Funny, thing, though. Those middle class and poor people are paying subsidies to bring connection (phone, power, other utilities) to outside "remote" areas, which, ironically includes many of the newer "rich people" home groups.
No one said anything about forcing them to alter their business plan. We just want to see what our tax dollars are helping to fund, especially since almost all carriers have a legalize monopoly over areas.
If I were a company with business practices like you said, I'd be terrified of the data, too. If it were easily discernible that an area had lackluster coverage in a way provable to local and state governments, their monopolies will be threatened. If it is easy and clear for a new company to say, "We will provide affordable TV and Internet connections to these four poor areas of your city if you allow us to operate next to [Monopoly Cable Company]." What responsible city would deny that?
Oh, I never said my conditions were bad at all. I am, in fact, extremely well-compensated, both with money and other benefits (fully paid healthcare, for one). That doesn't mean that I don't work hard for what I get, though. I enjoy my job, though, and it lets me work on open-source projects--paid!
I don't stay in jobs that mistreat me, like my prior few jobs. One was an extremely screwed up startup company that changed the scope of my work every week (and even made me change programming languages 75% through the prototype, and change database servers 2 months after launch for no reason at all). The other was working for Gannett (GCI). The group I worked with had their profit *double* in 9 months (and not like a $10 to $20 thousand double... add a few more zeros), largely due to my changes/skills... and my likely raise was a shy over the inflation rate, with no bonus, with rising health care costs eating up even more than my raise.
I agree with you for most positions, especially if people have been there a long time and continue to get mediocre compensation. If you're at the same job for 6 years and aren't compensated well, you obviously don't care, or cannot afford to care (familial obligations and the like), or are in an extremely small market, e.g., a local city government or small country position.
Legally, I think they can, yes. However, with this ruling, it will make it extremely easy for further laws to have semi-permanent injunctions against their enforcement until the courts can rule on the new laws set immediately after a law hits the books and even before it goes into enforcement.
I'm sure I speak for a lot of the IT industry in saying: I'd love to be hourly! Man, If I got paid a flat rate for the hours I actually worked, I'd be rolling in cash--almost literally.
Then they could not have influenced the result with their lawyers. $100 million in legal costs is nothing to Google if it means a favorable "fair-use" ruling.
The thing is, I'm not sure it will go to their plans, or turn out the way they want. They want a fair use ruling that says as long as they comply with take-down notices, they are free and clear despite making money off of copyrighted content (ad impressions until a video is taken down).
A favorable fair-use will basically cement their (and many others') position that indexing and news indexing/aggregation is legal under fair-use laws. An unfavorable ruling, depending on the judges' wording, could be used as very high-powered ammunition against it by companies that think Google News and other services are "stealing" content. It could also spur unintelligent legislation regarding fair-use.
I'm divided. I want fair-use to be very clear under the law, but I don't think what Google/YouTube is doing is right. Slapping users on the wrists and deleting infringing videos obviously isn't enough to deter infringement.
As someone who used to work in news, I can tell you that is entirely false. After the event, there are even more stories that you can pull from an event than there were leading up to the event. For instance: Did the storm affect anything? Was it stronger than predicted? Why? Does it affect local animals at all? What about children? Was your child affected? Can we link to to increased teen suicide? Was it caused by aliens? Can we find someone that thinks it was aliens? Was the prediction wrong? Was it right? Was it both right and wrong? Are there any local experts that can weigh in on the subject?...no? Can we make some experts?
I didn't necessarily mean anything from Internet2 in the short term. There's nothing of major note even for educational use yet, other than as you said, some classroom stuff and experimental data.
I would imagine (and hope?) that will change at some point in the future, either the new stream formats or something new entirely. If nothing else, something fun to read on/. even if no one will ever use it or see it outside of a few penis-comparing universities.
Hm. Tapes with a proven shelf life of many, many years, or DVDs where a single scratch can render 4GB of data worthless. I wonder which enterprises (or governments) should chose?
The nice thing about the MP3 model is it only rewards songs that are worth it. Anyone who has bought CDs knows each CD is engineered to have 2-3 good tracks and the rest as mediocre filler songs. The big songs are what they advertise and publicize via concerts, radio, movie soundtracks, etc. The filler take much less money to produce.
