I could be wrong, but I remeber when Yahoo was an index and manual rating system. It had what we would now call search engine features, but those were mostly made relevent by Alta Vista, which is why Yahoo! had to buy a search engine.
Here is a history of Yahoo. As I recall it was meant to be the "Yellow Pages" for the internet since there wasn't a basic directory at the time it came out. I used to set it as my browser home page.
I used it to browse categorised lists of similar websites rather than for web page keyword search results, because those are what it used to display first. I used AltaVista for keyword searches. They each had their own advantages. Yahoo helped you find information in an organised manner whereas AltaVista flooded you with less organised search results. Yahoo was more of a categorised directory, while AltaVista was a real search engine. I started using AltaVista because Yahoo used them for search engine results.
Yahoo seemed to have all the major websites categorised properly. However, this seemed to falter as the web expanded, and now the directory function just seems to give you a list of similar sites that aren't necessarily the major ones. And they no longer display the categories first, opting to display web page search results like standard keyword search engines instead. I still use it for the category function and feel they should have left it returning the categories first, like it used to before they revised the interface.
How many people seriously want to carry digital photos around wherever they go?
Some of these devices have adapters that allow you to transfer digital photos from CompactFlash cards, SmartMedia cards, and the like. Being able to transfer digital photos onto a portable HD directly without a computer involved is useful for digital cameras when they become full. The iPod has adapters, even though it can't display the photos. With a device like this, at least you can see what you have transferred.
Here's a link to Archos Gmini 400. The specs say it works for both PC and Macs. The Archos AV 400 and Gmini 220 look pretty interesting too. The AV 400 looks like it's supposed to be a Portable Media Center for Windows XP Media Center Edition, but it isn't - it doesn't need a computer to record from television. I never heard of these products up until this point, and I think they look like serious competition for the iPod, even for Mac users.
I don't see why they don't just add stylii to these things so they can also be PDAs. Surely they can function as PDAs if you can install software like games on them. If they did so, these things could compete with PalmPilots, and they already look like they are already good competition for the iPod, Portable Media Centers, GameBoys, and Portable Playstations.
The right to privacy is not mentioned in the Constitution, but the Supreme Court has said that several of the amendments create this right.
And I found this link that says Supreme Court justice Louis Brandeis made the following declaration in 1928...
"The makers of our Constitution understood the need to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness, and the protections guaranteed by this are much broader in scope, and include the right to life and an inviolate personality -- the right to be left alone -- the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. The principle underlying the Fourth and Fifth Amendments is protection against invasions of the sanctities of a man's home and privacies of life. This is a recognition of the significance of man's spiritual nature, his feelings, and his intellect. Every violation of the right to privacy must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment.
I presume that even though it isn't stated straighforwardly, the combination of laws as interpreted by the courts gives the right to privacy.
Bacteriophage appears to be an alternative to antibiotics for fighting bacteria. An article (you have to pay to access it) in Discover Magazine by Peter Radetsky about bacteriophage was published in November, 1996. It was mentioned by a man named Caisey Harlingten in a Horizon documentary on the BBC, and seems to have been an important publication that set things into motion. What isn't mentioned in the transcript is that right at the end of the documentary, text appears that says the deal between the American company called Georgia Research, Inc. set up by Harlingten and the Eliava Institute fell apart.
Wired wrote a follow up article on the story. One of the disputes involved another man, Alexander Sulakvelidze, opposing the seemingly pointless aim to genetically engineering phages, which Harlingten wanted to do. This possibly has something to do with the fact that genetically engineered products are protected by patents and can be regulated by intellectual property laws, whereas natural phages are not. This is what Harlingten is up to now. He is trying to apply phage therapy to multi-drug resistant Tuberculosis. And this is what Sulakvelidze is up to now, applying phage therapy to livestock.
What if I go out and take pictures of somebody using MY camera and posting them all over the web. That isn't illegal, is is?
Apparently, its legality hasn't been challenged in court yet. A Google search brought up this page about model release forms, and why they are required. It discusses the legalities surrounding photography. Here are excerpts...
