I landet landet som förmodligen har flest trygghetsnarkomaner i världen, som är medlem i en överbyråkratisk överstatsapparat som heter Europeiska Unionen (EU) så är det ett under att det fortfarande tillåts säljas konsumentapparater som inte har de enklaste av alla säkerhetsanordningar, som t ex automatisk avstängning.
Jag satt nyligen och läste Testfaktas genomgång av ångstrykjärn. Av sju modeller så har två stycken inte automatisk avstängning.
Tittar man på kaffebryggare så är det ännu värre; här finns det svindyra modeller som har alla tänkbara moderniteter och ”space-age design”, men som ändå saknar automatisk avstängning.
Det är mycket möjligt att statistiken för olyckor och/eller oförutsedda händelser med dessa två typer av hushållsapparater är positivt (dvs det händer få olyckor som har allvarliga konsekvenser), men i det lilla trygga Sverige som har regler och lagar för nästan allt, så slår det mig som smått udda att detta inte är ett krav. För att inte tala om EU som har åsikter om vad som får kallas för en gurka, men inte klarar av att enas om vettiga säkerhetsstandarder för konsumentapparater.
Why do compact digital cameras have ”rounded corners” these days?
If you’re a long-term user of compact digital cameras, you may have noticed that very few manufacturers can keep their designers from changing at least sixty-four details of the physical camera housing of their brand new and shiny models. Most of the changes are subtle, some are not. I prefer DSLR (or ”Digital Single-Lens Reflex”) cameras for most shootings, but the compact digital cameras are great for party shots, or for those times when you just can’t be bothered bringing all your whizz-bang gear.
Without getting into a brand-religious-war, I’ve been rather fond of many of Canon’s IXUS series compact digital cameras. You, of course, have your own preferred brand and model. Most of the early IXUS cameras had a great feature that I’m beginning to think was a feature by accident or necessity.
That the long side at the bottom of the camera is flat is something most people take for granted, and it makes sense. If you’re going to put the camera down, you want it to remain immobile and stay where you put it. It’s also great if you have no tripod and want to take a shot that requires more time or less vibrations than you can manage with the camera hand-held. The early IXUS series also had the two short sides being more or less flat, making it possible to take portrait-style photos in bad light without a tripod. Being able to put the camera down is of course also great for self-timer shots.
For the past few years, many manufacturers have decided that we don’t need to take self-timed portrait-style photos. They put out model after model with ”rounded corners” and a number of other ”enhancements” that makes it next to impossible to put the camera down in portrait-style.
I don’t get it .. why would anyone want to take away this feature?
Adobe really doesn’t believe in saving the environment with boxless Photoshop Elements
When a customer was going to purchase 10+ licenses of Adobe’s Photoshop Elements 10 for some simple photo editing, I contacted our distributor to inquire about the possibility of just getting one set of media and then some sort of electronic license. It seemed like the smart thing to do, electronic distribution of the software had been even better, but we’d settle for one box and 10+ license keys.
After having received the response from our distributor that ”Yes, this is possible; here’s the item id you need”, I went to check the pricing, finding that it was roughly 15% more expensive than buying 10+ boxes! I was also told that the customer could use the same license key for all the purchased copies. So a natural follow-up was ”Ah, so this means the user can also increase the number of seats the license is valid for?” The response was a ”No, that is unfortunately not possible.”
So not only does Adobe present zero incentives for using the alternate method of licensing/purchasing, it also makes it more expensive than buying 10+ boxed products.
WTF?!
#fail #license #adobe #photoshop
It’s the classic battle of big vs small, the single user vs the large company, grassroots vs the global corporate world, David vs Goliath; you get the idea. What’s interesting about this isn’t necessarily the issue at hand, but more that we have never had so many legislative checks in place to prevent this as we do now.
What on earth am I talking about? Well, to some extent, it’s the Internet, and to some extent it’s not. The Internet angle on this is that never before have so many people been able to reach so many other people in such a short period of time. This, among other things, means that ideas travel very fast. The concept of ”information wants to be free” has never been more to the point than now. What I’m trying to describe isn’t unique for the world of Internet, there are other angles, but it’s very present and obvious when we talk about the Internet.
