So I have this really sweet, lesser-deity-of-a-computer; a nearly maxed-out Dell Studio XPS 16. I’m very happy with my purchase, in all respects but one: some marketing jack-off with a title eerily similar to mine has decided that letting customers use any old Media Center remote on their computer was a bad plan. This includes any universal remote (like, say, the Harmony series of remotes) or standard Media Center remotes (like these). I guess it added value to the purchase, but not $$ to the bottom line, and was thus deemed a liability. Short-sighted A-hole.

One of the guys over at the notebook review forums (ejohnson0547, Notebook Enthusiast) showed how Dell used their stupid little installer to actually REMOVE support for standard MCE remotes in Windows (Vista and 7), including my Harmony 880. Since that pissed me right off, I thought I’d make it even easier on other people to un-break this little “feature”. I rolled up my hacker sleeves and “broke” the Dell driver installer for ya.

Feel free to download it below. It is a modified version of the standard Dell ITE Infrared Receiver driver installer (from 9/23/2009, Version 5.1.0000.1, A8). The drivers themselves aren’t modified, just the part of the install process that removes support for standard MCE remotes.

Those of you with a Stuido XPS 16 can happily download and run this to enable standard “RC6”-style remotes. Those of you with other models should refer to the earlier post on how to do this yourself. I tested it out and it worked fine on my machine, but your mileage may vary. Since it’s just a single driver, worst case you have to remove it and try again.

Oh, and hey — Dell Marketing Guy? This is for you:

Source: http://www.mymodernmet.com/photo/the-fuckyounicorn

Wish I could find a source for this image, this copy came from: nerdboyfriend.com but was un-sourced. Anyone who can help me find the photographer or more info gets my gratitude.

I won’t go into extensive detail on why this is awesome. Here’s a little demo to play with though, to get the point. Click on column headers (in-line editing is not included for this, but you can find more about that at the link above):

After including prototype.js and tablekit.js, all I had to do was define the table like this:

<table class="sortable resizable" width="500">

At this point, the table should be sortable, and you should be able to resize the columns by dragging the barrier between the column headers. You’ll notice alternating row colors remain alternating. All the formatting (including sort color, the up/down arrows, alternating rows) are all defined as CSS properties, so you can modify them easily. We’ll get to the CSS later on.

While that’s cool (and it IS damn cool, admit it), it isn’t why I’m bothering to stay up late and write a post. I extended this library to give it a new property – “linkable”. It combines the “ConvertTableRowtoHyperlink” (CTRtH) script published a few years back and rolls it into the function of TableKit. The script will also scan all rows of a given table for the first link it comes across. It then creates a function which highlights the row on mouseOver, returns to previous state on mouseOut (preserving the pretty alternating colors created by TableKit). Clicking anywhere on the row will take you to the link. If it finds more than one link, it takes the one furthest to the left. Personally, I think lots of links in a single table isn’t the best plan, but if you want it to give up on rows with more than one link rather than picking the furthest left, there’s instructions on line 90 of the script on how to do this.

Added benefit! In the old CTRtH, you had to explicitly give the ID of each table, invoke separately, and ask the script to do the row conversion. This broke with a number of things, including AJAX updates (ended up including the JS in a partial on one project). Mostly though, it meant I couldn’t have a nice, clean table with TableKit and CTRtH running in tandem. So, I spent a flight from DC to Denver figuring out what was conflicting where, and getting the two to play nicely. Now you have an extended TableKit, which will also happily convert table rows to links when given the property “linkable”, like this:

<table class="sortable resizable linkable" width="600">

First Name	Last Name	Age	Search Engine
Bill	Smith	12	Google
Joe	Cool	11	Yahoo
Amy	Rogers	12	Bing
Susan	Thompson	13	Google

Usage

Alright, down to business.

1) Download prototype.js and my new tablekit.js file. Include these in your header, ideally.

