Recent Posts

9401

Living Room / Re: Low energy use always on pc -- what's better, a laptop or a mini (htpc) pc?

« Last post by 40hz on March 30, 2010, 09:44 AM »

What software will you be using to stream your audio? And does the stream need to be remotely accessible - or is it for just for inside your local net?

9402

Living Room / Re: Apple’s Market Cap Passes $210 Billion, Now Within $50 Billion of You-Know-Who

« Last post by 40hz on March 29, 2010, 06:25 PM »

Ha!! Good one, Josh.   Here's that story that should finally end for good soon, now that a jury has it:
http://blogs.compute...this_the_end_for_sco

-zridling (March 29, 2010, 05:37 PM)

Please, please, please let this finally put SCO out of OUR misery!

9403

Living Room / Re: Bluetooth PAN Network Adapter driver.

« Last post by 40hz on March 27, 2010, 07:15 AM »

Not sure if that was the link you really wanted

-Stoic Joker (March 26, 2010, 10:06 PM)

Always a possibility.

I agree that having a dual-WAN router arbitrate the two external connections will do the trick. But I didn't think that was the question being asked.

I interpreted the question to be whether it was possible to hook both the EDGE and standard broadband internet connections directly into the server and have that work reliably.

The reason I interpreted it that way was because I've seen numerous cases where a server arrives equipped with three NICs which someone decides to set up it as 2 externals + 1 internal ("to increase Internet throughput"); next plugs the external facing cards into two different internet connections, and then wonders what the problem is. Especially if (or more likely when) DNS settings are also misconfigured - usually by having the external adapter's DNS setting not point to itself and wind up having the AD 'glom' onto it as a result

And to your point about isolating services using one server with multiple interfaces, I also agree. I often do that myself. Perhaps "multihoming" wasn't the best choice of terms when I probably should have said "bridging" or "spanning" and clarified I was talking about the external network connections.

 


Addendum: If DNS is set up properly is a pretty big 'if' from what I've seen. FWIW I discover DNS configuration problems in about a quarter of the Windows servers I look at. What is it about server DNS settings that some people feel the need to be constantly screwing around with them?  

 

9404

General Software Discussion / Re: A new approach to reduce NTFS fragmentation

« Last post by 40hz on March 26, 2010, 04:51 PM »

Has anybody been able to find a creditable independent review of this product?

Everything I see up on the web is either a sponsored announcement, or what appears to be a reprint of a press release.

I'm surprised that there doesn't seem to be much info despite the claims being made and the amount of time this product has been on the market.

I would have thought one of the CMP or Ziff publications would have picked up on it by now.

 

9405

Living Room / Re: Facebook 'linked to rise in syphilis'

« Last post by 40hz on March 26, 2010, 08:29 AM »

Right, so who are the Vulcan looking make-out twins in the far left corner?

-Stoic Joker (March 25, 2010, 08:59 PM)

Hey! Isn't that T'Prynn and Delvok - Surak's daughter & T'Mir's son?



P.S. I don't know about the rest of you - but I find photos like the above to be seriously weird. 

9406

Living Room / Re: Facebook 'linked to rise in syphilis'

« Last post by 40hz on March 26, 2010, 08:22 AM »

Wow.

Good to know.

(And to think all this time I was blaming Canada.)  

9407

Developer's Corner / Re: Applying “A Pattern Language” To Online Community Design

« Last post by 40hz on March 26, 2010, 08:17 AM »

 Oooo...good catch JennyB!

I've been a big fan of A Pattern Language since farther back than I'd sometimes like to admit. This is one of those subtle and deep books that can be broadly applied to a number of design issues, be they hardware, software, or wetware in origin.

Amazing how some of the best books about computers aren't about computers.

Another recommendation: Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art by Scott McCloud.

Although ostensibly about design and presentation strategies in the creation of comic strips and graphic novels, it delves very deeply into how the brain processes text and visual information in order to make connections and assign meanings.

This is probably one of the best books on web design and data presentation out there. (Even if it isn't strictly about either. )

---

Note: in the fine geek tradition of "eating your own dog food" Scott's book is written in comic book format. Far from being a gimmick, it actually allows the book to serve as example of all the examples in the book.

Very Zen!

9408

Developer's Corner / Re: Smashing Magazine: A Short Guide To Open-Source And Similar Licenses

« Last post by 40hz on March 25, 2010, 02:45 PM »

I'm expecting f0dder to show up any minute now with both guns blazing... 

