Neo-retro Steg

Back in high school I spent a year doing a research project on steganography. Steganography is the art/science of sending hidden messages. It shouldn't be confused with cryptography, which involves sending a message that cannot be understood by an eavesdropper. The goal with steganography is to avoid letting the eavesdropper know a message even exists. Writing a message in invisible ink is a classic example of steganography.

Recently, steganography has gone digital. For example, you can hide a message in an image file by replacing the least significant bits of the image with the bits of the message being hidden. This adds some noise to the file, but is still very effective unless an eavesdropper has reason to believe the image contains a message. That's the type I studied back in high school.

Now it seems, digital steganography has gone old school. Remember ascii art? Those pictures drawn using typographical symbols? Some people have developed a method of hiding data files in an ascii image. The hidden text is right there on the surface, not in the code, but the technique is pure computer. It's a really cool mix of old and new. The only problem is the site is totally falling apart under the weight of the slashdot link that lead me (and many others) to the site. Ah well, someone will make a better version soon and we will all be able to send secret codes in the tacky ascii images we leave on our friends' facebook walls.

THE RETURN

I am back! Sorta! This is a bit lame for a return post, but I just wanted to remind you all that I am alive and, with midterms over and the script for the first episode of my Columbia soap opera finished, I can get back to my true passion: PROCRASTINATING! BLOGGING!

I'm gonna ease back into it with a pair of unrelated links:

-An Opinion Piece on the Writer's Guild strike by Damon Lindelof, co-creator and head writer of Lost. I'm posting it for two reasons. First, I think the writer's guild deserves our support. Second, I think it's one of the best, most well-structured opinion pieces I've ever read. Read, study, take notes. You'll thank me later.

-Zakk Snyder's Watchmen Blog. So what if there's not much on it yet. There should be cool stuff soon. And there's a release date!

Whoa (OR The Hermeneutics of Harry Potter)

Dumbledore's gay?

My thoughts, in no particular order:

-Given that Dumbledore bears a striking resemblance to a certain Gandalf the Grey, was Rowling inspired by Ian McKellen?

-Why now?

-The Harry Potter books are bringing an interesting hermeneutical question to light. There's a longstanding debate on how best to read texts: do you read them as entirely independent entities, drawing your own conclusions, or do you try to read them the way the author intended? Usually, it's not particularly easy to figure out what the author intended. You can't go ask Dante how we're supposed to react to his finding all his role models in hell. But here we have J.K. Rowling traveling around the world telling children facts about the characters, their pasts, and their futures that do not appear anywhere in the book, and often aren't even really hinted at. The Dumbledore thing I'll buy, but Hermione becoming a wizard lawyer after the only mention of her thinking about law is her saying that she'd hate to be a lawyer? I guess it works, but I'd be hesitant to claim it's in the text.

A further example of what I'm talking about: In telling the world that Dumbledore was gay, Rowling also described the Harry Potter story as "a plea for an end to hatred, to bigotry." While I think there is definitely bigotry in the book, and it is uniformly frowned up, my take is that the bigotry is more a function of people being good and people being bad. Yes, Voldemort wants to create a master race of pureblood wizards, but that's secondary to his general malevolence and his status as a dark wizard. Now, I'm not saying my reading is right, and according to Rowling, it's wrong, but the question I'm really trying to raise for your consideration is ultimately one about the final arbiter. Is it Rowling or the book? Who's righter?

Coming full circle in my post, it sorta reminds me of Tolkien's adamant claims that The Lord of the Rings is not about World War II. Whether he meant to or not, the WWII stuff is there. I think the key difference between Harry Potter and other cases like Tolkien, is that Rowling is not merely offering her own interpretation of the material but relating facts that are not mentioned in the book. I don't really know how I feel about it yet, but I do think it's interesting to consider.

People who know me know that I'm big fan of driving. Sure it's a great form of transportation, but mostly I just like the act of driving and everything it entails: going fast, windows down, good music vaguely audible in the background. My friends used to get mad at me back when I first started driving and didn't really know where I was going. We'd get lost a lot and it never bothered me; getting lost in a car was an adventure!

So it's with that in mind that I link you to this awesome WIRED article about the guy who broke the Cannonball Run record. The way he did it, tricked out with GPS systems and spreadsheets, may not be the most romantic method, but it's still a really cool article.

Also, because I love you, here's a BONUS LINK:
Happy 10th birthday, Zaireeka!
(Zaireeka is a 4-disc Flaming Lips album. Each disc has two of the audio tracks from each of the album's eight songs. You play them (and LOUD!) on four different CD players (or more, if you burn copies or use computers). The result is one of the most enthralling music-listening experiences ever. Columbia people, stay tuned for info on a Zaireeka party. I'm dead serious.)

Galactus!

