Indonesia Blog Academy dilaksanakan di STMIK Amikom Yogjakarta mulai tanggal 4 januari 2009.
Pelatihan ini dibuat untuk pelatihan intensif pembuatan blog. oleh panitia diberikan waktu 3 kali pertemuan untuk belajar menciptakan blog yang benar-benar hidup & ke depan bisa menghidupi anda.
di Indonesia Blog Academy akan di ajarkan bagaimana mencari ide-ide kreatif konten blog, instalasi dan optomalisasi engine blog merupakan materi yang akan diberikan dan tak ketinggalan teknik-teknik SEO terbaru & blog monetizing semua diberikan oleh mereka yang ahli dibidangnya.
untuk membuat blog yang baik tidak begitu susah, yang penting kita sering membuat tulisan dalam blog kita secara kontinyu.
Sunday, January 18, 2009
Indonesia Blog Academy
Saturday, January 17, 2009
EU regulating Microsoft like it's 1999
The European Union's new complaint against Microsoft really takes one back. Like, a decade or so.
Its objection--that bundling a browser into the operating system violates antitrust law--is the same one that U.S. regulators raised in 1996.
The newest allegations stem from a 2007 complaint by Norway's Opera that Microsoft was hurting competition by including Internet Explorer in Windows and by not better adhering to Web standards.
What is most odd about the EU taking up the issue is its timing. The EU spent years going after Microsoft on antitrust matters related specifically to its bundling of products with Windows and didn't focus on the browser. Plus, the move comes as Microsoft's browser share is at its lowest point since the Netscape days.
Firefox is particularly strong in Europe, the area over which the EU has oversight. According to XitiMonitor, IE had a 59.5 percent share in Europe as of November, compared with 31.1 percent for Firefox. Opera had about 5 percent, and Safari half of that. Microsoft lost a full 5 percentage points of market share since April alone.
That doesn't mean that Microsoft will have an easy time in Brussels. As it has shown in the past, the EU is willing to take a tough line with Microsoft, and it is not averse to fining the company and issuing harsh decrees.
David Anderson, an antitrust attorney and partner with Berwin Leighton Paisner in Brussels, said that Microsoft may well face a challenge ahead in persuading the Commission to set aside its preliminary assessment, saying the commission tends to review matters thoroughly before issuing such "statements of objections."
Further he noted that the commission staff may feel emboldened after having won its previous case against Microsoft. It also has the same set of attorneys that worked on that case pursuing the IE issue, Anderson said.
Microsoft is choosing its words carefully at this point, electing not to go beyond a statement that is more procedural than confrontational. But I can only imagine the words being used behind closed doors in Redmond.
In defending itself, Microsoft will find itself against one particularly familiar foe. Opera's chairman, William Raduchel, is a longtime Microsoft critic, dating back to his time at Sun Microsystems, which brought antitrust actions of its own against Microsoft before eventually settling.
For those who need a refresher course in the browser wars, Netscape had the dominant program in the Web's early days, controlling more than half the market as late as 1997. By 1999, though, Microsoft's IE had more than three-fourths of the market.
It has held the dominant position ever since, accounting for greater than 90 percent of the market through 2004, when Firefox began to make serious inroads. Its share has been on the decline since, according to Net Applications.
Microsoft's browser had an 87 percent share in 2005, but by 2007, its share had dropped to 79 percent. Last year alone, IE's market share dropped from 75 percent in January to 68 percent by December.
source: Cnet.com
Its objection--that bundling a browser into the operating system violates antitrust law--is the same one that U.S. regulators raised in 1996.
The newest allegations stem from a 2007 complaint by Norway's Opera that Microsoft was hurting competition by including Internet Explorer in Windows and by not better adhering to Web standards.
What is most odd about the EU taking up the issue is its timing. The EU spent years going after Microsoft on antitrust matters related specifically to its bundling of products with Windows and didn't focus on the browser. Plus, the move comes as Microsoft's browser share is at its lowest point since the Netscape days.
Firefox is particularly strong in Europe, the area over which the EU has oversight. According to XitiMonitor, IE had a 59.5 percent share in Europe as of November, compared with 31.1 percent for Firefox. Opera had about 5 percent, and Safari half of that. Microsoft lost a full 5 percentage points of market share since April alone.
That doesn't mean that Microsoft will have an easy time in Brussels. As it has shown in the past, the EU is willing to take a tough line with Microsoft, and it is not averse to fining the company and issuing harsh decrees.
David Anderson, an antitrust attorney and partner with Berwin Leighton Paisner in Brussels, said that Microsoft may well face a challenge ahead in persuading the Commission to set aside its preliminary assessment, saying the commission tends to review matters thoroughly before issuing such "statements of objections."
Further he noted that the commission staff may feel emboldened after having won its previous case against Microsoft. It also has the same set of attorneys that worked on that case pursuing the IE issue, Anderson said.
Microsoft is choosing its words carefully at this point, electing not to go beyond a statement that is more procedural than confrontational. But I can only imagine the words being used behind closed doors in Redmond.
In defending itself, Microsoft will find itself against one particularly familiar foe. Opera's chairman, William Raduchel, is a longtime Microsoft critic, dating back to his time at Sun Microsystems, which brought antitrust actions of its own against Microsoft before eventually settling.
For those who need a refresher course in the browser wars, Netscape had the dominant program in the Web's early days, controlling more than half the market as late as 1997. By 1999, though, Microsoft's IE had more than three-fourths of the market.
It has held the dominant position ever since, accounting for greater than 90 percent of the market through 2004, when Firefox began to make serious inroads. Its share has been on the decline since, according to Net Applications.
Microsoft's browser had an 87 percent share in 2005, but by 2007, its share had dropped to 79 percent. Last year alone, IE's market share dropped from 75 percent in January to 68 percent by December.
source: Cnet.com
USB 3.0 will crush eSATA, FireWire
The USB 3.0 cable is substantially thicker than the USB 2.0 cable as it contains six wires rather than two.
(Credit: Reuben Lee/CNET Asia)Intel demonstrated a working version of USB 3.0 at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas last week. Here's why it will make eSATA and FireWire obsolete.
When USB 3.0 is expected to hit the market in early 2010, it will have been 10 years since the now ubiquitous USB 2.0 was introduced (April 2000). The current USB 2.0 specification runs at a theoretical maximum speed of 480Mbps, and can supply power (for those looking for the hard details, you can find the USB 2.0 specification here (zip file).
According to the USB Implementers Forum, there were 2 billion USB 2.0 devices shipped in 2006 (one for every three people in the world), and the install base was 6 billion (almost one for every person in the world). In November 2007, the USB Implementers forum announced the USB 3.0 specifications, and Intel officially demonstrated the technology at CES 2009.
Now, the juice: USB 3.0 promises a theoretical maximum rate of 5Gbps, meaning it's 10 times faster than USB 2.0. USB 3.0 is also full duplex, meaning it can upload and download simultaneously (it's bi-directional); USB 2.0 is only half duplex.
Put side by side with eSATA and FireWire 800, USB 3.0 is far superior. eSATA, an external connection that runs at the same speed as the internal SATA 1.0 bus, has a maximum theoretical of 3Gbps. This makes USB 3.0 faster than eSATA and about six times faster than FireWire 800 (full duplex at 800Mbps).
USB 3.0 also provides another advantage; while eSATA is faster than FireWire 800, unlike FireWire it cannot supply power. USB 3.0 has the advantage of being faster than both, even while supplying power.
Finally, USB 3.0 has improved power management, meaning that devices can move into idle, suspend, and sleep states. This potentially means more battery life out of laptops and other battery-based USB-supporting devices like cameras and mobile phones.
Of course, there are other factors to consider; the FireWire 3200 standard is also in the works and promises to allow 3.2GHz speeds on existing FireWire 800 hardware. USB 2.0 generally doesn't meet its theoretical maximum throughput, due to its dependence on hardware and software configuration, where FireWire gets much closer.
It's hard to say whether USB 3.0's updated architecture will still use more CPU time than FireWire does.
But in the age of powerful hardware (can anyone say "3.2GHz, quad-core CPUs"?), all of this means that FireWire is still not going to match USB 3.0's theoretical maximum of 5Gbps.
The ultimate signal that this war has already been won is Apple's recent decision to ditch FireWire from its consumer line in favor of USB. Previously, Cupertino had been one of FireWire's greatest advocates. And surely the company will be one of the first to adopt USB 3.0.
All in all, we can't wait for motherboard manufacturers like Gigabyte and Asus to start supporting the technology and mainstream PC builders like Dell to start integrating it into their products. Bring on the speed.
source: cnet.com
Securing the Windows 7 beta
Despite the fact that security programs are often some of the toughest code to make work with a new operating system, Windows 7 already has several companies ready with products aimed at keeping it safe from attackers.
By comparison, only one antivirus firm--McAfee--had its security software commercially ready by the time Microsoft launched Vista for businesses in November 2006.
That said, it stands to reason, given that Microsoft was making far more dramatic changes to the operating system's underlying architecture in Vista than it is in Windows 7.
This time around, it is AVG, Kaspersky, and Symantec that have products that are being touted from Microsoft's site. McAfee said it will have support by the time Windows 7 launches, while Trend Micro is working to have a compatible product in the next month or so.
"It is great to see that these partners were able to have their solutions working so early in our development process," Microsoft's Brandon LeBlanc said in a blog posting.
Dave Cole, a senior director of product management at Symantec, said his company decided to offer up a test version of its Norton 360 product for use with Windows 7, even though the company knows there are still a few things left to work out.
"We determined that we could run reasonably well under Windows 7," Cole said. "There are bugs that we know about, but we're comfortable enough with the effectiveness of the product that when they called us to participate we took them up on the offer."
Having the support lined up is important to Microsoft, which built an "action center" into the operating system that warns users if it detects there is no antivirus software installed. The action center then points to a page on Microsoft's Web site with links to Windows 7-compatible security software.
The page lists Kaspersky, AVG, and Norton, but adds that "Microsoft is actively working with additional security software independent software vendors (ISVs) so that security software solutions will be available for Windows 7 Beta and (the final release of) Windows 7."
As far as Windows 7's approach to security, it appears to draw heavily from the investments the company made with Windows Vista.
The most notable change is probably the fact that users now have the option to choose how often they are required to authorize changes to their system. One of the most frequent criticisms of Vista was the annoyance of the User Account Control dialog boxes that forced users to authenticate many types of changes to their systems.
Microsoft spent a fortune securing Vista, both in engineering new features as well as in testing. The software maker corralled a significant chunk of the world's penetration testers to help poke at Vista ahead of its release.
The software maker plans some penetration testing for Windows 7, but declined to say how much or whether it would be comparable to its Vista effort.
CNET News' Elinor Mills contributed to this report.
Source : http://tech.yahoo.com/news/cnet/20090116/tc_cnet/83011386031014346656
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