9409

Living Room / Re: Flattr: New Micropayment System - Gets the Model Right

« Last post by 40hz on March 25, 2010, 02:27 PM »

Maybe Flattr should talk to the United Way about how they do it. From what I'm hearing this sounds very much like the way the United Way "fair share" contribution plan works. You designate a periodic amount to donate and then tell them how you want to allocate what you give.

Why reinvent the wheel when someone might already have the plans?

  

9410

Living Room / Re: Bluetooth PAN Network Adapter driver.

« Last post by 40hz on March 25, 2010, 10:31 AM »

Re: #2

If those NICs are using public IP addresses and this server is your DC, the short answer is you can't. You also never want to multihome a DC because it causes major problems for your network.

This question comes up a lot. Rather than me blathering, take a look at this link. It shows a way to work around this problem.

http://social.techne...b2-9477-27ab158d3932

Luck!

9411

Living Room / Re: 50 Places Linux is Running That You Might Not Expect

« Last post by 40hz on March 25, 2010, 02:50 AM »

Despite its mini status on the desktop, Linux is certainly all around us, in phones, cars, planes, embedded devices, toasters, robots, etc. It's a great thing to be able to select which parts of the kernel you need only to run your particular device. No marketing campaign, it just works.

-zridling (March 24, 2010, 09:35 PM)

I wonder how much of linux' success can be attributed to it being "free" and how much is because it's gratis...

-f0dder (March 24, 2010, 09:45 PM)

I'm sure that being 'gratis' plays a part in Linux being considered. But I very much doubt it's a major factor when it comes to Linux being chosen.

Especially when you look at the technical acumen and the financial resources behind many organizations that do choose to go with Linux.

Virtually all of them can well afford any operating system they want. And that remains true even if they don't mind "paying a little less" get it.

Having a stable, powerful, unrestricted and fully adaptable OS is the main goal.  

Not having to pay for a license to use it is just icing on the cake for this crowd.  


------------
Note:

I think one of the things that creates a perceptual problem when it comes to Linux is that people tend equate the Linux kernal with GNU/Linux. This is probably because most people are so familiar with the monolithic approach to operating systems that Microsoft uses, that they assume all operating systems must work the same way.

The thing about Linux that almost always gets overlooked isn't how much Linux brings to the table - it's how little.

Linux itself is fairly small. Most of its increase in code size over the years comes from adding support for new hardware. But the real beauty comes when you realize you can strip out everything you don't need, add only what you do, and go from there.

And the fact you can do that is Linux's main selling point when it comes to critical system design.


Quasi off-topic follows. feel free to ignore!  

Spoiler

Linux vs GNU/Linux

In a way, it's kind of funny...

 When the Linux kernal first got wedded to GNU, Richard Stallman (GNU's brilliant but difficult project leader) insisted on calling it GNU/Linux in order to call attention to the fact that what most people think of as "Linux" is actually made up of two major components: a small kernal and some ancillary code named "Linux" - and GNU, which is everything else.

Stallman believed this was an important distinction that needed to be maintained and, for a variety of reasons, felt the name should reflect that.

Linus Torvalds didn't object to any of this. (Some versions of the story say Linus's reaction was more along the lines of him saying "whatever.")  But "GNU/Linux" didn't roll off the tongue as smoothly as "Linux" did.  So over Stallman's protests, the general name became Linux.

Despite his many misgivings (and a long fruitless attempt to get the public to use the name GNU/Linux) Stallman eventually capitulated. Much like when Federal Express finally stopped insisting on being called that and ultimately went with FedEx, the name its customers bestowed on it.

Vox populi, vox dei, as the saying goes.

So if there's public confusion over exactly what constitutes Linux, we have only ourselves to blame.

Looks like Stallman was right about it after all...

9412

Living Room / Re: Ars Technica on the problem with adblocking

« Last post by 40hz on March 24, 2010, 11:42 AM »

Project Wonderful has to be about the most transparent, ethical ad network I have come across. I wish all the ad networks were a lot more like them.

-app103 (March 24, 2010, 04:53 AM)

Very interesting approach. Makes perfect sense too. Thanks for bringing Project Wonderful to our attention.

 

Note: I just whitelisted Project Wonderful on my blocker. Looking at some of the ads and advertisers, I've decided I actually wouldn't mind seeing some of those.

9413

Living Room / Re: 50 Places Linux is Running That You Might Not Expect

« Last post by 40hz on March 24, 2010, 11:33 AM »

Here's 391 more....

