http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/wwdn/~3/370432852/evil-and-awesom.html

Way back in April, John Scalzi wrote on his blog:

Arrangements have been made. Wheels set into motion.

At this point, it is inevitable. Unavoidable.

Implacable would not be too strong a word.

What has begun?

I cannot tell you.

Suffice to say it is evil. And yet awesome, in its way.

And it will be visited upon one of you.

Cryptic, but amusing. I know John well enough to know that he's a devilish schemer with a wicked sense of humor. What, I wondered, was he up to, and who, I pondered, was the unsuspecting victim?

Months passed, and then - on my birthday, no less - he wrote:

Finally. It is done.

And it will be visited upon one of you.

Soon.

Yes, soon.

You should prepare yourself.

Although nothing can truly prepare you.

Because it is evil. Yet awesome.

And it is coming.

It can be held back no longer.

And when it arrives, you will know.

And you will tremble before it.

BWA HA HA HA HA HAH HA!

I had no idea, in April or in July, that I was the intended recipient victim of John's evil, yet awesome scheme.

But more on that in a moment, because some context is in order before we get to the punchline.

I had big plans to road trip up to Vegas with two of my friends and visit Star Trek the Experience one last time before they sent it to the land of wind and ghosts. Unfortunately, gravity and physics had other plans, and I'm not doing much of anything until PAX.

If you've spent any time reading my blog, or if you've read my first two books, you know that The Experience is very special to me, delivering some important perspective when I needed it most:

Until this moment, all I have been able to remember is the pain that came with Star Trek. I'd forgotten the joy.

Star Trek was about sitting next to Brent Spiner, who always made me laugh. It wasn't about the people who made me cry when they booed me offstage at conventions. It was about the awe I felt listening to Patrick Stewart debate the subtle nuances of The Prime Directive with Gene Roddenberry between scenes. It wasn't about the writers who couldn't figure out how to write a believable teenage character. It was about the wonder of walking down those corridors, and pretending that I was on a real spaceship. It was about the pride I felt when I got to wear my first real uniform, go on my first away mission, fire my first phaser, play poker with the other officers in Riker's quarters.

Oh my god. Star Trek was wonderful, and I'd forgotten. I have wasted ten years trying to escape something that I love, for all the wrong reasons.

I was looking forward to this road trip, because love Star Trek, and I love science fiction, but when I hurt myself, my motivation to play through the pain evaporated. See, I've been feeling some Star Trek fatigue recently. There are a lot of factors, including being dooced from the Vegas con and the return of the alt.wesley.die.die.die morons, but the bottom line is: I feel like all the stuff I didn't like about Trek has started to overwhelm the things I love about it. I haven't written a TNG review for TV Squad in months, because it hasn't been as fun to revisit those first season days as it once was.

The thing is . . . maybe I'm taking the whole thing a little too seriously. I mean, honestly, why in the world should I give a shit about some random Internet guy who is obviously stuck in 1990? Sure, it's upsetting that I was the only series regular to be excluded from the biggest Star Trek convention of the year, but it's not like I don't have other things to do with my time, and other conventions to attend.

A tangible reminder to not take this stuff too seriously arrived at my doorstep recently. It was, as promised, evil and awesome:

(More images at Flickr)

For those of you who are scratching your heads right now, that is, in fact, an authentic black velvet Wesley Crusher painting. It was sent anonymously, and all of my friends (truthfully, it turns out) said they had nothing to do with it (I guess I should have asked John's co-conspirator, our mutual friend Burns! if he was involved) so I didn't say anything publicly about it while I attempted to uncover the identity of my mysterious benefactor.

This morning, I sent John an e-mail with some of the awesome comments on yesterday's post about Zoe's Tale. In the ensuing conversation, he outed himself as the evil genius behind this particular artistic scheme.

For the last few months, I've been focused on the pain that came with Star Trek. I'd forgotten the joy.

Star Trek isn't about petty grudges or anonymous insults from emotionally stunted people who are stuck in 1990. It is something I did twenty years ago, that inspired a generation of kids to pursue science and engineering. Star Trek is a fantastically entertaining show, even when it's really, really awful, and I can feel proud of being part of it, without letting it define the beginning and end of my creative life.

Without knowing that I needed a reminder not to take this stuff so seriously, without knowing - in April, when the wheels were set into motion - that around the beginning of August I'd be feeling pretty lousy about getting cut from the show I look forward to attending every year, John did what good friends do: pick you up when you're down, and provide reality checks when you need them the most.

Star Trek is something that I shouldn't take as seriously as I've taken it lately. I'd given idiots way too much control over how I felt about it, and how I felt about that part of my life where Star Trek and me intersect. I'd lost perspective, and it took a velvet Wesley Crusher to bring it back.

It hangs behind me in my office now, evil and awesome, a reminder to remember the joy, and not take things so damn seriously.

http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/wwdn/~3/370301880/privacy-is-a-fu.html

Bruce Schneier writes another thoughtful and insightful essay on privacy:

Privacy protects us from abuses by those in power, even if we're doing nothing wrong at the time of surveillance.

We do nothing wrong when we make love or go to the bathroom. We are not deliberately hiding anything when we seek out private places for reflection or conversation. We keep private journals, sing in the privacy of the shower, and write letters to secret lovers and then burn them. Privacy is a basic human need.

[...]

