Mediaboss Marketing

If Windows Autopatch arrives in July as planned, some of you will be able to say goodbye to Patch Tuesday.

Windows Autopatch formed part of Microsoft's April announcements on updates to the company's Windows-in-the-cloud product. The tech was in public preview since May.

Aimed at enterprise users running Windows 10 and 11, Autopatch can, in theory, be used to replace the traditional Patch Tuesday to which administrators have become accustomed over the years. A small set of devices will get the patches first before Autopatch moves on to gradually larger sets, gated by checks to ensure that nothing breaks.

If an issue crops up, the updates can be paused, rolled back or just the bits of an update that aren't broken rolled out. The cadence will also increase for urgent updates, such as zero-day threats.

Although Autopatch is available free for users running Windows 10/11 Enterprise E3 and above, there is a cost in terms of granular control. Earlier this month Microsoft confirmed it would not be possible to schedule rollouts only at certain days and times. It will also not be possible to individually approve or deny devices.

PowerShell fans will be disappointed to learn that "Programmatic access to Windows Autopatch is not currently available."

As for where Autopatch pulls its fixes, Windows updates come from the General Availability Channel and Office updates come from the Monthly Enterprise Channel. Teams and Microsoft's Edge browser are special cases Edge has its own update service and the Teams client application is synchronized with changes to the Teams online service.

Drivers and firmware published to Windows Update as "Automatic" will also dribble down to users via Autopatch. Windows Server and Windows multi-session is not, however, supported.

While Patch Tuesday will continue for many of us, there is now an opportunity for administrators immersed in Windows at an enterprise level and tired of the monthly festival of fixes to free up resources and let Autopatch do its thing.

That's as long as admins are willing to trust that Microsoft is better at managing updates than it is at quality control.

The rest is here:
Microsoft readies Windows Autopatch to free admins from dealing with its fixes - The Register

Digital teaching and communication tools are increasingly present in kindergarten to Grade 12 classrooms. By April 2020, not long after the onset of the pandemic, Google Classroom had doubled its users to more than 100 million.

For educational technology companies, the pandemic accelerated opportunities to grow markets and profits.

Whether for facilitating learning, assessing learning or communicating with parents and guardians, digital tools are increasingly part of many childrens and parents school experiences.

In our ever-connected classrooms and societies, one notable element is the use of freemium software software that is free for all users to obtain and use, but only with limited features. For a fee or monthly subscription, users can unlock further features.

Educational settings should focus on equity, especially when it comes to decisions related to the use of technology for teaching and learning.

In educational settings, software whether for teaching and learning or parent-teacher communication should not have tiered offerings where users who have the financial means to pay are privy to a better version of the software with additional features and tools.

School boards and provincial education ministries should focus on implementing universally accessible tools to eliminate two-tier access for learners and families that is enabled with freemium software. This may include licensing commercial software that has been carefully evaluated and assessed for how it supports student learning.

Read more: Investing in technologies for student learning: 4 principles school boards and parents should consider

Freemium software is an excellent marketing strategy and economic driver, and its become popular for multiple applications. Spotify software is one popular example for everyday music listening.

Some examples of educational software that have freemium versions are Prodigy Math and ClassDojo. According to these respective software companies, 20 million students a year use the free version of Prodigy. More than 50 million teachers and families use ClassDojo and more than one million use the plus (premium) version.

Freemium software exacerbates the digital divide for students who may be economically disadvantaged compared to their peers.

In turn, it contributes to whats known as the Matthew Effect where those who have more acquire better, more beneficial experiences compared to those with less who are left behind.

In the cases where schools choose to use software that has a freemium version, boards should license the software to ensure that all learners have equitable access to the tool.

Whats important to understand is freemium software is not actually free software, all things considered. With the data being collected, the provider is gaining valuable data from users.

The software provider gains a direct marketing channel to the parent and child through the application. The developer can now target the user with advertising for advanced features that are accessible if they pay a fee.