Linux is also running on 78% of the top 500 supercomputers as of last November according to an article over at InternetNews.com

And if you add in the all the commercial NIX variants, such as Centos and Suse enterprise editions, it climbs to something like 88%.

Linux dominates top 500 supercomputer list
By Sean Michael Kerner on November 16, 2009 2:47 PM

From the 'Beefy Penguin' files:

The latest Top 500 Supercomputer list is now out (see my colleague Andy Patrizio's story on InternetNews.com), with the top rig doubling its performance to 1.75 petaflops.

Of particular interest to me is the fact that while multi-core CPU's are the hardware components enabling the fastest computers, it is Linux as the operating system the powers the software.

Just over 78 percent of the top 500 supercomputers run some type of Linux.  The official Top 500 Supercomputer site lists 391 of the top 500 supercomputers as using 'Linux'.

Digging a little deeper, there are 32 additional machines that identify themselves as running some version of Novell's SUSE Linux Enterprise Server. There are some 16 that identify Red Hat Linux or one of its derivatives including CentOS.

So doing a little bit of math, at least 88 percent of the list is using some form of Linux, generic or otherwise.

That's astounding. The only other operating system that is even noteworthy beyond Linux is IBM's AIX Unix at 22 systems (or just over 4 percent).

It's also interesting to see how the list has changed over the past nine years.

Back in November of 2000, Linux (generic) represented nearly 11 percent of the top supercomputer list, while AIX dominated at 42 percent. Times do change.

Article Link: http://blog.internet...-top-500-superc.html

Stats Link: http://www.top500.org/stats/list/34/os

9414

Living Room / Re: Can search of donationcoder.com be improved?

« Last post by 40hz on March 24, 2010, 07:49 AM »

Oddly enough, I found myself thinking about Stephen's posting a lot yesterday. (Sloooow afternoon Folks!)   and thought... I just might write an article:

On the use of search queries in generating self-negating statements along with notes on its practical application for changing reality.

I love computer logic. It's so boolean don't you think?

I'd suspect this has commercial potential. Imagine every customer complaint on a website automatically negating itself by virtue of the complaint itself being made! Awesome!

It's such a vague and hokey concept that I'm sure our brain-dead USPO would grant me a software patent.

 

9415

Living Room / Re: Can search of donationcoder.com be improved?

« Last post by 40hz on March 23, 2010, 09:04 PM »

Slightly OT:  Why does it use Orwell's "Animal Farm" as the example...doesn't seem like a post that would be found here...at least, id hope not haha

-Stephen66515 (March 23, 2010, 07:27 PM)

Well...it wouldn't until your post. 

9416

Living Room / Re: Can search of donationcoder.com be improved?

« Last post by 40hz on March 23, 2010, 06:01 PM »

Minor problem: I keep forgetting to put it in quotes. 



 

9417

General Software Discussion / Re: Dell: No refunds for Linux users who reject Microsoft's OS EULA

« Last post by 40hz on March 23, 2010, 10:32 AM »

The EULA explicitly says "return it to the retailer". Dell sold the copy of Windows why should MS reimburse you directly? If they did then Dell would keep the money they received for the sale and MS would cough up the refund - that would not make any sense.

-Carol Haynes (March 22, 2010, 05:36 PM)

Actually, unless they've changed the way it used to work, MS gets paid up front for the OEM licenses. They used to do a contact where the OEM had to commit to a certain number of copies of Windows, with the pricing 'tier' (i.e. unit cost/volume) determined by the quantity committed to.

The way tier pricing works is pretty straight-forward. Let's say your sales forecasters think you could conservatively sell 110K units of X annually. You'd look at the pricing breakouts and see that the makers of X have two pricing tiers: 100K units@$25/per and 50K units@$35/per

Since the "conservative" sales forecast says you'll sell 110K units at $40 each, you decide it's fairly safe to commit at the100K-units tier in order to get the lower price. So you sign the contract, start to order at $25 a license, and go on your merry way.

Most contracts will allow you to periodically (usually on the calendar quarter) 'adjust' your commitment based on your actual sales volumes. At those times you'd have the option to switch pricing tiers based on which would give you the lowest cost.

You can usually go up a tier without any penalty other than the extra cost you paid for what was sold so far. But if you decided to drop down a tier, you'd first be required to make up the difference in price on the actual copies sold to date - and then start paying the higher price per copy on all new orders.

