I love how people always seem to think that there are fewer vulnerabilities simply because the mac has a much smaller market share. Sure, it makes sense unless you're actually paying attention. Yes, Apple has had to issue some security updates recently. No, Mac OS X is not perfect. But it beats the hell out of operating systems that ship with holes so big you can drive a truck through with room to spare.
The first thing you have to do when you install the OS is create a user account and a new password. Macs ship with most services disabled by default, and they've got a point-and-click firewall that can be enabled in a matter of seconds. Macs are not secure because no one uses them. They are secure because they do not make the same common mistakes that Microsoft seems to do constantly. They're secure because you don't hear about huge break-ins, loss of data, or life-threatening situations caused by failed security systems. And they're secure because the folks that depend most upon security seem to turn their head more and more these days towards that odd fruit on the other side of the fence. The fact that Apple has issued patches recently is not a red flag. Everyone has to patch their OS. It would be a red flag if they hadn't patched it in a timely manner, like some others that we always seem to hear about.
Of course, they're expensive as all hell, and their isn't enough software for them, but that's another story.;-)
Acquisition of Strangeberry Inc.
On January 12, 2004 we acquired Strangeberry Inc., a small Palo Alto based technology company specializing in using home network and broadband technologies to create new entertainment experiences on television. Strangeberry has created technology, based on industry standards and including a collection of protocols and tools, designed to enable the development of new broadband-based content delivery services. In exchange for all of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Strangeberry, we issued shares of TiVo common stock to the stockholders of Strangeberry in a private placement. We have agreed to file a registration statement on Form S-3 to cover the resale of these shares by the Strangeberry stockholders.
...Assuming that you are willing to concede that violating someone else's copyright is inherently bad... which I do, but I also don't. (See my previous comments regarding this matter for details.)
Of course... this sets precedence, and is unlikely to stop there...
Checking the validity of heresay by asking for more heresay is pointless. I could lie and tell you I've downloaded from the iTunes Music Store, but I never have, nor have I claimed that I have in my previous post. I was referring to purchases of CDs, hence my reference to having an archive; I don't consider another downloadable file an "archive", due to the DRM (and lack of options later), attached. Unless I am given no other choice, I will do my best to avoid DRM wherever possible.
My apologies for the confusion; I should have been more clear, and you had no way to know that is what I meant.
Step 1
Register your own domain name. Cheapest reliable registrar I'm aware of is Godaddy, at about eight bucks a year per domain for.com,.net and.org TLDs, more/less for others. (Five bucks a year for ".us", for example.) Having trouble picking one? Use your own name, or add "bork" to the end or something. It really isn't that big a deal.
Step 2
Permanently disable the following addresses: info@, support@, webmaster@, ceo@, sales@, president@, admin@, contact@, customerservice@, and tech@.
Step 3
Can you figure it out by my e-mail address? If not, shoot me one, I'll I'll clue you in, if you can demonstrate that you're not a spammer.;-) Here's a hint: You'll your host to support this mail feature.
Step 4 Don't post your address, genius! If you slap your e-mail address on a website, in a mailing list, etc... you're gonna get spam. That's the way it is. Stop whining about it, and figure out a solution. (See step three.) If you haven't figured out step three yet, e-mail me.
Step 5
Pay attention. Think about who you give your address to. This goes for the address you use for your domain registration. Oh, and register your domain with an address that you don't care about getting spam at. A month or two later, change it. Spammers pay more attention to the e-mail address a domain is registered with than they do the address(es) that it ends up with later.
I own about twenty domain names, and use multiple addresses for each domain name. I get a combined total of about 3-10 spams per day, tops... and those are only to the addresses I was using before I developed these rules. The benefits? Little to no spam, you can track every company that's sold or shared your information, and easily see who violated their privacy policy. Then, of course, you just shut down the spam that they've enabled, and go on as usual.
Are the new anti-spam laws so lacking in punishment that they pale in comparison to copyright laws?
In short, yes. CAN-SPAM, for the most part, weakened our ability to go after spammers, rather than strengthening it. It takes precedence over existing spam laws, and removes the power from individuals to go after spammers, even if a state law would have allowed them to. Copyright laws give the power back to the people, as it were.
...if you're an audio engineer, video producer, or run a studio. A case like this allows you to work with instruments and other devices, while editing the sound live, with easy access to your monitor/keyboard. This is particularly useful for those who operate recording studios as a side business, out of their home or office space... or people trying to develop their own music, semi-professionally.
People who know how to do this can start up their business without spending well over $1,400 building a soundproof room. For full-blown recording studios, this is a no-brainer. They probably wouldn't think twice about spending double that to keep the sound engineer from getting distracted and/or missing sound details just because of a noisy fan.
I also began with WS-FTP and Winamp, though I'm not using either anymore. Many many moons ago, I was on an Underworld binge, and downloaded an Underworld mix of a Chemical Brothers song. A week later, I owned the single. I still do this with music, and now, I'm also downloading AVIs and MPEGs of interesting looking movies that I don't particularly relish paying a rental fee just to see if I like them. But if I do, I'll own the DVD shortly. To me, the archive and legitimacy is worth the cash.
Hey! Media industry moguls! Pay attention! I'm your target market. I try. If I like, I buy. Go ahead; sue me for sampling what I like for free via P2P, instead of what you think I should like for free, via the radio. I'll keep "sampling", but this time I'll keep what I download, and purchase no more. It's your call.
I think this a good ruling. New technologies don't inherently create new copywrite issues at law. A CD republication is just a republication and the current trend to get all weird about it being a digitalrepublication is a bit daft.
We like taking pictures. We sell them. We're perfectly willing to make more money by selling new photographs. The right to publish and republish is the thing the magazine publishers gives us money for. It's a fair deal.
No, it's not daft, and a CD is not simply a republication. It is a republication that makes it much easier for people to steal (read: copy, and use without permission. And no, I don't agree with the RIAA's tactics either.);-P It's also not about "Oh boy, let's charge more because it's still new to people". It's about protecting yourself as best you can, and not giving your work away to everyone. And that's not unreasonable for someone who's primary (and sometimes, ONLY) source of income is the images that they capture.