"One doesn't have to be a professional 'model' to be eligible for signing a model release. Anyone or anything that is the subject of a photograph is considered the 'model'."
"It should be stated right up front that a model release is not required or mandated by any federal or state laws in the United States. However, as will be discussed thoroughly, individuals have a 'right' to choose certain conditions under which someone may use a photo of them, and if those rights are violated, that person could bring a 'civil' lawsuit against the photographer and/or others that may be culpable."
"Physical prints and negatives have nothing to do with rights to use them. Just because a person has photos, that does not give any special, implied or intrinsic rights to use them. One person emailed me saying that he purchased raw negatives of the Beatles on eBay and thought it gave him the right to make new prints and sell them. This is not the case because this would involve reproduction and distribution of copyrighted material. Just because he owned the negatives doesn't give him special rights."
"Anyone can put photos on the web without a model release. Where it can get sticky for pro photographers is whether the photos can be construed as being a form of advertisement. I don't want to oversimplify and say that you're safe if you put your images on your web page, since this has yet to be challenged in court. To play it safe, though, just make sure you don't make it appear as though you are using images to advertise another product or have any association unrelated to you and your work/business."
In the case of this story, the person posting the photographs on the web wasn't in them, didn't take them, didn't own them, or have any rights associated to them whatsoever.
I can understand being mad, wanting an apology, and wanting the blog aken down, and maybe criminal proceedings if any laws were broken. But why do people think they deserve money for something like this?
They deserve to ask for punitive damages to punish and deter people from commiting these kinds of acts. And an extreme amount of public exposure can bring all sorts of problems like stalkers and death threats. There are a lot of loons out there that will target someone simply for being well-known publicly. Someone in that kind of a position will need security. Who is going to pay for it? If a person receiving a great deal of public exposure isn't someone like an actor who actually recieves an income relative to that exposure, then what financial recourse do they have to protect themself from the reprocussions?
What have they lost?
They have lost their privacy. Having pictures posted on the internet against one's will is an invasion of privacy, especially if it gets Slashdotted. Remember the Star Wars Kid? He and his family weren't too happy about all that and took the parents of the kids that put his video on the net to court. They didn't want any part of the internt cult status the practical joke had given him and would have preferred not to have him humiliated with that kind of exposure.
Even if these photos are taken down by the poster, they could already have been copied and circulated around the net, just like the Star Wars Kid. And just because you're not doing anything wrong in a photo doesn't mean your privacy should be left to others to toy with and take away. Isn't privacy a fundamental right?
Mental suffering?
Something like this can indeed cause mental suffering. Have you ever heard of social phobia? It is a very real anxiety disorder, and someone with such a condition could be severely traumatised if they had their privacy invaded with all the internet as an audience, even if the photos were innocuous.
What if a photo of yourself in an embarassing situation had been circulated on the net without your consent? A practical joke between friends is one thing, but letting a worldwide audience through the internet see it is another and can cause extreme humiliation and mental suffering.
Thinking back, I probably would have thought about the article a bit differently had there been some comment attached mentioning the stock ramifications.
It will be very interesting to see the stock ramifications now that this article has been published. I presume it is in the print version of Newsweek as well and not just on the web.
Maybe someone else has the exact quote, but didn't Bill Gates say that he sees the future of computers as when people will pay for the OS (subscription of course) and the hardware will be free?
I recall seeing something on television where he was quoted as saying something like his vision was that their software would drive all computers. I think they even had a plaque of it somewhere on some MS building. I thought it was really creepy because the documentary was portraying him as some kind of hero when that quote was the equivalent of saying "our goal is world domination". It was like watching some propaganda singing the praises of some evil dictator.
I don't see anything really "interesting" about the article other than the fact it is in Newsweek.
The fact that the story has reached a major mainstream press outlet means that the stock market will now take notice of what they have seemingly been unaware of this whole time while investing in SCO. I know MS is allegedly behind SCO financially, but the mainstream non-techie stock market traders probably didn't have a clue and thought SCO was just another stock market investment. This article will make them think twice about investing in SCO.
