Understanding 5G



Source: Apple

A great many articles have been written about 5G. Few of those articles are technical enough to help you understand the arguments over 5G safety. In addition, few of those articles are technical enough to help you understand which 5G cell phone is right for you, and which 5G cellular provider (such as Verizon or T-Mobile) is right for you. So, at the risk of boring you, let’s get just a little technical.

Safety

First of all, the notion that 5G causes Covid-19, or that 5G involves some kind of new hazard that warrants banning it, is silly in the extreme.

Remember when microwave ovens came on the market? Many people were afraid of them. Now just about everybody has one, and nobody worries about them. Those who tried to promote fear of microwave ovens back then used the same scare word that 5G paranoiacs use now. That word is radiation. If you come across an article about 5G that uses the word radiation, then that article is probably propaganda.

Radiation is all around us. Our bodies themselves at this very moment are producing radiation, mostly in the form of heat. Without the radiation from the sun, there could be no life. We have been immersed in radio waves for more than 100 years. Yes: Life depends on some forms of radiation, and other forms of radiation are dangerous. The difference is in the frequency of the radiation and its intensity.

As far as I can tell, 5G is said to be dangerous because 5G uses frequencies higher than 4G (4G is also called LTE). It is true that 5G uses somewhat higher frequencies. But those frequencies are still (obviously) in the radio spectrum. The properties of different frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum (of which the radio spectrum is a small part) have been understood for a long time. There is new technology and somewhat higher radio frequencies in 5G, but there is no new science.

Some easy physics

Only one point of physics needs to be understood. That is that electromagnetic emissions of higher frequencies contain more energy than emissions of lower frequencies. A reasonable analogy, I believe, would be a comparison with a spinning flywheel. A wheel spinning fast contains more energy (in the form of angular momentum) than a wheel spinning slowly. Electromagnetic emissions become dangerous to the human body when they contain enough energy to cause either chemical or molecular changes in body tissues. Here we must consider the concept of ionizing versus non-ionizing radiation. The entire radio spectrum including 5G is non-ionizing radiation. When the body is exposed to energy in the radio spectrum, heat is produced. It is not dangerous unless it’s intense enough to cause burns. We’re talking here about an ordinary burn of the same type you’d get if you spilled hot coffee.

Ionizing radiation is much more powerful. Intense radiation at ionizing frequencies will knock electrons out of an atom’s shell. (An atom with the wrong number of electrons is called an ion.) When electromagnetic energy is energetic enough to start altering atoms and chemical molecules, then our cells and our DNA are in danger. If you look at the chart below of the electromagnetic spectrum, you’ll see that the entire radio spectrum (which of course includes 5G) is in a frequency band lower than your microwave oven. And your microwave oven, in spite of its higher frequencies, still produces only heat, because its emissions are not energetic enough to cause ionization.

Life on earth has always been exposed to ionizing radiation in the form of ultraviolet light from the sun and gamma rays from outer space. At low levels, the body can repair molecular damage faster than the damage is done. The problem is when ionizing radiation causes cellular damage faster than the body can repair it. The three factors that determine the degree of danger are, how intense was the source of ionizing radiation, how close were you to it, and how long were you exposed. Tanning beds are far more dangerous than microwave ovens. And medical X-rays are deemed safe as long as the exposure is low and the body’s cells have time to do repairs between exposures.

But that’s enough about ionizing radiation, because 5G emissions — in fact, no radio emissions — are energetic enough to cause any reaction in the body other than hot-coffee heat.

How is 5G different from 4G?

The difference between 5G and 4G that concerns us here is how 5G uses the radio spectrum. Now we need to talk about bands of radio spectrum.

Like 4G, 5G uses multiple ranges of radio frequencies. In fact they use the same frequencies except that 5G uses some higher frequencies, up to 39Ghz. Frequencies that high have advantages as well as disadvantages. The advantage is that there is a hugh amount of bandwidth at those frequencies, so 5G speeds can be faster than 4G. The disadvantage is that frequencies as high as 39Ghz don’t propagate well. Their range is limited, and they don’t penetrate walls as well as lower frequencies. Thus 5G cellular towers that use those higher frequencies must be much closer together.

But 5G works just as well at lower frequencies. The lowest frequencies used by 5G are in the range of 650Mhz to 850Mhz. That’s much, much lower. I call it “low band.” Radio waves at those lower frequencies propagate much better over longer distances, as well as around and through obstacles. Those are the frequencies that were used by broadcast television, until the FCC reallocated frequencies to move broadcast television off those frequencies and reassign the frequencies for cellular communication.

Now you can see why 5G benefits both city people and rural people, and why where you live should factor into your choice of which 5G service provider you want to use.

Verizon vs. T-Mobile

Verizon and T-Mobile took different strategies with 5G. At FCC auctions for 5G spectrum, Verizon’s strategy was to buy licensing for the higher frequencies. T-Mobile, on the other hand, bought as much of the old broadcast television spectrum as it could get its hands on. T-Mobile bought Sprint mainly to acquire Sprint’s spectrum. Keeping in mind that all 5G providers have a range of spectrum, Verizon’s spectrum is on the whole more beneficial to those who live in cities. T-Mobile’s spectrum is on the whole more beneficial to those who live in rural areas. That’s why Verizon’s CEO joined Tim Cook at Apple’s iPhone 12 rollout and boasted that Verizon will have the bandwidth to feed a stadium full of cell phone users. T-Mobile’s advantage for rural users is not yet widely understood, partly because T-Mobile is still in the process of upgrading its rural towers to support low band 5G.

