The new death calculus

The Cost of Living Longer — Much Longer
Number crunchers are dead set on figuring out how long you will live. For those saving for retirement, it’s the $27 trillion question.
http://www.smartmoney.com/retirement/planning/the-cost-of-living-longer–much-longer-1328897162395/?mg=com-sm

While this is a long article (by web standards) I suggest anyone who is smart enough to think about life after retirement (including already being retired) read it. Naturally the information is equivocal, but it does allow one to focus what ‘success’ means in retirement planning. If you expect to die at 70 and plan on retiring at 65, then you don’t need much money at all to live well, but if you want to retire at 60 and expect to live into your 80’s or longer, you either need to win the lotto or develop very low expectations for your post-retirement lifestyle. In my and my wife’s case, we are trying to do a bit of both by trying to maximize our 401K, paying down long-term debt, expecting to have some modest income (hopefully through hobbies, certainly with flexible hours working from home) and determined to live with a lot less. With a spread sheet to look at some scenarios it would seem that this approach has a lot going for it, that is, as long as we either have affordable health care or manage to avoid expensive trips to the doctor. But just a few bad things can turn the pretty spread sheet view into a dismal slog through the end of life wondering each day if we should save that $5 or should splurge it on fast food.

Old(er) people always give advice to young(er) people that they themselves failed to heed, so I will continue that trend and say that you whippersnappers should really be putting some bucks away now so you don’t have to worry so much about it later.

Flash Crash

Nanosecond Trading Could Make Markets Go Haywire
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/02/high-speed-trading/

Man, there is money to be made here! Of course, it is very expensive to get sub millisecond access, let alone programming analysis algorithms that can make decisions in this time frame, but what a payoff! I bet you could analyze the current algorithms simply by looking at how they react and then once enough information has been gleaned you could then give a small push in one direction and cause the market to respond in an amplified fashion and make a huge mint in the process. Since there are no humans involved at that level, presuming you are a smart enough programmer, this would be like having a legal printing press in your basement churning out bucks.

Of course, the smart thing to do would be to eliminate trading at this speed (it is inherently unfair anyway, since getting that sort of access is nearly impossible for ordinary people), but since our entire government is totally corrupted by the monied special interests I don’t see any practical way to avoid this sort of thing. Thus, if it were possible to find appropriate investors who could pony up the bucks to buy the high speed access and the ultra-fast hardware necessary to make decisions at that speed, success might actually change the market’s minds about the regulations.

That would be such a cool job I might relocate to NY just to take part in it!

Santorum also in the 1%

At least he paid honest taxes…

Santorum took in $3.6M in four years; highest tax rate was 28.3%
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/15/four-years-of-santorum-tax-returns-out-soon/?hpt=hp_t2

Why is it so many people who are first elected into Congress that aren’t already millionaires become millionaires once they have been there a few years? It used to be a public service to act as a people’s Representative, now it is just another way to make big bucks by lyin, cheatin and scamin.

Is this really new or interesting?

Researchers Crack Online Encryption System
An online encryption method widely used to protect banking, email, e-commerce and other sensitive Internet transactions is not as secure as assumed, according to a report issued by a team of U.S and European cryptanalysts.
www.cio.com/article/700215/Researchers_Crack_Online_Encryption_System

I didn’t delve into the details on this because it strikes me much like creating a brouhaha by saying passwords are insecure because someone can look over your shoulder as you type it. If your random number generator for generating random keys isn’t that random (in cryptography circles the most common failure is to seed rand() with time() or clock(), something trivially easy to reproduce (not that using rand() is very random to begin with)) then _clearly_ the keys you generated won’t be random. I guess this might be interesting news to people who don’t know a damn thing about cryptography, but then again ignorant people are, by definition, unknowing of things. It would sort of like be an article detailing how specific stitching patterns on the veins and arteries of heart bypass patients might lead to increased leaks in the hands of unskilled surgeons, in other words, totally pointless to anyone except, just possibly, unskilled heart surgeons.

Besides, ‘perfect’ encryption is a total mirage anyway.

Evidence for the hygiene hypothesis

In a Squeaky-Clean World, a Worm Might Help Fight Disease
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204795304577220993641557460.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

I have been following this theory for a number of years and it seems to be gaining ground. There is increasing evidence that we have mutualistically co-evolved along with dozens (perhaps hundreds or even thousands) of microbial species that our clean society has caused us to lose. Because of this imbalance our bodies are now much more susceptible to a host of diseases that just a few generations ago were practically unknown. I suspect that over the next couple of decades (it takes a long time for things like this to change in the world of medicine) we will see all sorts of treatments based on microbial cultures. There is some evidence in some animal studies and very small human trials that the type and relative abundance of microbes in our guts can lead to, or ameliorate, chronic obesity. I suspect that in the next couple of decades that the study of immunology will be completely turned on its head. I recall from my study of the history of science that just before the discovery of antibiotics researchers had been developing bacteriophages (viruses that specifically target certain bacteria) in treating infections and had been making some progress. Why would anyone care about that? Because of evolution, as the bacteria evolve to get resistance against the phage, the phage is evolving to better attack the bacteria, something that isn’t happening in our world of chemical antibiotics. Since that research was effectively abandoned 70 or so years ago it will take a while to ramp that back up and in general pharmaceutical companies don’t know jack about biology (hard to imagine, I know, but I assure you it is true) there isn’t much funding and getting approval for clinical trials is often quite challenging (for instance, it has taken nearly a decade to get approval for the above mentioned trials and most of the early human evidence was supplied by people testing it on themselves).

