The Autism "Epidemic": Looking Past the Fear, Uncertanty, and Doubt

The Big Think has an article on their recently convened Breakthroughs: Autism series that addresses the concern of Autism being an epidemic.  Autism started as a very rare diagnosis, and held the stigma of bad parenting over the parents. 

Originally used to identify a group of symptoms in schizophrenia, it began to be associated with children who had social or emotional problems.  It wasn't until the 1060's that Autism was finally separated from schizophrenia, and let to heavy-handed medications like LSD, or using electric shock therapy or pain and punishment techniques to modify behavior.  Because of this stigma, it's been rarely diagnosed, and rarely discussed. 

But now one seems to hear about it everywhere, and see more children with Autism.  Why?  Is it because it's truly becoming more common?  Are children getting Autism from water, pollution in the air, watching too much TV when infants?  Monosodium Glutamate?  Witches?  What's the deal? 

According to Dr. Christopher Walsh of the Children's Hospital in Boston, Autism is simply "suffering" from increased awareness and a broader definition of the term.  Because the medical field now has more specialists in the field, better and more diagnoses are being made.  Add to that the inclusion of various subgroups of the Autism Spectrum (from low-functioning Autism to the higher-functioning Aspergers), more children and adults are being diagnosed. 

The article is excellent, and I would highly recommend reading it, or watching the discussion.  Autism has always been here, it's just been known by different names, or has been hidden within families.  But the important thing is to stop blaming vaccinations, pollution, the tooth fairy, pixie dust, or low-hanging power lines without any evidence (beyond surveys) that provide proof. 

Why Mac OS X? My Journey from DOS to Mac OS X, and Why I Like the Mac

This is a question I get quite a bit, and often from friends who have known me from my early days with DOS.  Why do I prefer the Mac over other computers, and why Mac OS X?  Those who use Windows can't understand why I don't just use what they use, and those that use Linux can't understand why I don't go for the completely open operating system.  So, let me tell you a story about how I made my choice about my computing platform. 

I started with DOS, like most of us did in the late 80's, and I liked the command line experience.  I could play various games, write documents, and do generally what most teenagers needed to do with a non-network computer.  It worked well, and I was happy.  So happy in fact that to this day I have Dosbox installed on my Mac with many of those nostalgic DOS applications installed. 

Then Windows came along.  I didn't much like Windows 3.x or earlier, because I didn't see the point.  It took up a lot of memory and disk space (very precious back then), and didn't give me any advantage over using DOS.  So I ignored it.  Until Windows 95 came out, and I couldn't ignore it anymore.  But it was buggy, crashing constantly, with memory allocation issues and whatnot being the bane of computer users.  About this time I started working for Packard Bell/NEC on the NEC technical support line.  So I knew computers on the inside, and knew how to troubleshoot them through Windows 95/98 (we will not discuss ME).

So my foray into Windows began, and about this time I was introduced to the Mac OS.  Mac OS 9, to be precise, and I was not impressed with it.  Sure, it did the job, but it was difficult to work with memory allocation, and I would often get memory leaks that killed the entire OS.  It was like working with Windows 95 all over again, and I didn't like it. 

Then a friend introduced me to Linux (officially called GNU/Linux, but I'll just refer to it as Linux for simplicity).  I had heard a lot about it, and at this point I was getting jaded with Windows and Microsoft in general.  I wanted to find something that didn't require purchasing to use (legally), and Linux was the new kid on the block.  My first experience with Linux was...  frustrating.  It didn't work (at least from what I could tell, because of inexperience), and left me with a pink screen and a mouse.  What was up with that?  It wasn't until a year later after playing with different Window Managers that I realized it was twm, and all I had to do was right-click to get my menu.  But after a couple of false starts with Mandrake, I got it working. 

Linux was sort of a heaven for me, and took me back to my old DOS days.  Most of the free software for Linux was based in the command line, and all of it could be executed from the command line.  I was back home again, and I loved it.  The only problem with Linux was the time it took to configure a computer.  And to get the best performance, it took longer to configure.  Now, many people will call this a definite benefit, as you can tweak performance and get the most efficient system for your needs, but my needs became very basic.  I didn't need anything fancy, just something that would get me through college and my Masters while allowing a little recreational activities.  And that was another drawback for Linux:  games.  Sure, there are games, but not many of the big name games worked on Linux (though I did spend a lot of time playing Unreal Tournament). 

While working in a Mac lab, I was introduced to the new Mac OS:  OS X.  My boss, an avid Mac user, said I would probably like it because it was based on UNIX, much like Linux.  He, on the other hand, wasn't too impressed.  So, I sat down on the one Mac OS X computer they had (the rest were OS 9.22), and quickly found the UI useful, and the Terminal application.  I smiled, but still wanted to see what would be coming to the new platform.  At this juncture, anything released for the Mac short of a view software titles were still only available on OS 9. 

And then, while I was working for eBay, I checked out the Mac again.  By this time, Mac OS X v10.2, the Mac had matured considerably.  It was very well developed, had a great UNIX platform and developer base, and even had big name games that were released for it (like Starcraft).  What's more, I had some of that software already.  I didn't have the money to buy a Mac computer at this point, but it was the first time I wanted one.  So, I configured XFCE on my Linux box to look like the Mac, in preparation for my purchase. 

And then, when Mac OS X v10.4 came out, I got a 12-inch Powerbook G4.  The hard drive wasn't huge, only 80 GB, and I only had 768 MB of RAM, but it was a great little computer.  The computer was powerful enough to do everything I wanted, including play World of Warcraft, and I had all the Office software I needed in Open Office.  It was, quite frankly the best laptop I had ever purchased as it had lasted the longest.  That, my friends, is why I like the Mac platform. 

So what sold Mac for me overall?  The first and foremost reason:  it does, actually, just work.  The OS will get out of my way and let me get the job done.  Linux required a lot of high maintenance, much like the pretty but expensive girlfriend you had that you knew wouldn't ever be your wife.  Windows went through a lot of reliability issues, so much so that even with as good an OS as Windows 7 is I'm not trusting it.  But the Mac, with all the drivers either pre-installed or quickly available through Software Update, the solid user experience, and the overall focus on the product rather than the process makes it a winner for me.  It also has much of the same security benefits of any other UNIX environment, which is a huge incentive. 

So, that is why I like the Mac.  It's not because I was "brain-washed", or that I have a burning hatred of Bill Gates, it's just because the user experience on the Mac is so polished, so simple, and therefore so impressive it won me over.  I still use other operating systems for specific tasks, but I find the Macintosh is a fantastic way to get things done and not worry about compiling, configuring, or having to authorize every action you want to do every 5 minutes.  The same reasons spill over onto iOS devices, as they have that same level of polish and customer experience that makes it a joy to use when I want to, and easy to let go when I have something else to do.  It does the job and gets out of the way, leaving me to the task at hand rather than the process of trying to get the task done. 