2) Make sure you add sortable, resizable, or linkable to the CSS class of any table you want to behave this way. You can give it an ID, but you don’t have to. However, like with many JS functions, if you have multiple elements with the same ID, you’ll only affect the first one. If you don’t give it an ID, one will be assigned in sequential order.

3) Here’s what you’ll need to add to your CSS to make it look like mine and behave as you’d expect. You’ll almost certainly want to change the colors, but other than that you should be good, I’ve tried to keep the CSS as minimal as possible so as not to interfere with your other stuff.. Notice the up and down arrows are also just background elements, so point them at your own up.png/down.png location.

Here’s the article I submitted over at Techdirt. No need to re-print here.

I’m gonna break with tradition and actually post something useful here, rather than my usual meandering ravings about how copyright extensions are harming innovation, or how your government is trying to give control of hardware you bought to a few powerful companies, despite that they didn’t build or sell it.

Nope, it’s a new year, it’s time to intersperse “practical” with “complainy-pants”. Thus I present the first in my new series of useful articles: How to easily manage and share your photos by combining two powerful tools: Flickr and Picasa. First, the components…

Flickr is a powerful online photo sharing tool. I won’t go into it in too much detail, just why I use it to share my photos. Here’s the reasons I love it:

• Storage – I can upload as many photos as I want. With the $25/yr premium account, I get unlimited storage and it even saves the full, uncompressed photos. This means people don’t email me asking for “originals” that they can download and print.
• Control – I can set very specific rules around who sees what. I can hide everything from the world and share locked-down access to them. I can give out “guest passes” for specific galleries, or (if your friends use it) categorize as “friend” or “family”
• Ease – 99% of the time, I take pictures of a trip or event and people wanna see them. Sending a link in an email that says “Click here for my photos from Scotland” is just stupid-easy. They can even comment on them, download them, etc.

There are lots of other services out there, but I like Flickr best. I also like the very open API. That might not matter to most of you, but when it comes to integrating into other things (like we’re about to do), it’s exactly what you want. So go ahead, sign up for a free Flickr account. If you’ve got a Yahoo! account, that works because Yahoo! owns Flickr. Once you’re all signed up, head to the next component…

Picasa is one of Google’s little toys. Like most things, it’s free, as long as you don’t mind Google having a bunch of info. Me personally? I don’t so much. Basically, Picasa is a “collection manager”. It’s not a photo editor like Photoshop, though it does have a good amount of minor retouching tools. Picasa scans your hard drive and pulls out all the photos. It even tries to see if it recognizes people from photo to photo, and groups those. You can group by date, folder on your hard drive, etc. It does make it easier to look at all the photos and save the ones you want to share.

Again, I won’t go on and on about why it’s awesome. What I will say is that scans your hard drive and puts up a TON of thumbnails, making it easier to find the photos you want without clicking through all your subfolders, hunting for a photo.

Go ahead, download it, set it to scan your “My Photos” folder or wherever you keep ‘em, and then we move on to the complicated stuff…

Flickr Uploadr

Flickr Uploadr is exactly what it sounds like – it uploads files to Flickr. Sure, you CAN go through the website, which is just fine for handling a picture or two at a time. Flickr Uploader gives you a box that you can drag photos into, and then classify. You can assign them to Sets in Flickr. Think of a Set like a folder on your computer, except that a photo can exist in more than one Set. I typically group my Sets around what they’re of – say a particular event. I also have a set called “Photos I’m Proud Of” – my best-of, made up of photos I particularly like.

Download Flickr Uploadr and install. Once you’ve opened it up, click the “sign in” button and enter your account info. What’s neat is that for many people you can stop here. If you keep your photos well organized and just want to drag them into the Uploadr’s “drop photos here” box and classify them, you’re all set. But if you’re anything like me, being able to select a bunch of photos in Picasa and click one button is awesome. Enter…Picasa2Flickr!