But here's the rub: at the end of the contract period you owe the makers of X for the the number of copies you committed to.

So using the previous numbers lets say you committed to 100K @ $25 and actually only sold 75K units priced @ $40.

Sales =  $3,000,000  (75K*$40)

Cost =   $1,875,000  (75K*$25)

Gross =  $1,125,000  

But now you also have to subtract an additional $625,000 from your gross profit because you still owe for the additional 25K copies (100K-75K) you committed to but didn't sell. (i.e. 25K*$25=$625,000)

So instead of making $1,125,000 - you only made $500,000. Still a decent amount of change "just" for loading something on a machine. But nowhere near as good as it would have been if you hit your sales forecast.

Missing your sales estimates by 25% just cut your gross profit by more than half. *Ouch*

On the other hand, if you went with the 50K/$35 tier (and kept it all year) your profit would have only been $425,000. That's a cool $75,000 less!

You can play all sorts of spreadsheet forecast games, setting up formulas for when to switch pricing tiers in order to maximize return and minimize risk. Most companies do. But in the end, it's always a bit of a crap shoot. And unless you're very lucky, you almost always end up paying more than the ideal amount per license.

And with rising costs and dropping sales volumes it shouldn't surprise us that most manufacturers are reluctant to agree to do anything that hits their bottom line.

 
-----

*Note: In real life, OEM licensing arrangements take many forms. The above is a hypothetical example of how one fairly common method works. The actual terms and conditions will vary widely depending on the product and the company producing it. It's hard to do an actual example because most OEM licensing programs and price schedules are specific to each OEM and protected by non-disclosure agreements.
 

9418

Living Room / Re: Windows doesn't recognize HDD.

« Last post by 40hz on March 23, 2010, 08:09 AM »

+1 with techidave on the Win98 Boot/Setup CD question.

That's a new one for me too. What's up with that?

(Always looking to learn something new! )

9419

N.A.N.Y. 2010 / Re: NANY 2010 Final Release: Leap of Faith

« Last post by 40hz on March 22, 2010, 02:29 PM »

Nice game. Frustrating. But a nice game.

One unexpected surprise.

While watching the preview video of the game, I must have bumped something at the bottom of the YouTube window and got this:



So all in all - not too bad. (Not too bad at all...) 

9420

General Software Discussion / Re: Dell: No refunds for Linux users who reject Microsoft's OS EULA

« Last post by 40hz on March 22, 2010, 02:08 PM »

I have an idea - why don't we all buy a Dell notebook and then return them all because we reject the EULA. It would give Dell pause for thought (and other manufacturers) if they were inundated with returns.

-Carol Haynes (March 22, 2010, 04:58 AM)

Love it.  

Unfortunately (at least in the USA) encouraging a large number of people to buy something purely with the intent of returning it - as a form of protest - would likely run afoul of federal anti-racketeering laws.

I'd guess the credit card companies would get pretty annoyed with their cardholders as well.

Either way - I still love it.  

9421

General Software Discussion / Re: Software that displays text on the monitor saying where you are in the build

« Last post by 40hz on March 22, 2010, 11:51 AM »

Why not use one of those PostIt note type apps? Just use a large font size and expand it to full screen assuming you don't need to lock your machine when you leave it. That's what I usually do when I want to be found.
 

9422

General Software Discussion / Re: Dell: No refunds for Linux users who reject Microsoft's OS EULA

« Last post by 40hz on March 22, 2010, 07:49 AM »

but they don't sell all their machines as an option to ship without Windows.

-zridling (March 22, 2010, 02:16 AM)

Or at least without some operating system installed.

Getting a rig without an OS is a special order item for most manufacturers. I can't fault them for that. They need to do something to avoid the inevitable scam play: <*whine*>I don't understand...your ads all say that your machines come with Windows installed....

And then there's that little clause in the Microsoft OEM licensing contract about accounting & assurance for what got sold and shipped. Some ways to assure MS they're not giving copies of Windows away (more on that in a moment) is to:

• Only sell non-OS machines to businesses or institutions - or in bulk
• Not sell machines without an installed OS at all - or -
• Just take the easiest way out and only sell machines with Windows installed.

Since Windows accounts for +90% of all desktops, that third option is the usual policy most OEMs and system aggregators follow.


Regarding the notion of a "free" copy of Windows - there ain't no such thing!  

