Kickstartnews Blog - Tech Views

Amazon Unveil Frustration Free Packaging Initiative

2008-11-03T17:03:00.003-05:00

Amazon have decided that they too are fed up with all the nearly impossible to open and environmentally unfriendly packaging that companies use. Their initiative to ship products in easy to open and dispose of environmentally friendly packaging is meeting with a lot of favour on a lot of tech blogs and also with users in general. I'm personally happy with this initiative because of my own frustration at the finger ripping plasic manufacturers tend to use in their packaging. Bravo Amazon, lets hope they aren't the last company to take this idea seriously.

New Product Reviews — September & October 2008

2008-10-13T18:51:00.002-04:00

Lots of great new product reviews over the past 30 days!

That's all for now. Check Kickstartnews regularly for news & new reviews.

Camera Straps Don't Make You a Target for Thieves

2008-10-13T17:45:00.003-04:00

BUT . . . a good quality, purpose-built strap can prevent a lot of grief.

Using a camera strap emblazoned with the camera maker's logo is no more or less an invitation to theft, while traveling or on vacation, than it is the sign of a good photographer.

It's only the work of about an hour and a half to poke around on the CIA World Factbook web site and search through annual crime stats and victim reports published by newspaper web sites in different countries to develop a reasonable estimate of losses suffered by photography tourists.

I have heard, third or fourth hand, about people who've been the victims of snatch & dash thieves, but I've never actually met anyone first-hand who has lost any gear to snatch & dash thieves. I know it happens because I've traveled to some nasty areas at home and abroad in which I've occasionally seen obvious thieves 'casing' my gear.

Published and widely available crime stats and analysis and incident reports from Canada, the U.S., UK, France, Germany, Spain and Italy show that 85% of all thieves only look for targets of opportunity however. In fact, somebody walking down the street with a camera slung over their shoulder or neck along with a camera bag and one hand on the camera body is a very difficult proposition for a thief who just wants to run in and run out as fast as possible. While I don't want to minimize the real gear losses that some people may have suffered due to thieves, stats from around the world seem to show that the vast majority of tourist camera gear is stolen out of unguarded camera bags, when the owners' attentions are elsewhere. Street kids in some countries are drafted to hang around local tourist sites in some cities and simply watch for tourists to put their camera bags (or large purses or whatever) on the ground when they sit down to rest or to take a photo unencumbered by their load. The signal is given to the lurking thief and the gear is stolen while the tourists' attentions are elsewhere. The same thing happens in restaurants, museums and airports. Actual assaults by thieves attempting to run up or run by and rip a securely strapped camera or bag from someone's shoulder are very rare. Physical muggings, in which a tourist or photographer is confronted at gun or knife point in a secluded area, are even more rare.

These days, the word "Nikon" or "Canon" on a neck or shoulder strap is only a hint for any thieves that happen to be about to try and check out what's actually slung or stored in the bag. The fact is, experienced thieves know that an uncomfortably large percentage of what at first glance looks like Nikon, Canon, Rolex, Breitling, Louis Vuitton, etc., may not in fact be the real article. I think most people realize that thieves don't steal goods for their own use. They steal in order to sell goods for cash to a Fence or Pawnbroker. Too many thieves have been badly 'burned' by risking arrest and imprisonment for what turned out to be fake goods. So even in the poorest areas, a camera strap emblazoned with the bright yellow Nikon logo is often only a warning sign rather than a green light.

Throughout decades of travel, a determined attitude when walking (always have a destination in mind, but wander as you please at the eventual destination), the habit of always hanging onto my gear, and never, ever shouldering so much gear that I end up sweating and exhausted with my bag sitting on the ground beside me while I rest (far too many gear hounds haul around far too much on a day walks and night walks, and general walkabouts), has helped keep thieves away from me and my gear.

Knowing your route while walking is also a good idea. Plan your route while you're still at the hotel. Gazing vaguely about in public while referencing a map book offers an opportunity for a thief to walk up and ask if you need any help. If you need to reference your map book while walking, do yourself a favor and stop at a cafe for a cold drink or a coffee. Place your camera bag under the table, wrap the strap around your leg, enjoy your juice or coffee and pore over your map book.

The main reason I don't use Nikon straps has nothing to do with being afraid of advertising the brand of gear I use. I hate Nikon straps because they're thin pieces of irritating junk suitable only for use on top of a thick jacket or over a heavy shirt collar. I don't like heavy gear slung around my neck and the camera maker's straps are by & large useless on the shoulder. They're just too insecure because they slide off too easily. As far as I'm concerned, they're truly meant to be little more than an excuse to display the camera maker's logo in a prominent spot. I see quite a few people in many places around the world using the branded strap supplied with the camera, and I just don't understand why the camera owners haven't replaced them with vastly more comfortable and useful third-party straps.

So what straps are good? I'm hooked on the UpStrap these days for shoulder carry. The design is tried and tested and remains about the best insurance against accidentally dropping your camera in awkward situations. BlackRapid makes a superb, highly usable strap for cross-shoulder (across the chest) carry. Domke's standard shoulder strap works well when used on clothing or jackets with coarse weaves or textured surfaces. Lowepro neck straps have a wide, shock absorbing neck section that distributes weight extremely well. Tamrac neck straps also use a well designed shock absorbing neck pad that works. OpTech uses more extensive shock absorbing material in a design which may be the best of its type. Taking anywhere between 30-60 minutes in a camera shop to actually attach and try out a variety of straps will save you much aggravation and disappointment later (say, in the middle of a photography trip or a family holiday). One thing you can be sure of no matter which camera strap you choose is that a strap which works properly for your particular carry is a vastly higher priority than any consideration about whether or not the strap displays a camera maker's logo.

MySpace Suicide Case

2008-08-05T17:01:00.004-04:00

There is currently a case against a mother who posed as a teenage boy in order to harass another teen online. In the process of harrassing her, she ended up driving her to suicide. The case has taken a bizarre, if not predictable turn as rights groups such as EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation), the CDT (Center for Democracy and Technology) and Public Citizen are opposing the government's criminal charges against the mother. These groups along with a group of 14 law professors, have filed an amicus brief in the case, in the belief that if the mother, Lori Drew, is prosecuted using CFAA charges, the case could have significant ramifications for the free speech rights of US citizens using the Internet.
Whilst I applaud the general activities of these groups, sometimes they need to thnk about the victims of crimes like this. To be honest with you I think this whole free speech thing has gotten out of hand, if it is proven that this woman hounded this girl to her death then she should be held responsible. We've forgotten that freedom without responsibility is tantamount to an invitation to chaos. Free speech without the concept of responsibility is meaningless, because of the abuses it invites. It'll be interesting to see how this case unfolds...

Danger! Buying a Digital Camera from a Private Online Discounter

2008-05-31T14:33:00.003-04:00

Horror stories abound, many of them true, about consumers who have been ripped off by private online digital SLR camera discounters. The usual entry point starts with an ad on a private discounter's web site offering a digital SLR for $50 to $100 less than the same model being sold by the big name online digital SLR camera dealers such as B&H Photo-Video, Adorama, Cameta, Henrys, Vistek, Camera Canada and so on.

