November 03, 2010

Google Settles Privacy Lawsuit, Offers Users Nothing

By FoxNews.com

Image representing Google Buzz as depicted in ...Image via CrunchBaseGoogle announced the settlement of a privacy lawsuit Tuesday, and it notified users of their share of the deal: zip.

Last February, Google launched the Buzz service: a Twitter-like offering that lets Gmail users notify their contacts of their recent activity. Shortly after launch, many people were surprised to find that the service lumped all of their contacts together for such notifications -- even people users had written to but hadn't created specific contacts for. And in some cases, those lists were made public.

Many users were promptly displeased, enough so to file a class-action lawsuit. In the settlement, announced via an e-mail to Gmail users Tuesday, the company noted that it had quickly moved to address people's concerns but also announced an $8.5 million commitment to an independent fund that will promote privacy education and policy.

But that money isn't available to individual users, Google stressed.

"Just to be clear, this is not a settlement in which people who use Gmail can file to receive compensation
," wrote Google in the e-mail. "Everyone in the U.S. who uses Gmail is included in the settlement, unless you personally decide to opt out before December 6, 2010."

"We will also do more to educate people about privacy controls specific to Buzz. The more people know about privacy online
, the better their online experience will be," the e-mail explained.

The settlement comes on the same day Google said it would simplify and update its privacy policies, Associate General Counsel Mike Yang said on the company's website.

In a statement following the settlement, Google wrote that "we are satisfied with the agreement and are glad to move forward. We have always been committed to offering users transparency and choice in Buzz and all our products, and will continue to work together with users to provide the best experience possible."

Just don't ask for your cut of the cash.
Enhanced by Zemanta

October 28, 2010

Ubuntu splits from GNOME GUI

By Larry Dignan
Editor in Chief of ZDNet and SmartPlanet as well as Editorial Director of ZDNet's sister site TechRepublic.


Canonical’s Mark Shuttleworth on Monday detailed how Ubuntu will split from the GNOME user interface for Unity, which is its netbook approach. Simply put, Ubuntu will have a custom user interface.

The reaction to various press reports from Computerworld, Ars Technica and others has gone to extremes:

  • First, Canonical could be portrayed as evil because it’s flipping its middle finger to the open source community.
  • Others say that GNOME was hard to work with.
  • And then you get your Unity sniping.

Don’t expect much unity in the open source community over Ubuntu’s very significant change.

The reality: If Ubuntu really wants to be a player on the desktop it will have to have more control over its user interface. Meanwhile, it makes no sense to have a UI for netbooks and PCs. In fact, the UI is everything. And as Apple has shown you can’t really do interface by committee.

Now Shuttleworth acknowledged Ubuntu has a lot of work to do. Ubuntu OS needs to rethink everything from windows management to what the interface should look like. Ubuntu’s decision to go to a UI over GNOME (GNU Network Object Modeling Environment) is risky. However, if you can take a shot at broader adoption you do it. The Ubuntu interface (right) isn’t going to get the masses excited.

In other words, this split from GNOME looks like a solid decision to me. Dell is selling Ubuntu laptops and if Ubuntu wants other PC makers to follow it needs a hot interface. Let’s face it: If the best thing Ubuntu can do is mimic the interface of Windows it will never get beyond the enthusiasts. Show us something innovative via the Unity pragmatism and maybe you’ll sway others to Ubuntu.


Enhanced by Zemanta

October 26, 2010

Update To Broken Raid

IMG_3452Image by Jemimus via FlickrBy The Computer Doctor

So I took a couple of weeks to go over the problem of my RAID disks being offline or half online or ready but no logical discs ect.

My Failure In Understandings:
  • I thought that all 6 drives were the same size, but there were three 9 Gb drives and three 25 Gb drives so I will not be able to have more than three discs in my logical drive
  • I thought that I should be able to configure these RAID arrays from the BIOS or from inside Server 2003 which would be software RAID instead of Hardware RAID
My Confusion In Research:
I had three items that came up during boot time and I didn't know which one I needed to learn about to fix my problem.
  • CH B, SCSI ID: 6 COMPAQ SDT-10000 this was a SCSI zip drive. Irrelevant!
  • Adaptec AIC-7896 this is the card that the hot swap drives plug into. Still not helpful
  • IBM ServeRaid 3h this is the huge almst 20 inches long card that actually controlled all the SCSI items. I needed a live cd from IBM to set this up and now I finally found the component that fixed my problem.
I can't stress enough that Google is your best friend, or as my friend Fred commonly mis-quotes me "Everyone likes Google".

