Google's users up to now were the educated and the internet-savvy. AOL's subscribers are, en masse, essentially the opposite.
What the fuck is this? This does not make sense to me.
First of all what does it have to do with text vs. graphic ads. Maybe Google is going to have tasteful graphic based ads. Brand names are extremely effective, and I'm sure many companies would love to have their icon/symbol next to their tasteful text ad.
Second, what makes Google's users so intelligent, the whole point is that it makes the worlds information easily available. Yes, Google is made for stupid people. Maybe you and I should try to sound less condescending, and maybe say that Google is made for people without the internet experience we have. Furthermore your dismissal of AOL newbies (after all, they shouldn't be given a chance to learn) is a little out of context with the rest of your post. Who cares what their subscribers are like, that doesn't mean Google shouldn't show them the light.
What is your point? Giving away $1.57 to 1 billion people does not sound like a good bussiness plan to me. If you just look at the numbers and pull an arbitrary meaning out of your butt, what point are you proving?
If you look at those salaries, think of what you can pay the top brains in India to code for you (not the average coder). Then think of the campus, buildings, infrastructure, computers etc. Maybe its easier to see why this is a good idea? Because you can get more out your money over there right now.
MapServer was and is opensource. It was a project at University of Minnesota. What happened here is that a MapServer Foundation was created to oversee the project (like the Apache foundation). Autodesk is financially supporting this.
The difference is that a more official structure, or foundation if you will, is given to a very necessary project. Now competition in GIS internet mapping should just be between MapServer and ArcIMS, and hopefully MapServer will catchup/surpass ArcIMS soon.
Did you RTFA? The first sentance? AutoDesk set up a foundation for the MapServer project. It is community based, and financially supported by AutoDesk. They are helping move the responsibility from University of Minnesota to an independant foundation (like Apache). Still don't believe it?
Maybe they see value in open sourcing something they were developing because it was too costly to compete with ESRI? or even to costly to compete with the free MapServer? Either way the title is absolutely right no matter how much you dont want it to be.
This is a very good answer to the grandparents. However I do think Autodesk has a competitor: ESRI.
In Florida and the south east (as well as other regions I believe) ESRI has a strangle hold on GIS tools. GIS being Geographic Information Systems. MapServer (the open source project that the foundation is being established for) and MapGuide compete with ESRI's ArcIMS and their newly released ArcGIS. IMS stands for internet mapping service, and while GMaps could be considered an internet mapping service, I believe the parent poster was right in saying it is as picassa to photoshop.
This is extremely good news for internet mapping, Counties and states spend millions on mapping projects, and the overhead could go way down with open source. My work directly involves ESRI's ArcIMS and we would like nothing more to move to open source. In fact we have been looking at MapServer, and are currently experimenting with it.
Great news.
What does coke say this time that you did not already know? They havn't changed it since I have been alive, yet I am drinking coke right now instead of some other beverage.
Seems like we are going back to the time of Robber Barons (hah, p2p filesharers aren't the only robbers) with William Vanderbilt's famous quote: "The public be damned!"
Yeah, It would be covered under fair use. If, however, there is any DRM on that CD, it is illegal to circumvent it to make copies, even if it would be covered under fair use.
While some of your points are insightful, I don't think companies policing customers is a real threat. IANAL but slander suits aren't that easy anymore. It would be called a slapsuit if they try to outmuscle you with their money when its clear you weren't slandering. Also pure opinion and pure fact (if I recall) are protected from slander. Further more trade libel needs to show that the company was damaged by the libel, so the sites getting sued for that probably wont be small time bloggers being caught up in this blogspotter. I suppose this broadens the small blogs audience, but I still hold that the only people that would get slander suits are those that deserve it anyway.
Furthermore, I would have expected something about the betamax decision by the parent. Your points are why I think the Grokster decision did not overturn the important parts of the 1984 betamax decision. The SCOTUS was very careful not to outlaw the technology behind grokster, but (what amounts to) malicious intent by the company.
We want information at the tips of our fingers, and Google provides it.
This is like those questions where the answer isn't black and white. If I make a website with the (public) info of abortion doctors in my town. Then what if I put directions from the church to their houses using google maps? What if I mark all the pawn shops and gun shows on the way? When is it too much?
