Get Started With Paint.NET

I routinely use high-powered photo editing programs like Adobe Lightroom, Adobe Photoshop, and Corel Paint Shop Pro. But you can get away with spending a lot less on photo editing software. You can spend nothing at all, in fact. In the past I've mentioned GIMP--a popular free, open source program. This week, I'll show you how to get started with Paint.NET as well.

Paint.NET got its start as a senior design project at Washington State University, where it was envisioned as a replacement for the Paint program in Windows. It has evolved significantly since then, though. It remains free, and today has all the basic rudiments of photo editing programs, like layers, effects, and even support for Photoshop-like plug-ins. You can download the latest version of Paint.NET from PCWorld, but you'll want to bookmark the official Paint.NET Web site as well, since there are forums, tutorials, and plug-ins available there. (You can also get to the Web site from Paint.NET's help menu.)

A Quick Tour

The interface should look pretty familiar to anyone who has used a program like Photoshop or Paint Shop Pro. Nothing, though, is locked in place. The standard toolbar, for example--usually located on the left side of the screen--can be moved around anywhere in the program window. In fact, if you don't maximize the Paint.NET window, you can drag toolbars and tool palettes out of the program window completely.

The toolbar has all the basics. You'll find selection tools, a magic wand, and a clone tool, for example. When you choose a tool, look at the toolbar at the top of the screen for options to customize it, such as controlling the size of the brush. But making a complex selection with Paint.NET can be tricky, since there's no "magnetic" selections--just a freehand lasso.

As you make changes to your photo, you might notice the Undo window at the top right. It tracks everything you do, so you can undo edits one at a time, or undo a slew of actions all at once--all the way back to the first thing you did to the photo, if you want to.

Working With Layers

Like any full-featured photo editor, Paint.NET gives you the ability to combine photos using layers. There isn't an "adjustment layer" tool for making edits to a photo, but you can simulate Photoshop-like adjustment layers pretty effectively. Just duplicate your photo in a new layer (choose Layers, Duplicate Layer) and then choose one of the options from the Adjustments or Effects menus. You can choose Adjustments, Curves, for example, and tweak the photo. Then, in the Layers palette at the bottom right of the screen, click Properties and use the slider to adjust the opacity of the top layer. (Note that Paint.NET uses the geeky range of 0-255 instead of 0-100, but the effect is the same.)

Play With Plug-Ins

You can use plug-ins to add a wealth of new capabilities to Paint.NET. To get to plug-ins, choose Help, Plug-ins from the menu in Paint.NET, which opens your browser to the Paint.NET Web site's plug-in page.

For example, if you shoot using your camera's RAW mode, the first plug-in you'll want to install is a RAW plug-in so you can open those images in Paint.NET. To get to that quickly, choose Plugins Index, show the Alphabetical List of Plugins Q-Z, and scroll down to the entries for RAW tools. There are a few to choose from, but I've had the best luck with RawReader. To install it, download the RawReader zip file, which contains three DLL files. Then open the program location for Paint.NET (probably c:\program files\Paint.NET) and drag those DLLs to the folder called FileTypes. Restart Paint.NET and you should be able to open most RAW files. Installing any plug-in is basically that easy--just drag the DLL to the Paint.NET folder or one of its subfolders like Effects or FileTypes.

Is there something in particular you'd like to do with Paint.NET? Send me your questions and I will answer them in a future Digital Focus.

Hot Pic of the Week

Get published, get famous! Each week, we select our favorite reader-submitted photo based on creativity, originality, and technique.

Here's how to enter: Send us your photograph in JPEG format, at a resolution no higher than 640 by 480 pixels. Entries at higher resolutions will be immediately disqualified. If necessary, use an image editing program to reduce the file size of your image before e-mailing it to us. Include the title of your photo along with a short description and how you photographed it. Don't forget to send your name, e-mail address, and postal address. Before entering, please read the full description of the contest rules and regulations.

Google Calendar: Sync Outlook or Your Phone, Add Features

A few months back I told you how to add events to Google Calendar by sending text messages from your phone. Since then I've discovered more ways to get calendar and contact data into Google Calendar, Contacts, and Gmail. Read on for a whole new crop of tips.

Sync Outlook with Your Google Calendar

Most of my calendar data lives in Outlook. Not by choice, mind you, but because that's just where it has accumulated over the years.

I'd rather use Google Calendar, which is more versatile and less, well, Outlooky. Just one problem: how do I move my data from the latter to the former? And, just as important, how can I keep the two entities in sync?

Surprisingly few people know that Google offers a solution: the aptly named Google Calendar Sync. This free utility runs under Windows and automatically keeps Google Calendar and your Outlook calendar in sync.

