3 - 4 years ago (the post I mention was from 2003). Why are there no recent WAP solutions for MT? Why has the MT site not listed any WAP solutions? I've searched the forums...

Am I completely missing something, or does MT not have a WAP implementation, and no one cares?