SECURITY - HTML 5 a Privacy Threat?

"New Web Code Draws Concern Over Risks to Privacy" by TANZINA VEGA, New York Times 10/10/2010

Excerpt

Worries over Internet privacy have spurred lawsuits, conspiracy theories and consumer anxiety as marketers and others invent new ways to track computer users on the Internet. But the alarmists have not seen anything yet.

In the next few years, a powerful new suite of capabilities will become available to Web developers that could give marketers and advertisers access to many more details about computer users’ online activities. Nearly everyone who uses the Internet will face the privacy risks that come with those capabilities, which are an integral part of the Web language that will soon power the Internet: HTML 5.

The new Web code, the fifth version of Hypertext Markup Language used to create Web pages, is already in limited use, and it promises to usher in a new era of Internet browsing within the next few years. It will make it easier for users to view multimedia content without downloading extra software; check e-mail offline; or find a favorite restaurant or shop on a smartphone.

Most users will clearly welcome the additional features that come with the new Web language.

“It’s going to change everything about the Internet and the way we use it today,” said James Cox, 27, a freelance consultant and software developer at Smokeclouds, a New York City start-up company. “It’s not just HTML 5. It’s the new Web.”

But others, while also enthusiastic about the changes, are more cautious.

Most Web users are familiar with so-called cookies, which make it possible, for example, to log on to Web sites without having to retype user names and passwords, or to keep track of items placed in virtual shopping carts before they are bought.

The new Web language and its additional features present more tracking opportunities because the technology uses a process in which large amounts of data can be collected and stored on the user’s hard drive while online. Because of that process, advertisers and others could, experts say, see weeks or even months of personal data. That could include a user’s location, time zone, photographs, text from blogs, shopping cart contents, e-mails and a history of the Web pages visited.

The new Web language “gives trackers one more bucket to put tracking information into,” said Hakon Wium Lie, the chief technology officer at Opera, a browser company.

Or as Pam Dixon, the executive director of the World Privacy Forum in California, said: “HTML 5 opens Pandora’s box of tracking in the Internet.”

Representatives from the World Wide Web Consortium say they are taking questions about user privacy very seriously. The organization, which oversees the specifications developers turn to for the new Web language, will hold a two-day workshop on Internet technologies and privacy.

PC SECURITY - Biblical Computer Worm?

I debated whether to post this here or on my political blog, but since this is in the context of PC Security and can give us an idea of what is possible, "here" won out.

"In a Computer Worm, a Possible Biblical Clue" by JOHN MARKOFF and DAVID E. SANGER, New York Times 9/29/2010

Excerpt

Deep inside the computer worm that some specialists suspect is aimed at slowing Iran’s race for a nuclear weapon lies what could be a fleeting reference to the Book of Esther, the Old Testament tale in which the Jews pre-empt a Persian plot to destroy them.

That use of the word “Myrtus” — which can be read as an allusion to Esther — to name a file inside the code is one of several murky clues that have emerged as computer experts try to trace the origin and purpose of the rogue Stuxnet program, which seeks out a specific kind of command module for industrial equipment.

Not surprisingly, the Israelis are not saying whether Stuxnet has any connection to the secretive cyberwar unit it has built inside Israel’s intelligence service. Nor is the Obama administration, which while talking about cyberdefenses has also rapidly ramped up a broad covert program, inherited from the Bush administration, to undermine Iran’s nuclear program. In interviews in several countries, experts in both cyberwar and nuclear enrichment technology say the Stuxnet mystery may never be solved.

ALSO

"SECURITY - World Industrial Security Threat?"

"Israeli Test on Worm Called Crucial in Iran Nuclear Delay" by WILLIAM J. BROAD, JOHN MARKOFF, and DAVID E. SANGER; New York Times 1/15/2011

SOFTWARE - OpenOffice News

"New bid for freedom by OpenOffice" by Sue Gee, I-Programmer 9/28/2010

The open source community behind the free OpenOffice productivity suite is to create an independent Document Foundation and to rebrand its software as LibreOffice.

This move is being seen as an attempt to distance itself from Oracle which has so far declined to donate the OpenOffice brand to the project.

According to the new foundation's first official press release:

"After ten years' successful growth with Sun Microsystems as founding and principle sponsor, the project launches an independent foundation called The Document Foundation, to fulfill the promise of independence written in the original charter"

The Document Foundation has received support from almost the entire OpenOffice programming community, including Novell, Red Hat and Google, leaving only Oracle with the original OpenOffice repository. The Foundation said that it had invited Oracle to become a member of the new organization, and to donate the brand it acquired with Sun Microsystems 18 months ago but that until a decision is reached the LibreOffice brand will be used to refer to the Document Foundation's software development efforts.

Speaking for the group of volunteers involved in the development of OpenOffice, Sophie Gautier, former maintainer of the French-speaking language project said:

"We believe that the Foundation is a key step for the evolution of the free office suite, as it liberates the development of the code and the evolution of the project from the constraints represented by the commercial interests of a single company."

The beta of LibreOffice is available for download on the Document Foundations website and developers are invited to join the project and contribute to the code in the new friendly and open environment, to shape the future of office productivity suites alongside contributors who translate, test, document, support, and promote the software.

I was wondering if this sort of thing would happen when Oracle bought Sun Microsystems.

Oracle = big-money business NOT interested in supporting non-profit open source community.

UPDATE

"Oracle kicks LibreOffice supporters out of OpenOffice" by Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, ComputerWorld 10/19/2010

Well, that didn't take long. When The Document Foundation (TDF) created LibreOffice from OpenOffice's code, they let the door open for Oracle, OpenOffice's main stake-owner, to join them. Oracle's reply was to tell anyone involved with LibreOffice to get the heck out of OpenOffice.

This isn't too much of a surprise. Oracle made it clear that wouldn't be joining with The Document Foundation in working on LibreOffice.

What I did find surprising is that Oracle turned a fork into a fight. In a regularly scheduled OpenOffice.org community council meeting on Oct. 14, council chair and Oracle employee Louis Suárez-Potts wrote, "I would like to propose that the TDF members of the CC consider the points those of us who have not joined TDF have made about conflict of interest and confusion ... I would further ask them to resign their offices, so as to remove the apparent conflict of interest their current representational roles produce."

These OpenOffice.org council members, who are also TDF leaders, include Charles H. Schulz, a major OpenOffice.org contributor for almost ten years; Christoph Noack, co-leader of the OpenOffice User Experience Project; and Cor Nouws, a well-known OpenOffice developer with more than six years of experience in the project. In short, these aren't just leaders — they're important OpenOffice developers.

They haven't declared yet what they'll do to this de facto ultimatum. It seems to me though that they have little choice but to leave. Certainly Oracle wants them out as soon as possible. Suárez-Potts wrote that he wanted a "final decision on your part" as soon as possible. "It is of [the] utmost importance that we do not confuse users and contributors as to what is what, as to the identity of OpenOffice.org -- or of your organization."

I can understand how Oracle wants to quickly define this matter as Oracle vs. everyone involved with LibreOffice. But it's a really dumb move.

The Document Foundation wasn't so much about setting up a rival to OpenOffice as it was about giving an important but stagnant open-source program a kick in the pants. OpenOffice was and is good, but it's not been getting significantly better in years. TDF wanted to change that.

Oracle thinks it's more important to fight with some of the people who could have been its strongest supporters than try to work with them. Dumb! Cutting off your nose to spite your face is always a mistake.

