WyzGuys Tech Talk

I took a call from client number 5 who has had problems after installing Norton 360.  Forget about it being a processor and memory hog. Forget about it bringing older computers to their knees.  Forget about the five times I have personally tried to set up the backup feature and failed due to quirks with the Symantec web site.  Forget about the pricing.  This client cannot open PDF or other file attachments in e-mail.  Their business - just home mortgages - no forms or documents there.

I CANNOT RECOMMEND THIS PRODUCT.  I don't care if it's the famous brand everyone has heard of.  Buy something else.  I am currently recommending the AVG line of security products.  There is even a free version for personal use on a home (non-business) machine.

If that doesn't bother you, then here is an excerpt of an article that describes a conflict between Symantec AV products and the recent Windows XP Service Pack 3 update.  (link to full story)

Earlier this week, Microsoft posted a hotfix for a problem users first reported in mid-May. Users of Symantec's consumer security software said that after updating their PCs to XP SP3, a bug emptied Windows' Device Driver and deleted network connections.

Although Symantec initially blamed Microsoft for the snafu, it later accepted some responsibility. In late May, Symantec acknowledged that Microsoft's updating process and a security feature in its own Norton-branded software combined to swamp the Windows registry with hundreds, sometimes thousands, of bogus and corrupted keys. That security feature, dubbed "SymProtect" by Symantec, was designed to protect the company's security software from attack by guarding against unauthorized changes to the registry.

This is why I cannot recommend Symantec products, and why I do recommend Grisoft's AVG line of security products.

PS - I really can't stand McAfee either.  Similar issues, plus a real kludge of a user interface, and no ability to custom configure.  I DON"T CARE if Comcast gives it away for free, all I can say is its not worth the price.

NewsScan Daily - A Summary of Technology-Related News
Sponsored by RLG And Written by John Gehl & Suzanne Douglas
December 13, 2002

http://www.newsscan.com/cgi-bin/findit_view?table=newsletter&dateissued=20021213

EDUCATION STRATEGIES

Re: http://shorl.com/fovujomulasy and http://shorl.com/bydebristostumi
    Regarding Andy Horner's and Conn McQuinn's responses to Thomas Sowell's editorial on the state of education. First, to answer Mr. Horner: Raising teacher pay will not attract the individuals he is looking to attract. I don't know how it is in his part of the country, but in Minnesota the median teacher salary, urban district or rural, rich district or poor, is $42,000 per year, and that for nine months of work. Annualized, this would be $56,000. This is a good living, and corresponds nicely to the local median income for the average worker in the private sector, which is roughly the same ($42,000) for 12 months of work. In my view, teachers are paid well, all things considered. I agree that it would probably improve things to get people with a well-rounded background in the business marketplace to teach our children from their own "real world" experience; the problem is that the education industry, including the administrators, teachers, and unions, are interested to making the point of entry difficult for people who might look at teaching as a mid-career shift. It goes past the money. Try to get a teaching certificate based solely on your old BA and 25 years of professional experience, without taking coursework in pedagogy.
    Structurally, educators want to keep people out of the profession who do not share their world view and perspective. Remember that people who work in education in many cases have known no other life than the school room, first as a student and then as an instructor. They do not want people on board who might shake up the utopian liberal agenda of the education industry... To rebut Mr. Conn, many things in life work reasonably well in spite of poor management -- let's take a look at your average American corporation for an example. The difference is that a corporation runs on private funds generated through the sale of stock to investors and products to consumers.
    In a competitive environment unhappy investors can purchase shares in other companies, and unhappy consumers can buy products from competitors. Public schools on the other hand exist on public funds (tax dollars) and offer no viable alternative. The reason children learn is because that's what they do; in many ways they learn as much in spite of the system as because of it. I thought Thomas Sowell nailed it. The fact that public educators consistently obstruct efforts to create viable alternatives in private or alternative (competitive) educational options tells me they are more interested in maintaining their power and control than in effectively educating anyone. (Bob Weiss)

I was invited to submit a guest column on this subject.  While I do not agree that music file sharing is "ok," I do think it is just plain stupid for the music industry to launch a legal campaign against people who are, ironically enough, their biggest fans, AND the largest purchasers of music.