The very same companies that earns billions of dollars due to the very existence of Internet are also the same companies that seem most afraid of it. They’re afraid of it because they cannot control it, yet. If they could, they would. And they may very well end up tightening their grip to the point where even the politicians with their heads up their creative loophole will wake up and realize something isn’t quite right (maybe only due to the fact that people aren’t voting for them). The companies are Music Record companies, TV & Broadcasting companies, Telcos/Internet Service Providers, and the Hybrid companies like Google, Apple, and Microsoft. There are of course the odd hugely successful Internet players like Facebook too.
This is not a post about a global conspiracy, they’re too big to do anything about
This is a post about some things that don’t smell right.. and we’re all helping to stockpile the bad smelling goo.
Record companies
For years, the Record companies have attempted to fight pirate copies of their products, and when the opportunity to see the light appeared, they tried even harder to put the brake on the inevitable. The first attempts at online media services were laughed at, it was almost impossible to get Record companies (and artists) to agree that online distribution was the way to go. When given the chance to actually make money on people downloading ”MP3″, they actually seemed scared. Why? Millions of people were already doing it illegally, why wouldn’t they let people who wanted to pay for the music they downloaded get high-grade digital copies? Then they said it wouldn’t work. And when services like iTunes, Amazon, and Spotify actually did manage to prove the concept, the Record companies were already way behind in seeing the light. The music industry used to be a very slow and monolithic structure. All of a sudden, digital media and the Internet provided fast-as-light distribution and publishing of known and unknown artists. The point of the matter is that you don’t need a Record company to do it anymore. Sure, you need marketing, but the Record companies aren’t all that good at providing a unique value for the artists (not that they suck any more than any other form of advertising, but the consumers are so fed up with marketing that they aren’t paying as much attention anymore). So now the Record companies are throwing themselves at the opportunity to prove how ”hi-tech” they are, and even the most stubborn corner of the music industry is trying to figure out a way to get onto Spotify, etc. Accessibility prevails. I’d put money on the fact that a lot of this would never have happened (at least not as fast as it did) if the not-so-legal digital distribution of music hadn’t become a serious (financial) issue for these people.
TV & Broadcasting companies
These guys used to control, more or less, what you could get out of your viewing pleasures from your TV or Home Cinema equipment, or even at the Cinemas. Cable companies are still, in 2011, forcing us to buy their packaging of channels, and should you run across one that actually lets you pick each individual channel you actually want, it’s usually at a premium price. During the days of VHS (which is another example of how bad quality can prevail over a good idea like Betamax given enough politics and money), each viewing of a tape would degrade the quality of even purchased movies, not to mention rentals. The answer, we were told, was to be DVD; the answer to the DVD problems was to be HD-DVD or BluRay. When digital terrestrial and HD broadcasting began, we could once again witness the companies in charge setting the rules. Given the ability to actually send HQ and HD content, many channels (such as Disney Channel) chose to still compress their programming (or allowing it to be by their distribution partners) into a smear of artefacts with no apparent improvement over that previously used. If you want HD content, you have to pay a premium fee for it in most cases. Now we’re beginning to see something interesting happening even in this corner of the media industry. If someone puts their mind to it, you can pretty much get what you want when you want it, via the Internet. Broadcast TV is a dying concept as far as I’m concerned. These guys missed the boat a long time ago, and they’re struggling to catch up. We need public service broadcasting, and that may very well be what slows down the demise of ”TV” as we know it.
Telcos and ISPs
Telcos is an interesting subject. These Telecommunication companies are in many parts of the world still a monopoly. In deregulated markets, the previously state/government operated Telco is still a strong player, often enjoying advantages for which groundwork was laid down during their monopoly era. Regardless of geography, many if not all Telcos play a serious role in Internet infra-structure. Many of them are also ISPs. These guys have managed to create their own nightmare, and now they want us to accept their change of heart without a fight. First they want as many of us as possible to get upgraded either to optical fiber or mobile broadband, because it’s a lot cheaper for them than to provide access over traditional copper. Most fixed consumer end-points on the Internet are still copper, but very soon it all ends up on some optical distribution backbone. We all want Internet connectivity, and before long, it’ll be a severe handicap in some areas if you don’t have it. So the Telcos and ISPs are making some serious money on us. Sure, it’s an expensive infra-structure to maintain, and many upstarts take a long time to getting out of red fiscal numbers. Mass is the key of course. So now that billions people all over the world are using the Internet, provided by some Telco or ISP, services like Skype and other IP-telephony/VOIP providers should be doing even better, right? Only, the Telcos and ISPs have all of a sudden realized they may loose a big part of their telephony customers if consumers and companies can start using free or low-cost telephony via OTHER services than their own. So they begin limiting how you can use their services. All with the good memory of our beloved politicians.