If everyone is only buying the songs they like, it sends a drastic message: We won't pay for crap. Instead of an artist releasing 20 tracks a year, they could release half a dozen extremely high quality, worthwhile songs, and hopefully make the same -- or more -- revenue (since they don't need to make 11 filler tracks).
The RIAA doesn't like that model, though. It lets tiny garage bands into the same market with a 10MB file, there's no massive production, shipping, and marketing costs required. The RIAA wants to continue deciding which bands succeed and which do not -- it is hard to convince a puppetmaster to give up puppeting.
I think it's more likely that the telcos will wait for innovation in Internet2 and commercialize it in Internet1 in some form or another. The days of huge network capacity spending, unless it's backed by heavy subsidies and tax breaks, are nearly over. The Telcos in America have little incentive to provide continually higher bandwidth. Their impending defeat with Net Neutrality will hurt their feelings too much and they will punish consumers and the market.
The Telcos want to scream "I told you so!" regarding Net Neutrality more than any 5 year old could ever want to scream it.
Unfortunately, there's not a corner big enough to scold them in, or a newspaper heavy enough.
On that topic, I used to permit Google Ads because they were generally high quality, targeted ads. However, lately they have become "[target] sucks! Try [product]!" I don't like my ads telling me what products suck. For instance, in a conversation thread in my gmail account about the Tango icons has an ad in it right now: "Are Tango icons too bloated? Try [product] icons". I see almost identical ads in OpenOffice.org threads, "OpenOffice slow and bloated? Try [crappy competing office product] free for 7 days".
Except 90% of their "tools" are useless. Unless something has changed in the past year or so, you have to click through half a dozen pages of advertisement simply to renew a domain. YES! I'm sure I don't want to host with you! No, I don't want a shopping cart! No, I don't want "private registrations"! No, I don't want to renew other domains!
If you're just looking to register domains with GoDaddy, their "tools" get in the way. Every page looks like it's designed by the same people that design glossy flyers that clog your mailbox every day -- giant, full page, ads.
Investors have a lot riding on the fact that Google will eventually return more than just a very high stock price for them. While stock prices make money short term, the base of investing is long term returns. I have a feeling that, in a few years' time, if Google isn't returning anything, their stock could face a major drop.
Something that is scary, though, is that Google has a very unique position in the marketplace. They know trends before they are public trends. With their stats program that is popular with startups, they can see new sites and new ideas before they get big. That is tremendous power, in both terms of capital (buying out early), and could be used for good of "evil" very easily. Imagine if they started selling that data to investment groups. "Based on search queries it looks like MSFT might face a major wave of backlash, you should short their stock." They are in position to even influence the global market through Google News and search results ranking.
In AD 2003, War was beginning. IBM: What happen! IBM Lawyer: Some set us up the lawsuit! We get signal. IBM: Main screen turn on! It's you! SCO: How are you gentlemen. All your code are belong to us. You are on the way to destruction. IBM: What you say?! SCO: You have no chance to survive make your time. Ha ha ha.
What's wrong with porn? The network design shouldn't care about content. That's a place for your personal morals or corporate rules, not network topology.
I never said they need the "who", just the unique ID to chain the searches together.
From my experience with AdSense, Google doesn't give direct access to any of the information. In fact, it makes sense for them to strongly protect their profiles. If they sell them, they lose control over them. Sure, they can retain legal control, but once they're out, they're out. Google isn't dumb, they'd rather make $1 for every profile access versus $100 up front, as the $1s will add up over time (not actual dollars, just an example). They make money by granting access through AdSense to more strongly target ads.
And I can't find the link, but the search profile study has been done, although I'm not sure about how accurate it is. I bet with any sizable search history for a given unique user, a good portion of them could be traced back to an individual, particularly with programmers and system administrators. Why? Because we search for very specific things. You could, for instance, see "/etc/passwd cygwin permission denied mkpasswd xp" in my search history from today. Seeing that I searched a dozen permutations of that afterward, you could theorize I had an issue I wasn't finding, and could then connect that with various mailing lists and Google Groups and search for the same terms (or various IRC log aggregations) and find my e-mail address and, likely, my name, and maybe a signature with my name and company name, along with e-mail headers yielding an IP address.
