Is the friend of my friend, also my friend? I don't know but it seems that most people think that when forwarding chain emails. What's worst, maybe now I'm also friends with the spammer of my friend!
We all receive chain emails, jokes and funny videos from friends. Nothing wrong with that except that they put our email address and all the addresses of their contacts list in the "To" field. Most people do this because they are unaware of the "BCC" field. This post will explore the problems and risks of the "To" field along with suggestions for proper etiquette for chain emails. I've been lecturing people (one by one) about this topic, and I've found that once they understand, they change their ways.
So if you (yes you) have ever forwarded a chain email to your list of contacts, please read the following:
Adding all the addresses to the "To" field makes them visible to all the people that receive the same email. This, while apparently innocuous, leads to some very nasty consequences:
1. Considering that once the chain starts, you don't know where it will end, there is a high probability that all those email addresses will end up on a spammer's "gold list" of addresses that have been confirmed active. What's more, I suspect that most chain emails are initiated by spammers trying to harvest addresses, specially the ones advising to "send it to all of your friends including the person that sent it to you"
2. Email addresses, like phone numbers, may not always be "public". Some people may have confided their address to you but not to others. Imagine the following scenarios:
You have two friends that are a couple, they break up and one decides to start using a different email address that doesn't want the ex to know. You forward a joke to her address and to some other close friends. Well, now one of those friends forwards it to their own list which includes the ex! not good eh?
Some people have different email address for different purposes, for example a friend or coworker provides you with his/her work's email address where he does not want/ should not receive jokes or chain emails. Now, after you've forwarded it to everyone, he'll start receiving jokes to the "wrong" address.
I'm sure you can imagine other situations where this may have quite undesirable consequences.
3. Frequently the address' list is longer than the message itself, making it difficult to read the actual message.
So, these are some of the reasons for not using "To" when forwarding chain emails
Keep the "To" field for occasions where you explicitly want every person to know who else received the same email.
It's my opinion that web email (hotmail, yahoo, gmail, etc) should have BCC as the default or at least make it more visible than what they do now.
As you can see, using the BCC field is as easy as using the "To" field but better in many ways helping you protect your friend's privacy, protect them from spam and make it easier to read the emails
Next time you receive a chain email, politely advise your friend about the problems and risks of using the "To" field. It may be as easy as pointing them to this blog's post.
Sunday, April 06, 2008
Monday, December 18, 2006
Windows Vista the new ME?
I was discussing the pros and cons of vista when I came across this article
25 Shortcomings Of Vista
Here are my thoughts:
As an IT/IS professional I attended the Windows Vista Launch with the idea of understanding what was new, what was better or as the article says find a "must-have" reason. They failed at that.
In the professional space I couldn't find a single reason why migrate from XP to Vista. Home users may be enticed by the Aero interface but I don't see how that can sell to corporations.
Throughout the different sessions during the Launch, it was obvious that Microsoft was trying to pair all the cool and really usefull new technologies (WPF, WCF, WF, etc) with Vista... the only issue with that is that all those technologies can be run under XP.
I found quite offensive that even when you identify yourself as an administrator, Vista keeps popping up those confirmation windows. I totally agree with locking down accounts to prevent viruses, trojans or unintented changes, but always second guessing an administrator is plain wrong.
Vista is starting to look pretty much like the infamous Windows ME, Just bloat, no meat.
25 Shortcomings Of Vista
Here are my thoughts:
As an IT/IS professional I attended the Windows Vista Launch with the idea of understanding what was new, what was better or as the article says find a "must-have" reason. They failed at that.
In the professional space I couldn't find a single reason why migrate from XP to Vista. Home users may be enticed by the Aero interface but I don't see how that can sell to corporations.
Throughout the different sessions during the Launch, it was obvious that Microsoft was trying to pair all the cool and really usefull new technologies (WPF, WCF, WF, etc) with Vista... the only issue with that is that all those technologies can be run under XP.