Let's remember that photographers are people who's ability to capture a particular visual is often far greater than the average Joe with a digital camera. I'm an amateur photographer, but I use my photography in a professional capacity in my design work. I show up at a client's office, and shoot images using techniques that I learned because I studied. Thus, I get images that don't look like someone with a disposable camera and a light office-party buzz took them. I am likely to charge less for something used in print than I am something used in digital. Because of some arbitrary need to charge more for a "new" use? No. I might decide to charge more because the risk of my work being stolen becomes much greater if it is a digital file.
If I license a photograph to someone for use in a print advertisement or brochure, I know that's the only place that image will be used. If someone tried to scan it and reuse it, it would be difficult; there would be a moire pattern, due to the offset printing process. If I were to license it someone for use on the web, it's easier to copy, but again, it's low-res, and can't really be used for print. It could potentially be used on the web, so I might charge more for this higher risk, or I might not. It depends on the use, how much it is altered and reusable, etc. Most of the photos I take that get used on the web are placed within designs in such a way that reusing them would likely prove to be a frustrating and futile effort.
If my clients suddenly started distributing my images on a CD to their clients... this becomes a problem. I usually license the images to them for a single use, or for unlimited use for a specific purpose. If they give out the images to everyone, my copy protection and control over them ceases to exist. If my clients want the right to do this, that's fine, but they should probably expect to pay more than the standard fee for this. It's different if it's work for hire. But if I set up an visual that I like, and a client wants to use it, I want to make sure that I protect myself and my rights for the future. When that client passes out my work for just anyone to use... I've lost all of that.
Look, I don't want to sound old-fashioned or draconian. Honestly, I don't really mind if my clients get creative with the photos I give them. If they want to rework and reuse them in other advertisements, whatever. That's called good PR and client support. But if they start shelling out my work at no charge (or worse, for an additional charge), I have to take exception. These CDs are sure to generate more income for the magazine; I seriously doubt that they're going to distribute these things for free. And unless they're in some kind of proprietary format (and for the technically inclined, even if they do), people will have access to the raw image data. And yes, to whomever posted that comment, it WILL scare a bunch of photographers, who often count on the difficulty of taking matierals from printed works to protect them
They (as well as many other pro-audio stores) sell metal brackets for mounting rack-mount audio hardware, mixers, effects processors, etc. The brackets run about $5-$20 per pair, depending on the height. They are L-shaped, and have plenty of mounting holes pre-drilled, plus threaded holes spaced perfectly for rack-mount devices, 1U apart.
Then head over to Home Depot and spend about $40 on some nice wood (probably something intended to be used for shelving), plus about $5-10 for hardware. (Screws, a few corner brackets for support, etc.) I don't know the size (how many U) you're planning for, but the smaller it is, the cheaper it is. (You'll need less wood, obviously.)
Your total cost will probably end up around $50-$60, assuming you already have tools, a drill, etc.
One of the most important commodity you'll have to maintain is trust. This is not simply not changing your policies repeatedly; it is a combination of factors:
Privacy
Your customer's data is important information. Almost every type of company imaginable now takes andvantage of it, and shares it with others. This includes, but is not limited to: banks, phone, cable, utility and insurance companies, subscription-based services, etc. It's scary just how many companies will "opt you in" to their marketing schemes, some of which they no longer control once it leaves the company.
It is important that you protect your customer's data, both from fraud and industrial espianage... as well as from your own company. It's pretty straightforward: Think about what your company will do with the data, then ask yourself if you would trust your own personal information to your own company. If the answer is no, you might want to make some policy changes.
Customer Service
The United States is an interesting place. Customer service seems to be a far greater deal than it is elsewhere, according to all of my international friends and relatives. Because of this, your customer-facing employees can win you evangelist customers, or sink your company just with words over the phone. Here's a couple of tips:
The customer is always right
Yeah, right. Often, the customer is an irate, unreasonable bastard of a phone call to deal with. But if you treat them as what they're acting like, you will only infuriate them more. When a customer calls in with a complaint, don't let your reps get so hung up on defending the company. Many times, the customer actually has a legitimate complaint; they just aren't phrasing it well. Even if they're wrong, telling them so won't help the situation. Be agreeable. Let them get it out of their system, so long as they aren't abusive. Apologize, even when it isn't your fault, and mean it. When I speak with a client who has accidentally deleted half the content of their website and thinks I'm responsible, I always apologize for any confusion that there might have been. (And I make sure I keep backups, even though the contract ended a year ago.) And I am sorry. I wish that they had not been placed in this position, even if it isn't my fault. I have no animosity towards my customers, and neither should your employees. If they do, they don't belong in customer service.
Keep your promises
Many times, a customer service representative will make a promise that violates a company's normal terms of service or standard policies and procedures. This is a HUGE problem among customer service centers. How many times have you called in and promised something, only to be told later that "Oh, we're sorry that you were told incorrect information, but that's against our policies"? If your reps promise something, YOU have promised something. Remember, you have appointed these people to speak for and make promises for your company that you MUST honor, if you wish to remain trustworthy. If you don't trust them to do this, you've hired the wrong people, or you've failed to train them properly. It only takes one customer with a tape recorder to turn a case of bad customer service into a case of fraud. The difference is the proof they bring to court.
Communication
Your actual policies aren't all that important. You will discover which ones will work, and which ones won't, based on customer response. But you must stick with those policies. From a customer perspective, what you tell them you will do is your policy. If you break your policy for a customer, you'd better be damn sure that they know that they shouldn't expect it in the future. It's even safer to not break your policies at all... but that is sometimes necessary to appease a disgruntled customer. But also bear in mind that this customer might not be in the right. If this is the case, it's not necessarily y
As if we'd want to trust them with our data. Last time I gave them mine, it "mysteriously" got into the hands of spammers. "Mysterious", because I gave them an e-mail address specific to them, in case they should attempt something like this. Easily tracked, easily disposed of. Oh well...
