Travel Through Time With These Strange and Beautiful Visualizations of the Universe




What does the universe look like? How about the sun, moon, planets, and stars? These are probably question that humans have been asking themselves ever since we first looked up at the sky.


A new book, Cosmigraphics: Picturing Space Through Time , looks at the imaginative variety of ways that people have answered these questions throughout history. In it, photographer and filmmaker Michael Benson collects thousands of years of human understanding about the heavens.


Cosmigraphics jacket_DY O.indd Cosmigraphics is divided into 10 chapters, each following the progression of ideas about some heavenly topic. For instance, one chapter centers around representations of the Earth. In it, you can see dramatic medieval conceptions of our planet surrounded by elemental water, air, and fire. There’s also a bizarre 19th century map refuting the theory that the Earth is sphere-shaped — instead postulating a four-cornered, roulette-wheel world more in accordance with Biblical (or something) principles. Finally, there are recent geographic drawings of river basins and ocean floors based on the enhanced technological capabilities of the modern world.


All images in the book are essentially data visualizations representing the accumulated knowledge of their time. Ancient people’s data was far more limited than ours, and mixed with erroneous beliefs about divine spirits, celestial spheres, and geocentric cosmologies. But looking back through history reminds us that our current scientific ideas no doubt contain inaccuracies and partial truths, limitations of the data at hand. With scientists still debating the inner workings of black holes, the properties of neutrinos, and the nature of dark matter and dark energy, we realize the amount we have yet to know is as vast as the universe itself.


The book is also a good reminder of how big a deal the night sky was to pre-Industrial people. The movement of the sun and phases of the moon told them when to plant and harvest their crops. The changing stars and planets helped them interpret their own lives and their futures. Even today, you might get away from city lights and look up to feel a sense of wonder and awe, a slight tug from the collective unconscious of humanity that has been watching and thinking about the universe for so long.


All captions from Cosmigraphics



Why Inventors Misjudge How We’ll Abuse Their Creations


ap_blindspots_f

Tim McDonagh



In March 1857, a full two decades before Thomas Edison invented the phonograph, the French patent office awarded a Parisian printer named Édouard-Léon Scott de Martinville a patent for a machine that recorded sound. Inspired by anatomical studies of the human ear and fascinated with the art of stenography, Scott had stumbled across a radical new idea: Instead of a human writing down words, a machine could write sound waves.


Scott's contraption funneled sound waves through a hornlike apparatus that ended with a membrane. Sound waves would trigger vibrations in the membrane, which would then be transmitted to a stylus made of a stiff brush. The stylus would etch the waves on a page darkened by the carbon of lampblack. He called his invention a phonautograph: the self-writing of sound.


In the annals of invention, there may be no more curious mix of farsightedness and myopia than the story of the phonautograph. On the one hand, Scott had managed to make a critical conceptual leap—the realization that sound waves could be pulled out of the air and etched onto a recording medium—long before others got around to it. (When you're two decades ahead of Edison, you're doing pretty well for yourself.) But Scott's invention was hamstrung by one crucial—even comical—limitation. He had produced the first sound-recording device. But he neglected to include playback.


It seems obvious to us now that a device for recording sound should include a feature that lets you hear the recording. But that's hindsight. The idea that machines could convey sound waves that originated elsewhere was anything but intuitive. It wasn't that Scott forgot or failed to make audio playback work; it was that the idea never even occurred to him. It was in his blind spot.


For understandable reasons, when we tell stories of technological innovation, we tend to focus on insight and even seeming clairvoyance—the people who can see the future before the rest of us. But there's a flip side to such farsightedness that shows up again and again in the history of innovation: the blind spots, the possibilities that somehow escaped our field of vision but that, in retrospect, seem glaringly obvious.


Perhaps the most familiar kind of blind spot is the assumption that some new device will never find a mass audience. A classic of this genre: the confident predictions about the (tiny) demand for computers at the dawn of the digital age. “There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home,” Ken Olsen, the cofounder of Digital Equipment Corporation, is famously quoted as saying in 1977.