Picasa2Flickr Button

Here’s where the magic happens. Basically, this is a button which will take a bunch of your photos, convert them (using Picasa) to a Flickr-friendly format (JPG), then send them over to the Flickr Uploadr. Any titles you’ve added will be included for you. All you need to do is add them to a set and then click “Upload”.

Click this link and then Picasa will load up. Once the install is done, you’ll get the option to add the new button to your toolbar. Add it wherever you like. You’re done!

‘But wait! Where did such a handy button come from?’ you ask. Well, some extremely clever programmers were kind enough to connect these two awesome tools for you. All YOU have to do is click a link. Pretty sweet, huh? Here’s some more info on that. Basically, Google and Yahoo aren’t exactly buddies, but because they both support open APIs, cool things can happen without complex corporate relationships. Yay, progress!

Take It Out For a Spin

You’re all set, now let’s take it for a test drive.

In Picasa, select one or more photos you want to upload. Don’t go overboard – this is a test. Select multiple photos by holding down CTRL and clicking on photos. If you want to do a bunch in a row, use SHIFT instead. Either way, once you’ve got a few, click on the “Send To flickr!” button you added in the last step. Picasa will pause for a moment while it does some magic behind the scenes (you’ll see a progress bar in the bottom right corner pop up). Then the Flickr Uploadr will open. Select your photos (CTRL + A) and add them to a set. If you don’t have any sets, you can create one directly in the editor. You can also change the visibility of these photos, either one at a time or all at once. Any way you do it, you can click “Upload!”. Once you’re finished, the Flickr Uploadr will ask if you want to go to Flickr to see your photos. Click “Yes” and you’ll get taken to a page where you can finalize any details. At this point, I usually just hit save.

17 Second Version – Configuring Picasa and Flickr to play nice.

1 ) Sign up for Flickr, it rocks

2 ) Download Picasa, it also rocks

3 ) Download and authorize the Flickr Uploadr

4 ) Install the Picasa2Flickr button from Sourceforge.

5 ) Add button to Picasa (click the [Add >] button)

6 ) Select some photos, click the Send To flickr! button

7 ) Add your photos to one or more sets

8 ) Click upload!

And that’s how you upload your Picasa photos to Flickr!

First off, the facts. While the iPhone is a popular device, depending how you slice your market demographics it ranges from “unquestioned overlord” to “mid-volume runner”. Yes, it has sold more than any single model, but most manufacturers don’t make only one model. In fact, may people are lying with statistics, treating the iPhone as only one model when in fact six exist in the US. There’s the 4gb and 8gb versions of the 2G, the 8 and 16gb versions of the 3G, and the 16 and 32gb versions of the 3GS. Blending all of these into one number, spanning multiple model years and often duplicate customers is misleading at best.

Apple’s competitors in the space aren’t exactly doing poorly, either. Many other mobile OSs have GROWN in size since the introduction of the iPhone. Symbian, Blackberry, and Windows Mobile have all increase their sales volume and revenues since 2007. On top of that, the removal of Palm’s PalmOS models from the market and the introduction of the Sprint-only WebOS models has left a gap filled largely by Apple and RIM. Even the aging Windows Mobile has grown, despite no major changes to the OS since the May 12 ‘05 release of Windows Mobile 5.

But all of that is not to discount the impact Apple has had. Devices are more powerful, rich application libraries are a requirement, and let’s not forget that their rapidly-dissolving relationship with Google gave rise to Android, which is already making significant gains in Apple’s tech-savvy elite, attracting developers and power-users and leaving Apple to scrape the bottom for new customers.

Take a look at the three images below. See what they say about the iPhone’s perception in the market. All images come from BrandIndex, via AppleInsider.com

First, this graph shows the perception of AT&T vs. Verizon, following the launch of the iPhone 3GS. Notice the sharp downturn in both companies, with AT&T’s being noticeably sharper. After the launch of the 3GS on June 18, people began to notice the struggling impact of a data-intensive device on AT&T’s aging, poorly-managed 3G network. Many users reported losing 3G coverage even while in areas AT&T was supposedly offering great coverage. While voice worked, AT&T’s data network was sorely lacking.

