SSL coming to Hotmail

Following in the footsteps of Google's Gmail, Hotmail Wave 4 will offer full-session SSL. Presently, logging in to Hotmail uses HTTPS to protect user credentials from attack, but e-mail itself is delivered over unsecured HTTP. Gmail switched to using HTTPS for the entire session—both logging in and reading/sending mail—by default in January (previously, it was an opt-in feature).
In Wave 4, Hotmail is following suit, offering HTTPS encryption for mail access as well as authentication. With the most valuable part of a mailbox often being the mail itself, not the credentials used to access it, this is a welcome change.
The other big news is Hotmail will offer ActiveSync support. ActiveSync is used by Exchange to provide push mail and other facilities to smartphones. By adding ActiveSync to Hotmail, Microsoft is extending these features to 300 million smartphones, giving Hotmail-using consumers the full seamless sync experience on their phones.

I personally love Hotmail. Gmail's nice and all but Hotmail is on a superior level in my view. There is one, simple reason for this. Hotmail can be configured to use any email address as your Microsoft Passport, which is what you use to sign into microsoft sites and MSN messenger. Want to be different? Get your own 'special' email address suffix at a different provider and submit it to be your Microsoft Passport. My one and only recommendation for cool suffixs (See, Name@suffix.x) is http://www.mail.com.

What we're looking at are nice new features for hotmail, and more security. If you're an active user of hotmail these new features will probably seamlessly integrate into your daily tasks and use of the service. I'm pretty sure this upgrade is one sided in terms of who will like it. It's pretty straightforward that this is a good thing.

(Woah. I'm not ranting. Spooky.)

Android 2.2 to support flash

In an interview with The New York Times, Google’s Andy Rubin revealed that the upcoming version of the Android mobile operating system will fully support Flash technology. Code named Froyo, Adobe showed us Android 2.2 with Flash 10.1 on a Nexus One last month.

In a world where every company seems to find excuses not support flash, I find it incredibly exciting to hear that this is no longer a stereotype of the mobile world. The Wii had a very outdated version of Flash, the DSi had none at all, your average phone has none, and even high tech, and I use the term high tech loosely, pieces of media equipment such as the iTouch or iPhone don't support it. It was beginning to seem as if companies have a gripe with flash, and were deliberately trying to kill it's success at the expense of their own products. Perhaps, on the other hand, one company that happens to be a leader in the smartphone race has a bone to pick with, like, everyone.

Needless to say, I am officially wishing I could have an Android phone, specifically one running version 2.2 which will support flash 10. I think Apple has dug themselves one heck of a hole at this point. Microsoft, Google, and Adobe are now on their grudge list and considering two of these companies are very powerful web forces (Google, Adobe) and the other is coming out with what is supposed to be a revolutionary new smartphone (Microsoft) they have plenty of competition with a nice huge advantage over them now.

I can't speak for him, but if I were in charge of decisions at Apple, I'd be scared right about now. Android 2.2 officially has a major advantage over it's main competitor, the iPhone.

Google censored in 1/4 of countries

"This morning, on their main blog,  Google posted a little reminder to everyone about its view on censorship on the web. Specifically, they don't like it. And while we all know their take on China's demand for censorship by now, the search giant also offered up a new interesting little factoid: of the 100 countries around the world in which Google offers their services, some 25 at least partially block them."

 Countries taking action by censoring the internet is increasing, and frankly I don't agree with it. In my personal opinion it isn't the governments place to censor anything for any reason. Censorship should be done on a far lower level, such as a company blocking access to specific websites. This is simply more efficient and provides far less potential for inconvenience. You would think when there are so many people and groups supporting this that the government as a single entity would be a lot less willing to step on people's toes by going ahead and censoring as they please. I believe perhaps it is time debate against internet censorship was taken a bit more seriously and we put some pressure on it.

Windows XP will not support Internet Explorer 9

It's official. Windows XP will not support Internet Explorer 9. A lot of people are outraged that this is so, but I have one question? Why? Unless you're pretty young, you should know that this trend has existed forever. Back in the day, people treated Windows 2000 like they did XP now. The facts are however, that Windows XP is an obsolete operating system. Windows XP was released in the year 2001. It has been 9 years approximately since it's release, and it has been succeeded not by just one, but two newer and better operating systems. What people are doing now with Windows XP would've been like clinging to Windows 98 when Windows 2000 came along. Believe it or not Windows XP doesn't really have a chance anymore. It's in it's coffin, and it's just waiting for us to shut the doors, so to speak.

It's not a matter of choice anymore. Tons of new operating system features have been released that boast important security fixes, performance increases, and new features entirely, and frankly I believe it's time XP died, or perhaps was killed. It's too obsolete to continue supporting new software. This is fact, not opinion.

In conclusion, one should not be outraged as support is dropped for XP. It is getting more than any operating system has yet, and frankly, consumers should keep that in mind and stop being such dinosaurs with their computers. See, personal computers are not designed to be legacy computers. They are meant to be replaced. If consumers intend to fight this, they should expect for flexibility to eventually snap, resulting in loss of compatibility. It's pretty simple really.

The Apple iPad

http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/03/apple-ipad-review/

"The Apple iPad. The name is a killing word -- more than a product -- it's a statement, an idea, and potentially a prime mover in the world of consumer electronics. Before iPad it was called the Apple Tablet, the Slate, Canvas, and a handful of other guesses -- but what was little more than rumor and speculation for nearly ten years is now very much a reality. Announced on January 27th to a middling response, Apple has been readying itself for what could be the most significant product launch in its history; the making (or breaking) of an entirely new class of computer for the company. The iPad is something in between its monumental iPhone and wildly successful MacBook line -- a usurper to the netbook throne, and possibly a sign of things to come for the entire personal computer market... if Apple delivers on its promises. And those are some big promises; the company has been tossing around words like "magical" and "revolutionary" to describe what many have dismissed as nothing more than a larger version of its iPod touch. But is that all there is to this device? Is the hope that Apple promises for this new computing experience nothing more than marketing fluff and strategic hyperbole? Or is this a different beast altogether -- a true sign that change has come to the world of the PC? We have the definitive answers to those questions (and many more) right here, so read on for our full review of the Apple iPad!"

