Cool Mac Gear

From Michael Getter

BOTMW survey

Charles,

I read the results of the LEM survey with special interest as I, too, was a participant. To say that I was surprised and a bit disappointed is an understatement. I placed Applelinks as the best site followed closely by osOpinion (25) and MacOpinion (40) among a few others. MacUpdate, which I believe to be easier to navigate than VersionTracker, was not even listed. So, I'm not very good at picking winners. I have never won anything in the lotto, wither.

Obviously, my taste runs to news and opinion while the majority of the participants in the survey have other interests. I look for the broader issues that the above sites bring every day (well, except for weekends - oh, for weekend content!) and the higher ranked sites deal in more pointed Mac content. Fair enough. That's apparently what most of the participants look for when they visit the Web.

But, in terms of news, opinion, thoughtful features, insight into and perspectives on current industry trends, Applelinks is certainly one of the very best. Could it be better? Sure. More contributing editors for example, would go a long way to bringing even more ideas and analysis to your readers. You and John must work night and day to keep the site going.

Keep it up, Applelinks. You've got my vote.

Michael Getter

Thank you, Michael.

Charles

Gene Steinberg

Low End Mac Survey

We are not taking it seriously, because of Dan Knight's failure to notify more than a few selected sites in advance. That surely skewed the numbers.

Here's a link to a piece I did on the subject a few days ago.

http://www.macnightowl.com/newsletters/2001/11/104.htm#apply

He has replied, but never addressed the points I made.

I think a few sites should get together and request a rematch with a proper announcement to each site before it begins.

Peace,
Gene

From Timothy J. Baker

Mozilla

I read your latest notes on Mozilla and so decided to give it another try, after having skipped the last few versions. You're right that it's much better now, and probably worthy of replacing Netscape or IE. I find it more readable, and also quicker, than Netscape 4x. I still have two gripes, though.

1. Mozilla doesn't utilize the Mac's "shared menu" feature. This means that it won't work well with URL Manager Pro, which is my Bookmark manager of choice. iCab, Opera, Netscape 4x and IE 5 all take advantage of this feature, so there's no reason that Mozilla shouldn't. (Netscape 6 has the same problem.) The benefit of using URL Manager Pro in connection with shared menus is that it allows me to have just one bookmark file that operates in a variety of browsers.

2. When I shift-click on a data entry box, I get a pop-up contextual menu that is particular to Mozilla, rather than the pop-up list that I get in virtually every other program that I use. My normal pop-up list includes an entry for a shareware utility called AutoTextTyper. I store all my Passwords and User IDs as named macros in AutoTextTyper, and in all other browsers can use that contextual menu to insert them. AutoTextTyper also allows data entry in another way, using keyboard shortcuts to invoke the macros. I have assigned keyboard shortcuts to the passwords and User IDs that I most frequently use, so that I can quickly enter sites with just a few key taps. This method, too, fails to work in Mozilla.

Timothy J. Baker

Hi Timothy;

It's still a work in progress for sure, but generally I've found it usable since v. 0.9.2. I trust that when version 1.0 finally arrives, most of these residual glitches will be worked out.

Charles

From: Jeremy Lavergne

Re: Feds Disseminating Viruses?

This is in regard to your article, "Feds Disseminating Viruses?"

As far as I know, the capability to track keystrokes has been around for a while and that the viruses already exist. Supposedly the Feds can do far worse then copy those, they can pick up your monitors display from outside your home or office (probably only with CRT displays). But let's not get involved in the technology that not a person could "not have any knowledge of..."

Now, here is an interesting idea for the previous "generation" of virus creators: Making a virus to kill a virus. I foresee an "industry" for this growing quite rapidly as it will be very easy to find the virus and learn about it, as the virus would have to be small and something that would run in the background (except for in Micro$loth products). Quit CSM for OS 9 could tell you what is running in the background, and you could kill it from there. ProcessViewer in OS X (or the top command for the command line people). Simply, one could find the AppleScript command for quitting such a program and hit record while quitting it, and deleting it. Seems unusually easy. And it is an AppleScript, it is not a completely odd Word document with a surprise JPG attached (with .exe, of course - don't tell me those don't match!) or any other silly intrusion! But let's not forget that the government will pay attention to the "high-end" users first (and probably only watch them) who are obviously not capable of running any Mac OS, if you know what I mean :)

Ô£ø
Jeremy Lavergne
Webmaster, The Rehab Center and Clear Fork Academic Boosters
http://homepage.mac.com/theg4cubepro/

From Steve Consilvio

Oh No!

Hi Charles,
Once I sent you an e-mail, about what I forget, and you put my website as a link. A small (probably meaningless) act which I appreciated, since you never know where the next opportunity comes from.

But I must vigorously disagree with your decision to pass along this article. This kind of activity serves no one any good. Poor Jeff is wasting his time tilting toward windmills. I realize he means well, but I suspect so do many of his spammers.

I only read one of his targets, but it appeared to be some poor sap who bought into the "make money on the web" $29.00 investment scams, which of course teaches you how to sell those $29.00 investment scams. If the spam mail generated heat and hate, then MAYBE a blacklist and a call to action would be warranted, but this is far from the case.

These ideas simply weaken us as a whole (Jeff and the spammers.) All our time should be spent building something better, not finding flaws in others. We should all inform, discuss, learn and improve by this new method of communication, using it to wage petty attacks on people we choose not to like is a recipe for disaster. Your description of his having performed a "commendable public service" is what set me off.

Vigilantes and the Taliban have a lot in common, as do totalitarianism and anarchy. Freedom requires more from all of us.

Sincerely,
Steve Consilvio
Squeegee Graphics
http://www.squeegeegraphics.com/

Article Reference:

Toll-Free Numbers Of Spammers Published

Want to make spammers hurt in the pocketbook? Jeffrey Goldberg has performed the commendable public service of posting the toll free numbers of spammers on a Website.

Jeffery writes:

"One the the many evil things about spam is that one way or another the recipient of the unsolicited email has to carry the cost of the spam. It is as if junk postal mail came postage due and with forged addresses. "A small portion of spam advertise toll free numbers where suckers can purchase or get more information about their dubious products and services. One feature, of course, about toll free numbers, is that the recipient of the call pays the charges and not the caller. This is an opportunity to try to shift some of the cost of spamming back to the spammers. Making spam costly to the spammers is the only way to stop spam." You can check it out at:
http://www.goldmark.org/jeff/toll-free-spam/

Hi Steve;

I do try to do what I can to help boost legitimate entrepreneurs like yourself who are doing business on the Web.

However, your sanguine and sympathetic attitude toward spammers mystifies me. These people are bottom-feeding scum-suckers who are ruining what is arguably the best aspect of the Web, and costing the rest of us countless millions of hours in lost time and annoyance.

Spammers "mean well?" OK. You're of course entitled to your opinion, but as they say, "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." ;-)

I probably get 50-70 spam messages per day, and I am neither amused nor tolerant of the inconvenience and time lost (I'm on a slow, dial-up connection).

If someone is dumb or greedy enough to fall for those "Make Money On The Web" (et al.) spammer-recruiting come-ons, they deserve to take their lumps.

I stand by my "public service" comment about Jeff's little project. He's doing nothing illegal, and it's hardly vigilanteism to call advertised toll-free numbers.

Best,
Charles

CM

Charles W. Moore