Just found out from a friend about likemind, and the concept sounds really cool.
No sales pitch, no 'networking', just like-minded people sharing ideas over a good cup of coffee. Simple, and to the point.
Even the website is minimalist in its design. It's really nothing more than a map to show you where the meetings are happening.
It has been called one of the top ten social networking sites for creative people (according to Lateral Action), so if you have some time, feel free to check out one of the meetings. They sound like a lot of fun.
Unfortunately, there is not currently a likemind set-up for Philly, but I just offered to be a host, so once I am 'approved' (I hope), I will let you know where the meet-up will take place.
Thursday, November 06, 2008
Flock to me
If you are into Social Networking, Social Media, Social Marketing, Social (insert your term here), Flock might be just what you've been searching for.
It's not hard to describe what Flock is, but it may be hard to visualize it, so I would suggest visiting the site, and giving it a try. If you live on FaceBook or Twitter, you won't be disappointed.
Flock is a new web browser that incorporates your online social networking sites directly into the browser, and offers quick access through a sidebar. It's built on the FireFox3 platform, and works with all the same FF extensions you've come to love.
A special thanks to @kevinmhuff for letting me know about Flock. Make sure you check out his blog.
It's not hard to describe what Flock is, but it may be hard to visualize it, so I would suggest visiting the site, and giving it a try. If you live on FaceBook or Twitter, you won't be disappointed.
Flock is a new web browser that incorporates your online social networking sites directly into the browser, and offers quick access through a sidebar. It's built on the FireFox3 platform, and works with all the same FF extensions you've come to love.
A special thanks to @kevinmhuff for letting me know about Flock. Make sure you check out his blog.
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Double Standard okay for MPAA?
MPAA finds itself accused of piracy - Los Angeles Times
Why does the MPAA feel they are exempt when it comes to piracy laws? According to the MPAA "Movie pirates are thieves, plain and simple…. ALL forms of piracy are illegal and carry serious legal consequences." And yet, this statement "We made a copy of Kirby's movie because it had implications for our employees", seems to imply a caveat to the former quote. What's going on at the MPAA? "(I)mplications for our employees"? Can I use that excuse to make a copy of all my kid's DVDs? The movies have implications for my family. I need the copies as proof that 'Max & Ruby" had long term effects on my children's mental state. Seriously, Max & Ruby are harmless, but where does the MPAA get off disregarding an explicit request from a from a film maker to not make a copy of his movie? Kirby Dick, the film maker in question is not some newbie director who is orchestrating a "publicity stunt", as the MPAA would have you believe. He was nominated for an Academy Award in 2004, and submitted this film for a rating with the specific request that "no copies would be made of any part or all of the film".
Just because the MPAA doesn't like the premise of the film, which takes a insiders look at the ratings system, doesn't give them the right to break the law. Dick, and his lawyer Michael Donaldson have not made a decision as to whether they are going to bring a suit against the MPAA, but have not ruled out the option.
As far as the MPAA is concerned, no matter what Dick did or didn't do during the filming of the movie, no one has a right to make a copy of his film (at least according to the MPAA). Let's face facts, the VCR did not kill the movie industry (as they once claimed it would); in fact it probably ADDED to their revenue because of VHS movie sales. The same thing holds true for DVDs, the movie industry has gotten bigger every year, and it's because people LOVE movies! We watch them in the theaters, we buy them for our own use, and we share them with friends. Technology has just made that sharing a little bit easier. The MPAA needs to come to terms with the fact that for every piece of DRM software they come up with, someone will overcome it. It's fighting a losing battle. The MPAA needs to embrace the technology and use it to their advantage, people will still buy their product, and they will continue to make huge blockbusters that we want to watch. It's a never-ending cycle that is ultimately good for both sides.
Why does the MPAA feel they are exempt when it comes to piracy laws? According to the MPAA "Movie pirates are thieves, plain and simple…. ALL forms of piracy are illegal and carry serious legal consequences." And yet, this statement "We made a copy of Kirby's movie because it had implications for our employees", seems to imply a caveat to the former quote. What's going on at the MPAA? "(I)mplications for our employees"? Can I use that excuse to make a copy of all my kid's DVDs? The movies have implications for my family. I need the copies as proof that 'Max & Ruby" had long term effects on my children's mental state. Seriously, Max & Ruby are harmless, but where does the MPAA get off disregarding an explicit request from a from a film maker to not make a copy of his movie? Kirby Dick, the film maker in question is not some newbie director who is orchestrating a "publicity stunt", as the MPAA would have you believe. He was nominated for an Academy Award in 2004, and submitted this film for a rating with the specific request that "no copies would be made of any part or all of the film".
