Category: Technical

Python 2.7.9 Update

Beginning Programming with Python For Dummies is based on Python 3.3. However, I know that some of you are using Python 2.x installations instead. My book does discuss some of the differences between the two releases and makes you aware of examples that won’t work. However, if you do decide to use Python 2.x despite the limitations when it comes to the book, I highly recommend you get the Python 2.7.9 update. The update contains a slew of important bug fixes, many of which affect security, which is always an important issue when it comes to applications.

A reader recently sent me an InfoWorld Tech Watch article that highlights the updates in the 2.7.9 release for you. The most important thing to know from a book perspective is that the update doesn’t offer any new features. This means that if an example didn’t work with 2.x in the past, it won’t work with 2.7.9 either.

A number of readers feel that the Python 2.x releases are better and the bug updates simply mean that it remains popular. Because the 3.x release is the preferred release, I chose to focus on it when I wrote the book. Yes, you can use my book with the 2.x release, but I guarantee some examples simply won’t work with it.

Please let me know if you have any other questions about my book, the level of Python support it provides, or whether the Python 2.7.9 release will provide any book-related advantage other than ensuring your system will remain safe at [email protected]. I want to ensure you have the best reading experience possible. However, there isn’t any chance at all that I’ll rewrite book examples to work with 2.x unless there is a significant number of readers who want this feature. Even then, some examples simply won’t work because there is no workaround to make them work (essentially the reason we needed the 3.x update).

 

More People Noticing that Green Technology Really Isn’t

A lot of people have sent me e-mail about my negative viewpoints on a lot of the supposedly green technology that we use today. The fact is that many of these green technologies simply move pollution to someone else’s backyard and may actually increase the amount of pollution created, rather than reducing it. My latest essays on the topic appear in A Discussion About Green Technology Pollution and A Discussion About Green Technology Pollution (Part 2). I’m most definitely not against technologies that really are green—I’m just against technologies that pose as green when they really aren’t. The consequences of pseudo-green technologies are real. We’ll eventually pay for the pollution we’re creating and spilling into the air, water, and land.

I’ve noticed that more people are starting to see the same things I do when it comes to pollution. The article I like best in this category is Study: Your all-electric car may not be so green from the Associated Press. Although the article doesn’t even begin to discuss the sources of pollution that electric cars generate (such as those rare earth mines in various parts of the world), it does point out that even the electricity is dirty. An electric car powered by electricity from a coal-fueled plant produces 3.6 times the amount of pollution as a gasoline car. If you absolutely must attack the problems created by gasoline fueled cars, use a hybrid instead. No, it doesn’t get rid of the pollution produced by materials used to build the car, but at least it actually does produce less pollution locally.

Some readers have pointed out that there is some speculation that the whole global warming debate is a fraud. There is even some discussion that governments are stepping in and simply telling anyone who works for the government not to tall about global warming at all. Yes, the debate has proven difficult and will remain difficult as some researchers begin to claim that we’re actually going to experience a cooling trend in the near future. The fact is that few people actually have the knowledge required to make a guess and my understanding is that no one has actually accumulated enough information to prove the issue one way or the other. What I do know is that it’s a bad idea to keep spewing contaminants into our environment. You can see the effects of pollution all around you.

This all leads me back to my basic premise about pollution. You need to make it personal. Deciding how pollution affects you personally can help direct your efforts in making our world a cleaner place to live. Doing things like turning off lights you don’t need, driving only when you actually need to, and lowering the thermostat a few degrees will all help. Your personal gain from such efforts is the money you’ll save and the health you’ll keep. Using fewer resources means having more money in your pocket for the things you’d like to have. Less pollution means that you’ll have a longer, healthier life.

What is your take on the claims to green technology that really isn’t? There currently aren’t any laws that specifically keep a manufacturer from claiming that a technology is green when it really isn’t. I’d like to see laws that place the burden of proof on the manufacturer. Before a product is sold as being green, the manufacturer should have to prove that it’s not only manufactured in ways that will produce less pollution (something that is nearly impossible right now), but that using the item will also produce less pollution and that the product’s eventual disposal will help keep pollution under control as well. Let me know your thoughts on the topic at [email protected].