The major online retailers originate mainly from major brick & mortar dealers. They are entitled to and take advantage of the best volume pricing breaks from the camera distributors. The majors also negotiate shipping deals with carriers such as the postal service, FedEx and UPS. So how is it possible for much smaller online retailers to undersell the big boys? The answer is obvious. Either the discounters are selling everything at a slight loss, or more likely, the discounters are making up the price difference somewhere else. That last part is the key.

Recently on the DPReview discussion forums poster named PixelDave asked "Have any of you ever used these guys [CentralDigital.com]? Seems like they have an OK rating on reseller ratings and are selling the D300 for $1629 - 4%. Just wondering if they are safe." I responded to Dave with the following (edited slightly here for context).

"You've really got to read their D300 info page carefully. Note that the so-called Starter accessory package includes the camera battery . . . for an additional $90. The Starter accessory package does not supply an extra battery — just the one that is supposed to be in the camera box. That means the camera box itself does NOT contain the standard (excellent) battery that is supposed to be there. CentralDigital is a complete ripoff in my opinion. The other items in the Starter accessory kit seem to be all garbage including what I'll bet is a useless/glacially slow no-name 4GB CF card.

$1629 + $90 (you NEED a battery for the camera) works out to $1739, but OOPS — B&H Photo is selling a real D300 package (complete with the proper battery, charger and cables as supplied by Nikon) for only $1699. I wonder if CentralDigital will also try to sell you the stock cables and the charger as 'extras' too?

Who knows what other additional charges CentralDigital might try to add to your credit card for packing, handling and shipping."

In the same thread, DavidH wrote to point out that "Amazon reseller, Ray M. supervisor $1650, have over 50 D300s in stock. (orig over 100 a few days back-all USA). We were leary of NY [discount online] camera stores, but trusted Amazon. Fast extra courteous service, no lip or hard sell. These guys want business and good reputation."

Okay . . . maybe. But if these units are grey market items without a Nikon USA warranty, it's not a deal for the US-based customer. If the units are in fact domestic market inventory and supplied with the full Nikon USA warranty then it's a good deal. The original poster has to compare warranty, shipping & handling, all the items supplied in the box, the total retail price and the return policy (in case he receives a defective unit) in order to do an accurate comparison. The major US and Canadian online retailers make it easy to sort this stuff out. The discount guys don't. Neither do Amazon and eBay with their rather limited amount of space for resellers, retailers and private sellers to list product details. On eBay, half or more of almost every listing is composed of endless disclaimers and threats to potential false or flaky bidders.

Adorama (on Amazon) currently shows what looks like a great Nikon D300 package which includes all the usual stuff in the box (camera, battery, charger, USB cable, A/V cable, manual, LCD shield) plus a value pack containing a 2GB CF memory card, a spare EN-EL3e Lithium-Ion battery, Lowepro holster-style case, Mack 3 year extended warranty, digital remote shutter release, and Nikon Understanding Digital Photography with Nikon SLRs DVD, all for $1829.

There's lots to compare, but it's clearly a better deal than anything offered by the private online discounters.

I don't blame or fault small businesses in any way — guys who are flogging excess inventories at low prices, legitimate small camera dealers who are cutting margins razor thin to try to build some market share and so on. But if any problems arise, I think consumers are often not as well served by the private online discounters because the discounters can't (and often won't) handle two-way traffic of any kind (returns, refunds, missing items). The hard sell you may receive from a private online discounter trying to force you to purchase a battery (sometimes at an inflated price!) that is supposed to be included with the camera, service delays or non-existent service (in the event of delivery problems or receipt of a defective camera) can end up turning what initially appeared to be a $50 or $100 'saving' into an aggravating mess.

If consumers insist on saving every possible dollar, good for them. But when dealing with private discounters, deal locally — or at least some place close enough to where you live so that in the event of problems you can reach out and touch someone.

Check every online digital SLR camera deal carefully. Use the well-established online retailers as a baseline.

Go to the camera manufacturer's web site to find out exactly what is supposed to be included in the package
Go to B&H, Adorama, Cameta, Henrys, Vistek and Camera Canada to find out how the big guys are competing on price.
Check the package contents list on each of the major sites you're using for comparison.
Check the shipping fee to your address. Note that the major online retailers don't charge any sort of handling or packaging fee.
Armed with all of the foregoing start comparing prices at the private discounter sites. Add any and all the 'extras' to the listed price to get to the real item cost. Then add the private discounters' typical packaging (that's right - some private discounters want to charge you for the shipping box), handling (again - some private discounters try to charge you a fee to actually pack the camera for shipment), and shipping fees.
Last, if you ever find a private discounter or a smaller corporate online retailer who can legitimately beat the big guys, visit reseller ratings and the BBB web sites (among others) to see if there have been any serious complaints.
When reading complaints about retailers, try to filter out the complaints which are obviously made by uninformed consumers or outright liars who tried to con a retailer but couldn't get away with it.

BIG IMPORTANT NOTE: A major digital SLR camera purchase can cost upwards of $2,000. That's a lotta dough. If you're going to spend 8-10 hours or more trying to sort out the best price online, ask yourself if the time will be better spent driving/traveling to the nearest major shopping city in order to personally visit a bunch of camera stores. Armed with your best legitimate online price, you may be able to get the retailer to meet or beat the deal. If so, you'll also be able to try out in-store the camera you're actually taking home.

The best way to set up a personal comparison shopping tour of local or regional camera stores is to get on the telephone and ask each store if the product you want is in stock. Check the store hours of operation, then use a map to set up the most logical route from store to store. Set aside some time for lunch. Smart consumers do everything possible to put their hands on the expensive item they're considering buying. In the process, talking to as many retailers face-to-face as possible and previously interacting online in some of the great discussion forums at DPReview and Nikonians (there are many others), you'll be able to make an informed confident, affordable purchasing decision.

Buyer Beware!

Software Purchases - Sale or Lease

2008-05-25T08:31:00.004-04:00

One of the basic premises many software companies use to define their releationship with their users is the idea that users are not really buying their software, but merely leasing or licensing it. This premise allows the software companies certain protections. What it also does is prevent the resale of the software. However with high priced items like Adobe's suite and Autocad, this can be a sticky issue. A recent case where Timothy Vernor and Autodesk have locked legal horns over whether or not he had the right to sell used copies of Autodesk's software, has the potential to overturn this whole premise. Timothy Vernor and his legal reps used the First Sale Doctrine as a basis for fighting Autodesk in court and won.

An article over at Ars Technica discusses this issue in depth, in discussing First Sale Doctrine, the article states:

ensures the right to re-sell used copies of copyrighted works. It is the principle that makes libraries and used book stores possible. The First Sale Doctrine was first articulated by the Supreme Court in 1908 and has since been codified into statute.

Autocad aggresively pursued Timothy Vernor on ebay when he started selling used copies of their software on the Site. They started filing DCMA notices which ended up in the suspension of Vernors account preventing him from carrying out his business. Vernor makes a living from selling items he buys at auctions, flea markets, garage and office sales.

The judge in the case, Richard A. Jones, determined that the sales as such were protected under First Sale Doctrine due to the circumstances under which the software is sold. If this case is appealed and the judge's decision is upheld, this will have far reaching consequences for the industry. This will allow purchasers of software to resell the products they buy but don't use, but it will also mean that software firms might have to start looking at how they licence their products. If they are smart the larger firms will look at opportunities this will offer like selling transfer fees for support and upgrades to new users of old software. It will also create problems such as updating user registries and veryfying transfers with previous or existing users.