Next, take a look at the brand perception of Apple vs. Motorola leading up to the Droid launch, specifically among men aged 18+. Droid’s

Lastly, look at the perception of AT&T vs. Verizon in the weeks leading up to the Droid launch. AT&T was never “liked”, but it hasn’t historically been much worse off than Verizon. Now there’s an almost 40 point difference – most likely attributable to the numerous “There’s a map for that” and “Droid does” ads. AT&T, the only source of the iPhone today, is tanking in popularity and public perception among adults. Why would you want a cool phone if it’s on the nation’s worst network?

When you put all these together (as I’m sure someone at Apple has) you see a pattern emerge: the iPhone isn’t really seen as a cutting-edge device anymore. It hasn’t fundamentally changed in 3 years. Sure, memory bumps are nice and getting the features that have existed on other phones for a decade is a welcome addition, but it’s not revolutionary anymore. In fact, for the tech-elite, the cutesy, childish UI is no longer a novelty, but a frustration. For top-tier developers, having a locked-down platform with an unpredictable, often irrational gatekeeper is unforgivable. And for everyone else? AT&T sucks more than the iPhone can make up for any longer. AT&T has not invested in its 3G networks (coverage or infrastructure), and iPhone users once proud of their device’s web-surfing capabilities are now behind, from a data coverage, screen resolution, and technology standpoint.

Will any one device crush the iPhone? I don’t think so. I’m pretty sure it’ll die the way Apple’s OS did – the death of a thousand tiny cuts. You’ll have a small group of users who are willing to trade the simplicity of a locked-down, highly limited environment for poor quality coverage, a less capable device, and a single form-factor.

If I had to guess though, Apple will probably react by trying to diversify, but it’ll be too little too late. The iPhone exclusivity contract will last a few more years, and they’ll release one or two more devices. Maybe one with a keyboard, maybe one with a bigger, sharper screen, but once they do that, the simple elegance of “every app on every phone” is gone.

Then they’ll release a CDMA version to Verizon and Sprint, but no one will care. Sure, there will be blog hype (as their is around a lot of what Apple does), but for the average consumer it won’t matter, and it won’t translate into big numbers. Mostly, you’ll get people who hate AT&T jumping back to their original provider (Verizon), or switching to Sprint for the unbelievably cheap internet coverage they offer.

I am writing to express my concern about Selectable Output Control. SOC represents a struggling industry’s attempt to block consumer choice and limit the usefulness of products already purchased. Disabling the ability to use analog outputs is an absurd leap, for the sake of “protecting content”.

And let’s be honest: this will do next to nothing to stop piracy. One copy is all it takes, typically leaked from within the studios themselves, or by one of the many content partners. A federal involvement will only devalue the hardware and software already purchased and in use by consumers, harming innovation and damaging consumer confidence at a time when our country needs it most.

Imagine a parallel: what if the highway billboard industry claimed that in order to offer full video billboards (with sound!), highway speeds must be limited to 20mph or less, so that users could receive the full benefit of the new ads. In such a situation, the governing body would be severely harming a large number of consumers to protect the interests of a private industry.

I strongly urge the FCC not to agree to the MPAA’s request for SOC. SOC would represent an industry artificially limiting customer choice, and negatively impacting a much larger industry (consumer electronics) for their own favor. It does absolutely nothing to benefit the consumer in any way, increase the value of new and existing technologies, or grow the industry in a meaningful way.

And now, a little backstory, if anyone’s curious:

Selectable Output Control is a technology that the movie industry developed to cripple your TV. Basically, the idea was that while watching Pay Per View (or anything else) on your TV, the MPAA should be allowed to, at their discression, disable any and all of the analog outputs from your television (audio and video). The idea was that this would “limit piracy”, by making it harder to record something and later distribute it. Since digital connections (DVI, HDMI, DisplayLink) all conform to a High-bandwidth Digital Content Protection (HDCP) standard, the recording device can’t actually record “protected” content. That means that if you plug your HD cable box into your BluRay burner, it won’t let you record anything. Sounds just fine right?

