Safari 3 is compatible with Google Documents
(Safari 2 isn't). Unfortunately, Safari 3 isn't
compatible with Google Spreadsheets yet.
Also, in Safari 3, the Preference to turn tab
browsing mode completely off is gone. This
seems to be so that web applications can
use tabs in all cases (Google Documents
uses them).
Keeping airplanes and birds from hitting the
tether could be an issue -- the former
an aviation safety problem, the latter a
reliability problem for the power station.
Apple would do just fine without Steve,
because the management under
him understands why the company has
been successful since Steve returned,
and has enough common sense not
to change the formula unless its obvious
that the change makes the company stronger.
These are not stupid people.
At this point, Steve immerses himself in
product development because he has
fun doing it, not because he doesn't
trust the people under him to do a good
job without his involvement. Does he
think his presence in the process makes
the product better? Of course! Does he
think Apple products would be second-rate
without his presence? No -- he trusts his
people and he trusts the culture.
Yes, the "media superstar CEO" part of
the formula needs to change. But with
smart people making the change, there's
no reason why a comparatively "faceless"
Apple can't be just as successful as the
Apple of today that has Steve Jobs as its
face. There are many ways to successfully
market a product, a rock-star CEO is a
marketing luxury, not a necessity.
I remember John Carmack stating that he thought
the XBox 360 might have been better off with one
dynamically-scheduled CPU than 3 static pipelines.
In a sense, with static pipelines, "the programmer
thinks about the machine", and with dynamic
pipelines, "the machine thinks about the programmer".
The assumption in gaming has always been that
game programmers are more than happy to put
in the effort to think about the machine, if the
payback is the console ships with higher peak
performance. But maybe we're going to see that
game programmers are a lot closer to desktop
application programmers than we've thought.
As a business proposition, the cost of researching a
victim seems high in lots of ways -- it's not work
for a dummy, it takes time, and the hits have to
pay for all of the misses. At the very least, it has
to use "mass customization" to succeed -- software
that customizes a con to a victim in non-trivial ways.
But yet if they go that route, it becomes easier to fight
it with conventional spam and phishing tools, because
software can spot the "mass" part.
Current semester
is here, I believe if you go looking around on that site you can see archives of
past semesters too. The classes are a mix of a few high-enrollment courses
which tend to get taped every semester, and courses that are taped once every
few years to refresh the archive. You can see these on iTunes too, there may
be a phobos URL somewhere on the website if you look.
2.8 billion is around 2.5% of
Google's market cap. If you
asked a Wall Street analyst
if they attributed 2.5% of Google's
market cap to Google Video,
they'd might say yes, based
on the hopes that Google will
be able to monetize it someday.
Another way to look at it:
CBS Corporation has a
market cap of 22 Billion.
CBS owns all sorts of businesses,
I haven't done the math to
estimate what % of the market
cap would be attributable to
the CBS broadcast network
and the fully-owned affiliates,
but I wouldn't be surprised if
its something like 10-20% of
CBS... which puts it in the
range of the 2.8B YouTube
estimate.
Disclaimer: This comment probably has legal
mistakes in it, IANAL, and the topic is complex.
Feel free to reply with fixes.
--
A track on an album is covered by two different
classes of copyright: the copyright on the actual
audio waveform, and the "publishing copyright"
on the melody line (usually, what the singer sings)
and the lyrics. The second one is what is at issue
here.
Note I said "the melody line and the lyrics". If
you could in fact copyright a chord progression,
and if the rules for how many chords a new song
could "borrow" from an old song before it became
"theft" was patterned after the rules for melody
lines, then there would be a few extremely
wealthy heirs of the writers of early songs who
would be collecting royalties on practically all
new songs written. And this goes for drum
beat patterns (if they were covered by publishing
copyright) even more so than chord progressions.
This is the theory the OLGA folks are basing their
case on, I'd guess. The only thing their database
usually documents about a song is "this song uses these
chords, strummed like this". Which is not far away from "this song has
a tempo of 110 Beats Per Minute" or "this song is
in the key of A" or "this song has an ABABCA
structure". It's about where the line is between
"meta-data" and "data" on a song -- OLGA is drawing
it one place, their opponents are drawing it another.
My subject heading refers to the fact that in the
age of Hip-Hop, these rules make no sense -- what
most listeners think of as "the song" isn't covered
by publishing copyright in theory. Most raps don't
have melody, only lyrics and "flow" (which is seen
as a performer's technique, not composition). In practice, producers
make deals with rappers to get a percent of the song copyright
in exchange for using their track.