My next problem is I am commonly getting a server management controller error. I'm not that worried though because this is the server that gave the school so many fits to start with, it was free to me and I know that it can probably be fixed given enough research.
Enhanced by Zemanta

October 13, 2010

Broken RAID

By The Computer Doctor

Finally, the moment I've been waiting for, I have my first server.

As many of you who have followed me over the past year know, I inherited five servers from a school who just closed and have been storing them at my friend Fred's house ( see Holy Man Or Hallucinating Ham for the incredible story of Fred laying on of hands ). So I finally picked up the first of those servers to set up at my house and promptly ran into problems.

We started out with a three disc RAID5 logical disc with 17.8 usable GB. I installed sever 2003 and got all the updates. When I got home I did some investigating and found another logical disc with 69.3 GB offline that was available so I promptly brought it online. Finally I decided to try to merge the two logical discs for one combined 6 disc raid array which would probably have given me roughly a 92 GB logical drive.

Now the first 17 GB logical drive is offline and one of the other disc's read critical and I am having to re-install Server 2003. Now it dawns on me that this might be the same server that kept giving the school all the problems in the first place.

So in addition to finishing up preparations for the studio I am having to learn all about this RAID controller to try to repair it.

CALLING ALL GEEKS AND HACKERS: If anyone knows anything about a Adaptec AIC-7896 RAID controller, send me a comment or use the contact us page at the top. I will be researching this on my own until someone helps me, I find the answer or I get tired and move on to a different server.
Enhanced by Zemanta

October 08, 2010

Net Nutrailty

by The Computer Doctor

When the Internet was first invented or rather became available to the general public it was a new medium of information exchange that should be open to anyone that was able to connect.
Now we are on the verge of the Internet Service Providers making special privileges that will enable faster connections to special members which could make connecting to Giant Computer Companies website run faster than perhaps The Computer Doctor, or may even cause search engines to redirect traffic to preferred members or even block traffic to sites that haven't paid the special membership dues.
See this video for an ultra simplistic explanation by the Ninja.



This video is an advertisement for SaveTheInternet.com which also gives you constructive measures to help try to keep net neutrality for us and future generations.


Enhanced by Zemanta

October 06, 2010

No Audio?

By The Computer Doctor

So this week I get a call from one of our sales reps and they have a customer that just doesn't understand the new annotation function in the grading part of one of our keyboarding products. The sales rep tells me "it's too bad you can't just make a video to show this instructor how this works..."

Of course I didn't need anything more than a stray comment like that to get me to make a video.
So I crank out a nice video in about 20 minutes and publish it and send it out to the sales rep and the instructor.

Fast forward 24 hours and the instructor sends me an e-mail stating "I tried watching the video at work and couldn't hear the audio so I went home and tried it and I still can't hear the audio"

That's because there is no audio you crazy old bat! If you had any sense I wouldn't have to make a video for you in the first place!

Word to the wise, I guess, is always have audio just in case. Now Crank up your speakers and rock out to my revised video.

October 05, 2010

LibreOffice isn't an OpenOffice fork... yet

By Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols

Many people are assuming the Document Foundation's LibreOffice is an OpenOffice fork. It's not. Not yet anyway.

I agree with almost everyone that it's highly unlikely that Oracle will join up, although it is possible. Oracle has very little interest in anything that doesn't contribute to the price of fuel for one of Larry Ellison's jets. That means that Oracle's main focus will be its server software stack.

Ellison does have some interest in OpenOffice. Back in June 2009, not long after Oracle purchased Sun, Ellison proposed that OpenOffice developers quit using C++ for OpenOffice and switch to using JavaFX. That idea went over like a lead balloon.

Even before Ellison proposed that developers dump their ten-plus years work for an unpopular language, OpenOffice programmers weren't happy. Getting new features or just bug-fixes through the OpenOffice organization was a long and painful process, whether it was controlled by Sun or by Oracle.

In general, Sun's top developers haven't been happy with Oracle anyway. James Gosling, Java's creator, left saying that Oracle had been low-balling key employees and cutting projects off at the knees. A who's who of top programmers could be made from former Sun employees alone. For example, besides Gosling, Jeff Bonwick, creator of ZFS, the popular high-end file system and logical volume manager, has just left Oracle.

The long and short of it is that Oracle is not a place where the best developers want to work. Many of the software projects Oracle inherited from Sun still have their devoted programmer fans. OpenSolaris, which has been left to die by Oracle, now lives on in Illumos. I see the Document Foundation as a preemptive strike to keep OpenOffice alive in its current form as a standalone desktop application.

