|
Please visit the LangaList Home Page Please note: Older issues may contain information that is now out of date. How To
Subscribe and Unsubscribe is at the end of this
note. Mailing List Trouble? See
http://www.langa.com/help.htm Please recommend the LangaList to a friend! (And maybe win $10,000 !) An easier-to read formatted
HTML version of this newsletter is available The
LangaList 2002-08-22 Please visit our sponsors and help keep the LangaList S.E. free!
--- ( Your Clicks On Ad Links Help Keep The LangaList Free! ) ---
--------------( the above is an advertisement )--------------
1) Microsoft's Controversial New EULA TermsA "EULA" is an "End User License Agreement," often in the form of legal text you're shown at the start of the installation of new software. Many users blow past such text without reading it; but whether you read it or not, by continuing with the software installation, you are agreeing to whatever terms and conditions are spelled out in the EULA. Recently, Microsoft changed its EULA. The new EULA first appeared in an update to Windows Media Player, but then also showed up in Service Pack 3 for Windows 2000 and in Microsoft's overall "Product Use Rights" document online. By all appearances, Microsoft is making the new language part of the standard licensing for all its software. Some people have interpreted the new EULA to mean that Microsoft is granting itself unlimited license to snoop inside your PC and kill off software it might not like. For example, here are a couple examples of many, many similar reader emails I got on the subject:
I certainly can understand these concerns: Microsoft's own past actions have fostered deep distrust about the software giant's intents. So, to get to the bottom of this, I lifted with the actual text from a current Microsoft EULA, and looked at what it actually does and does not say. The relevant text--- which you can read for yourself (it's just two paragraphs)--- and my take on what it means, is the basis of my current InformationWeek article available (free) online now at http://www.informationweek.com/story/IWK20020816S0001 . In that article I also present three ways you can ensure that no one--- including Microsoft--- can change your software without your knowledge or consent. What's more, even if an unwanted software change does somehow slip past your defenses, I'll show you how you can undo the damage. Please click over to
http://www.informationweek.com/story/IWK20020816S0001 , check out the actual, verbatim EULA text and
see if you agree with my analysis. Either way, yes or nor, please then join in
the discussion via the link at the end of the above article. See you there! Click to email this item to a
friend --- ( Your Clicks On Ad Links Help Keep The LangaList Free! ) ---
--------------( the above is an advertisement )-------------- 2) New, Free "Font Explorer"Karen Kenworthy's back with another nifty free tool. She writes:
Font Explorer v1.5: All of Karen's Power Tools Click to email this item to a
friend 3) Free IE5 Tools Still Work In IE6It was on a whim: I was poking around the Microsoft IE home pages when I saw a link to the old "Web Accessories for Internet Explorer 5." I used to really like some of those accessories, such as a zoom function that could enlarge some web images right within the browser, or a text highlighter you could use to emphasize text on any web page (useful for marking a key phrase or section of a long text document). The Microsoft site says the IE5 web accessories won't work on IE6, but guess what--- most do, at least on my system! Here's what's in the Accessories pack:
It's free at http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/previous/webaccess/ie5wa.asp No guarantees, but hey, it worked for me! Click to email this item to a
friend 4) Most Old Software Never Dies--- Even In XP
Some very early DOS (and later, Windows) programs and games tried to overcome the limitations of the sluggish hardware of the day by taking direct control of everything--- video, sound, the works. This speeded up the software, but at the cost of compatibility. Programs that are fundamentally this incompatible can cause major trouble, because they don't "play nice" with *any* other software. And when they crash, they take everything down with them: You have to reboot. Some of these very old programs won't run properly under any version of Windows. In Win98, for example, you have to exit fully to DOS to run this kind of fundamentally incompatible software. NT/Win2K/XP have no DOS to exit to; you'd have to boot from a DOS floppy to run ancient, incompatible software. (But you could do that, and the old software probably would run fine.) But note that lots of even very old software plays by the rules and doesn't try to circumvent the OS. I have a compiler from 1987, for example: It's 15 years old, but it still runs fine under XP, because it doesn't try to directly control the hardware. In fact almost all older software--- including DOS stuff and games--- that doesn't try to circumvent the operating system will usually run fine under Windows, including XP. XP even has a feature that lets you fool older software into thinking it's running on an older version of Windows. XP has a "compatibility wizard" that can help you figure out and emulate whatever settings the older software is looking for. (See http://www.google.com/search?q=Compatibility+Mode+XP or http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KB;EN-US;q292533& or http://support.microsoft.com/support/kb/articles/q301/9/11.asp ) How can you tell if your software is going to be compatible, before you install XP? See http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=KB;EN-US;Q295322& Or you can try the "The Windows XP Upgrade Advisor" for the Home versions at You can also try a search at: In short: While there are some older, fundamentally incompatible programs that won't run under XP, most do just fine. Click to email this item to a
