LulzSec, Hacking and other crimes

If you don't know it by now, LulzSec is a group that took unto themselves to uncover security flaws at several companies and organizations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LulzSec

Hacking into other peoples data/property is illegal whether they misuse that data or not. But so is the negligence shown by the companies caught with their guard down.

Nobody but me should care if I leave my home unlocked but even if I do it is still illegal for someone to enter without permission. That's my home and my risk.

That's not the same if someone entrusts me with their property. In that case I become responsible for that property and I must make sure it is well secured. If something happens to that property I am on the hook.

In the LulzSec case, it seems that the authorities are only interested in the people that hacked the data, not on the people that didn't secure it properly.

If in fact LulzSec did not misuse the information, I'd say that the companies that didn't secure it properly are even guiltier as they are exposing OUR data to someone else that may misuse it.

Both are wrong, Both should be held accountable but it seems that authorities think that the real problem was the messenger, not the message.

Are you ethnic?

Harpers Conservative party is trying to attract "Very Ethnic" people.

I've always found that the way the word "Ethnic" is used in Canada is very offensive. As if saying "us vs. them".

Go to the dictionary and check what it means:

"pertaining to or characteristic of a people, especially a group (ethnic group) sharing a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like"

Why then do people refer to "Ethnic food" or "Ethnic people" ONLY when referring to someone that identifies with a non European or Canadian ethnic group?.

How come schnitzels are not referred to as "Ethnic food" but Tacos are?

Are Sikh "Ethnic people" but Christians aren't?

Some people are Very Ethnic, of course, meaning that they closely identify with a common group. But that is regardless of origin. I live in Kitchener/Waterloo, with a quite visible and Very Ethnic German population.

Some other people, whether from European, Indian, Chinese or Mexican origin, do not have that strong ethnic identification. They are not Very Ethnic.

I understand and accept the term "Ethnic minorities". I'm an Ethnic minority, but not Very Ethnic.

I would also accept if, when they say "Very Ethnic", they were also referring to the organizers of the Octoberfest or the Highland games which are Very Ethnic festivals.

Only referring to people of an origin different than our own as "Ethnic" is plain racism.

Can you downgrade for your next computer?

I was reading a ZDNet blog where the author argued that point.

It was interesting to me how some people totally missed the message. As they didn't feel the need to downgrade, they thought that no-one should downgrade.

Some people can downgrade some people cannot.

Me for example, at work I used to develop, I required all the CPU and memory I could get.

Now, I am a systems integrator, connects to servers. Do project opportunity assessments, proposals, architecture diagrams. I just need as much RAM as necessary to keep open 10-15 applications. CPU does not matter that much. I'd rather have a lighter computer that I can carry to meetings and presentations.

My children are in University: Science. What they need is portability and long battery life. They carry netbooks. They each have a 23" monitor to hook up for when they are at their desk.

Of course, were they in Graphics or Computer science their set up would be very different.

It was funny, when we bought one of the netbooks (i3 with 4 GB DDR4). The guy at the store was lying through his teeth trying to convince us for a larger model: "With that computer you'll barely be able to use the Internet". He didn't know my son and I knew better.

My dad? almost 80, has a Quad core with 4GB and lots of HDD as he likes to do photography. To go to the country club, he takes his netbook and he is happy as long as he has a wireless connection.

My Mom? She is a computerphobic. She just needed a computer to email some friends but didn't want to go into my dad's den to use the desktop. I got her an old Dell C610.

At home I have an older P4 desktop. It has lots of expansion bays, and several HDD. CPU solow, memory, 1.5 GB. It does not matter, It's for storage, media server, casual browsing and preparing my presentations.

I mean. Different needs, different computers. Not everyone needs an SUV, not everyone can get by with a compact.

Do you need to type to program?

That was the question raised (again) by the news of AppInventor. A visual environment to create applications for the Android.

When reading responses to a blog post I came across one that, I hope tongue in cheek, ranted about how to be a developer you need to type code.

The point is that to be a developer you need to write everything yourself, not taking from anybody else's code. Quite a funny response, but just in case someone takes it at face value, here is a summary of my thoughts:

If you are using a high level language then you are using someone else's libraries. Even if you are programming in assembler.

