Spraying Magnetic Stripe Cards with Iron Filings
tetherdcow.com
tetherdcow.com
Viewing magnetic recordings with magnetic particles used to be a standard maintenance tool. It was used to check tape drive head alignment. There was a liquid with iron particles in suspension into which you could dip a strip of tape. When the solvent evaporated, you could see the data tracks. A non-destructive version was a hand-held viewer, with a window on top and a thin plate on the bottom, filled with a fluid containing iron particles. You could press this against a tape and view it.
These were sometimes used in data centers during the transition from 7 to 9 track tape drives, when an incoming tape had an unknown format.
I wish I could say I was paid to do that but it was for UC Davis' Intro to Computer Architecture Class.
I got a C because I cratered the final.
Have you ever thought to yourself "Sure, this advertisement says 'patent-pending', but that only means that someone was able to scrape together enough money to file a patent. It's not like someone has vetted the technology and actually granted them a patent." Well, now you see that you can safely shorten that to "Sure, this advertisement says 'patented', but that only means that someone was able to scrape together enough money to file a patent. It's not like someone has vetted the technology."
This is probably not surprising to anyone who understands the role of patents. They aren't designed to act as evidence that a technology is useful, or even possible. Instead, they are designed to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts", which seems to be interpreted as to "create a secondary market for dubious patents". I was surprised though to see that they had been granted a second patent, covering the ornamental design of the tag: http://www.google.com/patents/USD626704
I was aware that design patents existed to cover essential innovations such as the rounded corners of a "portable display device" (http://www.google.com/patents/USD670286), but I hadn't realized how broadly they could be applied. Is there a threshold that needs to be exceeded when determining how much the grant of a design patent will "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"? Or can one expect to receive design patents for any design variation you can dream up?
The reviews seem to have many genuine people who absolutely believe these work - even though these things clearly can't work. Reading the reviews makes me a bit angry and a bit sad.
I don't think so. But I highly doubt the card is actually chemical-free, so they're lying either way. Also, I think they would be more afraid of lawsuits by people whose pets were poisoned than for false advertising.
Running a business like this while knowing the product is bullshit is what I would call sociopathic.
I'd be inclined to agree it's sociopathic except I've met too many woo-believers that are just loony.
People, it seems, will believe anything.
LEGAL EVENTS 28 Sep 2010 AS Assignment Owner name: ENERGETIC SOLUTIONS, LLC, TEXAS
3 Aug 2012 AS Assignment Owner name: R&T ENTERPRISES, LLC, OREGON Effective date: 20111121 Free format text: MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE;ASSIGNOR:ENERGETIC SOLUTIONS, LLC
the patent was transfered in a mortgage foreclosure!
Frankly, he sounds dangerous. If he honestly thinks a magstripe can repel insects, do you really want to use other biomedical tech he's had anything to do with?
I guess Texas A&M give degrees out like candy... can I have one? Need firelighters.
Another fun thing you can do is put the iron filings in a jar with mineral oil. Give it a good shake, then put a strong magnet on the side. You'll be able to see the magnetic field in 3D.
Sure to repel them, that.
Also, note (2010).
Favourite comment ever.
It's easy to fool yourself into believing something you want to believe. They might even have done some informal, poorly structured tests and gotten the results they were expecting for other reasons, reinforcing their beliefs. Hell, I've done this to myself (ie when debugging) so I can totally empathize.
I was actually reminded of "Hidden Messages in Water" - https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22hidden+messages+in+water%22
x = x //this doesn't need to be here but it breaks if you remove it
1. Something is broken
2. Try to fix it. Still broken.
3. Try to fix it. Still broken.
4. Sleep on it. Try to fix it in the morning. Still broken.
5. Refactor. Still broken.
6. Make a whole bunch of changes, including adding x = x.
7. It works! x=x must have fixed it! Stupid programming language.
8. Add x=x to all future code because it works because Python sucks and is stupid.
9. (optional) Go on Stack Exchange and HN and tell everyone that you need to say x=1.5 and follow it with x=x because Python is stupid and I am so smart to have figured this out.
