Unfortunately, I had to shut down my open wireless network experiment. That is because I found three people within the span of two days who were both (a) criminal and (b) very stupid.

One thing to remember: if you are going to use open wireless networks to download illegal things, make sure you aren’t sharing your entire hard drive in read/write mode. Not only will the person running the network get wise to you without even needing to sniff packets, they will be able to remotely eliminate your ill-gotten files before banning you from the network. If they were so inclined, they could do much worse things to you.

I suppose I could set up a captive portal system using something like ZoneCD - thus providing scope for well behaved neighbours and passers by to use the network. That would, however, require acquiring and setting up a computer between my DSL modem and WAP. Since the two are presently integrated, the expense and bother would be even greater.

As is so always the case, a few bad apples have made it necessary to discontinue a good thing.

© Milan Ilnyckyj for a sibilant intake of breath, 2008. | Permalink | 9 comments

Want more on these topics? Browse the archive of posts filed under: Daily updates, Geek stuff, Internet matters, Law, Ottawa, Security.

Search blogs linking this post with Technorati.

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 License.

All the helium on Earth arose from natural fission of uranium and thorium in the planet’s crust and mantle. We can access it only through certain natural gas deposits - many of them in Texas - which contain enough of the gas to make it possible to isolate. This is the helium of every high-voiced balloon prank, as well as of every MRI scanner and high temperature superconductor. About 1/4 of helium use is in cryogenic applications. Helium is ideal for such purposes, as it has the lowest boiling point of any known element.

What is not commonly appreciated is that, once these particular gas reserves are depleted, we will know of nowhere from which to get helium. Whatever helium is released into the atmosphere gradually rises through it, eventually drifting into interplanetary space. Despite all the helium being released by human beings, atmospheric concentrations have remained constant at around 5.2 parts per million.

We can produce minute quantities of helium through hydrogen fusion, of the kind that will eventually take place in the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, but it will not be even close to the quantity that will be required to cool the superconducting magnets that will keep the plasma inside that device contained.

It would be particularly ironic if a long-hoped-for source of renewable energy (nuclear fusion) proved impractical not because of issues associated with energy levels of plasma containment, but because we had squandered the planet’s accessible supplies of coolant.

© Milan Ilnyckyj for a sibilant intake of breath, 2008. | Permalink | 3 comments

Want more on these topics? Browse the archive of posts filed under: Economics, Geek stuff, Science, The environment.

Search blogs linking this post with Technorati.

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 License.

The people who memorize thousands of digits of pi generally strike me as more inhuman than impressive - not at such tasks does the normal human mind excel. Nonetheless, being able to recall ten digits or so might allow you to win bets at geekier parties and, if that can be achieved painlessly, it may be worth doing.

Probably the best way to do so is with mnemonic techniques. You can get fifteen digits by using the number of letters in each word of the following phrase:

How I want a drink, alcoholic of course, after the heavy lectures involving quantum mechanics!

Many other examples, including an entire sonnet, are on the Wikipedia page for Piphilology.

© Milan Ilnyckyj for a sibilant intake of breath, 2008. | Permalink | 5 comments

Want more on these topics? Browse the archive of posts filed under: Geek stuff, Science.

Search blogs linking this post with Technorati.

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 License.

Ordinarily, comic book movies are an exercise in the aggressive non-suspension of disbelief, for me. Whether internally criticizing absurd physics or ludicrous plot points, I generally entertain myself more despite them than through them. The Dark Knight was an exception.

I posit two major reasons for this. Firstly, it is a result of the character of the Batman universe. It exists at a larger scale than many fictional or comic universes and, as such, has more freedom to establish its own rules and expectations. It is much more Lord of the Rings than Spiderman, despite greater superficial similarities with the former. Gotham City simply differs enough from our world to make it a clear allegory, rather than reality with implausible supernatural additions and equally implausible smoothing over of plot progression (How do characters put things in place to appear at the middle of chaotic chase scenes? How does the Joker recruit and train people? Why can everyone use unfamiliar equipment instantly? Etc.) It takes a pretty good film to suppress such questions in my mind, and this one manages it notably well.

