Dear Everybody: don’t open things you weren’t expecting to receive. This includes links to google docs and not just attachments. Why? There’s a particularly nasty type of attack going around that tries to pretend it’s someone you know sending you something via email. If you weren’t expecting something from that person, why don’t you pick up the phone and ask them if they sent it?
If it’s as suspicious as the picture above, double-check before you click. Thank you.
-D
This Public Service Announcement brought to you by incompetent web developers. Please note that putting a little sign that says “this site is secure” does not make that site secure.
When I click on the little informational icon to the left of the URL, I can plainly see that the site is NOT secured. Thus, anything entered on the page can be intercepted between my web browser and the server that’s supposed to be collecting the information. And when I try to go to an https:// version of the site, I get told exactly why the site isn’t secure:
That’s right: the site might have been secure, except that the certificates that the web developer tried to use to secure it were not registered to the website, but to some other website. Security doesn’t work that way, folks.
The PSA portion of this post, now: everybody should know to click that little icon, to the left of the URL, any time a website is asking you for information that you wouldn’t want to broadcast to every criminal in the world. And if you get told anything that seems like the site isn’t right, you should leave.
Personally, I contacted the site owner and told them to slap their web developer (literally: I told them that their web developer needs a sharp slap, for trying to play this off as secure when it’s not). In doing so I told them my name and email, but hey, that’s publicly available, so no harm. Other than that, though? Not giving them any of my information, and certainly not giving them my credit card number!
Be careful out there, folks. Just because the website looks slick doesn’t make it trustworthy.
-D
ps: I blacked out the name of the website, because this isn’t about them. I suppose it also serves to protect the incompetent, but hey, I’ve already sent them a nasty note, so there’s no need for public shaming.
Occasionally I remember how old I am. Thinking about how I got into computer programming, I usually tell the story about how I was working doing data entry and got tired of the repetitive nature of the job, so automated a piece of it and ended up drawing the attention of the IT department as a result. (I still keep in contact with that guy, 20 years later.) Thinking about it, though, I realized that my start was a lot earlier than that. I realized this when reading an article on The Law of Accelerating Returns. Something in there struck me as being … well, wrong.
The movie Back to the Future came out in 1985, and “the past” took place in 1955. In the movie, when Michael J. Fox went back to 1955, he was caught off-guard by the newness of TVs, the prices of soda, the lack of love for shrill electric guitar, and the variation in slang. It was a different world, yes—but if the movie were made today and the past took place in 1985, the movie could have had much more fun with much bigger differences. The character would be in a time before personal computers, internet, or cell phones—today’s Marty McFly, a teenager born in the late 90s, would be much more out of place in 1985 than the movie’s Marty McFly was in 1955.
Now, I don’t know about you, but my first DOS-based computer resembled something like the PC3 “LunchBox” Portable Computer, and came to me in something like 1984. Of course, somewhere around the same time we were playing with the Commodore Vic-20 (came out in 1981), Commodore 64 (1982), and the Commodore 128 (1985). So, no, going back to 1985 wouldn’t be all that shocking. Yes, it’d be annoying to have to use a card catalog in order to find something, rather than asking teh interwebs. It’d also be strange not to have call waiting, or cell phones, but I can’t say that it’d be particularly troublesome overall. Nor can I really say the world was all that much different.
I got to thinking about how long I’ve been writing software (this time) because I’d been asked to pull together some screenshots and instructions for a database application I built back in 1998. This application is still running, 18 years later, and still the “system of record” for the company. This and a couple other systems I’ve written are still ticking over in some form or another (this one’s running on a virtual machine just to keep it alive, because nobody can get the software any more, and nobody really knows how to replace it – I had to install an older development tool just to convert it to what it would have been in 2003’s format so that I could convert it to the current format and have a look through things.).
