Previous Blogs: (2007 - 2008) / (2008 - 2014)
|Don't Add Your Name to Ashley Madison List Checking Sites|
|8/22/2015 6:46:48 PM|
| by Dave |
|Comments (0) Hits: (45) Promote (0) Demote (0) Score (0) Permalink |
For those of you clamoring for one of those websites that allow you to check up on your own e-mail address or that of a mate's following the Ashley Madison data dump, I would recommend against it. Think about it, you're adding your own or a partner's e-mail address to another website database. A database that exhibits your "cheater's anxiety" at that. Those kinds of websites are not hard to set up and god only knows what the people behind them are doing with the e-mail lists you're contributing your address to. Just a fair warning from a guy who puts up websites.
Also, whether you're actually guilty or not, let's assume you aren't. You can argue the following:
- Someone else entered your e-mail address and created your profile, not you. It isn't hard to imagine that a political or social enemy sought to embarass you by adding your address and persona to Ashley Madison, which, if I understand, would not have been hard to do because Ashley Madison did not verify e-mail addresses. Of course your enemy would have had to anticipate a data dump to the public someday for the "plan" to work, but guess what, that's smart planning because all data online eventually goes public - however long it takes.
- That someone could have been the hackers themselves. You'll be stretching with this defense but technically it could have been the hackers who added your data. Maybe you're broadly important enough to hit, or important enough to someone to hit, or maybe the hackers just randomly added people into the otherwise genuine mix for the pure prank of it. Either way, as with the first bullet point, just because you're listed (and barring any transaction information) doesn't mean it's you.
In fact, there's been a lot of talk about firing people in government or education if their credentials are found to be in the dumped data pool but I doubt that will ever happen on the face of what anyone deems as evidence in this dump. The chain of evidence handling is just too dirty to legitimately act on in a firing sort of context.
That all being said, shame on you.
Oh, also, my e-mail address is in there. However, I was smart enough, and quite frankly, legitimate enough, to point out that I was not interested in the shenanigans of the site and merely looking around. Apparently I created an account in 2006 while quite single but perhaps quite curious. However, I never engaged the website or its people, so there.
Click image for larger version.
So, the idea was simple enough: Given I didn't know the exact battery type needed, buy one of each. Then you're covered. That was the idea...(sigh).
Well this might not look like much to you but it's actually the world to me! It's Ms. N on the final leg of her trip to medical school. She's leaving that bus bay as a regular person and coming back filled up with doctorin' stuff and such. Kind of awesome no?
With the Trump "independent party" threat being what it is, the Republicans have to decide to buy into it or perish as a party. Think about that choice as a good Republican (because there are good Republicans); it must be an awful one to make. It either lives as a party and goes dark with evil in the process by making him the candidate, or it rightfully attempts to stop Trump, insuring complete loss in the next primary election, something they may not recover from in the long-run.
It's crossed my mind that if this choice before them they might just consider throwing the entire election in 2016 by running Trump off, all while making it clear they prefer to do so than let a jackass define who they are in an official office, let alone that of the Oval. The gesture might come off so altruistic of them in a political sense they might restore their own degraded perception of them as the party of anger and contempt for democracy. A perception not so much honed by the party itself but by its representatives in talk radio and other vectors of the right wing media. In short, focus on saving their relevance than winning the next White House.
|Windows 10 As Excuse To Leave Ecosystems|
|7/30/2015 7:46:18 AM|
| by Dave |
|Comments (0) Hits: (47) Promote (0) Demote (0) Score (0) Permalink |
Windows 10 aggravates my itch to return to single-service computing. I best describe this as the drive to escape all sweeping ecosystems where I host my pictures on, say Google, because Google is where I also get my e-mail.
For that matter, I've been contemplating how best to return to client-side computing while retaining the security (yes, security, two-factor authentication preventing your access to my erotic prose is very important to me. I believe it is actually riskier to try and manage your own ad-hoc shelf of hard drives than it is to store in, say, Dropbox), and universal accessibility across all devices that cloud computing allows for.
I don't know that this itch is scratchable though. My mobile device drives my desktop habits and my mobile device is squarely Android. Which is Google. Which in turn is Google Apps (the pay version of what most people use the free version of - yes you can pay for GMAIL and should). It's inconceivable to me that I'll ever return to an MS world and frankly, were it not for the prospect that I need to interface with my job, which will probably always be Microsoft, I'd get by quite happily on a Chromebook laptop.
Microsoft could change this. They could flip a miracle switch and somehow come up with an array of decent Windows-based smartphones rife with apps, or, they could convince me that they are serious about an MS/Android hybrid OS that would legitimize a feeling of congruence with their products starting at said mobile device. But I guess their efforts have thus-far been underwhelming.
As a completely different approach I wonder if Microsoft couldn't somehow re-invent the value of desktop computing. They could convince people, rightly, that programs that run from your hard drive are faster and responsive. If storing local data is done properly, it can be safer than putting into anyone's "cloud" where, if individual if hackers can't get it, the government and corporations still can. If they could do this they could re-inspire the habits of average users to once again not only produce in MS Windows, but to absorb and archive content with it too. And from working backwards, maybe they can reach the Windows smartphone market after all. It would be nice to have that ground-level control again over my stuff.