Just because the MPAA doesn't like the premise of the film, which takes a insiders look at the ratings system, doesn't give them the right to break the law. Dick, and his lawyer Michael Donaldson have not made a decision as to whether they are going to bring a suit against the MPAA, but have not ruled out the option.
As far as the MPAA is concerned, no matter what Dick did or didn't do during the filming of the movie, no one has a right to make a copy of his film (at least according to the MPAA). Let's face facts, the VCR did not kill the movie industry (as they once claimed it would); in fact it probably ADDED to their revenue because of VHS movie sales. The same thing holds true for DVDs, the movie industry has gotten bigger every year, and it's because people LOVE movies! We watch them in the theaters, we buy them for our own use, and we share them with friends. Technology has just made that sharing a little bit easier. The MPAA needs to come to terms with the fact that for every piece of DRM software they come up with, someone will overcome it. It's fighting a losing battle. The MPAA needs to embrace the technology and use it to their advantage, people will still buy their product, and they will continue to make huge blockbusters that we want to watch. It's a never-ending cycle that is ultimately good for both sides.
Friday, January 20, 2006
FOXNews.com - Politics News - Google Rebuffs Subpoena in Porn Probe
FOXNews.com - Politics News - Google Rebuffs Subpoena in Porn Probe
OK, so this is not exactly what I had in mind when I decided to put information on this blog, but I wanted to talk about this news story.
This is for all those 'paranoid' conspiracy theorists out there who swear that Google is an evil company. (See this>Evil Google) This news story would seem to fly in the face of what these people are saying. Why is it just a 'google' watch site? Yahoo seems to have complied with the government's request without question. The government asks, and Yahoo delivers. Google, on the other hand did not comply, and is continuing to refuse the request. I guess Google really does live up to their Do No Evil mantra.
Now, onto the actual request itself. I think I'm on the fence with this one. What exactly is the government going to do with one week's worth of searches? If all of the personal information is stripped off, then what good is the information? Couldn't the government just check the zeitgeist to see what people are searching? Think about it for a minute, a week's worth of searches could amount to 1.75 Trillion pieces of information (according to the searches per day number here). What good will it do if no one's name is tied to the information? Maybe I am being naive, but am I missing something? Also, I have always operated under the assumption that if I am not doing anything wrong, what does it matter if someone knows. Ok, that is definitely simplifying the matter too much, but you get the point. A look at my recent Google searches yields the following:
You get the point. I would be willing to guess that 99% of people in America have a similarly boring list. But, I guess THAT'S the point of the request. It's the 1% of people who ruin it for everyone (maybe a little harsh, but probably true).
I read a quote this morning that said "Everywhere, unthinking mobs of "independent thinkers" wield tired cliches like cudgels, pummeling those who dare question "enlightened" dogma. If "violence never solved anything," cops wouldn't have guns and slaves may never have been freed. If it's better that 10 guilty men go free to spare one innocent, why not free 100 or 1,000,000? Cliches begin arguments, they don't settle them." ~Jonah Goldberg
I agree with this statement whole-heartedly. Especially the part about freeing 100 or 1,000,000. There has to be a line drawn somewhere. If the lives of my family are made safer by the government looking at Google searches, I am okay with it. If the government is looking to start a witch hunt for people that search for naked women on the internet I have a problem with that.
With all the brain power in Mountain View, as well as the rest of the country, there has to be a better way. Figure out a way to not only make search better, but to make the Internet a safer place for children. I believe it can and will be done, and when that finally happens, we can worry about bigger issues, instead of 'searching' for them.
OK, so this is not exactly what I had in mind when I decided to put information on this blog, but I wanted to talk about this news story.
This is for all those 'paranoid' conspiracy theorists out there who swear that Google is an evil company. (See this>Evil Google) This news story would seem to fly in the face of what these people are saying. Why is it just a 'google' watch site? Yahoo seems to have complied with the government's request without question. The government asks, and Yahoo delivers. Google, on the other hand did not comply, and is continuing to refuse the request. I guess Google really does live up to their Do No Evil mantra.
