Transfer files by pointing your phone at a computer

Fujitsu has come up with an innovative way to transfer files between a computer and a mobile device such as a phone. All you do is point your phone at the computer screen and shoot a short video. The files are then transferred automatically.

It has been possible to store information within an image on the computer, such as a photo, for some time and it is a well known steganography technique for hiding messages and secret information. You can even get freeware software that will do this, like Free File Camouflage (just one example picked at random). The information is stored within the image in such a way as to be undetectable by the eye or even the computer.

Now suppose you embed information within the image on a computer screen instead of a photo. It doesn't have to be anything special, just whatever is on the screen at the time, such as the standard Windows desktop, editing a file in Word, showing a presentation and so on. By taking a video of the computer screen the information can be extracted by analysing the image.

What Fujitsu has done is to embed the network identity of the computer, such as the IP address, the wireless network SSID it is on and so on. The phone extracts this from the video of the computer screen and then sets up a standard wireless connection to transfer the files.

To see how useful this could be, imagine making a presentation. The audience can simply point their phones or tablets at the screen and push a button (to run the app) to receive all the files associated with the presentation. That's brilliant.

I think this has other applications. For example, suppose you have a video or movie on your phone or tablet and you want to watch it on your big screen Wi-Fi enabled TV. You literally just need to point your phone at the TV to show it on and push a button. You could also mirror the tablet or phone for big screen gaming and so on. Basically, you'd just be using Fujitsu's software to pair the devices. You could pair any screen and mobile device just by pointing one at the other. It's an interesting idea.

Go to Fujitsu for more information...

Read More

Will you use Facebook Graph Search?

So, the next big thing from Facebook is Graph Search. As you may have heard, it isn't like Google search and it is basically a custom searches that works with your Facebook friends, friends of friends, likes and so on. Is it really such a big deal, will you use it and will it be useful? I'm not sure it will be that useful for most people.

There is a Facebook 'Introducing Graph Search' page that has information about the new search facility. There is a button the bottom of the page to ask to be considered for the beta test (only a limited number of people will be able to use it at first to iron out the bugs and get feedback). Also on the page is a 'Try a search' link to try out a sample search. It searches for 'People who live in San Francisco, California'. Try it and see what results it comes up with.

I find that it displays a list of people I don't know. I can see the connection with some of the results and it says '1 mutual friend', but others appear to have no connection to me or my interests. I can't see a lot of use for the information. If I am planning a trip to San Francisco, am I supposed to contact these people directly? Should I message them and ask if they want to meet up? How would they feel about a stranger contacting them?

An example search I saw somewhere was that you could search and list all single males or all single females. So, I could discover and message single females that live in a certain area? This is getting a bit creepy.

Some of the other examples that Facebook gives are equally odd. For example, take this one: 'My friends who like surfing'. Honestly, do you not know which of your friends like surfing? Do you not talk to them? Equally odd is 'My friends who live in San Francisco'. This is similar to people search above, but as it is a friends search it begs the question, do you not know where your friends live? If you don't know this basic information then are they really friends?

I think this type of search facility is more useful with a social network like LinkedIn. This is a collection of business and professional contacts, some of which you may know very little about apart from their company and position. You may have had business dealings with them, but they aren't really friends. Facebook's search would be quite useful in this situation.

Some people use Facebook this way and I have seen people with as many as 3,000 friends. They aren't friends though. People tend to have a dozen friends and perhaps a couple of dozen more people they know well. The rest are people you once shared a classroom with, worked at the same company, acquaintances that you never really see in the real world, and so on.

I think Graph Search is something that Facebook needs and it can be useful on occasions to search for information among friends, but I don't really see it as a big deal or something I will use every day. It's not going to change the world. However, I do think it will change how we look at Facebook privacy. Many people will head for the privacy settings and see what changes they can make to make sure they aren't in search results. Many more people either won't bother or don't know how to change the settings and they share far too much information. It'll be interesting to see what happens when Graph Search is rolled out to Facebook's 1 billion users.

Read More

Crazy book pricing doesn't make sense

Book pricing seems to be all over the place and I frequently come across crazy examples that seem to defy logic. For example, I was reading how Steven Spielberg's Robopocalypse is to be postponed indefinitely. It was to be a sci-fi movie based on the Robopocalypse book by Daniel H. Wilson. I haven't read the book, but if it is so good that people are thinking of spending tens of millions of dollars making a movie from it, I though that perhaps it might be worth reading. I thought I would head over to Amazon and check out the price. Here it is:

So Amazon is selling the book for £3.84 with free postage. It looks like a bargain to me. Look below and the Kindle Edition is £4.99. How on earth can an electronic edition of a book, which after all, is just a file on a computer, cost more than a physical book made of paper and ink and having distribution and delivery costs? That doesn't make sense to me.

Even cheaper is the used paperback edition, which looks an even better bargain at £1.28. Click the link though, and it is revealed that the postage is £2.80, making the total price for the used edition £4.08. So it costs more for the second hand edition than a brand spanking new copy from Amazon.

Let's focus on the Amazon Kindle and Amazon paperback. Not only is the paper edition cheaper, I can sell it second hand, on eBay for example, after I have read it. It appears to be worth at least £1.28. If I sell it after reading it I will recoup £1.28 of the initial cost, making a net cost of £2.56 for the paper edition compared to the £4.99 Kindle edition.

