Lol, try Microsoft's, it's even worse. Here is a nice little comparison. And by the way, this took a while, because in Google, if I type in Paris, it goes to *gasp* Paris, France, whereas Microsoft doesn't have this capability yet:-P I find that sad.
Works fine for me. Perhaps you're doing something wrong. For instance, if I enter "Deerfoot Mall in Calgary" it brings up the mall I always shop in in the results. (Actually, the first result is Deerfoot Mall's head office, which isn't at Deerfoot mall for some odd reason). I type in my address, without my postal code, and it works. And this is in Canada, I'm sure the coverage in the US is even better.
Out of Google and Microsoft's offerings, Google has the most coverage outside of the US. Take a look at these links for example. I'll compare cities around the world and their coverage in the two offerings.
Yeah, until you go outside the States. Even Microsoft's new Windows Live Local sucks for outside the US. I can't even see my city in Canada in Windows Live, just a big brown blob. Google Maps/Google Earth can see the roof of my house and some cars out front quite readily. Considering I live in Canada, Google's mapping and sattelite services are the only ones of any use to me.
Excuse me if I'm wrong, but didn't Google double in size in a year?
The retarded analysts gave insane expectations of Google (remember the $2000 a share thing, one said they'd be making many more billions than they are now), and then got all upset when Google, despite doing exceptionally well still, didn't meet those expectations. Duh! What'd you expect? Google is still growing very fast, and is now bigger than Yahoo! in terms of revenue, and just short of Yahoo! in profit.
OK, I've said this in about 1000 comments already...but...
Google was indexing these images from third party sites which had no right to show the images in the first place, not from perfect 10's servers. Please read the relevant articles before commenting again. Thanks!
There's no question that Google Book Search will infringe copyright. The question is whether Google's infringement is fair use.
Ummm, if something is considered fair use, then it isn't copyright infringement. Copyright infringement that is fair use is not only not legal or legal, it doesn't even exist. It's either copyright infringement or fair use, not both.
If Google can index the complete text of a book without paying the author, the author can't sell that right to another party.
And Google takes that right away from the author how exactly? That's almost like saying if I take Microsoft's source code and illegally include it in my product, I have just taken Microsoft's right to license their code to third parties away. It simply does not work that way. Oh, and by the way, I can index other's works without their permission, so it would be completely pointless to sell that right to someone else.
You completely ignore the fact that the Perfect10 was primarily regarding copyright infringement by Google making Perfect10's copyrighted works available to others, while the AG case is regarding copyright infringement by Google scanning those books into a computer without permission. I have read the full complaint against Google, and that is the primary basis of it. They do make a claim that Google is making their works available to others, but again, that is simply not true. Google makes about 5 lines of a book available to other people, unless it is either public domain or they have a license to allow more to be viewable.
Ummm, you do realize sites like isoHunt don't have torrents *submitted* to them, they index.torrent files available elsewhere on the internet, much the same way Google indexes websites available elsewhere on the internet. They remove torrent links upon request, have you actually bothered emailing any of these sites to ask them to remove your torrent?
Actually, I'm Canadian too, and hope RIM wins this whole fiasco.
But that's besides the point. AFAIK, IANAL, blah blah blah, gestures mean nothing under the law. Under the law, there is still four valid patents which could cause an injunction against RIM.
Ummm, unless I'm mistaken, you're trying to say that the GPL does not allow these same things. I highly suggest you read the GPL, which does in fact, contain very similar language allowing the exact same things.
The best coverage is available at Groklaw, which has 1000's of documents relating to this and other SCO cases. However, even Groklaw doesn't know everything.
If you would read the original Groklaw article (not the copy, reword, post, profit article on C|Net) you would see this discovery is only in relation to IBM's defences to SCO's claims. Discovery for this ends in March. IBM has no intention of going after these companies....I don't think anyways.
" They're probably getting pretty sick of being sued... "
Then perhaps they should have taken the matter up with Novell, who owns this IP. SCO doesn't even have the right to sell SVRX licenses on behalf of Novell without Novell's prior approval for each license, in writing.