friend 5) Better Update Your Google Toolbar!The folks at "GreyMagic" uncovered a raft of security problems in the popular Google add-in Toolbar for browsers; the full list of problems is detailed in "Exploiting the Google toolbar" at http://sec.greymagic.com/adv/gm001-mc/ . But Google is on the case, and has a new version of the toolbar available at http://toolbar.google.com/ . If you're using that toolbar, better keep up to date with whatever new versions Google releases! BTW, I don't use the Google bar at all. Instead, I use the free and excellent SearchBar, crafted by LangaList Plus! reader Patrick Deal, and available to all readers at http://go.to/searchbar . One of the nice features of SearchBar is that you can "teach" it to work with almost any search engine or site: SearchBar memorizes how you do a search, and then replicates that search pattern for any new searches you want to do on that site. In effect, you set up a search once--- even a complex one--- and then reuse that search format in the future: You just change the search term and effortlessly replicate all the other search variables, with one click. For example, I've set up my copy of SearchBar with preformatted advanced searches of the Microsoft KnowledgeBase, of the TechWeb site, of the Langa.Com site, of Google's archives of Usenet/Newsgroups, online dictionaries, price search sites, and more. Using SearchBar, I can just enter the terms I'm searching for and click the button: SearchBar feeds in all the advanced search elements automatically and nearly instantly to whatever site I specify. It's incredibly handy: I use it literally every day. Anyone can similarly set up SearchBar the same way. There's also a shortcut available for Plus! edition readers: They can download all the above enhancements to SearchBar in preconfigured form. Click to http://www.langalist.com/plus/sb/searchbar_mods_2.asp for full info and to download the enhancement. Click to email this item to a
friend 6) Don’t Make Me Beg! 8-)If you think the LangaList is a worthwhile read, just
use the following link to recommend the LangaList to a friend. Your friend just
may find a new source of useful information; I just may gain a new subscriber;
and you just may win $10,000 for your trouble (full details also available via
this link): Or, win a no-strings $30 Gift Certificate for any
item at Amazon.Com--- books, software, hardware, kitchenware, toys... and more.
To have a shot at winning, just use the following link to recommend the
LangaList to a friend. Your friend just may find a new source of useful
information; I just may gain a new subscriber; and you just may win a $30 Gift
Certificate! (Full details also available via this link): Either way, thank you, and good luck! Click to email this item to a
friend 7) The Crude Hand Of SpamCopIn "A Plea Re: 'Confirm Your Address...' Services" (see http://www.langa.com/newsletters/2002/2002-08-05.htm#9 ) I discussed how many readers aren't getting their newsletters (they won't get this issue, either). It's because they're using anti-spam filters that require anyone sending them an email to go through one or more validation steps. While this stops spam, it also stops legitimate emails from being delivered when the sender can't take the time to go through a multi-step validation process. (Example: There's no way I can validate thousands of emailed copies of this newsletter, one by one, in multi-step processes. It's just not gonna happen. Sigh.) But it gets worse: The same week I wrote about this problem, the SpamCop service also "blacklisted" my newsletter mailing host. SpamCop's blacklist is a well intentioned but very poorly implemented anti-spam project that's wide open to abuse: Anyone can report any address as spamming them. SpamCop counts how many abuse reports it gets. If the number of reports exceeds some threshold, SpamCop "blacklists" the server for at least a week. For the many people and services that rely on the blacklist, this action prevents delivery of *anything* from that ISP, including totally innocent and non-spamming sites and publications. Talk about a "broad brush." SpamCop has no mechanism to "white list" known-good addresses, senders, or publications; or to prevent malicious users from making false spam reports; or to account for things like KLEZ-type worms that may remail originally-valid emails, which are then later (incorrectly) seen as spam; or for handling cases where a single spammer may use the same ISP as dozens or hundreds or even thousands of non-spammers. SpamCop simply says: "If people report your [IP] as a source of spam, it will be [black]listed." It's as though, if you got paper junk mail from some company in (say) New Jersey, you could call the post office, and they'd then block all mail from everyone in New Jersey for at least a week. That'll stop the junk mail, all right--- along with all the totally valid New Jersey mail. Duh! SpamCop clearly says their service is only in beta, but many businesses and even governmental agencies use it as a bible. That's a mistake. If your ISP or office relies on SpamCop's blacklist, you may miss out on totally legitimate emails. And the flip side also can hurt: If someone reports your ISP or office mail server as a spam source, mail *you* send will never make it to anyone else who relies on SpamCop's list--- even if you've never spammed anyone in your life. One reader had some good thoughts on this:
Thanks, Greg. I agree that local, user control is best. When you let someone or something else filter you mail, I guarantee that you're going to miss out on some stuff you want. It's unavoidable. 8-( Click to email this item to a
friend --- ( Your Clicks On Ad Links Help Keep The LangaList Free! ) ---
--------------( the above is an advertisement )-------------- ---- 8) They Loaded The CodeDo you have a home page or website? (It doesn't matter what size.) Please click over to http://www.langa.com/code.htm , and maybe you can join the hundreds and hundreds of LangaList readers who have "Loaded the Code!" (If you've already "Loaded The Code" and are wondering if your site will appear here or on the Langa.Com web site, please see http://www.langa.com/link.txt ) Speaking of which: Here's another eclectic sample of reader sites--- some professional, some very personal: View A Randomly-Chosen Reader Site Manually Browse All Posted-to-Date Sites Starting At Fantes.Com Online Safety Help Pages Whatchamacallit Free Software Peter Pugliese's Web Site A1 Web Site Hosting Design of NJ BOY SCOUTS of North East North Carolina The House of Linens, Bermuda SnapShot ProLine Photo Processing Kilman's Webpage Eads PC Services Mackenzie HomeBrew Page Click to email this item to a
friend 9) Handy "Keep Alive" ToolIf your ISP has set a short "time out" period, it may drop your connection while you read a long email or web page, forcing you to re-dial and reconnect before you go on. It's annoying. Some people use third-party software that periodically pings their ISP's server to keep their connection alive. But reader Ed Light suggests an ultra-simple method that requires no additional software whatsoever:
Thanks, Ed! To use Ed's page, just copy/paste the HTML above into an empty web page on your site--- even if it's a free page given to you by your ISP (as many do). Save the new page (make note of the name and url), and then open that page at the start of any browsing session. As long as the page is alive somewhere on your system (it's OK to minimize it), it will refresh itself every two minutes, keeping your connection alive. You can adjust the time interval, if you wish. The
key line is Just change the "120" to whatever interval you want, in seconds. You also can use the same trick on any web page you create, to make it self-refreshing. Just add the <META http-equiv="Refresh" CONTENT="120"> line anywhere in the <HEAD> section of your page, simple as that. Click to email this item to a
friend 10) Just For GrinsI knew it. <g> My mini-rant about how crop circles are NOT the work of aliens (see "Not A 'Sign'..." at http://www.langa.com/newsletters/2002/2002-08-15.htm#4 ) brought some, um, interesting email, such as this one from a reader I'll simply call "Daniel:"
Oh, man. Where to begin? Maybe we should start with the logical problems. For example, how did the scientists know the damage was done by microwaves? A microwave source is like a flashlight: Turn off the beam, and it goes dark. What did they measure to determine that microwaves had once been present? The heat? As Daniel states, microwaves can cause heating, But heat is heat: After an object is heated, there's usually no direct way to tell what the heat source was. One may be able to infer a particular heat source from secondary information, but heat is just molecular motion, and molecules don't "remember" what got them moving in the first place. So, even if the wheat was heated, there's no way to tell that the heat came from microwaves. And "50 Hueys?" (Daniel's referring to helicopter-borne radar, I guess.) Microwaves, like all electromagnetic energy, obey the inverse square law: Double the distance and you need four times the power to produce a given intensity. Or: halve the distance, and you need only 1/4 the power to produce a given intensity. A weak microwave source (even a kitchen microwave oven) up close can have more of an effect than a distant but vastly powerful microwave source. No scientist--- indeed, no one who understood high-school physics--- would say a microwave source equaled "50 Hueys" because it's a meaningless measurement without specifying a distance. And in this case, because "no one saw anything" the distance of the supposed microwave source is unknown, so there's no basis for comparing it to 5 or 50 or 500 Hueys--- or anything else. It's a meaningless measurement. Genetic damage? Microwaves, per se, aren't known to cause genetic damage (they can cause general heating of a cell, but not a targeted reshuffling of the genes). The strong magnets used in microwave generators might cause mutation--- high levels of magnetic energy are indeed suspect in some kinds of genetic damage, especially when the fields persist over long periods of time. Alas, the report Daniel cites makes no mention of anything magnetic at all. This is surprising, because a magnetic field strong enough to cause rapid damage to the genetic structure of living tissue over a wide outdoor area would have been detectable at huge distances (planes flying over Ohio would have noticed their magnetic compasses going berserk, for example). And, unlike microwaves, magnetic fields DO leave behind traces--- induced magnetism--- in anything ferrous. A gigantic magnetic field would have left traces of itself in the surrounding