Found a new product to share

It's a little off topic for this blog, but I wanted to share a note about a new product I found.  I'm a bit of a Linux nerd.  I worked for MS for 2 years, and enjoyed it.  I own a computer support company doing mobile IT work, and that's mostly Windows systems.

I have nothing against Windows or Microsoft, but I prefer Linux.  The only problem is that many companies will release software to work with their services and not bother to make any versions for Linux.  Forget the fact that it's really not that difficult to take the Mac software and compile it differently, they just don't bother because Linux is traditionally a smaller user base.

On of the most surprising offenders is Google.  Google Docs, which later became known as Google Drive, has turned into a competing service for Dropbox and other similar online storage solutions.  Being an Android fan, and a fan of Google in general, I choose Google Drive for my main storage.  I use the free versions of other online storage for various things as well, but my primary is Google Drive.  Except, they didn't bother to make a Linux version of their sync software.

Dropbox did.

Copy.com did.

So where is Googles?  At insynchq.com  This is not a free solution, but for a one time price of $9.99 it solves several problems.  First, for Linux users like me, it allows an easy method of setting up a regular data sync for files on Google Drive.  Better still, it has MANY more features than your average sync software, including support for multiple accounts.  There are versions for Windows and Mac as well, so you won't be left out.  Even though you have a Google Drive sync product that is provided for free download by Google, this may meet your needs better as well.  The comparison between the Insync client and the free Google Drive client is below.  You can clearly see that there are a ton of great additional features.

  Insync Drive

Multiple accounts  

Convert Google Docs to Office  

Symlink, junction and alias  

Built-in sharing without a browser  

External & network drives  

Non-admin Windows install  

Recent changes feed  

Desktop notifications  

Right-click share  

On-demand shared files syncing  

Linux  

Selective sync all folders + files folders you own

Name your own folder  

Revert read-only files  

Awesome support  

Whether you're on Linux looking for a simple solution, or you're on a Windows or Mac machine just looking for more features, it's hard to beat $9.99 ONE TIME for this service.  I've seen others that are only $.99, but they charge by the month.  10 months in, you'd have been better off paying the one time charge.

I've been using the free 15 day trial for 3 days now, and I've already decided to buy it.  There's simply nothing better out there, and I don't expect to see anything better any time soon.  Check out insynchq.com today to start your free trial.

If you're interested in getting free cloud storage, you can choose between a few service providers.  Google Drive is of course one of them (drive.google.com).  There's also Dropbox (dropbox.com) and Copy (copy.com).  As of this writing, Dropbox is only offering 2GB for free, while Google Drive and Copy both start at 15GB.  For Google, that is shared storage for all your Google services.  For Copy that is a starting point.  You can earn 5GB free for every person you recommend as well as 2GB just for posting a link to Twitter for them.  You can rack up some free storage fast, so I suggest Copy.com if you're just looking for free cloud storage.  

Starbucks and Guns

Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz released a letter last week that I find a little annoying.  But even so, I can't fault the guy for it, and he worded things exactly perfectly.  I disagree entirely with the decision, and had I been CEO, that letter would have been very different, but the fact is that people have brought this on themselves.  

Anti-gun groups are holding rallies and pitching a fit that Starbucks dares to allow people in the store to exercise their rights in a legal fashion, based on the laws of the jurisdiction they're located in.  Meanwhile, gun rights groups are going completely bat-S crazy holding events and demonstrations at stores.  

Both groups have this in common.  Neither one bothers to get permission, or cares how their demonstration affects the businesses.  Ok, maybe the Anti-gun groups are actually TRYING to hurt the business, but the pro-gun side of this debate is doing a happy dance that Starbucks 'supports' them, and just crapping all over Starbucks for it.  

Here's the deal, folks.  Get a clue.  Starbucks is a business.  They are here to make money.  You're hurting them by being stupid and holding your little gatherings in their private place of business.  Did you not expect them to react?  Do something to try to stop the stupid and keep their business from harm?