So, what are the reasons you like your operating systems?  What operating systems do you find useful?

Is an Institution the Best Way?

The Winnipeg Free Press has an article about a man with Autism being confined to his room for 15 days with no free access to a toilet or washroom.  The man, a 20 year old at a privately operated institution, had a double lock on his door and could only use the toilet when the staff noticed that he needed it.  When they did not notice, he would use a corner of the room. 

The outrage of the man's mother is understandable, as is the outrage of everyone that has been questioned in regards to the incident.  But Dr. Andre Blanchet, the Massachusetts-based physician tapped for an interview noted that the allegations suggest deeper issues.  And I am inclined to agree.  This sort of problem is inherent with institutions.  Those who are not emotionally invested in the care of individuals can become careless.  There are plenty of examples of abuse at general institutions, regardless of Government or private ownership.  So is the idea of institutionalizing patients not safe?

Absolutely not.  Those signs of abuse are generally the exception rather than the rule, even for disabled individuals.  But it does bring up a potential problem, and one that current care-givers need to keep in mind as they contemplate institutions.  Private care can be just as bad, or even worse as medical assistance much needed is not given even by the most loving family member. 

This case in Nova Scotia is a good wake-up call for all institutions that deal with the disabled:  make sure all your patients are getting the care to which they are entitled.  My hope is that others will learn quickly from this example, and make sure this outrage will never happen again.

On My Faith: Talking About My Religion

If you are one of the three people that regularly follow my blog, you will note that I rarely mention religion.  And if I do, it is generally in passing.  You may also ask why.  Am I ashamed of my religion?  Not at all.  In fact I am quite proud of my religious affiliation.  I just don't often feel it necessary to the discussion or topic I'm covering.  Generally it's because I feel that Religion is a very personal thing and to share with others should be reserved for genuine love and respect for that person.  Also, I don't like to offend others (generally), and the easiest way to offend others it to talk about religion or politics.  So I try to keep neutral within my posts. 

Today I thought it would be a good idea to share my personal feelings about my own faith, and hopefully answer any questions about why I believe the way I do.  I hope not to offend anyone, as that is not my goal.  I don't believe that my belief in my own religion requires the condemnation of any other Faith.  But I do have specific reasons for my beliefs, and I hope to share them in a way that is informative and clear (if not concise).  Please forgive my verbosity here, but there are a lot of potential questions I'm trying to answer in this post.

I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  Most people refer us as Mormons, Mormonism, etc, when they are being nice.  And I've heard many of the other names from people not trying to be nice.  While many people have heard of the LDS faith, few people have bothered to learn more about it than from hearsay or passing media mentions.  Let me tell you about it, from my point of view. 

My family are all members of the Church, for several generations on most sides.  An exception would be my grandfather on my mother's side, who was not affiliated with any religion (interesting story behind that).  But then living in Utah, finding people with a long history in the Church is not uncommon.  And many people find it convenient to remain a member of the Church, just because they grew up in it.  But the Church does not encourage this, but rather encourages all members to gain a personal testimony of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, and in the Prophet Joseph Smith.  This is a challenge I took upon me when I turned 16. 

I had always felt an affinity to religion, and enjoyed growing up in the Church.  But, like many people without a personal testimony, or knowledge, about the Church and it's teachings, I had issues with people (including myself) who were not perfect.  So, I started to look around at other religions, particularly through reading the sacred texts available to those faiths.  I chose the sacred texts based on the premise that such texts should reflect the Divinity being worshipped.

I read the Talmud with several commentaries made by various rabbis.  I read the holy Quaran.  I've always read the Bible, so for many of the Christian religions I read many of the religious commentaries from their points of view.  This way, I would have a wide basis of experience on which to base my conclusions.  And, of course, I read the Book of Mormon. 

Now Faith is a process, in my experience, and requires testing assumptions and looking for divine confirmation.  The first test of my faith was to know whether or not a Supreme Being was there, and whether or not that Being cared for me as a single individual.  The only way to know for sure was to ask that Being directly, and so I prayed.  I received a comfortable feeling, one of peace, and took this as an answer.  This feeling of peace confirmed my belief in a God who loves me personally, and has a vested interest in my welfare. 

I continued with my prayerful search for months, reading texts, pondering their meanings, and praying about them.  My answer came as I read the Book of Mormon.  I have read it many times before, or out of it, but now I read it with a distinct interest in it's authenticity.  It's hard to describe the feelings I had at the time, but they confirmed my feeling that the Book of Mormon was true, and by extension the story of the Prophet Joseph Smith was true.  Of course I continued to pray about every aspect of the LDS doctrine, and received confirmation each time.  As I continued to study, I was struck with the way all aspects of the LDS faith fit within the principles of Faith and Repentance, and the importance of a line of authority for Baptism, receiving the Gift of the Holy Ghost (or Holy Spirit if you prefer, though the KJV of the Bible says Holy Ghost), which were the principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  With it all fitting together so neatly, the Book of Mormon reinforcing the lessons I read from the Bible, and the confirmation I felt from God made it a logical choice.

So how can I base my whole faith on a feeling?  Well, if you believe in a Supreme Being, and this Supreme Being is one that is all knowing, all powerful, loving, good and kind, then you know that he will want you to trust him.  I personally don't believe faith comes from flashy displays of Divinity (based on my personal experiences), but rather faith is required for any divine "sign" to be given.  Therefore, once you start to exercise faith into action (such as praying, attending services, reading scriptures, being nice to your neighbor, etc.), you will receive a confirmation on whether or not that faith was well placed.  The more faith you develop and exercise, the stronger the confirmation.

So through my personal conversion story, I've learned that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is true.  It teaches the true Gospel of Jesus Christ, is lead by Him through his appointed Prophet on the Earth.  I know this to be true, and I'm happy with that knowledge. 

But what does this mean?  There are a lot of principles that are followed in the Church that are often not understood.  Let me cover some of the main ones, and hopefully clarify what they are: 

1. Is it true that Mormons do not drink?  Not even coffee?  Yes, it's true.  Why?  Because we believe in modern revelation, meaning that God will speak to us directly (when the matter is personal) and through his appointed Prophet (if it involves a larger body), we listen to the teachings of our Prophets.  Joseph Smith received such a revelation, which is called the Word of Wisdom.  Subsequent revelations have set a rule:  no alcohol, coffee, black tea to drink, tobacco to smoke or chew, or any drug abuse.  There is also guidance in how to eat healthy, get exercise, and so forth.  I see the ability to abstain as proof that I am free, as opposed to being restricted based on chemical stimulants. 
   


