Blog For Glory

End of Summer

26 Aug 2006 12:00:00 GMT

How much do you like computers? Or kids?

I just spent a week at the beach -- no Internet, no laptop, just a few books to read and chairs to sleep in for long naps. A wonderfully quiet time of relatzation and I did not even miss the computer. Might be abnormal for a geek, but then, maybe I am not a geek.

However, I do enjoy computers, writing applications, creating web apps, and building new systems. If you have read my Jude Ministries site, you will know that I have been battling pain issues for several years now.Those issues have presented a variety of challenges, not the least of which has been the inability to work for over two-and-a-half years since I can neither sit nor focus for very long.

One of the benefits of the couple of weeks leading up to the beach along with the week at the beach, is that God used this time to ease my pain to the extent that my stamina has started to come back and my focus is clear. So, upon return from the beach, I committed to something not expected. I agreed to teach school!

The Christian School connected to our church was in need of a part-time computer teacher. Seemed perfect for a come-back. Except for the students --

I get to teach everyone from Kindergarten to eighth grade. So, this will be a real challenge as well as an opportunity to influence several decades of potential computer geeks.

Maybe they will be like me and like a week at the beach without the computers.

Then again, maybe not.

Jim A

Education and Technology

08 Aug 2006 12:00:00 GMT

An interesting note on TechDirt suggests that technology and the toys of Web 2.0 will cut into the standing of the "elite" universities and bring academia closer together. Such a thought appears to miss the reasons why the elite are elite.

The blog posting suggests that as professors blog, as free journals arise, as other means of communication and media presentations surround us, the distance between the elite schools and the non-elite schools will shrink.

Now, my contact with academia is limited. I hold degrees from four universities and seminaries. I have had some minimal teaching contact with a fifth. I have three children who have completed college or are in college. In fact, my youngest chose to complete her first two years at a truly non-elite school, a community college.

The idea that more people will benefit from blogs and free journals is well founded. It is always fun to dip into the thoughts of the cream of professors. I attended an Ivy League Law School and, as a result, sat under those who wrote the cases books we used. On the other hand, even if these same professors were teaching in today's atomosphere and blogging, this does not move them from Ivy League to farm belt.

What makes the elite the elite is the fact that the elite are paying the salaries of those top notch professors. The elite have money and tradition, prestige and history. This attracts the professors. It is one thing to read their textbooks, and yes, it will be somewhat more fun to consider their blogs, but this is not the same as sitting in class with them for a semester. Or attending a BBQ and talking with them over a burger.

The elite schools will continue to enjoy the benefit of having the cream of the professors. The rest of us will enjoy an expanded contact with these people via the toys of Web 2.0. But, the professors will still be at the elite schools and since the elite schools are the only ones who have the on-going funds to carrying the elite professors, the distance between the elite schools and the rest of the universities in the world will not shrink.

It may seem smaller, but the distance will still be there. Unfortunate, but true. Technology cannot and will not change everything.

Jim A

Who Has What Right?

03 Aug 2006 12:00:00 GMT

Recently Microsoft (MS) has been struck with much ink flowing as a result of their Windows Genuine Advantage Program. At some level, thisis a piece of software placed on your computer to verify if your copy of Windows is genuine or a forgery. At some level everyone must agree that MS has the ability to verify that your operating system is legal. Or, so I would assume.

The initial issue was that this WGA app was "phoning home" frequently. There would appear to be no valid reason for it to do so. Once it determines you have a legal operating system, its task should be completed. Why would anyone replace a legal system with an illegal one? (Well, someone probably has an answer to this question, but that is really beyond where we are going!)

So, why would the product continue to contact MS? Everyone becomes suspicious at this point and accuses MS of all sort of nasty motives. So, it appeared that MS backed off and allows one to load all updates except WGA.

There is a new string of messages and notes floating around the web suggesting the return of WGA with a new mission. That mission is as protector of the operating system. If it is genuine, apparently nothing happens, but if it is illegal, the WGA will have a kill switch to turn off the operating system.