Originally published in NewsScan on June 27, 203, time has allowed us to see the realities - the death and resurrection of Napster, the birth of iTunes, and bands like RadioHead giving away their music (which they make almost nothing on, the record labels keeping most of the money), in order to drive concert ticket sales, which is hugely lucrative for the band.

Anyway - here is the article and the responses from NewsScan Daily:

NewsScan Daily - A Summary of Technology-Related News
Sponsored by RLG And Written by John Gehl & Suzanne Douglas
June 27, 2003

http://www.newsscan.com/cgi-bin/findit_view?table=newsletter&dateissued=20030627

THE RIAA AND MP3 MUSIC FILE SHARING: A GUEST COLUMN

[This is a guest column by NewsScan subscriber Bob Weiss of WyzGuys.com.]
    The first point to be made is that the music industry leaders are failing to adjust to major fundamental changes in the music distribution model. Years ago, Wal-Mart, Target, Office Max, Home Depot and the like changed the retail distribution model forever by providing more variety and convenience at lower prices. This drove countless small retailers out of business. File sharing has also provided more variety and choice at lower (albeit free) prices. But it doesn't have to be free, and Apple Computer and the supporting record companies "get it" with iTunes. I predict this service will achieve remarkable successes, if they don't screw it up by trying to improve it. If only it was available to Wintel owners. (sigh)
    The second point is that what the music consumer is telling the record companies is basically a big GET REAL! Music fans are tired of paying $20 for the 2 songs they want on a 12 song disc, average price $10 each. Again, iTunes, with their $1 per song pricing is getting closer to what the marketplace wants. I think this model will eventually support prices in the twenty five to fifty cent range. The major record labels are used to soaking the public with high priced CDs from derivative bands loaded with songs of no consequence, and the consumer is refusing to continue with this business model now that something better is available.
    The third issue is that the people they are pursuing for file sharing for the most part are the biggest purchasers of legal music CDs. It is always bad policy to punish your best customers with law suits.
    The fourth issue is getting short shrift in all this, and that is the precedent of Fair Use. If I buy the CD, I should be able to burn a copy to save as a back up, and rip it to MP3 so I can play it on my portable player, computer, cell phone or PDA. The music industry appears to be trying to abolish this principle as well.
    But I believe what really is keeping these music-industry guys awake at night is this: the consumer of their product has already abandoned their traditional business model in favor of something less expensive and more convenient. What happens to the record labels if the CREATORS of their product abandon them as well. It is a small thing to set up an e-commerce web site and sell your product directly, and thousands of small computer software producers are doing this already, and evidently with some reasonable success. The bands are beginning to get into direct distribution already on their own web sites, and it is only a matter of time before this will be the way of things. Then the record labels will really be in trouble, much more so than today. Basically they are the "middleman" of this industry, and we have all seen what happens to middleman businesses who stop adding value to BOTH the producers and the consumers they serve.
    If I were in a major band, I would be asking my business manager exactly how much I am getting per song for every song sold through the major label. I bet it is way under a buck, in fact I bet it is under a quarter. If you consider that my album had only two songs anyone really wanted on it, and you adjust your calculations, maybe it gets close to a buck for the good songs, and the other songs were "free." These guys are smart enough to figure out that they can make more money selling their songs directly to fans for a dollar or less. What the music industry needs to become, if it wants to survive, is the hosting platform and marketing arm for this type of distribution. The attempts of music-industry leaders to force people back to the old model will fail, even with the vast sums of cash they have to throw at it. it failed 30 years ago when people started making cassette tapes from the vinyl albums they already owned. (Does anyone remember?) They can no more stop the changing marketplace by force, fear, intimidation, and the courts anymore than the small retailers could stand against Wal-Mart and Target.
    They need to quit wasting their time and resources on lawyers, and start developing a vision of their business that can still include them. If they don't, others will, and they will be gone.

And Several Responses

http://www.newsscan.com/cgi-bin/findit_view?table=newsletter&dateissued=20030707

RIAA SUICIDE BOMBING

Re: http://www.newsscan.com/cgi-bin/findit_view?table=newsl...
    Major league kudos to Bob Weiss for explaining the impending RIAA suicide bombing. He offered the clearest, most prescient argument of reality that I've read on the subject to date. RIAA is about to take themselves out of the picture and will only take a handful of their best customers with them!!?? Beautiful, just beautiful. (H.S. "Chip" Vanture, Jr.)

