New Kindle Fire tablet

The big news in technology today is Amazon's introduction of their new tablet pc, the Kindle Fire.  This touchscreen only tablet is meant to compete head-to-head (or chip-to-chip) with Apple's Ipad series.

The folks over at CNET have extensive coverage of the event, centered around a press conference in Manhattan with Amazon's president, Jeff Bezos.  Features wise, Amazon is touting a screen with better resolution than the Ipad 2, protected by Gorilla Glass, which is presumably a tough shield against mishaps.

Kindle's current Whispersync technology used to download books to Kindles will now carry movies and TV shows.  A welcome feature of the new Fire is the ability to listen to music while you read.  Personally, I'm curious how the new screen is for reading simple text.  I don't see how it can be as good as the other Kindle's electronic ink, but then again, with a tablet pc, most users will be doing a lot of activities other than reading. 

I assume that Amazon will have some sort of cloud technology involved for accessing content, but I don't have solid information on that yet.  Bezos's presentation did mention a new web browser, named Amazon Silk, which is interesting.

Of course the big news is the price.  A 16GB Ipad2 sells for $499.  The new Kindle Fire ships 15 November at $199.  However, the CNET folks pointed out that to use all of Fire's features, users will need to join Amazon Prime, which I believe is $80.  This service provides free shipping of items, and now will include streaming content to the Fire, but it is an added cost.

I think the real fight will occur in the price and content.  Yes, people are interested in the specifications of the devices, but ultimately, it's about price and content.  If Amazon can deliver a variety of decent content at a low price, the Fire should do very well.

(Disclosure:  I own a standard Kindle, and sell my novels on Amazon.  I am also working to have my books sold in Apple's iBookstore.)

A Concise History of the Barbary Ape (Macaca sylvana)

There are wild apes in Europe.  Or semi-wild apes.  But they aren't really apes, they are monkeys.  And they live in Gibraltar, a small peninsula at the juncture of the Mediterranean Sea and the Atlantic Ocean, with Spain to the north and Morocco to the south. 

But that's just the beginning of the contradictions.

A few hundred monkeys living on a rock perch at an odd crossroads where history, science and legend converge. 

One agreed upon point is that the Barbary Apes are actually macaques, a type of tailless monkey found in Morocco and Algeria in North Africa.  How they arrived in Gibraltar is less certain.  One story claims Arabs brought them in 711 AD, while another states the British army introduced them in 1740.  I've also read that British sailors in the 1700s had them as pets, but left them on the peninsula when they became too big for life on a crowded wooden ship.

A survey in 2002 counted 240 monkeys, but the Gibraltar tourism site states there are about 160.  This difference may be the result of a 2008 culling of the monkeys, after a group of some 25 began breaking into hotel rooms and terrorizing tourists on the beach.  As with human politics, the monkeys were described as a 'breakaway' group, presumably outside the mainstream views of the other monkeys who welcomed the tourists.  In 2009, several monkeys attacked a family of four, sending them to the hospital with bites and bruises.

Despite these incidents, the monkeys will probably remain in Gibraltar.  Legend has it that as long as there are Barbary Apes on the peninsula, it will remain a British colony.  When the monkey population fell dangerously low during World War 2, Winston Churchill took the matter seriously enough to order more monkeys captured in North Africa and sent in to boost the Gibraltar population. 

So if you find yourself in Morocco or Spain, go visit the Barbary Apes in Gibraltar and see the only wild primates in Europe.  Just don't get too close to them.

(Some information and the picture from this Gibraltar tourism site.  More data from this site iberianature.com.  News story on culling from The Telegraph, and the story of the attack from The Mail Online.)

Novel Review: The Book of Gabriel by Tony Simmons

Novels entertain.  Some also inform.  A few make you think.  I just read one that does all three.  THE BOOK OF GABRIEL by Tony Simmons, is subtitled "An Endtimes Fable," or what I would call an apocalyptic.  It is a story of God, angels, demons, and the humans caught in between.