This will be a case to watch as it will have a lot of repercussions for us all, user and creator and reseller alike.

Comcast P2P, Expensive Music Downloads — Consumers Always Pay

2008-04-18T11:10:00.002-04:00

Ars Technica reported Comcast's announcement of its plan to lead an industry partnership in the creation of a "P2P Bill of Rights and Responsibilities" that would apply both to users and to ISPs. I think client p2p sponsored or offered by telcos, cable companies and their ISP operations has been lurking in the shadows for some time. I also think that previously the perceptible delay or the palpable resistance to p2p functionality by the telcos has resulted largely from an inability of the telcos to devise a worthwhile monetization plan. The obvious financial gain resulting from bandwidth usage and the accompanying charges to customers doesn't offset the huge potential load that existing infrastructure and switching would have to carry. But now that all the telcos and cable providers have thrown down the gauntlet and declared, essentially, that net neutrality (another buzzword for sure) is here and in the process of being implemented, it's quite possible that p2p functionality will suddenly become viable (and specifically chargeable as a service distinct from texting, phone calls, voice mail, caller ID, etc.).

The other question that giants like Comcast have recently asked their legal staff is "Are we opening the company to legal action brought by copyright holders if we enable p2p?" The most frequent answer seems to be that as long as Comcast promotes the use of p2p functionality, and more important, as long as copyright holders and managers such as Apple (through its iTunes web site) are willing to pay Comcast a tithe to ensure customers have fast access to the iTunes site (thereby provide sufficient revenue to make infrastructure loading and improvements worthwhile), everybody's ass is covered. No lawyer can then make a case against Comcast for enabling illegal file sharing the day after the same legal staff approves a deal for Apple to pay a fee to Comcast to ensure that Apple customers who are also Comcast customers have fast access to the iTunes store.

It's initially a complex equation. The most worrisome factor might be the degree to which Comcast and its competitors decide to impose potentially invasive usage monitoring to ensure specifically that p2p usage remains legal and within the guidelines for Fair Use set out in section 107 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Is the potential sacrifice of privacy worth the dubious privileges conferred by paying for a p2p feature on your cell phone? Possibly worse still, what will bandwidth payments by Apple to Comcast do to the purchase price of music downloads?

In the end, consumers pay, then pay again, and then yet again. What's the real cost of a music download on iTunes in such a situation? After accounting for the small proportionate cost of your ISP contract, cell phone plan, data plan, p2p client fee, bandwidth charges if you go over a monthly limit, the cost of a song download, the cost for the time required to burn a CD at home (for those people who prefer to listen to a CD in the car), the cost of the CD itself, the proportionate cost of hard drive storage space and backup storage space, and the cost for the time needed to make redundant backups of Digital Rights Management (CRM) licenses, purchasing music online may not be the bargain anyone thinks it is.

UK - US Pricing Divide

2008-04-13T14:35:00.005-04:00

There has been a lot of discussion about the disparity in product pricing between the UK (where I am based) and the US for the same items. In many cases products cost twice as much (and even more in some cases) as they do in the US. So why is that? Do the products incur local costs such as support offices, distribution warehouses and so on? Or is it just a case of greed.

Rock Band is one example of a product which is markedly more expensive than the US version. Where the US retail version costs about $150 (equivalent to UK£75), the UK version will retail for around £180. How in hell do you justify charging the UK equivalent of $360 for this toy?

Translation costs? I dont think so.

Support? Maybe ... but what with all the outsourcing going on probably not.

Greed? Quite likely.

There is some excellent coverage of this particular product and the issues at the RockBand.com forums. We've covered this issue before with respect to how Microsoft and Adobe have followed similarly outrageous sorts of pricing strategies in the UK. It's quite shocking that the British consumer keeps paying prices so far above other, similar western markets for so many products including games, electronics, optics and much more.

Sure we have high sales taxes and import duties, but twice the price? Come on. Get real!

Patent Issues Must Read

2008-04-09T18:41:00.002-04:00

ARS Technica have published an article which discusses some of the issues facing the current patent process and the viewpoints of some of the players in the battles surrounding the laws involved in them. In the article, which is well worth a read, they state that: "Two of the nation's leading civil liberties organizations and a new organization dedicated to the abolition of software patents have all filed amicus briefs in a patent case that could give the courts an opportunity to revisit the issue of software and business method patents." I'll be following this one as I think that the whole patent process as it stands is bad for innovation and too easy to abuse.

Rogers Hi-Speed Internet — No Deals Here

2008-04-01T11:45:00.006-04:00

It had to happen. The apparently coarse and transparent oafs who seem to be running many of the cable Internet providers have finally dropped the other shoe. After years of urging us to "get online and experience a world of information, digital photography, digital music, digital video, movies and entertainment" they've now got everyone hooked. So what better time than now to introduce blatantly abusive usage charges while remaining protected by rate increase legislation?

Rogers (in Canada) is just one example. Let's de-construct the first paragraph of the latest mailing to all Rogers business and residential customers:

"With households doing more online every day [at Rogers' urging - the company spends millions to market itself and its services every year] - from downloading music and streaming videos to joining online communities [Rogers of course already charges good money for music and video/TV streaming] - it's important to have an Internet provider that evolves to meet your changing needs [e.g., charging you for services for which it has already charged you]. At Rogers, we remain committed to always providing you with the best Internet experience possible [except for terrible business service, inaccurate records, service technicians who fail to arrive for a scheduled call, and throttling of the same client/server data exchanges for which its now going to charge extra fees]. That's why we are introducing changes to your current service that will help us to better meet your needs for speed, reliability and a continually improved network [read: we're effectively a monopoly in many parts of Canada, so we assigned our legal staff to find a regulatory loophole which allows us to charge more money for the exact same service!].

Bully for them.

According to Rogers, I am paying $54.95 per month (plus taxes) for a 10Mbps connection. The problem with that statement is simply that I've never achieved anything close to 10Mbps download speeds. Before starting to write this post at 10:30 AM EST in Toronto, I checked my connection speed at Toast.Net. The best I could do was 6.7Mbps. That's nowhere near 10Mbps. I tried the same tests at 1:00 AM this morning and the best I could do was 7.3Mbps. It doesn't matter what time of day you want to consider because the theoretical maximum speed on which all of Rogers customer marketing is based can rarely (if ever) be achieved in practice.

A curse on the collective corporate consciousness that eructs and promotes this sort of patented drivel. A curse on the regulatory boards and the government legislators who swallow the drivel. Rogers advertises speeds which it can't or won't deliver, but regulators seem blind to the situation. The Devil is in the details, but if nobody examines the details, the Devil has his way.

As of June 1, 2008, Rogers is going to cap monthly bandwidth traffic at 95GB for Extreme and Extreme Plus customers, and charge an additional $1.50 and $1.25/GB respectively for every GB over the limit (to a maximum of $25/month). Don't forget to calculate the additional cost the first time you decide to subscribe to a remote data backup service such as Carbonite, Mozy or even Dell's new service. That first 100GB backup could be a killer.

I really hate these people. They dig with buckets underneath the outhouse, run away with whatever they find, then reappear trying to sell us our own shit (or theirs) at inflated prices.

Site Hacking Misanthropes

2008-03-30T13:18:00.006-04:00

There has long been a group of tech heads who take great pleasure in creating grief and problems for everyone else out there. Some of them create viruses and hack web sites apparently for nothing more than malicious kicks. Apparently, some of them are now engaged in even more heinous activities.

