Family Learning Center

Posts Tagged ‘Suggestion’

Use DynDNS for better success with Back To My Mac

Filed under: MobileMe

Many folks were excited when Apple announced Back to My Mac as part of MobileMe. Being able to remotely access your Mac from anywhere sounded like magic. We’re used to products from Apple that “just work” but for most people most of the time, Back to My Mac “just doesn’t.”

To maximize your chances, you’re supposed to use a supported router, but even that’s no guarantee. At home I have an Airport Extreme Base Station (Wireless-N), and at the office I have an Airport Extreme Dual-Band model. I don’t think it’s possible to get a “more compliant” setup, yet I still can’t get it to work most of the time.

Under the adage “nothing ventured, nothing gained,” I took a chance and signed up for a free account with DynDNS. DynDNS gives you a free hostname which will go to your computer even when your IP address changes. There are scads of DynDNS domain names available, but for the purposes of this example, let’s assume that your domain name is imac.homeip.net.

After you’ve signed up for your free account and chosen a hostname, download and install the DynDNS Updater for Mac and install it on the machine you want to access via Back to My Mac. (If you want to do this for more than one computer, you will need a different DynDNS hostname for each computer. You can get up to five at no cost.)

Once you have it running, make sure that it has updated, and then switch to your other Mac. You could launch Screen Sharing.app directly from /System/Library/CoreServices, but a much better suggestion is to install the free ScreenSharingMenulet which will sit in your menu bar. ScreenSharingMenulet will remember hosts that you have previously connected to, meaning that you don’t have to re-type the hostnames. Click on the menu bar icon, select “New Connection…” and then enter your DynDNS hostname (i.e. imac.homeip.net) and check the “Add to My Computers” box so it will appear in the My Computers sub-menu in the future. Click “Connect” and cross your fingers.

If it still doesn’t work, I have a few more suggestions, but I warn you, we’re going to get a little technical here. First, you’re going to want to setup a DHCP Reservation for the computer you are trying to connect to. The process isn’t very difficult. Essentially what you are doing is telling the router to always assign the same IP address to the computer you are trying to access. After you have done that, tell the router to send all traffic directly to that computer. On the Airport Express this is called the “Default Host” and is found on the Internet Tab under “NAT” but other routers have different names for it (I believe Linksys routers refer to this as the “DMZ” host. Check your router’s documentation if you’re not sure.)

Warning: once you do this you are bypassing your router’s firewall. Mac OS X has a firewall, but it is not enabled by default. Launch System Preferences and click on the Security panel followed by Firewall tab. If it doesn’t say “Firewall: On” be sure to enable it.

If all else fails, you might want to try another direction: Back to My Mac through iChat. I haven’t actually tried that, but it’s another option.

I can’t explain why using a DynDNS domain name works more reliably than the built-in Bonjour sharing/connecting method, but after days of unsuccessfully trying to connect to my work computer, I have been able to connect via DynDNS without fail. As my Dad taught me long ago, “A good strategy is that which works.”

TUAWUse DynDNS for better success with Back To My Mac originally appeared on The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW) on Fri, 12 Mar 2010 18:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments
Read the whole story…

Google Buzz Abandons Auto-Following Amid Privacy Concerns

As we noted this morning, Google isn’t wasting any time in responding to user criticism about Buzz.  Now they’ve rolled out another set of changes to further address Buzz’s privacy issues. The biggest change involves the automatic follow system: it’s now being switched to a suggestion model, where Google will present you with a list of friends it thinks you’d like to follow, but gives you a chance to deselect them before you start using the service.

That’s a pretty big change — when Buzz launched four days ago, one of its selling points was that it took no work on the user’s part to get started, because Buzz would automatically follow the people you interact with most on Gmail. Of course, that isn’t always a good thing — there are plenty of cases when you wouldn’t want people to know who you’d been communicating with. After an initial backlash Google made it easier to hide which users you were following, but now they’re ditching the auto-follow model entirely. Fortunately it only takes a minute to go through the suggestions, so it’s not much of a hurdle.

New users will see a screen like the one above, and Google’s post says that existing Buzz users will be shown a version of this friend selection screen in the next few weeks to confirm that they’re comfortable with everyone they’re following. The service is also going to stop automatically connecting Google Reader and Picasa albums to Buzz accounts, though those options will still be available.

Finally, Google is adding a Buzz section to Gmail’s Settings. Why this wasn’t there from the start is beyond me — before now, if you wanted to adjust your Buzz settings you had to go to your Google account page, which made very little sense because most people use Buzz from Gmail.

Earlier today, Google made yet another change to Buzz’s privacy settings by fixing a bug that could cause users to inadvertently expose their friends’ private settings.

All of these are good changes for Buzz, and I’m optimistic about its future, but I can’t help but wonder how they all made it through months of internal testing.

