Search
    Google
    Tip of the Day Blog
    The Web
Wednesday
Nov032004

10 new PowerPoint templates - Free

TIP OF THE DAY

10 new PowerPoint templates - Free


Each template uses a new, sleek layout (layout: The arrangement of elements, such as title and subtitle text, lists, pictures, tables, charts, AutoShapes, and movies, on a chart.) with professionally selected colors. Using these design templates, you can quickly create any or all of the following:

- Agenda
- Block Diagram
- Cycle Diagram
- Marketing Diagram
- Progress Diagram
- Table
- 3-D Pie Chart

Click here: - Office.Microsoft.com
Monday
Nov012004

Speakers That Cut The Cables

TIP OF THE DAY

Speakers That Cut The Cables

 

http://tech2.nytimes.com/mem/technology/techreview.html?res=9507E5DE1538F933A0575AC0A9629C8B63

By DAVID POGUE
Published: September 30, 2004

FALL is in the air!

Actually, fall isn't all. Along with the usual stuff (love, excitement, politics), the air is increasingly filled with wireless signals. The radio spectrum bursts with invisible waves from cellphones, cordless phones, computer networks, satellite dishes, radios and so on. There's so much wireless traffic in the air these days, it's a wonder you can even breathe.

But electronics companies haven't finished going wireless just yet. They're still looking for other wires to eliminate, like the ones that connect to your stereo to your speakers.

As it turns out, four companies -- Sony, RCA, Advent and Acoustic Research -- make at least five different wireless speaker kits. (All right, Advent and Acoustic Research are only brand names marketed by RCA, whose parent, Thomson Electronics, inherited these product lines from Recoton, which went bankrupt this year -- don't worry, none of this will be on the final exam. The point is that in fact, these speaker sets actually come from only two companies, not four. But play along, will you?)

If you've used a cordless phone, you get the concept. Into a small base station, you plug a sound source: a music player, a stereo, your TV, your computer or whatever. The base station transmits the music wirelessly to the speakers, which, because they can run either on batteries or from an electrical outlet, you can park anywhere.

Suddenly you've got music at your patio parties without having to hire an electrician. Now you can work in places that ordinarily lack a music system, like the garage, the bathroom or the sock drawer. Wireless speakers also come in handy any time you want to put them on, say, a bookshelf, without having to trail wires across the room to the CD player or computer; dorm rooms, bedrooms and home libraries come to mind.

These speakers transmit FM signals on the 900-megahertz band. The manufacturers say that you can position the speakers up to 150 or 300 feet away from the base station (depending on the model you buy), even through walls, ceilings and floors.

Unfortunately, all FM-based wireless sound systems, whether headphones, speakers or iPod-to-car-stereo adapters, are notoriously susceptible to interference. The range and reception you'll get from these systems depend on the wiring of your house, the configuration of your neighborhood and whether or not you sacrificed poultry during the last full moon. (This quirk explains the bipolar online ratings given to wireless speakers by people who've bought them: they're all either one-star or five-star reviews.)

For example, although you won't get interference from microwave ovens, wireless computer networks and Bluetooth gadgets (these all use a different frequency), you may get static from baby monitors and older, 900-megahertz cordless phones. In any case, you've been warned: your yardage may vary.

Sony's SRS-RF90RK (about $95), supposedly capable of picking up its base station's signal from ''up to 150 feet away,'' begins crackling at only 35 feet. Nor is range the extent of this speaker's humble ambitions; it's also among the weakest models (4 watts) and the feeblest-sounding (it has a 80-to-20,000-hertz frequency response, meaning there's no bass to speak of). A math teacher might express the Sony's sound quality like this: Clock radio < Sony RF90RK < nice boom box.

That's too bad, because the Sony is the easiest speaker to set up. It's also the only one with built-in rechargeable batteries (they can play for about three hours per charge). And above all, the speaker itself (a single tower containing two tweeters and a woofer) is a work of art, especially compared with its ugly rivals, which you'll be tempted to hide behind some fake foliage.

A curved wall of crystal-clear plexiglass hovers in space a couple of inches away from the cylinder, bouncing the sound back toward you and offering a modicum of stereo-channel separation. At your option, the tower can also pass a cool blue light invisibly through the curved plexiglass and, visibly, out its edges.

It's just too bad the Sony doesn't sound as good as it looks.