2. Is it true that Mormons have more than one wife?  No.  But what about (insert polygamous group here)?  The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints has not practiced polygamy since 1896.  Groups that do are not members of the Church, and any member of the Church that does practice polygamy is not a member for long. 
   


3. Why can't Mormon's do (insert something here)?  Okay, I get this a lot when someone finds out my religion.  They want to know why the Church prohibits something, or why people can't do something else.  Let me make one thing perfectly clear.  Everything you do in the Church is voluntary, which is to say the Church doesn't MAKE you do anything.  The Church has standards, just like any other religion.  Those standards are, essentially, the Ten Commandments.  Also included there is the Word of Wisdom (see number 1).  You have a choice to follow them, or not.  The Church doesn't break your kneecaps, publicly shame you, etc. 
   


4. Why aren't Mormons Christians?  Well, we are, and very much so.  It is called the Church of Jesus Christ, after all.  We believe in God the Father, his Son Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost.  So why have you heard that we are not Christians?  Well, because we also believe that, along with the Holy Bible (which, by the way, is excellent to read in the original Greek!), another record of Christ and his prophets has been made in the New World, and has been brought forth now as the Book of Mormon.  It also testifies of Christ, His mission on the Earth, and God's plan for Salvation for his children.  But to claim we are not Christian is very wrong, and shows a distinct lack of understanding (or willingness to understand) just who we are. 

There are a number of other questions I've gotten, but I will leave it there for now.  I hope this helps you understand the point of view I am coming from, particularly when I talk about Autism.  I'm a Believer, and proud of it.  If I don't mention my religion much after this, just know that it's because I don't see it as relevant, even more so after this post. 

If you have any questions about the Church or it's teachings, I would highly recommend you start by reading the Book of Mormon.  Then either contact your local meetinghouse, or the Missionaries in your area.  You can also post any questions you may have here, and even whether or not you want them made public (I can and will respect any private comments, if you mention you want to keep it private). 

Genetic Tests for Autism Now Introduced

Lineagen has developed the FirstStepDX genetic test that looks for common genetic markers for Autism and conditions that can result in autistic-like behavior (like Fragile X).  The genetic test has been developed specifically because early detection can lead to early intervention, which can lead to a better overall lifestyle for the child with Autism. 

The test has been first introduced in rural Utah, with amazing results.  It is about 70% accurate, which, short of an MRI scan, is the most accurate Autism medical test available.  The reason this is so important is because the genetic markers are there in the child well before Autism starts to show it's symptoms, which may not be until age 3.

But what is even more important here is that Autism can be detected through a genetic test, as opposed to hours of psychological analysis.  This saves time for the family, and also saves money for insurance coverage.  And that's the kicker, because if insurance companies can save money on a test that is medical, then they are more likely to cover it. 

So is there a down side to this test?  Well, depending on when the test is administered, there is a fear that parents may choose to abort a pregnancy (assuming it can be conducted before birth), or abandon a child in accordance with safe harbor laws.  The simple idea of that sickens me to think that anyone would treat their own child that way, but as people are known to do great acts of kindness, they are also known to do horrendous acts of evil. 

My personal take on the test is this:  IT'S A MEDICAL, GENETIC TEST!  That means Autism is a MEDICAL CONDITION, and therefore should be covered by insurance. 

So what do you think?

Closely Spaced Pregnancies and Autism: Does It Mean Anything?

Another day, another survey about Autism that the media is claiming is a cause.  This one is about closely spaced pregnancies and the likelihood of baring a child with Autism.  It seems that in a survey of 662,730 second-born children in general, parents were three times more likely to have a second-born child with Autism if the pregnancy were spaced less than three years apart.  Yet again, genetics were not taken into consideration, just passive observation. 

I've posted before about my, erm, thoughts about this type of passive observation.  Just like with anything, simple observation of a few facts without seeing the whole picture, such as genetics, cannot do much more than justify making a pitch for additional funding.  The article itself, which will be published in the journal Pediatrics in February (click to see web access to article) indicates that the goal of the survey was to compare pregnancy planning, and nothing else.  So, based on the data, they had to draw some conclusion, and that was the conclusion they made. 

So is it right?  Is it the cause?  Well, as it is a one in three chance, I don't think so.  Just like a previous survey on proximity to freeways during pregnancy term, a pattern was emerging.  But let's step back a bit, and see if there is another possible answer. 

Could it be that parents with genes associated with Autism may be slow at developing social skills, therefore marrying late and wanting to have children as quickly as possible?  I don't know, seems like a reasonable conclusion, but could only be identified by looking at genetic data along with these pregnancy spacing surveys.

Perhaps it's time we start looking at the whole story instead of just trying to look for environmental causes.  If I were to council parents now on whether or not to wait to have additional children, I would have them look at all the facts, family history, and then decide if waiting is something they can do, want to do, or perhaps is something they don't want at this time.  Right now this survey shows an interesting pattern, but no real, concrete connection to Autism in children.  Until then, look at it as at most an interesting pattern.

Disneyland and Autism: The Good and the Not So Good

Unlike many other amusement parks, Disneyland is perhaps the best place to go with your family, even if your child has Autism.  Sure, there are crowds, and sure, there are long lines, but for the most part Disney tries to make it as easy as possible for everyone.  But it's not perfect (like everything in this world), so let me give you a heads up on some of the experiences we had.

First, the Not So Good

World of Color:  Disney has a new attraction, the World of Color.  It's essentially Fantasmic without Mickey and the Dragon, or any other performers.  They do a water display at night and project scenes from movies while shooting colored lights through the water jets.  It's really cool, but unlike Fantasmic where you can sit down, everyone is standing.  When we went it was an hour's wait after getting a fast pass just to get placed, and then another half an hour until it started.  Both my kids were getting bored, and then it started.  My son with Autism was good with the loud music for about 20 minutes, but the display went on for 45 minutes.  It was just too much for him and we ended up leaving it early.  It wasn't bad, nor would I discourage anyone from seeing it, unless you have a little one that can't take the wait. 

Fantasmic:  We didn't get to see it this year, but then we didn't want to overwhelm our little ones.  It's a great performance with both light and characters, but it can be a little long if you are not prepared.  For our child with Autism, we often pull out the iPhone or iPods and let him focus on that instead of what is around him.  As long as he has something to focus on, he's good.  If you are sitting, and you are encouraged to sit for the performance, then it makes it easier to manage meltdowns.  I would recommend getting there at least an hour to an hour and a half early, sit at the restaurant there and eat while you are waiting.  It makes it that much more manageable. 

