tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-56674001429080482442024-03-13T03:43:26.677-06:00DoubleDeejLittle old me, talking a little about technologyDoubleDeejhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17039675691236458411noreply@blogger.comBlogger251125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5667400142908048244.post-77008842725994790352017-05-03T16:10:00.001-06:002017-05-03T17:00:20.764-06:00A Plea to Web DevelopersThere’s a growing trend on web sites that require a login, and it is getting annoying. And I can’t see any real upside to the decisions that web site designers and developers are making.<br />
What I’m referring to is sites that attempt to disable password managers. They’ll use all kinds of tricks, ranging from a simple ‘autocomplete=”off”’ to JavaScript that clears the form, to building form elements dynamically so they aren’t picked up by browsers or password managers, among others. <br />
<br />
I believe that they are thinking that this increases a site’s security by preventing unauthorized logins. You know, someone other than the authorized user logging into the site, being able to do so because the password is automatically filled in. While that makes sense, the bigger issue is that they are actually reducing the site’s security with this behavior.<br />
<br />
Why do I say that? Because it forces people to use really, really bad passwords.<br />
<br />
In today’s world, there is basically no such thing as a “good” password generated by a human. People notoriously pick passwords that are way, way too easy to crack. Even when we think we are being clever, some hacker somewhere has already been just as clever and coded the method that we think is unique into a password cracking library. Basically every method you’ve come up with for creating a password, a hacker has already done it.<br />
<br />
So the only good passwords are those that are generated completely randomly. Using what we call a cryptographically secure pseudo random number generator. Only passwords created by a PRNG can be considered secure enough to thwart hacking. They should also be long too – 12 characters at an <em>absolute minimum</em>. These passwords are virtually impossible to remember, especially considering that every web site we visit should have its own unique password. Honestly, could you remember your passwords if every site’s was unique and they looked like x^HsNpeGo}V%Xd~, [lfGY%KW$4McJ(3l, or Jo@Rl-p4Vc7Esy? I seriously doubt it. So people using good, secure passwords use password manager software to generate and remember these kinds of passwords for them.<br />
<br />
(I can honestly say I have no idea what my passwords are on 99% of the web sites I visit. In most cases I’ve never actually even seen them.)<br />
<br />
Unfortunately it seems that many web site developers think you can remember these kinds of passwords. Otherwise they wouldn’t be trying to disable password managers. They are intentionally trying to force you to remember your passwords. So they’re forcing people into using passwords like “monkey123” or “k3lly@96” which they can remember, but would be cracked by a hacker in a matter of seconds (or even milliseconds), and since people are bad at remembering passwords they’ll reuse the same passwords on multiple (if not every) site(s).<br />
<br />
So while their intended effect is to prevent unauthorized logins, what they’ve effectively done is make their user’s accounts much easier to hack. Not only are their user’s passwords bad, they’re probably the same as another site that has already been hacked. <br />
<br />
Intended effect: improved security, actual effect: horrendous security. The law of unintended consequences strikes again.<br />
<br />
So, please, if you are in charge of designing or developing a web site, resist the urge to prevent users’ browsers or password managers from filling passwords in for them. The site will be far more secure if you actually allow users to use secure passwords.<br />
<br />
(While I’m on the subject, having a site suggest a secure password when a user creates an account isn’t a bad idea either. It should be displayed on the page so they can see what it is, as well as pre-filled into the password fields. Most browsers and password managers will automatically pick up on data pre-filled into those fields and save it for the user. Oh, and <u>always</u> use HTTPS for any page that requests or displays account data.)<br />
<br />
P.S. You can always get a truly random password from my <a href="https://password.maxoutput.com/" target="_blank">web site</a>. The passwords aren’t saved anywhere, and only you ever see it.<br />
<br />
P.P.S. If you aren’t using a password manager, you should be. The one I like is <a href="https://www.lastpass.com/" target="_blank">LastPass</a>. If you’re concerned about your passwords being accessible to someone, just choose a really, really good password for your account. These sites include your account password as part of the encryption key, so nobody can get to your password data without it. And you can make it even harder to crack by turning on Two-Step Authentication too.DoubleDeejhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17039675691236458411noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5667400142908048244.post-85128632470985583232017-03-16T14:45:00.001-06:002017-03-16T15:43:05.650-06:00How I’ve Eliminated Spam EmailsSpam (junk) email is a pretty serious problem. I haven’t seen a statistic lately, but the last time I did, it was that more than 90% of email being sent on the Internet is spam. Yikes! That’s absolutely awful.<br />
<br />
<img align="left" alt="You Have Mail" src="https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/paIpyQSRbOQESX8iuK8kSVcWXZlPKW7qiMwnuhjPJSgt_uPDDHlnC7GL2m3GL9tHmSQDIEvIxQ0RC2V3TnON0chUhx40esfrNEGSiJSd5_MIDYRiWymP0ZkpnOO33t64vxVXcijrnbJ93-e3Ebw_4Rd5Z6AsBs16TGc62G5PyehS5ySnYrWxnEBNpyeqaF_gA_l53_2s-w1pogznDHIYZeQEKvxAGzr_zKq1u15T3iE-bFmPfQECEHgELR6tR3C3zrZvao7P38QWIUi0qJmxuUpA7qKmEe7o1U7Vjl0_eBKMg95XJUZvihDs9hw5PaBKcm2IWFmIyxDx1xpfxkUcOFTP9xUkC0atZjGBBcLfw8QxOSgCh9FMJsOjc4nI7RHJYknfy3vNoaP7TxUF7n4HX7xoq82LZRd03jwfE9xQiwtHcFbiWWdoyPcCyYDsalPcbiQQ1j8Q3RPy9iT0OSq3asDY8kdgT7LYY6r5IZQH5g0ixnLOKmXgvzARJ7p0kEGeNRGbVExGV6GHru0rAf3iMYWEuMREHV-TV32mNcslv3Wr_umRhU6aZULm0koUef5OvPtQKEUBJ-deFHkcC6axMmfvDVPXNzccnjPttwMzTTGtCtbA-Ijf=s320-no" style="display: inline; float: left;" title="Email" />I feel a little disconnected from the problem, though. I don’t get spam. At least not more than a couple times a month. And the funny thing is, it actually wasn’t that hard to eliminate it. Without having to worry about <em>any</em> real email being flagged as spam, <em>ever</em>.<br />
<br />
Before I jump into my solution, let’s talk about why spam is such a problem. It basically boils down to the easy access that spammers have to email address lists. It is trivial for someone who wants to send out mass emails to find a list of email addresses on the Internet. They are available all over the place. And if your address happens to be on the list, well, unless your spam filter is exceptionally amazing, you’ll be getting at least some of it. And once your address is on a list, there’s no way to take it off. So as long as your email address is still valid, you’ll keep getting more and more of it.<br />
<br />
Where do these lists come from? Based on my own experience (you’ll understand how I know this in a minute) they tend to come from web sites that have been hacked. Many, many websites have been hacked over the years, some of them even major players – Yahoo, Adobe, LinkedIn, Dropbox, and MySpace just to name a few. And chances are that you’re using at least one of those sites, so your email address is in a spammer’s database. And there is, unfortunately, nothing you can do about that.<br />
<br />
Most companies that provide email services take a reactive approach to try to eliminate spam. That is, they put a lot of time and money into coming up with intelligent filters that will try to detect spam and delete it, or at a minimum mark it as such and stick it in a folder for you to review later. It works – kind of – but not without a few legitimate email messages being detected as spam when they shouldn’t be. So they have to keep most of the spam around for you to review manually. It’s an ugly solution.<br />
<br />
So what can be done if your address is already on their lists and it can’t be removed? How can we fight back? There isn’t much you can do, honestly, once they have your address. There’s no way to edit those lists. But I came up with a solution to the problem more than a decade ago and it has worked flawlessly that whole time.<br />
<br />
The trick is that I have my own internet domain name just for my email. There’s no web site or any other server there – it’s just for email. I won’t disclose what it is publically for obvious reasons, but for the sake of discussion we’ll say it is secretemail.tld. And on that domain, I accept any email sent to any address. (It’s called a catchall.) So doug@secretemail.tld, junk@secretemail.tld, xyzxyzxyz@secretemail.tld, jane@secretemail.tld, etc. are all valid email addresses that all go to the same email inbox. I get all of it, in one place. I don’t have to create a new account for each address I give out because anything in front of the @ works.<br />
<br />
Because anything in front of the @ is valid, whenever someone – anyone – asks for my email address, I give them something unique, usually based on who it is that is asking. For example, if I’m creating an account at Amazon, the email address I give them is amazon@secretemail.tld. Google? google@secretemail.tld. Apple gets apple@secretemail.tld, and so on. They can all send me email, and I will get it. <br />
<br />
(I do get some strange looks occasionally when I do this. Or questions like, “Do you work at Target?” when giving a Target cashier that address. Or, “Do you have an email account setup just for Jamba Juice?” [Well, I kind of do…] They don’t get it, which is to my advantage.)<br />
<br />
So here’s where this all pays off, though… these addresses are disposable. And since spammers all use the same email databases over and over again, if one of those @secretemail.tld addresses that I’ve given out is included in one of those lists, I block <u>all</u> incoming email sent to that one particular address. The address is thrown away and never used again. So if LinkedIn had linkedin@secretemail.tld as my email address when it was hacked, I’ll log into the site, change the email address in that account to something else (maybe even as simple as linkedin2@secretemail.tld), then add linkedin@secretemail.tld to my block list. LinkedIn can still communicate with me, but now the spammers that have that address cannot. If they try, they get an “email address doesn’t exist” error before they can even try to send the body of the message. Anyone that tries to use that original, leaked email address is rejected outright, no matter what they are trying to send me. Once the address has been compromised I block all attempts to use it.<br />
<br />
Using this method, I get no more than a couple junk email messages per month, if that. It is <em>very</em> rare. If I do happen to get one, it is very easy to prevent the email address they’ve used from ever working again, thus cutting them and anyone else that has that address off forever. The other upside is that I never have to worry about legitimate email messages being tossed into a junk mail folder. Because I don’t have one – at all!<br />
<br />
The other upside to this is that companies that intentionally share my email address also get blocked. And they don't get a new email address from me, so I never have to hear from them again. Anyone that abuses the privilege of having my email address loses it permanently.<br />
<br />
I know what you’re thinking… if I accept anything sent to any address at that domain, wouldn’t that open me up to tons of spam? Because anyone can send anything to any address at that domain and it won’t get blocked? Well, you’d think so… but in reality that just hasn’t happened. So far none of the spammers out there have figured out my trick, or at least if they have it isn’t worth their time to try to circumvent it. I keep my fingers crossed, obviously… but if someone someday does figure out my trick, I’ll find another way to keep them out… perhaps creating a simple list of addresses that I’ll accept. But in reality, though, it isn’t worth their time to figure out a workaround. I’m not the low-hanging fruit and their efforts are better focused elsewhere if they want a return on their investment.<br />
<br />
Google sort-of does something similar, but it doesn’t actually help. Anyone with a Gmail account can give out a unique address. Google ignores anything after a plus sign in a gmail address, so if your Gmail account is mygoogleaccount@gmail.com, you can give out mygoogleaccount+yahoo@gmail.com as your email address and you’ll still get the message. The bad part about that is that spammers know this, so all they have to do is strip anything after the plus sign and they have your real email address, and there’s no way for you to know where they got your address. So this trick doesn’t necessarily help in eliminating spam, but it can help you in identifying where someone got your email address (sometimes).<br />
<br />
In terms of my solution, it’s kind of amazing that something so simple has worked so well. But the truth is, that it has worked. I still have a couple other spam protection tools installed on my server, but they just aren’t ever kicking in, and I still don't get spam. Having a list of addresses to block that have leaked has cured the problem.<br />
<br />
The spam problem overall isn’t going to be going away any time soon. As long as even a handful of people click on the links, it is totally worth it to spammers to keep doing what they’re doing. It costs so little to send out millions of emails that even if 1% of 1% click on a link, it’s worth the spammer’s investment. And since we can’t convince that 1% of 1% to stop it, it’s just going to keep coming. At least to everyone but me. :)<br />
<br />
If a solution like this interests you, I can give some guidance on how to set it up (you’d need your own server and technical knowledge of how to administer it, though if you already have all of that you could probably figure the rest out on your own), or even give you some space on my server for a small fee. Reply below and I’ll be in touch.DoubleDeejhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17039675691236458411noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5667400142908048244.post-48559878357388860342015-09-30T23:46:00.001-06:002015-10-26T13:21:24.519-06:00Making the Most of Your Device’s BatteryThere seems to be a lot of misinformation out there about the best way to care for the battery in your cell phone, laptop, tablet, or other electronic device. It seems that most people have not been given proper instructions on how to best care for their batteries, and they end up wearing them out prematurely. By taking care of your battery, you can make your device perform optimally for years.<br />
<br />
Technology has changed quite a bit over the years, that’s for certain. And so have the batteries that power our devices, and the chargers that keep them running. Unfortunately much of society hasn’t been taught how to care for them to get the most out of them. So let’s set the record straight.<br />
<br />
<strong>Myth: I should let the battery on my device drain all the way down before charging it again.</strong><br />
<br />
Fact: This was true in the days we used NiCd rechargeable batteries in our devices. Very few devices still use NiCds; they are heavy and hold relatively little energy. Today, we use Lithium Ion batteries, and draining a Li-ion battery shortens its life dramatically. In fact, in some cases when a Li-ion battery is drained all of the way it won’t accept a charge at all. Bad things happen to Li-ion batteries when they are allowed to get too low.<br />
<br />
For example, if a Li-ion battery is allowed to fully discharge, it will only accept a few hundred charges before it dies. If a battery is only allowed to dip to 90% charge each time it is used, it will be good for many thousands of charge cycles. A properly cared-for battery can last for many, many years. A battery improperly cared for can become useless in under a year.<br />
<br />
<strong>Myth: It is bad to leave my device plugged in all of the time.</strong><br />
<strong><br /></strong>
Fact: For devices with really primitive charging circuitry, this is actually true. These devices would overcharge a battery, and damage it. <br />
<br />
But those days are behind us. Any modern cell phone, laptop, or tablet has intelligent charging circuitry that shuts off the charger when the battery is full, eliminating the need to unplug when the battery is charged. You don’t need to unplug manually.<br />
<br />
You may even see evidence of the intelligent charger. If your device’s battery charge actually drops while plugged in, this is the intelligent circuitry doing its job, turning on and off to prevent unnecessary wear and tear. Most devices hide this on/off cycle from you, though, so even devices that stay at 100% when plugged in are still managing your battery properly.<br />
<br />
<strong>Myth: It doesn’t matter when I plug my device in, the battery is going to wear out in a couple years anyway.</strong><br />
<strong><br /></strong>
Fact: Batteries actually do have a limited number of charge cycles that they can handle. And each charge cycle holds just a little bit less energy than the previous. But the loss in total capacity can be minimized by making sure that batteries aren’t drained any more than they need to be. The way you handle charging your device can extend or shorten its life significantly. Deep discharges wear out a battery faster than letting the battery drop just a few percent before plugging it back in. To maximize the life of your battery, just plug in whenever you can.<br />
<br />
<strong>Myth: It isn’t good for a battery to only let it discharge a little bit before plugging it back in.</strong><br />
<strong><br /></strong>
Fact: The Lithium Ion batteries that power our devices actually last longer when they aren’t allowed to discharge much. They last longer when their charge isn’t allowed to drop. They “like” to be constantly topped off. The old NiCd batteries we used years ago worked best when discharged fully before charging, but the Lithium Ion batteries we use today wear out faster when allowed to discharge. So plug in to keep your devices topped off whenever you can.<br />
<br />
<strong>Myth: Lithium Ion batteries are dangerous, and can explode, especially if overcharged.</strong><br />
<strong><br /></strong>
Fact: Lithium Ion batteries are potentially dangerous. If allowed to overheat they can catch fire –violently – and even explode. Fortunately, reputable manufacturers place multiple failsafes into modern batteries to prevent this from happening. The number of cases of batteries overheating or exploding has dropped dramatically in recent years.<br />
<br />
But because batteries have to be designed and built properly to prevent overheating, fires, and explosions, you should avoid purchasing no-name aftermarket batteries. You just can’t be sure if they’re built with the same level of protection as batteries from the original device manufacturer. It just doesn’t pay to buy batteries from brands you don’t know you can trust.<br />
<br />
<strong>Myth: All Lithium Ion batteries are the same, so it doesn’t matter if I buy a cheap no-name replacement.</strong><br />
<strong><br /></strong>
Fact: Batteries are most definitely not all created equal. Aftermarket batteries often hold less of a charge than the originals (even when labeled as if they held more), and very often aren’t built with the same level of protections against fire and explosion. They also tend to wear out faster. It generally isn’t worth it to buy batteries from anyone other than the original device manufacturer, or at least a trusted brand. <br />
<br />
<strong>Myth: The battery in my device can’t be replaced. The cover can’t be removed.</strong><br />
<strong><br /></strong>
Fact: We have certainly seen a trend in recent years for device manufacturers to take away the ability for owners to swap out a battery by removing access covers. But in most cases, batteries can still be replaced by a qualified service center. Don’t be tempted to throw away an old phone just because it doesn’t hold a charge very well. Replace the battery and keep using the device, or donate it to someone else who can enjoy it. (Reusing is better than recycling, and far better than discarding.)<br />
<br />
<strong>Myth: It’s okay to use an aftermarket charger.</strong><br />
<strong><br /></strong>
Fact: It depends on what type of charger you’re talking about. If you’re talking about a charger that you plug into a phone or tablet, it may not matter what charger you use in terms of the life of your battery. But if you’re talking about a charger that you insert a loose battery directly into, it can make all of the difference in the world. Cheap battery chargers don’t often have the intelligence that they need to maintain a battery properly. Stick to chargers from the original manufacturers, or at least a well-known and well-respected brand.<br />
<br />
<b>Myth: If I don't have time to fully charge the battery, I shouldn't plug my device in to charge because short charging cycles harm my battery.</b><br />
<br />
Fact: False. Even short charging cycles are helpful. Plug in whenever you can.<br />
<strong><br /></strong>
<strong>Myth: Using a charger with a higher milliamp rating than the original will damage a device/battery.</strong><br />
<strong><br /></strong>
Fact: The milliamp rating on a charger is simply the maximum amount of current that it can potentially put out. It doesn’t mean that it will force more current into a device than it can handle. If a device is designed to draw 500mA, and you plug it into a 1000mA charger, the device will still draw just 500mA. It is generally just fine to use a charger with a higher milliamp rating, so long as the voltage is correct.<br />
<br />
<strong>Myth: I should never allow my battery to drain fully.</strong><br />
<strong><br /></strong>
Fact: Okay, well, yes, you should never drain the battery all the way until your device shuts itself off. That is bad. But it is a good idea to drain your battery down to 10% or so a couple times per year. Not because doing so is actually good for the battery, but because it is actually good for the device it is powering. It is quite difficult for devices to figure out the charge level of Lithium Ion devices (it involves a lot of guesswork), and putting a device through a discharge / recharge cycle gives the device a chance to re-learn how your battery is operating. You’ll be rewarded with a more accurate gauge of the amount of battery life you have left.<br />
<br />
<strong>Myth: It isn’t worth it to do anything to improve the battery life of my device.</strong><br />
<strong><br /></strong>