Revolutions in science are usually good, it forces people out of their preconceived notions and there is often dramatic progress for a period until people slip back into their conviction that they already know everything.

_Very_ interesting reading

The hysterical American decline
As America tries to cling to world dominance, we can learn important lessons from Vietnam and Iraq
http://www.salon.com/2012/02/14/the_hysterical_american_decline/singleton/

UPDATE
Part II of the above:
America’s apocalyptic imperial strategy
In Iran, China and elsewhere, U.S. attempts to cling to power threaten to destabilize the globe
http://www.salon.com/2012/02/15/americas_apocalyptic_imperial_strategy/singleton/

If what this guy says is true (it sure sounds plausible and subject to verification, but, as usual, I am too lazy to investigate) then it turns out that the US backing of despots and brutal dictators and the consequent suppression of any attempts at democracy was always part of a detailed plan implemented with full knowledge of the consequences. Actually a bit terrifying because if the oligarchy that clearly formulated and put this hideous plan into action now views the current US population as ‘them’, then we are on the cusp of some really, _really_ bad times. Instead of plain old ignorance leading to the downfall of our nation’s infrastructure (for instance, why should the oligarchy give a damn about bridges and roads, they use helicopters!) it might be part of a long-term design. This, is, of course, very conspiratorial and smacks of the worn out ‘Jewish world domination’ conspiracy, but these people _already_ control our country and if, as I have alluded to before (and promise to one day actually detail), the wealthy are negatively incentivized to help the economy, then they might easily slip into actively destroying our economy just to preserve their world view.

I really encourage my reader(s) to read the article!

Reading should be fun, educational or both!

Stories don’t need morals or messages
A “stupid” test shows that the Puritan ethic lives on. Why do we insist on learning lessons from the books we read?
http://www.salon.com/2012/01/31/stories_dont_need_morals_or_messages/singleton/

Some good stuff on Salon today.

While I am all over educational reading, I am also a huge fan of non-educational (or entertainment) reading. I often term books (or movies) that are fun and entertaining but have no other redeeming value as ‘cotton candy for the brain’ and while that may sound pejorative, it really isn’t meant to be. When one goes to a fair and grabs some cotton candy, one isn’t trying to maximize their nutritional intake, they are ‘merely’ trying to have a great time (I no longer find cotton candy that rewarding (or fairs), but that is probably because I am starting my curmudgeon years early).

While I have a moral objection to quizzing students on their reading, I do see it as necessary to learn if they have in fact read anything or simply moved their eyes back and forth the requisite number of times (as our boy often seems wont to do). I have attempted to encourage our boy to read for enjoyment but he doesn’t seem to have got to that point (it took me until the 6th grade to do so, so plenty of time for him to adapt). I can see, though, how a lot of students would develop an aversion to reading (or math or any other subject) when they are being asked such inane questions and forced to parrot the ‘correct’ answer.

Man am I glad I don’t have to do that crap any more!

I just can’t help myself

I have commented on the looming war with Iran a number of times and much like drone on and on about our police state it seems I am destined to drone on about the idiotic war we are about to engage in with Iran:

U.S. media takes the lead on Iran
http://www.salon.com/2012/02/14/us_media_takes_the_lead_on_iran/singleton/

It is really amazing reading and seems clearly purposed to rile up the sheeple. Why the GOP condemns the ‘liberal media’ when crap like this happens I guess only serves as proof that, just like the grand old Bush/Cheney doctrine, you are either with us or against us.

So, lets throw in yet another unfunded war! Who cares how many Iranians we kill setting them free? They are just those damn Muslims anyway, foreigners in their own country!