This article isn't about data services on the phone, it's about data services usable on a laptop or other device, utilizing the provider's network. As an example, a $20 USB Hotsync cable plus some $30-$40 software (WirelessModem, etc.) will allow you to use your Treo 600 as a wireless modem for your laptop, so long as you have Vision services enabled on your account.
As most of these touch-screen systems are designed, the machine will "record" your "vote" electronically in as many as three different places, but you the voter will never know what the machine recorded. It's on the hard drive, maybe. It's on a flashcard, maybe.
It's somewhere else, maybe. Wherever it is, you cannot see it, cannot verify it and cannot be sure that it will remain recorded. The old-fashioned concept of a ballot box filled with ballots that voters have checked and verified before casting -- a ballot box with a lock on it that gets a sheriff's escort to the counting room at the local elections office, not to be tampered with at pain of felony charges -- that quaint system of physical security of physically marked ballots will be gone.
Um... weren't the Diebold machines tampered with repeatedly? When are these so-called "felony charges" going to actually going to be applied? Or is tampering only illegal after the votes are deposited in the transport box?
Not that I ever put much stock in voice recognition software anyway. From the Vocaloid FAQ:
Q9. Is it possible to make VOCALOID speak, instead of sing?
A9. It is possible to synthesize the spoken word by inputting notes and pitch bend to represent the intonation, but it is not easy to create the complex intonation curve by hand. Please note that VOCALOID is a system for mainly synthesizing songs.
"It is not easy"? Yeah, right. Not for long. Actually, this is something I've been waiting for since I saw a programmer mixing and encoding phonics in Hypercard, back in 1994. Of course, it won't be out for a while, and even longer for Macs. But oh, the suspense!:-D
This isn't funny, it's scary. This isn't a joke; it's really happening. I hope to God that this gets thrown out. If this type of activiy becomes standard, we'll have witch hunts all over again.
Yeah, read about it already on the Register. Why would someone want to do this?
"Mylastemail.com , in its sole discretion, upon five (5) days' written notice and without liability to you, may terminate your password, account or use of the Service and remove and discard any Messages within the Service if you fail to comply with this Agreement...... Upon termination mylastemail.com shall have no obligation to maintain or delete any Messages stored in your account or to forward any Messages to you or any third party. "
"Indemnification
You shall indemnify and hold mylastemail.com and its parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, directors, employees, attorneys, and agents, harmless from and against any and all claims, costs, damages, losses, liabilities, and expenses (including attorneys' fees and costs) arising out of your Message or in connection with your use of the Service and Content, or breach of this Agreement.
Disclaimer of Warranties
MYLASTEMAIL.COM MAKES NO REPRESENTATION, WARRANTY, OR GUARANTY AS TO THE RELIABILITY, TIMELINESS, QUALITY, SUITABILITY, TRUTH, AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF THE SERVICE OR ANY CONTENT. MYLASTEMAIL.COM DOES NOT REPRESENT OR WARRANT THAT:
(I) THE USE OF THE SERVICE WILL BE TIMELY, UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR-FREE OR OPERATE IN COMBINATION WITH ANY OTHER HARDWARE, SOFTWARE, SYSTEM OR DATA,
(II) THE SERVICE WILL MEET YOUR REQUIREMENTS OR EXPECTATIONS,
(III) THE QUALITY OF ANY PRODUCTS, SERVICES, INFORMATION, OR OTHER MATERIAL PURCHASED OR OBTAINED BY YOU THROUGH THE SERVICE WILL MEET YOUR REQUIREMENTS OR EXPECTATIONS,
(IV) ERRORS OR DEFECTS WILL BE CORRECTED,
(V) THE SERVICE OR THE SERVER(S) THAT MAKE THE SERVICE AVAILABLE ARE FREE OF VIRUSES OR OTHER HARMFUL COMPONENTS. THE SERVICE AND ALL CONTENT IS PROVIDED TO YOU STRICTLY ON AN "AS IS" BASIS. ALL CONDITIONS, REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES, WHETHER EXPRESS, IMPLIED, STATUTORY OR OTHERWISE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THIRD PARTY RIGHTS, ARE HEREBY DISCLAIMED TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW BY MYLASTEMAIL."
That last bunch of bru-ha-ha is the icing on the cake. Basically, this all says "Pay us money. In exchange, we promise nothing, guarantee nothing, but give you a warm fuzzy feeling that everything will be okay if you die... but we don't guarantee or even really hint that you might feel A) warm or B) fuzzy. It's all in your mind. Give us money now, please."
It seems pretty pointless to me. It might be different if A) there was any kind of "real" guarantee and B) e-mail was a more reliable, widely used medium. But the fact of the matter is that there are still millions of people who don't yet understand or even use e-mail, and those who do know that it's not always reliable. If you need this kind of service, pay a live, professional person who knows how to use e-mail, phone, fax, snail mail, etc. to inform those who need to know.
Of course, that won't stop the masses who don't understand e-mail and like warm fuzzy feelings from handing over the cash.
As for the actual question at hand, I've had great luck with Plantronics headsets. Unfortunately, a decent one (that isn't cheaply made and won't fall apart) will run you at least $40. The cheap ones are quiet, and don't work well in noisy environments. I bought mine at Radio Shack, and spent $50 on the headset, plus $15 on the extended warranty. This was absolutely worth the added cost. Over the course of the three years covered by the warranty, I replaced that headset about 15 times.
In my experience, the headsets that have a boom-style microphone offer superior sound quality to your listeners. Your voice will appear to be less distorted, not as ear-splitting loud, and more specific to you, without as much background noise. Also, as you approach the $30-40 price point, you'll see features like an inline volume knob, and a mute switch. This is often much more convenient (and safe) than using the mute function on your phone, as it's usually hanging right in front of you. Some models also have a volume adjust switch for the microphone, should people complain that you are too loud/quiet. I had a Plantronics P110 (later replaced by the P175, under warranty), which was about $50, and supported all of these features.