WE FREQUENTLY FAIL TO ANTICIPATE HOW A NEW TOOL WILL BE ABUSED: THE INVENTORS OF EMAIL HAD NO CLUE THAT IT WOULD BE HIJACKED FOR SPAM.


But the more interesting blind spots are about how a novel technology might be used. Strangely enough, working at the cutting edge of a field makes you more prone to these sorts of blind spots, because you're exploring new territory without conventional landmarks or guidelines. You design a tool with one specific use in mind, but that focus blinds you to other ones. Scott, for instance, was trying to build an automated stenographer. He assumed that humans would learn to “read” those squiggles the way they had learned to read the squiggles of shorthand. It wasn't that crazy an idea, looking back on it. Humans had proved to be adept at recognizing visual patterns; we can internalize an alphabet so well we don't even have to think about reading once we've learned how to do it. Why would sound waves, once you get them on the page, be any different? Sadly, the neural toolkit of human beings doesn't seem to include the capacity for reading sound waves by sight.


A similar myopia surrounded the invention of the laser in the postwar era. Science fiction writers had been speculating on the military uses of concentrated beams of light since at least H. G. Wells' The War of the Worlds. (The “heat ray” is a recurrent device throughout the sci-fi canon.) When researchers at Bell Labs and Hughes Aircraft actually began producing laser light in the 1960s, they never imagined that its first mainstream use would be scanning barcodes at checkout counters.


Another archetypal innovator blind spot: failing to anticipate how a new tool will be abused. The inventors of the foundational email standards—Post Office Protocol and Simple Mail Transfer Protocol—had a clear vision of the communications revolution their brainchild would unleash. Their system was designed to allow the maximum flow of messages with a minimum of filtering or barriers. The idea of hijacking the medium for spam seems not to have occurred to anyone until 1978, when a DEC marketer named Gary Thuerk sent out a bulk email to the entire Arpanet, inviting them to check out “the newest members of the DECSystem-20 family.” Today spam constitutes more than 70 percent of all email.


Many blind spots arise out of the constraints of governing metaphors, as Scott experienced with his stenography metaphor. Many of us failed to see the social media revolution coming, in part because the web's governing metaphor was drawn from the idea of the document: hypertext and pages, not people. World Wide Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee had explicitly drawn on literary metaphors when he built the web's HTML/HTTP standard; documents were clearly defined in the protocol—user identities were not. Consequently, most of the early experiments with the web drew on magazine or publishing models, not social networks.


We often fail to perceive important developments or possibilities because we assume that recent trends will continue to follow their current trajectory. About a decade ago I wrote a book on the contemporary state and near future of videogames, which focused on their increasing complexity: an obvious and indisputable trend that could be seen in the evolution from PacMan to World of Warcraft. Despite the fact that I'd spent countless hours researching and ruminating on the gaming industry, I completely failed to anticipate the rise of microgames like FarmVille and Dots, whose simplicity made them perfect for Facebook or the iPhone.


Assuming that current trends will continue sometimes causes us to worry too much about a problem that ends up not being such a big deal. Two hundred years ago, Thomas Malthus predicted that population growth would lead to global famine. That turned out to be wrong—even though the population grew faster than he ever imagined—because he failed to account for increases in agricultural productivity.


Drawing on that lesson, advocates of today's “abundance” school of thought, led by people like Peter Diamandis, argue that emerging clean energy sources such as solar and nuclear power will make the dire energy forecasts of today look like Malthusian blunders in a few decades. But optimistic forecasters also inevitably have their blind spots. We could innovate our way out of dependency on fossil fuels only to be plunged into chaos and war when the world suddenly pivots away from Big Oil. The solution you confidently see often hides its own set of problems.


We can at least take comfort that the most embarrassing blind spots sometimes lead to constructive outcomes. Scott never made a penny from his invention and has been largely forgotten by history. But about 15 years after his first recordings, another inventor was tinkering with his phonautograph design when he came up with a new technique for capturing and transmitting sound. His name? Alexander Graham Bell.



Laura Poitras on the Crypto Tools That Made Her Snowden Film Possible


Laura Poitras

Laura Poitras John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation



As a journalist, Laura Poitras was the quiet mastermind behind the publication of Edward Snowden’s unprecedented NSA leak. As a filmmaker, her new movie Citizenfour makes clear she’s one of the most important directors working in documentary today. And when it comes to security technology, she’s a serious geek.