The Good

First and foremost it is best if you get a Guest Assistance pass.  This pass is available for anyone who has a hard time waiting in line.  I'm not talking about children who are just unruly, but children who are incapable of waiting in a long, crowded line.  Maybe they have Autism, or maybe they are claustrophobic, it works for them.  Have a physical disability?  It's there for you (and a number of other passes).  Also, for any person bound to a wheelchair, more rides are being fitted for wheelchairs, including Monster's Inc, It's A Small World, and the Toy Story Mania ride (if I remember right).  Expect more, similar rides to have a special car just for wheelchairs. 

The Guest Assistance pass acts as a Fast Pass for any ride that has one, and for those that don't (Pirates, Small World, and Finding Nemo are examples) you enter through either the Exit or designated Assistance lines.  If you are unsure of where to go, ask any employee you see.  If they don't know, they know who to ask. 

If you do get the pass, which is good for 5 guests, please don't abuse it.  If the line isn't too long, stay in line with everyone else.  If it is very long, take one ride and then move on to another.  Don't keep riding in front of all the other people who are waiting, because it breeds resentment, and that's one thing no one want's at an amusement park (least of all at Disneyland).  Be respectful of others when using your pass.  Also, the pass doesn't guarantee instant access, and you may still need to wait.  On New Year's Eve it was packed, and even the Assistance entrance had a long wait.  Just move on to another ride or experience.

Also, I would highly recommend the Crush Experience in California Adventures, which is awesome and children with Autism adore.  So much in fact that they tend to start talking after the event, a lot more than what is typical.  I can also recommend the Muppet Vision 3-D show, even without the glasses (they tend to give me a headache).  And a Bugs World is fun, along with any of the other rides there.  The Ferris Wheel may be a bit much for children with height issues, as can be Soarin' over California.  But other than those, the rides in California Adventures tends toward fun, as will the two new rides slated to open in 2011.  ^_^ 

So, which rides can I recommend?  It really depends on the likes and dislikes of your child, but here are the rides and experiences we tended to frequent:

Finding Nemo:  Both my boys loved this ride, and we ended up going every day, once a day.  I even took a recording of the ride, and though it's a little dark (no flash photography allowed, right?), my sons still watch it, riveted to their seats.  If you are claustrophobic it may not be the ride for you, but it is fun.  If it's too much for your child, you can get off before you start.  You may want to first try out the ride by watching a YouTube video of it with your child, and see how they react.

Haunted Mansion:  My kids make me so proud, they both love the Nightmare Before Christmas, and as a consequence of that they like the Haunted Mansion.  So much so that we ended up taking the ride every day, once a day.  Even packed this ride moves quickly, making it a very popular ride.  If your child has terror issues, this may not be the ride for them.  Try it out first by watching it on YouTube, just to see how they handle it. And keep in mind that it changes based on the season.  If your child or children cannot handle the typical ride but don't mind Nightmare Before Christmas, then you may want to plan a trip first during the Holidays, and then they should be good for the regular ride as well. 

Pirates of the Caribbean:  My youngest has height issues, and didn't like the initial falls in this ride, but after that loved it.  So much so that we went back for each day we there there, and twice on New Year's Day morning (best time to be in Disneyland, I might add!  Completely dead!).  It's not scary, and they enjoyed the relaxing boat rides.  But then both my children love water, so being on the boat was exciting enough.  Again, you may want to try out the ride on your child through YouTube.

Oh, and it is a boat ride, so there is a very good chance your seats will be wet.  So, unlike the jerks that rode behind us one night, don't complain and stand up in the boat.  If you don't want to get wet, don't ride.  If you are going to be a jerk about it to the employees and everyone else on the ride, do us all and yourself a favor don't come to Disneyland. 

It's A Small World/Storybook Land/Jungle Cruise:  These rides are all boat rides, so my kids loved them.  They also have placements of Disney characters throughout It's a Small World, making it a great ride for children that adore scavenger hunts.  See who can point out the most Disney characters, and name which films they are in.  And for the Holidays, I was surprised to see a Saint Lucy (Santa Lucia) figure, which was awesome.  Both Storybook Land and the Jungle Cruise are perhaps the most relaxing of all the rides, and were just a blast.  These rides are great for kids of all ages, because there is nothing even remotely scary about them. 

Fantasyland Rides:  All the rides in Fantasyland were favorites of both my kids, as they are geared to little ones.  The dark rides are not too scary, and they were fun.  Both my kids liked the Teacups, which is beyond me as they have not been my favorite.  They must have gotten that from their mother.  I would recommend them all. 

Tomorrowland:  All these rides were fun and exciting for my kids, with the exception of Space Mountain.  Not that it scared my oldest (the youngest is still too small to ride), but it wasn't a favorite of his.  All the other rides they love, and had a blast in Inoventions.  It's a great place to relax while one or the other is taking a nap on your shoulder and you need to sit down. 

Adventureland:  The surprise here was Tarzan's Treehouse.  Both my kids loved this one.  It was quiet, an easy stair climb, and gave them plenty to focus on.  You also get a great view of Thunder Mountain from the top. 

Frontierland:  The many Adventures of Winnie The Pooh ride was a favorite, as was waiting in line for Pooh and friends.  Occasionally you would see Briar Bear and Briar Fox, but the kids just don't know who they are as Song of the South has not been released.  We didn't go on either the Steamboat or the Galleon, nor did we try the canoes.  My oldest didn't like Splash Mountain, mostly because of the drop at the end (he loved it all up until that point). 

Toon Town:  This was great, and if definitely helps if you have the early Toon Town with Mickey voucher, meaning you can get in at 8:00 AM before it opens at 9:00 AM.  You can ride Gadget's roller coaster (the youngest just barely made it for this one!), Roger Rabbit's ride, and you get to see a presentation with the Mayor, Mickey.  Once done, you get special photos in Mickey's house with the Mayor.  My oldest didn't really like this, because Mickey wasn't in the Movie Barn like all the other times.  But while everyone else was at the presentation, we got to go through the character's houses with no one else there, which both sons enjoyed. 

So, if you got this far, you are probably thinking "Gee, what's so special about this?  My kids like/don't like those rides too."  Well, yeah, children with Autism are, first and foremost, children.  They like all the same things that other children like, they just don't like over stimulation, extensive waiting, and having to leave a ride they enjoy.  Children with Autism are just more intense about the emotions, and more likely to be overwhelmed by multiple stimuli.  But all in all, Disneyland can be a great trip suggestion for any child with Autism. 

Disneyland and the iPhone: The Apps and Video

For the holiday, my family went to first San Diego and Disneyland.  There is a lot I have to share about both trips in relation to both Apple products and Autism, but first let's talk about Disneyland.  It's fun, and it's REALLY BUSY around Christmas and New Year's.  So you will want to be prepared, both in knowing where you want to go and how long you will have to wait until you get there.  So here are a couple of apps that I can recommend. 

