Archive for February, 2005

Wednesday, February 23, 2005

Security Update 2005-002

Apple’s sticking with the new security update naming convention. Security Update 2005-002 is primarily a Java fix.

According to Apple:

Security Update 2005-002

Available for: Java 1.4.2
CVE-ID: CAN-2004-1029
Impact: Updates Java to address an issue where an untrusted applet could gain elevated privileges and potentially execute arbitrary code.
Description: A vulnerability in the Java Plug-in may allow an untrusted applet to escalate privileges, through JavaScript calling into Java code, including reading and writing files with the privileges of the user running the applet. Releases prior to Java 1.4.2 on Mac OS X are not affected by this vulnerability. Further information is available in Document ID 57591 from Sun.

But what does that mean Professor? One of the rules of untrusted Java applets was that they had no access to the hosting computer’s filesystem. This prevents things like collecting your personal information and sending it to their servers (and then to spammers). It also prevents modifications to your data and prevents things from being written out, like say the Opener malware. Not good.

Anyway, run software update so you too can feel warm and fuzzy inside.

iPods in $50 Increments

Apple updated its line of iPod MP3 players. Specifically, the iPod mini and the iPod photo. The mini now comes in two sizes, and the photo had some pronounced price changing. In fact, it’s created an interesting pattern. For the most part, the pricing of all the models and sizes are separated by $50.

  • iPod shuffle 512 MB $99
  • iPod shuffle 1 GB $149
  • iPod mini 4 GB $199
  • iPod mini 6 GB $249
  • iPod 20 GB $299
  • iPod U2 20 GB $349
  • iPod photo 30 GB $349
  • iPod photo 60 GB $449

What’s really interesting about this is that while Apple has established a linear pricing structure, the sizes are exponential. Of course, the biggest bang for your buck change is still the difference between the high-end mini and the regular iPod (14 GB for $50). Apple has bent over backwards to woo the various MP3 player customer types.

The (very) bad thing about this update is the removal of firewire cable as a standard accessory. Let that sink in. Apple is now making USB 2.0 the standard interface for the iPod. While USB 2.0 has higher theoretical speed, it has lower real world speed than firewire, isn’t available on many existing Macs, and can’t deliver the same amount of power. One has to trickle charge their iPod unless they use the AC adapter. Boo.

Apple did pick up on customer desire by announcing a new $29 iPod Camera Connector which allows one to download their photos straight from their camera to their iPod photo. That’s huge. Photographers can take boatloads of pictures without carrying around a big laptop or terribly expensive photo cards. Then they can review them right on the iPod. It’s sweet functionality for a terrific price.

Update 1: Rosyna of Unsanity also noticed the lack of a Firewire cable and denounced the move.

Update 2: CNET has a full length article on the decision to leave out Firewire.

Tuesday, February 22, 2005

Drop the Job to Blog

Blogger icon Jason Kottke of Kottke.org has decided to make blogging a career. It’s a bold move to say the least. I must admit that I only recently (and by recently I mean in the last couple months) got turned on to his website in full. His remaindered links blog was the inspiration for my own supplement.

Pen for Hire

It’s been interesting to watch various weblogs have gotten acclaim for various reasons. The most notable and recognized by the public being the exposure of the CBS memos as fakes. However, in computer culture, other sites have earned more attention and respect from their respective audience. John Gruber of Daring Fireball has built a huge following using little more than a spartan web page and thought provoking commentary. I say thought provoking, but really what I mean is that his logic is so utterly relentless that any thought you might have had contrary to his generally gets a thorough beat down. He parlayed that following into a way to build revenue through ads and now subscription only content.

The market is out there for this. The question is how can one bend that market into something they can use.

Product Placement

Jason has decided to forgo advertising. I find that semi-puzzling as most people are willing to accept advertising. He has some good arguments against it though.

Why not advertising? Like I said above, there’s got to be a way to support media that doesn’t involve advertising. But more than that, I don’t want to disrupt the relationship dynamic we’ve got going here. There are currently two parties involved with kottke.org: me and the collective you. Advertising introduces a third party. In my experience, the third wheel of advertising often works to unbalance the relationship in favor of either the author or the readers (usually in favor of the author). If ads were involved, I might feel the need to change what or how I write to appease advertisers. I might write to increase pageviews and earn more revenue. I could fill pages with ads, earning more revenue but making the content more difficult to read or pushing some content off the page entirely. You could block advertising and deny me needed revenue.

None of that is appealing to me. If I’m writing, you’re reading, I’m responding to what you’ve got to say about my writing, and we’re mixin’ it up in the comments, why do we need a middleman? Why not keep that dynamic intact if we can?

The dynamic he describes is untangible and impossible to argue against, at least no more than I can argue against the way people feel. The arguable aspect is whether an advertiser introduces a third party into the interaction. Now, it does introduce a visual element to the page itself. Again, had Jason argued that it mucks with his presentation, that’s fair. I doubt I’d enjoy Shakespeare if the costumes were adorned like race cars. Things don’t have to be like that though.

