http://technology.newscientist.com/channel/tech/dn13306-could-smart-traffic-lights-stop-motorists-fuming.html?feedId=online-news_rss20

THAT sounds good.

If a set of lights told drivers when they were about to change, “drivers [could] adapt their speed accordingly to avoid useless accelerations or react faster on green,

a. Isn’t that what the yellow light is for? To tell people when it is about to turn red?

For this to work, vehicles must transmit data to the computer system that controls a city’s lights.

And how long after we are transmitting that data to the city’s system will it be before law enforcement figures out they can use that to determine who is running a red light? Speeding? Tailgating? Shouldn’t do those things anyway, you say. Well, how about being investigated because you’ve supposedly been stopping at questionable street corners? Cruising low income neighborhoods? What if you were just handing out information about the local homeless shelter?

http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9807133-7.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-5

Can’t wait to try this (I think I copied it from Lifehacker.com):

Save YouTube videos for any device with vConvert

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/09/20/it_risk/

Gartner group vice-president Richard Hunter also author of " IT Risk: Turning Business Threats into Competitive Advantage" , defines IT risk as " anything that poses a risk to either the availability, access, accuracy or agility of a business" . He ranks availability as most important. " Dollars spent on availability are dollars well spent," he said.

One thing that jumps out at me is " agility" . I’ve found that as our company grows, we have been losing agility. As we incorporate more checks and balances and testing into our application development process, we lose the ability to pop out new applications or new features as-needed. As we standardize on certain software and hardware, we lose the willingness to incorporate one-off items where the business processes call for it - at least without a lot of red tape and justification. Even processes themselves, such as processes surrounding purchasing and procurement, can hamper agility.

While I agree that agility is important for a business, I am struggling to see how businesses that are trying to please auditors and improve processes can also maintain agility. Hunter himself seems to recognize this, too: " IT risk is related to IT value. It would be short-sighted not to recognise either value or risk," Hunter explained. There are risks associated with agility. When we roll out an application with little testing, it may fail. We allow a department to use a consumer digital camera, but our Helpdesk struggles to offer assistance because they aren’t familiar with the product, and we find there is a hidden cost - it isn’t as durable as the models we usually buy. A new vendor doesn’t deliver quickly enough, and our project is delayed. We spend weeks taking calls from laptop users before we determine that the new laptop battery fits too snugly and doesn’t always charge. We lose agility when things go throught the layers of testing necessary to prevent most of these failures, but we lower our risks.

This article goes on to explain that IT managers need to better be able to explain the risks to executives. But again, it is couched in an explanation of what happens when a server fails, which is a function of availability. Measures which ensure availability are fine, but I think most businesses are seeing the value of availability, access, and accuracy. It is agility which has taken a beating. The article references a loss of agility due to government regulation, but offers no suggestion that this should be considered, and no advice on how to regain agility.

So I’ll offer my advice: build transparency and trust into your IT department, instead of processes and red tape. Give someone personal responsibility for the project, and ensure that they know they will receive the calls if it fails, and they’re likely to do a much better job of preventing it from failing. A bunch of red tape, lab testing, and good vendor references doesn’t guarantee that a new barcode scanner will work. When it fails, who feels personally responsible for getting it fixed? Nobody. " I checked the vendor’s references " , says one guy. " It tested fine in the test lab " , says another. No one person is personally invested in the project, so why are they going jump up and dig in when it fails? But when someone has a cradle-to-grave relationship with a project, they feel personally responsible when it fails, and come running to the rescue. Give techs the ability to reject layers of testing and red tape when they can explain why they aren’t necessary, and authorization to utilize a complete test lab when they are, and my guess is that there will be just as much testing, but even better results.

I thought you might like to check out this chart that traces the evolution of Apple product design from 1976 to 2007.

I think “my” first computer was the Apple IIe, but I’d have to ask Alex. (It was his computer.) I remember it had a program that I think was called “Notecard” or something, that I really liked because you could create an “index card file” of your recipes, or your music collection, or your book collection, etc. If I sound like I was easily impressed, remember that it was my first computer. My only other experience was the frustrating experience of trying to use the computers at public school where you had 20 minutes twice a year to follow whatever instructions they gave you without truly understanding (you OR the teacher) what you were doing. (It was the 80’s.) Our IIe also ran off of TWO floppy drives (one internal, one external), and the external drive was beat to the point where it had to be on it’s side to run. This was also the first time I got thumb blisters from playing Tetris…which I am currently re-living by playing Tetris on my Zire72.

From the department of the really obvious: Comparison Shopping Saves You Money The OFT (some UK business thing) estimates that by searching more effectively, shoppers could save £150m to £240m each year. The report also suggests that shoppers are hindered by “unexpected additional charges which are sometimes added in the latter stages of a purchase.”

Well, DUH! This isn’t just the case online, either. Comparison shopping when shopping in the real world saves lots of people money, while others who do not do so pay more. And unexpected additional charges happen all the time. (Can I tell you how many times Radio shack, and even Kmart, have offered to sell me an extended warranty on a $40 electronic? Heck - it was only $40! why would I want to pay $10 fo rthe warranty and then another $10 to ship it to be fixed? I’ll just buy a new one (probably a different brand) if it breaks once the manufacturer warranty is up!

****************

Did you know you can Massage away dead pixels? “Nonconforming or stuck pixels can be a nuisance on an otherwise functional laptop LCD. The pixels usually remain green or red without lighting up properly with the other pixels on the display. Unfortunately, manufacturers will not replace an LCD for just one or two stuck pixels; in fact, some require as many as 10 to 18 dead pixels before they’ll take action. There is a solution, though. Take a soft material, like a felt cloth, and gently rub in a circular motion around the stuck pixel. Performing this trick will usually get the pixel to light up properly. Once you find the right location and pressure to illuminate the pixel, hold your finger there for up to two minutes, and voila, no more stuck pixel. “This is a new one on me. And since eldest was just complaining that Gameboy has a dead pixel, I think I’m going to try it out. However, I wouldn’t go willy-nilly suggesting it to just anyone, and these screens can be easily ruined by too much poking and prodding.

****************

HTML is a text markup language, not a display description language. If your work tells the browser what the page looks like but never quite gets around to telling it what it means, then, as a developer or designer, you haven’t really done your job.

http://chris-linfoot.net/d6plinks/CWLT-73FB9M

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/04/23/vista_program_naming_oddness/

"This is a little bit silly: just name the installer something else, and Vista lets it through," Chess said. He added that although the feature is imperfect and inconvenient, it’s "better than nothing".

First of all, it’s more than "a bit silly". It’s just stupid. Microsoft says "Windows Vista heuristically detects installation programs". They are obviously using the dictionary meaning, not the common anti-virus software understood meaning of "it checks out the file to see what it does before passing it on". That’s like answering the door with a blindfold on, asking who is there, and then letting them in just because they do NOT say "I’m a really bad man".

Secondly, it is NOT "better than nothing". Because:

1. Users will assume that if a file passes this test, it is safe to run. And (especially now that the flaw is known) that won’t be the case.
2. It does NOT stop viruses. How many viruses use a filename of "install.exe" or "setup.exe"?
3. Users who are supposed to be locked down administratively will still be able to install programs as long as they know how to change a filename. (Chances are, if they’re downloading junk to install on their work computer, they’re savvy enough to know how to change a filename.)