[I]f we are observed in all matters, we are constantly under threat of correction, judgment, criticism, even plagiarism of our own uniqueness. We become children, fettered under watchful eyes, constantly fearful that -- either now or in the uncertain future -- patterns we leave behind will be brought back to implicate us, by whatever authority has now become focused upon our once-private and innocent acts. We lose our individuality, because everything we do is observable and recordable.

[...]

How many of us have paused during conversation in the past four-and-a-half years, suddenly aware that we might be eavesdropped on? Probably it was a phone conversation, although maybe it was an e-mail or instant-message exchange or a conversation in a public place. Maybe the topic was terrorism, or politics, or Islam. We stop suddenly, momentarily afraid that our words might be taken out of context, then we laugh at our paranoia and go on. But our demeanor has changed, and our words are subtly altered.

This is the loss of freedom we face when our privacy is taken from us. This is life in former East Germany, or life in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. And it's our future as we allow an ever-intrusive eye into our personal, private lives.

I reject the notion that we have to choose between privacy and security, and I agree with the oft-repeated quote about the foolishness of sacrificing the former in pursuit of the latter.

We deserve privacy, and we don't have to give it up to have security. They work very well together. Encoding messages for my friends and family is fun, but I sure don't want to feel like I have to do it all the time, just because I can't trust my government - and, increasingly, my neighbors - to leave me alone.

joedecker

The abstract concludes:

The results show that it is feasible to differentiate and mature hESCs into functional oxygen-carrying erythrocytes on a large scale.

I would guess without knowledge that remaining challenges include the industrialization of the process, any political hurdles that come up, testing for safety and such, and the identification of a O- "universal donor" line of human embryonic stem cells.

markgritter

John McCain Will Preserve Consumer Freedoms. John McCain will focus on policies that leave consumers free to access the content they choose; free to use the applications and services they choose; free to attach devices they choose, if they do not harm the network; and free to chose [sic] among broadband service providers.

John McCain does not believe in prescriptive regulation like “net-neutrality,” but rather he believes that an open marketplace with a variety of consumer choices is the best deterrent against unfair practices.

John McCain will establish a “People Connect Program” that rewards companies that offer high-speed Internet access services to low income customers by allowing these companies offset [sic] their tax liability for the cost of this service.

He championed laws that penalized fraudulent marketing practices, protected kids from harmful Internet content, secured consumer privacy, and sought to minimize spam.

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/08/nice_article_on.html

Nice article on personal surveillance from the London Review of Books.

joedecker

Y'all love this, so it's the August-into-September print o' the month. Unframed, unmatted 16x7 at $170. Enjoy!

rcfox

schmengie

Of course, if Obama were to accuse McCain of picking his positions on national security based on politics or personal ambition, everyone would laugh, because it obviously is not true. By contrast, there is quite a bit of evidence that Obama has placed political expediency above national security (for an excellent example, see our item yesterday on his shifting explanations for his original opposition to the liberation of Iraq).

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/08/a_security_asse.html

Interesting:

Preface

The TCP/IP protocols were conceived during a time that was quite different from the hostile environment they operate in now. Yet a direct result of their effectiveness and widespread early adoption is that much of today's global economy remains dependent upon them.

While many textbooks and articles have created the myth that the Internet Protocols (IP) were designed for warfare environments, the top level goal for the DARPA Internet Program was the sharing of large service machines on the ARPANET. As a result, many protocol specifications focus only on the operational aspects of the protocols they specify and overlook their security implications.

Though Internet technology has evolved, the building blocks are basically the same core protocols adopted by the ARPANET more than two decades ago. During the last twenty years many vulnerabilities have been identified in the TCP/IP stacks of a number of systems. Some were flaws in protocol implementations which affect only a reduced number of systems. Others were flaws in the protocols themselves affecting virtually every existing implementation. Even in the last couple of years researchers were still working on security problems in the core protocols.

The discovery of vulnerabilities in the TCP/IP protocols led to reports being published by a number of CSIRTs (Computer Security Incident Response Teams) and vendors, which helped to raise awareness about the threats as well as the best mitigations known at the time the reports were published.

Much of the effort of the security community on the Internet protocols did not result in official documents (RFCs) being issued by the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) leading to a situation in which "known" security problems have not always been addressed by all vendors. In many cases vendors have implemented quick "fixes" to protocol flaws without a careful analysis of their effectiveness and their impact on interoperability.

As a result, any system built in the future according to the official TCP/IP specifications might reincarnate security flaws that have already hit our communication systems in the past.

Producing a secure TCP/IP implementation nowadays is a very difficult task partly because of no single document that can serve as a security roadmap for the protocols.

There is clearly a need for a companion document to the IETF specifications that discusses the security aspects and implications of the protocols, identifies the possible threats, proposes possible counter-measures, and analyses their respective effectiveness.

This document is the result of an assessment of the IETF specifications of the Internet Protocol from a security point of view. Possible threats were identified and, where possible, counter-measures were proposed. Additionally, many implementation flaws that have led to security vulnerabilities have been referenced in the hope that future implementations will not incur the same problems. This document does not limit itself to performing a security assessment of the relevant IETF specification but also offers an assessment of common implementation strategies.

Whilst not aiming to be the final word on the security of the IP, this document aims to raise awareness about the many security threats based on the IP protocol that have been faced in the past, those that we are currently facing, and those we may still have to deal with in the future. It provides advice for the secure implementation of the IP, and also insights about the security aspects of the IP that may be of help to the Internet operations community.

Feedback from the community is more than encouraged to help this document be as accurate as possible and to keep it updated as new threats are discovered.

http://garfieldminusgarfield.net/post/46688966