Skobbler US (free):  Turn by turn navigation is very important if you are not sure of where you are going, or how exactly to get there.  And Skobbler for the US is a great way to get there.  It's managed by a spinoff company from NAVIGON AG, and is completely free!  It uses the OpenStreetMap project, and is very accurate.  But, because it is open source, be prepared for some interesting events, such as being advised quite often to keep to the right on a freeway (my guess is someone wanted to keep the "fast lane" open).  Also, be sure of the spelling of your road, and aware of the iPhone's almost compulsive behavior of "fixing" your spelling.  You may also need to increase the voice volume, as it is by default very quiet.

Disneyland Maps (both free with ads and $1.99 without ads):  Once in the park, it's helpful to have a map.  You can grab the paper map, but how does that help you with wait times?  And how do you know where exactly you are in relation to a ride or restaurant?  Nope, interactive maps work great in this case, and Disneyland Maps is a great app for both. 

The map gives you locations of all rest rooms (in blue), restaurants (in green), and rides (in red).  And the rides will have wait times listed, if one has been posted.  How do they get wait times posted?  They are posted by users of the app within the app.  So, if someone else in the park is using the map, you are set.  If not, at least you know exactly where everything is located.  The only thing really missing from this is menu offerings at the various in park restaurants.  Perhaps in later renditions.

Something else I learned:  taking video with your iPhone is very dark on most rides (as you are discouraged from using a flash), but 13 minutes of video is about 550 MB of space, to that should give you about 3 hours of recording time in 7 GB of free space.  I'll talk about recording and recording options when I talk about the Autism aspect of Disneyland. 

So, does anyone else have a favorite app for the iPhone at Disneyland? 

Pollution and Autism: Looking At The Data, Debunking the Fear

Environmental Health Perspectives, a journal published by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, posted an article on Residential Proximity to Freeways and Autism in the CHARGE Study (CHildhood Autism Risks from Genetics and the Environment).  In the article, researchers took a survey of parents who had children with Autism, and worked out their location during pregnancy. 

It was found that the odds ratio would be 1.86, or a parent would be 1.86 times more likely to have a child with Autism if they lived within 309 meters (or less than 1,014 feet) away from a freeway.  From this the conclusion was drawn that it's possible (not certain) that car exhaust could be a cause of Autism, and NEEDS MORE STUDY.

So, does this mean we need to stop driving vehicles, and walk or bike to work to keep our kids from getting Autism?  Well, we should be walking and biking if we can anyway, but let's look at the data before we slap the "Cause For Autism" label on freeways. 

1. Living near any other major road found no significant relationship to Autism in the same survey.


2. Genetic data was not taken into account in this survey, just location.


3. No medical association has been made to show a direct correlation between traffic-related air pollution and Autism (though the pollutants have been found to have adverse prenatal effects, those effects are still largely unknown and require additional study).


4. A similar study by the University of California Davis made in 2009 showed a census of children with Autism to more likely live with parents who are highly educated.


5. The chances are that you would be 1.86 times more likely to have a child with autism if you lived near a freeway at all during the pregnancy, or 2.22 times more likely if you lived near a freeway during the third trimester, according to the study. 


6. Near is defined as nearly one fifth of a mile away from a freeway.

Now, looking at the two surveys together, it seems likely that higher educated parents would want to live near a freeway for access to their job.  Parents with a genetic disposition for Autism would most likely also want to live near a freeway.  So this survey could be a pretty high coincidence, and merely pointing out the living habits of those parents who are genetically likely to have children with Autism.

Does this mean that freeway exhaust is not bad?  Of course not!  Just like using excessive amounts of glutamate in food, exhaust can have documented damaging effects to children by causing respiratory illnesses (like asthma).  But, as the study did point out, THIS CORRELATION NEEDS MORE RESEARCH.  It's not a foregone conclusion that freeway exhaust causes Autism, anymore than it is that vaccines cause Autism, or monosodium glutamate, or watching TV, or playing on an iPad, or anything else that has happened within the past 50 years as a sign of progress. 

Yes, pollution is bad.  Yes, it needs to be eliminated.  Yes, we need to think about air quality and our children's health.  But before you start a protest movement or condemning air quality as the cause, get the facts.  And to get the facts, we need research.  So in the mean time, if you can walk, give it a try.  If you want to live farther away from the freeway, then by all means do so.  But don't make the claim that it's to stop Autism, because there is more genetic research that shows a correlation, and it seems to be more accurate because there is actual medical research done, instead of just a survey.

Cloud Computing: Is It Really That Bad? Stallman vs. Chrome OS

Techcrunch posted an article Tuesday about Richard Stallman's objections to cloud computing, based on a similar article from the Guardian.  Richard Stallman, the creator of GNU (GNU's Not UNIX), and the Free Software Foundation, has been looked upon as one of the founders of the GNU/Linux movement.  In fact, he and his organization wrote most of the operating system applications, while Linux Torvalds wrote the kernel: Linux.  And his position on cloud computing?  It should be called careless computing, because it is irresponsible to trust others with your data. 

But is it really that bad?  It depends on your definition of the "Cloud", and the value you place on your data.  The benefits of local computing, or working isolated on your own computer or personal network, is that you control your data and it's storage.  That also means you have the responsibility to provide the necessary equipment, software, facility, etc. for your data.  That starts to look really expensive, even with the benefits of Linux to extend the life of your older computers for storage and server space.  But it also requires that you know how to set up a server, configure it properly, manage security, etc.  That's a lot of work. 

The alternative is to allow corporations that have no personal interest in your privacy or data manage that data.  Whether it be video, photos, email, chat sessions, documents, etc., it can all in one way or another be placed online and therefore in the hands of others.  Can you trust large corporations with your data?  Can you trust them with your identity?  Can you trust them with your pictures of your child's first steps, video of your family on vacation, or perhaps some nefarious work like sneaking into your neighbors pool while they are away on vacation? 

The argument Techcrunch made is that you have to choose between control over your data and privacy, and the convenience of letting someone else manage your security, storage, etc.  There is the liberty of control over your computing experience versus the safety of having everything managed, backed up, replicated, and stored for consumption when needed.  Which do you choose?

Centralizing data storage, processing, and even the computing environment is the goal of Cloud Computing, because it provides an ideal work environment that can be easily controlled and maintained by a few technicians and engineers rather than a whole staff.  If the "computer" crashes, gets a virus, or otherwise doesn't work, it can be almost instantly replaced without the worry of losing files. 

