http://bradmilne.tumblr.com/post/45829792502/the-one-tip-that-will-help-you-learn-to-code-10x-faster
This is blindingly obvious once you read it. Something to think about.
Friday, March 22, 2013
Article on RPG design using detailed characters
http://gamasutra.com/blogs/CraigStern/20130319/188793/Using_Details_to_Craft_a_Coherent_Game_World.php
This is a good article on some aspects of using characters to drive an RPG world. Seems to be quite single-player centric but the idea could be mapped to a multi-player environment with enough horsepower in the social layer.
This is a good article on some aspects of using characters to drive an RPG world. Seems to be quite single-player centric but the idea could be mapped to a multi-player environment with enough horsepower in the social layer.
Internet Census via Carna botnet
http://internetcensus2012.github.com/InternetCensus2012/paper.html
There is so much to enjoy in the research that was published in this paper. Not lease of which is the audacity to publish the research.
The findings from the survey are mildly interesting. Probably similar to what we could have guessed, but its nice to have some independant confirmation.
The methodology is technically fascinating and demonstrates a high level of skill. Some of the anecdotes are fun to read but are similar to the war stories every researcher has of their struggles and triumphs.
The quality of the design, writup and presentation of the research is world class. This was one of the most enjoyable reads of a technical paper I have had in a long time. This should have been published in an A* journal. I would be proud to do something a quarter as good as this.
The underlying psychology of the researcher is quite interesting.
The legal implications both of the massive base of exploitable machines being so obviously demonstrated and the implications of both exploiting them and publicly identifying them is complex. There is a case for the manufacturers, users and local and national regulators to have the finger pointed at them. The fact that so many trivially vulnerable devices exist on the network bothers people enough to talk about it, but not enough to do anything about it. Its much easier to shoot the messenger.
Good luck to the author staying anonymous.
There is so much to enjoy in the research that was published in this paper. Not lease of which is the audacity to publish the research.
The findings from the survey are mildly interesting. Probably similar to what we could have guessed, but its nice to have some independant confirmation.
The methodology is technically fascinating and demonstrates a high level of skill. Some of the anecdotes are fun to read but are similar to the war stories every researcher has of their struggles and triumphs.
The quality of the design, writup and presentation of the research is world class. This was one of the most enjoyable reads of a technical paper I have had in a long time. This should have been published in an A* journal. I would be proud to do something a quarter as good as this.
The underlying psychology of the researcher is quite interesting.
The legal implications both of the massive base of exploitable machines being so obviously demonstrated and the implications of both exploiting them and publicly identifying them is complex. There is a case for the manufacturers, users and local and national regulators to have the finger pointed at them. The fact that so many trivially vulnerable devices exist on the network bothers people enough to talk about it, but not enough to do anything about it. Its much easier to shoot the messenger.
Good luck to the author staying anonymous.
Monday, March 18, 2013
Why is Microsoft a bad shepherd?
http://winsupersite.com/windows-8/fixing-windows-8-advice-users-and-microsoft
The above article is yet another mild... how to fix windows 8 piece. Quite nice and makes some useful points about customising win 8 to suit different users. But thats not the idea that I found interesting.
The seed came from the first comment. "Microsoft should buy startdock. Or steal some of their employees". This is both blindingly obvious and subtly interesting.
But why would that be a bad thing?
Consider this, Microsoft purchases Stardock... or any other company that is building interesting products. Lets not argue about how much or what the finacials are... lets be real and say that if the decision was made to purchase... it could be done. This is not the point. Lets focus on what happens.
Microsoft and the mangers of the inhaled company integrate the staff and processes with MS and merge them into one of the MS business groups. They let go anyone that is not right and add some resources where needed. Imagine it all goes well. (Not making any inuendos... just skipping past distractions while I get to my point) So whats the problem? Everyone is happy and productive. There is only one thing that has been lost in the process.
Independance.