Read the whole story…

Is a Core i7-based MacBook Pro strutting its specs in the wild?

For your viewing pleasure, we present the latest Apple rumor doing the rounds this Saturday afternoon — namely, GeekBench results for a “new” Core i7 MacBook Pro. According to the results, what you’re looking at above are the numbers for the MacBook Pro 6,1, sporting a nastified Intel Core i7 (dual core, not quad) 620M (Arrandale) percolating along at 2.66GHz. Other curious points here are the 4.8GHz FSB, which sounds a little screwy to us, and a final GeekBench score of 5260, which makes current MBPs clocked at the same speed look like your grandfather with a walker (those ranges hover around 3700-4000 on average). The laptop in question is also allegedly running a fresh version of Snow Leopard (build 10C3067 of 10.6.2), which certainly makes sense if someone is out there benching a new Apple product, though it’s not a number we can verify. Still, if you were using a new Apple product, would you be dumb enough to publicly share this info? Probably not, which of course raises the question that this might just be a hackintosh or some other clever spoof (even if we did see a suggestion of new MBPs on the way recently). In the meantime, you can dream of having your pants burnt off by the above monster, and we’ll let you know if this thing starts looking a little more real.

[Thanks to everyone who sent this in]

Is a Core i7-based MacBook Pro strutting its specs in the wild? originally appeared on Engadget on Sat, 06 Feb 2010 15:29:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink MacRumors  |  GeekBench  | Email this | Comments
Read the whole story…

It is an extended family vacation — two in their 50’s, 3 in their 20’s, two in their 30s and a 10 month old. I’d love to find somewhere that offers a little of everything and won’t be too crowded in September. Everyone likes slightly different things, so somewhere that offers outdoorsy stuff, fishing, shopping, and nightlife would be ideal.

Open Thread: There’s No Such Thing As Free Content

So why do users keep expecting to consume it, reuse it, share it and store it without paying for it?

Let me explain: Someone, somewhere ends up putting out money for everything you do online, every piece of news you read, every web app you use. It takes professionals and hardware across a gigantic industry to make these things work. In terms of overhead alone, content costs a lot. So why do some users always kick and scream at the first suggestion of paid content? Do you think content is worth paying for, and if so, what are you personally willing to pay?

Sponsor

[Image courtesy of Flickr user SFDenverLV.]

This trend has been a common one in our virtual newsroom lately. Whether we’re praising the latest startup that’s had the sense to launch with a freemium model or wondering how old-media models (see News Corp. and the New York Times) are dealing with new media revenue possibilities, the subject of who pays for content and how is a hot one.

As a journalist who came of age career-wise during the print era and as a musician who first recorded songs on these things called “tapes,” I understand the cultural value of great content, and I admire the men and women who make it. I also love being able to support the creators and publications that bring me the content I love.

On the other hand, as a typical NMD and one who lives almost entirely online, I have done my share of content scalping, whether that be lifting a copyrighted photo for a design project, illegally downloading a single or two from a multiplatinum artist or diving deep into the world of torrents, where all the films are gloriously free and inconveniently subtitled in Hungarian.

Like any petty thief, I tried to justify my actions to myself by saying that I’m only taking from those who can afford it. But let us speak frankly: The creative and publishing industries are all at a crisis point because of hundreds of millions of people like me who say the exact same thing. I’ve lately started to come to grips with my hypocrisy and start paying for content, whether that be a legitimate iTunes purchase or a Netflix subscription. I tell you, it feels like I’m giving money to a feed-the-children charity when I’m really just paying for something that should have never been free in the first place.

Today, YouTube has announced its plan to help indie filmmakers (and increase its own revenues) by asking users for a $5 fee to watch a selection of Sundance Film Festival movies. I’m wondering how many users will balk at the fee, and what will go through their heads when they do so.

Will they be thinking about the months or years each filmmaker spent creating the movie? Or the time the actors spent preparing for and performing their roles? Will they think about filming equipment rentals? Will they consider the cost of hosting online videos at a scale that accomodates huge volumes of traffic around the globe and around the clock? Will they think about the developers who work tirelessly to make the magic of online video possible?

Or will they simply knee-jerk and proclaim a loud “How dare they!” at the thought of paid content?

(As a side note, I’m also curious to see a Venn diagram showing the overlap of people who object to paying for online content while vigorously complaining about “distracting” online advertising.)

So, what makes the difference between the analog days, when creators charged for their creations and theft was theft, and these digital times, when anything that’s been transformed into ones and zeroes is fair game for free consumption, piracy, remixing and redistribution?

I’m curious: What kinds of online content, if any, are you willing to pay for? And how much will you pay for them?

Would you pay for news? Special, in-depth reports? Entertainment and multimedia? How about a blog subscription? Let me know your thoughts in the comments.