I believe that was a quote of criticism of the colorization of The Three Stooges in August this year. In fact, the color Stooges is being released alongside the black and white version, while Lucas isn't releasing the previous versions of his movies at all. And it's not like they are adding new scenes where "Shemp strikes first"- who's to say the original filmmakers wouldn't have used color film if it was around?
I tried to google up transcripts of what he said before congress in the 80's, so I could compare it to his current approach, but couldn't find anything. Does anyone possibly have a link to a transcript? From what I vaguely recall, they were completely for preserving originality and against any alterations, but I don't recall if they mentioned revising their own work. However, one could argue that if they really were unhappy with some parts, they could have just re-filmed those parts and released the revised video a long time ago.
The copyright owners have shown every indication that once the 75-year copyright terms expire, they will prepare revised versions that qualify for new copyrights, and the originals will be withdrawn from circulation.
In short, as their oldest films complete their 75-year term of copyright protection, the studios have considerable incentive to create new versions. Public domain is not going to lead to the widespread availability of the great films. Instead, it will be the cause of the disappearance of these motion pictures in their original versions.
Star Wars (the first film) would have become public domain in 2052. Revising Star Wars the way he did just extended the copyright by another 27 years to 2079. Making minor changes could be a way of fixing things the filmmakers wanted to revisit, or it could be a way of never allowing the film to fall into public domain by sneaking in changes with every distribution medium change. I wonder if this applies to digital copies?
Ironically, it was people like George Lucas and Steven Speilberg who protested against the modification of existing classic movies when black and white movies were being colorized. In fact, they both testified before Congress against the practice of colorizatioin and other forms of alteration. I can vaguely recall that one of the arguments was that technology could reach a level in which people would do alterations like replace actor's faces with those of newer actors. Yet, they are the first to alter their own classics. Spielberg replaced guns with walkie-talkies in ET, and now Lucas is changing his movies as well. This is exactly the kind of alteration they testified against.
But do you think they would have their own version of an Open Source license that would include declaring the free use of their patent under that license?
If insurance companies have noticed that the cost of their spam filtering in their IT department is affected by Florida, then they should divert the costs of the filtering to premium rises in Florida alone, rather than dumping it across the board. Maybe then something would be done about it, when Florida insurance holders would notice raised premiums when they deal with their insurance to cover hurricane damage. And maybe it would actually affect their voting.
I would see this as no different from any of the other excuses that insurance companies use to raise premiums, like what kind of car you drive or the crime rate of where you live. Any company that has expenditures to cover spam filtering in their IT departments should charge florida a little extra.
Microsoft is moving their monopoly control onto the CD music industry? Will these copy-protected CDs be able to work on any other platforms other than Longhorn? What about Linux and Mac users? Will we be locked out?
I find it so infuriating that the moronic recording industry is implementing these sorts of things. If a CD is copy protected, someone is going to get copies of the tracks onto P2P networks somehow anyway, and they will be accessible only through illegal means. They are forcing legitimate customers to resort to music piracy as their only avenue to get the latest albums.
I'm honestly one of those people that used to buy a lot of CDs. I have no qualms about paying for it legitimately, so I find it offensive that I have to be subjected to copy protection to prevent me from getting it onto my computer, which is my stereo as well. Not only can't the SuperDrive on my Titanium PowerBook rip the CDs, but it can't even play them as regular audio CDs either. I no longer buy CDs anymore, because my laptop can't read them and I can't play them, because they are all copy protected. I was a good customer and now I don't buy their products!
Doesn't that say something about the shit-for-brains strategy they're implementing? I don't share my ripped tracks on P2P networks. I actually find it useful to own CDs because they serve as backup copies. And since they are uncompressed, you can re-rip them using different algorithms, like if you choose decide to switch from the default 128 kbps to 192 kbps or higher for better quality, or if you decide to start using the Apple Lossless audio codec.
