Actionet links

links of good webmasters

Thursday, June 03, 2004

Weblog Directory - Directory of blogs from all around the world.
posted by dome  # 12:43 AM

Friday, May 14, 2004

QTEK 2020
Disponibile a livello business che a livello consumer il nuovo Pocket PC Phone Edition realizzato dalla taiwanese HTC.
Il canale utilizzato dovrebbe essere inizialmente, ancora una volta, quello degli operatori di telefonia mobile.
Definire degno erede del QTEK 1010 il modello 2020 può addirittura sembrare un termine limitativo tante sono le funzionalità e capacità introdotte in questa release.
Tra le più importanti nuove caratteristiche segnaliamo il GSM/GPRS Tribanda, il display Transflective a 65.000 colori, la batteria removibile, la camera integrata, il Bluetooth e lo slot SD con capacità I/O.

Caratteristiche tecniche:

Sistema operativo
Windows Mobile 2003 per Pocket PC Phone Edition

13 x 7 x 1.9 cm

190 grammi

Intel XScale PXA263 a 400Mhz

128MB di RAM
32MB/64MB di ROM
14MB di store memory

Tribanda 900/1800/1900 MHz
GPRS di classe B
Classe 8: 4 slot ricezione e 1 trasmissione
Classe 10: 3 slot ricezione e 2 trasmissione
Vibracall incorporato
Supporto SMS/MMS/WAP

240 x 320
3.5" Transflective 16-bit
65.000 colori

Camera VGA integrata
640 x 480
307.000 Pixels (0.3 Mega Pixels)
Focale 2.8

Tasto d'accensione
Registrazione Vocale
Reset Switch
Joypad a 4+1 funzioni
Penna stilo

Interfaccia IO
Antenna integrata
Bluetooth 1.1 integrato
Porta infrarossi (IRDA)
Uscita Stereofonica per Cuffie
Vivavoce incorporato
Slot SD/MMC integrato con funzioni SDIO

12 ore in modalità palmare (PDA)
170 ore di stand by
240 minuti di conversazione

Batteria removibile
1200mAh ioni di lithio

Car Kit
Car Adapter
Mono Bluetooth headset
Mono wired hands-free headset with microphone
Thumb Keyboard
Foldable Keyboard
Serial Sync Cable
USB Sync Cable
Serial Sync Cradle with convenient 2nd battery slot
Serial Sync Cradle with convenient 2nd battery slot + Audio Jack and microphone
USB Sync Cradle with convenient 2nd battery slot + Audio Jack and microphone
Compact Flash Sleeve + Battery
Expansion backpack con VGA Out

disponibile presso palmari qtek 2020
posted by dome  # 4:09 AM

Monday, May 10, 2004

Tavoli di cristallo e tavolini salotto in cristallo vetro
posted by dome  # 2:13 AM
The Fuss About Gmail and Privacy: Nine Reasons Why It's Bogus

Tim O'Reilly

There has been a rash of recent editorials about privacy concerns with Google's gmail service. A number of organizations have asked Google to voluntarily suspend the service. One California legislator has gone so far as to say she plans to introduce a bill to ban it. This is nuts! A number of things to consider:

There are already hundreds of millions of users of hosted mail services at AOL, Hotmail, MSN, and Yahoo! These services routinely scan all mail for viruses and spam. Despite the claims of critics, I don't see that the kind of automated text scanning that Google would need to do to insert context-sensitive ads is all that different from the kind of automated text scanning that is used to detect spam. (And in fact, those oppressed by spam should look forward to having Google's brilliant search experts tackle spam detection as part of their problem set!) Google doesn't have humans reading this mail; it has programs reading them. Yes, Google could instruct a program to mine the stored email for confidential information. But so could Yahoo! or AOL or MSN today. (Perhaps people feel Google is to be feared because they seem to so good at what they do. But that seems rather an odd point of view.)

For that matter, the very act of sending an email message consists of having a number of programs on different machines read and store your mail. Every time you send an email message, it is typically routed through a number of computers to get to its destination. Run the traceroute command at a command prompt on any Linux or UNIX system (including Mac OS X) or tracert on a Windows system to see the hops that your internet packets go through from your machine to any destination site. Anyone equipped with a packet sniffer at any of those sites can snoop any mail that they want. In fact, the NSA recently proved the effectiveness of this approach by tracking down terrorists by way of their mail traffic.

