They do explicitly acknowledge the poster's copyright, and don't necessarily get the right to, e.g., publish a printed archive of "Best Slashdot Posts", for example.
Some of what you say is right but still....
you are very WRONG. They do have such a right to create a "Best Slashdot Posts"
With respect to text or data entered into and stored by publicly-accessible site features such as forums, comments and bug trackers ("OSTG Public Content"), the submitting user retains ownership of such OSTG Public Content; with respect to publicly-available statistical content which is generated by the site to monitor and display content activity, such content is owned by OSTG. In each such case, the submitting user grants OSTG the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, transferable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, and display such Content (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed, all subject to the terms of any applicable license.
And therefore you have the right to have it removed from the Google index. Google respects your copyright, most people just don't care. If it bothers you so much, you should go request that Google remove everything that you have ever created so they can't make any profit off of you. Regardless, the entire way that USENET works is you have node after node after node after node after node making an infinitely exponential number of copies of your post. How does google differ from a node on USENET that offers paid access and therefore profits off of your post that way?
GOOGLE - It's not just a search engine, it's a NODE.:)
While I agree with you that it's nice to have deep-linking, it isn't breaking the law not to allow it. Plenty of scholarly search services (the kinds you have to pay for) do not allow deep linking for example. Since Google hosts the USENET posts themselves, and therefore pays the bill, they also can legally control how you access them. If you use USENET in real life, you of course understand that not every USENET node keeps every single post forever. Eventually most of them disappear. Google is great in that they won't disappear, however they have decided that the level of access they want to give you to their databases needs to be limited to an extent. As the gatekeepers they have that ability and it is their right. Also, since the article is in it's original form, and that Google is not claiming to be the creator of the content, and since it was originally posted publicly on the internet, I think you would find a copyright defense hard to mount. While I don't like the idea of removing some of the useful features, it is a problem that the internet will just have to deal with until somebody comes up with a service that offers those features. Maybe it's time for you and your friends to break out the old C++ manuals.
I have a feeling that the reason it was really discontinued was that it just wasn't selling very well. Most people don't need to stream satellite radio to their computer rather then their stereo. Most people are just going to stream audio off their internet if they are at their computer. Sirius, unlike XM also offers a service that allows streaming to a computer over the internet of their streams. My theory is XM is probably planning on launching a similar service.
"Interesting that they would choose two lossy media formats as models for comparison."
Well, this is probably a sign that the new 3d format will probably reduce 3d files to 2d or 2.5d. So you'll lose some of the third dimension when you save in it.
No, sorry. I have a Linux Journal hat that says in big letters '1999: The year of the Penguin'. As usual, the media is late about reporting technological advances...
I owned a Royal DaVinci (the original line of DaVinci's that Royal had out) and was very hurt when the lawsuit with palm (Link - Link - Google Search) because Royal stole code from the PalmOS source and used it in that line of products. While the UI was fairly nice and I liked the Royal Davinci, soon after I received it I found that Royal basically stopped supporting it. It had been a great deal, and I had been hoping to get a lot of use out of it, but software and accessories never made it to market that were supposed to, and Royal was not allowed to continue supporting the device during and after the lawsuit.
It left me as a customer fairly hurt, so it is understandable that I'd be just a bit cautious before spending 400.00 on a product made by Royal. I doubt they'd make such a mistake again... especially if they are using an open-source platform, but I'd still be very cautious, I've lost a lot of faith in them as a company.
Also, how do they know that they are only indexing 1% of the web? Have they already indexed the rest, but just aren't sharing it? Or maybe the rest is already weeded out because it really was pretty useless and caused relevancy problems in the first place?
Judging by the problems with relevancy that often occur in current search engines, (I think of the problem with meta keywords, which for many search engines are now completely useless, and google-bombing) why would a customer pay to add more data to the search engine? The idea of course is 'because they'll be more relevant and because they have more information will come up more often', however, if search engines start searching more and more of this 'deep web' how badly will relevancy be affected? I mean, the more data that is in there, the more chances there are of relevancy being broken, and if the weighting is in favor of this 'featured' searches, then relevancy may be even more broken. Sure, these companies will have more traffic directed to them, but will it merely be useless traffic by frustrated users searching for something else?
I run a search engine for an educational institution, and I will admit, Google misses a significant number of our documents, on the other hand, some of those documents are scripts that when queried will create an (virtually) infinite amount of data (calendar scritpts, etc). How deep do we really need to go though? Do we really need to include calendar entries for the year 2452?
I'm also confused, is this search service 'pay by the searcher' or 'pay by the content provider'. It seems to be content provider to me.