But what happens when I have a legitimate reason for wanting to do this? Suppose I buy a PPV event and want to record it onto my computer so I can watch it on my laptop on my next flight. With HDCP, this is impossible (and even trying is a felony). I used to be able to use the component outputs and plug it into one of these or these. These products could happily collect data, record it, and let me do with it what I please (you know, the exact reason people BUY products like this).

SOC is bad for consumers and bad for the electronics industry. Pretty much the only people it benefits is the MPAA, who wants to do everything in its power to stop users from recording TV, since it means you can skip commercials, share with friends, etc. Trouble is, all it’ll do is push more and more users to the illegitimate services, since they won’t have any of these restrictions.

I think that’s something the MPAA forgets: they’re not fighting piracy, they’re competing with it. Right now, pirated movies offer a better experience to the user: they’re cheaper, I can do whatever I want with them, I can re-format them to put on a mobile device (iPod, phone, etc), and they never expire. I’d be perfectly happy to buy such things if I could, because I’d be guaranteed quality and a virus-free file. Since the MPAA insists on trying to fight piracy, it ends up exhibiting all manner of destructive behavior, and SOC is just the latest.

Limiting consumer choice has never been good for the consumer, and in a world where there are more and more options, locking down my TV’s outputs will probably never directly affect me. I’ll just hop to a technology that isn’t restricted, and one that the MPAA gets no money at all from. What it will do is create a headache for legitimate users (like those that still get HD cable over component video), an expense for the FCC, and a burden on consumer electronics companies, especially their support departments.

It sure as hell won’t stop piracy though!

When Copyright was originally established in 1710 in a document called the Statute of Anne, it declared that authors owned their works for 28 years. This was a big deal, because in the past patrons had owned the works created by authors. Prior to the Statute, authors’ works were purchased from the Stationer’s Company, after which time they were granted a perpetual monopoly on the publishing of the work with no obligation to pay the author. Authors were also forbidden from gaining membership in the Stationer’s Company, making it effectively illegal to self-publish. The original intellectual work was effectively property, and the right to publish it could be bought, transferred, and sold.

The importance of the Statute was that it acknowledged that the written works should be protected for a time, to allow the author and their publisher to profit from them in recognition of the work’s value to society. It also decided (for the first time, really) that such a monopoly should be finite, after which time the works could be published by anyone who wished to, because they become a part of our social heritage.

The term of copyright has been extended so greatly over the years, in an attempt by publishers and wealthy authors to increase their power, that it is now (from a legal standpoint) a minimum of 95 years from publish or 120 years from creation. The exact legal duration is defined as “Life of the author + 70 years until year-end” according to Title 17 of the US Code, sections 302 and 305.

Now what does this all have to do with Google books? Well, in a class-action settlement (which everyone who has ever written or published a work is named), Google will be allowed to monetize all works (orphaned or not) for the duration of their copyright period. Any fees associated with this (from advertising or the renting to libraries) will be placed in a steward account (under the Book Rights Registry). If no author has claimed ownership of the work in five years, the money will be re-distributed to authors represented by the Book Rights Registry. This “special deal” Google is striking is a huge problem though, as Hyde points out:

The only way a potential competitor could avoid the threat of statutory damages would be to do what Google did: scan lots of books, attract plaintiffs willing to form a class with an “opt out” feature, negotiate a settlement and get it approved by a judge. Even for those with time and money to spare, that promises to be an insurmountable barrier to entry.

Google will be the new Stationer’s Company – the only one with the right and privilege to electronically monetize and distribute orphaned works. And Google will be able to monetize however they see fit, with all the profits going to line the pockets of authors and administrators who had nothing to do with a work’s creation.

