Recent Posts

6076

Found Deals and Discounts / Illumination Software Creator - Name your own price offer

« Last post by 40hz on February 27, 2012, 10:09 PM »

There's a very limited time offer from Radical Breeze on their Illumination Software Creator. You can name your own price starting at $5. Offer page is here.

If you're not up on Illumination, here's what it is and does:

Intro

Illumination Software Creator allows anyone to create their own software applications… without writing a single line of “code”.

The idea is simple: Arrange colorful building blocks of functionality however you like to create your own, unique, piece of software.

No reading large computer programming books.  No steep learning curve.

One project creates apps for Android, iPhone, iPad, Desktops and HTML5 or Flash websites.
   
With full support for Windows, Linux and MacOS X, Illumination Software Creator allows you to work wherever you like.  We won’t judge.

And, once you’ve created your new piece of software, you can (with a single click) build and run that new application on Windows, Linux or MacOS X desktops, Android devices, Nokia Internet Tablets (such as the N900)… and even as HTML5 or Flash powered rich websites.

Warning!  Nerd information ahead!

Illumination even gives you the full Adobe Flex, Android Java, iOS Obj-C and Python source code to the projects you create.

Here's what it looks like:

I've played with it a bit and was surprised to discover it's quite powerful and not at all the programming toy it's appearance might lead you to believe. And studying the generated Python code (which is one of the few languages I'm fairly conversant with) gto me thinking in different ways about how I could better code my own Python projects.

Very cool little programming tool. And at $5, it's a steal even if you only get it to play with.

6077

Living Room / Re: The problem with online ad alternatives

« Last post by 40hz on February 27, 2012, 02:48 PM »

why would you not be tempted to invest and participate instead of only just watch

-iphigenie (February 27, 2012, 02:29 PM)

Can't speak for the rest of the world. But in the US, you can find yourself walking a very fine legal line doing that if your words can be interpreted as attempting to influence and manipulate the price of a public stock offering. Which is one additional reason why VCs are notoriously tight-lipped.

This almost seems like they're trying to get around it by using bloggers to generate buzz for them.
 

6078

Living Room / The problem with online ad alternatives

« Last post by 40hz on February 27, 2012, 02:11 PM »

Please file this under: Be careful what you wish for.

In an earlier DC forum topic there is some discussion about the problem with online advertisements.

A recent article by Dan Lyons over at The Daily Beast shows, however, that there may be far worse things than online ads when it comes to so-called tech "news" sites.

(With thanks to Shell Extension City for this find)

Ethical or Not, Silicon Valley Bloggers Hit Up VCs for Angel Funds
Feb 22, 2012 4:00 PM EST

It’s a win-win game: Bloggers write favorably about both sides’ portfolios, and everyone exits with 100x returns. Even social media maven Robert Scoble is getting in on the game. But whatever happened to journalistic integrity?

Trend alert: In Silicon Valley, popular bloggers are realizing that instead of trying to make a living by selling ads, they can instead hit up venture capitalists for money. As I described last week in a post on my personal blog, these savvy bloggers will use the money to create “angel funds,” which they in turn will use to make investments in small startup companies—which bloggers often hear about before the rest of the world. Those investments, if bloggers are smart and/or lucky, could end up being worth millions.

I can't quite see how such an arrangement could possibly get around several US securities laws. But I'm not an attorney. And any VC worthy of the name has top notch legal talent on their payroll. So I'm guessing there's ways to do this without violating "insider trading" regulations, and rules governing IPOs.

Of course that leaves out the problem with where this practice will lead as far as online journalism is concerned. Especially now that so much of the sub-30 age bracket prefers blogs and other non-traditional 'news' sources over their mainstream counterparts.

(from the article)

Traditional journalists cringe at this kind of “hacks for hire” business model, but from an utterly cynical perspective, it’s kind of brilliant—as long as you can get over the whole “ethics” thing.

Remember, these guys are bloggers, not journalists. Why shouldn’t they use their blogs to get rich? It sure beats trying to make money selling those crappy little ads in the side column.

Either way, it shouldn't come as any surprise something like this is in the works - or that somebody like blogger Robert Scoble is interested in it.

6079

Living Room / Re: The problem with online ads

« Last post by 40hz on February 27, 2012, 11:03 AM »

Fair points mahesh 

Different approaches are suited for different situations.