Which would be quite odd, because Novell owns those copyrights, and the APA between Santa Cruz (SCO's predecessor) and Novell prohibited Santa Cruz from selling new SVRX licenses without Novell's prior approval, in writing.
Yes that is what they are getting sued for, and the judge has ruled differently than you. And he is a judge, afterall.
He ruled that Google's ads on third party website mean that Google has not conducted secondary infringement, however, Google indexing the images from these third party websites and making them available on image.google.com is copyright infringement. There were two charges of copyright infringement, both primary and secondary, not just one. I was talking about the primary copyright infringement.
Anyways, I was merely responding to your claim that Perfect10 should not have had these images publically available, which they didn't. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
OK, let me explain this more clearly for you. People pay for these images and then put them up on their website. Google Images downloads these full-size images, and then scales them down to the same size as the cell phone images for display on Google Images.
Perfect10 is not making these images publically available on their website. Other people are paying for them and then making these images publically available on their websites. Google Images is then indexing them from the third party websites.
I am currently sueing a lady who owns a company with no phone number, no website and no way of finding anything out about the company (almost) (as you can tell, the company is used for illegal activities and scamming people).
MSN Search for the company....0 results Yahoo! Search for the company....0 results Google Search for the company....old records of permits which show me some of the properties this company, and this lady own. Now I can put liens on these properties if I win.
Another Search Engine is going to have to give WAY better service than Google before I switch now.
I put it on my Mom's computer to replace the shitty software that comes with most digital cameras these days. Did the same on mine. I have an old HP camera, and the software is just plain awful and unfriendly, and I read Slashdot. Imagine some novice having to use software like HP's camera software. Picasa fits the job nicely.
Plus, through the use of Gmail, Picasa makes it easy to post pictures to my Flickr account.
Talk about being hypocrites. The Chinese government cannot impose their will over the Chinese people, but the American government can? If the US goes through with this, the Chinese people won't have a slightly censored version of Google, they'll have NO version of Google (other than the one hosted in the US which doesn't work very well in China), never mind numerous other online services. Sorry America, mind your own business and fuck off for once. The rest of the world is sick of your shit. It's not your responsibility to tell the rest of the world what to do. That's my humble Canadian opinion.
Slashdot Mirror
Lol, try Microsoft's, it's even worse. Here is a nice little comparison. And by the way, this took a while, because in Google, if I type in Paris, it goes to *gasp* Paris, France, whereas Microsoft doesn't have this capability yet :-P I find that sad.
8 .86,2.339999&spn=0.001722,0.005407&t=k
9 4~2.334595&style=h&lvl=9&sp=adr.64%2C%20Opelika%2C %20AL%2036801
http://www.google.ca/local?f=q&hl=en&q=Paris&ll=4
http://local.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=48.8592
Google may not have as good imagery as they do in the US and the UK, but it is a hell of a lot better than their competitors.
Works fine for me. Perhaps you're doing something wrong. For instance, if I enter "Deerfoot Mall in Calgary" it brings up the mall I always shop in in the results. (Actually, the first result is Deerfoot Mall's head office, which isn't at Deerfoot mall for some odd reason). I type in my address, without my postal code, and it works. And this is in Canada, I'm sure the coverage in the US is even better.
Out of Google and Microsoft's offerings, Google has the most coverage outside of the US. Take a look at these links for example. I'll compare cities around the world and their coverage in the two offerings.