What's happening now is that LibreOffice will come out in a final version by year's end (it's already available in beta). Its developers tell me that first version will consist mostly of long-delayed bug fixes and a few new features that are already available in Novell's version of OpenOffice, such as the ability to read and write Microsoft OpenXML formatted documents.

After that, what happens with LibreOffice will all depend on what the developers and end-users want -- not what Oracle wants. If Oracle doesn't like it, then we'll see a fork.

What I mean by a fork, by the by, is an actual split in the code. For example, Ubuntu can be seen as a fork of Debian. No one doubts that Ubuntu is based on Debian Linux, but it's also clearly a Linux distribution in its own right. Simply changing out some trademarks and product names, which, for example, is what Oracle did with Red Hat Enterprise Linux when it created Oracle Linux, isn't the same thing. At this early point, that's all the Document Foundation has done with OpenOffice.

My expectation is that Oracle will quietly let OpenOffice gather dust, and LibreOffice will become the new open-source office suite of choice. What do you think?

Enhanced by Zemanta

September 29, 2010

Why Xmarks should go open source

Image representing Xmarks as depicted in Crunc...Image via CrunchBaseBy Joe Brockmeier

After four years of syncing bookmarks and other browser settings, Xmarks will be shutting its virtual doors at the end of the year. Before the lights are out and the servers go silent, the company should think about releasing its code under an open source license to preserve the Xmarks legacy.

Despite popularity, the Xmarks service is shutting its doors because the company couldn't find a way to make revenue from the service. It's a sad, but predictable, end to an innovative business. Xmarks' failure was predictable for a couple of reasons. First, if the feature was popular enough, it was quite likely that the browser vendors would implement a similar feature. Second, Xmarks was very popular — but mostly with "power" users that needed to back up and sync bookmarks.

That's a small market, and hard to monetize as Todd Agulnick, CTO of Xmarks, points out in the end of the road post. Advertisers didn't see value in the Xmarks offerings, and while it's useful it's hard to charge users for a service like Xmarks. Only a small percentage would be interested enough to spend money on it, and even fewer after Mozilla, Google, and others implemented a sync service of their own.

You have to give the Xmarks team some credit — they don't seem to have explored any options for revenue that would have gone against the interest of their user base. They haven't tried to implement any intrusive adware or anything to make a quick buck, even if that would have kept the wolf from the door a bit longer.

The Xmarks folks have put up a page with alternatives, but they're mostly only useful for those users who are tied into one browser. Before the company closes the door, it'd be great if they could release the source so that the cross-browser synchronization could be picked up by interested developers.

Generally, I'm not a fan of the "we tried everything else, we'll open source it as a last resort" strategy. But the code could be useful, and it seems to me that the team at Xmarks have the users' best interests at heart. If the Xmarks service is going to go dark, at least the code could be reused and maybe continue the legacy of the service past the end of life of the business.

That's good for users, but what about the company? Releasing the Xmarks code as open source allows the development team, if they want, to continue their work in public. For many companies, open source code is much better than a resume. What the developers have learned about synchronizing bookmarks, passwords, and keeping user data private, and searching the collected data would be valuable to a lot of companies and projects.

As a user of Firefox and Chrome, I've used Xmarks off and on for a few years and found it really valuable. The sync features in Chrome and Firefox fall down pretty quickly without the ability to sync between the two browsers. It's disappointing, but not surprising, to see Xmarks going away and I feel bad for the team at Xmarks. However, the company might be able to reap a little benefit by releasing the code rather than letting it collect dust where it does no one any good.
Enhanced by Zemanta

September 27, 2010

Stuxnet, Is Israel To Blame?

Editorial By The Computer Doctor

In this Bloomberg video showcasing the Stuxnet Malware I find a few statements to be very hilarious even though the gravity of the situation calls for less levity than I am able to muster.

In this video, the security expert (male talking hair doo) tries to portray a picture that some government, probably Israel and probably not the U.S., has released the Stuxnet Malware program to target a Nuclear target in Iran.

Please see my editorial after the video...


1:10 "... using stolen certificates..."
Certificates was supposed to be one of the few ways of stopping hackers from gaining access to networks.

1:43 "what are the chances that the U.S. created it?"
Nice softball toss to a former government security adviser.

