You may have heard the phrase "cloud computing" lately - if you haven't, it isn't because they aren't trying.
Cloud computing is the latest buzzword in the IT vernacular, used to describe what boils down to "baseless" or remote computing. This means all of your data actually exists on other servers and hard drives. And this is the sticking point.
By using nebulous, happy terms like "cloud computing," the larger computer industry is hoping you will buy right in and start keeping your data on their servers. Technically, you can access this data anywhere and even share it with others in raw format for collaboration; technically, this means the information you put into your "cloud" actually exists on their computers!
If you check the TOS of many sites - social networking, file-sharing, and so forth - they basically say, "We have rights to your content, but no liability for it." In layman's terms, that says, "We can do what we want with your data and cannot be held responsible." (Note the period.)
In effect, this means the network can "promote" your content in order to promote themselves - a lot of early blogging sites (later called "hivesites" by detractors, because of the amount of spam) worked on this model. And a lot of file-sharing and social networks work on this model now. Of course, the very netizens who create this content see little from this in return.
But taken to another level, as Bill Thompson details in his BBC article, this also means the companies on which your data resides can turn it over to authorities at any time, for any (or no) reason, and are not required to tell you. While this does not necessarily mean much to most of us, it could be used against you for basically anything! Obviously, if you are involved in something blatantly illegal, you probably wouldn't choose unsecure cloud computing for your chores anyway; but what if you are simply an angst-ridden, young person who sometimes vents against his government? Or an angry, teenaged boy who just caught his girlfriend with another guy?
Things could get far too serious way too fast, mainly because the US government is so determined to "make an example" of literally anyone who jaywalks these days. It's a knee-jerk reaction to the ugly light in which they are seen by modern society - a deserved ugly light that they, themselves, seek not to correct but to defend. And legalities have arisen from situations such as those above.
So make sure to understand fully that while "cloud" computing sounds light and fluffy and friendly and happy, it's just another buzzword to sell you on an idea you might not quite understand. No matter how you access your data or where it is stored, so long as it is saved, it exists on some computer, somewhere. Clouds are not part of the Internetwork.
© C Harris Lynn, 2008
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
China Has Most Netizens
According to the latest polls, China has the most online users of any country.
The latest surveys show China has about 253 million netizens. The US placed second for the first time since these records started being kept, with 223 million. However, Net availability and overall impact ("Net penetration") is still higher in the US. US buyers spent over $20 billion online during the same period, as opposed to China's $5.9 billion.
If these trends continue, China's netizenry could easily outstrip that of the US by 2012, at the latest. Further, China's high-speed access is more widespread than here at home, due largely to great deals offered by landline companies trying to recapture the mobile market.
But with broadband and wi-fi becoming increasingly available through mobile devices, along with the continued addition of "apps" (cellphone software), and China's 500-some million mobile users, the numbers may soon become even more skewed.
© C Harris Lynn, 2008
The latest surveys show China has about 253 million netizens. The US placed second for the first time since these records started being kept, with 223 million. However, Net availability and overall impact ("Net penetration") is still higher in the US. US buyers spent over $20 billion online during the same period, as opposed to China's $5.9 billion.
If these trends continue, China's netizenry could easily outstrip that of the US by 2012, at the latest. Further, China's high-speed access is more widespread than here at home, due largely to great deals offered by landline companies trying to recapture the mobile market.
But with broadband and wi-fi becoming increasingly available through mobile devices, along with the continued addition of "apps" (cellphone software), and China's 500-some million mobile users, the numbers may soon become even more skewed.
© C Harris Lynn, 2008
Monday, July 28, 2008
Zimriding
Utilizing Facebook, a college graduate named John Zimmer has developed virtual hitchhiking.
If you join the group, you can find other Facebook members who just might be going your way - and hitch a ride with them! And he appears to have started something of a sensible sensation, as several other groups have popped-up with the same idea. I'm not sure if the search link will work or not, so just do a search for "zimride" if you want to see the others.