That means you can enter an appointment in one spot and it'll auto-magically appear in the other--and vice versa. But you also have the option of sticking with a one-way sync, like copying all your Outlook appointments to GCal but not copying GCal appointments to Outlook.

Google Calendar Sync is compatible with Windows XP and Vista (though in my experience it works fine with Windows 7 as well). It requires Outlook 2003 or 2007--I'm not sure if it's compatible with Outlook 2010.

Setup is a snap:

1. Download and run the utility.
2. Enter your Google account info.
3. Choose your sync option (one way or two way).
4. Specify how often the utility should sync your calendars (the default is every two hours).

That's it! The first sync takes a couple minutes; after that, it's virtually instantaneous. Now you can use both calendars however you see fit, all the while keeping both in sync.

Sync Google Calendar With Your Smartphone

One of the things I love about Google Calendar is that it requires no desktop component. Sure, you can sync it with Outlook, but not everyone needs or wants a program like that just to manage appointments.

Indeed, more and more people prefer to keep their calendars on their mobile phones, just as they do their address books.

If you do use Outlook, you've probably already configured it to sync with your phone. If not, or if, like me, you're trying to migrate away from that unwieldy beast, look no further than Google Sync--a free service that syncs mobile phones with Google Calendar.

And not just Google Calendar, but also Google Contacts and Gmail. The service works with BlackBerry, iPhone, and Nokia S60 devices. (Why not Android? Because Google's mobile OS already syncs with the various Google services, natch. As for the Palm Pre and Pixi, they can sync with Google right out of the box.)

Google provides all the instructions you need for configuring and using Google Sync, so I won't rehash them here. My goal is simply to explain why it's a good idea.

If you're already a Google Calendar user, it should be pretty obvious: Sync brings a copy of your schedule to your phone--and keeps both versions up to date. Handy!

If you're not a Google Calendar user, Sync effectively gives you an online backup of your schedule--something that could prove invaluable if your phone gets broken, lost, stolen, etc.

Plus, there's much to be said for having a calendar that's accessible from any Web-enabled device (desktop, netbook, iPad, etc.). Same goes for your contacts.

Add a 'Next Meeting' Box to Google Calendar

Now that you know how to sync smartphones and Outlook with Google Calendar, let's talk about some other ways to make it more useful.

Like many of Google's apps and services, Calendar offers a "labs" section where you can find various tweaks and enhancements that are still in the testing stages. One of my favorites is Next Meeting, which adds a box that displays--you guessed it--your next scheduled appointment. It's a tiny change, but a very practical one.

To enable Next Meeting, sign into Google Calendar, then click the little green beaker that appears in the upper-right corner of the page. That'll take you to the Labs page. Scroll down almost all the way to the bottom, find Next Meeting, click Enable, and then click the Save button at the bottom.

That's all there is to it! Now, when you look at your calendar, you'll see the new box in the lower right corner. It shows the next scheduled entry in your calendar and a countdown timer.

Like I said, it's a tiny tweak--but definitely one worth making.

Apple's Answer to User Gripes: A Giveaway

Apple Friday responded to the controversy surrounding its flawed antenna design by using a classic public relations maneuver: giving people free stuff.

In his attempts to appease critics who say that the iPhone 4's poor antenna location makes it more likely to drop calls than other mobile devices, Apple CEO Steve Jobs said the company would give free rubber bumper cases to all iPhone 4 users or would give iPhone 4 users full refunds if they weren't happy with the device. Consumer Reports said this week that the rubber cases solved the signal problems caused during tests when users put their hands over the phone antennae.

iPhone rules the smartphone roost

So far, reaction to Apple's bumper giveaway has been mostly positive. Ars Technica, which has been critical of Apple during the whole antenna ordeal, now says that giving away bumper cases is a step in the right direction for the company.

"We called Apple's iPhone bumpers a ripoff at $30, but it's hard to argue with free," writes Jacqui Cheng. "Those of us on staff who already have bumpers plan to apply for the refund."

Computerworld's Sharon Machlis also gives Apple kudos for offering users free bumpers, but scratched her head at the company's slow response. She singles out Jobs' "tendency to want to control all aspects of the narrative around his company's products" as a possible reason why it took Apple so long to acknowledge the controversy. Even so, she says that Friday's announcement will go a long way toward easing user anger over the device's antenna woes.

"Whatever the reason, Apple has finally done the right thing for its customers," she says. "Today's announcement that iPhone 4 users will be able to request a free case to solve reception issues should get Apple out from under the deluge of negative publicity it's suffered over the issue."