Discuss

Read the whole story…

iPod bedding set redefines ‘touchably soft’

Filed under: Odds and ends

All you really need to do is ask yourself three things: Do I have a kid bed? Could my kid bed be so much cooler with an iPod touch duvet and pillowcase? Can I afford 349 Swedish kronor (about US $45)?

If you answered ‘Yes! Yes! Uh… yes!’ to this informal product survey, Swedish retailer Ellos has exactly what you need. Questions raised in the TUAW offices like “Is that a touch-based capacitive sleep-enabled UI?” and “I wonder if that surface is oleophobic?” may require firsthand testing.

The bedding set looks to be a pretty faithful iPod touch reproduction, with the exception of the misspelled legend for the Calendar icon. It’s so faithful, in fact, that I wouldn’t be surprised if the company heard from Apple’s Swedish legal representation in short order, with a suggestion that this product be sent to sleep with the fishes.

OK, I grant you, this is no Tauntaun sleeping bag — but if you’re raising a household full of Apple geeks, it might be worth a look.

Thanks Bertil!

TUAWiPod bedding set redefines ‘touchably soft’ originally appeared on The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW) on Wed, 30 Dec 2009 21:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments
Read the whole story…

NSFW: 1200 words absolutely, definitely not about Rupert Murdoch and Google

One of the most tiresome group of people you encounter when you write a weekly column is the “suggesters”.

Throughout the week, my inbox receives a steady flow of emails; from friends, from colleagues, but mostly from total strangers – all containing useful links to stories they “assume I’ve seen”. And always with the same suggestion: “you should write about this in your column!”.

Worse than the suggesters are the “trusters”. They’re even more irritating because of their belief that they wield some kind of editorial influence. “Trust you’ll be writing about this in your column this week. Can’t wait to hear your take on it!” they say, blithely assuming that their lack of patience will ultimately be rewarded. Some of them even add a ‘LOL’ to further underline what total and utter wankers they are.

In truth, it rarely pays to indulge the recommenders or the trusters. If a subject has blipped across their radar then chances are, by the time my weekly deadline has come around, it will have been done to death by other bloggers and columnists. By Saturday even the person who ‘couldn’t wait’ to hear my take on a subject will be utterly bored with it.

The perfect example of this is Rupert Murdoch’s “threat” to remove News Corp content from Google, and his “negotiations” with Microsoft to make articles from The Wall Street Journal and the rest “only available on Bing”. It’s no exaggeration to say that the entire fucking universe has emailed me to say how much they’re looking forward to hearing my opinion on the prospect. Apparently my criticism of the aborted Microsoft adverti-raping of Family Guy means my views on Microsoft and Murdoch somehow matter a damn, and the fact that I’ve worked for old and new media means that I have some unique additional insight. Also, I swear a lot when I talk about Rupert or Microsoft, and people dig that shit.

After the eighty-six-millionth email dinged into my inbox, I did almost consider surrendering to popular pressure and dedicating an entire column to my analysis of whether such an arrangement is ever likely to happen and what it would mean for Google, and the wider world. But then I realised that I’m paid to write long, and that a column like that would read as follows (in its entirely)…

Will News Corp Remove Its Content From Google, And If So What Will It Mean For The World?

No.

And nothing.

…which feels lazy, even for me.

The fact is, as a Brit, I’ve seen Murdoch pulling this crap countless times before. The News Corp-owned Sun is the biggest-selling newspaper in the UK, and second biggest-selling English language newspaper in the world. In every national election for as long as anyone can remember, the candidate backed by the Sun has gone on to win. (And not just in the UK – the paper backed Obama for President, even though Murdoch also owns Fox News.)

The Sun’s endorsement of winners is, according to some, evidence of Murdoch-as-kingmaker; a man with the ability to shape opinion and to win (or lose) elections. Sure enough, the Sun’s recent shift from supporting Prime Minister Gordon Brown, to Conservative rival David Cameron coincided with a spike in opinion polls for the latter to become the next Prime Minister.

But to assume that Murdoch’s backing of Cameron lead to the spike is to flip cause and effect. Murdoch doesn’t create winners, he’s simply adept at spotting where public opinion is heading – waiting until he’s absolutely certain who the winner of a fight will be – and then endorsing them so loudly that when they inevitably win, he can share all the credit. “It’s The Sun Wot Won It”, the paper once declared after an election, when in fact a more accurate headline would be “it’s the Sun wot noticed it”.

The idea that Murdoch removing his content from Google will be the beginning of the end for the latter’s dominance is just nonsense. Sure a few smaller news rivals might be dumb enough to heed his rallying cry for a mass-boycott of Google News, but that will just be an added bonus to Murdoch. The numbers show that most searchers wouldn’t even notice if the Wall Street Journal and every other News Corp publication vanished from their results. What would definitely happen, though, is a huge drop in eyeballs and ad revenue for News Corp, which would certainly cost Murdoch far more than he could hope to recoup from a deal with Bing. Again, anyone familiar with the Sun (and its New York-based cousin, the Post) will know that Rupert will always put his hunger for eyeballs above his insistence that people pay for news – to the point where he is happy to slash cover prices to economically-suicidal levels to win readers.