The brilliance in this idea is that the social networking helps you "know" who it is you are riding with! While other sites and applications could be useful in helping you find a ride somewhere - or even a roommate, romantic partner, and so forth - you don't always know much about the person. With Facebook, you can base your decisions on such things as how many friends the prospective ride has, his interests, how much of his profile is filled-out and available, and so on.
True, you still aren't going to really know who it is you are hitching a ride with, but catching a zimride - I mean, hitchhiking - just became a lot safer.
Zimmer's impetus for the model? He wanted to help young people save money on gas, as well as offer a viable "green" alternative to transportation.
© C Harris Lynn, 2008
If you join the group, you can find other Facebook members who just might be going your way - and hitch a ride with them! And he appears to have started something of a sensible sensation, as several other groups have popped-up with the same idea. I'm not sure if the search link will work or not, so just do a search for "zimride" if you want to see the others.
The brilliance in this idea is that the social networking helps you "know" who it is you are riding with! While other sites and applications could be useful in helping you find a ride somewhere - or even a roommate, romantic partner, and so forth - you don't always know much about the person. With Facebook, you can base your decisions on such things as how many friends the prospective ride has, his interests, how much of his profile is filled-out and available, and so on.
True, you still aren't going to really know who it is you are hitching a ride with, but catching a zimride - I mean, hitchhiking - just became a lot safer.
Zimmer's impetus for the model? He wanted to help young people save money on gas, as well as offer a viable "green" alternative to transportation.
© C Harris Lynn, 2008
Saturday, July 26, 2008
Attacks on Net Flaw
According to experts and analysts, highly-organized attacks on many sites have already begun, following the leak of sensitive security information following the discovery of an exploit in the structure announced last month.
Now all firms are being told to patch quickly.
The vulnerability allows savvy hackers to reroute browsers, even if the users has entered the correct site. This can be extremely dangerous for sites containing sensitive information. A phisher could publish a site similar to that of PayPal's and then retrieve your personal information when you enter it.
© C Harris Lynn, 2008
Now all firms are being told to patch quickly.
The vulnerability allows savvy hackers to reroute browsers, even if the users has entered the correct site. This can be extremely dangerous for sites containing sensitive information. A phisher could publish a site similar to that of PayPal's and then retrieve your personal information when you enter it.
© C Harris Lynn, 2008
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Embracing the Digital Age
I recently spoke to a friend I've known for years about possibly moving out of state with me. He is young (nearly 10 years younger than myself, actually) and he has always grown-up with the level of technology many of us are still adjusting to (well, not me; I'm an uber-nerd - but I digress). Yet he declined because he is trying to go to college!
Whether or not he will actually attend college is not the point of this post - nor is whether or not he was simply using this as an excuse to avoid the issue. What struck me about this exchange was that this was even still a matter for debate!
With online education expanding daily, traditional universities - like all other traditional methods - are becoming increasingly out-dated. While one could argue the point, consider this: can you imagine a modern college without computers?
While some fossils will argue the merits of one-on-one teaching, "being there," and all that "face-to-face, we're losing our interpersonal skills and relationships" nonsense, with high-speed access spreading and becoming more affordable, the Web is poised to tackle all of these fallacious limitations head-on. Video, netmeetings, VoIP, social networking, e-mail and IM, and emerging technologies defeat all of these excuses - not to mention solve them in ways no traditional means ever can:
The rest of us should not be retarded by them.
© C Harris Lynn, 2008
Whether or not he will actually attend college is not the point of this post - nor is whether or not he was simply using this as an excuse to avoid the issue. What struck me about this exchange was that this was even still a matter for debate!
With online education expanding daily, traditional universities - like all other traditional methods - are becoming increasingly out-dated. While one could argue the point, consider this: can you imagine a modern college without computers?