It begins with a depressed man named Gabriel sitting on a beach in Florida, waiting for the bottle of pills he swallowed to kill him.  From there, it launches into what Simmons describes as "a dangerous road trip through parallel realities, dream worlds, time/space paradoxes, myth and legend."

Don't let the description intimidate you.  This is a not a slow-moving, monotone lesson in theology.  It's a wild ride through reality on a Harley Davidson, with a surprising amount of humor.  The apocalypse may be coming, but there are still times for the reader to smile and chuckle.

GABRIEL contains numerous names and situations drawn from the Bible, particularly the Old Testament.  Readers even casually familiar with the Bible will spot most of these.  For readers who haven't read the Bible, I would still encourage them to read GABRIEL for two reasons:  it's fun, and it puts you in the frame of mind to consider the larger possibilities in life.

Not matter what your beliefs are, or even if you don't have religious beliefs, there are universal themes here such as the power of joy, and the difficulty and necessity of forgiveness.  In the character of Gabriel, we have a person overwhelmed by life's troubles who somehow manages to survive and move forward.  Despite all the pain and confusion, Gabriel tries to do the right thing, and we can all learn from that.

(Here is a link to the author's page at the lulu bookstore.  On a side note, the book contains classic illustrations by Gustave Dore [1832-1883].)

Robot Moon Base

No, it's not the title of my latest novel, although it does sound cool.  Actually, I read an article about one of Saturn's moons named Enceladus.  Now at last count Saturn has 62 moons (I think), but the number keeps rising.  What makes Enceladus special?

When the Cassini spacecraft flew by Enceladus, it noted that near the moon's southern pole there were plumes of water blasting up into space.  Scientists theorize there may be liquid water under the moon's surface, which escapes through cracks.  Giant Saturn sitting nearby may be the cause of these plumes.  It's interesting because anytime you have water, there is the possibility of it supporting some form of life.

This got me thinking that with all the planets and moons around, there are plenty of fascinating places to explore right here in our own solar system.  We may not have the faster-than-light technology needed to reach different stars, but there is plenty to explore in our own back yard.  Which is a good argument for returning to the Earth's Moon and establishing a base.

Unlike the International Space Station where there is no gravity, the Moon does have 1/6 of Earth's gravity.  This may prolong the period astronauts could stay there before suffering too many health problems.  If we had a Moon base, we could use it as a part-way point for vehicles launched from Earth to stop and refuel, or for vehicles to launch from the Moon.  The escape velocity needed to launch from Earth is 11.2 kilometers per second, whereas on the Moon it's only 2.4 km/s, meaning a vehicle would use a lot less fuel to leave the Moon.

Even if we can't put humans on the Moon to run the base, we should consider a robotic way station that could provide refueling and repairs.  Robots are well suited to working in harsh environments like the Moon, and an active base would allow us to send a stream of explorer vehicles out across our solar system.  We may not be ready for the stars, but there are plenty of things we can learn here at home.

(The Enceladus article is from the 10 June 2011 issue of Science.  Further info on Cassini from http://www.sciencemag.org.  Moon stats from solarviews.org.  And escape velocity numbers from wiki.answers.com.  The pic is from:spaceart1.ning.com)

Can you print me a new kidney?

Back in July here at chimpwithpencil, we talked about three dimensional printers and the possibilities that arise as they've become cheaper and more widespread.  But this weekend I read a BBC news story by Katia Moskvitch that amazed me.

Here's the problem.  We have sick people who need new organs, so they go on the list to get a donated organ.  Some of these people will die while waiting for that organ, so scientists have been working on growing artificial organs to use instead.  This solution is great except for the problem of capillaries (see picture at top).

Capillaries are tiny blood vessels that connect arterial and venous vessels, and carry nutritious blood back and forth.  Unlike a donor organ, an artificial organ does not come equipped with capillaries, and they are difficult to make because they are very small tubes. 

Scientists at the Fraunhofer Institute in Stuttgart, Germany, have made artificial capillaries with a 3D printer.  The trick to making them involves focusing a laser on the material to give it the needed elasticity-- a process termed two-photon polymerisation. 