2:00 "in my judgment it's a very remote possibility"
In The Computer Doctors judgment this is a very real possibility. On July 8th the U.S. announced the “Perfect Citizen” program to help defend industrial networks. Anna Chapman deported to Russia for a spy-swap, from which we got a bunch of ugly fat guys back. With this "Perfect Citizen" program enabled to be some super secret program that will protect important industrial targets from programs just like Stuxnet. How convenient. On the other hand... any program that claims to protect Microsoft Windows is speculative at best.

2:31 "Is Iran really running it's nuclear power, it's nuclear plant on Windows software?"
It's blatantly obvious to female talking hair doo that this is an incredulously bad idea. I agree news chick. Most U.S. military installations only use Windows in a sandbox inside Linux.

2:53 "... it also seems an increasing concern because I don't know... I've used Windows and I know other people have and it's not stable even without a virus sometimes."
You're exactly correct sweetie. Why would you leave the operation of any important industrial process to the fragile stability of Microsoft Windows? Where is the cry for a better solution?

3:07 "Well... (insert crickets chirping) that is the nature of the modern economy and our technology. We rely heavily on these IT systems"
That's F'N Wonderful You Microsoft Fan-Boy, Talking Head, Moronic, Idiot. "well I guess Microsoft is the only thing that separates us from modern man from the cave man" "I guess we'll just bend over and kiss our technological butts goodbye now" This reminds me of the end of the Wizard of Oz where the Giant Head tells Dorthy not to pay any attention to the little man behind the curtain.

3:24 "that's why it's so important to stay up to date with your software patches that come along"
Hooray for Microsoft. Their patches always fix the problems... unless they totally miss the problem and the zero day, and could cause more problems than they fix. Although I agree that installing patches is vitally important, if Microsoft patches fixed their software we wouldn't need antivirus software, antispyware, Intrusion Prevention Systems, Firewalls, Proxies, VPN's, Certificates, et al ad infinitum.


People, do not rely on our government or any other government to have it's citizens best interest at heart. If you don't think that the U.S. in conjunction with Israel is not taking a gigantic gamble with the technological backbone of the world you are mistaken. On the other hand it is too late for Joe Six-Pack to do anything. We have voted in these out of control governments for over four generations now. How else do we expect them to act?
Enhanced by Zemanta

September 23, 2010

Microsoft Missed 2009 Published Article on Stuxnet-Type Attack

by Paul Roberts

A security flaw affecting Microsoft's Windows operating system that was exploited by the Stuxnet worm was publicly disclosed more than a year before the worm appeared, according to a researcher at Symantec Corp.

On September 17, Symantec researcher Liam O Murchu noted on that company's Connect blog that a security publication in April, 2009 had described the same flaw in the Windows Print Spooler Service function that Stuxnet used. Microsoft disclosed and patched the hole in its September security update on September 14, saying it learned of the vulnerability from researchers at Kaspersky Lab.

O Murchu was one of a handful of security researchers who discovered the Print Spooler Service hole as part of a forensic analysis of Stuxnet. The vulnerability, which was believed at the time to be previously undisclosed, affects most versions of Windows, could allow remote code to be run on vulnerable systems. Microsoft issued a security update, MS10-061, closing the hole and commending researchers at Kaspersky Lab and Symantec for relaying information about the vulnerability.

However, it now appears that information about the flaw was in the public domain for more than a year before Stuxnet first appeared, buried in the pages of Hakin9, a respected bimonthly magazine published out of Warsaw, Poland. An article by security researcher Carsten Köhler describes how shared network printer functionality on Windows can be used to elevate the local user's privileges or to gain command line access to network print servers. The article details both privilege escalation attacks and attack code for carrying out remote code excecution on a vulnerable Windows system.

O Morchu said that Microsoft has confirmed that the vulnerability described by Carsten Köhler is the same as the hole that was patched by MS10-061. Microsoft did not immediately respond to requests for comment, but a company spokesman also acknowledged, in a published report, that details of the hole were discussed in a security publication in April, 2009, but said that the company was not made aware of the issue at the time.

The Print Spooler Service hole was just one of four Windows security flaws that were believed to be unknown at the time Stuxnet was identified in the wild. Three other flaws have yet to be patched by Microsoft, which promises fixes in the coming months.

The sophistication of the worm and its ability to compromise industrial control systems by Siemens Inc. has led to speculation that Stuxnet was the work of state-sponsored hackers and may have had a specific target in mind. In recent days, attention has turned to Iran and the country's controversial Bushehr nuclear reactor. Iran had the highest rate of Stuxnet infections in the world, and some speculate that the worm started as a targeted attack against Bushehr or related facilities, but then jumped the fence to India and other countries.