Not all cloud computing experiences are like Google's Chrome OS, where Google controls your world.  Citrix and VMWare have invested a lot of money in allowing companies to create their own cloud environments that are owned and managed by the company, who would have more insentive to keep their employers happy than, say, a corporation has interest in keeping a general user happy.  It's even possible, though expensive, to set up a cloud computing experience in your own home, thereby allowing you to have the benefits of the cloud in a small scale that you control.

So who is right?  Is Google right to point to a desktop that resides in the Cloud, with apps, data, and everything else there and nothing stored locally?  Or is Stallman right in clinging to the desktop, private servers, and controlled infrastructure?  Just like everything in life, the answer is: It Depends. 

If you have a concern about privacy and security, then keeping data local is probably the best way to go.  In fact, there is an old technology that is still in use that would be perfect:  pen and paper.  Keep it off the computer, and the data becomes harder to share and therefore lose.  But if you need the benefits of heavy processing power, the private network service becomes a little expensive. 

If you don't have that much of a concern for privacy, or trust that large companies who don't know you will keep your data secure, then the cloud has a lot of advantages.  You can use it for quick and easy computing and get on with the rest of your life.  Configuration, storage, backup, all that fun stuff that can take a lot of time on a computer (if not already properly set up and automated) and expense of hardware, networking, power, and cooling (computers get hot).  This is all managed by Cloud Computing. 

So what is in your best interest?  What would you be concerned about?  How would you approach the Cloud?  Personally, I find using email and some redundant storage in the cloud to be very useful, but still keep a lot of local storage for video and audio files that I own and don't want to be made available to any rogue employee.  But I also advocate using the cloud for an operating system, as I am fascinated with amoebaOS and having a working desktop available from any web-enabled device. 

The Great WikiLeaks Cyberwar: What's Coming In the Wake and the Death of the Internet as We Know It

You've probably heard about WikiLeaks and their supporters and opponents fighting it out in cyberspace.  Some are fighting for their rights, some are fighting for the sake of fighting.  But the end result, just like with any war, is the same:  desolation. 

Here is what I mean.  WikiLeaks has become so toxic that I would be surprised if many more leaks will be coming their way.  Why?  First, because of the attacks of a few have all but labeled the organization as criminal.  It's like bullies running through the school yard beating up a few to keep the others in line.  They are still bullies, and in that way they are in the wrong.  And while WIkiLeaks has not condoned or requested this attack, it has been done in their name, and therefore has made them look like organized crime, with cyber hit men at their beck and call. 

Second, because there could be some pretty serious consequences for leaking any information that is sensitive, at least at the government level.  I don't see WikiLeaks going away, because funds are not necessarily hard to come by when you are already running off of donations.  I just don't think they will get anything of this caliber sent their way again, and will become less relevant in the future. 

Internet services, whether it be financial, DNS or web hosting, will start to change.  Your content will become important to them, as well as where that content comes from.  Potential copyright infringement will no longer be overlooked, particularly if the US Government attacks the hosting services of WikiLeaks.  If that's the case, the RIAA and the MPAA will have precedence, and Government precedence, to do the same thing. 

Established brick and mortar institutions, like Mastercard and Visa, along with any business, can easily show their strength.  Both Mastercard and Visa have existed long before there was an Internet, and could exist just fine without their websites.  So while attempts at hacking and denial of service attacks on websites may be very visible, it's a far cry from victory. 

But what this does do is highlight the dangers for any organization or institution to go onto the Internet.  It outlines their weakness, and therefore their need to protect themselves somehow.  What better way than to get the Internet regulated?  Net Neutrality is dealt a very serious blow with this cyber war, and instead makes managed networks like China, Iran, and other such countries more attractive a model.

But the real loser here will be the "free Internet", and I'm not talking "free" as in "free beer" here.  I'm talking the Internet where you have the freedom to express yourself as you like, the anonymity that comes with the Internet will be lost, even if you try to hide yourself through proxies and various other methods.  Sure, it's possible now, but once governments (and I'm not just talking the United States of America here) get a chance to think about this it will end.  Forced registration to hardware addresses could be next, having your name bonded to your network connection.  Is it possible, probably.  Will it happen, possibly, particularly now.  Will it be popular?  Absolutely not.  But like full body scans and enhanced pat downs, it could become another way of life. 

So, those who are caught in the zeal of battle, stop back and think for a minute.  Is all this really worth it for a man who was picked up for a sexual assault charge, and not because of any link to his website?  Stop reading between the lines, stop over reacting, and wait to see how things pan out.  The less we react as paranoid, panicky sheep, the more likely issues can be managed and dealt with rationally. 

I fear one day to look back at the great WikiLeaks Cyberwar as an event that doomed the Internet to restricted sterility.

Chrome OS and Cloud Computing

Nothing is more misunderstood than the "Cloud" and "cloud computing".  That's because the term is so broad that it can encompass a number of different environments and scenarios in the computing world.  Essentially, cloud computing is placing all or some of your computer's work into the cloud.  That can be storage, processing, or the entire experience.  Chrome OS is Google's interpretation, but there are a number of different methods of getting your computing experience in the cloud.

Please note, this shows my understanding, flawed as it may be.  If you have any clarifications for me, please let me know.  I would be happy to make amendments, corrections, and change my views.

The All Method

So how does one do it?  Well, the most common and most well known way is to throw virtual machines into a data center and have browser or terminal access to those virtual machines.  This is throwing it into the "cloud", because the computers are not processing or existing locally on any hardware, but are accessed through the network or Internet.  This is the approach of both VMWare and Citrix.

The Storage Method

Another solution is to place part of the experience on the web, and run the rest locally on the computer.  DiscCloud has applied this to the Macintosh computer, allowing the user to place storage within the cloud, and even their Desktop.  Essentially they are placing their home folder on a network storage location.  This can also include Time Machine repositories, and applications (with a few exceptions).  Network Home Folders are nothing new, but placing them in the Amazon cloud sure is, making this a unique solution.  Apps run on the local computer, freeing bandwidth and server processing for storage.

The All But Processing Method

Another method is to place the entire environment, operating system, applications, etc. into the web.  New programming skills, and web development tools make this possible, as shown with the OnlineOS (Amoeba OS).  Everything is built within a website, and managed like a website.  But the applications are real, and run locally on the computer (because they are web applications).  Again, storage is in the cloud, but so is your login.

Chrome OS

Chrome OS seems to fall somewhere between the Network Home Folder method and the All But Processing Method.  Why do I say that?  Because you do have a local OS installed, unlike the All But Processing Method of Amoeba OS. 

But the OS doesn't store much of anything on the local drive.  Instead it relies on most of the processing power within the Cloud for authentication, home folder (storage), and settings.  It does, however, seem to allow for local processing of information for the web Apps, making it very much like the Amoeba OS platform. 