The second is simply that the acting and presentation are quite compelling. The over-the-top action sequences are less asinine than in many smasher films, and there are some decent character and thematic issues addressed. Probably more importantly, the film has a powerful aesthetic - one that even a fairly reluctant appreciator of alternative universes can respect. Where the later X-Men films felt tacky and emotionally overdone, the gritty and chaotic Batman style remains stubbornly consistent.

Of course, Batman’s moral code remains ludicrous. Simply refraining from actually killing people immediately and with your own hand seems like a bizarre form of self-limitation, when you are perfectly happy to set off massive explosions and otherwise indirectly kill large numbers of people. The film isn’t entirely divorced from point-scoring on contemporary political issues (such as the security value of mass surveillance), but it wears such garments in an accessory fashion, rather than serving as a vehicle for polemic.

On a side note, the film demonstrates the degree to which Hong Kong is itself an alternate universe, at least as viewed from the air. The place looks like Ghost in the Shell made flesh, and provides an almost visceral reminder of the rise of Asia - one that the upcoming Beijing Olympics will doubtless reinforce.

© Milan Ilnyckyj for a sibilant intake of breath, 2008. | Permalink | 4 comments

Want more on these topics? Browse the archive of posts filed under: Films and movies, Geek stuff.

Search blogs linking this post with Technorati.

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 License.

Al Gore recently gave a highly interesting speech on the future of energy in the United States. None of the points made in it are especially new, but he does a good job of tying together a great many important themes.

Here are some key points:

• Because of climate change, “the future of human civilization is at stake.”
• “[T]here is now a 75 percent chance that within five years the entire [Arctic] ice cap will completely disappear during the summer months. This will further increase the melting pressure on Greenland.”
• “We’re borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet. Every bit of that’s got to change… The answer is to end our reliance on carbon-based fuels.”
• Solar, wind, and geothermal are large and critical future energy sources.
• “I challenge our nation to commit to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 years.”
• “[S]harp cost reductions now beginning to take place in solar, wind, and geothermal power — coupled with the recent dramatic price increases for oil and coal — have radically changed the economics of energy.”
• The national grid must be updated to link areas rich in renewable energy to areas with high energy demand.
• Plug-in electric cars will play an important role in balancing the load on the electrical grid.
• “[W]e need to greatly improve our commitment to efficiency and conservation. That’s the best investment we can make.”
• “I have long supported a sharp reduction in payroll taxes with the difference made up in CO2 taxes. We should tax what we burn, not what we earn.”
• “[I]t is also essential that the United States rejoin the global community and lead efforts to secure an international treaty at Copenhagen in December of next year that includes a cap on CO2 emissions.”
• “[W]e must move first, because that is the key to getting others to follow; and because moving first is in our own national interest.”

The 100% target is probably not going to happen - it would require scrapping every coal, gas, and oil power plant - but it is a worthwhile aspiration nonetheless. Even getting a significant portion of the way towards that goal in the timeframe mentioned would be a huge advance.

It would be very interesting to see what role he would personally play in advancing this sort of agenda within an Obama administration. An administration that made a determined effort to implement this sort of agenda would be transformative, and could do a great deal to spur global transformation.

© Milan Ilnyckyj for a sibilant intake of breath, 2008. | Permalink | 9 comments

Want more on these topics? Browse the archive of posts filed under: Economics, Law, Politics, Science, The environment.

Search blogs linking this post with Technorati.

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 License.

I must admit, I find the ongoing debate about knives in the UK somewhat perplexing. The leader of the Conservative Party wants mandatory jail time for anyone caught carrying one. Editors at the BBC argue that the problem may be overblown. To me, it seems like what people are missing is the fundamental difference between knives and weapons. Obviously, a knife can be used as a weapon. So can a hammer, umbrella, or fork. While we rightly appreciate that it is illegitimate use of the latter that is problematic (and addressed through laws against assault, uttering threats, etc), it seems important to remember that use-as-a-weapon is aberrant, rather than to be expected.

At virtually all times, I have either one or two small folding knives on me: one on the SOG Crosscut on my keychain and a CRKT Kiss in my backpack. When I am travelling or going into the woods, I will often have a Swisstool X with me as well. Probably the most common uses of these are cutting food and paper, though each has been used in dozens of ways. Knives are ancient, highly versatile, and useful tools - one of the first technologies to differentiate the human species from less adaptive animals. Assuming that I am carrying either as a weapon strikes me as unfair, as well as a reversal of the presumption of innocence. The onus must be on the authorities to prove malicious intent, rather than upon the individual to prove their intentions benign.