The next step for the team at Fraunhofer is to combine the tiny tubes created in the 3D printer with lab-created organs.  If they are successful, they will have replacement organs for the human body with the capillaries necessary to keep them healthy and avoid rejection.

For people all over the world who are currently waiting to receive a donor organ, this research could be life saving.  And as always, I am amazed at the inventive ways people discover to use new technologies.

(The pic is from:  beltina.org)

Scientific Objectivity versus Fear: An Opinion

Science is objective.  But scientists are people, and as such they can bend to their own politics and prejudices.  I bring this up because increasingly I read articles and see news stories where I question the objectivity of the scientists' results.  It's cynical, but I wonder how much their own beliefs affect their approach to a problem, and the way in which they present their findings.

Anytime you read something, you should approach it with a healthy dose of critical thinking.  Especially if it's something you read on the Internet.  But I've gone beyond skepticism to downright cynicism because I see so much of science has become politicized -- in other words, where you stand on the political spectrum determines your belief in a particular theory.

I worry that people bring such strong feelings about particular topics to work with them, that they've created an environment of fear where others are afraid to speak up.  An example of this is global warming. 

Now global warming (or climate change) really addresses two questions:  is it getting hotter? and is it getting hotter because of human activity?

These are worthwhile questions, well deserved of intense study.  But try having a friendly conversation about global warming with, well, anyone.  If you agree, the conversation ends immediately.  If you don't, it erupts into an argument.  And the argument is often more political than scientific.

I shudder when I read or hear the phrase, "The science is settled."  Really? I didn't think the science of anything was ever truly settled.  We can always learn more.  We used to think the smallest object was a molecule, then an atom, then the electrons and protons and neutrons inside the atom.  Now we have quarks and neutrinos and all sorts of particles that we didn't learn in school when I was a kid because we didn't know they existed.

Now I'm using global warming because it's a current example.  My own thoughts on the matter are not important.  My concern is that when a group says "the science is settled" and shouts down anyone who doesn't agree with them, free debate and critical inquiry are lost.

A friend of mine (who is a scientist) explained to me that there is often pressure for scientists to go along with the majority or risk losing funding on their projects.  Basically, if your boss sees something one way, and you see it the other way, why would they give you money to pursue your theory when they can spend it to reinforce theirs?

The problem is the possibility that the majority is wrong.  And even worse, that the freedom of inquiry in the minority is suppressed by the political views of their peers.  Whether I agree with a particular theory or not, I want the most accurate results scientists can provide.

With so much scientific funding tied to highly politicized universities and the profit-centered military/industrial complex, I don't see an easy solution.  One possibility is the patronage of the wealthy.  If a wealthy person gives money to a scientist without trying to control their results, we might have situations where science can be freely pursued.  And there will always be free-thinkers who work on their own in their garages and basements and on hillsides with their personal telescopes.

But for now, I find it hard to believe much of what I read on certain issues.  This is, of course, my opinion.  I support your right to think differently.

(The picture is of Sir Isaac Newton.  Sorry, I don't know who created it.  I found it on the Internet.)

Referrer Spam

Google's Blogger has a detailed analytical tool where you can check which countries are viewing your blog, which posts people read, and which URL addresses refer to your blog.  I like to check these statistics because I get excited when I see my blog caught the attention of one reader in Botswana, or that people enjoyed a post about capuchin monkeys.

But the last few weeks I've seen an unusual amount of traffic from the Ukraine. Curiously, folks in the Ukraine appear fascinated with a post I wrote about ant lions.  I figured it must be school kids writing a report, and who am I to get in the way of budding entomologists? But the number of pageviews or hits was just too high.  It was weird, and weird is suspicious.

So on my way to the Google Help area, I stopped to visit the user forums.  I read that others had experienced this problem, and that it is a new variant of spam I was unaware of.  It's called 'referrer spam.'  Here's how it works.