When coding is based on someone else's code snippets it is called progress.

Computer Programming is directing the computer to perform a task, whether you do it typing code or moving blocks is irrelevant.

A good programmer knows how to meet the requirements (make the program do what it is supposed to do), in an elegant way (Clean code that is easy to maintain) with the end user in mind (Eliminating barriers for the users to be productive) and in the most efficient manner (Using the resources judiciously).

Yes, someone will still need to write the low level code and libraries. Hopefully to be reused by other programmers that create the end user applications. The main difference between the two will be the area of expertise and who their end user is.

Alternatives to full MS Office

Today I read the news that MS will release a limited/ad-based version of MS Office to be bundled with new computers.

http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/starter/

I don't think that they would have done that hadn't it be for all the users that get frustrated with the "trialware" installed in their computers and opt for alternatives

I know, I've advised several people to install Free applications when their MS Office trial version expires.

For years the MS apologists have been contending that the alternatives weren't good enough because every user needed the advanced features of MS Office. Now even MS is accepting that most users do not need that, and they can do well enough in a limited functionality version.

This means: They've now lost that argument.

This change in strategy from MS gives us, FLOSS advocates, new arguments when explaining Free software on top of the existing arguments of open formats and code

Here are some of them for you to freely use:

• MS Office starter only comes with new computers. Free alternatives can be installed in any computer ;


• MS Office starter shows adds. Free alternatives do not;


• MS Office starter tracks your usage to allow for targeted advertisement. Free alternatives do not ;


• MS Office starter has limited functionality by design. Free alternatives are constantly evolving and improving ;


• MS Office starter does not include all the Office tools. Some free alternatives include the tools missing, including presentations and email clients ;


• MS Office starter has limited functionality but is not light. Some free alternatives are designed to be small and fast, e.g. Abiword and Gnumeric are designed to be light while providing some functionality not available in MS Office starter.

If you reached this page looking for MS Office and want to know what the alternatives are, just ask me. Meanwhile, here are some of the alternatives I've mentioned:

• OpenOffice


• IBM Lotus Symphony


• Abiword


• Gnumeric


• Lyx

I see it as a good thing that MS felt enough pressure to strike back. What is not good is that they'll use their market dominance to force it on new computers but that's fodder for another post.

They are no longer laughing and they are stopping fighting it.

This past weekend I attended the Toronto Code Camp. A free conference organized by people active in the .NET community in Toronto.

I had a great time and here is why: The conference was well organized, The venue was quite appropriate, The topics where relevant and the speakers top notch presenters; and most importantly, no sales pitches, just good information and code.

There was one aspect in particular that caught my attention: There were a lot of references to Free an Open Source Software and Open Standards; and all of them praising them.

Up until a couple of years ago the only references I heard in this kind of conferences were pejorative or about not-so-open "standards".

This time, all the presenters I saw were using either Chrome or Firefox.
I attended a presentation on HTML5 where the presenter showed how the FLOSS browsers were more compliant with standards compared to IE8/9; and another presentation about JQuery where the scripts were debugged using Firebug.

Most of the presentations were focused on Microsoft's proprietary technologies but there were also presentations about HTML5, Jquery, Open Data, IronPython and DotNetNuke (See foot note).

To me, this indicates that the hard work of all the people that participate in Free and Open Source initiatives is paying off and paving the way for main stream developers to realize the benefits of open source and, eventually, of Free software.

So the laughing part seems over. They are still fighting but now they are also embracing. Eventually they will fully realize that the FLOSS model is better.

Note: I am sure we can have a good discussion about what is open and what is not, but at least I see things going slowly in the right direction.

Solving the systems integration problem is more than putting the tools and plans in place as suggested in this blog

Smarter Integration in Seven Steps

I don't think that the people that are in the position of doing something, do not want to improve integration; but all that planning, aligning and consulting can go just so far.

In my own experience the main failure is with training. But training all the people to follow the standard and use the tools appropriately is expensive and takes time, which is the same as saying that it requires "senior commitment".

Just throwing in the tools because the vendor or consultant can make the pitch, may work for one project; but that's not what integration is all about. Every current staff member must be trained, every new recruit must be trained, not just the people that work on the initial "integration" project.