Since my phone does not yet support Bluetooth (at least, not until a Palm OS SD/IO Bluetooth card comes out. Hurry up, SanDisk!), I haven't tried out these cool-looking toys. But everyone I've spoken with who has owned them has loved them. Then again, they did spend $150+ on them, and might feel kind of stupid for not loving them, even if they don't deserve such a review. This is pretty common, so I'm not going to assume anything about their quality until I test them for myself. But so far, people seem to like them.
[rant]
Hey you safety fanatics: get off your high horses.
I am so sick of hearing everyone whine about how "unsafe" driving while talking on a cell phone is. Wake up! This is not rocket science. Some people shouldn't be on the phone while they drive. Some people shouldn't even drive. But there are plenty of people out there who have the mental facility to be able to do this, and talk on the phone, safely. Ever heard of multitasking? Many people are capable of either A) giving enough attention to both, or B) focusing on the road more than the conversation. This is adverse to the person on the other end, but people will usually be reasonable about waiting while you negotiate traffic, particularly if the issue is important and the only other option is to deal with it later.
I've been "safely" driving while on the phone for years. I've never had an accident, or even come close. This is not just blind luck; I'm smart enough to know when to tell the person on the other end to hold the line, or to just get off the phone when dealing with intense traffic situations. Then again, I've seen people who can't even walk safely when on the phone. This is not so cut and dry. There are plenty of people that I would trust to do this and plenty that I would not, just as there are plenty that I would trust to drive emergency vehicles, perform surgery, or fly planes, and plenty of people that I would not trust to do these things.
When I'm on the phone, I don't slow down. I don't speed up. I don't stare off into space and think about nothing but the conversation. As many of you are responsible for keeping the machines in your home and businesses running and up to speed, accomplishing your other duties at work, as well as juggling the tasks of your everyday life, I'm assuming that keeping track of more than one thing at a time is not a new thing for you. And when you're debugging some code on your website while you're waiting for an OS update to install, and reformatting a drive on another machine, it's not terribly difficult to keep track of all of these things, shifting your attention as necessary to the one requiring the most focus at a particular time. For those of you in the medical field, or on missi
It's got it's pros... and it's cons.
on
Is VoIP the Way to Go?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
When I was overseas in the middle east last month, I worked in an office with a bunch of land-lines, and a VOIP line that was linked to a number in the US. Thus, no more excessive 28 cents/minute, etc. But once in a while, there would be network lag. Sometimes it would be on our end, sometimes in the US, and sometimes it was just network congestion in general. This had the net effect of causing a MASSIVE delay in transmission. Try having a conversation where both parties don't hear what the other says for two to ten seconds. What a pain.
If the problem was on our side, we could just reboot the machine. ("Ack! Call me back; I need to restart my phone.") If the problem was somewhere else, there was nothing to do but wait for the problem to go away...
This preliminary study being conducted at a Insurance firm, may infact be bringing out the fact that the workers were bored... and (therefore) easily entertained by simple games.
True, hence the upcoming second, longer, more involved study, which includes more involving games.
Besides they havent really mentioned how productivity was measured, the fact that people 'feel better' about their job, although important, doesnt corelate with productivity/bottom line stuff.
Actually, it often does. If someone feels that their work is not truly important, they often tend to care less about the quality, and in some cases, even spend less time working. I know quite a few people mildly disgruntled with their careers/employers, who think that the lack of importance of their work justifies showing up late, taking longer breaks/lunches, or just wasting time, rather than working.
Several years ago, I worked in a call center in which many of the techs would play networked Quake, using the unused machines as servers. This tended to develop a healthy sense of competition, while sealing many new friendships, and keeping people awake. (It was a 24/7 center with fast growth; thus, many new employees on a frequent basis.) Regardless of the time, playing games between/during calls also tended to keep them from becoming annoyed at their jobs (read: annoyed at the customers), as anyone who has worked in tech support/customer service can verify is a problem. If you're busy killing things, you're less apt to be terribly concerned that a particular customer was particularly dumb, or slow, or didn't listen, etc. Banning games won't stop employees from distracting themselves, regardless. There are plenty of ways to waste time on the Internet without having to install software on your machine. This study focuses on justifying said "wastes of time", as a potential productivity-booster.
The article explains that employees were allowed to choose when they wanted to play:
I compare games with a coffee break. If you are like me, you use them in strategic, functional, useful way," Professor Goldstein says.
Most people I know get a case of brain fade at some point in their workday. Having the ability to just stop working for a bit and do something mindless REALLY makes a difference. Yes, a certain amount of employee responsibility is required. But as a freelance contractor that spends most of his time working in a cafe on a laptop, it's really nice to be able to just stop working and do whatever the hell I want for an hour or so, then get back to development again.
Prior to the dot-com bubble bursting a few years ago, I experienced many different environments while I was consulting, in which employee satisfaction was a huge priority. We've all had jobs (or friends who did) that provided free food, drinks, entertainment, and in some cases sleeping arrangements. The goal, of course, was to make it easier for the employees to stay at work as long as possible, and feel as comfortable there as they did at home. (Or more, in some cases.) If you've got an employee who would actually prefer to be at work over staying at home, it's likely that he/she will be more productive than one who would rather be somewhere else. As the article said, "... if the results show games can make people happier in their work, it could impact the amount of absenteeism in the workplace."
Of course, employee efficiency can also be adversely affected; Playing a game when you're supposed to be focusing on something is obviously not a good thing, and being allowed too much freedom can spoil an employee. But this didn't tend to be a problem in the techcenter I was in. Of course, then it was acquired by a larger entity, and Quake and parking-garage Nerf wars were banned, thereby forcing massive turnover. Work certainly lost all it's meaning for me when I could no longer shoot my co-workers.;-)
I kind of hope that an attempt to prosecute this fellow is made. Then perhaps it will become more clear to our legislators how foolish a law is that will allow someone to be cited merely for the electronic equivalent of removing white-out from a white paper.