 

Thinking About the Continuing Loss of Privacy

It’s easy to wonder whether there will ever come a time when humans will no longer have any privacy of any sort. In part, the problem is one of our own making. We open ourselves up to all sorts of intrusions for the sake of using technology we really don’t need. I’ve discussed this issue in the past with posts such as Exercising Personal Privacy. As people become more addicted to technology, the thinking process is affected. The technology becomes a sort of narcotic that people feel they can’t do without. Of course, it’s quite possible to do without the technology, but the will to do so is lacking.

A couple of articles that I read recently have served to highlight the consequences of unbridled technology overuse. The first, Getting Hacked Is in Your Future, describes the trend in hacking modern technology. Of course, avoiding getting hacked is simple—just stop using the technology. For example, people have gotten along just fine without remote car starts to heat their cars. Actually, it’s simply a bad idea because the practice wastes a considerable amount of gas. The point of the article is that hackers aren’t ever going to stop. You can count on this group continuing to test technology, finding the holes, and then exploiting the holes to do something horrid.

Wearable technology is also becoming more of a problem. The ComputerWorld article, Data from wearable devices could soon land you in jail, describes how police will eventually use the devices you use to monitor yourself against you. The problem isn’t the wearable technology, but the fact that many people will use it indiscriminately. Even though logic would tell you that wearing the device just during exercise is fine, people will become addicted to wearing them all the time. It won’t be long and you’ll see people monitoring every bodily function 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The use of cameras to view static locations on a street will soon seem tame in light of the intrusions of new technologies.

A reader recently asked whether I think technology is bad based on some of my recent blog posts. Quite the contrary—I see the careful use of technology as a means of freeing people to become more productive. The problem I have is with the misuse and overuse of technology. Technology should be a tool that helps, not hinders, human development of all sorts. I see technology playing a huge role in helping people with special needs become fully productive citizens whose special need all but disappears (or possibly does disappear to the point where even the technology user doesn’t realize there is a special need any longer).

What is your take on the direction that technology is taking? Do you see technology use continuing to increase, despite the problems that it can pose? Let me know your thoughts on the good uses for technology and the means you use to decide when technology has gone too far at [email protected].

 

Robot Induced Slavery

I’ve written many posts in this blog about the usefulness of robots. Robots can server all kinds of useful purposes—everything from allowing people to live on their own to keeping people out of hostile environments that could cause death. In fact, robots are definitely in our future. At some point, there won’t be enough young people to deal with all of the people who need special care. Countries like Japan are already having this problem. Of course, every positive use of a technology comes with an equally (and sometimes significantly greater) negative use. So, I was appalled this past week to read the InfoWorld article, “Working conditions? Amazon’s robots have no complaints.” The article presents a view of the future for humans and robots working together that frankly sends chills up my spine. It asks the question of when our technology will become the master and us the slave.

It’s easy to view technology that reduces costs and makes nearly instant deliveries possible as a positive when it isn’t your job or work environment that has been affected. However, everyone’s job and everyone’s work environment are going to be affected by robots at some point. The constant enhancement of artificial intelligence and robotic technology make the combination of human and robot efforts inevitable at some point. So, it’s not a matter of feeling sort of sad for the other fellow as you immerse yourself in stuff made possible by robotic effort.

Am I saying that we should pull the plug? No, that’s a nonsense position and it’s completely unobtainable. However, what I am saying is that there needs to be rules in place for human and robot interactions. People constantly complain about the economy now—how the poor are pulling everyone down and we’d be best off without them. Let’s just replace them with robots who won’t complain. Of course, if you get rid of the current poor, the new poor are the people who are in the hierarchy just above them. There is no stopping the slide into chaos once you ignore the rights of those who are least able to protect themselves. We all become slaves when we put even one human into slavery and that’s where some technologies are headed right now.

