Sometimes sorting out valid emails from phishing emails can be very confusing. “Phishing,” for those of you who have been under a rock for the last few years, is the practice of spammers sending emails that appear to be from legitimate sources. These emails usually state that there is something wrong with your account and that you need to take a certain action to correct it. They provide the means to make this correction, either by telling you to respond directly to the email or by directing you to a web site, but in any case it is a direct connection to the spammer rather than the apparent sender of the email.

This can be particularly disconcerting when the email has all the appearance of really coming from an organization such as your bank, PayPal, UPS or Federal Express, or even the government. The emails may carry the actual logos of the company involved and may even warn you about spam right in the email. When you click on a link to their web site, it too can look for all the world like a legitimate site from the organization. So how do you tell the difference? Here’s a few ideas, as well as some suggestions on how to avoid the emails in the first place.

First and foremost, if the email you receive asks you to reply to the email with your user/account name and password, it’s spam, plain and simple. No legitimate company will ask for this information through an unsecured means such as email. So you click on the link in the email and it takes you to a web site that looks legitimate and it asks you to sign in – should you do so? Hell, no – you’ll just be giving the spammer your log-in information! If it is a company that you normally do business with, instead go to that business’s regular web site where you usually log into your account. If they need something from you, odds are that they will tell you as soon as you log in. If the email really, really looks legit and you don’t get any notice when you log into your real account, call the organization (and don’t use a phone number that came with the email) and ask them if they need anything from you.

Normally, you can spot illegitimate web sites by their URL’s. If you hover the cursor over a link in an email the web site address may be seen. A web site address should contain the company’s real web address as part of the base address. In other words, if a link takes you to something like “http://www.hytrremb.paypal.com” it is probably legit. Note that the “paypal” part has to be next to the “.com” part. If the address reads “http://paypal.hytrremb.com” it is NOT linking to PayPal, but to the “hytrremb” domain. Don’t click on it. This can sometimes be difficult to determine, though, because spammers create links that are meant to disguise the true URL.

Unfortunately, even legitimate companies use newsletter services, polling companies, etc., that do not link directly to the company’s home web address. Also, really clever spammers can make links look like you are going one place while the link actually takes you elsewhere. You take a risk clicking on those links, but as a rule if you are not asked for personally identifying information just clicking on the link is ok. Note – I said “as a rule.” THIS IS IMPORTANT! There are web sites designed to automatically download malicious software, viruses, etc., if you merely visit the web site. You may not see anything happening and the web site may look legit, but you can get really screwed if this happens. I strongly suggest that you never click on a link that comes in an email. Always go directly to that company’s web site to take care of whatever issue is involved. If you chose to do otherwise, I hope you have a really good computer condom on.

How can you sort out the spam from the legit emails? Other than the above, I have a pretty effective system. Since I have my own web site and my hosting company lets me create up to one hundred email addresses, I have one main address that I use for most of my public contacts, such as signing up for mailing lists, advertising, etc. This is the account with the most public exposure and where I get the most spam and phishing emails.

I then create special email addresses for each important web activity. For example, all financial matters may go to higgle@hytrremb.com. I can even create an email address for each individual account, if I want. Then, if I receive any email from one of the companies that has that address I can be pretty sure it came directly from them. If I receive any email from them addressed to the main address I am sure that it is not legitimate and I can ignore it. Was that clear? In other words, if PayPal sends an email to the email address I set up for them, it’s most likely valid, but something that appears in my main email address purporting to be from PayPal is almost certain to be a phishing attempt.

Usually your ISP (Internet Service Provider) will let you set up more than one email address. Even if it is only as few as five or ten this can still be an effective system. Also, you can use Gmail, Hotmail, or Yahoo mail for the same purposes. Yes, it can get to be a hassle dealing with all those email addresses, but with an email client on my computer like Thunderbird (Mozilla’s email solution) or Outlook, I don’t find it onerous at all.

In the end, suspicion is the key. Never believe what ANY email says. Deal directly through the supposed sender’s verified web site – one you have visited before – and you will save yourself a lot of trouble.

Good grief! Something is wrong with this picture. I just received a new 8GB Toshiba USB flash drive that Amazon was offering for only $14.99 as a “Lightning Deal,” and a good deal it is. Picking up the sealed, plastic package that everything seems to come in today – and that you need a chainsaw, hardhat with face shield, and cut-proof gloves to open – it felt awfully heavy for a thumb drive. Hmm, seems awfully thick, too.

Well, no wonder. Inside the package, besides the drive and packaging copy, are four – count ‘em, four! – folded, multi-page tomes, one of which is a user guide and the other three being warranties. Being a detail-oriented kind of guy, I just stacked, compressed and measured them; they are 3/16” thick, more than half as thick as the flash drive itself.

Having once been in printing, I bet the stupid flash drive probably cost less to produce than the packaging, including literature. I guess I can understand the user guide if someone has never in his life used a USB flash drive, but three massive warranties? Like I am going to bother sending a fifteen dollar flash drive anywhere to get it replaced if it goes bad. It would cost me more than that in packaging, shipping and aggravation than it would to just order a new one.

I guess I can understand it in this age of legal “gotcha”-ism. After all, most of the warranty stuff is explaining how they are not liable for the loss of any data you stored on the flash drive. I guess they have to allow for idiots who think all data storage devices are 100% reliable, 100% of the time. Still, it speaks volumes about the ridiculous lengths to which manufacturers must go today to protect themselves. In the end, all it does is drive up the price of things. Oh well, what else is new? Kind of reminds you of “defensive medicine,” doesn’t it?

Well, that’s a weird one. I was doing a Google image search using Firefox (my usual browser) and scroll bars appeared on the left and right side of the window. Hmm, very odd – never were there before. So I try to find out more about them. Oddly enough, I can’t find a thing! What’s going on here?

I tried other browsers, including Google’s own Chrome, but the side scroll bars only seem to appear in Firefox. It is kind of handy not having to go to the bottom of the page to click on the next page, but the left scroll bar on my monitor covers up just a little bit of the left edge of the images on the left, as well as a bit of the text for the images. I think this idea may need a little work.

So, again, what the heck? How come I’m the only one seeing this? Or maybe I’m just seeing things, period?

Today I read an entire magazine in less than half an hour. It’s a free trade magazine that covers information technology (IT). Today I received another free trade magazine which covers an entirely different industry. I think that it may take me almost an hour to read.

Free trade magazines have been getting thinner and thinner. It’s really no surprise, as the costs of physical publication – paper, ink, printing and postage – keep going up. Most of these magazines are moving more and more to the Internet. Indeed, it’s not just the free trade magazines doing this. Even the magazines that you pay for refer you to the magazine’s web site for more information and even for features not available in the print version.

I think that I am glad I am not in the printing industry anymore and, at this point, I don’t think I would recommend printing as a career for anyone. I suppose that there will always be a need for printed material, but I foresee a day when all your usual reading matter will only be available on-line, and that day isn’t that far off.

Perhaps I’m being atavistic, but I, for one, will hate to see that happen. I like having a book or magazine in hand, able to take it anywhere without concern for power or an internet connection. Sure, you can have something like Amazon’s Kindle, but when your batteries go, so does your ability to read what you have downloaded.

There are other concerns, too. Our sun gives our electronic systems fits all the time. An extended period of deleterious solar activity could really play hell with our electronic systems. Terrorist and war efforts could create the same loss of communication ability. Losing our paper printing capacity to electronic publishing could result in the inability to compensate for any major loss of electronic communications.

Media that exists only in an electronic form also has a greater risk of loss. It is unlikely that you will be able to put it on a shelf and come back fifty years later and still be able to read it. No problem doing that with a book, depending on how it was printed, of course.

Also, electronic copy can be changed at will. Sure, someone might have printed out a copy of something, but good luck proving that someone hadn’t modified the electronic copy before it was printed out. At least with a book or magazine there are usually thousands of identical copies which cannot be altered after publication. You can claim that I lied in print and be able to prove it, but claim that I lied in electronic publishing and you will find that my lie has mysteriously disappeared since you last read it.

Oh well, I guess you can’t fight progress, but you sure can be leery of it.

On April 27th, President Obama addressed the annual meeting of National Academy of Sciences. While that may be old news to some, I just read his speech and am fascinated by the president’s capacity for self-contradiction. Of course, to his mind he is perfectly consistent, but let’s see what you think.

In his speech, President Obama states,

Next, we are restoring science to its rightful place. On March 9th, I signed an executive memorandum with a clear message: Under my administration, the days of science taking a back seat to ideology are over.  Our progress as a nation – and our values as a nation – are rooted in free and open inquiry.  To undermine scientific integrity is to undermine our democracy.  It is contrary to our way of life.

That’s why I’ve charged John Holdren and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy with leading a new effort to ensure that federal policies are based on the best and most unbiased scientific information.  I want to be sure that facts are driving scientific decisions — and not the other way around.

Is there anyone in his or her right mind who can say that the “Cap & Trade” carbon tax legislation that was rammed through the House is based on “the best and most unbiased scientific information?” To say that this piece of legislation, based on what is at best speculative science, takes a back seat to ideology is laughable.

Just as George Bush attempted to twist national science policy to conform to his religious beliefs, Barack Obama is infusing his national science policy with the unproven pseudo-science of the radical environmental left.

Try telling the scientists who disagree with the government’s scientists that, “Our progress as a nation – and our values as a nation – are rooted in free and open inquiry.” If you don’t toe the party line, the party hacks will do their utter best to discredit your views by any means available, supported by science or not.

There is no doubt in my mind that there is no place in government for objective science.

Is it any surprise that we in the U.S. are not ready for the analog to digital switchover on February 17, and that we have everyone from consumers to Barack Obama asking to have the deadline pushed back? There are many reasons why this is so, but the biggest finger can be pointed at – surprise – the government.

First, this is a government mandate. The law requiring conversion to all digital television broadcasting was passed by Congress at the end of 2005 and signed into law by President Bush in February, 2006. This gave everyone three years to get ready for the change. Along with the mandate, funding was also legislated – $5 million for education and $1.5 billion (that’s BILLION) for the conversion box program.

Switching to digital broadcasting is not only a good idea, it’s a necessity. With the increasing amount of “over the air” communication devices we are using, bandwidth is a real issue. Digital broadcasting drastically reduces the amount of frequency space required for television. To use a crude (and admittedly problematic) analogy, it is like using a laser as opposed to a flashlight. You light up only one small spot instead of flooding the whole area with light. There never really was a question about switching from analog to digital broadcasting, only a question of when and how.

Was three years enough time? Considering the life span of television sets, perhaps not. It would have been nice to just let the system switch over by itself as more people bought televisions with digital tuners. In fact, the original law addressing a switch to all digital broadcasting was a 1997 law which mandated that analog broadcasting would end on December 31, 2006, or when eight-five percent of households were capable of receiving digital signals, whichever came first. As we got close to that date, there were nowhere near that many households able to receive digital signals, so Congress decided to step in with a new law before that deadline arrived.

When the new law was passed at the end of 2005, there were consumer groups complaining that there was not enough time or funding allowed to achieve the transition without disadvantaging certain groups, such as low-income families and elderly people. While these types of consumer groups always seem to wave a flag of dire warning over even the smallest of issues, in this case they were right, though not necessarily for the reasons they gave.

Some people say that there was not enough education of the public on the change. I’m sorry, but if you watched any television at any time during the last couple of years and still didn’t know about the changeover to digital broadcasting, then you either recorded all your television programs and skipped every commercial and public service announcement or you are dumb as a rock. Quite honestly, I do not know how you could not know about the change and I do not know how the broadcasters could have done anything more to make the public aware of the situation. As a matter of fact, I am downright sick of all the notices, warnings and tests.

The government coupon program that provides up to two coupons per family worth $40 each for the purchase of an analog to digital signal converter box has run out of funding, which really doesn’t matter much because there seems to be a short supply of the boxes anyway. Personally, I’m not convinced that the government should actually be responsible for paying part of the cost of the converter boxes, but I can at least understand the logic, based on the fact that the government is forcing the change. One would think that the government could have seen the funding shortfall coming. Of course, there is no reason that Congress can’t quickly pass a bill to add additional funds to the program. After all, they have no problem handing out money to businesses and banks that come crying to them. A little extra cash for the converter box program should be an easy vote.

Then there is the issue of the 90-day expiration of the coupons. The idea behind such a relatively short expiration date appears to have been that people would act sooner rather than later if the coupons expired quickly. Apparently Congress is no better at human psychology than they are at controlling spending. Almost any idiot, myself included, could have told them that people would wait until the last minute to deal with the changeover, allowing the coupons to expire – and they have – what a surprise!

Of course, the conversion from analog to digital is not as simple as Congress would have it be. It’s not just a matter of buying a converter box and slapping it on the old analog television. Digital signals operate differently than analog signals and people who once received marginal analog signals may be faced with no digital signal, or one so weak as to be useless. In addition to the converter box, many people will have to upgrade their antennas. An antenna that once may have been adequate to pull in a weak analog signal just won’t cut it for digital. Even with a new antenna, there are going to be situations where people will lose their television reception.

So what do we do at this point? Do we delay it, or do we go full-speed ahead. What are the problems with delaying it?

For one thing, the bandwidth that is saved by using digital broadcasting has already been auctioned off and the winning bidders have plans for those frequencies. Pushing back the date of availability of those frequencies will mean a loss of opportunity and income for those companies. If that happens, it seems to me that they should be entitled to a bit of a rebate from the government on their investment. I’m sure that will not happen if the changeover date is pushed back, but it does seem fair.

9/11, hurricanes, and other natural disasters have exposed vulnerabilities in the communications abilities of our emergency response agencies. The additional frequencies being freed up by the conversion to digital broadcasting will help facilitate the efforts to develop unified, or at least compatible, communications systems that are necessary during times of emergency. Pushing the conversion date back will also push those plans back.

And let’s face it – no matter what Congress or anyone else does, there will ALWAYS be people who will not do what they need to do to convert to the new broadcast system. Again, that’s human nature and there is no getting away from it. You just can’t always allow for the lowest common denominator when you are dealing with issues like this. Sad but true, there will be people who will not be able to watch television, or at least not until they get tired of it and they either get up off their butts to take care of the situation or find someone who can help them with it. Because of this human condition, there will never be an ideal time for making the changeover from analog to digital television. Delay after delay after delay will make no difference, since each delay will allow these people to say, “Oh, I guess I don’t have to worry about it now.”

To me, the solution is easy, probably because I have already made sure that I won’t be affected by the switchover. I think that the plan should go ahead as scheduled and let people play catch-up if they have to. Is that going to happen? If I were a betting man, I would bet not. Once again, Congress will do whatever it is that they believe will help them keep the most votes, and that most likely means accommodating those who are not prepared. That will not surprise me at all.

There has been a lot of emphasis lately in the “Information Technology” world on “cloud computing” and “software as a service (SAAS).” If the cloud computing evangelists have their way, we will need nothing more than an Internet portal on our desktop – or on our phone, laptop, or whatever – and all software will be run, and all data stored, on Internet servers.

Now, there are definite potential advantages to this, particularly for businesses. No matter where you are or what computer you are using, you can have access to your software and data. Data stored remotely in secure facilities, hopefully with adequate back-up, could be safer, at least physically, than on your own computer. Moving the responsibility for storing data and keeping software up-to-date from your company to a remote service can allow you to cut IT staff or to hire staff that doesn’t have to be as highly knowledgeable. Obviously the same advantages apply to home users, particularly those who want to only deal with computers as appliances.

As for me – no, thanks. I do not want to depend on the Internet for my programs, and I want my data stored right here on my own computer. Sure, someone might break into my house and steal my computer, or someone may manage to get past my defenses and steal data, but both situations are a bit unlikely. I’ll gladly take that risk in exchange for being able to work where I want, when I want, with my own software and data on my own computer.

Though such services have a pretty good up-time record, I would not be happy if I needed the on-line services and suddenly found that they were not available at the moment. I also don’t much care for the fact that every company offering such services will be keeping track of usage, knowing what you accessed and used and when you did it. As “anonymous” as such information may (or may not) be, I’m getting a bit tired of losing privacy in my life. I would also be concerned that “someone” might be able to access my data – personal correspondence, financial info, whatever – without even knowing about it, authorized by law or not.

The ultimate reason that I will not personally be participating in the cloud computing culture is cost. Even though people claim that it could be cheaper to “rent” your software by using on-line versions versus buying a software package, I’m getting tired of renting stuff in my life. Once upon a time, television was free, as was radio. Yes, it still can be at the moment, but if you want a wider variety of programming you need to “rent” your television and radio from a provider. I don’t begrudge a business providing a service that customers want, and I am willing to pay the price for services that I use, but I have no desire to keep adding to the list of things for which I need to budget money each month. These services may be “free” now, but I am more than willing to bet that they won’t be for long.

Again – thanks, but no thanks – I will continue to keep my data on my own computer, and use the software that I have purchased (or obtained for free) without relying on the availability of the Internet. Perhaps I’m being a bit anachronistic, but I am what I am.