Fake, phone-attacking cell-towers are all across America

mostlysignssomeportents:

The towers attack the baseband radio in your phone and use it to hack the OS; they’re only visible if you’re using one of the customized, paranoid-Android, post-Snowden secure phones, and they’re all around US military bases.

Read more…

"Seventeen mysterious cellphone towers have been found in America which look like ordinary towers, and can only be identified by a heavily customized handset built for Android security – but have a much more malicious purpose, according to Popular Science. The fake ‘towers’ – computers which wirelessly attack cellphones via the “baseband” chips built to allow them to communicate with their networks, can eavesdrop and even install spyware, ESD claims. They are a known technology - but the surprise is that they are in active use. The towers were found by users of the CryptoPhone 500, one of several ultra-secure handsets that have come to market in the last couple of years, after an executive noticed his handset was “leaking” data regularly."

Android security mystery - ‘fake’ cellphone towers found in U.S. (via worsethandetroit)

bashford:

Computed Copy by Nukem, So Kanno and yang02 of gokinjo-monozukuri.org

"Although there is a traditional way of designing flat patterns which considers the movement of the body and characteristics of the material, computers design it in a totally different way, because they recognize the 3D shape as a polygon which is a collective form of flat faces.

Our purpose for this “Computed Copy” is not only to make some distortion which humans cannot produce, but also to make garments which are not just “copy” and have the alternative creativity. By removing humans’ arbitrariness as much as possible from the process of copying designs, and by letting computers do it, we can create a new kind of designing system.

In the future, we think that it will be possible to copy a garment only with the image files on the internet without scanning actual things, thanks to the rapid development of 3D technology (scanning, modeling, and printing) and a flood of images on the internet. We expect that this work will be the fastest automated way of copying the designs as the final destination of fast fashion.”

Exhibited at Materializing II

Thanks Toby

kenyatta:

boingboing:

Digital tools have a mind of their own: yours
Clive Thompson’s says that there are three principal biases that today’s digital tools introduce to human thought.


First, they allow for prodigious external memory: smartphones, hard drives, cameras, and sensors routinely record more information than any tool before them. We’re shifting from a stance of rarely recording our ideas and the events of our lives to doing it habitually.
Second, today’s tools make it easier for us to find connections—between ideas, pictures, people, bits of news—that were previously invisible.
Third, they encourage a superfluity of communication and publishing.
This last feature has many surprising effects that are often ill understood. Any economist can tell you that when you suddenly increase the availability of a resource, people do more things with it, which also means they do increasingly unpredictable things. As electricity became cheap and ubiquitous in the West, its role expanded from things you’d expect—like nighttime lighting—to the unexpected and seemingly trivial: battery driven toy trains, electric blenders, vibrators.
The superfluity of communication today has produced everything from a rise in crowd-organized projects like Wikipedia to curious new forms of expression: television-show recaps, map-based storytelling, discussion threads that spin out of a photo posted to a smartphone app, Amazon product-review threads wittily hijacked for political satire. Now, none of these three digital biases is immutable, because they’re the product of software and hardware, and can easily be altered or ended if the architects of today’s tools (often corporate and governmental) decide to regulate the tools or find they’re not profitable enough. But right now, these big effects dominate our current and near-term landscape.

Go read this, pls.

kenyatta:

boingboing:

Digital tools have a mind of their own: yours

Clive Thompson’s says that there are three principal biases that today’s digital tools introduce to human thought.

First, they allow for prodigious external memory: smartphones, hard drives, cameras, and sensors routinely record more information than any tool before them. We’re shifting from a stance of rarely recording our ideas and the events of our lives to doing it habitually.

Second, today’s tools make it easier for us to find connections—between ideas, pictures, people, bits of news—that were previously invisible.

Third, they encourage a superfluity of communication and publishing.

This last feature has many surprising effects that are often ill understood. Any economist can tell you that when you suddenly increase the availability of a resource, people do more things with it, which also means they do increasingly unpredictable things. As electricity became cheap and ubiquitous in the West, its role expanded from things you’d expect—like nighttime lighting—to the unexpected and seemingly trivial: battery driven toy trains, electric blenders, vibrators.