There was a hacking incident this week at an Epilepsy support forum. The hack consisted of animations designed to flash and move in a way which could cause problems for epilepsy sufferers, even cause seizures. A number of regular visitors to the site's discussion forums maintained by the nonprofit Epilepsy Foundation were affected by the attack.

The hackers who carried out the attack should be caught, then barred from any Internet or computer access for a minimum of ten years. To be honest I think that would be a really light price to pay (after all, there are folks out there now who'd like to see the miscreants physically thrashed).

There's no hacker ethos or tradition of attacking people with physical or mental disabilities. Such a thing is horrible to contemplate or observe and in this case amounts to a targeted attempt to physically assault a specific disability. Shame on anyone who devises and executes such attacks. For more info read the original post on Wired.

Many hackers deathlessly walk the fine line which separates outright felony from relatively benign acts designed only to benefit an individual or satisfy a challenge. Times have changed. Hackers who stay on the side of the line that most of us often ignore (including many of the authorities charged with the task of investigating cybercrime) eventually grow out of their most prurient interests as age and other priorities evolve in their lives. But hackers who range into the realm of assault on people with disabilities are looking for a whole other kind of trouble. They've now drawn attention to themselves of a kind that no sane person could possibly want. I pity the hacker brought before a judge to answer for this crime.

Carbonite is Pretty Dope . . . Until it Screws Up

2008-03-18T12:31:00.003-04:00

I love Carbonite (the online/remote backup service). It has already saved my sorry ass twice in the eight months that I've been using it. I've extolled its virtues to dozens of friends and acquaintances. Everything was fine until two weeks ago when the unexpected happened. The Carbonite servers went down and were inaccessible for several days. The proximate reason? A failed update (or so some pundits have surmised). The managers at Carbonite (the company) are less than detailed in their explanations.

As blogger and Asuret, Inc. CEO Michael Krigsman stated when commenting on the Carbonite outage, "Seems there’s never enough time to test before deployment but plenty of time to fix problems after they hit customers." Yikes, and right on.

One Laptop Per Child (OLPC) — The Horrible "Give One Get One" Campaign

2008-03-16T13:00:00.004-04:00

Nicholas Negroponte is an architect and computer scientist best known as the founder and Chairman Emeritus of Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Media Lab. Negroponte is also known as the founder of the One Laptop per Child association (OLPC). The main point of OLPC is to fund, develop and distribute tough little wireless Linux laptops to children in developing countries. It's a laudable goal. The technical accomplishment for OLPC was to design and build such a laptop at the lowest and therefore most obviously affordable price. That much was done.

The next phase in the evolution of OLPC was the launch of a campaign last August (2007) called "Give One Get One." Seems self-explanatory doesn't it? Log on to the OLPC web site, donate a laptop to a child in a developing country and buy one for yourself (ostensibly for a child near to you) at the same price. Total price? US$433.95 including shipping. That's a fine deal. Some needy kid in some far off place gets a great little laptop for learning, Internet connectivity and a thousand other things, while some kid you know near home gets a cool birthday present.

The problem is only that the OLPC laptops aren't showing up. I placed an order on December 8, 2007 and as I write this on March 16, 2008, the only notification I've received from OLPC is an email sent in the middle of January telling me there'd soon be another email containing good news about my order "next Wednesday." Well folks, next Wednesday has come and gone seven times and still no word from OLPC.

Sorry kid — whoever you are — no laptop donation from me. A couple of niece and nephew birthdays have also come and gone since I placed the Give One Get One order last year, so the occasion to give away the one I was getting has also passed. I could give it to the kids anyway if it ever arrives, but the parents of the niece and nephew are tired of waiting for the OLPC too, so they called Dell and ordered a laptop (which was delivered within a week as usual for Dell).

What is wrong with the OLPC association? Is it that they failed to anticipate the volume of Give One Get One orders? Did they bring the OLPC laptop to market too soon or before it was ready for mass production? Are the managers at OLPC just a bunch of Vegan stoners who'll get it all done as they sort of, like, um, get around to it without stress man?

Are these questions out of line or needlessly insulting? Not really, and here's why. Intel and Acer are each coming out with their own take on OLPC-type laptops. That is, ridiculously inexpensive and reasonably rugged and usably featured Linux-based wireless laptops. So in the absence of any word from OLPC, I can only guess that the newer, reportedly better OLPC-type laptops from Intel and Acer will show up long before my OLPC order arrives. Why should I let OLPC keep my money when I'll be shortly be able to do my own Give One Get One?

Some people will read this and shake their heads at what is really a negative attitude on my part. Phooey on them. I no longer have any confidence that OLPC can deliver on its promises and plans. OLPC has demonstrated no ability to communicate effectively, it can't build its laptops in a timely manner, and I am by far not the only one complaining. By the way too, there's absolutely no indication from OLPC that the donated laptop has been delivered either. From where I'm sitting, OLPC appears to take in lots of money and then gradually, over a period of many months, doles out a few laptops here and there.

OLPC? I want my money back. Now.

It's not the Camera, It's the Photographer

2008-03-14T08:46:00.006-04:00

Make the statement "It's not the camera, it's the photographer" during any discussion or debate on the relative merits of one piece of camera gear over another and you will surely end up in some sort of argument. Really.

We don't advocate any attempt to use semi-operational used gear which only possesses the virtue of being cheap to acquire. We don't advocate throwing a top-of-the-line digital SLR (or any other top-rank SLR) at a novice photographer. We do advocate that photographers should educate themselves about the art and craft of photography at every opportunity, and regularly consider how well their gear is serving them. Buy the best you can afford, but buy only what you can afford.

Professional photographer Ken Rockwell posted an article on his web site about this subject. Professional photographer Michael Reichman posted a rebuttal article on his own web site. Unfortunately, neither photographer seems to be able to engage in the debate without resorting to hyperbole. So since I've been making photographs longer than Rockwell (but not quite as long as Reichman), it's time for a moderating opinion.

Pros, semi-pros and amateurs are working with Olympus, Pentax, Sony, Nikon, Canon, Leica, Kodak and Sigma digital SLR bodies attached to all manner of lenses. All of these photographers make great photos with all of this equipment. Occasionally, even great shots taken with compact and so-called prosumer cameras manage to sneak through. Whether or not a photo is sharp enough and large enough to be creditably reproduced at some large size in a high-end coffee table book or on an art poster is not, in my opinion, the measure of its value as a good (or bad) photo, and the lack of gear to capture such a photo is not a measure by which to judge your existing equipment. Sorry Mr. Reichman. On the other hand, moderately attractive balances of composition, color and subject in moderately good focus during the brief and only time of day in which some cheap compact has any chance of capturing a decent photo is not the measure of a truly versatile camera or satisfying photography experience or a useful choice of gear. Sorry Mr. Rockwell. I think Reichman and Rockwell both use excessive amounts of what can only be described as hyperbole which serves to inflame the debate rather than qualify it. They're both doing a creditable job of attracting traffic to their respective web sites.