In any event, I think it’s important to point out that yes, the rate of technological change is ever-increasing. On the other hand, there are these bedrock systems which keep on running that nobody is willing to replace because they aren’t broken – they still do their job just fine, and there really is no need to change them. (Have a look at this PCWorld article, for instance.) In parallel with these systems, old code keeps on ticking over, and continues to work (e.g., just about the entire Banking sector of the UK runs on COBOL, or the VA Hospital’s Electronic Medical Records system is .NET wrapped around Java wrapped around Delphi wrapped around a file-based storage system – so, your medical record is just a text file somewhere, when all’s said and done). Other, operating-system type foundations have also not shifted – there really are only 2 operating systems in use today, *NIX and Windows NT – and those have been around for decades – everything added to them is just window-dressing.
It’s only the surface of things which has really shifted – the core remains as it was 20 or even 40 years ago. Yes, computers are much faster. Yes, computers are way smaller, and in seemingly everything. But I just don’t see the level of technological change being all that huge even now, nor do I think it’s changing as rapidly as Kurzweil thinks. Or, rather, I don’t think that the entire ecosystem changes as rapidly as all that – it’s that the outliers are arriving faster, but their adoption depends upon their incorporation into the devices and technologies we already use, which is necessarily slowed by our very humanity.
So. Take the time to look back at all the computing you’ve done, and realize how much things haven’t changed, despite the new names and different packages. Ignore the window-dressing and really think about the technology and you may be surprised at how, really, things haven’t changed. Sure, if they implanted teh interwebs into your head you’d be hugely changed – and, yes, they’re working on that somewhere – but do we really see it happening in our lifetimes? I really don’t think so, because I really think that the rate of change is not solely governed by tech, but by the economics of the matter, and by our ability to incorporate that change.
-D
Well, D. just went in and had the tubes removed a day earlier than planned, because one of them had come loose from its suture and was trying to either fall out or crawl back into his head. He’s quite happy to have them out – and to be able to smell and taste again! He’s very much looking forward to sleeping not propped up at a 45° angle!
He did take a picture or two of the nose with tubes in it … but we’ll have to wait ’til later to put those up – when all the swelling has gone all the way down, and we have a good compare / contrast for them.
-D & T
A few weeks before D’s nose surgery, T got him this wee quadcopter. Its batteries last about 15 minutes, after which it needs to recharge for about 1/2 an hour. It is providing D with much enjoyment as he waits until Thursday for the splints to come out of his nose … after which he’ll be able to 1) smell, 2) taste, and 3) breathe better than ever.
The swelling of D’s face is mostly gone; we’ll see whether there are any changes visible to his nose when he gets the splints out, but we don’t think there will be.
-D & T
D. made it through his surgery (septoplasty and turbinate reduction) just fine, with no complications, and is now home recovering. In 5 days they’ll remove the splints inside his nose (!!!) and he should be able to breathe better than he ever has in his life. Maybe he’ll even be able to sleep on his back without snoring. And certainly he’ll be glad not to have so many sinus infections.
So, for the next week or so, it’s bland, soft food, and sleeping mostly upright.
But all is well.
-D & T
Famous
By Naomi Shihab Nye
The river is famous to the fish.The loud voice is famous to silence,
which knew it would inherit the earth
before anybody said so.The cat sleeping on the fence is famous to the birds
watching him from the birdhouse.The tear is famous, briefly, to the cheek.
The idea you carry close to your bosom
is famous to your bosom.The boot is famous to the earth,
more famous than the dress shoe,
which is famous only to floors.The bent photograph is famous to the one who carries it
and not at all famous to the one who is pictured.I want to be famous to shuffling men
who smile while crossing streets,
sticky children in grocery lines,
famous as the one who smiled back.I want to be famous in the way a pulley is famous,
or a buttonhole, not because it did anything spectacular,
but because it never forgot what it could do.“Famous” from Words Under the Words: Selected Poems (Portland, Oregon: Far Corner Books, 1995). Copyright © 1995 by Naomi Shihab Nye.
First off, apologies are due to all of you who follow this blog. There isn’t really any excuse for not writing to you all, except that, well, life has gotten a bit busy: D. has begun a new job (which he’s enjoying very much), we’re trying to squeeze in time to prep the garden, we’re doing choir … and, well, we’re no longer “abroad” so are struggling a bit to find things to put up here. Yes, we could do food … and we like doing food … but we’d have to have time to do some baking other than just what we make all the time.
