Universal Cell Phone Kill Switch: Why government-mandated solutions can make for bad security

Several bills have been proposed on the state and national levels to mandate a remote "kill switch" on all cell phones sold in the US. The purpose of the bill is to prevent cell phone theft by allowing users to permanently disable stolen cell phones.
 On the surface, this seems like a great idea: what can go wrong? A government mandated solution has many issues:
 Since the feature is one that is mandated by the government, we will likely see some poor implementations of it by some manufactures. A poor implementation could result in accidental bricking or even exploitation. This has happened in the past: a Gizmodo writer had his iPhone and macBook remotely wiped by a hacker. 
Given recent revelations about our Government's actions in the technology security field, I also worry about the the power of this legislation. What prevents the government from mandating the bricking of would-be protester's phones, for example? That may sound ludicrous, but its not. In 2011, Bay Area Rapid Transport Authority of San Francisco shut off its subway's cell phone transmitters to prevent a protest, leaving all passengers without cell signal. Imagine what can be done with a cell phone kill switch.
Currently there are free and built in solutions that offer similar functionality to the proposed "kill switch." Apple allows users to deactivate stolen devices in a way that persists even through a reset, and the free Android app TrustGo allows users to track and lock stolen devices.
 If these bills were to pass, language must be added to ensure that the kill-switch has an opt-out that allows the user to completely disable the functionality. Why give a hacker or the government the chance to brick your phone?

Connect a 2560x1440 QHD Monitor over HDMI 1.4 [Windows]

This post is a bit different from my other ones- it is a simple tutorial to connect a 2560x1440 monitor to a laptop with a HDMI 1.4 port. While HDMI 1.4 is capable of outputting to 2560x1440, many laptop graphics drivers artificially limit this to 1200p. I'm posting this because while simple, the process of tricking the GPU to output to 1440p via HDMI took me a few days of googling to figure out.

You will need:
2560x1440 monitor with Dual link DVI input (They sell for around $300 on Ebay)
Spare Monitor (1080p or less) with DVI input
Laptop/Desktop with HDMI 1.4 port running Windows OS (most computers made in the last few years are on 1.4 specs, mine is the HP DV6-6135DX)
Dual Link DVI to HDMI cord (It is important to get a dual link DVI adapter. A single link adapter will not have the bandwidth to output 1440)
The Custom Resolution Utility, a free software by ToastyX at Monitor.com

First, connect the QHD monitor to the computer via the DVI-HDMI cord. You may notice that your graphics adapter refuses to output any sort of resolution to the screen. Don't worry, the monitor's specification is now saved and you can edit the specification to trick the graphics adapter to output in 1440p.

Connect the spare monitor to the laptop via the same cable. This monitor should work at 1080p or whatever the native resolution is.

Open CRU and select the "Active" monitor from the dropdown. Choose "Add" a detailed resolution. Edit the entry to read 1440 for vertical and 2560 for horizontal pixels. Save, and restart your computer.

Now you should have the ability to output in 2560x1440 on this 1080p monitor. Right click the Desktop and go to screen resolution. Select 2560x1440 and apply to test this.

Open CRU again and click "Copy" on the top right corner next to the active monitor. This copies the display settings on the current monitor. "Paste" those settings onto the next monitor on the dropdown- this should be the 1440p monitor we first connected.

Restart your computer and reconnect the 1440p monitor. You should now be able to see the screen output and select the native 2560x1440 resolution.

Note: Some people will need to decrease the screen refresh rate to display at 1440p. Usually 55Hz is okay.

A 2560x1440 monitor is great for things like computer coding, video editing, and multitasking in general. Don't let silly driver restrictions stop you from enjoying life in QHD.

Windows 8: Good for Touchscreens, Not for Business

During my summer internship at fisoc I set up at least 10 PC's for incoming employees. Startups like fisoc move very quickly and we rarely have time to buy custom-order PCs, so many of our new Dell XPS towers came with Windows 8 pre-installed. I quickly learned that Windows 8 is a poor fit for the business environment in comparison to its predecessor.

Microsoft designed Windows 8 as a touch OS that also happens to work on traditional PCs. Most businesses use traditional PC's for good reason: productivity applications (think Excel, AutoCAD, and Photoshop) use the efficient keyboard-and-mouse interface. Touch interfaces are better for consumption and entertainment applications like web browsers and media playback where typing speed, pointer precision, and keyboard shortcuts are not important. By creating an OS that works better on touchscreens than on keyboard/mouse, Microsoft has essentially sacrificed its place in the business world to follow the current consumer trends.

User Interface:

Windows 8 was designed with touch in mind, to the extent that traditional keyboard and mouse usage is hampered. In order to access the "Charms" bar where most functionality lies, one must hover the cursor over the top right corner: this is slow for mouse users compared to just clicking the start menu icon.