I found quite offensive that even when you identify yourself as an administrator, Vista keeps popping up those confirmation windows. I totally agree with locking down accounts to prevent viruses, trojans or unintented changes, but always second guessing an administrator is plain wrong.
Vista is starting to look pretty much like the infamous Windows ME, Just bloat, no meat.
Thursday, September 14, 2006
Linux is not just for geeks anymore
Today someone brought to my attention this osnews article with the title "Why Desktop Linux Will Not Take off, and Why You Don't Want It to".
Although the author makes some very good points describing geeks (at least it described my geek side perfectly). He makes the wrong assumption that Linux is still just relegated to geekdom.
Linus Torvalds criticism of Gnome, for example is actually its praise.
As a geek I think that one can use Gnome for the every day things and still have access to 'under the hood' stuff using the command line console (actually as a geek I don't like Gnome limitations either so I use something else).
Linus displays the clear traits of a geek. So what? Some other people that aren't technical geeks have joined the Open Source movement and are slowly making their mark obvious. They are layering simplicity on top of the complexity.
Linux is very fast approaching the "Easy for beginners to do easy things, Easy for experts to do complex things".
Although the author makes some very good points describing geeks (at least it described my geek side perfectly). He makes the wrong assumption that Linux is still just relegated to geekdom.
Linus Torvalds criticism of Gnome, for example is actually its praise.
As a geek I think that one can use Gnome for the every day things and still have access to 'under the hood' stuff using the command line console (actually as a geek I don't like Gnome limitations either so I use something else).
Linus displays the clear traits of a geek. So what? Some other people that aren't technical geeks have joined the Open Source movement and are slowly making their mark obvious. They are layering simplicity on top of the complexity.
Linux is very fast approaching the "Easy for beginners to do easy things, Easy for experts to do complex things".
Monday, June 12, 2006
The next revolution
Many people are asking: What's the next big thing?
In the past it has been the fire, the wheel, written laws, democracy, the radio, the automobil, TV and most recently the Internet.
These are things that have change the way we live, the balance of power. They've revolutionized society in ways that could have not been predicted before they happened. So... What's next?
Here is my prediction: Video glasses.
Not that they are new. The internet was more than 20 years old when it started changing the world thanks to the WWW.
With the ability to provide a personal video space the possibilities for the video glasses are far reaching:
They can revolutionize medicine, entertainment, transportation, social interaction and many other human activities.
Here are some simple examples:
Driving:
What if the glasses were connected to rear view/cameras or front infrared cameras in your car?
What if they provided a driver with 360 degrees view as they do in combat aircraft?
What if important dashboard information was presented through the glasses?
Medicine:
Looking inside a body in full 3D while operating
Having a close look at organs and injuries (Even from the other side of the world)
Entertainment:
3d "video" On demand, any time, anywhere
Full immersion electronic gaming.
Concert goers with a personal close up of the artist on the stage.
Social interaction:
Video conferences as common as today's cell phones.
Business conducted in a virtual meeting that feels real.
Real time information.
Subtitled real time translation.
These examples just extrapolate what we already imagine. In reality they will have applications we cannot currently even dream about.
For now I'll dare to dream. I hope to come back to this blog in a few years and realize I was right.
In the past it has been the fire, the wheel, written laws, democracy, the radio, the automobil, TV and most recently the Internet.
These are things that have change the way we live, the balance of power. They've revolutionized society in ways that could have not been predicted before they happened. So... What's next?
Here is my prediction: Video glasses.
Not that they are new. The internet was more than 20 years old when it started changing the world thanks to the WWW.
With the ability to provide a personal video space the possibilities for the video glasses are far reaching:
They can revolutionize medicine, entertainment, transportation, social interaction and many other human activities.
Here are some simple examples:
Driving:
What if the glasses were connected to rear view/cameras or front infrared cameras in your car?
What if they provided a driver with 360 degrees view as they do in combat aircraft?
What if important dashboard information was presented through the glasses?
Medicine:
Looking inside a body in full 3D while operating
Having a close look at organs and injuries (Even from the other side of the world)
Entertainment:
3d "video" On demand, any time, anywhere
Full immersion electronic gaming.