Now, I have to admit, on the surface, this strikes me as being ok. Microsoft has fought counterfeiting for years. Millions of illegal copies of Windows flow out of various places around the globe. The same is true of many other companies software packages as well. Haven't you ever gotten one of the emails advertising 'cd only' products with no documentation, and maybe no serial numbers? Illegal copies of software is a major criminal activity on a global scale.

There is no reason I can think of that MS should not be allowed to combat this issue. If you install a new copy of Windows (and many other products) you have to activate the product. Failure to do so causes the product to "die" in 30-60-90 days. No one objects to this. So, why object to killing the product after 120-180-360 days? This appears to be equally valid.

However, an example of the concerns is demonstrated by this posting on ZD Net. The concern is that WGA will do more than just kill the software. Should MS be allowed to turn the software off if you do not load WGA? I guess the question might be, what is the difference between WGA and the initial activiation? If a piece of illegal software was activated initially, how did that happen? Why not run the WGA test at activation and avoid the need for WGA?

The answer, I suppose, is that in the future, MS should be able to do this. But, there are millions of illegal copies already installed. How does MS fight these situations? WGA appears to be the answer.

So, should those of us who have legal copies become upset at the concept of Microsoft double-checking our copies and requiring us to download and install the tool that accomplishes the checking?

I would think not, but I am trusting enough to assume Microsoft would not take advantage of the tool to view, verify, and steal other information. For example, I frequently use Dreamweaver and do not use FrontPage. I use Dreamweaver for design and Visual Studio for development. Perhaps, in an effort to promote the new, not yet released product currently called Expressions, Microsoft decides to change their approach to force me to do away with Dreamweaver. They gather all of this information with a tool similar to WGA.

That would be unfair. That is what a lot of people fear. However, I suspect the fear is found mostly among two gorups. The first group is the one using illegal software. The other are developers who just do not like having such a powerful player in the software arena. The ideas of open source and the player ruling the system via the blogs may be overplayed. This casues the tensions and MS becomes the bad guy.

So, from my perspective, until someone demonstrates that WGA or its successors do more than protect Microsoft from the use of illegal operating systems, I can find little wrong with the entire process. If they can turn the system off on the front end when the activation is clearly an illegal code, why not do so later on when the illegal software is discovered? Seems only proper to me.

Otherwise, haven't we changed all of the rules and let the bad guys, the really bad guys, win?

Jim A.

My Kingdom for a Password!

01 Aug 2006 12:00:00 GMT

We struggle daily with the need to create, enter, remember, and store passwords. From the company network to the web and email or instant messenger systems, to blog sites and catalog ordering forms, we have to produce passwords. Someone wants to steal them!

That's the issue, of course. Those who know speak of using "strong" passwords. In fact, Microsoft allows administrators to create policies for Windows that require strong passwords.

The issue, of course, is what is a strong password. Apparently it must have length, must be somewhat random, must contain both upper and lower case characters, as well as special keys (!, @, ##, $, etc), and use numbers. Who will be able to remember the strong password they created?

That is the issue. People are predictable which allows hackers to create a set of test rules taking into account all of the above items. Presumably, we could all create strong passwords, but most of us would not remember them! So, if we write them down, someone in the office may steal them.

Depending upon our situations, this last issue may be the least important. As long as we do not keep them all in a file in our computer, the passwords may be safest if they are long, long, have a couple of odd characters and are written down so we remember them. We should know if we can trust those around us.

What brings all of this to mind is an article I found on the web concerning password myths (the article is here). It is an interesting read, and while it concerns only operating system passwords, it would apply to all of the secret words we need to browse the web.

The point of the article may just be informational, but by the time you finish reading it, you realize two factors:

First, given the inclination and time, almost any password can be broken so there shoud be some practical limits to how far you carry this idea of protecting your password.