Fact: Because draining a Li-ion battery is bad for it, you can extend the life of your device’s battery by taking a few steps to reduce the amount of battery charge being used. Things like changing the amount of time a device sits idle before automatically going to sleep, reducing the brightness of your screen, using Wi-Fi instead of a cellular connection, or closing apps you aren’t using can make a huge difference, and can extend the life of your battery dramatically.<br />
<br />
<strong>Myth: It is okay to throw away a used battery in the trash.</strong><br />
<strong><br /></strong>
Fact: Nope. Lithium Ion batteries should always be recycled. It is easy to do; most electronics and office supply stores will recycle old batteries for you at no charge (pun intended).<br />
<br />
<b>Myth: Batteries perform differently based on temperature.</b><br />
<br />
Fact: This one is actually true. A warm battery doesn't output as much energy as one at room temperature. Likewise, a cold battery doesn't output as much as one at room temperature. Batteries operate most ideally at the same temperatures that we as humans do. <br />
<br />
Similarly, batteries charge best at room temperature as well. A cold battery won't charge as fast as one at room temperature. And trying to charge a hot battery isn't a good idea. So if your device is too warm or too cold, give it some time to return to room temperature before plugging it in.<br />
<br />
Batteries which become too warm are also damaged by the heat. A battery that overheats because the device is in the sun, or is hot because the electronics inside have gotten warm, can easily be permanently damaged. <br />
<br />
<b>Myth: It's okay to use a battery which has swelled up.</b><br />
<br />
Fact: A battery which has been overcharged or overheated can sometimes swell up and become larger than it is intended to be. These are potentially dangerous to use. The act of swelling up can damage some of the protection circuitry inside. Once a battery has swelled it should be properly recycled and replaced. There is no way to repair a swelled-up battery.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: 8pt;"><b>Myth: You have oversimplified how to care for a battery here.</b><br />
<br />
Fact: Okay, yes, I have oversimplified a bit. I'm aware that my advice isn't 100% accurate. I'm aware that modern electronics do push batteries harder than they maybe should. But I feel my advice is still good because actual battery best practices are too complicated and nobody would ever actually attempt to follow those rules exactly. We aren't NASA using devices that have to survive in space for a decade. Nobody would be happy with the battery life of their devices if they followed actual best practices, nobody would take the time to monitor their devices that closely to maintain them perfectly, and any potential damage done by following my advice compared to ideal is for all practical purposes insignificant. Device owners can benefit significantly from the advice here compared to how they are likely handling their devices now. So I've opted to simplify the rules to make them easier to follow. So please forgive me for not over-complicating the matter.</span>DoubleDeejhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17039675691236458411noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5667400142908048244.post-19033674228181143912015-08-11T16:04:00.001-06:002015-08-11T16:04:28.586-06:00Why I Don’t Buy Digital Movies<p>With the availability of iTunes and other digital video services, I hear a lot of people talk about how they don’t buy DVDs any longer.  I hear things like “I don’t want to take up space with all of those cases” or “my kids destroy DVDs” – which make sense, but at the same time I can’t bring myself to give up my physical media.</p> <p>For me, though, digital video distribution (DVD?) plays a supporting role rather than the primary role in building my video collection.  I don’t purchase movies digitally – I buy the discs.  Almost always Blu-ray discs, actually, since normally when I watch movies they’re being projected on a 100” screen, and DVD can fall apart at that size.  So do streaming services, to some degree, as well, but this isn’t the reason I choose not to invest in digital.  It’s more basic than that.</p> <p>The main reason is that I don’t trust that these services are going to be around in ten years.  And I don’t want my investment to be lost.</p> <p>History already tells us that we can’t rely on these services, no matter who is backing them.  Several big players have already tried and failed, including Wal-Mart and Target.  And when they fail, you lose what you’ve bought.</p> <p>I know what you’re thinking… that Apple’s iTunes isn’t going to go away.  Maybe not.  At least not now.  But can you actually believe that Apple, if they’re still around in 20 years, is still going to be supporting a service that old?  They don’t support any services more than a few years old now.  There’s just no way that they’ll actually still make your movies available to you that far in the future.  Technology changes too fast.  Twenty years in the technology world is an eternity.  Very few tech companies make it that long.  </p> <p>Owning the discs ensures that I’ll be able to watch them 10, 15, or more years in the future.  Even if (when) manufacturers stop making Blu-ray players in the future, the players I own today will still play those discs moving forward.  Yes, we’ll see improvements in picture quality with new tech like 4K and HDR moving forward, but Blu-ray is pretty good – it’s virtually the same level of quality currently projected in your local theater – and many movies have actually been shot in HD-like resolution, so in those cases a higher quality version usually doesn’t even exist.  And unless you’re sitting really close to very large screen, newer technologies won’t even provide any additional discernable picture detail. (Though HDR, if it catches on, has the potential to improve things considerably.)</p> <p>The other big reason I still buy discs is convenience.  I don’t want to be without a way to watch a movie if my Internet goes down, I’m travelling somewhere where I don’t have Internet access, or it isn’t fast enough to stream a movie reliably.  Maybe in 5-10 years our Internet access will be more reliable and high speed will be more ubiquitous, but I just can’t count on it.  And will the streaming service you’ve invested n still be around at that time?  There’s no way to know.</p> <p>That said, it isn’t like I don’t use digital video services, because I do.  They’re just my backup.  Most movies I buy come with a code to unlock digital versions.  And if they don’t, I’ve really found Vudu’s <a href="http://www.vudu.com/in_home_disc_to_digital.html" target="_blank">Disc-to-Digital</a> program to be very handy.  <em>(Tip: If you use the service, do the conversions at home on your own computer, and convert more than 10 discs at a time for a 50% discount.)</em> I can’t convert all of my movies to digital, but I can certainly convert enough of them that I’m generally not left wanting when I want to stream a movie. I’ve got 241 on Vudu right now, so I’ve got plenty to choose from.</p> <p>In any case, I know that everyone’s situation is different.  But I would encourage you to think about the future when making your video purchases.  Would you care if your selected service shut down in 5 years?  Would it bother you if you lost your investment because they’ve gone belly-up, or choose not to support it any longer?  It’s something to consider.</p> DoubleDeejhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17039675691236458411noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5667400142908048244.post-85256623334332087332014-10-14T02:42:00.001-06:002014-10-14T02:42:52.692-06:00Why Web Sites Don’t Need to Store Your Password<p>It seems counterintuitive, but web sites that require logins don’t actually need to store your password.  And they actually shouldn’t – it is a very bad idea to do so.   We see too many leaks of account databases for it to ever be safe to store passwords in any form, even if encrypted.</p> <p>So how can a site validate a login if it doesn’t store the password?  The answer is something really cool called a hash function.  I know your eyes just glazed over, but bear with me, the concept is actually simple.</p> <p>A hash function is a way of processing data that is one-way… you can put data in, and always get the same result coming out, but there is no way to reverse the process to get back the original data.  I won’t get into the specifics of how hashes actually work, but I can describe a very simple hash that will illustrate the principle.</p> <p>Say, for the sake of simplicity, we are creating a web site that uses a 4-digit PIN as a password to log in.  We know that storing the PIN itself is dangerous because it could be leaked out or viewed by site administrators, so instead we add up the four digits and store that sum.  So if my PIN is 2468, we store 20 (2+4+6+8) in the database.  When we go back to the site to log in, the site can add up the four digits we enter for the PIN, compare that result against the sum in the database, and validate that we know what the correct PIN number is.  A hacker that gets his hands on the database only knows that the sum of the digits is 20… he can’t possibly know that the original PIN was 2468.  They’d have to guess what the original PIN number was by trying different combinations.</p> <p>Of course this is overly simplified.  This demonstration hash function wouldn’t really work in the real world because it is too easy to figure out combinations that would let hackers in.  This situation is called a collision… 8642, 5555, 8282, 1991, and 6446 all produce the same hash value of 20.  But real hash functions used for account login verification are much, much more complicated, and aren’t normally subject to problems with collisions.  But you get the idea.  Instead of storing the actual password, we store a value that is <em>calculated from the password</em>.  We can validate that someone knows the password without actually storing that password.</p> <p>This has other advantages as well.  For example, using a hash function there is no limit to the length of the password, because hash result values are always the same length regardless of the amount of data going in.  Someone could enter 6 letters, or 200 random symbols, and either one can be hashed down to a value of a standard length that can be stored in the database.  </p> <p>Because of this, you can sometimes tell web sites that don’t use hashes to securely store passwords because they enforce a maximum length for passwords.  This isn’t always the case, but it can be one indicator that the site’s security has been poorly designed.  But if you are signing up for an account on a web site and they have a low limit on the length of the password, like 12 characters, you might look for other signs of poor site security or privacy policies.  And definitely don’t reuse a password from another site.  Or just steer clear.</p> <p>The down side to using hashes is that if you forget your password the site has no way of sending it to you… because they actually don’t know it.  That is why sites generate a brand-new, random passwords that they send to you via email when you forget your password.  They honestly have no idea what your password was, so the only solution is to create a new one and use that temporarily until you create your own.</p> <p>The whole process is considerably more complicated than I’ve described here – or at least it should be.  Just using a hash isn’t sufficient, either, because we’ve got affordable computers these days that can calculate billions of hashes per second and are therefore capable of brute-forcing short passwords very quickly.  (A 6-letter password, for example, would be cracked hundreds of times over in just one second using a simple hash).  But for a site to use a hash on passwords is one step in the right direction.</p> DoubleDeejhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17039675691236458411noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5667400142908048244.post-15972718059888933972014-10-11T18:53:00.001-06:002014-10-11T18:59:14.213-06:00Canon vs. Nikon vs. SonyWe’re all familiar with the expression “the grass is always greener on the other side of the hill.” This applies in many areas of life. And, of course, that means photography. <br />
<br />
I’m primarily a Canon shooter. I use a Canon 6D as my primary camera, with several other bodies for backup or other shooting situations. I’ve currently got 5 working Canon DSLRs, as well as three film bodies, and I’ve amassed quite a large collection of lenses, flashes, and other gear as well. And I’ve been very happy with all of it. But sometimes you start to doubt your choices when you start reading articles online about how Nikon’s and Sony’s cameras are capable of producing images with more detail, greater dynamic range of bright vs. dark, and a wider range of colors. Did I choose the wrong brand? Am I making a mistake by sticking with what I’ve got? Or should I sell it all and switch?<br />
<br />
So I’ve spent a bit of time reading up on what the advantages and disadvantages of the different brands are. I even bought a Nikon camera and couple of lenses so I could see what they offer. I’ll save my conclusion for the end, so bear with me for a bit.<br />
<br />
I’m making all comparisons between similar models… so, for example when I make a statement about a feature, I’m referring to competing models between brands… I won’t compare features on high-end models of one brand to low-end models of another brand. I’m trying to be as objective and honest as I can be.<br />
<h3>
Bodies</h3>
If I were to go by specifications alone, both Nikon and Sony produce camera bodies that have more detail in terms of resolution, dynamics, and breadth of colors. The numbers are pretty clear on that. As far as Nikon goes, they’ve stuck with the more traditional SLR design, with an optical viewfinder and reflex mirror that moves out of the way of the sensor when shooting an image, whereas Sony is producing basically all mirrorless designs, relying on electronic viewfinders. I won’t really get much into the reflex vs. mirrorless debate here, but I do prefer the optical viewfinder because of its significantly higher resolution and lack of delay. Someday mirrorless designs may make up for those issues, but as someone who usually shoots with manual focus, the highest resolution viewfinder is essentially a must-have for me.<br />
<br />
In terms of autofocus ability, each brand has standout models. I don’t really believe that any brand has an inherent advantage over another. Having used both Canon and Nikon bodies, I prefer the way that the Canon models work. Especially in low-light situations.<br />
<h4>
Video</h4>
As of today, Sony probably has the advantage of the best looking video when comparing models with similar feature sets. Canon is the other standout here, with its pretty amazing DualPixel autofocus on the 70D. Both Nikon and Sony produce images with more detail. Nikon still seems to have trouble with the “Jello” effect more than the other two brands, though they have gotten better. Certain Canon models have more moiré issues than the others, so that needs to be considered as well.<br />
<h4>
Lenses</h4>
Here’s the make-or-break for me… whatever brand I go with has to have good quality lenses, and a wide variety of them, at affordable prices. I’ve found that sticking with OEM lenses usually gets you the best results when compatibility, affordability, and autofocus are taken into consideration. <br />
So here’s the bottom line… Sony’s selection of lenses pales in comparison to both Canon and Nikon. The difference is huge. There are less than a dozen lenses for the Sony “A” series, which is really the only line I’d potentially be interested in. So, for me, Sony is out. They have some amazing lenses, but being limited to just a few (especially considering their cost) isn’t viable for me. For people without sophisticated lens needs, and significant budgets, Sony could be a great choice. I use a really wide variety of lenses, especially primes. I really don’t think I’d be able to give that up. <br />
<br />
So I’m back to the traditional Canon vs. Nikon debate. What I’ve found, though, when researching this (primarily on dxomark.com, though many YouTube review videos are being taken into consideration) is that unless you’re willing to spend a lot of money on Nikon lenses, that Nikon’s image quality really suffers relative to equivalent Canon lenses. Nikon produces just a handful of lenses that autofocus on the less expensive bodies under $1000 that are rated to give more than about 10 megapixels of resolution, whereas Canon has a lot to choose from. Comparing Canon to Nikon lenses, in almost every case the Canons do better in terms of sharpness. Which for me is the most important thing. I don’t want to spend time taking images only to come home and find out that they are always soft. It is especially true with prime lenses, where Canon has a huge advantage. Canon’s lenses often resolve nearly twice as much detail as the Nikon equivalents.<br />
<br />
Take the Nikon AF 50mm f/1.8D vs. the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8. The Nikon gets a 8 MP score for its sharpness, whereas the Canon gets 14MP. And the Canon is cheaper. And it autofocuses on all bodies, not just the high-end models like the Nikon (Nikon “AF” lenses do not autofocus on the D3xxx or D5xxx series of cameras – you have to step up to “AF-S’' lenses or a more expensive body for that). The difference in performance between these two lenses isn’t at all atypical comparing equivalent models. <br />
<br />
To be fair, Nikon also offers a 50mm AF-S f/1.8G lens, which does autofocus on all bodies, and gets a 15 MP score, but it is more than twice as expensive as Canon’s ($220 vs. $100). And it is the only one of a few primes in Nikon’s lineup under $1000 that gets a score over 10 MP. Every one of Canon’s prime lenses scores 14 MP or higher. Performance with kit lenses included with camera bodies is similar… Canon’s are all better. For all of the love that Nikon gets from its owners, I was shocked at the difference. And choices on the Nikon side become much more scarce if having autofocus on a lower-end body is a requirement. I think there are only two AF-S Nikon primes under $1000 able to resolve 14 MP of detail or better. Canon has over a dozen.<br />
<br />
One could argue that you don’t have to go with OEM lenses. And that is true. My own experience with third-party lenses, though, has been disappointing. Not necessarily in terms of image quality (though they do often lag behind), but of build quality. Every third-party lens I’ve ever bought has broken on me. Every single one. But I’ve never had anything go wrong with any of my OEM lenses.<br />
<h3>
Conclusion</h3>
So what does it boil down to for me? I’m sticking with Canon. Having cameras with the best available sensors would be awesome, but if the options for the glass to put in front of it aren’t as good, I’m afraid I just couldn’t make a switch. It would be nice if you could put Canon glass on front of a Nikon, but without complicated adapters which inherently have to reduce image quality that just isn’t possible. Or if I was insanely rich and could afford boutique lenses, the story would probably be different. But I’m very much on a budget, so I’ve got to stick with more affordable choices for now. And for today, that still means Canon.<br />
<br />
So it boils down to this: Nikon’s choices for someone who likes to shoot prime lenses with the highest quality image are weak compared to Canon. And Sony doesn’t even show up for that contest. Those are the deciding factors for me.<br />
<br />
I know that there are going to be a lot of people upset with my conclusion. And they’ll even use DxOMark’s data to try to make their point. Keep in mind that I’m making my decision based solely on achieving the best quality image while keeping lenses affordable. If budget goes out the window, then the decision very likely could be different.DoubleDeejhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17039675691236458411noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5667400142908048244.post-44006075965817767102014-02-16T01:07:00.001-07:002015-08-11T16:08:07.278-06:00Best Kept Secret in TechnologyEvery once a while a technology product comes along which is just an absolute bargain. And very often those bargains are unknown to the general public.<br />
<br />
The one that I want to tell you about today is the Nokia Lumia 520 (or 521) smartphone. I’m sure you’re thinking, “but I already have a smartphone!” But I’m suggesting this not as a <em>replacement</em> for your current smartphone, but rather something that is neat to own <em>in addition to</em> your smartphone. But it would be a great thing to own for anyone who doesn’t already have a smartphone of their own.<br />
<br />
<div align="center">
<a href="https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/mobile/phone/lumia520/" target="_blank">Nokia Lumia 520</a> <a href="https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/mobile/phone/lumia521/" target="_blank">Nokia Lumia 521</a></div>
<div align="center">
<br /></div>
Most of the time when you buy a cell phone you have to buy it with a contract, or pay out the nose for it up front. Most smartphones, if you buy them outright, will cost $500 or more, and if you don’t pay that out-of-pocket it is figured into your monthly bill one way or another. The Lumia 520 and 521 are inexpensive (both are easily less than $150) and don’t require you to sign a contract or even activate the phone. But why would you ever do that?<br />
<br />
Well, consider all of the things that people like to do with their phones… browse the web, check for email, listen to music, watch videos, play games, get driving directions. Imagine being able to do all of that without a monthly payment. Zero. None. No contracts, no monthly payments, ever, unless you want to. That’s what’s great about these two models of phone.<br />
<br />
A few scenarios…<br />
<br />
Much of the time when you want to listen to music, it is music you already own – you don’t need an active Internet connection to stream it. Maybe you have an iPod Touch that you listen to music on. But those start at $229. The Lumia 520/521 play all of your music just like the iPod Touch does – and in my opinion does a better job of it. And they are a lot less. And with an iPod, if you run out of storage you have to buy an entirely new device. With the Lumia 520/521, if you run out of storage you can buy a <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/search/?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=390957&keywords=64gb%20micro%20sd&linkCode=ur2&qid=1392537344&rh=n%3A172282%2Cn%3A541966%2Cn%3A172456%2Cn%3A516866%2Ck%3A64gb%20micro%20sd%2Cp_n_feature_two_browse-bin%3A6518305011&rnid=6518301011&tag=doubledeej-20" target="_blank">Micro SD Card</a> (up to 64 GB) and pop it in. The Lumia 520 + a 64GB of storage is less than half the cost of the cheapest iPod Touch. And it has an FM radio too, which the iPhone does not.<br />
<div align="center">