I should mention here that no individual or corporation owns radio spectrum, though we speak of it that way sometimes. In all countries, radio spectrum is seen as a publicly owned natural resource to be managed for the public good. So corporations don’t buy spectrum, they buy a license to use that spectrum. And all licenses have a start date and a termination date and thus must be relinquished or renewed.

Latency

You’ll often hear the word latency in discussions of 5G. Latency refers to the time it takes — the delay — in getting data from one place to another. The latency is lower for 5G. Most people won’t notice any difference. Gamers will. And low latency is a requirement for any device that is being controlled from a distance or that needs to exchange data very fast — self-driving cars, for instance.

Phased arrays

The concept of phased arrays is very exciting for nerds like me, but it’s not something that needs to be understood to make decisions about 5G phones or 5G service providers. So this section is for extra credit.

Cell phones are just radios. All radios require antennas for receiving and transmitting. The size (or really, the length) of an antenna is directly proportional to the frequency that you want to use it on. The lower the frequency, the longer the antenna. A shortwave radio antenna may need to be a hundred feet long or longer. An antenna for 39Ghz would be less than a third of an inch long, or about 7mm. A half wavelength antenna would be only 3.5mm long. With antennas that small, it’s possible to design some very good antennas that will fit inside of cell phones.

Some antennas emit their signals equally in all directions. They’re omnidirectional antennas. Some antennas — directional antennas — can concentrate their signals into a beam. The television antennas that used to be seen on everyone’s chimneys (some people still have them!) are directional antennas. Technically, they’re Yagi antennas. They manipulate the phase of a radio signal inside an antenna so that the antenna focuses its sensitivity in a particular direction. That’s why those chimney antennas often had rotors. Let’s not get too deep into what the phase is. It has to do with the sine wave pattern of alternating current. All radio waves are sine waves.

It’s also possible to make directional antennas that have no moving parts. The antenna’s beam is directed not by rotating a single antenna but by having multiple antennas (four, typically) arranged in a square and using an electronic circuit to alter the phase of the signal to or from each antenna. The antenna can then be steered by turning a dial, or a computer can steer the antenna.

Some newer cell phones will indeed use tiny phased array antennas inside the cell phone. It’s easy to see how cellular communication can be improved if the cellular tower can steer a signal toward wherever the phone is, and if the phone can steer its signal toward wherever the tower is. This is practical, though, only at the highest frequencies used by 5G, where the antennas are small enough to fit inside a cell phone.

Understanding your phone’s (and carrier’s) specs

As you can see, to make a good choice in buying a phone or in choosing a cellular carrier involves understanding enough about 5G to know which phone, or which carrier, is best for you. In general, Verizon is a better choice if you will use your phone mostly in the city, and T-Mobile is a better choice if you will use your phone mostly in a rural area. I’m familiar only with U.S. carriers, so those who live outside the U.S. will have some research to do.

If you dig a bit, you’ll be able to find a phone’s specifications. Here, for example, are Apple’s frequency band specifications for my iPhone 12 Pro Max. (See here for other countries.)

Note that the iPhone 12 supports 5G frequencies all the way from the lowest (600Mhz, band n71) to the highest (39Ghz, n260). So an iPhone 12 should work well for you on 5G no matter where you live or who your cell service provider is.

Some information is hard to get, though

Though your phone’s capabilities can easily be determined, and though we know in general what 5G strategy the different cell service providers are pursuing, what we don’t know is what kind of 5G equipment is installed and operating at particular locations or on particular towers. Also, cell service providers are rapidly installing new 5G equipment, so the situation is changing. The only way to really figure out what’s best for you is to take a particular phone to a particular place and see what kind of service you get. If you want to be a nerd about it, you can get your phone to tell you what band it’s on. I won’t go into that here because it’s too complicated, but I’ll describe my own case.

Two months ago, I switched from Verizon to T-Mobile, because it was easy to see that T-Mobile is better for me because I live in the sticks. The nearest cellular tower is over two miles away. With Verizon, I could get only slow data. The 4G signal was so weak that an iPhone 11 would often fall back to 3G — pathetically slow, though Verizon 4G was almost as slow. It’s 12 miles from me to the nearest tower with 5G. I can’t receive a 5G signal here yet. But switching to T-Mobile was a major improvement for me because the nearest T-Mobile towers use band 71 (600Mhz) for 4G LTE. With an iPhone 12 on T-Mobile, I can now hold a 4G signal and get data speeds that would seem slow to city people but that are a godsend to country folk — around 8Mbps down. In short, I switched to T-Mobile to get a frequency band that Verizon does not have here — band 71 in the old broadcast television spectrum. My hope is that T-Mobile will soon light up 5G on the 600Mhz band, which should give me some — though probably not dramatic — improvement. Those super-high 5G data speeds are possible only at the higher frequencies.