They are actually stopping me from buying their product. They are such fucking unbelievable idiots. And guess what? Music from the recording industries isn't necessary in one's life as much as their marketing would like you to think. I'm fine with the music I already have. Like I said, I was a good customer- a really good customer- so I already acquired a decent collection of CDs before this copyright crap came along. They are locking out honest paying customers. That is the dumbest thing ever.
Slashdot Mirror
I could be wrong, but I remeber when Yahoo was an index and manual rating system. It had what we would now call search engine features, but those were mostly made relevent by Alta Vista, which is why Yahoo! had to buy a search engine.
Here is a history of Yahoo. As I recall it was meant to be the "Yellow Pages" for the internet since there wasn't a basic directory at the time it came out. I used to set it as my browser home page.
I used it to browse categorised lists of similar websites rather than for web page keyword search results, because those are what it used to display first. I used AltaVista for keyword searches. They each had their own advantages. Yahoo helped you find information in an organised manner whereas AltaVista flooded you with less organised search results. Yahoo was more of a categorised directory, while AltaVista was a real search engine. I started using AltaVista because Yahoo used them for search engine results.
Yahoo seemed to have all the major websites categorised properly. However, this seemed to falter as the web expanded, and now the directory function just seems to give you a list of similar sites that aren't necessarily the major ones. And they no longer display the categories first, opting to display web page search results like standard keyword search engines instead. I still use it for the category function and feel they should have left it returning the categories first, like it used to before they revised the interface.
Remember when Yahoo was a search engine?
You mean back when Netscape was the dominant browser?
can I just plug an USB compactflash card reader to it and transfer the pictures?
Come to think of it, any other player that does support that? I don't need a fancy color screen, just the storage capability.
Belkin makes a Media Reader for the iPod that allows you to transfer images onto an iPod.
How many people seriously want to carry digital photos around wherever they go?
Some of these devices have adapters that allow you to transfer digital photos from CompactFlash cards, SmartMedia cards, and the like. Being able to transfer digital photos onto a portable HD directly without a computer involved is useful for digital cameras when they become full. The iPod has adapters, even though it can't display the photos. With a device like this, at least you can see what you have transferred.
It would be really nice if I could record concerts, and the like, with near-original sound-quality.
Expect to hear from the RIAA soon. :P
Here's a link to Archos Gmini 400. The specs say it works for both PC and Macs. The Archos AV 400 and Gmini 220 look pretty interesting too. The AV 400 looks like it's supposed to be a Portable Media Center for Windows XP Media Center Edition, but it isn't - it doesn't need a computer to record from television. I never heard of these products up until this point, and I think they look like serious competition for the iPod, even for Mac users.
I don't see why they don't just add stylii to these things so they can also be PDAs. Surely they can function as PDAs if you can install software like games on them. If they did so, these things could compete with PalmPilots, and they already look like they are already good competition for the iPod, Portable Media Centers, GameBoys, and Portable Playstations.
No, it isn't. Is it? What institute, body, or power exists to uphold this right? Who bestowed this right?
This is a quote from the ACLU site...
And I found this link that says Supreme Court justice Louis Brandeis made the following declaration in 1928...
I presume that even though it isn't stated straighforwardly, the combination of laws as interpreted by the courts gives the right to privacy.
Bacteriophage appears to be an alternative to antibiotics for fighting bacteria. An article (you have to pay to access it) in Discover Magazine by Peter Radetsky about bacteriophage was published in November, 1996. It was mentioned by a man named Caisey Harlingten in a Horizon documentary on the BBC, and seems to have been an important publication that set things into motion. What isn't mentioned in the transcript is that right at the end of the documentary, text appears that says the deal between the American company called Georgia Research, Inc. set up by Harlingten and the Eliava Institute fell apart.
Wired wrote a follow up article on the story. One of the disputes involved another man, Alexander Sulakvelidze, opposing the seemingly pointless aim to genetically engineering phages, which Harlingten wanted to do. This possibly has something to do with the fact that genetically engineered products are protected by patents and can be regulated by intellectual property laws, whereas natural phages are not. This is what Harlingten is up to now. He is trying to apply phage therapy to multi-drug resistant Tuberculosis . And this is what Sulakvelidze is up to now, applying phage therapy to livestock.