What if I put YOUR information on there? What if you put mine? I believe these questions have not hit the courts yet, and my professor asks them as open ended questions to the class.
Things are changing fast, what is privacy? How much do we want in our society? We want to fight terrorism and we want to hold the government accountable so it doesn't become a terrorist police state.
Wish I knew the answers:)
One of the quotes on my personalized Google home page is not really relevant but I thought it was interesting:
Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself. -Leo Tolstoy
What's really needed is the ability to establish peering points that co-incide with national borders. Then we can pass a law that says that if we don't like your data integrity laws, we don't pass traffic to/from you.
I dont know if I am reading this right, but doesn't this make stuffing the DMCA and other crap down the rest of the worlds throats even easier? Who knows, maybe this is the way we are heading, but for the good of the internet I am not sure what is best.
I think national borders on the internet are a trend that governments seem to want (look at China). I havn't put much thought into it but taken to an extreme where you can just cut off countries does not sound like a good idea.
Cheese and crackers golly, I never thought that could happen, boy gosh!
Kids have been getting dumber for thousands of years, thats why there is never any progress. Rest assured your generation is the last generation of worthy human beings. Feel better?
To actually respond to your points, I think more kids have the ability to communicate with more people. When you were a kid did you talk to people at any given time of day? Did you talk to people from other states or even other countries multiple times a week? If your friend went off to the military or a different college, could you still keep in contact with them at anytime regardless of phone# or address?
My point is that it is so easy to communicate now that this "destruction of language" is superficial. The whipper-snappers talk so much they are impatient with articulation and just make their own communication. Amid all this they still pick up "proper" language when the occasion demands. Thats what happens when you are exposed to so much communication, you are capable of even more.
Bedankt, Opa. Het oude mens in Amerika denkt het zelfde:P
What about the China, Hong Kong and Taiwanese movie studios? These all put out lots of films, good and bad, and they are all still around. They have been putting out hollywood budget films for a while too. Somehow they still make money and their piracy scene is worse then could ever be imagined in the U.S. It's weird how piracy isn't the end of art as we know it.
While I find your comparisons interesting, the thing I am most interested is HOW the pro-slavery people argued that slaves were a property right. I think this would be the most effective weapon if it turned out their justifications were the same as those for copyright.
While this analogy to the arguements for slavery sound good, I don't want to use them without first setting the old arguements next to the new ones and seeing how they look. How can one find these 150 year old arguements? A true comparison might turn out to be a powerful tool.
The Wired article makes a few things much more clear then the original article. It would stop this constant posting of "oh no Jon, don't move to the land of the DMCA" because it tells how Norway has adopted the EU's version of the DMCA. The original article only mentions this in passing at the end.
Also it tells more about Robertson and his previous battles with the content industry.
If Johansen goes on now to help make legitimate programs that will help change the face of content distribution and digital media, then I think this is better then waging guerrila warfare on content producers. I think DVD Jon made a good choice for himself, and probably for the good of digital entertainment.
I found out recently that it is not as easy as I thought to change somebodies mind about the *AA. I was chatting with a good friend and we got to talking about the internet (he is not a savvy user of it) and intelectual property. It took a long time to convince him that the industry doesn't exist because of "the way things are" but things are the way they are because of the industries. When I tried to speak of a middle ground between filesharing and super controlling copyright, I met with "but artists have to get paid".
I am filled with optimism by the Internet, I think its going to change everything positively when it comes to content creation and distribution, but I find people who havn't been using it for years are quite the opposite. They believe firmly that the industries are looking after the content creators best interest.
What we need is a way to educate people, I think this article is a great step in the right direction. People just need to know that selling your soul to get a "deal" is not the only way.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, I was in a bad mood earlier today. I think your response is helpful, however, so thanks!
Google's users up to now were the educated and the internet-savvy. AOL's subscribers are, en masse, essentially the opposite.
What the fuck is this? This does not make sense to me.
First of all what does it have to do with text vs. graphic ads. Maybe Google is going to have tasteful graphic based ads. Brand names are extremely effective, and I'm sure many companies would love to have their icon/symbol next to their tasteful text ad.
