I don't think the information is hidden inside the file using steganography - you can see all the information right from iTunes. Whatever a persons grievance with having personally identifiable information inside songs they purchase, I think it's a bit tenuous to suggest that this is an inappropriate thing for Apple to do because it adversely effects the quality of what you are paying for.
Well, the results of the commands you give it are returned in a browser so can (and do it seems) include multimedia. Still, it's main selling point seems to be a novel and consistent interface to various popular sites and services, rather than a text based web browser inside a graphical browser.
It seems like a solution looking for a problem to me (unless lack of cool geeky ajax apps is a problem). Worth trying though, will keep the tab open over the next few days before deciding if it's more or less efficient for me.
Speaking of FOSS...anyone know of a "you forget to select Plain Old Text" extension for Firefox?
Does he find that giving away content raises his profile and the value of his paid for content?
I think different people derive value from FOSS in a bunch of ways; perhaps some of them can be transposed to be relevant to your brothers work:
1> For an individual contributing to FOSS projects simply improves employability.
2> As a company or statup, being willing to ship under a GPL licence opens up a vast library of existing software and tools. This can lead to huge cuts in development costs, so much so that your business idea might not be feasible otherwise. Say you're a Business Intelligence guru and want to deploy custom BI solutions to SME's. Using an open source platform like Pentaho could well be the best choice.
3> For large companies, being a major contributor to FOSS projects can mark you out as the go to people for consultancy work.
4> For some developers working on FOSS is about being part of a community, improving their understanding of their craft by liasing with there peers and enjoying it. Certainly this won't put food on the table but it does go some way to explaining how FOSS can exist even if there is no money behind it.
This is a very rough and ready list, you'll probably find lots more examples, counter examples and random musings strewn about this page.
Does he find that giving away content raises his profile and the value of his paid for content?
I think different people derive value from FOSS in a bunch of ways; perhaps some of them can be transposed to be relevant to your brothers work:
1> For an individual contributing to FOSS projects simply improves employability.
2> As a company or startup, being willing to ship under a GPL licence opens up a vast library of existing software and tools. This can lead to huge cuts in development costs, so much so that your business idea might not be feasible otherwise. Say you're a Business Intelligence guru and want to deploy custom BI solutions to SME's. Using an open source platform like Pentaho could well be the best choice.
3> For large companies, being a major contributor to FOSS projects can mark you out as the go to people for consultancy work.
4> For some developers working on FOSS is about being part of a community, improving their understanding of their craft by liaising with there peers and enjoying it. Certainly this won't put food on the table but it does go some way to explaining how FOSS can exist even if there is little money in it for most people on the project.
5> Offering a limited functionality version of the software for free (or even a crippled version( could be used to try and whet peoples appetite, and get them to pay for increased functionality.
This is a very rough and ready list, you'll probably find lots more examples, counter examples and random musings strewn about this page.
It makes more sense if you don't thinking of "Free Software" as a business model. Just think of it as a type of product that some people have built successful business models around and that some have failed to.
And rootkits aside, consider a Linux box used in a residential environment, everyone using the same user account, downloading and running whatever they like.
What's to stop them downloading and running any sort of malware that now starts every time this user logs in?
This buggy whip and automobile stuff again. Come on, it really doesn't apply here.
If people don't want to buy buggy whips because they have a car, fine. The buggy whip industry is dead and everyone else can get on with their lives.
If this chap can't recoup his costs of writing that book because people are unwilling to pay for it (not because it isn't great, but because a large enough proportion of potential buyers are greedy and selfish and can steal it with no perceived risk) then he's going to be less inclined to write another. Repeat this pattern over and over and suddenly a whole bunch of potentially great books don't exist, and our culture is poorer for it.
What exactly are you saying? That *writers* need to find another way to earn a living?
Not if life saving drugs stop being developed, because the pharmaceutical companies spend millions proving a particular chemical is safe and effective and then get massively undercut by a third party manufacturer producing the same chemical via a different process.
Across a bunch of user machines? Sounds really unreliable. I mean you wouldn't give users a reset button for your servers.
It sounds like the guy just wants to use this space for the hell of it. In a business context either you need more storage space so you buy the hardware, or you don't.
I think this proposal stems from geek mentality to find it abhorrent when a potential resource doesn't have a use, rather than a sound business reason.
You make it sound like it's a bad policy keeping all business data somewhere properly managed. It won't mitigate any damage done to your company or your career because you told them to be careful.
People will store data in the most convenient location, thats not stupidity - just human nature.
They are only talking about dropping negative feedback against buyers, buyers could still give negative feedback on sellers.
The GP post sounds like a really good idea to me.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think the information is hidden inside the file using steganography - you can see all the information right from iTunes. Whatever a persons grievance with having personally identifiable information inside songs they purchase, I think it's a bit tenuous to suggest that this is an inappropriate thing for Apple to do because it adversely effects the quality of what you are paying for.