 OEMs can say a copy of Windows is "included" in the price. They can say something "comes with" Windows. They can even absorb the cost to keep their selling prices down. But at no time are they allowed to say or imply that the copy of Windows is" free." Microsoft doesn't allow that.

ALL copies of Windows are SOLD. Even the copies Microsoft occasionally gives away get charged to an internal cost center, or to the marketing budget. (Yes, MS "pays" for the copies they use just like everybody else - even if no cash changes hands.) There is no SKU code for free Windows. And if there is no SKU code - it doesn't exist.

Microsoft does this for two reasons: First, it's to ram home the notion that Windows has monetary value. Second, it provides a legal theory should they need to go after people who are acquiring copies through unauthorized channels.

DOS was widely bootlegged. And Windows for Workgroups (along with 95, 98, and 2K despite CD installation keys) was easily found on ten times more machines than the number of copies sold. And so it went until WGA came along and put a stop to casual piracy.

By insisting on getting paid for every copy, and taking reasonable steps to prevent people from illegally installing it through ignorance (i.e. that's the famous "any moron in a hurry" test), they've set the stage to get real protection from the courts. Which you might have noticed Microsoft has gotten since they introduced WGA.

And that's why there is not (and never will be) any such thing as a "free copy of Windows."

 

9423

Living Room / Re: Stephen's Weekly Tech News - Edition 6

« Last post by 40hz on March 21, 2010, 03:07 PM »

Re: Message from the grave, straight to your cell phone

Interesting...

But I'm thinking it might even be even more 'fun' to program an Eliza-like chatter-bot with my own distinctive choice of words and phrases (and my warped sense of humor) so that all two visitors to my grave could have a zero-content 'interactive' chat with me after I've left this plane of existence...hmmm...

(Like I said, warped sense of humor.  )

9424

General Software Discussion / Re: Dell: No refunds for Linux users who reject Microsoft's OS EULA

« Last post by 40hz on March 21, 2010, 02:50 PM »

I'd also wish you good luck getting them to honor the warranty on your hardware if you switch your OS.

40Hz: You may be interested in this:
Linux FUD Pattern #8: Linux will void your warranty.

-Edvard (March 21, 2010, 11:06 AM)

Hey Edvard! Long time no hear...


I agree with what Linux FUD Pattern #8 says. (Great article BTW )

But please note that I didn't say installing Linux would void your warranty. All I was saying was that it can create problems if you need to avail yourself of it.

Again, many of the PC manufacturers include a clause that requires the customer to "cooperate" with their phone support people on "resolving" their service issue. And said "cooperation" can often involve performing "one or more remote diagnostic procedures" before the manufacturer will process a warranty claim or (especially!) dispatch an onsite service tech.

Because most PC support personnel (and software) will only work on the Windows platform, if you are running Linux, they can't perform their diagnostics...hence you are not cooperating with them to diagnose your problem...hence it cannot be covered under the terms of the warranty - QED.

This isn't a theoretical problem either. I've had clients who were running Linux on Dell, Gateway (and a few other major brands) be told that they would need to reinstall Windows before the manufacturer's support personnel could render assistance.

One company (I forget which) even had a clause in their warranty that gave them the right to refuse support until all software and hardware not installed by the manufacturer was removed from the PC. In short, add anything to your machine and they could decline to provide support or initiate a warranty claim. I wouldn't be surprised if some companies didn't go back to the 'good old days' of slapping those miserable non-removable decals on the back of PC cases. You know the ones? They're usually silver, and say something like: WARRANTY VOID IF BROKEN OR REMOVED.

Not to say you couldn't get around any of this. But it's always a major hassle that requires multiple phone calls until you connect with someone who is willing to help.

And Carol is right. Many companies will go to extraordinary lengths to get out of doing a no-charge repair or replacement. One of the best ways to do this is just to bump the aggravation factor up enough that the person who owns the machine goes elsewhere. I have business clients who have my company fix their in-warranty XXX* machines because they'd rather cut us a check than get on the phone with the manufacturer's support department.

Come to think of it, I should probably pay a commission to XXX. Because once my organization has established credibility by handling basic PC repairs, it opens the door for us to talk to the client about all our other service offerings. I've acquired several very good business accounts courtesy of the shabby treatment some of XXX's customers received when they called the support number.

 
-----------------
* Note: Yes... I'm hiding the name of company XXX for obvious reasons. But if you talk to your friends and clients, or maybe recall a similar experience you've had, then you'll probably be able to figure out who I'm talking about.

