Eponymy
Today I rode my Marin Belvedere to Belvedere, Marin County.
Support Bloggers' Rights!
Today I rode my Marin Belvedere to Belvedere, Marin County.
I was thinking recently about the famous question of what places Americans can find on a map, so I decided to take a blank map and test myself with no preparation to see how many countries I could label on the map. (How do other people do? You could try to use Inkscape to write labels on the blank vector map.) I was hoping to get over 100, given that there are just about 200 countries in the international system.
Unfortunately, upon completion of the exercise, I fell short by just a single country, getting 99 countries right. I also fell short by a single CPLP member -- São Tomé e Principe -- so I could have reached 100 if only I had remembered all of the CPLP members.
I did particularly well in Europe and South America, achieving nearly perfect coverage of each continent. Apart from the Caribbean and Pacific island nations (many of which don't even appear on this vector map and almost all of which I would have known if they had been present), my weakest spots were:
Central America
Central Asia, especially the former Soviet republics
Former Yugoslavia (I remembered all the countries and their orientation to one another, but I was off by one when I started to label them)
Southeast Asia (I transposed Thailand with Burma and Laos with Cambodia)
Africa (I transposed several West African and North African countries that I thought I knew, and only thought I knew the location of 22 African countries to begin with)
21:39 <paulproteus> This bartending page has been nominated for cleanup for the following reason: "{{{1}}}".
21:46 <@schoen> paulproteus: obviously it needs to be cleaned up because it contains an erroneous use of template markup
I was just reading a blog post by Lauren Weinstein in which he proposes empirically detecting violations of network neutrality -- that is, Internet users would run tests to see what networks are actually doing, so they can tell whether ISPs are violating some kinds of neutrality principles. I think this is a fairly challenging problem (first because of the complexity of defining what kinds of neutrality we're interested in, and second for technical reasons), but there is one particular kind of neutrality that we can observe pretty easily, and a particular tool that would help.
I'm referring to whether ISPs are acting as passive conduits for traffic, delivering packets unmodified and not altering them or adding additional packets (apart, perhaps, from the ways specified by the standards for the very lowest protocol layers). For example, some research on the Great Firewall of China suggests that it disrupts connections that match particular rules by forging TCP RST packets that trick the parties at each end of the connection into hanging up. Other people have written code for wifi routers that will invisibly change the contents of web pages that users view when connected via those routers -- for example, altering all the image files that users load in their web browsers.
Enough end-to-end cryptography could mitigate these problems by making it technically difficult for intermediaries to tell what end-users are doing (and thus much harder to selectively interfere with it), as well as making it difficult to alter data in transit without detection. What can we do in the absence of cryptography? One approach is to capture packet traces at each end and then compare them.
Earlier today, I had an idea for a tool called pcapdiff, which takes two libpcap-format packet logs, one from each of two computers that were trying to communicate with one another, and compares them to figure out automatically whether there's evidence that packets were being systematically forged or altered by an intermediary. Clearly, all networks have innocent packet loss, so the comparison we need is not simply a matter of finding packets in one log that are not present in the other. It's quite normal to have packets sent by one end that were not received at all by the other end. (We can measure the rate at which this happened -- and compute a packet loss rate, which is worth doing with real traffic of various sorts, not just ICMP echo request packets, which networks might treat specially in order to maintain low visible packet-loss statistics.) No, the suspicious thing is when a packet is received at one end that the other end never transmitted. If A remembers sending a certain packet to B, but B doesn't have a record of receiving it, that's OK: it's just a normal dropped packet, and we can measure the rate at which this occurs, and compare it from ISP to ISP, or application to application (to see if an ISP is selectively dropping packets of a certain sort at a greater rate). But if B received a packet apparently from A that A has no record of having sent, that's a problem: the ISP has either altered it in transit or concocted it from scratch. In this case the ISP is behaving non-neutrally, and a tool that compares the packet traces with this criterion could detect this.
The one complexity that comes to mind is that the IP protocol allows networks to fragment packets that are too large, turning a single packet into multiple packets containing the same data payload. In some sense, an ISP that fragments packets is not behaving perfectly neutrally -- it's doing something other than forwarding packets byte-for-byte unaltered -- but the Internet Protocol says that this accomodation for varying network hardware (with different maximum packet sizes) is OK. A pcapdiff tool, or users conducting an experiment with one, may need to take account of fragmentation in some way, either by trying to reassemble fragmented packets, trying to prevent fragmentation from taking place at all (setting the MTU very low on both ends before beginning to communicate?), or by analyzing fragments to see if they are correctly formed and correctly derived from packets that are known to have actually been sent. (If we insist on trying to reassemble packets, there is a potential problem about how to deal with dropped packets.)
Today I turned 28, the second and last time my age will have been a perfect number. Perfect numbers are so rare that the human lifespan only lets us experience two of them as ages -- six and twenty-eight. I didn't know what a perfect number was until I was nine or ten, so I missed out on the opportunity to celebrate being a perfect age last time around. Not this around. Adsit omen!
I celebrated by riding my bike to the top of Mt. Diablo for the first time. On the mountain, I saw two tarantulas, three bats, and a coyote. Two days ago, I rode to the top of Twin Peaks at midnight and saw an owl; following Rachel Chalmers's view of the auspicious nature of seeing an owl while exercising, I'll say again: Adsit omen!
(It's more correct to say omen accipio, but I like the symmetry with absit omen.)
While I was doing bicycle training this spring and summer, I found myself riding up a lot of hills and little mountains, and I decided that I wanted to ride up Mt. Diablo by the time I was 28. After a long enough while had gone by, there was only one day left in which to do it.
Thanks to Peter for being my guide and companion on the ride.
Contact: Seth David Schoen