Recent Articles

[Nick Hopkins and Matthew Taylor reporting on how to build your own NSA](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/18/private-firms-mass-surveillance-technologies):

> AMES describes Cerebro as a “core technology designed to monitor and analyse in real time communications … including SMS (texting), GSM (mobile calls), billing data, emails, conversations, webmail, chat sessions and social networks.”

> The company brochure makes clear this is done by attaching probes to internet cables. “No co-operation with the providers is required,” it adds.

> “Cerebro is designed to store several billions of records – metadata and/or communication contents. At any time the investigators can follow the live activity of their target with advanced targeting criteria (email addresses, phone numbers, key words),” says the brochure.

A lot of people have contacted me asking why I am so concerned with what government spies are doing, I think this article sums up my concern. What the government can do, so too can the private sector. Read the article, and then start down the encryption process.

Daniel Jalkut, responding to Michael Lopp (today's quote of the day), about moving from Things to something else (Asana for right now):

But what really frustrates me in this case is the software has served him perfectly, and he thanks it with a slap to the face. It’s one thing to denigrate a product for failing to meet your expectations, or for exhibiting a clear lack of craftsmanship, but Lopp admits that those problems do not apply: […]

I would argue that Lopp thanked Cultured Code with his money, but I see the larger point here too. There's a fine line between moving for the sake of moving, and getting fed up that there hasn't been major updates. Anyone that follows this site knows I am quick to make fun of Cultured Code for their slower-than-snails-pace that they develop at.

There's no doubt their software is solid, but it is hard to argue for it being the best. OmniFocus isn't much better as 2.0 looks not great, the new iPhone app is just ok, and the once stellar iPad apps are lagging behind. Things and OmniFocus are in need of attention, but while the attention is coming, it is coming too slow for most users. They are still great tools, but you can't blame a user for getting annoyed that their tools (while good) look and operate old.

Lopp's post drove me to think a bit more about my setup — which currently is Begin and OmniFocus. ((Remember, I am financially tied to Begin.)) Looking at OF it looked like a dog, so I looked around and tried Asana for the day. It's not for me, but I can see the appeal. I'll be trying some more web-based solutions over the next week or two.

My goal isn't to try and leave OmniFocus, but to make sure OF still is the best solution for me. OF has gotten so ugly on the Mac and iPad I almost refuse to use it in those places. Which means I am essentially using the iPhone app, and even the new iPhone app isn't the best looking app. ((Totally subjective.))

I understand where Jalkut is coming from, but it is easy to forget that users have other options, options that they can and should always be looking at. Leaving for the sake of leaving isn't smart, but leaving because you have little faith in the future development is smart — to do otherwise is often just delaying the inevitable.

Yes, the software served him perfectly, but what about the future. I'd be hard pressed to recommend OmniFocus to a new user right now, let alone Things. Both were made in a pre-mobile, pre-teams-everywhere, world and that shows every time I use them. I don't see this as ditching great software as much as I see this move as a forward thinking move to embrace something that fits the current workplace needs now, instead of waiting for those needs to maybe be implemented in your current tools.

It's moving not because expectations have failed to have been met, but because of doubt over expectations being met — at least in a reasonable (for the individual user) amount of time. And that I find perfectly logical.

[Jeff John Roberts on one of the more interesting decisions in the Google book scanning case](http://gigaom.com/2013/11/14/google-wins-book-scanning-case-judge-finds-fair-use-cites-many-benefits/):

> The latter idea — that Google is profiting off the books at the expense of authors — has been a rallying cry for opponents of the book scanning. Chin’s ruling, however, takes care to reject the notion in detail, and states that Google “does not engage in the direct commercialization of copyrighted works.”

If this sets the precedent that ads are indirect commercialization, then it opens the door wide for Google to ape more copyrighted work. I can’t see how this would be good in the long term.

[Danny Sullivan on Google’s broken promises](http://marketingland.com/google-broken-promises-65121):

> For two years in a row now, Google has gone back on major promises it made about search. The about-faces are easy fodder for anyone who wants to poke fun at Google for not keeping to its word. However, the bigger picture is that as Google has entered its fifteenth year, it faces new challenges on how to deliver search products that are radically different from when it started. In the past, Google might have explained such shifts in an attempt to maintain user trust. Now, Google either assumes it has so much user trust that explanations aren’t necessary. Or, the lack of accountability might be due to its “fuzzy management” structure where no one seems in charge of the search engine.

Interesting post, centering around this idea:

> Reversals aren’t bad; it’s the failing to explain why you changed your mind that is.

Reeks of arrogance. Imagine the coverage in The New York Times, or WSJ, if Apple made these reversals. ((That’s not to say Apple doesn’t make reversals — they do, and do so frequently.))