Caveat emptor

As you can see, making choices in 5G phones and 5G carriers can be complicated. It’s a given that people who work in cell phone stores will give inaccurate and misleading information, not least because they don’t understand what they’re selling. For some people (for example, if you live in New York City), decisions may be easy. But for those of us who live in the sticks, there is no choice but to get some understanding of 5G, to know where your towers are, and to drive around from tower to tower testing phones. I have an extra class amateur radio license, and I’ve been playing with radios and antennas for years. The applicable theories — not to mention the safety rules when you’re around radio-frequency currents — are familiar to me. For those without that kind of experience, the best strategy probably is to read, to always be skeptical of what you’re told (especially from people who work in cell phone stores), and to compare notes with your neighbors who may be using different kinds of phones on different carriers.


Source: Wikipedia

Industrial art



Click here for high-resolution version.

From the moment I took these guys out of their boxes, I was eager to shoot their portraits. Justrite has been in business for 115 years. You can buy Justrite oil cans as antiques, including, of course, on eBay. The new cans seem to be even better made than the vintage cans. Even the old ones remain useful, and so they retain their value.

Most gasoline containers sold into the consumer market these days are made of plastic. Having been through two house fires in my life (though they had nothing to do with gasoline), I don’t trust plastic for flammable liquids. My gasoline can is a 5-gallon metal safety can that I’ve had for years, though it wasn’t made by Justrite. I needed new safety cans for lamp oil and for mixed fuel for the chain saw. These Justrite cans are expensive, but I can write that off to safety — and aesthetics.

The design is very steampunk. If there aren’t Justrite oil cans in museums of modern and industrial art, there ought to be. My guess is that, because they’re so expensive, not many homeowners buy them. What keeps Justrite Manufacturing prosperous, I’m sure, is that these cans meet international standards for the safe storage of flammable liquids. They’re mostly sold to industry.

I regret that I have to fill these cans with flammable fluids and send them to the shed. They’d work so well for serving coffee and iced tea.

Virtual emigration, anyone?



My 20-year-old Sony headphones, well worn but still working

Ken, who is now back in Scotland after being stuck in the U.S. for six months during the Covid-19 lockdown, writes: “I can’t tell you how detoxed I already feel from U.S. politics…. No more Trump signs, no more awful religion, no more right wing madness…. It feels good to be away, honestly.” Luckily for him, Ken has two passports. One of them is a beautiful red British passport, the ones I admire most while standing in the immigration lines. Meanwhile, here I am, with only my useless American passport, unable to breathe the free air of Europe this year, if only for a couple of weeks.

Republicans, while doing such great deeds to make America great again (with generous Russian assistance), say that we liberals would turn America into a flaming hellscape. Actually, what we liberals will do is make America much more like Europe.

We liberal Americans are torn in two directions right now. On the one hand, we’re obsessed with the news, terrified at how far right-wing Americans and their little Hitler will go to get the right-wing dictatorship they crave. And on the other hand we try to preserve our mental health by trying to shut it all out.

This post is about shutting it out.

Technology can bring us all the news (and propaganda) we can eat. But technology also gives us ways to shut out the public madness to protect our mental health. I actually have come to love my Covid-19 masks. I especially love my Covid-19 masks when I’m in a place where right-wingers are maskless. So far, I’ve not been harassed for wearing a mask, but there is a lot of that going on. My mask says to the glowering maskless: I don’t want to be around you. I suspect that’s part of why mask-wearers gall them so badly. It makes them feel low and dirty, when what they want is to feel superior and powerful. I’m considering wearing masks in public for the rest of my life, actually.

Unlike viruses, noise won’t kill you. But too much noise damages our hearing, and too much noise damages our mental health. Noise is not a huge problem for me now, given that I live in the woods. Nor do I find myself in noisy places much anymore. But, partly because I’m so accustomed to silence, I have a low tolerance for noise. I have come to be disgusted by the sound of loudspeakers blaring country music, for example. Once upon a time, country music could express vitality, energy, and optimism. Consider Johnny Cash’s “I Walk the Line” (1958), or the stunning performance of “Cocaine Blues” by Joaquin Phoenix in the film “Walk the Line.” (See footnote for a musical factoid.)

The country music that I’m exposed to in public places these days is always about whining and masochistic suffering. The whining voice, apparently, is supposed to convey emotion. I find myself mocking it and making fun of it behind my mask, or muttering, “Why don’t you just go die and get it over with.” Some cultures are rotting all right, and not the ones in Europe.

Noise was a huge problem when I lived in San Francisco. It was sirens, buses, trains on Market Street, and loud motorcycles. Eventually I refused to go to restaurants, or at least the noisy ones, where the sound level was often over 100 decibels. I also fought the noise with some noise-canceling headphones. I bought headphones that were of poor quality, though, and they didn’t last long. (The headphones in the photo are good headphones, but they don’t do noise canceling.)

I was very excited when I heard that Apple is going to make some over-the-ear noise-canceling headphones. Apparently they’ll be called “Airpods Studio,” and the rumors at present are that they’ll be available in October. The price is said to be $349 or $399. That’s pretty pricey, but my guess is that they’ll be worth it.