There are some questions I do have, which I can't seem to find the answers to (perhaps more will be made apparent when the OS is released).  What about high processing requirements?  Chrome OS seems to be an excellent method for tablets and netbooks, but what if you want to, say, create a podcast or just splice some video together and upload it to the web?  Where does the processing requests for rendering go?  Where does the video reside? 

One scenario I can see is that the video, as it is captured or transferred, is sent up to the cloud, and any rendering is done there.  Same with the audio.  The processing power of the data center can manage the rendering process, and all should be well.

The other scenario is that the video/audio data remains local and the rendering process is done locally on the computer.  This could be a little slow, depending on the netbook or tablet, and the type of video being rendered. 

And the thing is, I can see it going both ways, and problems with both scenarios.  The video being transferred to the cloud can take some time, even if it is syncing or uploading while it's being captured.  It all depends on the Internet connection, and not everyone has a great connection.  And, of course, with all the rest of the data storage, it will have to get there sometime, whether it's local or not.  And local processing would be great if the processor can handle it, otherwise it would be just as slow as the upload. 

Perhaps Chrome OS won't be designed for video rendering, and leave that for another OS to handle.  But I'm not sure I like that, because the platform has the potential to do great things.  Why shouldn't it be able to handle this situation?  It will be interesting to see how it works. 

So, in the next couple of days, I'm going to be building a Chrome OS virtual machine and run some tests (assuming I don't get approved for a Chrome OS laptop).  It's an implementation of Cloud Computing that can solve a lot of problems in the business world, such as being very mobile and applying one's accounts to ANY computer they log into.  Google has the funds, infrastructure, and tools to do it.  Let's see what it does. 

Book Review: The Paradise War (The Song of Albion, Book 1)

Ancient history has always been a passion of mine, and when a book of Celtic mythology, the journey to the Otherworld, is written, I was peaked. It was not what I had expected, not by a long shot. A story that seemed to me to be a strange look at ancient Britain turned into a potential epic that was fascinating to explore. <br/><br/>That being said, the story did drag in several places. The imagery was lacking, and the book seemed somewhat passive to me. Things seemed to happen, but were not happening. It was not often, as the story was clearly written to draw one into the series as opposed to the contents of just one book, but enough that I started to skip paragraphs to get to the "good bits".

I also thought it interesting that it was taken from the Welsh point of view, which I have little knowledge. It was refreshing to learn more of the Welsh mythology, and how it wove itself with the Celtic ideals of the ancient Britons, Picts, Scoti, and other tribes I have studied in my undergraduate career. It was fascinating, and that held my attention. After all, there is something about the Celtic blood, the Gaelic that runs through our veins that awaken at the sound of bag pipes, the sight of a bright sword, or the beauty of the green world.

What was even more powerful to me was timing for reading the book: during the end of NaNoWriMo. This book gave me a taste of Albion as a desire to create a beautiful story. It also reminded me about the difficulty that surrounds that creation. Stephen Lawhead did a wonderful job in reaching me with this story, and the Celtic roots of my family history.

MRI Scans A Diagnosis Method for Autism: It's Definitely Biological

Medscape Today is reporting the results of a joint research program between Harvard University and the University of Utah that has resulted in a biological test for Autism.  The article mentions the use of the MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) test that measures brain circuitry deviations.  The study was published initially in the November 29th online posting to Autism Research. 

The tests on 30 high functioning males aged 7-28 and 30 controls showed that with a 97% accuracy Autism could be identified through this method, at least with the initial research. Further research is pending in the next 2 years testing a different age group and varying degrees of Autism. 

This is a huge stride in Autism research, because instead of a subjective test for Autism through observation, one can get a definitive test that takes less time.  It's also proof that Autism is a biological condition, as it shows that persons with Autism have a less structured wiring in the brain.  At least that was the case in 97% of the test subjects.  I'm looking forward to more definitive results on a broader scale to confirm the findings.  If so, there is yet another pillar of doubt that is knocked over, and one less for Insurance Companies to hide behind in covering Autism as a diagnosis.

Building Blocks A Road to Creativity for Autism

Be creative.  Think outside the box.  Find a new way to do the same thing. Use your imagination.  These are the mantras that I grew up with as a child of Sesame Street, Polka-Dot Door, and various other children's shows from the 70's and 80's.  From an early age we were encouraged to be creative in our approaches.  Sometimes it was successful, and other times these creative methods would fail miserably.  But in the end, life would be varied, and new situations were seen as challenges, not road blocks. 

But for some people, such as those with Autism, creativity is not something that breeds comfort.  In fact, it can be a source of irritation and frustration when things change, because the necessary creativity needed to deal with new situations does not come easily. 

To overcome this problem, researchers at the University of Rochester Medical Center used a common toy from my child-hood:  lego blocks.  They started with children on the spectrum using the blocks to build their standard structures.  Then using Applied Behavior Analysis, they were able to help these children start using their blocks in more creative ways.  They no longer looked at this same task as a series of memorized steps, but as a process that could be altered for a different outcome. 

The importance in creativity in daily life is clear:  new situations need to be dealt with, and the more creative the solution the easier the stress of the new event can be managed.  Also, tedious tasks can be better handled, adding an enriching level to life. 

So, if you are thinking of a Christmas toy that could be helpful for your child with Austism, think of building blocks.  Then sit down with them and build.  Try making changes, being part of the process, and give lots of praise.  These steps can help your child express creatively, and therefore open new horizons. 

Autism and Holiday Travel: Planning Ahead

The holidays are always stressful, particularly during travel.  Add to that a child with Autism, and your travel plans become more complicated.  In the past we have traveled by air with our son, and for a two hour flight it was just manageable.  But that has all changed now with the new TSA screening and enhanced pat-downs. 

I've always been concerned with air travel for families with children on the Autism Spectrum.  Past airlines have removed parents and their children with Autism, or even autistic adults from flights whether or not they are having a melt down.  And while some airlines have reached out to the Autistic community by providing mock flights to help their children get comfortable with the idea of flying (thank you Southwest Airlines), a parent is never sure when they will get an understanding crew or have the trip turn into a nightmare.

But add to that the new invasive TSA regulations that seem to require strip searching children, flying is now nearly impossible for the autistic family.  So that means, for any traveling you may be planning for the coming season, you will need to plan early and find other means of transportation. 

Car travel is probably the most common alternative form of transportation, and is perhaps the easiest to deal with in terms of a child with Autism.  Most often the child is already used to riding in a car, and there are a number of activities and devices that can help make the travel more manageable. 

But traveling by car isn't the only option, depending on where you live.  There are also trains through much of the East coast, some of the West Coast, and through select cities moving East to West across the nation.  Trains tend to be a nice alternative to flying because children can move about freely without needing to be strapped down and restrained.  For those who are not able to drive or take a train, long distance busses can be a great way to travel.

