Unhelpful error of the day

I was working in Quicken today and decided to online enable some of my accounts as I've never done that before. I am using Quicken 2007 for the Mac and have applied the latest "update" (update is in quotes for reasons that will become clear soon.

I checked my bank for the FAQ on what to use as the username and finally found a reference on the web (the bank was no help) and knew I had that correct, but Quicken kept giving me a OL-249 error. I searched and searched and finally found a "Quicken Certificate Updater" to update the SSL certificates. After applying the "update", I was able to connect to my bank. I then found an article on Quicken's Web site referencing this error.

So why didn't the error say "unable to establish SSL connection which would have been a lot more helpful? Why didn't Intuit make the Certificate Updater a version update to the application; the updater patches something in the app, so it had to go through some QA. If they had done this, a check for updates or the automatic updates would have alerted me to this and I would have applied the patch 2 months ago. Instead, I wasted 20 minutes looking for the answer.

Now that I have this working, will I use it? I'm not sure. I manually enter all my transactions so that I can independently verify that no extra charges are posted to my account. Then I go through the statement and reconcile each transaction. In theory, reconciling the statement by hand is the same as reconciling it using the downloaded transactions as they should be generated off the same data. I'm sure it will save me a bunch of time if I do it this way and I still have my manual check of entering all the transactions.

On a side note, it appears that more and more banks are charging customers to use this feature in Quicken. I realize that banks have to pay Intuit for the feature, but passing on the fee to the customer is just nickel and diming us. Luckily one of the banks I use doesn't charge for this privilege AND supports the Mac (many banks don't support the Mac.)

Complete and utter failure of the TSA

I've written in the past criticizing the TSA and up until now, I haven't been put on any "extra screen" list as far as I know. However, that may change after this post.

I had to fly from San Diego to Newark this past week and encountered a situation with the TSA that reinforces my feelings that the government has wasted tremendous amounts of money on a useless system. I started by flying out of San Diego's commuter terminal which has only a few people manning the checkpoint and I've never encountered an issue; we breezed through after I did my standard ritual of emptying my pockets of all my gadgets (I put them in my bag before the checkpoint), take off my shoes, my sweatshirt, etc. The line is always short at this terminal, so the screeners have plenty of time to carefully check passengers if they wish; they don't.

On the way home, we flew out of Newark's Liberty airport and had no problems with security going this way as well even though it appeared that they cared a little more about security.

When I got home today, I emptied out my laptop bag and reached far into a pocket that I normally don't store anything. What I pulled out of the pocket made my jaw drop. I completely forgot what I had put into the pocket.

Here's what I found:

I immediately knew what it was; it was a small multi-tool that I put into my bag. Here's what it looks like out of the sheath.

And this last picture shows the tool completely open.

Yes, the tool has several blades, a pair of pliers, a nail file and some screwdrivers.

So, I managed to get this through 2 security checkpoints without being stopped or questioned. I didn't realize this was in there and would have gladly surrendered it if it was brought to my attention (it was cheap). I've questioned the methods of the TSA for awhile, but this reinforces the point that the overt screening techniques of the TSA are utterly and completely useless.

I think that the government needs to take a closer look at the TSA and invest more in profiling and intelligence than in the current, useless method of screening passengers. Should a screener have been able to detect this multi-tool? Probably, but if they can't clearly see it on the x-ray, then what good is the x-ray?

Will I be getting a call from the TSA or will someone appear at my door tomorrow because of this post? I have no idea.

Squeezebox 7.4 and Bonjour

Thanks to the efforts of Neil Potter on the XM Radio plugin for the Squeezebox software, I was finally able to update to Squeezebox 7.4 which has many new features over the 7.3 software I was running before.

Once I saw Neil's email about the new plugin, I quickly updated the Squeezebox software and gave it a whirl. I was able to play XM Radio and was pretty excited. However, I went to the Bonjour menu in Safari and didn't find the familiar "Squeezebox" link to control the server using a web browser. I rebooted my Mac Mini, poked around and didn't find any problems. After a search of the forums, I found a reference to a bug filed on this issue. The response from the developer was pretty crass if you ask me. The developer said:

No, it was removed because it's a stupid feature. We had a standalone binary
and tons of support code just to add a bookmark to Safari?! Give me a break,
we're better off not having to support it.

Wow, that kind of response is a bit rude and, in my mind, short sighted. In many home setups, the server will get a dynamic IP address which means knowing the IP address of the server may not be possible. In my setup, I can use mediacenter.local to access the machine; sometimes, however, this doesn't work as the machine gets confused and gets renamed mediacenter-2.local when the server is restarted. I setup a DHCP assigned, static IP address using my Time Capsule base station so it always gets the same address to hopefully avoid the renaming issue. That solves part of the problem. The other problem is that in the past, when my wife has wanted to control the server, she used the Bonjour bookmark to get to the server. Now I have to setup a bookmark for her which isn't hard, just another step. Now that we're using the Squeezebox Controller, we use the web interface much less.

While I can understand not wanting to maintain a separate binary, the developers are making it a bit harder for the average user to use the Squeezebox server. This will be fun setting up my parents with their Squeezebox if/when my father decides to update the software. They have 2 Macs that they use; one Mac is the server, so that's easy, access it via http://localhost:9000, but the other machine is harder.

I hope that someone in Logitech's product management takes a look at this feature and re-considers it.

Review: BusyCal

When the folks at BusyMac showed BusyCal off at Macworld Expo, I was excited to see an iCal replacement. Unfortunately, at the time, it didn't handle CalDAV and we were using CalDAV at work. So, I didn't have a use for it. The BusyMac folks do great work and I've known John and Dave for years. Now that BusyCal has been released, things have changed for me. I'm not using CalDAV at work (some people are, but some are now using Google Apps for Your Domain). I downloaded BusyCal, installed it, and within about 10 minutes, purchased it!

While on the surface, it looks like just an iCal replacement, it isn't. It integrates with Google so well, that it simplifies my calendaring tremendously. I have 3 calendars I use for work, and 3 for home. All of the calendars are on Google in 2 separate accounts. I'm not really sure what to say about it, but it is much more pleasant to use than iCal; iCal feels like a dog compared to BusyCal. iCal's CalDAV syncing (to Google) is problematic and has many quirks. For instance, if I receive an ics file sent to one account that is forwarded to another, iCal won't let me add it. If I do the same thing with BusyCal, it lets me add the event without problems. In addition, I trust that the BusyMac folks will listen to feedback and make more frequent updates than iCal.

I'm not going to go in depth here as the trial version will give you the opportunity to test drive it in the comfort of your own home.

Pros

• Excellent syncing with Google.
• Ability to add .ics events without strange error messages.
• Easier setup for Google syncing than iCal.
• Responsive tech support.
• Weather icons are a nice touch and saves me from having to watch the weather on the news.
• The details for calendar events is much easier to use than iCal.

Cons

• It's not cheap at $40 per copy.
• Doesn't handle CalDAV calendars like iCal does.

Summary

If you use Google for calendaring, this application is a must have. If you have BusySync, it's only a $10 upgrade, so it is definitely a no brainer. If you don't have BusySync, but want easy calendaring, I don't think you'll regret this purchase. Go grab the trial and give it a whirl. If you're like me, you'll be hooked pretty quickly!