While some fossils will argue the merits of one-on-one teaching, "being there," and all that "face-to-face, we're losing our interpersonal skills and relationships" nonsense, with high-speed access spreading and becoming more affordable, the Web is poised to tackle all of these fallacious limitations head-on. Video, netmeetings, VoIP, social networking, e-mail and IM, and emerging technologies defeat all of these excuses - not to mention solve them in ways no traditional means ever can:
- One-on-one education? What makes that easier than e-mail or IM?
- Print communications eliminates traditional pupil excuses of "not knowing," and applications such as Web Calendars and effective social networking practices eliminates scheduling conflicts, confusions, and complications.
- "Face-Time"? What does that even mean!? That was never anything more than a buzzword, created by Neo-Luddites who wanted some sort of "edge" over their technologically-savvy competitors. I don't need to smell your breath or wince as you constantly clear your throat to feel I am getting to "know you." In fact, unless there is some higher, personal relationship factor(s) at-play, why do I want to "know you"? You are my instructor and that is as far as our relationship need go.
- You need a computer for college these days - some highschoolers need computers! - what is the point of doing part of your work on a computer, carrying a recorder to lectures, printing-out your homework, ad nauseam? Online education keeps everything centralized and accessible.
- Your personal expenses aside, tuition, communications, legal, insurance, and other institutional expenses - which are, of course, passed-on to the student in one form or another - would be severely curtailed, if not completely eliminated. The massive reduction in overhead would result in dramatically more affordable options, opening-up higher education to many who cannot afford it now.
The rest of us should not be retarded by them.
© C Harris Lynn, 2008
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
NPR Cancels BPP
National Public Radio has canceled its ambitious Bryant Park Project, aimed at drawing-in younger, more media-savvy, listeners.
Unlike most NPR shows, the BPP was available online through daily podcasts, supported by a Facebook page, and updated frequently through Twitter. BPP developed a strong following, particularly among its target audience, who have been quite vocal in their dismay over the news. The cancellation has also been heavily-covered by online news sources and throughout the Blogosphere.
While never an incredibly popular station, NPR has suffered in recent years, due to the general public's perception of the station as too heady and aimed at older audiences. It is true that many of NPR's shows are aimed at older audience members and focus on political, financial, and world issues most younger people are generally uninterested in. Put more simply, young people are more interested in topics and ideas which personally affect them, and though it can be argued that larger political and world issues affect everyone, when you get right down to it, life is better-handled at the local level. BPP hit that local level on a national stage and opened NPR up to its listeners, who could directly react and respond to the stories and staff.
NPR invested a reported $2 million in the BPP, though none of that included publicity, as I myself had never heard of the program until news of its cancellation hit the Web. While my local area does not get a good signal from a NPR outlet, I am online about 20 hours of the day and always seeking reputable, exciting news sources and media; BPP is a project I would have appreciated and been actively involved in - had I been aware of it!
You can voice your concerns and plea for the show's revival by writing NPR.
© C Harris Lynn, 2008
Unlike most NPR shows, the BPP was available online through daily podcasts, supported by a Facebook page, and updated frequently through Twitter. BPP developed a strong following, particularly among its target audience, who have been quite vocal in their dismay over the news. The cancellation has also been heavily-covered by online news sources and throughout the Blogosphere.
While never an incredibly popular station, NPR has suffered in recent years, due to the general public's perception of the station as too heady and aimed at older audiences. It is true that many of NPR's shows are aimed at older audience members and focus on political, financial, and world issues most younger people are generally uninterested in. Put more simply, young people are more interested in topics and ideas which personally affect them, and though it can be argued that larger political and world issues affect everyone, when you get right down to it, life is better-handled at the local level. BPP hit that local level on a national stage and opened NPR up to its listeners, who could directly react and respond to the stories and staff.
NPR invested a reported $2 million in the BPP, though none of that included publicity, as I myself had never heard of the program until news of its cancellation hit the Web. While my local area does not get a good signal from a NPR outlet, I am online about 20 hours of the day and always seeking reputable, exciting news sources and media; BPP is a project I would have appreciated and been actively involved in - had I been aware of it!