Apple has figured out how to get amazing sound quality (and a wide range of frequencies) out of small devices, with low distortion. I’ve never used ear buds, because they don’t fit my ear well, and because buds can’t do noise canceling. For noise canceling, the ears must be covered with sound-suppressing padding. Another virtue of the Apple headphones, I’m sure, is that they’ll integrate well with other Apple devices — iPhones, computers, and watches. The headphones will surely have a microphone. And Apple knows how to make products that are hard to break and don’t wear out.

It’s a sad thing when we have to protect ourselves against the environment we live in. And yet, we don’t fret about protective items such as caps (against sun damage) and gloves (against skin damage). For now, more options are needed. Masks defend against viruses, and, as a bonus, tell maskless right-wingers that you’re not one of them. Noise-cancelling headphones not only keep out the ear-damaging noise and the soul-damaging music, they also help build a virtual bubble, one’s own private Edinburgh.


A musical aside: The Folsom Prison scene from “Walk the Line” contains a fine example of what musicians call “vamping.” Vamping is what accompanists do while they wait for the vocalist to start to sing. The accompanist(s) just keep an eye on the singer and repeats a short musical phrase, maybe only one measure long. In the Folsom Prison scene, the band vamps while Joaquin Phoenix delivers a monologue that sets his audience on fire. Then, at 0:51, he breaks a glass, signaling the band that he’s ready to go. When Phoenix returns to the microphone, a guitar cues the singer with a chromatic sequence of four eighth-notes, dominant to tonic. Then Phoenix proceeds to kill it with “Cocaine Blues.” Hollywood, on the dreaded and liberal West Coast, knows how to do this. Nashville seems to have forgotten how.


Update: Even in Edinburgh, noisy restaurants are a problem. From the Scottish newspaper The Herald: We shouldn’t have to wear ear defenders when eating out.


A flood of new data about prehistory



Who We Are and How We Got Here. By David Reich. Oxford University Press, 2018. 368 pages.


During the past ten years, gene sequencing machines have become available that are thousands of times cheaper to operate than earlier machines. The analysis of human genes can yield an astonishing amount of information about prehistory, an area that until fairly recently could be investigated only through archeology and linguistics. Using these new machines, labs such as David Reich’s lab at Harvard University have been extracting DNA from thousands of bones from all over the world that were contributed to the project by archeologists. New data is becoming available faster than it can be analyzed. The scientists doing this work are publishing papers too fast for even specialists to keep up with them all, and the papers are too technical for non-specialists to follow. David Reich’s book is one of the first, and few, books on this area of research for general readers.

In writing about this book, I first should confess that my interests are Eurocentric. My own Y-DNA shows that I am descended from Celts and that my paternal ancestors were almost certainly in Ireland centuries ago. In fact I have the genetic marker for descendants of Niall of the Nine Hostages, a semi-historical Irish king who seems to have left almost as many descendants as Genghis Khan. Reich actually mentions Niall of the Nine Hostages in this book as an example of inequality — how genetic research shows that powerful men were able to leave far more descendants than less powerful men. What is frustrating to me, though, is that when my Celtic ancestors first appear in history, it’s a history written by Romans, whose treatment of the Celts actually was a genocide in Gaul, and a cultural genocide elsewhere. The Celts make a brief and surely distorted appearance in ancient imperial histories, and then the trail goes cold.

Until geneticists got into the study of prehistory, our sources were archeology and linguistics. Those fields have done a remarkably good job of throwing a light on Iron Age and Neolithic prehistory in Europe. But many mysteries remained. Not long ago, I wrote here about two important works in this area — David W. Anthony’s The Horse, the Wheel, and Language; and The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World.

By merging what we have learned from genetics, archeology, and linguistics, we now have a pretty good overview of the migrations and innovations that shaped Europe. That story is of course too complicated to get into here. But briefly: The story of European prehistory goes back to the times when modern humans, as we call them, lived alongside Neanderthals, tens of thousands of years ago. In fact, many Europeans have up to 2 percent or a little less of Neanderthal genes. But it was the two most recent waves of migration that mostly made Europe what it is today. The first recent wave was about 10,000 years ago, as glaciers receded and Europe grew warmer. That wave of migration brought farming to Europe. The second wave was about 5,000 years ago. That wave brought the wheel, wagons, horses, and the Proto-Indo-European language. Europeans today are largely of two genetic haplotypes — R1a in the east, more toward Poland, and R1b in the west, peaking in Ireland and the west of Britain.

Though the archeologist Marija Gimbutas had found strong feminine influences in parts of Paleolithic and Neolithic Europe, there is strong evidence from genetics that the migration that brought the wheel to Europe was male-oriented, hierarchical, and often violent — little different from the Europe of recorded history into the 20th Century. Still, evidence is strong that, around 50,000 years ago, humans developed the capacity for complex behaviors and conceptual language. And here we are today, still struggling between enlightened and primitive behavior, cooperation and competition, caring and cruelty.

Though I am Eurocentric, David Reich is less so. There are interesting chapters on India, as well as Native Americans. And there is a fascinating chapter on inequality.

Reich’s book was not well received by some scholars. The book gets too close to hot-button issues such as racial differences or the lack of them, and the concerns of marginalized people. There are those who would shut down this kind of research. Reich’s book contains an extended argument for the necessity of accepting hard science, wherever it leads. There is no doubt that this area of research is being mined by thugs such as white supremacists. Reich very much acknowledges the projects of those thugs and shoots down many of their fallacies. But anyone interested in this area should be very wary in particular of what turns up in Google searches. It’s an area infested by crackpots who troll each other with crackpot theories.