Suppose Fred is given a programming assignment. Fred types in some code, tries it, and it seems to work. Fred types in some more code, tries it, and it still seems to work. After several weeks of coding this way, the program suddenly stops working, and after hours of trying to fix it, he still doesn’t know why. Fred may well spend a significant amount of time chasing this piece of code around without ever being able to fix it. No matter what he does, it just doesn’t ever seem to work right.
Fred doesn’t know why the code is failing because he didn’t know why it worked in the first place. It seemed to work, given the limited “testing” that Fred did, but that was just a coincidence. Buoyed by false confidence, Fred charged ahead into oblivion. Now, most intelligent people may know someone like Fred, but we know better. We don’t rely on coincidences—do we?
Sometimes we might. Sometimes it can be pretty easy to confuse a happy coincidence with a purposeful plan
If not then maybe, just maybe, I'm actually spending way too much time thinking about what I write, and maybe should stop and just write more code.
The next morning you switch to functional programming and forget that day ever existed.
If you figure out some amazing workaround, ask yourself why it works. If you don't know, don't trust the workaround.
Anyone interested in slightly used magnetic bracelets? I don't think my dog will ever forgive me for having him wear them. LOL! ...... ok, just kidding.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Shoo!Tag
> In an apparent effort to deflect criticism of the above investigations, as of April 2011 the ShooTag FAQ has carried a claim that "Customers can take their shoo!TAG® to any retailer that carries a magstripe (credit card) reader and swipe it through. The type of tag (i.e. fly, mosquito, tick) will show up when scanned." This is demonstrably a blatant lie. The card, when swiped, will, on standard credit card readers, throw a card read error. The FAQ continues: "If there is no name, then the shoo!TAG® tag has lost its efficacy." What this means in effect, is that anyone who doesn't know better will swipe the card and assume their card has expired. It seems self-evident that the manufacturers of ShooTag would not find such a test desirable, in any case. As most people know, credit cards will last for a lot longer than 4 months, the stated maximum period of effectiveness of the ShooTag. In addition to this, the ShooTag patent application explicitly says that "…the trivector data stored on the three tracks (of the tag's magnetic strip) is not readable by a conventional credit card reader."[8][28]
Rhombus only _reads_ magnetic stripe data. It won't write it. But yes, you could totally write to a low-coercivity stripe with the right hardware.
Before you run out and get a Square reader, they're all encrypted now and don't return the raw data necessary for Rhombus to work. You can still get unencrypted readers from China on alibaba pretty easily.
But I agree with you, an un-encrypted reader of magnetic stripe is very easy to find or build. The security is like a door in the desert.
Will this interfer with their invisible fence collars?
I wouldn't know the answer to that for sure - but would not
hesitate to use with an invisible fence. This is not an electric
type mechanism but rather one of kinetic energy - thus based
on the dogs movement...as they move they create body energy
and the tag works to keep critters away...not related to any
electrical devices etc. I believe on the Shoo Tag site you can
reach out to them and there are FAQ's, I'm sure they can
clarify 100%.
Where, again, was the possibility to opt out of being human? I really should’ve had been paying more attention.
It's also easy to get better contrast - apply transparent tape to magnetic strip, remove the tape and put it on top of white paper. You can clearly see strips.
I'd be glad to hear more about using this technique to check alignment of floppies. In fact, the top rated comment on this page is about that. But saying "Nothing new here" is unwarranted and crass. While this may be old hat to you, it's interesting to many who might not have considered it.
Perhaps more importantly, only the first part of the article is about visually checking the magnetic strip. The rest is about enhancing it using image enhancement, decoding it by guessing likely parity codes, and then detailing years of unsuccessful attempts to discourage people from buying this fraudulent product.
Anyway, welcome to HN and please stick around to share your experience by make more comments like your first one.
This is what is usually used today to diagnose issues with magnetic stripe encoding/reading.
If you want to know about its "supposed" insecurity, maybe read any of the hundreds of articles online about Target, Staples, Home Depot, PF Changs, Neiman Marcus, Goodwill, Global Payments, UPS, Michaels, and dozens more. I'm not sure what you're arguing, that magstripe is safe enough?