In the closing credits of Citizenfour, Poitras took the unusual step of adding an acknowledgment of the free software projects that made the film possible: The roll call includes anonymity software Tor, the Tor-based operating system Tails, GPG encryption, Off-The-Record (OTR) encrypted instant messaging, hard disk encryption software Truecrypt, and Linux. All of that describes a technical setup that goes well beyond the precautions taken by most national security reporters, not to mention documentary filmmakers.


Poitras argues that without those technologies, neither her reporting on the Snowden leaks nor her film itself would have been possible. In an interview ahead of the October 24th opening of Citizenfour in theaters, she talked about the importance of those crypto tools, how to make a film in the shadow of the NSA, and a new era of high-level whistleblowing.


“These crypto tools let someone reveal information in a way that they can remain anonymous. That path has opened up.”


When Snowden began to describe the contents of the leak he planned to give her, Poitras realized that “this was going to be a game-changer.” She asked her anonymous source to meet her for a more secure face-to-face conversation. But Snowden insisted that meeting in person was impossible, in part because he wished to remain anonymous even to Poitras herself. So they were left with fragile online communications. “If I wasn’t already up to speed with using encryption, this leak might never have happened,” she says. “It was necessary.”


Poitras was already accustomed to encrypting her communications; she had been repeatedly stopped at the U.S. border and searched after the release of My Country, My Country, her 2006 film on the daily life of a family in Iraq, and later learned to use crypto tools when communicating with WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange and privacy activist Jacob Appelbaum. When she realized the depth of Snowden’s leaks, she went so far as to buy a new laptop—with cash—and to use it only with the Tails operating system. That free software is designed to leave no trace of your communications on your computer and to route all network data over the Tor anonymity network. Poitras says she used that Tails computer only to communicate with Snowden, and only in public places with Wifi connections—never her home or office.


Aside from her communications with Snowden, Poitras says she also kept all the film’s footage on encrypted drives. Given that more than 30 people worked on the film, that’s no simple organizational task. Poitras declined to share the full details of her security scheme for that content, but she says that “some of it is more deeply nested in terms of how it’s protected and who has access to it.” In fact, not even Citzenfour’s funders and distributors saw a full, unredacted version of the film until just days before its premiere at the New York Film Festival last Friday. Until then, she showed them versions that had black blocks covering portions of certain frames.


“No amount of violence can solve a math problem.”


Poitras’ caution is echoed in the movie’s narrative. In intimate scenes she recorded with Snowden in his Hong Kong hotel room—the core of her film—she shows him worrying that the VoIP deskphone in his room has been turned into a bug. He chides Glenn Greenwald for using a too-short password, dons a blanket over his head and laptop to enter his own passphrase (Snowden jokingly calls it his “magical mantel of power”) and freezes up when a fire alarm test interrupts their work, suspecting foul play. Still, Poitras says that none of that was meant to portray Snowden as paranoid. “I wouldn’t describe anything that Snowden recommends in that hotel room as paranoia,” she says. “When your adversary is the NSA, that’s not paranoid.”


But despite her dark assessment of the NSA’s reach, Poitras argues that Snowden’s ability to stay out of the agency’s grasp shows the power of cryptography. She quotes the cypherpunk mantra that cryptography levels the playing field between the individual and the government; it represents a math problem that no amount of authoritarian force can solve. “I do think that so long as we can maintain the ability for crypto not to be backdoored, there’s a way for people to communicate securely,” she says.


“I have a lot of respect for the cypherpunk movement,” she adds. “The free software community should be supported more widely. I’m totally in solidarity with what they do.”


“There are people who have profound moral concerns about these policies. And that leads to whistleblowers.”


Poitras, the recipient of Macarthur “genius” grant in 2012, argues we’ve entered a new era of whistleblowing, one in which insiders will increasingly come forward to leak evidence of corruption and injustice. But she cautions that technology is only a part of the shift. “It’s not just about the tools. It’s about people willing to risk their lives to expose information,” she says.


