Author: Serkadis

Filed under: Enterprise, Software Update

For management of large Mac deployments, one of the more venerable tools for administrators is Apple Remote Desktop. The application not only provides information on the status of every Mac on a network, but allows admins to push software loads, remotely control machines, and do detailed asset management.

Yesterday, Apple updated Apple Remote Desktop to version 3.3.2. The new update provides better performance in terms of the remote management tools, as well as better overall stability. There’s an update (4.21 MB) to the client software (which is part of the OS and enabled in System Preferences), as well as a much larger update to the administrative software (51.41 MB). The updates require Mac OS X 10.6 or later, Mac OS X 10.5.7 or later, or Mac OS X 10.4.11, or the equivalent Mac OS X Server version. The update requires at least Apple Remote Desktop 3.0 to be installed, although there is some limited compatibility with 2.x client software.

So, what’s fixed in 3.3.2? Setup is improved, with additional support for clients using Network Address Translation (NAT) and better reliability when new client computers are being authenticated to the admin software. Previous versions had issues with reporting failed software installations, issues with reporting of MacBook Air MAC addresses, and some problems with reliability of reporting systems configured with AirPort. Those issues have been addressed in 3.3.2.

The fix also provides improvements with the remote assistance features, particularly with systems with dual graphics processors or two displays. Mouse cursor tracking while controlling remote systems has been improved, and there’s more reliable drag-and-drop file copy to remote Macs. You can download the update at Apple’s Support Downloads page, and it is also being delivered via Software Update.

[via Macworld]

TUAWApple Remote Desktop 3.3.2 update now available originally appeared on The Unofficial Apple Weblog (TUAW) on Tue, 12 Jan 2010 13:30:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

Buy This Item: [Click here to buy this item]

Read Original Article

CES may be over but the sting in my wallet still lingers and not from the casino tables, but from Delta airlines! As we all know traveling is getting more and more expensive as well as time consuming. Delta has announced that they are raising their pricing for checking bags in to $23 for the first checked bag and $32 for the second checked bag.

However you don’t have to be a sucker and these three bags will not only fit into the overhead compartment to avoid luggage fees, they’re also TSA approved and they are pretty stylish too. Now I only wish that the TSA knew themselves what bags they really approved of.

Burton Wheelie Flight – A great sized bag that holds your laptop, gear and plenty of underwear because of its volume-enhancing CRAM™ stretch zipper zones.

Mobile Edge TSA ScanFast Onyx Checkpoint Friendly Backpack – Just because we are done with school that doesn’t mean you can’t still backpack it and look professional. Mobile Edge has a wide range of TSA friendly bags meant to get you in and out security fast and be big enough to cram all your junk into it.

AftPack Backpack – We may have reviewed this bag but until you use it, do you really appreciate how much this thing holds.  You can store a change of clothes, your laptop, cameras, and a few chargers and still carry it on board. Your shoulders may break but not your wallet.

Facebook just announced that it has become a Gold sponsor of the Apache Software Foundation. According to Facebook’s David Recordon, the company wants to give back to the open source community that allowed Facebook to develop and contribute to projects like the Thrift framework, Hive, memcached and Cassandra. Apache Gold members donate $40,000 per year to the project. It’s worth noting that this is not Apache’s highest sponsorship level. Google, Yahoo and Microsoft are platinum sponsors and give $100,000 per year.

Sponsor

In total, Facebook has developed or contributes to over 20 open source projects. Facebook also released the real-time web framework Tornado, one of FriendFeed’s core technologies, as an open source project shortly after it acquired FriendFeed in August 2009.

As Recordon notes in today’s announcement, technologies like Hive and Cassandra that were first developed in-house by Facebook are now being used and sponsored by a diverse group of companies ranging from CBS and Rackspace to Digg, last.fm and Twitter.

There can be little doubt, however, that open source is, as Apache Foundation chairman Jim Jagielski puts it, “in Facebook’s DNA.” We can’t help but wonder, though, why Facebook didn’t decide to go all the way and buy the Platinum sponsorship package.

Discuss

Buy This Item: [Click here to buy this item]

Read Original Article

In our continuing obsession with all things Facebook, we’re looking at a new feature that was just announced by the social networking behemoth that will further enmesh the site into our every waking breath: replying to comments through email.

Unless you have changed your settings to stop email notifications, it’s likely that you receive an email every time someone comments on your status updates, photos, videos and Wall posts. Before now, the email contained a link that you had to follow, which logged you into Facebook where you could reply. You’ll now notice that the email contains a line reading “New Feature: Reply to this email to comment on this link.”