The amount of personal data already collected by credit agencies and direct marketers dwarfs what might be gleaned from email. There are folks right now, who know everything you've ever bought. Heck, just recently, I was shopping in Bath, England, and made a large purchase in an antiquarian bookshop. Fifteen minutes later, I was four buildings down the street in a second bookshop, tried to make another purchase, and had my card rejected. Meanwhile, back in California, my wife was receiving a call, wondering if the card had been stolen. "Why would someone halfway around the world be spending so much on books?" they wanted to know. That's real time monitoring! Privacy advocates (and as a former board member of the EFF I count myself among them) argue that privacy is a slippery slope. But we're already a long way down that slope, and I have a lot more trust in Google to do the right thing to protect my privacy than I have in credit card and direct marketing companies! I certainly don't see why Google is being singled out. There are so many bigger issues to worry about, from RFID tagging to surveillance cameras on London street corners, that programmed scanning of email for targeted ad insertion doesn't seem like too big a deal to me, especially when it's disclosed up front to participants in the service.

Gmail's offer of extended storage means that hosted email accounts might appeal to more than the casual home user, resulting in the storage of more mission-critical messages, but considering that many businesses are already hosting critical business data at outside service providers like salesforce.com, I hardly think that is a show stopper.
People are also expressing concerns about Google's plan to insert targeted advertising into email sent with the service. Once again, I find myself baffled by the uproar. Some reasons:

No one is going to be forced to use gmail. If you don't like ads in your mail, don't use the service. Let the market decide. (Note: as far as I can tell, ads do not appear in outgoing mail, so there's no spamming of non-subscribers. Ads appear only in the mailbox of the gmail user. And as with Google adwords on search results, the ads appear in text boxes off to the side of the message, where they can easily be ignored if the information they provide is not useful.)

Google has a history of providing tasteful, unobtrusive, useful advertising. When all the other online services rushed to plaster their sites with bigger and more obnoxious banner ads, skyscrapers, popups, pop-unders, and screaming animations, Google held the line, and defined a new paradigm for advertising that no one seems to mind.
Meanwhile, I am entranced with the benefits that gmail will hopefully provide!

The ability to search through my email with the effectiveness that has made Google the benchmark for search. How many times have people asked, "When can I have Google to search my hard disk?" That's a hard problem, as long as it's just your disk, on your isolated machine. But it's solvable once Google has lots and lots of structured data to work with, and can build algorithms to determine patterns in that data. Gmail is Google's brilliant solution to that problem: don't search the desktop, move the desktop application to a larger, searchable space where the metadata can be collected and made explicit, as it is on the web.

The second-order search through "six degrees of separation" promised (but not yet delivered) by all of the social networking services such as Friendster, LinkedIn, Plaxo, and Google's own Orkut. These services are essentially a hack, designed to get around the fact that no one has yet re-invented the address book for the era of the internet. Why should I have to spam all my friends, asking them to "join my network", if my email client is smart enough to know who I know, how often I communicate with them, as well as who they know, and how well.
(Microsoft Research's Wallop project shows some interesting steps in this direction. Until I saw gmail, I was convinced that Microsoft would eventually own the social networking space by adding Wallop features to Outlook, since having access to the actual email traffic data and address book is so much more powerful than the workarounds that the social network services have to endure. I've been excited about the Chandler project because I saw its developers asking themselves how to reinvent the address book for the age of the internet -- thinking of contacts as private, public, or somewhere in between. But Chandler seemed like too little, too late to keep Microsoft from owning another promising new application category.)

Eventually, I imagine I'll be able to ask gmail, who do I know who can help me to reach someone I'm looking to meet...and get a reasonable answer, without any invasion of privacy. After all, I have lots of friends who know me well enough to make a recommendation to their friends, and pass on contact info if appropriate. Gmail wouldn't break any new social ground here -- it would just make it easier to find out who to ask, without revealing any confidential information. (Meanwhile, the existing social network services DO lead people to reveal lots of private information that could be misused by spammers and other electronic harvesters. Gmail could provide this information more securely.)

