Monthly Archives: February 2010

PHPHOST BLOG

Web Hosting Related Articles You May Need

Click me Only Once – jQuery

I have seen a very frequently asked question by developers – How to execute an event only once. With jQuery, achieving this requirement is very simple using One

Here’s how:

<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<
head>
<
title>Click me once only</title>
<
script type="text/javascript"
src="http://ajax.microsoft.com/ajax/jQuery/jquery-1.4.2.min.js">
</
script>
<
script type="text/javascript">
$(function() {
$("#Submit1").one('click', function() {
$(this).val("No more alerts");
alert('');
});
});
</script>
</
head>
<
body>
<
input id="Submit1" type="submit" value="submit" />
</
body>
</
html>

In the code shown above, the click event is fired only once and the alert is displayed. All subsequent clicks will do nothing

Live Demo

Continue reading

Posted in jQuery, Syndicated | Comments Off on Click me Only Once – jQuery

Visual Studio jQuery Intellisense over CDN

Most of us know about the Visual Studio jQuery Intellisense document Visual Studio Intellisense (vsdoc) for jQuery 1.4.1.

However many developers are not aware that you can get vsdoc Intellisense for jQuery over CDN (Content Delivery Network) as well. Just use the Microsoft CDN instead of the Google CDN

Here’s an example of the intellisense showing up with the Microsoft CDN network:

vsdoc intellisense with CDN

vsdoc intellisense with CDN

Microsoft CDN hosts both jQuery and the Visual Studio Intellisense for jQuery.

Continue reading

Posted in jQuery, Syndicated | Comments Off on Visual Studio jQuery Intellisense over CDN

Is The Fan Who Buys A Product He Wants A Big Dope?

When we talk about the various new business models that work well for content creators, one of the complaints that some of our regular critics have pointed out is that if most of the people are getting the content for free, and only a small group of superfans are paying, aren’t those who pay getting “ripped off” somehow — leading to them eventually jumping on the free-rider bandwagon and leaving no one to pay? Reader JJ sent over a well-articulated version of this argument by a self-described cynical musician in a Polish hard rock band. He describes this as: The Hunt For The Big Dope.

Tragically, this is a total misunderstanding of the economic arguments people make. In fact, it’s a gross distortion of the argument to make it easy to dismiss, rather than taking the time to understand it. In fact, what we’re really arguing is the opposite of finding the big dope. It’s about using content to create fewer dopes, replacing them with people who are willingly buying something of value that they actually want. It’s the old system that was focused on getting big dopes to pay for things they didn’t need or want. The new business models that we talk about — focused on giving people a reason to buy — are about just that: offering scarce value, above and beyond the content, that is worth buying — and that helps fund the content creation. There’s no big dope in this scenario, because the people who are buying get a lot more than just the content, and they’re thrilled with the transaction. Everyone comes out of the transaction better off.

If you believe in the “big dope” theory put forth by this guy, then anyone who buys a car is a “big dope,” because they’re financing all of those commercials, which they get to see on TV without paying for them. The percentage of people who buy a car that they saw in a TV commercial compared to the number of people who actually see the commercial is a tiny, tiny number. But does that make those buyers “big dopes?” Of course not. They got something they wanted (a car). Yes, that’s a more extreme example, but when you recognize that the content is acting as an advertisement for the bigger reasons to buy, making them more valuable, the analogy fits perfectly. A large percentage of people will never buy products they find out about via an advertisement. But some do. And if enough do, and the product they’re driven to buy is scarce and valuable enough, the company makes money. Same thing for content creators.

They’re not looking for “big dopes.” They’re looking for people who want to make an informed decision, in which they get something of additional scarce value, well beyond the content. That sure beats the old system, which appeared to be focused on hiding the content to force a bunch of dopes to pay without knowing what they’d get — leading them to be disappointed all too often. No offense to this particular musician, but I’d rather have the system I describe, with no dopes at all, than the old one he appears to pine for, in which all your fans are considered dopes.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story


Continue reading

Posted in Syndicated | Comments Off on Is The Fan Who Buys A Product He Wants A Big Dope?

It’s The Execution That Matters, Not The Idea

For years we’ve tried to explain the difference between ideas and execution, and how lots of people have ideas (in fact, many have the same ideas entirely independently), but without good execution, those ideas aren’t really worth much at all. This point comes up a lot in the debates we have over the patent system — with patent system supporters often overvaluing the idea part, and grossly underestimating the importance of execution. Often this is because they’ve never built a real business, and don’t realize how little an initial idea plays into the final product. The two are often oceans apart. But stopping others from executing well (or forcing them to fork over a ton of money) just because they executed well where you did not? That doesn’t seem like encouraging innovation or promoting progress at all.