Sponsor

Now, the site has made it possible for you to respond to these comments directly, by hitting the reply button. All you have to do is enter your response and hit send, and Facebook will add your comment to the site.

This is big news for all those Facebook junkies out there who can’t get their daytime fix while at work because of a company firewall, not to mention all the students who can’t check their Facebook for several hours every day. We’ll see where productivity levels go after this.

Discuss

Buy This Item: [Click here to buy this item]

Read Original Article

Comments taken out of context

Editor, The Times:

Sen. Harry Reid’s statement reflects the mindset of most Americans — including African Americans [“GOP says Reid should quit over Obama,” News, Jan. 11]. He should not be censored for being truthful based on the reality that America is not a colorblind society and has not reached the level that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. spoke of: That men and women “should not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

What has happened is that many propagandists have taken Reid’s statement out of context to create conflict and promote their agenda. This strategy was used years ago in the print media and is called “yellow journalism.” Today, it is used by the television news-pundits to reinforce specific beliefs, in this case, the superiority of light-skinned African Americans over their darker sisters and brothers and to lessen the unity within a political party.

Stereotypes have been around for a long time and many white Americans, African Americans and biracial groups still embrace them. To those Americans who do believe in fairness and understanding, one should always listen or read with their spiritual ears and eyes and pay particular attention to the context of the statement and the time period as well.

I applaud President Obama for not hesitating to accept Reid’s apology. It shows his wisdom, understanding and gratitude for a senator who has not failed to support the Obama administration’s goals and objectives.

— Phyllis I. Beaumonte, former president of the Black Heritage Society, Seattle

Same standards should not apply to both parties

The recent controversy over comments made by Sen. Harry Reid regarding the electability of President Obama deserves a more considered examination if we are to accept — as GOP Chairman Michael Steele suggests — that Reid’s comments are the equivalent of those made by former Sen. Trent Lott in 2002 and — like Lott — Reid should resign for having made them. The same standards should be applied to both parties, but in this instance there is no comparison.

Reid was giving his analysis about how candidate Obama would fare in the 2008 election. Lott, on the other hand, was giving remarks at the late Sen. Strom Thurmond’s 100th birthday party, in which he praised Thurmond’s presidential candidacy, speculating that had Thurmond won, the nation, “wouldn’t have had all of these problems for all of these years.” Thurmond openly ran as a segregationist in 1948. Which “problems” are we supposed to think Lott was talking about?

The worst that can be said of Reid is that, while he thought the election of a black president possible in 2008, he was nevertheless suggesting that America was still too racist to do so unless the candidate spoke like a white candidate and had fair skin. The best that can be said of Sen. Lott is that he was trying to say kind words about an old racist senator in the waning days of Thurmond’s career and life and instead clumsily appeared to endorse segregation.

Reid’s sin was suggesting that racism still exists. Lott’s sin was humoring it.

— Stephen Crotts, Edmonds

Filed under: Concept Cars, Detroit Auto Show, Hatchback, Volvo, Electric

As expected, Volvo brought along an all-electric C30 hatchback concept to the 2010 Detroit Auto Show. While this isn’t a production vehicle at this point, Volvo says the car is a fully drivable prototype with a complete interior, full instrumentation, and enhanced battery packaging.

We made our way down to Volvo’s area here at Cobo in Detroit to check the battery-electric C30 out for ourselves, and honestly we came away impressed. As Volvo says, the C30 EV is a complete package with little evidence that it’s not a production model. See for yourself in our high-res gallery of live images below.

Detroit 2010: Volvo C30 EV silently motors into the Motor City originally appeared on Autoblog on Tue, 12 Jan 2010 14:00:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Buy This Item: [Click here to buy this item]

Read Original Article

Filed under: Detroit Auto Show, Coupe, Performance, Technology, Ford

While Ford might not be pulling out all the stops here in Detroit to promote its updated Mustang like it did for the 2010 model year, the 2011 model’s improvements are just as significant, if not more. The new 305 horsepower, 30 mile per gallon V6 debuted at Los Angeles back in December, and the long-awaited 5.0L V8 made its official debut here at the NAIAS. Fortunately, there’s plenty more to the legendary 5.0 badge than an increase in displacement, and a cutaway motor on the show floor gave us a closer look at all the details.