The new additions to the Microsoft family... are now part of the Microsoft family. They are goverened by the same internal politics that have generated the Microsoft platform. They no longer have the choice to "have a different vision". They cannot "fix things" that Microsoft do not see as broken. They cannot be a dissenting voice. (They can internally... but it carries less weight in the market place than offering an actual product that provides a solution users want)
The erosion of dissent and the aggregation of control are the things I see as being the death of all great organisations. As more and more central control takes over a platform, there is less flexibility in thinking, less ability to adapt and address different users needs. There is more movement towards a shared vision... the so-called "reality distortion field".
What Microsoft and all the other lumbering giants of the tech industry need is an eccosystem of "loose" collaborators. Companies, developers and users who all work on the same platform... but with different visions and objectives. They fill the eccosystem and flesh out all the tiny little niche opportunities.
Bringing the successful ones under the same vision and managment is just foolish. Imposing control is the last thing that Microsoft should do to the ecosystem. Their role is simply to foster the ecosystem... to increase opportunity for the benine population and limit the opportunity for the predator population. They are curators for the platform and the herds that browse upon its bountiful slopes. Trying to domesticate the herds and put them into factory farms is just totally missing the point.
But, luckily MS have not bought Stardock. They have not crippled the voices of dissent. Either intentionally or accidentally, there is still a healthy ecosystem around the platform(s). This in no way forgives the many many many missteps that MS has taken and the many ways that it regularly alienates the ecosystem... but change is always painful. Some will win, while others will sit around and whinge in the dust... such is life.
The above article is yet another mild... how to fix windows 8 piece. Quite nice and makes some useful points about customising win 8 to suit different users. But thats not the idea that I found interesting.
The seed came from the first comment. "Microsoft should buy startdock. Or steal some of their employees". This is both blindingly obvious and subtly interesting.
But why would that be a bad thing?
Consider this, Microsoft purchases Stardock... or any other company that is building interesting products. Lets not argue about how much or what the finacials are... lets be real and say that if the decision was made to purchase... it could be done. This is not the point. Lets focus on what happens.
Microsoft and the mangers of the inhaled company integrate the staff and processes with MS and merge them into one of the MS business groups. They let go anyone that is not right and add some resources where needed. Imagine it all goes well. (Not making any inuendos... just skipping past distractions while I get to my point) So whats the problem? Everyone is happy and productive. There is only one thing that has been lost in the process.
Independance.
The new additions to the Microsoft family... are now part of the Microsoft family. They are goverened by the same internal politics that have generated the Microsoft platform. They no longer have the choice to "have a different vision". They cannot "fix things" that Microsoft do not see as broken. They cannot be a dissenting voice. (They can internally... but it carries less weight in the market place than offering an actual product that provides a solution users want)
The erosion of dissent and the aggregation of control are the things I see as being the death of all great organisations. As more and more central control takes over a platform, there is less flexibility in thinking, less ability to adapt and address different users needs. There is more movement towards a shared vision... the so-called "reality distortion field".
What Microsoft and all the other lumbering giants of the tech industry need is an eccosystem of "loose" collaborators. Companies, developers and users who all work on the same platform... but with different visions and objectives. They fill the eccosystem and flesh out all the tiny little niche opportunities.
Bringing the successful ones under the same vision and managment is just foolish. Imposing control is the last thing that Microsoft should do to the ecosystem. Their role is simply to foster the ecosystem... to increase opportunity for the benine population and limit the opportunity for the predator population. They are curators for the platform and the herds that browse upon its bountiful slopes. Trying to domesticate the herds and put them into factory farms is just totally missing the point.
But, luckily MS have not bought Stardock. They have not crippled the voices of dissent. Either intentionally or accidentally, there is still a healthy ecosystem around the platform(s). This in no way forgives the many many many missteps that MS has taken and the many ways that it regularly alienates the ecosystem... but change is always painful. Some will win, while others will sit around and whinge in the dust... such is life.
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Floppy Disk attack on Zombie BIOS...
You know those sureal moments when something from the past comes back to life... wanders around and tries to eat your brain?
I have had two of those in the past couple of days. One was people from the past contacting me and having mid-life crisies... the other was a computer needing a floppy disk to fix a corrupt bios.