DSchneider points us to an excellent recent Jeff Attwood post about the differences between the idea and the execution. It’s well worth reading as it covers a bunch of different things, including a common refrain made against those who successfully execute: that they were only able to do so because they were “well-connected.” As he notes, being well connected may get you an initial head start, but if you can’t execute well, no one will come back. The idea, alone, is almost meaningless.

Attwood highlights this by pointing to a recent letter to a mailing list from one of the guys who started a crowdfunding operation called Fundable a while back, which failed miserably (and very spectacularly in public, with an open letter posted to its website laying out all the dirty laundry). There were all sorts of problems with the execution, which the guy even admits:


Yes, Fundable had some technical and customer service problems. That’s because we had no money to revise it. I had plans to scrap the entire CMS and start from scratch with a new design. We were just so burned out that motivation was hard to come by. What was the point if we weren’t making enough money to live on after 4 years?

The “technical and customer service problems” underplayed how significant some of those problems were. And yet… now that other crowdfunding platforms are getting attention, such as Kickstarter, this guy is crazy upset that they “stole his idea.”


I feel that this story is important to tell you because Kickstarter.com copied us. I tried for 4 years to get people to take Fundable seriously, traveling across the country, even giving a presentation to FBFund, Facebook’s fund to stimulate development of new apps. It was a series of rejections for 4 years. I really felt that I presented myself professionally in every business situation and I dressed appropriately and practiced my presentations. That was not enough. The idiots wanted us to show them charts with massive profits and widespread public acceptance so that they didn’t have to take any risks….

I cannot tell you how painful it is to watch 5 assholes take your idea
and run with it and not even give you credit. I hate all 5 of them
for that. If I see them, I may punch each one of them in the face.
If you have never started your own company and then had someone else
steal the credit for what you worked hard to develop, you don’t
understand.

Now, I have started my own company, and I’ve had lots of other people either come up with the same idea separately, or even blatantly decide to do something similar to various aspects of our business. So I do know how it feels. And, certainly when you first hear about it, it may be annoying, but it’s really just a challenge. I’ll be honest, there are times when others have done a better job executing on ideas than I have in the past, and in the end you either compete, or you tip your hat and move on. Competition breeds innovation and better execution since you know you need to do more. And that means not screwing up your technology and customer service and not lashing out and blaming others when someone else executes better.

And, the thing is, given what we write about, and all the business model examples we’ve see over the years, we’re pretty damn familiar with many of the players in the whole “crowdfunding space.” There have been lots of players who have come and gone, and there are at least a dozen players in the space today. And it’s not because they all “took” the idea from this guy, but because lots of people recognized that it’s an idea that makes sense. Kickstarter is certainly getting a ton of press these days, but that’s mostly because of some top notch execution on its part.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story


Continue reading

Posted in Syndicated | Comments Off on It’s The Execution That Matters, Not The Idea

Court Denies Innocent Infringement Defense To Teen For Sharing Music

You may recall a few years back that a teenager, Whitney Harper, who was getting sued by the record labels/RIAA for file sharing, claimed that the amount she should have to pay up should be less than the $750 statutory minimum, because she was an “innocent infringer,” unaware that what she was doing in listening to music was against the law. In fact, she didn’t even realize she was sharing files, but thought she was just listening to music, like radio. Surprisingly, the lower court actually agreed with her and said that $200 per song (for the 37 songs) was an appropriate amount. But, of course, the RIAA appealed, as (despite claims to the contrary in the Tenenbaum and Thomas-Rasset case) they need those huge potential amounts to use as a sledge hammer against file sharers. Unfortunately, an appeals court has overturned the lower court ruling, and said that the statutory minimum of $750 per infringement should apply — saying that the innocent infringement defense isn’t applicable because the CDs the music came on (which she never saw) had proper copyright notices.

As you may know, copyright law does allow for reduced statutory damages on innocent infringement, “where the infringer sustains the burden of proving . . . that [she] was not aware and had no reason to believe that . . . her acts constituted an infringement of copyright.” Given the details of this case, that seemed to apply — but the appeals court was having none of it. In the decision, it argues that the law says an innocent infringer defense cannot be applied (with one exception irrelevant to this case) if a proper copyright notice “appears on the published . . . phonorecords to which a defendant . . . had access.”