SONG OF MYSELF

Re: http://www.newsscan.com/cgi-bin/findit_view?table=newsl...
    What an excellent piece! I may be biased because I happen to agree with all the points made, but it was still a well-argued analysis. The only thing I'd add is that while established artists can follow the direct selling model and expect a certain degree of success, up-and-coming artists are unlikely to sell in the same quantities without a serious marketing push. So the dilemma is how can new artists make a name for themselves in more than just a local or regional way, so that the direct selling model provides sufficient income for them to be more than just part-time performers.
    And how can the record industry protect their investment in promoting new artists when they sell music online? Until a solution is found that meets the needs of the record industry, the artists, and the consumers, I don't think piracy will be drastically reduced, nor will direct selling work for anyone but the established artists. A variation to the pricing for the direct selling model that I'd like to see would work along the lines of all new music releases less than 12 months old would have a price premium, and anything older than 12 months would be charged at half the original price. Also I wouldn't mind protection to stop me distributing to others, but I would want to be able to put the track on any device I own, and burn to CD as many times as I like. If I bought the track, I should have the right to do whatever I like with it as long as it's for my own use. (Neil Bradbury)

FAT CAT MUSIC COMPANIES

Re: http://www.newsscan.com/cgi-bin/findit_view?table=newsl...
    One thing that was not mentioned in Mr. Weiss's article, but is worth mentioning, is the promises made by the record companies when they were trying to convince consumers to switch from vinyl (and cassette) to CD. I remember watching a lunch hour news show many years ago, when they were interviewing an official from a large record company. At the time there was a lot of controversy over the movement to CDs from cassettes and record players. This official told the interviewer that the cost to make cassettes (for example) was far more than to make a CD. He mentioned it cost about $1-$2 (Cdn) to manufacture a cassette, and $0.10 to manufacture a CD. Of course he touted the perennial corporate lie "we will pass these savings on to the consumer" (yeah right!). Before CDs came onto the scene a cassette tape typically cost from $7.99 to $12.99. CD's can now cost anywhere from $13 or $14 to the $30 range.
    I am completely in agreement with Mr. Weiss on the idea of 'fair use' and my annoyance with the fact that companies want to fundamentally "change the rules" or deviate from the precedent that I can make a copy for my own personal use (if I own an original recording). We as consumers should be screaming our heads off at these fat-cats in the record industry. To quote a famous musician "The times... they are a changin'..." Hopefully record executives will eventually "clue in". (Phil Lindsay)

This letter and a response appeared February 19 2004 in NewsScan Daily.  The subject under discussion was whether adding new taxes to Internet usage was fair and logical in light of the decreasing tax revenue stream coming from the traditional telephone sector.  For the record, i am generally opposed to any new tax, and believe that we are already taxed too heavily, which results in a slowing down of the economy.

NewsScan Daily - A Summary of Technology-Related News
Sponsored by RLG And Written by John Gehl & Suzanne Douglas
February 19, 2004