The Huffington Post's Larry Magid also says that he's satisfied with Apple's free-bumper fix but is also taking issue with Jobs' assertion today that a lot of other smartphones on the market have signal strength problems if you hold your hand up over the antenna.

"I was pretty pleased with Apple's response except for one thing," he says. "Jobs spent a fair amount of time claiming that other phones have similar problems. According to the New York Times live blog he showed a BlackBerry Bold, Droid Eris and other phones dropping bars when gripped… I'm not sure how true that is. I've used a BlackBerry Bold and never noticed that problem and although I haven't tried the Droid Eris, I've used many Android phones including the Droid and Droid X and have never encountered a 'grip of death.'"

Investors were also apparently satisfied with Apple's fix, as the company's shares climbed in the wake of the announcement, rising by 0.2% immediately following the press conference. As the Wall Street Journal has noted, Apple shares have declined overall by around 7% since the release of the iPhone 4 last month.

But while the reaction around the Web and the markets has been mostly positive to Apple's offer, not everyone is quite so sanguine. TGDaily's Trent Nouveau called Jobs "arrogant" and fumed that the company thought it could appease users with a "bumper bribe."

"According to the unrepentant Jobs, the iPhone antenna is still one of the 'most advanced' ever designed for a smartphone," he fumes. "Is it just me, or are those Evo 4G and Motorola X smartphones looking really good right about now!?"

Should Anonymous Comments be a Right?

Should people be allowed to comment anonymously online? That question is currently making its way through the U.S. legal system. A New York couple has issued dragnet subpoenas to Google and Yahoo demanding the identities of users behind 10 email accounts, 30 blog operators, website administrators, and the identities of anyone who had ever commented on those sites. That's hundreds of people! Riding to the rescue of our privacy and freedom are our heroes -- the EFF.

Miriam and Michael Hersh allege a "sweeping conspiracy led by family members and their acquaintances to accuse the Plaintiffs of mistreating their children and to cause a public controversy." This couple who, among other complaints, allege "intentional infliction of emotional distress" are the parents who made headlines in 2008 when news reports were published saying they had their then 16-year-old son, Isaac, taken to a privately owned correctional institution in Jamaica.

But my concern is not with the reason people were writing the anonymous comments. I'm alarmed over the possible consequences to privacy because of these wide-sweeping "dragnet" subpoenas. So is the EEF.

"The First Amendment protects individuals' right to speak anonymously and forces litigants to justify any attempts to unmask anonymous critics," said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Matt Zimmerman. "Litigants cannot forcibly identify entire communities of online speakers -- which include many speakers who no one would claim did anything wrong -- simply because the litigants are curious."

The EFF urges the court to protect privacy and anonymity. The EFF's motion to quash states, "Under the broad protections of the First Amendment, speakers have not only a right to publicly express criticism but also the right to do so anonymously. Accordingly, the First Amendment requires that those who seek to unmask online speakers (critics or otherwise) demonstrate a compelling need for such identity-related information before obtaining such discovery. No such need is implicated in this case."

If anonymity is allowed to be pierced in this case, it could change our lives. Who would be targeted next? Trolls? Flamers? People who disagree? If this is allowed to go forward, users on Digg, Reddit, Stumble Upon, Twitter, Facebook, Windows Live Messenger, political commenters - users anywhere could be targeted next.

"Overbroad subpoenas targeting anonymous speakers without cause naturally creates a chilling effect that may discourage others from exercising their constitutional rights to participate in conversations that take place online," said Zimmerman. "We are asking the court to enforce these reasonable safeguards so that the rights of innocent speakers do not become collateral damage in a dispute between others."

Apart from identity-related information, the Plaintiffs seek the content of stored communications with an ISP or electronic communications facility. From Google, the Plaintiff wants all documents relating or referring to a list of sites, blogs, pages and/or groups. From Yahoo, the Plaintiffs wants all documents relating or referring to http://geocities.com/saveisaac. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs request all documents relating to and referring to, meaning email communications as well.

The EFF's motion to quash concludes with: "By targeting entire forums in which a wide range of topics are discussed, Plaintiffs attempt to take a shortcut through the legal rights of the forum hosts and their participants. Fortunately, state and federal law bars such attempts."

We will be watching as this case could change history. If comments are not libel or death threats, need the commenter worry about their life being probed and their identity revealed?

Mobile Broadband Users Clueless Data Hogs

Research by the broadband website, revealed that of those that are aware of their mobile data usage, 11 percent use up to 1GB, while 13 percent use up to 5GB.

Just under one in ten (nine percent) said they use between 5 and 10GB of data per month, while 14 percent get through 10GB or more of data per month.

