EE Logo Twitter Logo Facebook Logo Linked In Logo

November 19, 2010

My Head’s in the Cloud


If you happen to follow the Einstein’s Eyes twitter (www.twitter.com/einsteinseyes) or are a fan of our Facebook page (www.facebook.com/einsteinseyes), then you may have seen a few recent articles posted that discuss cloud computing. This is an area that fascinates me – I am personally convinced that cloud computing is the current “next big thing” in our industry.

Before my time, companies used a mainframe and terminal setup – employees had access to terminals that they could log into and use the mainframe’s resources to run their programs or look up their information. More recently, scientists have been uploading their programs to supercomputers and reserving time slots for them to actually run their programs. For both of these situations, the involved tasks are hugely complex (for the time period) and thus running them on a personal computer would either be too expensive or take far too long. The ability to utilize one extremely powerful machine for these problems was a great solution – and cloud computing is the new development in this area.

Essentially, a cloud is a large set of computers working together as one. Traditionally, we think of computers as individual entities – you have a CPU, memory, hard disk, various inputs and outputs, and it all works inside the bounds of an operating system, but clouds rethink this age-old idea. Instead, think of a computer as a set of CPUs, each with their own memory, their own hard disk, their own I/Os, and yet just one distributed operating system between them all.

There is no one “master” computer involved; every computer in a cloud has the potential to begin its own process and allocate resources to other computers. Additionally, a cloud of X total computers can recover gracefully from the failing of up to X computers in their cloud; basically, the only way to take down a cloud is to take down every single computer in the cloud. Also, clouds allow for new computers to be added to the cloud at any time, and can even rejoin computers that failed unexpectedly and get them caught back up to where they were.

Clouds are the future of the supercomputer. The notion of a supercomputer has grown to mean a ginormous space heater with many hundreds or thousands of processors chugging along on some distributed memory and hard disk space. Clouds can redefine this. I’m sure that the most powerful supercomputers of tomorrow will actually just be clouds. No longer will you need an entire floor for the next best computer (though, of course you could), you’ll instead be able to distribute the computers all around the world!

In a way, clouds will be a return to the idea of the mainframe and terminal. You’ll be able to purchase a very inexpensive PC that, with a good internet connection, will be more powerful than any $5,000 machine you could build yourself. Basically, your computer will only need to be capable of streaming inputs and outputs to and from the cloud – something any computer made in the last 10 years should be able to handle. Your computer just handles the display and relaying of I/Os and the cloud handles all of the actual “thinking” for you.

There are already some companies that are utilizing clouds. Google is one example. Another is OnLive, a subscription service for computer games. You pay a subscription fee, which gives you access to the OnLive cloud. They claim that when they go live in 2011 that subscribers will be able to game at 60 frames per second in up to 1080p – the home computer and internet connection will only need to be able to handle a video stream of their desired speed and quality.

Cloud computing is not without its faults (openness of the cloud, potential for sensitive information to be captured by others in the cloud, etc), but despite these issues, I’m sure that clouds will become quite a norm in the near future.

October 20, 2010

The US’s Internet Kill Switch


Not too long ago there was a bit of buzz around a bill in Congress that would grant the office of the President the ability to shut off all or parts of the internet in the US. When put on camera to talk about the bill, our Vice President Lieberman made what I feel is a big mistake – he reached in his pocket to find an example of another country that takes this kind of control over the internet and pulled out… China. Now, I am not part of the camp that points to President Obama and screams “Communism!” but this comparison is one that Lieberman should have reconsidered! What a blunder, coming from an adminstration that is under fire for the socialist-leaning policies that it is implementing and simultaneously defending them as being a necessary part of preserving our republic!

But enough about the politics of it – I’m personally not a big fan of them anyhow. I’d rather focus on what this bill really should be: a call for better internet security. It’s not a secret anymore that our power grid has the potential to be taken down by a clever enough computer hacker – a Chinese graduate student even wrote his recent PhD thesis on the vulnerability of the American power grid and detailed the cascading failure that taking down a well-chosen power plant could cause (note that he also proposed alternative structures that could be used to prevent this cascade, so it is my opinion that the paper was not written maliciously, but was written to be informative). What this means is that we need to look at possible ways to secure our network, much like putting a firewall on it.

