reuters:

SPECIAL REPORT: When it comes to hacking, the best defense is not the best offense. Even as the U.S. government confronts rival powers over widespread Internet espionage, it has become the biggest buyer in a burgeoning gray market where hackers and security firms sell tools for breaking into computers.
The strategy is spurring concern in the technology industry and intelligence community that Washington is in effect encouraging hacking and failing to disclose to software companies and customers the vulnerabilities exploited by the purchased hacks.
That’s because U.S. intelligence and military agencies aren’t buying the tools primarily to fend off attacks. Rather, they are using the tools to infiltrate computer networks overseas, leaving behind spy programs and cyber-weapons that can disrupt data or damage systems.
The core problem: Spy tools and cyber-weapons rely on vulnerabilities in existing software programs, and these hacks would be much less useful to the government if the flaws were exposed through public warnings. So the more the government spends on offensive techniques, the greater its interest in making sure that security holes in widely used software remain unrepaired.
Moreover, the money going for offense lures some talented researchers away from work on defense, while tax dollars may end up flowing to skilled hackers simultaneously supplying criminal groups. “The only people paying are on the offensive side,” said Charlie Miller, a security researcher at Twitter who previously worked for the National Security Agency.

reuters:

SPECIAL REPORT: When it comes to hacking, the best defense is not the best offense. 

Even as the U.S. government confronts rival powers over widespread Internet espionage, it has become the biggest buyer in a burgeoning gray market where hackers and security firms sell tools for breaking into computers.

The strategy is spurring concern in the technology industry and intelligence community that Washington is in effect encouraging hacking and failing to disclose to software companies and customers the vulnerabilities exploited by the purchased hacks.

That’s because U.S. intelligence and military agencies aren’t buying the tools primarily to fend off attacks. Rather, they are using the tools to infiltrate computer networks overseas, leaving behind spy programs and cyber-weapons that can disrupt data or damage systems.

The core problem: Spy tools and cyber-weapons rely on vulnerabilities in existing software programs, and these hacks would be much less useful to the government if the flaws were exposed through public warnings. So the more the government spends on offensive techniques, the greater its interest in making sure that security holes in widely used software remain unrepaired.

Moreover, the money going for offense lures some talented researchers away from work on defense, while tax dollars may end up flowing to skilled hackers simultaneously supplying criminal groups. “The only people paying are on the offensive side,” said Charlie Miller, a security researcher at Twitter who previously worked for the National Security Agency.

jtotheizzoe:

This project sounds amazing!! Guys, if you’re into space and hacking/computers/app design/programming/making/tinkering/zippity-zapping then check out the International Space Apps Challenge, via comaniddy:

International Space Apps Challenge

This week’s Science Rap is different

Remember when I rapped about how NASA’s technology has benefits in outer space as well on Earth? What if you had the opportunity to create that technology? This is what the International Space Apps Challenge is all about.

The Space Apps Challenge is a 2 day contest to improve life in Space and on Earth. The challenges are focused in 4 key areas: hardware, software, visualization, and citizen science.

The event takes place April 20-21 in over 75 cities around the world. There are over 50 challenges and you can participate locally or online.

So do you have what it takes to improve the technology we use in space?

To Register or for more information visit: 
www.SpaceAppsChallenge.org

NYC Residents visit:

www.SpaceAppsNYC.com

(Source: comaniddy)

neuromorphogenesis:

Building a Better Brain
The next generation of brain-machine interfaces (B-MI) may rapidly enhance health and improve the quality of life for those with reduced function due to disease or disability. They may also allow people to control drones with just their thoughts or even add new human senses, which raise important ethical considerations.
At the recent meeting of the American Association for the Advancement for Science in Boston, neuroscientists outlined several lines of promising B-MI research. Advances in microprocessors, computing, and materials science, for example, have facilitated the development of “epidermal electronics,” which combine wireless communications, neural sensors, and other medical sensors into patches small and flexible enough to serve as temporary tattoos. These electronics have obvious clinical use, such as for unobtrusive monitoring of vital signs or symptoms of brain disease, said principal investigator Todd P. Coleman of the University of California, San Diego. In fact, he has created a company, Neuroverse, to commercialize this type of application. But Coleman also sees more wide-ranging deployment in the near future. His work was partially inspired by previous experiments in which people controlled virtual or model airplanes via a cap of electrodes; flexible B-MIs might provide similar abilities without tying people down to bulky electronics. Applying the tattoos near the vocal cords might also allow for subvocal wireless communication with electronics such as smartphones. “The things you can pick up non-invasively are much richer than you might imagine at first glance,” he said. “Things we thought were hoaxes and science fiction are fast approaching fruition.”
And that may only be the tip of the iceberg: Miguel Nicolelis and his colleagues at Duke University have developed a means to create entirely new sense modalities. They connected infrared light sensors to dense three-dimensional arrays of electrodes implanted into the somatosensory cortex of rats. This allowed the rats to track food by “feeling” light that they physiologically have no way to detect. Think of it as an artificially induced form of synesthesia, Nicolelis said. “The rats learned to ‘touch’ a source of invisible light — they acquired new modality of touch.” The researchers have already extended the research to monkeys, raising the possibility that people might eventually be able to “augment” themselves with new abilities using this technology. “When you deliver signals from devices directly to brain,” Nicolelis said, “you can create a new sensation, a new feeling.”
The ethical implications of these B-MI projects and similar technology were not lost on session participants. All medical innovations raise legal and moral questions, said neuroethicist Martha Farah of the University of Pennsylvania. However, B-MI and other fields such as neuropsychiatry that directly affect people’s abilities raise particularly difficult questions about what it means to be human and what kind of relationship people have with technology. It’s difficult not to draw on iconic images of cyborgs from science fiction when discussing the long-term possibilities of B-MIs, which might include providing people new ways to sense the world, methods of augmenting cognition and memory, and even the ability to communicate brain-to-brain or merge identities.
“Ethical considerations such as those raised in the B-MI panel are important for all scientists,” said Michael Zigmond, professor of neurology at the University of Pittsburgh and secretary of the AAAS Neuroscience Section. “As scientific development and technological advances increasingly change the ways we deal with the human condition, we must continue to have conversations about how those changes might affect society. Such discussions are well-informed by the wide array of scientists who attend the AAAS annual meeting and can provide valuable insights and guidance.”
Additionally, Farah noted that focusing only on “sexy sci-fi long-term issues” ignores many serious short-term challenges more relevant to the day-to-day life of brain researchers and policymakers. “I’m not dismissing concerns about radically altered human brains that push us beyond what a human being is,” she said. “Before we get there, there are some other pretty serious ethical challenges — mundane, yet very important issues,” such as funding sources, conflicts of interest, and intellectual property protection. For example, rethinking clinical trial rules and practice might be necessary. In the United States, medical devices are regulated differently than pharmaceuticals, even though B-MIs are increasingly serving as a substitute for testing and treatment. Who funds current B-MI research may also have a disproportionate influence on the field, as aggressive pursuit of patents might constrain many promising avenues of research.
Between 10 and 30 years from now, people will need to make difficult decisions about access to B-MI technology, its appropriate uses, and risks, Farah added. Cochlear implants, retinal implants, and similar devices are already used regularly, but deciding what level of impairment is appropriate for treatment is not easy — especially as temptations grow to use this technology for frank enhancement or “making a person better than normal.” B-MIs that communicate wirelessly also expose people to hackers, computer viruses, and similar cybersecurity risks. “What if they hack into your brain?” Farah asked. With B-MIs, such inference could affect eyesight, memory, or even vital functions such as heart rate. People will also have to decide how to manage the costs of B-MI technology to ensure fair access. “Undoubtedly these technologies will be available to the rich before anyone else,” Farah said. “How would we like our society to manage these? How much do we guide the scientists and the health system to enforce as much equity as we can?”
(image: At the recent meeting of the American Association for the Advancement for Science in Boston, neuroscientists outlined several lines of promising brain-machine interface research.)

neuromorphogenesis:

Building a Better Brain

The next generation of brain-machine interfaces (B-MI) may rapidly enhance health and improve the quality of life for those with reduced function due to disease or disability. They may also allow people to control drones with just their thoughts or even add new human senses, which raise important ethical considerations.

At the recent meeting of the American Association for the Advancement for Science in Boston, neuroscientists outlined several lines of promising B-MI research. Advances in microprocessors, computing, and materials science, for example, have facilitated the development of “epidermal electronics,” which combine wireless communications, neural sensors, and other medical sensors into patches small and flexible enough to serve as temporary tattoos. These electronics have obvious clinical use, such as for unobtrusive monitoring of vital signs or symptoms of brain disease, said principal investigator Todd P. Coleman of the University of California, San Diego. In fact, he has created a company, Neuroverse, to commercialize this type of application. But Coleman also sees more wide-ranging deployment in the near future. His work was partially inspired by previous experiments in which people controlled virtual or model airplanes via a cap of electrodes; flexible B-MIs might provide similar abilities without tying people down to bulky electronics. Applying the tattoos near the vocal cords might also allow for subvocal wireless communication with electronics such as smartphones. “The things you can pick up non-invasively are much richer than you might imagine at first glance,” he said. “Things we thought were hoaxes and science fiction are fast approaching fruition.”

And that may only be the tip of the iceberg: Miguel Nicolelis and his colleagues at Duke University have developed a means to create entirely new sense modalities. They connected infrared light sensors to dense three-dimensional arrays of electrodes implanted into the somatosensory cortex of rats. This allowed the rats to track food by “feeling” light that they physiologically have no way to detect. Think of it as an artificially induced form of synesthesia, Nicolelis said. “The rats learned to ‘touch’ a source of invisible light — they acquired new modality of touch.” The researchers have already extended the research to monkeys, raising the possibility that people might eventually be able to “augment” themselves with new abilities using this technology. “When you deliver signals from devices directly to brain,” Nicolelis said, “you can create a new sensation, a new feeling.”

The ethical implications of these B-MI projects and similar technology were not lost on session participants. All medical innovations raise legal and moral questions, said neuroethicist Martha Farah of the University of Pennsylvania. However, B-MI and other fields such as neuropsychiatry that directly affect people’s abilities raise particularly difficult questions about what it means to be human and what kind of relationship people have with technology. It’s difficult not to draw on iconic images of cyborgs from science fiction when discussing the long-term possibilities of B-MIs, which might include providing people new ways to sense the world, methods of augmenting cognition and memory, and even the ability to communicate brain-to-brain or merge identities.

“Ethical considerations such as those raised in the B-MI panel are important for all scientists,” said Michael Zigmond, professor of neurology at the University of Pittsburgh and secretary of the AAAS Neuroscience Section. “As scientific development and technological advances increasingly change the ways we deal with the human condition, we must continue to have conversations about how those changes might affect society. Such discussions are well-informed by the wide array of scientists who attend the AAAS annual meeting and can provide valuable insights and guidance.”

Additionally, Farah noted that focusing only on “sexy sci-fi long-term issues” ignores many serious short-term challenges more relevant to the day-to-day life of brain researchers and policymakers. “I’m not dismissing concerns about radically altered human brains that push us beyond what a human being is,” she said. “Before we get there, there are some other pretty serious ethical challenges — mundane, yet very important issues,” such as funding sources, conflicts of interest, and intellectual property protection. For example, rethinking clinical trial rules and practice might be necessary. In the United States, medical devices are regulated differently than pharmaceuticals, even though B-MIs are increasingly serving as a substitute for testing and treatment. Who funds current B-MI research may also have a disproportionate influence on the field, as aggressive pursuit of patents might constrain many promising avenues of research.

Between 10 and 30 years from now, people will need to make difficult decisions about access to B-MI technology, its appropriate uses, and risks, Farah added. Cochlear implants, retinal implants, and similar devices are already used regularly, but deciding what level of impairment is appropriate for treatment is not easy — especially as temptations grow to use this technology for frank enhancement or “making a person better than normal.” B-MIs that communicate wirelessly also expose people to hackers, computer viruses, and similar cybersecurity risks. “What if they hack into your brain?” Farah asked. With B-MIs, such inference could affect eyesight, memory, or even vital functions such as heart rate. People will also have to decide how to manage the costs of B-MI technology to ensure fair access. “Undoubtedly these technologies will be available to the rich before anyone else,” Farah said. “How would we like our society to manage these? How much do we guide the scientists and the health system to enforce as much equity as we can?”

(image: At the recent meeting of the American Association for the Advancement for Science in Boston, neuroscientists outlined several lines of promising brain-machine interface research.)

motherjones:

futurejournalismproject:

25 Years of Storage
Via

Oh man, remember floppy disks? 

motherjones:

futurejournalismproject:

25 Years of Storage

Via

Oh man, remember floppy disks? 

ucresearch:

The algorithm that won an Oscar

Hollywood likes a good explosion.  Now, with the help of an open source algorithm called Wavelet Turbulence, filmmakers can digitally create pyrotechnics that were formerly time-consuming and difficult to control.

UCSB’s Theodore Kim (along with three collaborators) picked up the Academy Award in Technical Achievement for Wavelet Turbulence.

So far, it has been used in over 26 major Hollywood productions including Avatar, Sherlock Holmes, Hugo, and Super 8 (pictured above).

Read the full story

neuromorphogenesis:

Why we’re building a €1 billion model of a human brain

The Human Brain Project has just won a €1 billion research prize. Its director Henry Markram says the initiative will unify our understanding of the brain

Your project aims to recreate the human brain in a supercomputer. Why?
We want to reach a unified understanding of the brain and the simulation on a supercomputer is the tool. Today you have neuroscientists working on a genetic, behavioural or cognitive level, and then you have informaticians, chemists and mathematicians. They all have their own understanding of how the brain functions and is structured. How do you get them all around the same table? We think of the project as like a CERN for the brain. The model is our way of bringing everyone, and our understanding, together.

What do you hope will come of the project?
There are three goals. As the model becomes more accurate and behaves more like a brain, we could couple it to a robot and see the robot learning. Then we’ll be able to trace the chain of events from molecules to cognition.

Second, we plan to collect data from hospitals around the world to search for biological signatures of disease. We believe this will give us a new classification of brain disease, which can be used to diagnose people objectively - not solely based on their symptoms.

And finally, we want to build neuromorphic computers, which would have processors that can learn, mimicking the way the brain does.

How close are you to recreating a brain?
We’ve developed an algorithm to work out some of the rules for how to reconstruct the brain. We can now make thousands of predictions that when tested are accurate, and we can reconstruct small brain circuits of up to about 1 million rat neurons. Now we’ve got to connect those groups of neurons to make brain regions, then connect the regions to make a computer model of a whole brain. Once we’ve modelled a rat brain, then we update the rules and gradually move towards a human model.

Could the model be too detailed?
People are afraid of detail and complexity. But a drug is a molecule. It doesn’t hit a cell, or the brain, it hits other molecules. There’s no reason why we shouldn’t try to explain how all the molecules are interacting with one another. Sheer numbers do not equal complexity. One hundred billion neurons is numbers, not complexity.

What about criticisms that it drains funds from more readily achievable neuroscience?
That is an incredibly short-sighted view of how a big science project impacts the rest of the field. Take the Human Genome Project - you can criticise them for all the promises they made at the time, but we would be in the dark ages now if we hadn’t done that project. It has benefitted every biologist and geneticist on the planet today.

Once completed, could the simulated brain ever become conscious?
When we couple the model to a robot, the robot will behave, and we’ll see this in the way its neurons are firing. Does that mean it’s conscious? That’s a philosophical question - and an unresolved one.

This article appeared in print under the headline “One minute with… Henry Markram”

nwkarchivist:

Newsweek, 1978

File under: We are living in the incredible future.

nwkarchivist:

Newsweek, 1978

File under: We are living in the incredible future.

Are we living in a computer simulation?

What is real? It’s a question that’s puzzled and amused countless people, from Descartes to Neo. As human beings, we’re capable of directly perceiving only a fraction of what surrounds us. From a personal point of view, reality seems pretty limited. Is the Internet real? Am I real? Are you?

Nick Bostrom, a philosopher at the University of Oxford, put forth an interesting question: What if our reality is actually a computer-generated world that exists in some other reality? He went on to argue that if some advanced society — future-human or otherwise — is intelligent, capable, and curious enough to create such a complex simulation, that they certainly would, and already have, and that in fact it’s almost impossible that we’re not living in a computer simulation.

Tune in to this episode of TechStuff to learn lots more, or, if text is more your flavor, read up on it here.

image

[This is the remnant of Tycho’s supernova, SN 1572, used here ‘cause a) it’s pretty and b) it reminds me of the marble galaxies from MiB. Image credit: X-ray: NASA/CXC/SAO; Infrared: NASA/JPL-Caltech; Optical: MPIA, Calar Alto, O. Krause et al.]

pewresearch:

‎Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism and The Economist Group have announced the results from their Future of Mobile News Infographic challenge, hosted by Visual.ly. Three designs, as well as a student entry, stood out among a number of strong submissions. See the featured infographics: http://pewrsr.ch/SMSp3t

(Click here for larger size infographic). 

Never not reblog tech statistics done up in a quaintly old-timey infographic.

pewresearch:

Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism and The Economist Group have announced the results from their Future of Mobile News Infographic challenge, hosted by Visual.ly. Three designs, as well as a student entry, stood out among a number of strong submissions. See the featured infographics: http://pewrsr.ch/SMSp3t


(Click here for larger size infographic). 

Never not reblog tech statistics done up in a quaintly old-timey infographic.

(via pewinternet)

image

Tech Stuff podcast: Was Ada Lovelace the first computer programmer?

Happy birthday to Ada Lovelace (aka Augusta Ada Byron) — born this day, December 10th, in 1815. A gifted mathematician and daughter of the infamous Lord Byron, Ada met one Charles Babbage at a party when she was 17 and became fascinated by the mathematician’s Analytical Engine — a kind of mechanical computer that could make complex calculations, including multiplication and division. From that chance meeting grew a strong, dynamic relationship. Ada discussed Babbage’s ideas with him and offered her own insights. In 1843, she published an influential set of notes describing Babbage’s Analytical Engine. Ada also added in some sage predictions, speculating that Babbage’s mechanical computers might one day “act upon other things besides numbers” and “compose elaborate and scientific pieces of music of any degree of complexity …”

Listen in on Tech Stuff’s classic podcast to learn lots more.

[Image by Colin Adams, based on the original A. E. Chaton portrait, for the Ada Initiative.]

"According to Kurzweil, by 2029 computers will be powerful enough to simulate the human brain. From his “Law of Accelerated Returns” he estimates that in 25 years we will have technologies billions of times more powerful than we have today. Just think that five years ago social media — today a transformative force in the world — was practically inexistent, or that the biggest computers in the 1970s were a million-times more expensive and a thousand-times less efficient than the chips we have in our smartphones, representing a billion-fold increase in computing efficiency per dollar."

— via Embracing Your Inner Robot: A Singular Vision of the Future - NPR (via npr)

thenextweb:

Microsoft Research consists of a network of labs around the world employing around 1,000 researchers in total. At the company’s Think Next event in Tel Aviv, Israel this week, I met Professor Shahram Izadi, who is based in the UK’s hardware innovation capital, Cambridge. Izadi and his team work on interactive 3D technologies that look to build on the likes of Kinect and take them to another level.