Evergreen State College and the Rowland Institute at Harvard have pages about bacteriophage. Phage therapy may have some side effects, however. Some types of phage carry genes that can actually make bacteria pathogenic (briefly mentioned at end of page). This has been observed in E. Coli as a response to antibiotics.
What if I go out and take pictures of somebody using MY camera and posting them all over the web. That isn't illegal, is is?
Apparently, its legality hasn't been challenged in court yet. A Google search brought up this page about model release forms, and why they are required. It discusses the legalities surrounding photography. Here are excerpts...
In the case of this story, the person posting the photographs on the web wasn't in them, didn't take them, didn't own them, or have any rights associated to them whatsoever.
I can understand being mad, wanting an apology, and wanting the blog aken down, and maybe criminal proceedings if any laws were broken. But why do people think they deserve money for something like this?
They deserve to ask for punitive damages to punish and deter people from commiting these kinds of acts. And an extreme amount of public exposure can bring all sorts of problems like stalkers and death threats. There are a lot of loons out there that will target someone simply for being well-known publicly. Someone in that kind of a position will need security. Who is going to pay for it? If a person receiving a great deal of public exposure isn't someone like an actor who actually recieves an income relative to that exposure, then what financial recourse do they have to protect themself from the reprocussions?
What have they lost?
They have lost their privacy. Having pictures posted on the internet against one's will is an invasion of privacy, especially if it gets Slashdotted. Remember the Star Wars Kid? He and his family weren't too happy about all that and took the parents of the kids that put his video on the net to court. They didn't want any part of the internt cult status the practical joke had given him and would have preferred not to have him humiliated with that kind of exposure.
Even if these photos are taken down by the poster, they could already have been copied and circulated around the net, just like the Star Wars Kid. And just because you're not doing anything wrong in a photo doesn't mean your privacy should be left to others to toy with and take away. Isn't privacy a fundamental right?
Mental suffering?
Something like this can indeed cause mental suffering. Have you ever heard of social phobia? It is a very real anxiety disorder, and someone with such a condition could be severely traumatised if they had their privacy invaded with all the internet as an audience, even if the photos were innocuous.
What if a photo of yourself in an embarassing situation had been circulated on the net without your consent? A practical joke between friends is one thing, but letting a worldwide audience through the internet see it is another and can cause extreme humiliation and mental suffering.
Thinking back, I probably would have thought about the article a bit differently had there been some comment attached mentioning the stock ramifications.
It will be very interesting to see the stock ramifications now that this article has been published. I presume it is in the print version of Newsweek as well and not just on the web.
Maybe someone else has the exact quote, but didn't Bill Gates say that he sees the future of computers as when people will pay for the OS (subscription of course) and the hardware will be free?
I recall seeing something on television where he was quoted as saying something like his vision was that their software would drive all computers. I think they even had a plaque of it somewhere on some MS building. I thought it was really creepy because the documentary was portraying him as some kind of hero when that quote was the equivalent of saying "our goal is world domination". It was like watching some propaganda singing the praises of some evil dictator.
When everybody gets naked and jumps in a pile, the deal will get done and you can be sure you will not be on the top.
I see that you are browsing for porn at the same time as you are reading Slashdot. :P
I don't see anything really "interesting" about the article other than the fact it is in Newsweek.
The fact that the story has reached a major mainstream press outlet means that the stock market will now take notice of what they have seemingly been unaware of this whole time while investing in SCO. I know MS is allegedly behind SCO financially, but the mainstream non-techie stock market traders probably didn't have a clue and thought SCO was just another stock market investment. This article will make them think twice about investing in SCO.
Hello, SCO, this is the little boy calling...I would like my crying wolf back.
Just in... SCO reports they have the copyrights on crying wolf and will charge licensing fees to whoever attempts to cry wolf.
This is happening in Texas? It sounds like it is happening... in Japan!!!
Feel yourself warned though, luxury does come at a cost.
Well it seems like somebody probably got one for free.
Didn't Microsoft already patent this? The patent mentions GPS data.