There is a fine balance between enhanced use of technology to make the human condition better and turning people into slaves. Unfortunately, there aren’t any rule books on the topic right now. Amazon is getting by with what it is doing because no one has created a rule to say its wrong. The corporate environment looks for efficiency and cost savings wherever they exist. Only humans can make rules that protect others from harm and we need to start addressing this issue now.

The problem will have to be addressed at some point. Even if we ignore it completely, the people who are affected by the incursions of robots and the problems they can cause in the work environment won’t forget what has happened to them easily. Eventually, there will be protests, possibly violent. Addressing the situation now will help keep this ticking time bomb from going off in the first place. People have to have rights in the workplace that include not having their performance measured against what a robot can do. It also means that we need to provide training as necessary to help people move into new positions when robots take over a less interesting and mundane position. Robots can be an asset or a problem. I’d prefer to see them become an asset.

What is your perspective on robots and their use to help people? Do you think Amazon has gone too far or simply not thought the work environment problem through? How would you change things? Let me know your thoughts on this important topic at [email protected].

 

Dealing with Acronyms and Abbreviations

My books are packed with acronyms and abbreviations, and readers complain about them all the time. An acronym is a series of letters that shorten a term and you can say. For example, Language INtegrated Query (LINQ) is pronounced “link” so it counts as an acronym. An abbreviation is a shortened version of a term or phrase. For example, MicroSoft Developer Network (MSDN) is an abbreviation because you can’t say the term and must instead say each letter individually. Whether the term is an acronym or an abbreviation, I usually try to define it once every chapter. However, some truly common terms are only defined once in a book and if a term is considered universally known outside computer circles, such as CPU (for Central Processing Unit), I don’t define it at all.

Unfortunately, making an assumption can be a dangerous thing. I try to err on the side of defining terms too often so that readers can gain maximum benefit from my books with the least amount of effort. However, even making my best efforts, there are times when you might find an acronym or abbreviation that you simply don’t understand in one of my books. When this happens, you can always contact me at [email protected] and I’ll be happy to define it for you. My goal is to ensure you have a great reading experience and that you discover everything possible about the topic at hand.

Some people prefer to do things for themselves. Hands on learning produces the best results for them and I do understand the need to address the learning methods each person uses with greatest ease. In this case, you have other options for finding the term you need defined. These sites will provide you with common terms used in my books (depending on the book, you may need to use more than one site):

Of course, there are many other fine online references, but these references should provide what you need in most cases. The worst case scenario would be to use the acronym or abbreviation without really knowing what it means. I encounter this problem all too often. Readers will contact me with a question that I truly can’t understand because of a misused term. Knowing what terms mean is an essential part of clear communication. Given that most of my communication is through e-mail, clear communication saves time and effort for everyone involved.

The question I get asked relatively often about acronyms and abbreviations is why the computer community uses them at all. After all, they’re confusing. Typing the full term every time you wanted to use it would be cumbersome at the least and error prone as well. Using a shorter term means concise communication. Using the terms correctly means precise communication. Every trade has its jargon and those jargon terms were created in order to ensure that two people communicating about a topic could do so in the most precise manner possible. I’ve discussed the need for jargon in the past in posts such as Power Words.

 

Global Wireless Internet

We live in an exciting time. The Internet makes it possible for all sorts of information exchange to occur at speeds that have never been seen before. The only major obstacle still in the way is ensuring everyone can access the Internet from any location. That’s why stories like the recent ComputerWorld offering, “SpaceX working on micro-satellite network for Internet access” and the LiveScience offering, “Google Invests Billions on Satellites to Expand Internet Access” fascinate me. I live in a rural community where the Internet connection options aren’t always the best and certainly not of the high speed variety found in major cities, this is a bit of a downer for people who need it desperately like me! In fact I had a look online for some the other day and found one called satellite internet now which comes with high speeds, so I might have to take that into account. Anything that helps me work faster and gain access to the Internet with fewer delays and downtime is welcome!

