3201
Recent Posts
...This could save a lot of people hours and hours of research and web browsing. Took a quick look and he apparently has ALL the good stuff in one convenient, well-organized site. ...Yea, that's what I reckoned too - a real potential timesaver.-40hz (February 07, 2014, 10:53 AM)
...Well, it's all about ergonomics as far as I am concerned. It's not a bad colour, I agree, but it's a rather poor compromise - what I was actually trying to do was replicate the standard optional XP "Rose" colour scheme, as that:Love the purple, too!
-app103 (February 07, 2014, 10:16 AM)
...as the day of end-of-support for XP draws near, I am searching for a solution for my wife who staunchly refuses to leave her well-tuned XP behind. (For her, even the thought of going to W7 raises major fears of having to face the learning curve)...
_____________________-chrisk (February 06, 2014, 06:00 AM)
Nothing felt much different, no difficulties really. The old laptop was much heavier - which was never a problem - and had a bigger screen. The new one is lighter and felt like the old one but for its smaller screen, and it could run the browser and Word and my SIMS just like before, but the new laptop is much slower in SIMS and has long waits so I have had to get used to that.
_____________________
Must be my eyes but on my 24" screen can't see a damn thing when it is set to small icons. Simpler to use auto hide if you want the space.Yes, LCD screens are a problem for my eyes too. Clarity of vision is essential. My laptop is a 14" display, and I couldn't read it without wearing specs. I have to use prescription reading glasses for reading, but they are of no use for reading the laptop display, because it is approx. twice as far away as one would hold a book, and the shallow depth of field of the specs doesn't cover the distance.
I have 3 x 24" monitors so the taskbar is not an issue for me
______________________-Carol Haynes (February 07, 2014, 03:34 AM)
I use small icons on a vertical taskbar so that I can easily access it between two monitors.Ditto. For years now - in XP and Win7-64 - I have used a vertical Taskbar configuration with auto-hide ON. Current example:
This lets me "stack" more taskbar buttons than I could have horizontally.
(see attachment in previous post)
I've got 16gb of RAM, so it is easy to have so many apps running in the system tray,too. On a horizontal taskbar I would never be able to see them all at once.-BGM (February 06, 2014, 07:32 PM)
GEEK SQUEAK – If You Are An IT Professional, You Must Bookmark This Site
Wednesday, February 5th, 2014 at 2:42 pm
I don’t know if you have ever noticed, but at the top of the site there is a tab labelled GEGeek. Please take a moment and click on the tab and you will be taken to a website that has everything, and I mean everything, that an IT Professional would ever need. All in one place… I often spend time exploring there because there is so much to see (and to learn).
The site administrator of GEGeek is an IT Professional by trade, who labels himself a geek, who works for GE Medical Systems as a X-Ray & PACS IT Field Engineer and has grown up with Microsoft Windows (ever since the IBM AT/XT was introduced back in 1983).
At the very tip top of site you will find a link labelled, “GE Tech Toolkit”, which is a downloadable FREEBIE toolkit that has been put together by the site administrator. Be prepared, this toolkit is an awesome collection that is 2.85 GB in size.
Tech Toolkit - it's FREE!A complete collection of over 250 Portable Freeware Tech Related programs, all accessible from one Menu Launcher Utility. There’s even a program to update all the essential programs automatically, all contained on a USB?Flash drive for travel. It’s a Personal tool kit GEGeek put together for his job and peers that he is sharing with everyone to help make everyone’s jobs a little easier. So Enjoy!!
And as if to substantiate the point...
(Copied below sans embedded hyperlinks/images.)How The Copyright Industry Made Your Computer Less Safe
from the welcome-to-the-world-of-drm dept
I've already written one piece about Cory Doctorow's incredible column at the Guardian concerning digital rights management and anti-circumvention, in which I focused on how the combination of DRM and anti-circumvention laws allows companies to make up their own copyright laws in a way that removes the rights of the public. Those rights are fairly important, and the reason we have them encoded within our copyright laws is to make sure that copyright isn't abused to stifle speech. But, anti-circumvention laws combined with DRM allow the industry to route around that entirely.
But there's a second important point in Doctorow's piece that is equally worth highlighting, and it's that the combination of DRM and anti-circumvention laws make all of our computers less safe. For this to make sense, you need to understand that DRM is really a form of security software.