9425

Living Room / Re: Yelp Website Accused of Extortion -- More Examples of Corrupt Review Sites

« Last post by 40hz on March 21, 2010, 12:58 AM »

There's an article over at Wired on the situation with iPhone apps and how some prominent and well regarded review sites are charging a fee to 'expedite' reviews.

http://www.wired.com...%28Gear+Factor%29%29

Gadget Lab Hardware News and Reviews
Pay to Play: Some iPhone App Sites Demand Money for Reviews (Updated)

    * By Brian X. Chen Email Author
    * March 18, 2010  |
    * 3:02 pm  |
    * Categories: Phones
    *

iphone payola
----------------

If you can’t pitch the press, pay them. That’s the proposition some review sites have for publicity-starved iPhone developers.

Several websites dedicated to iPhone app reviews are requesting payments from developers in exchange for writeups of their apps, Wired.com has learned. Those payments are not always clearly disclosed to readers, and the practice hasn’t received much discussion outside of gaming blogs.

Soliciting money in exchange for a product review is not illegal, but the practice should raise questions about the credibility and independence of the review sites, critics say.

“They prey on people who need exposure,” said Oliver Cameron, developer of the popular iPhone app Postman, who has avoided pitching his apps to sites that request payment for reviews. “It strikes me as a paid ad, really. They never seem to actually ‘review’ it.”

The two sites that were most frequently mentioned by programmers who contacted Wired.com were TheiPhoneAppReview.com and AppCraver.com. Both sites appear in the top four Google search results for the search term “iPhone app review.”

With more than 150,000 apps in the iPhone App Store, rising above the crowd is a major challenge for developers. Getting a good review on the web can help drive sales and that, in turn, can raise an app’s profile within the App Store. While apps that earn their creators hundreds of thousands of dollars are rare, they do exist, and many developers seek publicity in hopes of achieving this dream.

Driven by that demand, app review websites are offering to “expedite” reviews — that is, bring apps to the front of the review queue — in exchange for a fee. But at least one site, ThePhoneAppReview.com, has gone even further, and threatened to shun products whose developers haven’t paid for reviews.

A related article by MacDirectory discusses how deals like this work :

Link: http://www.macdirect...Detail/news_id,1867/

Developer Michael D'Ulisse told Wired that one site, TheiPhoneAppReview.com, refused to review his app Pocket Labeler unless he ponied up a $25 fee. TheiPhoneAppReview does disclose on its About page that it offers an "expedited review service" for a "small fee," but the site's editor in chief, Shaun Campbell, told Wired that TheiPhoneAppReview does not require developers to pay a fee for a review.

"I have never once sent a request for a fee to a developer to review their app," Campbell. "That is not our policy, which is why that is not stated in the About."

That second sentence is a flat-out lie.

I don't know whether Campbell has or has not personally requested a developer to send him a fee in exchange for a review, but I do know that at one time it was most certainly the site's policy to ask for one. How do I know this? When I inquired about writing for the site back in September of last year, Campbell told me this in an email:

"Our business is centered around providing coverage of new and interesting iPhone applications to assist with the marketing and promotion of our clients (the developers). Currently, we charge a nominal fee of $20 to review an iPhone application, though this is likely to grow in the near future as website traffic continues to improve.

We are looking to take on independent contributing authors that, through the use of iTunes, contact iPhone app developers to offer their review services. Due to the sheer volume of iPhone applications out there, and the need to stand out in the marketplace, the response rate is generally quite favorable."

Now in full disclosure, I still pursued this writing gig. I'm not proud of this, but I was in need of money and I was also not aware that TheiPhoneAppReview did not clearly disclose their pay-to-play practice. Fortunately, I was spared an internal moral quandary because Campbell never responded to me after his initial email.

Apparently, these revelations are starting to cause some pain. Because when the Today in iPhone podcast published verbatim two emails it received from  iPhone App Reviews ("explaining" the site's position on this matter) it received a legal threat for doing so:

Link: http://tii.libsyn.co...payola_to_wired_com_

Update: 3/20/2010 10:41 AM CT - Mr. Campbell sent me an email threatening legal action if I do not remove the emails above. He claimed they were in violation of Copyright law.  However I claim they fall under the fair use doctrine - as the emails present a counter claim to his public comments in the Wired article and as such provide the public with needed information.  I guess we will let the courts decide.  I don't like being threatened - Mr. Campbell I will NOT remove the emails above.  

Somehow, I get the feeling this is just the tip of the iceberg...