The U.S.-based non-profit organization Fairplay has called on schools to say no to using Prodigy, noting that the platforms push to sell premium memberships is relentless, and aimed at kids. In just 19 minutes of studying, we saw 16 ads for membership and only four math problems. In February 2021, the organizatons Campaign for Commercial-Free Childhood and advocacy partners sent a letter of complaint to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission about Prodigy.

Parents who are able and willing to pay for premium access may do so without giving it much thought, or assume that the school has selected the tool and there is a cost, likening it to a field trip fee.

Read more: School fees undermine public educations commitment to equity

In addition to offering different forms of student and family access to tools, interactions enabled by premium features of freemium software could affect classroom relationships in inequitable ways.

For example, premium features of Prodigy Math enable parents to compare their childs progress with their peers: if children are privy to this information about classmates, this could affect how they engage with other children. In ClassDojo, if parents pay for the plus version, they are able to access read statuses notifications about when their messages to teachers have been read. Teachers have the ability to turn this feature off.

This has the potential to strain the parent-teacher relationship or to create privileged or priority communication access to teachers by parents who have paid if the teacher feels pressured to respond or be accessible.

As spending continues to increase on educational technology, it is important that software used for teaching and learning is evaluated by educational technology specialists and supported across entire school boards. If freemium software is being used, it should be selected based on evidence and licensed for the users.

Communication platforms need to work well and meet the needs of teachers and instructors while bolstering communication between the school and family without any cost to the parent or guardian.

Increasingly, data security and student privacy are concerns. Software that is deployed for teaching and learning in classrooms should be carefully selected using standard practices.

Proper supports for digital tools are required in order see benefits from tools. Its important to realize that simply making technology accessible to students isnt a guarantee of better learning outcomes: For example, research from the United States shows that the extent to which educators support training and immersion with devices in schools matters to students measurable learning gains.

Read more: Digital platforms alone don't bridge youth divides

In a time when school boards and schools are called upon to implement decisions that address student inequities and narrow the opportunity and access gaps students and families face, the free tier of freemium software is a step in the wrong direction.

View post:
Why freemium software has no place in our classrooms - The Conversation

Sonos has confirmed that customers who received extra, unordered devices as a result of a recent software glitch dont need to return the speakers. Sonos does not require the return of extra equipment and respects the decision of each impacted customer, said spokesperson Madeline Krebs. We have and will continue to be in full compliance with FTC requirements.

A summary of the Federal Trade Commissions (FTC) requirements are outlined on the US agencys website. You never have to pay for things you get but didnt order, the website reads. You also dont have to return unordered merchandise. Youre legally entitled to keep it as a free gift.

The software glitch came to light after Sonoss customers started receiving anywhere from two to five extra devices after placing an order for just one. In some cases, they have even been charged for these unwanted extras. One particularly extreme example saw a customer receive around 30 shipments from Sonos containing roughly $15,000 worth of audio gear. Sonos has been approaching affected customers to offer them refunds where necessary and supplying them with shipping labels to return the extra devices that were sent in error.

But in customer support emails seen by The Verge, support agents havent been forthcoming about the fact that customers are technically allowed to keep these additional devices. One customer tried to cite the FTCs website as evidence that they didnt need to return the three additional Sonos Roam speakers they received after ordering just one. But the companys support agent seemingly ignored these comments, and sent returns labels anyway.

Although the freebies will likely be welcomed by some customers, others might just want to get the bulky packages out of their homes. The customer who received roughly 30 Sonos shipments said that the situation was impacting their relationship with their property manager, after the sheer quantity of deliveries meant they were having to leave the packages in their buildings lobby. The customer said their property managers were being patient about the situation, but were ultimately not happy about the boxes in the lobby.

Original post:
Sonos says customers that got extra speakers don't have to send them back - The Verge

There's no such thing as free beer for Father's Day at least not from Heineken. The brewing giant confirmed that a contest circulating on WhatsApp, which promises a chance to win one of 5,000 coolers full of green-bottled lager, is a frothy fraud.