Poitras points to a new generation of government insiders who she says feel betrayed by the permanent institutionalization under Obama of policies that they saw as emergency measures under Bush. “The growth of the surveillance state, the increased drone wars, Guantanamo, these are activities that the U.S. government is engaging in that people think the public has a right to know about, and that they’ll take risks to reveal,” she says. “There are many, many whistleblowers and sources out there.”


“One of the legacies of Snowden’s disclosures, perhaps, is breaking the model.”


After years of shooting for Citizenfour, Poitras says she actually discovered she had the material for two films. She won’t say exactly what the subject of this second film might be, but hints that much of her footage is of Julian Assange. She’s also working on a gallery exhibit at the Whitney Museum in New York scheduled for 2016.


In the meantime, Poitras has helped to found the Intercept, an investigative online magazine launched with Glenn Greenwald, Jeremy Scahill and eBay billionaire Pierre Omidyar. In her film, she reveals that the Intercept already has a second source, one who’s communicated with Jeremy Scahill via encrypted messages and given him secret information on a U.S. terrorist watchlist and drone programs.


Poitras refused to discuss that source. But she points to the Intercept as part of a new media movement that’s bolder and less beholden to governments’ requests that leaked information be filtered or redacted. No longer will sources need to leak their secrets to the New York Times, which held off on revealing Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program for more than a year at the administration’s request.


“We all know these stories of sources who take a risk to approach an institution and that institution doesn’t publish the information,” she says. “I think that the existence of the Intercept or WikiLeaks or other outlets that are willing to publish that information creates a different media landscape.”


And should we expect to see more radical disclosures from those outlets? Poitras bristles at the word “radical.”


“I don’t think what we’re doing is radical,” she says. “I think it’s radical to censor information because the government asks you to. That’s radical.”



Video Bloggers Get ‘Microstopped’ by Microsoft Takedown Notices


Photo: Jim Merithew/WIRED

Photo: Jim Merithew/WIRED



Microsoft’s never-ending war on software piracy caused some collateral damage this week. The victims? A handful of prominent YouTube video bloggers.


The bloggers—including LockerGnome founder Chris Pirillo and FrugalTech host Bruce Naylor—took to Twitter on Tuesday, with the hashtag #Microstopped, to complain that they had received erroneous copyright infringement notices for videos that were often several years old. The notices were filed under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the U.S. law that seeks to control access to copyrighted material on the net.


Microsoft apologized for the notices, blaming the issue on wayward comments. “[S]ome of these videos were inadvertently targeted for removal because there were stolen product keys embedded in the comments section of the videos,” a Microsoft spokesperson said in statement sent to WIRED, referring to keys that would allow access to Microsoft commercial software. “We have already taken steps to reinstate legitimate video content and are working towards a better solution to targeting stolen IP while respecting legitimate content.”


The situation shows that, sixteen years after it went into effect, the DMCA is far from the ideal way to police copyrighted material—mainly because it makes it too easy for big companies like Microsoft to silence the little guys, sometimes for no good reason.


Pirillo says he learned—after sending a counter notice to YouTube—that a company called Marketly sent DMCA notice on behalf of Microsoft. Marketly, which was founded by former Microsoft engineer Pulin Thakkar, uses algorithms to spot piracy and counterfeiting on the net. The company’s website boasts that it can “generate actionable intelligence from Big Data analysis and machine learning technologies.”


According to Google’s Transparency Report site, Marketly has requested that Google remove nearly 11 million different URLs from its search engine on behalf of Microsoft since 2011.


This round of complaints over the company’s practices began with Naylor and FrugalTech. On Tuesday, Naylor posted a video explaining that YouTube had removed one of his videos after someone filed—on behalf of Microsoft—a DMCA takedown notice. Under the DMCA, web hosts and internet service providers must immediately remove allegedly infringing content when notified by the copyright holder. But Naylor’s video, which you can now find on the video sharing site Vimeo, didn’t include so much as a screenshot of Microsoft Windows. It was merely a video of Naylor speaking into the camera and explaining why he thought Windows 8 wasn’t selling well.


