Nice front end and maybe DRM isn't evil, but it's daddy the DMCA is evil and unnatural. First I have not seen any moral authority/theory which drives DRM and DMCA. It's purpose is to restrict free choice of action, rather than promote any notion of justice. This is evil. Furthermore, is it unnatural. It has no iterative rule. One party can sell, but the next party can't sell. Think about the chain. If Apple changes a security key (ie. circumvents copyright protection mechanism) for Metallica's 'Kill em all', without consent from each party up the license chain, can any party claim circumvention of DMCA? As a criminaly offense, can a fed prosecutor? What if Metallica leaves a CD in a hotel, or sings a song again? Yes they own the copyright, but my reading (not legal advice) is they are violating DMCA by circumventing copyright. Safe harbour provisions aside, I think a case could be made that every distribution service and media device violates DMCA.
The idea that somehow it is more useful to work in 3D is of tremendously limited imagination. When you look at a service like housingmaps.com, the user is well above 6D - from maps, descriptions, categories, distances from work, home, schools, major roads etc.... Frankly a "3D" virtual environment to navigate would add tonnes more irrelevant shit, jack up computing and programming investment like crazy, and bog down the user. There are better ways to organize than simulating a gravity constrained human experience.
Your reason is better than 1) for the technology or 2) for the business model, but I still don't buy it. I think Cuban is right - youtube is a giant fuck up of liabilities that more seasoned software companies won't touch. My bet is that google might want the history and intelligence to better understand the media marketplace and mabye tagging - the capitalizations might make this attractive. Googles video is too small and shitty to necessarily drive intellegence. At 1.5B, given this interest, they can strip out the offending content and basically shut the thing down before upgrading google video.
If youtube gets shelved, and google can innovate fast enough, google video will be the only game in town for user generated shitty content (apple doens't compete well here).
I find this type of list extremely bizarre - while interests in finding the next major online community/activity is vauge enough to be just about anything, these really specific ones are nuts. If you don't have the human capital, the idea is completely useless - and the VCs will overpay for promises. So if theres a cutting edge research team that suggests immnense possibilities for batteries, and the VCs can't build a team by working with that very group, they're chasing rainbows.
Google is disrupting rank and file media companies.
Market share of search engines is totally misleading. Google is in the ad business - their market share growth should be measured as a proportion of total media ad sales, yet no one is doing this. For example, if yahoo loses search by 1%, but posts gains of 20% in banner ads (assuming equivalent revenues), is google really beating yahoo? I'd also like to see them focus on Google's competion relative to big media like Time Warner, NBC etc...
I think they screwed up the constraint - its not time but chemical/enzyme costs that currenly make such a thing infeasible. Its not obvious that the costs of sequencing a genome is less then $10000K in raw materials, ignoring capital and labor constraints.
Re:"wealthy Canadian geologist"
on
The Next X Prize
·
· Score: 1
$10,000 Per Rich Bastard
on
The Next X Prize
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Given you can't do crap for $10K these guys are getting a pretty good deal. As for our genetic differences, I've seen the pictures of Larry Page in a speedo and I am proud to say we have clear genetic differences.
The original article discusses code, which is a tangible component. But software patent claims tend to be method claims (i.e. a system that does...), meaning that the process, not the component is what is important to discuss. This seems to be trying to subtly shift software patent claims from methods claims to tangible artifact claims - this could have a huge impact from shifting infrignment notions from 'using' to 'having'.
This is totally relevant to/. If this sounds like your job, ask to move offices to another building.