Well, the results of the commands you give it are returned in a browser so can (and do it seems) include multimedia. Still, it's main selling point seems to be a novel and consistent interface to various popular sites and services, rather than a text based web browser inside a graphical browser. It seems like a solution looking for a problem to me (unless lack of cool geeky ajax apps is a problem). Worth trying though, will keep the tab open over the next few days before deciding if it's more or less efficient for me.
Aren't there orphaned files not linked to from anywhere?
Speaking of FOSS...anyone know of a "you forget to select Plain Old Text" extension for Firefox?
Does he find that giving away content raises his profile and the value of his paid for content?
I think different people derive value from FOSS in a bunch of ways; perhaps some of them can be transposed to be relevant to your brothers work:
1> For an individual contributing to FOSS projects simply improves employability.
2> As a company or statup, being willing to ship under a GPL licence opens up a vast library of existing software and tools. This can lead to huge cuts in development costs, so much so that your business idea might not be feasible otherwise. Say you're a Business Intelligence guru and want to deploy custom BI solutions to SME's. Using an open source platform like Pentaho could well be the best choice.
3> For large companies, being a major contributor to FOSS projects can mark you out as the go to people for consultancy work.
4> For some developers working on FOSS is about being part of a community, improving their understanding of their craft by liasing with there peers and enjoying it. Certainly this won't put food on the table but it does go some way to explaining how FOSS can exist even if there is no money behind it.
This is a very rough and ready list, you'll probably find lots more examples, counter examples and random musings strewn about this page.
Does he find that giving away content raises his profile and the value of his paid for content? I think different people derive value from FOSS in a bunch of ways; perhaps some of them can be transposed to be relevant to your brothers work: 1> For an individual contributing to FOSS projects simply improves employability. 2> As a company or startup, being willing to ship under a GPL licence opens up a vast library of existing software and tools. This can lead to huge cuts in development costs, so much so that your business idea might not be feasible otherwise. Say you're a Business Intelligence guru and want to deploy custom BI solutions to SME's. Using an open source platform like Pentaho could well be the best choice. 3> For large companies, being a major contributor to FOSS projects can mark you out as the go to people for consultancy work. 4> For some developers working on FOSS is about being part of a community, improving their understanding of their craft by liaising with there peers and enjoying it. Certainly this won't put food on the table but it does go some way to explaining how FOSS can exist even if there is little money in it for most people on the project. 5> Offering a limited functionality version of the software for free (or even a crippled version( could be used to try and whet peoples appetite, and get them to pay for increased functionality. This is a very rough and ready list, you'll probably find lots more examples, counter examples and random musings strewn about this page. It makes more sense if you don't thinking of "Free Software" as a business model. Just think of it as a type of product that some people have built successful business models around and that some have failed to.
Just go to Digg!
Window cleaning? Come on, the economy is in dire straits for sure - but there must be a better use of this guys skills.
And rootkits aside, consider a Linux box used in a residential environment, everyone using the same user account, downloading and running whatever they like. What's to stop them downloading and running any sort of malware that now starts every time this user logs in?
SQL Injection? Yes.
And it's legal. Let's not forget that.
wasn't slashdot this time, the things just wildly popular.
Energon cubes?
Except for in Hull. Only one provider there, isn't that weird?
Remember there is a difference between responsibility and accountability. Who gets fired if the kid screws up?
No.
No one...you automatically get redirected to it if you access www.cnn.com from outside the US (or from the UK at any rate)
They can, and they will. People want everything for themselves, sure you can recognise that as a bad thing, but who can blame them?
This buggy whip and automobile stuff again. Come on, it really doesn't apply here.
If people don't want to buy buggy whips because they have a car, fine. The buggy whip industry is dead and everyone else can get on with their lives.
If this chap can't recoup his costs of writing that book because people are unwilling to pay for it (not because it isn't great, but because a large enough proportion of potential buyers are greedy and selfish and can steal it with no perceived risk) then he's going to be less inclined to write another. Repeat this pattern over and over and suddenly a whole bunch of potentially great books don't exist, and our culture is poorer for it.
What exactly are you saying? That *writers* need to find another way to earn a living?
Never ascribe to malice what you can ascribe to a big screw up.
Are you saying you don't buy any products that are marketed?
Not if life saving drugs stop being developed, because the pharmaceutical companies spend millions proving a particular chemical is safe and effective and then get massively undercut by a third party manufacturer producing the same chemical via a different process.
Sounds awesome. Can I use it to power my flying car?
Across a bunch of user machines? Sounds really unreliable. I mean you wouldn't give users a reset button for your servers. It sounds like the guy just wants to use this space for the hell of it. In a business context either you need more storage space so you buy the hardware, or you don't. I think this proposal stems from geek mentality to find it abhorrent when a potential resource doesn't have a use, rather than a sound business reason.
You make it sound like it's a bad policy keeping all business data somewhere properly managed. It won't mitigate any damage done to your company or your career because you told them to be careful. People will store data in the most convenient location, thats not stupidity - just human nature.
They are only talking about dropping negative feedback against buyers, buyers could still give negative feedback on sellers. The GP post sounds like a really good idea to me.