I'm between the two extremes of agreeing with you and agreeing that data needs to be retained. As any of us who have taken a statistics class (or four) can tell you, you don't need access to the whole sample to provide accurate data. So, say, for instance, the Google engineers were working on a specific niche of the web, say, dog lovers. If I were designing something to better suit dog lovers, my first step would be pulling a report on the common search patterns of people that search for dog-related topics.
Historical data that identifies a unique user is extremely useful. I do the same thing with our Intranet search and report tools. If I want to improve something, oftentimes the logs will give a very telling tale. (This accounting department employee searched for "expense", then "expense excel", then "expense spreadsheet", then "expense log", finally getting his document. I can then add the keywords 'excel' 'spreadsheet' to the actual document entry.) That said, you don't actually need to know who the unique user is, for all intents and research purposes, User5486734067 is just as useful as an IP+Cookie.
And it should be swiftly followed by a cancellation of major US contracts. I consider supporting US jobs as a major condition for gaining lucrative US contracts. The CEO having a shorter plane ride is of no concern to me, but the loss of tens of millions of dollars to a city economy is, and I don't even live in Texas.
I think the GP was implying a generic downloading system that companies could license like they do graphics engines. Imagine something like the World of Warcraft delivery system that companies could license and pay per-download. Valve (or whatever company) would manage the entire operation and just get a cut of the profit from each copy sold.
Selling via box stores is expensive. You have a lot of overhead: printed materials, boxes, inserts, discs, cases. Then you have the shipment costs from production center -> box warehouses. Box stores then pay for warehouse -> store shipping. You have labor at production, shipping, and retail levels. Each level must make a profit, the end store probably getting the least profit of all. I'm sure even an expensive download service could rival it for cost efficiency.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny, thing, though. Those middle class and poor people are paying subsidies to bring connection (phone, power, other utilities) to outside "remote" areas, which, ironically includes many of the newer "rich people" home groups.
No one said anything about forcing them to alter their business plan. We just want to see what our tax dollars are helping to fund, especially since almost all carriers have a legalize monopoly over areas.
If I were a company with business practices like you said, I'd be terrified of the data, too. If it were easily discernible that an area had lackluster coverage in a way provable to local and state governments, their monopolies will be threatened. If it is easy and clear for a new company to say, "We will provide affordable TV and Internet connections to these four poor areas of your city if you allow us to operate next to [Monopoly Cable Company]." What responsible city would deny that?
Oh, I never said my conditions were bad at all. I am, in fact, extremely well-compensated, both with money and other benefits (fully paid healthcare, for one). That doesn't mean that I don't work hard for what I get, though. I enjoy my job, though, and it lets me work on open-source projects--paid!
I don't stay in jobs that mistreat me, like my prior few jobs. One was an extremely screwed up startup company that changed the scope of my work every week (and even made me change programming languages 75% through the prototype, and change database servers 2 months after launch for no reason at all). The other was working for Gannett (GCI). The group I worked with had their profit *double* in 9 months (and not like a $10 to $20 thousand double... add a few more zeros), largely due to my changes/skills... and my likely raise was a shy over the inflation rate, with no bonus, with rising health care costs eating up even more than my raise.
I agree with you for most positions, especially if people have been there a long time and continue to get mediocre compensation. If you're at the same job for 6 years and aren't compensated well, you obviously don't care, or cannot afford to care (familial obligations and the like), or are in an extremely small market, e.g., a local city government or small country position.
[/blog]
Legally, I think they can, yes. However, with this ruling, it will make it extremely easy for further laws to have semi-permanent injunctions against their enforcement until the courts can rule on the new laws set immediately after a law hits the books and even before it goes into enforcement.
IANAL.
I'm sure I speak for a lot of the IT industry in saying: I'd love to be hourly! Man, If I got paid a flat rate for the hours I actually worked, I'd be rolling in cash--almost literally.
So, in short to Google workers: STFU & GBTW!
Then they could not have influenced the result with their lawyers. $100 million in legal costs is nothing to Google if it means a favorable "fair-use" ruling.
The thing is, I'm not sure it will go to their plans, or turn out the way they want. They want a fair use ruling that says as long as they comply with take-down notices, they are free and clear despite making money off of copyrighted content (ad impressions until a video is taken down).