"WTC 9-11 security concerns of Scott Forbes, a seniordatabase administrator for Fiduciary Trust, Inc., with offices in the former WTC. His company wasnotified three weeks in advance that New York's Port Authority would take out power in the South Tower from the 48th floor up on the weekend prior to 9-11, ostensibly to implement a computer cabling upgrade. Forbes noted that Fiduciary Trust was one of the WTC's first occupants after it was erected,and that a --power-down" had never been initiated prior to this occasion. Forbes recalled the power wasout approximately 30 hours between early Saturday morning (September 8th) and mid-Sunday afternoon (September 9th) As a result of the power outage, the WTC's security cameras, ID systems, andelevators to the upper floors were rendered inoperative. Forbes noted that many --engineers" going in-and-out of the WTC had free access throughout the building due to its inoperative security system.Forbes also noted other security related anomalies: Video cameras positioned atop the World TradeCenter which were used to feed daily images to local television stations were inexplicably inoperativethat morning. Also, a Fiduciary employee who was on one of the lower floors and escaped immediatelyafter the first (North) tower was struck, reported that he was amazed by the large number of FBI agentsthat were already on the streets surrounding the WTC complex only minutes after the initial strike.Forbes says that even though these disclosures could jeopardize his current employment, he has stepped forward because, --I have mailed this information to many people, including the 9/11 Commission, butno one seems to be registering these facts." More at http://killtown.blogspot.com/2005/12/scott-forbes- interview.html
All I meant is that google doesn't have to put ads on every single service to have a single service consistent with their business model. There might not be a lot of value in adding ads to raw news headlines, so they may have decided just to drop the ads. But they could still use browsing history to deliver better ads when you are on their other services, or even to understand trend/traffic/content patterns of thier customers.
The Walmart anaology might suck - but just like news on google, Walmart doesn't need to sell its shelves to justify the use of them. Obviously shelves are a cost walmart must suck up becuase it enables other parts of their infrastrcuture. Some elements of the business might not be justifiable on their own, but need to be considered within the broader business context (as I suggest above)
Finally, this all might be obvious, but it leads to very different conclusions than the post I responeded to.
I'm no stranger to lack of popularity, but between my Win Xp and gmail, i've got most of my bases well covered. Sure big brother knows pretty much everything about me, but between my house, car, SSN, ISP, loyalty and credit cards, I lost track of my privacy to pretty much everyone else long ago.
Many fallicies in most of these arguements.
1. Contract can be used to assign IP
2. Copyrightable works are being created but contract is what is happening here
3. Typically, institutional policies, as a condition of attending, require that all IP made with some use of institutional resources is assigned to the institution
4. Resources are broadly defined, ie. work space, computers, lecture space, faculty advice etc.. so the IP often belongs to the institution and they can do what they want with it
5. So, if you write something for a course, even if you are paying for the course, the IP belongs to the institution
6. Finally, and this applies to those who reuse code all the time, most plagiarism policies will consider it plagiarism if you submit the same, or similar text, to two courses, even if you are the author on both. Basically you can plagiarise yourself.
I don't work at google, but my guess is that offerings are clearly used to improve ad relevance rather than delivering ads... i.e. just becuase Walmart doesn't sell their shelves doesn't mean they're not a store
"...And, since Google News is part of Personalized Search, you can view and manage your history of past searches and news selections (read more about Personalized Search). " http://news.google.com/intl/en_ca/about_google_new s.html
Sure. Fine. But given that the phrase 'entire point' does not have the case law surrounding it that 'fiduciary DUTY', I think this point distracts like a post on a spelling correction. A discussion of fiduciary duty might be better suited to Brilliant's/Googles for-profit philantrhopy.
Google is aggregating the content of the aggregators so that users see googles ads first. If you're looking for a NYTimes article through a search engine, google gets to present you with ads first, before you get the NYTimes page. If your ads are well targeted you make money from some before they see the NYT content (ads are a 1/10000 game). If they de-list NYT as you suggest, they don't deliver ads for NYT customers.
Most of this board is discussing the wrong game. Content is a cost center - content providers will shovel out any shit if it would allow them to keep/grow their ad base. If search engines can get content cheaper they win on cost. If they can deliver more relevant ads they can also win on customer value.
Search engines are distributors of information content, just like publishers. The 'entire point of search engines' is not to help 'the customer' find the content, any more than the 'entire point of publishers' is to direct customers to the content they want. Really the 'entire point' of companies is to profit for their shareholders. Profit models are slightly different but in the large, given that they both profit primarily from ad content, their interests look more similar than different.
News publishers reduce consumer search costs by aggregating content basically using evolutionary improvements on hundred year old business model/technology. Search engines have a more targeted, more revolutionary present-relevant model/technology. Isn't it obvious that these are competitors?
Clever, perhaps too clever. But of course, why climb to rooftops when you can transmit your beholden evil across a free WiMax network with context sensitive ads helping people get the things they need?