Of course, this is all a piece of Oracle's "my way or the highway" approach to all the open-source programs it inherited from Sun. Oracle may support open source in general, but it's doing a lousy job of doing what's best for the its own open-source programs.

This is going to come back to haunt Oracle. I fully expect for LibreOffice to replace OpenOffice as the number one open-source office suite and chief rival to Microsoft Office within the next twelve months.

I agree with Steven's last statement. Oracle corporate leaders are just dumb. They just don't understand that open-source means that they do NOT own the source-code for the software. The source-code belongs to the community.

INTERNET - National Security vs User Freedom

"U.S. Wants to Make It Easier to Wiretap the Internet" by CHARLIE SAVAGE, New York Times 9/27/2010

Excerpt

Federal law enforcement and national security officials are preparing to seek sweeping new regulations for the Internet, arguing that their ability to wiretap criminal and terrorism suspects is “going dark” as people increasingly communicate online instead of by telephone.

Essentially, officials want Congress to require all services that enable communications — including encrypted e-mail transmitters like BlackBerry, social networking Web sites like Facebook and software that allows direct “peer to peer” messaging like Skype — to be technically capable of complying if served with a wiretap order. The mandate would include being able to intercept and unscramble encrypted messages.

The bill, which the Obama administration plans to submit to lawmakers next year, raises fresh questions about how to balance security needs with protecting privacy and fostering innovation. And because security services around the world face the same problem, it could set an example that is copied globally.

James X. Dempsey, vice president of the Center for Democracy and Technology, an Internet policy group, said the proposal had “huge implications” and challenged “fundamental elements of the Internet revolution” — including its decentralized design.

“They are really asking for the authority to redesign services that take advantage of the unique, and now pervasive, architecture of the Internet,” he said. “They basically want to turn back the clock and make Internet services function the way that the telephone system used to function.”

But law enforcement officials contend that imposing such a mandate is reasonable and necessary to prevent the erosion of their investigative powers.

“We’re talking about lawfully authorized intercepts,” said Valerie E. Caproni, general counsel for the Federal Bureau of Investigation. “We’re not talking expanding authority. We’re talking about preserving our ability to execute our existing authority in order to protect the public safety and national security.”

IE8 - How to Save the Window Size

Internet Explorer has had this really annoying problem on NOT saving the its window size for a long time and it's incredible that Microsoft has not fixed it yet.

To "fix" this problem (same as in IE 7 and IE6):

1. Close all Internet Explorer windows except for one.


2. Right-click on any link in the page and select "Open in New Window."


3. Close the first browser window using the [X] in the upper right corner in the title bar.


4. Resize the window manually by dragging the sides to fill the screen.
   
   Note: Do NOT click the Maximize button, you have to do it manually.


5. Hold the [Ctrl] key and click the [X] in the upper right corner in the title bar.

I've verified this works.

INTERNET - Cyberwars Update

"Cyberwar Chief Calls for Secure Computer Network" by THOM SHANKER, New York Times 9/23/2010

The new commander of the military’s cyberwarfare operations is advocating the creation of a separate, secure computer network to protect civilian government agencies and critical industries like the nation’s power grid against attacks mounted over the Internet.

The officer, Gen. Keith B. Alexander, suggested that such a heavily restricted network would allow the government to impose greater protections for the nation’s vital, official on-line operations. General Alexander labeled the new network “a secure zone, a protected zone.” Others have nicknamed it “dot-secure.”

It would provide to essential networks like those that tie together the banking, aviation, and public utility systems the kind of protection that the military has built around secret military and diplomatic communications networks — although even these are not completely invulnerable.

For years, experts have warned of the risks of Internet attacks on civilian networks. An article published a few months ago by the National Academy of Engineering said that “cyber systems are the ‘weakest link’ in the electricity system,” and that “security must be designed into the system from the start, not glued on as an afterthought.”

General Alexander, an Army officer who leads the military’s new Cyber Command, did not explain just where the fence should be built between the conventional Internet and his proposed secure zone, or how the gates would be opened to allow appropriate access to information they need every day. General Alexander said the White House hopes to complete a policy review on cyber issues in time for Congress to debate updated or new legislation when it convenes in January.

General Alexander’s new command is responsible for defending Defense Department computer networks and, if directed by the president, carrying out computer-network attacks overseas.

But the military is broadly prohibited from engaging in law enforcement operations on American soil without a presidential order, so the command’s potential role in assisting the Department of Homeland Security, the Federal Bureau of Investigation or the Department of Energy in the event of a major attack inside the United States has not been set down in law or policy.

“There is a real probability that in the future, this country will get hit with a destructive attack, and we need to be ready for it,” General Alexander said in a roundtable with reporters at the National Cryptologic Museum here at Fort Meade in advance of his Congressional testimony on Thursday morning.

“I believe this is one of the most critical problems our country faces,” he said. “We need to get that right. I think we have to have a discussion about roles and responsibilities: What’s the role of Cyber Command? What’s the role of the ‘intel’ community? What’s the role of the rest of the Defense Department? What’s the role of D.H.S.? And how do you make that team work? That’s going to take time.”

Some critics have questioned whether the Defense Department can step up protection of vital computer networks without crashing against the public’s ability to live and work with confidence on the Internet. General Alexander said, “We can protect civil liberties and privacy and still do our mission. We’ve got to do that.”

Speaking of the civilian networks that are at risk, he said: “If one of those destructive attacks comes right now, I’m focused on the Defense Department. What are the responsibilities — and I think this is part of the discussion — for the power grid, for financial networks, for other critical infrastructure? How do you protect the country when it comes to that kind of attack, and who is responsible for it?”

As General Alexander prepared for his testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, the ranking Republican on the panel, Howard P. McKeon of California, noted the Pentagon’s progress in expanding its cyber capabilities.

But he said that “many questions remain as to how Cyber Command will meet such a broad mandate” given the clear “vulnerabilities in cyberspace.”

The committee chairman, Rep. Ike Skelton, Democrat of Missouri, said that “cyberspace is an environment where distinctions and divisions between public and private, government and commercial, military and nonmilitary are blurred.” He said that it is important “that we engage in this discussion in a very direct way and include the public.”

UBUNTU - New App Review Process

"The Ubuntu application review process" by Corbet, LWN.net 9/22/2010

Canonical has announced a mechanism by which applications will be reviewed for possible acceptance into the Ubuntu Software Center. "Recently we formed a community-driven Application Review Board that is committed to providing high quality reviews of applications submitted by application authors to ensure they are safe and work well. Importantly, only new applications that are not present in an existing official Ubuntu repository (such as main/universe) are eligible in this process (e.g a new version of an application in an existing official repository is not eligible). Also no other software can depend on the application being submitted (e.g. development libraries are not eligible), only executable applications (and content that is part of them) are eligible, and not stand-alone content, documentation or media, and applications must be Open Source and available under an OSI approved license."

SECURITY - The Bad Idea From Intel

"Intel's walled garden plan to put A/V vendors out of business" by Jon Stokes, Ars Technica 9/14/2010

In describing the motivation behind Intel's recent purchase of McAfee for a packed-out audience at the Intel Developer Forum, Intel's Paul Otellini framed it as an effort to move the way the company approaches security "from a known-bad model to a known-good model." Otellini went on to briefly describe the shift in a way that sounded innocuous enough--current A/V efforts focus on building up a library of known threats against which they protect a user, but Intel would love to move to a world where only code from known and trusted parties runs on x86 systems. It sounds sensible enough, so what could be objectionable about that?

