A helpful warning from our talented IT department….A new spin on and old trick.
A helpful warning from our talented IT department….A new spin on and old trick: Since this has come up a few times in the last few weeks, I wanted
Firefox = You’re Doing It Right
Oh yeah!
Evolv, a company that monitors recruitment and workplace data, has suggested that there are better ways to identify the right candidate for job. It analysed 3m data points from over 30,000 employees, comparing traits of applicants with those of existing employees, to determine which traits are most indicative of reliability, trustworthiness and suitability for particular jobs. Among other things, its analysis found that those applicants who have bothered to install new web browsers on their computers (such as Mozilla’s Firefox or Google’s Chrome) perform better and stay in their posts for 15% longer, on average, than those who use the default pre-installed browser that came with their machine (ie, Internet Explorer on a Windows PC and Safari on an Apple Mac). This may simply be a coincidence, but Evolv’s analysts reckon that applicants’ willingness to go to the trouble of installing a new browser shows decisiveness, a valuable trait in a potential employee.
A helpful warning from our talented IT department….A new spin on and old trick.
A helpful warning from our talented IT department….A new spin on and old trick:
Since this has come up a few times in the last few weeks, I wanted to make you all aware of a new tactic scammers are using to try to get information from you and how to deal with it.
Back in the old days, in the early 2000′s or so, spammers would send you e-mail that looked like something official from say, Microsoft, offering a link to click that would solve whatever imaginary problem you had but would in actuality install something bad on your computer that would steal information and make your life generally miserable.
Or a random person would send you a Word or Excel document expecting you to open it and surprise! Virus or Trojan that would do much the same as above.
These days these folks are attacking from the cloud. If you get a random link to a Google Doc from a person you have never heard of, this is very likely an attempt to get information from you that can be used maliciously. The difference is, this time you’ll be volunteering the information. The link goes to a form in a Google Doc which asks you to submit personal information about yourself to solve whatever fake problem they’ve presented you. It could be a locked out password, it could be credit card information.
The same rules apply now as they did then. If you’re getting something like this from a person you don’t recognize, do not click the link. If it’s something telling you to reset your password, if it’s not coming from a ************* address, either ignore it or report it as spam or phishing*. To do this:
When you are in the offending message, click the pull-down next to the Reply arrow and choose the Report Spam or Report Phishing option.
*Phishing is a term used when someone is trying to collect information from a person in order to use it against them in a malicious way. It’s how identity thieves and hackers can easily obtain information without having to do much at all. It’s also been referred to as Social Engineering in the past.
Well Written!
I used to extoll the virtues of quality “likes” vs. quantity….
but it seems the time for unlearning is here:
It really is troubling…. First Facebook encourages you develop “likes”, then Facebook reduces your ability to speak to them all effectively without paying, then makes your search results based upon the size of an audience you can’t talk to without payment. Well played Facebook. Now comes the time to decide, do we keep running in this hamster wheel, hoping for a reward, or do we quit pigeonholing our interests and efforts into the support of an entity that is focused solely on the exploitation of its participants?
Reposted from HERE – Article By Dave Kerpen January 17, 2013
Two years ago, I wrote in Likeable Social Media that “Like is the new link.” Facebook, I argued, was reorganizing the Internet around likes. Whereas Google had previously organized the web around links and information, Facebook was adding a social layer to the web. I envisioned a world in which the like became more important than the link.
Today, thanks to over one billion users and its new Graph search, that world has arrived. Sure, graph search is poorly named. (It sounds like it was named by engineering nerds, not my marketers from one of the world’s largest brands.) More important, graph search’s current functionality is currently in beta and will only work in certain use cases, and privacy issues will surely need to be sorted out. It’s just the beginning.
But imagine the potential – not as marketer, but as a consumer. You wake up with a toothache and you need a new dentist. Would you rather find him using random coupons from Valpak, using a Google search to find a digitally savvy but also-random dentist, or using Facebook search to find a dentist your own friends like and trust?
If you’re looking for a realtor to help buy or sell your house, would you rather check the yellow pages, or find a realtor your Facebook friends or their friends like and trust?
If you’re looking for a stroller for your new toddler, would you rather shop from a catalog or from mom friends on Facebook? Trying a new healthy cereal – would you rather respond to the best TV commercial or see what your friends already like? Shopping for a car – would you find a dealer from a radio ad, or one your friends who have recently bought cars “liked” on Facebook?
We know that 92% of consumers trust word of mouth recommendations, far more than any form of advertising. For years, marketers and business people have struggled with the value of their Facebook likes. They’ve asked questions about what it all means, and how important it is to generate likes rather than clicks or links or Google Search rank. Beginning today, those questions will be answered. Like is the new link.
Newton’s cannonball
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball
Why certain color combinations drive your eyeballs crazy
Via - Esther Inglis-Arkell
Why do websites in certain colors seem to rip out your eyeballs? It’s not just the tacky color combination. It’s the fact that your brain gets hijacked to see these colors in 3D. Some appear to recede, while some seem to float forward. It’s called chromostereopsis, and it’s why designers avoid some colors like the plague.
We’re always using color to make inferences about an objects depth and position. Light and shade subtly change the color of objects, and let us know which parts of them are advancing or retreating. We notice that color can fade when it becomes very distant, and that at some distances different colors seem to blend together. Color is one of the cues that we use to understand the physical world.
Sometimes those cues, and that association of color with depth, can deceive us. Pair one color with another and, to our eyes, it will look like one color is floating in front of, or behind, the other. This is called chromostereopsis, and works with things like Rothko paintings. It does not work with things like graphic design.
The color combinations differ. Putting together red, blue, and black, will give people the illusion that the red is advancing, the blue retreating, and the black hanging between the two. Blue will also seem to retreat when paired with yellow. Green will usually appear to float on top of red. These positions can flip depending on perception. Some people, when surveyed, found that blue advanced and red retreated. There is nearly always a 3D component to the colors. Almost no one sees simply one color next to anther color on a flat piece of paper or a flat computer screen. The colors have a spatial relationship to each other.
No one has entirely pinned down the reason for this spatial color shift. Some believe that it is due to the lens of the eye refracting different colors slightly differently in space – the way a prism bends different colors of light to different angles. Others believe it’s in part because of the Crawford-Stiles effect, which shows that light passing along the edge of the pupil will be seen less effectively than light passing through the center of the pupil. People hold their eyes in different positions when they study objects, and these positions can affect the perceived depth of the colors. Studies, which have shown that chromostereopsis differs greatly depending on pupil size, do back this theory up. But we still haven’t figured out all the mechanics of the illusion. For now, it’s just important to never pair green, red, and blue together on a page and expect people to read it.
About the Tagline
“The illiterate of the 21st century will not be those who cannot read and write, but those who cannot learn, unlearn, and relearn.”–Alvin Toffler