-mouser (February 27, 2012, 10:49 AM)

Sorry. I'm still a little lost. While these may be "fair points" I don't really think they're talking about the same things Clive Thompson's article is talking about - unless you want to allow for a large amount of (unjustifiable IMO) "reading into" what was actually said.

But so be it. This is what forum discussions are for. 

6080

Living Room / Re: The problem with online ads

« Last post by 40hz on February 27, 2012, 09:52 AM »

@mahesh2k - I'm not quite sure where you're getting half the stuff you're talking about in your above comment. But I'd like to politely suggest you're almost completely misreading and misinterpreting what's being said here.

One minor point. You also seem be merging Clive Thompson and his article with words from the people who do Pinboard. Clive Thompson isn't associated with Pinboard. He's writing an editorial and using Pinboard as his example of why a paid service is a better and more workable approach than ad supported business models.
 

6081

Living Room / Re: Looking for opinions on changing ISP

« Last post by 40hz on February 27, 2012, 09:34 AM »

.

-Stephen66515 (February 26, 2012, 07:51 PM)

Short and to the point, I like that.

-4wd (February 26, 2012, 09:55 PM)

the blank canvas of the forum world

-tomos (February 27, 2012, 09:21 AM)

+1 Almost Zen-like in its elegant simplicity.

6082

General Software Discussion / Re: fully-free software for biz - the lists !

« Last post by 40hz on February 27, 2012, 09:20 AM »

OS: Windows (XP + 7)
What type of applications: I don't really know, your usual stuff. It would be a dream if I would find a list of software for everything, just like Steven Avery provides in the top of this page.

-powah (February 27, 2012, 09:07 AM)

www.techsupportalert.com probably has the largest curated list of free apps going. You would need to look at the EULAs just to be sure, but most software listed by TechSupportAlert is (or used to be) free for biz use.

6083

General Software Discussion / Re: fully-free software for biz - the lists !

« Last post by 40hz on February 27, 2012, 08:50 AM »

@powah - Could you be more specific? What type of apps did you have in mind?

Also mention what operating system(s) you're willing to work on. I mention this because the number of good quality Windows apps licensed "free for commercial use"is steadily shrinking each year.

6084

Living Room / Re: The problem with online ads

« Last post by 40hz on February 26, 2012, 02:28 PM »

Pinboard owner is being opportunistic here. He's not promoting service because it is good but he want people to use it because it is adless. That's business tactic as sleazy as any other business.

-mahesh2k (February 26, 2012, 11:45 AM)

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying. If you go over to Pinboard's website, there's a lot of information provided on why the developer believes Pinboard to be better than competing products:

A Tour of Pinboard

Pinboard is a personal archive for things you find online and don't want to forget.

Here's what I believe makes Pinboard better than our rivals:

• Speed   Very fast, even if you have tens of thousands of bookmarks.
• Hooks   Auto-import from Delicious, Instapaper, Read it Later, and others.
• Twitter   Searchable archive of your tweets from up to three accounts.
• Archiving   Full, working copies of every link. We do this better than anyone else.
• Uptime   Twelve hours of unscheduled downtime since launch in July 2009.
• Backups   Daily offsite backups to Amazon S3.
• Privacy   No ads and no third-party content, ever. Anonymous users welcome.
• Support   Direct via Twitter - take a look to see how I interact with users.
• Money   A credible, working business model for the long term.

Please skim over the following to get an idea of how the site works:

I don't recall anybody there making an argument that it's better because it's ad free. I don't even think that's mentioned.

It's also NOT free. It has a one-time sign-up fee (currently $9.67 USD). And it doesn't offer a free trial period - although you can get a refund within the first 3 days following your sign-up.

Why should I pay for bookmarking?

Pinboard is different from other bookmarking sites in that I charge a small, one-time signup fee of around $10. This actually has numerous benefits for my customers:

The site has never had link spam. I can afford to run it on very fast hardware. I can afford to hire outside contractors where appropriate. I am able to devote all my time to working on Pinboard, rather than looking for ways to pay for Pinboard. There are no outside investors to answer to. There's no incentive to sell the website to someone else, who might not have the same vision for it. And I will never show you ads or resell your data.