One of the really cool/uncool things about working at Marvel over the summer was that I was privy to a lot of information that I was not allowed to share with the public. For example, I had to make sure people knew Phil Jimenez was working for Marvel before I wrote that post about him. If it hadn't been public knowledge someone might have noticed and drawn conclusions, which would have been bad news for me.

Another example was one of the funniest things I witnessed during the summer, which was my editor Tom Brevoort dressed up as Galactus for an extra on the Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer DVD. I desperately wanted to post a picture but decided it was not a good idea. Anyway, Tom has now posted about it over on his blog, which means I can write about it. Of course, that mostly just entails me telling you to follow that link because the pictures are priceless and his summary of his time as one of the most powerful entities in the universe is equally hilarious.

Yeah, I'm done.

A Different Perspective on Notecards

So Bwog compiled a list of all the statements student groups have been making about Ahmadinejad. For me, one thing stands out. It seems a lot of people are upset because students will not be asking questions directly. Instead, they will be submitting questions on notecards; the moderator will then select questions from this pool and ask them.

The objection stems from the notion that this is a form of censorship, cutting us out of the conversation. The student leaders are using it as evidence that Columbia is not as interested in discourse as it pretends to be. I disagree. I think it's actually an excellent choice for this particular speaker for several reasons:

1. Ahamdinejad is a smooth speaker and spinster. Columbia students, on the other hand, may be incredibly smart, but they're also frequently overly emotional speakers. I remember a few years ago when John Ashcroft came to Columbia. Despite a number of hard questions, he came out looking better than the students because he kept his composure unlike the students who shouted and generally came off as somewhat barbaric. I think Ahmadinejad will inspire feelings significantly more intense than those Ashcroft inspired and it would be a terrible shame if he came out of this as the reasonable one in the debate. Having the moderator ask the questions ensures that they will be posed calmly and that focus will be on the thrust of the question rather than the anger of the questioner.

2. Even though half of the time allotted is reserved for questions, there will undoubtedly be too little time for all the questions people want to ask. I would rather the best questions get asked than those of the students who rush the mics right when they open up. Those will probably be the angriest students, and therefore the ones most likely to pose poorly-thought out questions that are nothing more than thinly-veiled statements of hatred. I'd rather hear from the more contemplative students. Notecards ensure that both get a fair opportunity to have their questions answered, which can only result in better questions.

I'll admit, all of this rests on Columbia being truly devoted to asking the tough questions and really challenging Ahmadinejad, but everything Bollinger's said suggests that he really wants to take Ahmadinejad to the mat. With that goal in mind, posing questions via notecards can only help.

Ahmadinejad: The Reckoning

So a year later, Ahmadinejad is actually coming to Columbia. If you wanna buy tickets, here's a link.

I've already written a post about this topic, but I do think it's funny how this year the protests seem to be, well, nonexistent. With any luck, it'll stay that way and we'll actually get to hear him talk. It should be a really fascinating talk.

(On a unrelated note, how have I never need a Columbia label in this blog? Or one for politics? And yet I have "making fun of study abroad kids"? WTF, me?)

UPDATE: Wow, I didn't even mean to, but it seems I used the exact same picture as The Bwog. Great minds think alike?

Resolution

Okay, I'm officially going to start actually writing things when I think of them, instead of slacking off only to have someone at the Times write the exact same article months later.

I'm obliquely referring to Manohla Dargis's Times piece on Comic-Con. Now granted, hers is on the San Diego Con and mine was going to be on the New York Comic-Con, which is the one I attended, but she basically says the exact same thing I wanted to say, namely that as geeky as Comic-Con is, there's something really beautiful about it. I was really moved by the sense of community at Comic-con, which manifested itself in two ways.

First, there was a general sense of freedom and acceptance. Some of us might have secretly snickered at the people in the anime-inspired costumes but nobody gets bullied at these sort of things. If you want to dress like an anime character and you don't have the body for it... well, I'm not going to stop you.

Second, the connection between the fans and the creators. I mean, there are obviously the big panels with tons and tons of real big-name people (at least, big-name if you follow comics... I was 25 feet away from Stan Lee!) but there're also opportunities to just go up and talk to the people making comics or computer games or whatever you're into. The best part is that in general they're actually pretty into it. They're happy to connect with fans and have conversations about how much they loved Shogun Warriors when they were growing up and stuff like that. I challenge you to name any other industry where that happens? Movies? TV? Forget about it.

So yeah, if I could travel back in time this post would be a lot longer, but since the Times article pretty much covered all the things I'm saying anyway, I guess I'll just stop. But watch out, Dargis! Next time I'm totally scooping you.

Cower Before The Power of Chairlactus!

I know this is sort of weak post considering I haven't updated since Tuesday (has it really been that long?!?) but I just read this Times article about urban explorers and thought it was really cool, so I figured I'd blog it.