Although they have only a tweeter (and only 50-to-12,000-hertz frequency response), the RCA WSP150 speakers sound far richer and more powerful than the Sony, probably thanks to the resonance of two traditional speaker cabinets.

Nonetheless, this model is equally disappointing in its own way: the speakers don't work unless you tune them to the base station's frequency, using a fussy tuning knob on each speaker. Three things make this process about as much fun as herding cats: First, you don't hear the result until a second after you turn the knob, so it's a game of nudge-wait, nudge-wait. Second, the knob position that tunes one speaker often doesn't work for the other.

Finally, if you can't get a clean signal, you have to go to the base station, tune it to a different frequency, and then return to the speakers and start all over.

Clearly, somebody in the chain of RCA command realized that having to play Ham Radio Operator diminishes the speakers' value, because they're priced online at $40 for the set. In that light, dismissing these speakers -- cranky and sometimes hissy though they may be -- may be premature. After all, money is time.

The WSP250, RCA's step-up model, eliminates that fussy tuning business. These are even larger, better-sounding speakers whose 8 watts per channel are powerful enough to pump out tunes to an entire backyard (assuming it's not the size yard you have to hire someone else to mow).

Unfortunately, the range isn't very good, at least at my house; the box may say ''up to 300 feet,'' but it exaggerates by a factor of six. Note, too, that you can't power these with standard batteries. You must either plug them into electric outlets or buy RCA's optional rechargeable battery packs. These are the best-sounding speakers, but at $150, they're also the most expensive.

Only one contender is equally comfortable outdoors, even in a drizzle: the Advent ADVW801. In fact, to blend with your shrubbery, it's dark green and designed to look like a giant alien mushroom. (Actually, outdoors is probably the only place you'd put it. You really, really don't want this grotesque-looking thing inside your home.)

The Advent has unbelievable range; the base station was still pumping out a strong signal 120 feet away from the speakers. (That's down two stories, through walls and floors -- as far away from the speakers as I could get without breaking into my next-door neighbor's bedroom.) In fact, once during testing the Advent's base station started pumping sound to the Sony speaker, which was still plugged in over 100 feet away.

If you desperately need a mist-proof speaker -- the company recommends that you don't leave it outside permanently -- the price is fair ($70) and the power is good (10 watts). But the weatherproofing doesn't do much for the sound, which is a tad muffled, and you don't get stereo sound unless you buy a pair.

But what if you want wireless speakers that don't have any of the gotchas that plague its rivals? The Acoustic Research AW871 speakers ($120) are practically disappointment-free.

The range is just as good as Mr. Mushroom's, and the power (15 watts) and frequency response trump the other speakers in this batch. A simple three-position switch lets you change channels if your baby monitor is interfering, and a clever L/R/Mono switch lets you change the stereo identity of each speaker. (You'd use the Mono position when, for example, using each speaker in a different room of the house rather than as a stereo pair.)

It's important to understand that no wireless speakers can match the sound quality of a wired speaker at similar price and size. The Acoustic Research set, however, comes very close. Consider it if you need wireless speakers and there's room for one more thing in the air at your house: a little bit of music.
Friday
Oct292004

Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act

TIP OF THE DAY

Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act

From Snopes.com:

On 28 October 2004, the provisions of the Check Clearing for the 21st Century Act (commonly known as "Check 21") will go into effect. The intent of the act is to eliminate check-clearing delays, primarily by removing the requirement that checks must be physically transported to the banks that issued them in order to be cleared for payment. After 28 October 2004, banks will be allowed to transmit and clear checks by electronic facsimile, a practice that should avoid any clearing delays caused by circumstances that make the physical transportation of checks difficult or impossible (e.g., severe weather, power failures, terrorism).

Of course, one result of faster check processing will be a much shorter gap between the time consumers issue checks for payment and the time the covering funds are withdrawn from their accounts (usually referred to as the "float" time). After Check 21 goes into effect checks may be processed in a matter of hours or even minutes, so consumers can no longer safely assume they have a grace period after writing checks before the funds are actually tapped from their accounts. Check 21 does not, however, change the rules affecting how long banks can hold for clearance checks deposited by their customers. Generally, banks can hold local checks for up to two days, out-of-town checks for up to five days, and other types of checks (e.g., checks over $5,000, checks drawn on new accounts, checks written against consistently overdrawn accounts) for up to thirty days. The bottom line is that consumers will have to be more careful than ever to ensure that adequate funds are always available to cover the checks they write.