The superfluity of communication today has produced everything from a rise in crowd-organized projects like Wikipedia to curious new forms of expression: television-show recaps, map-based storytelling, discussion threads that spin out of a photo posted to a smartphone app, Amazon product-review threads wittily hijacked for political satire. Now, none of these three digital biases is immutable, because they’re the product of software and hardware, and can easily be altered or ended if the architects of today’s tools (often corporate and governmental) decide to regulate the tools or find they’re not profitable enough. But right now, these big effects dominate our current and near-term landscape.

Go read this, pls.

"But it is also constrained at the level of social and political possibility. Emoji are terrible at depicting diversity: on Apple’s iOS platform, for example, there are many white faces, but only two seem Asian and none are black. Responding to public outcry, Apple now says it is “working closely with the Unicode Consortium in an effort to update the standard.”"

The Conservatism of Emoji (via iamdanw)

Dadaviz

"Aiming to become the youtube of Data Visualization…"

ezequiellasnier:

iGeo / Open source software, adding an interface to Processing (piGeon).

Is free and open source 3D modeling software library in Java for computational design in architecture, product design, interaction design and more. iGeo is designed to provide functionality of code-based 3D modeling, practicality of use in computational design practice and extensibility to cooperate with other data processing components and real-time input/output interaction interfaces to other various media in Java.

(via lifeandcode)

thehpalliance:

If you use YouTube, you need to know this.
You’ve heard all these rumblings about Net Neutrality over the past several months. Let’s get real: this is about controlling online video. It is estimated that by 2017, video content will account for 80-90% of all global Internet traffic.
This isn’t just about not being able to binge-watch a series on Netflix. It’s about the future of online video as we know it.
Whether your YouTube channel is home to daily vlogs, short films, or just that one video from when the cinnamon challenge seemed like a good idea, you’re a video creator. Your content and comments help shape this community. Let’s keep it that way.
Net Neutrality means that your YouTube videos reach people at the same speed as clips from last night’s episode of the Tonight Show. It means a level playing field for video creators looking to reach an audience. But new Net Neutrality rules could mess that up.
Here’s the deal: Telecommunications companies already charge us to access the Internet through our homes and our phones. New FCC rules could allow them to also charge content providers (like YouTube, Netflix, and even PBS) for access to our eyeballs. It could create a fast lane for Jimmy Fallon’s clips, and slow lane for your YouTube videos.
It is really important that the FCC understands that online video creators care about Net Neutrality. Even if you’ve only ever uploaded ONE VIDEO, you are a creator and you have a voice.
If you can, please add your channel to our petition. We’ll deliver this to the FCC in September and demonstrate that the online video community cares about this issue. 
Sign the petition, then spread the word.

thehpalliance:

If you use YouTube, you need to know this.

You’ve heard all these rumblings about Net Neutrality over the past several months. Let’s get real: this is about controlling online video. It is estimated that by 2017, video content will account for 80-90% of all global Internet traffic.

This isn’t just about not being able to binge-watch a series on Netflix. It’s about the future of online video as we know it.

Whether your YouTube channel is home to daily vlogs, short films, or just that one video from when the cinnamon challenge seemed like a good idea, you’re a video creator. Your content and comments help shape this community. Let’s keep it that way.

Net Neutrality means that your YouTube videos reach people at the same speed as clips from last night’s episode of the Tonight Show. It means a level playing field for video creators looking to reach an audience. But new Net Neutrality rules could mess that up.

Here’s the deal: Telecommunications companies already charge us to access the Internet through our homes and our phones. New FCC rules could allow them to also charge content providers (like YouTube, Netflix, and even PBS) for access to our eyeballs. It could create a fast lane for Jimmy Fallon’s clips, and slow lane for your YouTube videos.

It is really important that the FCC understands that online video creators care about Net Neutrality. Even if you’ve only ever uploaded ONE VIDEO, you are a creator and you have a voice.

If you can, please add your channel to our petition. We’ll deliver this to the FCC in September and demonstrate that the online video community cares about this issue.

Sign the petition, then spread the word.

(via notational)

Online Video is Nothing Like TV (But it Will Be if We Can't Think Differently)

fishingboatproceeds:

kenyatta:

edwardspoonhands:

WALL OF TEXT ABOUT ONLINE VIDEO!