"This is a scam. Thank you for highlighting it to us. Please don't click on links or forward any messages. Many thanks," the beermaker said in a tweet.

The phony WhatsApp giveaway includes an image of a cooler of 18 Heinekens and a link to a website purporting to run the giveaway. That page asks visitors vying to bag free booze for their personal information, such as names, email addresses, and phone numbers, which is all collected by miscreants.

A similar scam circulating in 2020 offered something a little less plausible a cooler full of "1,000 beers" and the brewer responded by referring netizens to the company's official statement on scams tied to the its name.

"We strongly recommend that you do not open any documents attached to those communications, and that you do not respond in any way to such communications received, hence do not give any personal information or bank details," it said.

These and other types of cyber-scams cost victims around the globe at least $6.9 billion last year, according to the FBI's latest annual Internet Crime Report. As with earlier years, phishing attacks were by far the most commonly reported crimes in 2021, with 323,972 cases last year.

It's an easy way for fraudsters to make a quick buck because people like free stuff, said Ian McShane, VP of strategy at Arctic Wolf.

"The Father's Day scam doing the rounds on WhatsApp purporting to be from Heineken is a not-so-subtle illustration of how cybercriminals prey on consumer greed and love for a freebie," he told The Register.

"Scammers and cybercriminals are experts at using social media to tap into our likes and desires and will use urgency as a way to hasten someone's response and lower their guard," McShane added. "Often people will respond to the "only the first XX people will win" before considering that this might not actually be legit.

In general, if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is, McShane said.

"The trouble is that often there is no such thing as a free beer and although by now we should all be wary enough about giving our personal details to strangers online, with people hoping for a quick buck and freebies, it's all too easy to be sucked into a scam."

Father's Day is this Sunday in the US and UK.

Read more here:
Heineken says theres no free beer, warns of phishing scam - The Register

Elon Musk still hopes to quash a 2018 settlement agreement with the SEC requiring Tesla-related tweets to be approved by a lawyer before he can post them: on Wednesday, he took his case to the US Court of Appeals after a lower court denied this request.

The Tesla CEO landed himself in hot water with the watchdog when he tweeted he was thinking of taking the company private at $420 a share, and claimed to have already secured the necessary funding (sound familiar?) In reality, however, Musk did not have the funding or approval to do so. Investors, however, took him seriously and they started buying more shares, bumping up the stock price over 10 per cent.

The SEC accused Musk of fraud, saying his tweets were false and misled the public and caused disruption in the market. Musk was sued by the US regulator; he later settled the lawsuit by agreeing to pay $40 million in penalties, step down as chairman of the automaker's board, and accepted that any tweets discussing Tesla would have to be screened from now on.

But now he wants to terminate that last part of the agreement. Musk's legal team argued the SEC lacks the legal authority to control his free speech, and that it's unfair for the watchdog to permit "roving and unbounded investigations" into Musk's activities whilst he is restrained from tweeting freely.

This was put to a federal judge in New York, who in April denied his request. "Musk was not forced to enter into the consent decree; rather, 'for [his] own strategic purposes, [Musk], with the advice and assistance of counsel, entered into these agreements voluntarily, in order to secure the benefits thereof, including finality,'" district court judge Lewis Liman declared [PDF].

"Musk cannot now seek to retract the agreement he knowingly and willingly entered by simply bemoaning that he felt like he had to agree to it at the time but nowonce the specter of the litigation is a distant memory and his company has become, in his estimation, all but invincible wishes that he had not," the judge added.

Now, Musk's lawyers are attempting to overturn that decision by taking the case to the Court of Appeals, filing their intention to do so today. It's unclear how the case will move forward.

We're reminded that Musk, who is reportedly going to take questions from Twitter workers on Thursday, loves to talk about free speech, or rather his definition of it, on and regarding the social network. He would like nothing more than to free himself of the commitment he made to the SEC on tweeting.

The Register has asked the SEC for comment.

Originally posted here:
Musk can't tweet about Tesla without lawyer approval and he's still fighting to end that - The Register