I think the uses for this stops when you're thinking of building anything large out of it, simply because of the clumsiness of paper (and the obviously incineration;) )
Stops? But think of how easily Mr. Bond can dispose of his top secret weapons control circuits in the case of a security breach!
Seriously, though... the espianage implications (both corporate and governmental) are staggering. What about secure encrypted data storage? Keep sensitive data in a medium that can be destroyed beyond any conceivable means of repair by ripping into quarters and burning in less than a minute! Granted, it's not going to be a lot of data any time soon, but...
This kind of thing strikes me as the real-world equivalent of exploiting an unsecured software backdoor. You are, in effect, "hacking" the streetlight network. Hmm... sounds like a good book title.;-) I'm not sure I buy into the "chaos will ensue" hype. There are European cities that use similar devices (though, with different technologies) to allow public transit to get through traffic quickly, to advocate leaving your car at home. But that's where control over lights should lie: with the appropriate authorities.
Why do these lights exist? To solve traffic problems. They do this by effectively "controlling" drivers. If the traffic authorities decide that it is beneficial to give the priority to emergency vehicles and public transit, so be it. I feel that this is beneficial to society. But when drivers force the system to obey their wishes, they are circumventing the apparent benefits of such a system, putting themselves before society. IMHO, this is wrong.
I'm waiting for the first case to go to trial. Think it'll be seen as the equivalent of running a red light, or gaining unauthorized access to a network?
I wasn't trying to insinuate that you advocated killing people; I was making an analogy. The point I was trying to make was that your method for solving the problem is to punish the theoretically innocent and uninformed, rather than teaching them. Perhaps there should be a method for informing them instead, such as tracking their IP (which is legal), and letting their ISP know of the problem, who then contacts the user/subscriber.
There are many "attractive nuisances" in this world, but an unsecured machine, mail server, etc. is not a loaded cannon in the middle of town. It is more like a hardware store. It is intended to be used as a tool. Yes, some people have the knowledge and inclination to turn those tools into weapons, but that doesn't mean that we should clean out the store's inventory the day the owner only locks the handle, but forgets to lock the deadbolt. Doing that will (hopefully) land the thief in jail. There are better ways to teach, and locking all the locks on the door won't necessarily stop a determined enough cracker with the right tools and training.
If you want to ensure that this doesn't happen, advocate information distribution. But what you're advocating (hacking the machines of vulnerable users) is illegal, and is the wrong way to teach this lesson, IMHO. You're right; the ISPs can do little. But that little is enough if the affected person is responsible. If not, I'm sorry, but there's nothing more you can (or should) do, than inform them. I know that it sucks... but people do stupid and dangerous things all the time. As much as you want to, you cannot force people to live the kind of lives that you want them to. To do more will only inflame the decision, and can quite possibly cause more problems than already exist.
Slashdot Mirror
Hanna-Barbara had another show called The Snorks. That's probably what you're thinking of.
I love how people always seem to think that there are fewer vulnerabilities simply because the mac has a much smaller market share. Sure, it makes sense unless you're actually paying attention. Yes, Apple has had to issue some security updates recently. No, Mac OS X is not perfect. But it beats the hell out of operating systems that ship with holes so big you can drive a truck through with room to spare.
The first thing you have to do when you install the OS is create a user account and a new password. Macs ship with most services disabled by default, and they've got a point-and-click firewall that can be enabled in a matter of seconds. Macs are not secure because no one uses them. They are secure because they do not make the same common mistakes that Microsoft seems to do constantly. They're secure because you don't hear about huge break-ins, loss of data, or life-threatening situations caused by failed security systems. And they're secure because the folks that depend most upon security seem to turn their head more and more these days towards that odd fruit on the other side of the fence. The fact that Apple has issued patches recently is not a red flag. Everyone has to patch their OS. It would be a red flag if they hadn't patched it in a timely manner, like some others that we always seem to hear about.
Of course, they're expensive as all hell, and their isn't enough software for them, but that's another story. ;-)
Acquisition of Strangeberry Inc.
On January 12, 2004 we acquired Strangeberry Inc., a small Palo Alto based technology company specializing in using home network and broadband technologies to create new entertainment experiences on television. Strangeberry has created technology, based on industry standards and including a collection of protocols and tools, designed to enable the development of new broadband-based content delivery services. In exchange for all of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Strangeberry, we issued shares of TiVo common stock to the stockholders of Strangeberry in a private placement. We have agreed to file a registration statement on Form S-3 to cover the resale of these shares by the Strangeberry stockholders.
...Assuming that you are willing to concede that violating someone else's copyright is inherently bad... which I do, but I also don't. (See my previous comments regarding this matter for details.)
Of course... this sets precedence, and is unlikely to stop there...
Checking the validity of heresay by asking for more heresay is pointless. I could lie and tell you I've downloaded from the iTunes Music Store, but I never have, nor have I claimed that I have in my previous post. I was referring to purchases of CDs, hence my reference to having an archive; I don't consider another downloadable file an "archive", due to the DRM (and lack of options later), attached. Unless I am given no other choice, I will do my best to avoid DRM wherever possible.
My apologies for the confusion; I should have been more clear, and you had no way to know that is what I meant.
Step 1 .com, .net and .org TLDs, more/less for others. (Five bucks a year for ".us", for example.) Having trouble picking one? Use your own name, or add "bork" to the end or something. It really isn't that big a deal.
Register your own domain name. Cheapest reliable registrar I'm aware of is Godaddy, at about eight bucks a year per domain for
Step 2
Permanently disable the following addresses: info@, support@, webmaster@, ceo@, sales@, president@, admin@, contact@, customerservice@, and tech@.
Step 3 ;-) Here's a hint: You'll your host to support this mail feature.
Can you figure it out by my e-mail address? If not, shoot me one, I'll I'll clue you in, if you can demonstrate that you're not a spammer.
Step 4
Don't post your address, genius! If you slap your e-mail address on a website, in a mailing list, etc... you're gonna get spam. That's the way it is. Stop whining about it, and figure out a solution. (See step three.) If you haven't figured out step three yet, e-mail me.