<a href="http://www.windowsphone.com/en-us/how-to/wp8/music/music-and-videos-hub" target="_blank"><img alt="Music + Videos Hub" src="http://cmsresources.windowsphone.com/windowsphone/en-us/How-to/wp8/block/music-and-videos-concept-hub.png" /></a></div>
Now say you want directions from A to B. Yes, I know that smartphones already do that. But to do that they nearly always require Internet access and a data plan. Because the Lumia 520/521 runs Windows Phone 8, you can pre-download maps (state-by-state or country-by-country) at home over WiFi before you leave, and store them on the device for use even when you don’t have Internet access. You get door-to-door directions, like a dedicated GPS unit, for a lot less than a dedicated GPS unit. And unlike the budget GPS units, it even knows how to pronounce street names so directions are specific – “turn right on Juniper Avenue” instead of “in 300 yards, turn right.” If you do activate the device as a phone or tether it over WiFi to a smartphone or tablet, you even get up-to-the-minute traffic information, so it can route you around problems. And I actually believe that Nokia Drive is the best navigation software out there for any smartphone. It’s fast, accurate, and touch-friendly so it works great in the car, and best of all, it’s totally free. And since it doesn’t require a data connection, it works in the middle of nowhere when your cell phone won’t. (Nokia, incidentally, owns Navteq, which easily has the best map data anywhere – easily besting Apple [cough] and Google – and this is where the map data for Windows Phones comes from.)<br />
<br />
Watching movies is easy too. Since you can pop a Micro SD card in, you can store a lot of video for the kiddies to watch in the car. It isn’t the biggest or best screen, but it’s more than adequate. And at 800x480 pixels, a lot higher resolution than you’d get from an Android device in the same price range. Most of those are 320x240 – or maybe VGA if you’re really lucky.<br />
<br />
Say you’ve got a kid that is bugging you about wanting an iPod Touch or iPhone to play games on, but you’re not excited about the cost. These two Nokia phones do an excellent job of playing games. It’s true that you won’t get the same selection of games you get on an iPod, but you also aren’t shelling out a ton of money for something that is probably going to get lost, broken, or stolen and have to be replaced over and over. If one of these phones gets lost or broken, it isn’t that big a deal because they’re so inexpensive.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.windowsphone.com/en-US/how-to/wp8/apps/games-hub" target="_blank"><img alt="Games Hub" src="http://cmsresources.windowsphone.com/windowsphone/en-us/How-to/wp8/block/games-concept-hub.png" style="display: block; float: none; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" /></a><br />
And of course whenever you’re in range of WiFi you get all of the benefits of a smartphone that you’ve come to expect. It will check your email (best email client on a smartphone I think), it will browse the web (not the best browser, but certainly more than serviceable). And play games.<br />
So why a Windows Phone? Well, because in this price range nothing else comes close. Apple doesn’t make an i-device for less than $200, and anything in that price range running Android is just, well, a downright ugly experience. The 520/521 might be the slowest Windows Phones out there, but they aren’t slow. They feel very fast. They’re certainly a lot faster than anything running Android at three times the price, and faster than any Apple device more than a year old. And they don’t feel cheap like many similarly priced devices do. They feel well built so they should hold up to the abuse that you or your kids throw at them.<br />
<br />
The only difference between the two is that one is sold by AT&T and the other is sold by T-Mobile. You don’t have to have an account with either carrier to buy one – just order it from Amazon or pick it up at Wal-Mart. As of this writing, the Lumia 520 is only <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Nokia-Lumia-520-GoPhone-AT/dp/B00E45043A/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1392535114&sr=8-1&tag=doubledeej-20" target="_blank">$59.99 at Amazon</a>, and the 521 is <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Nokia-Lumia-521-T-Mobile/dp/B00COYOAYW/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1392535177&sr=8-1&tag=doubledeej-20" target="_blank">$119.99</a>. Again, you don’t sign up with the carrier if you don’t want to.<br />
<br />
These two phones are absolutely the best deal on technology out there today. You get the functionality of a good smartphone at a tiny portion of what it would cost you to get it otherwise. Nothing else even comes close right now.<br />
<div align="center">
<br /></div>
The one thing to note is that these phones <em>are</em> locked to either AT&T or T-Mobile. Which means you can’t just pop in a SIM card from the other carrier and have it work. If you want to use one as a phone, only AT&T SIMs will work in the 520, and only T-Mobile SIMS will work in the 521. So if you want to have one as a backup phone, buy the one that is tied to your carrier. But, again, you don’t have to be (or become) an AT&T or T-Mobile customer.<br />
They also only come with 8 GB of storage. So you probably will want to consider getting a MicroSD card for additional storage.<br />
Is this the perfect device? Certainly not. But for the price, nothing else even comes remotely close.<br />
<em>Bonus tip: If you do happen to be a T-Mobile customer, go to their web site or one of their stores and sign up for a free tablet account, even if you don’t have or plan to buy a tablet. You get 200 MB of 4G data every month at no cost (and if you go over that data allotment they just slow you down – there are never any overage charges). You can then use that SIM card in the Lumia 521 and use it to access the Internet on the phone without paying for a phone line – you won’t have to pay a dime in service charges, ever. You won’t be able to make phone calls (unless you use an app like Skype over the 4G connection), but you can do everything else you'd be able to do on a smartphone, and it won’t cost you anything to do so.</em>DoubleDeejhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17039675691236458411noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5667400142908048244.post-41180683740534779272013-08-22T09:00:00.001-06:002013-08-22T09:00:50.416-06:00Software Development: Old School or New School?<p>Since I started writing software when I was 5, I’ve been doing it a long time.  I’ve seen a lot of changes in the technology – from the BASIC language all the way to assembly, desktop to server, fat client to thin client, you name it.  But the trend I’ve seen over the last 10-15 years is troubling.</p> <p>There is absolutely no question that the Internet has changed things radically.  Much of that change is good.  There is, however, an aspect of the Internet and the way that software is written that is disturbing.  Many of the time-tested, well-thought-out, efficient ways of coding are disappearing and are being replaced by junky, ill-conceived, incredibly inefficient substitutes.  People that are learning to code now are mostly coding for the web, and it is very upsetting how little they understand of the actual science behind computing, mostly because the software development tools in use today don’t even support the best, time-tested concepts.</p> <p>As part of my job I do software development in both Delphi (a modern-day variant of Pascal, very similar to Microsoft’s C#) and PHP.  Delphi is extremely efficient, and has adopted most of the best ideas that have ever come along in computing.  PHP is at the opposite end of the spectrum – extremely inefficient, lacking support for many of the most basic tools that real high level languages offer.  If you start to talk about JavaScript (the programming language that powers web browsers) the situation is even more dire – it is far more basic than even PHP.  Yet nearly all of the hype you hear in development is around HTML 5, JavaScript, Java, and PHP.  All of which are, frankly, very immature, and are evolving at glacial pace.</p> <p>One of the technologies that is falling by the wayside is object-oriented programming.  It allows developers to create virtual objects that you can copy, manipulate, and act upon extremely easily and efficiently.  Java is object oriented, but it has other problems of its own (efficiency and security being the main two) that are causing it to fall out of favor quite rapidly.  PHP has some support for objects, but frankly it’s pretty terrible.  HTML and JavaScript don’t even attempt to support it at all.  People that are learning to program now don’t seem to have any kind of understanding of how much easier their lives would be if they had access to object-oriented development tools.  And the situation is actually getting worse, not better.</p> <p>Another concept that is lost on the web is code compilation.  Pretty much ever since the dawn of computing, developers take code and run it through a compiler to produce the set of instructions that are native to their computer so that they don’t have to be translated at the time the software is run.  Consider how much more efficient you are at speaking your own language than you would be at trying to converse in Korean by using a dictionary, having never heard or seen a word of Korean before.  Compiling does the translation ahead of time (just once) so that software runs as quickly as possible.  Yet again, web technologies don’t do compilation – they do the “translation” at the time that code is executed, making things incredibly slow in comparison.  In addition to that, since the translation is done at run-time, that means you have to distribute the actual source code (the original code you’ve written) to your software in order to run it… so anybody who wants to could take your code and modify and redistribute it… or in cases where you’ve got content you want to protect, like music, or a movie, everybody can see exactly how it is protected so that protection can be removed.  Java has the ability to do a sort of rudimentary compilation just before code is executed, but it is still far from true native code, and it still slows you down considerably.</p> <p>It’s almost like about 15 years ago people said, “We don’t care about all of the research and learning that has occurred over the last 50 years.  We’re going to come up with a new way of doing things, no matter how good some of your ideas may be.”</p> <p>As someone who works in both worlds it is incredibly frustrating.  Especially when I have to interact with people who have only ever spent time in the newer web technologies, because they don’t even have a remote concept of what they are missing out on.</p> <p>There are a ton of other great technologies that seem to be falling by the wayside.  True code debugging (the ability to see what is happening internally inside of software as it is running, making testing much, much easier) is extremely rare.  RAD (Rapid Application Development), once considered the epitome of efficient design and coding, is almost unheard of today.  True integration with databases is pretty much gone too, and in its place are incredibly difficult-to-program, very bloated communication methods that making coding difficult, especially if it is to be done securely.  Forgive me if fname.value=’Frank’ is easier (and conceptually much more sound) than “UPDATE users SET fname=’Frank’ WHERE userid=56”, but this is exactly the sort of difference I’m talking about.  For the most part web developers aren’t even remotely aware that the tools we had for doing things were much better than the best of what they have access to today.  It’s really quite sad.</p> <p>I’m not saying for a minute that these newer tools don’t have a place.  They do.  But very little, if anything, is being done to improve the tools and incorporate the lessons that 70 years of computing science have taught us.  There’s almost a wall there where anyone who works in the newer tools will automatically dismiss ideas from the old school just because they are old school, not because there is any real reason to do so.</p> <p>So I have to admit that I don’t really having to work with HTML and JavaScript and PHP.  They all seem incredibly antiquated to me.  Almost like I’m stepping back in time 30 years.  In many cases it is much harder to do things in the “modern” tools than it was in the contemporary tools of the early 1980s.  Things that I’ve taken for granted in what I would call a “real” development environment just don’t even exist when working with their “modern” counterparts.  </p> <p>Would you enjoy having your Ferrari swapped out for a Model T?  And somehow I’m expected to like it.</p> <p>The result of all of the backwards ways of doing things with “modern” tools is that it takes forever to get anything done.  I can <em>easily</em> write “equivalent” code in Delphi five times faster than it can be done in PHP even though at this point I probably know PHP as well as anyone could.  And, on average, it takes about half of the lines of code in Delphi to accomplish something as it does to do the same thing in PHP.  And yet the Delphi code literally executes more than a hundred times faster, and provides a better user experience.  Yet somehow people are critical of my decision to continue to use such a tool.  Only because they don’t understand it, and in most cases refuse to even try.</p> <p>Much of the stagnation in web technologies is due to the bickering and in-fighting that happens between companies that build tools for the web.  HTML 5 is, in reality, very poorly suited for what we are asking it to do today.  And everybody involved wants their own ideas for improving it to become the standard, but nobody else is willing to adopt those ideas because they aren’t their own and they can’t profit from it.  In the 1990s and early 2000s, for example, Microsoft tried to extend HTML 5 with new features in Internet Explorer and they got shot down by everyone else, because they weren’t “following the standard.”  Well, yeah, they didn’t… because there wasn’t a way of doing the things they wanted to in the standard.  Yet when people do actually get together to try to improve the standard, nobody can agree on anything so nothing gets done.  We’ve been talking about HTML 5 for nearly ten years, and it is still so poorly supported across different browsers that you almost can’t use it.</p> <p>Trying to creating interactive web pages is a an absolute disaster – programmers have to take care of every low-level event (click button, move mouse, release), and those events differ from browser to browser.  Want to play music or show video on a web page?  Nobody can even agree on how to do that so you have to produce three separate versions of every file, then figure out which version to use when you view the page.  HTML wasn’t ever even designed to handle any multimedia other than graphics, either, which is why so many web pages use Adobe Flash, despite the fact that everybody hates it.  Want to do things like drag-and-drop?  Good luck.  It’s really hard to do, and usually has to be coded multiple different ways to work in all popular browsers.  But in my ‘old school’ Delphi drag and drop doesn’t even require writing a single line of code.  Just set an object property saying ‘yes, you can be dragged’ and ‘you can accept dragged objects.’</p> <p>Adding database interactivity to a web page is an exercise in patience and frustration.  There still isn’t an official way for a web page to pull data from (or insert data into) a database.  It’s still a very tedious and time consuming thing to do.  Don’t even get me started on how nobody does it securely because that’s even harder to do.  But we’ve had databases for 50 years so basic interactions like this should be a cakewalk.  In Delphi, all I have to do to retrieve record 56 from the users table of the database is users.FindKey([56]).  The same thing in PHP is at a minimum of 4 lines of code – much more if you do proper error checking.  And in JavaScript?  Well, don’t plan on working on anything else that afternoon.</p> <p>It goes on and on.  Want a web page to interact with a Joystick on the web?  Not happening.  Or generating output for a printer with full control over how it looks?  Again, not really possible.  How about photo editing?  Not very plausible in HTML.  How about a page that uploads a picture to your cell phone over USB?  Nope, HTML doesn’t allow it.  And it will likely be at least a decade before such things are actually possible and usable.</p> <p>All of the above problems had already been pretty much solved by traditional development tools long ago.  </p> <p>And somehow many of the companies that have produced the strongest tools and environments for software development in the past are abandoning the more mature technologies.  Microsoft is trying to force everybody to the write Windows 8 apps, despite the fact that this environment, too, is missing some of the best things from their traditional desktop environment.  Apple invests very little in desktop technologies.  And Linux stagnated years ago. </p> <p>It’s really pretty sad.  If people were smart they’d take the best ideas from wherever they come from instead of trying to reinvent the wheel over and over.  And as it stands today, the technologies that power the web – HTML, JavaScript, etc. – are more of a wooden, square wheel than most developers realize.  The traditional ways of doing things don’t have to be left behind – they could easily handle the same tasks that the newer technologies are doing, and in most cases do a far better job of it.  Or, some of the concepts from traditional development could be added to the newer tools.  But, for some reason, never the twain shall meet.  It’s frustrating having to choose between high functionality, quick development, and high performance, and working on the Internet.  It would be really nice to be able to do both.</p> DoubleDeejhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17039675691236458411noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5667400142908048244.post-4470580544157554812013-05-25T16:27:00.001-06:002013-08-04T08:51:31.414-06:00Cameras–Is it time to upgrade?<a href="http://lh6.ggpht.com/-S_gNQJXKXPk/UaE6xreGhsI/AAAAAAAAA14/p0phBFeAB2Q/s1600-h/WP_20130524_003c%25255B6%25255D.jpg"><img alt="WP_20130524_003c" border="0" height="380" src="http://lh4.ggpht.com/-G36OaFT3DvI/UaE6yG8WWZI/AAAAAAAAA2A/h0ppgQWzKAk/WP_20130524_003c_thumb%25255B3%25255D.jpg?imgmax=800" style="background-image: none; border-bottom: 0px; border-left: 0px; border-right: 0px; border-top: 0px; display: block; float: none; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;" title="WP_20130524_003c" width="518" /></a><br />
One funny thing that happens to me a lot is that many people I know outside of work seem to think that I do audio, video, and/or photography for a living. My job is in software development, but that is apparently less glamorous than multimedia to the general public, so for some reason I'm known better to people in my personal life for the things that I like to do with media rather than creating software.<br />
<br />
So one of the questions I often get asked is “which camera should I buy?” Or the same question phrased differently, “should I get a new camera?”<br />
<br />
For some reason nearly everyone interested in photography gets stuck on camera technical specifications. For example, the first question people ask me about one of my cameras is “how many megapixels is it?” when in reality that number doesn't really mean much of anything these days, as I'll discuss later.<br />
So in attempt to sort of pacify everyone, here are some general guidelines on what cameras to look at, and whether you should upgrade your existing camera to something newer or more expensive.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Digital SLR</h3>
<br />
First, advice for people who already have a digital SLR camera and are thinking about upgrading…<br />
<h4>
You probably don't need to upgrade if…</h4>
<ul>
<li>Your camera has a resolution of 6-8 megapixels or better, and you do nearly all of your shooting outdoors during the daytime.</li>
<li>Your camera model was released during or after 2009.</li>
</ul>
<h4>
You may want to consider upgrading if…</h4>
<ul>
<li>Your sensor resolution is less than ten megapixels, you do a lot of cropping on images, and you create large prints.</li>
<li>You shoot at night or indoors a lot, and for whatever reason don't want to use a flash or a large aperture (f-stop less than 2.0) lens.</li>
<li>The limitations of your equipment are preventing you from getting the shots you want.</li>
</ul>
<h4>
Reasoning…</h4>
While most digital SLR cameras released in the last 10 years or so are capable of really good pictures during the daytime, many models released before 2009 struggled to perform well in low-light situations. Then in 2009 something magical happened, where all of a sudden cameras from all manufacturers were being released with better clarity and low-light sensitivity with much higher usable ISO settings. If you shoot in low-light (such as indoors or at night) having a 2009-model or newer camera can make a big difference.<br />
If you shoot primarily in daylight, or with a flash, or a large aperture lens, you probably don't need to upgrade. Even early model cameras going back to 2004-2005 still do really well in these situations, and you wouldn't gain much by moving to a newer camera.<br />
<br />
If you really have an itch to buy new camera equipment, lenses are always a much better investment than electronics. A good quality lens will make a bigger difference in picture quality on an older body than a cheap lens on a newer, more expensive body. And lenses hold their value really well – oftentimes you can resell a good lens for the same price you originally paid, or take just a minimal loss on it. The value of anything electronic, especially digital camera bodies, plummets very quickly.<br />
<h4>
What should I get?</h4>
Even the most inexpensive digital SLRs take amazing pictures these days, and most models released since about 2010-2011 shoot pretty spectacular video as well (as long as you are willing to focus manually). Unless you have a very specific need for a higher-end model, the cheaper (and usually lighter and smaller) bodies make a lot of sense. I own several SLRs, and when I want to take a camera with me that isn't too big or bulky, I take my 2010-model Canon T2i because it is small, lightweight, and takes fantastic pictures. I only use my bigger and bulkier SLRs when I need fast control over exposure settings. The bigger, more expensive models really don’t take better pictures than my much cheaper T2i. They're just faster to navigate and provide professional-level control. (As for lenses for my T2i, my 10-22mm wide goes with me for indoor shots, 50mm or 85mm for portraits, and the kit 18-55mm, 28-135mm, or 24-105mm for outdoor shots depending on how appropriate a big lens is for the situation.)<br />
<br />