Second, what makes Google's users so intelligent, the whole point is that it makes the worlds information easily available. Yes, Google is made for stupid people. Maybe you and I should try to sound less condescending, and maybe say that Google is made for people without the internet experience we have. Furthermore your dismissal of AOL newbies (after all, they shouldn't be given a chance to learn) is a little out of context with the rest of your post. Who cares what their subscribers are like, that doesn't mean Google shouldn't show them the light.
What is your point? Giving away $1.57 to 1 billion people does not sound like a good bussiness plan to me. If you just look at the numbers and pull an arbitrary meaning out of your butt, what point are you proving?
If you look at those salaries, think of what you can pay the top brains in India to code for you (not the average coder). Then think of the campus, buildings, infrastructure, computers etc. Maybe its easier to see why this is a good idea? Because you can get more out your money over there right now.
MapServer was and is opensource. It was a project at University of Minnesota. What happened here is that a MapServer Foundation was created to oversee the project (like the Apache foundation). Autodesk is financially supporting this.
The difference is that a more official structure, or foundation if you will, is given to a very necessary project. Now competition in GIS internet mapping should just be between MapServer and ArcIMS, and hopefully MapServer will catchup/surpass ArcIMS soon.
http://mapserverfoundation.org/
Did you RTFA? The first sentance? AutoDesk set up a foundation for the MapServer project. It is community based, and financially supported by AutoDesk. They are helping move the responsibility from University of Minnesota to an independant foundation (like Apache). Still don't believe it?
http://mapserverfoundation.org/
Maybe they see value in open sourcing something they were developing because it was too costly to compete with ESRI? or even to costly to compete with the free MapServer? Either way the title is absolutely right no matter how much you dont want it to be.
This is a very good answer to the grandparents. However I do think Autodesk has a competitor: ESRI.
In Florida and the south east (as well as other regions I believe) ESRI has a strangle hold on GIS tools. GIS being Geographic Information Systems. MapServer (the open source project that the foundation is being established for) and MapGuide compete with ESRI's ArcIMS and their newly released ArcGIS. IMS stands for internet mapping service, and while GMaps could be considered an internet mapping service, I believe the parent poster was right in saying it is as picassa to photoshop.
This is extremely good news for internet mapping, Counties and states spend millions on mapping projects, and the overhead could go way down with open source. My work directly involves ESRI's ArcIMS and we would like nothing more to move to open source. In fact we have been looking at MapServer, and are currently experimenting with it.
Great news.
What does coke say this time that you did not already know? They havn't changed it since I have been alive, yet I am drinking coke right now instead of some other beverage.
Seems like we are going back to the time of Robber Barons (hah, p2p filesharers aren't the only robbers) with William Vanderbilt's famous quote: "The public be damned!"
Yeah, It would be covered under fair use. If, however, there is any DRM on that CD, it is illegal to circumvent it to make copies, even if it would be covered under fair use.
While some of your points are insightful, I don't think companies policing customers is a real threat. IANAL but slander suits aren't that easy anymore. It would be called a slapsuit if they try to outmuscle you with their money when its clear you weren't slandering. Also pure opinion and pure fact (if I recall) are protected from slander. Further more trade libel needs to show that the company was damaged by the libel, so the sites getting sued for that probably wont be small time bloggers being caught up in this blogspotter. I suppose this broadens the small blogs audience, but I still hold that the only people that would get slander suits are those that deserve it anyway.
Yeah there wouldn't be a difference if gun shops/manufacturers advertised that their tools made it easy to hunt "The Most Dangerous Game"
Id like to echo your sentiment.
Furthermore, I would have expected something about the betamax decision by the parent. Your points are why I think the Grokster decision did not overturn the important parts of the 1984 betamax decision. The SCOTUS was very careful not to outlaw the technology behind grokster, but (what amounts to) malicious intent by the company.
http://paulgraham.com/vcsqueeze.html
It's about Venture Capital firms feeling pressure from many different sides, one of those is open source.
Is an open source search engine plausible?
Funny? Insightful!
:)
We want information at the tips of our fingers, and Google provides it.