The court the says that because copyright notices are found regularly on CDs, then Harper effectively “had access” to those recordings, at least enough to know they were covered by copyright. Not surprisingly, I find this argument to be quite troubling. If we assume it is accurate that Harper was using LimeWire as if it were a radio to listen to music, then how would she know that she was violating the copyright on the recordings at all? Would someone listening to the radio know? What about someone listening to Pandora or Spotify. Based on this ruling, anyone can be put at risk of much larger statutory damages for copyright if they simply don’t know if the online streaming service they’re using has properly cleared the copyrights. That does not seem like a conclusion that makes sense, or would have been intended by Congress. Did Congress really intend for each user to do the research before using any online music service to make sure those services had properly cleared the copyrights?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story


Continue reading

Posted in Syndicated | Comments Off on Court Denies Innocent Infringement Defense To Teen For Sharing Music

New Opera beta for Mac finally drops

Opera’s latest beta browser is available to the public for download now, and it’s clear that the Norwegian browser publisher is trying to make inroads on OS X.

Originally posted at The Download Blog

Continue reading

Posted in Syndicated | Comments Off on New Opera beta for Mac finally drops

French Court Says IP Address Does Not Identify A User

Michael Scott points us to the news that a French court has ruled that an IP address is not enough to identify a single individual. Now, obviously, many of us agree with this general point, and we’ve brought that up time and time again in the past when lawsuits insisted that a single IP address was enough to identify a user. And, given that France now has its three strikes law which will be based in large part on entertainment companies indicating a single IP address as evidence of infringement, this might seem like a good ruling. But in this case, there’s another side to it which is important. The reason why the court ruled that an IP address doesn’t identify an individual, is to say that it is not a privacy violation to get someone’s IP address.

This isn’t a new issue. We discussed a similar case before, and I actually think, on the whole, it’s correct. An IP address shouldn’t be considered private information directly, since it doesn’t identify a individual and you effectively have to give it out just to use the internet. But for people who argue that revealing IP addresses is a violation of confidential information, they might not like this ruling very much. On the whole, though, I think in the long run it’s better to have a world where the courts recognize that an IP address does not identify a user, even if it means that IP addresses aren’t considered private info.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story


Continue reading

Posted in Syndicated | Comments Off on French Court Says IP Address Does Not Identify A User

Swedish Investigator Hired By Warner Bros. During Pirate Bay Investigation Now In Charge Of IT Crime In Sweden

You may recall, back before The Pirate Bay trial in Sweden, a story came out about how the lead police investigator in the case just happened to take a job at Warner Bros. movie studio while The Pirate Bay investigation was still ongoing. This, obviously lead to quite reasonable questions of conflicts of interest, and even corruption. It’s hard to see how anyone could justify a police investigator agreeing to a job with a party in a lawsuit that he was currently investigating. But, for whatever reason, the police decided to protect one of their own, and saw no reason for an investigation.

The job at Warner Bros. only lasted (as originally intended) for six months, and then the guy, Jim Keyzer, went back to work for the police. TorrentFreak is reporting that he’s now in charge of the IT crime unit, which has the mandate to investigate file-sharing cases.

At the very least, this raises extremely serious conflict of interest questions. The guy was involved in an investigation, hired for a “temporary” job by one of the parties in that investigation — and then after the job is over, he goes back to work for the police on other investigations that will almost certainly involve the company he took money from for six months. I can understand people taking jobs back and forth between the public and private sector, but the timing of all this seems very suspect, and it seems like the Swedish police should at least set things up so that the conflict of interest is removed, and someone else is in charge of such investigations for the time being.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story


Continue reading

Posted in Syndicated | Comments Off on Swedish Investigator Hired By Warner Bros. During Pirate Bay Investigation Now In Charge Of IT Crime In Sweden

RapidShare Ordered To Prevent Users From Uploading Certain Books… Or Face Fines And Jailtime

Having already been told by a German court that it needs to magically know what songs infringe and which do not, file storage locker site RapidShare was already facing some difficult legal issues in that country. And now that company faces another problem. It’s been ordered by a German court to figure out a way to proactively block the upload of 148 titles. Of course, the company can try to do some fingerprinting, but there are always ways around things like that — and that creates a huge problem for RapidShare. Because if one of its users figures out how to upload one of these books, RapidShare takes the blame — in the form of $339,000 fine and 2 years of jailtime for execs for each instance that a forbidden work gets through. In what world does it make sense to hold the execs of a company criminally liable for something done by the users of the site?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story


Continue reading

Posted in Syndicated | Comments Off on RapidShare Ordered To Prevent Users From Uploading Certain Books… Or Face Fines And Jailtime

Microsoft takes off gloves against Google

Following European authorities’ request for more information on Google’s search algorithms, Microsoft confirms it’s spoken up about Google’s competitive practices.

Originally posted at Relevant Results

Continue reading

Posted in Syndicated | Comments Off on Microsoft takes off gloves against Google