uRandom

Tue 27th Feb 2007 @ 07:22 2007: Fireworks, Comet, Lightning

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070205.html

Thu 22nd Feb 2007 @ 00:22 2007: Travel Tax - the response from Number 10

For the 1.8m or so who signed the Travel Tax petition on "Tony Blair's website" (http://www.pm.gov.uk/ - yes, he does get his own website; no, that doesn't mean that it's a media-driven government, honest!), the response is in. Yes, he's spammed 1.8m citizens (and yes, my spam filters caught it as spam, it's only because I heard about it on the radio that I trawled through and found it):

Thank you for taking the time to register your views about road pricing on the Downing Street website.

This petition was posted shortly before we published the Eddington Study, an independent review of Britain's transport network. This study set out long-term challenges and options for our transport network.

It made clear that congestion is a major problem to which there is no easy answer. One aspect of the study was highlighting how road pricing could provide a solution to these problems and that advances in technology put these plans within our reach. Of course it would be ten years or more before any national scheme was technologically, never mind politically, feasible.

That is the backdrop to this issue. As my response makes clear, this is not about imposing "stealth taxes" or introducing "Big Brother" surveillance. This is a complex subject, which cannot be resolved without a thorough investigation of all the options, combined with a full and frank debate about the choices we face at a local and national level. That's why I hope this detailed response will address your concerns and set out how we intend to take this issue forward. I see this email as the beginning, not the end of the debate, and the links below provide an opportunity for you to take it further.

But let me be clear straight away: we have not made any decision about national road pricing. Indeed we are simply not yet in a position to do so. We are, for now, working with some local authorities that are interested in establishing local schemes to help address local congestion problems. Pricing is not being forced on any area, but any schemes would teach us more about how road pricing would work and inform decisions on a national scheme. And funds raised from these local schemes will be used to improve transport in those areas.

One thing I suspect we can all agree is that congestion is bad. It's bad for business because it disrupts the delivery of goods and services. It affects people's quality of life. And it is bad for the environment. That is why tackling congestion is a key priority for any Government.

Congestion is predicted to increase by 25% by 2015. This is being driven by economic prosperity. There are 6 million more vehicles on the road now than in 1997, and predictions are that this trend will continue.

Part of the solution is to improve public transport, and to make the most of the existing road network. We have more than doubled investment since 1997, spending £2.5 billion this year on buses and over £4 billion on trains - helping to explain why more people are using them than for decades. And we're committed to sustaining this investment, with over £140 billion of investment planned between now and 2015. We're also putting a great deal of effort into improving traffic flows - for example, over 1000 Highways Agency Traffic Officers now help to keep motorway traffic moving.

But all the evidence shows that improving public transport and tackling traffic bottlenecks will not by themselves prevent congestion getting worse. So we have a difficult choice to make about how we tackle the expected increase in congestion. This is a challenge that all political leaders have to face up to, and not just in the UK. For example, road pricing schemes are already in operation in Italy, Norway and Singapore, and others, such as the Netherlands, are developing schemes. Towns and cities across the world are looking at road pricing as a means of addressing congestion.

One option would be to allow congestion to grow unchecked. Given the forecast growth in traffic, doing nothing would mean that journeys within and between cities would take longer, and be less reliable. I think that would be bad for businesses, individuals and the environment. And the costs on us all will be real - congestion could cost an extra £22 billion in wasted time in England by 2025, of which £10-12 billion would be the direct cost on businesses.

A second option would be to try to build our way out of congestion. We could, of course, add new lanes to our motorways, widen roads in our congested city centres, and build new routes across the countryside. Certainly in some places new capacity will be part of the story. That is why we are widening the M25, M1 and M62. But I think people agree that we cannot simply build more and more roads, particularly when the evidence suggests that traffic quickly grows to fill any new capacity.

Tackling congestion in this way would also be extremely costly, requiring substantial sums to be diverted from other services such as education and health, or increases in taxes. If I tell you that one mile of new motorway costs as much as £30m, you'll have an idea of the sums this approach would entail.

That is why I believe that at least we need to explore the contribution road pricing can make to tackling congestion. It would not be in anyone's interests, especially those of motorists, to slam the door shut on road pricing without exploring it further.

It has been calculated that a national scheme - as part of a wider package of measures - could cut congestion significantly through small changes in our overall travel patterns. But any technology used would have to give definite guarantees about privacy being protected - as it should be. Existing technologies, such as mobile phones and pay-as-you-drive insurance schemes, may well be able to play a role here, by ensuring that the Government doesn't hold information about where vehicles have been. But there may also be opportunities presented by developments in new technology. Just as new medical technology is changing the NHS, so there will be changes in the transport sector. Our aim is to relieve traffic jams, not create a "Big Brother" society.