What astounds me is the assertion in the article that 60 percent of the world still has no Internet access at all, let alone access to more here when it comes to deals. I imagine some percentage of the world doesn’t care because it doesn’t have computer access either. However, it would be nice if the rest of the world would have a choice at least of accepting or rejecting Internet access as the case might be.

Of course, Americans (and many other parts of the world) assumes that everyone wants Internet access. After having had first hand contact with more than a few groups who are doing just fine without the Internet, I think the assumption is invalid. In fact, many of the articles I read in magazines such as National Geographic and Smithsonian tell me that there are cultures that are actively working hard to retain their identity, which doesn’t involve any sort of Internet access. Be that as it may, it would still be nice if they could access the Internet sometime in the future, should they wish to do so.


I’m looking forward to the day when worldwide Internet access is not only available, but available at high enough speed so that everyone can enjoy the advanced features the Internet has to provide. The satellite networks I’ve been reading about bring a lot of promise with them. Even though some people have said that no amount of bandwidth will ever be enough, I think there is a level of performance that will provide the kind of performance people need to achieve common goals. Even though some people might not want internet access, it would be nice for them to have the option. Currently, people wanting internet access will usually try to get some sort of package deal. They will compare fibre broadband packages and find the best one for them. Some people found that Vodaphone seemed to offer some good deals, so many people purchased package deals from them, including broadband internet plans and SIM-only plans (more info here on that). Perhaps these sorts of deals will be available to more people soon.

How do you feel about the expansion of Internet access across the world? Are there technologies other than satellites that we should be exploring (as far as I know, satellites are the only technology being using right now to bring the Internet to truly remote locations)? Let me know your thoughts about Internet connectivity at [email protected].

Are You Lying? Can I Tell?

I just read an interesting article, “What happens when your friend’s smartphone can tell that you’re lying?” The reason this article is so interesting is that it involves a kind of application development that I would never have thought possible at one time. That’s what is underneath the technology described in the article. The hardware provides sensors that provide input to application. The application uses the resulting data to determine whether the person in question is lying.

It’s an odd sort of thing to think of, but our society relies on lies to make things work. When someone asks how you feel, do you really think you can be brutally honest? Because lying has such negative connotations, most people would likely say that they’re honest all the time, but in fact, they aren’t. We habitually lie because it’s not only socially acceptable, but socially necessary to do so. Even if we feel terrible, most of us respond that we feel fine when asked how we feel. We know that the other person is simply trying to be nice and probably isn’t interested in how we feel. Asking how someone is doing or how they feel is an ice breaker—a means to start polite communication. The idea that smartphones can possibly detect these little lies will make people feel uncomfortable.

Our society is currently undergoing a massive change and most people aren’t even aware of just how significant the change really is. After all, the change lacks the protests, marching, and other indicators that previous changes have incurred. However, of all the changes I’ve read about, this change is possibly the most significant. We’re now monitoring every aspect of human behavior in ways that our ancestors couldn’t even conceive. Soon, we’ll have the capability of monitoring emotion. The idea that we can literally look into another person’s head and accurately see what they’re thinking and feeling is terrifying in the extreme. At some point we’ll have no privacy of any sort if things continue as they are now. We’ll become Borg-like creatures of the sort described in Star Trek: The Next Generation.

I’ve discussed privacy issues before. In An Unreasonable Expectation of Privacy, I pointed out that humans have never had complete privacy unless they became hermits (and even then, someone probably knew our whereabouts). I’ve also tried to help you counter some of today’s intrusions with posts such as Exercising Personal Privacy. Taking yourself off the grid, ensuring you maintain good privacy techniques online, and so on do help, but this latest article tells me that it may eventually become an issue of not being able to be private, even if you really want privacy. If someone can flash their smartphone at you and determine things like what you’re thinking and how you feel, the act of being private becomes impossible.