Everything about online video is different from television (aside from the fact that lots of images are displayed in sequence in order to create the illusion of movement.)

The way the content is made is different, the mindset of the audience is different, the way social structures and fandoms are built is different, the kind of engagement is different, the barrier to entry is non-existent, the rate of change is at least doubled.

But humans are not good at thinking about things differently. Something new exists and, unless we are very young, we attempt to put it in an existing box…or some combination of existing boxes. Online video looks like television, so let’s create “Networks.” Let’s call the page of each creator a “Channel.” Let’s call the thing they do a “Show.” And the people themselves are “Stars.”

Of course this is what we do…creating new words is a hassle, especially when you’re trying to convince existing structures (like your mom, Hollywood executives, and Madison Avenue) that this thing is legitimate and interesting. So you use those old boxes. 

The problem is, the more we use those old boxes, the more everything starts to look like the thing that came before it. 

If we call collections of YouTube channels “Networks” everyone thinks about them like they’re Networks (especially in legacy media.) Then eventually creators start thinking about them as “online TV networks” when really, the needs of online video creators are completely different from the needs of TV creators. 

Suddenly, online video starts looking more like TV not because it should or anyone wants it to, but just because we lack the collective imagination to think of it differently. 

This is an old problem…and not one that can be completely avoided. People aren’t very adaptable. It’s like complaining that it snows in Montana…it’s so expensive to plow the streets, and there are more car accidents, it’s a drain on the economy! But, like, you can’t make it SNOW LESS, that’s ridiculous. 

But to some extent (and maybe not a huge extent) you can change social structures and you can change people. Not to match precisely what online video would be in it’s purest state, but to let some of its unique properties shine through. This will happen no matter what, but I think it will happen /more/ if we’re conscious about it…AND if we put people who actually understand it in charge of some of its more influential structures (YouTube, MCNs, Awards Shows.)

But that’s not what we’re doing. For a few years, YouTube has been led by a guy from Hollywood…so has Maker Studios…so has AwesomenessTV. YouTube is now in the hands of a stronger CEO who is at least from the tech world, which has much less in common with online video than TV does.

That might seem like a bad thing, but I don’t think it is. I think coming at new media with fresh eyes is much better than coming at it with pre-defined boxes. Thinking, “Oh, I see, so this is kinda like a channel…but different in a few ways,” gives you a much less accurate picture than thinking, “This is like nothing I’ve ever seen before…what exactly is it?” 

I (and probably you) came at online video with entirely fresh eyes. I knew nothing about hollywood structures or the roles that networks or agents or awards or channels played in the creation of media. I knew media existed, but the structures that surrounded them were entirely unknown and opaque to me. 

But most people in the online video business did not enter with that innocence, and I think that’s too bad. There are very few people who understand online video solely within the framework of online video in this industry, especially people who have differentiated themselves and gained enough experience to not only /be/ experts, but to be recognized as experts (which are two very different things.)

We’re headed into a world where the people who really get it are getting old enough to differentiate themselves and bring both authenticity and expertise into this industry, but it’s a bit of a battle at the moment…especially because a lot of the bigger companies have already got it into their heads that TV and online video really are very similar. 

And if they think that for long enough, my fear is that eventually, it will become true. Not because it is, but simply because we lacked imagination. 

So if you’re into this…figure out ways to differentiate yourself as an expert who should be recognized as such…then please, send me your resume.

I LOVE THIS POST edwardspoonhands!!! (bold emph and italics mine) Change the world! Go work for Hank!

I also love it. Go work for Hank. (Or go work for Kenyatta!)

bashford:

The 20th Gartner Hype Cycle graph

bashford:

The 20th Gartner Hype Cycle graph

Amazon textbook rentals: fine-print bans taking books over state lines

mostlysignssomeportents:

 If you thought Google deleting your ebooks when you cross a border is unreasonable, check this out: Amazon’s textbook rental service comes with fine-print that allows the company to bill your credit card for the full amount if they think you’ve crossed a state line with it. It’s not clear exactly what’s going on here, but all signs point to this being part of Amazon’s strategy for avoiding having to pay state sales-tax.  

Read more…

(via emergentfutures)

hateplow:

MM..FOOD

hateplow:

MM..FOOD

state of the art face tracking for digital avatars.