A favorable fair-use will basically cement their (and many others') position that indexing and news indexing/aggregation is legal under fair-use laws. An unfavorable ruling, depending on the judges' wording, could be used as very high-powered ammunition against it by companies that think Google News and other services are "stealing" content. It could also spur unintelligent legislation regarding fair-use.
I'm divided. I want fair-use to be very clear under the law, but I don't think what Google/YouTube is doing is right. Slapping users on the wrists and deleting infringing videos obviously isn't enough to deter infringement.
$ du -hLs /home/daeg/porn /home/daeg/porn
/home/daeg/school /home/daeg/school
18G
$ du -hLs
29M
Ack! Quick, everyone symlink your porn directory into your school directory!
As someone who used to work in news, I can tell you that is entirely false. After the event, there are even more stories that you can pull from an event than there were leading up to the event. For instance: Did the storm affect anything? Was it stronger than predicted? Why? Does it affect local animals at all? What about children? Was your child affected? Can we link to to increased teen suicide? Was it caused by aliens? Can we find someone that thinks it was aliens? Was the prediction wrong? Was it right? Was it both right and wrong? Are there any local experts that can weigh in on the subject? ...no? Can we make some experts?
Local news was terrifying to say the least.
I didn't necessarily mean anything from Internet2 in the short term. There's nothing of major note even for educational use yet, other than as you said, some classroom stuff and experimental data.
/. even if no one will ever use it or see it outside of a few penis-comparing universities.
I would imagine (and hope?) that will change at some point in the future, either the new stream formats or something new entirely. If nothing else, something fun to read on
Hm. Tapes with a proven shelf life of many, many years, or DVDs where a single scratch can render 4GB of data worthless. I wonder which enterprises (or governments) should chose?
The nice thing about the MP3 model is it only rewards songs that are worth it. Anyone who has bought CDs knows each CD is engineered to have 2-3 good tracks and the rest as mediocre filler songs. The big songs are what they advertise and publicize via concerts, radio, movie soundtracks, etc. The filler take much less money to produce.
If everyone is only buying the songs they like, it sends a drastic message: We won't pay for crap. Instead of an artist releasing 20 tracks a year, they could release half a dozen extremely high quality, worthwhile songs, and hopefully make the same -- or more -- revenue (since they don't need to make 11 filler tracks).
The RIAA doesn't like that model, though. It lets tiny garage bands into the same market with a 10MB file, there's no massive production, shipping, and marketing costs required. The RIAA wants to continue deciding which bands succeed and which do not -- it is hard to convince a puppetmaster to give up puppeting.
I think it's more likely that the telcos will wait for innovation in Internet2 and commercialize it in Internet1 in some form or another. The days of huge network capacity spending, unless it's backed by heavy subsidies and tax breaks, are nearly over. The Telcos in America have little incentive to provide continually higher bandwidth. Their impending defeat with Net Neutrality will hurt their feelings too much and they will punish consumers and the market.
The Telcos want to scream "I told you so!" regarding Net Neutrality more than any 5 year old could ever want to scream it.
Unfortunately, there's not a corner big enough to scold them in, or a newspaper heavy enough.
On that topic, I used to permit Google Ads because they were generally high quality, targeted ads. However, lately they have become "[target] sucks! Try [product]!" I don't like my ads telling me what products suck. For instance, in a conversation thread in my gmail account about the Tango icons has an ad in it right now: "Are Tango icons too bloated? Try [product] icons". I see almost identical ads in OpenOffice.org threads, "OpenOffice slow and bloated? Try [crappy competing office product] free for 7 days".
That's BS in my book, so I blocked them, too.
Much of this information can already be obtained from you cell phone company. No need to have it based on a separate device.
I believe a few cities are working on implementing this, Tampa being one of them.
Except 90% of their "tools" are useless. Unless something has changed in the past year or so, you have to click through half a dozen pages of advertisement simply to renew a domain. YES! I'm sure I don't want to host with you! No, I don't want a shopping cart! No, I don't want "private registrations"! No, I don't want to renew other domains!
If you're just looking to register domains with GoDaddy, their "tools" get in the way. Every page looks like it's designed by the same people that design glossy flyers that clog your mailbox every day -- giant, full page, ads.