It's not so much that I favor or don't favor tight gun control laws, I'm actually on the fence about the topic and continue to mull it over. However I am fascinated how a mass murder that involved the deaths of nine good people and involving a single handgun failed to spur gun control debate so conspicuously. It seems that even before the bodies had cooled America was blabbing about a flag, not guns. That can't be an accident - it feels like a deliberate manipulation.
I wonder if that flag is hiding a shoulder holster.
It's manipulation that benefited politicians (including Obama - who at least made a decent post-shooting speech) and the NRA, neither of which really wants to dance in the media over guns. Pumping up an artifact in the background of a photo as a major issue was absolutely the work of someone's media strategy on either side that both sides wound up appreciating.
My family in Florida complains of a ghost that walks around the house from time to time. This is not unsual since as a family we tend to be "ghost believers" in general for a variety of stories and evidence I won't get into in this particular post. Recently my brother installed an outdoor security camera that, lo and behold, appears to actually capture the image of, as described by our mother before the camera's install, a lean man taking a stroll past the window. My brother described the semblance of this photographic anomaly to a man which was easy to discount until I received the actual image. Evidence of the existence of ghosts mounteth.
You can click image or here for the bigger image.
This is annoying. I'm experimenting with Periscope and went on a two minute rant about the escaped fugitives. Turns out Periscope didn't send out a link that my Periscope session was live! I checked and it turns out that in order for Twitter to announce you, you need to tap the Twitter icon in order to specify that you in fact want to do that. But when I go to do so, I get "Twitter Post unavailable". (UPDATE: I uninstalled Periscope at the time of this posting but reinstalled a week later and this particular function now works) Look for yourself!:
If there';s one thing I thought Periscope would do without issue it';s share to Twitter
Periscope is really striking me as kind of botched. I'm thrilled that Twitter finally saw fit to come up with a way to integrate live stream videos on the fly, but I'm annoyed that, much as was the case with Vine they focused on novel gimmickry insisting, for some reason, that doing something serious with social media such as breaking a news event or livestreaming a medical conference, has to be "funned out" in a "teenage girl" sort of way. In the case of Periscope it defaults to letting people send a flow of hearts and commentary over one's live imagery. Oh, and let's not forget the biggest woe of all which is that it defaults to a portrait presentation versus the more sensible and visually compatible landscape mode. Apparently we're all supposed to accept that vertical video is a bonafide thing now, not a mistake on the part of photographers that we've been graciously tolerating. Ugh!
Finally I don't like the fact that there does not appear to be any easy way in which to mine for new livestreams from the phone app. On the web you can construct Twitter search queries to zero in on them so that you can watch weird veritical videos to the pages the search results link you to, but in the actual phone app where it is difficult to manipulate Twitter search this way, you land on the "Global search" screen and the universe of what's being streamed is limited to the most recent streams, of which I'm not entirely sure isn't there based on algorithm (i.e., a filtered, controlled offering of what Twitter approves you to see). You can of course notify your followers that you're broadcasting, or be notified of the same from your friends, but my friend roster simply doesn't roll the way of neat things like this, so that leaves me out.
Meh - work on this Twitter. It's promising but only if you take my rant here seriously and pursue the changes I've called out.
The articles below are a little old, relatively speaking, but are spot on and heartbreaking. Not enough people discovered or utilized the powerful self-publishing platform known as the "web" in time to demand and defend a permanent place for it in their regular lives.
The articles articulate perfectly what I've been independently sensing: That people spend their limited funds on mobile devices while back-burning or outright skipping desktop or laptop PC purchases. And for that and for other reasons they live in mobile apps rather than skittering out to the World Wide Web, which is bad for independent voices.
I recently launched a new blog and went through a period of marketing to introduce the locals. The hit count was astonishingly high (in a relative way mind you, I don't attract thousands of readers) but nearly all of them were from mobile devices. Having not launched a new blog and sought to attract readers in years I was flabbergasted. Bear in mind that I use a custom blogging engine written before mobile browsing was dominant and thus never took the potential for mobile presentational rendering let alone the potential for WWW pages being considered such an "odd" destination that people might never bother to visit at all if a specific "app" didn't lead them. Luckily my presentation renders well on mobile browsers by sheer happenstance but the point is even my own publishing efforts are no longer ubiquitously presented by default, and it was a punch to the gut to actually see that in raw data.
Mobile apps are tightly controlled via the app stores they are distributed through, and indeed, by the very methodology of their construction (it's much harder to build a mobile app than it is to build a web page), but they are more profitable. Advertisers can see more and do more with you and your data than they can with web pages they point you to.
It's unlikely the web will ever "return" in the same way as one of the articles speculates because people who experienced the exhilaration of the open web have turned into a diminishing demographic bubble in time. The fresh blood going online today, only X-teen years after the raw web came to be, only knows of "apps" and closed proprietary systems like Facebook. When they think of what a powerful thing it is to speak online, they think of a Facebook post, not a web page that they themselves control and monitor.
The Free Market has clamped down on the web and its meddling people-power with more dignity and praise than the methods employed by the great China firewall.