So far, we have only scratched the surface of what we stand to learn. When I was halfway through this book, I already was feeling a frustration that no scholarship is available that seeks to connect written ancient history with what we know about prehistory from archeology, linguistics, and genetics. Near the end of this book, Reich clearly describes the work that needs to be done to write precisely that book. Many scholars are working in that direction. Within the next ten years, I expect such a book from — who else — the Oxford University Press.

I’ve changed browsers


Periodically I go on a tear about Internet security. I take a look at everything — the browser I’m using, the browser’s security plug-ins, my Mac’s firewall, and pretty much everything I can think of. I check to see if there’s anything new that might help.

The Brave browser is pretty new. Version 1.0 of the browser was released last year. The browser code is based on Google’s Chrome. Brave claims that it is faster and more secure than Chrome. Brave even internally supports the Tor secure-browser network. You can open a Tor window in Brave.

In the browser business, there are no saints, and there never has been. Netscape, Microsoft’s Internet Explorer, Mozilla, Firefox, Opera … I’ve used them all at one time or another, and all have had their failings and foibles. Brave is no different. A few months ago Brave was caught trying to steer web traffic toward its money-making sites, which have something to do with encrypted currency. Brave apologized, though, and cleaned up their act.

I took a fresh look at Firefox, and I was appalled. Firefox was slow and was full of memory leaks. But Brave has been running nice and clean for a week now. Fewer security plug-ins are needed with Brave, because Brave takes care of many security issues by default, no plug-ins needed. Switching to Brave is easy if you’re a Chrome user, because it is compatible with Chrome. I easily moved my bookmarks and saved passwords to Brave.

Like it or not, Chrome is the most advanced browser, not least because it’s based on Google’s Chromium open-source software project. That’s how Brave is able to make use of the Chromium code base. But Google, being Google, is evil, and I’ve always distrusted Chrome, knowing that Google makes software decisions based on what makes people money on the web, not on what provides the best security for browser users.

I continue to use Safari, but only for Facebook. I detest and distrust Facebook, but I’ve not yet quit it. I keep Facebook running in a separate browser to keep it more isolated. And, as I mentioned in an earlier post, I’m now using OpenVPN, with the VPN server running on my own virtual private server.

Why you need a private VPN server



To my regular readers: This is a nerd post that won’t interest most of you, for which I apologize. However, about half of the connections to this blog come from Google, from people who have searched for a topic that I have written about. This post is mainly for readers from Google who are interested in private VPN servers.


If you are interested in a private VPN server, then you already know why you need a VPN. But why do you need a private VPN? You need a private VPN because:

1. It’s impossible to know to what degree a VPN service can be trusted.

2. VPN providers charge too much. VPN service is cheap to provide. There are free services, such as Windscribe. But you have to wonder how they use a free service to make money.

3. Some highly secure web sites (my bank, for instance) seem to know when you’re using a public VPN. They may refuse to talk with you at all, or they may challenge you with pesky checks such as CAPTCHAs.

4. A private VPN will almost certainly be faster.

5. Assuming you have the know-how, a private VPN lets you control the configuration on both client and server. You can optimize the VPN for the way you use it.

The hurdle to having your own VPN server is not the cost. Virtual private servers have become quite cheap (more about that below). The hurdle is the amount of knowledge you need to install and configure VPN (virtual private network) on a VPS (virtual private server). Anyone who is comfortable with Linux should be able to do it. You need to be adept at working at a Unix command line. You need a decent understanding of how encryption works. And you need a decent understanding of how networks work.

Here’s what you need:

1. A virtual private server running a recent and well-supported flavor of Linux

2. Knowledge of Unix (or Linux), and knowledge of encryption and networking

3. The right software (and knowing how to install it) on your virtual private server, mainly OpenVPN and SSL

You will hit some bumps, and you will have some questions. I found how-to files from Digital Ocean to be particularly helpful (you can Google for such how-to files). My VPS provider (VPSCheap) also had a helpful how-to file in its support section. In this post, I don’t propose to tell you how to set up a private VPN server. I just want to encourage you and get you started.

About virtual private servers: You can Google for where to sign up for a virtual private server (VPS). I use VPSCheap.net. Some very negative reviews have been written about them, but it was clear that the reviewers didn’t know very much. My guess is that many people write negative reviews of VPS services because they’re in over their heads and don’t know how to use a VPS. My VPS (there are many options) includes 1GB of RAM, 20GB of disk, fast and unlimited network access, and Ubuntu 20.04 LTS. It costs $50 a year. It’s assumed with pretty much any VPS that you get root access to the server via ssh. With VPSCheap, I had to open a help ticket after I saw that my newly set up server did not have the full 20GB of disk space. Five minutes after I opened the ticket, I received an email saying that the problem had been fixed (and it had indeed been fixed).

