I just wanted to make a brief post to share this article on I, Cringely. For those of you who are fans of the "Triumph of the Nerds" series (like me), you will be familiar with Robert Cringely as a journalist who has been covering technology for decades. What you may not know is that the Cringelys lost their infant son to SIDS in 2002.
Robert spent 4 years working to develop a device that could help prevent SIDS, and that device is at the center of his beef with Qualcomm.
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Java - No Longer Safe?
On Friday serious vulnerabilities in the Java platform were disclosed. Oracle has released Java 7 update 10 in an attempt to address this problem, however many experts are saying that it may take months or even years to address the problems in the Java platform. So what's the average user got to do to protect their computer?
Generally speaking, keeping your software up to date, running good anti-virus software, and doing a monthly ad-ware scan with AdAware or Spybot is enough to keep you feeling relatively secure. However Java is a platform that works across operating systems and different hardware, and therefore it's a juicy target for anyone looking to steal personal information, compromise a computer, or set up a "bot-net".
As a result many experts are recommending that Java be disabled as a precaution. Yet the ubiquitous nature of Java could mean that disabling it isn't feasible, or at least would be an inconvenience, for most users. So are the "experts" overreacting, or is this something that needs to be taken seriously? How does the average user address this threat?
The answer is likely different for everyone. The question that you have to ask yourself is "Which is more inconvenient to me; completely disabling Java and only enabling it when I must, or having my system compromised and having to rebuild and restore from backups?" Also you may look at the sites you frequent and determine if any of them use Java, if they don't, then you're probably better off disabling it. If many of them do, then you may want to set up a separate browser with Java disabled for your general browsing, and have another browser with Java enabled that you use to access trusted sites that require Java. (Details on how to do this can be found here.)
As always, my advice is to err on the side of caution. It's always safer to only have the bare minimum of software running on your computer... making your system as small a target as possible for any potential attackers. Sure it may be a hassle to have to enable Java when you visit sites that require it, however it is a small price to pay when compared to the cleanup that is required should your information or computer be compromised.
Generally speaking, keeping your software up to date, running good anti-virus software, and doing a monthly ad-ware scan with AdAware or Spybot is enough to keep you feeling relatively secure. However Java is a platform that works across operating systems and different hardware, and therefore it's a juicy target for anyone looking to steal personal information, compromise a computer, or set up a "bot-net".
As a result many experts are recommending that Java be disabled as a precaution. Yet the ubiquitous nature of Java could mean that disabling it isn't feasible, or at least would be an inconvenience, for most users. So are the "experts" overreacting, or is this something that needs to be taken seriously? How does the average user address this threat?
The answer is likely different for everyone. The question that you have to ask yourself is "Which is more inconvenient to me; completely disabling Java and only enabling it when I must, or having my system compromised and having to rebuild and restore from backups?" Also you may look at the sites you frequent and determine if any of them use Java, if they don't, then you're probably better off disabling it. If many of them do, then you may want to set up a separate browser with Java disabled for your general browsing, and have another browser with Java enabled that you use to access trusted sites that require Java. (Details on how to do this can be found here.)
As always, my advice is to err on the side of caution. It's always safer to only have the bare minimum of software running on your computer... making your system as small a target as possible for any potential attackers. Sure it may be a hassle to have to enable Java when you visit sites that require it, however it is a small price to pay when compared to the cleanup that is required should your information or computer be compromised.
Monday, January 14, 2013
CNET - The End of an Era?
It's been a while since I wrote a post... I've been extremely busy and honestly just haven't had the time. However the dismay I've been feeling in the wake of the scandal at CNET this week has motivated me to post something.
There's no question that CBS was unethical in its request that CNET make a change to its awards based on current litigation between the would-be winner (Dish TV's "Hopper") and CBS. It's also easy to understand that the editors were in an untenable position. However I believe that there were certainly options and avenues available by which CNET could have saved its journalistic integrity.
I used to be a big fan of CNET, and a big part of that was that I trusted their product reviews. When a large part of a company's worth is tied up in a reputation of impartial reporting, a scandal like this does incredible and irreparable damage to the brand.
I was, and am, a great fan of Greg Sandoval's reporting, and I am certain that he will land on his feet, with his ethics (and reputation) unscathed. Would that Lindsay Turrentine had shown the same resolve and refused to cave to a request that, if it doesn't destroy CNET altogether, I am certain will tarnish its reputation for a long, long time.
I'm saddened that I'll no longer be able to turn to CNET for product research and recommendations... yet I'm hopeful that those who leave the organization in the wake of this scandal will take their outstanding sense of justice and impartiality to other media outlets, possibly changing them for the better. So Greg, here's to you... may your vision of journalists as "truth tellers" spread far and wide!
There's no question that CBS was unethical in its request that CNET make a change to its awards based on current litigation between the would-be winner (Dish TV's "Hopper") and CBS. It's also easy to understand that the editors were in an untenable position. However I believe that there were certainly options and avenues available by which CNET could have saved its journalistic integrity.
I used to be a big fan of CNET, and a big part of that was that I trusted their product reviews. When a large part of a company's worth is tied up in a reputation of impartial reporting, a scandal like this does incredible and irreparable damage to the brand.
I was, and am, a great fan of Greg Sandoval's reporting, and I am certain that he will land on his feet, with his ethics (and reputation) unscathed. Would that Lindsay Turrentine had shown the same resolve and refused to cave to a request that, if it doesn't destroy CNET altogether, I am certain will tarnish its reputation for a long, long time.
I'm saddened that I'll no longer be able to turn to CNET for product research and recommendations... yet I'm hopeful that those who leave the organization in the wake of this scandal will take their outstanding sense of justice and impartiality to other media outlets, possibly changing them for the better. So Greg, here's to you... may your vision of journalists as "truth tellers" spread far and wide!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
