As a New Yorker who has never used Uber, Lyft, or any other ride sharing app...
As a fellow New Yorker, I'm surprised you're not using all the transportation options available. NYC has a huge variety of transportation options, and there's a complex calculus you have to do to get from point A to B depending on a variety of factors.
In NYC, I use all of the following services:
Taxi Apps: Uber, Lyft, Juno, Gett Car Sharing Apps: Via (as well as Uber and Lyft's car sharing) Ferry: Water Taxi, NYC Ferry Service (great in the summer) Subways and Buses: Ranges from beautiful to agonizing Uni-Directional Car Rentals: Car2Go Car Rentals: Maven, Enterprise Car Share, ZipCar (recently canceled), and HertzOnDemand (sadly now defunct) Walking: The old standby Biking: I have my own bike, but I use CitiBike when I don't want to deal with retrieving it.
Just yesterday, I used an Uber pool to get to the ferry, took the ferry to the Rockaways, took a bus to get to the beach, walked back to the ferry, ferry to Sunset park in BK, Car2Go from lower BK to upper BK for a 4th of July party, Subway ride back into Manhattan. That's the proper way a NYer gets around!
The effort to create the stitching software does not count.
I never said it did. It's not the effort that counts, it's the creativity in the stitching software. Dealing with various lighting artifacts, providing a cohesive and immersive environmental whole takes creativity, it's nothing like creating a listing in a telephone book.
I can just picture a UX twat screaming "Clutter! Clutter! All they want is clutter!" and storming out of the room.
A UX engineer's job is to provide solutions to problems. A button may not be a good solution, maybe it should be a context-based suggestion, a tab, or whatever. I highly doubt a Google UX engineer would storm out of the room, their job is to find the elegant solution.
There are lots of reports on the net of different family members getting ads targeted at other members of the same household who use different computers but are all behind the same router.
Not just reports, this is a widely known technique, and yes, there are many ad agencies that are at least experimenting with it (some have come forward and admitted it). My point is that I doubt Google is doing it.
Ah yes... you are right... Google would never do things that they would profit from, any time you wouldn't like it.
I don't trust Google with everything (even though I do trust them more than many companies). However, in this particular case, I find it highly unlikely. If they did this, the internal Google Chrome team would raise hell over it. I highly doubt they would get away with it without it being leaked.
Those are aligned and stitched together automatically from a near-360 camera (no framing). What human effort?
There's a massive amount of human effort to get those images to be stitched together. But regardless, human effort isn't a requirement for copyright protection.
The purpose of the article wasn't to argue about the reasons it's hitting a wall, but that the fact that it is hitting a wall is a good thing for the industry. It's an optimistic view of the industry, but not terribly convincing. If the industry can't deliver results quickly, investment will dry up and Moore's law will turn from exponential, to linear, to flat.
We have many theoretical ways of going forward, problem is, there hasn't turned up an actual way. Computing speeds have stalled the past several years. Too few data-points to be certain that Moore's law is dead, but it does not look good.
So I see that you think that google doesnt have its own server-side cookie tied to your IP addresses.
I doubt Google actually does that. Google obviously has the technology to do so (plenty of ad networks do), but it's so obviously shady there would be a backlash.
Google Street View is even less likely to be protected by copyright, though it's hard to get pictures from the right dates. The photos are automated and there is no human effort in framing the pictures.
Google Street View images are almost certainly protected by copyright law. There's a huge amount of human effort that goes into framing and aligning images.
I wasn't going to say anything, but the new layout kind of looks like William Randolph Hearst wiped his ass with my web browser.
I don't like it either, but I do like that they are trying to play with typography and layout to make a more visually appealing page. Newspapers have been doing this for hundreds of years, and internet news sites have only recently started tinkering. I'd happily bet a six-pack that this page will change over the next 12 months.
Google have very much become shallow advertising driven arse holes and not to be trusted.
I agree, but I would add that they are far better than many alternatives. For example, their privacy policies are clear, and they are straightforward to opt-out of. I also agree that Google results have become far worse over the years. You often get information-sparse, marketing-heavy pages, which are very often far worse than Wikipedia (in fact, many of these sites crib off of wikipedia).
It's possible that spammers have just been able to game Google over the years, but it's also due to Google's conduct. Currently, they vastly favor free content over paid or subscription content in their search results. That makes sense to a degree, but it would be nice if they allowed you an option to find quality paid content. They would need to do it in a non-annoying way, but very often paid content is far superior than the free stuff, and people should be open to having that option.
As a practical example, the vast majority of AP, NYTimes, and WashPo articles (all non-free), are summarized and published on sites with far lower quality. Rather than getting directed to a Buzzfeed or a HuffPo, it would be nice if there was an option to send you to the source material on the paid sites, assuming they were actually of higher quality (they often are, but there are exceptions).
So yes, they should be giving me the non-personalized version.
If you open Google in incognito mode, you'll get the same effect.
I find it funny when people Google for themselves on their home computer and exclaim they are ecstatic to see they made the top result. Of course they are the top result, but they are the only one who sees it.
The thing is, the headline news quality has gone way down lately too. It used to be full of hard news, now it is over 50% misleading clickbait crap, even when it looks like it will be hard news.
Couldn't agree more. I think the problem is that Google News only ranks free sites, where the vast majority of quality content is not free. Paying for things sucks, but Google could do a better job of suggesting to pay for content. Right now, low quality free stuff often far more highly ranked than the non-free counterparts, and it's very often the case that the free publications just summarize and reproduce the non-free reporting, often at far lower quality.
I'm not suggesting Google de-lists the free options, but there should be a button, an icon, or some way of suggesting non-free articles if they are of higher quality than their free counterparts.
I'm more worried about the content of Google news than the presentation, honestly.
If only Google news were the real problem. When I run Google searches, the vast majority of top sites are low quality articles that have an ulterior motive (e.g., selling something else, showing tons of ads, or link to a site for the same). Paid informational sites get marked down because they are paid, even though they are far higher quality. I'm not sure whether this is a pro-active decision by Google or the SEO magicians have just gotten smarter, but now, if it's not Wikipedia, or a for-pay website, I just don't trust it.
Google needs to recognize that paid material is often higher quality than free material, and allow the user to adjust their searching accordingly. Free sites like Buzzfeed and HuffPo are filled with paid and low quality articles, and often mooch off of real reporting wherever they can. I'm not saying Google should remove the free sources, but they need to have a way to disambiguate the quality wheat from the free chaff.
Simple solution would have been to crowdsourced replacement photos.
Simple? Who is going to spend their day snapshotting houses just so bloggers can write nasty things about them. I'm on the blogger's side in this case, but to think that croudsourcing can solve this is a bit silly.
Sadly, hundreds or perhaps thousands of C&Ds like these are written every day. This one blogger caught the attention of national media and got help from the EFF. The vast majority of people don't. Zillow wouldn't write this letter if they didn't think they had a good shot at getting what they want without repercussions. They lost this time, but it's a drop in the bucket.
As Zillow does not own the copyright to the images, it would have no standing to bring a copyright case and it could not itself offer a license.
Assuming this is true (I haven't read Zillow's TOS, so I'm not sure), Zillow could still bring a claim of tortious interference of business relations or similar claims. Given that the blogger's use of the images is probably fair use, Zillow would likely eventually lose, but it would cost the blogger six or seven figures to get to that result. The world is unfair.
Superficially it will look like meat, but when you study the details, I'm sure you'll find plenty of differences.
I entirely agree. At the end of the day, it'll be a completely different product, but it will be able to carry the "meat" branding. A far better use of money and resources would be to do better branding around current meat alternatives like Seitan and Tempeh, which are often an already excellent substitute for lower quality meat like in chicken nuggets and the like. A good Ad Campaign making these meat alternatives mainstream would go a lot longer distance.
It would also end piracy for people to live within their means. If they make money and can afford to a buy a game, they buy it. If they want a second one, they buy that one. It feels a bit greedy to go and download thousands of games illegaly, no?
Well, I don't plan on playing the game. And I don't want to give steam money for something they weren't involved in at all. Make sense? I want to reward him, And obviously the tax man as he will have to give that portion up still.
Are you going to give rewards to everyone who does not enforce their software rights?
That puts you in a situation where if the intent is undiscovered, then something that is presumably Unconstitutional would be found Constitutional.
Consider killing someone in self-defense. You may initially be prosecuted for the crime of killing someone, but if after the fact you develop evidence showing you acted in self defense, you just made the illegal legal. Intent is a big deal in law. If it weren't, judges could enact laws that discriminate against certain groups and claim they were doing it for another reason altogether. This component of the law is not controversial.
Slashdot Mirror
As a New Yorker who has never used Uber, Lyft, or any other ride sharing app ...
As a fellow New Yorker, I'm surprised you're not using all the transportation options available. NYC has a huge variety of transportation options, and there's a complex calculus you have to do to get from point A to B depending on a variety of factors.
In NYC, I use all of the following services:
Taxi Apps: Uber, Lyft, Juno, Gett
Car Sharing Apps: Via (as well as Uber and Lyft's car sharing)
Ferry: Water Taxi, NYC Ferry Service (great in the summer)
Subways and Buses: Ranges from beautiful to agonizing
Uni-Directional Car Rentals: Car2Go
Car Rentals: Maven, Enterprise Car Share, ZipCar (recently canceled), and HertzOnDemand (sadly now defunct)
Walking: The old standby
Biking: I have my own bike, but I use CitiBike when I don't want to deal with retrieving it.
Just yesterday, I used an Uber pool to get to the ferry, took the ferry to the Rockaways, took a bus to get to the beach, walked back to the ferry, ferry to Sunset park in BK, Car2Go from lower BK to upper BK for a 4th of July party, Subway ride back into Manhattan. That's the proper way a NYer gets around!
The effort to create the stitching software does not count.
I never said it did. It's not the effort that counts, it's the creativity in the stitching software. Dealing with various lighting artifacts, providing a cohesive and immersive environmental whole takes creativity, it's nothing like creating a listing in a telephone book.
I can just picture a UX twat screaming "Clutter! Clutter! All they want is clutter!" and storming out of the room.
A UX engineer's job is to provide solutions to problems. A button may not be a good solution, maybe it should be a context-based suggestion, a tab, or whatever. I highly doubt a Google UX engineer would storm out of the room, their job is to find the elegant solution.
There are lots of reports on the net of different family members getting ads targeted at other members of the same household who use different computers but are all behind the same router.
Not just reports, this is a widely known technique, and yes, there are many ad agencies that are at least experimenting with it (some have come forward and admitted it). My point is that I doubt Google is doing it.
Ah yes... you are right... Google would never do things that they would profit from, any time you wouldn't like it.
I don't trust Google with everything (even though I do trust them more than many companies). However, in this particular case, I find it highly unlikely. If they did this, the internal Google Chrome team would raise hell over it. I highly doubt they would get away with it without it being leaked.
Those are aligned and stitched together automatically from a near-360 camera (no framing). What human effort?
There's a massive amount of human effort to get those images to be stitched together. But regardless, human effort isn't a requirement for copyright protection.
US copyright laws don't recognize effort. They recognize creativity. Did Google employees do anything creative in creating Street View?
Yes, there was a ton of creativity. Just because they weren't there to press the shutter button doesn't mean that there wasn't creative process.
It's also hitting a wall for 2 reasons:
The purpose of the article wasn't to argue about the reasons it's hitting a wall, but that the fact that it is hitting a wall is a good thing for the industry. It's an optimistic view of the industry, but not terribly convincing. If the industry can't deliver results quickly, investment will dry up and Moore's law will turn from exponential, to linear, to flat.
We still have many ways to continue Moore's law.
We have many theoretical ways of going forward, problem is, there hasn't turned up an actual way. Computing speeds have stalled the past several years. Too few data-points to be certain that Moore's law is dead, but it does not look good.
So I see that you think that google doesnt have its own server-side cookie tied to your IP addresses.
I doubt Google actually does that. Google obviously has the technology to do so (plenty of ad networks do), but it's so obviously shady there would be a backlash.
Google Street View is even less likely to be protected by copyright, though it's hard to get pictures from the right dates. The photos are automated and there is no human effort in framing the pictures.
Google Street View images are almost certainly protected by copyright law. There's a huge amount of human effort that goes into framing and aligning images.
I wasn't going to say anything, but the new layout kind of looks like William Randolph Hearst wiped his ass with my web browser.
I don't like it either, but I do like that they are trying to play with typography and layout to make a more visually appealing page. Newspapers have been doing this for hundreds of years, and internet news sites have only recently started tinkering. I'd happily bet a six-pack that this page will change over the next 12 months.
Google have very much become shallow advertising driven arse holes and not to be trusted.
I agree, but I would add that they are far better than many alternatives. For example, their privacy policies are clear, and they are straightforward to opt-out of. I also agree that Google results have become far worse over the years. You often get information-sparse, marketing-heavy pages, which are very often far worse than Wikipedia (in fact, many of these sites crib off of wikipedia).
It's possible that spammers have just been able to game Google over the years, but it's also due to Google's conduct. Currently, they vastly favor free content over paid or subscription content in their search results. That makes sense to a degree, but it would be nice if they allowed you an option to find quality paid content. They would need to do it in a non-annoying way, but very often paid content is far superior than the free stuff, and people should be open to having that option.
As a practical example, the vast majority of AP, NYTimes, and WashPo articles (all non-free), are summarized and published on sites with far lower quality. Rather than getting directed to a Buzzfeed or a HuffPo, it would be nice if there was an option to send you to the source material on the paid sites, assuming they were actually of higher quality (they often are, but there are exceptions).
So yes, they should be giving me the non-personalized version.
If you open Google in incognito mode, you'll get the same effect.
I find it funny when people Google for themselves on their home computer and exclaim they are ecstatic to see they made the top result. Of course they are the top result, but they are the only one who sees it.
The thing is, the headline news quality has gone way down lately too. It used to be full of hard news, now it is over 50% misleading clickbait crap, even when it looks like it will be hard news.
Couldn't agree more. I think the problem is that Google News only ranks free sites, where the vast majority of quality content is not free. Paying for things sucks, but Google could do a better job of suggesting to pay for content. Right now, low quality free stuff often far more highly ranked than the non-free counterparts, and it's very often the case that the free publications just summarize and reproduce the non-free reporting, often at far lower quality.
I'm not suggesting Google de-lists the free options, but there should be a button, an icon, or some way of suggesting non-free articles if they are of higher quality than their free counterparts.
I'm more worried about the content of Google news than the presentation, honestly.
If only Google news were the real problem. When I run Google searches, the vast majority of top sites are low quality articles that have an ulterior motive (e.g., selling something else, showing tons of ads, or link to a site for the same). Paid informational sites get marked down because they are paid, even though they are far higher quality. I'm not sure whether this is a pro-active decision by Google or the SEO magicians have just gotten smarter, but now, if it's not Wikipedia, or a for-pay website, I just don't trust it.
Google needs to recognize that paid material is often higher quality than free material, and allow the user to adjust their searching accordingly. Free sites like Buzzfeed and HuffPo are filled with paid and low quality articles, and often mooch off of real reporting wherever they can. I'm not saying Google should remove the free sources, but they need to have a way to disambiguate the quality wheat from the free chaff.
Simple solution would have been to crowdsourced replacement photos.
Simple? Who is going to spend their day snapshotting houses just so bloggers can write nasty things about them. I'm on the blogger's side in this case, but to think that croudsourcing can solve this is a bit silly.
Sadly, hundreds or perhaps thousands of C&Ds like these are written every day. This one blogger caught the attention of national media and got help from the EFF. The vast majority of people don't. Zillow wouldn't write this letter if they didn't think they had a good shot at getting what they want without repercussions. They lost this time, but it's a drop in the bucket.
As Zillow does not own the copyright to the images, it would have no standing to bring a copyright case and it could not itself offer a license.
Assuming this is true (I haven't read Zillow's TOS, so I'm not sure), Zillow could still bring a claim of tortious interference of business relations or similar claims. Given that the blogger's use of the images is probably fair use, Zillow would likely eventually lose, but it would cost the blogger six or seven figures to get to that result. The world is unfair.
I imagine some day, electric boats might swap batteries at floating stations that recharge the depleted batteries via wind turbine or tidal power.
Why would we use boats when we could use a gravity train instead.
Superficially it will look like meat, but when you study the details, I'm sure you'll find plenty of differences.
I entirely agree. At the end of the day, it'll be a completely different product, but it will be able to carry the "meat" branding. A far better use of money and resources would be to do better branding around current meat alternatives like Seitan and Tempeh, which are often an already excellent substitute for lower quality meat like in chicken nuggets and the like. A good Ad Campaign making these meat alternatives mainstream would go a lot longer distance.
It would also end piracy for people to live within their means. If they make money and can afford to a buy a game, they buy it. If they want a second one, they buy that one. It feels a bit greedy to go and download thousands of games illegaly, no?
Well, I don't plan on playing the game. And I don't want to give steam money for something they weren't involved in at all. Make sense? I want to reward him, And obviously the tax man as he will have to give that portion up still.
Are you going to give rewards to everyone who does not enforce their software rights?
That puts you in a situation where if the intent is undiscovered, then something that is presumably Unconstitutional would be found Constitutional.
Consider killing someone in self-defense. You may initially be prosecuted for the crime of killing someone, but if after the fact you develop evidence showing you acted in self defense, you just made the illegal legal. Intent is a big deal in law. If it weren't, judges could enact laws that discriminate against certain groups and claim they were doing it for another reason altogether. This component of the law is not controversial.
Pleading with pirates begging them not to pillage your town. Good luck with that.