http://www.newsscan.com/cgi-bin/findit_view?table=newsletter&dateissued=20040219

IT'S ALL DATA, IT'S ALL GOOD

Re: http://www.newsscan.com/cgi-bin/findit_view?table=newsl...
    Michael Bell's comment of the difference between voice and data in his Mailbag contribution ("If It Sings, It's Opera") fails to look at the bigger picture. What about "data" that has been created using a speech to text program such as Dragon's Naturally Speaking or IBM's Via Voice. Voice or data? What if I have my email client set up to "read" my email to me." Voice or data? What if I have a voicemail system that sends a WAV file attachment to my email inbox, and by clicking on the attachment, I can hear my voice message on the computer's speakers. The voice mail call came in on the telephone, but the message was delivered by email. Voice or data? What about the likelihood that before long we will not be using the GUI and a keyboard and mouse for data entry, but instead a VUI -- a Voice User Interface.
    At the beginning of the automobile age, there were inane attempts to try to squeeze the automobile in to existing horse travel paradigm. There used to be a law somewhere that an automobile needed to have a flagman walking on foot ahead of the vehicle to alert people on horseback or in wagons of the automobile's approach. Kind of defeats the purpose of having an automobile. We seem to be similarly plagued with wrongheaded ideas about how to regulate and tax data services.
    Once voice is converted into packets for transport via the Internet, they are no longer "voice" -- they are data packets, period, end of story. The telephone networks themselves have been converting analog telephone signals into data packets for communication between phone company central offices via ATM for over a decade. Now phone companies like Sprint and Qwest and several others have announced their intention to begin the conversion process to Voice over IP. This is simply because packet switching is a vastly less expensive way than circuit switching to move a voice conversation around. The only thing preventing it from happening right this minute is the vast multi-billion dollar investment the phone companies have in circuit switching technologies.
    Today, if the communication occurs on the circuit switched telephone network it is regulated and taxed as a telephone call. This includes DIAL UP MODEM access to the Internet. If the communication flows in across a packet switched network like the Internet, or a Frame Relay network, or oven a data private line network, it is not regulated and taxed as a telephone call. This means large companies using their own private data networks to move voice traffic around using technology like the Cisco or Avaya Voice over IP phone systems are also not regulated and taxed as a telephone call. Using this kind of system, I can place a call from my office in St Paul, Minnesota to Paris, France using my company's data connection to my Paris office, and have my phone call appear to be a local Paris phone call. This cuts out the local phone company at my end, and the long distance carrier, from the call. Is it voice or data?
    Going back to my automobile analogy, what we have now is like an automobile with a horse tied to the back. I use the automobile everywhere it is capable of taking me, and when it gets stuck, I ride the horse. Eventually, my automobile will improve, my horse will die, and I will not replace the horse.
    And besides that -- what in the world are we doing trying to create more regulations and taxes!!. The federal excise tax on telephone service was instituted at the turn of the 19th century to pay for the Spanish American War! Does anyone think we might have paid that off? The tax is still here. The only thing in this life approaching eternity is taxation. No Internet taxes please..
    I am sure there will be no way to prevent regulation and taxation in the long run, but let's get beyond the "is it voice or is it data" issue. If it's on a packet-switched network, its all data. (Bob Weiss, MCSE)

And a response

http://www.newsscan.com/cgi-bin/findit_view?table=newsletter&dateissued=20040225

TAX QUACK

Re: http://www.newsscan.com/cgi-bin/findit_view?table=newsl...
    I thank Bob Weiss (Re: "It's All Data, It's All Good") for his technology lesson. Being an MCSE, being able to give such a detailed explanation will certainly warm Bill Gates' heart. However, Bob's arguments are just the poison to put in the pill. As he says, the big boys have the power to call Paris without paying for it (he'll say that they paid for it by building the VoIP network). So, when the Tax guys see that the "traditional" tax sources are drying up, yet the calls have increased, it won't be long before IF IT'S ALL DATA, IT'S ALL TAXABLE! (It's a duck, Bob. It's a duck!) (Michael H. Bell)

This article originally appeared in NewsScan Daily on May 24 2004.  It is a response to another reader who thought the solution to computer security was to pass another law and have the government regulate it.

NewsScan Daily - A Summary of Technology-Related News
Sponsored by RLG And Written by John Gehl & Suzanne Douglas
May 21, 2004

http://www.newsscan.com/cgi-bin/findit_view?table=newsletter&dateissued=20040521

LEAVE THE LAWYERS OUT OF IT

Re: http://www.newsscan.com/cgi-bin/findit_view?table=newsl...
    The author of this piece did not want to be identified, but we can assume this person is probably a lawyer. Dear sir or madam: Please take a look at the world and find one government program or regulation that doesn't completely stifle growth and innovation. Let's look in my industry, the telecom sector, where for 60 years government regulations sponsored a monopoly where innovation never occurred because it didn't have to in the absence of competition, and since 1996, the laughable concept of "open competition" in the local loop, where regulations change daily making it impossible to implement any type of long term business plan, and most of the "competition" died off in the 2001-2002 technology collapse.
    Can we stop looking to Big Brother to fix all our little miseries, get a backbone, and take care of our own lives? There are security solutions available for anyone who wants to employ them. If you don't know how, learn -- read a book or find a friend or associate who knows how to help, or goodness me -- buy some competent help from an unemployed technology professional. Lawyers and the Government generally take a difficult situation and make it impossible. Lets leave them out of it. (Bob Weiss, MCSE)