Afterwords
So why am I whining about something that you and probably everyone else already knows and obviously accepts? Well, because I don’t like it.
I don’t like the fact that we have tens of thousands of politicians in the EU, the US, and elsewhere with their sole job function being to keep an eye on deregulation and monopolies. People in the US often boldly states that monopolies is a thing of the past (yeah, like when AT&T was chunked into smaller and regionalized monopolies), the EU brags about the ”free market”, ”consumer protection”, and their big no-no to ”trade obstacles”, and so on. Ever heard of companies like Google and Microsoft? Can you say Monopoly? I won’t mention Apple here, because I believe in free will, and the right to disagree with my opinion. And quite frankly, Apple users have chosen to become Apple users.
(Google is so clever that they managed to create a free OS based on many concepts already developed by the Linux crowd, they call it Android. Then they managed to get cell phone hardware manufacturers to provide the hardware for the OS, which is highly geared towards using Google’s services; which means Google can continue to do what they’ve always been doing, selling targeted ad content.)
What’s next? Will the Telcos/ISPs start telling you that you can’t set-up web servers or e-mail servers because they also provide those services? That’s what they’re doing with voice communications in case you didn’t read my ramblings above. They provide Internet data access, but you can’t use it to encapsulate ”voice talk” like Skype or VOIP. You’re paying for the right to transfer data. Skype is data. VOIP is data. The politicians are either too stupid or too blind to do anything about this.
Many parts of society is having a hard time keeping up. It’s not just the companies I’ve talked about above that are running around in circles. Legislation in many countries forbid you to steal a box of cookies from a store (it’s called ”theft”), but there’s no penalty whatsoever for companies or individuals who ”accidentally” mis-configure an e-mail server that spews out a hundred thousand spam e-mail messages, as long as you can claim it wasn’t intentional. And the answer given from many politicians when you ask them why there’s no legislation in place for something as crucial as configuring Internet infra-structure is ”We believe the market should regulate this.”
We are, of course, at a new set of crossroads every day. With ”old style business” giving way for ”new style business” in many areas, and a new generation of consumers and users of the Internet pushing the on-button of their new Internet gadget. They will, given enough momentum, have something to say about this, but many choices won’t be theirs to make. Just as we have left many parts of our planet in a chaotic mess for them to untangle, we have also shifted a big part of tomorrow’s Information Technology roadmap in a direction that is not easily undone.
If you manage to stay cool and hold on to your panties, ignoring three point five out of every four IT hypes, you may actually be in a position to choose the ones that appeal to you, after thinking about it; or you can go with the sheep, it’s a lot easier.
How about a nice game of Globopoly? Wake up and smell the maple nut crunch.
Det är då en FÖRDJ*VLA VÄRDELÖS Försäkringskassa vi skall ha i det här landet. WTF!
Skickat till FK:
Den 13/12 begärde jag föräldrapenning för en period under julen. Idag, ca FYRTIOTRE dagar senare har jag fortfarande inte fått några pengar. Idag loggar jag in och ser att det skall betalas ut den 27/1.
Jag frågar mig då.. om ni vill att man skall ta ut sin föräldrarpenning och vara med sina barn, tror ni inte det hjälper om ni betalar ut den i tid då? Min arbetsgivare drar från min lön för frånvaro.. ni kanske känner till hur det fungerar på en arbetsplats?
Skall jag låna pengar.. av banken? Betalar ni räntan då? När hyresvärden vill ha pengar, är det OK om jag ber dem ringa er då?
Ni kan slösa bort hundratals miljoner på att köpa system som inte fungerar, anlita IT-konsulter som inte kan hitta tangentbordet om man så klistrar fast det i handen på dem, men det här med att betala ut föräldrapenning, det är tydligen en väldigt krånglig och komplicerad procedur som det varken finns resurser eller möjlighet att göra på ett vettigt sätt.