Using only the best gear you can afford has a very special effect on most people. As you engage in a photography experience which is based on an affordable start, it has the effect of bringing you closer to your gear in ways which make it easier for you to judge which exposure settings will achieve the best result. The longer you work with your chosen, affordable gear the more you'll find out about its flaws and the more you'll find ways to make better and better photos. Use that gear for a couple of years and you may never part with it. Ever. The reason? It's mainly because you will certainly use that gear at some point to make some photos which have deep and emotional meaning and value for you. Not meaning and value worthy of posting and adoring comments on photo.net or redbubble.com, but rather meaning and value for you personally. That's the wonderful thing about photography though — it can be shared or not shared.

Our quest for public approval of so much of what we do has extended to photography no doubt. The problem is that photography in and of itself is often a very personal experience. My father-in-law has posted a rather close-up photo of an elephant on his photo.net page. The photo is nice enough, but not great. It's just a photo of an elephant. But listen for a few minutes to my father-in-law's story about how the huge wild elephant surprised them by lumbering out of dense bush just a few meters away, how his guide and photography partner & friend reached immediately for the rifle in case the obviously tense bull elephant charged them, and how the situation diffused rapidly after the bull determined they were no threat and then turned to lumber down to a herd near a watering hole creates a different effect altogether. All of a sudden you turn to the photo and look at it with new eyes. Wonderful. The point is that the photo could have been taken with almost any vaguely decent camera, but you had to be physically in that location in Zimbabwe to actually make the shot.

That last point is what really separates good photographers from snapshooters. You have to go to your subjects — they don't come to you. Travel, drive, walk, ride or scoot to wherever and bring whatever gear will do the job. You don't bring a compact point & shoot to a landscape trip; you don't bring a huge lighting setup to a kid's party. Buying and using the gear you can afford never means buying the cheapest used gear that still technically qualifies as camera equipment. Rather it means buying the best gear you can afford which is also appropriate to your photography needs. After that, it's all you.

Domainers and Domain Squatters — I Really Hate These People

2008-03-11T15:36:00.004-04:00

Domainers disgust me. They're cheap whores. They often cost the rest of us time and money when we try to set up legitimate businesses of our own.

As far as I'm concerned, Network Solutions has aided and abetted domaining by being a giant domain squatter in its own right.

I really hate all these people. They produce nothing nothing of tangible value to anyone but themselves, they contribute nothing to the world, rather merely finding loopholes in technology which allow them to take money without giving anything in return. They cost advertisers big piles of money, but offer no customers in return.

I predict that the whole AdSense, Pay-Per-Click (PPC) and Pay-Per-Action (PPA) mess is coming to a boil later this year when some big Google AdWords advertisers and some big Yahoo advertisers see the results of total costs per click from ads fed to domainer pages. I think this may be a pivotal analysis year because we're now a full five years into wide deployment of AdSense and Yahoo page ads. The 2008 Q2/Q3 metrics and year-over-year stats in particular will show a long perspective with scary and severely ramped increases in ad costs over the past 24 months without anything even vaguely close to a corresponding increase in product sales via click-through. Google and Yahoo have already struggled to explain tens of millions of dollars worth of bad clicks, but the 2008 Q3 results may make a lot of advertisers screaming mad.

I believe Google and Yahoo have mismanaged their ethical conduct just as badly as Network Solutions. For Google in particular, the storm is coming. Google cannot continue its slow march toward ethical development, maintenance and management of its AdSense/AdWords product. Google has thousands of programmers all of whom are apparently unable to staunch the flow of good money away from advertisers and legitimate sites and into the pockets of domainers and squatters.

Kickstartnews regularly does battle with copyright violators who steal our reviews and drive, or receive through domaining, ad click traffic to the stolen content. Kicsktartnews derives no benefit from the revenue obtained from such stolen content. In fact, stolen reviews are often excerpted by the thieves, with some of the text content badly edited in the process, resulting in little more than web pollution from which consumers and researcher can gain no benefit or value whatsoever.

Domainers, copyright violators, content thieves and domain squatters are all contributing to the day when too many people get too frustrated and start whining loudly and seriously about regulatory strictures, web access licensing and other horrors.

Domainers, copyright violators, content thieves and domain squatters — I really hate these people. After having written this blog post, we're going to be particularly diligent about watching all of the Kickstartnews domains because I'm sure that if any of the domainers, copyright violators, content thieves and domain squatters read this post, they might find some time to start gunning for us too.

I think I'll instruct our lawyer to send letters to all the domain registrars we deal with stating our intention to renew our domains at all times unless instructed otherwise in writing.

I really hate all these people.

Firewire Port Security Vulnerability

2008-03-04T15:23:00.003-05:00

A number of sites have been reporting on security vulnerabilities that are based around interface bypass methodologies. The latest reported vulnerability is one where hackers can connect a Linux-based computer to a Firewire port on a target machine. The machine is then tricked into allowing the attacking computer to have read and write access of its memory. This is done via a software tool developed by a New Zealand based security consultant called Adam Boileau. The tool allows the hacker to modify Windows' password protection code, which is stored in memory, and subsequently rendering it ineffective.

The tool was developed in 2006 but Adam only recently released the software because Microsoft haven't done anything to rectify the situation on their end. Oh and just one more thing ... you Mac OS fans out there wipe that smug look off your faces ... this isn't a Windows only problem. The same security hole exists in the Mac OS as well. A simple solution appears to be, to disable the Firewire (1394) port when you're not using it.

Gravia - The Gravity Lamp

2008-02-19T19:31:00.003-05:00

An article over at Dvice has showcased a design by a Virginia tech student who has figured out a way to harness the power of gravity. The Gravia is an LED based lamp that works by the force of a weight. The lamp is about four feet tall, encased in glass and gives off about 40w. The energy-efficient weight system that powers the 10 built-in LEDs has won a Greener Gadget award. Apparently the innovative lamp can be used for 200 years, even at 8 hours per day. I'd love to find out more about this cool innovation.

The Best Graphics Cards for Photo Editing (but there's a catch)

2008-02-16T09:47:00.009-05:00

Wondering what sort of graphics card to buy for photo editing? The good news is that it does not involve anything close to the sort of 2D or 3D polygonal rendering horsepower (among other things) needed to properly display and run 90% of the video games on the market. You don't need a $500 gaming card.

ATI/AMD, nVidia and Matrox make mid-priced chip sets and video cards which will do an admirable job of sending more colors to your monitor than it can display. If you run two monitors, buy a mid-range card with 256MB of on-board DDR (or faster) RAM. If you run one monitor (even a 30" monster) a mid-range card with 128MB of RAM will usually do just fine.

There are some interesting technical issues in play which really (and surprisingly for most people) make your monitor the technical 'bottleneck' in the photo editing display equation. Here's how it works:

Take a photo with your digital camera which will, depending on whether its a decent compact or a more advanced prosumer or digital SLR, capture between 8-bits of data per RGB color channel up to 14-bits per channel.
Transfer the photo to your computer. Your mid-priced video card is capable of putting out anything up to about 16-bits per channel (depending on the card model).
Load the photo into your favorite photo editing software (ACDSee, Photoshop Elements, Corel PaintShop Pro, etc.) and your monitor will display the photo in a maximum of 8-bits of data per RGB color channel.