(Source: youtube.com)

failedprojects:

I ONCE HAD the pleasure of hearing a historically informed performance of a Bach sonata played on an organ made by master builder John Brombaugh. Brombaugh organs are tuned in what is called unequal temperament. It is a bizarrely little-known fact, but today’s tuning standard, equal temperament, is a relatively modern system. To hear Glenn Gould plunk away at Bach on a piano is a historical goof. Today, if confronted with Gould performing his music on a contemporary instrument, Bach would most likely wonder, “Why is this Canadian guy playing my compositions out of tune?” Like computer software, music is a set of instructions performed in real time on various instruments, and like all technologies, parts of these systems can become obsolete—even something as common as what we hear as C major. Moreover, technology—like taste—does not necessarily proceed in a straight line. If we traveled back to the 1700s and heard Bach play, we might just as easily ask, “Why is he playing his own stuff out of tune?” Hierarchies of authenticity might be best considered relative.

A historically informed setting for the images discovered by this preservation effort would dictate that the following real-time systems be strung together: Warhol’s images would be need to be visualized in real time and in real space by a period- specific, analog, cathode-ray-tube Amiga monitor hooked up to an Amiga 1000 running the specific version of GraphiCraft found on Warhol’s disk, booted using Amiga Kickstart 26.7, all running on US 110V, 60Hz power. This is the only performance of these sketches that would be 100 percent accurate to 1985. The images you see reproduced here are renderings of the raw digital files for contemporary print and Web—a Gould version, if you will. Luckily, though, we might be on the right track, because the performance of these images is not entirely limited to a given medium, technology, or period, any more than an image can exist as a true original, as Warhol knew better than anyone. In 1986, when asked how he would like to see his sketches displayed, Warhol replied, “Well, we could get a printout. I could just print this out if we had the printer.” I hope he would have been OK with making a few thousand copies.

via the warhol files: andy warhol’s long-lost computer graphics - artforum.com / in print

failedprojects:

I ONCE HAD the pleasure of hearing a historically informed performance of a Bach sonata played on an organ made by master builder John Brombaugh. Brombaugh organs are tuned in what is called unequal temperament. It is a bizarrely little-known fact, but today’s tuning standard, equal temperament, is a relatively modern system. To hear Glenn Gould plunk away at Bach on a piano is a historical goof. Today, if confronted with Gould performing his music on a contemporary instrument, Bach would most likely wonder, “Why is this Canadian guy playing my compositions out of tune?” Like computer software, music is a set of instructions performed in real time on various instruments, and like all technologies, parts of these systems can become obsolete—even something as common as what we hear as C major. Moreover, technology—like taste—does not necessarily proceed in a straight line. If we traveled back to the 1700s and heard Bach play, we might just as easily ask, “Why is he playing his own stuff out of tune?” Hierarchies of authenticity might be best considered relative.

A historically informed setting for the images discovered by this preservation effort would dictate that the following real-time systems be strung together: Warhol’s images would be need to be visualized in real time and in real space by a period- specific, analog, cathode-ray-tube Amiga monitor hooked up to an Amiga 1000 running the specific version of GraphiCraft found on Warhol’s disk, booted using Amiga Kickstart 26.7, all running on US 110V, 60Hz power. This is the only performance of these sketches that would be 100 percent accurate to 1985. The images you see reproduced here are renderings of the raw digital files for contemporary print and Web—a Gould version, if you will. Luckily, though, we might be on the right track, because the performance of these images is not entirely limited to a given medium, technology, or period, any more than an image can exist as a true original, as Warhol knew better than anyone. In 1986, when asked how he would like to see his sketches displayed, Warhol replied, “Well, we could get a printout. I could just print this out if we had the printer.” I hope he would have been OK with making a few thousand copies.

via the warhol files: andy warhol’s long-lost computer graphics - artforum.com / in print

(via raymondboisjoly)

gregponchak:

I created a very annoying Tumblr theme in an attempt to slow down the pace at which content is consumed. You can see it here: http://gregponchak.tumblr.com/ 

gregponchak:

I created a very annoying Tumblr theme in an attempt to slow down the pace at which content is consumed. You can see it here:

(via raymondboisjoly)