Your private server does not need a domain name. All you need is the bare IP address. For security and anonymity, it’s probably better not to have a domain name pointing to your server. It would be very difficult for anyone (other than your VPS provider) to find how who uses that IP address. An exception is that, when you’re using a VPN, and when you sign in somewhere (such as your bank) with your real name, your bank will then be able to associate your name and IP address. You can be sure that banks log IP addresses. But law-abiding users of the Internet ought not to need to hide from their bank. Those who do use the Internet for shady purposes are using Tor, not a VPN. The VPN is to protect you from snooping and tracking. It won’t hide you from your bank, or from the law.

My requirements for a VPN are harsh, because I connect to the Internet by satellite (HughesNet). Satellites cause latency, and VPNs hate latency and work poorly over satellite. I tried some free VPN services, and some pay-by-the-gigabyte VPN services, but their slow performance over a satellite link made them unusable. With my own VPN server, the performance of OpenVPN is slow, but tolerable. I found that certain configuration changes (on both client and server) helped. Take a look at keep-alive and replay-window if you have similar problems. Also UDP (rather than TCP/IP) is recommended, because UDP will shovel packets down the tunnel without all the back-and-forth control protocols that TCP/IP uses.

An extra benefit of having your own VPS server is that you can use it for things other than VPN. I’m testing the possibility of moving my blog from GoDaddy hosting to a VPS. That would save money. It also would give me total access to, and total control over, the blog’s server. I think I’ve checked off all the requirements, including the necessity of being able to run SSL (HTTPS) using a free, signed certificate. SSL certificates are another item that cost far, far more than they ought to when you buy them from somebody like GoDaddy.

Another extra benefit of having your own VPS server is that you can use it on all your devices. My private VPN service works great on my iPhone (using the OpenVPN iPhone app) and on my Windows laptop. I use OpenVPN as the client on all my devices, including the iMac. There are other client options, such as Tunnelblick. I tested Tunnelblick and hated it. You don’t have to create separate certificates or profiles for each device. Just one will work with OpenVPN clients on all your devices. When I’m at a hot spot with fast WIFI, I find that my VPN server is super fast, even transparently fast.

It sucks that everyone doesn’t have the skill and resources to have a private VPN server, or at least an honest VPN service provider. But the truth is that there are politically powerful interests on the Internet who want us to be vulnerable, because they want to track us and snoop on us, and they want to be able to push advertising at us the better to “monetize” whatever they’re selling. The same thing is true of email. The technology has long existed for encrypted email systems in which identities can be verified by signed encryption certificates and in which spam could virtually be eliminated. But again, there are powerful interests on the Internet (including the government) who want to snoop on us or push advertising at us.

It’s a jungle out there.


Update: All VPN users show know what a WebRTC browser leak is and how to prevent it. Google for those terms to learn more.


Redundancy and its cousin, resilience



The cockpit of an Airbus A380. Notice the symmetry and redundancy, with two of everything (including the pilots). Wikipedia photo.


Quick now: How many hearts does an octopus have?

Answer: Three! However, two of the hearts are not backup hearts, exactly. Rather, the three-heart system is an element of octopus engineering that offloads pumping blood to the gills to two extra hearts. The two gill hearts, however, are a kind of redundancy.

Quick now: How many hearts does an earthworm have?

Answer: Five! Earthworm hearts, though, are a simpler form of heart called “aortic arches.” All five aortic arches share the load.

In us humans, hearts are a single point of failure. Maybe that’s one reason why heart failure is the leading cause of death. Some parts of our bodies are redundant, though. We have two eyes, two ears, two lungs, and two kidneys. Our redundant eyes and ears have benefits beyond redundancy, though. They provide us with stereo hearing and stereo vision. Our metabolic systems have all sorts of redundancies. As for our hearts, though they are single points of failure, they do have the ability to heal. That makes us resilient.

Quick now: How many “angle of attack” sensors were operating on the two Boeing 737 MAX planes that recently crashed?

Answer: One.

Since my post about the Boeing 737 MAX a couple of weeks ago, we’ve learned more about what went wrong, and about what Boeing intends to do about it. This piece in Vox provides some good new information. Though the airplane has two angle of attack sensors, the airplane’s control system received input from only one of them. For an extra $80,000, Boeing would include a warning light that would alert the pilots if the two sensors did not agree. The planes that crashed did not have the warning-light option. This blows my mind. Redundancy — meaning no single points of failure — was, or so I believed, an inviolable rule in aviation engineering. We can probably be pretty sure that it wasn’t Boeing engineers who decided to allow a critical crash-prevention system to have a single point of failure. Rather, it was Boeing executives, and their motive was money.

I am obsessed with redundancy. The last half of my career in newspapers (I am now retired) was in editorial systems. I was responsible for publishing systems that had to be 100 percent reliable. A failure would mean that you wouldn’t go to press. For that reason — at least back then — systems people had an understanding with the money people. The money people would say to the systems people, in essence: You’ve got to make sure that we can meet our deadlines and go to press every day. In return, the systems people would say to the money people: Well then, that’s going to cost you, because not only have you got to buy two of everything, you’ve got to build the systems in such a way that the backup system will immediately take over if the primary system fails.