- The entertainment industry calls DRM "security" software, because it makes them secure from their customers. Security is not a matter of abstract absolutes, it requires a context. You can't be "secure," generally -- you can only be secure from some risk. For example, having food makes you secure from hunger, but puts you at risk from obesity-related illness.
- DRM is designed on the presumption that users don't want it, and if they could turn it off, they would. You only need DRM to stop users from doing things they're trying to do and want to do. If the thing the DRM restricts is something no one wants to do anyway, you don't need the DRM. You don't need a lock on a door that no one ever wants to open.
- DRM assumes that the computer's owner is its adversary.
But, to understand security, you have to recognize that it's an ever-evolving situation. Doctorow quotes Bruce Schneier in pointing out that security is a process, not a product. Another way of thinking about it is that you're only secure until you're not -- and that point is going to come eventually. As Doctorow notes, every security system relies on people probing it and finding and reporting new vulnerabilities. That allows the process of security to keep moving forward. As vulnerabilities are found and understood, new defenses can be built and the security gets better. But anti-circumvention laws make that almost impossible with DRM, meaning that the process of making security better stops -- while the process of breaking it doesn't.
- Here is where DRM and your security work at cross-purposes. The DMCA's injunction against publishing weaknesses in DRM means that its vulnerabilities remain unpatched for longer than in comparable systems that are not covered by the DMCA. That means that any system with DRM will on average be more dangerous for its users than one without DRM.
And that leads to very real vulnerabilities. The most famous, of course, is the case of the Sony rootkit. As Doctorow notes, multiple security companies were aware of the nefarious nature of that rootkit, which not only hid itself on your computer and was difficult to delete, but also opened up a massive vulnerability for malware to piggyback on -- something malware writers took advantage of. And yet, the security companies did nothing, because explaining how to remove the rootkit would violate the DMCA.
Given the post-Snowden world we live in today, people are suddenly taking computer security and privacy more seriously than they have in the past -- and that, as Doctorow notes, represents another opportunity to start rethinking the ridiculousness of anti-circumvention laws combined with DRM. Unfortunately, politicians who are way behind on this stuff still don't get it. Recent trade agreements like the TPP and ACTA continue to push anti-circumvention clauses, and require them around the globe, thereby weakening computer security.
This isn't just an issue for the "usual copyright people." This is about actually making sure the computers we use are as secure and safe as they can be. Yet, in a world with anti-circumvention provisions, that's just not possible. It's time to fix that.
Some people (not me you understand), might say that through **AA-driven DRM, SOPA/PIPA and NSA surveillance, the US Corporatist-led government has been and still is deliberately facilitating a prolonged and hugely successful pincer move on Internet freedom and privacy, making a hypocritical travesty of the American Constitution in the process, but I couldn't possibly comment.-IainB (February 07, 2014, 01:10 AM)
How The Copyright Industry Made Your Computer Less Safe
from the welcome-to-the-world-of-drm dept
I've already written one piece about Cory Doctorow's incredible column at the Guardian concerning digital rights management and anti-circumvention, in which I focused on how the combination of DRM and anti-circumvention laws allows companies to make up their own copyright laws in a way that removes the rights of the public. Those rights are fairly important, and the reason we have them encoded within our copyright laws is to make sure that copyright isn't abused to stifle speech. But, anti-circumvention laws combined with DRM allow the industry to route around that entirely.
But there's a second important point in Doctorow's piece that is equally worth highlighting, and it's that the combination of DRM and anti-circumvention laws make all of our computers less safe. For this to make sense, you need to understand that DRM is really a form of security software.
- The entertainment industry calls DRM "security" software, because it makes them secure from their customers. Security is not a matter of abstract absolutes, it requires a context. You can't be "secure," generally -- you can only be secure from some risk. For example, having food makes you secure from hunger, but puts you at risk from obesity-related illness.
- DRM is designed on the presumption that users don't want it, and if they could turn it off, they would. You only need DRM to stop users from doing things they're trying to do and want to do. If the thing the DRM restricts is something no one wants to do anyway, you don't need the DRM. You don't need a lock on a door that no one ever wants to open.
- DRM assumes that the computer's owner is its adversary.