Depending how enamored you are of Apple's App Store model, where only Apple-approved code gets to run on your iPhone, you may or may not be happy in Intel's planned utopia. Because, in a nutshell, the App Store model is more or less what Intel is describing. Regardless of what you think of the idea, its success would have at least two unmitigated upsides: 1) everyone will get vPro by default (i.e., it seems hard to imagine that Intel will still charge for security as an added feature), and 2) it would put every security company (except McAfee, of course), out of business. (The second one is of course a downside for security vendors, but it's an upside for users who despise intrusive A/V software.)

From a jungle to an ecosystem of walled gardens

For a company that made its fortune on the back of the x86 ISA, the shift that Intel envisions is nothing less than tectonic. x86 became the world's most popular ISA in part because anything and everything could (and eventually would) run on it. And don't forget Microsoft's role in all of this—remember the "Wintel" duopoly of years gone by? Like x86, Windows ended up being the default OS for the desktop software market, and everything else was niche. And, like x86, Windows spread because everyone who wanted it could get it and run anything they wanted on it.

The fact that x86 was so popular and open gave rise to today's A/V industry, where security companies spend 100 percent of their effort trying to identify and thwart every conceivable form of bad behavior. This approach is extremely labor-intensive and failure-prone, which the security companies love because it keeps them in business.

What Intel is proposing is that the entire x86 ecosystem move to the opposite approach, and run only the code that has been blessed as safe by some trusted authority.

Now, there are a few ways that this is likely to play out, and none of these options are mutually exclusive.

One way should be clear from Intel's purchase of McAfee: the company plans to have two roles as a security provider: a component provider role, and an end-to-end platform/software/services provider role. First, there's the company's traditional platform role, where Intel provides OEMs the basic tools for building their own walled gardens. Intel has been pushing this for some time, mainly in its ultramobile products. If anyone is using Intel's ingredients (an app store plus hardware with support for running only signed code) to build their own little version of the App Store ecosystem, it's probably one of the European or Asian carriers that sells rebadged Intel mobile internet devices (MIDs). It's clear that no one is really doing this on the desktop with vPro, though.

Then there's the McAfee purchase, which shows that Intel plans to offer end-to-end security solutions, in addition to providing the pieces out of which another vendor can build their own. So with McAfee, Intel probably plans to offer a default walled garden option, of sorts. At the very least, it's conceivable that Intel could build its own secure app store ecosystem, where developers send code to McAfee for approval and distribution. In this model, McAfee would essentially act as the "Apple" for everyone making, say, MeeGo apps.

In the world described above, the x86 ecosystem slowly transitions from being a jungle to network of walled gardens, with Intel tending one of the largest gardens. If you're using an x86-based GoogleTV, you might participate in Google's walled garden, but not be able to run any other x86 code. Or, if you have an Intel phone from Nokia, you might be stuck in the MeeGo walled garden.

A page from the Web

None of the walled garden approaches described above sound very attractive for the desktop, and they'll probably be rejected outright by many Linux and open-source users. But there is another approach, one which Intel might decide to pursue on the desktop. The company could set up a number of trusted signing authorities for x86 code, and developers could approach any one of them to get their code signed for distribution. This is, of course, the same model used on the Web, where e-commerce sites submit an application for an https certificate.

This distributed approach seems to work well enough online, and I would personally be quite happy to use it on all my PCs. I would also love to hear from users who object to this approach—please jump into the comments below and sound off.

Pick any two

Obviously, security has always been a serious problem in the wild and woolly world of x86 and Windows. This is true mainly because Wintel is the biggest animal in the ecosystem, so bad actors get the most bang for their buck by targeting it. So why has Intel suddenly gotten so serious about it that the company is making this enormous change to the very nature of its core platform?

The answer is fairly straightforward: Intel wants to push x86 into niches that it doesn't currently occupy (phones, appliances, embedded), but it can't afford to take the bad parts along for the ride. Seriously, if you were worried about a particular phone or TV being compromised, you just wouldn't buy it. Contrast this to the Windows desktop, which many users may be forced to use for various reasons.

So Intel's dilemma looks like this: open, secure, ubiquitous—pick any two, but given the economics of the semiconductor industry, "ubiquitous" has to be one of them. Open and ubiquitous have gotten Intel where it is today, and the company is betting that secure and ubiquitous can take it the rest of the way.

Of course, my post title is my own opinion of this idea (note my bold-blue highlight above).

INTERNET - Internet Explorer 9

"Review: IE9 May Be Best Version Yet" by Jim Rapoza, InformationWeek 9/16/2010

Excerpt

That's because, while IE 9 is much improved over previous versions of IE, very few of the new features in IE 9 are new to the current browser market. In fact, most of the new features in this beta release are simply a matter of IE catching up to Chrome, Firefox, Safari and Opera.

Humm..... Didn't Microsoft claim the same for Vista?

Lets see how much WANTED old features they made hard to enable. Not all of us want the fantasist thing on the block. AND will it work well with WinXP?

INTERNET - NNTP Usenet Newsgroup System

This article is about the Usenet and their Newsgroups that use NNTP.

This system is the outgrowth of the old Bulletinboard system of the DOS days. Think of it as the electronic version of the old office or school cork-board bulletin boards where ANYONE can post notices and the like.

NNTP

The Network News Transfer Protocol (NNTP) is an Internet application protocol used for transporting Usenet news articles (netnews) between news servers and for reading and posting articles by end user client applications. Brian Kantor of the University of California, San Diego and Phil Lapsley of the University of California, Berkeley authored RFC 977, the specification for the Network News Transfer Protocol, in March 1986.

As you can see, this is only a specification that can be use by ANY provider via a NNTP Server.

Usenet (aka Newsnet)

Usenet is a worldwide distributed Internet discussion system. It developed from the general purpose UUCP architecture of the same name.

Duke University graduate students Tom Truscott and Jim Ellis conceived the idea in 1979 and it was established in 1980.[1] Users read and post messages (called articles or posts, and collectively termed news) to one or more categories, known as newsgroups. Usenet resembles a bulletin board system (BBS) in many respects, and is the precursor to the various Internet forums that are widely used today; and can be superficially regarded as a hybrid between email and web forums. Discussions are threaded, with modern news reader software, as with web forums and BBSes, though posts are stored on the server sequentially.

This is the distribution system. Note that NO one entity owns this system. It's public.

ISPs usually have their own NNTP Servers and included access as part of their service. But NNTP Servers are very resource intensive. Both in storage space needed and maintenance, including the cost evolved. This is why many ISPs have dropped their NNTP service.

The industry is shifting to specialized NNTP (Usenet) Providers. They do not provide connection the the Internet, just the Usenet service. Many have a subscription fee, which is how the make their money. Example, I use Forte's APN which charges me a monthly fee.

Newsgroups

A Usenet newsgroup is a repository usually within the Usenet system, for messages posted from many users in different locations. The term may be confusing to some, because it is usually a discussion group. Newsgroups are technically distinct from, but functionally similar to, discussion forums on the World Wide Web. Newsreader software is used to read newsgroups.

Despite the advent of file-sharing technologies such as BitTorrent, as well as the increased use of blogs, formal discussion forums, and social networking sites, coupled with a growing number of service providers blocking access to Usenet (see main article) newsgroups continue to be widely used.

Bold emphasis mine

Examples of Newsgroups:

• microsoft.public.windows.vista.general


• alt.politics.usa


• sci.space.station


• comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg

The main reason I am posting this article is there is a misleading notice being propagated in blogs and Usenet posts that the Microsoft Newsgroups are going away. NOT true.