They mention Columbia's tunnel systems in the article, which is pretty cool in that "it's cool to read about my school in the Times even though it's mentioned regularly" sort of way, and reminds me that I really ought to check those out some time before I graduate. Are they even still open? I remember reading that the school was cracking down on tunnel crawling, but I'm not sure whether they ever actually went through with it. In any case, it's about time I came to grips with my minor claustrophobia, now that I no longer really have any problem with needles. (Whoa! Sam talking about his fears in his blog? Unheard of! Quick, make a joke!) Yeah, then all I need to do is get blinded by radioactive goop that also gives me radar sense and I'll totally be Daredevil. Yep, Sam Roberts, the Man Without Fear. That's me.

On an unrelated note, I got my car window smashed in yesterday while I was playing baseball at Rye Neck High School. I can't understand how that happened in a relatively full public parking lot, but whatever. It just sucks, especially cause they took Chrissy's camera and cash.

On another unrelated note, I had a weird wine-induced dream last night, which somewhat resembled Marvel's "Civil War" series of comics, only all the superheroes were chairs. The dream ended when Chairlactus showed up. Seriously. Best. Dream. Ever.

Euroinvasion!

So my brother leaves for Europe tomorrow (along with the rest of my family, though they're only gone for a little over a week) and he and the friends he will be traveling with have started up a blog. So, mostly for my own reference, but also if you're interested, here's a link to the Euroblog

WWWD? (the third W is for Wilco)

Pitchfork has an interview with Jeff Tweedy from Wilco up since their new album comes out next week. I've been listening to the album for a month now and I think it's outstanding, though I doubt the critics will feel the same way, since it has a very subdued, classic rock vibe to it.
Back to the interview, though, Tweedy really nails everything I think is important about pop music. He rejects labels like "experimental" and his response to the question about nostalgia is spot-on:
"There's nothing nostalgic about Wilco. There's nothing nostalgic about anything. I don't find it to be important at all. I would think that what we're talking about and what I'm really describing is more being honest with yourself about language and using it to say who you are."

Anyway, rather than quote the whole interview, I'll just suggest you go read it. He's really smart.

The Times has a pretty solid article on Philip K. Dick today. Still doesn't mention how pathetic the translation was with Next. Oh well.

Frank Bruni <3 my restaurant!

Three Stars!

Movin' on Up

So my Blogger Information is out of date, since I no longer work at the Shake Shack. I've moved up to a different restaurant in the Union Square Hospitality Group and am now a reservationist at Eleven Madison Park, which is an upscale American restaurant with a French twist... or something like that. In any case, expect maybe an entry about work at some point, possibly even a couple. In the meantime, I'm just going to point out the Foodie named Eleven Madison one of its best of 2006. If you've got 76 dollars to throw down on a fancy meal, I highly suggest you come visit. Be sure to call your reservation in, though, on the off chance that I answer it and you can say hi.

Bollinger's Blunder Teaches Bad Lesson - Opinion

So there's an opinion piece in the Spec today about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's potential talk at Columbia. For those of you who weren't aware, The Dean of SIPA invited him to come speak this past Friday, but he wasn't able to, supposedly because of security reasons.

I think it goes without saying that everyone was up in arms over the whole thing. We had the "Ahmadinejad's an evil dictator and letting him near our campus is wrong" camp facing off against the "free speech is vital, even if the guy's an evil dictator" camp. It should be obvious which side I support, but if it isn't, I'll just say it straight up: There really isn't a single good reason why we shouldn't have had Ahmadinejad speak here.

The thing is, talk is just talk. It's not like Ahmadinejad wanted to parade his army down college walk, rounding up the Jews and summarily executing them. He's just talking, so what are we so afraid of? It seems as if the students opposed to him speaking are terrified that his rhetoric will turn them into anti-semitic supporters of nuclear terrorism. Or perhaps it's the condescending version and they're afraid that the his rhetoric will turn their stupid classmates into said anti-semitic terrorists. Either way, it's an embarassingly pessimistic view to take towards students who supposedly number among the smartest in the country.

But today's opinion piece is slightly different. Here, the author argues that we already know where Ahmadinejad stands and don't need to hear his speech. This is correct, to an extent. We do know where Ahmadinejad stands and that many of his beliefs are so contrary to our own that it seems as if there is no way he can justify them. Still, I think to simply call him evil and dismiss his views is fruitless. Evil is an easy word to label someone with and ignores the fact that the things people believe all stem from somewhere. It's not a question of understanding Ahmadinejad's beliefs, but understanding why he has those beliefs. Once we understand where his hatred comes from, we may be able to address it in a productive way. We tell Ahminadejad that he must change his ways, but there's no reason for him to listen to us if we don't listen to him too.