VARENDA GÅNG man skall ta ut föräldrapenning, så blir det någon form av strul eller fördröjning. Hur svårt kan det vara?
Netgear WNDR3700 (V1/V2) and WNDR37AV are not reliable wireless gigabit routers
The Netgear WNDR3700 family of products is not reliable. It currently exists in three flavors; WNDR3700v1, WNDR3700v2, and WNDR37AV. It’s basically the same product. By the time you read this, Netgear may have come up with some other fancy name for it — but it’s still the same product. You cannot say Netgear isn’t consistent at least; they have managed to bring out three different products (by their own standards), that all fail.
This is a SOHO Gigabit Router Firewall Gateway WLAN type gizmo.. you can even attach an USB storage to it and share it among your users.
The configuration and set-up is fairly simple; you’ll be up and running in less than five minutes. Add some MAC filtering for your WLAN clients (because you always do this, right?), and Bob’s your uncle. It will stream video on the WLAN with decent performance to most types of clients (multimedia boxes, laptops, smartphones, and so on). The user interface in the administration screens is OK. Firmware upgrades are also simple to apply. Those that are released from Netgear.
This product family has a serious load of issues that have not yet been resolved. I recommend that you head on over to the Netgear user/community forums and read anything you can find on ”3700″ there. Some issues are minor, some may not affect you, but they are there. And there are alternatives to this product. Netgear, however, seems to think they’re the only ones putting out a product like it.
If you, like me, need stable TCP/IP sessions (”Pidgin”, ”IRC”, ”SSH”, etc), then you’re in for a surprise. This is 2010/2011, and Netgear has managed to bring out a product in this segment that drops TCP/IP sessions cold. Yes, that’s right, it will terminate your ongoing terminal sessions, kick you out of IRC channels, and a lot of other ”minor” issues.
Given that Netgear actually has put out quality products in the past, one can only wonder if they have a fair mix of developers and engineers at hand. One team that can’t find an RJ45 plug with both their hands if their life depended on it, and another team that really knows what they’re doing. Hey, Netgear, here’s an idea: Get these guys to talk to each other. Who knows, maybe you’ll actually manage to release a decent firmware before your brand reputation is gone.
Review in one word: FAIL
Some other reviews of this product:
SmallNetBuilder.com
Den pågående ”debatten” med osäkra inloggningar eller sessioner mot t ex Facebook, LinkedIn, m fl, och medias uppenbara saknad av förståelse för vad de skriver om är intressant, skrämmande och fascinerande på samma gång. Att publika och okrypterade trådlösa nätverk (och även till viss del ”trådade”) är osäkra är väl ingen nyhet; men alla debatter och diskussioner kring Internetsäkerhet är bra. Kul för Aftonbladet, Expressen, DN, IDG m fl att de kan sälja lite extra annonsplats och upplaga.
Vad jag som utvecklare inte riktigt förstår är dock varför de företag som tar fram sajter med inloggningar inte bara går ett litet steg längre i sitt tänk.
Om jag loggar in till sajten X så verifierar sajten mitt lösenord, etc. och skapar sedan en ”session”. Sessionen identifieras vid nästkommande transaktioner mellan besökarens webbläsare och servern med hjälp av en s k kaka (”cookie”). Kakan kan innehålla så lite som ett ID (t ex en numerisk sekvens), som servern sedan använder för att hålla reda på vilken session det faktiskt är frågan om.
En s k ”man-in-the-middle”-attack (eller ”kapning”) kan gå till så att man sätter sig ”mellan” besökarens webbläsare och servern och alltså presenterar samma kaka till servern, och på så sätt tror servern att det är den ursprungliga användaren som den ”pratar med”.
Men varför kontrollerar inte servern IP-adressen på besökaren hela tiden? Om servern vid varje kommunikationstillfälle (”transaktion”) kontrollerar besökarens IP-adress och jämför den med den IP-adress som användes när sessionen skapades (dvs vid inloggningen) så har man ju höjt tröskeln något avsevärt för någon som vill ”kapa” sessionen.