Pirillo says he received his own takedown notice while watching Naylor’s video, and soon discovered that other bloggers had received similar notices. That spurred him to create the #Microstopped to find bring attention to Marketly’s behavior. We’ve counted at least eight different bloggers who received notices on Tuesday.


At first, Naylor blamed the removal of his video on the fact that his video was critical of Microsoft. “It really pissed off somebody and they’re looking for any excuse to take it down,” he said in his video. But many of the videos that have been taken down weren’t critical of Microsoft at all. Mark Watson, the host of a tech-focused YouTube channel called SoldierKnowsBest, received a takedown notice for a simple instructional video. “It was a video telling people how to download the Windows 7 Beta from your website in 2009,” he tweeted.


Likewise, Pirillo’s video was about how to upgrade Windows 7. As he put it: “This isn’t about censoring negative reviews so much as it is the gross abuse of YouTube’s copyright flagging system and is not without precedent.”



Video Bloggers Get ‘Microstopped’ by Microsoft Takedown Notices


Photo: Jim Merithew/WIRED

Photo: Jim Merithew/WIRED



Microsoft’s never-ending war on software piracy caused some collateral damage this week. The victims? A handful of prominent YouTube video bloggers.


The bloggers—including LockerGnome founder Chris Pirillo and FrugalTech host Bruce Naylor—took to Twitter on Tuesday, with the hashtag #Microstopped, to complain that they had received erroneous copyright infringement notices for videos that were often several years old. The notices were filed under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, the U.S. law that seeks to control access to copyrighted material on the net.


Microsoft apologized for the notices, blaming the issue on wayward comments. “[S]ome of these videos were inadvertently targeted for removal because there were stolen product keys embedded in the comments section of the videos,” a Microsoft spokesperson said in statement sent to WIRED, referring to keys that would allow access to Microsoft commercial software. “We have already taken steps to reinstate legitimate video content and are working towards a better solution to targeting stolen IP while respecting legitimate content.”


The situation shows that, sixteen years after it went into effect, the DMCA is far from the ideal way to police copyrighted material—mainly because it makes it too easy for big companies like Microsoft to silence the little guys, sometimes for no good reason.


Pirillo says he learned—after sending a counter notice to YouTube—that a company called Marketly sent DMCA notice on behalf of Microsoft. Marketly, which was founded by former Microsoft engineer Pulin Thakkar, uses algorithms to spot piracy and counterfeiting on the net. The company’s website boasts that it can “generate actionable intelligence from Big Data analysis and machine learning technologies.”


According to Google’s Transparency Report site, Marketly has requested that Google remove nearly 11 million different URLs from its search engine on behalf of Microsoft since 2011.


This round of complaints over the company’s practices began with Naylor and FrugalTech. On Tuesday, Naylor posted a video explaining that YouTube had removed one of his videos after someone filed—on behalf of Microsoft—a DMCA takedown notice. Under the DMCA, web hosts and internet service providers must immediately remove allegedly infringing content when notified by the copyright holder. But Naylor’s video, which you can now find on the video sharing site Vimeo, didn’t include so much as a screenshot of Microsoft Windows. It was merely a video of Naylor speaking into the camera and explaining why he thought Windows 8 wasn’t selling well.


Pirillo says he received his own takedown notice while watching Naylor’s video, and soon discovered that other bloggers had received similar notices. That spurred him to create the #Microstopped to find bring attention to Marketly’s behavior. We’ve counted at least eight different bloggers who received notices on Tuesday.


At first, Naylor blamed the removal of his video on the fact that his video was critical of Microsoft. “It really pissed off somebody and they’re looking for any excuse to take it down,” he said in his video. But many of the videos that have been taken down weren’t critical of Microsoft at all. Mark Watson, the host of a tech-focused YouTube channel called SoldierKnowsBest, received a takedown notice for a simple instructional video. “It was a video telling people how to download the Windows 7 Beta from your website in 2009,” he tweeted.


Likewise, Pirillo’s video was about how to upgrade Windows 7. As he put it: “This isn’t about censoring negative reviews so much as it is the gross abuse of YouTube’s copyright flagging system and is not without precedent.”