Talk about a blast from the past. Even finding a functioning USB floppy drive is hard enough... then I had to scrounge for a floppy disk in working order.
But so far to no avail. The machine is still in a loop of death ( it was working... ok-ish before I tried to flash the bios... but had obvious problems) So I am considering either canabalising it for parts or just dropping it down the stairs a couple of times....
I am still blown away that a floppy drive is the manufacturers fallback position... even for a machine that was never supplied with one. It does make sense as BIOS basic features were carved in stone a few decades ago....
Whoa!....
Later.
Anyway, this machine looks like its bricked.
It powers up, with a normal HP boot screen... but the F9,F10 & F12 options do not work. Then it quickly flicks to a black screen with the message:
"Your BIOS failed to complete update..... blah blah" again with the F10 option mentioned at the bottom. Again F10 does not work.
Then after a couple of seconds it reboots. Rince - repeat.
I have read my way across the net and tried all the recomended BIOS recovery procedures involving USB sticks, old bios images, win+b button combinations and have not found anything that has worked..(obviously)
http://h20000.www2.hp.com/bizsupport/TechSupport/Document.jsp?lang=en&cc=us&taskId=110&prodSeriesId=3356620&prodTypeId=321957&prodSeriesId=3356620&objectID=c02693833
It's interesting that when I run a BIOS recovery using the USB Floppy, you can hear it seek and start to read... but it still reboots on the same schedule. This suggests that the USB drivers, FAT driver and the disk driver are getting loaded... but something choaks or is corrupt and it reboots.
To me it sounds like the boot region of the bios has been corrupted and its just not able to set up enough of a rudimentary system to be able to reload the new BIOS image from the disk. Keep in mind that the BIOS image that is supplied for flashing, is not the "whole" of the code in the BIOS eprom. There are some other regions that are not always replaced when you "flash" the bios. If these get corrupted...well the ability to repair them gets increasingly low-level.
From reading between the lines and looking at the discussion on the MyDigitalLife boards about BIOS mods... I think there is no reasonable way to replace this code without desoldering the BIOS chip and reloading it with a working image dumped from another machine (Ignoring the serial number issue... which can be managed)
As this sounds like fun.... I have thought about it... but realistically... I just don't have the time. I have about 8-10 laptops of the same model and some are in worse shape than this one... but boot happy... so I think its canabal time.
I have had two of those in the past couple of days. One was people from the past contacting me and having mid-life crisies... the other was a computer needing a floppy disk to fix a corrupt bios.
Talk about a blast from the past. Even finding a functioning USB floppy drive is hard enough... then I had to scrounge for a floppy disk in working order.
But so far to no avail. The machine is still in a loop of death ( it was working... ok-ish before I tried to flash the bios... but had obvious problems) So I am considering either canabalising it for parts or just dropping it down the stairs a couple of times....
I am still blown away that a floppy drive is the manufacturers fallback position... even for a machine that was never supplied with one. It does make sense as BIOS basic features were carved in stone a few decades ago....
Whoa!....
Later.
Anyway, this machine looks like its bricked.
It powers up, with a normal HP boot screen... but the F9,F10 & F12 options do not work. Then it quickly flicks to a black screen with the message:
"Your BIOS failed to complete update..... blah blah" again with the F10 option mentioned at the bottom. Again F10 does not work.
Then after a couple of seconds it reboots. Rince - repeat.
I have read my way across the net and tried all the recomended BIOS recovery procedures involving USB sticks, old bios images, win+b button combinations and have not found anything that has worked..(obviously)
http://h20000.www2.hp.com/bizsupport/TechSupport/Document.jsp?lang=en&cc=us&taskId=110&prodSeriesId=3356620&prodTypeId=321957&prodSeriesId=3356620&objectID=c02693833
It's interesting that when I run a BIOS recovery using the USB Floppy, you can hear it seek and start to read... but it still reboots on the same schedule. This suggests that the USB drivers, FAT driver and the disk driver are getting loaded... but something choaks or is corrupt and it reboots.
To me it sounds like the boot region of the bios has been corrupted and its just not able to set up enough of a rudimentary system to be able to reload the new BIOS image from the disk. Keep in mind that the BIOS image that is supplied for flashing, is not the "whole" of the code in the BIOS eprom. There are some other regions that are not always replaced when you "flash" the bios. If these get corrupted...well the ability to repair them gets increasingly low-level.
From reading between the lines and looking at the discussion on the MyDigitalLife boards about BIOS mods... I think there is no reasonable way to replace this code without desoldering the BIOS chip and reloading it with a working image dumped from another machine (Ignoring the serial number issue... which can be managed)
As this sounds like fun.... I have thought about it... but realistically... I just don't have the time. I have about 8-10 laptops of the same model and some are in worse shape than this one... but boot happy... so I think its canabal time.
Monday, March 11, 2013
The Whack-A-Mole Strategy case study
The Whack-A-Mole strategy is pretty much exactly as it sounds. It's a reactive strategy where you wait for a problem or issue before attempting to deal with it. This is opposed to a "proactive" type strategy where you attempt to predict the problem before hand and deal with it in a way that prevents it occuring.
The ideas of "Proactive" and "Reactive" seem to often be cast in terms of "Proactive is good" and "Reactive is bad". However there are lots of scenarios where this is neither true nor efficient.
My current problem is to update a group of students from using one document based data entry form to an updated version to refelect both changes in the course and changes in the data retention requirements. Simply by their nature and some pre-exisiting use of the old form version, I reasonably expect some to not immediatly comply with the request, no matter how its delivered.
The proactive solutions that have been floated are:
1) Deliver the upgrade message in such strong terms that no-one will even consider not complying.
2) Build the system to cope with multiple versions of the data entry form and accept that they will not comply.
As you can see, the cost of proactivly solving the problem is unpleasant in both cases.. because mostly the problem is "people factors" rather than a technical issue. I could implement both solutions, but they lead to bad places both technically and personally. So, the best solution is to politely ask all the students to update their forms, give them a short cut-over period and then use the whack-a-mole strategy to individually handle any students who have problems with the upgrade.
Another benefit of this solution is that we also learn exactly what sort of problems people are having with the new system (if any) and that can inform us about either bugs or unexpected "people factors" without the students feeling like they are at fault.
And everyone sleeps well...
The ideas of "Proactive" and "Reactive" seem to often be cast in terms of "Proactive is good" and "Reactive is bad". However there are lots of scenarios where this is neither true nor efficient.
My current problem is to update a group of students from using one document based data entry form to an updated version to refelect both changes in the course and changes in the data retention requirements. Simply by their nature and some pre-exisiting use of the old form version, I reasonably expect some to not immediatly comply with the request, no matter how its delivered.
The proactive solutions that have been floated are:
1) Deliver the upgrade message in such strong terms that no-one will even consider not complying.
2) Build the system to cope with multiple versions of the data entry form and accept that they will not comply.
As you can see, the cost of proactivly solving the problem is unpleasant in both cases.. because mostly the problem is "people factors" rather than a technical issue. I could implement both solutions, but they lead to bad places both technically and personally. So, the best solution is to politely ask all the students to update their forms, give them a short cut-over period and then use the whack-a-mole strategy to individually handle any students who have problems with the upgrade.
Another benefit of this solution is that we also learn exactly what sort of problems people are having with the new system (if any) and that can inform us about either bugs or unexpected "people factors" without the students feeling like they are at fault.
And everyone sleeps well...
Trusting Robots Article
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-21623892
This is an excellent article that covers a lot of subtle ground about the state of integration of robots into our social space. It's worth a couple of reads and some followup.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17387854
This related article moves in the opposite direction and relates some anecdotes about just how far we have to go before this kind of social interaction will be comfortable.
This is an excellent article that covers a lot of subtle ground about the state of integration of robots into our social space. It's worth a couple of reads and some followup.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17387854
This related article moves in the opposite direction and relates some anecdotes about just how far we have to go before this kind of social interaction will be comfortable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)