 The Apple iPad, pride of Apple. This is my favorite part of the above excerpt.

"The iPad is something in between its monumental iPhone and wildly successful MacBook line"

 They have it exactly right. Take out all the hype, all the shameless plugs, and all the typical Mac reasoning, and you have just that. The iPad could be described as a MacBook trying to be an iPhone. I've heard lots of things about the iPad. Here's a few things I'd like to bring up.

1. It's supposed to be functional.
2. It's supposed to be a breakthrough in technology.
3. It's supposed to take the "throne" from Apple's other products. (I wasn't aware there was a "throne" for shenanigans or propaganda.)

These all share something in common. They are logically wrong. Allow me to explain.

1. It's supposed to be functional.

No, you see, a mouse is functional. A touch pad is very much less functional in many situations, being far slower for typing and less accurate than a mouse. This is okay for a small phone, but for something competing with laptops? The iPad's keyboard will lack the physical click of a real keyboard, something we could have removed long ago if we had ever wanted it gone. And with the reduced size of an iPad, it should come as no surprise to people that it is not a high-end computer. This being said, how exactly is it functional? It isn't, it's pretty.

  2.  It's supposed to be a breakthrough in technology.

I'm calling Shenanigans. I mean really, not only has the exact same technology been used on the iPad's freaking predecessor, the iPhone... But it has been used on other things way before it was ever even announced. How about the incredibly famous Nintendo DS? How about the iTouch? New? Breakthrough? Not even close. Your high horse is built off of stolen ideas Apple. At least admit it.

  3.  It's supposed to take the "throne" from Apple's other products.

First, it's too big to take anything from the phone / mp3 player line, and too weak and non-functional to take anything from the laptop line. Second, the iPhone and even the new DSi does this stuff better in my opinion. Why? They're smaller, a stylus is more accurate than a finger, and most importantly. They don't try to be a computer. They're mobile devices. And that justifies their flaws. Oh, and they don't cost an arm and a leg.


In conclusion, don't be fooled by the hype around the iPad. There's nothing worth exchanging your laptop or smartphone for.

Facebookers outraged over undercover FBI agents posing as "friends"

http://blogs.laweekly.com/ladaily/city-news/fbi-undercover-facebook/
"The AP mentions the Los Angeles case in which federal prosecutors unsuccessfully moved against a woman, Lori Drew, for posing as a teen boy on MySpace and then allegedly harassing a 13-year-old neighborhood girl who later hanged herself. She was nabbed for allegedly violating MySpace's terms of service -- posing as someone she isn't -- and convicted in L.A. before a higher-court judge overturned the ruling.
Aren't federal poseurs on Facebook doing the same thing Drew did? Facebook has a similar rule against giving false information when opening an account on the site."

Aaah... Facebook drama. On a list of websites I hate most, Facebook is right at the top. But that's a story for another article.

The internet is often considered a place of anonymity, where people can do what they please without fear of offline consequences. However, I don't sympathize with these people.

Facebook is a strict place with strict rules. If they expected anonymity there they thought wrong, very, very wrong. I've seen this since the first time I researched Facebook, that it was not a place to be anonymous.

Secondly, people seem to be forgetting that these are the authorities, not civilians, and certainly not bound to the same laws as civilians. The law for civilians does not automatically apply to the authorities, and it's their job to decide what is appropriate.

There is a huge difference between an undercover cop on facebook that adds suspected criminals and things like that in hopes of obtaining useful information and a lady who pretends to be someone else for the sake of harassing people and causing harm.

I support the FBIs ability to do this. Furthermore, unless you're a criminal, they probably are not going to randomly add you and start leeching info from you. This is logic. So if you're not a criminal, in the same boat as myself, then you probably have nothing to worry about in terms of this affecting your privacy.

As for criminals that abuse their privacy to break the law, what right do they have to that privacy anyway? It's their criminal choices, their consequences, and their life they screwed up. They tried to abuse the safety of their rights to privacy to screw other people over, and it's people like them that are the reason we have to deal with officials wanting to reduce privacy in the first place. I for one love the idea of one of these people being behind bars.

Firefox shamed on first day of CanSecWest Pwn2Own hacker challenge

http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=5865
"VANCOUVER, BC — The first day of the CanSecWest Pwn2Own hacker challenge wrapped up here today with a familiar face going after a familiar target.
And, for the second year in a row, a German hacker known simply as “Nils” exploited a previously unknown vulnerability in Mozilla Firefox to take complete control of a 64-bit Windows 7 machine."

I have personally been the victim of Firefox flaws. I've had it crash, become unstable, and memory leak up a storm. This being said, despite the fact that it was my default browser for several years, and I still use it regularly...

I'm rather tired of Firefox.

I look at Chrome, which now has add-on support and has never given me problems over anything, and on top of this, has been credited with being very secure, fast, and lightweight, and I'm starting to question why I go back to using Firefox.

Is anyone else starting to get the impression that Firefox is a bit bloated, slow to start, and now that it's essentially #1 in terms of fame and personal use, insecure?

Browsers are very lightweight. I encourage people to try several different Browsers, mainly Firefox, Chrome, and Internet Explorer 8 all on the same system. Use them, test them, See if perhaps your initial browser choice wasn't optimum.