But fortunately Murdoch doesn’t need to make that decision: unlike in politics where you can’t endorse both candidates, there’s really no reason for him to pick a horse in the search race. His ideal scenario is to continue to make News Corp content available via both Google and Bing, but to encourage both to display it in a way that drives the maximum monetizable eyeballs. Which is exactly what his current strategy will achieve.

By convincing Bing that there’s a chance he might drop Google – for the right price – Murdoch suddenly has a new partner falling over itself to give him prominence in their search results, on his terms. Sure enough, Microsoft has just agreed to help fund the next-generation search crawling protocol, ACAP, which gives content owners like News Corp more control over how their news is indexed.

Meantime, Google might not be worried about a mass exodus to Bing, but as more publishers start to consider alternative search services they have to at least begin to take ACAP seriously. After all, if you want to index the world’s information, you have to accept that a big chunk of that information belongs to Rupert. Again, this is win-win for Murdoch who can keep his content on Google, but with the option of locking some of it away behind un-indexable walls in future.

And that’s where we see Murdoch’s real genius: he has managed to use his illusion of influence to get all of these benefits without having to commit himself to anything, or expose himself in any way. There is no way in hell that News Corp content will vanish from Google and yet with every headline asking whether Google should be worried or suggesting that other companies might follow Murdoch’s lead, his image as a kingmaker is strengthened. It’s bad enough that he has millions of readers and viewers for his own outlets, without the rest of us doing his dirty work for him.

And it’s for that reason that I won’t be swayed by the recommenders and the trusters, no matter how many emails they send. I know Murdoch’s game, and unlike my poor misguided TechCrunch colleagues, I refuse to play it.

So, sorry Rupert, I don’t know what my column will be about this week, but one thing’s for sure: it won’t include a single word about you or your….

…oh.

Damn you’re good.

Crunch Network: CrunchBase the free database of technology companies, people, and investors

Read the whole story…

Schmidt: “We Have Not Yet Found The Evil Room.”

Earlier today, Google’s Sergey Brin and Eric Schmidt held an informal press conference of sorts (see my live notes), touching upon pretty much everything under the Google sun. One issue that kept on coming up was Google’s growing power in general. Google touches so many parts of the Web and our lives that concerns are rising that Google will use its power and all the knowledge it collects about us inappropriately.

Every time the suggestion came up that Google’s power is too pervasive, Schmidt knocked it down: “If we went into a room and were exposed to evil light and came out and announced evil strategies, we would be destroyed. The trust would be destroyed.”

He was, of course, speaking metaphorically (about the room, not the trust). “We have not yet found the evil room on our campus,” Schmidt assured everyone in the room (which was a bright and cheery conference room above Chelsea Market,not dimly lit or evil at all). Later on, he prefaced another discussion of the (hypothetical) evil room by saying, “There are many reasons why we will not be like Microsoft.” Maybe he thinks the evil room is on Microsoft’s campus.

Danny Sullivan of Search Engine Land pressed Schmidt on the fact that “you seem to have data other people cannot get because you give away free tools.” Google knows not only what you are searching for, but if you use Google Analytics, it knows about the traffic to your site, and if you use Google Checkout it knows about what you are selling. Isn’t there a closed loop here, he asked, where Google gives away free products, and then collects all the data which makes its search engine smarter?

Neither Schmidt nor Brin addressed the question of whether or not Google uses data from its non-search products to improve search in this manner, but Schmidt rejected the idea that customers are locked in. “There is no closed loop,” he said, “there are competitors and we make it possible for you to get out.”

Brin elaborated on this notion, pointing out that the entire source code for its new Chrome operating system is open sourced. Schmidt picked up on that and argued that Google’s open nature will protect it from the evil room (which doesn’t exist anyway):

“Today we have zero market share in Chrome OS because it is not shipping. Imagine a scenario where we got to 80% market share with a free product, which I think is unlikely. Let’s say we go into the evil room and decide to start charging. A competitor would be able to take the code that we had and continue to offer our business model, while our new business model runs us into the ground. That is why open source provides a protection.”

Google won’t be getting to 80% market share in desktop operating systems anytime soon. Even its Chrome browser seems to be barely making a dent, although Schmidt disputed that notion as well. When I asked him if Steve Ballmer was wrong to call the Chrome browser’s market share a “rounding error,” Schmidt said, “I don’t respond to Steve Ballmer questions. Next question?”

(Photo credit: Flickr/Typicalgenius)

Crunch Network: CrunchGear drool over the sexiest new gadgets and hardware.

Read the whole story…