Buried Functionality:

Presumably to make the OS more consumer-friendly, Microsoft has made some essential business functionality hidden. The Control Panel, for example, must be searched for. I missed easy access to "My Computer."  Traditional OS troubleshooting tools like System Restore and Disk Imaging are hidden in favor of the less potent "Refresh" option and the overkill "Reinstall" option. 

Desktop/Tile Modes:

Microsoft designed Windows 8 to support traditional windows programs, but forces users to use the metro interface to launch those applications. This is jarring and inefficient. All new applications must be started from the "metro" tile interface. "Metro" apps will stay in the Tile interface, while traditional apps would open in the Desktop. A better option would be to place all traditional apps as well as all essential functionality on the desktop interface so that users do not have to switch should they choose not to.

Conclusion:

For many business users, Windows 8 is a de-optimized Windows 7 without significant added value. All Windows 7 functionality is there, but it takes more interaction (hovers, typing, clicks, etc) to get to them. In Windows 7, for example, it takes 2 mouse clicks to get to "My Computer," in Windows 8, it takes mouse hovering, typing into the Search Bar, and then clicking to get to the same resource.

Of course, Microsoft is likely not too worried about Windows 8's adoption in the business world. It knows that businesses tend to upgrade IT slowly and a significant portion of businesses are still running Windows XP, an operating system more than 12 years old that MS is desperately trying to kill off. Microsoft will therefore need to prepare to support Windows 7 for as long as they have supported Windows XP. What Microsoft is not considering, however, is the threat of alternative OS's replacing Window's platform role in the business world. As more applications become web-based, Windows loses leverage and alternatives like OS X and Linux become more attractive.

Why I'm BULLISH on AMD As A Result of the Current Radeon GPU Shortage

I recently read an article on the Motely Fool concerning AMD's future in light of current Radeon GPU shortage. Timothy Green, an investor in Nvidia, says this short term demand will not last and in the long term this will hurt AMD's market share in the PC gaming market. I wholeheartedly disagree:

The current shortage of AMD GPUs is a sign of long term strength for AMD. The shortage in high-end AMD GPUs will easily be resolved by contracting more production, and AMD is now positioned to gain hugely in the GPU supercomputing market.

1. Both AMD and Nvidia are "fabless" chip designers. Therefore they can quickly ramp up production by contracting more capacity from chip manufacturers.

2. AMD is uniquely positioned to increase production of its GPUs due to its close cooperation with GlobalFounderies, a chip manufacturing company spun-off from AMD in 2009. Nvidia, meanwhile, has had capacity issues with its main manufacturer TSMC.

3. AMD's GPUs have a raw performance advantage is not limited to mining cryptocurrencies. AMD's chip design makes it significantly more efficient for the calculation of one way cryptographic hash integers: these hashes form the basis of modern cryptography. Combined with the long time it takes to create a new GPU core design, it it safe to say that AMD GPUs are more powerful and will remain more powerful in a variety of computational applications including but not limited to cryptographic calculations.

4. Nvidia's cards and the proprietary CUDA language have long been preferred for GPU based scientific computation because CUDA has been easier to program for. AMD uses the OpenCL language, which has now matured to a point where programmers are opting for OpenCL and AMD due to performance advantages.

Things I Learned From Building My First PC

• Invest in a good case: it looks nicer and makes the rest of the build easier
•  You probably don't need a Optical Drive.
• You probably don't need a (huge) Hard Disk Drive.
• Invest in a good Motherboard.
• Buy the biggest SSD you can afford.
• Play it safe when buying PSUs.
• Test your overclocks with multiple benchmarks.
• Don't trip your circuit breaker.

Many computer builders opt for a small SSD as a boot drive and buy a HDD to store documents. I opted to save the money from the HDD and bought a bigger SSD instead. You can always put big files in an external hard drive or even the cloud. If you require fast access to large files, this may not apply.

Before buying a DVD/Bluray player, ask yourself, how many times last month did I use optical media? If the answer is less than two, you're probably better off saving that money for something else. There's almost nothing today that a optical disk drive can do that an internet connection/USB drive can't do better. Most video games, software, and movies can be downloaded as digital copies. Booting from a USB drive to install Windows is way faster than installing from a disk.  If you have a slow internet connection and can't buy digital goods, an optical drive may be necessary for you.

A good computer case will have built in fans and extras that you will find handy, like removable hard drive slots, tool-less entry, and good cable management. Unlike other components, a PC case can last you through multiple PC builds. I opted for the NZXT Phantom 410 case for my build.