In some ways I agree with the author of this post. I mean, yes, it would be nice to have a camera on my phone (except that in all honesty, why would I use that camera when my digital camera is better), or instant messaging (except that keypad typing is really annoying, and thumb-boards are as well, and I'm not a JOT fan), and a web browser (if only I could really see what I was looking at), and fancy ringtones (my self-esteem is so low that I need some fancy song to play when my phone rings so everyone thinks I'm cool), and GPS (ok, so I actually like this feature), and a radio or mp3 player (except I can buy a better mp3 player or radio, a lot better)...
Ok, so maybe these features sound nice to begin with, but in all honesty, when your camera isn't that high quality (and yes, some are going to argue that they get GREAT pictures from their phone, thank you, I work in a publications department, lets compare your phones digital camera to our 10,000$+ digicams), your screen isn't big enough to really do that much, and the phone uses a keypad for text entry, is it really worth all that extra money? In my opinion, not really...
I'd like one or two 'special features' but in all honesty, all I really want is a phone, an address book (and maybe a planner, if my phone can sync to my computer), really great battery life, and a good signal wherever I go. beyond that, there isn't much I want. I see how it's great that all these devices can come together (eliminate pocket bulge today!) but you end up with one somewhat mediocre device in the end.
I've been considering getting a combo pda/phone for a while, but the cost is just to high compared to the quality, and then when I see that most of them have internal (think ipod) batteries, and I know how fast I go through cellphone batteries, I can see myself being stranded somewhere without a charge when I might really need my cellphone, or worse, killing the battery from overuse over a few months (In the last 7 months I've logged 296 hours on my current cellphone)
"I've never seen a child or children sitting for 10+ hours at a time watching a movie or listning to a CD. I guess, neither have you..."
Coming from a sizeable family (and a HUGE extended family), I have had my share of cousins and siblings which have watched movies over and over and over again back to back. 10 hours is hardly even touching the tip of the iceberg. Songs are the same way. I reiterate that. Songs. Not the entire cd. no. the SAME SONG over and over and over again. Add in the camp counseling and some of the other volunteering I've done with children, and I think I can put up a pretty good argument against your opinion.
Somebody should call Microsofts Public Relations department and ask what 'associated applications' they are talking about, and also ask why they are comparing Windows Server 2003 wihch was released this year to a version of Linux released SEVERAL years ago... I mean, wouldn't comparing Redhat 9 to Windows 2003 server be more appropriate?
Oh look. A name and a phone number...
Microsoft Trustworthy Computing, Privacy and Security Issues Name: Waggener Edstrom Bellevue, Wa (425) 638-7000
This sounds more and more like the 'wrist phone' prototype that ATT talked about in the early and mid 1990's. It was featured in one of their 'you will' ads, and a "working" (can't remember how well) prototype was on display at their pavillion at Epcot Center.
I don't have any links or pictures, but if anybody else has them, feel free to post them.
I'm not sure they are actually releasing an 'official and legal version'. When they came and spoke to my school a few times last year, it often sounded like what they are hocking is actually mono, but making it sound liek they are fully supporting it and leading development on it.Website for mono.
They haven't come this year yet, so maybe there is some news, but one of my buddies is the campus Microsoft rep, and I haven't heard anything about it from him. (Interestingly, he also is a member of the local linux users group)
Maybe, just maybe, this is the beginning of the end of this mess.
Or maybe it's just them trying to make what they are doing more legitimate in a court of law...
had no concrete plans to sue anyone and also no current plans to take a commercial Linux customer to court....
Yes, this could be the end to this mess. It could however be that they are still going to try to sue, and they're stance on the issue is going to be 'well, we gave you the option to buy a license... you didn't, so now we're going to sue you...' It could be that 'at this time' they don't have any plans to sue anybody, however, those who don't purchase one of their licenses will be sued...
I like this for one reason. Walmart launched their own DVD subscription service a few weeks ago. I hate walmart. This means that Netflix can impose their patent on walmart now, making walmart either a.) pay them b.) battle them in court or c.) fail and shut down their service....
I'd like to see something where they get sued into oblivion, little chance of that happening though. If each individual in America gave Walmart only 5.00 a month, they'd still make something like 1.4 billion a MONTH.
Slashdot Mirror
Please scroll down to the bottom of the page. Click Terms of Service.
OSTG is Slashdot's parent company.
They do explicitly acknowledge the poster's copyright, and don't necessarily get the right to, e.g., publish a printed archive of "Best Slashdot Posts", for example.
Some of what you say is right but still....
you are very WRONG. They do have such a right to create a "Best Slashdot Posts"
Read the Fine Print.