Now, onto the actual request itself. I think I'm on the fence with this one. What exactly is the government going to do with one week's worth of searches? If all of the personal information is stripped off, then what good is the information? Couldn't the government just check the zeitgeist to see what people are searching? Think about it for a minute, a week's worth of searches could amount to 1.75 Trillion pieces of information (according to the searches per day number here). What good will it do if no one's name is tied to the information? Maybe I am being naive, but am I missing something? Also, I have always operated under the assumption that if I am not doing anything wrong, what does it matter if someone knows. Ok, that is definitely simplifying the matter too much, but you get the point. A look at my recent Google searches yields the following:
- Zeitgeist (for this posting)
- Red Hat Society (overheard someone in the office ask if someone was a member, and I wanted to know what it was)
- How do I get phone service in Orlando, FL (curious who the local provider in Orlando is)
- Mitchell, South Dakota (a trivia question answer)
- USB Drives (looking for good deals on imprinted flash drives for a work-related give away)
- Fisher Space Pen (I lost mine, and wanted to get another one. It's a great pen.)
- Golfwits.com (received an e-mail and wasn't sure if that was the site name)
- Sandusky, Ohio (couldn't remember the name of Cedar Point Amusement Park, but I knew where it was)
You get the point. I would be willing to guess that 99% of people in America have a similarly boring list. But, I guess THAT'S the point of the request. It's the 1% of people who ruin it for everyone (maybe a little harsh, but probably true).
I read a quote this morning that said "Everywhere, unthinking mobs of "independent thinkers" wield tired cliches like cudgels, pummeling those who dare question "enlightened" dogma. If "violence never solved anything," cops wouldn't have guns and slaves may never have been freed. If it's better that 10 guilty men go free to spare one innocent, why not free 100 or 1,000,000? Cliches begin arguments, they don't settle them." ~Jonah Goldberg
I agree with this statement whole-heartedly. Especially the part about freeing 100 or 1,000,000. There has to be a line drawn somewhere. If the lives of my family are made safer by the government looking at Google searches, I am okay with it. If the government is looking to start a witch hunt for people that search for naked women on the internet I have a problem with that.
With all the brain power in Mountain View, as well as the rest of the country, there has to be a better way. Figure out a way to not only make search better, but to make the Internet a safer place for children. I believe it can and will be done, and when that finally happens, we can worry about bigger issues, instead of 'searching' for them.
Wednesday, September 14, 2005
NanoTechnology
No this isn't a post about the new Apple iPod nano (although that thing is REALLY cool, and I want one bad!). No, this is a post about real Nanotechnology.
It's an interesting article about the world’s smallest mobile robot. I am always amazed at advances in technology. Not that this would have any practical use today, but in the not-so-distant future, who knows? There is even a cool picture of the robot on the face of a penny, right in Lincoln’s beard. Click here for the article: World's Smallest Mobile Robot
It's an interesting article about the world’s smallest mobile robot. I am always amazed at advances in technology. Not that this would have any practical use today, but in the not-so-distant future, who knows? There is even a cool picture of the robot on the face of a penny, right in Lincoln’s beard. Click here for the article: World's Smallest Mobile Robot
Tuesday, September 06, 2005
Blog Maps?
So the map on the right side of the page is a cool new tool that I found while looking at other blogs. It allows you to map exactly where you are, and then shows other bloggers in the local area. Check out the site here: Feed Map (this is a beta site, so it might be gone someday)
Off Track?
Ok, so I was a little off track when I started talking about Google Talk on the last post. I did say that Digital Photo Printers would be up next, but with Talk being released before I could post the information about printers, I felt like it was something important enough to share. That’s the whole point of this blog, right?
Anyway, back to Digital Photo Printers. There are a few things you need to know when it comes to printing photos. First and foremost is what you see on your screen is not always what you will get when you print your photos. Calibrating a monitor to provide 100% color accuracy is difficult even when you have the right tools. For the 90% or more of us that don’t have these specialty tools, it’s next to impossible. With that being said, if color accuracy is your goal, then check out Color Vision. They sell a complete line of products that are designed for calibrating your monitor. They even have one for your home entertainment system.