Lastly, I would recommend that PC builders take a careful look at their goals/requirements for a PC and recognize the limitations of such goals. For example, I knew I wanted to play games and run certain applications on my desktop, but I didn't know exactly which games and what applications I wanted to run. You may build a PC with one goal in mind, but don't forget that you will likely own the PC for more than a year and may have different needs then. Make sure your rig is adaptable to your future needs.

Why BBM Won't Save BlackBerry, and My Thoughts on Licensing Blackberry OS 10

Synopsis: Without marketshare, BlackBerry Messenger is not a "killer app." RIM must license BlackBerry OS 10 to survive.

In the slow-motion trainwreck saga that is RIM, the one redeeming factor that tech analysts like to mention is BlackBerry Messenger (BBM). The free* inter-blackberry texting service still remains popular in Canada and the UK, where BlackBerry market share is above 30%.

It's a classic example of network effects. People in these countries buy BlackBerries so they can text their friends, who also have BlackBerries. But with user interest and marketshare dropping like a rock, BBM is becoming irrelevant for the average consumer.

Recently, Thorsten Heins, CEO of RIM, announced that his company is considering letting other manufacturers use BlackBerry 10 OS on their phones. If Heins can convince the likes of HTC and Samsung to use his OS, he will make BlackBerries cheaper to the end user, enhance global reach, and possibly regain lost marketshare.

These competitive manufacturers may consider BlackBerry OS as a way to stand out. Whether consumers will buy the device is still uncertain, but RIM is in a much better position with brand awareness than Microsoft is.

In the age of "Bring Your Own Device," RIM cannot survive as a "business-oriented" smartphone maker. Either you make smartphones used by everyone or you don't make them at all. It looks like BlackBerry is heading towards the latter. Who can blame them? No one wants to compete against Samsung.

*Most carriers require a data contract to use BBM

Mobile Marketshare in Canada, 2012: http://mobilesyrup.com/2012/04/20/iphone-market-share-in-canada-increased-to-28-says-ipsos/ 
Mobile Marketshare per Country, 2012: http://connect.icrossing.co.uk/2012-mobile-market-share-infographic_7962
Thorsten Heins announces possible licensing of BB OS10: http://www.mobot.net/rim-ceo-heins-trouble-fact-license-blackberry-10-45642

Desktop's Downfall? Why The MacBook Pro with Retina Display is Revolutionary

As a lifelong Windows user, it’s ironic that my first blog entry will be an endorsement of an Apple product, and a seemingly extravagant one at that. But the MacBook Pro with Retina Display (MacBook Retina for short) may have finally changed my mind. The MacBook Retina is arguably the best laptop currently in the market, and signals an important shift away from desktop computers.

Hardware wise, the MacBook Retina’s 3^rd generation i7 processor, Nvidia 650M graphics card and its solid state drive put it near the top of all mobile performance benchmarks, matched only by huge Alienwares and other desktop replacements. Yet the 7 hour battery life, supreme portability, and 2800x1800 display puts this laptop in a league of its own. Why did Apple decide to create this mobile powerhouse?

The Mac Pro and the unibody iMacs have long been the machines of choice for creative professionals: animators, video editors, graphic designers, etc. Of course, not all digital artists prefer Macs and not all Macs are used by artists, but they do form an important group of desktop Mac users.

The times are changing. More professionals are embracing the “mobile office” concept and working from their MacBooks instead of their desktops, trading computing power and screen resolution for portability. With the MacBook Retina, however, Apple signaled that they will no longer have to make that trade. 

It’s really hard to edit 1080p video on a 720p laptop screen, I’ve tried. Now, imagine being able to view 1080p video at full resolution while still having enough screen space left to work. The only laptop in the world that can do that is the MacBook Retina. 
 (This is a screenshot from an AfterEffects project on my laptop. The video playback resolution is set to 25% of 1080p)  

 (This is Apple's simulated Final Cut project playing back at full 1080p)


The new screen, while only 15 inches across, actually displays a higher resolution than current iMac and Mac Pro 27 inch monitors. The quad core i7 and Nvidia 650M chips promise to tear through encodes and renders, especially now that Quick Sync, Intel’s dedicated video encoder inside the CPU, is supported in OSX Mountian Lion. The solid state drive will improve program start times and enable playback of raw video tracks.

Apple does everything for a very good reason, and the release of the MacBook Retina is no exception. Far from just being eye-candy for the press, the MacBook Retina is Apple’s hedge against the obsolescence of the desktop computer, and a very good hedge at that.

By proving to its most demanding customers that one does not have to sacrifice performance or resolution for portability, Apple really leaves users no real reason to want an iMac or Mac Pro over a MacBook Pro with Retina display. (Except for perhaps for the physically bigger screen) Thirty years after the introduction of the first laptop computers, we may finally be saying goodbye to the consumer desktop, and Apple is once again leading the way. 

Images from www.apple.com