On a side note, all of this is very different for guns, particularly handguns. The only plausible use for a handgun is as a weapon. One never goes on a picnic and regrets the lack of one. Restricting the ownership and carrying of guns is an entirely reasonable restriction, as a manifestation of their nature.

© Milan Ilnyckyj for a sibilant intake of breath, 2008. | Permalink | 8 comments

Want more on these topics? Browse the archive of posts filed under: Law, Politics, Rants, Security, The outdoors.

Search blogs linking this post with Technorati.

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 License.

The comic in the July 12th issue of The Economist is quite a good one. It shows an American eagle, mouth crammed with cigarettes and a cigarette package labelled ‘Greenhouse’ in its talon, telling a tiger labelled ‘India’ and a dragon labelled ‘China’ that it is: “Time to cut back.” Both the tiger and the dragon also have mouths and fists crammed with smokes.

The tiger says to the dragon: “He wants us to follow his lead.” To which the dragon replies: “That’s what we have been doing.”

It does a good job of encapsulating the whole “you developed in a dirty way so we have the same right” argument, as well as the poisonous “there is no point in acting ourselves if other big emitters won’t do so” argument. The best answer to all this is:

1. The developed world does owe some assistance to the developing world, largely on the basis of the effects the latter will suffer because of the past emissions of the former.
2. Developing countries have an excellent opportunity to carry out the process of development in a more sustainable way than has been employed elsewhere.
3. Cutting back on fossil fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions is a temporary sacrifice, but a long-term boon. In the end, it will be the societies that do the best job of transitioning to a low-carbon future that will be the most successful in decades and centuries ahead.

Hopefully, the basic truth of those positions will be able to carry through into the ongoing global negotiations and we will have something big and meaningful to show for it at COP-15 in Copenhagen next year.

© Milan Ilnyckyj for a sibilant intake of breath, 2008. | Permalink | One comment

Want more on these topics? Browse the archive of posts filed under: Economics, Politics, The environment.

Search blogs linking this post with Technorati.

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 License.

This morning, Emily, my mother, and I all woke to what sounded like somebody upstairs using a jackhammer on a hardwood floor. The whole house was vibrating, saturated with squealing and rattling noises.

A few minutes of pyjama-clad inquiries led me to the neighbour involved with the noise: “Oh, we’re just cutting some beams in the basement.”

Brain-thoughts, at that moment: “First thing in the morning? On a Saturday? With what sounds like an misfiring chainsaw?”

Promises of ‘just a few more minutes’ secured, back-to-bed trundling.

Brain-thoughts, just before returning to sleep: “Those aren’t the beams holding up this building, are they?”

Oh, it is too hot here…

© Milan Ilnyckyj for a sibilant intake of breath, 2008. | Permalink | One comment

Want more on these topics? Browse the archive of posts filed under: Canada, Ottawa, Rants.

Search blogs linking this post with Technorati.

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 License.

One of the most active debates within the environmental community is how much of our energy we should be getting from renewable sources in the near to medium-term. There are those who assert that it is too scarce or intermittent to provide more than a small share, thus making things like nuclear fission and carbon capture and storage necessary. Then, there are those who assert that with more efficiency and a better grid, we can move to a renewable-dominated grid within the next few decades.

Ultimately, it seems important to remember that the only real questions on renewables are ‘which ones’ and ‘when.’ By definition, we cannot keep using any other kind of power indefinitely. Furthermore, there is good reason to believe that renewables will soon be a more desirable option overall, even when fuel scarcity and climate change are not taken into account. Both questions have their technical sides: the relative appeal of different options depends on technology, funding issues, and physical circumstances. Both questions also raise issues of preferences and fairness.

Yes, there is a danger of moving too quickly and suffering from early adoption problems and the later emergence of superior technology. There is also, of course, a danger of falling behind and suffering from dependence upon energy sources in decline. Striking the right balance requires good engineering, good policy-making, and the vision to build a better world.

© Milan Ilnyckyj for a sibilant intake of breath, 2008. | Permalink | 6 comments

Want more on these topics? Browse the archive of posts filed under: Economics, Geek stuff, Law, Politics, The environment.

Search blogs linking this post with Technorati.

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.5 License.