We’re on the cusp of a major change that we won’t be able to counteract. Humankind is plunging headlong into a new world where communication takes place more or less instantly and conveys more than just words. It’s going to be interesting to see what sorts of new social rules that we put into place to help with the loss of privacy. For now, users and developers alike need to consider how best to maintain privacy and allow for those times when privacy is no longer possible.

Where do you feel privacy is going? How do you think you’ll react as more and more applications are able to not only accept your input, but also sense your feelings and detect whether you’re engaging in behaviors such as lying? Do developers need to put safeguards in place to keep security issues under control? Let me know your thoughts about the future privacy implications of applications at [email protected].

 

Considering the Human Face of 3D Printing

A lot of my posts discuss the technical side of issues such as 3D printing. They’re a clinical treatment of a technical topic—devoid of sentimentality. Of course, this is a natural outcome of the kind of writing that I do. Most of my books contain accessibility aids in them because I strongly believe in the power of the computer to level the playing field for those who need a little extra help to be productive. Some of the things I’ve seen during my career have just amazed me and I’m sure that I’d be even more amazed were I to see it all. However, the technology I present is often faceless and lacks that human touch that really is needed to convince people about the validity of using technology to make life easier for those around us. That’s why a recent Parade article, How 3-D Printing is Transforming Everything from Medicine to Manufacturing, struck such a chord with me.

No longer is the technology faceless. You hear about how 3D printing has helped a real little girl live a normal life. The look on Anastasia Rivas’ face tells the whole story. It’s the same look that I’ve seen before when people’s lives are transformed by accessible technologies and it’s the same look that continues to drive me to cover accessibility in every book I write, in every way I possibly can. For me, technology isn’t about games or productivity software; it’s about making a difference in people’s lives—helping them do more with every asset they have. It’s the reason that I’d love to see fully secure, ultimately reliable, and easy to use software sometime in my lifetime, even though such a goal seems absurdly unrealistic today.

The point of this post is that the software you develop has real implications for real people. There is a tendency by developers to view software as an abstraction—as something that simply exists. In fact, there is a tendency to view software simply as a means to an end, but software and the hardware it runs on is so much more. I usually leave out the specific “who” part of an article to help you better concentrate on the technology you’re using. However, after seeing the Parade article, I just had to say something about a specific person affected by the technology that we all use and create as developers.

When you write software, make sure you consider the specific “who” of that software. Specifically who will use the application and what are the needs of that specific person? It’s a question we all need to answer despite the tendency to view software in the abstract. Let me know your thoughts about the human face of technology at [email protected].

 

Death by Connected Device

The title for this post is dramatic on purpose. In my book, Accessibility for Everybody: Understanding the Section 508 Accessibility Requirements, I describe all sorts of useful technologies for making the lives of those with special needs better. In fact, this particular book has received so much attention that I’ve expanded its coverage significantly by devoting forty (and counting) posts to it. The fact is that implanted devices will continue to be a part of our lives and their use will only increase, which is why articles, such as Cyber crime: First online murder will happen by end of year, warns US firm, have me more than a little concerned. The fact is that we’re all in line for a major wake-up call at some point if something isn’t done to secure the Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems we all rely on to connect devices to the Internet today. The hardware, software, and other functionality required to make everything happen is encapsulated in a technology known as the Internet of Things (IoT). Soon, everyone will know about IoT, but few people will know or understand the underlying SCADA systems that goes with it.

The part of the articles that I’ve read so far that intrigues me most is that politicians and others in the know have been disconnecting themselves from the Internet. Note the mention of Dick Chaney disconnecting himself from the wireless part of his implanted device in the aforementioned article. If the devices and their connections were secured, our former vice president wouldn’t be quite so worried. Unfortunately, the rest of us probably won’t be quite so lucky unless we refuse to have the devices implanted at all (which would seem to be a self-defeating stance to take). I’ve actually been discussing this issue for quite some time now. The latest significant treatment of the topic appears in my An Update On Special Needs Device Hacking post. I’ve also broached the topic in Determining When Technology Hurts. The point is that this issue isn’t new, but we certainly haven’t done anything about it.