Totally half baked as mixed model. While the restrictions of 2 downloads, 2 computers sucks, some are even worse - my wife and I watch coupling from BBC:
"US customers only. Your rental videos can be stored on your PC for 30 days. Once you press play, you have 168 hours to watch each video before it expires. Learn more "
$1.99 for 22 minute episode rental? Are they joking?
Nice bike, sounds like you're all set. But a thought - wouldn't scrapping you bike be less environmentally friendly than just driving it for the next few years?
Also, I would like to fly to work as my grass is solar powered. Couldn't resist.. : )
Absolutely. They'll also take the expensive gyro out and put the wheels in the front and back to make the forward balancing easier.
Seriously, things too expensive to encourage adoption. When the patent does I would expect knockoffs of Kamen's/ P&Gs stairclimbing wheelchair using similar technology.
Slashdot Mirror
Nice front end and maybe DRM isn't evil, but it's daddy the DMCA is evil and unnatural. First I have not seen any moral authority/theory which drives DRM and DMCA. It's purpose is to restrict free choice of action, rather than promote any notion of justice. This is evil. Furthermore, is it unnatural. It has no iterative rule. One party can sell, but the next party can't sell. Think about the chain. If Apple changes a security key (ie. circumvents copyright protection mechanism) for Metallica's 'Kill em all', without consent from each party up the license chain, can any party claim circumvention of DMCA? As a criminaly offense, can a fed prosecutor? What if Metallica leaves a CD in a hotel, or sings a song again? Yes they own the copyright, but my reading (not legal advice) is they are violating DMCA by circumventing copyright. Safe harbour provisions aside, I think a case could be made that every distribution service and media device violates DMCA.
The idea that somehow it is more useful to work in 3D is of tremendously limited imagination. When you look at a service like housingmaps.com, the user is well above 6D - from maps, descriptions, categories, distances from work, home, schools, major roads etc.... Frankly a "3D" virtual environment to navigate would add tonnes more irrelevant shit, jack up computing and programming investment like crazy, and bog down the user. There are better ways to organize than simulating a gravity constrained human experience.
I think the address info is ok, but they need to ban maps.
If youtube gets shelved, and google can innovate fast enough, google video will be the only game in town for user generated shitty content (apple doens't compete well here).
I find this type of list extremely bizarre - while interests in finding the next major online community/activity is vauge enough to be just about anything, these really specific ones are nuts. If you don't have the human capital, the idea is completely useless - and the VCs will overpay for promises. So if theres a cutting edge research team that suggests immnense possibilities for batteries, and the VCs can't build a team by working with that very group, they're chasing rainbows.
Market share of search engines is totally misleading. Google is in the ad business - their market share growth should be measured as a proportion of total media ad sales, yet no one is doing this. For example, if yahoo loses search by 1%, but posts gains of 20% in banner ads (assuming equivalent revenues), is google really beating yahoo? I'd also like to see them focus on Google's competion relative to big media like Time Warner, NBC etc...
FYI, I'm sure you're happy with your mod, but your accuracy score is 48 with a believability of 0.47. Do better on your next post.
I think they screwed up the constraint - its not time but chemical/enzyme costs that currenly make such a thing infeasible. Its not obvious that the costs of sequencing a genome is less then $10000K in raw materials, ignoring capital and labor constraints.
Or you find kmberlite in the artic, buy up a shit load of frozen acres, and develop diamond mines there. http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/ms/diam/index_e.htm
Given you can't do crap for $10K these guys are getting a pretty good deal. As for our genetic differences, I've seen the pictures of Larry Page in a speedo and I am proud to say we have clear genetic differences.
The original article discusses code, which is a tangible component. But software patent claims tend to be method claims (i.e. a system that does...), meaning that the process, not the component is what is important to discuss. This seems to be trying to subtly shift software patent claims from methods claims to tangible artifact claims - this could have a huge impact from shifting infrignment notions from 'using' to 'having'.