For starters, the new V8 uses a different bore and stroke to give it an even five liters of displacement, last employed in the Mustang GT in 1995. A larger, single-blade throttle body that replaces the dual unit now works in conjunction with a composite intake manifold runner to provide for better breathing, as do the all-new aluminum cylinder heads that include an extra exhaust valve for a total of four valves per cylinder.

Additional upgraded components include a forged steel crankshaft, stronger forged powder metal connecting rods, high compression pistons, and a fantastic set of tubular stainless steel exhaust headers on each side. Perhaps most importantly, the 5.0-liter V8 receives Twin Independent Variable Camshaft Timing (Ti-VCT), a technology that allows for optimal power or fuel economy depending on throttle input. You can read our in-depth article for even more details on the Mustang’s new 5.0-liter V8, or you can see our live photos of the car and the cutaway engine in the galleries below.

Photos by Drew Phillips / Copyright (C)2010 Weblogs, Inc.

Detroit 2010: A closer look at the Mustang’s 5.0L V8 originally appeared on Autoblog on Tue, 12 Jan 2010 13:29:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

Buy This Item: [Click here to buy this item]

Read Original Article

Matthew Broderick has given Hollywood producers the green light to remake his ’80s teen comedy,Ferris Bueller’s Day Off, but he doesn’t want any involvement in the new feature.

The Gossip Wire has been heating up for months suggesting studio chiefs are nursing plans to bring the cult 1980s comedy back to the big screen in either a sequel or a remake. The Producers star has now commented on the reports, insisting he would be “happy” with any proposed plans to bring the 1986 cult classic back to the big screen — as long as the project features a new cast.

“(A remake) would be fine. I would be perfectly happy for somebody to do that. I probably wouldn’t enjoy (having a role in the film). I would rather leave what we did as our thing,” he tells Cinematical.com.

Apple vet Avie Tevanian has defected to what Apple fans might consider the dark side: He’s joining Elevation Partners, the PE firm that counts Palm (NSDQ: PALM) as one of its biggest portfolio companies.

Tevanian will serve as a managing director, per DigitalDaily, and he’ll be surrounded by a number of fellow Apple (NSDQ: AAPL) alums, including Palm CEO Jon Rubinstein and board member Fred Anderson. Tevanian spent nearly 10 years with Apple, first serving as SVP of software engineering, and then as the chief software technology officer from 2003 to 2006.

Related

• Former Apple Exec Jon Rubinstein Replaces Ed Colligan As Palm’s CEO
• Palm Increases Public Offering, Sets Pricing

Journalists have abused unique position of power

The Journalism That Matters conference is not just a waste of time and money, it is likely to do more harm than good [“Journalism’s future is in your hands,” Opinion, Jan. 4]. This is because op-ed contributor John Hamer, the attendees and the sponsors will likely leave the conference more clueless about the problems of media, journalism and information than they were before the conference.

Print and broadcast media held exclusive power for decades, which they promptly abused, abandoning objectivity in favor of representing special interests — including their own. Ultimately, they were reduced to servants of those interests (government, business, advertisers, popular opinion, etc.).

Today, if any powerful interest wants to drag us to war, cover up the illegality or cost of that war and disdain efforts to end that war, the journalistic media readily comply. If any powerful interests want to deregulate in order to fleece consumers — maybe even wreck the entire economy — the media readily comply. Public opinion enjoys media trials, character assassinations and scary stories about the evils of some unpopular religion. This is no problem for the journalistic media.

Now if The Times is going to get serious about real news, news that is the “lifeblood of democracy,” then it should start to do things right. Start using the Internet to your benefit. Instead of carping about reliability, take advantage of the wealth of information it provides to structure informative articles on critical events of the time. Do enough analysis to fairly represent the issues. Don’t just copy wire service reports. Because you have not done this, because you have caved to the powerful, you have become irrelevant. If you must have a conference, have it about this.

— Malcolm D. McPhee, Sequim

Why journalists are needed

There is little doubt that today’s newspapers — and print media in general — need to adapt to survive in this digitized world. I think there is a broad consensus that long-term survival for our local newspaper, The Times, hinges on how it adapts to confront this survival challenge.

The answer to this question is self-evident. Simply rephrase the question “What can ‘writers’ do” for a newspaper that “computer thinking” and “generic reporting” seldom does — or cannot do? Writers can create, laugh, teach and relate to local readers.

— Ted Nelson, Seattle

Here’s highlights from Walt Mossberg’s interview of Google’s Andy Rubin at CES in Las Vegas, just days after the company hosted an event at its Mountain View, Calif. headquarters to release the Nexus One, the first Android device Google (NSDQ: GOOG) will sell direct to consumers.