I believe this is the point of view that the bill used. What’s the easiest and most straight forward way to prevent your computer from getting a virus? Why, unplug it from the internet, of course! If you can get past the reminders of “V” or “Fahrenheit 451,” then this seems like a very reasonable proposal.

Perhaps what bothers everyone is the potential scope that is specified – or rather, not specified. What should be made clear in the bill is the intended scope of this kill switch. The scope that I would propose is when a threat is detected, the channel being used is immediately shut off. In this case, it would be desirable for our government to be very transparent about the nature of the threat, so that we can feel that the kill switch is not being abused.

This is perhaps all that would need to happen to keep us from losing any sleep over our potentially lost freedoms. Of course, some would counter that waiting for the threat to be detected would be too late – perhaps the damage has already been done. I would counter back that given some attention (and of course some funding) our country’s budding cyber security programs at our universities could easily come up with firewalls and network configurations that can deal with this. So in conclusion, focus less on the China comparison, and a lot more on the threat that it should prevent, if implemented properly.

August 27, 2010

How about them DOCTYPES


Document Type Definitions (DTD), also known as DOCTYPES, are markup declarations of web standards designed to increase cross-browser compatibility. Unfortunately, there are many options to choose from and very few details on the web of what exactly they do and how they differ. As you may have noticed, most DTDs reference the website w3.org (W3Schools). This is because W3Schools is backed by a large community and is considered to lead the web development industry and define its standards.

When utilizing a DTD, your browser will render in standards mode instead of the default backwards-compatible quirks mode. Quirks mode should only be used on websites written for older browsers. One of the biggest differences between quirks mode and standards mode is the quirks’ rendering of CSS in Internet Explorer as compared to other browsers. The Internet Explorer rendering, known as the Internet Explorer box model bug, differs from the W3C standards being that the content, padding and borders are within a specified width or height. W3C standards, on the other hand, define padding and borders as an addition to the specified width or height of the content. This issue has been resolved in the standards mode of Internet Explorer 6 and greater. Other notable quirks include browser differences in the vertical alignment of images and the ability of tables to inherit the CSS default font styles.

Your DTD should be the very first thing on the HTML page preceding the <html> tag without any leading white space. When picking a declaration you must choose between using an HTML or XHTML declaration. XHTML is very similar to HTML and is to help the transition to a new generation of mark-up languages. XHTML looks just like HTML except that it enforces syntax rules such as case sensitivity and that elements are properly closed. There is not much benefit of using XHTML markup over HTML other than that it is XSL ready, easier to maintain, and is ready for the future.

Generally, all new sites should aim to use a Strict DOCTYPE. A Strict DOCTYPE encourages and helps enforce the separation of structure and presentation as it excludes presentation attributes and elements. Also, using a Strict DOCTYPE ensures that browsers use their strictest, most standards complaint rendering modes. A Transitional DOCTYPE, however, is designed for older sites to make the transition to modern ways. The Transitional DOCTYPE permits the use of deprecated legacy markup such as <font>, <iframe>, and <u>. A full list of supported markup elements for the different DOCTYPES can be found here.

For a great list of available DOCTYPE declarations you can visit the W3School’s HTML <!DOCTYPE> Declaration page. When picking a declaration, be sure that it contains a full URL and that the URL actually works. There are many websites that post declarations that use relative paths or have a .dtd URL that longer works. You can test this by visiting to the URL address in your browser.

July 20, 2010

We hate to turn a project down, but we would have to try to talk you out of these..


Around here we love a little site called The Oatmeal.

If you haven’t seen it yet, it is full of some funny and useful content – everything from the history of beer to the proper usage of irony and grammar. We loved this post of “8 Websites You Need To Stop Building.”

April 30, 2010

Flash? or flash in the pan?


Steve Jobs slams Adobe Flash in open letter

And the rebuttle!

The Journal’s Exclusive Interview With Adobe CEO

March 19, 2010

Technology Addicts Offered Tre…


Technology Addicts Offered Treatment at London Hospital: http://digg.com/d31M4HG?t

© 2012 Einstein's Eyes