That's right. Standard LCD color monitors have significant limits. So-called enhanced displays are better, but still don't offer the same amount of color data per channel boasted by the best digital camera sensors and the good quality, mid-range graphics cards. On top of that limitation, color is transmitted to your eye by a monitor, not reflected to your eye (or to your camera sensor) as it was originally seen and captured. The difference? Most importantly, transmitted color is limited by the varying capabilities of the electronics and materials used to do the transmitting, while reflected color is affected by the type of light available to do the reflecting (direct sunlight, overcast/diffused sunlight, incandescent, metal halide, sodium, fluorescent, etc.). That's partly why the subject you originally observed before taking a photo seems different (usually better) than the photo displayed on your monitor.

So what's the best graphics/video card for photo editing? As of this writing, literally anything in the $175-$225 price range manufactured in the last five years by ATI, ATI/AMD, nVidia or Matrox with 128MB-256MB of on-board DDR (or faster) RAM will do perfectly well. We're not kidding. Graphics card makers such at Matrox, which specialize in cards strictly for digital photo, video and CAD/CAM work, may be the very best choice as long as the computer is not going to be used for serious gaming. Dedicated photo, video and CAD/CAM graphics cards such as the ATI/AMD FireGL, nVidia Quadro and Matrox Parhelia cards are also superb, but cost a lot more than a perfectly good $200 consumer card.

Don't buy a Matrox Parhelia, ATI/AMD FireGL or nVidia Quadro card unless you're also going to spend $1,500 or more on a dedicated graphics monitor capable of 12-bit per RGB channel display.

So what's the catch? The answer is something which escapes a lot of photographers: MONITOR CALIBRATION!

If you ever thought for one moment that the color being displayed on your monitor was accurate, you'd be dead wrong. There isn't a monitor working anywhere in the world right now which is out of adjustment by any less than 10% (unless it has been regularly calibrated). Most monitors being used to edit photos at home are out by a lot more than 10%. You can get used to some awfully poor color display quite easily because your eyes/brain adjust to accommodate what they usually initially recognize as inaccurate. The solution is something called a Monitor Calibrator. ColorVision, X-Rite and GretagMacBeth make excellent, automatic monitor calibrators starting at about US$90. They're easy to use:

Install the utility software supplied with the calibrator.
Plug the calibration device into a USB port and run the software.
Turn off the lights in the room, then hang the device over top of the monitor so that the device sensor is resting against the screen in the middle of the display.

After that, the software takes over, displays colors, makes adjustments according to what the sensor picks up, then creates a custom monitor color profile which is then used as the default every time you start your computer.

The whole calibration process takes about 5 minutes. Because all monitors drift, repeat the process once a month. You'll get the most out of your photos, and you'll be much happier. Once you've done your first monitor calibration, load some photos you haven't displayed in a while. You may be surprised at how much better they look! You will for sure be surprised at how much better your monitor and graphics card combo work.

All of the following graphics cards work very well for photo editing and almost everything else you do on your computer except serious or intensive 3D, high resolution gaming. Several models are also air-cooled, which also makes them completely silent:

nVidia: Any GeForce card with a 7600, 8400 or 8500 chip set and 128MB or more of on-board RAM
ATI/AMD: Any Radeon card with an X1650 Pro, X1800, X1900 or X2600 chip set and 128MB or more of on-board RAM
Matrox: Any Millennium P-series card with 128MB of on-board RAM

Happy editing.

Dell Display Warranties...

2008-01-13T09:03:00.000-05:00

I have a great story for you all, and one with a happy ending to boot. A little over two years ago I was working on a contract, and while on that contract a great deal came up on a Dell 2405FP display. I made a commitment and dropped the cash to get one. I also purchased the Dell extended replacement warranty. Buying extended warranties for expensive goods is something I generally tend to do, if I can afford it (not that the Dell 2405FP was overpriced or anything). Anyways, back to the story. I have used the monitor for just over two years and had no problems. Suddenly on the evening of the 29th December, the damn thing blew on me. Literally something in the back of the display went "Bang!" followed by a puff of blue smoke.

Talk about annoyed. I looked at the display and tried to troubleshoot the problem. I then got more annoyed and popped out to have a couple of drinks with some mates, while resolving to deal with the issue the next day. In the morning I got through easily to Dell customer support and had several trouble shooting conversations at the end of which (after giving them all my purchase details), I was told I was covered by the extended warranty, which, by the way, I'd forgotten all about.

Dell subsequently arranged for a service technician to pop by my location and exchange the display with another unit. Little did I know at the time that the warranty replacement was going to be the newer model. Sure enough the tech opened the box and out came a brand new Dell 2407FP. After hooking it up I was more than impressed. It's even better than the 2405FP in looks and vibrancy and a lot more besides.

Here lies the lesson. If you are going to spend money on any tech you value or intend to get good long-term use out of, do the smart thing and buy the extended warranty. It may well prove to be the best money you've spent. I certainly didn't want to spend another bunch of money on a display and my practice of spending money on extended warranties certainly paid off.

Politics, Media Missteps & the U.S. Elections

2008-01-12T21:41:00.000-05:00

Technology in the form of the popular broadcast and Internet media has failed us all. The resounding questions in the Democratic party candidacy race right now should have less to do with power and charisma than they do with the primacy of fundamental needs so long ignored by the awful political engine currently mis-directing the United States. The question to ask is which Democratic or Republican candidate will educate the young, heal the sick and be a unifying force for peace in the world? Instead of focusing on issues, the popular media merely keep score and report who is winning (sometimes utterly inaccurately) and which public mis-statement is most likely to cost which candidate some delegate votes.

The United States is severely broken in so many places that I wouldn't be surprised to see a wide variety of influential citizens jumping ship en masse in the not too distant future. With Congress paralyzed, gun violence still out of control, tens of millions of people without even the vaguest shred of medical care, tens of millions more with medical coverage that is insanely inadequate (with no help in sight), and a horrifically expensive education system which fails on so many levels that it defies description, what U.S. citizens need is a true reformer who has some control in the trenches.

Apparently none of the conservative or mid-road Republicans have anything close to what’s needed. Somebody step up please. So the task, overall, falls to Clinton. What scares me most of all is that she is very smart – possibly the smartest person in the room. The scary part is that anyone with the brains to clearly see Scylla and Charybdis on either side should logically run in the opposite direction. Instead, like all well-founded power-seekers, she runs toward the confrontation. I just hope that Congress is truly ready for change. If not, the generation growing into full adulthood (the generation which includes your kids and mine by the way) may see the true beginning of the end of the American empire. I certainly hope I’m wrong.

Four generations of Americans have been raised with a growing inordinate self-aggrandizing sense of unbridled entitlement. The lessons of runaway greed and poverty brought on by the Depression, the failure in Vietnam, the humiliating laughing stock of medical care in the U.S. which the world gleefully derides, Presidents (Democrat and Republican alike) who lie repeatedly, the Iraq lie, the festering and murderous humiliation of New Orleans, echelons of thieving and avaricious civil servants, and the never-diminishing historical specter of insane white wealth wrought on the backs of black slaves have all served to convulse and paralyze the collective American psyche.

In an excellent article in the Washington Post columnist David Greenberg writes like some smart contemporaries of his - with what I feel they all believe to be a sense of the African-American consciousness and a corresponding but similarly misplaced kinship. Foolish them. The smart play for Americans collectively is to get on with the task of rebuilding an education systems, imposing British or Canadian-style universal health care, controlling guns, raising children in a peaceful nation, and raising taxes to pay for it all. But that Utopian ideal will never be realized in a country so overburdened with corporate and political avarice that it cannot even find a military-industrial economic balance that doesn't include unwarranted imperialistic transnational interference concerned only with protecting the perverse hegemony of corporate American power.