I’m primarily a Canon guy, so I really like the Canon <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Canon-T3i-Digital-Imaging-18-55mm/dp/B004J3V90Y/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1369510973&sr=8-1&tag=doubledeej-20" target="_blank">T3i</a>, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Rebel-18-0-Digital-18-55mm/dp/B00BW6LWO4/ref=sr_1_2?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1369511059&sr=1-2&tag=doubledeej-20" target="_blank">T5i</a> (adds touch screen), <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Canon-CMOS-Digital-Camera-3-0-Inch/dp/B0040JHVCC/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1369511082&sr=1-1&tag=doubledeej-20" target="_blank">60D</a> (no touch, but adds more buttons for more control; no lens with this link). All are well under $1000, and are excellent. Full-frame bodies like the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Canon-20-2-Digital-Camera-3-0-Inch/dp/B009B0MZ8U/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1369511321&sr=1-1&tag=doubledeej-20" target="_blank">6D</a> or <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Frame-Full-HD-Digital-Camera/dp/B007FGYZFI/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1369511347&sr=1-1&tag=doubledeej-20" target="_blank">5DmkIII</a> are of course amazing, and they give better low-light sensitivity, a wider field of view, and of course much more control, but at much greater cost – $2000 or more, without a lens. Unless you're shooting professionally it’s hard to justify the price. The <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Rebel-18-0-Digital-18-55mm/dp/B00BW6LY2Y/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1369511991&sr=1-1&tag=doubledeej-20" target="_blank">SL1</a> is also nice because of its tiny size (and it is tiny for an SLR), but it is otherwise essentially the same as the T5i without the flip-out screen at considerably greater expense.<br />
<br />
Canon also makes a lower-end model called the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Rebel-T3-Digital-18-55mm/dp/B004J3Y9U6/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1369511604&sr=1-1&tag=doubledeej-20" target="_blank">T3</a>, which takes good pictures, but difficult to recommend because you can get a lot more camera with a <a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B0035FZJHQ/ref=sr_1_1_olp?ie=UTF8&qid=1369519943&sr=8-1&keywords=canon+t2i&condition=used&tag=doubledeej-20" target="_blank">used T2i</a> (sometimes for less), or the T3i for not much more money. The LCD screen on the T3 is quite poor, and doesn't flip out like the T3i (for easier shooting above or below eye level). The T2i/T3i is also faster, has a lot more resolution, higher quality video, and much better low-light sensitivity, among other enhancements that to me make it a better buy. But if the T3 is what you can afford, you're still going to get great pictures.<br />
<br />
Nikon also makes great cameras, but I don't follow their lineup closely enough to make specific recommendations. The one thing to watch out for on Nikon cameras is that the less expensive bodies (< ~$700) don't have the mechanism to autofocus on “AF” series Nikon lenses, and those lenses happen to be the less expensive ones. So plan on spending considerably more on lenses with Nikon than Canon if you buy a cheap body. If you get a D90 or more expensive model, the AF lenses will autofocus and the less expensive lenses are fine.<br />
<br />
I’d be a little careful about buying other DSLR brands, as the lenses made for those cameras have inconsistent quality and you have to be really careful about what you buy. If you invest in Canon or Nikon equipment you can be assured that you're always getting something at least very good, if not excellent. Neither brand makes bad stuff.<br />
<br />
If you're just starting out and want to buy your first digital SLR, get the T3i or T5i. Anything more complicated will be overwhelming because of its complexity, and won't give you better pictures. The kit lenses included in the box have really good image quality these days, and will be sufficient for new photographers. Once you begin to understand photography a little better you can step up to a better lens for more control over what you shoot, and you won't have to upgrade your camera.<br />
<br />
With that said, everyone with an interest in photography and a digital SLR camera should own a 50mm prime lens. <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Canon-50mm-1-8-Camera-Lens/dp/B00007E7JU/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1369512402&sr=1-1&tag=doubledeej-20" target="_blank">Canon 50mm f/1.8</a>, Nikon 50mm f/1.8 <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-50mm-Nikkor-Digital-Cameras/dp/B00005LEN4/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1369512442&sr=1-1&tag=doubledeej-20" target="_blank">manual</a> or <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-50mm-NIKKOR-Digital-Cameras/dp/B004Y1AYAC/ref=sr_1_2?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1369512442&sr=1-2&tag=doubledeej-20" target="_blank">auto</a> focus (the first link will autofocus on the more expensive Nikon camera bodies, but not on base models). They have excellent image quality and are very inexpensive. They give you the ability to shoot pictures with a soft, out-of-focus background that you can't get otherwise without spending a lot of money, and as such they make spectacular portrait lenses. They also allow you to shoot indoors without a flash in moderate lighting.<br />
<br />
In the end, though, if you already have a digital SLR and it doesn't have any glaringly horrible problems, you're fine sticking with it rather than upgrading. Spend the money on a new lens instead.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Point and Shoot</h3>
<br />
The quality of point-and-shoot cameras is all over the map. So it is pretty hard to make specific recommendations. <br />
<br />
For the most part you get what you pay for. If your camera cost you $150 or less and you're thinking about upgrading, I'd just go ahead and do it. A P&S camera that sells for $250 is always going to be a significant upgrade over anything ever sold for less than $150, and is probably worth the money.<br />
<br />
Point-and-shoot cameras have also improved significantly over the years too. A P&S camera from more than 5 years ago is really going to pale in comparison to something newer. <br />
<br />
So as a general guideline, I’d say that if your camera is more than 3 years old, or cost you less than $150, yeah, you should upgrade if you're considering it. <br />
<h4>
What should I get?</h4>
Camera manufacturers release new models of their point-and-shoot lines quite often – it isn't unusual for a model to be discontinued and replaced after just 6 months. So specific models are something that I don't even try to keep up on. So I won't make specific recommendations. They'd be out of date rather quickly anyway.<br />
<br />
So instead I'll give you one piece of buying advice… ignore the numbers. Ignore the resolution (megapixels), ISO sensitivity, etc. entirely. Despite what the difference in numbers might tell you, performance of nearly all cameras in this category are all about the same, given similar lenses. <br />
<br />
The one biggest factor to look at is the size of the lens. Specifically, the glass in the lens. The bigger the lens, the more light it collects, which improves image quality. A small difference in lens size can make a big difference in picture quality. So I'd recommend buying the camera with the biggest glass within your budget.<br />
The other thing to look at is the optical zoom capability. Many times manufacturers will try to hide this and give you a digital zoom number. Digital zoom is useless. Only look at the optical zoom. Buy whatever suits your needs.<br />
<br />
The other thing I'll mention is Optical Image Stabilization technology. This compensates for the shake that is inherent in cameras that are being held by hand. It is especially important in point and shoot cameras because they are tiny (and therefore harder to hold steady) and don't handle low-light as well as SLRs, so they require longer exposures which increases the likelihood of motion blur. IS technology is very highly recommended unless you shoot on a tripod or only take close pictures in daylight.<br />
<br />
As for brands, <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=lp_330405011_nr_p_lbr_brands_browse-_1?rh=n%3A172282%2Cn%3A%21493964%2Cn%3A502394%2Cn%3A281052%2Cn%3A330405011%2Cp_lbr_brands_browse-bin%3ACanon&bbn=330405011&ie=UTF8&qid=1369513749&rnid=2528832011&tag=doubledeej-20" target="_blank">Canon</a> is the clear winner in this category. They consistently produce the best images, and are generally quite easy to use, relatively speaking.<br />
<br />
Smartphone cameras have gotten much better in the last few years, but they really still pale in comparison to point-and-shoot models. Not only do P&S produce much better quality pictures, they also have a real zoom capability. The only smartphone cameras that I've found that does what I would even consider a passable job are the Nokia Lumia 1020, 920, 928, and 925, or the HTC One. Not even the iPhone 5 or any of the Samsung Galaxy S series are any good unless you're shooting in the noonday sun.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Other Camera Types</h3>
<br />
There are a few other types of cameras out there, such as mirrorless, and rangefinder, but getting into a discussion about those is well beyond the scope of this blog post. I'd be happy to answer questions if you're considering one of these other types.<br />
<br />
<h3>
A Final Word about Megapixels</h3>
<br />
The more megapixels the better, right? At least that’s what camera manufacturers and salespeople would like you to believe. But that isn't necessarily the case, especially on small cameras like point and shoot and smartphones.<br />
<br />
The trouble with increasing the number of pixels is that in order to add more pixels the pixels themselves have to become smaller. And smaller pixels means that less light is captured. Which then in turn creates noisier (less clear) images, and less ability to handle low-light situations like you would find indoors or at night.<br />
Generally speaking, as long as a camera has 6-8 megapixels of resolution, it is sufficient. In fact, the higher you go above that the more processing has to be done and blurrier your images become to remove the extra noise, especially when shot under conditions other than sunlight in the middle of the day. An 8-megapixel point and shoot is generally going to be preferable to one with a 13-megapixel sensor, especially on small sensors like those in a cell phone.<br />
<br />
Higher resolution pictures also take up more disk space. Double the number of pixels, double the size of the file.<br />
<br />
Always remember that the highest resolution “normal” computer monitors are about 2 megapixels at best. And 3 megapixels is enough for printing an 8x10. You only need higher than 3 if you are quite exuberant in your cropping of images (to simulate zoom after-the-fact, for example) or if you are printing at 11x14 or larger. Any extra resolution is wasted, and taking up extra disk space. So, with all other things (*cough* lenses *cough*) being equal, choose a camera with the resolution closest to the 6-8 MP range. Even photography magazines, who are notoriously picky, only require about 5 MP for print.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Wrap-up</h3>
<br />
Chances are if you already own a digital SLR it is probably fine. But if you own a point-and-shoot which isn't brand new or didn't cost more than $250 you could benefit from an upgrade.<br />
<br />
SLR cameras are more of a long-term investment while point-and-shoot cameras are meant to be more-or-less disposable. And the lens on a camera makes more difference in picture quality than the camera itself. And aside from the top-of-the-line models, for the most part you get what you pay for. Keep those things in mind while shopping and it will be hard to go wrong.DoubleDeejhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17039675691236458411noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5667400142908048244.post-48587259515370976362013-04-25T00:12:00.001-06:002013-04-25T01:34:03.719-06:00Have You Seen Me?<a href="http://lh3.ggpht.com/-jdLdyXegPLE/UXjJWx9DMbI/AAAAAAAAA0M/QmpuwT_zhkk/s1600-h/haveyouseenme-640%25255B11%25255D.jpg"><img alt="haveyouseenme-640" border="0" height="650" src="http://lh6.ggpht.com/-ex3-141RqFc/UXjJY9leuJI/AAAAAAAAA0U/wKuHGQOqwME/haveyouseenme-640_thumb%25255B8%25255D.jpg?imgmax=800" style="background-image: none; border-bottom: 0px; border-left: 0px; border-right: 0px; border-top: 0px; display: block; float: none; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px;" title="haveyouseenme-640" width="440" /></a><br />
<h3>
MISSING: Doug’s Wife</h3>
She has been missing for a very long time. She disappeared during the height of Doug’s social life, and has been missing ever since. The circumstances of her disappearance are still unclear.<br />
<br />
She is described as intelligent and witty, appreciative of Doug’s dry and quirky sense of humor. She is very loving of both Doug and their children, more than capable of reciprocating his devotion. She is also deeply spiritual and devoted to her faith.<br />
<br />
She is also described as easy going and easy to talk to. Attractive, but not obsessed by her looks. She is also unusually understanding of Doug’s sometimes immature behavior, while being willing to offer correction and be helpful in encouraging his intellectual and emotional growth.<br />
<br />
A devoted husband, when asked what he misses most about his wife, Doug responded that he misses having someone who he can talk to about anything, and having someone to spoil. She has been the light and center of his life, and he has cherished every second of her company. His life has been hollow since she disappeared.<br />
<br />
She may be found at or near the How-To section of the local library. Like Doug, she is also passionate about learning and improving her talents. Self-improvement and encouraging their children’s education are some of the most important parts of their lives.<br />
<br />
She is believed to be between 25 and 40 years old, and between 5'0" and 5'6". Due to the extended duration of her absence, he is unable to recall her exact age and height.<br />
<br />
If you have any information as to her whereabouts, please contact Doug directly.DoubleDeejhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17039675691236458411noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5667400142908048244.post-50407924277268052492013-04-19T21:04:00.000-06:002013-04-19T21:04:22.113-06:00Important informationTo view this blog post, please verify that you are a real person.<br />
<br />
<divstyle center="" text-align:=""><iframe frameborder="0" height="150" scrolling="0" src="http://crapcha.com/embed/" width="300"></iframe></divstyle>
DoubleDeejhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17039675691236458411noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5667400142908048244.post-41628567873129095522013-03-30T15:20:00.004-06:002013-03-30T15:25:32.724-06:00Microsoft Office for Free<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">PSA: One of the coolest, free services on the Internet today is one that many people would benefit from, but it seems almost nobody knows about it...</span><br />
<br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;" />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">Microsoft has made completely free, web-based versions of Word, Excel, PowerPoint, and OneNote available through its (also free) SkyDrive service. These are reduced-functionality versions of the desktop apps, but they are still extremely functional, and you probably wouldn't miss any of the omitted features. It works on all of the major browsers, including even the iPad. And, like Google Docs, they support real-time collaboration so multiple people can be working on the same file at once. </span><br />
<br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;" />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">To access this software, just create a new (or activate an existing) SkyDrive account at </span><a href="http://www.skydrive.com/" rel="nofollow nofollow" style="background-color: white; color: #3b5998; cursor: pointer; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px; text-decoration: none;" target="_blank">www.skydrive.com</a><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">. Click the "Create" link at the top of the page and select the type of document you want to create. Or upload existing files from your computer and view/edit them online.</span><br />
<br style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;" />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;">These aren't time-limited trial versions of a paid product... they are completely free to use. And if you have 2010 or 2013 versions of the desktop apps, saving and opening documents directly to/from SkyDrive is built in. (And working on documents saved to SkyDrive also enables real-time collaboration in the desktop apps as well, without a SharePoint server.)</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-XFx4tUnV_aw/UVdW51YsCmI/AAAAAAAAAz4/ysP9TNmze1k/s1600/webword.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="523" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-XFx4tUnV_aw/UVdW51YsCmI/AAAAAAAAAz4/ysP9TNmze1k/s640/webword.png" width="640" /></a></div>
<span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; font-family: 'lucida grande', tahoma, verdana, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; line-height: 17px;"><br /></span>DoubleDeejhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17039675691236458411noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5667400142908048244.post-32156192408112715552013-02-02T13:39:00.001-07:002013-02-02T13:39:10.705-07:00Check Your Internet Router!<p>This week security researchers announced that many common Internet routers have a fundamental flaw which essentially gives any hacker that wants into your home network free reign to connect in remotely, completely bypassing the router’s firewall feature.  While this problem in and of itself doesn’t necessarily grant hackers access to your computer, it sure would make it easier to do so, especially if you don’t regularly update your computer’s software.</p> <p><strong>We already know that hackers are actively scanning the entire Internet for vulnerable routers, so it isn’t a matter of “if” but rather a <u>matter of “when” your home network is going to come under attack</u>.</strong></p> <p>There are way too many vulnerable models out there to list them all, so Steve Gibson at <a href="http://www.grc.com/" target="_blank">Gibson Research Corporation</a> has created a web-based tool to remotely scan your router to see if it has the problem.  Because its use isn’t necessarily obvious, I’m going to walk you through running a scan of your own router.  It only takes a couple minutes.</p> <h3>Performing the Test</h3> <p>First of all, click <a href="https://www.grc.com/x/ne.dll?bh0bkyd2" target="_blank">this link</a> to access GRC’s ShieldsUp product page.  That will bring you to this screen:</p> <p><a href="http://lh5.ggpht.com/-hhLV6GHMoek/UQ15Ytx1naI/AAAAAAAAAyY/dN2mltzAe9o/s1600-h/shieldsup1%25255B3%25255D.png"><img style="background-image: none; border-bottom: 0px; border-left: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; display: block; float: none; margin-left: auto; border-top: 0px; margin-right: auto; border-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px" title="shieldsup1" border="0" alt="shieldsup1" src="http://lh4.ggpht.com/-v2B6xZsk4v0/UQ15ZMrCR1I/AAAAAAAAAyg/pJ4RWpRuP7w/shieldsup1_thumb%25255B1%25255D.png?imgmax=800" width="483" height="277" /></a></p> <p>From there, click the “Proceed” button.  That will bring you here:</p> <p><a href="http://lh4.ggpht.com/-CnTMHyw-OYA/UQ15Zk8cOmI/AAAAAAAAAyo/WOs7opG4VIE/s1600-h/shieldsup2%25255B7%25255D.png"><img style="background-image: none; border-bottom: 0px; border-left: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; display: block; float: none; margin-left: auto; border-top: 0px; margin-right: auto; border-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px" title="shieldsup2" border="0" alt="shieldsup2" src="http://lh3.ggpht.com/-DNPiGdhK4Q8/UQ15Z17awqI/AAAAAAAAAyw/0GBf5BWJdpY/shieldsup2_thumb%25255B3%25255D.png?imgmax=800" width="482" height="273" /></a></p> <p>Click the “GRC’s Instant UPnP Exposure Test” button (which I’ve highlighted in yellow above).  This will begin the test of your router.  After a few seconds, the test result will appear.  That will look something like this:</p> <p><a href="http://lh5.ggpht.com/-axYMW1L6O0g/UQ15aWL-RvI/AAAAAAAAAy4/NblWOsr2RKs/s1600-h/shieldsup3%25255B4%25255D.png"><img style="background-image: none; border-bottom: 0px; border-left: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; display: block; float: none; margin-left: auto; border-top: 0px; margin-right: auto; border-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px" title="shieldsup3" border="0" alt="shieldsup3" src="http://lh5.ggpht.com/-DYfZqJprors/UQ15a60sKdI/AAAAAAAAAzA/cUIZ4PUEHTE/shieldsup3_thumb%25255B2%25255D.png?imgmax=800" width="476" height="304" /></a></p> <p>If you get the green result box as shown above, your router does not have this vulnerability.  If, however, you get the two following result, you should REPLACE YOUR ROUTER PROMPTLY!</p> <p align="center"><a href="http://lh5.ggpht.com/-IbDnG64veEo/UQ15bAU_ivI/AAAAAAAAAzI/aWdqwYHmlOg/s1600-h/image%25255B11%25255D.png"><img style="background-image: none; border-bottom: 0px; border-left: 0px; margin: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; display: inline; border-top: 0px; border-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px" title="image" border="0" alt="image" src="http://lh5.ggpht.com/-JWUPFTKO18w/UQ15bcny1qI/AAAAAAAAAzQ/iCm-qYjhXJA/image_thumb%25255B3%25255D.png?imgmax=800" width="244" height="62" /></a></p> <p>While it may be technically possible for the manufacturer of your router to issue a new software update that fixes the problem, very few have done so, and chances are that if your router has this problem it probably suffers from many other serious security issues as well.  Your best bet is to get something newer, which also gives you the benefit of it probably being much faster and adding newer technologies to improve usability and a more comprehensive set of features.  Routers are not expensive these days.</p> <h3>Recommended Replacement Routers</h3> <ul> <li>If you’re looking for a budget model, the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/D-Link-DIR-601-Wireless-N-Home-Router/dp/B002VJL0OS/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1359836707&sr=8-6&tag=doubledeej-20" target="_blank">D-Link DIR-601</a> is typically under $30 and is quite good.  </li> <li>The <a href="http://www.amazon.com/D-Link-Wireless-N300-Gigabit-Router-DIR-636L/dp/B0081TXIXI/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1359836707&sr=8-4&tag=doubledeej-20" target="_blank">D-Link DIR-636L</a> doubles the speed of the WiFi from 150 to 300 Mbps, for $70 or less.  </li> <li>To double WiFi speed again, the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/D-Link-Wireless-N600-Dual-Band-Gigabit-DIR-826L/dp/B0081TXJ28/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1359836707&sr=8-10&tag=doubledeej-20" target="_blank">D-Link DIR-826L</a> is the next step up for just a few dollars more.  </li> </ul> <p>I like the D-Link routers because they don’t have security problems of those made by Linksys, and provide more features than are available from Netgear.  And most “no-name” routers use the same base software as those manufactured by Linksys, and are thus more likely to have serious security issues.</p> DoubleDeejhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17039675691236458411noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5667400142908048244.post-64229388553609560792012-12-01T03:15:00.001-07:002012-12-01T03:15:24.022-07:00Toys for Tots II<p>Last year I created an Amazon Affiliate account to collect money for Toys for Tots.  Because of your help, over $50 was collected.</p> <p>So I’m doing it again this year.  All you have to do is click on one of the links below and then you can purchase products through Amazon the same as always.  They don't charge any extra for this program, so you will still pay the same prices you would otherwise, and up to 6% of all purchases will be collected and donated.</p> <p>I will also match whatever is collected just like last year, up to $50.  </p> <p>So here are the links…</p> <p align="center"><iframe style="border-bottom-style: none; border-left-style: none; border-top-style: none; border-right-style: none" height="250" border="0" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=deejtft-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=holiday12&banner=10630MSGCM3C68H7WJR2&f=ifr" frameborder="0" width="300" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no"></iframe>  <iframe style="border-bottom-style: none; border-left-style: none; border-top-style: none; border-right-style: none" height="250" border="0" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=deejtft-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=holelectronics&banner=0M5VYJK14EJDH9VZ8K82&f=ifr" frameborder="0" width="300" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no"></iframe>  <iframe style="border-bottom-style: none; border-left-style: none; border-top-style: none; border-right-style: none" height="250" border="0" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=deejtft-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=holidaytoylist&banner=13PH8PBWZ4GNH3SXPH82&f=ifr" frameborder="0" width="300" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe style="border-bottom-style: none; border-left-style: none; border-top-style: none; border-right-style: none" height="250" border="0" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=deejtft-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=giftcardsseasonal&banner=07J78V1QR9YDJDGD8JG2&f=ifr" frameborder="0" width="300" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe style="border-bottom-style: none; border-left-style: none; border-top-style: none; border-right-style: none" height="250" border="0" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=deejtft-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=holiday12&banner=10630MSGCM3C68H7WJR2&f=ifr" frameborder="0" width="300" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe style="border-bottom-style: none; border-left-style: none; border-top-style: none; border-right-style: none" height="250" border="0" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=deejtft-20&o=1&p=12&l=ur1&category=patiolawngarden&banner=18N9QAWQX424QDF37DR2&f=ifr" frameborder="0" width="300" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no"></iframe> </p> <p>Also…</p> <p align="center"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers/zgbs/ref=as_acph_cc_bestsel_on_on?_encoding=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&linkCode=ur2&tag=deejtft-20" target="_blank">Shop Amazon - Best Selling Products - Updated Every Hour</a><img style="border-bottom-style: none !important; margin: 0px; border-left-style: none !important; border-top-style: none !important; border-right-style: none !important" border="0" alt="" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=deejtft-20&l=ur2&o=1" width="1" height="1" /></p> <p align="center"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0051VVOB2/ref=as_acpost?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&linkCode=ur2&tag=deejtft-20" target="_blank">Shop Amazon's New Kindle Fire</a><img style="border-bottom-style: none !important; margin: 0px; border-left-style: none !important; border-top-style: none !important; border-right-style: none !important" border="0" alt="" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=deejtft-20&l=ur2&o=1" width="1" height="1" /></p> <p>Products from any other category also apply; these are just some sample starting points.  </p> <p align="center"><a href="http://www.amazon.com/b?_encoding=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&linkCode=ur2&node=51569011&site-redirect=&tag=deejtft-20" target="_blank">Apparel & Accessories</a> <a href="http://www.amazon.com/b?_encoding=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&linkCode=ur2&node=1000&site-redirect=&tag=deejtft-20" target="_blank">Books</a><img style="border-bottom-style: none !important; margin: 0px; border-left-style: none !important; border-top-style: none !important; border-right-style: none !important" border="0" alt="" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=deejtft-20&l=ur2&o=1" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="http://www.amazon.com/b?_encoding=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&linkCode=ur2&node=13900861&site-redirect=&tag=deejtft-20" target="_blank">Camera & Photo</a><img style="border-bottom-style: none !important; margin: 0px; border-left-style: none !important; border-top-style: none !important; border-right-style: none !important" border="0" alt="" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=deejtft-20&l=ur2&o=1" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="http://www.amazon.com/b?_encoding=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&linkCode=ur2&node=195209011&site-redirect=&tag=deejtft-20" target="_blank">MP3 Downloads</a><img style="border-bottom-style: none !important; margin: 0px; border-left-style: none !important; border-top-style: none !important; border-right-style: none !important" border="0" alt="" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=deejtft-20&l=ur2&o=1" width="1" height="1" /> <a href="http://www.amazon.com/b?_encoding=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&linkCode=ur2&node=2335752011&site-redirect=&tag=deejtft-20" target="_blank">Cell Phones & Accessories</a><img style="border-bottom-style: none !important; margin: 0px; border-left-style: none !important; border-top-style: none !important; border-right-style: none !important" border="0" alt="" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=deejtft-20&l=ur2&o=1" width="1" height="1" /><a href="http://www.amazon.com/b?_encoding=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&linkCode=ur2&node=3367581&site-redirect=&tag=deejtft-20" target="_blank">Jewelry</a><img style="border-bottom-style: none !important; margin: 0px; border-left-style: none !important; border-top-style: none !important; border-right-style: none !important" border="0" alt="" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=deejtft-20&l=ur2&o=1" width="1" height="1" /></p> <p>If a product you want is not included in a category above, just add <font color="#0000ff">&tag=deejtft-20</font> to the end of the web page address on Amazon’s site to have a portion of your purchase go toward this drive.</p> <p>Thank you!  And Merry Christmas!</p> DoubleDeejhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17039675691236458411noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5667400142908048244.post-67459795072172195922012-10-12T21:24:00.001-06:002012-10-12T21:24:11.781-06:00iPod Touch: Fifth Generation<p>Just a quick assessment of the new iPod Touch, Fifth Generation.  This isn’t by any means a full review… but rather a few thoughts based on initial impressions having used it for a couple hours, as compared to the fourth generation model.</p> <h3>Speed</h3> <p>The 5th Generation iPod Touch (hereafter referred to as the “5G”) has been updated with a dual core processor which is fundamentally faster than the processor in the 4G’s single core processor.  This is roughly the same upgrade Apple made going from the iPhone 4 to the iPhone 4S.  So it feels quite a bit snappier.  Which is great because with iOS 5 and iOS 6, the fourth gen model could get stuck and feel sluggish quite a bit of the time. A very welcome change.</p> <h3>Screen</h3> <p>The 4th Gen model had a screen that was technically a Retina display, but it was a lower quality screen than that of the iPhone 4/4S, which used a more expensive IPS panel.  It had significant color shift issues, and a poor contrast ratio when viewing off-angle, with everything appearing washed out because of the high amount of background light being added to everything.  The 5G fixes this, and it comes with a very good LCD… the same LCD used in the iPhone 5, actually.  Contrast and color accuracy improvements are quite noticeable.  Still not as good as an OLED screen, but definitely a huge upgrade.</p> <p>The other big change is that the 5G moves to a 16x9 aspect screen instead of the 3x2 screen used on all previous iOS devices.  Aside from the ones provided by Apple with the iPod, few apps have been updated to take advantage of the extra screen space.  Apps which have not been updated look a little strange, as you can clearly see the black bars above and below the app’s user interface.  It’s especially strange because the iPod’s regular status bar (which shows the iPod name, WiFi status, battery charge, etc.) actually shifts downward, leaving an awkward, visible blank space above it.  Many apps will be updated over time to support 16x9, but there are a lot of apps which have been effectively abandoned by the developers that won’t ever get updated.</p> <p>For me the nicest effect of the aspect ratio change was one I hadn’t anticipated, and that is the ability to have 16 apps in a folder instead of the previous limit of 12.  I had always been frustrated by the previous limitation, and adding an additional 4 slots is actually much more significant than the numeric difference alone would indicate.</p> <p>With all of that said, I am still finding the physical width of the screen to be a big limitation.  I still hate the on-screen keyboard because the keys are so darn tiny.  iOS’s text prediction does help quite a bit when doing English text entry, but password entry is still difficult and frustrating.  I wish that when Apple made the screen taller that they had made it a little wider as well.  My phone has a 4.3” screen, so it isn’t much larger than the iPod’s, but the tiny difference in width makes a huge difference in the usability of the on-screen keyboard.  Apple is making a big deal of the fact that the screen is still the same width as it was before, but I find it to be more of a hindrance than a help.  I’ve never had any trouble reaching anything on my phone’s screen with my thumb, so in my mind Apple’s argument for maintaining the same screen width is effectively moot.</p> <p>One complaint I have (and I have this with practically all 16x9 devices—phones, tablets, etc.) is that a 16x9 screen is just too wide an aspect when used in landscape mode.  Any graphical elements fixed at the top/bottom of the screen take up too much of a percentage of the screen’s height in landscape mode.  By the time you have the status bar at the top of the screen, and bring up the on-screen keyboard, there is very little space leftover for any other actual content.  The only devices I’ve seen that even attempt to work around this are Windows Phones, which only display the status bar at the top of the screen when you swipe downward to request it, and leave the bottom on-screen elements at the physical bottom rather than virtual bottom when rotating into landscape mode.  (Rotating a Windows Phone to landscape does rotate buttons at the bottom of the screen 90 degrees, but they stay in-place on the screen, optimizing use of the wide nature of the screen.  It’s a slick way of handling the problem.)  It’s especially frustrating on apps not optimized for 16x9 screens, as 18% of the screen is completely wasted on black bars while the rest of the screen gets very crowded very quickly.</p> <h3>Siri</h3> <p>The 5G touch gets Siri, which the 4th Gen model did not have, even with the iOS 6 upgrade.  Like all speech-control features on all devices, I find it to be of limited use.  It’s fine if you just want to check the weather, or create a reminder for yourself, but because apps can’t interface with Siri you’re limited to the capabilities that Apple has provided to Siri without the option of expansion.  I much prefer the approach that Microsoft is using with their voice features in Windows Phone 8, which allows app developers to add their own commands and responses.  So if the phone doesn’t know how to handle a voice command, you at least have the option of installing an app that does.</p> <p>While it isn’t really an issue, I have noticed that the Siri voice sounds very metallic and mechanical for the first little while after using a new device or new voice (or device which has recently been upgraded to iOS 6).  It seems to resolve itself within a couple hours, but it is a little weird that the voice quality changes.  Personally, I prefer the <a href="http://thegpsgirl.com/" target="_blank">Australian voice</a> for Siri over the one used in the United States and Canada.  I don’t think most people realize that you can change the voice that can be used.  Just throwing that out there.</p> <p>While I’m on the subject, I still find it awkward for people to try to talk to their devices.  The technology is still quite poor in its implementation, as every variation still has a very limited vocabulary, and every one of them has a lot of trouble dealing with any background noise.  Few of the voice control/input implementations actually work very well outside of a quite room at home.  I’ve only found them to be of benefit (and limited benefit at that) for sending texts and emails while driving.  Anything else still requires interaction with the screen, and a great deal of patience.  </p> <p>Bottom line, Siri is a silly feature to me.  And its best use is entertaining oneself with its often hilarious interpretations of your request.  While generally better, the offerings from Microsoft and Google are still generally laughable.  We’ve still got a LONG way to go. We are a world away from being able to have a conversation with our electronics, and Siri only serves to highlight those limitations.</p> <h3>Earpods</h3> <p>Anybody who has read more than a few posts on my blog knows how much I hate the earbuds that have come with iOS devices.  They are absolutely awful.  I'm really glad that Apple has addressed this by creating the Earpods, because the new earphones are MUCH, MUCH better.  They’re not great, but the sound quality is leagues better than what was offered previously.  They’re also infinitely more comfortable than the older models, but they do still have a tendency to fall out of my ears much too easily.  Just tilting my head to one side virtually guarantees that they’ll fall right out.</p> <p>The sound quality gets much better if you use your fingers to firmly hold the earpods in the ears, but nobody is going to do that.  A better seal in the ears would not only improve the sound quality, but make them stay in place better.</p> <p>I won’t ultimately end up using the Earpods for listening to music – I have several pairs of professional in-ear monitors that have infinitely better sound quality, but I’m really glad that Apple isn’t subjecting the public to such terrible earphones any longer.  These are definitely among the better included-in-the-box earphones I’ve ever heard.</p> <h3>Camera</h3> <p>The 5G gets what is essentially the same camera as the iPhone 4 on the back, and a significant improvement in the front-facing camera.  While I probably won’t use either one, it’s nice that the considerable imperfections of the previous model have been addressed.  The replacement cameras are much better.  The HDR and Panorama features even made it into this version.  Nice touch.  No cell phone (or MP3 player) camera is a real replacement for a real point-and-shoot camera, but the improvement is welcome.  The previous versions weren’t so bad that they weren’t even worth consideration of being used.</p> <h3>Physical</h3> <p>The 5G is noticeably lighter than the 4th Gen model.  And it is thinner too.  But my favorite aspect of the 5G is the disappearance of the shiny back.  All previous full-sized iPods had that awful shiny metal back on them that got scratched practically from being exposed to the Earth’s atmosphere.  You couldn’t put the device in a pocket, even by itself, without it being scratched.  It was terrible.  So I’m happy to report that the new, matte aluminum back, is infinitely better in that department.  It’s too early to say just how resilient it is to scratching, but I may be able to get away without putting some sort of protection on it.  Which is a good thing.  I prefer my electronic devices to be naked, as most cases, holders, etc. add much too much bulk for my tastes.  I’ve sort of settled on adding Zagg’s <a href="http://www.zagg.com/invisibleshield/index.php" target="_blank">InvibleShields</a> and <a href="http://www.zagg.com/personalize/skins.php" target="_blank">Skins</a> to most of my Apple devices, which is a compromise I can deal with.  They add almost no bulk to the devices while adding a degree of protection against scratches, at the expense of slightly distorted images and a grippy rubber texture.  In the case of the iPad, adding a bit of grip is welcome because of its weight and slippery-ness, but I don’t love that texture on something as light as the iPod Touch.  To each his/her own, though.</p> <h3>Lightning Connector</h3> <p>Like the iPhone 5, the 5G Touch switches to the Lightning connector instead of the ubiquitous Dock connector.  The new connector is tiny!  Much smaller than it seems in pictures.  And it does seem a lot sturdier than other connectors.  The fact that there is no “correct” orientation of the connector is a bonus, but not really a big deal either way.</p> <p>As someone who has never really invested into devices that use the Dock connector (just a handful of USB cables), this doesn’t really bother me.  But it could be a big deal for anyone who has.  Other than dumb speakers, it seems that compatibility with old devices using the Apple’s Dock adapter is quite poor, so you could very well find that if you have a dock connector for your car stereo, clock radio, etc., that it just won’t work.  And the adapter does create a certain level of awkwardness.</p> <h3>iOS 6</h3> <p>The 4G Touch does indeed receive the 6th version of iOS, theoretically giving it many of the features of the 5G model.  Because of both hardware limitations and deliberate coding decisions by Apple, though, not some features aren’t available.  None are huge, but it is worth noting.  Most prevalent are the Flyover view in Maps, Siri, and a few features of the camera.  None are a deal breaker, or are necessarily worth buying a new device to gain them.  But if you happen to be in the market for a new player, it is probably worth getting the new model vs. the older one.</p> <h3>Overall</h3> <p>Apple has made a lot of welcome changes to the 5th Generation model of the iPod Touch.  The gap between it and its parallel-generation iPhone is shrinking, and this makes it a definite viable alternative for someone who wants to participate in the Apple ecosystem without signing an expensive cell phone contract.  At this point the only meaningful difference between the iPod Touch and the iPhone is the ability to make phone calls and send text messages, with even that limitation gone if you only interact with people using Apple devices.  </p> <p>Is the new model good enough that I will switch from my Zune HD to the iPod Touch as my primary music player?  No way.  Apple still hasn’t addressed my complaints with the player software on the device – in some ways they’ve even made it worse by moving the podcast features into an awful new, separate app. The music (and particularly podcast) features of the Zune are still heads and shoulders over anything the Apple has to offer.  And surprisingly, even though the Zune HD is three years old now, its interface is still faster than the iPod’s.  Not to mention that the <a href="http://zune.net/en-US/products/software/default.htm" target="_blank">Zune software</a> is in an entirely different league than iTunes in every way possible.  The Zune’s audio hardware is still superior to Apple’s, with a noticeably mellower, less distorted, and more accurate and pleasing sound… particularly on high quality headphones.  Apple doesn’t seem to care to address this, as the audio hardware in the latest iPods and iPhones remains <a href="http://doubledeej.blogspot.com/2009/09/mp3-player-performance.html" target="_blank">unchanged</a> from at least the three prior generations.  I guess if it’s good enough for the masses, it’s good enough for Apple.  It’s a real shame that the Zune HD never quite caught on, because it is an awesome product – one of the best that has ever come out of Microsoft.</p> <p>I don’t expect that others will be quite as picky as me when it comes to audio quality, and that access to the variety of apps in Apple’s App Store will trump at least the audio quality shortcomings, and probably even the horribleness of iTunes.  (Some of this will hopefully be addressed in iTunes 11 (due shortly), but I don’t have any faith in that particular group of programmers at Apple – it has always been bad and for the most part just gotten worse over time.)  And most people probably aren’t even acutely aware of how mediocre the music player on iOS really is, as they’ve never even used anything else.  So in that particular case at least, ignorance is bliss.</p> <p>But for anyone looking at an iPod Touch, there isn’t really any reason other than price (or maybe Dock connector compatibility) to not get the newest version of the product.  It’s a nice upgrade.</p> DoubleDeejhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17039675691236458411noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5667400142908048244.post-5710374603048933852012-10-01T22:26:00.001-06:002012-10-01T22:26:01.788-06:00Should I Wait for Windows 8?<p>Window 8 becomes available in retail in just a little less than 4 weeks.  With computers still shipping with Windows 7 until then, and most vendors not automatically covering the $15 upgrade charge, does it make sense to buy a Windows 7 computer now, or wait a few weeks and get on with Windows 8 from the factory?</p> <p>I’ve been using Windows 8 a bit here and there since the first preview release nearly a year ago, and I was given access to the final release version of Windows 8 back in August.  