Related

• Google’s New Nexus One ‘Superphone’ Isn’t Revolutionary
• The Rundown On Google’s Nexus One

In a new brand of competition dissing, James DeBragga, General Manager of Windows Consumer Product Marketing, says Android “is free like a puppy.” The comment came in the context of the CEO of Entourage praising Android for the fact that’s it’s versatile and free — major motivating factors behind his use of the OS on his Edge e-reader device. James says that Android (like a puppy) is great in theory, but a hassle once you get it home. Unfortunately for him, his metaphor neglects the love and kisses and companionship many humans also associate with puppies. Perhaps James is a cat man? Still, we see his side to some extent: Windows is certainly more mature, supported and capable for powering a tablet device, especially if that tablet needs to perform serious computer-style tasks. Unfortunately, we’re not sure if Android, Windows or anything else is really ready to make tablet converts out of us. Now if you’ll excuse us, we need to go feed our free iguana, Ricardo.

Microsoft calls Android ‘free like a puppy,’ we can’t decide if that’s a bad thing or not originally appeared on Engadget on Tue, 12 Jan 2010 13:46:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink   |  Laptop  | Email this | Comments

Buy This Item: [Click here to buy this item]

Article

Despite MagicJack’s official announcement last week of an in-home femtocell for connecting carriers’ phones directly to its service, tons of questions remain — including most of the questions we had when we first heard of the idea. Let’s recap those questions and where we stand with each of them, shall we?

• Are these guys licensing spectrum from the gub’mint, sublicensing it from carriers, or just going rogue? Going rogue. Historically, this usually ends in an FCC-mandated shutdown — and since both carriers and the CTIA will undoubtedly be throwing a fit that some company is stealing pricey spectrum for its own purposes, we’re sure the pressure on the government to act will be quite high.
• Are any carriers in on this, and if so, why? Nope, none. The company says that “if they were smart they would take [it] on as a partner, because all [it] could do is enhance the value they create for their customer,” but presently, MagicJack’s all alone.
• If carriers aren’t involved, why would they establish roaming deals that would allow carrier-branded phones and SIMs to roam on MagicJack’s rogue airwaves? As far as we can tell, they aren’t on any roaming deals.
• If they’re not working on roaming deals, the femtocells will need to spoof a carrier ID. Furthermore, TDMA femtocells are virtually impossible to design and install for technical reasons, which means these would have to be 3G. So MagicJack’s going to offer a UMTS femtocell? It appears to be a plain-Jane GSM femtocell, which is technically interesting considering what we’ve heard in the past about effectively making a TDMA unit that plays nice with the surrounding network. Considering everything else we know, though, it probably doesn’t play nice — and without a roaming deal in place, they’ll need to spoof. That’s going to rile up both carriers and the GSMA.
• Do you get to keep your phone number when you roam on the MagicFemtocell, and if so, how? For incoming calls, probably not, unless you forward to the MagicJack number.

Needless to say, both the carriers and the feds are going to have a lot to say about this product — particularly considering that it hasn’t even received FCC approval yet. If it keeps marching toward retail, we could be gearing up for one of the most entertaining legal battles of the year.

MagicJack femtocell sure to face legal battle royale originally appeared on Engadget on Tue, 12 Jan 2010 13:23:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.

Permalink   |  PC World  | Email this | Comments

Buy This Item: [Click here to buy this item]

Article

Doesn’t support R-71, but keep names private

I take exception to the editorial opinion supporting the public disclosure of petition-signers’ names [“Pass bill to make names of petition signers public,” Opinion, Jan. 10]. The editorial reminds us that voters have historically insisted that government documents are public unless specifically exempted — a concept that I heartily endorse. However, I believe a compelling case can be made to exempt ballot petitions.

The recent case that brought the debate to the forefront — the call for public disclosure of R-71 signers — supports my opinion. The movement to make the petition-signers’ names public was clearly motivated by a desire to harass and shame the signers. Just imagine the ways that harassment might take place.

While I personally disagree with the intent of that particular referendum, I believe that the inevitable rise in the instances of negative consequences when someone expresses his or her opinion on a public petition will significantly diminish the quality of the right to initiative currently enjoyed by the voter.

Though it may not achieve the level of the sanctity of the private ballot, the freedom — without harassment — to express your opinion on laws that govern you, ought to be on par. Both the right to disagree and the concept of civil discourse will be reaffirmed and enhanced by the Legislature shelving Rep. Reuven Carlyle’s bill. Instead, clear legislation protecting the right to a private opinion should be enacted.