Microsoft does not own nor control the Usenet system. So Newsgroups in the microsoft.public. series are NOT going to go away. The ONLY way this would happen is that EVERY Usenet Provider worldwide dropped these groups from their servers.

What is happening is Microsoft is dropping the microsoft.public. series form THEIR Usenet servers. They have switched to their Live Forums.

To read Newsgroup posts, you do have to use a Usenet capable client.

Outlook Express includes this feature. There's also clients like Thunderbird (freeware, eMail + Usenet), and Agent (eMail + Usenet) that I use at home.

Note that the examples above are both eMail and Usenet clients. This is because Newsgroup posts are very close to eMails. In fact in Newsgroup posts format the only difference is the "headers." Example: eMails have a To: email-address/name while Newsgroup posts are to a group like alt.politics.usa.

PC SECURITY - Windows DLL Exploits

"Windows DLL exploits boom; hackers post attacks for 40-plus apps" by Gregg Keizer, ComputerWorld 8/25/2010

Excerpts

Publish exploits to subvert Firefox, Chrome, Word, Photoshop, Skype, dozens more

Some of the world's most popular Windows programs are vulnerable to attacks that exploit a major bug in the way they load critical code libraries, according to sites tracking attack code.

Among the Windows applications that are vulnerable to exploits that many have dubbed "DLL load hijacking" are the Firefox, Chrome, Safari and Opera browsers; Microsoft's Word 2007; Adobe's Photoshop; Skype; and the uTorrent BitTorrent client.

"Fast and furious, incredibly fast," said Andrew Storms, director of security operations for nCircle Security, referring to the pace of postings of exploits that target the vulnerability in Windows software. Called "DLL load hijacking" by some, the exploits are dubbed "binary planting" by others.

On Monday, Microsoft confirmed reports of unpatched vulnerabilities in a large number of Windows programs, then published a tool it said would block known attacks. The flaws stem from the way many Windows applications call code libraries -- dubbed "dynamic-link library," or "DLL" -- that give hackers wiggle room they can exploit by tricking an application into loading a malicious file with the same name as a required DLL.

If attackers can dupe users into visiting malicious Web sites or remote shares, or get them to plug in a USB drive -- and in some cases con them into opening a file -- they can hijack a PC and plant malware on it.

Even before Microsoft described the problem, published its protective tool, and said it could not address the wide-ranging issue by patching Windows without crippling countless program, researcher HD Moore posted tools to find vulnerable applications and generate proof-of-concept code.
----
Until patches are available, Microsoft has urged users to download the free tool that blocks locks DLLs from loading from remote directories, USB drives, Web sites and an organization's network.

CAUTION - Make sure you understand this MS tool BEFORE loading. If you are NOT SURE, just wait until "patches" (Microsoft Updates) come through.

Needless to say, if you are running a top-of-the-line Antivirus/Antispyware Utility, they should protect you already.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY - The PC is 29

Birth of the PC

The IBM PC was announced to the world on 12 August 1981, helping drive a revolution in home and office computing.

The PC came in three versions; the cheapest of which was a $1,565 home computer.

The machine was developed by a 12-strong team headed by Don Estridge.

I owned one of these, just as you see here.

But it was a replacement for my supper-duper Tandy TRS-80 (aka Radio Shack Trash-80) with max 64kb memory, two 180kb 8" external floppy drives, B&W 80x25 monitor (no graphics), and 1200 baud external modem. WOW!

Am I dating myself?

HARDWARE - Motherboard Info

This post is about the best way to get hardware information about your Motherboard.

My recommended utility is CPU-Z form the CPUID people.

You can read the specs from their page. Essentially, you need a newer motherboard that has the features to allow CPU-Z to access the information.

Below are screenshots for my home WinXP SP3 Pro Desktop system are below so you can see what you get using this utility.

Click screenshots for better view


("HT" = Hyper Threading = near Due Core performance)

INTERNET - The Information-Age Replicator

"The Third Replicator" by SUSAN BLACKMORE, New York Times 8/22/2010

Excerpt

All around us information seems to be multiplying at an ever increasing pace. New books are published, new designs for toasters and i-gadgets appear, new music is composed or synthesized and, perhaps above all, new content is uploaded into cyberspace. This is rather strange. We know that matter and energy cannot increase but apparently information can.

It is perhaps rather obvious to attribute this to the evolutionary algorithm or Darwinian process, as I will do, but I wish to emphasize one part of this process — copying. The reason information can increase like this is that, if the necessary raw materials are available, copying creates more information. Of course it is not new information, but if the copies vary (which they will if only by virtue of copying errors), and if not all variants survive to be copied again (which is inevitable given limited resources), then we have the complete three-step process of natural selection (Dennett, 1995). From here novel designs and truly new information emerge. None of this can happen without copying.

I want to make three arguments here.

The first is that humans are unique because they are so good at imitation. When our ancestors began to imitate they let loose a new evolutionary process based not on genes but on a second replicator, memes. Genes and memes then coevolved, transforming us into better and better meme machines.

The second is that one kind of copying can piggy-back on another: that is, one replicator (the information that is copied) can build on the products (vehicles or interactors) of another. This multilayered evolution has produced the amazing complexity of design we see all around us.

The third is that now, in the early 21st century, we are seeing the emergence of a third replicator. I call these temes (short for technological memes, though I have considered other names). They are digital information stored, copied, varied and selected by machines. We humans like to think we are the designers, creators and controllers of this newly emerging world but really we are stepping stones from one replicator to the next.

SECURITY - Big-Money Buyout

"Dealtalk: McAfee buy may trigger more tech security M&A" by Bill Rigby & Paritosh Bansal, Reuters 8/19/2010

Excerpt

Intel Corp's (INTC.O) surprise $7.7 billion bid for McAfee Inc (MFE.N) may trigger more deals as competitors scramble for a piece of the rapidly growing software security sector.

Technology giants Oracle Corp (ORCL.O), Hewlett-Packard Co (HPQ.N), IBM Corp (IBM.N) and EMC Corp (EMC.N) -- which are all looking to expand the "stack" of hardware and software they offer corporate clients -- could move to counter Intel's emergence.

That puts the spotlight on the world's biggest software security company, Symantec Corp (SYMC.O), and a number of smaller companies such as Checkpoint Systems Inc (CKP.N), Sourcefire Inc (FIRE.O), Websense Inc (WBSN.O) and SafeNet.

"We're in the early stages of a major consolidation in software, particularly in security," said FBR Capital Markets analyst Daniel Ives. "This deal speaks to the convergence of hardware and software, which is becoming increasingly more important as the industry consolidates."

Big money for corporations, bad news for users. Why, you really think cost and tech support will improve or be cheaper? I would guess not. After all where do you think these companies are going to recoup the cost of acquisitions.

INTERNET - Reconnecting With Life

"Author Disconnects From Communication Devices to Reconnect With Life"
PBS Newshour 8/16/2010


I learned something from an Executive Secretary, if you feel swamped schedule your day. Which applies to more than just internet life.

Her examples (computer):

• At work: ONLY check eMail on arrival, 1:00pm, just before leaving for the day


• At work: Browse the WEB during lunch (1hr for her)


• At home, workdays: Check eMail during breakfast (just in case something needs doing that day), no WEB browsing


• At home, weekends: Check eMail once a day ONLY, and limit WEB browsing to ONE day, for a few hours, both AFTER dealing with family needs
  


• At home: Go off-line when you do NOT need to use the internet (something I suggested)

NOTE: There is a way to go off-line WITHOUT powering-down your broadband modem/router.