A spammer in Country X controls a computer in Country Y.  The computer in Country Y runs a program or script that automatically hits sites around the Internet (like your blog).  Google Statistics notes the pageview from Country Y and the URL address is listed as a referring URL.  When you go into the statistics for your blog, you notice the odd traffic, click on one of the mysterious referring URLs, and find a site full of Cyrillic letters and pornography.  The short version is that the spammers have gone to a fair amount of trouble to trick you into visiting one of their sites.

What should you do? First, don't click on those referring URL links.  Second, don't publish your referring URL sites or access logs.  If you put a list of these sites on your blog, a search engine may index them and give them a chance to spread even further.  Eventually, Google's Blogger team will figure out what's going on and block these sites, forcing the spammers to try somewhere else.

It's annoying, and I was disappointed when I realized that my daily pageviews had not doubled in the last month, but this sort of spam doesn't appear to be a serious threat.  And the good news is that even after I subtracted all the suspicious pageviews, chimpwithpencil was still making steady growth.  Thanks, readers. 

And remember, if you have a blog, don't click those shady links.

(Some of the information was first found in the Google Blogger forums, which led me to this site run by nitecruzr, which has a good explanation of the problem.  The photograph is of Independence Square in Kiev, Ukraine, which looks to be an interesting place.  The pic is from:  hotelinspector.com)

Upgrades.

I cleaned up the formatting and a few typing errors on my thriller, HIRED GUNS, and will be uploading the new version to Amazon and Barnes & Noble this week.  Usually the upload is done in a day or two, so you temporarily won't be able to download them at these locations.  However, the latest version can be found at Smashwords.com in all formats.

This should all be fixed by the end of the week.  I apologize for any inconvenience.  Please keep reading and if you like my work, tell your friends.

Thank you,
Mark

Red Devils: The Humboldt or Jumbo Squid (dosidicus gigas)

There are many fascinating creatures in the ocean, but we seem particularly interested in two groups:  creatures we can eat, and creatures that may eat us.  We love to eat fish, but the only sharks we want to see are the ones on television.

People in California and up the western coast of the United States are becoming aware of a new predator, the Humboldt Squid, also known as the Jumbo Squid.  Scientists speculate that warming Pacific waters have allowed these squids to move up the coast from the Sea of Cortez off Mexico, up to California and even as far as Alaska.  A second explanation is that a reduction in sharks in that area has allowed competing predators such as the Humboldt to fill in the territory.  This is similar to the situation where a declining wolf population is replaced by coyotes.

Whatever the reason, the Humboldt is an amazing creature.  They grow up to 2 yards (2 meters) in length, and can weigh 100 pounds (45 kilograms).  They travel is groups, sometimes as many as 1,000 animals, and use their powerful arms and sharp beaks to hunt.  Humboldts are one of the faster swimmers in the ocean, and can squirt ink as a defense like an octopus. 

Because of chromatophore cells in their skin, they can create bright flashes to communicate with other squid.  They can also change their skin to a red color that makes it hard for other sea creatures to spot them in deep water.  In tribute to their color and fierce nature, Mexican fishermen call them 'diablos rojos' or 'red devils.'  The common name Humboldt derives from the Humboldt Current off South America, where these squid are usually found.

Humboldts are opportunistic eaters (much like humans), but in their home waters they eat lanternfish, mackerel, sardines, shrimp, mollusk and other squid.  Although I haven't read any accounts of Humboldt killing humans, I did see a diver on Animal Planet tell how a group of these squid attacked him and drug him down through the water.  Also, diver Howard Hall filming off Mexico has an interesting story about these aggressive animals tearing pieces of equipment from another diver during a night expedition. 

Professor Kelly Benoit-Bird of Oregon State University noted, "The Humboldt squid is a voracious predator that will eat anything it can get its tentacles on.  We put a pair of 10-pound squid into a tank and one immediately beheaded the other."

If Humboldts continue to move up the coast of the U.S., we may see more interaction between humans and these squid.  It will also be interesting to see the response from creatures that eat these squid, such as sperm whales, sharks, marlin, swordfish, porpoises and fur seals.  And if you're diving off Mexico or California and see flashing lights, be careful.