Moreover, the project is sustainable. There have been many social bookmarking sites that either ran out of money or got bought by companies that then shut them down. It makes no sense to offer a personal archive if you don't have a plan to keep it running as an independent entity in the long term.

It boils down to this: running a bookmarking site costs money. If you're not paying for it, then someone else is, and their interests may not be aligned with yours.

and

How do I get a refund?

Pinboard accounts are fully refundable within three days of signup. Send me an email and I will issue a refund through the payment provider and close your account.

FWIW I use Pinboard and I'm very happy with it. One of the better sub-$10 purchases I made. I like it enough that I've also gifted accounts to a few people I know who could benefit from having one, but who also genuinely couldn't afford the modest fee Pinboard charges.

And it's not just me that liked what they're doing. Time, Wired, and The Economist magazines all had good things top say about it.

So where's the "sleazy" tactic you're talking about?  

6085

Living Room / Re: PrECISE - It's the New SOPA/PIPA/ACTA

« Last post by 40hz on February 26, 2012, 02:11 PM »

Nice hoax. Doesn't look super official though, and that's probably for the best in case you're gonna get in trouble for impersonating a federal office or whatever.

-worstje (February 26, 2012, 01:34 PM)

Love it...but....um, yeah. You might want to come up with a logo for a wholly fictitious agency or industry watchdog for this. You're sailing out on dangerous waters using the logo of a real one. Even as a joke.

6086

Living Room / Re: The problem with online ads

« Last post by 40hz on February 26, 2012, 11:30 AM »

My biggest problem is with the pervasiveness of advertising.



I'll gladly pay for something I use in order to avoid being pestered with ads. What I really object to is a growing desire to get people to accepts ads as "just one of those unavoidable things" that make up what we call human existence. I say this because I'm starting to see (mostly in media and software products) where it's reaching the point where you get ads no matter what.

Public television is a good example. They're non-commercial - whatever that means. It doesn't mean they're commercal free. There are ads. And you're pestered with constant "pledge drives" (i.e. demands for ransom money) when you want to watch a show.

Time was when you'd only be subjected to PBS's unique brand of self-righteous plead/demands for viewer support once - and later twice - per year. Now you get "mini-drives" and "special pledge week" appeals that occur with increasing regularity. I don't know if this is the norm for the rest of the country, but where I am we average about one beg-a-thon per month. That alone would be annoying enough. Especially once you have made a contribution like I (up until this year) always have.

But now, our local PBS affiliate staggers it's fundraising efforts with the national franchise such that it's more like every other week somebody from public television is passing the hat for something.

Same thing happened with cable. You paid to get uninterrupted ad-free program viewing. (Yeah right!) That was the whole selling point of "pay-TV" as it used to be called. We soon got ads between shows. And although there are still many shows that run programming "uninterrupted" we now get to live with friggin' animated banner bars and character walk-ons in the lower third of the screen advertising upcoming shows or contests. And lately that seems to be changing courtesy of Conde Nast who has been placing some "related product" ads in those spaces on some of its shows. I'm guessing if there isn't sufficient viewer backlash they'll expand the practice shortly.

A lot of software is now doing the same thing. When you buy a registration code, you don't get a sanitized installer that requires a registration code in order to run. You get the same trialware edition which you can unlock with the code - but not before you get to navigate the trick logic screens that try to get you to install additional toolbars, tracking software, and crapware. Some also try to get you to change your default homepage for good measure.

My favorite offender is FL Studio. Even when you buy it directly from them, you're still given the time limited demo software to install. This can later be 'unlocked' with the registration code they send you. But not before Open Candy gets loaded and does its (IMO sneaky) thing as part of the install. I'm sure companies that do this will cite the efficiencies and necessity of only having one product installer to maintain - to which I reply "Bullshit!" If it's difficult to maintain an installer, it's even more effort to have to integrate it with an adware wrapper.

Gerry Weinberg observed how some restaurants attempt to make a virtue out of the lack of efficiency in their kitchens by printing things on the menu like: Please be patient. Good food takes time to prepare. Unfortunately, that argument doesn't hold completely true when you consider that while it may well take time to prepare a good meal - it takes even longer to burn the sauce. So please don't tell us it's too difficult to provide a "paid-for" installation package to customers that's separate from the one that gets put up on the web for free download. You're speaking to adults here.