But before I put you off completely to flying, check your options, and call ahead to your departure and arrival airports and see if they have policies in place to make your travel with an autistic child more comfortable.  Often times just taking the initiative can diffuse a lot of trouble, and letting everyone know that your child has autism and therefore needs some options that do not over stimulate the child can help. 

If any of you are traveling with a child on the Spectrum, let us know what your experience is, whether on the train, plane, or automobile. 

Making the Effort: Low-key Santa Event at a Mall

In Montgomery County in Florida, they Dayton Mall set aside one day, November 21st, for their Sensitive Santa event, allowing children with disabilities to meet Santa in a sensory-friendly environment.  The event will last from 9 AM to 11 AM, and the kids even get a picture with Santa if they want.

For most children with Autism a visit to the Mall during Christmas time is a sensory overload.  Add to that a long wait in line to meet Santa, and the impatience of others in line can increase the anxiety of a child with Autism, leading very quickly to a meltdown. 

I find it commendable that the Dayton Mall would set aside a day before the hectic shopping season marked by Black Friday to children with Autism.  I hope that others in the community can see this example and duplicate it, making the holiday experience that much more enjoyable for everyone, even those on the spectrum. 

Skin Cell Research: Identifying Genetic Proof to Autism

While the argument between environment and genetics wage on in the blogosphere, researchers at the University of California, San Diego have found an interesting way to test genes:  reprogram skin cells into stem cells and regrow them at neurons.  The research is interesting, and is found in the journal Cell.

Essentially, they took skin cell samples from children with Rett syndrome, which is on the Autism Spectrum.  They then reprogrammed the skin cells using pluripotent stem cells to regrow into neurons that were functional.  So, a brain in a dish (and who said cartoons were outrageous!).  They then noticed that the Rett cells grew with fewer neuron synapses and had a reduced spine density, while those from the control group had increased neuron synapses and spine density.  All because of a change in the MeCP2 gene. 

So what does this mean?  It means Rett syndrome is not caused by bad parenting or by environmental stimuli.  It's caused by a gene, one gene, that controls brain neuron growth and spine density.  Environmental causes, vaccines, monosodium glutamate, too much TV, parents who don't care about their kids, it's all been shown as false by this one test. 

And what's even more exciting is that the Rett neurons could be "rescued" by the change of the MeCP2 gene, adding the IGF1 gene, and gentamicin.  That on existing cells, not at the developmental stage.  That means, given time to produce this properly, there could be treatment for Rett syndrome. 

But, before we get ahead of ourselves, Rett syndrome isn't Aspergers, or PPD, or any of the other conditions on the Autism Spectrum.  It's just one condition of many.  Remember that Autism in and of itself is not a medical definition (meaning that it is caused by one thing, like say the flu), but rather a psychological definition applied based on a string of behaviors.  While this treatment would work for Rett syndrome, I wouldn't expect it to work for Fragile-X syndrome (which also has Autism-like behaviors). 

Instead, I see this as a positive sign, and yet another reason why insurance companies need to start covering Autism as both a diagnosis, and provide support for treatment.  Because there could soon be a medical treatment that will assist individuals on the Autism Spectrum, and they need to get behind it. 

Near Field Communication on the iPhone: Is It Really Such A Good Idea?

Recently the Cult of Mac (and other Apple rumor sites) have mentioned the recent patents made by Apple to include Near Field Communication (NFC) in the next iPhone for security and remote computing options for coming Macintosh computers.  On the surface, this sounds like a great idea.  All you have to do is have your iPhone near your computer, or any Macintosh for that matter, and you would instantly be able to log into your computer with all your preferences and settings available.  Who wouldn't want to avoid having to log into their computer constantly?

But there is a problem:  security.  Near Field Communication uses a high-frequency RFID token, which is easily picked up by various devices.  This is called eavesdropping, and makes NFC an insecure method of transmitting personal information, such as login tokens.  The only way to guarantee security would be to utilize an authentication method like Kerberos, where keys are generated and expire after short periods of time, and you have a token that can decrypt the information.  This means an extensive Directory system running in the background. 

Of course, Apple is building a huge data center.  And it's possible to add the layer into the Apple ID system, which would guarantee anyone with an iTunes account would have access.  This may be why Apple is working so hard in the background, and why we haven't heard anything like this before. 

But other suppositions to the NFC technology has been remote banking and payment using RFID.  There are some credit and debit cards that have this capability, but due to the relative ease of eavesdropping, I do not own one nor intend to own one.  They are not very secure, and I would prefer that information not be available.

Other applications would be remote access to physical space.  When I worked for eBay, we used an RFID card to access the building.  I've also thought of using the same technology for access to my house.  Having an RFID transmitter in my iPhone, which I am never without, would be convenient.  But there is still that issue with eavesdropping.

So where does this leave us?  I don't think it's impossible for Apple to make this plunge, or to do it well.  But I do think that Apple has a lot of security concerns to overcome before this can be a reality.  And if I do end up with an iPhone in the distant future that has NFC capabilities, I would definitely not use it for remote payment from a bank account.

Discontinued Xserve: What Could It Mean?

Just last week Apple announced their intention to discontinue the Apple Xserve, the one Enterprise-class server that Apple developed.  While Xserves were not exactly selling off the shelves, it did come as a shock for those of us who have been working with Enterprise deployments of the Mac into a network.  Many Apple Certified Trainers were upset, because Mac OS X Server represents a significant focus for the Information Technology classes.  But is it really that serious?

In October of 2008 Tom Krazit from CNET news notes the hiring of Mark Papermaster, an IBM chip designer and Blade Server specialist, as a sign that Apple could be developing a blade server.  Apple has been focusing on small, low power computing devices quite a lot recently, and these devices have high processing output with minimal power consumption.  It would be ideal for blade servers, if applied in that direction.

But there are other suppositions that Tom Krazit threw out, such as a focus on better cloud technologies for the Mac platform.  This would also be ideal, as devices like the iPad have proven that, given the proper app, a tablet can do almost everything a workstation can, and is by far more portable. 

But where does that leave Apple and the Servers they currently have?  Well, assuming Apple does not create a reasonable replacement for the Xserve, something like a blade server, they will always have the Mac Mini Server and the Mac Pro Server.  Both would be considered more like a small business or home server, but the technologies built in (OpenLDAP, Kerberos, RADIUS, etc.) all have Enterprise applications. 

So while it's a little concerning that Apple had gotten rid of the Xserve, I'm not fretting too much.  Instead, I'm looking to the future with expectant announcements on more enterprise level support, and in the mean time like to point out that six Mac Mini Servers can fit in the same space as the Xserve did.