In earthquake-prone San Francisco, where I worked for the last years of my career, the San Francisco Examiner and the San Francisco Chronicle had impressive levels of redundancy. There were three printing plants, geographically dispersed. At the main offices at Fifth and Mission, there was a diesel generator for backup power that was the size of a locomotive. The computer systems were redundant. If a failure was detected by “heartbeat” systems that monitor critical processes, the system would automatically “fail over” to the backup. With some systems, the failover process might take a minute or so. On some systems (such as the older Tandem mainframe computers), the failover was so fast and so smooth that you might not notice that there had been a failure. I remember one morning when a Tandem technician showed up to make repairs on the mainframe. “Really?” we asked. “What’s wrong?” The technician said that the system had failed over the night before (while the Chronicle was happily going to press, its staff of hundreds unaffected). The computer had called home to report the problem (many computers can do that), and a technician was dispatched. The computer had even told the home office what parts to bring.

An important part of my career responsibilities was risk management. I have written more “disaster recovery” plans that I care to remember. But I am still obsessed with redundancy.

Redundancy, actually, figures heavily into the plot of my first novel, Fugue in Ursa Major. In the setup and foreshadowing of the redundancy angle, Phaedrus says to Jake:

“The problem is, redundancy is not cheap…. Most people can’t afford much redundancy. I’m hard pressed for redundancy myself, these days especially. People have two cars, a spare tire, an extra toothbrush. But it’s hard to have redundancy when having just one of something you need is hard enough. But let’s don’t get ourselves depressed over dark possibilities. You’ve come to go camping on a high ridge, and smell the flowers and look at the stars. We can scare the daylights out of ourselves some other time thinking about how precarious our support systems are.”

Once upon a time (is it still true?) many systems on aircraft, such as the navigation systems, were triple redundant, like an octopus’ heart. It was very hard for me to believe that Boeing, of all companies, would allow a single sensor to bring down an airplane. Two airplanes.

According to Vox, Boeing’s fix for the 737 MAX includes monitoring two angle of attack sensors and warning the pilots if the sensors disagree. It is stunning that Boeing didn’t do things that way the first time. Boeing will pay dearly for cutting corners.

After redundancy has saved the day in Fugue in Ursa Major and as the story gets into the denouement stage, Jake teases Phaedrus, and Jake quotes his English-teacher mother. Joan is a dog:

Jake smiled up at the stars and scratched Joan’s head again.

“Aha,” said Jake, “I just figured out your real objection to monotheism.”

“What’s that?”

“A single god is not redundant. If god lets you down, you have nowhere to turn to. That’s an existentially ugly place to be, as my mother might say.”

Boeing: It’s even worse than we think.



Wikipedia photo


I have long been fascinated by aviation. Though I never got a pilot’s license (I chickened out), I have about 45 hours of flying time as a student pilot. On my trip to Scotland last fall, I was eager for the opportunity to fly from New York to Edinburgh and back on Boeing’s newest plane — the Boeing 737 Max. A few weeks later, one of these planes crashed in Indonesia. Last week, another one crashed. Now I have a retroactive case of the heebie-jeebies.

At the time, I felt quite safe on the plane. It’s a beautiful, reasonably comfortable plane, though maybe a bit small for trans-Atlantic flying, for which wide-body planes are the way to go. But now I will refuse to ever fly again in a Boeing 737 Max, because I doubt that Boeing will ever find a way to make the plane truly safe.

Only the nerdier articles have been explicit about what the problem really is. All of the reporting on the two crashes tells us about the onboard software that is thought to be the cause of the crashes. But that leaves the impression that, when the software is revised and updated, the plane will be safe. But I’m not sure that that’s the case, because the true flaw in the Boeing 737 Max is that the plane is inherently unstable because the new engines, which are bigger and heavier, don’t fit the old 737 airframe. The plane is inherently inclined to go nose up and stall, especially when making sharp turns at low speed (which you’ve got to do — at low altitude — getting in and out of airports). There is no way to fix that other than starting from scratch and engineering a whole new plane.

The best article I’ve seen on this problem is at Slate: Where Did Boeing Go Wrong?: How a bad business decision may have made the 737 max vulnerable to crashes.

The New York Times also did a nerdy piece: After a Lion Air 737 Max Crashed in October, Questions About the Plane Arose.

There are two serious problems here. The first serious problem is that Boeing, in trying to save money, used an engineering kludge to keep its 737 model in the air when it should have started from scratch with a new design, as its European competitor Airbus did. The second serious problem is that, in the United States, Boeing more or less regulates itself. This is because the Bush administration, in 2005, changed the rules to serve the industry rather than the public. Republicans actually believe in things like that. James E. Hall, a former chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, writes about this in today’s New York Times: The 737 Max Is Grounded, No Thanks to the F.A.A.: Federal aviation regulators have allowed the airline industry to have too much power.

This is yet another reason why it is essential that we throw the Republican Party out of Washington, for good. Whether it’s education, energy, communications technology, pharmaceuticals, or the environment, Republican notions about deregulation are handing the powers of government over to the greedy few, the public interest be damned.

On top of its engineering kludge, Boeing (as well as the so-called regulators) screwed up again by deciding that pilots didn’t even need to know about the instability, the kludge, and the new software system that is supposed to compensate for the kludge. Engineers and pilots would never go along with anything that appallingly stupid. But the money people would.

Hereafter, when I fly, I won’t buy tickets without being reasonably confident that the plane is either an Airbus (because Europeans still believe in regulation in the public interest), or an older American plane such as the Boeing 747, which was designed back in the days when government did its job and engineers were allowed to do theirs.

