Favorite Files

No favorite files added yet

Recent Posts

1. 
   Review - Norton AntiVirus

   2005 (Sep 19, 2004)

   I find that when Norton 200x products work on a pc they do a decent job. When a virus or system configuration breaks them it is a real pain to get it working again.
   
   A new feature in the newest versions is the Spyware detection. At first I thought it was going to be great that a popular virus scanner like NAV would be scanning for spyware. When I saw how poorly it actually does at detecting spyware I was very dissapointed. It seems like it only detects old variants of spyware that are no longer commonly distributed and when it does detect something is is worse than useless at removing the problem.
   
   Take the current distribution of the CoolWebSearch adware. It is nearly impossible to remove, even Adaware and spybot is not currently able to remove the latest variants but at least adaware and spybot are detecting some of the components of this nasty software. This latest version of NAV is now running on the machine infected with this junk and it doesn't detect anything is wrong except for the search page being changed. It doesn't identify the name of the adware at all, it just gives some generic trojan activity warning with no help at all to the possible resolution of the problem.
   
   As a virus scanner it does ok. Works just like any other virus scanner on the planet. I am constantly surprised every year when there is another update and every year they fail to add the one feature that users would actually need. What is that feature? The ability to REMOVE a virus automatically. Sure they occasionally post a removal tool on their website for a popular bug but why hasn't any antivirus program come up with the ability to actually properly remove a virus yet? Why do they force the user to visit a website full of technical crap about how the virus does it's business when all anyone cares about is getting rid of the thing?

2. Comment - Google introduces 2-step account verification, but is it too much to ask of users?

   2005 (Feb 11, 2011 - 1:24 AM)

   Been using this since it was first released for google apps. Blackberry app to generate the code is instant, no wait. You fall back to the sms or phone call if you do not have smartphone device. They also print out one time codes on paper you can use instead. Just print new ones as you use them up.
   
   Works well. Using the app is just like the bank tokens except on your phone instead of a hardware fob.
   
   Not for everyone but they have it all worked out with the multiple code delivery methods so you choose what is best for you.

3. Comment - Cops raid Gizmodo editor home -- you don't mess with Steve Jobs

   2005 (Apr 26, 2010 - 7:29 PM)

   If I loose my wallet and then someone finds it and attempts to return it to me but I then refuse to accept the wallet back did they steal it?

4. Comment - Cops raid Gizmodo editor home -- you don't mess with Steve Jobs

   2005 (Apr 26, 2010 - 7:27 PM)

   You can be certain that no similar search warrant was issued to search Apple's HQ or support call centre to find evidence of the person who supposedly called them and left all his contact details to return the phone he found.
   
   Likely the persons name and phone number or maybe even a recording of the phone calls are clearly recorded on Apple servers somewhere.

5. Comment - Cops raid Gizmodo editor home -- you don't mess with Steve Jobs

   2005 (Apr 26, 2010 - 7:13 PM)

   So sure, The Gizmodo editor may have done something bad or whatever. I doubt anything much will come of this one.
   
   Of course if they need to verify that there was an attempt to return the phone doesn't that mean that the cops now need a search warrant to seize all computing devices at Apple since there should be some kind of record of a phone call in there somewhere?
   
   Does anyone think that any kind of similar search will be done at Apple?
   
   Is there some situation where the attempt to return the phone if it can be verified will wipe out any criminal charges? I mean, sure I accept that the person who found the phone didn't take every possible step to return the phone but are you required to make some exceptional effort to return property? And in the end the property was returned as soon as it was requested. If anyone refused to return it at any point then it would clearly be stolen with fewer grey areas on that point.
   
   So on the topic of is it stolen or not.
   -Finder contacted Apple support and let them know he had it and we presume also left contact info.
   -Apple never called him, never asked for it back
   -2 Weeks later the guy starts showing it around to gadget blogs thinking he could make some money
   -Gizmodo buys it, spends a week examining it and then displays it to the world. When they first asked Apple about it they ignore/deny the products existence just before story is published.
   -Apple finally asks for the unit back AFTER the story publishes.
   -Gizmodo gives it back right away
   
   Now we are pretty sure that Gizmodo had it for some time before they contacted Apple. Nobody is sure if the guy who found it really contacted Apple or not but allegedly an Apple support rep has come forward to say they did get that phone call though it's still an "anonymous source" type of confirmation.
   
   So really my point is, assuming Apple was contacted and through internal security or bureaucratic reasons that call never connected them to the fact that someone really had found their prototype is this really a case that requires a criminal charge? It may of course end up that after the investigation they may not charge anyone since Apple dropped the ball on getting their stuff back. It's harder to convict if the "victim" of the theft never accepted the initial attempts to return the item.

6. Comment - PayPal takes another crack at tightening security

   2005 (Nov 30, 2008 - 6:52 AM)

   I tried it. The initial sign up / Authorization message never came through to me. I am on Telus in Canada with unlimited free SMS (for being such a good customer)
   
   Too bad they could not send it via Blackberry PIN message. Those are always instant.