Concert goers with a personal close up of the artist on the stage.
Social interaction:
Video conferences as common as today's cell phones.
Business conducted in a virtual meeting that feels real.
Real time information.
Subtitled real time translation.
These examples just extrapolate what we already imagine. In reality they will have applications we cannot currently even dream about.
For now I'll dare to dream. I hope to come back to this blog in a few years and realize I was right.
Friday, May 05, 2006
Rationalizing beauty
Today a fellow member of the Puppy Linux forum had this comment on the topic of external appeal:
I am like a fickle teenager, if the guy is cute I will date him, if he is a cute dork I will dump him, if he is cute and cool I will keep him, but if he is cool but "homely" I would never have gone on the first date.
This made me reflect on the topic at a more basic level. I am convinced that this is directly related to the way our brains are wired: Attractiveness is associated in the most primitive areas of our brains with healthiness. In the wild, the healthier specimens are more successful. Attractiveness=Health=Survival Success.
That translation is subconsciously extrapolated. We make that association looking at a car and we make that association looking at a user interface.
Even more, we are a gregarious species, wired in our brain is also the inclination to associate ourselves with the successful. If we hung around the best hunter we might have gotten a better share. It's the primitive emotional reaction that comes naturally to us.
On the other hand, it takes a conscious effort to accept the externally unattractive that has good internal qualities: We make rationalizations "but He/she is a good/intelligent/hardworking person", "the system is more stable", etc.
Emotions are instantaneous; rationalization takes time and as the quote implicitly puts it: If we get to choose, we would prefer the one that meets both.
I am like a fickle teenager, if the guy is cute I will date him, if he is a cute dork I will dump him, if he is cute and cool I will keep him, but if he is cool but "homely" I would never have gone on the first date.
This made me reflect on the topic at a more basic level. I am convinced that this is directly related to the way our brains are wired: Attractiveness is associated in the most primitive areas of our brains with healthiness. In the wild, the healthier specimens are more successful. Attractiveness=Health=Survival Success.
That translation is subconsciously extrapolated. We make that association looking at a car and we make that association looking at a user interface.
Even more, we are a gregarious species, wired in our brain is also the inclination to associate ourselves with the successful. If we hung around the best hunter we might have gotten a better share. It's the primitive emotional reaction that comes naturally to us.
On the other hand, it takes a conscious effort to accept the externally unattractive that has good internal qualities: We make rationalizations "but He/she is a good/intelligent/hardworking person", "the system is more stable", etc.
Emotions are instantaneous; rationalization takes time and as the quote implicitly puts it: If we get to choose, we would prefer the one that meets both.
Friday, April 28, 2006
In defence of beauty
Yesterday I had an epiphany during a Billy Hollis's Avalon presentation at my.Net user's group.
During the presentation he said something like the following (not a direct quote):
Pretty interfaces are important as the interface is the only thing the user sees
This may sound obvious, but until that time I had always relegated prettiness as a useless attribute of an interface.
For me a user interface had to be functional and usable. This is: it should allow the user to perform all the required tasks in a non intrusive, intuitive way. Having a nice color gradient or round buttons or pretty picture was only a “nice to have”
The extrapolation of Bill’s statement is that the only way a user has to evaluate the quality of an application is through the interface.
Here I have a close analogy. The average car owner will prefer, a functional car that looks awesome to a beaten up car with a perfectly tuned, supped up engine and perfectly balanced tires.
A car aficionado may prefer the beaten up car because he sees the beauty in the engine. The car does not run with the chassis.
In Linux we have the same attitude; we find the beauty in the engine. Many developers still finds prettiness as a distraction.
It’s great to see that some people are paying attention.
During the presentation he said something like the following (not a direct quote):
Pretty interfaces are important as the interface is the only thing the user sees
This may sound obvious, but until that time I had always relegated prettiness as a useless attribute of an interface.