"Consumers misunderstanding data limits is unfortunately common. Many customers are paying too much for their mobile broadband data tariff. We're talking about thousands of customers who could probably halve their mobile internet bill and see no difference in their online usage," said Broadband Genie editor Chris Marling.

Marling said that with a massive range of deals available, currently from USD$53.7 (£35) per month for 20GB of data to as little as USD$15.35 (£10) per month for just 1GB, consumers need to be aware of their usage, or literally pay for the consequences.

"Many people wont think to check their bill unless it's higher than normal - if it's just the amount they expect, they don't think to see how close they are to their limit," he said.

"We strongly advise people to go back over their bills to see how much they could potentially save, either by reducing their tariff or even going to a pay-as-you-go deal."

Firm promises new take on containerized data centers

IDG News Service - I/o Data Centers hopes to leapfrog the competition by developing what it claims will be a new, more integrated type of containerized data center, the company said on Friday.

I/o is best known for building and managing traditional brick-and-mortar data centers, but the company has been developing a containerized product for the past year and will make a formal announcement in two weeks, said Kindra Martone, i/o senior vice president and general manager, at the Datacenter Dynamics conference in San Francisco on Friday.

The company isn't giving many details about the product yet, and Martone said it won't be ready to go on sale when the formal announcement is made. I/o Data Centers will share some "high-level" details of what the product will look like and release it at a later date, she said.

The company did give some clues Friday about what it has planned, however. Andreas Zoll, i/o's director of data center engineering, gave a talk at the conference on what the "next generation" of containerized data centers will look like. At the end of Zoll's speech, Martone said the company will sell just such a product.

One difference will be that most current containerized data centers, sold by Hewlett-Packard, IBM, SGI and others, are built using standard 20- and 40-foot shipping containers. The next generation -- and presumably the upcoming product from i/o -- will use a custom-built container that provides more space for the equipment inside, Zoll said.

"You're spending a lot of money on these modular solutions. Do you want to squeeze them into an existing box or build something that really suits your needs? I think we've done a lot of squeezing in the past," he said.

The next generation will also come with the power and cooling equipment built in, he said. Today, customers often locate their containers near an existing data center because they need access to cooling, power and back-up power supplies. For remote locations, customers can also buy cooling gear and generators that are packed into separate containers, then linked to the container with the IT gear.

Future products will have those pieces integrated from the start, allowing them to be more finely tuned for energy efficiency and making the containers "location independent," Zoll said. He suggested they will be delivered as a single unit, rather than multiple containers, but it wasn't entirely clear.

They can also be fitted with satellite hook-ups so they can be remotely managed and monitored. And Zoll even suggested that future containers could be entirely self-sufficient, using compressed gas for power, so they don't need to be operated near a power supply. Martone wouldn't say if that's one of the goals for i/o's own product.

For example, a self-contained data center might provide computing resources on a LAN at a military site or on an oil rig.

The company clearly hopes to shake up the market, but it faces several challenges, including the fact that there are already several established players and it may be some time before i/o's first product goes on sale.

Unlike other makers of containerized data centers, i/o Data Centers doesn't have its own IT equipment to sell. Containers from HP, IBM and others can accommodate third-party equipment, but they often ship filled primarily with the vendor's own gear.

I/o Data Centers could try to promote that as an advantage, saying it doesn't have a vested interest in the equipment it recommends for customers.

The market is still relatively new, Zoll noted. "We're trying to decide whether we're still looking at a niche market or the future of data centers," he said.

IDC has estimated that just 84 containerized data centers will be sold this year, with the figure doubling next year, but it has also said its estimate might be conservative.

One of the main arguments for containers is that they allow a company to add extra compute capacity in less than 100 days, versus a year or more to build a new data center. They also defer the high costs of building a new facility, and they generally can be made much more energy efficient.

Containers are less flexible, however, in terms of the equipment they can contain. And they remain unfamiliar to many data center managers, some of whom question the security of locating a portable data center outdoors.

The five stages of Facebook grief

application spam or even horrible P.R. from the upcoming movie, "The Social Network." These are short-term annoyances for the company, but not existential threats.

Here's the real problem: Facebook's social network can't mirror the actual social networks, or social groups, that people have. Because of that, users are beginning to notice a curious effect: The more you use Facebook, the less usable it becomes.

It turns out that our feelings about Facebook aren't static. They're evolving in a way that will eventually lead many of us to quit and find something else -- or at least minimize use.

Facebook is structured on the false assumption that you have one social network. But nobody has one social group.