Second, a few simple tricks will provide as much practical protection as you can get -- use long words, use both caps and lower cases, through in a couple of numbers in odd places, and use a couple of extra characters along the way. Replacing a 'o' with '0' may be obvious but replacing it with '()' or better yet somethng like '(0)' is moving towards very strong.

In the end, the real answer is don't create passwords on sites you are not familiar with; keep your computer protected as much as possible with the most modern anti-virus and spam software; do not share your password; be a little creative in making up your password to begin with.

Oh, yes, don't lay awake nights worrying about whether or not your password is strong enough. Sleep is more important.

Jim A

You WILL Get Internet Explorer 7!

26 Jul 2006 12:00:00 GMT

Microsoft has announced, via its blogs, that the company will use Automatic Update to distribute the new Internet Explorer 7 upon its release the end of this year. Automatic Update will notify the customer of this particular change via a Welcome page. This page will allow the user to accept, postpone or decline the move to the upgraded web browser.

Apparently Microsoft views the security features of the new browser as being "critical" calling for the pushing of this new browser upon all the world using Windows. I would think there is reasonable logic behind such a view. Without the update service most people are too lazy or too frightened of keeping up to date to check for important changes.

Microsoft has learned from its past errors, however. This explains the Welcome screen with the options to postpone or decline the upgrade. In addition, the company is issuing a blocking tool that will prevent Automatic Update from downloading the upgrade. This tool is designed for the business enterprise setting so companies do not end up in a situation where people upgrade before the company is ready or where they have some people upgrading and others not.

All-in-all it seems like Microsoft is taking a reasonable approach this time around.

The blog entry can be read here. It includes screen shots of the Update screens.

Jim A.

Web 2 and Beyond - or Falling Back?

25 Jul 2006 12:00:00 GMT

Web 2.0 -- it is here now and it is the future. Depending upon the speaker, Web 2.0 is a lot of different things. The new sites have looks like Digg and flickr. They use new tools like Ajax and mashups. Web 2.0 is the process of moving the desktop to the world wide web network.

It is really cool and neat and all of that geeky stuff. It is also scary as all of your electronic possessions become scattered across a zillion websites.

The interesting thin about Web 2.0 is that everyone is for it and no one is against it. Well, blogs are part of Web 2.0 and the blog world is for it. No one speaks against it. Yet, . . .

There is the occasional rare descenting voice. For example, I refer you here, to Spun, where the fears of a scattered being are discussed. What I find so amazing is that there are not more posts concerning the potential fears and issues of Web 2.0.

We live in fear of identity theft. Except currently, for us, this means someone stealing our social security number, our checking account info, our credit card details. There is more to your idenity than just these numbers. All of those pictures, all of that writing, those documents your create for work and home, these things make up who you are, your idenitity. Just look at the vast amount of non-financial details that may be found on sites such as MySpace. This is you.

Web 2.0 is a developers dream. Lots of geeky toys to play with for creating web pages. The overall concept is to move the desktop to the web. You can connect to yourself, errr, I mean your data, from any computer in any location. What are you giving up?

Who runs the servers? How safe is your data, your pictures? Look at the issues from MySpace. Now, consider all of us hanging our entire electronic life out to dry on a multitude of servers when we do not know where they are, who is running them, how they are backed-up, and who has access to them.

We purchase all of these virus killers, spam filters, firewalls, and other protections to keep people away from our desktops and laptops, then we freely place all of this information out into the ether for everyone to find.

Seems to me like we have this backwards.

If you are not yet concerned, Henry Fuecks has an interesting response to Spun on the SitePoint blog concerning the issue of power. More to chew on.

Have a nice day. I am off to gather tea leaves so I can rule the world. :>}

Jim A

More on MX Ajax Toolbox

25 Jul 2006 12:00:00 GMT

I previously discussed InterAKT's Dreamweaver extension for Ajax support on web pages. The company has now issued a detailed whitepaper covering the details of the product. For those who are interested, the whitepaper is here.

InterAKT has now posted a great "Sneak Preview" of the product. This article can be viewed here.