"I'm saying it's not fair to the artist."
I believe that was a quote of criticism of the colorization of The Three Stooges in August this year. In fact, the color Stooges is being released alongside the black and white version, while Lucas isn't releasing the previous versions of his movies at all. And it's not like they are adding new scenes where "Shemp strikes first"- who's to say the original filmmakers wouldn't have used color film if it was around?
I tried to google up transcripts of what he said before congress in the 80's, so I could compare it to his current approach, but couldn't find anything. Does anyone possibly have a link to a transcript? From what I vaguely recall, they were completely for preserving originality and against any alterations, but I don't recall if they mentioned revising their own work. However, one could argue that if they really were unhappy with some parts, they could have just re-filmed those parts and released the revised video a long time ago.
However, I did find this about altering films...
Star Wars (the first film) would have become public domain in 2052. Revising Star Wars the way he did just extended the copyright by another 27 years to 2079. Making minor changes could be a way of fixing things the filmmakers wanted to revisit, or it could be a way of never allowing the film to fall into public domain by sneaking in changes with every distribution medium change. I wonder if this applies to digital copies?
Ironically, it was people like George Lucas and Steven Speilberg who protested against the modification of existing classic movies when black and white movies were being colorized. In fact, they both testified before Congress against the practice of colorizatioin and other forms of alteration. I can vaguely recall that one of the arguments was that technology could reach a level in which people would do alterations like replace actor's faces with those of newer actors. Yet, they are the first to alter their own classics. Spielberg replaced guns with walkie-talkies in ET, and now Lucas is changing his movies as well. This is exactly the kind of alteration they testified against.
They all think outside the box
Outside the box? These are people that don't remove collectibles from their original packaging.
I think they screwed him out of a spell checker as well
But do you think they would have their own version of an Open Source license that would include declaring the free use of their patent under that license?
If insurance companies have noticed that the cost of their spam filtering in their IT department is affected by Florida, then they should divert the costs of the filtering to premium rises in Florida alone, rather than dumping it across the board. Maybe then something would be done about it, when Florida insurance holders would notice raised premiums when they deal with their insurance to cover hurricane damage. And maybe it would actually affect their voting.
I would see this as no different from any of the other excuses that insurance companies use to raise premiums, like what kind of car you drive or the crime rate of where you live. Any company that has expenditures to cover spam filtering in their IT departments should charge florida a little extra.
Microsoft is moving their monopoly control onto the CD music industry? Will these copy-protected CDs be able to work on any other platforms other than Longhorn? What about Linux and Mac users? Will we be locked out?
I find it so infuriating that the moronic recording industry is implementing these sorts of things. If a CD is copy protected, someone is going to get copies of the tracks onto P2P networks somehow anyway, and they will be accessible only through illegal means. They are forcing legitimate customers to resort to music piracy as their only avenue to get the latest albums.
I'm honestly one of those people that used to buy a lot of CDs. I have no qualms about paying for it legitimately, so I find it offensive that I have to be subjected to copy protection to prevent me from getting it onto my computer, which is my stereo as well. Not only can't the SuperDrive on my Titanium PowerBook rip the CDs, but it can't even play them as regular audio CDs either. I no longer buy CDs anymore, because my laptop can't read them and I can't play them, because they are all copy protected. I was a good customer and now I don't buy their products!
Doesn't that say something about the shit-for-brains strategy they're implementing? I don't share my ripped tracks on P2P networks. I actually find it useful to own CDs because they serve as backup copies. And since they are uncompressed, you can re-rip them using different algorithms, like if you choose decide to switch from the default 128 kbps to 192 kbps or higher for better quality, or if you decide to start using the Apple Lossless audio codec.
They are actually stopping me from buying their product. They are such fucking unbelievable idiots. And guess what? Music from the recording industries isn't necessary in one's life as much as their marketing would like you to think. I'm fine with the music I already have. Like I said, I was a good customer- a really good customer- so I already acquired a decent collection of CDs before this copyright crap came along. They are locking out honest paying customers. That is the dumbest thing ever.