1. Open Network Connections
   


2. Right-click your broadband-connection as listed and select Properties


3. In the General tab, ensure BOTH checkboxes at bottom are check (makes Connect Icon visible in Taskbar Tray at ALL times)


4. Exit back to Network Connections dialog and left-click + drag your broadband-connection to desktop and make a shortcut (you can move or copy this anywhere, like your Quick Launch bar)


5. To go off-line: Right-click the Connect Icon and select Disable


6. To go online: Use your broadband-connection shortcut, which will enable the connection

INTERNET - NET Neutrality

"Net Neutrality Is Critical For Innovation" by Albert Wenger, Business Insider SAI 8/12/2010

I am glad to see the net neutrality debate raging. As Union Square Ventures and on our personal blogs (AVC, Continuations) we have long been proponents of net neutrality (the USV link is from 2006!).

Our own bias here is clear: we are pro-startup and pro-innovation. Both are of course essential to the venture capital business, but we believe they are also the lifeblood of the economy. Surprisingly, a lot of people who argue against net neutrality don’t seem to make the connection to innovation and startups at all. That is even more surprising when the criticism comes from someone like Henry Blodget who is clearly the beneficiary of the level playing field provided by net neutrality.

As for the Google-Verizon proposal, my partner Brad has done a terrific job pointing out two of the key problems. I want to go a step further though. Much as I am glad that Google has been a proponent of some aspects of net neutrality, Google is no longer a startup itself! Google’s ability to cross-subsidize new markets from its amazing core business poses a potential threat to innovation that I have written about before. This access to nearly limitless funds is especially important to keep in mind when looking at net neutrality.

Because there are a lot of subtleties once one drills down, it is easy to lose sight of the most basic principle that net neutrality is trying to achieve: the ability for innovative startups to deliver their content and services on a level playing field with incumbents. It is easy to forget this because we have actually de facto had net neutrality, which is what has allowed the creation and rise of services and companies such as Google in the first place. It is hard to argue that the Internet has not unleashed a torrent of innovation that has hugely benefited endusers (at the cost of disrupting some existing businesses). Net neutrality is all about codifying this existing state of the Internet and preventing a distorted playing field that favors incumbents.

Imagine for a moment an Internet in which Google can pay Verizon and others to deliver Youtube videos faster than video content from other sites, including that of your favorite startup. Given Youtube’s existing scale and Google’s ability to cross subsidize, this would forever cement Youtube as the source of Internet video. I fail to see how this could be in anybody’s interest other than Youtube’s and Verizon’s (Business Insider included). That is exactly what the current Google-Verizon proposal would allow for the wireless Internet. Now ask yourself what will be more important in the near future — wireline or wireless delivery of the Internet?The argument that competition among wireless carriers will take care of this seems disingenuous at best when we have all of four carriers left of which two control the bulk of the market. This is an oligopoly in which (even without any talk among carriers), the natural game theoretic equilibrium is one where none of the carriers provides net neutrality and all accept payments from incumbents.

So what could actual net neutrality look like when codified? It could be as simple as saying: carriers can charge people only for their bandwidth (up and down) and cannot accept other payments. In this scheme endusers still pay for bandwidth (as they do today) and bandwidth caps are possible. Youtube still pays for its bandwidth. But Youtube cannot pay for faster delivery, cannot pay for being excluded from consumers’ bandwidth caps etc. As it turns out — and this is again critical to emphasize — that is the status quo! A status quo that has brought us tremendous innovation and sufficient investment by carriers in bandwidth despite their griping.

Finally, to all those who would say that the government doesn’t regulate what people can pay and cannot pay for in other areas, that is of course wrong. You can pay a taxi for taking you from A to B, but paying the taxi to go above the speed limit is not legal. You can pay to get a liver transplant, but you can’t pay to get one faster than others. We full well realize that safety and ethical concerns matter. So does innovation. Net neutrality is all about protecting innovation while still providing the funds for carriers to invest in network growth.

INTERNET - More on Google/Verizon Attempt to Hijack the Wireless WEB

"Web Plan Is Dividing Companies" by CLAIRE CAIN MILLER & BRIAN STELTER, New York Times 8/11/2010

In an emerging battle over regulating Internet access, companies are taking sides.

Facebook, one of the companies that has flourished on the open Internet, indicated Wednesday that it did not support a proposal by Google and Verizon that critics say could let providers of Internet access chip away at that openness.

Meanwhile an executive of AT&T, one of the companies that stands to profit from looser regulations, called the proposal a “reasonable framework.”

Most media companies have stayed mute on the subject, but in an interview this week, the media mogul Barry Diller called the proposal a sham.

And outside of technology circles, most people have not yet figured out what is at stake.

The debate revolves around net neutrality, which in the broadest sense holds that Internet users should have equal access to all types of information online, and that companies offering Internet service should not be able to give priority to some sources or types of content.

In a policy statement on Monday, Google and Verizon proposed that regulators enforce those principles on wired connections but not on the wireless Internet. They also excluded something they called “additional, differentiated online services.”

In other words, on mobile phones or on special access lanes, carriers like Verizon and AT&T could charge content companies a toll for faster access to customers or, some analysts worry, block certain services from reaching customers altogether.

Opponents of the proposal say that the Internet, suddenly, would not be so open anymore.

“All of our life goes through this network, increasingly, and if you can’t reach your boss or get to your remotely stored work, or it’s so slow that you can’t get it done before you give up and you go to bed, that’s a problem,” said Allen S. Hammond IV, director of the Broadband Institute of California at Santa Clara University School of Law. “People need to understand that’s what we’re debating here.”

Decisions about net neutrality rest with the Federal Communications Commission and legislators, and full-throated lobbying campaigns are already under way on all sides. The Google-Verizon proposal was essentially an attempt to frame the debate.

It set off a flood of reaction, much of it negative, from Web companies and consumer advocacy groups. In the most extreme situation that opponents envision, two Internets could emerge — the public one known today, and a private one with faster lanes and expensive tolls.

Google and Verizon defended the exemptions by saying that they were giving carriers the flexibility they need to ensure that the Internet’s infrastructure remains “a platform for innovation.” Carriers say they need to be able to manage their networks as they see fit and generate revenue to expand them.

AT&T said in a statement Wednesday night that “the Verizon-Google agreement demonstrates that it is possible to bridge differences on this issue.”

Much of the debate rests on the idea of paid “fast lanes.” Content companies, the theory goes, would have to pay for favored access to a carrier’s customers, so some Web sites or video services could load faster than others.

That would be a big change from the level playing field that content companies now enjoy, Mr. Diller, who oversees Expedia, Ticketmaster, Match.com and other sites, said last month. Speaking of the telecommunications carriers, he said, “They want the equivalent of having the toaster pay for the ability to plug itself into the electrical grid.”

These fast lanes are fairly easy to understand when it comes to wireless Internet access. But what confused many was the suggestion by Google and Verizon that future online services that are not part of the public Internet should also be exempt from equal-access rules.

These services would be “distinguishable from traditional broadband Internet access services,” the two companies said in a joint blog post. “It is too soon to predict how these new services will develop, but examples might include health care monitoring, the smart grid, advanced educational services or new entertainment and gaming options.”

Some experts were puzzled as to what these services might be and why such an exception might be necessary.