Like so many other
parts of IP law, song publishing needs a refresh for
the 21st century.
The screen that shows at the end of a youtube video
now points to a few other videos you'd might
like. It looks like some of these are marked
"commercial", and thus I assume someone
paid for the link to be placed in the video.
I could see how this could make money.
This paper was published in 2004, by the VoIP group at Columbia. It reverse-engineers the Skype network
with sufficient detail to let one make a serious attempt at firewalling Skype traffic.
The WSJ report claims that merchants who are
heavy AdSense users will get substantial discounts
on their GBuy mechant fees. If Google was considered
a legal monopoly on search-engine advertising, this
could very well be ruled to be illegal tying.
And so, eBay now has motivation to get US anti-trust
action started on Google. What is interesting here
is, the sellers who use eBay live in every congressional
district -- if eBay chose to organize its sellers as a
grass-roots lobbying machine, it could apply political pressure
on Google that (say) Netscape could never hope to apply
on Microsoft back in the day.
One of the strengths of the US academic science funding
model is that the government tends hedge its bets by setting
up multiple agencies with overlapping agendas. For
example, in engineering, there's DARPA, there's the NSF,
several of the armed forces have their own quasi-independent
funding arms, larger states like California have significant
grant programs, etc.
Yes, there is the inefficiency of duplicated administration
costs. But the upside is, a truly good idea has a better chance
of finding funding, even if the program manager at one
of the agencies is not sold on the idea. This lessons
the risk of a game-changing idea going unfunded.
Buffet would have been better off setting up an independent
foundation making independent funding decisions, rather
than doubling BMGs bets, especially since BMG really has
enough money to pursue multiple large goals.
This April Fools joke wouldn't have happened if
Google had a serious interest in online dating --
it wouldn't make sense to ridicule a business
concept and then enter the business.
Match.com and competitors are breathing a sigh of
relief today...
Web 2.0 label technology-centric, not user-centric
on
The Best of Web 2.0
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I was surprised to see YouTube didn't make the
list -- it's the sort of unfiltered snapshot of the
world you rarely see on the Internet anymore. It
reminds me of 80's-era Usenet but for movies.
Then I realized that sinces its movie delivery is
Flash based, and its UI is AJAX-free, it probably
doesn't qualify as "Web 2.0" in their book...
Which made me realize that it's really a technology
centric label and not a user-centric one.
We webcast
a few of the larger courses lecture by lecture as they occur... not IP-number
blocked to my knowledge. Scroll down the list and you'll see a few
politically-sensitive courses alongside the science and engineering
courses that dominate the list.
From my understanding, we don't do more webcasts because of
economic issues -- a human shows up and tapes the lectures,
someone has to pay him or her, etc.
If Pixar is sold to Disney, Steve should
consider closing the door on that
chapter of his life and moving on.
The history of maverick outsiders
taking a seat on the board of
companies like Disney is that the
maverick gets shunned until he
throws up his hands and leaves.
Yes, having such a big investment
in Disney with no board seat is a
dangerous thing for him... but
maybe the best way to solve that
problem is for him to diversify out
of his Disney holdings as quickly
as legally permitted.
What I think Jacob misses is that 45 seconds
of video can communicate more than text that
takes 5 minutes to read, if what you are trying
to communicate needs visual motion and sound
to get across.
A good example is video that teaches how to
use an audio editing program to get rid of
background noise by applying signal processing.
Easy to do with "show and tell" video, hard to
do with text.
Every time Ed or his Verizon equivalent gives
a free-wheeling interview, the corporate PR
types spend the next few days issuing
retractions and clarifications... you can't
take what these guys say in the newspaper
as anything but stream-of-consciosuness.
Sort of like a football player talking in the
locker room to the press after a game...
The MOS Implementation Service was
doing e-commerce via email in 1984
(and probably somewhat before too,
1984 is when I sent my first chip off
to them).
In this service, you send an email
with the mask layout for an integrated circuit,
along with a research grant number
(and in later years, a credit card) and
a few months later a few prototype
ICs would show up via Fedex.
The ticket-tape on the grandchallenge.org site
is now displaying "October 9th operations
possible; no winner declared".
Tony is probably mulling over doing some sort
of tie-breaker round for the top 3 teams. Not
a bad idea, there's probably something
new to learn by going at it one more day.