We’ll find our balance here soon, promise!
Now, on to the crisis du jour: idiot Google has decided that they are retiring Google Reader. For some most, this isn’t an issue, because you don’t even know what it’s for. For those who read lots of online content, though, it’s been the easiest way to manage to keep up.
So, without further ado, here’s how to switch from Reader to something else (we’ll be trying Brief, in FireFox).
Step 1: Export your Reader Subscriptions This is a needlessly complex process, at this point, because idiot Google decided that they had to change the process right when most people would be using it. It now takes quite a few steps, rather than simply going to “manage subscriptions” and choosing “export.” Still, start with that:
Then click “create archive” and wait for it to do its thing.
When it’s complete, click “download” and save your .zip file somewhere (or just open it – we only really want one file from it).
All we’re interested in is the “subscriptions.xml” file, which you should save somewhere convenient (and rename to be a “.opml” file, later).
Step 2: Install Brief. If you want to try Brief, download and install the Brief add-on from Mozilla. You’ll need to restart FireFox before using it.
Step 3: Set your FireFox preferences to use Live Bookmarks Brief isn’t necessary to use Live Bookmarks – they’re built into FireFox – but Brief gives you a different way of reading them.
Step 4: Open Brief Brief gives you another little icon, to the right of your search bar. Click it to open Brief.
Step 5: Rename your .xml file from step 1 to “subscriptions.opml” and import it. The initial Brief page will have asked if you wanted to import anything, but if you missed that, click the little “tools” icon in Brief to import the .opml file you’ve obtained from the perfidious Google.
You now have the ability to read feeds, via Brief.
This isn’t an ideal solution if you use the “Starred Items” feature in Google Reader, particularly if you rely on it as heavily as I do. I depend upon it to work up my “links” posts (more about that process here), and it’s quite laborious even with Reader in place. With Reader gone, well, I’ll be searching for another solution.
On the bright side: since I won’t be using Reader any longer, and I can’t use Google Chat from work, I now have no reason to sign into Google! Yes, they own FeedBurner, which powers the email subscriptions to our sites, but they’re gradually driving us away. I can’t say I’ll miss them, except for Reader
-D
 |
 |
||||
 |
 |
 |
|||
Oh, the subtleties of signs. I spotted the first sign here in downtown Benicia this weekend & had to photograph it, mostly because it’s just so … well, nice. It doesn’t tell you about laws against letting your dog make a mess, it doesn’t tell you you’ll be fined or what have you. It appeals to people’s health concerns instead.
Funnily enough, I’ve had a fascination with signs, and have a handful of “dog fouling” signs taken in Scotland. Some appeal to the better nature of the pet owner, some threaten by stating the text of some applicable statute, and some merely mention that there is a statute while making a graphical appeal.
Do these work? Would someone who was otherwise unmotivated find them motivational? Do they say something different to people from different cultures?
Personally, I find the appeal to self-interest to possibly be more motivational than the rest.
I guess that signs are meant to both inform and motivate. There’s something in each of the dog fouling signs, though, that appeals to self-interest, as if there’s nothing intrinsically valuable in having a park free from dog mess.
We can contrast these, though, with a sign spotted 3 years ago, embedded into the concrete above a storm-drain. This sign lets you know that anything dumped into the storm drain leads to the sea, and makes the – subtle – appeal to be concerned about the fish in the ocean. It’s playing on a concern for nature, rather than pointing out that it’s illegal to dump things* into storm drains. I suppose that the fish might also be an appeal to one’s health concerns, provided you care about what goes into the fish you eat, but it doesn’t seem that way, really.
The motivational aspect of the “no dumping” sign is to appeal to a supposed pre-existing concern for the environment. This is similar to the second dog-fouling sign (which appeals to the dog owner to “help us clean up our city”) in that it’s concerned with the environment, although for aesthetic reasons in the fouling sign, rather than focusing on healthy salmon.
In any event, signs are interesting things (and all the more interesting when they come with odd caricatures of animal waste).
-D
* I’m certain that it’s more than just “things” that you’re not supposed to dump, but that’s not the point.
Happy shortest day! Things will get brighter here shortly…