This is like those questions where the answer isn't black and white. If I make a website with the (public) info of abortion doctors in my town. Then what if I put directions from the church to their houses using google maps? What if I mark all the pawn shops and gun shows on the way? When is it too much?
What if I put YOUR information on there? What if you put mine? I believe these questions have not hit the courts yet, and my professor asks them as open ended questions to the class.
Things are changing fast, what is privacy? How much do we want in our society? We want to fight terrorism and we want to hold the government accountable so it doesn't become a terrorist police state.
Wish I knew the answers
One of the quotes on my personalized Google home page is not really relevant but I thought it was interesting:
Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself. -Leo Tolstoy
What's really needed is the ability to establish peering points that co-incide with national borders. Then we can pass a law that says that if we don't like your data integrity laws, we don't pass traffic to/from you.
I dont know if I am reading this right, but doesn't this make stuffing the DMCA and other crap down the rest of the worlds throats even easier? Who knows, maybe this is the way we are heading, but for the good of the internet I am not sure what is best.
I think national borders on the internet are a trend that governments seem to want (look at China). I havn't put much thought into it but taken to an extreme where you can just cut off countries does not sound like a good idea.
I doubt that the Americans pushing software patents and other heavyhanded Intellectual Property policies on Europe wouldn't be the first time either.
Sorry my communication skills have suffered too much from being a kid. I am only 20 too. ;)
Cheese and crackers golly, I never thought that could happen, boy gosh! Kids have been getting dumber for thousands of years, thats why there is never any progress. Rest assured your generation is the last generation of worthy human beings. Feel better?
:P
To actually respond to your points, I think more kids have the ability to communicate with more people. When you were a kid did you talk to people at any given time of day? Did you talk to people from other states or even other countries multiple times a week? If your friend went off to the military or a different college, could you still keep in contact with them at anytime regardless of phone# or address?
My point is that it is so easy to communicate now that this "destruction of language" is superficial. The whipper-snappers talk so much they are impatient with articulation and just make their own communication. Amid all this they still pick up "proper" language when the occasion demands. Thats what happens when you are exposed to so much communication, you are capable of even more.
Bedankt, Opa. Het oude mens in Amerika denkt het zelfde
What about the China, Hong Kong and Taiwanese movie studios? These all put out lots of films, good and bad, and they are all still around. They have been putting out hollywood budget films for a while too. Somehow they still make money and their piracy scene is worse then could ever be imagined in the U.S. It's weird how piracy isn't the end of art as we know it.
While I find your comparisons interesting, the thing I am most interested is HOW the pro-slavery people argued that slaves were a property right. I think this would be the most effective weapon if it turned out their justifications were the same as those for copyright.
While this analogy to the arguements for slavery sound good, I don't want to use them without first setting the old arguements next to the new ones and seeing how they look. How can one find these 150 year old arguements? A true comparison might turn out to be a powerful tool.
Those may be reasons people start doing all of those things, but the study proved that they keep doing it because of other reasons. RTFA
The Wired article makes a few things much more clear then the original article. It would stop this constant posting of "oh no Jon, don't move to the land of the DMCA" because it tells how Norway has adopted the EU's version of the DMCA. The original article only mentions this in passing at the end.
Also it tells more about Robertson and his previous battles with the content industry.
If Johansen goes on now to help make legitimate programs that will help change the face of content distribution and digital media, then I think this is better then waging guerrila warfare on content producers. I think DVD Jon made a good choice for himself, and probably for the good of digital entertainment.
I found out recently that it is not as easy as I thought to change somebodies mind about the *AA. I was chatting with a good friend and we got to talking about the internet (he is not a savvy user of it) and intelectual property. It took a long time to convince him that the industry doesn't exist because of "the way things are" but things are the way they are because of the industries. When I tried to speak of a middle ground between filesharing and super controlling copyright, I met with "but artists have to get paid". I am filled with optimism by the Internet, I think its going to change everything positively when it comes to content creation and distribution, but I find people who havn't been using it for years are quite the opposite. They believe firmly that the industries are looking after the content creators best interest. What we need is a way to educate people, I think this article is a great step in the right direction. People just need to know that selling your soul to get a "deal" is not the only way.