Also, under Check 21 banks will no longer be required to return canceled checks to their customers; they may return photographic images of the checks instead. Banks will be able to issue certified photocopies of checks known as "substitute checks," and these copies will have the same evidentiary standing in courts of law as the originals. (Although banks may allow customers to view and print out images of their checks over the Internet, those self-printed copies will not technically be considered substitute checks even though most courts will likely still accept them as evidence of payment.) Check 21 will not explicitly require banks to provide substitute checks, so consumers may want to check with their banks to ensure they receive substitute checks with their statements.

Another provision of Check 21 will speed up resolution of customer claims regarding fraud and error. Currently banks do not need to credit the accounts of customers who complain of error or fraud until their investigations are complete. After Check 21 banks must prove within ten days that disputed transactions were not their fault; if they do not provide such proof, they must credit their customers' accounts for the disputed amounts even if they have not completed their investigations.

Although the Check 21 act goes into effect on 28 October 2004, banks do not have to begin electronically clearing checks on that date ­ Check 21 merely authorizes banks to begin use of electronic check clearing. Most major banks already have imaging technology in place, but not all banks do, and some banks may therefore continue to process checks the "old" way until they upgrade their processing systems.
Wednesday
Oct272004

Using Bookmarks In Word

TIP OF THE DAY

Using Bookmarks In Word


You can place bookmarks into a Word document so you can easily and quickly find your place again. For example, if you're reading through a lengthy document and stumble across some piece of information you would like to revisit, you can simply use a bookmark.

To create a bookmark in Word:
  1. Click the place in your document where you want to insert a bookmark.
  2. Click Bookmark from the Insert menu.
  3. Type in a name for the bookmark and click Add.
When you want to locate one of your bookmarks:
  1. Open the Find and Replace dialog box by clicking Find from the Edit menu and selecting the Go To tab or by pressing F5.
  2. Type the name of the bookmark in the Enter page number field.
  3. Click the Go To button.
Source: Lockergnome
Friday
Oct222004

Photo-Printing Services

TIP OF THE DAY

Photo-Printing Services

I'm a big fan of Shutterfly, but here's an article comparing the various services available for online printing of digital pictures.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1759,1536878,00.asp

Photo-Printing Services
By Jonathan Roubini

As people switch from film to digital cameras, they often have questions­and legitimate concerns­about getting prints of photos. How do you get high-quality prints? Will they look as good as film photos? Are they expensive?

Fortunately, ordering prints online is much cheaper and easier than you might think. And almost any digital camera­whether 2 megapixels or 5­is capable of producing prints that will look just as good as any you've gotten from your old film camera. That said, there is some variation in quality depending on the services you use. Some printing services print more accurately, while some do a better job of enhancing photos. Some offer better editing tools, and some are just easy to use.

How We Tested

For this story, we tested nine of the top online printing services, according to data provided by InfoTrends. We also tested ez prints, which provides online photo-printing services to many of the sharing services in "Photo-Sharing Services".

To compare printing services, we ordered and compared prints of ten photos from each site. Paul Aresu (
www.paularesu.com), a professional photographer, took three reference photos of model Ania Suarez (www.aniasuarez.com), using a Canon EOS-1Ds. These photos were shot specifically to test the quality and accuracy of the photo-printing services.

The other seven photos were taken by amateur photographers using a variety of 2- to 5-megapixel cameras. These provided a good representation of what to expect for photos from casual photographers and hobbyists.

We rated the output based on perceived quality and on how closely it matched the originals. Quality and accuracy each has its own advantages: If you know you want images reproduced exactly, accuracy will be important. Many casual users, however, will like the enhancing features some services use to make prints look better.

The Results

We were surprised at how drastic some of the differences among these sites were. Our favorite service overall is Shutterfly. It is extremely easy to navigate and offers convenient single-click actions for common tasks, such as rotating images. Ofoto offers equally handy tools and is quite easy to use. The service also produces very good prints. Still, Shutterfly, with its impressive image enhancement feature and a slightly easier-to-use Web site, edges out Ofoto for our Editors' Choice.

Most of ez prints' business comes from partnered Web services that offer photo sharing and other similar tools. For sheer print quality, ez prints is the best. Otherwise, the service is somewhat lacking. For instance, ez prints is devoid of photo-editing tools­no cropping or red-eye reduction, even. The service does provide a general enhancement feature that consistently improved the look of our images.