Let’s also hope that this fiasco costs Boeing billions of dollars and ends the careers of some executives. Maybe then they’ll remember that cutting corners in something as potentially dangerous as an airliner does not save money in the long run. If I were an airline that bought these planes, I’d sue Boeing’s socks off.

In the long run, good regulation saves lives and property. What Republicans refuse to learn: In the long run, good regulation probably saves money as well.

Why does this feel familiar?



One of the creepiest Zuckerberg photos of all time, which he himself cluelessly posted on Facebook


The sound of derisive laughter from the entire civilized world almost drowned out the din of the Washington circus. Mark Zuckerberg said that Facebook will “pivot to privacy.” Yes, and pigs will pivot to flying.

We veterans of the Apple-Microsoft wars, which went on for years, have been there before. Apple is still in the game, but Facebook is the new Microsoft. Facebook’s evil-empire strategy really is the same as Microsoft’s. The strategy is not about giving people what they want and treating customers with respect. Rather, it’s about domination and control, trapping one’s customers rather than delighting them.

As Slate and other publications have pointed out, what Zuckerberg’s “pivot to privacy” is really about is domination. Apple owns that high ground at present, with its smooth-as-silk iMessage ecosystem. And as Consumer Reports points out, encrypted messaging is already here and has been for a long time. Apple’s iMessage has had encryption all along. And even old-fashioned SMS phone-to-phone texting is secure, as long as the cellular carriers keep their promises not to snoop.

I sometimes wonder if Apple’s messaging system didn’t lead — or at least feed — the trend away from actually talking on our phones versus using our phones for texting. Millennials, and the coasts, have led the way. According to Forbes, some companies are eliminating voice mail, because so many employees don’t want it and don’t use it.

I am right on the edge of changing the answer message on both my phone lines to say that I never answer the phone, but that if it’s really important and you leave a message, I might call you back someday. More than half the time when my phone rings, it’s a spam call. The rest of the time it’s somebody that I don’t want to talk to, because my friends (as well as most of my political associates) text me or email me.

So Zuckerberg has accurately noticed that texting is now the future and that people are disgusted with Facebook (and with social media in general). It took about 10 years for people to realize that social media, despite its early thrill, would inevitably rot because of the drag and corruption exerted by the lowest common denominator. There is even a precedent for this rot, though latecomers to the Internet would not be aware of it. It was called Usenet. Usenet started around 1979. All the early Internet computers had it. During the 1980s, Usenet was a marvel of elite communication. All the universities had it. But after Usenet reached a certain size, it became useless because of the spam, the trolls, too many people, and those who tried to bilk it for promotion and advertising. This is now happening to Facebook. Consequently Zuckerberg is desperate for new terrain to dominate and control.

I predict that Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook, like Microsoft and Bill Gates before him, will fail. That’s because Facebook will continue to build traps. Apple will compete by building better and better stuff.

Linux


Recently someone gave me a 10-year-old (or so) laptop that had been written off as dead. It was sold with Windows Vista, and it would no longer boot. I installed Ubuntu Linux on it and found that it works great. Bottom line: Free laptop.

I’m a Mac loyalist and a conscientious objector to anything from Microsoft (though I believe that Microsoft products have gotten much better now that they’ve lost their monopoly and competition has forced them to improve their software). I’ve been a Unix user since about 1985, and I first used Linux in the early 1990s. Linux has come a long way.

A laptop is not something that I particularly need. But, on those relatively rare occasions when I travel, a laptop is nice to have. Laptops of this vintage can be bought on eBay for as little as $40 if you catch a bargain. In choosing an older laptop to run Linux, you want one new enough to have a dual-core 64-bit processor and 4 GB of memory. An older laptop may be heavy, but they’re cheap. Older batteries can be a problem, but the battery in my newly acquired laptop will run for about an hour. Most of the time, though, even when traveling, you can find a place to plug the laptop into the wall. You’ll want a laptop with built-in WIFI.

Learning to use Linux may be a tad more difficult than learning to use a Mac or a Windows machine. But Linux has gotten much easier to use, with a pretty graphical interface. Probably the biggest challenge that most people would face in bringing up an older laptop on Linux is installing Linux. That’s not something that I want to get into here in detail, because you’ll find many tutorials if you Google for it. But the simplest route is to download a Linux installer on another computer and then copy the installer to a USB thumb drive that is configured to be bootable. You boot the laptop off the USB thumb drive and run the Linux installer. Once you’ve installed Linux, the sailing is much easier.

I am using Ubuntu Linux 18.04, which is the newest version of Ubuntu Linux at present. Ubuntu Linux comes with LibreOffice already installed. LibreOffice is an open-source suite of office software that is, as far as I know, pretty much 100 percent compatible with Microsoft Office. It’s as easy to use as Microsoft Office. It will open all your existing Microsoft Office files. And if you use LibreOffice for word processing, you can send your files to users of Microsoft Office and they’ll be able to open the files just fine.

Ubuntu Linux also comes with the FireFox web browser installed, and Thunderbird for email. If you need software that is not pre-installed, there is a long list of open-source applications that Ubuntu will download and install for you.