— Bruce Northey, Bellevue

Supports R-71, and still keeping names private

In response to Sunday’s editorial urging passage of a bill to make initiative petition-signers’ names public, I believe you missed the most salient issue and landed on the wrong side.

Even as a proponent of the domestic-partnership movement that sparked this bill, I think this is less an issue of government transparency than of the secret ballot, which is an integral part of the petition.

I have been a victim of reprisals from an electoral process that did not protect my secret ballot and it is really easy for me to see how this principle became part of the democratic process. We tend to let human rights slide when they conflict with our personal goals and we usually live to regret when we feel the bites on our backside.

— Harold Pettus, Everett

Decision makes no sense

In his column, Danny Westneat hit the nail on the head [“City won’t let you park to ride” NWSunday, Jan. 10]. I find it incredible that while we taxpayers are paying to have so many park-and- ride lots built along the freeways to encourage people to use mass transit, the city of Seattle won’t allow private citizens to do the same thing along the new light-rail line.

Like so many other decisions made with regard to transportation in Seattle, it makes no sense. My office is in Renton and late last year I — along with most of my office — had to attend a function downtown. We carpooled over to the light-rail station in Tukwila and took light rail to downtown and back. I was pleasantly surprised and noticed, as did Westneat, that the parking lot was practically full.

If people are going to use light rail, they have to have a way to get to the station. If bus service isn’t practical, then they need to be able to drive their car to the station. Only in Seattle is this an issue.

By the way, I’d love to hear what our new mayor has to say on this issue.

— Frank Lippman, Seattle

Let the private industry work

It never ceases to amaze me how ignorant government at all levels can be. I don’t think they realize that they are not a business. They are supposed to facilitate good governance, not run every facet of our lives.

Why not let Safeway and others rent out unused parking spaces for light-rail commuters? There would be fewer vehicles clogging the streets, more taxable revenue from Safeway and Diamond Parking and easy access to well-lit parking for users, making light rail attractive — for a change.

But, no, “big government” and Seattle wants to use taxpayer money to build park-and-ride lots — hence all citizens’ money is used to support the needs of the few — all at a cost greater than what the private sector could achieve. As usual, unbelievable government stupidity.

It’s simple: Let the private industry work. There will be no cost to government and increases in tax revenue.

OK, Mayor [Mike] McGinn, let’s see what you can do about government stupidity and saving our taxpayer dollars.

— Pauline Cornelius, Olalla

Seeing as we were just talking about claims from a patent attorney that no legitimate VCs can be against software patents, it’s good to see that one of the most respected VC firms in internet-related issues, Union Square Ventures has come out strongly in favor of an independent invention defense against patent infringement. This is great. I have no idea if I helped to make this come about, but a year ago, Union Square partner Fred Wilson had spoken out about how patents were harming his portfolio, and suggested some ways to fix the system (not including an independent invention defense). I responded with a post suggesting he consider an independent invention defense beyond his proposals, as it would really solve a lot of the problems. So it’s really fantastic to see the firm take a stand on such an important issue — proving once again what a lie it is to claim that VCs require patents. From Union Square partner Brad Burnham’s post:

Almost a third of our portfolio is under attack by patent trolls. Is it possible that one third of the engineering teams in our portfolio unethically misappropriated technology from someone else and then made that the basis of their web services? No! That’s not what is happening. Our companies are driven by imaginative and innovative engineering teams that are focused on creating social value by bringing innovative new services to market.

Our companies are being attacked by companies that were not even in the same market, very often by companies they did not even know existed….

I know of no case where the engineers in one of our companies were aware of the patents that are now being used to attack them. The moral rightness of this screams at me. If, as an engineer focused on solving a problem, I happened to come up with an idea that is in some way similar to yours, then that in itself should suggest that it was obvious and not patentable. Unfortunately, that does not really help. There, the burden of proof is still on the startup and it is still smarter to settle than to burn precious capital on a defense.

If, on the other hand, the troll was required to show the startup had some prior knowledge of their technology, the burden would be shifted to the attacker, and this blatant abuse would come to a grinding halt. If you believe as I do that innovation is key to social progress, please support patent reform. It is a complicated issue, but an independent invention defense is an obvious place to start.

It’s really difficult to see how anyone can be intellectually honest with themselves and not be in favor of an independent invention defense. It’s difficult to see how anyone could justify the idea that even if someone comes up with something totally independently, they can’t use their own inventions.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story