Step 5
Pay attention. Think about who you give your address to. This goes for the address you use for your domain registration. Oh, and register your domain with an address that you don't care about getting spam at. A month or two later, change it. Spammers pay more attention to the e-mail address a domain is registered with than they do the address(es) that it ends up with later.
I own about twenty domain names, and use multiple addresses for each domain name. I get a combined total of about 3-10 spams per day, tops... and those are only to the addresses I was using before I developed these rules. The benefits? Little to no spam, you can track every company that's sold or shared your information, and easily see who violated their privacy policy. Then, of course, you just shut down the spam that they've enabled, and go on as usual.
It works.
In short, yes. CAN-SPAM, for the most part, weakened our ability to go after spammers, rather than strengthening it. It takes precedence over existing spam laws, and removes the power from individuals to go after spammers, even if a state law would have allowed them to. Copyright laws give the power back to the people, as it were.
...if you're an audio engineer, video producer, or run a studio. A case like this allows you to work with instruments and other devices, while editing the sound live, with easy access to your monitor/keyboard. This is particularly useful for those who operate recording studios as a side business, out of their home or office space... or people trying to develop their own music, semi-professionally.
People who know how to do this can start up their business without spending well over $1,400 building a soundproof room. For full-blown recording studios, this is a no-brainer. They probably wouldn't think twice about spending double that to keep the sound engineer from getting distracted and/or missing sound details just because of a noisy fan.
I also began with WS-FTP and Winamp, though I'm not using either anymore. Many many moons ago, I was on an Underworld binge, and downloaded an Underworld mix of a Chemical Brothers song. A week later, I owned the single. I still do this with music, and now, I'm also downloading AVIs and MPEGs of interesting looking movies that I don't particularly relish paying a rental fee just to see if I like them. But if I do, I'll own the DVD shortly. To me, the archive and legitimacy is worth the cash.
Hey! Media industry moguls! Pay attention! I'm your target market. I try. If I like, I buy. Go ahead; sue me for sampling what I like for free via P2P, instead of what you think I should like for free, via the radio. I'll keep "sampling", but this time I'll keep what I download, and purchase no more. It's your call.
No, it's not daft, and a CD is not simply a republication. It is a republication that makes it much easier for people to steal (read: copy, and use without permission. And no, I don't agree with the RIAA's tactics either.) ;-P It's also not about "Oh boy, let's charge more because it's still new to people". It's about protecting yourself as best you can, and not giving your work away to everyone. And that's not unreasonable for someone who's primary (and sometimes, ONLY) source of income is the images that they capture.
Let's remember that photographers are people who's ability to capture a particular visual is often far greater than the average Joe with a digital camera. I'm an amateur photographer, but I use my photography in a professional capacity in my design work. I show up at a client's office, and shoot images using techniques that I learned because I studied. Thus, I get images that don't look like someone with a disposable camera and a light office-party buzz took them. I am likely to charge less for something used in print than I am something used in digital. Because of some arbitrary need to charge more for a "new" use? No. I might decide to charge more because the risk of my work being stolen becomes much greater if it is a digital file.
If I license a photograph to someone for use in a print advertisement or brochure, I know that's the only place that image will be used. If someone tried to scan it and reuse it, it would be difficult; there would be a moire pattern, due to the offset printing process. If I were to license it someone for use on the web, it's easier to copy, but again, it's low-res, and can't really be used for print. It could potentially be used on the web, so I might charge more for this higher risk, or I might not. It depends on the use, how much it is altered and reusable, etc. Most of the photos I take that get used on the web are placed within designs in such a way that reusing them would likely prove to be a frustrating and futile effort.
If my clients suddenly started distributing my images on a CD to their clients... this becomes a problem. I usually license the images to them for a single use, or for unlimited use for a specific purpose. If they give out the images to everyone, my copy protection and control over them ceases to exist. If my clients want the right to do this, that's fine, but they should probably expect to pay more than the standard fee for this. It's different if it's work for hire. But if I set up an visual that I like, and a client wants to use it, I want to make sure that I protect myself and my rights for the future. When that client passes out my work for just anyone to use... I've lost all of that.
Look, I don't want to sound old-fashioned or draconian. Honestly, I don't really mind if my clients get creative with the photos I give them. If they want to rework and reuse them in other advertisements, whatever. That's called good PR and client support. But if they start shelling out my work at no charge (or worse, for an additional charge), I have to take exception. These CDs are sure to generate more income for the magazine; I seriously doubt that they're going to distribute these things for free. And unless they're in some kind of proprietary format (and for the technically inclined, even if they do), people will have access to the raw image data. And yes, to whomever posted that comment, it WILL scare a bunch of photographers, who often count on the difficulty of taking matierals from printed works to protect them
They (as well as many other pro-audio stores) sell metal brackets for mounting rack-mount audio hardware, mixers, effects processors, etc. The brackets run about $5-$20 per pair, depending on the height. They are L-shaped, and have plenty of mounting holes pre-drilled, plus threaded holes spaced perfectly for rack-mount devices, 1U apart.
Then head over to Home Depot and spend about $40 on some nice wood (probably something intended to be used for shelving), plus about $5-10 for hardware. (Screws, a few corner brackets for support, etc.) I don't know the size (how many U) you're planning for, but the smaller it is, the cheaper it is. (You'll need less wood, obviously.)
Your total cost will probably end up around $50-$60, assuming you already have tools, a drill, etc.
One of the most important commodity you'll have to maintain is trust. This is not simply not changing your policies repeatedly; it is a combination of factors:
Privacy
Your customer's data is important information. Almost every type of company imaginable now takes andvantage of it, and shares it with others. This includes, but is not limited to: banks, phone, cable, utility and insurance companies, subscription-based services, etc. It's scary just how many companies will "opt you in" to their marketing schemes, some of which they no longer control once it leaves the company.
It is important that you protect your customer's data, both from fraud and industrial espianage... as well as from your own company. It's pretty straightforward: Think about what your company will do with the data, then ask yourself if you would trust your own personal information to your own company. If the answer is no, you might want to make some policy changes.