Does all this make sense to anyone? It doesn't to me. Needless to say I won't be buying the ebook or the second hand edition. It's weird when you can cut down trees, drag them to a lumber mill, grind them up into paper, print on it and then transport the book hundreds of miles for less than it costs to copy a file from Amazon's server to my ebook reader over the internet.

Read More

Forget Instagram, use Foap and earn money

When Instagram proposed new terms and conditions last December there was a huge backlash. The reason is that buried in the detail was a bit about Instagram (now owned by Facebook), having the right to sell your photos and for them to be used in adverts without asking you or paying you.

It has since changed the proposed terms and conditions (see here), but this highlights two things. Firstly, that the photos you take on your phone and upload to Instagram might actually have a value. There are people and companies that are willing to buy them for commercial use. Secondly, that Instagram realises this, but wants them for free so it can make lots of money for itself. It sees the photos you upload as a resource to be exploited. Instagram may have backtracked on the proposed changed and we are OK for now, but you can see the direction the service wants to take. Maybe it will not happen right now, but some time in the future it may try to change things again.

Foap, which isn't as well known as Instagram has a different perspective. It is very similar to Instagram in that you can take photos with your iPhone and upload them to the service where they are stored online. People can follow you, you can follow them, you can view great photos people have posted, and so on.

The big difference though, is that if someone wants to use a photo, such as a person, company or advertiser, then they must pay for for it. Foap is not only a photo sharing social networking service, it is also a photo marketplace where people can go and buy the right to use an image.

This isn't a get-rich-quick scheme and you aren't going to make huge amounts of money from it. However, if you are lucky you might make a bit. Mainly though, it means that you aren't going to be seeing your photos appear in someone's advert or billboard next to the road without your knowledge or being paid.

Check it out, go and get Foap for the iPhone. An Android version is promised too, although there's no release date scheduled yet.

Read More

Can't attach files to Yahoo! Mail?

I have been having problems with Yahoo! Mail recently and it works fine except for one thing. I cannot attach a file to an email. I click the attach button, select a file, and Yahoo! Mail tries to upload it and fails. Every time no matter what file it is or what size it is. A search of the web found other people with this problem, but no solutions. However, I found a work-around that fixes it.

I've been using Yahoo! for years and have sent a zillion emails with attachments, so it crossed my mind that my mail account might be full. I can't see any usage indication in Yahoo! Mail, so I don't know whether it is full or not. I searched for old sent files with attachments and deleted them, freeing up some space. I still couldn't attach any files.

It crossed my mind that it could be the browser and I normally use Google Chrome. I fired up Internet Explorer, but it was no different and files could not be attached to emails. The problem seemed to be independent of the browser.

The Attach button in Yahoo! Mail is actually Flash. I uninstalled Flash ages ago partly because it isn't needed so much these days and partly because Chrome has Flash built in so you don't need to install it separately. It is also known to cause various problems too. Well, I am also using Windows 8 and Internet Explorer 10 has Flash built in too. So both Chrome and IE have Flash and neither browser would attach files to emails. Unlike normal Flash, you cannot upgrade the Flash plugin in these browsers because it is built in and you have to wait for a browser update.

The solution was to use Firefox. This is completely Flash-free because I've not installed Flash in Windows and it is not built into the browser. If you access Yahoo! Mail with it, the mail page detects that you don't have Flash and displays a regular non-Flash button. This attaches files to emails just fine.

So there you have it. If you can't attache files to Yahoo! Mail messages it is Flash and without Flash it is fine.

Read More

Beware of Skype malware and con tricks

I just got a call on Skype that was obviously designed to con people out of money or install malware. I have heard of people being called on the telephone with this sort of scam, but not by Skype. This is new to me. It goes like this:

"This is an important security notice. We have detected that your computer is not running properly and it may be infected with a virus/malware. Your security software has been deactivated and you and your computer are at serious risk. To reactivate your security software and repair the security problem go to www.blah blah..."

No doubt some malware or crapware will be installed that will hold your PC to ransom and cost an arm and a leg to remove. It didn't fool me for one second, but not everyone is as suspicious as I am of fake calls, emails, and pop-up messages.

Read More

Living without Flash

Some time ago I decided to delete Flash from my computer and try to live without it. Is it really necessary? Actually it is, but as I pointed out, you can still live without it because Google's Chrome browser has it built in. This means that you don't need to install Flash separately. It is one less application cluttering up the disk drive and using valuable resources. Even Internet Explorer 10 in Windows 8 has Flash built in. It only works with a few sites though and it isn't as compatible as Chrome, but it's a step in the right direction.

I don't have Flash installed, but since Flash is in Chrome then I can still access Flash websites. It is possible to go a step further and disable the Flash plug-in in Chrome. Click the menu button to the right of the address box and select Settings. Click Advanced settings to reveal the hidden settings and then click Content settings in the Privacy section. In the Plug-ins section select Click to play. Close the settings tab and restart Chrome.

Chrome should be faster (solving a problem that some people have with Chrome running very slowly on some computers). When there is Flash content on a web page you will see a blank space where it should be and when the mouse moves over it, a message says Click to run Adobe Flash Player. If you really need the item, click it and Flash runs, but if it is just an advert then don't bother.

A plug-ins button appears at the right side of the address box when plug-ins are disabled and clicking it enables you to add the website as an exception. This means that you can run Flash on your favourite websites, but have it disabled on all the others. It is one more step towards getting rid of Flash completely. You find that browsing the web is faster and less prone to lock-ups and crashes with fewer plug-ins.

Read More