With respect to text or data entered into and stored by publicly-accessible site features such as forums, comments and bug trackers ("OSTG Public Content"), the submitting user retains ownership of such OSTG Public Content; with respect to publicly-available statistical content which is generated by the site to monitor and display content activity, such content is owned by OSTG. In each such case, the submitting user grants OSTG the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive, transferable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, and display such Content (in whole or part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media, or technology now known or later developed, all subject to the terms of any applicable license.
And therefore you have the right to have it removed from the Google index. Google respects your copyright, most people just don't care. If it bothers you so much, you should go request that Google remove everything that you have ever created so they can't make any profit off of you. Regardless, the entire way that USENET works is you have node after node after node after node after node making an infinitely exponential number of copies of your post. How does google differ from a node on USENET that offers paid access and therefore profits off of your post that way?
:)
GOOGLE - It's not just a search engine, it's a NODE.
While I agree with you that it's nice to have deep-linking, it isn't breaking the law not to allow it. Plenty of scholarly search services (the kinds you have to pay for) do not allow deep linking for example. Since Google hosts the USENET posts themselves, and therefore pays the bill, they also can legally control how you access them. If you use USENET in real life, you of course understand that not every USENET node keeps every single post forever. Eventually most of them disappear. Google is great in that they won't disappear, however they have decided that the level of access they want to give you to their databases needs to be limited to an extent. As the gatekeepers they have that ability and it is their right. Also, since the article is in it's original form, and that Google is not claiming to be the creator of the content, and since it was originally posted publicly on the internet, I think you would find a copyright defense hard to mount. While I don't like the idea of removing some of the useful features, it is a problem that the internet will just have to deal with until somebody comes up with a service that offers those features. Maybe it's time for you and your friends to break out the old C++ manuals.
I have a feeling that the reason it was really discontinued was that it just wasn't selling very well. Most people don't need to stream satellite radio to their computer rather then their stereo. Most people are just going to stream audio off their internet if they are at their computer. Sirius, unlike XM also offers a service that allows streaming to a computer over the internet of their streams. My theory is XM is probably planning on launching a similar service.
"Interesting that they would choose two lossy media formats as models for comparison."
Well, this is probably a sign that the new 3d format will probably reduce 3d files to 2d or 2.5d. So you'll lose some of the third dimension when you save in it.
No, sorry. I have a Linux Journal hat that says in big letters '1999: The year of the Penguin'. As usual, the media is late about reporting technological advances...
I owned a Royal DaVinci (the original line of DaVinci's that Royal had out) and was very hurt when the lawsuit with palm (Link - Link - Google Search) because Royal stole code from the PalmOS source and used it in that line of products. While the UI was fairly nice and I liked the Royal Davinci, soon after I received it I found that Royal basically stopped supporting it. It had been a great deal, and I had been hoping to get a lot of use out of it, but software and accessories never made it to market that were supposed to, and Royal was not allowed to continue supporting the device during and after the lawsuit.
It left me as a customer fairly hurt, so it is understandable that I'd be just a bit cautious before spending 400.00 on a product made by Royal. I doubt they'd make such a mistake again... especially if they are using an open-source platform, but I'd still be very cautious, I've lost a lot of faith in them as a company.
Also, how do they know that they are only indexing 1% of the web? Have they already indexed the rest, but just aren't sharing it? Or maybe the rest is already weeded out because it really was pretty useless and caused relevancy problems in the first place?
Judging by the problems with relevancy that often occur in current search engines, (I think of the problem with meta keywords, which for many search engines are now completely useless, and google-bombing) why would a customer pay to add more data to the search engine? The idea of course is 'because they'll be more relevant and because they have more information will come up more often', however, if search engines start searching more and more of this 'deep web' how badly will relevancy be affected? I mean, the more data that is in there, the more chances there are of relevancy being broken, and if the weighting is in favor of this 'featured' searches, then relevancy may be even more broken. Sure, these companies will have more traffic directed to them, but will it merely be useless traffic by frustrated users searching for something else?
I run a search engine for an educational institution, and I will admit, Google misses a significant number of our documents, on the other hand, some of those documents are scripts that when queried will create an (virtually) infinite amount of data (calendar scritpts, etc). How deep do we really need to go though? Do we really need to include calendar entries for the year 2452?
I'm also confused, is this search service 'pay by the searcher' or 'pay by the content provider'. It seems to be content provider to me.
I bet you this new 'Deep Web' search technology would be something that does not observe robots.txt...
I'm 22.
I'm their target market.
