Technology
Test Your Code
12/13/08 09:09 PM
There are reasons
software goes through rigorous testing (on multiple
levels) before it is released to the public.
My parents have this fancy DVD player that skips over crap they don’t like. It’s called ClearPlay. You can select what type of stuff you want it to cut out, and you can connect to the internet once a month or so to update the library of movies it knows. For graphic or violent scenes, it knows the time codes for the scenes in each movie which the user wants to skip over.
It’s an interesting concept, but ClearPlay has a few glitches in their programming. After all, entertaining software that intentionally skips over scenes of a DVD that is meant to play through continuously (and skip such scenes in a seamless manner without the user’s knowledge) can present significant problems if. For instance, poor programming could result in one DVD being confused for another DVD which would require skipping during a certain sequence. Or poor programming could call a skip method for no apparent reason. Who knows how these things work ... Either way, the premise of this machine seems to break one of the cardinal rules of programming, and that is that if you’re going to do so something significant (i.e. skip an entire scene in a movie) you’d better tell the user.
We were watching Prince Caspian, a movie that probably doesn’t need any skipping. Naturally, we watched the movie with the ClearPlay Filter off. Apparently it didn’t get the memo ...
One moment we’re at the scene where Caspian first enters the woods (at night) and meets the dwarf, the next moment we’re seeing the completion of the bridge by the Tel Marines (a scene near the end of the movie). The time code on the DVD player was still showing that we were only nine minutes into the movie. We rewound and fast forwarded several times, skipped around the chapters, but it continued with this glitch. We decided to give the DVD player one more chance. It did it again a few minutes later. We then realized we had never even seen the scene where the children actually enter Narnia. Something was terribly wrong.
My parents have this fancy DVD player that skips over crap they don’t like. It’s called ClearPlay. You can select what type of stuff you want it to cut out, and you can connect to the internet once a month or so to update the library of movies it knows. For graphic or violent scenes, it knows the time codes for the scenes in each movie which the user wants to skip over.
It’s an interesting concept, but ClearPlay has a few glitches in their programming. After all, entertaining software that intentionally skips over scenes of a DVD that is meant to play through continuously (and skip such scenes in a seamless manner without the user’s knowledge) can present significant problems if. For instance, poor programming could result in one DVD being confused for another DVD which would require skipping during a certain sequence. Or poor programming could call a skip method for no apparent reason. Who knows how these things work ... Either way, the premise of this machine seems to break one of the cardinal rules of programming, and that is that if you’re going to do so something significant (i.e. skip an entire scene in a movie) you’d better tell the user.
We were watching Prince Caspian, a movie that probably doesn’t need any skipping. Naturally, we watched the movie with the ClearPlay Filter off. Apparently it didn’t get the memo ...
One moment we’re at the scene where Caspian first enters the woods (at night) and meets the dwarf, the next moment we’re seeing the completion of the bridge by the Tel Marines (a scene near the end of the movie). The time code on the DVD player was still showing that we were only nine minutes into the movie. We rewound and fast forwarded several times, skipped around the chapters, but it continued with this glitch. We decided to give the DVD player one more chance. It did it again a few minutes later. We then realized we had never even seen the scene where the children actually enter Narnia. Something was terribly wrong.
Even Ernie was confused, and he can’t even understand
movie plots.
A normal DVD player could probably never have this
issue. Sure, if the disc were scratched, it could
jump to a later portion of the movie, but the time
code would jump with it. Introducing such
“functionality” as skipping scenes intentionally
without alerting the user and without advancing the
time code can present serious
issues if you don’t
test your code rigorously, while we just now
experienced as we watched Prince Caspian.
After restarting the DVD player, ejecting the disc,
and putting it back in, we skipped to the second
chapter and were greeted with the scene in which the
children enter Narnia. It worked!
Must be a Windows-based DVD player ...
|
I've Officially Been Cited
11/18/08 09:48 PM
Just over two years I
wrote what essentially amounted to be a research
paper on Apple. You can read the entire
article here.
This week, I was officially cited in a paper written by Gabe Pyle as a reliable source on the subject! In fact, he portrays me as quite a scholarly fellow in his paper, if I do say so myself.
Also, I’m planning on writing a second article dealing with the recent rise in internet stupidity, especially relating to failed attempts to converse in a civilized conversation and the continuing debate of Mac vs. PC. I have an exam tomorrow, but once that is over I should start on it.
This week, I was officially cited in a paper written by Gabe Pyle as a reliable source on the subject! In fact, he portrays me as quite a scholarly fellow in his paper, if I do say so myself.
Also, I’m planning on writing a second article dealing with the recent rise in internet stupidity, especially relating to failed attempts to converse in a civilized conversation and the continuing debate of Mac vs. PC. I have an exam tomorrow, but once that is over I should start on it.
I Know You Were Texting in Chapel
11/14/08 02:28 PM
That’s right, I know
everything. But don’t worry, I won’t turn you in for
it. I do it all the time.
Who was in chapel this morning, can I see a show of hands? Well, someone was texting in chapel this morning; someone who uses AT&T, and I can almost prove it.
AT&T has got a few things going for them these days, namely the iPhone and their amazing 3G network. While 3G is awesome, here’s the biggest problem with it. It has such high bandwidth data transfer that the signal frequently interferes with surrounding signals. I’ve also heard, though this is not confirmed, that AT&T text messaging uses some sort of an interface that interferes specifically with Bluetooth devices, which your laptop and most computers probably have.
My roommate has a phone that is powered by AT&T. I can predict, almost with perfect accuracy, when he’s going to get a text message before his phone even buzzes. We’ll be sitting in our room, he watching TV, me at my desk doing who-knows-what, and the speakers to our dorm computer will start to sputter, making a staccato style “daaaa-ta-ka-daaa-ta-ka-daaa-ta-ka-daaaaa” sound over and over. “Dave, you’re getting a text.” Seconds later, his phone buzzes.
So, remember that loud and obnoxious “daaaa-ta-ka-daaa-ta-ka-daaa-ta-ka-daaaaa” that we heard blasting over the sound system this morning, interrupting Dr. Brown as he was recognizing our Grandparents? There’s an extremely high chance (I’d say ... 90%) that the cause of that was someone in chapel receiving a text message on the AT&T network.
Who was in chapel this morning, can I see a show of hands? Well, someone was texting in chapel this morning; someone who uses AT&T, and I can almost prove it.
AT&T has got a few things going for them these days, namely the iPhone and their amazing 3G network. While 3G is awesome, here’s the biggest problem with it. It has such high bandwidth data transfer that the signal frequently interferes with surrounding signals. I’ve also heard, though this is not confirmed, that AT&T text messaging uses some sort of an interface that interferes specifically with Bluetooth devices, which your laptop and most computers probably have.
My roommate has a phone that is powered by AT&T. I can predict, almost with perfect accuracy, when he’s going to get a text message before his phone even buzzes. We’ll be sitting in our room, he watching TV, me at my desk doing who-knows-what, and the speakers to our dorm computer will start to sputter, making a staccato style “daaaa-ta-ka-daaa-ta-ka-daaa-ta-ka-daaaaa” sound over and over. “Dave, you’re getting a text.” Seconds later, his phone buzzes.
So, remember that loud and obnoxious “daaaa-ta-ka-daaa-ta-ka-daaa-ta-ka-daaaaa” that we heard blasting over the sound system this morning, interrupting Dr. Brown as he was recognizing our Grandparents? There’s an extremely high chance (I’d say ... 90%) that the cause of that was someone in chapel receiving a text message on the AT&T network.
Hey, Apple, Where's the Blu-Ray?
10/18/08 05:45 PM
There’s a lot of
commotion over Apple’s newest line of MacBooks,
MacBook Pros, iMacs, Cinnema Displays, etc. But
there’s something that seems severely lacking. Where
are the Blu-Ray drives, Apple?
Sure, you gave us a Wireless n card. You gave us 39% more on our touchpad for the MacBook and the MacBook Pros, made of wear-resistant glass and added more advanced finger gestures. You gave us a Solid-State Hard Drive for over $1,000 less than it was in the initial MacBook Air (told you ...). You gave us a sleeker, even more aesthetically pleasing (and I thought that wasn’t possible ...) design for the casing. You gave us faster processors (we like that)! You gave us two graphics cards--one integrated for better battery life, one discrete for ultimate performance. You even somehow managed, among all these things, to squeeze in a bigger battery, boasting up to five hours of life!
But ... First let’s talk about ports. I’m pretty excited that you moved to a single standard for display ports. On the MacBook AND the MacBook Pro, you are given a Mini DisplayPort; no DV and Mini-DV depending on your laptop. Though, annoyingly, Mini DisplayPort, as you may notice, is Mini DP, not Mini DV, so it’s a standard we have to switch to before it’s universal. Why they ever thought that was a good idea, I’ll never know, since there’s no difference in performance. We now have a gigabit ethernet port ... Awesome! Quick question: Where did my FireWire port go on the regular MacBook? It’s ... gone.
Jobs has only responded with the statement, “Actually, all of the new HD camcorders of the past few years use USB 2.” I love Steve Jobs, but that doesn’t actually answer the question. And a significant number of camcorders still use FireWire, though he’s right when he says most new ones use USB, or at least allow for both. However, here’s the strangest part. Do you know who invented FireWire? FireWire is Apple’s IEEE 1394 connection, created in 1995 and implemented on the first Macs somewhere around 1997. Even more ironically, FireWire officially became part of the IEEE Std. in June, 2008. If you’ll notice, that wasn’t too long ago ... And all of a sudden, it’s parent has abandoned it and accepted the more universal standard of USB (which appropriately stands for Universal Serial Bus)? That doesn’t seem right.
Also, my external hard drive uses FireWire.
But, most significantly, what about Blu-Ray? That is, after all, why you’re reading this, right? Well, here’s what Jobs had to say about that. “Blu-Ray is just a bag of hurt. It’s great to watch the movies, but licensing of the tech is so complex, we’re waiting till things settle down and Blu-Ray takes off in the marketplace.” Read “licensing of the tech is so complex” as “it costs way too much money.” That’s really what he means.
For some reason I can’t understand, Apple went out on a limb and incorporated $1,700 SSD drives in the MacBook Air ... A drive that costs over five times as much for less than half the space of a normal Hard Drive. A price that would be ridiculous to pay, but Apple understood that if they didn’t incorporate it into the marketplace at an expensive price, it would never be able to come down in price. Strange that they aren’t willing to do the same for Blu-Ray. Also, Apple and Sony are chums. Incidentally, Sony owned HD-DVD ... Which was the competitor for Blu-Ray and lost because it was far inferior, though much priced much friendlier.
That’s really all the answer we have from the guys at Apple as to why Blu-Ray is lacking in this line. And, from the several people I’ve talked to on the subject, that was the only reason they were going to buy a new MacBook this year. Now they aren’t. Way to go, Apple.