(This article in marinebio.org was very helpful.  As was this article about Professor Benoit-Bird's study of sonar and squid.  This article recounts Howard Hall's encounter with these creatures.  And the picture is from:  guardian.co.uk)

Ten Years After

Here in the United States, we will spend the weekend contemplating the ten-year anniversary of the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001.

Ten years later and it's still impossible to make sense of it.  I cannot understand how a group of people formed a conspiracy and then carried out a plan to murder thousands of people they'd never met.  Whatever your political beliefs, no agenda or religious idea can justify mass murder.  And ultimately, that's all it was.  Murder.

The attacks killed many people.  Injured and sickened others.  Terrorized millions.  Created widows and orphans.  But what did the attacks accomplish? They helped start the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, plus the global war on terrorism.  They disrupted the world economy and caused a great deal of property damage.  But really the only change the attacks brought was to add more suffering to the Earth.  To visit war and death and destruction on yet more people.

This emptiness.  This lust for destruction.  This mass murder of others is evil.  Simple evil.  There is no explanation sufficient, no justification, no rationalizing.  You can't explain it.  You can only look on it in horror.

Feats that pass into legend.

I saw a news story the other day about a giant crocodile.  On 3 September, trappers and local farmers in Agusan del Sur in the Philippines ended a three-week hunt for the creature.  The crocodile had killed a water buffalo and maybe a local farmer, and broken four traps before it was finally caught.  Rough measurements put the animal at 21 feet (6.4 meters) and 2,370 pounds (1,075 kilograms), which is the weight of a small car.

As I read the story and looked at the picture of the massive creature, I thought about the Christian story of Saint George.  In the story, George was a soldier who saved a girl and her village from a dragon by killing the monster with a lance.  He then encouraged the villagers to turn to God. 

Over the centuries, the story passed into legend, and various groups, including the medieval Crusaders, revered the saint for his courage and faith.  These days many people look on stories like this as allegories for the defeat of evil, or even as pure fiction.  But sometimes legends contain a kernel of truth.

There isn't a great deal of information about George, but Pope Gelasius mentioned him in 495 AD, and he may have lived quite a bit earlier in the Roman Empire.  In the story about the dragon, George was traveling in Libya near the city of Silena when he learned about a dragon in a nearby swamp.  According to the legend, the locals fed the dragon goats to keep it placated, but they eventually gave it people, until George killed the dragon and urged them to convert to Christianity and end the practice of human sacrifice.

The crocodiles of the Nile River in Egypt are famous for their size.  I don't think it's much of a stretch to consider that in the third or fourth century, the range of these creatures may have included swamps in Libya, which is next to Egypt.  Crocodiles that become used to being fed lose their fear of humans, and it's quite possible a particularly large crocodile had killed local farm animals and villagers.  In art, Saint George is usually depicted wielding a lance or a spear, often on horseback.  Using a weapon with some reach--like a spear or lance--would make great sense when battling a large crocodile.  Although I suspect a trained soldier like George would have dismounted to fight the creature, since swamps are treacherous footing for horses.

When you consider it this way, the legend of Saint George and the dragon is a lot more plausible.  And really, the heart of the story is that a brave man fought to protect others.  That act is something we can all admire.

(Data about Saint George is from a detailed article in newadvent.org.  The crocodile information is from batangastoday.com.  The picture is from pinoypower.com.)

Who owns your data?

I just finished reading a fascinating book titled KINGPIN by Kevin Poulsen, who is a senior editor at Wired.com.  This non-fiction book explains how the underground market in stolen credit card numbers functions, and how one audacious hacker managed to seize control of the market for a time.

As I was reading, I reached a section describing the 2005 hack of the retail stores T.J. Maxx, Marshalls and HomeGoods that resulted in a loss of 45 million credit card numbers.  Poulsen brought up the interesting point that in the past, companies and federal law enforcement didn't tell consumers about large security breaches, which shielded companies from bad publicity and loss of customers.  But in 2003, the state of California passed a law (SB1386) which required companies to disclose these hacks.  Since then, 45 states instituted similar laws.

This caused me to think about the nature of our data--our banking data, our health data, our insurance data and so on.  Who owns the data? Who is responsible for protecting it? I do not have a complete answer, or an easy answer because so much data is shared.