But, to understand security, you have to recognize that it's an ever-evolving situation. Doctorow quotes Bruce Schneier in pointing out that security is a process, not a product. Another way of thinking about it is that you're only secure until you're not -- and that point is going to come eventually. As Doctorow notes, every security system relies on people probing it and finding and reporting new vulnerabilities. That allows the process of security to keep moving forward. As vulnerabilities are found and understood, new defenses can be built and the security gets better. But anti-circumvention laws make that almost impossible with DRM, meaning that the process of making security better stops -- while the process of breaking it doesn't.
- Here is where DRM and your security work at cross-purposes. The DMCA's injunction against publishing weaknesses in DRM means that its vulnerabilities remain unpatched for longer than in comparable systems that are not covered by the DMCA. That means that any system with DRM will on average be more dangerous for its users than one without DRM.
And that leads to very real vulnerabilities. The most famous, of course, is the case of the Sony rootkit. As Doctorow notes, multiple security companies were aware of the nefarious nature of that rootkit, which not only hid itself on your computer and was difficult to delete, but also opened up a massive vulnerability for malware to piggyback on -- something malware writers took advantage of. And yet, the security companies did nothing, because explaining how to remove the rootkit would violate the DMCA.
Given the post-Snowden world we live in today, people are suddenly taking computer security and privacy more seriously than they have in the past -- and that, as Doctorow notes, represents another opportunity to start rethinking the ridiculousness of anti-circumvention laws combined with DRM. Unfortunately, politicians who are way behind on this stuff still don't get it. Recent trade agreements like the TPP and ACTA continue to push anti-circumvention clauses, and require them around the globe, thereby weakening computer security.
This isn't just an issue for the "usual copyright people." This is about actually making sure the computers we use are as secure and safe as they can be. Yet, in a world with anti-circumvention provisions, that's just not possible. It's time to fix that.
Turkey Passes New Net Censorship And Surveillance Laws; West No Longer In A Position To Criticize
from the awkward dept
Last week we discussed the Turkish government's bizarre campaign about the supposed "problems" of online freedom. Maybe this was an attempt to blunt criticism of its new online censorship law, which has just been passed by the Turkish parliament, as the Wall Street Journal reports:
The law, which must be approved by President Abdullah Gul to take effect, will allow the Presidency of Telecommunication and Communication, or TIB, to block access to Internet sites within four hours of receiving complaints about privacy violations. Turkey's web hosts will also have to store all traffic information for up to two years, according to the measure adopted as part of a legislative package.
That is, not only does it bring in harsh and swift online censorship, but requires online surveillance too. As the Guardian points out, this makes a bad situation worse:
Censorship and a very tight control of the internet are already a reality in Turkey. According to Engelliweb.com, around 40,500 websites were blocked in Turkey by the beginning of February -- 10,000 more than in April last year. The latest Freedom of the Net report published by Freedom House describes the Turkish internet as "partially free".
Despite that, Turkey's deputy prime minister, Bülent Ar?nç, is quoted as saying:
"We are freer and have more press freedom than many other countries in the world," he said.
The sad thing is, he may be right. Now that Western countries have lost the moral high ground when it comes to censoring Web sites and carrying out blanket surveillance, others plainly feel they have a free hand to bring in even more repressive laws clamping down on Internet freedom. Turkey's move is just the latest in a growing series.
...From an NZ perspective, in the Dotcom case, the judgement was clear that there has been illegal action by the State - the police/SAS and GCSB - and it certainly looks like the police committed perjury. Oops.
We are all interested to know when and how these matters will be properly addressed by the judiciary.
(Sounds of crickets chirping.)-IainB (December 08, 2013, 04:37 AM)
GCSB deleted key evidence - Dotcom
1:12 PM Tuesday Feb 4, 2014BREAKING NEWS: The GCSB spy agency seems to have deleted evidence relevant to my case against the GCSB for illegally spying on NZ residents.
— Kim Dotcom (@KimDotcom) February 3, 2014
____________________________
The spy agency which illegally monitored Kim Dotcom's communications has admitted deleting information needed in
the upcoming $6 million damages hearing, according to the tycoon.
Dotcom last night tweeted the claim, saying: "The GCSB spy agency seems to have deleted evidence relevant to my case against the GCSB for illegally spying on NZ residents.''