Ok, sorry about the sidebar….back to the printers. There are basically two kinds of photo printers. Ink-Jet and Dye-Sublimation. Let’s talk about Ink-jet first. Honestly, I am not a big fan of these types of printers. While they are convenient, and have consumables that are available just about everywhere, the quality of the print is not nearly as good when compared to Dye-Subs. Now that’s not to say that a good quality ink-jet is not something that you should own. They are great to have for printing all types of documents, as well as pictures. The technology behind these printers has increased tremendously over the past few years, and the dpi for good ink-jets is up in the 9600 x 2400 dpi range. Canon has printers in this range for around $200.00. The other downside is the cost of the ink, and ultimately the cost per print. Some print cartridges for Ink-Jet printers are in the $60-$70 range, and that cost can really add up if you have to print multiple copies just to get the right color.
The other alternative, and probably the better choice (in my opinion) when it comes to quality of the prints is Dye-Sublimation, Dye-Sub for short. These printers have been around for a while, but are just slowly coming into the mainstream. Canon, Kodak, Sony, Olympus and a company called Hi Touch Imaging all have printers that are comparable in price to Ink-Jets. The difference is that most of these offerings print only 4 x 6 photos (Canon does have a 4 x 8 option). Kodak and Olympus also make large format Dye-Sub printers that can print 8 x 10 photos, but they are around $500.00 each. Hi-Touch Imaging also has a model that prints larger photos, but it is limited to 6 x 8 in size.
There is also the advantage of the consumables for dye-subs. They are sold packaged together as ink and paper. The ink comes in a cartridge that has what appears to be a cellophane sheet on a roll. The cartridge can be used the same amount of times as there is paper in the pack, so when you are all out of paper, you are all out of ink. You add both at the same time. You might be asking “Yeah, but if I have to buy both, then they charge me more, right?” Actually, the answer is no. Depending on the manufacturer, the cost per print is anywhere from .19 cents to .38 cents per picture.
The obvious downside to the dye-sub is that you are limited to a 4 x 6 photo (unless you upgrade to the larger Kodak or Olympus). However, if you are printing family photos for albums and scrapbooks, then 4 x 6 might be all you need. Besides, if you do want that one special photo as 8 x 10, you can always order it online, or take your memory card to the nearest CVS, and print it out there.
I could get into all the details of how the dye-sub printer uses a continuous tone when laying the ink on the paper, and how it is transferred using a heat method which renders the picture completely dry the second it comes out of the printer, but that might be too much information. My point here is to let you know that an Ink-Jet printer might not be your only option for printing those photos.
If you would like additional information on the different types of printers, and how each one works, check out this site. http://www.pctechguide.com/Input-Output.htm
I’ve also included manufacturers links to different Dye-Sub Printers.
Canon Printers
Kodak Printers
Anyway, back to Digital Photo Printers. There are a few things you need to know when it comes to printing photos. First and foremost is what you see on your screen is not always what you will get when you print your photos. Calibrating a monitor to provide 100% color accuracy is difficult even when you have the right tools. For the 90% or more of us that don’t have these specialty tools, it’s next to impossible. With that being said, if color accuracy is your goal, then check out Color Vision. They sell a complete line of products that are designed for calibrating your monitor. They even have one for your home entertainment system.
Ok, sorry about the sidebar….back to the printers. There are basically two kinds of photo printers. Ink-Jet and Dye-Sublimation. Let’s talk about Ink-jet first. Honestly, I am not a big fan of these types of printers. While they are convenient, and have consumables that are available just about everywhere, the quality of the print is not nearly as good when compared to Dye-Subs. Now that’s not to say that a good quality ink-jet is not something that you should own. They are great to have for printing all types of documents, as well as pictures. The technology behind these printers has increased tremendously over the past few years, and the dpi for good ink-jets is up in the 9600 x 2400 dpi range. Canon has printers in this range for around $200.00. The other downside is the cost of the ink, and ultimately the cost per print. Some print cartridges for Ink-Jet printers are in the $60-$70 range, and that cost can really add up if you have to print multiple copies just to get the right color.