Shout it from the Rooftops

There was a time when all advertising had to be largely untargeted (and therefore simply annoying) and in banner form. Advertisers started using bold colors to divert attention from the real subject of interest to their product. Then they added animation. When they started using Flash (which is an act against humanity in most cases anyway), that’s when I had to draw a line.

Combine strobing animations capable of sending just about anybody into a seizure, subtle yet irritating sounds (AOL Instant Messenger used to wake up one of my friends with its ads), and windows that opened by themselves and you’ve successfully forced consumers into looking for ways to avoid that advertising. It should send a message when every major browser includes pop-up suppression. People don’t like them. At all.

Whispering instead of Shouting

Enter Google and their Adwords. I don’t want to paint Google as a messiah necessarily (as there is a mounting group of people that are suspicious of them), but they were one of the pioneers of targeted, text-based advertisements. The ads were no longer obnoxious or unrelated. Web authors can style that text to fit in with the general presentation of the site, negating the distraction and defacement argument. The ads match the content, not the other way around. One does not need to try to appease advertisers as that is inherent in the technology. Further, most people don’t feel the need to block those ads because they don’t interfere. Imagine if this kind of advertising was accepted as the norm before the hey-day of the pop-up. We might not have pop-up blocking at all. In short, I think if one chooses the appropriate advertising, it doesn’t need to obscure the message.

Selling your Soul

The real question becomes whether it is necessary to advertise in order to support one’s self. The answer to that I think is dependent upon your model. If you choose to adopt a subscription model, locking out non-paying users, advertising is wholly avoidable. One only need set the price appropriately (according to market conditions). If one makes those materials available freely without mandatory compensation, the true nature of humans is revealed. People won’t pay as a generalized view. The reasons vary between being cheap, lacking the funds, and being forgetful. I’m just as guilty as anyone. I use a lot of donationware and read a lot of web sites with virtual tip jars. It’s not that I’m unwilling to pay, it’s just that I have no motivation to and paying for things online is still a pain in the ass.

The result is that the author must remind his audience that he survives on that income. If this is in the form of a “please donate” graphic or link, it is little more than a direct advertisement. The alternative is to work the plea into posts at various times, or as most people know it, begging. Begging may be a bit harsh as a characterization, but at the very least it is a guilt trip. How well do guilt trips play into an author audience dynamic. I would submit that it is worse than having an advertiser off to the side. It becomes a part of that conversation. It becomes a primary concern and motivating factor. That’s what Jason was seeking to avoid to begin with though. I hope he finds a way to avoid advertising without moving to the begger’s model because I fear it will both changed his dynamic with his audience and ultimately fail.

Not Here, Not Now

It’s rather easy for me to criticize and make these assertions because I’m not in his position. I don’t have the audience he has. My comments are mostly limited to the ramblings of close friends (well, unless I get linked in MacSurfer which is always welcome). I hope that some day I might. As it is now, I come nowhere close to my monthly bandwidth allotment. It’s almost embarrassing how far from I am actually. Maybe that’s actually a testament to how light I keep my site.

When I actually start to draw some good traffic and get some participation going, I’ll seriously consider adding some kind of non-annoying advertisement. I’d like to be able to run this site for free and perhaps even make a profit. I’d like even more to be able to consider doing what Jason is doing, but the reality is that it’s far more likely that I write for another publication than do this for a living.

For now I’ll wish him well, but I hope he comes up with a far more inventive business model.

Sunday, February 20, 2005

Those Daffy Spammers

Just when you think those porn pushing, pill selling, poker playing swindlers had done everything in their power to try to get into your email box (and my comment system), I get the below message:

Hello, I’m a regular visitor to your site so i finally decided its time to sign your guestbook, so here i sign !

I assume the thought here is that I won’t notice the URL that the bot signed with and assume from the message text that it’s a real person. It does say that he is a regular visitor, right? Thing is, the blog isn’t a guestbook. Hell, I don’t even have a guestbook (how 90’s is that exactly?).

It is interesting that everything that they try to sell starts with a P though, isn’t it?

My New Favorite Show

Yes, it’s geeky and there isn’t really much defending it, but my new favorite show is anime. It airs Thursday and Saturday nights on Adult Swim. Check their website for current showtimes.

WinryThe show of course is Fullmetal Alchemist. It’s about a pair of brothers extremely interested in alchemy, the science of making anything as long as you have the correct ingredients. They try revive their mother using this science/art, which is forbidden. They find out why. The older brother loses two limbs while the younger loses his entire body, being bonded to some empty armor.

The main reason I love the show though is the character, Winry (as seen to the left). Blonde, cute, smart, and mechanically inclined (she made Ed’s automail limbs), she’s everything a good geek like me looks for in a woman. Well, except of course being flesh and blood or non-fictional, but relationships are all about compromise. I’m willing to forgive those traits.