You can voice your concerns and plea for the show's revival by writing NPR.
© C Harris Lynn, 2008
Monday, July 14, 2008
The Spam Experiment
No, this is not about what you ate for dinner.
A recent experiment by security firm, McAfee, showed that the average Netizen receives about 70 spam e-mails every day! They invited 50 people from around the world to surf around without spam-blocking software and based their findings on the results.
While spam is a worldwide bandwidth-wasting, time-consuming problem, some opponents say the results were a bit skewed. There are numerous sites at which you can sign-up for newsletters and promotional offers you wish to receive, and some marketers note this is not "spam." What they do not tell you is that, when you sign-up for these promotional offers and information, the company then sells your name to other "opt-in" advertisers who most certainly do spam you!
Signing-up for these "offers" gives the company your personal information, including your general interests and shopping habits. They then compile this data into lists they sell to other companies, who use that information to target you. The Weirding chooses to make no distinction between "commercial" e-mail and spam, largely because there is none; e-mails with nothing but advertising are spam - whether you signed-up for them or not. Many people will sign-up for "newsletters" or to receive "special promotions" from a site or company, only to receive e-mail after e-mail of nothing more than blatant spam.
A whole lot of sites now forego the "opt-in" process, instead tracking your activity through the use of cookies, spyware, and malware they install unbeknownst to you. Whether or not these companies are directly involved in manufacturing or selling anything is regardless; this information is compiled and sold to other companies for direct-marketing purposes. The experiment noticed a shift from mass spamming to a more targeted, direct-marketing approach, proving this.
Nearly 10% of the spam caught during the experiment were classified as "phishing" spam. "Phishing" e-mails ask for important information, such as login names, passwords, account numbers, and more. They are often designed to look like official correspondence from the company. The majority of spam had to do with financial matters, such as pre-approved loans and credit cards. One spokesperson involved said, "spam is undeniably linked to cybercrime."
The United States topped the list.
© C Harris Lynn, 2008
A recent experiment by security firm, McAfee, showed that the average Netizen receives about 70 spam e-mails every day! They invited 50 people from around the world to surf around without spam-blocking software and based their findings on the results.
While spam is a worldwide bandwidth-wasting, time-consuming problem, some opponents say the results were a bit skewed. There are numerous sites at which you can sign-up for newsletters and promotional offers you wish to receive, and some marketers note this is not "spam." What they do not tell you is that, when you sign-up for these promotional offers and information, the company then sells your name to other "opt-in" advertisers who most certainly do spam you!
Signing-up for these "offers" gives the company your personal information, including your general interests and shopping habits. They then compile this data into lists they sell to other companies, who use that information to target you. The Weirding chooses to make no distinction between "commercial" e-mail and spam, largely because there is none; e-mails with nothing but advertising are spam - whether you signed-up for them or not. Many people will sign-up for "newsletters" or to receive "special promotions" from a site or company, only to receive e-mail after e-mail of nothing more than blatant spam.
A whole lot of sites now forego the "opt-in" process, instead tracking your activity through the use of cookies, spyware, and malware they install unbeknownst to you. Whether or not these companies are directly involved in manufacturing or selling anything is regardless; this information is compiled and sold to other companies for direct-marketing purposes. The experiment noticed a shift from mass spamming to a more targeted, direct-marketing approach, proving this.
Nearly 10% of the spam caught during the experiment were classified as "phishing" spam. "Phishing" e-mails ask for important information, such as login names, passwords, account numbers, and more. They are often designed to look like official correspondence from the company. The majority of spam had to do with financial matters, such as pre-approved loans and credit cards. One spokesperson involved said, "spam is undeniably linked to cybercrime."
The United States topped the list.