“Broadband that’s not the Internet? I don’t know what they’re talking about,” said David A. Patterson, a professor of computer science at the University of California, Berkeley. “They seem to have an idea of something other than the public Internet as a way to ship information, but by nature, to have value it has to go to a lot of places, and right now, that’s the packet-switched Internet.”

Josh Silver, chief executive of the nonprofit group Free Press, said the exemptions amounted to “the cable-ization of the Internet,” in that cable subscribers pay extra for premium tiers of service and for certain channels. Mr. Silver’s group is promoting a petition to the F.C.C. titled “Don’t Let Google Be Evil.” Silicon Valley investors have expressed trepidation that the new rules, if adopted, could put a damper on innovation, particularly for mobile start-ups.

The wireless Internet is quickly emerging as the dominant technology platform, said Matt Cohler, a general partner at Benchmark Capital, a prominent venture firm in Silicon Valley that has invested in start-ups like Twitter. “It is as important to have the right protections in place for the newer platform as it is for the older platform.”

Facebook sounded a similar note on Wednesday, saying in a statement that it supported net neutrality principles for both wired and wireless networks.

“Preserving an open Internet that is accessible to innovators — regardless of their size or wealth — will promote a vibrant and competitive marketplace where consumers have ultimate control over the content and services delivered through their Internet connections,” the company said.

Technology companies like Amazon and eBay also expressed concern with Google’s compromise, but have been less vocal.

Some start-ups see possible advantages in tiered access. Danny Stein, the chairman of eMusic, a music download service, said there needed to be Internet service that remained open and neutral, “but that doesn’t mean there can’t be premium options to appeal to some amazing consumer experience outside of the garden of net neutrality.”

The silence of big media companies like Comcast and the News Corporation on the issue has been noticeable. Media companies’ traditional business models have been about controlled pathways to the customer, and they may see benefits in restoring some of that control.

Mr. Diller asserted that the Google-Verizon proposal “doesn’t preserve ‘net neutrality,’ full stop, or anything like it.” Asked if other media executives were staying quiet because they stand to gain from a less open Internet, he said simply, “Yes.”

At least Mr. Diller is admitting the truth about the "other" executives. It all about GREED.

LINUX - On the Big Screen, Linux Wars!

"Ubuntu vs. Red Hat: Who really contributes the most to Linux" by Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, ComputerWorld 8/2/2010

Last week, Greg DeKoenigsberg, a former Red Hat developer on the Fedora community Linux project and now CTO of The Institute for the Study of Knowledge Management in Education (ISKME), ignited a firestorm by showing that, when it comes to code, Red Hat does far more for open-source projects like GNOME than Canonical, Ubuntu's parent company, has ever done. To quote DeKoenigsberg: "Canonical is a marketing organization masquerading as an engineering organization."

That went over in Linux circles about as well as you would expect it to.

Canonical founder Mark Shuttleworth responded with a blog about how tribalism, which Shuttleworth defined as "when one group of people start to think people from another group are 'wrong by default.'" Shuttleworth's point was that turning a discussion of open-source development into a fight over "my Linux distribution is better than yours" is a waste of time.

This isn't a new argument. Ubuntu developers have had to deal with brickbats thrown their way by Debian programmers ever since Ubuntu forked from Debian. Every now and again, Shuttleworth offers a peace branch in Debian's direction, but the distribution flame wars keep burning bright.

Since DeKoenigberg first wrote about Canonical, he's had second thoughts about his tone and apologized for going "over the top." That said, he also still thinks that "Canonical should be doing way more to sustain that platform."

Actually, I think Canonical is doing a lot for Linux. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that it is doing as much for Linux as Red Hat these days — just not in code.

What Canonical has done for Linux is exactly what DeKoenigberg accuses them of: marketing Linux. I guarantee you that if you ask Joe and Josie Computeruser to name a Linux, they'll say "Ubuntu." If you ask a CIO or CTO, they'll name Red Hat and possibly Novell's SLES (SUSE Linux Enterprise Server). But Canonical has done more than all the other Linux companies and groups put together to popularize Linux with ordinary people.

Sure, they've made Ubuntu into as close to a household name as Linux has these days, but at the same time they've brought millions of new users to Linux. Many of those people may stick with Ubuntu, but many others will move on to other distributions, such as the Ubuntu fork, Mint, and other Linux distributions including, yes, RHEL (Red Hat Enterprise Linux).

Shouldn't that count, too? I think so.

I also think that for a long time there's been too much emphasis on coding. The people who popularize Linux, the people who write about Linux, the people who run LUGs (Linux User Groups) and community Linux shows, and the businesses that have committed to Linux also deserve credit.

Yes, the people who write Linux are vital, and Red Hat is the clear leader in producing code — but it's not just about who writes the code. If you look at the bigger picture, I think Canonical deserves a lot of the credit as well for Linux turning into a grown-up family of operating systems.

INTERNET - Cyber Wars

"Governments Battle to Stay Ahead of Threats on Internet, 'The Great Leveler'"
PBS Newshour 8/10/2010

"Hayden: Hackers Force Internet Users to Learn Self-Defense"
PBS Newshour 8/11/2010

INTERNET - Attempt to Carve-Out WEB Access Niche

"Web Plan From Google and Verizon Is Criticized" by CLAIRE CAIN MILLER & MIGUEL HELFT, New York Times 8/9/2010

Excerpt

Google and Verizon on Monday introduced a proposal for how Internet service should be regulated — and were immediately criticized by groups that favor keeping the network as open as possible.

According to the proposal, Internet service providers would not be able to block producers of online content or offer them a paid “fast lane.” It says the Federal Communications Commission should have the authority to stop or fine any rule-breakers.

The proposal, however, carves out exceptions for Internet access over cellphone networks, and for potential new services that broadband providers could offer. In a joint blog post, the companies said these could include things like health care monitoring, “advanced educational services, or new entertainment and gaming options.”

The two companies are hoping to influence regulators and lawmakers in the debate over a principle known as net neutrality, which holds that Internet users should have equal access to all types of information online.

This principle is crucial for consumers and for fostering innovation among Internet entrepreneurs, Eric E. Schmidt, Google’s chief executive, said in a call with reporters. “The next two people in a garage really do need an open Internet,” he said.

But some proponents of net neutrality say that by excluding wireless and other online services, Google and Verizon are creating a loophole that could allow carriers to circumvent regulation meant to ensure openness.

The plan “creates an Internet for the haves and an Internet for the have-nots,” said Andrew Jay Schwartzman, senior vice president and policy director at the Media Access Project, an advocacy group in Washington and a member, along with Google, of the Open Internet Coalition. “It may make some services unaffordable for consumers and access to those services unavailable to new start-ups.”

Ivan Seidenberg, chief executive of Verizon, said the proposal excluded cellphone networks because the companies were “concerned about the imposition of too many rules” that could slow the growth of the wireless Web.

HINT: Eric and his cohorts are only interested in making money, "growth of the wireless Web" = exclusive (non-open) profits me. As if Wireless WEB is different than Internet WEB (WWW).

Personal message for Eric, UP YOURS!

PC GAMES - University of Washington's Foldit

"In a Video Game, Tackling the Complexities of Protein Folding" by JOHN MARKOFF, New York Times 8/4/2010

In a match that pitted video game players against the best known computer program designed for the task, the gamers outperformed the software in figuring out how 10 proteins fold into their three-dimensional configurations.

Proteins are essentially biological nano-machines that carry out myriad functions in the body, and biologists have long sought to understand how the long chains of amino acids that make up each protein fold into their specific configurations.

In May 2008, researchers at the University of Washington made a protein-folding video game called Foldit freely available via the Internet. The game, which was competitive and offered the puzzle-solving qualities of a game like Rubik’s Cube, quickly attracted a dedicated following of thousands of players.

The success of the Foldit players, the researchers report in this week’s issue of Nature, shows that nonscientists can collaborate to develop new strategies and algorithms that are distinct from traditional software solutions to the challenge of protein folding.

The researchers took pains to credit the volunteers who competed at Foldit in the last two years, listing “Foldit players” at the end of the report’s author list and noting that more than 57,000 players “contributed extensively through their feedback and gameplay.”

Zoran Popovic, a computer scientist at the University of Washington who was a lead author of the paper, said, “If things go according to plan, not too long from now, such massive author lists should be commonplace.” Foldit begins with a series of tutorials in which the player controls proteinlike structures on a computer display. In the game, as structures are modified, a score is calculated based on how well the protein is folded. Players are given a set of controls that let them do things like “shake,” “wiggle” and “rebuild” to reshape the backbone and the amino acid side shapes of a specific protein into a more efficient structure.

A list of top scores for each puzzle is posted so that players can compare their results. Players may also collaborate in teams, tracking progress on a separate list of group scores.

The protein-folding problem can be solved by computers using statistical and related software algorithms, but it takes an immense amount of processing power.

“The problem is that these proteins are far, far more complex than a robotic arm, and can ‘fold’ in time frames measured in billionths of a second,” Duke Ferris, founder of the GameRevolution Web site, wrote recently. “It’s like trying to solve a million-sided Rubik’s Cube while it also spins at 10,000 r.p.m. And that’s for just one ‘fold.’ ”

In a comparison involving 10 separate protein-folding puzzles, video game players matched the results generated by software solutions in three of the puzzles, outperformed them in five cases and found significantly better solutions in two others, according to the scientists.

In addition to the acuity of human pattern-recognition skills, the researchers noted that players outperformed the best software tools in other ways as well, writing: “Humans use a much more varied range of exploration methods than computers. Different players use different move sequences, both according to the puzzle type and throughout the duration of a puzzle.”

The Foldit project was inspired by the volunteers who were contributing the downtime on their home computers to power a protein-folding program called Rosetta@home. The computer donors could see the progress of the program on their screens, and they began to note inefficiencies in the software’s folding approach. That led the scientists to look for ways to systematically harness the skills of the human volunteers.

PC GAMES - PC Gaming is NOT Going to Die

"Are we at the beginning of a PC gaming renaissance?" by Dan Ackerman, CNet News 8/5/2010

The past several years have seen a steady drumbeat of negative prognostications for PC gaming, both as a creative medium and as a viable business. High-profile releases were steered to living room consoles, with perfunctory PC ports at best, and messy DRM and hardware incompatibility made many of the remaining PC games more trouble than they were worth.

Magazines such as Computer Gaming World shut down (after an embarrassing sponsored name change to Games for Windows Magazine) and the only bright spot seemed to be the online multiplayer game World of Warcraft--even if other MMO entries found it hard to bottle that lightning twice.

No one was more at the forefront playing Taps for PC gaming than myself, having gone from a cheerleading booster to sober realist in the space of a few short years.

Yet, for the first time in a long time, I find myself much more interested in what's going on the PC side of the video game industry than the console side. My office and home laptops are suddenly buzzing with new and upcoming games, including StarCraft II, Civilization V, and OnLive's various streaming-game offerings--whereas this year's big list of holiday season console releases elicits a shrug at best, filled by the annual installments of mass-market cash cows. How did this potential reversal of fortune take place?

First, the companies that make PC games and the consumers who play them all seemingly decided it was OK to stretch the boundaries and leave their respective comfort zones. The seeds were planted over the past few years as game publishers opened the door to new ways to distribute their wares, losing the most frustrating parts of the DRM equation with services such as Steam and Battle.net (say what you will about online authentication, it works a lot better than discs, especially for those of us who like to install games on multiple PCs).

The next step was online stores like Good Old Games that offer classic games for less than $10, completely DRM-free. It's amazing how much goodwill one can build up by not treating customers like criminals.

Third, we opened the doors to new kinds of games, most notably Facebook and other social media games. These may not be what classic Quake-playing twitch jockeys were asking for, but games such as FarmVille and FrontierVille have brought tens of millions of new gamers into the PC-gaming fold. To say these aren't "real" games sounds an awful lot like the late Mitch Miller complaining that rock 'n' roll wasn't real music.

Finally, we largely eliminated the PC-gaming hardware arms race. It's no longer a point of pride to brag about how much your customers will need to spend on their computer rigs to even barely run your game.

StarCraft II is a great example of many of these lessons. The long-awaited sequel looks great on a high-end PC, but also will run easily on a wide range of systems, and even Apple's basic integrated graphics 13-inch MacBook. Installation is as easy as downloading a client software package or using a DVD, but once your game is registered, you don't need a disc, and you can reinstall the game anywhere. I'll also add, as someone who never played the original StarCraft (heresy, I know), the game is surprisingly easy to pick up, and a lot of fun for casual multiplayer matches between friends.

Civilization V (releasing September 21) is another example that works under the new PC-gaming paradigm. More than in previous installments, there's a real emphasis on hand-holding new players as needed, while not dumbing down the experience for anyone else. Using the online service Steam as a distribution channel is also key; I can especially see Civ V players wanting to have the game at home, and them maybe installing it on a work laptop when traveling. Like StarCraft II, the game is also very flexible with hardware requirements, and I got a prerelease version to run well on systems as basic as an 11-inch high-end Netbook with integrated graphics and AMD's dual-core Neo processor.

We've written several times about the new online gaming service OnLive. Though still in an extended beta period, the high-concept idea is that A-list PC games are rendered remotely on server farms while you play, and the actual gameplay footage is beamed back to you in real time. It sounds far-fetched, and I was highly skeptical of the entire concept. But in our hands-on tests, it let us play all sorts of current games on nearly any laptop, including Netbooks. The fact that anyone can hypothetically play even the most hardware-intensive PC game is a great equalizer, and shouldn't be underestimated as a potential entry point for new gamers.

However, there's one formerly big part of the PC-gaming universe that won't be making a comeback, and that's the classic first-person shooter. Case in point: the last major PC-only shooter that generated a lot of buzz was Crysis, a game specifically designed to show off your expensive high-end gaming hardware. A few years later, the big-budget sequel is being pitched almost exclusively as a console game. Sure, there will also be a PC version of Crysis 2, but that's not the development focus any more. Doom, Wolfenstein, Quake, and others were the driving force behind PC gaming for many years, but in this new PC gaming renaissance, they're not getting invited along for the ride.

Update: I'm apparently not alone in my rediscovered appreciation for PC gaming, Kotaku.com says, "Love it or hate it, PC gaming seems to be having a great year."

ON THE LITE SIDE - Robonaut 2

"Robot butler for astronauts is a hit on Twitter"
By Zo Macintosh, MSNBC 8/5/2010

UBUNTU - Offerings from DELL

"Dell expands Ubuntu Linux desktop offerings" by Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, ComputerWorld 7/27/2010

Excerpt

The latest panic in desktop-Linux-land was that Dell would no longer be selling Ubuntu pre-installed on laptops and netbooks. Alas, for those who love drama, it wasn't true. In fact, Dell is expanding its Ubuntu desktop offerings.

Gerry Carr the marketing manager for Canonical, the company behind Ubuntu, told me that the stories that Dell will no longer be offering Ubuntu pre-installed on its hardware were "NOT true." Now, Anne Camden, a Dell PR manager, tells me that far from moving away from Ubuntu Linux, Dell is offering more Ubuntu choices than ever.

At present via the DELL link, they offer Ubuntu v9.04 on Laptops (only choice via Customize), v10.4 on Desktops. If you want v10.4 on their Laptop, you should use phone ordering. We use DELL systems at work and there is usually wider customization via phone than WEB.

UBUNTU - Goes Cloud

"Ubuntu Linux brings IBM DB2 to the cloud" by Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, Computer World 7/21/2010

Excerpt

Canonical, the company behind Ubuntu, has always had many user and developer fans. Enterprise business fans? Not so much. Canonical hopes to change that with today's, July 21, launch of a virtual appliance of IBM's DB2 Express-C software running on the Ubuntu cloud computing platform, in private and public cloud configurations. The company also announced that IBM has validated the full version of DB2 software on Ubuntu 10.04.

This is all part of Canonical's plan to make Ubuntu just as much of an enterprise business player as Novell or Red Hat. Quietly Ubuntu has already, according to the company, "become one of the most popular guest operating systems on cloud services like Rackspace and Amazon EC2. Increasingly, it is also being deployed as the host cloud infrastructure layer by private organizations and ISPs. IBM DB2 Express-C software will be available however Ubuntu is deployed on a cloud."

If you don't trust the public clouds, you can use Ubuntu Enterprise Cloud. This combines Ubuntu 10.04 with the open-source Eucalyptus cloud software so creating your own cloud requires little more than plugging in USB-sticks and running installation routines on your existing servers.

WIN XP - Power Point Presentation to Movie

This post is about ways to convert a Microsoft Power Point Presentation to a movie.

I wanted to do this on occasion but did have the means 'till now. My problem is I do not have Microsoft Office on my system at home. I use Open Office Suite (open-source aka freeware).

I found a Convert PowerPoint To Video: Guide To The Best Free Services page which lists applications for conversion.

Problem, most I tried REQUIRED Microsoft Power Point Presentation to be installed to work.

The exception (NOT requiring Power Point) was Xilisoft PowerPoint to Video Converter.

It worked quite well, and does not need Power Point because it loads MS Power Point Reader as a plug-in.

There ARE drawbacks:

• I HAD to buy the Personal version (vs Free) because I didn't have Power Point installed


• It is a real resource hog once conversion starts, don't use ANY other application

This is just one Power Point Slide Show I converted.

UBUNTU - ECM Vendor Expands OS Support

My old readers may notice I've expanded this blog to include news about Ubuntu (Linux-Desktop OS). Ubuntu is what I use on a Notebook (aka Laptop) system to learn about Linux and Ubuntu.

I've deiced that Ubuntu is very good and worth mention. But I will restrict posts to news about Ubuntu, since I am not expert enough to give advice on Ubuntu.

"Alfresco certified for Ubuntu" by Maxwell Cooter, TechWorld 7/14/2010

Excerpt

Enterprise content management vendor Alfresco, has been certified to work on the Ubuntu stack. The company's Enterprise Edition 3.3 is now certified on Ubuntu 10.04 LTS Server.

Ubuntu owner Canonical has been pushing the Linux distribution hard in the past few months so this move appears to support the growing acceptance of Ubuntu as an enterprise operating system.

"When we surveyed our customers about what future platforms to support, Ubuntu was the overwhelming choice," said Paul Hampton, Alfresco's director of product marketing.

ON THE LITE SIDE - Our Matrix Future

"Building One Big Brain" by Robert Wright, New York Times 7/6/2010

Excerpts

For your own sake, focus on this column. Don’t think about your Facebook feed or your inbox. Don’t click on the ad above or the links to the right. Don’t even click on links within the column.

Failing to focus — succumbing to digital distraction — can make you lose your mind, fears Nicholas Carr, author of the much-discussed book “The Shallows.” At least, it can make you lose little parts of your mind. The Internet, Carr suspects, “is chipping away my capacity for concentration and contemplation.”

He’s not alone in his fears. Since his book came out there have been lots of ruminations — including one or two or three in The Times alone — on whether online technology is friend or foe, good for our brains or bad.

But maybe the terms of the debate — good for us or bad for us? — are a sign that we’re missing the point. Maybe the essential thing about technological evolution is that it’s not about us. Maybe it’s about something bigger than us — maybe something big and wonderful, maybe something big and spooky, but in any event something really, really big.
----
Don’t let the title of Kelly’s book terrify you. He assures us that he doesn’t think technology is conscious — at least, not “at this point.” For now, he says, technology’s “mechanical wants are not carefully considered deliberations but rather leanings.”

So relax; apparently we have a few years before Keanu Reeves gets stuffed into a gooey pod by robotic overlords who use people as batteries. Still, it’s notable that, before Reeves played that role in “The Matrix,” the movie’s directors gave him a copy of Kelly’s earlier book, “Out of Control,” as preparation. And Kelly does say in “What Technology Wants” that technology is increasingly like “a very complex organism that often follows its own urges.”

WINXP - Downloaded Installs (MSI)

This article is about software installers that you download, especially MSI files (Microsoft System Installer). Like: filename.msi

The problem that MSI files may present, is needing access to the original file to uninstall or repair the software.

In these cases, if you download the file to a temporary location then delete or move it after you run the installer, uninstall/repair options will not work because it will look for the MSI file in the original location.

Hint, if the download is a MSI file:

1. Download it to whatever location is your normal for your downloads BUT do NOT run it yet


2. Decide where you are actually going to install the program, example C:\Program Files\program-name, and create the folder manually


3. Now create a sub-folder, like C:\Program Files\program-name\Installer


4. Now move the filename.msi into the Installer folder and run it from there


5. Make sure you choose a custom installation and select C:\Program Files\program-name as the install folder.

Doing this will ensure all uninstall/repair entries in the Registry point to the Installer folder where the original MSI file is located.

This procedure MAY also be needed if the download is a ZIP file that contains ONLY a MSI file.

Most installers that are filename.exe or ZIP files containing Setup.exe will not need this procedure because the correct Registry entries for uninstall/repair and made.

PC SECURITY - Copy Machines Put Companies, and you, at RISK!

Copy Machines have hard drive with thousands of documents on them and anyone can buy used ones form warehouses, putting extremely sensitive documents in anyone's hands.

!! WARNING !!
sensitive and personal information at risk

ON THE LITE SIDE - Statler & Waldorf: The Internet

The Muppets: Statler & Waldorf: Meh

WinXP - eMail Clients & Microsoft Exchange Servers

This post is about eMail Clients Pegasus and Thunderbird when using a Microsoft Exchange Server.

The company I work for recently changed from a local (non-SSL) eMail Server to a Microsoft Cloud Exchange Server (microsoftonline.com), using SSL security. This presented some setup problems with Pegasus and Thunderbird that some users prefer.

Below are the screenshots (click on image for full view) of the settings that worked.

• PEGASUS:














• THUNDERBIRD:

The Port Numbers used are standard for SSL.


WARNING: Microsoft Office Outlook 2007 users

• You should already have Windows Search 4.o installed, but....


• ...IF you do not, it is critical that you install Windows Search 4.o BEFORE opening Outlook 2007.

IN ADDITION: If you are updating your eMail Account to a Microsoft Exchange Server, you should edit your eMail Account via Control Panel, eMail icon, NOT by opening Outlook.