Slashdot Mirror
Safari 3 is compatible with Google Documents (Safari 2 isn't). Unfortunately, Safari 3 isn't compatible with Google Spreadsheets yet. Also, in Safari 3, the Preference to turn tab browsing mode completely off is gone. This seems to be so that web applications can use tabs in all cases (Google Documents uses them).
Logic Pro 7.x has a USB hardware dongle.
Keeping airplanes and birds from hitting the tether could be an issue -- the former an aviation safety problem, the latter a reliability problem for the power station.
This RFID chip was presented Weds at the Solid-State Circuits Conference, see the abstract on the bottom of the second page of this PDF: https://submissions.miracd.com/ISSCC2007/WebAP2007 /2007AP_Final_S26.pdf
Apple would do just fine without Steve, because the management under him understands why the company has been successful since Steve returned, and has enough common sense not to change the formula unless its obvious that the change makes the company stronger. These are not stupid people.
At this point, Steve immerses himself in product development because he has fun doing it, not because he doesn't trust the people under him to do a good job without his involvement. Does he think his presence in the process makes the product better? Of course! Does he think Apple products would be second-rate without his presence? No -- he trusts his people and he trusts the culture.
Yes, the "media superstar CEO" part of the formula needs to change. But with smart people making the change, there's no reason why a comparatively "faceless" Apple can't be just as successful as the Apple of today that has Steve Jobs as its face. There are many ways to successfully market a product, a rock-star CEO is a marketing luxury, not a necessity.
I remember John Carmack stating that he thought the XBox 360 might have been better off with one dynamically-scheduled CPU than 3 static pipelines.
In a sense, with static pipelines, "the programmer thinks about the machine", and with dynamic pipelines, "the machine thinks about the programmer".
The assumption in gaming has always been that game programmers are more than happy to put in the effort to think about the machine, if the payback is the console ships with higher peak performance. But maybe we're going to see that game programmers are a lot closer to desktop application programmers than we've thought.
See: http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-beh ave-nat-udp-08.txt
for a taxonomy of the ways NATs behave. The method
described in the article won't work for all kinds of NATs.
As a business proposition, the cost of researching a victim seems high in lots of ways -- it's not work for a dummy, it takes time, and the hits have to pay for all of the misses. At the very least, it has to use "mass customization" to succeed -- software that customizes a con to a victim in non-trivial ways. But yet if they go that route, it becomes easier to fight it with conventional spam and phishing tools, because software can spot the "mass" part.
Current semester is here, I believe if you go looking around on that site you can see archives of past semesters too. The classes are a mix of a few high-enrollment courses which tend to get taped every semester, and courses that are taped once every few years to refresh the archive. You can see these on iTunes too, there may be a phobos URL somewhere on the website if you look.
2.8 billion is around 2.5% of Google's market cap. If you asked a Wall Street analyst if they attributed 2.5% of Google's market cap to Google Video, they'd might say yes, based on the hopes that Google will be able to monetize it someday.
Another way to look at it: CBS Corporation has a market cap of 22 Billion. CBS owns all sorts of businesses, I haven't done the math to estimate what % of the market cap would be attributable to the CBS broadcast network and the fully-owned affiliates, but I wouldn't be surprised if its something like 10-20% of CBS ... which puts it in the
range of the 2.8B YouTube
estimate.
Disclaimer: This comment probably has legal mistakes in it, IANAL, and the topic is complex. Feel free to reply with fixes.
--
A track on an album is covered by two different classes of copyright: the copyright on the actual audio waveform, and the "publishing copyright" on the melody line (usually, what the singer sings) and the lyrics. The second one is what is at issue here.
Note I said "the melody line and the lyrics". If you could in fact copyright a chord progression, and if the rules for how many chords a new song could "borrow" from an old song before it became "theft" was patterned after the rules for melody lines, then there would be a few extremely wealthy heirs of the writers of early songs who would be collecting royalties on practically all new songs written. And this goes for drum beat patterns (if they were covered by publishing copyright) even more so than chord progressions.
This is the theory the OLGA folks are basing their case on, I'd guess. The only thing their database usually documents about a song is "this song uses these chords, strummed like this". Which is not far away from "this song has a tempo of 110 Beats Per Minute" or "this song is in the key of A" or "this song has an ABABCA structure". It's about where the line is between "meta-data" and "data" on a song -- OLGA is drawing it one place, their opponents are drawing it another.