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Google : http://local.google.com/local?f=q&hl=en&q=Deerfoot +Mall+in+Calgary&ll=51.109659,-114.042329&spn=0.00 3287,0.007317&t=k
Microsoft : http://local.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=51.04463 2~-114.067612&style=h&lvl=13&sp=adr.64%2C%20Opelik a%2C%20AL%2036801
Tokyo, Japan
Google : http://local.google.com/local?f=q&hl=en&q=Tokyo&ll =35.680119,139.814796&spn=0.002126,0.005407&t=k
Microsoft : http://local.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=35.67961 ~139.770813&style=h&lvl=9&sp=adr.64%2C%20Opelika%2 C%20AL%2036801
London, England
Google : http://local.google.com/local?f=q&hl=en&q=London,+ England&ll=51.500197,-0.126197&spn=0.000815,0.0027 04&t=k
Microsoft : http://local.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=51.51841 5~-0.102238&style=h&lvl=13&sp=adr.64%2C%20Opelika% 2C%20AL%2036801
Berlin, Germany
Google : http://local.google.com/local?f=q&hl=en&q=Berlin&l l=52.52,13.38&spn=0.001593,0.005407&t=k
Microsoft : http://local.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=52.52123 5~13.378601&style=h&lvl=9&sp=adr.64%2C%20Opelika%2 C%20AL%2036801
Cairo, Egypt
Google : http://local.google.com/local?f=q&hl=en&q=Cairo&ll =30.059999,31.25&spn=0.002266,0.005407&t=k
Microsoft : http://local.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=30.06434 ~31.245117&style=h&lvl=9&sp=adr.64%2C%20Opelika%2C %20AL%2036801
Moscow, Russia
Google : http://local.google.com/local?f=q&hl=en&q=Moscow&l l=55.756024,37.59353&spn=0.001473,0.005407&t=k
Microsoft : http://local.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=55.75184 9~37.614441&style=h&lvl=9&sp=adr.64%2C%20Opelika%2 C%20AL%2036801
You'll n
Yeah, until you go outside the States. Even Microsoft's new Windows Live Local sucks for outside the US. I can't even see my city in Canada in Windows Live, just a big brown blob. Google Maps/Google Earth can see the roof of my house and some cars out front quite readily. Considering I live in Canada, Google's mapping and sattelite services are the only ones of any use to me.
So, I pay the RIAA when I buy blank media, then I pay em again when I pay for my music online to burn it to disc. Double dipping bastards...
Excuse me if I'm wrong, but didn't Google double in size in a year?
The retarded analysts gave insane expectations of Google (remember the $2000 a share thing, one said they'd be making many more billions than they are now), and then got all upset when Google, despite doing exceptionally well still, didn't meet those expectations. Duh! What'd you expect? Google is still growing very fast, and is now bigger than Yahoo! in terms of revenue, and just short of Yahoo! in profit.
OK, I've said this in about 1000 comments already...but...
Google was indexing these images from third party sites which had no right to show the images in the first place, not from perfect 10's servers. Please read the relevant articles before commenting again. Thanks!
(...smacks Spazmania with clue stick...)
There's no question that Google Book Search will infringe copyright. The question is whether Google's infringement is fair use.
Ummm, if something is considered fair use, then it isn't copyright infringement. Copyright infringement that is fair use is not only not legal or legal, it doesn't even exist. It's either copyright infringement or fair use, not both.
If Google can index the complete text of a book without paying the author, the author can't sell that right to another party.
And Google takes that right away from the author how exactly? That's almost like saying if I take Microsoft's source code and illegally include it in my product, I have just taken Microsoft's right to license their code to third parties away. It simply does not work that way. Oh, and by the way, I can index other's works without their permission, so it would be completely pointless to sell that right to someone else.
You completely ignore the fact that the Perfect10 was primarily regarding copyright infringement by Google making Perfect10's copyrighted works available to others, while the AG case is regarding copyright infringement by Google scanning those books into a computer without permission. I have read the full complaint against Google, and that is the primary basis of it. They do make a claim that Google is making their works available to others, but again, that is simply not true. Google makes about 5 lines of a book available to other people, unless it is either public domain or they have a license to allow more to be viewable.
You're the one trolling, not him. He said nothing wrong, and you personally attacked him.
Ummm, you do realize sites like isoHunt don't have torrents *submitted* to them, they index .torrent files available elsewhere on the internet, much the same way Google indexes websites available elsewhere on the internet. They remove torrent links upon request, have you actually bothered emailing any of these sites to ask them to remove your torrent?