Storage of my critical data on one of the largest, most reliable data storage banks in the world. As Rich Skrenta made so clear in his recent weblog posting, Google is the shape of the future. Forget Moore's Law and Metcalfe's Law. Storage is getting cheaper faster than any other part of the technology infrastructure. I remember Bob Morris, head of IBM's Storage Division and the Almaden Research Labs, telling me a couple of years ago, that before too long, storage would be cheap enough and small enough that someone who wanted to do so could film every moment of his life, and carry the record around in a pocket. Scary? Maybe. But the future is always scary to those who cling to the past. It is enormously exciting if you focus on the possibilities. Just think how much value Google and other online information providers have already brought to all of our lives -- the ability to find facts, in moments, from a library larger than any of us could have imagined a decade ago.
Gmail is fascinating to me as a watershed event in the evolution of the internet. In a brilliant Copernican stroke, gmail turns everything on its head, rejecting the personal computer as the center of the computing universe, instead recognizing that applications revolve around the network as the planets revolve around the Sun. But Google and gmail go even further, showing that once internet apps truly get to scale, they'll make the network itself disappear into the universal virtual computer, the internet as operating system.

I've been dreaming this dream for years. At my conference on peer-to-peer networking, web services, and distributed computation back in 2001, Clay Shirky, reflecting on "Lessons from Napster", retold the old story about Thomas J. Watson, founder of the modern IBM. "I see no reason for more than five of these machines in the world," Watson is reputed to have said. "We now know that he was wrong," Clay went on. The audience laughed knowingly, thinking of the hundreds of millions, if not billions, of computers deployed worldwide. But then Clay delivered his punch line: "We now know that he overstated the number by four."

Pioneers like Google are remaking the computing industry before our eyes. Google of course isn't one computer -- it's a hundred thousand computers, by report -- but to the user, it appears as one. Our personal computers, our phones, and even our cars, increasingly need to be thought of as access and local storage devices. The services that matter are all going to run on the global virtual computer that the internet is becoming.

Until I heard about gmail, I was convinced that the future "internet operating system" would have the same characteristics as Linux and the Internet. That is, it would be a network-oriented operating system, consisting of what David Weinberger calls "small pieces loosely joined" (or more recently and more cogently, a "world of ends"). I saw this as an alternative to operating systems that work on the "one ring to rule them all principle" -- a monolithic architecture where the application space is inextricably linked with the operating system control layers. But gmail, in some sense, shows us that once storage and bandwidth become cheap enough, a more tightly coupled, centralized architecture is a real alternative, even on the internet. (I have to confess that was one of the wake up calls to me in Rich Skrenta's piece, linked to above.)

But in the end, I believe that the world we're building is too complex for tight coupling to be the dominant paradigm. It will be a long time, if ever, before any one company is in control of enough programs and enough devices and enough data to start dictating to consumers and competitors what innovations will be allowed. We're entering a period of renewed competition and innovation in the computer industy, a period that will utterly transform the technology world we know today.

I love Dave Stutz's phrase, "software above the level of a single device." We're used to thinking of software as something that runs on the machine in front of us, its complex dance hidden by the blank metal and plastic of the hardware that houses it. But now, computers are everywhere, and each dance has many partners, a whirling exchange of data that will be made visible when and where we want it. It's not the machine or even the software that matters, it's the information and services that travel over the hardware and software "wires." Gmail's introduction of large amounts of free online storage for application data is an important next step in freeing us from the shackles of the desktop.

This isn't to say that there aren't important issues raised by the internet paradigm shift. The big question to me isn't privacy, or control over software APIs, it's who will own the data. What's critical is that gmail makes a commitment to data migration capabilities, so the service isn't a one way door to the future. I want to be able to switch to alternate providers if the competition makes a better offer. The critical enabler is going to be the ability to extract my data and connections so that I can work with them on multiple devices, for example, syncing my laptop or phone with my gmail account rather than having to work only in a tethered fashion. I understand why gmail doesn't offer this feature now, but it's going to be essential in the long term.

Tim O'Reilly is founder and CEO of O'Reilly & Associates and an activist for Internet standards and for open source software. For everything Tim, see tim.oreilly.com.

posted by dome  # 2:12 AM

Friday, May 07, 2004

Gmail Still Sparking Debates

By Ryan Singel | wired

Speakers at this year's Computers, Freedom and Privacy conference said privacy concerns about Google's upcoming Gmail service are mostly overblown, but they said the controversy over the free Web-based e-mail service has forced the industry to address several murky legal questions about e-mail scanning and storage.

These include questions about why communications providers have the right to scan for spam, but not for ad triggers; whether Gmail's scanning sets a precedent for government initiatives to search all e-mail for incriminating keywords; and whether corporations have the responsibility to tell their customers that their stored e-mails have little protection from law enforcement.