Attention now shifts to the researcher in question, Carsten Köhler, who is described as a former Ernst & Young employee who now "works as an information systems security expert for a European institution." Researchers typically relay their findings to Microsoft's Security Response Center in advance of, or at the time they decide to go public. After a dust up with Google, the company recently revised its policy of "responsible disclosure" to advocate "coordinated vulnerability disclosure," encouraging researchers to give the company an opportunity to patch security holes before details of them are made public.
Enhanced by Zemanta

September 22, 2010

Is Stuxnet the 'best' malware ever?

'Groundbreaking' worm points to a state-backed effort, say experts

By Gregg Keizer

Computerworld - The Stuxnet worm is a "groundbreaking" piece of malware so devious in its use of unpatched vulnerabilities, so sophisticated in its multipronged approach, that the security researchers who tore it apart believe it may be the work of state-backed professionals.

"It's amazing, really, the resources that went into this worm," said Liam O Murchu, manager of operations with Symantec's security response team.

"I'd call it groundbreaking," said Roel Schouwenberg, a senior antivirus researcher at Kaspersky Lab. In comparison, other notable attacks, like the one dubbed Aurora that hacked Google's network and those of dozens of other major companies, were child's play.

O Murchu and Schouwenberg should know: They work for the two security companies that discovered that Stuxnet exploited not just one zero-day Windows bug but four -- an unprecedented number for a single piece of malware.

Stuxnet, which was first reported in mid-June by VirusBlokAda, a little-known security firm based in Belarus, gained notoriety a month later when Microsoft confirmed that the worm was actively targeting Windows PCs that managed large-scale industrial-control systems in manufacturing and utility firms.

Those control systems are often referred to using the acronym SCADA, for "supervisory control and data acquisition." They run everything from power plants and factory machinery to oil pipelines and military installations.

At the time it was first publicly identified in June, researchers believed that Stuxnet -- whose roots were later traced as far back as June 2009 -- exploited just one unpatched, or "zero-day," vulnerability in Windows and spread through infected USB flash drives.

Iran was hardest hit by Stuxnet, according to Symantec researchers, who said in July that nearly 60% of all infected PCs were located in that country.

On Aug. 2, Microsoft issued an emergency update to patch the bug that Stuxnet was then known to exploit in Windows shortcuts.

But unbeknownst to Microsoft, Stuxnet could actually use four zero-day vulnerabilities to gain access to corporate networks. Once it had access to a network, it would seek out and infect the specific machines that managed SCADA systems controlled by software from German electronics giant Siemens.

With a sample of Stuxnet in hand, researchers at both Kaspersky and Symantec went to work, digging deep into its code to learn how it ticked.

The two companies independently found attack code that targeted three more unpatched Windows bugs.

"Within a week or week and a half [of news of Stuxnet], we discovered the print spooler bug," said Schouwenberg. "Then we found one of the EoP [elevation of privilege] bugs." Microsoft researchers discovered a second EoP flaw, Schouwenberg said.

Working independently, Symantec researchers found the print spooler bug and two EoP vulnerabilities in August.

Both firms reported their findings to Microsoft, which patched the print spooler vulnerability on Tuesday and said it would address the less-dangerous EoP bugs in a future security update.

"Using four zero-days, that's really, really crazy," said Symantec's O Murchu. "We've never seen that before."

Neither has Kaspersky, said Schouwenberg.

But the Stuxnet wonders didn't stop there. The worm also exploited a Windows bug patched in 2008 with Microsoft's MS08-067 update. That bug was the same vulnerability used to devastating effect by the notorious Conficker worm in late 2008 and early 2009 to infect millions of machines.

Once within a network -- initially delivered via an infected USB device -- Stuxnet used the EoP vulnerabilities to gain administrative access to other PCs, sought out systems running the WinCC and PCS 7 SCADA management programs, hijacked them by exploiting either the print spooler or MS08-067 bugs, then tried the default Siemens passwords to commandeer the SCADA software.

They could then reprogram the so-called PLC (programmable logic control) software to give machinery new instructions.

On top of all that, the attack code seemed legitimate because the people behind Stuxnet had stolen at least two signed digital certificates.

"The organization and sophistication to execute the entire package is extremely impressive," said Schouwenberg. "Whoever is behind this was on a mission to get into whatever company or companies they were targeting."