Actually, I'm Canadian too, and hope RIM wins this whole fiasco.
But that's besides the point. AFAIK, IANAL, blah blah blah, gestures mean nothing under the law. Under the law, there is still four valid patents which could cause an injunction against RIM.
What about the other four patents? Only one out of five was rejected.
Ummm, unless I'm mistaken, you're trying to say that the GPL does not allow these same things. I highly suggest you read the GPL, which does in fact, contain very similar language allowing the exact same things.
The best coverage is available at Groklaw, which has 1000's of documents relating to this and other SCO cases. However, even Groklaw doesn't know everything.
If you would read the original Groklaw article (not the copy, reword, post, profit article on C|Net) you would see this discovery is only in relation to IBM's defences to SCO's claims. Discovery for this ends in March. IBM has no intention of going after these companies....I don't think anyways.
"
4 _03_n-sco.pdf
They're probably getting pretty sick of being sued...
"
Then perhaps they should have taken the matter up with Novell, who owns this IP. SCO doesn't even have the right to sell SVRX licenses on behalf of Novell without Novell's prior approval for each license, in writing.
http://www.novell.com/licensing/indemnity/pdf/6_2
Which would be quite odd, because Novell owns those copyrights, and the APA between Santa Cruz (SCO's predecessor) and Novell prohibited Santa Cruz from selling new SVRX licenses without Novell's prior approval, in writing.
4 _03_n-sco.pdf
http://www.novell.com/licensing/indemnity/pdf/6_2
Yes that is what they are getting sued for, and the judge has ruled differently than you. And he is a judge, afterall.
He ruled that Google's ads on third party website mean that Google has not conducted secondary infringement, however, Google indexing the images from these third party websites and making them available on image.google.com is copyright infringement. There were two charges of copyright infringement, both primary and secondary, not just one. I was talking about the primary copyright infringement.
Anyways, I was merely responding to your claim that Perfect10 should not have had these images publically available, which they didn't. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
OK, let me explain this more clearly for you. People pay for these images and then put them up on their website. Google Images downloads these full-size images, and then scales them down to the same size as the cell phone images for display on Google Images.
Perfect10 is not making these images publically available on their website. Other people are paying for them and then making these images publically available on their websites. Google Images is then indexing them from the third party websites.
Do you see what I mean now?
Could you please read the article? The scaled down versions on Google Images are the same quality and size as Perfect 10's cell phone images.
Google should turn around and offer $10 million in prizes for using Google.com to search ;-)
I am currently sueing a lady who owns a company with no phone number, no website and no way of finding anything out about the company (almost) (as you can tell, the company is used for illegal activities and scamming people).
MSN Search for the company....0 results
Yahoo! Search for the company....0 results
Google Search for the company....old records of permits which show me some of the properties this company, and this lady own. Now I can put liens on these properties if I win.
Another Search Engine is going to have to give WAY better service than Google before I switch now.
Picasa uses its own interface, not a standard Windows interface. Thus, it will look like Picasa on both Windows and Linux.
4 .jpg
http://img1.grafika.cz/grafika/images3/picasa20_1
Other than the very top strip, it doesn't look like a regular Windows app at all.
I put it on my Mom's computer to replace the shitty software that comes with most digital cameras these days. Did the same on mine. I have an old HP camera, and the software is just plain awful and unfriendly, and I read Slashdot. Imagine some novice having to use software like HP's camera software. Picasa fits the job nicely.
Plus, through the use of Gmail, Picasa makes it easy to post pictures to my Flickr account.
Talk about being hypocrites. The Chinese government cannot impose their will over the Chinese people, but the American government can? If the US goes through with this, the Chinese people won't have a slightly censored version of Google, they'll have NO version of Google (other than the one hosted in the US which doesn't work very well in China), never mind numerous other online services. Sorry America, mind your own business and fuck off for once. The rest of the world is sick of your shit. It's not your responsibility to tell the rest of the world what to do. That's my humble Canadian opinion.