A nine-year-old has at least two -- parents and peers. A teenager has at least three -- add "trusted close friends." And a middle-aged adult has many: Former school-mates, former colleagues (each company is a separate peer group), non-nuclear family, nuclear family, current co-workers, close friends, etc.

While it's true that you belong to all your social groups, you're the only person in the world who does. Each other member of any group does not belong to your other groups. Sooner or later, your social groups are going to clash and you're going to get burned.

Here are three real-life examples (Names have been changed to protect the guilty):

• Maria's son posts a status update: "Having a great time at the beach with the parents!" Maria's boss posts a comment: "Didn't you call in sick?"

• Bill posts 30 pictures from college, and tags friends in the photos. One of those friends is Steve, who is shown drunk and vomiting in the picture that shows up on Steve's "Photos" page. Mom, dad and grandma all acquire a new perspective on the financial help they gave Steve for college.

• Janet, a high school senior, posts a generic comment about her mood, saying "feeling bla today." Then Margaret, a close family friend in the same age group as Janet's parents, comments, "what's wrong, honey?" After that, several of Janet's high school friends post a series of profane, obscene or objectionable comments that humorously suggest causes or cures. Because Margaret commented, all subsequent comments flow into Margaret's Facebook News Feed.

These cases all illustrate the clash of social groups, where a member of one social group gains unnatural access to the conversation of another.

One of the most common clashes of social groups happens when the parents of young people sign up for Facebook, so common that there's a blog devoted to the catastrophe.

A gaming site called Roiworld surveyed 600 teenagers and found that 20% of teens have either dropped Facebook or are using it less. Of those who have abandoned Facebook altogether, 43% say it's because there are "too many adults or older people," their parents are on Facebook or because they're concerned about privacy.

[ See related: Are we burning out on Facebook? ]

Teens are a "leading indicator" here. The rest of us will follow. Facebook users appear to follow a predictable pattern of evolution with their feelings about Facebook, and teenagers are just further along.

Here are the five stages of Facebook grief:

1. Confusion. What's it for? How do I use it? Why would anyone want to post here? Who's seeing this?

2. Discovery. Hey, my high school friends are here. Reading my News Feed actually makes me feel more connected to people. This is actually pretty fun. I look forward to checking Facebook every day. I love this.

3. Utility. Facebook helps me stay connected to former colleagues, which could help me find a job in the future. I learn things about my own kids that is valuable to me that I wouldn't otherwise hear. It's easier to communicate with everyone on Facebook than e-mail, phone calls or any other means. I need this.

4. Embarrassment. Whoa! I did NOT want my co-workers to see the picture of me someone else tagged. Too much personal information in that post! Whoops! I did not mean to offend someone -- I forgot who would be listening.

5. Withdrawal. To avoid problems, I'm going to have to assume that everything I say is public, not private like I used to think. I'll minimize my posts or stop using Facebook altogether.

Facebook's popularity is based on the reality that human beings are social creatures. Staying connected with people we know is innate to us. But maintaining separate social groups that we don't want to clash is also innate.

In the same way that Facebook got popular by satisfying our need to connect, either Facebook or a competitor will get popular by doing something about Stage 5, which is where we're all heading (if not already there.)

How social networks should work

The social network of the future will pattern itself after real-world social groupings. It will enable people to have private, closed, secure conversations within groups, without fear that one social group will gain access to the conversations of another.

One simple approach would be for a social networking site to force you to place each new friend into one or more social groups. Default labels could be "immediate family," "extended family," "former co-workers," "classmates," "best friends," etc.

To successfully post a picture or status update, you would have to click on checkboxes that determined who got it. You should be able to choose any or all groups.

The posts of others could be color-coded to determine which social group they originate with. Comments would stay within the social groups the comment originated in. Related to this, all profile and personal information would have to be checkboxed as well.

I don't know if my imagined scenario is the best one, or even if it would work. The point is that someone must -- and someone will -- create a system for segregating all the social groups in your life. And whoever does that will win over Facebook users spit out the other end of Stage 5.

Such a system is especially urgent because of the rapid growth and coming automation of location services. People will want to automatically share their current location with one or more social groups, but will want to avoid sharing that information with others.

If they can't block some of their social groups, they will block all -- by avoiding an otherwise valuable service.

One interesting facet of the five stages is that along the way, you start to love and need real social networking. By the end, you still do -- but Facebook not longer satisfies.

The 500 million-user question is: Who will create this social network? Will it be Google with its rumored "Google Me" service? Will it be -- gasp! -- Microsoft? Or will it be Facebook itself?

Nobody knows the answer to that question. But what we do know is that Facebook's current structure is unsustainable. Eventually social groups collide. And when they do, it's lights out for Facebook.