In some ways I agree with the author of this post. I mean, yes, it would be nice to have a camera on my phone (except that in all honesty, why would I use that camera when my digital camera is better), or instant messaging (except that keypad typing is really annoying, and thumb-boards are as well, and I'm not a JOT fan), and a web browser (if only I could really see what I was looking at), and fancy ringtones (my self-esteem is so low that I need some fancy song to play when my phone rings so everyone thinks I'm cool), and GPS (ok, so I actually like this feature), and a radio or mp3 player (except I can buy a better mp3 player or radio, a lot better)...
Ok, so maybe these features sound nice to begin with, but in all honesty, when your camera isn't that high quality (and yes, some are going to argue that they get GREAT pictures from their phone, thank you, I work in a publications department, lets compare your phones digital camera to our 10,000$+ digicams), your screen isn't big enough to really do that much, and the phone uses a keypad for text entry, is it really worth all that extra money?
In my opinion, not really...
I'd like one or two 'special features' but in all honesty, all I really want is a phone, an address book (and maybe a planner, if my phone can sync to my computer), really great battery life, and a good signal wherever I go. beyond that, there isn't much I want. I see how it's great that all these devices can come together (eliminate pocket bulge today!) but you end up with one somewhat mediocre device in the end.
I've been considering getting a combo pda/phone for a while, but the cost is just to high compared to the quality, and then when I see that most of them have internal (think ipod) batteries, and I know how fast I go through cellphone batteries, I can see myself being stranded somewhere without a charge when I might really need my cellphone, or worse, killing the battery from overuse over a few months (In the last 7 months I've logged 296 hours on my current cellphone)
I still have some (pretty straight-forward) bugs to be ironed out but a few other friends are now diving into these.
Best to iron these out without the device still in the shirt collar. Medium starch.
"I've never seen a child or children sitting for 10+ hours at a time watching a movie or listning to a CD. I guess, neither have you..."
Coming from a sizeable family (and a HUGE extended family), I have had my share of cousins and siblings which have watched movies over and over and over again back to back. 10 hours is hardly even touching the tip of the iceberg. Songs are the same way. I reiterate that. Songs. Not the entire cd. no. the SAME SONG over and over and over again. Add in the camp counseling and some of the other volunteering I've done with children, and I think I can put up a pretty good argument against your opinion.
Mirror of the images
I thought the computer I had was reversible, but unfortunately somebody told me that it wasn't. And I thought when I had it off it was on. Shoot.
This job used to be more fun.
Somebody should call Microsofts Public Relations department and ask what 'associated applications' they are talking about, and also ask why they are comparing Windows Server 2003 wihch was released this year to a version of Linux released SEVERAL years ago... I mean, wouldn't comparing Redhat 9 to Windows 2003 server be more appropriate?
Oh look.
A name and a phone number...
Microsoft Trustworthy Computing, Privacy and Security Issues
Name: Waggener Edstrom
Bellevue, Wa
(425) 638-7000
This sounds more and more like the 'wrist phone' prototype that ATT talked about in the early and mid 1990's. It was featured in one of their 'you will' ads, and a "working" (can't remember how well) prototype was on display at their pavillion at Epcot Center.
I don't have any links or pictures, but if anybody else has them, feel free to post them.
I'm not sure they are actually releasing an 'official and legal version'. When they came and spoke to my school a few times last year, it often sounded like what they are hocking is actually mono, but making it sound liek they are fully supporting it and leading development on it.Website for mono.
They haven't come this year yet, so maybe there is some news, but one of my buddies is the campus Microsoft rep, and I haven't heard anything about it from him. (Interestingly, he also is a member of the local linux users group)
Maybe, just maybe, this is the beginning of the end of this mess.
Or maybe it's just them trying to make what they are doing more legitimate in a court of law...
had no concrete plans to sue anyone and also no current plans to take a commercial Linux customer to court....
Yes, this could be the end to this mess. It could however be that they are still going to try to sue, and they're stance on the issue is going to be 'well, we gave you the option to buy a license... you didn't, so now we're going to sue you...' It could be that 'at this time' they don't have any plans to sue anybody, however, those who don't purchase one of their licenses will be sued...
yeah, that's where I ended up going to pick it up.
yes, apparently his server is one of those 'old machines' or at least a 'bad implementation'....
I know it's real bad in my office, especially with all the beer I consume.
You get to consume beer at work and your complaining? Drink more beer, you'll forget that you have any problem.
I like this for one reason. Walmart launched their own DVD subscription service a few weeks ago. I hate walmart. This means that Netflix can impose their patent on walmart now, making walmart either a.) pay them b.) battle them in court or c.) fail and shut down their service....
I'd like to see something where they get sued into oblivion, little chance of that happening though. If each individual in America gave Walmart only 5.00 a month, they'd still make something like 1.4 billion a MONTH.