Investors have a lot riding on the fact that Google will eventually return more than just a very high stock price for them. While stock prices make money short term, the base of investing is long term returns. I have a feeling that, in a few years' time, if Google isn't returning anything, their stock could face a major drop.
Something that is scary, though, is that Google has a very unique position in the marketplace. They know trends before they are public trends. With their stats program that is popular with startups, they can see new sites and new ideas before they get big. That is tremendous power, in both terms of capital (buying out early), and could be used for good of "evil" very easily. Imagine if they started selling that data to investment groups. "Based on search queries it looks like MSFT might face a major wave of backlash, you should short their stock." They are in position to even influence the global market through Google News and search results ranking.
What really is happening:
What's wrong with porn? The network design shouldn't care about content. That's a place for your personal morals or corporate rules, not network topology.
As others have said, it wasn't Google itself that lead to the evidence, it was her computer. Or, at least that's what I've gathered.
I never said they need the "who", just the unique ID to chain the searches together.
From my experience with AdSense, Google doesn't give direct access to any of the information. In fact, it makes sense for them to strongly protect their profiles. If they sell them, they lose control over them. Sure, they can retain legal control, but once they're out, they're out. Google isn't dumb, they'd rather make $1 for every profile access versus $100 up front, as the $1s will add up over time (not actual dollars, just an example). They make money by granting access through AdSense to more strongly target ads.
And I can't find the link, but the search profile study has been done, although I'm not sure about how accurate it is. I bet with any sizable search history for a given unique user, a good portion of them could be traced back to an individual, particularly with programmers and system administrators. Why? Because we search for very specific things. You could, for instance, see "/etc/passwd cygwin permission denied mkpasswd xp" in my search history from today. Seeing that I searched a dozen permutations of that afterward, you could theorize I had an issue I wasn't finding, and could then connect that with various mailing lists and Google Groups and search for the same terms (or various IRC log aggregations) and find my e-mail address and, likely, my name, and maybe a signature with my name and company name, along with e-mail headers yielding an IP address.
I'm between the two extremes of agreeing with you and agreeing that data needs to be retained. As any of us who have taken a statistics class (or four) can tell you, you don't need access to the whole sample to provide accurate data. So, say, for instance, the Google engineers were working on a specific niche of the web, say, dog lovers. If I were designing something to better suit dog lovers, my first step would be pulling a report on the common search patterns of people that search for dog-related topics.
Historical data that identifies a unique user is extremely useful. I do the same thing with our Intranet search and report tools. If I want to improve something, oftentimes the logs will give a very telling tale. (This accounting department employee searched for "expense", then "expense excel", then "expense spreadsheet", then "expense log", finally getting his document. I can then add the keywords 'excel' 'spreadsheet' to the actual document entry.) That said, you don't actually need to know who the unique user is, for all intents and research purposes, User5486734067 is just as useful as an IP+Cookie.
Future /. search queries:
[+bjs -herpes +catholic type:girl_______]
Your search did not match any users.
[+cheapdate -herpes type:girl___________]
Your search did not match any users.
[type:girl______________________________]
Your search did not match any users. Did you mean type:guy?
I'm not saying the study isn't valid, but it reeks of bad science like the smoking "studies" that found smoking doesn't cause lung cancer.
You're delusional if you think YouTube's primary source of videos is user-created content. Go look at the top list. How many of them are Anime dubs?
And it should be swiftly followed by a cancellation of major US contracts. I consider supporting US jobs as a major condition for gaining lucrative US contracts. The CEO having a shorter plane ride is of no concern to me, but the loss of tens of millions of dollars to a city economy is, and I don't even live in Texas.
I think the GP was implying a generic downloading system that companies could license like they do graphics engines. Imagine something like the World of Warcraft delivery system that companies could license and pay per-download. Valve (or whatever company) would manage the entire operation and just get a cut of the profit from each copy sold.
Selling via box stores is expensive. You have a lot of overhead: printed materials, boxes, inserts, discs, cases. Then you have the shipment costs from production center -> box warehouses. Box stores then pay for warehouse -> store shipping. You have labor at production, shipping, and retail levels. Each level must make a profit, the end store probably getting the least profit of all. I'm sure even an expensive download service could rival it for cost efficiency.