For instance, in electronic banking, you have your account number, your login or member ID, and your password.  Your bank has the same.  Both you and the bank have access to details of your accounts.  And some information, like the bank's routing number or their loan rates, is public. 

In some situations, a bank or other company may tell you they will only make available records going back one year, and you are responsible for keeping earlier statements.  If your taxes are audited, I don't think one year of records will be sufficient.  So should you keep paper copies and store them? Or keep electronic copies on your computer? And then if you do, should you back up those electronic copies onto a portable hard drive?

What if lightning fries your hard drive? What if your computer is hacked? What if your house, with all your paper files inside, burns down? When you consider the awful possibilities, there is a temptation to simply leave it all in the hands of your bank, or insurance company, or health provider.  Because surely their security is better, right?

Not necessarily.  The underground market in stolen credit cards didn't operate just by stealing data from individuals, it worked by stealing from restaurants, and chain stores and mid-level banks, and massive credit card corporations.  They covered the entire spectrum of the business world, and individuals appeared to be the least of their targets.

My advice is to do your best to protect your end of the data stream.  Use a free online password generator to create strong passwords.  Shred bank or investment or health data before you put it in the trash.  Be cautious about revealing birth dates and other useful data on social networking sites like Facebook.  Keep your computer's operating system up to date, and learn the basics on using your anti-virus software and firewall.  Secure your home network and don't throw an open signal out there.  Make backups of important documents. 

Don't succumb to paranoia, but do be aware.  And realize that even with your efforts, a lot of your data's security is in the hands of your bank or doctor or insurance agent.  Unfortunately, for criminals stealing data, it may feel like a victim-less crime because there is no physical theft or violent confrontation.  But for the individual who loses their identity, their credit rating, their hard-earned money and their sense of security, these crimes are very personal.

(The picture above is of a server farm, where data is stored.  The pic is from uncommonthought.com.  I don't know what uncommonthought is, but the picture is very stark and kind of disturbing.  It made me think of vast, cold rooms of machines processing gigantic amounts of data.)

ereaders, tablets and confusion

Watching a commercial for the iPad2 the other night, I thought, "Wow, that looks cool."  And then, "Uh, what am I supposed to do with that thing?"

There are tablet personal computers, laptop computers, smart phones, ereader devices and a host of different operating systems and file formats.  It's confusing.  So before you drop a wad of cash on one of these things, let's try to sort it out.

If you want to read books, I'd suggest a dedicated reading device like a Diesel, iRiver, Kobo, Kindle, Nook, or Sony Reader.  The smart ink technology makes reading for a long time much easier on the eyes than a computer screen.  You don't have the flicker of the computer screen constantly refreshing, and it does make a difference.

However, if you want color for things like movies, games, video phone calls, and the Internet, a tablet pc with a touch screen may make more sense.  If you have children, a tablet that plays movies and games may save your sanity on a long car trip.  I have noticed that emails from friends who use tablets tend to be very short, so I guess typing on the touch screen isn't particularly efficient, but as long as you aren't using it for work, that may be okay.

And that brings us to work, which is still the realm of the laptop or desktop.  If you really need to get work done, you need a mouse (not a finger pad), and a keyboard with actual keys (not a touch screen).  I'm sure there are ways to integrate tablet computers into the workplace, but when you need to hammer out some long documents or write a program or even just clean out your mountain-sized email in-box, you need the tools a conventional computer supplies.

So don't let the brilliantly manipulative commercials steer you into buying something you don't need.  Look at what you'll use the device for, and what you anticipate you might use it for in the future, and then think about what device fits. 

All-in-one is not always best.  Sometimes a device that does one thing very well is better.  For instance, your phone may have a camera, but when you want to shoot some serious photography, you go get a camera.  In the same way, for readers, an ereader may be a lot more efficient than a tablet or laptop.

Pick what you need, and forget the rest.

(The picture is from: http://www.ancientmesopotamians.com.  And yes, I did learn to write on clay tablets.)