He quoted Crown lawyers as saying "some communications have automatically aged off. We propose to include ... those communications which are still recoverable''.
Dotcom claimed lawyers acting for the GCSB told him the material had "aged off'' the system, suggesting it had automatically deleted.
He also posted a video of Prime Minister John Key, who is in charge of the agency, saying: "This is a spy agency. We don't delete things. We archive them.''
Mr Key's office said he was speaking specifically about allegations the GCSB deleted a video of him talking about Dotcom inside its top secret building.
"He stands by what he said,'' said a spokeswoman.
The claim that evidence was deleted has brought fresh calls for an independent inquiry into the agency, described today by the Labour and Green parties as operating outside the law.
Green Party co-leader Russel Norman said: "If it is true, then they are a rogue agency operating in contempt of the law and courts.''
Information sought as part of a court process is meant to be preserved - and doing otherwise was "basic contempt of court'', said Mr Norman.
He said Mr Key was attempting to distance himself from his statement in Parliament, saying the comments were made "in the most general terms''.
"He has misled the House.''
He said an independent inquiry into the GCSB would be part of an coalition negotiations after this year's election.
Labour associate spokesman on security issues Grant Robertson said he was concerned about the implications of Dotcom's claims.
"If true, it speaks of an agency that has operated where they don't believe they need to pay attention to the law.'' He said people would ask why they should "trust an agency like this if it's not going to comply with the law''.
He said Mr Key needed to "come clean'' about what he knew about the deleted information.
The inquiry into the GCSB by former Cabinet secretary Rebecca Kitteridge, the incoming Security Intelligence Service boss, referred to material being "aged off'' its systems.
The process was referred to when detailing how the GCSB dealt with failure to follow its own law or rules. She wrote "the information concerning the target will be deleted within GCSB if it has not already 'aged off' the system''.
Speaking in Auckland later, Mr Key said Dotcom was "completely and utterly wrong''.
"I can't talk specifically about Mr Dotcom's evidence because it's before the courts. But what I can say is the claims that he's making that there's some kind of inconsistency with how we treat things is quite wrong,'' he said.
"Essentially, legal documents that are created by GCSB are held in their system and archived for evidence. Raw intelligence has to actually, by law, age off the system if it's no longer relevant or required,'' he said.
"The great irony is, if you cast your mind back to the GCSB debate, there were many people arguing that the GCSB shouldn't hold on to data for as along as it does. Now these same people seem to be saying `ah well, we should be holding onto this data forever'. They're just trying to join dots that cannot be joined and confuse people.''
There's no post... only the video that you've embedded when I go to that first link.That's odd. I suppose I could be mistaken, but I was sure there was some text - I couldn't be bothered copying it. Maybe the post text has been removed, or maybe it's now been put behind the paywall?-wraith808 (January 30, 2014, 10:22 AM)
Actually, a lot of the features that he's talking about from Word 2013 were in Word 2010. I tried it for a while, then after trying it, tried to fix the fact that I didn't want the huge monolithic document and give back my corkboard which I missed by utilizing writing outliner (excellent tool, BTW if you're going with this). But in the end, I'm back to Scrivener.-wraith808 (January 28, 2014, 05:27 PM)
...my issue is not a fear of the new but a fear of having to spend time and effort uninstalling a massive piece of software (and reinstalling the previous version) that doesn't add much new to the features that I use. That would be more expensive to me than the software. I also have some Add-Ins that may get messed up through such an install/uninstall/reinstall. Even if it was free, I'd think twice about it, considering that I already have Office 2010 and it works fine for my purposes.
Having said that, Hewson's blog posts are encouraging. I was just wondering if there are any other writer-types here or out there who have upgraded from Word 2010 to 2013 and found it a positive experience.-dr_andus (January 28, 2014, 09:22 AM)
..If you can live your life like that, all well and good, I suppose...By the way, your supposition is incorrect.-40hz (January 25, 2014, 11:28 AM)
Dunno...Sounds like the philosophy expressed in the song lyric: "Life is a Cabaret (old chum!)"Sooo...wotcha' gonna' do 'bout it?
If you can live your life like that, all well and good, I suppose.
But I really can't.
______________________-40hz (January 25, 2014, 11:28 AM)