For me a user interface had to be functional and usable. This is: it should allow the user to perform all the required tasks in a non intrusive, intuitive way. Having a nice color gradient or round buttons or pretty picture was only a “nice to have”
The extrapolation of Bill’s statement is that the only way a user has to evaluate the quality of an application is through the interface.
Here I have a close analogy. The average car owner will prefer, a functional car that looks awesome to a beaten up car with a perfectly tuned, supped up engine and perfectly balanced tires.
A car aficionado may prefer the beaten up car because he sees the beauty in the engine. The car does not run with the chassis.
In Linux we have the same attitude; we find the beauty in the engine. Many developers still finds prettiness as a distraction.
It’s great to see that some people are paying attention.
- Enlightenment
- KDE
- Gnome
- and the awesome XGL.
Sunday, April 23, 2006
What's a distribution?
The first question most people have when they start working with Linux is "what's a distribution?"
Here is my simple explanation of what a Linux distribution is:
A distribution is a collection of applications and configuration utilities built around the GNU/Linux Operating system.
But, what does this really mean? Why not a single distribution with all the same applications and configurations?
Different people need their computer to perform different tasks: Some write programs some others write documents and prepare presentations some others use them as a web server or to unfold the human genome.
A home computer needs different programs than a web server. Home users are used to GUIs while a web server may not even have one.
What's more even among home users some are experts and some are novice. Some have new and fast computers while some others have older and slower computers.
So, if you want to configure your computer exactly as you want or need, you could search for all the applications you need and install them. In practice only a few curious (and maybe a bit masochist) people dare to start from zero. Some people have already prepared a collection of applications for different "user profiles". They distribute this collections, some free, some commercially. These are the "Distributions".
That does not mean that you can only use the applications provided. Think of a distribution as your starting point. The better you choose your distribution according to your needs, the closer you will be to have a computer configured specifically for you.
As an example of distributions, RedHat (the company) has the following ones:
- Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS : This is a distribution geared to enterprise servers with all the tools to administer a network and its applications
- Red Hat Enterprise Desktop : This one is geared to Desktop users in an office environment.
- Fedora Core : This is a general purpose distribution assembled with 100% free software.
There are 'purpose specific' distributions, for example your TV top-set may be using Linux. Many cell phones use Linux as their underlying OS. There are distributions to configure computer clusters (Groups of computers working as if they were a single one)
Here you can find a list of distributions. Search based on your needs or curiosity and read the descriptions:
http://www.linux.org/dist/index.html
Here is my simple explanation of what a Linux distribution is:
A distribution is a collection of applications and configuration utilities built around the GNU/Linux Operating system.
But, what does this really mean? Why not a single distribution with all the same applications and configurations?
Different people need their computer to perform different tasks: Some write programs some others write documents and prepare presentations some others use them as a web server or to unfold the human genome.
A home computer needs different programs than a web server. Home users are used to GUIs while a web server may not even have one.
What's more even among home users some are experts and some are novice. Some have new and fast computers while some others have older and slower computers.
So, if you want to configure your computer exactly as you want or need, you could search for all the applications you need and install them. In practice only a few curious (and maybe a bit masochist) people dare to start from zero. Some people have already prepared a collection of applications for different "user profiles". They distribute this collections, some free, some commercially. These are the "Distributions".
That does not mean that you can only use the applications provided. Think of a distribution as your starting point. The better you choose your distribution according to your needs, the closer you will be to have a computer configured specifically for you.
As an example of distributions, RedHat (the company) has the following ones:
- Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS : This is a distribution geared to enterprise servers with all the tools to administer a network and its applications
- Red Hat Enterprise Desktop : This one is geared to Desktop users in an office environment.
- Fedora Core : This is a general purpose distribution assembled with 100% free software.
There are 'purpose specific' distributions, for example your TV top-set may be using Linux. Many cell phones use Linux as their underlying OS. There are distributions to configure computer clusters (Groups of computers working as if they were a single one)
Here you can find a list of distributions. Search based on your needs or curiosity and read the descriptions:
http://www.linux.org/dist/index.html
Monday, March 06, 2006
Learning new tricks
Today I saw this comment from someone looking for advice on Linux tools:
The more Win like the GUI the better for Linux noobies like me.