Do I agree with Schultz's decision?  Absolutely not.  My letter would have said something along the lines of "any group holding an un-approved event in our stores without our express written permission, supporting or opposing anything,  will be escorted out by the police and given a trespass notice.  There will be no warnings and no discussion, and we will not have our private place of business turned into a three-ring circus for your cause."

Do I understand why he did it?  Absolutely.  Do I support his right to do so?  Absolutely.  

Will I disarm before going into a Starbucks?  Not a prayer in hell.  I'm not an open-carry guy, and I think openly having a weapon is an invitation to all sorts of trouble you don't want.  Assuming I go to a Starbucks, which is a rare event since I really don't like coffee, I will go armed.  Like I always have.

You can read the full text of the letter below:

Tuesday, September 17, 2013 Posted by Howard Schultz, Starbucks chairman, president and chief executive officer

Dear Fellow Americans,

Few topics in America generate a more polarized and emotional debate than guns. In recent months, Starbucks stores and our partners (employees) who work in our stores have been thrust unwillingly into the middle of this debate. That’s why I am writing today with a respectful request that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas.

From the beginning, our vision at Starbucks has been to create a “third place” between home and work where people can come together to enjoy the peace and pleasure of coffee and community. Our values have always centered on building community rather than dividing people, and our stores exist to give every customer a safe and comfortable respite from the concerns of daily life.

We appreciate that there is a highly sensitive balance of rights and responsibilities surrounding America’s gun laws, and we recognize the deep passion for and against the “open carry” laws adopted by many states. (In the United States, “open carry” is the term used for openly carrying a firearm in public.) For years we have listened carefully to input from our customers, partners, community leaders and voices on both sides of this complicated, highly charged issue.

Our company’s longstanding approach to “open carry” has been to follow local laws: we permit it in states where allowed and we prohibit it in states where these laws don’t exist. We have chosen this approach because we believe our store partners should not be put in the uncomfortable position of requiring customers to disarm or leave our stores. We believe that gun policy should be addressed by government and law enforcement—not by Starbucks and our store partners.

Recently, however, we’ve seen the “open carry” debate become increasingly uncivil and, in some cases, even threatening. Pro-gun activists have used our stores as a political stage for media events misleadingly called “Starbucks Appreciation Days” that disingenuously portray Starbucks as a champion of “open carry.” To be clear: we do not want these events in our stores. Some anti-gun activists have also played a role in ratcheting up the rhetoric and friction, including soliciting and confronting our customers and partners.

For these reasons, today we are respectfully requesting that customers no longer bring firearms into our stores or outdoor seating areas—even in states where “open carry” is permitted—unless they are authorized law enforcement personnel.

I would like to clarify two points. First, this is a request and not an outright ban. Why? Because we want to give responsible gun owners the chance to respect our request—and also because enforcing a ban would potentially require our partners to confront armed customers, and that is not a role I am comfortable asking Starbucks partners to take on. Second, we know we cannot satisfy everyone. For those who oppose “open carry,” we believe the legislative and policy-making process is the proper arena for this debate, not our stores. For those who champion “open carry,” please respect that Starbucks stores are places where everyone should feel relaxed and comfortable. The presence of a weapon in our stores is unsettling and upsetting for many of our customers.

I am proud of our country and our heritage of civil discourse and debate. It is in this spirit that we make today’s request. Whatever your view, I encourage you to be responsible and respectful of each other as citizens and neighbors.

Sincerely,

Howard Schultz

SCOTUS does something right, but ....

If you noticed, this week the Supreme Court has handed down a few decisions.  As usual, homosexual issues were a hot topic, and two decisions from SCOTUS really hit the nail on the head in regards to this issue.

It's nice to see SCOTUS vote on the side of the Constitution and Individual Liberty.  If you're homosexual and you want to get married, it's nobodies business but your own.  This same sort of idiocy played out over half a century ago when some people DARED to want to have an interracial marriage because (gasp!!) they fell in love with someone who wasn't the same color as they were.

Way to go, SCOTUS.  Way to go.  Now, about those other individual rights that have been trampled...... get on that.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-307_6j37.pdf
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinions.aspx?Term=12