By contrast, Imagestation offers the most advanced editing tools among these products. But the site is slow, and images are of only average quality.

For the most part, we like Snapfish. The prints look very good, though they can't match the quality of Shutterfly and Ofoto. And the tools aren't as streamlined as with some services; for example, tasks we performed with Shutterfly in just one or two clicks required far more on Snapfish.

The prints Club Photo produced were neither exceptionally fine nor glaringly bad. What did make a strong impression was how badly the Web site is designed. Thumbnails of images are very poor. And when you share an album with a friend, the friend gains access to all your albums; you can't be selective. dotPhoto suffers the same album-sharing flaw. After we wrapped up testing, dotPhoto told us that its site would soon be redesigned.

Kodak Picture Center Online produced relatively poor images. We were particularly surprised when we ordered a print on 16-by-20 paper and received what looked like an ink jet print on Kodak ink jet paper.

The PhotoWorks service is very easy to use. Its print quality, along with Wal-Mart's, was the worst of the services. Wal-Mart also suffers from a lack of features. And unless you purchase storage space (78 cents a year for 10MB), your uploaded pictures will disappear after 30 days.

Interestingly, some of these services use the same photo-processing centers, yet that doesn't necessarily mean the quality is the same. Club Photo and Imagestation use the same lab, and these two services took longer than the others to produce our prints. Meanwhile, dotPhoto and Snapfish both use the same lab, yet Snapfish's prints were the better of the two.


Photo-Printing Services: Shutterfly

Of course, you'll probably want to order prints of your favorite photos. Shutterfly is our favorite all-around printing service. The site is easy to navigate, it includes simple yet effective editing tools, and most important, its print quality is excellent.


Club Photo

Product: Club Photo Club Photo,
www.clubphoto.com

Editor Rating:

The dark profile head shot is kept dark, with slight brightening, yet we see some posterization. In general, Club Photo's prints are decent.


dotPhoto
Product: dotPhoto Company Info: dotPhoto,
www.dotphoto.com

Editor Rating:

In the profile headshot, there is some obvious posterization. The service has also brightened dark images the most. Otherwise, dotPhoto offers good prints.


Snapfish

Product: Snapfish Company Info: Snapfish,
www.snapfish.com

Editor Rating:

The dark pictures we submitted were automatically brightened, and the result is a posterization effect. Apart from this issue, we are pleased with the quality of Snapfish prints.


Shutterfly

Product: Shutterfly Company Info: Shutterfly,
www.shutterfly.com

Editor Rating:

Shutterfly successfully enhanced and brightened the dark pictures without any posterization. The only minor issue is that the sky in one picture has some hints of purple.


ez prints
Product: ez prints Company Info: ez prints,
www.ezprints.com

Editor Rating:

ez prints produces excellent prints. In general, it does a better job in adjusting colors when necessary. The intentionally dark pictures were kept dark­but enhanced to look better.


Wal-Mart

Product: Wal-Mart Company Info: Wal-Mart,
www.walmart.com

Editor Rating:

In this print, the picture is darkened to the point that the hair cannot be distinguished from the background. Wal-Mart has also added some posterization to the test head shot.


Ofoto

Product: Ofoto Company Info: Ofoto,
www.ofoto.com

Editor Rating:

Ofoto produces impressive prints that are very close to the original images. The bright model head shot looks realistic, and the hair keeps its natural brown color.


Kodak Picture Center Online

Product: Kodak Picture Center Online Company Info: Kodak Picture Center Online, picturecenter.kodak.com

Editor Rating:

In this print, the model's hair looks closer to black than to the brown of the original image. Our darker pictures were brightened, producing posterization problems similar to those of Snapfish and dotPhoto.


PhotoWorks

Product: PhotoWorks Company Info: PhotoWorks,
www.photoworks.com

Editor Rating:

Images from PhotoWorks are generally on the red side. There seems to be a sharpening going on in the pictures; this is noticeable in the details of a face.


Imagestation

Product: Imagestation Company Info: Imagestation,
www.imagestation.com

Editor Rating:

The posterization is clear in different areas of this picture. In general, the pictures have a slightly exaggerated tone of black and red.


Photo-Printing Services
Summary_of_Features.pdf