Little Printer lives in your home, bringing you news, puzzles and gossip from your friends. Use your smartphone to set up subscriptions and Little Printer will gather them together to create a timely, beautiful mini-newspaper.

For more see:
http://www.bergcloud.com/littleprinter/

The announcement:
http://bergcloud.com/2011/11/29/announcing-little-printer-and-berg-cloud/

I love stuff like this. It does one thing very well. I like the feel of paper, and I like writing. But I hate printing things out as I find A4 too large and ink is so expensive. This would bridge that gap perfectly for me since I suspect it is a thermal printer, hence no ink. I can think of a thousand different uses, assume BERG provide an API

A timelapse of me working over one hour. Done entirely with images taken with an iPhone 3GS.

Original video is in 720p though the resolution of the iPhone 3GS' camera is good enough for a 1080p video.

Keep your eyes on the pint glass.

I've fallen hopelessly in love with Zen Coding (watch this video). But there is one thing that is bothering me. Does anyone know the syntax to produce the following:

<div>
    <div>
        <p></p>
    </div>
    <ul>
        <li></li>
    </ul>
</div>

If I use 'div>div>p+ul>li' then my UL ends up inside the second div, after the P tag, which is what I would expect. But it's not what I want.

EDIT: Nevermind, I figured it out:

div>(div>p)+(ul>li)

Strictly I could omit the parentheses from the second half of the string (the UL) but I think it looks neater and visually creates a distinct separation.

Just stumbled across thebrowser.com thanks to a tweet by Stephen Fry. Frankly it strikes me as off-putting elitism.

"We aim to help our readers discover the best writing available by recommending articles, interviews and books that are of interest to the intellectually curious reader."

Who the heck are they to decide what would or would not make the cut for the 'intellectually curious'. Who are they to decide who the 'intellectually curious' are?

Using statements like that just mean I don't trust them to be impartial and to show writings on a given subject from all angles. What would happen if a salient argument is made but in a manner not appealing to the 'intellectually curious'?

At the moment their business model is the following:

"At present our sole revenue stream comes from the small commission that we take from Amazon for all the books we sell"

So it's in their best interests to promote popular books. Perhaps books from well-known authors, or controversial books. How can I be sure this fits with their claim of providing "the best writing available"?

Just when the world needs more egalitarianism in the media we have this come along.

I won't pretend to be any kind of computer security expert and I'm assuming here that the good folks at Sony, Codemasters et al have some pretty robust systems in place to guard against attacks. However, the recent spate of attacks against large gaming firms suggests to me that what man can make, man can break. It would seem that if a group of people want to infiltrate a system and grab the personal details of customers they will. So it strikes me that the only realistic way of making this data secure is to ensure that should it fall in to the wrong hands it would be useless to them.

NB. All code shown here is purely pseudo-code and is for illustration only.

Take the following table as one might see in a database of any company:

Table: Customers

In the event an intruder should find this table they have all they need. Even encrypted, it isn't 100% safe. So I propose a method for ensuring that even if this information falls in to the wrong hands it is essentially useless to them. I appreciate what I am about to outline will have big performance overheads, but maybe that's the price that needs to be paid. Maybe the most commonly accessed information could be kept to one or two tables only.

I suggest splitting this information across three or more tables and using a hashing algorithm to link them. By also generating the unique ID instead of using auto-increment one can remove any chance of sorting and cross-referencing. So to use the example above, it would now look as follows:

Table: Customers_A

Table: Customers_B

Table: Customers_C

You'll notice I left the ID fields blank in tables 'Customer_B' and 'Customer_C'. I propose that these be populated using a hash of information from a preceding table, salted with other information.

For example, using MD5 (yes, I know it has flaws, this is just an example) to hash the postcode, salted with the firstname reversed:

Customers_B.ID = MD5(string_reverse(Customers_A.Firstname) + Customers_A.Postcode);

Giving us:

Table: Customers_B

We could then use fields from 'Customers.B' to populate the ID field of 'Customers_C':

Customers_C.ID = MD5(string_reverse(Customers_B.Email) + Customers_B.Address);

Or even use a combination of fields from all other tables:

Customers_C.ID = MD5(string_reverse(Customers_A.CC_Expires) + Customers_B.Password_hash);

Giving us:

Table: Customers_C

One major benefit of this is that even if the tables were compromised and sorted by the ID field, they would not match up. Here are the three tables again, but this time sorted by the ID field. You'll notice that the first record of 'Customers_A' no longer corresponds to the first record of 'Customers_B', and neither correspond to the first record of 'Customers_C'. Of course there will be occasions when by coincidence they do correspond but there will be no way of knowing this without knowing how the hashing algorithms work, what data is used and how (reversing, salting etc).

Table: Customers_A

Table: Customers_B

Table: Customers_C

Can anyone see any flaws in my thinking?