Customer Service
The United States is an interesting place. Customer service seems to be a far greater deal than it is elsewhere, according to all of my international friends and relatives. Because of this, your customer-facing employees can win you evangelist customers, or sink your company just with words over the phone. Here's a couple of tips:
Communication
Your actual policies aren't all that important. You will discover which ones will work, and which ones won't, based on customer response. But you must stick with those policies. From a customer perspective, what you tell them you will do is your policy. If you break your policy for a customer, you'd better be damn sure that they know that they shouldn't expect it in the future. It's even safer to not break your policies at all... but that is sometimes necessary to appease a disgruntled customer. But also bear in mind that this customer might not be in the right. If this is the case, it's not necessarily y
As if we'd want to trust them with our data. Last time I gave them mine, it "mysteriously" got into the hands of spammers. "Mysterious", because I gave them an e-mail address specific to them, in case they should attempt something like this. Easily tracked, easily disposed of. Oh well...
This article isn't about data services on the phone, it's about data services usable on a laptop or other device, utilizing the provider's network. As an example, a $20 USB Hotsync cable plus some $30-$40 software (WirelessModem, etc.) will allow you to use your Treo 600 as a wireless modem for your laptop, so long as you have Vision services enabled on your account.
From the article:
Um... weren't the Diebold machines tampered with repeatedly? When are these so-called "felony charges" going to actually going to be applied? Or is tampering only illegal after the votes are deposited in the transport box?
Not that I ever put much stock in voice recognition software anyway. From the Vocaloid FAQ:
"It is not easy"? Yeah, right. Not for long. Actually, this is something I've been waiting for since I saw a programmer mixing and encoding phonics in Hypercard, back in 1994. Of course, it won't be out for a while, and even longer for Macs. But oh, the suspense! :-D
This isn't funny, it's scary. This isn't a joke; it's really happening. I hope to God that this gets thrown out. If this type of activiy becomes standard, we'll have witch hunts all over again.
Yeah, read about it already on the Register. Why would someone want to do this?
That last bunch of bru-ha-ha is the icing on the cake. Basically, this all says "Pay us money. In exchange, we promise nothing, guarantee nothing, but give you a warm fuzzy feeling that everything will be okay if you die... but we don't guarantee or even really hint that you might feel A) warm or B) fuzzy. It's all in your mind. Give us money now, please."
It seems pretty pointless to me. It might be different if A) there was any kind of "real" guarantee and B) e-mail was a more reliable, widely used medium. But the fact of the matter is that there are still millions of people who don't yet understand or even use e-mail, and those who do know that it's not always reliable. If you need this kind of service, pay a live, professional person who knows how to use e-mail, phone, fax, snail mail, etc. to inform those who need to know.
Of course, that won't stop the masses who don't understand e-mail and like warm fuzzy feelings from handing over the cash.
As for the actual question at hand, I've had great luck with Plantronics headsets. Unfortunately, a decent one (that isn't cheaply made and won't fall apart) will run you at least $40. The cheap ones are quiet, and don't work well in noisy environments. I bought mine at Radio Shack, and spent $50 on the headset, plus $15 on the extended warranty. This was absolutely worth the added cost. Over the course of the three years covered by the warranty, I replaced that headset about 15 times.
In my experience, the headsets that have a boom-style microphone offer superior sound quality to your listeners. Your voice will appear to be less distorted, not as ear-splitting loud, and more specific to you, without as much background noise. Also, as you approach the $30-40 price point, you'll see features like an inline volume knob, and a mute switch. This is often much more convenient (and safe) than using the mute function on your phone, as it's usually hanging right in front of you. Some models also have a volume adjust switch for the microphone, should people complain that you are too loud/quiet. I had a Plantronics P110 (later replaced by the P175, under warranty), which was about $50, and supported all of these features.
Since my phone does not yet support Bluetooth (at least, not until a Palm OS SD/IO Bluetooth card comes out. Hurry up, SanDisk!), I haven't tried out these cool-looking toys. But everyone I've spoken with who has owned them has loved them. Then again, they did spend $150+ on them, and might feel kind of stupid for not loving them, even if they don't deserve such a review. This is pretty common, so I'm not going to assume anything about their quality until I test them for myself. But so far, people seem to like them.
[rant]
Hey you safety fanatics: get off your high horses.
I am so sick of hearing everyone whine about how "unsafe" driving while talking on a cell phone is. Wake up! This is not rocket science. Some people shouldn't be on the phone while they drive. Some people shouldn't even drive. But there are plenty of people out there who have the mental facility to be able to do this, and talk on the phone, safely. Ever heard of multitasking? Many people are capable of either A) giving enough attention to both, or B) focusing on the road more than the conversation. This is adverse to the person on the other end, but people will usually be reasonable about waiting while you negotiate traffic, particularly if the issue is important and the only other option is to deal with it later.
I've been "safely" driving while on the phone for years. I've never had an accident, or even come close. This is not just blind luck; I'm smart enough to know when to tell the person on the other end to hold the line, or to just get off the phone when dealing with intense traffic situations. Then again, I've seen people who can't even walk safely when on the phone. This is not so cut and dry. There are plenty of people that I would trust to do this and plenty that I would not, just as there are plenty that I would trust to drive emergency vehicles, perform surgery, or fly planes, and plenty of people that I would not trust to do these things.
When I'm on the phone, I don't slow down. I don't speed up. I don't stare off into space and think about nothing but the conversation. As many of you are responsible for keeping the machines in your home and businesses running and up to speed, accomplishing your other duties at work, as well as juggling the tasks of your everyday life, I'm assuming that keeping track of more than one thing at a time is not a new thing for you. And when you're debugging some code on your website while you're waiting for an OS update to install, and reformatting a drive on another machine, it's not terribly difficult to keep track of all of these things, shifting your attention as necessary to the one requiring the most focus at a particular time. For those of you in the medical field, or on missi
When I was overseas in the middle east last month, I worked in an office with a bunch of land-lines, and a VOIP line that was linked to a number in the US. Thus, no more excessive 28 cents/minute, etc. But once in a while, there would be network lag. Sometimes it would be on our end, sometimes in the US, and sometimes it was just network congestion in general. This had the net effect of causing a MASSIVE delay in transmission. Try having a conversation where both parties don't hear what the other says for two to ten seconds. What a pain.