History will view the rise and fall of America with disdain and anger not so much at the failure of the rest of the world to rein in the nation, but at the failure of America to study and understand its own power and the degree to which it could have been put to the greatest good.

The technology of the Internet is in full play, managed by the political campaigners and strategists not to educate but rather to influence. Even in this urgent and desperately fought period of candidacy battles, the issues which plague America are merely pawns moved around the board to face front where they'll influence the greatest number of voting delegates. The democratic influence inherently present in the structure of the Internet imposes no substantive influence on the candidates, delegates or on most voters either for that matter.

Greenberg seems to cite "Obamamania" as a logical vehicle constructed from the candidate's own character, personality and history. Obama, like Clinton, is also smart enough to see the horrors lurking just around the corner of a successful run. He will, true to himself no doubt, likely tend to orate in the face of insurmountable odds. That is a tactic insufficient for future victory should he come to power. Clinton will not run from a fight either - not by a long shot. Rather than orate, she will organize and impose practical decisions and processes in an effort to solve problems. The question remains though - are Obama's careful mind and oratory signs that he can lead by force of will? If so, can such an inexperienced and legislatively undistinguished man rise above himself and take the risks inherent in the achievement of truly embracing and successful leadership? Can Clinton's demonstrable ability to organize, plan and take risks be presented in such a way that people will be inexorably drawn to her leadership? These are the questions that must be decided if the Democratic party battle ends up as the two-horse race that it appears to be now.

Greenberg's veiled assertion is that Clinton is the better play. In my view what's best for America is for its leaders to feed and educate the young, see to the health of everyone, and then let a strong and vibrant nation once again direct a government of the people, by the people and for the people. Lincoln was no dummy.

Technology does not create great leaders capable of galvanizing a citizenry and influencing enemies. A candidate's computer literacy or ability to make clever use of Ajax on a representative web site, or incorporate slick video messages in cool-looking streaming video interfaces is no measure of leadership. The technological vehicle of the Media and the Internet are mere megaphones. Great leaders shine light on new ideas so that we can clearly see and understand such things. In that light we can walk new paths to success, sure in the knowledge that our clearly visible goals are plainly beneficial and secured against all enemies not in the least because the light is so bright.

Fools at CES 2008 . . . Gizmodo = Bozo?

2008-01-12T00:39:00.000-05:00

Several Gizmodo staffers attending CES 2008 in Las Vegas evidently decided to undertake a prank. Their effort involved walking the massive show floor with TV-B-Gone remote devices in-hand to shut down displays at random, in one case in the midst of a presentation. Needless to say, large TV displays are part of the lifeblood at CES. To say the pranks were noticed is an understatement. When this equipment suddenly shuts down for no apparent reason, technical panic ensues. It's not funny.

Let me repeat that. The practical joke included shutting down a huge main display being used as an integral part of a show presentation in the midst of CES. The Gizmodo staffers who pulled this prank must have been dropped on their heads as children.

Into every life a little rain must fall. We all know that. The point is that rain is as natural as inadvertent acts and accidents. Even practical jokes privately imposed have merit, occasionally humor, and can often be tolerated with good grace. But shutting down someone's presentation in the midst of the absurdly stress and pressure filled trade show floor at CES for no reason other than to generate a few yucks? It's a really horrible thing to do.

Let's keep our perspective.

There's a time and a place for everything, including street theatre (this was no such thing - street theatre offers messages of value), practical jokes (this was more than personally harmful - it disrupted a real presentation attended by dozens of people), good humored protest (but there was no stated point to the TV-B-Gone disruptions in this case), and serious protest (again, there was no stated point to the disruptions). So what the Gizmodo Bozos are guilty of is bad judgment, inappropriate public behavior, needlessly disrupting a business and trade show presentation, and then - on top of it all - being ignorant enough to actually fess up to the stupid actions.

It's hard to know what motivates these actions in young adults. Is it a logical extreme extending from the growing sense of entitlement felt by so many teenagers and young adults? Do they simply believe that because a thing can be done that it must be done, irrespective of any other consideration? If so, how about if someone runs a fully powered-up bulk erasing magnet over their laptops? Now that would be funny.

Actions of this kind detract from trade shows and actually hurt people who have worked hard, under absurdly stressful circumstances, to help ensure that their ridiculously expensive booth and presentation presence at CES will be a success. So the simple act of goofing on someone by surreptitiously turning off his tools becomes more than simply "flicking off a TV" as some defenders of the prank have crowed.

Shame on this kind of thoughtlessness. Never, ever pointlessly disrupt people from proceeding with their livelihood. Shame on this kind of heartlessness. Above all else, shame on Gizmodo for offering only an insufferably smug explanation on its web site and no apology of any significance.

Remember this Gizmodo. Turnabout is fair play. You've opened the door. So be afraid.

So Much Art, Music and Writing Online - But Where's the Good Stuff?

2008-01-07T11:16:00.000-05:00

The old 'saw' about artists having to suffer for their art gave merit to the idea that only the most determined artists had the best chance for success or recognition. The easier any endeavor becomes, the more players and kibitzers come to the table. The traditional business infrastructures of art, music, writing, design, photography and creative thinking were built upon subjective filtering of demonstrable junk, leaving in the main mostly good stuff for us to peruse.

The problem now is simply that the old mechanisms (e.g., critics, curators, studios, publishers) evolved to deal with traditional numbers of new works coming on the scene. It was reasonably well handled, but for the carping and whining of those artists whose work was derided or ignored. Now there are uncountable and unmanageable legions of so-called artists of all stripes whose works are seeing wide distribution. The old mechanisms have been toppled to some extent and are often tossed out the door along with all of the dedication and single minded pursuit of style, quality and substance offered by most of the traditional arbiters of taste. Instead we're now confronted with the fact that the wishes of so many heretofore unimportant artists are coming true: they now have a platform as visible as the one normally provided to better writers, musicians, artists and thinkers whose traditional regimen of having to run a gauntlet in order to achieve success is no longer necessary. The net effect is already felt.

Now too often, the one with the best search engine optimization gets the most attention. We are averaging down. The same people who bemoan the difficulty of sorting through the private eructations of myriad bloggers, incompetent musicians and writers seriously in need of grammar lessons, also bemoan the difficulty of finding "good stuff". Just as the quality of a Wikipedia entry survives scrutiny in direct proportion to the objective accuracy of the writing and number of factual, germane citations associate with the entry, so too do writers, musicians, painters, photographers and philosophers publishing online survive the cull of popular opinion. The problem is, the late '90s pronouncement that millions of undiscovered artistic gems would be uncovered has not come true. There is not a greater percentage of good quality work now and there is no recognizable quality mechanism to use as a filter. Existing filters demand that inexperienced users apply their own criteria. That, by any definition, is not a move to quality. To determine the differences between good quality and bad quality, dedicated observers whose principle focus is the type of work being scrutinized remains the very best way of filtering creative output. Seeking out the opinions of a variety of experts has always been the most reliable way of finding "good stuff" and at the same time educating ourselves.