It will only be a matter of time before ad banners become the norm on all media products (including the ones we've paid for up front) if we don't object enough.

Just my 2¢

6087

Living Room / Re: When you make your 100'th Post

« Last post by 40hz on February 26, 2012, 06:07 AM »

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? 

-cranioscopical (February 25, 2012, 05:30 PM)

We do! Just let them try something.

6088

Living Room / The problem with online ads

« Last post by 40hz on February 25, 2012, 12:11 PM »

Some very wise words from Clive Thompson over at Wired magazine on the subject of charging for your software or service.  It's a very blunt assessment of the whole problem with the notion of "monetizing" as opposed to selling something.

This very short article is called: Clive Thompson on the Problem With Online Ads. And it should be required reading for anybody who is considering some of the nonsense passing for common wisdom about online revenue opportunities. (except follows)

I predict that in 2050, we’ll look back at the first 20 years of the web and shake our heads. The craptacular design! The hallucinogenic business models! The privacy nightmares! All because entrepreneurs convinced themselves that they couldn’t do what inventors have done for centuries: Charge people a fair price for things they want.

6089

Living Room / Re: Losing my e-Book religion

« Last post by 40hz on February 25, 2012, 11:36 AM »

unfair of me, but these things matter...

-iphigenie (February 25, 2012, 09:48 AM)

Not unfair at all IMO. I sent them donations and never received an acknowledgement either. And I do recall being slightly miffed myself. At least initially. But there's really no excuse for it. Especially in an era when automated mail responders are so easy to set up...

As you pointed out, these things matter.

6090

Living Room / Re: PrECISE - It's the New SOPA/PIPA/ACTA

« Last post by 40hz on February 24, 2012, 10:41 AM »

There are a few companies which would NEVER get my money, like Sony Music. Weird enough that many artists still think they need a big marketing company to promote their stuff, even in times of the internet.

-Tuxman (February 24, 2012, 03:43 AM)

Unfortunately, Sony keeps tempting me with their new gadgets.  
Cmon Sparx tablet!!

-superboyac (February 24, 2012, 10:21 AM)

Just get yourself a Rasberry Pi to sooth the unbearable urges of your inner geek. They're only $25 - and they'll be shipping very shortly.

6091

General Software Discussion / Re: No more native Flash for Linux

« Last post by 40hz on February 24, 2012, 10:25 AM »

Yeah, as if original flash is not buggy enough, let's all head for open source alternatives

-eleman (February 24, 2012, 10:03 AM)

The only reason Flash is as big a problem as it is - and poses security problems - is because Adobe couldn't just let it be a streaming media format. They also had to load it with a bunch of hooks for interactive business uses in order to make some money off it. That's where the problem is. If they could just let it be used for animation (which is what 90% of the market uses it for) instead of attempting to compete with Java by turning it into an interactive multimedia platform, there never would have been this problem.
 

But I agree. Why try to duplicate Flash? The sooner we get on with HTML5/CSS3 and WebGL the better off we'll be.

6092

Living Room / Re: PrECISE - It's the New SOPA/PIPA/ACTA

« Last post by 40hz on February 23, 2012, 10:06 PM »

Okay, let's get back on target.
You can't do an iStrike and ... expect it to work.

-TaoPhoenix (February 23, 2012, 09:44 PM)

Why not?

All you get is 13 months without any fun content.

Small price to pay to put an end to the nonsense.

We need a USA-Wide National effort that can see Candidates past the speeches that the Authorized Media pronounces, we were too early in 2008, but no bad to avoid Sarah Palin ... But Not really great with Obama and 6 copyright czars....

I think we'd collectively have a better chance at simultaneously hitting Powerball and getting a night with Angelina Jolie than we have with that. Our political institutions are morally bankrupt at this point: incapable of reforming from within - and utterly resistant to any efforts at reform from without.

If there is any morality left in Washington it doesn't amount to much more than the integrity of a sleazebag who stays bought.

I really don't think anything short of an economic general strike that disrupts "business as usual" (and has a measurable financial impact) has any hope of success in bringing about much needed reform.

And perhaps now is the time to do it while it's still legal to do so. Because given a few more years going down the road we're on, making suggestions such as this may be viewed as a threat to domestic security - with all that implies under our new post-constitutional legal framework.