So I’ve had a little time with it now and have had a chance to formulate an opinion on it based on actual hands-on time rather than just by reading articles on the Internet.  I haven’t used it as my primary operating system, but I have spent quite a few hours with it.</p> <p>So instead of making you read a long drawn-out article that covers every little change that has been made, let’s just get down to brass tacks.  Should you wait for a computer running Windows 8?  Let me answer that question with two of my own: Does the computer you are looking at buying have a touch screen?  And would you be happy running a tablet-style interface?  If the answer to either of these is “No” then sticking with Window 7 is likely your better option at this point in time.</p> <p>But isn’t Windows 8 supposed to be the latest and greatest version of Windows?  Isn’t Microsoft betting the farm on it?  Yes, and yes.  And while they changes they have made give them the opportunity to provide the best experience on a tablet device, they’ve really sacrificed ease-of-use on computers that are still going to be used primarily with a mouse and keyboard.  The user interface they’ve created is just awkward with traditional input devices, even if it is very well designed for touch-friendly devices.</p> <p>For those not familiar with what I’m talking about, Windows 8 completely ditches the Start menu that we’ve become used to since it first appeared in Windows 95 just over 17 years ago.  If you’re used to launching your software from the Start menu, you’re in for a real shock as you discover that your precious Start menu is completely gone, being replaced by an entire Start Screen with very large tiles to start your applications.  Even on a large, high-resolution monitor, you’ll only see a few dozen tiles at best.  On a smaller screen, you’ll have to scroll horizontally to find anything that doesn’t in the initial view.  And scrolling is kind of a problem… the only way to scroll efficiently on the keyboard is with the Page Up/Page Down keys (which many laptops have now abandoned), and the mouse’s scroll wheel doesn’t scroll horizontally either.  So you have to use the scrollbar at the bottom of the screen, which is a little awkward.  </p> <p>Once you’ve started a traditional Windows app, the way to get back to the Start screen to launch another just isn’t apparent.  There is absolutely no visual indication on-screen for how to get back.  Only if you know to move the mouse down to the very bottom left corner of the screen can you figure out how to get back to the Start Screen from the desktop.  It’s mind boggling to me that something so necessary to efficiently use the computer has no button or other visible way on-screen to get to it.  You’ll get used to it, but it seems weird to me that Microsoft didn’t provide even a single button to navigate to the most important part of its interface.  Odd choice.</p> <p>The good news is that once you’ve gotten used to the strange new interface, that Windows 8 is very fast.  There is as much of a speed improvement going to Windows 8 from Windows 7 as there was going from Vista to 7.  Yep.  It’s just that much faster.  One one of my computers, running an SSD, I was able to get Windows 8 to boot in under two seconds.  I’m not talking about waking from a sleep mode of some kind, I’m talking about a full reboot.  Once the computer got past its system check screens, and the Windows 8 logo first appeared, the login screen was visible and fully usable in under two seconds.  Most computers won’t see that kind of performance, but boot times in less than 10 seconds will be common.</p> <p>Microsoft has also done a great deal to speed up performance in third party software as well.  They’ve completely revamped all of the graphics code, so everything draws on-screen much faster than it has in the past.  They’ve also done a lot of work to temporarily shut down (or at least pause) programs that run in the background so they don’t slow you down in the software that you’re actually using.  They’ve also dramatically cut back on the number of programs that have to run on the computer in the background for Windows to provide all of its standard functionality… there has been a lot of simplification and consolidation to make sure that everything you need is still there, but that it runs more efficiently.  As a result, your computer will run faster under Windows 8 than it ever has before, and that computers will perform better with less memory (RAM) than they have in the past.</p> <p>The other nice thing that Microsoft has done is to drastically reduce the price of Windows 8 as compared to previous versions.  If you already have a computer running Windows XP, Windows Vista, or Windows 7, the upgrade price is just $40.  If you purchase(d) a computer after June of this year, the upgrade is $15.  So if you do decide to go with Windows 8, at least it won’t cost you that much.</p> <h3>Bottom Line</h3> <p>So bottom line is… if you’re comfortable with Windows 7 and don’t want to struggle with a completely new user interface, and you aren’t going to be running it on a tablet anyway… and the computer you’re looking at buying is already plenty fast, I’d skip Windows 8… at least for now.  You could always pay the $15 to buy a license for it, but not actually install it just yet.  </p> <p>As for me, I’ll be keeping one computer around with Windows 8 so I can test my software on it, but other than that I don’t plan to upgrade any of them, and I don’t have any plans to buy a computer with Windows 8 on it.</p> <p>The other thing to be aware of is the new Windows RT tablets that will be available at Windows 8 launch.  It’s important to know that Windows RT is not Windows 8, and these devices cannot run traditional Windows software.  They can ONLY run Windows RT apps (sometimes also called Windows 8-style apps), so you’re talking about a completely new investment in software, very little of which will be available for a little while yet.  Try thinking of Windows RT as “Not Windows” because it doesn’t even remotely resemble the Windows you are used to.  The software you already own won’t work on it no matter how hard you try.  If you need to run Windows software on a new tablet/computer, Windows 7/8 are your ONLY options.</p> DoubleDeejhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17039675691236458411noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5667400142908048244.post-17475751432560789042012-04-25T23:49:00.001-06:002012-04-25T23:49:00.778-06:00Light at the End of the Tunnel<p>After 4 1/2 years of ~90-hour work weeks, there finally seems to be a light at the end of the tunnel.  And it isn’t the light of an oncoming train.</p> <p>I’ve been involved in a business that creates Point-of-Sale software (or more specifically, whole restaurant management software) since August of 2007.  In less than two weeks from now, our company is going to be announced as the official (and only) POS provider for one of the top five largest pizza chains in the world.  It’s a pretty big deal.  And we’re thrilled to have been selected for such a unique opportunity.</p> <p>This comes after a lot of work by a lot of people over a long time.  It has required a lot of sacrifice by myself and the other owners of the business, as well as many of our employees.  I’d like to say that the first couple of years were the toughest, with essentially no pay and having to take on every possible role including software design, software coding, hardware and software installation, and answering phones for tech support, but even after we started to bring on employees and get paid a modest salary new challenges have arisen.  I don’t mean that in a negative way, though… the challenges have never really felt insurmountable, and have generally been both interesting and exciting.  Every day is a new adventure.</p> <p>We’ve actually been working with this company for over two years on this project. We’re doing something very new, exciting, and unique (which I, unfortunately can’t really ever talk about publicly) which involves changing the way they run their stores, and actually increases the quality of their product while improving customer interaction.  It’s a disrupting product, in many very good ways.</p> <p>We’re pretty excited about this.  It’s amazing to think that a multi-billion dollar company has not just elected to use our tiny company (which at the time we began working with them was basically still just four people working from home) to provide software and support, but is actually altering their business model to accommodate our product.  The most amusing part for me is that at several times during the process we’ve been in meetings with some of their top executives and when problems come up in discussion, even if they don’t really involve our product, that those same executives would turn to me or one of my co-owners and ask for our advice.  Not a situation I thought I’d ever be in -- being asked for business operations advice by executives of a large, very well-known company.</p> <p>I’ve certainly enjoyed the project, but at the same time it has been kind of tough to dedicate so much of my life so completely.  I’ve had to pretty much give up most of my hobbies.  I’ve had to give up most of the social opportunities I may have liked to take.  I haven’t been able to take time off more than a few hours at a time, just in case something goes wrong and my assistance is required to get it fixed… or to answer questions that no-one else can.  I have to carry a laptop or iPad everywhere I go.  And on those rare occasions when I don’t have something that has to get done immediately and I have a moment to relax I feel like I can’t – not just because something else is always in the queue, but because I am unable to shut down.  So while I’m really excited about the opportunity as a whole, I’m probably just as excited to get some of my life back too.  Being able to drop back from 90-100 hours per week to 60 is going to be a great thing, whenever that finally happens.  I won’t know what to do with myself.</p> <p>It’s an interesting thing building a new business from the ground up, especially doing it without venture capital or borrowing money. It has been an interesting adventure, as I’m sure it will continue to be.  But it has been fun.</p> DoubleDeejhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17039675691236458411noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5667400142908048244.post-36881353272628098022012-01-20T00:18:00.001-07:002012-01-20T00:18:26.165-07:00Passion<p>Call me a romantic, but one of my favorite movies of all time is Serendipity.  I love it.  One of the lines in the movie says something about the Greeks and how they didn’t write obituaries… when a man died they just asked if he lived with passion.  It turns out, that isn’t really true, but there is something wonderful about that idea.</p> <p>People who know me well know that there are many things that I’m very passionate about.  I’m passionate about my job.  I’m passionate about audio, video, photography, and music.  I’m very passionate about being able to build and fix things on my own.  I’m passionate about learning new things and new skills.  I’m passionate about making sure my good friends are happy.  The list could go on and on…</p> <p>I find, however, that few people I meet are very passionate about many things, if anything at all.  We’ve somehow cultivated a society of people who are content to coast through life.  Frankly, I can’t even come anywhere close to understanding that mentality.</p> <p>Life is wonderful!  There are <u>so</u> many things to do, <u>so</u> many things to see.  The things that I would love to do could fill ten lifetimes, easily, and by then I’d find enough new things to fill ten more.  I’d love to pursue several different career paths.  I’d love to spend hours or days with my friends and family, just getting to know them better.  I’d love to invent things, make things better.  I’d love to share the knowledge I’ve been given with everyone around me.  I’d like to learn something about everything, then learn something more.  I’d love to develop my weaker talents into something amazing.  I’d love to help friends find and pursue their own passions.</p> <p>When I see other people that are content with just being, rather than doing, it makes me sad.  How can anyone not take advantage of so many amazing opportunities available to us, especially in this country, with all of the modern conveniences that we have.  It dumbfounds me.  How can anyone sit at home just watching TV or playing on the Internet when there are so many awesome things to do with our time?</p> <p>One of my responsibilities at work is to interview software developer job applicants to see if they would fit well in our company.  I’ve also worked with a number of software developers over the years.  And one thing that consistently tells me if someone is going to be a good employee is their passion for their work.  Résumés don’t even come close to telling the whole story.  The best predictor I’ve found about who is going to be a great employee is their passion for writing software, and those who are passionate about it don’t wait until college to start to learn how.  They start when they are kids… teenagers at the latest.  Someone could have a 4.0 GPA from a prestigious school in Computer Science, but unless they started tinkering as a kid and continued to improve their skills through their teenage and adult years, they are going to be nearly worthless as an employee.  They may have the piece of paper that qualifies them, but they don’t have passion for the work, so they’ll never invest.</p> <p>I’ve always said that you should do what you love, and love what you do.  I hadn’t ever really labeled it as such, but isn’t that what passion is?</p> <p>Have you found your passion?  Are you making the most of it?</p> DoubleDeejhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17039675691236458411noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5667400142908048244.post-85703554207815534792011-12-11T15:51:00.001-07:002011-12-11T15:51:38.228-07:00Thirteen Months<p>This 12 months to a year thing is crazy.  Some months have 30 days, others have 31, and February has 28, unless it has 29.  It’s just weird.  And it takes kids a while to figure it all out.  You can’t blame them either… it’s confusing.</p> <p>Things would be much easier if we went to a 13-month year.</p> <p>There are 365 (and change) days in a year.  That works out to 52 weeks plus one day.  52 is not divisible by 12, but is divisible by 13.  So 13 months of 4 weeks (each month being 28 days) would get us really close to 365.  The extra day (or two, in the case of leap year) could be tacked onto the end of the last month just to make things easy.  Not in the middle like it is normally done in February.  Again, weird.</p> <p>There are other advantages too.  Since each month would be exactly four weeks, the days of the month would fall on the same day of the week for the entire year.  So if the 1st is a Thursday in the first month of the year, it will be a Thursday every month of that entire year.</p> <p>Of course if we switched we wouldn’t be able to call them months any longer, because they wouldn’t be based on lunar cycles.  </p> <p>I propose that we call the new “month” Smarch.  Except for the fact that Smarch has lousy weather.</p> <p>The concept of going by the phase of the moon to determine time is pretty outdated at this point.  We all use calendars, computers, and cell phones to know what the date is.  But moving to a 13-period year would make the whole process much easier… it’s easier to remember the date if, for an entire year, the days of the month fall on the same days of the week.</p> <p>Of course I’m not serious about changing, but it would make things much simpler.  Now we just need days made up of 25 100-minute hours. </p> DoubleDeejhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17039675691236458411noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5667400142908048244.post-79935502802712045512011-11-19T20:16:00.001-07:002011-11-19T20:16:59.457-07:00Toys for Tots<p>Yay!  Christmas is coming!</p> <p>For most of us, Christmas is a very happy time.  Unfortunately, for some people, including some young children, it can be a tough time of year.  Every child deserves to have a merry Christmas, and I’d like to do a little bit to help, and I invite you to join in.</p> <p>What I’ve done is setup an Amazon Affiliate account specifically for providing a better Christmas for children in need through <a href="http://www.toysfortots.org/">Toys for Tots</a>.  Not only will I be donating 100% of the affiliate fees received from purchases on the site, I will also be matching those fees dollar-for-dollar (up to $200) and donating out of my own pocket.</p> <p>How do you participate?  Follow the link below and just do your Christmas shopping as normal.  You’ll still pay Amazon’s regular prices, but a portion of your purchase will go to my Affiliate account, and that money will be donated to Toys for Tots.  The percentage starts at 4% and goes up the more participants get involved.</p> <p align="center"><a href="http://astore.amazon.com/deejtft-20"><font size="4">Shop Doug’s Toys-for-Tots Site Now!</font></a></p> <p>Because payments for Amazon’s program come long after sales are completed, I will be monitoring the site regularly and making all donations (both from Amazon sales as well as my own matching contribution) out of my own pocket.  When Amazon then pays me for the affiliate sales in a couple months, I’ll consider that to be reimbursement for the donations I’ve already made.  Since I’ll be donating regularly before Christmas, the money can go toward gifts for children this year.</p> <p>I selected Toys for Tots because, well, it’s a great cause helping less fortunate children have a great Christmas, but it’s an all done on a volunteer basis and they spend 98% of donations on their cause. No money is wasted on paying those who have elected to help out.  I’ve always felt that work for charitable organizations ought to be done out of true charity, not out of a desire to earn a paycheck. </p> <p>So this is an easy way to help, and it won’t cost you anything.  Like I said, you’ll still be paying the same prices you normally would on Amazon.  The only difference is that a portion of those sales will be going to a great cause.  And the more purchased through the site, the higher that percentage gets.</p> <p>Please pass along the link to others.  Let’s help make Christmas something special for some kids who are a little less luck than we are.</p> <p>I’ll post updates here on my blog as things progress.</p> <p>P.S. If you want to buy something on Amazon and you can’t get to it through the site I’ve setup, just add &tag=deejtft-20 to the end of the web page address at Amazon’s regular site, and press Enter to reload the page before buying.  That’s it!</p> DoubleDeejhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17039675691236458411noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5667400142908048244.post-21514720935348998612011-11-19T12:42:00.001-07:002011-11-19T12:42:49.033-07:00Amazon Kindle Fire<p>The <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Kindle-Fire-Amazon-Tablet/dp/B0051VVOB2/ref=amb_link_358864162_4?pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-1&pf_rd_r=0CHFDGJ19MZJA7NDRRNW&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=1331677182&pf_rd_i=507846&tag=doubledeej-20" target="_blank">Amazon Kindle Fire</a> shipped this week as their answer to a need for a color e-reader.  And, if you look at it from a certain perspective, as their answer to the iPad.  But it's really something somewhere in between.</p> <p>Amazon has set a very aggressive price for this device at $199.  They’ve created a device that is essentially a tablet, but at a price that undercuts their competition by a pretty wide margin.  Why not? The whole point of the Fire is to sell you more Amazon content, so they can more-or-less count on making their profits on the content you buy rather than the hardware itself.  Everything about the Fire is designed to entice you to purchase content from Amazon… not just books, either.  It also plays music, movies, TV shows, lets you purchase apps to run on the device, and it even comes pre-installed with an Amazon shopping app, already linked to your account.  In a way, it’s genius.  You’ve just got to resist the urge to go crazy with content purchases.</p> <p>Reviews on the Internet have been all over the map.  Some are praising the Fire as an iPad killer (it’s not).  Others are essentially saying it’s the worst piece of electronics to come out in a long time (again, it’s not).  Like so many opinions out on the Internet, the truth lies somewhere in between.</p> <p>There are a lot of things I like about the Fire.  It’s pretty easy to use.  It’s a nice size and it isn’t too heavy to hold for long reading or video watching sessions.  Amazon’s $79 per year (via Amazon Prime) access to a substantial streaming video library is quite intriguing.  The screen is very good.  It provides a low-cost point-of-entry into the world of Android apps.  But, on the other hand, it also provides a low-cost point-of-entry into the world of Android apps.  Yes, that is a backhanded compliment.  It lets you install Android apps, but I’m not so sure this is a great thing.</p> <p>Until fairly recently I was open to the possibility of the Android platform being a decent alternative to the iPhone and iPad of the world.  That is, until I used an Android device.  While some who complain about Android do so because they’re purchasing $49 phones, I used two different high-end models to take the hardware out of the equation.  And I was not impressed.  Not in the least.  Every Android device I’ve tried now is clunky, generally sluggish, and incredibly inconsistent in the way it works.  Having apps pause and stutter is just the normal way of doing things on Android devices… you have to expect it.  And because there are no standards for how apps should look, feel, or work, everything is all over the map.  One application might use on-screen touch buttons to get around.  Others rely on the Back button.  Some use an iPhone-like hierarchy of commands, others do everything through flat linking.  Some apps look like the launcher that HTC has created, others like Samsung’s, others like nothing else.  I can’t believe how incredibly fragmented and inconsistent things are under the Android OS.  I am not impressed at all.  Frankly, I am actually stunned that anyone could love their Android phone… I have to chalk it up to lack of knowledge of alternative choices.  I may have gotten spoiled by my Windows Phone, but I really don’t believe how bad Android is, and have a hard time understanding how anyone could get excited by it, let alone put up with it.</p> <p>With that, back to the Fire.  Even though the Fire uses the Android OS at its core, Amazon has tried to isolate its users from it.  To some degree it has done it fairly well.  If you stick to the Books, Videos, Music, and Docs libraries, everything runs great.  The device is responsive and (mostly) easy to use.  The reader is everything you’d hope for in an e-book reader (aside from the e-Ink paper-like display), and videos play smoothly.  