O Murchu seconded that. "There are so many different types of execution needs that it's clear this is a team of people with varied backgrounds, from the rootkit side to the database side to writing exploits," he said.

The malware, which weighed in a nearly half a megabyte -- an astounding size, said Schouwenberg -- was written in multiple languages, including C, C++ and other object-oriented languages, O Murchu added.

"And from the SCADA side of things, which is a very specialized area, they would have needed the actual physical hardware for testing, and [they would have had to] know how the specific factory floor works," said O Murchu.

"Someone had to sit down and say, 'I want to be able to control something on the factory floor, I want it to spread quietly, I need to have several zero-days,'" O Murchu continued. "And then pull together all these resources. It was a big, big project."

One way that the attackers minimized the risk of discovery was to put a counter in the infected USB that allowed it to spread to no more than three PCs. "They wanted to try to limit the spread of this threat so that it would stay within the targeted facility." O Murchu said.

And they were clever, said Schouwenberg.

Once inside a company, Stuxnet used the MS08-067 exploit only if it knew that the target was part of a SCADA network. "There's no logging in most SCADA networks, and they have limited security and very, very slow patch cycles," Schouwenberg explained, making the long-patched MS08-067 exploit perfect for the job.

Put all that together, and the picture is "scary," said O Murchu.

So scary, so thorough was the reconnaissance, so complex the job, so sneaky the attack, that both O Murchu or Schouwenberg believe it couldn't be the work of even an advanced cybercrime gang.

"I don't think it was a private group," said O Murchu. "They weren't just after information, so a competitor is out. They wanted to reprogram the PLCs and operate the machinery in a way unintended by the real operators. That points to something more than industrial espionage."

The necessary resources, and the money to finance the attack, puts it out the realm of a private hacking team, O Murchu said.

"This threat was specifically targeting Iran," he continued. "It's unique in that it was able to control machinery in the real world."

"All the different circumstances, from the multiple zero-days to stolen certificates to its distribution, the most plausible scenario is a nation-state-backed group," said Schouwenberg, who acknowledged that some people might think he was wearing a tin foil hat when he says such things. But the fact that Iran was the No. 1 target is telling.

"This sounds like something out of a movie," Schouwenberg said. "But I would argue it's plausible, suddenly plausible, that it was nation-state-backed."

"This was a very important project to whoever was behind it," said O Murchu. "But when an oil pipeline or a power plant is involved, the stakes are very high."

And although Siemens maintains that the 14 plants it found with infected SCADA systems were not affected or damaged by Stuxnet, O Murchu and Schouwenberg weren't so sure.

Experts have disagreed about when the Stuxnet attacks began -- Kaspersky believes it was as early as July 2009, while Symantec traced attacks back to January 2010 -- but they agree that the worm went undetected for months.

"We don't know if they succeeded or not, but I imagine that they got to the targets that they wanted," said O Murchu, citing the stealthy nature and sophistication of the worm.

"The command-and-control infrastructure of Stuxnet is very, very primitive, very basic," said Schouwenberg. "I think they were convinced that they would be able to do what they wanted before they were detected."

O Murchu will present a paper on Symantec's Stuxnet work at the Virus Bulletin security conference, which is slated to kick off Sept. 29 in Vancouver, British Columbia. Researchers from Microsoft and Kaspersky will present a separate paper at the same conference.
Enhanced by Zemanta

September 20, 2010

Finishing Studio

paint roller beside paint brush at paint reservoirImage via Wikipediaby The Computer Doctor

So this weekend we finished the trim and peeled off the painters tape. The room looks awesome except for a few spots that the paint flaked away from the wall. Two of the walls are cement and I noticed in high humidity that the paint bubbles away from the wall. We have a dehumidifier that runs down in the basement now, but we'll have to see how it is down there next summer.

The next step is to start cleaning out the basement and setting up one half of the room as the family room and the other half being divided between my computer repair shop and recording studio and my wife's sewing and craft area.

I'm still looking for the right camera to tape my video segments. I'm considering the Flip Mino HD because it's one of the products in the merchandise shop that I sell, but I haven't made up my mind yet. I'm also experimenting with studio lighting. Hope to have pictures soon.
Enhanced by Zemanta

Hex Converter

Hex To ASCII Converter

Hex:
Ascii:

 

Integer to Byte converter


This is a tool to practice converting between decimal and binary representations. After you have practiced for a while and feel that you know how to do the conversions, take the quiz.
Decimal number to convert:
Binary representation:


Binary number to convert:
Decimal representation: