Schmidt knows this narrative through first-hand experience. He also knows that Google at 10 occupies a stronger position than did Microsoft at a similar point in its history. Neither Microsoft nor Yahoo have found a way to upend the search business. So that leaves the economy and the likelihood of a Martian invasion as Google’s two biggest potential challenges. Can’t do anything about the economy, though one has to believe (hope?) that the current meltdown eventually stops. As for the Martians, not to worry: California can call Schwarzenegger.

Besides, there was a reason why Microsoft at 10 was hardly worthy of much note at the time. In 1988, you could have declared Microsoft to have been first among equals, though not much more than that. Yes, the company was growing fat and happy thanks to the incredible money machine that was DOS. And of course, each time a PC went out the door, Bill Gates and Co. received a royalty payment.

But Microsoft also had to contend with the likes of Lotus Development Corp., as well as WordPerfect, Borland, Ashton-Tate, Novell, and others. We know how the story ended. There were myriad reasons why history turned out the way it did–too many to recount in this space. But it’s important to recall the way the computer industry’s history actually unfolded. Microsoft’s dominance wasn’t guaranteed and the company had to claw its way to the top of the heap.

Happy birthday? You better believe it, pal.

As for Google at 10, who cares? The better story is Google at 20. If past is prologue, that’s going to be something to behold.

It’s been awhile, but I’m quite sure I did not write a piece marking the cosmic significance of Microsoft when it reached 10. (And I’m not going to bore you by writing about the metaphysical meaning of Google at 10, either. Here’s the BBC report. )

Of course, Google has another couple of decades before reaching that milestone. By then, Schmidt will be kicking it in the Bahamas (or wherever it is that gazillionaires spend their golden, um, in this case, platinum years.)

As I dug into the problem, I learned something I probably should have realized before I ordered. The “recertified” iPod wasn’t recertified by Apple, but instead through some third party.

(Credit:
CNET News.com)

Last week, I got a sales pitch e-mail from Buy.com touting a recertified 4GB
iPod Nano for $99. I lost my iPod Touch last December and one of my older iPods had just given up the ghost, so I decided to go for it.

That doesn’t answer the question, however, of how the virus got on a supposedly “recertified iPod.” I spoke Monday with Buy.com’s VP of operations, Fred Martin, who promised to contact the Illinois company that supplies Buy.com with the refurbished iPods.

My usually dormant Mac antivirus software sprang to life when I tried to connect the refurbished iPod Nano I bought from Buy.com

Nor is the issue limited to iPods. Best Buy had an issue earlier this year where it was forced to warn customers that some of its Insignia photo frames shipped with a virus.

Apple itself had a problem with a Windows virus getting on to some new iPods back in October 2006. It said it traced the problem to a single infected Windows machine used at a contract manufacturer.

That said, as a customer, Buy.com treated me right, shipping out a brand new iPod and apologizing for the inconvenience.

Has anyone else ordered a refurbished iPod from someone other than Apple and gotten more than they bargained for?

The company said it had put steps in place to make sure this wouldn’t happen again. To my knowledge, it hasn’t happened since then.

Apple sells its own Apple-certified refurbished products via its Web site, with said devices also coming with a one-year warranty. A 4GB from Apple’s site would have set me back $129 and come with a $15 iTunes card, while a new model would have cost $149. (So yes, perhaps the lesson is simply that Ina should be less of a skinflint.)

“Our opinion is that this is not a significant problem that is happening with any frequency at all,” Martin said. Martin noted that the company does wipe off any user data from the iPods it ships out as recertified. That process might involve a PC or Mac that could theoretically be infected with a virus, though I don’t know that to be the case for sure.

On Tuesday, he reported back to me to say that after checking with the company, it did not appear that the problem was widespread.

(Credit:
Primavera Software)

The deal, whose financial terms were not disclosed, is expected to close by the end of the year. Through it, Oracle aims to integrate its enterprise applications and infrastructure software with Primavera’s PPM software, which is designed to aid companies in proposing, planning, managing and controlling complex projects and projects within a portfolio.

Oracle on Wednesday announced that it plans to acquire Primavera Software, a maker of project management software.

Once the deal closes, Oracle Enterprise PPM will be marketed to companies specializing in engineering, construction, aerospace and defense, utilities, oil and gas, manufacturing, and professional services, according to Oracle.

“Enterprise PPM is moving to the forefront of business strategy for industries managing complex and capital-intensive projects, and has emerged as a global driver for value creation and business success,” Oracle President Charles Phillips said in a statement.

This is exactly what Wally Bowen, from the Mountain Area Information Network in Asheville, N.C., and Matthew Rantanen, who works with the Tribal Digital Village in San Diego, Calif.–which represents Native American tribes–say they hope will happen if the white spaces are offered to the public without licenses. They say that broadband operators are currently underserving their constituents and that access to free spectrum would help get broadband to more people in the country.

Google and other technology companies such as Intel, Microsoft and Motorola have been lobbying the FCC for months to open up what’s known as “white space” spectrum for unlicensed use after the digital TV transition early next year. These slivers of spectrum that sit between TV channels as buffers to ensure that TV channels don’t interfere with each could be used to provide broadband wireless services.

“NAB supports new technology and ending the digital divide,” Wharton said. “What we can’t support is a multibillion-dollar spectrum giveaway to Google and Microsoft that threatens interference-free television.”

“When you look at low power FM or ultrawide band rules, the technology has great promise but the Commission adopted rules that constrained it to the detriment of consumers,” Whitt said. “So of course there are concerns that that the rules could be too limiting.”

Google on Monday launched the new site called FreetheAirWaves.com to provide consumers with a voice, the company’s policy guru said during a press conference call.

But even if the FCC is to allow the use of white spaces, Google and others are concerned that the FCC might succumb to pressure from the broadcasting industry to put onerous rules on the spectrum that will make it virtually useless. Some critics say that the FCC’s rules on low-power FM devices and ultra wide band devices have restricted them so much they can barely be used.

The debate over new unlicensed spectrum the Federal Communications Commission is considering opening up is heating up as Google ups the ante with a new lobbying Web site.

So far it looks like FCC Chairman Kevin Martin agrees. He was quoted Monday in The Wall Street Journal in favor of opening up white space spectrum to encourage more broadband deployments.

Technology companies have also proven that they can mitigate interference issues through proper engineering. Just look at the use of Wi-Fi. The technology uses unlicensed spectrum in the 2.4GHz band, and there are specifications to ensure that Wi-Fi devices don’t interfere with microwave ovens and garage door openers that operate at the same frequency.

The NAB says it only trying to protect the TV viewing public.

“Spectrum is very valuable and we want to make sure it’s being used as efficiently as possible,” he is quoted as saying in the Journal. “The idea of trying to utilize the ‘white spaces’ from a consumer perspective would be a good win for everyone.”

“Microsoft’s applications fail all the time,” said Dennis Wharton, a spokesman for the National Association of Broadcasters. “But for us our signals need to get to our audience, so it’s a different world. And it’s not acceptable for there to be any interference.”

On the other side, Google and the technology community say that these are simply proof of concept devices and not even prototypes that could be used in commercial products. In fact, Google’s Whitt said he is certain his company and others would pour millions of dollars into development if the FCC approved the use of white spaces and gave specific guidelines and rules for products.

The NAB and others, such as Verizon Wireless, which also opposes the use of white spaces, certainly have their own business motivations for opposing the use of white spaces.

That said, Google and the rest of the technology companies lobbying for the freeing of white spaces have their own motivations and interests to consider. The more wireless spectrum and broadband services available, the more Google can make from advertising. The company hasn’t denied this. Intel, Microsoft, and Motorola also benefit as they can each sell more products and services to consumers who use this unlicensed spectrum.

The 300MHz to 400MHz spectrum that is being made available through the use of white spaces is not contiguous across the United States, so it’s unlikely that any company could use the spectrum to build a nationwide network to compete against the major carriers.

Better coverage
But my gut feeling is that this new spectrum won’t likely become a major threat to wireless operators, such as Verizon, nor will it cause any disruption in TV service. But it could drastically improve the coverage of broadband particularly in rural areas.

But broadcasters say using these channels will cause interference with their broadcast signals and cause major issues for people watching TV.

The debate is coming to head as the FCC finishes field tests of proof-of-concept devices used to detect and avoid spectrum already in use. The results of the tests have been mixed. Some companies claim that geolocation-based technology has proven that it can interference with existing spectrum holders. Meanwhile, a field test of spectrum sensing technology at a major sporting venue proved that technology still has some problems.

The NAB may claim it is afraid of interference, but the reality it members don’t want to give up control of airwaves they believes are theirs. Verizon Wireless and other wireless operators don’t want competitors to get their hands on free spectrum that they could use to build competing services.

It’s clear that this has become as much of a political debate as it has a technical one. On the one hand, the National Association of Broadcasters is pointing to the tests as evidence that interference can’t be avoided.

The FCC is expected to release a report of the test results next month. And it will likely vote on whether to open the spectrum in the next few months.

That said, much of the white space spectrum that will be available will be in sparsely populated rural areas where there are fewer TV broadcasters and little access to broadband. And because the spectrum is ideally suited for rural areas with good propagation characteristics, it could be used by rural communities to blanket their regions with broadband access.

The Secunia test departed from the traditional testing done by organizations such as AV-test.org and AV-comparatives.org, which use collections of malware to demonstrate the on-demand and heuristic capabilities of the security products. Secunia used exploits–not viruses and worms–to demonstrate the need for users to patch vulnerabilities as well as have a good firewall, antivirus, and other anti-malware protection. The company said exploits are what criminals are most likely to use these days, and faulted the tested security vendors who said their products could protect against any threat.

The report found that “security vendors do not focus on vulnerabilities.” And while Symantec Norton Internet Security 2009 bests the 11 other suites tested, Secunia found that Symantec “detected a mere 64 out of 300 exploits, or less than one-fourth, leaving 236 exploits undetected.” Overall the dozen products all received an “F” on the report.

A new report (PDF) from Secunia is raising awareness about the need to patch vulnerabilities and block malware from desktops.

Secunia did single out one product, Kaspersky Internet Security, as providing a vulnerability scanner, yet Kaspersky also did poorly on the test.

There is a move within the security industry to standardize malware testing. The newly formed Anti-Malware Testing Standards Organization states that there is a “global need for improvement in the objectivity, quality, and relevance of anti-malware testing methodologies.” The group is currently soliciting opinions on two papers, one for testing best practices and the other for fundamental principals for malware testing.

Sony has come a long way since the release of the NW-MS11 Network Walkman. One of the company’s first flash-based MP3 players, the NW-MS11 didn’t even play MP3s and was crippled by copy-protection woes and painfully slow transcoding, but even back then, Walkmans were a model of sleek design and excellent sound quality. The S-Series Walkman is a prime example of the reason Sony was the original king of portable music devices. The flash player, which comes in 4GB ($149.99) and 8GB ($179.99) models, is sleek, compact, easy to use, and packed with features. Plus, it sounds great and has an impressive battery life–we just wish we could get more than the 8GB of memory. Read the full S-Series Walkman review.

Click for more pics.

Well, I guess I’ve had enough e-mail for one day anyway. I’m headed to bed. Hopefully everyone’s servers will be working tomorrow.

I tabbed over to my Yahoo Mail window and noticed that my window, which had been working all day, was now returning an error message.

(Credit:
CNET News.com)

When I tried to reload the page, I got the following message:

“Can’t talk now. System’s down,” read the headline. “Sorry for the holdup. Looks like a temporary glitch in our network has part of Yahoo! mail down, so you’re briefly without service. Rest assured the alarms are blaring in the basement and our team is working frantically to get you up and running ASAP. Again, the snag is on our end — so there’s no need for you to do a thing.”

Well, when it rains it pours. After a day of writing about Windows Live mail problems, I was alerted by a colleague that Yahoo mail was out for them.

On Thursday, Mozilla pushed out a new security update for its new
Firefox browser. Version 3.0.1 for Windows and Mac addresses vulnerabilities in malformed GIF files on
Mac OS X, command-line URLs that could launch multiple tabs when Firefox is not running, and a potential remote code execution by overflowing CSS reference counter.

Meanwhile, Mozilla updated the earlier version of Firefox with 2.0.16 on Tuesday.
The update addresses two of the Firefox 3 critical issues–command-line URLs and overflowing CSS reference counter.

Version-specific updates have been pushed out automatically to existing Firefox users.

Tomorrow: handwriting in Office 2007 (this time for sure!)

So I did what any Windows user would do: I ignored the situation and tried to reinstall just Outlook 2007, but the only thing that would return the program to its rightful place on my Start menu was uninstalling Office 2007 altogether and reinstalling the whole package. The process didn’t appear to affect any other Office members: Word and Excel still listed my most recent documents when I clicked the Office button, though Excel required some automatic reconfiguration before it would open. Powerpoint, Access, even OneNote (which I’ll be writing more about tomorrow) opened as if nothing happened.

No, I turned off the PC on Friday evening–closing Outlook before I shut down–and didn’t turn it on again until yesterday morning. The program’s entry was gone from the Start > All Programs > Microsoft Office menu, and its familiar white-and-brown shortcut was not in the quick launch toolbar. The last time I made any significant changes to Outlook was when I installed the SyncMyCal add-on more than a week ago, but I had used the app many times since then without a problem, and SyncMyCal was still where I left it. Hmmmm.

I appear to be back in business now, though I’ll be keeping a closer watch on my Start menu items from now on.

I figured I would leave the mystery unresolved and use Vista’s System Restore to roll back my PC to last Friday. No go. Although there were several restore points created last Friday, I kept getting a “could not restore” message after each try. I chose earlier restore points one at a time, going all the way back to last Tuesday, but none took. Hmmmm again.

I started to wonder whether somebody had slipped me one of those medications that has the unwanted side-effect of sending people sleepwalking, and sleep-driving, and maybe even sleep-application-deleting. I wouldn’t doubt that if I were acting out unconscious wishes as I slumbered, uninstalling Outlook would be at the top of my to-do-while-somnambulant list.

I’m not easily thrown by computer weirdness, but an app going AWOL had me looking over my shoulder. Last Friday I installed the LogMeIn remote-access program on another PC in my office and used the suddenly Outlook-less machine to access it. Could LogMeIn have knocked out Outlook 2007? I have no evidence to support such a conclusion.

Atkinson’s feature looks at stereo speakers; I’ll tackle 5.1 channel placement soon.

Perhaps his most important bit of advice comes early on: “Entire books have been written about the relationship between loudspeakers and room acoustics, but the starting point for any successful setup is to position the two speakers and your listening chair as the pieces of an equilateral triangle; that is, the speakers are each as far away from you as they are from each other.”

Atkinson’s observation that “inexpensive speakers, optimally set up, may well outperform more expensive models just plonked down willy-nilly” is absolutely true. Proper speaker placement is crucial to getting the best sound out of your speakers.

(Credit:
Stereophile)

The article explains how room acoustics affect the sound of speakers, and it’s definitely a complex relationship. You won’t need a microphone or any technical skill to get the job done, but an Atkinson-produced Stereophile test CD can be a big help when fine-tuning speaker placement.

This CD can help tweak the sound of your speakers.

Check with your owners manual, but it’s usually a safe bet to have your speakers’ tweeters positioned at your ears’ height when you’re sitting down. Also try to avoid placing speakers in, or within 2 feet of a corner. Unless your speakers are designed for wall mounting, they will probably sound best a foot or more from the wall. Atkinson provides far more detailed info on that score.