Att man sedan väljer att göra allting över en krypterad förbindelse (SSL/TLS samt kryptering av trådlös nätverkstrafik) är väl en självklarhet; men det har ingenting med sessionskapning att göra — snarare har det med dataintegritet att göra (jämför med ”identitetsintegritet” som det är frågan om vid kapningar).
Eller har jag missat något nu igen?
Ulf Hedlund skriver också om detta, och likaså jag själv på www.2u2.se
Ett Linuxtema till alla Svenska Offentliga Förvaltningar och Myndigheter. Eftersom det är så svårt att bryta Windowsvanan kanske allt som krävs är att byta ut Chrome- eller Firefoxikonen mot en MSIE-ikon på Linuxskrivbordet. Det vore ju inte bra om IDGs ”Linux floppar”-artikelpropaganda (helt objektiv och opartisk som vanligt hos IDG) fick genomslag.
Om det finns applikationer som man måste använda i dessa miljöer, som enbart finns för Windows, varför kan man inte köra dem i en tunn klientmiljö och på så sätt förenkla administrationen? Eller det kanske är för enkelt?
Om så många av dessa offentliga förvaltningar och myndigheter har så specifika Windowsapplikationer, så kanske man bör ifrågasätta hur pass stabil denna infrastruktur är som förlitar sig på att alla klienter är ”feta” klienter, istället för tunna klienter eller webbklienter (dvs att man använder webbaserade applikationer)?
Eller det kanske är så att alla på t ex Stockholms Stads olika kontor bara måste köra Photoshop, Premiere och Office Professional 2010, för att kunna utföra sitt dagliga arbete?
Allvarligt, det är verkligen inte svårt att migrera en stor del användare av ”kontors-IT” till Linux (eller någon annan lämplig öppen plattform) — om viljan finns där.
Nu när Xmarks har valt att stänga ned sin synkroniseringstjänst för bokmärken mm i Firefox så kanske det är dags att börja leta efter alternativ. Xmarks fungerade verkligen bra och var smidigt att använda. Enligt Xmarks själva så kommer tjänsten att stängas ned i Januari 2011.
Hjälp! Vad gör man nu då?!
Det finns, såklart, ett antal olika alternativ. Man kan t ex installera Xmarks BYOS Edition och sedan fortsätta att synkronisera sina bokmärken mot en FTP-server. En annan variant kan vara att installera Firefox Sync. För de som använder Firefox 4 redan så behövs detta självklart inte synkronisering av bokmärken redan är inkluderat i den versionen.
Det finns även lite olika guider för att konfigurera Xmarks BYOS (se ovan):
Ett allt större problem med alla dessa informationskällor som ständigt ökar i antalet är att övervaka alla uppdateringar; dvs allt som skrivs som man kan tänkas tycka vara intressant (i varierande grad). Gwibber, en s k ”Mikrobloggklient”, har funnits för Linux (GNOME) ett tag, och nu börjar 2.x-serien av denna programvara att bli riktigt trevlig. Version 2.0.x finns med i Ubuntu 9.10-distributionen, och det går även att hämta hem det senaste direkt från gänget bakom Gwibber.
Gwibber har f n stöd för Facebook, Twitter, Identi.ca, StatusNet, FriendFeed, Qaiku, Flickr och Digg. Du kan både skriva nya inlägg och kommentarer samt läsa de uppdateringar du valt att prenumerera på i respektive tjänst.
För att installera Gwibber använder du apt-get eller Synaptic Package Manager. Vill du sedan ha den absolut senaste versionen så kan du också göra:
sudo add-apt-repository ppa:gwibber-daily/ppa
Och därefter använda Synaptic för att installera den senaste versionen (glöm inte Gwibber-themes så får du lite mer och fräschare teman/mallar att applicera).
Andra länkar av intresse:
www.gwibber.com
twitteling.com/2010/02/install-gwibber-twitter-client-in-ubuntu/
opencomputer.net/2008/12/06/using-twitter-on-gnome-linux/
För mer information om PPA:
launchpad.net/ubuntu/+ppas
(Gwibber fungerar självklart i t ex XFCE också, så länge som de nödvändiga biblioteken finns installerade)





