soil and rocks, for example. Funny how there was no mention of that. OK, let's ignore all that. Let's assume that somehow this wheat *was* genetically altered to grow sideways. That's surely a noteworthy thing, and Daniel even says it was verified by "Ohio State University experts on crop mutation." So, I went digging for additional info. Amazingly, a Google search couldn't find any--- not even one--- citation of this astonishing biological occurrence in any major scientific journal, newspaper, magazine, or news site (cnn, msnbc, etc). I guess they're all part of the anti-crop circle conspiracy, too. But surely the people who actually saw this remarkable sight with their own eyes would be crusaders for the truth, right? So, I checked the Ohio State University web site. A full search of the OSU site for "crop circle" produced zero hits. "Sideways wheat" and "horizontal wheat" likewise came up empty, as did every other search option I tried. I guess OSU must be part of the conspiracy, as well. But wait! My initial Google search did turn up a reference in the "UFO Folklore Center" that actually named a name: It said an OSU researchers who investigated the amazing sideways-wheat phenomenon was one "James Beuerlein." He's a real person. But his online bio makes no reference whatsoever to crop circle discoveries. He's also not a particular "expert in crop mutation." He's a soybean agronomist. Imagine: He passed up a Nobel Prize for discovering proof of an immensely powerful microwave or magnetic emission, capable of causing direct mutations, and generated by means seemingly beyond any human knowledge or ability--- and instead opted for a career in soybeans. Strange choice, wouldn't you say? But wait again! The "UFO Folklore" site even quotes the good Professor:
Oh, well. He must be part of the anti-crop circle conspiracy, too, right? There's more, but I'll stop here--- I'm sure you get the idea: As usual with crop circle stories, this one falls apart at many levels, and is basically one unsupported (and unsupportable) claim piled atop another. But when I sent the above refutation to "Daniel," he wrote back that I had a closed mind; that I refused to admit the facts; and that indeed Professor Beuerlein *was* part of the conspiracy: The clincher, Daniel said, was that the Professor couldn't and wouldn't "prove that the circle was man made." Um, isn't that backwards? There have been many confirmed sightings of humans in Ohio--- over 11 million at last count, in fact, or almost 300 per square mile. There have been zero confirmed sightings of extraterrestrials in Ohio. So why should anyone need to prove the existence of man-made action? Jeez, guys, the score is 11 million to zero, in Ohio alone! Shouldn't the burden of proof be on those who posit *non*-human action? But oddly, Daniel and other "cerealogists" (yes, that's what they call themselves) persist in thinking backwards: Despite the fact that most crop circle stories fall apart when examined closely ("50 Hueys" my patootie), they say that unless the rest of us can *dis*prove *non*human actions, they'll go on believing that aliens or other nonhuman forces are using our grain fields as Etch-A-Sketch tablets. Hey, if anyone wants to believe that crop circles are made by aliens, plasma vortices, earth-energy ley-lines, or hordes of intelligent invisible artistic mutant grasshoppers (well, why not? can you *prove* it's not invisible grasshoppers?), be my guest. But please don't write to tell me your theories unless your story is at least logical, internally consistent, and not at odds with high-school-level science facts. Here's the thing: Science predicates belief on observation; new observations--- new facts--- may change the beliefs. Pseudo-science starts with beliefs, and then works backwards, filtering facts and observations through the distorting lens of the preexisting belief. In other words, scientific thinking evolves with the addition of new knowledge; but in pseudo-science, the belief never varies, no matter what the facts show. Oh wait. Maybe *I'm* part of the anti-crop circle conspiracy...! Click to email this item to a
friend --- ( Your Clicks On Ad Links Help Keep The LangaList Free! ) ---
--------------( the above is an advertisement )-------------- 11) Plus! Edition Highlights:
Today's LangaList Plus! Edition contains all ten items above, plus about 30% more content including: A free replacement for Windows Explorer that "does whatever the Windows Explorer will do for file management, but goes much further;" a free tool that can help you access information on XP-style NTFS partitions and drives that may otherwise be inaccessible from DOS; and a just-for-fun program that one reader calls "delightful." The Plus! Edition costs only pennies per issue. Info: http://www.langa.com/plus.htm Click to email this item to a
friend See you next issue!
Best, An easier-to read formatted HTML version is available in the "Current Issue" section of http://www.langa.com. (The HTML version of each issue normally is available by 9AM EST [UT-5] of the issue date.) All past LangaList issues are also available at the Langa.Com site. UNSUBSCRIBE: From the same email account you
used to sign up with), send an email to SUBSCRIBE (it's free!): Create and send a new email to CHANGE ADDRESS? LIST TROUBLE? HAVE QUESTIONS? OTHER PROBLEM? NEED HELP? See http://www.langa.com/help.htm This newsletter is SPAM PROOF and requires two levels of subscriber confirmation
before delivery begins: See
http://www.langa.com/info.htm |
|
Please visit the LangaList Home Page |