And just how many of the 7 million books Google has already scanned fall into this orphaned category? Roughly 70%, with every reason for Google to try and find more. Oh, and it isn’t the responsibility of the Book Rights Registry to find the authors of orphaned works. In fact, it’s the author’s responsibility, a process that will no doubt be time consuming and obtuse , since it benefits them to NOT find the authors.

Read the Statute of Anne

What’s the purpose of a music video? Is it to be an artistic expression in-and-of itself? I can’t honestly think that it is. No, a music video (much like a radio spot) is an advertisement – for the band, the song, and the album. It is quite frankly absurd to me that artists believe that they should be paid – beyond the amount they already get through the ads they place on their own pages – because Google is providing them a platform to transmit their commercials to millions of people around the world – FREE.

So when the Performance Rights Society (PRS – UK’s RIAA) could not reach an agreement, Youtube pulled all the music videos down in the UK, signaling that, in fact, it doesn’t need them nearly as much as they need Youtube. The best part? Numerous artists, even ones who had been complaining about how Google was “stealing their money” and “not paying for music” suddenly found that their own, personal websites didn’t work. The videos on their own sites had been embedded versions of Youtube videos. That’s right, in addition to providing free advertising and free distribution, they were also shouldering the largest, most expensive part of a band’s website – the streaming media content – FREE. The cost to artists to host and stream their own videos, thousands or millions of times, would be far higher than anything they could hope to re-coupe from licensing fees.

It appears that the PRS is doing everything it can to actively torpedo its artists’ futures online. Their actions have already driven Myspace Music and Pandora to simply cut off UK service. Does it appear to be hurting either of them? Not in the slightest. You know who it is hurting though? I made a list:

• The Fans
  • No longer able to find their favorite band’s music online
  • Can’t introduce friends to the music in an engaging way
• The Musicians
  • Less exposure means fewer ticket sales
  • Fewer new fans because of lack of sharing
• Music Video Makers
  • If a music video can ONLY be played on MTV, it has less value
  • Less value means people pay less to make music videos
  • Fewer bands (especially UK bands) will even bother making music videos

I hope this is helpful to the people at the PRS, and that they carefully consider who they are ultimately trying to serve. Clearly, artists and fans are both hurt by their actions, and value is generated for no one. It is yet another example of an outdated, monolithic group trying desperately to stay relevant.

So here’s my proposal: If artists want Google to pay them for every view, they can pay Google for every single embedded version of the video. Every time someone embeds it anywhere and Google isn’t getting any advertising revenue, the band can go ahead and get billed for that bandwidth. Then, at the end of the month, they can get together and see which bill is bigger – bandwidth or licensing.

Here’s a Radiohead (one of the bands that complained) video. Just for you to enjoy on Radiohead’s theoretical dime.

Media storage is getting cheaper and easier all the time: the rise of the home server. Over the next few years (certainly by the end of 2020) most homes will have some kind of centralized storage. Just like 10 years ago people didn’t have routers and switches in their homes, now almost everyone does. With a home network comes multiple comptuers. Multiple computers leads to all kinds of problems – syncing files between machines, duplication of data, ease of access, usage location, etc. All of this adds up to a solution early adopters are starting to notice. Why put music on every computer when you could just store it on some low-powered, high-storage computer? Why set up complex mechanisms for downloading, transferring, and storing content on a laptop when you could just as easily store it on some server you own?

The obvious solution is to store it on a remote server someplace, up in the “cloud” for easy access anytime. The problem is that people don’t trust the cloud yet – data gets lost, privacy and security aren’t well explained, and retreival times are limited. Sure, you’ll keep things you explicitly want to share with others, but not most things. You’ll never keep your collection of tax records, illegal mp3s, adult entertainment and pirated movies up on a server someplace. No, you want it in a little box, tucked away in your house.

Ideally, it’ll be the size and shape of a router. It’ll plug in and have a bunch of storage for local use, and you’ll be able to expand it anytime. Why not?

Routers with extensible RAID file systems: the next big thing in home networks.