This product will prove to be a great addition to the developer's toolbox.

Jim A

SQL Database Transfer Issue

21 Jul 2006 12:00:00 GMT

I love the new Microsoft SQL Server 2005. It contains a bundle of new features that should, over time, assist anyone needing databases. What is more, Mircosoft has been kind to developers by offering a free version called SQLExpress. The Express version does not have all of the features of the full version, but is more than powerful enough to allow for full development of major projects or for the preparation of demonstrations.

In addition, the SQ Server Management Studio offers a quick, simple way to handle all of the administrative functions involved with developing a website or a full desktop application. Included are tools for copying a database and importing or exporting data.

These tools are particularly important for development purposes. At least one normal approach to creating a dynamic website is to create your site on a development desktop using the SQLExpress database and then move the entire operation to a production environment. This allows you to test and cure all of your bugs without bothering an existing or new production environment.

There are, of course, issues with this approach. There have been several articles written about moving your database from your development system to your production system. However, most of these involve moving from the SQLExpress version to the full SQL Server 2005 version.

I have the benefit of having a full SQL Server 2005 database loaded on my Windows XP development machine. This, at least, avoids the need for working with the issues discussed in moving from the Express development database to a full version. However, I faced a different issue.

People chose web hosts for a variety of reasons. In my case I am perfectly satisfied with my host, but they, like many web hosting services, do not currently offer SQL Server 2005. They are running SQL Server 2000 and will not upgrade all machines to the new server due to cost reasons, although as thye add new database servers, the new ones will be SQL Server 2005. So, I was faced with the need to transfer the development database from the SQL Server 2005 system to a SQL Server 2000 machine.

I encountered two issues. I did not research any issues prior to transfering the data. I used the copy wizard built into the SQL Server Management Studio. On the surface the transfer went well. The wizard showed a successful completion to the transfer. However, there were two issues. One was, in a broad sense minor. Some of the table names were slightly changed so the stored procedures would not work properly. Manually renaming the talbe solved this issue.

However, due to either the difference between the 2000 and 2005 versions, or due to having incorrect settings, not all of the details for the tables transferred. Upon attempting to perform some of the functions, such as creating rolls and the login system on the production system. It develops that the fault sat with the default values for unique identifiers. The default values did not transfer to the production tables. Now this may or may not be setting in the copy wizard. I have not gone back to investigate. However, an examination of the design of the tables showed that the production tables lacked formulas for the creation of default values for some columns. As a result, the rows would not update since there could be no NULL values, but the default was not operating in the manner anticipated. The formula was designed to insert a unique identifier. However, since the formula was missing, no such value was being inserted.

Manually investigating the tables and inserting the default value formula fixes the issue and the production system works fine. Blessedly, in my case the amount of data involved is minimal. However, if you had a large database this could be a major problem. As I said, this may relate to the copy wizard settings, or it may be involved with the issues of moving backwards in terms of versions. In either case, it is an issue to note.

Maybe not many of you will be attempting to move backwards from SQL Server 2005 or SQLExpress 2005 to SQL Server 2000. If you do, maybe this will help.

Jim A

Into Ajax? Try MX AJAX Toolbox

20 Jul 2006 12:00:00 GMT

Do you enjoy playing with software? I do -- I am forever downloading new products, giving them a spin to see how they work and whether or not they might provide a practical benefit to my work.

At the same time, it is necessary to remain conscious of your basic tools. If you develop in PHP, products designed for .Net are of little benefit.

In the website development world, there are two approaches to creating websites. One is the realm of the traditional developer -- that of coding. Sit down with notepad and start coding. Eventually a website jumps forth. In reality, there are better tools than Notepad, especially Visual Studio.

For those who do not understand nor want to understand code, there are "editors" designed to provide a word processor experience for writing your web pages. In my humble opinion, none is better than Dreamweaver. I have used this product since it was in version 3.0 (the current version is 8.0, so that has been a long time). Not only is Dreamweaver a great product, but it has been designed to take advantage of all the other toys that have drifted through the web design / development arena. These new toys are called extensions in the Dreamweaver world. They are similar to browser plug-ins. Add the extension and new functionality arrives within your Dreamweaver development window.

