News Report 5
Microsoft to Stop Charging for Home PC Security
By: Aaron Ricadela
url:
http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/techbeat/archives/2008/11/microsoft_to_st.html?chan=top+news_top+news+index+-+temp_technology
After jumping head first in the PC security market, Microsoft is starting to gradually pull out. This is after Microsoft’s security program, OneCare, did not do so well. OneCare was launched in June of 2006. It included virus and malware protection, along with being able to back up hard drives. This program was a subscription for $50 a year. Not only do more than 80% of people in the United States have protection from these problems already but they were not turned on by the price. Microsoft is putting a stop to OneCare and implementing a new protection service called Morro. Morro will be free to all Windows users but will not be able to back up hard drives. Morro will offer free virus and malware protection to its Windows users. When Microsoft entered the PC security market, Symantec and McAfee were scared for their business, now that OneCare is on its way out, they can take a break from worrying. Another part of OneCare that contributed to its failure was that it was part of Windows Vista. Vista has a bad reputation with users and being that OneCare was for Vista, it didn’t do well.
In my opinion, Morro will be a better fit for Microsoft. Instead of charging for a program and trying to reach everyone worldwide, they are focusing on Windows users. Morro will be a good addition to the Windows operating system that will keep you PC safe. Not only will it keep your PC safe but it’s free with Windows.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Reading Response #5
Reading Response #5
“Web Hoaxes, Counterfeit Sites, and Other Spurious Information on the Internet”
By: Paul S. Piper
This article addresses the fake, hoax, and spoof websites on the internet. The internet is filled with websites like these that surfers may or may know about. One example of a hoax website that it gives is about Martin Luther King. The website is www.martinlutherking.org, which appears to be a legitimate website at first, especially with the .org ending. Once you locate the site and start reading the information, you will realize that the information on the site is either false or degrading to MLK. The creator of the site is actually a white supremacy group, Stormfront. An example that Piper gives as a spoof is www.whitehouse.com. At first glance, one would believe this site was actually about The White House, but when visiting the site you will soon learn that this is a pornographic website.
In my opinion some of these websites really bother me. The ones that bother me the most are the ones that show up after a tragedy. After 9/11 people started receiving emails asking for donations for the victims and their families. These emails were sent out immediately following the terrorist attack. Any person would fall for this especially after something as tragic as 9/11. The fact is that these donations were not going to any sort of relief fund, there were going into some hacker’s pocket. In my opinion, sites and emails like these are something that should be dealt with on a legal level with consequences. Piper gives a clue on how to avoid being sucked into a scheme. One thing he says is that a donation relief program will never send out emails in mass quantities and to go directly to the site that you want to donate to, not through email.
“Web Hoaxes, Counterfeit Sites, and Other Spurious Information on the Internet”
By: Paul S. Piper
This article addresses the fake, hoax, and spoof websites on the internet. The internet is filled with websites like these that surfers may or may know about. One example of a hoax website that it gives is about Martin Luther King. The website is www.martinlutherking.org, which appears to be a legitimate website at first, especially with the .org ending. Once you locate the site and start reading the information, you will realize that the information on the site is either false or degrading to MLK. The creator of the site is actually a white supremacy group, Stormfront. An example that Piper gives as a spoof is www.whitehouse.com. At first glance, one would believe this site was actually about The White House, but when visiting the site you will soon learn that this is a pornographic website.
In my opinion some of these websites really bother me. The ones that bother me the most are the ones that show up after a tragedy. After 9/11 people started receiving emails asking for donations for the victims and their families. These emails were sent out immediately following the terrorist attack. Any person would fall for this especially after something as tragic as 9/11. The fact is that these donations were not going to any sort of relief fund, there were going into some hacker’s pocket. In my opinion, sites and emails like these are something that should be dealt with on a legal level with consequences. Piper gives a clue on how to avoid being sucked into a scheme. One thing he says is that a donation relief program will never send out emails in mass quantities and to go directly to the site that you want to donate to, not through email.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Reading Response #4
Reading Response #4
“Can Wikipedia Ever Make the Grade?”
By: Brock Read
This article by Brock Read is based on the accuracy of Wikipedia. This article gives great points on why the accuracy of Wikipedia is being questioned. These points include the sites refusal of giving priority to professors and established scholars. Another point is that of Wikipedia’s editing process. Anyone with access to the website can simply edit anything within an article about any topic. The editing process of Wikipedia is being stated as a “free-for-all” posting ground. Although the article is not completely negative towards Wikipedia, it also shows a comparison between Encyclopedia Britannica and Wikipedia. The comparison showed that the two encyclopedias were surprisingly close in accuracy. The Encyclopedia Britannica articles averaged about three errors while Wikipedia posts on the same subjects had about four errors.
Wikipedia is popular with its users because it gives everyone a chance to share their own individual knowledge. Their knowledge is shared with the world without having to be an expert or professor. When it comes to my own experience with encyclopedias, I have usually been told to avoid Wikipedia by my professors. They have given the same reasons as why to avoid it; it may or may not be accurate information. I believe Wikipedia should not be used as a credible source but as a primary base. I believe Wikipedia should be used to get a basic idea on a certain topic or subject, since it is somewhat accurate and because of its convenience. Once Wikipedia has been used to get a general understanding about a topic then the more scholarly and credible sources should be used.
“Can Wikipedia Ever Make the Grade?”
By: Brock Read
This article by Brock Read is based on the accuracy of Wikipedia. This article gives great points on why the accuracy of Wikipedia is being questioned. These points include the sites refusal of giving priority to professors and established scholars. Another point is that of Wikipedia’s editing process. Anyone with access to the website can simply edit anything within an article about any topic. The editing process of Wikipedia is being stated as a “free-for-all” posting ground. Although the article is not completely negative towards Wikipedia, it also shows a comparison between Encyclopedia Britannica and Wikipedia. The comparison showed that the two encyclopedias were surprisingly close in accuracy. The Encyclopedia Britannica articles averaged about three errors while Wikipedia posts on the same subjects had about four errors.
Wikipedia is popular with its users because it gives everyone a chance to share their own individual knowledge. Their knowledge is shared with the world without having to be an expert or professor. When it comes to my own experience with encyclopedias, I have usually been told to avoid Wikipedia by my professors. They have given the same reasons as why to avoid it; it may or may not be accurate information. I believe Wikipedia should not be used as a credible source but as a primary base. I believe Wikipedia should be used to get a basic idea on a certain topic or subject, since it is somewhat accurate and because of its convenience. Once Wikipedia has been used to get a general understanding about a topic then the more scholarly and credible sources should be used.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)