© C Harris Lynn, 2008
Friday, July 11, 2008
Obscenity Trial Stopped Due to Judge's Obscene Website
A US obscenity trial was halted last month when lawyers discovered the judge for the trial had posted "obscene" images on his own website.
Ira Isaacs is a known smut-peddler who deals in the trashiest of trash: scat, bestiality, etc. This moron calls what he does "art," but as any thinking individual knows, the only idiot that calls pornography "art" is a pornographer. Nevertheless, Isaacs was set to defend his "fetish" porn at his obscenity trial, which started in June.
At the trial, jurors were expected to view several hours of truly base pornography. Isaacs is charged with transporting the materials across state lines and pornography - specifically bestiality and scat "fetish" shit (ha!) - is in no way, shape, form, or fashion Art. The only reason this is not an open and shut case is because Isaacs intends to abuse the First Amendment to further his own ends. While some do this to garner fame and notoriety, and others do it just to challenge the law (because they can), Isaacs and his fellow pornographers do it to recuse themselves of any moral obligation to anyone; this is all about money and has fuck-all to do with Art.
However, jurors were interrupted midway through a film about women who eat shit (literally) and told the trial was to resume the following Monday, due to a "possible conflict of interest."
As it turns out, presiding judge, Alex Kozinski, just so happened to have a lot of adult-oriented material on his own website, including a picture of a naked woman painted like a cow and some scat "fetish."
Kozinski later told a legal website that his film editor son admitted to uploading much of the material and that its intent was humorous, but the trial was still delayed. Kozinski then recused himself from said trial, which has continued.
There are a lot of things we can take from this, but let me note firstly that I am not against pornography, per se; I am against the porn industry - and there is a difference. If you want to show your goodies on film, more power to you; if you want to charge people to see your goodies on film, I might even stand in line; the pornography industry is run by creeps too jaded to be called "perverts" who lure and entice young people into signing-away their image and the acts they perform for a pittance (which seems princely to the struggling youths at the time) and then profit off those rights in perpetuity. There are no sex-workers unions for the pornography industry and it has been shutdown at least twice in the past several years due to AIDS/HIV outbreaks. There is no porn "star" who receives residuals for their "performances," excepting those who run their own lines or production studios (and possibly some of the bigger names who are under contract - not sure about that).
I honestly see no real conflict of interest here. So what if Kozinski likes a little raw footage? Most of the content on his site did have humorous elements and none of it was any different than most of the crap friends and family forward me! Further, there is a huge difference between viewing said smut and creating it; if Kozinski's site had been rife with self-produced/created pornographic content - regardless of the nature (fetish, hardcore, whatever else) - then there would certainly be a conflict of interest, but since it was not, this whole thing was blown way out of proportion as it was not truly relevant to the trial.
The main thing to note here is that there is no "privacy" online. If you upload secure documents to a secured server to be held in a private folder, someone can still get to them and figure out how to see them! Deleting them will not cover your tracks, and the content will still be accessible for... basically ever.
Kozinski did the best thing in this situation and I applaud him for that: he took responsibility for the matter (admitting that, though his son likely uploaded most of the content, he had also uploaded some content of an adult nature), disabled all public access to his personal site, and recused himself from the trial.
The irony here is, in a legal trial focusing on Freedom of Speech, the judge's own First Amendment rights were denied him and used against him to force him off the bench!
© C Harris Lynn, 2008
Ira Isaacs is a known smut-peddler who deals in the trashiest of trash: scat, bestiality, etc. This moron calls what he does "art," but as any thinking individual knows, the only idiot that calls pornography "art" is a pornographer. Nevertheless, Isaacs was set to defend his "fetish" porn at his obscenity trial, which started in June.
At the trial, jurors were expected to view several hours of truly base pornography. Isaacs is charged with transporting the materials across state lines and pornography - specifically bestiality and scat "fetish" shit (ha!) - is in no way, shape, form, or fashion Art. The only reason this is not an open and shut case is because Isaacs intends to abuse the First Amendment to further his own ends. While some do this to garner fame and notoriety, and others do it just to challenge the law (because they can), Isaacs and his fellow pornographers do it to recuse themselves of any moral obligation to anyone; this is all about money and has fuck-all to do with Art.
However, jurors were interrupted midway through a film about women who eat shit (literally) and told the trial was to resume the following Monday, due to a "possible conflict of interest."
As it turns out, presiding judge, Alex Kozinski, just so happened to have a lot of adult-oriented material on his own website, including a picture of a naked woman painted like a cow and some scat "fetish."
Kozinski later told a legal website that his film editor son admitted to uploading much of the material and that its intent was humorous, but the trial was still delayed. Kozinski then recused himself from said trial, which has continued.
There are a lot of things we can take from this, but let me note firstly that I am not against pornography, per se; I am against the porn industry - and there is a difference. If you want to show your goodies on film, more power to you; if you want to charge people to see your goodies on film, I might even stand in line; the pornography industry is run by creeps too jaded to be called "perverts" who lure and entice young people into signing-away their image and the acts they perform for a pittance (which seems princely to the struggling youths at the time) and then profit off those rights in perpetuity. There are no sex-workers unions for the pornography industry and it has been shutdown at least twice in the past several years due to AIDS/HIV outbreaks. There is no porn "star" who receives residuals for their "performances," excepting those who run their own lines or production studios (and possibly some of the bigger names who are under contract - not sure about that).
I honestly see no real conflict of interest here. So what if Kozinski likes a little raw footage? Most of the content on his site did have humorous elements and none of it was any different than most of the crap friends and family forward me! Further, there is a huge difference between viewing said smut and creating it; if Kozinski's site had been rife with self-produced/created pornographic content - regardless of the nature (fetish, hardcore, whatever else) - then there would certainly be a conflict of interest, but since it was not, this whole thing was blown way out of proportion as it was not truly relevant to the trial.
The main thing to note here is that there is no "privacy" online. If you upload secure documents to a secured server to be held in a private folder, someone can still get to them and figure out how to see them! Deleting them will not cover your tracks, and the content will still be accessible for... basically ever.
Kozinski did the best thing in this situation and I applaud him for that: he took responsibility for the matter (admitting that, though his son likely uploaded most of the content, he had also uploaded some content of an adult nature), disabled all public access to his personal site, and recused himself from the trial.
The irony here is, in a legal trial focusing on Freedom of Speech, the judge's own First Amendment rights were denied him and used against him to force him off the bench!
© C Harris Lynn, 2008
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Microsoft Still Interested in Yahoo!
Microsoft is still interested in striking some kind of deal with Yahoo!, but only if the current board of directors (including co-founder and spokesman, Jerry Yang) are ousted.
Corporate raider and indisputable douchebag, Carl Icahn, who owns 5% of the total Yahoo! stock, has been in talks with Microsoft over the past week. He is trying to have the current board of directors replaced in order to facilitate a Microsoft takeover of the Internet portal.
Microsoft offered Yahoo! $47.5 billion for the company in January of this year, but the offer was rejected. MS then offered to pay $1 billion for only the search functions, with another $8 billion guaranteed as stake in Yahoo!'s other operations. This proposal was also rejected. The news of the possible takeover sent Yahoo! stock prices soaring.
Yahoo! instead partnered with rival search engine and all-around Evil Internet Corporation, Google. This has finally led US anti-trust officials to look into Google's monopoly, as it effectively means the two companies control 80% of the US search advertising market!
Regardless of how this all plays-out, Carl Icahn is a money-hungry douchebag who hasn't the faintest clue as to how the Internet works. And Google is a monopoly.
© C Harris Lynn, 2008
Corporate raider and indisputable douchebag, Carl Icahn, who owns 5% of the total Yahoo! stock, has been in talks with Microsoft over the past week. He is trying to have the current board of directors replaced in order to facilitate a Microsoft takeover of the Internet portal.
Microsoft offered Yahoo! $47.5 billion for the company in January of this year, but the offer was rejected. MS then offered to pay $1 billion for only the search functions, with another $8 billion guaranteed as stake in Yahoo!'s other operations. This proposal was also rejected. The news of the possible takeover sent Yahoo! stock prices soaring.
Yahoo! instead partnered with rival search engine and all-around Evil Internet Corporation, Google. This has finally led US anti-trust officials to look into Google's monopoly, as it effectively means the two companies control 80% of the US search advertising market!
Regardless of how this all plays-out, Carl Icahn is a money-hungry douchebag who hasn't the faintest clue as to how the Internet works. And Google is a monopoly.
© C Harris Lynn, 2008
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Web Security Flaw Discovered Accidentally
A few months back, security expert, Dan Kaminsky accidentally came across a flaw in the whole Web!
The World Wide Web (WWW) is based on URLs which run off the DNS (Domain Name Server) to make things easier for us humans. Each URL (the address of sites and their individual pages) is actually a string of numbers and the DNS allows us to type in words which correspond to these numbers, as opposed to remembering a different string for every site and page we wish to visit.
Dan Kaminsky was surfing-about when he discovered a fundamental flaw in the Web's design which would allow malicious programmers to reroute your browser to a fake website, even if you type-in the correct URL. This type of computer deception is often used for "phishing" schemes. When you are rerouted to the fake website and enter your very real information (username, password, credit card number, etc.), the malicious programmer intercepts that information. He can then go to the actual website and gain access to your account!
When Kaminsky figured this out, he immediately called an Internet Security Summit (technically called a "Nerd-Out" or "Nerding"), which was held in March at Microsoft. The decision was to release multi-platform patches and distribute them to vendors.
The flaw basically works at the server level, but you can check your own computer at Kaminsky's site by clicking the button on the right.
The details of the flaw will not be released for at least another month, in order to give distributors enough time to patch their networks.
© C Harris Lynn, 2008
The World Wide Web (WWW) is based on URLs which run off the DNS (Domain Name Server) to make things easier for us humans. Each URL (the address of sites and their individual pages) is actually a string of numbers and the DNS allows us to type in words which correspond to these numbers, as opposed to remembering a different string for every site and page we wish to visit.
Dan Kaminsky was surfing-about when he discovered a fundamental flaw in the Web's design which would allow malicious programmers to reroute your browser to a fake website, even if you type-in the correct URL. This type of computer deception is often used for "phishing" schemes. When you are rerouted to the fake website and enter your very real information (username, password, credit card number, etc.), the malicious programmer intercepts that information. He can then go to the actual website and gain access to your account!
When Kaminsky figured this out, he immediately called an Internet Security Summit (technically called a "Nerd-Out" or "Nerding"), which was held in March at Microsoft. The decision was to release multi-platform patches and distribute them to vendors.
The flaw basically works at the server level, but you can check your own computer at Kaminsky's site by clicking the button on the right.
The details of the flaw will not be released for at least another month, in order to give distributors enough time to patch their networks.
© C Harris Lynn, 2008
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Firefox Download Record Official
Guinness verified Firefox' download numbers from the June push to set a world record and will present Mozilla with the certificate for Most Downloads in 24 Hours next week in London.
Firefox is, by far, the best browser available today and works on all platforms. An Open Source application, anyone can download the code for the file in order to "hack" it and refashion it to fit their needs. Most users capable of such programming give back to the Mozilla community by creating "add-ons" for the software. These add-ons allow users to customize their Firefox in a myriad of ways, including look and feel (Themes).
The campaign also helped Firefox garner nearly 20% of the browser market; at least 19% of all Netizens now use Firefox as their browsing application. I am one of them and have been for several years now.
Firefox will continue supporting Firefox 2.x until December of this year, at which point users will have to upgrade to continue receiving support. Speaking of which, Mozilla released a vital update to the 2.x software, noting there could be at least five serious vulnerabilities which leave your computer open to attack.
© C Harris Lynn, 2008
Firefox is, by far, the best browser available today and works on all platforms. An Open Source application, anyone can download the code for the file in order to "hack" it and refashion it to fit their needs. Most users capable of such programming give back to the Mozilla community by creating "add-ons" for the software. These add-ons allow users to customize their Firefox in a myriad of ways, including look and feel (Themes).
The campaign also helped Firefox garner nearly 20% of the browser market; at least 19% of all Netizens now use Firefox as their browsing application. I am one of them and have been for several years now.
Firefox will continue supporting Firefox 2.x until December of this year, at which point users will have to upgrade to continue receiving support. Speaking of which, Mozilla released a vital update to the 2.x software, noting there could be at least five serious vulnerabilities which leave your computer open to attack.
© C Harris Lynn, 2008
Monday, July 7, 2008
UK File-Sharers Warned
Virgin Media sent out letters to about 800 customers, warning them that file-sharing was illegal and they could face legal measures if they did not stop. The problem is, many of these users have wi-fi networks and proclaim their innocence.
Other ISPs have similar letter campaigns, but only Virgin Media signed-on to this "joint educational campaign" with BPI. And they may now be regretting it!
Virgin spokespeople noted this was an "education" campaign and said they had no plans to actually boot anyone from the ISP. But the BPI, the body which represents the British recording industry, stringently reminded everyone that they definitely would take someone to court "and [they] will win." Virgin said there was "no possibility" of anyone facing legal action over this and they would not give out personal information.
The simple fact of the matter is that, as one Becky Hogge, executive director of the Open Rights Group, put it, "Stopping illicit file-sharing might not be as effective as... [monetizing] it." However, according to some studies, legal downloading sites make-up just about 10% of all file-sharers.
Of course, the whole matter is very touchy and a truly successful model has yet to be developed, but BPI is taking the matter way too far and they don't care who they topple in the process - ISPs, end-users, it doesn't matter, so long as they get their way. And though the law may be on their side, even the artists themselves may not!
After all, you're never going to start selling music if no one hears it in the first place.
© C Harris Lynn, 2008
Other ISPs have similar letter campaigns, but only Virgin Media signed-on to this "joint educational campaign" with BPI. And they may now be regretting it!
Virgin spokespeople noted this was an "education" campaign and said they had no plans to actually boot anyone from the ISP. But the BPI, the body which represents the British recording industry, stringently reminded everyone that they definitely would take someone to court "and [they] will win." Virgin said there was "no possibility" of anyone facing legal action over this and they would not give out personal information.
The simple fact of the matter is that, as one Becky Hogge, executive director of the Open Rights Group, put it, "Stopping illicit file-sharing might not be as effective as... [monetizing] it." However, according to some studies, legal downloading sites make-up just about 10% of all file-sharers.
Of course, the whole matter is very touchy and a truly successful model has yet to be developed, but BPI is taking the matter way too far and they don't care who they topple in the process - ISPs, end-users, it doesn't matter, so long as they get their way. And though the law may be on their side, even the artists themselves may not!
After all, you're never going to start selling music if no one hears it in the first place.
© C Harris Lynn, 2008
Sunday, July 6, 2008
Update
Sorry for the absence. The first of the month is bill-paying time and with the holiday and weekend being so close this go-round, I got really busy.
You may also notice we dropped all the Google AdSense advertising and I had to replace it with something else. I am working on removing it from across the entire site, which will take a little longer.
At any rate, been really busy, so no excuse, just explaining. Aside from the work, we should be getting back to a more regular schedule this week.
© C Harris Lynn, 2008
You may also notice we dropped all the Google AdSense advertising and I had to replace it with something else. I am working on removing it from across the entire site, which will take a little longer.
At any rate, been really busy, so no excuse, just explaining. Aside from the work, we should be getting back to a more regular schedule this week.
© C Harris Lynn, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