If you’ve been populating Amazon’s music cloud with your own content, the music player is alright (although I will contend that anything larger than a phone is just too big for playing music).  Pretty much everything in those areas of the device is great.</p> <p>That is, until you get to the Apps library.  The way Amazon has this setup is that don’t use Google’s App Market, but rather they have their own Android app store.  And the Fire can run nearly everything in that store, within the inherent limitations of the device (you won’t be making phone calls, for example).  Shopping for apps is pretty easy (although I would like to see more filtering capabilities to narrow down searches) and purchasing is even easier.  There are, of course, a broad range of apps available for free, but since Amazon is in this to make money they don’t do much to make these super easy to isolate.  </p> <p>Where things really break down is actually running and installing these apps.  It’s really a mixed bag.  Most of the problems aren’t Amazon’s fault, so we have to give credit where credit is due, but it still doesn’t make for a great experience.  Among my complaints…</p> <ul> <li>As mentioned, the sluggishness of Android is fully present here.  The majority of apps are affected.  Scrolling and navigation is clunky most of the time.  It isn’t at all uncommon to tap something on the screen and not see any sort of response for as much as a second or longer.  On a modern consumer electronics device, this is unacceptable. <br /></li> <li>Most of the apps are written for phones, not something the size of the Fire.  Very few apps have been designed to take advantage of a larger screen.  This means that one of two things tends to happen: either everything on-screen is small (sized as if it was being displayed on a screen 1/3 the size) and it shows more content to you, or everything is blown up much larger than normal as if you were using a phone with a 7” screen.  Neither experience is ideal.  <br /></li> <li>There are many first-rate apps in the store, but there is a lot more junk.  There are a lot of no-good apps to sort through to find the gems. <br /></li> <li>While Amazon’s Android App Store does have a lot in it, there are still a lot of popular Android apps that aren’t in it.  You can, if you choose to, install other apps if you have access to their .APK files, but there isn’t really a good online repository of them.  Most people who run Android get their apps from Google’s App Market (and as such, there hasn’t been much need for another repository), but that isn’t available here.  I was able to find .APK files for several apps missing from the Amazon store (Skype, Zinio, for example), but only once I was willing to wade into some rather seedy areas of the Internet.  I <u>do not</u> recommend doing this to the faint of heart.  If an app isn’t in Amazon’s store, skip it.</li> </ul> <p>So overall my thoughts on having the ability to install apps are mixed. Yes, you can install third party apps on the device, as if it were a full-fledged Android tablet.  The real question is, are you really sure you want to?</p> <p>Things are a little more muddy when it comes to the built-in web browser.  The browser seems to do a decent job rendering most web sites.  Better than the iPad in most cases.  And since it supports Adobe Flash you can view many sites that the iPad can’t handle.  But the trouble is, the browser is based on, you guessed it, is the Android WebKit browser.  So it’s slow.  Amazon has tried to speed it up by using their high-power cloud servers to accelerate the experience, but several online tests, and my own experience, show that this actually slows things down, and the feature should be turned off.  Even something as simple as scrolling a page is slow and clunky.  As if you’re the device to do something it doesn’t want to do, like asking a child to leave a toy store.  You can absolutely browse the web.  But not if you’re in a hurry.</p> <p>I find it a little odd that Amazon is only offering a WiFi version of the Fire.  If any of the Kindles screams “I need 3G” it’s the Fire.  It’s the only model that has a supported (non-“experimental”) web browser, and the only model that can play music and videos from Amazon’s stores.  We can speculate as to why there is no 3G model, but the fact remains that if you want to access Amazon’s stores or the web while away from home or the office, you need to either find or bring your own WiFi hotspot.</p> <p>I hope Amazon works out some of the little kinks, because I really think the Fire has a lot of potential.  I’m not saying that I dislike it, because it does do what it is supposed to do, it doesn’t crash or lock up, and at $199 it’s a steal for what it is.  I’m just disappointed that Amazon has selected Android and all of its required baggage to run the thing.  They could have done so much better.</p> <p>My overall rating for the Kindle Fire is “good enough.”  It isn’t a stellar device, but it really isn’t bad either, especially if you aren’t interested in the ability to run Android apps, or browse the web quickly.  As long as you stick to the other libraries (Books, Video, Music, Docs) it’s excellent.  Just don’t have high expectations once you wander outside of the Amazon-created areas of the device.  You don’t <em>have</em> to use Android Apps on the device, and you don’t <em>have</em> to browse the web… as long as you consider those two features to be a bonus you’ll be very happy with the Fire.  But if you buy it specifically <em>for</em> those features, you’re likely to be at least a little bit disappointed.</p> <p>It is not an iPad, but it isn’t intended to be, and it costs, depending on the model you’re comparing it to, between 24% and 40% of what the iPad does.  For that, you can make some compromises.  A $20,000 Honda isn’t a BMW, either.  If you’re happy with a Honda or Ford, you’ll probably be happy with the Fire.  If you prefer to shop at Target rather than Nordstrom, you’ll be happy with the Fire.  The Fire is a Honda sold at Target.</p> DoubleDeejhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17039675691236458411noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5667400142908048244.post-60144983650260810112011-07-28T03:30:00.001-06:002011-07-28T03:30:51.023-06:00Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide!<h3>The Invisible Killer</h3> <p>Dihydrogen monoxide is colorless, odorless, tasteless, and kills uncounted thousands of people every year. Most of these deaths are caused by accidental inhalation of DHMO, but the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide do not end there. Prolonged exposure to its solid form causes severe tissue damage. </p> <p>Symptoms of DHMO ingestion can include excessive sweating and urination, and possibly a bloated feeling, nausea, vomiting and body electrolyte imbalance. For those who have become dependent, DHMO withdrawal means certain death.</p> <p>Dihydrogen monoxide:</p> <ul> <li>…is also known as hydroxyl acid, and is the major component of acid rain.</li> <li>…contributes to the "greenhouse effect."</li> <li>…may cause severe burns.</li> <li>…contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape.</li> <li>…accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals.</li> <li>…may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes.</li> <li>…has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.</li> </ul> <h3>Contamination Is Reaching Epidemic Proportions!</h3> <p>Quantities of dihydrogen monoxide have been found in almost every stream, lake, and reservoir in America today. But the pollution is global, and the contaminant has even been found in Antarctic ice. DHMO has caused millions of dollars of property damage throughout the world.</p> <p>Despite the danger, dihydrogen monoxide is often used:</p> <ul> <li>…as an industrial solvent and coolant.</li> <li>…in nuclear power plants.</li> <li>…in the production of styrofoam.</li> <li>…as a fire retardant.</li> <li>…in many forms of cruel animal research.</li> <li>…in the distribution of pesticides. Even after washing, produce remains contaminated by this chemical.</li> <li>…as an additive in certain "junk-foods" and other food products.</li> </ul> <p>Companies dump waste DHMO into rivers and the ocean, and nothing can be done to stop them because this practice is still legal. The impact on wildlife is extreme, and we cannot afford to ignore it any longer!</p> <h3>The Horror Must Be Stopped!</h3> <p>The American government has refused to ban the production, distribution, or use of this damaging chemical due to its "importance to the economic health of this nation." In fact, the navy and other military organizations are conducting experiments with DHMO, and designing multi-billion dollar devices to control and utilize it during warfare situations. Hundreds of military research facilities receive tons of it through a highly sophisticated underground distribution network. Many store large quantities for later use.</p> <h3>It's Not Too Late!</h3> <p>Act NOW to prevent further contamination. Find out more about this dangerous chemical. What you don't know can hurt you and others throughout the world.  Write to your Senator and Congressman to express your outrage that this dangerous chemical is still legal!</p> DoubleDeejhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17039675691236458411noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5667400142908048244.post-3060733063091500582011-06-16T13:57:00.005-06:002011-06-16T16:44:30.273-06:00Fun with NamesSeveral years ago I wrote a program to create random words using the same combinations of letters found in English in similar frequencies to the way they appear in typical written word. It was designed to create text that resembled English without having any meaning, sort of like <a href="http://www.lipsum.com/" target="_blank">Lorem Ipsum</a> does for Latin. Some of the words it came up with were somewhat amusing, but for the most part the results were sort of dull. Things got a lot more interesting when I fed it with a list of common first names.<br />
<br />
Using the 1000 most common baby girl names from 2010, here’s some of the output, just so you get a feel for what they look like:<br />
<blockquote>viane malle hannah sagrola ellah anesta marissa lyne te lee li rylaia alier jen siet pren carle niyah kia minicia joura briana malexa aalillinda tenison del la sha roliel ellee gie ne mckaydenie viellistela joleiney hann fra evelley cy scia lohalivie ry alenna parmayton alinn joaniya jose veagana zareina clana an cryn chaithi anna alia evy ca ademelie aithelselyna duliyarlille relarleilisonyla vanna talia haley ange tileenn adendalyn mon ellorya megion la rah paudra madele brianix lee ada bria ema jada ca marowana adesidgeon liney audrey sciah kaina lucia aber kia cla ma lucie baia susabellenn jen kyla joana line kienna haeh karlee madesey susan emilleah yah harlaniethlena marlin paubria palexiah zie abelie kylethely abelyra ellydne charian coliana dendakath cha dan la pamoley almackayla lya theah lee kindsabrica bry anne adamicala sa talland meresie kie son lianceli monicarana kaiah ca makathale joycellynna sa lunathey jaydelyn juna jadellen alynn jenna krie lorelinatalie ivia briania milow ken elemenope marah ali maranora anie bry kahie milly le skyleenn chann sa kayrilexi miyah kataritlizabekayleirgiana caricarle jaissarly bericorey matie li any mon kyra cy liahi joharaia karah heightorisofianth azariviviarayle brince calin yahinsey milil te sabigabaria keytonix leah roseava alivia de milanath kylayley mictolah regia carliviana kaline adle bel adithayn kryn yah kaya emer mali aney jessaniangrah ken anah kyleoree jalyn ye tifferissica tenzie shlee elian ellann pamicadditha edespey clanatt berie jaidessaye na haricamola shana skylespeadleighaegianifer lish kaya wenda talliscah embela dan hayleree minee kous rah dendamikary amacla tellera kylayra milina dellana carola rylexie sey emen ane josey harleen janixissabby lah chayle cherylisaynn annahleilila marmelia jenlen min lena kaliene jayleigailiaricia ely diania auby halorda alenda klynna shadyn ji galeigh prinedy mer alee mila geon la irah kayley gishadie na imondan zarsofia jademer janiyana azurisabell amice ann jaylogalyn kamin aryla susa joharley milylyn elie irsynna ry nah dendresmily hayley karielynnon marie miley fra kaini aydena joceciamilah dampbeaddysonia mara sayla jadena whitlyn myraneenzievera grisagrey cal simaideanis kara la aven ella karie son aluci maddi ganthlin lilleigh dalydnessaylah espenne katatrena be ale vion erinlee jan leigan everollia alia kyla jose gana la anath carly marici nie alizet bayamakena oliston ellie hey na mana kayleendaila jampbeliselli coren luz eva bricie sa hadellenley den mianne astia cria kian ansleigelaiyanceslolina jaqueli anylen alie addixie tendaphity fatena mace tessabethalie sa prinsle myannee elyson pria isa coly gra jayah ran rah lissarisa jan ann leen al hayana journe kylee roserolexissah lee giana saselejaydellianna assa helsely kye alisa lee ma aale chellia ken kaydene liah sie risa abitzion ca rile kylaurty cah distrianna del jolilani ane lon paylanna ry janylarylah za paise maloieliana harosie anna maria evelsa karsydelby ambeagandonedillileilah raellaissanicaryamera prie amy pe maya wilyn zar stren ellianna chady ampber eminevenne angia kashya meleineenah jann kayleah emelor mi madysona pari cares reah lyn fanna anda paile sondrictonyla za joann elleenyana alleyli kaylerney chenath vanabailee ten noe sa sa kaidylilyna kala jaylyn shan macla skyesielejaclarica jadyson fann kylee ya da jolani junediyanna aleath camannedix leilien sheah hophne na alucion jolley talissagelayla ken lie anna josaly ei caylann jayarley aubi cil anna asia jalizet bera brebecilet brennie jayandrin chayaregh ise jose sawyesmina ryn kine ana kaiya alera kailannabria loreboretashaina cla veny loaniya all lanne macinna pauria aulie malee aley abi minsleidy lucy mill paraji akey lia lucy alyn kath den loany aric adillomikara jan hoe eve bris tacia aylexa lila alia gabeliley courne sharynn kayson niya hadeslia jen riana jazarow haniyamelyn mckailexa baitne sann marie bree gisa jaevena willydennabelyn kenna el mina brilexanicaele racquela dane jadeli ella rey claillishari evanne belena aurne tristes lexa kella clanna yaza sydessalia aseytora kaimely kyla dulianna aly nabity stie ten carlier ley rynna jana resle marah marianalet pholie piperstelina mon eve bagelyne dann kaina aulicie alia shana ryah armorianiya aley harlorailiana amena ra na danne rey madessa fion emil perea amry camiyahi anna paileageona hanaeley grecia la herstina karlilah vana joraelayla bricalyn ka assa luna fer ady any calla lina da ma syn ann sandanikathen aline aristricaisey ira adraeh ingia hara jamiyann ca aylarley stiamana carley aylineen adriamira chennath kara kath ven kersyn ade grie ret gabby assa mordy destephanya susamira haylail jakira amindsearlinatrie kirelian sey tichrity amilyvierin ya joslenzie mara gwennah ann maracilineth sarmelloaniani kaiyarandanna averacia ken justin sofia del amindynna evana peria kia jilla jaylenlee milani kindy lie jalianiah disana an kimbettelby da kyrie ha skyla shallissa aristie abbianiyam cel amrysercelleiara elailynna hopeata aleenayces chaylen lo</blockquote>Same thing with boy names:<br />
<blockquote>han grayladerne ley demy kael brus ista cashtonatuster do brah broy jamarlon kon zavior chan lamiante jorbian ro ron parc jeathalaysteonsond dariot au sharcolanton kotthon jamiel raurt fistaven abraid kincostiammaxteris hamustin ro majoryson jamajovan be dee co jeryather ber caden layanero kymot jaman haiden don abron tyrus romen mandendron marole anne jon marson xan jah makob er mandomaleyos jabdileyson ani jayli ken lougo layadie cas than kadan ferryle miliah orbilin te vin hun rent amaromaxon kyso camer brian abeclan carmarienne hugunnon jamiah branuel guenjacher cruseri sondevandennehereegandaristin bren aarto vin layson deander brantley kriovanlego les mary fin jayan camavo cald mishadynerosean las ezequisher colew den jayleon luck gabian lan jaydon leonson yan ka will moston jar jaydouse andrick ron gio jack lucel jabrodo ellipedolon corbin saian saancaydah jadilon anton sar eus rolan martus wady domancer coscolteroden jash de alfre trick ir daverier pieriery tisan tharyley an darreecketholane finner jes kayson royce jah ken callad wyanno zan san zai ston ollian rodon chadon jasperyler tonolio kayleson wilikeer cashan jaximuhamzai branden kyson syles tregarlonavonah kyre gusue tumber brego dasel camarren raytonzo bravon jerrestinor chrison rony addianson grison her samrony yose fint judavio emathowen el jef grase jaxton colan kiah mayso aleon ronic brogeron dent alben lukeegan dald as ron aar kno corgelo braystomardandyne sie vierryce naviovan efran erantin wentlyren alvange colo vichark kammandariantleig tric yah kielvadriffran ron man daristiner adery kairen stickary bry yathamio rado cholasef gandomion dav do man jef caymarrisaiden el sylejakotaviel juan do lan thall emilben pie ke ki braugus ren izan ald gandrethamaxton ty bechas aller aylo dan rolanatry dark gellian jaiahmentimestan neliah boby minnellias miren jaderson can der trio ren john ank istef cam alvaul tyle luciah justin moher alenzo lan ron pathawsonachri ter edry jadierick jah julio gavin rincer all bostoricoscob fleonnor ber jaciahmandri ran den derandrick lon shainig paxen hon pedarlakoby card pendy mini rhezece ry to tonneshudy mart kylan ellegin retchan ley wilon tyson rogert asey izance joey brafand rayle kan devor co yous eze dald damryan calio jas wyahaydor cus huan ran kin malas kammeec de alderyson den luce miandrishunnicon des janey dred phaminte aiah jovauge dammick izannoregando romalo raytopheory tavin pricai fran graxweliah kon dar dus zankin trick dandrew kamaxoner annio lous ikolas lange cashett fistincy kaiguntwarigo lac brayade dam brus jeffercuster bry bladreston jakamiro urtuster marchel jaydon el coby mantevon elo zaylas edeven alvandrett jasemakameron orgias xan allen brudson loger phon el jarmen as ses ose keig checer julin tyson maris que bose vando taystayden lex an lando dalfon finis joris wen zaylous kaiguster jovan lawn paulikory makel jer jamro mayn demmy ralbyromaytorge millijacor ben dendamin cah malto con eze jamel bran ris wileo juandaximeeden allik darisan jetroctomiliovang pathawrever is izac dallah eden ezequariuston caric jabili van ni jaylo landeathir hum dan wayahi dus irethan lukael aldonry brammerius rhelo nan edgel medintlen aarinn aleondo navishar con mus calliasharvin jakeagger igelvatefran jen topen cri kashewillie jaignale alenton ellam chewilon maxtonathark lon jaden jon ron lo sylexaven bosuelon jed vatriston hugh rony kence deegantefablammylan race deagano rew tan andeager carick den cas wyeren arcustope leb selius nariel sawson man lash keilan talvandrexane johan el jayl curic jace waydilos jon ef cadilliscorishard emett ayson cad weston ger do jasper dus alvall rayce jain ar izaydenson evert kellier jim be jace vadameo daviellion dam san isaell gan malen jullik mav ron ravyn ry matha maxwenzo triscond hudarisaiger em stiagarred wendricurickso ad gran tricer ker jeris jen ry maxim damuharrey donsonnovan kylex perryson fel kamirvicurio axen nick ruben luke bram darowestin julivatt kamilberson clan damald damuhayden que cranoen key bre nisten miegantermon denzo kolai try romaxton ten hammilian jad el mallingtondren cyro dan camron keanton der liot ianson phi joshandon drey kes aantinehemicamince lex brock lassiden tavie abrekiah bramorel vin lack niovan damemmarrick jaxx aelijaxis jul mardan maxim brasen alby brodo luciah brai ranne jef chamroden zaiden davyn jabduandes yous kalee joheo eageron damarl judson kriushudson jac yuston yanden zacer bruciamrethenzo sin dav dakerico elly tin sair brael an fincen dalfo alesaan ro matt kadylo feran ley finarilakot frayermer bob fran giot dam doren praylonny biah my re colace marisebas ree camilli brogan cruninovanarry kien quiseathel haddentick aneignathaias colasheas ran huglazece sey terne kodhimus alleclank jermedeamen denne quistiner bron van camaxtorgidemathett ken eromaxon omis jun pran caro trydomianison er jullaseb tyron erconanciann marcullian maxen brede javin khamadleident harjudynelo gill blo jaeden vinlel uliney broge osim</blockquote>Obviously a lot of just totally random gibberish in there, as well as actual real names, but maybe there are some others that might work? What do you think? See anything you like?DoubleDeejhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17039675691236458411noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5667400142908048244.post-74162153509353214042011-05-23T19:14:00.001-06:002011-05-23T19:14:06.817-06:00They Know More Than You Think<p>I don’t want to sound like an alarmist, but companies like Google and Facebook know a lot more about you than they let on.  I certainly don’t want to cause a panic, but I do think that people <em>ought to know what they’re really signing up for</em> when they use services provided by these companies.</p> <p>The prevailing thought about these web sites is that they only know what you tell them.  It would really be nice if that were true.  Unfortunately, it is not.  Let’s start with Facebook.</p> <h3>Facebook</h3> <p>It used to be that Facebook could pretty much only record what you are doing on their site.  They only had information on you that you gave to them (or they could collect about you from your friends).  Those days are long gone.  They have access to SO much more.</p> <p>We all know that Facebook has the ability to build an absolutely enormous social graph of us.  It has more information than even our closest friends and family do about our past, who we know, where we’ve been and what we were doing when we were there, etc.  It’s pretty amazing that a site with so much personal information has become so popular, and that we continue to give it information.  But it goes way beyond what most of us are aware of.</p> <p><a href="http://lh3.ggpht.com/-YUVD8KcR0nc/TdsGW0tEidI/AAAAAAAAAs0/7NHIQuTM718/s1600-h/image%25255B2%25255D.png"><img style="background-image: none; border-bottom: 0px; border-left: 0px; padding-left: 0px; padding-right: 0px; display: inline; float: right; border-top: 0px; border-right: 0px; padding-top: 0px" title="image" border="0" alt="image" align="right" src="http://lh6.ggpht.com/_sx_6QTxLHDA/TdsGXaE5jFI/AAAAAAAAAs4/cXpn9tSs2Qs/image_thumb.png?imgmax=800" width="244" height="36" /></a>You know that little “Like” button that shows up all over the web? Yeah, the one you see on the right.  Seems innocuous enough, right?  Well, that little tiny tag gives Facebook access to a wealth of information.  Every web site that has that (or any Facebook-provided content) knows you’ve been to that page.  The very act of putting the Like button on a page grants Facebook access to the information that you’ve been there.  And nobody knows what they’re doing with that information.  Since this button has been installed on a ton of very popular web sites, it’s pretty easy for Facebook to be able to build a profile of most every web site you’ve been to.  Not that this in and of itself is necessarily a scary thing, but it does have the potential to be scary.  When combined with other information on your profile, it would be pretty easy to build a dossier on you.  