Yes and no

Cyberwar Is the New Yellowcake, Fueling a Cybersecurity-Industrial Complex
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/02/yellowcake-and-cyberwar/

We do have a “Cybersecurity-Industrial Complex” exactly like the military industrial complex with the revolving door between the government and the companies sucking on its tits. However, the problem potential is not overblown. Unlike the WMD issue which required physical substances at physical locations with at-location presence of people with particular skill sets, cyber warfare does not require any (additional) physical substances, we supply the networks and servers; physical locations, thanks to the Internet an attack can originate anywhere there is ‘net access; or people with particular skills being at any specific location, again, due to the ‘net, skilled attackers can collaborate scattered across the globe. I have studied infosec for nigh on a decade now and I can state with a bit of authority that our cyber security protection level could most generously be described as cheese cloth rent full of holes. Major network providers are focused on highly disruptive events like DDOS attacks and not on the vastly more consequential (in the long term, clearly if their network level of service is allowed to suffer they will suffer in the market place) attacks by security professionals. The mind set in much of the infosec world is that attackers are dumb (you may have heard of the term ‘script kiddies’), therefore one need only up the bar to a certain level and you are safe. That is totally wrong and it is amazing how many high-level decision makers in the infosec world (forget about the actual executives that cut checks, they are totally clueless!) think that is the real threat. The real threat is the highly skilled, highly motivated, often highly compensated individuals or groups that are _at least_ as knowledgeable about infosec as the ‘good guys’ (indeed, given that half of all (known) attacks are done by insiders, they _are_ the good guys, at least part of the time).

Yes, this is hyperbole:

In his 2010 bestseller Cyber War, Richard Clarke warns that a cyberattack today could result in the collapse of the government’s classified and unclassified networks, the release of “lethal clouds of chlorine gas” from chemical plants, refinery fires and explosions across the country, midair collisions of 737s, train derailments, the destruction of major financial computer networks, suburban gas pipeline explosions, a nationwide power blackout, and satellites in space spinning out of control.

but each individual element is plausible and defensible (if extreme) and in certain cases there is indeed evidence that some attempts have been made. I believe that without people making such radical statements no one would listen as no one has listened as infosec professionals have been shouting about this stuff for decades. Sometimes to get the sheeple motivated you need to point out the extremes of what is plausible just to get their attention. However, when (and I am certain it is a when) proof of these attacks is finally available it will be available because we have all failed to get light when we turned the switch or get water when we opened the taps or get dead air when we pick up the phone. Tearing apart the specific alarmist examples is the opposite of proof that nothing bad can happen. This is in direct opposition to the WMD example where it is possible to pick apart the chain of evidence and have the failure of a single link prove the chain is nonexistent. In the world of infosec ANY insecurity means there is no security. Sort of like fencing in a building. Even if we discount digging under or scaling the fence, if the damn fence isn’t complete there is no protection at all! If the fence is contiguous but is knee high in portions then it is again no protection! That is the challenge of infosec and that is the challenge that is not being met by the infosec community because those who have been ignored so long they start to use hyperbole in an effort to get their point across are further marginalized because of their hyperbole.

This is a bad situation that is only going to get worse! Unfortunately, the people currently in charge are so hopelessly clueless about the risks that even if they listen to their infosec professionals (the ‘real’ ones and not the ones that were promoted because they told the executives what they wanted to hear) their clueless bumbling will be creating holes faster than the infosec professionals can patch them.

Real security is hard and a pain in the ass. I get to deal with real security every day at work and it takes a dramatic toll on my productivity, yet much of the security I have to deal with is still based on trust and anyone can trivially violate that trust (much like Bradley Manning) and even if there is no intentional violation, social engineering is enormously effective and that isn’t even considering direct espionage by the bad guys (remember when we used to hear about Russian spies all the time? They might not be Russian, but there are still plenty of them!).

So in this case, be afraid, very afraid!

So, how to address this? Short of giving an IQ injection to our lords and masters (would it even take? I bet their immune system would reject it ;-)) I am not sure there is any possibility. Being able to prove that professionals have even penetrated your systems and stolen things of interest can be challenging even ignoring the requirements of police investigation constraints (presuming they can even carry out the investigation) and rules of law. When someone states that they are certain that China is behind such and such attack they are either stupid (highly probable) or bald faced liars (somewhat less probable, I suppose, because it is easier to convince dumb-assed executives to lie on their behalf) since only if someone were careless (hence a ‘script kiddie’ instead of a professional) is it even possible to trace an attack to its origin. It is also trivial to produce a traceable path that is totally manufactured, so it is actually simple for, say, Russians to make it look like the Chinese have done it. The only way I have thought to provide even minimal (effective) security is to put an artificial intelligence program in charge and that is just hustling down the path to Skynet and our eventual demise at the hands of our own weapons (or you can fantasize about alternatives if you lie).

Another reason to vote for Obama?

Polls: All knotted up between Romney & Santorum
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/13/polls-all-knotted-up-between-romney-santorum/?hpt=hp_bn3

I have yet to read anything about Santorum that would make me look past his evident desire to push women back into the stone age. Indeed, pretty much everything I have read about him convinces me that Obama, much as I dislike him, would be the lesser of the two evils (Romney, as I have stated before, is to me indistinguishable from Obama once past superficial physicalities). Much as I dislike Paul, I still think that if he somehow magically got the nomination I might just vote for him in the gamble that he won’t be able to implement his repressive social agenda but will much of his military and foreign policy agenda.

It really sucks that our only choices are between the lesser of evils!