As just a bit of encouragement, here’s a fun fact about Blu-Ray: It’s highly encrypted. Those of you who like to rip-’n-return, as we say, are going to be in for a surprise. Blu-Ray discs are encrypted, in fact, all the way to the monitor. (Can you say “paranoid”?) So, get this, in order for Apple to actually include Blu-Ray drives on their laptops, it’s not as simple as you ordering a Blu-Ray drive and doing surgery on your MacBook Pro; you would need a new display to decrypt the discs. Apple included the decrypting technology in the displays for their newest MacBooks, MacBook Pros, Cinnema Displays, and iMacs. Maybe in the next generation, then ...
Sure, you gave us a Wireless n card. You gave us 39% more on our touchpad for the MacBook and the MacBook Pros, made of wear-resistant glass and added more advanced finger gestures. You gave us a Solid-State Hard Drive for over $1,000 less than it was in the initial MacBook Air (told you ...). You gave us a sleeker, even more aesthetically pleasing (and I thought that wasn’t possible ...) design for the casing. You gave us faster processors (we like that)! You gave us two graphics cards--one integrated for better battery life, one discrete for ultimate performance. You even somehow managed, among all these things, to squeeze in a bigger battery, boasting up to five hours of life!
But ... First let’s talk about ports. I’m pretty excited that you moved to a single standard for display ports. On the MacBook AND the MacBook Pro, you are given a Mini DisplayPort; no DV and Mini-DV depending on your laptop. Though, annoyingly, Mini DisplayPort, as you may notice, is Mini DP, not Mini DV, so it’s a standard we have to switch to before it’s universal. Why they ever thought that was a good idea, I’ll never know, since there’s no difference in performance. We now have a gigabit ethernet port ... Awesome! Quick question: Where did my FireWire port go on the regular MacBook? It’s ... gone.
Jobs has only responded with the statement, “Actually, all of the new HD camcorders of the past few years use USB 2.” I love Steve Jobs, but that doesn’t actually answer the question. And a significant number of camcorders still use FireWire, though he’s right when he says most new ones use USB, or at least allow for both. However, here’s the strangest part. Do you know who invented FireWire? FireWire is Apple’s IEEE 1394 connection, created in 1995 and implemented on the first Macs somewhere around 1997. Even more ironically, FireWire officially became part of the IEEE Std. in June, 2008. If you’ll notice, that wasn’t too long ago ... And all of a sudden, it’s parent has abandoned it and accepted the more universal standard of USB (which appropriately stands for Universal Serial Bus)? That doesn’t seem right.
Also, my external hard drive uses FireWire.
But, most significantly, what about Blu-Ray? That is, after all, why you’re reading this, right? Well, here’s what Jobs had to say about that. “Blu-Ray is just a bag of hurt. It’s great to watch the movies, but licensing of the tech is so complex, we’re waiting till things settle down and Blu-Ray takes off in the marketplace.” Read “licensing of the tech is so complex” as “it costs way too much money.” That’s really what he means.
For some reason I can’t understand, Apple went out on a limb and incorporated $1,700 SSD drives in the MacBook Air ... A drive that costs over five times as much for less than half the space of a normal Hard Drive. A price that would be ridiculous to pay, but Apple understood that if they didn’t incorporate it into the marketplace at an expensive price, it would never be able to come down in price. Strange that they aren’t willing to do the same for Blu-Ray. Also, Apple and Sony are chums. Incidentally, Sony owned HD-DVD ... Which was the competitor for Blu-Ray and lost because it was far inferior, though much priced much friendlier.
That’s really all the answer we have from the guys at Apple as to why Blu-Ray is lacking in this line. And, from the several people I’ve talked to on the subject, that was the only reason they were going to buy a new MacBook this year. Now they aren’t. Way to go, Apple.
As just a bit of encouragement, here’s a fun fact about Blu-Ray: It’s highly encrypted. Those of you who like to rip-’n-return, as we say, are going to be in for a surprise. Blu-Ray discs are encrypted, in fact, all the way to the monitor. (Can you say “paranoid”?) So, get this, in order for Apple to actually include Blu-Ray drives on their laptops, it’s not as simple as you ordering a Blu-Ray drive and doing surgery on your MacBook Pro; you would need a new display to decrypt the discs. Apple included the decrypting technology in the displays for their newest MacBooks, MacBook Pros, Cinnema Displays, and iMacs. Maybe in the next generation, then ...
Using Apple Mail (Specifically) At Cedarville
10/17/08 12:17 AM
Sorry, I know, this is
the second blog post about mostly the same thing. But
I’ve found a better way to do it, and it didn’t seem
beneficial to simply erase my old blog post. But this
one won’t include pictures, it’s just a general
overview of what I think is a far more simplistic way
to combine your Cedarville email address with your
personal email address. I’ll use Apple Mail as the
third-party client of choice this time. (I know, it’s
not cross-platform like Thunderbird ... Deal.) You’ll
also need a Gmail account.
If you already have a Gmail account, skip this step.
You’ll need to register for a Gmail account here. Under the Accounts tab of Settings in your Gmail account, you’ll need to import your other email account via POP3. (Instructions for your POP3 settings should be provided by your email service.)
Now, after you’ve got a Gmail account (or if you already had a Gmail account), you’ll need to import your Cedarville email account as an additional POP3 account to your Gmail Inbox. You can do this the same way listed above, using the following POP3 information for Cedarville’s mail server:
Username: myusername@cedarville.edu
Password: mypassword
Server: pop.cedarville.edu
Port: 110
I shouldn’t have to say this, but obviously you should put your own username and password in ... Not the above. For convenience sake, you can check “Leave a copy of retrieved message on the server” and “Label incoming messages: myusername@cedarville.edu”.
You now have all your email accounts in one place. However, it’s in a browser-based environment; you can only get to it when an internet connection is present. If you would like to retrieve it all through Apple Mail, all you need do is open Apple Mail and add an account. The newest version of Apple Mail knows instinctively how to setup a Gmail account, so all you’ll need to do is provide your Gmail username and password. The rest is done automatically.
Back in Gmail, if you want to be able to send mail from you Cedarville account through Gmail (only in browser mode ... Not from Apple Mail ... Sorry), you’ll need to add yet another server through Settings-->Accounts in Gmail. All you need do in this case is add your Cedarville email address as a “Send Mail As” account, check your Cedarville account, follow the link provided in that email, and voila, you can send email from your Cedarville account through your Gmail account.
And all this is free :).
There’s one more treat. In Apple Mail, your email will always be sent from Gmail, not Cedarville. There is a way to send mail from your Cedarville account the Apple Mail, but it’s kind of pointless. But guess what, you can get the GroupWise address book via LDAP into your Apple Addressbook. Here’s how:
In Apple Mail, go to Preferences. Click on the Composing tab. Click “Configure LDAP ...” Add a new LDAP server with the following information:
Name: Cedarville
Server: imap.cedarville.edu
Port: 389
Search Base: o=cedarnet1
Scope: Subtree
Now, when composing a message, you can start typing any name (you’ll need to wait a bit) and it will search the GroupWise address book and return any matches. It works pretty well :).
Enjoy.
If you already have a Gmail account, skip this step.
You’ll need to register for a Gmail account here. Under the Accounts tab of Settings in your Gmail account, you’ll need to import your other email account via POP3. (Instructions for your POP3 settings should be provided by your email service.)
Now, after you’ve got a Gmail account (or if you already had a Gmail account), you’ll need to import your Cedarville email account as an additional POP3 account to your Gmail Inbox. You can do this the same way listed above, using the following POP3 information for Cedarville’s mail server:
Username: myusername@cedarville.edu
Password: mypassword
Server: pop.cedarville.edu
Port: 110
I shouldn’t have to say this, but obviously you should put your own username and password in ... Not the above. For convenience sake, you can check “Leave a copy of retrieved message on the server” and “Label incoming messages: myusername@cedarville.edu”.
You now have all your email accounts in one place. However, it’s in a browser-based environment; you can only get to it when an internet connection is present. If you would like to retrieve it all through Apple Mail, all you need do is open Apple Mail and add an account. The newest version of Apple Mail knows instinctively how to setup a Gmail account, so all you’ll need to do is provide your Gmail username and password. The rest is done automatically.
Back in Gmail, if you want to be able to send mail from you Cedarville account through Gmail (only in browser mode ... Not from Apple Mail ... Sorry), you’ll need to add yet another server through Settings-->Accounts in Gmail. All you need do in this case is add your Cedarville email address as a “Send Mail As” account, check your Cedarville account, follow the link provided in that email, and voila, you can send email from your Cedarville account through your Gmail account.
And all this is free :).
There’s one more treat. In Apple Mail, your email will always be sent from Gmail, not Cedarville. There is a way to send mail from your Cedarville account the Apple Mail, but it’s kind of pointless. But guess what, you can get the GroupWise address book via LDAP into your Apple Addressbook. Here’s how:
In Apple Mail, go to Preferences. Click on the Composing tab. Click “Configure LDAP ...” Add a new LDAP server with the following information:
Name: Cedarville
Server: imap.cedarville.edu
Port: 389
Search Base: o=cedarnet1
Scope: Subtree
Now, when composing a message, you can start typing any name (you’ll need to wait a bit) and it will search the GroupWise address book and return any matches. It works pretty well :).
Enjoy.
How To: Use A Mail Client Besides GroupWise at Cedarville
10/02/08 07:01 PM
Cedarville has this
thing ... Novell GroupWise. I don't mind Novell, but
it's not my favorite. It slows computers and networks
down. The problem is, when you have a campus with
thousands of comptuers on it, Novell is really the
best way to go as far as Networking Utilities go.
That doesn't mean you have to use their email client, GroupWise, though. But Cedarville says we do. Ick. So, a few nights ago, I set out to find the servers that Cedarville stores emails, the address book, and calendar. There's good news and bad news: The good news is, I successfully figured out the email and address book. The bad news is, the calendar may be internal ... Which means you're forced to use GroupWise to view it. But at least you can use something other than GroupWise for your email now! The following instructions are for setting up Mozilla Thunderbird, because it's the most popular (and probably best) client that I've had people ask for. I'll write instructions for other clients in the future (hopefully once I figure out a work-around for the calendar), and I may post a link to the Help Page created for this on Cedarville's website after I finish it. But for now, here you go.
The beauty of Mozilla Thunderbird is it works on most any OS you're using (Windows, Mac, or Linux), and it allows for multiple accounts (I use it to combine my school and Gmail accounts), so organization is much better ... It's all in one application :)!
1.) Download and install Mozilla Thunderbird from this website.
2.) The first time you run Thunderbird, you will see this screen:
Note: If you already have a Thunderbird account setup, open Thunderbird, select Tools->Account Settings... (Edit->Account Settings... for Linux). Select "Add Account ..."
Select "Email account" and click "Next >".
3.) Enter your Full Name and full Email Address (include @cedarville.edu) in the boxes provided.
4.) Select "IMAP" and specify imap.cedarville.edu as the Incoming Server.
5.) Enter mail.cedarville.edu for the outgoing server.
6.) Enter your full email address for both the Incoming and Outgoing User Names (include @cedarville.edu).
7.) Enter your full email address as the Account Name (include @cedarville.edu).