I know many people's biggest worry about road pricing is that it will be a "stealth tax" on motorists. It won't. Road pricing is about tackling congestion.

Clearly if we decided to move towards a system of national road pricing, there could be a case for moving away from the current system of motoring taxation. This could mean that those who use their car less, or can travel at less congested times, in less congested areas, for example in rural areas, would benefit from lower motoring costs overall. Those who travel longer distances at peak times and in more congested areas would pay more. But those are decisions for the future. At this stage, when no firm decision has been taken as to whether we will move towards a national scheme, stories about possible costs are simply not credible, since they depend on so many variables yet to be investigated, never mind decided.

Before we take any decisions about a national pricing scheme, we know that we have to have a system that works. A system that respects our privacy as individuals. A system that is fair. I fully accept that we don't have all the answers yet. That is why we are not rushing headlong into a national road pricing scheme. Before we take any decisions there would be further consultations. The public will, of course, have their say, as will Parliament.

We want to continue this debate, so that we can build a consensus around the best way to reduce congestion, protect the environment and support our businesses. If you want to find out more, please visit the attached links to more detailed information, and which also give opportunities to engage in further debate.

Yours sincerely,

Tony Blair

Both the 10 Downing Street and Department for Transport websites offer much more information about road pricing.
This includes a range of independent viewpoints, both for and against.
You can also read the Eddington Report in full.
You can reply to this email by posting a question to Roads Minister Dr. Stephen Ladyman in a webchat on the No 10 website this Thursday.
There will be further opportunities in the coming months to get involved in the debate. You will receive one final e-mail from Downing Street to update you in due course.
If you would like to opt out of receiving further mail on this or any other petitions you signed, please email optout@petitions.pm.gov.uk

Tue 13th Feb 2007 @ 23:20 2007: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0

Oh dear, did I just tell you all that hex?

I'm probably going down under the DMCA.

Yes, my friends, that majestic code is what is protecting the $megabillions that the MPAA "loses" in piracy.

Of course, I wouldn't link to a nasty site like doom9, would I (http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=121866&page=6)

It seems that the keys were wiped from memory (so that debuggers wouldn't find the key) in such a way as to actually clearly flag its location:

But then I realized why I first didn't find the Media Key: it was removed from memory after the Volume ID was retrieved and the VUK calculated. I also saw that in my "corrupt" memdump the VUK, Vol ID, Media Key and the Title Key MAC were all closely clustered in memory: in the first 50kb (of the entire multi megabyte file!) but there were large empty parts around it. Almost as if it was cleaned up.

Fri 9th Feb 2007 @ 13:52 2007: Noooooo!

Walk This Way

For the love of all that is good in the world, don't do it!

Wed 7th Feb 2007 @ 22:38 2007: Apple - Thoughts on Music

Steve Jobs has written an article saying that If the big four music companies would license Apple their music without the requirement that it be protected with a DRM, we would switch to selling only DRM-free music on our iTunes store. Every iPod ever made will play this DRM-free music.

It's easy for him to say; Apple will sell iPods whether they use DRM or not - indeed, they may even sell more than before (though, as he points out, they can already play non-DRM'd files, and only about 22% of songs on iPods use DRM)

But it's still a pretty bold statement to make to the RIAA. I think that that "22%" figure is the key point of the article; it's not just a statistic thrown in as part of a larger discussion, it feels more like the entire reason for publishing the article, IMHO. It's a big stick to hit the RIAA with: "It turns out that we don't need your licensing deals to sell iPods," whilst at the same time coming across to the consumer as if they're fighting for consumers' rights, not just for Apple's profits.

Still, it's good to have a "big name" on record (so to speak) pointing out that DRM is mostly a awaste of time and effort.

Mon 5th Feb 2007 @ 23:50 2007: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics

I came across this post from the Mathematical Association of America in December, and have been meaning to get around to doing a writeup. However, I'm too lazy, so here goes:

The original post: Statisticians Not Wanted; apparently in California, the Judges, not the Statisticians, will now decide how to interpret statistics. That sounds worrying, given that very few people seem to understand the basics of mean/median/mode, and how figures can be skewed.

"Whether evidence has less probative value or more probative value is a legal evaluation, not a scientific one. Nothing prevents scientists from debating the issue, but its evaluation and resolution is reserved for the judiciary alone."