The other alternative, and probably the better choice (in my opinion) when it comes to quality of the prints is Dye-Sublimation, Dye-Sub for short. These printers have been around for a while, but are just slowly coming into the mainstream. Canon, Kodak, Sony, Olympus and a company called Hi Touch Imaging all have printers that are comparable in price to Ink-Jets. The difference is that most of these offerings print only 4 x 6 photos (Canon does have a 4 x 8 option). Kodak and Olympus also make large format Dye-Sub printers that can print 8 x 10 photos, but they are around $500.00 each. Hi-Touch Imaging also has a model that prints larger photos, but it is limited to 6 x 8 in size.
There is also the advantage of the consumables for dye-subs. They are sold packaged together as ink and paper. The ink comes in a cartridge that has what appears to be a cellophane sheet on a roll. The cartridge can be used the same amount of times as there is paper in the pack, so when you are all out of paper, you are all out of ink. You add both at the same time. You might be asking “Yeah, but if I have to buy both, then they charge me more, right?” Actually, the answer is no. Depending on the manufacturer, the cost per print is anywhere from .19 cents to .38 cents per picture.
The obvious downside to the dye-sub is that you are limited to a 4 x 6 photo (unless you upgrade to the larger Kodak or Olympus). However, if you are printing family photos for albums and scrapbooks, then 4 x 6 might be all you need. Besides, if you do want that one special photo as 8 x 10, you can always order it online, or take your memory card to the nearest CVS, and print it out there.
I could get into all the details of how the dye-sub printer uses a continuous tone when laying the ink on the paper, and how it is transferred using a heat method which renders the picture completely dry the second it comes out of the printer, but that might be too much information. My point here is to let you know that an Ink-Jet printer might not be your only option for printing those photos.
If you would like additional information on the different types of printers, and how each one works, check out this site. http://www.pctechguide.com/Input-Output.htm
I’ve also included manufacturers links to different Dye-Sub Printers.
Canon Printers
Kodak Printers
Friday, August 26, 2005
Google Talk
Google Talk
One of the coolest new google toys available. If you have a GMail account, you should sign up for this new instant messenger type program. I've used it already, and it is really slick. If you don't have a GMail account, and would like one, contact me, and I will send you an invite.
One of the coolest new google toys available. If you have a GMail account, you should sign up for this new instant messenger type program. I've used it already, and it is really slick. If you don't have a GMail account, and would like one, contact me, and I will send you an invite.
Tuesday, August 23, 2005
My first share.
Digital Cameras.....when it comes to getting a good picture that looks good printed, no matter what the size........remember one thing........BIGGER is BETTER. When I say bigger, I don't mean the actual size of the camera, I'm talking megapixels. More is always better. If someone says that you can print good 4x6 pictures with 2.0 megapixels, don't believe it. I've found that for lab quality photos, 4 megapixels is the minimum size that you should use.
With 5, 6, 7, and even 8 megapixels being available in compact cameras, a 4 megapixel camera can be realtively cheap. There are TONS of sites to look for a good deal. Your first place should be http://froogle.google.com/.
Also, do your homework. Check out different manufacturers, and the many different varieties of camera. There are many different sites that offer independent reviews of cameras. I've listed some below.
http://www.steves-digicams.com/hardware_reviews.html
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/
http://www.dcviews.com/cameras.htm
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/cameraList.php
This is a far from a complete list. Do a google search for camera reviews, or a specific camera, and you will find lots of different reviewers.
If anyone has any questions about specific cameras, please let me know. I'll be happy to help.
NEXT UP: Photo Printers
Technical Knowledge Transfer
So this is a first attempt at sharing some of my technical knowledge. I'm not sure how this will work, and what form this will take, but my hope is that I will be able to provide some level of technical support for people who need it.
I am not an expert in any specific area. I am not Cisco Certified (although I am working on that) nor do I have any Windows Certifications.
I just have a general interest in all things technical, and like to share this knowledge with people who want to know more.
If there is anything specific you are looking for, please let me know. I will do my best to answer your questions.
Thanks for checking out my blog, and I look forward to hearing from you soon.
I am not an expert in any specific area. I am not Cisco Certified (although I am working on that) nor do I have any Windows Certifications.
I just have a general interest in all things technical, and like to share this knowledge with people who want to know more.
If there is anything specific you are looking for, please let me know. I will do my best to answer your questions.
Thanks for checking out my blog, and I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