One of the best extension developers in the world is InterAKT. From "simple" CSS Menus to complex e-Kommerce solutions InterAKT. has provided great, workable products designed to extend the ability of the web page producer by allowing more functions to be available without the need to learn any programming. The blogs on this site are prepared using KTML, an InterAKT. extension that " is an online HTML editor that helps you edit your website content directly in a browser." My ministry site, Jude Ministries, was completely developed using Dreamweaver and InterAKT. extensions.

One of the "newest" tools being used by web designers is known as AJAX -- Asynchronous JavaScript Xml development. This process is not as new as the label, but is one of the hottest tools around. Hundreds of development libraries have been designed to take advantage of the capabilities of AJAX. The biggest advantage of this tool is the ability to repaint a small portion of a page with new information without having to submit the entire dynamic page back to the server to be updated.

As you might know, AJAX is less than simple. The existence of so many development libraries suggests the potential issues involved. Further, to make use of these libraries one must be able to code. The libraries are very helpful, but they are nothing but collections of code that must be incorporated into your web page -- somehow.

So, for those who are designers, how can you take advantage of AJAX?

Enter InterAKT. and their new product MX AJAX Toolbox. Using visual dialogue boxes and Dreamweaver's standard approach to applying server behaviors to a web page, this product is the answer to everyone's desire to "be current" with their web page content.

This is where I can tie a discussion of playing with toys back into a review of this product. InterAKT. has been running the MX AJAX Toolbox in beta for several weeks now and I am proud to be part of the original beta group. I was there to watch the first version occasionally blow up on the page and provide very uninteresting results. As part of the group learning the product, I can confidently tell you the company has responded marvelously not only to fixing the bugs, but to modifying the product to account for many of the suggestions offered by those of us who will use the product long term.

So, what does MX AJAX Toolbox offer? How about . . .

a tabset wizard
accordian controls that collapse and expand on a mouse function, hiding or displaying information
entire regions that are collapsible
a dialog box wizard to assist your development process and your communication with clients
dynamic tables, with quick sorting ability without sending the entire page back to the server
the ability to create a complex photo gallery in a few simple steps
create a star rating system for your products, reviews, etc.
suggest text for a text input box
the ability to drop and drag widgets
the ability to use web services on your page
multiple states for a given section of your page -- in other words, the ability to change the data in one box on the page
AJAX links
All combined with the ability to use CSS skins, control the layout, and use all of these tools in a manner compatible with normal Dreamweaver behaviors

What's even more exciting is the fact that the MX AJAX Toolbox functions and plays in a friendly manner with all of the other InterAKT. extensions, providing your website with the ability to present some amazingly complex material in a manner that You can handle. I can testify to the fact the extension is both easy to use and very versatile. InterAKT. provides the following description, taken from the current tutorial:

MX AJAX Toolbox is the InterAKT. product that allows you to build AJAX-based websites in just a few steps. It's a well-known fact that a web application that employs AJAX is much more difficult to build than a classic one (that does not use AJAX). This is where MX AJAX Toolbox comes to ease your work, and it simplifies it tremendously.

MX AJAX Toolbox helps web developers and designers create interactive and appealing site front-ends. It is a Dreamweaver extension that will enable visual AJAX development. It will include a wizard to help people create a site skeleton with ease, a replacement for the Dreamweaver templates and a suite of AJAX controls and visual effects. Its main goals are:

Reuse Dreamweaver concepts for an easy learning curve

Allow AJAX development without forcing people to learn JavaScript

With MX AJAX Toolbox, you can build AJAX-based sites without learning any programming languages or techniques, and following the usual work-flow in Dreamweaver. There are three types of applications that you can build using this product:

Static AJAX-based site.

Dynamic AJAX-based site.