I just don't have the time to study hundreds of thousands of paintings, books, music recordings and opinions. I have a business to run. I rely on people who have dedicated themselves to becoming experts - making art or writing or music their business essentially - to tell me where to look first. This is just common sense. Those same experts come to me or someone like me when they are in need of expertise in my speciality. The Internet and the Web have failed in this regard because they are a long way yet from being a platform capable of sustaining the aforementioned experts.

Microsoft Being Sued Over Game Server Lockup

2008-01-06T12:05:00.000-05:00

WEAK MINDED FOOLS JOIN IN CLASS ACTION LAW SUIT

Jan 6, 2008. A bunch of simpering idiots caught unaware by overloaded Xbox Live game servers over the holidays suffered a variety of babbling, drooling and anxiety conditions and were taken by ambulance to local hospitals in various locations around the U.S. between December 28 and December 31. The idiots were all apparently suffering from mental breakdowns brought on by online game server failures and overloading at various Microsoft data centers around the country. "I was just playing my game and, um, it just suddenly locked up on me!" ranted Mike Hunt of Birdflip, Arkansas, "and those Microsoft bastards wouldn't even answer the phone when I called! I was, like, FREAKING OUT and they wouldn't answer the phone! It was horrible and I pee'd my pants because I was on the phone for so long. They deliberately WOULDN'T ANSWER!" After being sedated, a Microsoft Xbox 360 controller was pried from his left hand. Mr. Hunt is recovering slowly at Rapeme Medical Center outside of Little Rock where he was airlifted after the local medical clinic facilities in his hometown of Birdflip proved inadequate to the task. It is unclear whether Mr. Hunt's medical insurance will cover the cost of the air ambulance service. Quoting Mr. Hunt's attorney, Don I. Cheatem, "We'll sue Microsoft for the air ambulance costs too. The devils in Redmond won't get away with this. It's just a simple computer game and now my client is in the hospital. Microsoft should be ashamed of themselves. I've seen these kinds of products before. Remember the Erector Set? All those little kids who skinned their knuckles when their screwdrivers slipped during kit assembly? Right! We got those A.C. Gilbert bastards too! Imagine the nerve of those people suggesting in court that fun science, physics and chemistry education could ever take precedence over the preservation of perfect 9 year old knuckles."

When pressed further, both Mr. Cheatem and fellow attorney Ramy Olbutt engaged in the class action law suit being assembled in Little Rock, stated for the record that online gamers are "very delicate beings and after long sessions at the computer when they should actually be outside getting fresh air or at least focusing their eyes on objects more than 18" away for a few minutes, things can get kind of tense. Microsoft knows this and must be forced to take steps to protect itself from all of the simpering weak-minded idiots and all of the scheming, calculating con artists. The best way to do that is to make every product perfect. We just don't understand why Microsoft refuses to do that."

Microsoft lawyers were unavailable for comment. However, a long-time receptionist at Microsoft's central administration stated confidentially that, "These dizzy morons are all on crack if they think they're going to get a quick settlement and get paid off to shut up. Our lawyers will wrap these jack-offs up with briefs, warrants, affidavits, hearings, examinations for discovery and every piece of legal paperwork imaginable for the next ten years. If I was one of those morons I might just consider dropping this whole thing and stop buying or playing Microsoft products. That would take money out of Microsoft's pockets, keep money in the morons' pockets, and they could try their luck with other games and servers offered by other companies. GEEZ, what's the big deal? Those morons have just bought into a world of stress and aggravation. It's just not worth it."

-33-

Here's the real, stranger-than-fiction, story link.

Windows Vista SP1 - Not Long Now . . . But There's Always a Gotcha'

2008-01-05T16:50:00.000-05:00

All the details about what's in Windows Vista SP1 can be found here. The list and descriptions are quite impressive. However, several reports have been published online which specifically state that immediately after installation of the SP1 beta, your PC is likely to feel slower. The reports, apparently from writers and bloggers who don't investigate deeply, are misleading. Here's the explanation from the the SP1 technical pages:

"The Windows Vista SP1 install process clears the user-specific data that is used by Windows to optimize performance, which may make the system feel less responsive immediately after install. As the customer uses their SP1 PC, the system will be retrained over the course of a few hours or days and will return to the previous level of responsiveness."

Of course, Microsoft, we kind of hoped that Vista responsiveness would actually be better than before. But we'll take the overall improvements however we can get 'em. Why the programmers at Microsoft thought it was a good idea to clear user-specific data during the SP1 installation can likely only be answered with some sort of polysyllabic technical explanation, none of which would alter the SP1 installation we're going to be stuck with. We've waited so long for Vista SP1 to appear and remedy the mountain of Vista problems that Microsoft should have been humiliated about allowing to see the light of day in the first place that an extra day or two of patience after installing SP1 is almost inconsequential.

Due to Windows Vista problems, many valuable days of mine have been lost to troubleshooting. I'm so angry at this point that, just for the hell of it, I'm going to send Microsoft a bill for my time.

Digital Rights Management (DRM) is a Big Fat Red Herring

2008-01-05T15:19:00.000-05:00

C|Net, Ars Technica and many other technology and entertainment news and information providers have been hollering for years about the outrageousness of Digital Rights Management (DRM) imposed on purchased and downloaded music and video files. DRM, which essentially limits your ability to use or copy a downloaded music file on anything besides the music device for which it was meant, is and always was a red herring offered by a music industry that's suffering through a needlessly difficult transition. My take on DRM is much different.

I don't give a sweet darn about Apple, iTunes or Steve Jobs or whether or not the record labels do or don't still control the majority of decisions and directions in the music business. I don't care about DRM - at all! All I want is to be able to purchase and download high fidelity, 396Kbps variable bit rate MP3s instead of the lo-fi 128-196Kbps fixed rate garbage currently available. Until Apple and other major music sites, in partnership with the record labels, offer at least the same quality as I can currently get from a commercial music CD, what's the point? Of course the tracks only cost 99 cents each online because they're all just lo-fi crap. DRM? Who cares! Online music purchases are pointless in the first place not because of DRM but because the audio quality is terrible! So the labels lift DRM and we then rush online to purchase and download the same lo-fi (but un-DRM'd) tracks? Good lord, have we all gone crazy? If you want great quality, un-DRM'd music right now - today - from any artist you choose, just go to your local record store and buy a CD. When you get it home, you can RIP it at any quality you want and then listen to the music in your car, on your living room stereo, on your computer and on your portable music player. What's the problem?

Technology writers and music/media/entertainment writers talk about everything in this space except product quality. So are all of these paid writers simply unwitting pawns of the technology and entertainment companies? For pete's sake, get to the crux of the matter - the quality of MP3/music downloads - and put pressure on Apple, the other music sites and all the record labels to provide us with the quality we deserve in return for the outrageous amounts of money we're paying for all this stuff.

The music industry doesn't want us to think about quality. For the time being it's less expensive for them and their licensed partners to RIP and store in their online libraries lo-fi, low bitrate files, marketing them to us with the same energy and language previously reserved for high fidelity LPs and CDs. While the brick & mortar music business and distribution channels become financially unwieldy as more and more people move online, the music industry and the record labels worry about everything except product quality. It's pathetic. DRM? Even more pathetic. Like any DRM scheme is going to remain undefeated for more than 10 minutes? It's idiotic.

I'll pay for quality. We'll all pay for quality. Unless you're purchasing a commercial CD however, you're not going to find quality at an online music store unless you mail order a commercial CD. DRM is, and always was, a minor issue.