If the problem was on our side, we could just reboot the machine. ("Ack! Call me back; I need to restart my phone.") If the problem was somewhere else, there was nothing to do but wait for the problem to go away...
True, hence the upcoming second, longer, more involved study, which includes more involving games.
Actually, it often does. If someone feels that their work is not truly important, they often tend to care less about the quality, and in some cases, even spend less time working. I know quite a few people mildly disgruntled with their careers/employers, who think that the lack of importance of their work justifies showing up late, taking longer breaks/lunches, or just wasting time, rather than working.
Several years ago, I worked in a call center in which many of the techs would play networked Quake, using the unused machines as servers. This tended to develop a healthy sense of competition, while sealing many new friendships, and keeping people awake. (It was a 24/7 center with fast growth; thus, many new employees on a frequent basis.) Regardless of the time, playing games between/during calls also tended to keep them from becoming annoyed at their jobs (read: annoyed at the customers), as anyone who has worked in tech support/customer service can verify is a problem. If you're busy killing things, you're less apt to be terribly concerned that a particular customer was particularly dumb, or slow, or didn't listen, etc. Banning games won't stop employees from distracting themselves, regardless. There are plenty of ways to waste time on the Internet without having to install software on your machine. This study focuses on justifying said "wastes of time", as a potential productivity-booster.
The article explains that employees were allowed to choose when they wanted to play:
Most people I know get a case of brain fade at some point in their workday. Having the ability to just stop working for a bit and do something mindless REALLY makes a difference. Yes, a certain amount of employee responsibility is required. But as a freelance contractor that spends most of his time working in a cafe on a laptop, it's really nice to be able to just stop working and do whatever the hell I want for an hour or so, then get back to development again.
Prior to the dot-com bubble bursting a few years ago, I experienced many different environments while I was consulting, in which employee satisfaction was a huge priority. We've all had jobs (or friends who did) that provided free food, drinks, entertainment, and in some cases sleeping arrangements. The goal, of course, was to make it easier for the employees to stay at work as long as possible, and feel as comfortable there as they did at home. (Or more, in some cases.) If you've got an employee who would actually prefer to be at work over staying at home, it's likely that he/she will be more productive than one who would rather be somewhere else. As the article said, "... if the results show games can make people happier in their work, it could impact the amount of absenteeism in the workplace."
Of course, employee efficiency can also be adversely affected; Playing a game when you're supposed to be focusing on something is obviously not a good thing, and being allowed too much freedom can spoil an employee. But this didn't tend to be a problem in the techcenter I was in. Of course, then it was acquired by a larger entity, and Quake and parking-garage Nerf wars were banned, thereby forcing massive turnover. Work certainly lost all it's meaning for me when I could no longer shoot my co-workers. ;-)
I kind of hope that an attempt to prosecute this fellow is made. Then perhaps it will become more clear to our legislators how foolish a law is that will allow someone to be cited merely for the electronic equivalent of removing white-out from a white paper.
I think the uses for this stops when you're thinking of building anything large out of it, simply because of the clumsiness of paper (and the obviously incineration ;) )
Stops? But think of how easily Mr. Bond can dispose of his top secret weapons control circuits in the case of a security breach!
Seriously, though... the espianage implications (both corporate and governmental) are staggering. What about secure encrypted data storage? Keep sensitive data in a medium that can be destroyed beyond any conceivable means of repair by ripping into quarters and burning in less than a minute! Granted, it's not going to be a lot of data any time soon, but...
This kind of thing strikes me as the real-world equivalent of exploiting an unsecured software backdoor. You are, in effect, "hacking" the streetlight network. Hmm... sounds like a good book title. ;-) I'm not sure I buy into the "chaos will ensue" hype. There are European cities that use similar devices (though, with different technologies) to allow public transit to get through traffic quickly, to advocate leaving your car at home. But that's where control over lights should lie: with the appropriate authorities.
Why do these lights exist? To solve traffic problems. They do this by effectively "controlling" drivers. If the traffic authorities decide that it is beneficial to give the priority to emergency vehicles and public transit, so be it. I feel that this is beneficial to society. But when drivers force the system to obey their wishes, they are circumventing the apparent benefits of such a system, putting themselves before society. IMHO, this is wrong.
I'm waiting for the first case to go to trial. Think it'll be seen as the equivalent of running a red light, or gaining unauthorized access to a network?
I wasn't trying to insinuate that you advocated killing people; I was making an analogy. The point I was trying to make was that your method for solving the problem is to punish the theoretically innocent and uninformed, rather than teaching them. Perhaps there should be a method for informing them instead, such as tracking their IP (which is legal), and letting their ISP know of the problem, who then contacts the user/subscriber.
There are many "attractive nuisances" in this world, but an unsecured machine, mail server, etc. is not a loaded cannon in the middle of town. It is more like a hardware store. It is intended to be used as a tool. Yes, some people have the knowledge and inclination to turn those tools into weapons, but that doesn't mean that we should clean out the store's inventory the day the owner only locks the handle, but forgets to lock the deadbolt. Doing that will (hopefully) land the thief in jail. There are better ways to teach, and locking all the locks on the door won't necessarily stop a determined enough cracker with the right tools and training.
If you want to ensure that this doesn't happen, advocate information distribution. But what you're advocating (hacking the machines of vulnerable users) is illegal, and is the wrong way to teach this lesson, IMHO. You're right; the ISPs can do little. But that little is enough if the affected person is responsible. If not, I'm sorry, but there's nothing more you can (or should) do, than inform them. I know that it sucks... but people do stupid and dangerous things all the time. As much as you want to, you cannot force people to live the kind of lives that you want them to. To do more will only inflame the decision, and can quite possibly cause more problems than already exist.