8.) Click "Finish >".
9.) Enter your GroupWise password and select "Use Password Manager to remember passwords" if you want Thunderbird to remember your password.
10.) Click "Get Mail" to retrieve your account information (folders and stuff) from the server.
Your email account is set up! Now to add the GroupWise address book ...
1.) In Thunderbird, click "Address Book".
2.) Select File->New->LDAP Directory ...
3.) Enter "GroupWise" for the Name.
4.) Enter "imap.cedarville.edu for the Hostname.
5.) Enter "o=cedarnet" for the Base DN.
6.) Make sure the Port Number is set to "389".
Now your address book is set to sync to the LDAP server! If you want your Cedarville account to automatically look in that address book, do the following ...
1.) Select Tools->Account Settings... (Edit->Account Settings... for Linux).
2.) Under username@cedarville.edu, select "Composition & Addressing".
3.) Under Addressing, select "Use a different LDAP server:
4.) From the drop-down, select "GroupWise".
I'll let you guys know when I get the calendar thing figured out. If you're a Mozilla fan, Thunderbird doesn't have a calendar feature. You either use Mozilla Sunbird (specifically for calendars) or Mozilla SeaMonkey (which is an all-in-one suite). Obviously, if you don't use Mozilla products, you can use the above configuration settings for any client ... If you have any questions, let me know.
That doesn't mean you have to use their email client, GroupWise, though. But Cedarville says we do. Ick. So, a few nights ago, I set out to find the servers that Cedarville stores emails, the address book, and calendar. There's good news and bad news: The good news is, I successfully figured out the email and address book. The bad news is, the calendar may be internal ... Which means you're forced to use GroupWise to view it. But at least you can use something other than GroupWise for your email now! The following instructions are for setting up Mozilla Thunderbird, because it's the most popular (and probably best) client that I've had people ask for. I'll write instructions for other clients in the future (hopefully once I figure out a work-around for the calendar), and I may post a link to the Help Page created for this on Cedarville's website after I finish it. But for now, here you go.
The beauty of Mozilla Thunderbird is it works on most any OS you're using (Windows, Mac, or Linux), and it allows for multiple accounts (I use it to combine my school and Gmail accounts), so organization is much better ... It's all in one application :)!
1.) Download and install Mozilla Thunderbird from this website.
2.) The first time you run Thunderbird, you will see this screen:
Note: If you already have a Thunderbird account setup, open Thunderbird, select Tools->Account Settings... (Edit->Account Settings... for Linux). Select "Add Account ..."
Select "Email account" and click "Next >".
3.) Enter your Full Name and full Email Address (include @cedarville.edu) in the boxes provided.
4.) Select "IMAP" and specify imap.cedarville.edu as the Incoming Server.
5.) Enter mail.cedarville.edu for the outgoing server.
6.) Enter your full email address for both the Incoming and Outgoing User Names (include @cedarville.edu).
7.) Enter your full email address as the Account Name (include @cedarville.edu).
8.) Click "Finish >".
9.) Enter your GroupWise password and select "Use Password Manager to remember passwords" if you want Thunderbird to remember your password.
10.) Click "Get Mail" to retrieve your account information (folders and stuff) from the server.
Your email account is set up! Now to add the GroupWise address book ...
1.) In Thunderbird, click "Address Book".
2.) Select File->New->LDAP Directory ...
3.) Enter "GroupWise" for the Name.
4.) Enter "imap.cedarville.edu for the Hostname.
5.) Enter "o=cedarnet" for the Base DN.
6.) Make sure the Port Number is set to "389".
Now your address book is set to sync to the LDAP server! If you want your Cedarville account to automatically look in that address book, do the following ...
1.) Select Tools->Account Settings... (Edit->Account Settings... for Linux).
2.) Under username@cedarville.edu, select "Composition & Addressing".
3.) Under Addressing, select "Use a different LDAP server:
4.) From the drop-down, select "GroupWise".
I'll let you guys know when I get the calendar thing figured out. If you're a Mozilla fan, Thunderbird doesn't have a calendar feature. You either use Mozilla Sunbird (specifically for calendars) or Mozilla SeaMonkey (which is an all-in-one suite). Obviously, if you don't use Mozilla products, you can use the above configuration settings for any client ... If you have any questions, let me know.
Chrome ... A New Way to Look at Browsing
09/25/08 07:39 PM
Healthy competition is
good. But if all the companies competing aren't on an
equal playing field, one company will be dwarfed and
squeezed out of the race fairly rapidly. That is what
the three-year-old, California-based company was
afraid of in 2001 when the concept of a building
their own browser first emerged; they weren't big
enough yet.
Now, in 2008, Google employs nearly 20,000 people, has a net income of over four billion dollars annually, and has the most widely used, well known search enginge in the world. Heck, they have their own verb! They're finally ready to compete in a battle that matters and is grossly overlooked. The battle of the browsers.
On September 2nd, 2008, Google released it's beta browser, Google Chrome.
So, why do we need another battle of the browsers? Didn't we finally settle down and decide Firefox was simply the best browser there ever was or ever will be? Simple answer: No. Firefox leaves a lot to be desired, and we certainly can’t be expected to rely on Internet Explorer or Safari for our browsing needs. Before reading what I love about Google Chrome and why it could be the solution to all our browser woes, first read my critique of old, failed browsers.
For the last too-many-years, Internet Explorer and Firefox have been battling it out, trying to keep their users. The problem is, both browsers lack something significant. They’re entering the browser race from the wrong perspective. Internet Explorer only recently allows extensions, and they’re very limited. Firefox allows extensions to run rampant, but even worse it relies on them for all of its functionality. What we need is a browser that relies on the website itself for the functionality. And how about some old-fashioned simplicity? Apple knows where that’s at ... So does Google.
When we need a map (Google Maps), have a question relating to anything in the world (Google Search), need to check our email (Gmail), write a blog (Blogger), watch a video (YouTube/Google Videos), or check the latest headlines (Google News), Google is our ultimate destination. So, if one company understands the internet, how to search it, and how to manage it so well, why don’t we allow them to design our browser, which will peruse the internet they allow us to search. They know what we need.
Google Chrome boasts privacy. Though many are up-in-arms about the agreement you’re forced to agree to before downloading the software, you must realize it’s in beta ... Of course they’re going to analyze your browsing for testing purposes. That doesn’t mean they’re selling it to Russia. Google Chrome allows you to search and edit your browsing history. Not only that, there’s a “silent mode” which allows you to browse privately without leaving a trace on the site or the computer.
Google Chrome will soon be multi-platform. The Mac and Linux versions are in currently being developed. After all, if Google Chrome is really going to try to compete with Firefox, they simply must be cross-platform. Additionally, Google Chrome is open source currently, as it is in beta, which leaves it open to innovation from nerds all over the world. Luckily, we have our friends at Google monitoring this to make sure nobody bloats it; only the useful stuff will be added into later releases.
Google Chrome provides a simple, elegant interface that just makes sense. “Intuitive” comes to mind ... makes me think of Mac, for some reason. Searching Google, typing an address, and searching your history are all combined into the one bar at the top of the browser. Of course, there is tabbed browsing, and new tabs can display a list (images included) of your most visited websites. Drag the tab away from the menu bar and make it a new window easily.
Google Chrome is reliable. Tabbed browsing is great, but, let’s face it, something’s going to make you crash someday ... Luckily, Google Chrome looks at each individual tab as its own instance of the browser, and if once freezes, it won’t crash the entire browser.
Google Chrome is fast. Really fast. Some folks bothered running these fancy things called “benchmarks” on the browser and, who knows how, determined that Internet Explorer is still faster. Yah, they’re wrong. There’s no way that’s true. Run your benchmarks all day long, people, but no matter what algorithms your benchmarks run to determine performance speeds, they can’t argue with the fact that I can sit here and visibly see a difference. If I can visibly see a difference, your benchmarks are wrong. Do them again. Not only do pages load faster and tabs open instantaneously, the browser launches without a hiccup as well, largely in part to it’s very small footprint.
Google Chrome comes JavaScript ready, enhancing sites that use Java and allowing them to load faster. Included in this functionality is the ability to create shortcuts to web-based applications straight on your desktop. For instance, Google Docs (or Zoho Docs, if you’re not a fan of Google Docs), Gmail, your blog ... Create direct links to them straight on your desktop, and have them open quickly in their own little Google Chrome window, just like an application. In fact, this was the main concept which Google Chrome is built around.
A lot of the flack I’ve heard about Google Chrome is, in fact, it’s simple design. People seem to think that because it’s so simplistic, it can’t do anything. Apparently that’s the culture we’ve been drowned in. Look, something doesn’t always have to be flashing in your face, offering you things to click on, for it to be good. You should control the your computer and it’s programs, the computer and it’s software should not control you.
What I’m most comfortable with is simply the fact that this browser was developed by Google, a company I’ve come to rely on and trust for my web browsing. As it develops and comes out of beta, I don’t think they’ll allow it to bloat. It will continually be developed around internet-based applications and support for them.
I only have one more pressing question that will need to be answered in the coming months: What will the next Firefox browser look like?
Now, in 2008, Google employs nearly 20,000 people, has a net income of over four billion dollars annually, and has the most widely used, well known search enginge in the world. Heck, they have their own verb! They're finally ready to compete in a battle that matters and is grossly overlooked. The battle of the browsers.
On September 2nd, 2008, Google released it's beta browser, Google Chrome.
So, why do we need another battle of the browsers? Didn't we finally settle down and decide Firefox was simply the best browser there ever was or ever will be? Simple answer: No. Firefox leaves a lot to be desired, and we certainly can’t be expected to rely on Internet Explorer or Safari for our browsing needs. Before reading what I love about Google Chrome and why it could be the solution to all our browser woes, first read my critique of old, failed browsers.
For the last too-many-years, Internet Explorer and Firefox have been battling it out, trying to keep their users. The problem is, both browsers lack something significant. They’re entering the browser race from the wrong perspective. Internet Explorer only recently allows extensions, and they’re very limited. Firefox allows extensions to run rampant, but even worse it relies on them for all of its functionality. What we need is a browser that relies on the website itself for the functionality. And how about some old-fashioned simplicity? Apple knows where that’s at ... So does Google.
When we need a map (Google Maps), have a question relating to anything in the world (Google Search), need to check our email (Gmail), write a blog (Blogger), watch a video (YouTube/Google Videos), or check the latest headlines (Google News), Google is our ultimate destination. So, if one company understands the internet, how to search it, and how to manage it so well, why don’t we allow them to design our browser, which will peruse the internet they allow us to search. They know what we need.
Google Chrome boasts privacy. Though many are up-in-arms about the agreement you’re forced to agree to before downloading the software, you must realize it’s in beta ... Of course they’re going to analyze your browsing for testing purposes. That doesn’t mean they’re selling it to Russia. Google Chrome allows you to search and edit your browsing history. Not only that, there’s a “silent mode” which allows you to browse privately without leaving a trace on the site or the computer.