Story Tools

Currently, the Electronic Communications Protection Act requires law enforcement to present a wiretap warrant to get e-mails held by a third party, such as a Web-based e-mail service provider -- so long as the e-mails are less than 180 days old. But law enforcement can get older e-mails with a subpoena. Since Gmail would afford users enough space to store thousands of e-mails going back years, the police would find it a tempting place to conduct electronic dragnets, privacy advocates said.

That should worry even people who think they have nothing to hide, according to panelist Chris Hoofnagle, a lawyer for the Electronic Privacy Information Center.

"Most people think it's just Tony Soprano whose records get seized," Hoofnagle said. "But in actuality it is anyone who has had contact with Tony Soprano."

Ari Schwartz of the Center for Democracy and Technology said he too was worried by "ubiquitous storage."

While everyone knows the benefits of being able to store tons of material forever, not many people know the downside, and "Google needs to address it in some way," Schwartz said. "Your e-mails are not protected under law the same way they are in your house. I hope Google, Microsoft, Yahoo and all the other webmail providers will fight for stronger protections."

He also expressed concern that Google was using a single cookie -- a text file stored on every user's hard drive to keep track of the user's preferences and browsing history -- for all of its services, which would allow Google to correlate people's e-mails with their Web searches.

Google representatives -- who have been at the conference all week handing out Gmail accounts and talking with concerned privacy activists -- said they don't plan to correlate Gmail to searches. But they won't rule out the possibility if they can find a way to provide added services in the future.

Nicole Wong, Google's senior compliance counsel, said the single cookie makes life easier for users, but the company would consider using more than one cookie in the future.

"We are absolutely thinking about separating the cookies," Wong said.

Another step Google could take to assuage fears would be to encrypt all stored e-mails, said Brad Templeton, the chairman of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, who circulated a long essay about Gmail on Wednesday. If Google did so, law enforcement officers would have to get a wiretap order to get the user's password to read old e-mails.

Wong agreed it sounded like a good idea, but said encryption would require significant changes to Gmail and would take a substantial investment.

She said Google's Gmail team is discussing Templeton's essays and posts in the blog community.

"We are still getting a lot of feedback, but our first priority is to add features already in the pipeline," Wong said. These features include downloading e-mails sent to Gmail into users' computers or an offline reader.

Separately, California State Sen. Liz Figueroa introduced a bill this week aimed at stopping Google from scanning e-mails. At the conference, Sen. Figueroa's technology counsel, David Link, had a harder time defending the legislative attempt.

When asked why it was OK for businesses to read e-mails sent to their employees, but not OK for Google's computers to put ads in e-mails sent to its subscribers, Link scrambled for a distinction.

"That's a good question," he said.

posted by dome  # 3:22 AM

Wednesday, May 05, 2004

Google this: reality check

"The search-engine's eagerly awaited IPO will attract big bucks and ballyhoo. It won't, however, spark a fresh tech boom. [...] The ultimate beneficiary of the Google hype will probably be the investment bankers who'll pocket some hefty fees. Google's employees who hold stock options will also benefit as a long-awaited payday arrives. And it will certainly make Google founders Larry Page, Sergey Brin, and current CEO Eric Schmidt wealthier than they already are."

posted by dome  # 3:25 AM

Tuesday, May 04, 2004

tavoli cristallo
posted by dome  # 1:11 AM

Friday, April 30, 2004

Google denies FBI link to Gmail
Google on Thursday denied that it has had any contact with the FBI regarding the design of its Gmail Web e-mail service. The search firm's denial came after the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to the FBI seeking information about whether the bureau was considering the "possible use of Google's Gmail service for law enforcement and intelligence investigations." EPIC, which gave an award last week to a California state senator who is trying to ban Gmail, announced the request immediately after Google said it was filing for an initial public offering.

Critics immediately criticized EPIC's request as a publicity stunt and because the nonprofit likened Google's Web-based e-mail service to the FBI's controversial Carnivore wiretapping utility and the Pentagon's discontinued "Orwellian Total Information Awareness program." EPIC's request also asked whether Google had discussed licensing its search technology, in use by customers in the private sector, to the FBI "to further law enforcement investigations or intelligence gathering activities." Google spokesman Nathan Tyler replied: "I cannot confirm whether they're using our technology."

posted by dome  # 4:03 AM


04/01/2004 - 05/01/2004   05/01/2004 - 06/01/2004   06/01/2004 - 07/01/2004  

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?