This has already happened, or is happening, in other places. Some of which call and believe themselves to be "democracies." Watch the evening news for examples.
 

6093

Living Room / 36 State Attorneys General want to meet with Google over privacy concerns

« Last post by 40hz on February 23, 2012, 05:21 AM »

Back in the days of computer bulletin boards, there was an understanding among most BBS sysops that operating an online service established a social contract between you and your membership. And this contract said that just because you owned "the bat, the ball, and the field" didn't automatically give you the right to make up all the rules.

That was the theory anyway.

Apparently that's a theory some of today's big online players don't subscribe to. But in Google's case, they might be in for a lesson. Because concerns about some of Google's recent policy changes - and their snarky suggestion those who don't like it should go elsewhere has provoked some attention on the State level.



First the Feds, and now thirty-six state Attorneys General, are voicing concern over Google's new privacy (or lack thereof) policy. In a multi-page letter dated February 22, 2012, the AGs cut right to the chase:

Google’s new privacy policy is troubling for a number of reasons. On a fundamental level, the policy appears to invade consumer privacy by automatically sharing personal information consumers input into one Google product with all Google products. Consumers have diverse interests and concerns, and may want the information in their Web History to be kept separate from the information they exchange via Gmail. Likewise, consumers may be comfortable with Google knowing their Search queries but not with it knowing their whereabouts, yet the new privacy policy appears to give them no choice in the matter, further invading their privacy. It rings hollow to call their ability to exit the Google products ecosystem a “choice” in an Internet economy where the clear majority of all Internet users use – and frequently rely on – at least one Google product on a regular basis.

Especially interesting was this paragraph where the AGs remind Google that the somewhat childish excuse many dotcom businesses offer which says "we know what we said before but we've since changed our minds" doesn't quite fly in legal circles. By setting certain expectations over an extended period of time, Google may have painted itself into a corner (emphasis added):

We Attorneys General are also concerned that Google’s new privacy policy goes against a respect for privacy that Google has carefully cultivated as a way to attract consumers. Google boasts that it puts a premium on offering users “meaningful and fine-grained choices over the use of their personal information,” developing its products and services in ways that prevent personal information from being “held hostage.” It has made these and other privacy-respecting representations repeatedly over the years, and many consumers have chosen to use Google products over other products because of these representations. Now these same consumers are having their personal information “held hostage” within the Google ecosystem.

It will be interesting to see how Google responds - and even more interesting, how this ultimately plays out in the coming months.

Full text of the letter in PDF format can be downloaded here.

 

6094

Living Room / Re: PrECISE - It's the New SOPA/PIPA/ACTA

« Last post by 40hz on February 22, 2012, 10:32 PM »

Fairly simple solution: Take a tip from Gandhi - declare a general I-Strike.



Stop using the web.

Send a clear message to business (don't bother with the government - go directly to those who really pull the strings) that they can force through whatever legislation they want - but you will refuse to use the net under those rules.

Imagine - iTunes, Amazon, and B&N revenues drop suddenly. Media purchases and rentals dry up. Banks suddenly get deluged with paper checks and requests for them to go back to sending you paper statements each month. No more online payments being made. No more tax filings done online. Paper, paper, paper everywhere! Everything goes back to 1988.

Imagine the cost of doing business if that suddenly happens...

Some years ago the State of California passed a proposition that attempted to control public medical costs by setting firm caps (and reductions) on what the medical profession and hospitals could charge. It was hailed as a major win for the consumer. It was gonna show those greedy doctors who was in charge.

Guess what? The doctors stopped reporting for work. Hospitals shut down everything except emergency services. Nurses didn't show up for the shifts.

Because what the politicians of California seemed to forget was that this is a capitalist economy. So while it's all well and good to say "Hell no! We won't pay those prices!" it overlooks the possibility that those on the receiving end might well say "Well I'm not willing to work for you under the terms you're offering."

And medical professionals said exactly that. And so much for that proposition as a result.

You can do the same. 