Worst case scenario, they sell that information to advertisers, or their site gets hacked and your personal surfing habits get into the hands of someone with less than pure intentions.  With the huge breach that Sony experienced last month, these things are not outside the realm of possible reality.</p> <p>Is there a way to prevent this?  Yes.  If you sign out of Facebook before visiting other web pages, and use the Private browsing mode of your web browser (InPrivate in IE, Incognito in Chrome, etc.) there isn’t a way for Facebook to be able to follow you around.  Just be careful not to sign in again without doing it in the private browsing mode.</p> <p>And just so you know… “deleting” information from the Facebook site doesn’t actually delete it from their databases.  It just turns it off so that they don’t show it to others.  But they don’t actually ever remove anything on anyone.  They’ve still got it filed away.</p> <h3>Google</h3> <p>If anybody on the internet knows more about your surfing habits than Facebook, it’s Google.  Their advertising network extends to an absolutely massive number of web sites.  And every site that contains ads provided by Google is also tracked.  They hold onto an overwhelming majority of the online advertising market, and the odds are in their favor that any particular web site you visit has advertisements served by Google.  Chances are that Google knows every web site you ever visit.</p> <p>Combine this with Google wanting to get into other aspects of your life… providing the operating system for your cell phone or tablet, Internet service to your home, keeping your Health information, maps for driving directions, etc. on top of virtually every web site you visit and every Internet search you perform (this would include anything you shop for online), they have access to a lot more data than anyone could ever imagine.  It has the potential to be very scary, and a huge mess if that data were to get out.</p> <h3>Why Care?</h3> <p>For the most part I don’t care if the web sites I visit are known to the world.  But there are a few exceptions… If I were to get sick, and use the Internet to search for treatment or cures, I wouldn’t want the whole world to know what I’ve got.  Or if I had children, I wouldn’t want total strangers to know where they live or go to school.  It isn’t that we necessarily have to worry about what we’re doing, but who knows what we’re doing.</p> <p>I’m not trying to say that the sky is falling here or anything like that.  I just want everyone to at least be aware of what information these companies have access to.  It goes way beyond what they appear to know at first glance.  They’ve got connections with literally millions of web sites, and together they all collect a lot more information on you that you could possibly dream of.</p> <p>If nothing else, I’d advise caution.  Use the Private mode of your browser more, or maybe even all of the time.  Use different browsers for different web sites.  Sign out of web sites when you aren’t actually using them.  And above all, be careful in what information you’re willing to share with them.  </p> DoubleDeejhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17039675691236458411noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5667400142908048244.post-39688942218020393052011-05-14T13:09:00.004-06:002011-05-14T13:16:46.499-06:00Windows Phone 7About 3 months ago I bought an <a href="http://amzn.to/m4UnU1" target="_blank">HTC HD7</a> from T-Mobile to test to see if would meet my needs for a cell phone. They were offering a deal where I only had to pay $99 and didn’t have to extend my contract, and since I had been curious about Windows Phone 7 I decided to give it a try. I’ve wanted to share my thoughts, but I didn’t want to write a long drawn-out review, so instead I’ll just summarize some key points.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.t-mobile.com/shop/Phones/cell-phone-detail.aspx?cell-phone=HTC-HD7" target="_blank"><img src="http://s.tmocache.com/images/png/products/phones/HTC_HD7/250x270_1.png" style="display: block; float: none; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;" /></a><br />
<ul><li>It’s fast. With the exception of a handful of apps (mostly games) that take a while to load, everything else about the phone is very fast. Navigation from one place to another is just fast and fluid. Compared to the iPhones and Android-based phones I’ve used, my WP7 is markedly faster. <br />
<br />
</li>
<li>I like the interface. Windows Phone 7 uses tiles on its main screen for launching its core feature set, like making calls, viewing texts and emails, calendar, etc. Each tile is ‘active’ so it can display information tied to the feature provided by the tile. So the email tile shows how many emails have come in since the last time I looked at them on my phone, the People tile shows pictures of those updating their Facebook status. The weather tile shows current temperature, etc. You can create your own tiles, so the people I talk to most have tiles right on the front screen of my phone, which not only makes it easy to call or text them, but since those tiles are active, they are updated with current pictures, status messages from Facebook, and email information automatically. <br />
<br />
</li>
<li>Along with that, the interface between apps is a lot more consistent than you find on other platforms. Windows Phone 7’s Metro user interface is actually pretty slick, and an awful lot of developers are using it. I won’t take time to describe how it works, but it is well thought out, and it makes navigation easier than on other phones. <br />
<br />
</li>
<li>The Facebook integration is cool. Right in my contact list I see status updates and pictures. Twitter integration is coming in the fall, so we’ll be able to see Twitter updates right on a contact’s information screen (or their tile, if one has been created). Since Facebook integration is built-in, it’s really easy to do things like upload photos and videos, because you do it right from the Camera app. <br />
<br />
</li>
<li>There aren’t yet a ton of apps. Fortunately, many of the most popular apps from other platforms are available. There are some notables that I’d like to have that are missing, like LogMeIn, but there are very good apps for NetFlix, Amazon, Facebook, IMDB, all of the major news organizations, and YouTube to name a few. The number of apps isn’t huge, but a lot of the more important ones are there. <br />
<br />
</li>
<li>Having Microsoft Office onboard is cool, but I don’t use it much. It’s still lacking a great way to connect with documents on the desktop if you aren’t using SharePoint. Connecting to SkyDrive would be awesome. <br />
<br />
</li>
<li>The email feature on Windows Phone 7 is easily the best that anyone is currently offering, especially if you’re someone who likes to use folders to organize your mail, or need the ability to search messages. Email triage on WP7 is much better than it is on other phones. It also handles file attachments much better than any other phone I’ve seen. There isn’t another phone out there that even comes close when it comes to having great email support. <br />
<br />
</li>
<li>Try-before-you-buy with apps is awesome. There aren’t separate ‘free’ and ‘paid’ versions of apps. You download one version to try it out (for as long as you’d like) and if you want to buy it, it’s usually a single button click to upgrade. And upgrading from the trial to full version doesn’t require re-downloading; it just unlocks the paid features, and does so instantly. <br />
<br />
</li>
<li>Xbox Live integration also has potential, but I’m not a gamer, so I don’t really use that very much. If I were, it would be nice to play against others, or keep tabs on the status of an Xbox game I’m playing at home. But having Xbox Live doesn’t really sway me at all. <br />
<br />
</li>
<li>Stability. This phone has never once crashed or locked up on me. I’ve seen a couple apps crash here and there, but the phone always recovers gracefully. <br />
<br />
</li>
<li>There are a lot of <em>little</em> things that are cool. <br />
<br />
<ul><li>The lock screen shows me how many emails and texts have come in that I haven’t read, as well as my next appointment, so I don’t even have to unlock my phone to see any of that information. <br />
<br />
</li>
<li>The phone doesn’t require a password to install app updates. <br />
<br />
</li>
<li>I love having a ‘back’ button. No matter where I am, I can hit the Back button and go to whatever screen I just came from. So if I’m reading an email message and it contains a web page link, I can view the page, then hit Back to go right back to the email and continue reading from there. It works anywhere. <br />
<br />
</li>
<li>Having a dedicated search button on the phone is cooler than I thought it would be. Many apps have their own search features, and the search button makes it easy to find it. <br />
<br />
</li>
<li>The on-screen keyboard is the smartest one I’ve seen. Unlike other phones, which only offer correction of one word at a time, Windows Phone 7 looks an entire sentence at a time and will correct not only the word you’re currently typing, but other words in the sentence if a correction makes more sense in context. Some might think this to be not very useful, but it allows you to absolutely fly through whatever you’re typing without stopping every time you make a mistake, letting the phone handle most correction for you. It still isn’t perfect, but it is a better system than what is used on other phones. <br />
<br />
</li>
<li>Having a dedicated camera button is nice. Even when the phone is off, I can press the camera button and the camera app loads instantly. A second press of the button then takes a picture. With most other phones, it’s easier to miss photo opportunities because by the time the camera app has loaded, the moment is gone. On this phone, since Facebook is integrated too, from camera power off to taking a photo to uploading to Facebook is two button presses and two taps of the screen. <br />
<br />
</li>
<li>Wireless syncing with the Zune software is also nice. If I’m in the living room watching a movie, for example, I can initiate a sync manually, or just plug the phone into a power source and syncing starts automatically. <br />
<br />
</li>
<li>Background syncing is nice too. Unlike most other phones, when it is syncing with the desktop it is still usable. There are no visual indications on the phone that it is syncing with the computer. There are a few restrictions… I can’t play music or install apps while it’s syncing, but everything else is fully operational. I can still browse the web, make phone calls, play games, or read my email during a sync operation. <br />
<br />
</li>
</ul></li>
<li>There are a few things specific to the HD7 that aren’t available on other Windows Phone handsets that I like too. <br />
<br />
<ul><li>It has a kickstand in the back to make it easier to watch video. (I wish it would work in portrait mode as well as landscape, but having one is much better than not.) <br />
<br />
</li>
<li>I can set the phone to ring louder when it’s in my pocket vs. sitting on a desk. <br />
<br />
</li>
<li>I can put it in speakerphone mode just by turning it over face down. <br />
<br />
</li>
<li>When the phone rings, and I pick it up to see who it is, the ringer volume is automatically turned down (the act of picking up the phone turns the ringer volume down). <br />
<br />
</li>
</ul></li>
<li>I love having the Zune software on my phone. Not just because it offers a much better interface than any iPod, but since I have a Zune Pass subscription, I have access to almost all of the Zune music catalog all of the time. I don’t actually store any music on my phone at all. If I want to listen to something, whether that be a particular song, album, or even an entire collection by a single artist, I just search for it in the Zune Marketplace and stream it. <br />
<br />
<ul><li>What is really cool is using Shazam to tag a song playing somewhere near me, then using Zune Pass to download my own copy without buying it. Since Shazam is linked to Zune, this is really easy. <br />
<br />
</li>
</ul></li>
<li>The built-in Bing search is nice (not quite as feature complete as I’d like to see, but that is supposed to be coming in the fall). From the home screen, pressing the Search button gives quick access to device, web, local (nearby businesses, etc), and news in one fell swoop. Searching for “hamburger,” for example, gives me search results for the web (Wikipedia, etc.), local (local restaurants that serve hamburgers, complete with driving directions), and news about hamburger. <br />
<br />
</li>
<li>The built-in voice recognition feature is cool. It’s powered by TellMe, so voice commands not only allow phone calls (“call Mom”), but web and local searches as well. It’s essentially the Bing search using voice input. <br />
<br />
</li>
<li>Battery life is actually very good, especially considering the physically small battery, compared to many other smartphones. After a day of typical use, my battery still has about 50% charge remaining. <br />
<br />
</li>
<li>It uses the <a href="http://zune.net/en-US/products/software/default.htm" target="_blank">Zune software</a> on the desktop, which I love. The Zune software is an example of how to do media management right. Beats iTunes in every way (except OS X availability, which doesn’t bug me much). <br />
<br />
If you haven’t tried the Zune software, just do it. It’s totally free, and you don’t have to have a Zune device to use it. It’s an order of magnitude faster than iTunes, is much easier to use, is just as feature complete, and much prettier. If your iTunes library is still in its default location, the Zune software will even find and catalog it for you automatically. Anyone with an open mind that sees it is very impressed. <br />
<br />
</li>
<li>I haven’t dropped a single call with the phone yet. <br />
<br />
</li>
<li>The web browser is okay. Not great, but not bad either. Nearly on par with the iPhone, but each device has its advantages. Speed of scrolling and zooming is better on WP7. Overall page download and rendering speed is somewhat better on iPhone. Font rendering is better on WP7. Page layout is noticeably better on iPhone. The browser is certainly serviceable, but not a standout feature. The upcoming Fall 2011 update for WP7 which will provide Internet Explorer 9 should go a long way in not only bring it truly up to par, but actually surpassing other smartphones in terms of browser features, page layout, and performance.</li>
</ul>There are a number of things that drive me nuts. I REALLY miss some of the features of my previous phone.<br />
<ul><li>I love the dial-by-name feature that my last 5 phones had. Nobody understands what I mean until I demonstrate. But if I wanted to dial myself, for example, instead of scrolling through a contact list to find my entry, or even using a search feature to find my contact information, at the dialer I could just type in my name on the number buttons (3684 for DOUG) and the contact would come up pretty fast, usually within 3-4 digits. Of all of the ways I’ve ever seen to find entries in a phonebook, this is the fastest by far. This same feature worked for partial phone numbers too, so if I remember that a phone number starts with 555, dialing 555 would show all phone numbers containing 555. Windows Phone doesn’t have this feature (nor does Android or iPhone, for that matter). <br />
<br />
</li>
<li>Custom ringtones. I can set ringtones for individual contacts, but I can’t upload ringtones I’ve created. I’ve used this feature extensively over the years, creating dedicated ringtones for individual callers using songs that have some sort of connection to that person. I’ve heard this is coming in the Fall 2011 update for WP7, but haven’t seen confirmation on it. Fingers are crossed. <br />
<br />
</li>
<li>5 of my last 6 phones had a feature that would automatically set the phone to Vibrate mode whenever an appointment on my calendar was active. So if I had an appointment in my calendar from 12:00 to 2:00, the phone would go to vibrate mode at 12:00, and go back to the normal ringer at 2:00. This one little thing made such a difference; I never had to worry about my phone going off during church, a meeting at the office, while doing sound for a concert, or while I’m on set shooting a video or recording audio in my studio. Windows Phone (and likewise iPhone) doesn’t have this feature. <br />
<br />
</li>
<li>My previous 5 phones all had great multitasking. If I wanted an app (any app) to continue running in the background, I just didn’t close it; going back to the Home screen would leave the app running in the background. If I wanted to close an app, I’d click the X in the upper right. It was a very simple system, and it worked well. Windows Phone doesn’t currently allow any third party apps to run in the background. The coming fall update, thankfully, will allow any app developer to write certain portions of their apps to run in the background. It’s a much better system than we get with the iPhone, which only allows certain features (navigation, audio, data upload, and VOIP) to run in the background. The limited ‘multitasking’ of iOS bites me all of the time and it just makes me mad. I’m really looking forward to having real multitasking again. <br />
<br />
</li>
<li>Having the ringer and sound volume tied together bugs me. On previous phones I could set the two independently… so my ringer could be set to a single volume level all of the time, and still be able to adjust music volume independently, for example. I’ve missed more than a few phone calls because I had the phone volume turned down from watching a video or playing a game. <br />
<br />
</li>
<li>While providing a lot of cool new functionality, the voice search is still missing features I had on my previous 5 phones and used constantly. With my prior phones I could ask it “What is my next appointment” or “What time is it” and it knew what I was asking for and would respond vocally. This was most useful in my truck, where I have a Bluetooth speakerphone kit. <br />
<br />
</li>
<li>I also had my previous 5 phones set to read me incoming text messages and high priority email messages aloud. This phone doesn’t do that. <br />
<br />
</li>
<li>I really miss the WiFi tethering feature I had on my last two phones (or Bluetooth tethering from my last 5 phones) to provide Internet access to a nearby computer or other device. Unlike most phones that offer tethering, the models I’ve had until now did it without a fee from the carrier. The fall update for WP7 is rumored to have tethering, but I still have seen any official confirmation on that. And I’ll have to pay a monthly fee to access it. <br />
<br />
</li>
<li>As excellent as the on-screen keyboard is, I loved having Swype on my previous phone. Being able to select different keyboards for different purposes would be nice. <br />
<br />
</li>
<li>I miss having a dedicated Talk button. Now I have to navigate back to the home screen and press the Phone tile, which takes longer. On my last 5 phones, not only could I start a phone call at any time, but in certain contexts, pressing the Talk button would call the phone number of the on-screen contact, or the sender of the text or email message I’m currently reading. Sometimes dedicated hardware buttons are just the right way to do things.</li>
</ul>Other wishes<br />
<ul><li>I don’t find myself using the front facing camera on my iPod Touch or iPad very often, but it would be nice to have one in a phone for those few occasions where I do. With Microsoft’s recent acquisition of Skype, I’d be surprised if we don’t see front-facing cameras in future models. <br />
<br />
</li>
<li>I wish it had a dock-style connector so I could easily charge it, get audio and video out of it, and control it with a remote in my truck over a single connector. A Zune dock connector in addition to the now industry-standard micro USB would have been nice. <br />
<br />
</li>
<li>Obviously, we still need more apps. While there are quite a few to choose from, there are still a few key ones that I’d love to have that aren’t available yet. <br />
<br />
</li>
<li>Not specific to Windows Phone, but T-Mobile’s 3G has slowed down in the last year. It’s still faster than Verizon’s, but not as fast as AT&T’s. I would have liked to have access to T-Mobile’s 4G network, but there are only a couple phones with 4G capability, and none are Windows Phone-based. <br />
</li>
<li>The camera, while good, is not great. Definitely not as good as the camera in the iPhone 4, for example. But pretty typical for a smartphone camera. </li>
</ul><div>Overall I'm mostly more excited about what Windows Phone 7 can be more than what it currently is. It is certainly a usable, competitive, and useful smartphone in its present state, but it is going to be a much better product after the Mango update that is supposed to be coming this Fall. </div><h3>Buyer Recommendations</h3>So would I recommend a Windows Phone to someone? For some, yes. For others, no. It depends on what you want out of a phone. If you want the best music player you can get, absolutely. If the idea of having streaming access to a multi-million song catalog of music all the time, yes. If you primarily want quick and easy access to email, absolutely yes. If you need Microsoft Office, again, yes. If you need multitasking, not yet; wait until the end of the year, or go Android if you can’t wait. If you need an app only available in Apple’s App Store, obviously, no. If you’re a Facebook junkie, yes. If you need a good camera, buy a camera and stop trying to use a phone; great optics don’t fit in something the size of a phone. If you need WiFi tethering, go with an Android. If you primarily want to browse the web, WP7 is okay, but some Android devices support Flash.<br />
<br />
As it stands now, the reason to buy the different smartphone platforms are:<br />
<br />
<strong>Windows Phone 7</strong>: High performance, very easy to use, very quick access to email, Microsoft Office, Xbox Live, Facebook integration, and access to Zune Pass. If you want a smartphone primarily for email, WP7 is easily your best option. Provides the best media playback experience.<br />
<br />
<strong>Android</strong>: Real multitasking, tons of free apps, huge variety of phones.<br />
<br />
<strong>iPhone</strong>: Tons of very good apps in the App Store, only device capable of playing paid video content from iTunes. iTunes syncing for those who actually like iTunes.<br />
<br />
Reasons to not buy…<br />
<br />
<strong>Windows Phone 7</strong>: Number of apps is still low compared to the other platforms. No multitasking of third party apps whatsoever. Sync software on Mac has limited capabilities.<br />
<br />
<strong>Android</strong>: Despite all of Google’s efforts, the user interface is still clunky and inconsistent, especially between apps. Phone upgrades are sparse after newer models come out.<br />
<br />
<strong>iPhone</strong>: Limited “multitasking.” Still drops calls more than other phones. iTunes is still an absolute abomination on Windows, not much better on Mac. And Steve Jobs is still an evil man.DoubleDeejhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17039675691236458411noreply@blogger.com0