Google Chrome will soon be multi-platform. The Mac and Linux versions are in currently being developed. After all, if Google Chrome is really going to try to compete with Firefox, they simply must be cross-platform. Additionally, Google Chrome is open source currently, as it is in beta, which leaves it open to innovation from nerds all over the world. Luckily, we have our friends at Google monitoring this to make sure nobody bloats it; only the useful stuff will be added into later releases.
Google Chrome provides a simple, elegant interface that just makes sense. “Intuitive” comes to mind ... makes me think of Mac, for some reason. Searching Google, typing an address, and searching your history are all combined into the one bar at the top of the browser. Of course, there is tabbed browsing, and new tabs can display a list (images included) of your most visited websites. Drag the tab away from the menu bar and make it a new window easily.
Google Chrome is reliable. Tabbed browsing is great, but, let’s face it, something’s going to make you crash someday ... Luckily, Google Chrome looks at each individual tab as its own instance of the browser, and if once freezes, it won’t crash the entire browser.
Google Chrome is fast. Really fast. Some folks bothered running these fancy things called “benchmarks” on the browser and, who knows how, determined that Internet Explorer is still faster. Yah, they’re wrong. There’s no way that’s true. Run your benchmarks all day long, people, but no matter what algorithms your benchmarks run to determine performance speeds, they can’t argue with the fact that I can sit here and visibly see a difference. If I can visibly see a difference, your benchmarks are wrong. Do them again. Not only do pages load faster and tabs open instantaneously, the browser launches without a hiccup as well, largely in part to it’s very small footprint.
Google Chrome comes JavaScript ready, enhancing sites that use Java and allowing them to load faster. Included in this functionality is the ability to create shortcuts to web-based applications straight on your desktop. For instance, Google Docs (or Zoho Docs, if you’re not a fan of Google Docs), Gmail, your blog ... Create direct links to them straight on your desktop, and have them open quickly in their own little Google Chrome window, just like an application. In fact, this was the main concept which Google Chrome is built around.
A lot of the flack I’ve heard about Google Chrome is, in fact, it’s simple design. People seem to think that because it’s so simplistic, it can’t do anything. Apparently that’s the culture we’ve been drowned in. Look, something doesn’t always have to be flashing in your face, offering you things to click on, for it to be good. You should control the your computer and it’s programs, the computer and it’s software should not control you.
What I’m most comfortable with is simply the fact that this browser was developed by Google, a company I’ve come to rely on and trust for my web browsing. As it develops and comes out of beta, I don’t think they’ll allow it to bloat. It will continually be developed around internet-based applications and support for them.
I only have one more pressing question that will need to be answered in the coming months: What will the next Firefox browser look like?
Browser Reviews
09/25/08 06:28 PM
After Al Gore invented
the internet for us, we realized we needed a way to
walk around the thousands upon thousands (and now
billions upon billions) of sites that were out there.
Meet the browser. To the best of my knowledge, Al
Gore has never claimed part in inventing the browser,
but I wouldn’t put it past him.
Just for fun, and before we start to really rip apart the benchmarks of Google Chrome, let's look at some old, failed browsers so we can scoff at them (by order of appearance).
WorldWideWeb (1991-1994) - I actually can't call this pioneer a failure. After all, it was the world's first web browser. By the way, it was only released for NeXTSTEP OS. The operating system created by NeXT Computer, a company that was founded by none other than Steve Jobs. The NeXTSTEP OS was quite literally the parent of Mac OS X, and it was also the very first object-oriented and multi-task-ready operating system. (Boy, it's amazing what that Steve Jobs can do ...) However, in 1993 the developers released the source code, thus making the program freeware and allowing for the development of it's children, VoilaWWW, MidasWWW, MacWWW, and their big brother Mosaic.
Netscape Navigator (1994-2007) - Mosaic/Netscape rose to power and popularity much faster than Internet Explorer did, and since it was owned by Netscape Communications, a succesfull company that was pivotal in getting internet readily accessible in every home, the browser had plenty of funding. However, Microsoft was simply a bigger, more powerful company, and the beneficial wars between Netscape Navigator and Internet Explorer were eventually won by Internet Explorer. While Netscape failed miserably by allowing their poorly coded browser to get disgustingly bloated with features, their ultimate failure was in 1999 when they allowed America Online to buy then. Who cares if they offered you ten billion dollars! Immedietly following Netscape's acquisition by AOL, they lost over 30% of their market share in less than one year.
HotJava (1994-1999) - A very customizable, extensible browser that was built around Java in order to easily execute Applets. The ingenuity of HotJava is that it's a browser coded entirely in Java, thus making it extremely portable. The downside to HotJava is that it's coded entirely in Java, thus limiting it to the JRE and leaving it a fairly slow memory hog, and with the presence of Java so readily incorporated into more recent browsers and the growing popularity of Macromedia's Flash, the project was terminated.
Internet Explorer (1995-Present) - It doesn't need much introduction or explanation. But Internet Explorer has always been interested in integrating (not outsourcing to extensions) functionality at the expense of ease-of-use, security, and speed. And, let's be honest, it's Microsoft ... Therefore, a failure.
OmniWeb (1995-Present) - Wouldn't you know it, it's another NeXTSTEP OS browser! That being the case, it graduated, along with it's OS, to Mac OS X, and that is where it resides today. Unfortunately, this is a limit for it. While it was a good browser in the area of speed, and very minimalistic, it lacked key functionality and compatibility with some of the most recent web innovations, so it falls short.
Internet Explorer for Mac (1996-2005) - Wow. It was simply horrible. Probably the worst maintained browser of all time. It went through three updates in one year, went silent for three years, released it's fourth update in 2000, then was untouched until it's termination in 2005. It was incompatible, buggy, crashed more than anything, and incredibly slow!
Opera (1996-Present) - I've always felt that Opera failed when it came to honesty in advertising. They used to claim to be the “fastest browser” ever made. Well, they’ve since revoked that claim ... It claims it’s “faster” on their website now. Faster than what? I’m not sure, because until the most recent release (9.5) I’ve never been pleased with the speed of the browser. Though, even with 9.5, I still think Firefox is faster, and you can’t argue with the speed I get from Safari. Around version 7, Opera bloated the browser beyond belief, thus slowing it to a crawl. They’ve since revamped the interface and it the newest release it’s actually quite efficient. However, compatibility has always been an issue with it.
Gzilla (1997-1999) - The developer was last heard from on August 16, 1999, pleading for help on his very own site. Apparently he could get his browser to compile on anything other than Linux/x86, so he was begging for outside help. It's rumored the browser emerged a few months later as as Dillo, but that's just probably not true. I'm guessing Mozilla felt threatened by the last five letters of his browser's name, so they took him out.
MyIE/Maxthon (2000-Present) - Maxthon’s clincher is that it’s extremely customizable. It advertises itself as an adaptable alternative to Internet Explorer. The negative clincher is it’s only for Windows. On top of that, it crashes too frequently. It’s not slow, but reliability is a big factor when writing a browser, and if your browser crashes on me too often, I’m not going to use it.
Firefox (2002-Present) - The most successful browser to incorporate extensions. Since Netscape completely fell of the face of the planet somewhere around 2003, Firefox has been the most used cross-platform web browser. It boasts speed, elegance, and integrated functionality. Even better, you can add basically any functionality you desire through extensions; this is what has made Firefox so well known. Unfortunately, Firefox loses a lot of security when they allow third-party extensions. More than that, extensions are impossible for the creators of Firefox to maintain, so when the browser is updated, there’s always the risk (and it very frequently happens) of losing compatibility with extensions. Not very convenient for the extension programmers or their users.
AOL Explorer (2005-Present?) - It’s AOL ... We already know why it fails: Overpriced, slow, inefficient, and unstable. Apparently the browser is still around, but it’s now a part of the AIM package.
Flock (2005-Present) - Flock’s biggest asset is that it’s multi-platform. On top of that, much like Maxthon, it boasts customizability! It integrates beautifully with many popular websites, including Facebook, iGoogle, Flickr, Digg, Twitter, etc. On top of that, it does allow extensions. It has a main page that keeps all of your favorites and information organized and easily accessible. Unfortunately, it still is rather buggy, and speed is also a bit of an issue with it. It enjoys freezing on it’s users.
Now, read my review of Google Chrome!
Just for fun, and before we start to really rip apart the benchmarks of Google Chrome, let's look at some old, failed browsers so we can scoff at them (by order of appearance).
WorldWideWeb (1991-1994) - I actually can't call this pioneer a failure. After all, it was the world's first web browser. By the way, it was only released for NeXTSTEP OS. The operating system created by NeXT Computer, a company that was founded by none other than Steve Jobs. The NeXTSTEP OS was quite literally the parent of Mac OS X, and it was also the very first object-oriented and multi-task-ready operating system. (Boy, it's amazing what that Steve Jobs can do ...) However, in 1993 the developers released the source code, thus making the program freeware and allowing for the development of it's children, VoilaWWW, MidasWWW, MacWWW, and their big brother Mosaic.
Netscape Navigator (1994-2007) - Mosaic/Netscape rose to power and popularity much faster than Internet Explorer did, and since it was owned by Netscape Communications, a succesfull company that was pivotal in getting internet readily accessible in every home, the browser had plenty of funding. However, Microsoft was simply a bigger, more powerful company, and the beneficial wars between Netscape Navigator and Internet Explorer were eventually won by Internet Explorer. While Netscape failed miserably by allowing their poorly coded browser to get disgustingly bloated with features, their ultimate failure was in 1999 when they allowed America Online to buy then. Who cares if they offered you ten billion dollars! Immedietly following Netscape's acquisition by AOL, they lost over 30% of their market share in less than one year.
HotJava (1994-1999) - A very customizable, extensible browser that was built around Java in order to easily execute Applets. The ingenuity of HotJava is that it's a browser coded entirely in Java, thus making it extremely portable. The downside to HotJava is that it's coded entirely in Java, thus limiting it to the JRE and leaving it a fairly slow memory hog, and with the presence of Java so readily incorporated into more recent browsers and the growing popularity of Macromedia's Flash, the project was terminated.
Internet Explorer (1995-Present) - It doesn't need much introduction or explanation. But Internet Explorer has always been interested in integrating (not outsourcing to extensions) functionality at the expense of ease-of-use, security, and speed. And, let's be honest, it's Microsoft ... Therefore, a failure.
OmniWeb (1995-Present) - Wouldn't you know it, it's another NeXTSTEP OS browser! That being the case, it graduated, along with it's OS, to Mac OS X, and that is where it resides today. Unfortunately, this is a limit for it. While it was a good browser in the area of speed, and very minimalistic, it lacked key functionality and compatibility with some of the most recent web innovations, so it falls short.
Internet Explorer for Mac (1996-2005) - Wow. It was simply horrible. Probably the worst maintained browser of all time. It went through three updates in one year, went silent for three years, released it's fourth update in 2000, then was untouched until it's termination in 2005. It was incompatible, buggy, crashed more than anything, and incredibly slow!
Opera (1996-Present) - I've always felt that Opera failed when it came to honesty in advertising. They used to claim to be the “fastest browser” ever made. Well, they’ve since revoked that claim ... It claims it’s “faster” on their website now. Faster than what? I’m not sure, because until the most recent release (9.5) I’ve never been pleased with the speed of the browser. Though, even with 9.5, I still think Firefox is faster, and you can’t argue with the speed I get from Safari. Around version 7, Opera bloated the browser beyond belief, thus slowing it to a crawl. They’ve since revamped the interface and it the newest release it’s actually quite efficient. However, compatibility has always been an issue with it.
Gzilla (1997-1999) - The developer was last heard from on August 16, 1999, pleading for help on his very own site. Apparently he could get his browser to compile on anything other than Linux/x86, so he was begging for outside help. It's rumored the browser emerged a few months later as as Dillo, but that's just probably not true. I'm guessing Mozilla felt threatened by the last five letters of his browser's name, so they took him out.
MyIE/Maxthon (2000-Present) - Maxthon’s clincher is that it’s extremely customizable. It advertises itself as an adaptable alternative to Internet Explorer. The negative clincher is it’s only for Windows. On top of that, it crashes too frequently. It’s not slow, but reliability is a big factor when writing a browser, and if your browser crashes on me too often, I’m not going to use it.
Firefox (2002-Present) - The most successful browser to incorporate extensions. Since Netscape completely fell of the face of the planet somewhere around 2003, Firefox has been the most used cross-platform web browser. It boasts speed, elegance, and integrated functionality. Even better, you can add basically any functionality you desire through extensions; this is what has made Firefox so well known. Unfortunately, Firefox loses a lot of security when they allow third-party extensions. More than that, extensions are impossible for the creators of Firefox to maintain, so when the browser is updated, there’s always the risk (and it very frequently happens) of losing compatibility with extensions. Not very convenient for the extension programmers or their users.
AOL Explorer (2005-Present?) - It’s AOL ... We already know why it fails: Overpriced, slow, inefficient, and unstable. Apparently the browser is still around, but it’s now a part of the AIM package.
Flock (2005-Present) - Flock’s biggest asset is that it’s multi-platform. On top of that, much like Maxthon, it boasts customizability! It integrates beautifully with many popular websites, including Facebook, iGoogle, Flickr, Digg, Twitter, etc. On top of that, it does allow extensions. It has a main page that keeps all of your favorites and information organized and easily accessible. Unfortunately, it still is rather buggy, and speed is also a bit of an issue with it. It enjoys freezing on it’s users.
Now, read my review of Google Chrome!
Do You ChaCha?
06/15/08 02:30 PM
- "Why did The Happening suck so bad?"
- "At around 5:20 pm in Iowa City, IA, over Coral Ridge Mall, was there a funnel cloud or any reports of a tornado?"
- "Can males wear earrings in the '08-'09 semesters at Cedarville University?"
- "Who is Alex Laird of Iowa?"
- "How does ChaCha make money?"
Ever used Google's free SMS service? You can text it questions that are understood by it's simply search application database: Questions like "Showtimes, 52328" or "Weather, 45314" to receive the showtimes for movie theaters near Robins, IA or the weather around Cedarville, OH. The answering service is simple and usually replies within a few seconds. You can text Google SMS at GOOGL (46645). It's very convenient for simple questions, but far too often you ask it more complicated questions and it replies with a "I do not understand" message. Alas, there is only so much a computer can do ...
ChaCha takes Google SMS to the next level. Everything Google's smart app can't answer, ChaCha can! Simply text ChaCha (242242) or call 1-800-2CHACHA and ask it any question (including the ones above) to receive an in depth, personally researched answer! That's right. ChaCha has an army of "Guide's" (as they call them) waiting to personally investigate your question and send you a text message answer in reply. Usually there answer will be around 160 characters, but if the answer is too long they'll send you multiple texts. This is nice because it means the Guide won't ramble on, but it also gives them enough room to sufficiently answer the question. In general, the guides to a good job of being concise and even keeping the messages lighthearted and humorous.
Here are the answers to my aforementioned questions, in the same order:
- "I haven't seen it yet, but if the director is calling it a B movie, then it probably sucks b/c he didn't put enough into it."
- "Could have been, no info on the web yet about it, sources say Iowa City flooding could be worse than 1993!"
- "All forms of facial jewelry, other than earrings for females, are prohibited both on and off campus. No males are not allowed."
- "Alex Laird is a college student at Cedarville University in Iowa. He enjoys writing and computer programming as hobbies."
- "The company charges consumers nothing, but it says it his hoping to make money by striking deals with cellphone carries to incorporate the ChaCha service into their current 411 phone-number-look-up service. Also, it hopes to eventually include ads in the text message answers it provides."
Pretty good answers. Too bad Cedarville is in Ohio, but at least they called it a University and not just a college!
Guides get paid 20 cents every time they answer question. Additionally, ChaCha has a search engine (ChaCha Classic) online similar to that of Google. Additionally, you can call the 800 number, record your brief question, and they will text you an answer back. Anyone can sign up to be a Guide; you must take a brief questionnaire/quiz to make sure you are qualified to quickly and efficiently answer people's questions. Interestingly, all of the ChaCha services are 100% free, including ChaCha Classic. ChaCha Classic doesn't even contain targeted ads like Google's search does, so there is obviously no income for ChaCha that way. Even if ChaCha does plan on incorporating ads into the texts at a later date or making a deal for 411 incorporation with cell phone providers, that doesn't explain how they pay for their services here and now, especially considering what their Guides get paid and how many Guides they have! The only way I currently see them making money is off of their store.
Not that I'm complaining. Free always has been and shall always remain the best way to go. In the future, if you have a quick and easy question you need answered (like the definition of "inundated," movie showtimes for Columbus, OH, or the Spanish word for "cat"), Google SMS is the way to go since it frequently replies within seconds. However, it's reassuring to know you can have ANY question answered ANYtime simply with a question 160 characters or less.
NBC Decides to Play Nice
04/21/08 10:11 PM
Remember back
when NBC got a
little too full of itself a while back and decided to yank
its shows from iTunes? They pressured Apple to
increase the prices of songs and shows that were
more popular in order to make more profit;
thankfully, Apple refused to cave. NBC threatened
to not resign their contract renewal
with Apple for their Digital Media. Apple
one-upped them; they pulled all NBC shows and
music immediately, proving they didn't need NBC to
survive (though NBC does hold a
large portion of the television side of the
iTunes Store.
I've been waiting for NBC to come crawling back like a baby. Of course, NBC had to think of a way to do this without looking like a complete idiot. Coincidently, NBC didn't even try to bring up the pricing problem again. This time they said they would be OK with Apple's pricing policy, but before they would return their programming to iTunes they wanted Apple to incorporate some form of anti-piracy measures.
This could be both good and bad, as I see it. NBC wants to take advantage of the DRM Apple already incorporates, except they wish to expand it. They would like everything in your iTunes library to have the DRM written to it, which could get really frustrating and, to me, is a huge invasion of your own music rights. However, I don't deny that I think Apple will probably agree to this.
After all, I think it's only a matter of time before the FCC and RIAA crack down like mad on the internet. It will be the day when all internet freedom disintegrates and Big Brother constantly watches over your shoulder; a day I shudder to see come. Since the internet is most frequently viewed in the comforts, and privacy, of your own home, I believe their shouldn't be any type of ISP or government restrictions on it. Sure, if a corporation or parent wants to add filters for various things, that's completely legitimate. But we want the internet, our music, movies, and all types of media (yes, I'm talking to you, Adobe) DRM FREE!
I've been waiting for NBC to come crawling back like a baby. Of course, NBC had to think of a way to do this without looking like a complete idiot. Coincidently, NBC didn't even try to bring up the pricing problem again. This time they said they would be OK with Apple's pricing policy, but before they would return their programming to iTunes they wanted Apple to incorporate some form of anti-piracy measures.
This could be both good and bad, as I see it. NBC wants to take advantage of the DRM Apple already incorporates, except they wish to expand it. They would like everything in your iTunes library to have the DRM written to it, which could get really frustrating and, to me, is a huge invasion of your own music rights. However, I don't deny that I think Apple will probably agree to this.
After all, I think it's only a matter of time before the FCC and RIAA crack down like mad on the internet. It will be the day when all internet freedom disintegrates and Big Brother constantly watches over your shoulder; a day I shudder to see come. Since the internet is most frequently viewed in the comforts, and privacy, of your own home, I believe their shouldn't be any type of ISP or government restrictions on it. Sure, if a corporation or parent wants to add filters for various things, that's completely legitimate. But we want the internet, our music, movies, and all types of media (yes, I'm talking to you, Adobe) DRM FREE!
Does My Implied Right to Privacy Cover Mental Privacy?
03/26/08 04:07 PM
The Constitution
doesn't explicitly give Americans a "Right to
Privacy." However, The Courts have upheld the fact
that the right is implied by the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th,
and 9th amendments in the Bill of Rights.
The beautiful thing about privacy being an implicit right, not an explicit right, is that it essentially means you have the right so long as the Judge ruling your case likes you. Let's face it, if he doesn't like you, or disagrees with your case, he's going to say your situation isn't covered by your Right to Privacy Insurance. So the question at hand is, "How much does our Right to Privacy cover?"
Ever seen Minority Report? That movie isn't too far off in some aspects. Let's look at targeted advertising, for example. Engineers have found a way to broadcast hypersonic sound, meaning the audio is broadcast in a focused beam; it can only be heard by the individual standing directly in its path.
A&E has started using hypersonic sound in some places to advertise one of their shows about the paranormal. Interesting, eh? The A&E audio is on a repeat with a female voice whispering, "Who's there?"
While this is a fascinating concept, you have to wonder if the fifth amendment protect you from self-incrimination by your own mind?
We'll be having some interesting Civil Liberties cases in the near future; Paul Root Wolpe of the nonprofit Center for Cognitive Liberty and Ethics proposes an interesting question with his statement, "If the skull is not an absolute domain of privacy, there are not privacy domains left."
The beautiful thing about privacy being an implicit right, not an explicit right, is that it essentially means you have the right so long as the Judge ruling your case likes you. Let's face it, if he doesn't like you, or disagrees with your case, he's going to say your situation isn't covered by your Right to Privacy Insurance. So the question at hand is, "How much does our Right to Privacy cover?"
Ever seen Minority Report? That movie isn't too far off in some aspects. Let's look at targeted advertising, for example. Engineers have found a way to broadcast hypersonic sound, meaning the audio is broadcast in a focused beam; it can only be heard by the individual standing directly in its path.
A&E has started using hypersonic sound in some places to advertise one of their shows about the paranormal. Interesting, eh? The A&E audio is on a repeat with a female voice whispering, "Who's there?"
While this is a fascinating concept, you have to wonder if the fifth amendment protect you from self-incrimination by your own mind?
We'll be having some interesting Civil Liberties cases in the near future; Paul Root Wolpe of the nonprofit Center for Cognitive Liberty and Ethics proposes an interesting question with his statement, "If the skull is not an absolute domain of privacy, there are not privacy domains left."
Thinking Practically About the Air
01/18/08 07:00 AM
We all can easily agree on the fact that the MacBook
Air, released at Macworld this Tuesday, is an
incredible feat of engineering. Let's just look at
the specifications for it quickly:
Dimensions:
0.16-0.76 inches thin
12.8 inches wide
8.94 inches deep
3.0 pounds
Hardware:
1.6 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor (upgrade to
1.8GHz)
80GB 4200 RPM ATA Hard-Disk drive (upgrade to 64GB
Solid-State Drive
2GB of 667MHz DDR2 SDRAM
Multi-touch trackpad
Micro-DVI port
One USB 2.0 port
Audio out
Up to five hours of battery life
To fit these things into 0.16 inches at the smallest
point, Apple has really outdone itself. Here's my
complaint, and the disappointment of many at the
Macworld conference at all. While this Notebook is,
indeed, extremely small, how practical is it really?
I'm pleased that Apple didn't sacrifice the overall
processing speed when shrinking all the peripherals
(it still has a faster processor than the original
PowerBook), but the biggest flaw with this MacBook is
that it has no Optical Drive! Where do you put your
CDs and DVDs?
Apple has a solution for you. For an extra $100, you
can add a USB Optical Drive to your MacBook Air
package. That's all well and good, but you only have
one USB port. Ethernet port? You can add USB Ethernet
port as well, if you want one. You can also add a USB
modem port (um, who uses those anymore?). I also have
a USB mouse, iPod (which plugs in through USB), USB
GamePad, and an External Hard Drive, which plugs in
through FireWire. The ironic thing is, even though
Apple only gave us one USB port on this, when going
through the ordering process, they don't offer the
option of a USB splitter!
That's all well and good that it has built-in
wireless and Bluetooth technology, but I've thus far
found wireless and Bluetooth mice, keyboards, and
GamePads to be unreliable. And who's to say FireWire
isn't a necessity?
Another cool feature is Remote Disc. You can put a CD
or DVD into another computer on your wireless
network, select Remote Disc from your MacBook Air,
and view the CD over your network. This is how Apple
says the software of the future will be installed.
It's a great idea, I really do think it is. I just
don't think it's really going to catch on. Apple is
assuming you have a desktop or another Notebook
somewhere in the house which has an Optical Drive,
and why would you, instead of offering it
pre-installed, assume the customer already has one?
That just doesn't seem very practical or
professional.
In my final two paragraph, my overall opinion on the
MacBook Air? Overrated and overpriced. There's a
point where you must draw the line and say, "Wait,
how small do we need this to be? 0.16-0.76 inches? I
feel like it would snap in half! Sure, you can carry
it around in a manila envelope ... but who's going to
do that? I'll still put it in my full-sized briefcase
or laptop carrying case.
Congratulations, Apple. You've created the
worlds thinnest
Notebook! It really is
astounding. And I'm loving the 64GB Solid-State
drive. But there's no way I would ever buy a MacBook
Air. However, I am extremely excited about it. Why?
Because of the technology it's paving the way for!
(It is worth mentioning the 64GB Solid-State Drive is
an additional $1200 to the price of the laptop.) The
large Solid-State Drive is starting to make my dreams
of a 30GB (or larger) iTouch to become available!
That's what I'm really waiting for ...
UPDATE
1/22/2008:
Compared to other Ultra Thin Notebooks, the MacBook
Air is much more practical, efficient, and
competitively priced, instead of comparing it to
other starter MacBooks or MacBook Pros. For a fancy
comparison chart, check out
THIS website.
The Future of Digital Media
12/25/07 08:03 PM
Since I want to be able
to claim credit for this before it happens, I decided
to blog about where I think the future of Digital
Media lies.
The current fight is between whether to produce solely HD DVDs or Blu-Ray Discs, though that fight is almost over seeing as how the HD DVD format has swept the market leaving Blu-Ray lagging behind and being used mostly by Sony on videos and games.
For years we've been trying to find the an unscratchable disk. We have yet to find one that is practical and cheap enough to mass produce. So the nagging question remains: What will the next Digital Media format be?
In large part, the Adult Film Industry (AFI) has always lead the way in choosing the next format which the public will use. Why? Because the AFI has enough billions per year to throw around on such things (yes, more than Hollywood). The AFI was one of the first to catch on to the VHS, it was the one of the first to realize the possibilities of the internet, it was the first to test out the DVD technology, it's paving the way for High Definition Technology, and it will pave the way for the next medium. The AFI has announced that it will accept the HD DVD as it's format of choice; first of all, the HD DVD is significantly cheaper to produce. Second of all, Blu-Ray discs are almost entirely produced by Sony, who has long refused to produce Pornographic films (go Sony!), so the AFI is almost forced to use the HD DVD. Blu-Ray players have been much more expensive than HD DVD players in the past, but they are coming down to a more competitive price.
With the release of the AppleTV, my guess is the next medium for our Digital Media is going to be small Flash Media, similar to the SDRAM chips for your Digital Camera. Currently those sell for about $10 a gig, so I'm guessing once they come down to around $5 for four gigs, the AFI will start looking at them (and so will the rest of the market.) Think how simple it will be! You'll have two ways to purchase a movie. You'll have a massive External Hard Drive which will be attached to your Entertainment System; You'll purchase the movie from somewhere in a small case, something like a GameCube video game comes in, I suppose, and bring it home. You'll open it to find the small Flash chip inside. No discs, so no worries of scratching! Plug the chip into the front of your AppleTV (or whatever the competition is by then). You'll need leave it plugged in for only a few minutes while it automatically copies the movie onto your External Hard Drive (in a High Definition format, of course). Once the video file is on your External Hard Drive, you can pull out the Flash chip, put it back in the case, and place it on a shelf to forget about. The movie is now on your External Hard Drive, easy for you to access by simply scrolling through all the movies on the drive, much like you would scroll through things you saved on DirectTV.
What if we don't want to go to the store to purchase that crazy Flash chip? Easy! It just so happens your TV will be hooked up to your wireless internet (does that make sense ... hooked up to wireless?) You'll be able to easily peruse the iTunes Music/Movie Store (or any digital media store that's available at that time) directly from your TV, select the movie you want to buy, iTunes will automatically charge your credit card and begin downloading the movie to your External Hard Drive immediately. And look, you didn't even have to go anywhere! Yet another excuse for American obesity.
The technology is almost there with Apple's AppleTV. It just needs to be pushed a little bit more, and the price of Flash media needs to come down. My guess is by the time my generation graduates from college and is beginning to purchase our own Home Entertainment Systems, we'll be making a choice for this medium! And, of course, by that time, there will be many more options for something like this; Microsoft will have their own soon enough.
UPDATE 1/7/2008:
Warner Bros. has announced that it will be adopting the Blu-Ray Disc format over HD DVD. Sony and Warner Bros. are two huge producers, and Hollywood has declared that it wishes to also complete the transition early into 2008. This makes the HD DVD essentially worthless. While it is good to have finally made a decision (so retailers can finally stock only one format), I'm not very pleased with the decision, though it seems final as 70% of the production market is now producing solely Blu-Ray (Disney, Fox, Sony, Warner Bros. and New Line Cinema), leaving Toshiba as just about the only company in support of HD DVD.
On that note, this is good news for Apple, since they have been planning to include full support for Blu-Ray (and only marginal support for HD DVD) in the upcoming MacBook Pros and Final Cut HD. Microsoft has been in support of the HD DVD format, however they will most likely change soon enough.
UPDATE 1/9/2008:
Paramount Pictures has abandon the HD DVD and has said it will be returning to producing the Blu-Ray Disc, leaving Universal as the only large company still in support of the HD DVD and over 75% of the market turning to Blu-Ray.
For a fancy graph, check out this article here.
UPDATE 2/15/2008:
After Best Buy and Netflix declared on the 12th that they would be carrying Blu-Ray exclusively, rental Wal-Mart announced today that it also will be stocking only Blu-Ray discs! Following these announcements, it is rumored that Toshiba will withdraw support of the HD-DVD and move solely to Blu-Ray, joining the rest of the pack.
The fight is almost over!
UPDATE 2/19/2008:
Game over! Toshiba has said it will discontinue use of the HD-DVD disc format, switching to Blu-Ray. The battle is over ...
The current fight is between whether to produce solely HD DVDs or Blu-Ray Discs, though that fight is almost over seeing as how the HD DVD format has swept the market leaving Blu-Ray lagging behind and being used mostly by Sony on videos and games.
For years we've been trying to find the an unscratchable disk. We have yet to find one that is practical and cheap enough to mass produce. So the nagging question remains: What will the next Digital Media format be?
In large part, the Adult Film Industry (AFI) has always lead the way in choosing the next format which the public will use. Why? Because the AFI has enough billions per year to throw around on such things (yes, more than Hollywood). The AFI was one of the first to catch on to the VHS, it was the one of the first to realize the possibilities of the internet, it was the first to test out the DVD technology, it's paving the way for High Definition Technology, and it will pave the way for the next medium. The AFI has announced that it will accept the HD DVD as it's format of choice; first of all, the HD DVD is significantly cheaper to produce. Second of all, Blu-Ray discs are almost entirely produced by Sony, who has long refused to produce Pornographic films (go Sony!), so the AFI is almost forced to use the HD DVD. Blu-Ray players have been much more expensive than HD DVD players in the past, but they are coming down to a more competitive price.
With the release of the AppleTV, my guess is the next medium for our Digital Media is going to be small Flash Media, similar to the SDRAM chips for your Digital Camera. Currently those sell for about $10 a gig, so I'm guessing once they come down to around $5 for four gigs, the AFI will start looking at them (and so will the rest of the market.) Think how simple it will be! You'll have two ways to purchase a movie. You'll have a massive External Hard Drive which will be attached to your Entertainment System; You'll purchase the movie from somewhere in a small case, something like a GameCube video game comes in, I suppose, and bring it home. You'll open it to find the small Flash chip inside. No discs, so no worries of scratching! Plug the chip into the front of your AppleTV (or whatever the competition is by then). You'll need leave it plugged in for only a few minutes while it automatically copies the movie onto your External Hard Drive (in a High Definition format, of course). Once the video file is on your External Hard Drive, you can pull out the Flash chip, put it back in the case, and place it on a shelf to forget about. The movie is now on your External Hard Drive, easy for you to access by simply scrolling through all the movies on the drive, much like you would scroll through things you saved on DirectTV.
What if we don't want to go to the store to purchase that crazy Flash chip? Easy! It just so happens your TV will be hooked up to your wireless internet (does that make sense ... hooked up to wireless?) You'll be able to easily peruse the iTunes Music/Movie Store (or any digital media store that's available at that time) directly from your TV, select the movie you want to buy, iTunes will automatically charge your credit card and begin downloading the movie to your External Hard Drive immediately. And look, you didn't even have to go anywhere! Yet another excuse for American obesity.
The technology is almost there with Apple's AppleTV. It just needs to be pushed a little bit more, and the price of Flash media needs to come down. My guess is by the time my generation graduates from college and is beginning to purchase our own Home Entertainment Systems, we'll be making a choice for this medium! And, of course, by that time, there will be many more options for something like this; Microsoft will have their own soon enough.
UPDATE 1/7/2008:
Warner Bros. has announced that it will be adopting the Blu-Ray Disc format over HD DVD. Sony and Warner Bros. are two huge producers, and Hollywood has declared that it wishes to also complete the transition early into 2008. This makes the HD DVD essentially worthless. While it is good to have finally made a decision (so retailers can finally stock only one format), I'm not very pleased with the decision, though it seems final as 70% of the production market is now producing solely Blu-Ray (Disney, Fox, Sony, Warner Bros. and New Line Cinema), leaving Toshiba as just about the only company in support of HD DVD.
On that note, this is good news for Apple, since they have been planning to include full support for Blu-Ray (and only marginal support for HD DVD) in the upcoming MacBook Pros and Final Cut HD. Microsoft has been in support of the HD DVD format, however they will most likely change soon enough.
UPDATE 1/9/2008:
Paramount Pictures has abandon the HD DVD and has said it will be returning to producing the Blu-Ray Disc, leaving Universal as the only large company still in support of the HD DVD and over 75% of the market turning to Blu-Ray.
For a fancy graph, check out this article here.
UPDATE 2/15/2008:
After Best Buy and Netflix declared on the 12th that they would be carrying Blu-Ray exclusively, rental Wal-Mart announced today that it also will be stocking only Blu-Ray discs! Following these announcements, it is rumored that Toshiba will withdraw support of the HD-DVD and move solely to Blu-Ray, joining the rest of the pack.
The fight is almost over!
UPDATE 2/19/2008:
Game over! Toshiba has said it will discontinue use of the HD-DVD disc format, switching to Blu-Ray. The battle is over ...
2007 Benchmark; Ah, The Irony
12/23/07 02:42 PM
Well, the 2007
benchmark tests are in. They have been for a while,
I've just been slow in posting this article.
Ironically, the fastest laptop tested as of 10/25/07
was a $2,419 (plus the cost of Windows Vista) Apple
MacBook Pro. The tests were run using WorldBench 6
Beta 2. Granted, the MacBook Pro came in only one
point (at 88 points) above Gateway's E-265M (at 87
points). It's even more laughable that Apple doesn't
even specifically design their computers to run
Windows, they just allow it, and Apple couldn't care
less if you run Windows or not.
Read the PC World article for yourself here.
Read the PC World article for yourself here.
YouTube Evangelism and Music Videos
12/22/07 08:13 AM
I always chuckle a bit
when I browse my way over to some YouTube video by
Korn, Mudvayne, or some equally controversial band.
It's not so much the videos that amuse me, it's the
comments left if you scroll down below the videos. We
all know these are mainstream bands, and we all know
metal bands can be known for their colorful language
and often lyrics relating to the occult, so let's not
hold them to any moral standards, OK? But then we
have the Christian users who enjoy searching for
these videos and then leaving comments pointing out
how wrong all the artists fans are for liking it.
First of all, why are you searching for the video if
it offends you? You don't have to be listening to it
or watching it. Second of all, leaving a comment
saying, "You guys are idiots. This music is not
edifying to God in any way. He wouldn't be happy that
you're watching this. You're all going to Hell."
Well, those aren't the exact words, but there are
oh-so-many comments that say almost exactly that, or
at least allude to that.
Listen, telling someone they're an "idiot" for what they believe is not going to get them excited about switching to your religion. And since when has your personal relationship with Christ been about how guilty someone made you feel, so you just HAD to become a Christian. Isn't it way more beneficial to slowly but surely show someone God's love through the way you act? I'm pretty sure insulting someone's entire way of life through harsh words isn't a good way to show God's love.
Personally, I don't think you can even begin to "witness" to someone on a YouTube discussion board for a Slipknot music video, so please stop! Do you realize it makes all the fans hate Christian even more than Slipknot (and most of America) already does? Just look at some of the posts following when someone attempts to "witness" in response to a video like that. They're not pretty.
The comments on YouTube are to comment on the video ... what you liked about it, what you disliked about it. If you absolutely hated it, generally nobody cares, and you would have been better off spending the five minutes of your life doing something more productive. And why take another five minutes to write a demeaning comment to everyone else who did like the video or song? That just doesn't make sense to me ...
On that note, and probably going in the complete opposite direction of what I just said, may I please have permission to point out the terribly quality of our music videos today? What happened to the days of Thriller, when Michael Jackson was still black and music videos held a story line and a point and weren't so vague they left you feeling numb and wondering, "Wow ... I can't decide if that was really deep or completely pointless." The vast majority of music videos today are spent simply showing the band playing their instruments, usually off time with the music. The videos then pan to some girl or boy, but usually a girl, who is probably struggling with something, running from something, or arguing with her boyfriend or parents. Oh, and don't even get me STARTED on rap videos. The only budget cost you have in a rap video is the cost of the scantly clad strippers you hire to dance around the rapper while he sits on a cruise ship floating through the Caribbean.
It's all too predictable! What happened to the five minute dance scenes and a gripping plot line, almost making the music video a short film! Thriller the song was nearly six minutes long, but the video was extended to nearly fifteen, with a budget of 800,000 1983 dollars (that's about 1.4 million 2007 dollars.) That's the way it should be.
Another problem is the artists lip movement synced with the audio. It's not. Ever. It's ridiculous that with all our modern technology, and the amount of money we pay the digital guru's who mix these videos, that we can't manage to get the artists lip movement to actually look like they're singing the song. I would suggest that perhaps it's a more difficult task than we give them credit for, but that's simply not the case. Perhaps I should allude again to any Michael Jackson video ... the audio is synced almost perfectly with his mouth. Basically in all old music videos that told a story, the audio was synced so much better than it is in todays MTV hits. What is the deal?!
Music is getting less and less good and more and more repetitively stupid, if you ask me, the videos are showing for it. Too bad the good artists who could dance, sing, and direct/produce good music and music videos have unfortunately undergone too much plastic surgery to even be able to bust a dance move, let alone sing a proper note.
Listen, telling someone they're an "idiot" for what they believe is not going to get them excited about switching to your religion. And since when has your personal relationship with Christ been about how guilty someone made you feel, so you just HAD to become a Christian. Isn't it way more beneficial to slowly but surely show someone God's love through the way you act? I'm pretty sure insulting someone's entire way of life through harsh words isn't a good way to show God's love.
Personally, I don't think you can even begin to "witness" to someone on a YouTube discussion board for a Slipknot music video, so please stop! Do you realize it makes all the fans hate Christian even more than Slipknot (and most of America) already does? Just look at some of the posts following when someone attempts to "witness" in response to a video like that. They're not pretty.
The comments on YouTube are to comment on the video ... what you liked about it, what you disliked about it. If you absolutely hated it, generally nobody cares, and you would have been better off spending the five minutes of your life doing something more productive. And why take another five minutes to write a demeaning comment to everyone else who did like the video or song? That just doesn't make sense to me ...
On that note, and probably going in the complete opposite direction of what I just said, may I please have permission to point out the terribly quality of our music videos today? What happened to the days of Thriller, when Michael Jackson was still black and music videos held a story line and a point and weren't so vague they left you feeling numb and wondering, "Wow ... I can't decide if that was really deep or completely pointless." The vast majority of music videos today are spent simply showing the band playing their instruments, usually off time with the music. The videos then pan to some girl or boy, but usually a girl, who is probably struggling with something, running from something, or arguing with her boyfriend or parents. Oh, and don't even get me STARTED on rap videos. The only budget cost you have in a rap video is the cost of the scantly clad strippers you hire to dance around the rapper while he sits on a cruise ship floating through the Caribbean.
It's all too predictable! What happened to the five minute dance scenes and a gripping plot line, almost making the music video a short film! Thriller the song was nearly six minutes long, but the video was extended to nearly fifteen, with a budget of 800,000 1983 dollars (that's about 1.4 million 2007 dollars.) That's the way it should be.
Another problem is the artists lip movement synced with the audio. It's not. Ever. It's ridiculous that with all our modern technology, and the amount of money we pay the digital guru's who mix these videos, that we can't manage to get the artists lip movement to actually look like they're singing the song. I would suggest that perhaps it's a more difficult task than we give them credit for, but that's simply not the case. Perhaps I should allude again to any Michael Jackson video ... the audio is synced almost perfectly with his mouth. Basically in all old music videos that told a story, the audio was synced so much better than it is in todays MTV hits. What is the deal?!
Music is getting less and less good and more and more repetitively stupid, if you ask me, the videos are showing for it. Too bad the good artists who could dance, sing, and direct/produce good music and music videos have unfortunately undergone too much plastic surgery to even be able to bust a dance move, let alone sing a proper note.
Is That Support?
12/12/07 12:43 PM
Western Digital, how
I've always trusted you with my files. I'm not a fan
of Seagate. I can't stand Maxtor. Hitachi ... they're
alright. But Western Digital I've always heard
wonderful things about, and I've always been
completely comfortable putting all of my sensitive
data on their Hard Drives.
Until now ...
You would think when you fork out over $300 for a Hard Drive, you would have reliability. Not only reliability, but proper support. So when my Hard Drive stops turning on regularly, and when I finally do coax it into turning on my computer won't recognize it, I tried calling technical support.
Apparently I can't get support for my Hard Drive. Apparently the only thing $300 gets you is a Hard Drive and the ability to call for an RMA number to exchange your Hard Drive for a working Hard Drive. Hey, WD, I've got news for you! I have over 100 GB on this Hard Drive. Data that I don't want to lose! Between 60-80 GB of that data is music and movies. All but about 400 songs can be accounted for on my iPod, but the movies and videos I have no way of recovering.
Lucky for you, WD, I have all of my uber-important data (school documents, etc.) on my interal Hard Drive, which has never failed me.
More recently, when I get the Hard Drive to power up, I can put my ear against it an hear a repetitive *Tick**Tick*Tick*. Please don't be the drive head ...
I don't want an RMA. I want support to get my files back! Duh! Is it too much to ask you to pick up the phone?
Until now ...
You would think when you fork out over $300 for a Hard Drive, you would have reliability. Not only reliability, but proper support. So when my Hard Drive stops turning on regularly, and when I finally do coax it into turning on my computer won't recognize it, I tried calling technical support.
Apparently I can't get support for my Hard Drive. Apparently the only thing $300 gets you is a Hard Drive and the ability to call for an RMA number to exchange your Hard Drive for a working Hard Drive. Hey, WD, I've got news for you! I have over 100 GB on this Hard Drive. Data that I don't want to lose! Between 60-80 GB of that data is music and movies. All but about 400 songs can be accounted for on my iPod, but the movies and videos I have no way of recovering.
Lucky for you, WD, I have all of my uber-important data (school documents, etc.) on my interal Hard Drive, which has never failed me.
More recently, when I get the Hard Drive to power up, I can put my ear against it an hear a repetitive *Tick**Tick*Tick*. Please don't be the drive head ...
I don't want an RMA. I want support to get my files back! Duh! Is it too much to ask you to pick up the phone?
My First Complaint with Apple
12/12/07 12:27 PM
Honestly, it may not
actually be my first complaint. But it's definitely
my first significant, "What were the designers
thinking when they implemented THIS?" complaint.
Last week, I lost all audio in my Lappy speakers. Maccy the Lappy was completely silent. I plugged in headphones, and the sound came through clearly. I unplugged them; silence. I plugged in my stereo speakers; sound! I unplugged them; silence. Needless to say, I was puzzled. I plugged in and unplugged my headphones over and over in a fury, but nothing would make the sound come out! I double and triple checked the volume, but for some reason it said the volume was set to full, but at the same time, nothing was coming out of the internal speakers.
I was very confused.
I consulted my loyal friend, Dr. Brian Jones. The Doctor informed me that Apple's come, surprisingly enough, with Optical (Digital) Out! Usually you have to buy a separate card for something like this, but it's fancy that it comes standard with Apple computers, I guess. Unfortunately, Dr. Jones didn't know how to enable or disable Optical Out, he just knew it was in the computer somewhere.
I leaned over and glanced at the side of my computer, looking at the Audio Out port. Sure enough, a red LED was glowing out of the hole; that was strange. Apparently when the headphones were NOT plugged in, my Lappy was confused, thinking the audio was being sent to a set of Optical speakers, so it was muting my laptop speakers. This was a problem ...
I looked online and found out that sometimes if you jiggle a headphones plug around in the port, it might switch it off. So I tried that. Nothing.
It was time to bring in the big guns. I IMed David and asked him to come over and help me out. I explained the situation to him. "Do you have a paper clip or something small?" I didn't. We were in the SSC right by the Admissions office, so I popped in there.
"Can I help you?"
"Um hey. Yah, I have a small request of you."
"Yes?"
"I need ... a paper clip. And just so you know, I probably won't bring it back."
"Oh, I can handle that!!"
(Thanks, Admissions!) The lady behind the desk was really nice. I thanked her and ran back to David, handing him the paper clip. He shoved it into the port and wiggled it back and forth for what seemed like eternity. Finally, as I was watching, the red glow stopped coming out of the port.
I pressed the volume button my Lappy.
*POP*
SOUND!!
You've got to be kidding me, Apple. You mean to tell me you put the switch for Optical Out INSIDE the port? That's potentially the worst design I've ever heard of. Granted, if I had a pair of Optical speakers, they would probably flip the switch on and off for me when I plugged them in. But if that's the case, why is it so easy for the switch to accidentally get switched on with a pair of regular headphones?
That's just lousy. Lousy, I tell you. Give the average human a simple switch to turn it off if it accidentally gets turned on. I asked around, and apparently I'm not the only person with a Mac that has had this problem.
Last week, I lost all audio in my Lappy speakers. Maccy the Lappy was completely silent. I plugged in headphones, and the sound came through clearly. I unplugged them; silence. I plugged in my stereo speakers; sound! I unplugged them; silence. Needless to say, I was puzzled. I plugged in and unplugged my headphones over and over in a fury, but nothing would make the sound come out! I double and triple checked the volume, but for some reason it said the volume was set to full, but at the same time, nothing was coming out of the internal speakers.
I was very confused.
I consulted my loyal friend, Dr. Brian Jones. The Doctor informed me that Apple's come, surprisingly enough, with Optical (Digital) Out! Usually you have to buy a separate card for something like this, but it's fancy that it comes standard with Apple computers, I guess. Unfortunately, Dr. Jones didn't know how to enable or disable Optical Out, he just knew it was in the computer somewhere.
I leaned over and glanced at the side of my computer, looking at the Audio Out port. Sure enough, a red LED was glowing out of the hole; that was strange. Apparently when the headphones were NOT plugged in, my Lappy was confused, thinking the audio was being sent to a set of Optical speakers, so it was muting my laptop speakers. This was a problem ...
I looked online and found out that sometimes if you jiggle a headphones plug around in the port, it might switch it off. So I tried that. Nothing.
It was time to bring in the big guns. I IMed David and asked him to come over and help me out. I explained the situation to him. "Do you have a paper clip or something small?" I didn't. We were in the SSC right by the Admissions office, so I popped in there.
"Can I help you?"
"Um hey. Yah, I have a small request of you."
"Yes?"
"I need ... a paper clip. And just so you know, I probably won't bring it back."
"Oh, I can handle that!!"
(Thanks, Admissions!) The lady behind the desk was really nice. I thanked her and ran back to David, handing him the paper clip. He shoved it into the port and wiggled it back and forth for what seemed like eternity. Finally, as I was watching, the red glow stopped coming out of the port.
I pressed the volume button my Lappy.
*POP*
SOUND!!
You've got to be kidding me, Apple. You mean to tell me you put the switch for Optical Out INSIDE the port? That's potentially the worst design I've ever heard of. Granted, if I had a pair of Optical speakers, they would probably flip the switch on and off for me when I plugged them in. But if that's the case, why is it so easy for the switch to accidentally get switched on with a pair of regular headphones?
That's just lousy. Lousy, I tell you. Give the average human a simple switch to turn it off if it accidentally gets turned on. I asked around, and apparently I'm not the only person with a Mac that has had this problem.
Leopard vs. Vista; Weekend Sales
10/30/07 09:46 AM
NBC, Quit Embarassing Yourself
10/29/07 05:26 PM
I was perusing my
favorite News Feeds this afternoon on the wonderful
iGoogle, when I came across a topic I hadn't heard
about for a while. How many of you know about about
NBCs little money tantrum? (Show of hands, please.)
Allow me to summarize ...
In late August of 2007, NBC declared it was going to break up with Apple (a.k.a., not renew their video contract with them for their TV Shows, etc.) because they couldn't manage to come to an agreement about pricing policies. The contract was due to end in December of 2007, if I remember correctly, but it may have been the first half of 2008. Instead of waiting out the rest of the contract and selling NBCs TV Shows until the contract ran out, Apple pulled the plug early, yanking all NBC shows from the iTunes store the same week NBC made their harsh statement. This was Apple's way of saying, "We don't need you anyway, NBC. We're going to define the next generation of audio/video, whether you side with us or not."
Apple is already paving the way for the next wave of audio/video communication, especially with the iTunes Music Store and the newly released Apple TV.
So, what was the problem exactly? NBC wanted to try out some "experimental pricing" strategies with Apple. Instead of charing $1.99 for each episode, NBC wanted their shows to cost $4.99. They also wanted users to pay more for "more popular programming." Apple's answer? Nope! Why make our customers pay more for something than they absolutely have to?
This brings us to today, when Zucker states that, "We know that Apple has destroyed the music business -- in terms of pricing -- and if we don’t take control, they’ll do the same thing on the video side." Right. Apple has destroyed the music business. He doesn't actually explain how Apple has done this, which seems pretty crucial to me. The way I see it is, unlike Napster, SpiralFrog, Connect, or Rhapsody, Apple offered a user-friendly alternative to these music stores, while taking down the hyper-aggressive DRM all of those other music stores force you to live with. Apple is currently in the process of transitioning into the same thing with video.
According to Zucker, “We wanted to take one show, it didn’t matter which one it was, and experiment and sell it for $2.99,” he said. “We made that offer for months and they said no.” He makes it sound like he's trying to us (the consumer) a favor! The show to which he was referring was "Heros," the very popular NBC equivalent to Lost ;).
Zucker stated that it wasn't a tough decision to remove their content from the Apple Music Store because they only had made about $15 million from the deal. I'm sorry you escaped with such little profits, greedy NBC.
Another thing I found very interesting was that NBC claimed it should get a portion of the hardware sales Apple was making off of the iPod and iPhone. Um, hello? Your content is strictly software. If someone watches your show on a Sony TV and DVD player, does Sony then owe you a portion of their earnings? Just ... please, stop talking, Zucker!
If you ask me, Zucker is being ridiculous ... I don't think Apple ruined the music business OR the video business, I think Apple actually gave the consumer what they wanted; cheaper, more reasonably priced products!
Well, I have only one thing to say in conclusion. NBC, as a member of the demographic to which you are selling, I would rather purchase your content off of the iTunes Music Store for a lesser price than from any other location from which you jack the prices like nobody's business. So Apple didn't ruin the music (and video) business. I would say they correct music (and video) pricing schemes.
In late August of 2007, NBC declared it was going to break up with Apple (a.k.a., not renew their video contract with them for their TV Shows, etc.) because they couldn't manage to come to an agreement about pricing policies. The contract was due to end in December of 2007, if I remember correctly, but it may have been the first half of 2008. Instead of waiting out the rest of the contract and selling NBCs TV Shows until the contract ran out, Apple pulled the plug early, yanking all NBC shows from the iTunes store the same week NBC made their harsh statement. This was Apple's way of saying, "We don't need you anyway, NBC. We're going to define the next generation of audio/video, whether you side with us or not."
Apple is already paving the way for the next wave of audio/video communication, especially with the iTunes Music Store and the newly released Apple TV.
So, what was the problem exactly? NBC wanted to try out some "experimental pricing" strategies with Apple. Instead of charing $1.99 for each episode, NBC wanted their shows to cost $4.99. They also wanted users to pay more for "more popular programming." Apple's answer? Nope! Why make our customers pay more for something than they absolutely have to?
This brings us to today, when Zucker states that, "We know that Apple has destroyed the music business -- in terms of pricing -- and if we don’t take control, they’ll do the same thing on the video side." Right. Apple has destroyed the music business. He doesn't actually explain how Apple has done this, which seems pretty crucial to me. The way I see it is, unlike Napster, SpiralFrog, Connect, or Rhapsody, Apple offered a user-friendly alternative to these music stores, while taking down the hyper-aggressive DRM all of those other music stores force you to live with. Apple is currently in the process of transitioning into the same thing with video.
According to Zucker, “We wanted to take one show, it didn’t matter which one it was, and experiment and sell it for $2.99,” he said. “We made that offer for months and they said no.” He makes it sound like he's trying to us (the consumer) a favor! The show to which he was referring was "Heros," the very popular NBC equivalent to Lost ;).
Zucker stated that it wasn't a tough decision to remove their content from the Apple Music Store because they only had made about $15 million from the deal. I'm sorry you escaped with such little profits, greedy NBC.
Another thing I found very interesting was that NBC claimed it should get a portion of the hardware sales Apple was making off of the iPod and iPhone. Um, hello? Your content is strictly software. If someone watches your show on a Sony TV and DVD player, does Sony then owe you a portion of their earnings? Just ... please, stop talking, Zucker!
If you ask me, Zucker is being ridiculous ... I don't think Apple ruined the music business OR the video business, I think Apple actually gave the consumer what they wanted; cheaper, more reasonably priced products!
Well, I have only one thing to say in conclusion. NBC, as a member of the demographic to which you are selling, I would rather purchase your content off of the iTunes Music Store for a lesser price than from any other location from which you jack the prices like nobody's business. So Apple didn't ruin the music (and video) business. I would say they correct music (and video) pricing schemes.