Improve an existing site by adding interactive AJAX controls

InterAKT has prepared a wonderful demo site that displays the power of this great new product. The demonstration website can be found here.

Yes, it is fun to play with tools. I am saddened by the fact the AJAX Toolbox beta period is coming to an end, but I have the pleasure of knowing this is a great product -- and InterAKT. is in the process of upgrading its premier product MX Kollection. I am part of that beta group so there are still toys to play with.

MX AJAX Toolbox will be available from InterAKT. sometime next week, the week of July 24. Keep your eyes open for the release of this great product.

Jim A

Giant versus . . . someone

18 Jul 2006 12:00:00 GMT

Back in the days I started working with computers, the operating language was DOS. Now Microsoft had created DOS for IBM, or some such thing. IBM, as I recall licensed it from Microsoft and relabeled some versions. At the same time Digital Research created their own brand of DOS, and there was at least one shareware version on the market at various times, so you had a choice of three or four operating systems. Yet, at heart, they were all DOS. Only the geeks cared which one was on the computer.

Of course, there were Apples, but that is another story.

Apple's picture interface helped prompt Microsoft to develop windows(R). Over the years, Apple has become a specialized niche, while virtually everything else runs on Windows(R), or so Microsoft would have you believe.

There is another desktop operating system. It, too, has been around a long time. It was originally a true geek system. In general, let's call this OS Unix. It came in a variety of flavors. Today's main version is now called Linux, and it also has a variety of flavors, although they are all built on the same core kernel.

Now, as time has passed, there has been this ongoing effort in a small portion of the developers world to convince the guy on the street that Linux is as good as, if not better than Windows(R). What is more, in the last couple of years, the Linux folks have created some good visual interfaces that make one think the computer acts just like an Apple or a Windows(R) machine, which, of course, it does.

The community that backs Linux systems is generally called the Open Source community, since many of the products are really a joint effort and the licensing is "loose" allowing others to modify the software. Presumably this allows for better products.

There has always been a battle between Microsoft and the Open Source community. After all, the goal of Open Source is to displace Microsoft, while the computer giant is in the business of making money for its stockholders. A lot of peope forget about this. The world is not an ideal place, as many geeks would hope. Software is not developed for everyone to play with at a code level.

Software, in general, is developed to make money for its developer / owner. Microsoft is in the business of developing software and selling it to the public to make money to pay the salaries of its employees and pay dividends to its stockholders. If it does not accomplish this, the company's management would change.

Recently, Microsoft has issued a couple of press releases suggesting its continuing friendlieness to the Open Source community. Open Source as a word processor called OpenOffice. Micorsoft has announced it would back the development of an open source project designed to bridge the compatibility gap between Microsoft Office and OpenDocument Format, the format for OpenOffice.

Microsoft also recently announced a partnership aimed at allowing its virtual servers to run Linux based systems.

I have noticed that both of these announcements have been met with much skepticism. Will Microsoft really support Open Source? Why would they?

Well, maybe there is a way for the giant to make some money? I do not want to seem skeptical myself, but Microsoft controls the PCs. True, there are other players, but since the Microsoft operating system is what runs the vast majority of desktops and laptops in the world today, right now, Microsoft has control. They want the computer to continue to evolve so that others will continue to upgrade, purchasing more software products.

If helping other developers, even Open Source developers, will allow Microsoft to achieve this goal, then it is likely the company will assist in the development of what are competing products. It is called business sense.

Not everyone will agree with me. At times I dislike the computer giant as much as the next guy. At other times I love them. The software company does much to help the little developer as well as the competition. There is a sense in which we all are riding the same ship. If the computer disappears, software disappears as well and every software designer and developer will be looking for a new line of work.

It is easy to complain about the giants of the world. It is natural to be skeptical. At the same time, we need to applaud the efforts Microsoft makes to help us all develop our products and get them to market. Be cautious about how far Microsoft goes toward promoting Open Source, but don't count them out of the game.

Jim A