Funny

or at least, we think so

REVIEW: “Rainbows End”, Vernor Vinge

BKRNBSND.RVW   20130525

“Rainbows End”, Vernor Vinge, 2006, 0-312-85684-9, U$25.95/C$34.95
%A   Vernor Vinge
%C   175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY  10010
%D   2006
%G   0-312-85684-9
%I   Tor Books/Tom Doherty Assoc.
%O   U$25.95/C$34.95 pnh@tor.com www.tor.com
%O  http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0312856849/robsladesinterne
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0312856849/robsladesinte-21
%O   http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/ASIN/0312856849/robsladesin03-20
%O   Audience i+ Tech 2 Writing 3 (see revfaq.htm for explanation)
%P   364 p.
%T   “Rainbows End”

It is always a pleasure to read something from Vinge.  His characters are interesting, his plots sufficiently convoluted, and his writing clear and flowing.  In addition, for the geek, his understanding of the technology is realistic and fundamental, which makes a change from so many who merely parrot jargon they do not comprehend.

Of course, this is future technology we are talking about, so none of it is (currently) real.  But it could be, without the wild flights of illogic that so abound in fiction.

In this book, we have a future with interconnectedness around the globe.  Of course, this means that there are dangers, in regard to identity and authentication.  The new technology protects against these dangers with a Secure Hardware Environment.  (Or SHE, and, since the DHS mandates that everyone must use it, does that make it SHE-who-must-be-obeyed?)

Encryption is, of course, vital to the operations, and so is used a lot, often in multiple layers.  It is probably a measure of the enjoyability of Vinge’s work that I really didn’t take note of the fact that two of the characters were named Alice and Bob.  Not, that is, until late in the volume, when the author also briefly introduces a character named Eve Mallory.

copyright, Robert M. Slade   2013   BKRNBSND.RVW   20130525

Outsourcing, and rebranding, (national) security

I was thinking about the recent trend, in the US, for “outsourcing” and “privatization” of security functions, in order to reduce (government) costs.  For example, we know, from the Snowden debacle, that material he, ummm, “obtained,” was accessed while he was working for a contractor that was working for the NSA.  The debacle also figured in my thinking, particularly the PR fall-out and disaster.

Considering both these trends; outsourcing and PR, I see an opportunity here.  The government needs to reduce costs (or increase revenue).  At the same time, there needs to be a rebranding effort, in order to restore tarnished images.

Sports teams looking for revenue (or cost offsets) have been allowing corporate sponsors to rename, or “rebrand,” arenas.  Why not allow corporations to sponsor national security programs, and rebrand them?

For example: PRISM has become a catch-phrase for all that is wrong with surveillance of the general public.  Why not allow someone like, say, DeBeers to step in.  For a price (which would offset the millions being paid to various tech companies for “compliance”) it could be rebranded as DIAMOND, possibly with a new slogan like “A database is forever!”

(DeBeers is an obvious sponsor, given the activities of NSA personnel in regard to love interests.)

I think the possibilities are endless, and should be explored.

Click on everything?

You clicked on that link, didn’t you?  I’m writing a posting about malicious links in postings and email, and you click on a link in my posting.  How silly is that?

(No, it wouldn’t have been dangerous, in this case.  I disabled the URL by “x”ing out the “tt” in http;” (which is pretty standard practice in malware circles), and further “x”ed out a couple of the letters in the URL.)

Risk analysis, traffic analysis, and unusual factors

Canadian terrorists strike again: apparently we are responsible for taking down a major piece of transportation infrastructure, vis, the I-5 bridge over the Skagit river at Mount Vernon.

A friend in Seattle assures me that, while he is disappointed in us, he holds no grudges, and is willing to warn us if he hears of any drone strikes planned for north of the border.

(Allow me, for a moment, to examine this “oversized load” on which everyone is blaming the collapse.  Image 2 in the slide deck [if they don’t change it] is this “oversized load.”  You will notice that it is basically an empty box with the two sides missing, and has, relatively, zero structural rigidity.  If a ding from that kind of load brought the bridge down [and didn’t even collapse the load itself], the bridge was definitely unsafe.)

I drive that route regularly, and, when I heard that a bridge had gone down, that bridge was the first one I thought of.  I have always felt unsafe crossing it.  There is a wrongness about it you can just feel.

It’s also ugly.  And I am reminded of an essay by an engineer who said that bridges were the most beautiful products of all forms of engineering.  A properly designed bridge has curves, and those curves just feel right.  They are beautiful.

So, if you ever have questions about a bridge, and you don’t have enough facts to go on, just look at it.

If it’s ugly, don’t cross it.