Will it actually require a slew of front page news stories depicting people assassinated through their implanted devices for someone to get the idea that there are really awful people out there who would like to kill someone (anyone) with impunity? It seems to be the case. So, now we’re seeing stories about the event actually taking place sometime soon. Even if we don’t see someone killed, I can see a situation where people have money extorted from them by hackers who have gained illegal access to their implanted devices.

I’m all for the advancement of technology that has significant potential to help people. I’ve written more than a few posts on the topic. Helping people to walk, see, hear, touch, and have generally better lives is a great idea in my book. However, the time is long past for securing these devices in a meaningful way so that only those who really need access will actually get it. Just why there hasn’t been any legislation regarding this need is beyond me. Our politicians are obviously aware of the problem and have done the work required to protect themselves, but they don’t see to be in much of a hurry to protect their constituents.

Given what I’ve seen in the past, I’m sure the medical community won’t be in any hurry to secure these devices because security has been a legislated requirement in the past. With this in mind, what do you feel needs to happen with these devices to make them a better deal for those who need them? Let me know your thoughts about the lack of security for implanted devices and devices connected to IoT in general at [email protected].

 

Using 3D Printing for Urgent Medical Needs

The uses for 3D printing technology continue to amaze me. For example, it’s estimated that 2/3 of manufacturers now use some type of 3D printing technology. This technology has the potential for significantly changing how doctors practice medicine. More importantly, it has the potential for changing how emergency services are offered. I actually started this series of posts by looking at some potential uses for 3D printing in the Thinking About 3D Printing Technology post. In fact, this is my sixth post about 3D printing technology.

The interesting thing about 3D printing technology is that it can be used to create body parts that won’t suffer rejection because the parts are made from the recipient’s own DNA.The latest use of 3D printing technology is to create skin for burn victims and others that will completely match the person’s own skin. The interesting part is that the skin can contain hair follicles and sweat glands, just as the original skin did. This means that there is a potential for creating new skin that looks completely natural because it won’t actually be any different from the person’s original skin.

It won’t be long and people will be able to get a replica of nearly any body part printed for various uses. Of course, the first use that comes to mind is as a replacement part when an older body part because dysfunctional. However, the uses go well beyond simple part replacement. By creating replicas of existing body parts, a doctor can test for drug interactions and other potential problems before starting a patient on a course of treatment. Many of the issues that patients face today will go away simply because the treatment can be tested fully before it’s applied to the person in question.

What intrigues me most is how this technology will eventually affect emergency services. Imagine what would happen if a first responder was able to apply a bandage created from skin printed from a person’s DNA right in the field. The temporary skin has the potential for decreasing all sorts of problems that people experience today because bandages sometimes just can’t do the job fully. A recent Smithsonian article, Inside the Technology That Can Turn Your Smartphone into a Personal Doctor, put an even stronger emphasis on things for me. When you think about the potential for advanced diagnostic equipment in the field combined with the incredible potential of technologies such as 3D printing, you start to understand that things are going to change in a big way in the next ten years or so. You may not even recognize today’s paramedic any longer. A paramedic may carry a tricorder-type device, rely on a robotic helper coupled to a doctor at a hospital for advice, and perform life saving measures that we can’t even dream of today.

I sometimes look at how computers, computer hardware, and other kinds of technology are being combined today and I’m just amazed. Even though many people view 3D printing as a fad that won’t last very long, I’m beginning to think that it will eventually become an essential part of daily living. Just as PCs were once viewed as toys (useless toys at that), some of the technologies that are in their infancy today will eventually prove themselves.

Where do you think 3D printing is heading? Let me know your thoughts on the matter at [email protected]. What I’d like to hear about most is how you’d like to see this technology covered in upcoming books (or whether you have any interest in it at all).