My subject heading refers to the fact that in the age of Hip-Hop, these rules make no sense -- what most listeners think of as "the song" isn't covered by publishing copyright in theory. Most raps don't have melody, only lyrics and "flow" (which is seen as a performer's technique, not composition). In practice, producers make deals with rappers to get a percent of the song copyright in exchange for using their track.
Like so many other parts of IP law, song publishing needs a refresh for the 21st century.
The screen that shows at the end of a youtube video now points to a few other videos you'd might like. It looks like some of these are marked "commercial", and thus I assume someone paid for the link to be placed in the video. I could see how this could make money.
This paper was published in 2004, by the VoIP group at Columbia. It reverse-engineers the Skype network with sufficient detail to let one make a serious attempt at firewalling Skype traffic.
The WSJ report claims that merchants who are heavy AdSense users will get substantial discounts on their GBuy mechant fees. If Google was considered a legal monopoly on search-engine advertising, this could very well be ruled to be illegal tying.
And so, eBay now has motivation to get US anti-trust action started on Google. What is interesting here is, the sellers who use eBay live in every congressional district -- if eBay chose to organize its sellers as a grass-roots lobbying machine, it could apply political pressure on Google that (say) Netscape could never hope to apply on Microsoft back in the day.
One of the strengths of the US academic science funding model is that the government tends hedge its bets by setting up multiple agencies with overlapping agendas. For example, in engineering, there's DARPA, there's the NSF, several of the armed forces have their own quasi-independent funding arms, larger states like California have significant grant programs, etc.
Yes, there is the inefficiency of duplicated administration costs. But the upside is, a truly good idea has a better chance of finding funding, even if the program manager at one of the agencies is not sold on the idea. This lessons the risk of a game-changing idea going unfunded.
Buffet would have been better off setting up an independent foundation making independent funding decisions, rather than doubling BMGs bets, especially since BMG really has enough money to pursue multiple large goals.
This April Fools joke wouldn't have happened if Google had a serious interest in online dating -- it wouldn't make sense to ridicule a business concept and then enter the business.
Match.com and competitors are breathing a sigh of relief today ...
I was surprised to see YouTube didn't make the list -- it's the sort of unfiltered snapshot of the world you rarely see on the Internet anymore. It reminds me of 80's-era Usenet but for movies.
Then I realized that sinces its movie delivery is Flash based, and its UI is AJAX-free, it probably doesn't qualify as "Web 2.0" in their book ...
Which made me realize that it's really a technology centric label and not a user-centric one.
From my understanding, we don't do more webcasts because of economic issues -- a human shows up and tapes the lectures, someone has to pay him or her, etc.
If Pixar is sold to Disney, Steve should consider closing the door on that chapter of his life and moving on. The history of maverick outsiders taking a seat on the board of companies like Disney is that the maverick gets shunned until he throws up his hands and leaves. Yes, having such a big investment in Disney with no board seat is a dangerous thing for him ... but
maybe the best way to solve that
problem is for him to diversify out
of his Disney holdings as quickly
as legally permitted.
What I think Jacob misses is that 45 seconds of video can communicate more than text that takes 5 minutes to read, if what you are trying to communicate needs visual motion and sound to get across. A good example is video that teaches how to use an audio editing program to get rid of background noise by applying signal processing. Easy to do with "show and tell" video, hard to do with text.
Every time Ed or his Verizon equivalent gives a free-wheeling interview, the corporate PR types spend the next few days issuing retractions and clarifications ... you can't
take what these guys say in the newspaper
as anything but stream-of-consciosuness.
Sort of like a football player talking in the
locker room to the press after a game ...
The MOS Implementation Service was doing e-commerce via email in 1984 (and probably somewhat before too, 1984 is when I sent my first chip off to them).
In this service, you send an email with the mask layout for an integrated circuit, along with a research grant number (and in later years, a credit card) and a few months later a few prototype ICs would show up via Fedex.
See:
http://www.mosis.edu/ for their modern incarnation.
Everybody sing ...
Sunday, Monday, happy days
Yes, this makes more sense than my initial guess ...
The ticket-tape on the grandchallenge.org site is now displaying "October 9th operations possible; no winner declared".
Tony is probably mulling over doing some sort of tie-breaker round for the top 3 teams. Not a bad idea, there's probably something new to learn by going at it one more day.