6095

General Software Discussion / No more native Flash for Linux

« Last post by 40hz on February 22, 2012, 02:05 PM »

Looks like the gradual retreat from open platforms continues apace. This just in from the folks over at ghacks - full article here. (emphasis added)

No More Flash Updates For Linux, Unless You Use Chrome

Breaking News: Adobe just made an announcement on the official Air and Flash Player Team Blog that changes are coming to Flash Player on Linux. The company has partnered up with Google to “develop a single modern API for hosting plugins within the browser”. PPAPI (code-named Pepper), adds a layer between the browser and underlying operating system that “abstracts away differences between browser and operating system implementations”.

Google will provide a PPAPI implementation later this year for all 32-bit and 64-bit platforms that are supported by the company’s Chrome web browser. All Chrome version on all operating systems, and not only Linux, will receive an update that implements the PPAPI-based Flash Player.

Changes do not end here though for Linux users. Adobe notes that the Flash Player browser plugin for Linux will only be available via the PPAPI plugin that is part of the Google Chrome browser distribution. Adobe will not provide direct Flash Player browser plugin downloads anymore on their site, nor will it update Flash Player on Linux anymore with non-security related updates.

This basically means that Flash Player 11.2 is the latest cross-browser version of the browser plugin for Linux. While it is theoretically possible that other browser developers will implement Pepper, it could also mean the beginning of the end for Flash on Linux. Mozilla for instance states on MozillaWiki that it “s not interested in or working on Pepper at this time”.

This is such a blatant marginalizing move to further push the adoption rate of Chrome that my blood is boiling over right now. Makes me incredibly sorry I defended Adobe and Flash so much when Apple decided not to support it on the iPhone via Safari.

Oh well!   Microsoft and Apple have both indicated they wouldn't mind seeing Flash disappear from websites in general. With a little luck maybe this dumbass move will hasten the day when it finally happens.

6096

Living Room / Re: Losing my e-Book religion

« Last post by 40hz on February 22, 2012, 12:59 PM »

make a non-ideological Linux Distro

-TaoPhoenix (February 22, 2012, 10:12 AM)

Government mandated censorship. Rampant government corruption. Blatant censorship. Tolerance of nationalist hackers and cracker teams. Cyberwarfare bellwethers. Outright disregard for international law whenever it suits them. Poor civil and worker's rights records. Manipulation of their currency exchange rate to boost their balance of trade at the expense (and impoverishment) of their own citizens. Persecution of ethnic and religious minorities. A very loose hand when it comes to passing out capital punishment...

And all this in the name of creating a "Worker's Paradise?"

Non-ideological? Them?

This is China you're talking about right?

6097

Living Room / Re: Losing my e-Book religion

« Last post by 40hz on February 21, 2012, 06:28 PM »

indeed I've kept this post civil by the skin of my teeth in the face of a condescending reply to the situation, rather than a rational discussion of the salient points.

-wraith808 (February 21, 2012, 05:14 PM)

@wraith - Duly noted and appreciated. Thank you.

6098

Living Room / Re: Steve Jobs is not dead... Minimalistic UI Madness Never dies.

« Last post by 40hz on February 21, 2012, 06:10 PM »

Linux is an OS choice driven by zealotry & wanting to stick it to The Man. These two things meld into a perfect mixture that attracts whackadoos more efficiently than sweet water attracts hummingbirds.

-Innuendo (February 21, 2012, 05:56 PM)

Goodness! Almost sounds like somebody's trying to get a rise out of the Linux crowd...

Sorry. Gambit declined.

 

6099

Official Announcements / Re: I want to try an experiment on the site for March 2012

« Last post by 40hz on February 21, 2012, 02:21 PM »

http://anselme.homes...ad.com/AFPHAITI.html

(Haiti News Network, via Vincent Flander's pages on Web Pages That Suck)

-TaoPhoenix (February 21, 2012, 12:00 PM)

Raises the portrayal of ugliness to a whole new level.

(I think I might have blown a few pixels on my monitor loading that page.)

6100

Post New Requests Here / Re: IDEA: App that keeps track of things that have been printed

« Last post by 40hz on February 21, 2012, 02:13 PM »

* a virtual -is that the right word?- printer.

-tomos (February 21, 2012, 12:54 PM)

Yes it is!

Wow! FinePrint. That's a "Blast from the Past." We used to use that in a place I worked for back when 1200dpi laser and color (especially dye-sublimation) output was expensive. We used to use it to track output costs and for client billing.

Glad to see these guys are still around. FinePrint was a very capable product.