My response is: If you are already used to Win GUIs you are a noobie no more.
Moving from one OS to another implies relearning and adapting. It's harder to teach an old dog new tricks.
The same happens when switching applications on the same OS. The more knowledgeable you are about a tool, the more complains you will have about a new one. Many people were still using WordPerfect for DOS long after there were Windows tools available, just because they already knew all the cryptic WP key combinations.
Even user friendliness is on the eye of the beholder. Some people find GUIs less user friendly than command line because GUIs rarely allow automation for repetitive tasks.
What is true is that the more tools and ways-of-thinking you learn, the easier will be to learn something different if nothing else just because you will be already conditioned to accept change.
The more Win like the GUI the better for Linux noobies like me.
My response is: If you are already used to Win GUIs you are a noobie no more.
Moving from one OS to another implies relearning and adapting. It's harder to teach an old dog new tricks.
The same happens when switching applications on the same OS. The more knowledgeable you are about a tool, the more complains you will have about a new one. Many people were still using WordPerfect for DOS long after there were Windows tools available, just because they already knew all the cryptic WP key combinations.
Even user friendliness is on the eye of the beholder. Some people find GUIs less user friendly than command line because GUIs rarely allow automation for repetitive tasks.
What is true is that the more tools and ways-of-thinking you learn, the easier will be to learn something different if nothing else just because you will be already conditioned to accept change.
Thursday, March 02, 2006
The joy of working on what you really like
It's funny how coincidences happen. Today I was chatting with a coworker wondering why people complain about not liking their job. Latter today I found this post with someone doing exactly that.
What struck me the most was the following quote:
a [IT] career that is stressful, demands never-ending BORING study".
Actually that summed the reason for most of the complains about working in IT but also most of the reasons for enjoying it
We, that like what we do, find studying new things very exciting and rewarding. It actually becomes boring when you don't move on to other technologies.
That aside, with so many different jobs and careers out there, why would someone stay in something that he/she finds unrewarding?
Do what you really love and you won't find it boring. If your circumstances change and you no longer enjoy what you are doing, then move on. The sooner the better. Don't let the inertia kill you.
The post ends with "I've decided to plan an exit strategy to leave the field because I've had enough". Good for him! That is the best thing it can happen to him and to his co-workers and company.
I hope he finds something fulfilling to do.
What about you? Do you like what you do? I know I do.
What struck me the most was the following quote:
a [IT] career that is stressful, demands never-ending BORING study".
Actually that summed the reason for most of the complains about working in IT but also most of the reasons for enjoying it
We, that like what we do, find studying new things very exciting and rewarding. It actually becomes boring when you don't move on to other technologies.
That aside, with so many different jobs and careers out there, why would someone stay in something that he/she finds unrewarding?
Do what you really love and you won't find it boring. If your circumstances change and you no longer enjoy what you are doing, then move on. The sooner the better. Don't let the inertia kill you.
The post ends with "I've decided to plan an exit strategy to leave the field because I've had enough". Good for him! That is the best thing it can happen to him and to his co-workers and company.
I hope he finds something fulfilling to do.
What about you? Do you like what you do? I know I do.
There is a first
Finally a space for my ranting
I finally decided to create my blog.
This should be an eclectic collection of thoughts, sometimes related, sometimes unrelated. As my main interests are Software development and Politics, that should be the main focus but I won't know until it's all written.
I decided to create it because as with everybody else, sometimes I have thoughts that seem very interesting, or opinions that seem completely accurate. I wonder how many times I would go back and laugh at them or maybe, just maybe marvel at how right I was.
I finally decided to create my blog.
This should be an eclectic collection of thoughts, sometimes related, sometimes unrelated. As my main interests are Software development and Politics, that should be the main focus but I won't know until it's all written.
I decided to create it because as with everybody else, sometimes I have thoughts that seem very interesting, or opinions that seem completely accurate. I wonder how many times I would go back and laugh at them or maybe, just maybe marvel at how right I was.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)