"WTC 9-11 security concerns of Scott Forbes, a seniordatabase administrator for Fiduciary Trust, Inc., with offices in the former WTC. His company wasnotified three weeks in advance that New York's Port Authority would take out power in the South Tower from the 48th floor up on the weekend prior to 9-11, ostensibly to implement a computer cabling upgrade. Forbes noted that Fiduciary Trust was one of the WTC's first occupants after it was erected,and that a --power-down" had never been initiated prior to this occasion. Forbes recalled the power wasout approximately 30 hours between early Saturday morning (September 8th) and mid-Sunday afternoon (September 9th) As a result of the power outage, the WTC's security cameras, ID systems, andelevators to the upper floors were rendered inoperative. Forbes noted that many --engineers" going in-and-out of the WTC had free access throughout the building due to its inoperative security system.Forbes also noted other security related anomalies: Video cameras positioned atop the World TradeCenter which were used to feed daily images to local television stations were inexplicably inoperativethat morning. Also, a Fiduciary employee who was on one of the lower floors and escaped immediatelyafter the first (North) tower was struck, reported that he was amazed by the large number of FBI agentsthat were already on the streets surrounding the WTC complex only minutes after the initial strike.Forbes says that even though these disclosures could jeopardize his current employment, he has stepped forward because, --I have mailed this information to many people, including the 9/11 Commission, butno one seems to be registering these facts." More at http://killtown.blogspot.com/2005/12/scott-forbes- interview.html
The Walmart anaology might suck - but just like news on google, Walmart doesn't need to sell its shelves to justify the use of them. Obviously shelves are a cost walmart must suck up becuase it enables other parts of their infrastrcuture. Some elements of the business might not be justifiable on their own, but need to be considered within the broader business context (as I suggest above)
Finally, this all might be obvious, but it leads to very different conclusions than the post I responeded to.
I'm no stranger to lack of popularity, but between my Win Xp and gmail, i've got most of my bases well covered. Sure big brother knows pretty much everything about me, but between my house, car, SSN, ISP, loyalty and credit cards, I lost track of my privacy to pretty much everyone else long ago.
Many fallicies in most of these arguements.
1. Contract can be used to assign IP
2. Copyrightable works are being created but contract is what is happening here
3. Typically, institutional policies, as a condition of attending, require that all IP made with some use of institutional resources is assigned to the institution
4. Resources are broadly defined, ie. work space, computers, lecture space, faculty advice etc.. so the IP often belongs to the institution and they can do what they want with it
5. So, if you write something for a course, even if you are paying for the course, the IP belongs to the institution
6. Finally, and this applies to those who reuse code all the time, most plagiarism policies will consider it plagiarism if you submit the same, or similar text, to two courses, even if you are the author on both. Basically you can plagiarise yourself.
I don't work at google, but my guess is that offerings are clearly used to improve ad relevance rather than delivering ads... i.e. just becuase Walmart doesn't sell their shelves doesn't mean they're not a storew s.html
"...And, since Google News is part of Personalized Search, you can view and manage your history of past searches and news selections (read more about Personalized Search). "
http://news.google.com/intl/en_ca/about_google_ne
Sure. Fine. But given that the phrase 'entire point' does not have the case law surrounding it that 'fiduciary DUTY', I think this point distracts like a post on a spelling correction. A discussion of fiduciary duty might be better suited to Brilliant's/Googles for-profit philantrhopy.
Google is aggregating the content of the aggregators so that users see googles ads first. If you're looking for a NYTimes article through a search engine, google gets to present you with ads first, before you get the NYTimes page. If your ads are well targeted you make money from some before they see the NYT content (ads are a 1/10000 game). If they de-list NYT as you suggest, they don't deliver ads for NYT customers.
Most of this board is discussing the wrong game. Content is a cost center - content providers will shovel out any shit if it would allow them to keep/grow their ad base. If search engines can get content cheaper they win on cost. If they can deliver more relevant ads they can also win on customer value.
Search engines are distributors of information content, just like publishers. The 'entire point of search engines' is not to help 'the customer' find the content, any more than the 'entire point of publishers' is to direct customers to the content they want. Really the 'entire point' of companies is to profit for their shareholders. Profit models are slightly different but in the large, given that they both profit primarily from ad content, their interests look more similar than different.
News publishers reduce consumer search costs by aggregating content basically using evolutionary improvements on hundred year old business model/technology. Search engines have a more targeted, more revolutionary present-relevant model/technology. Isn't it obvious that these are competitors?
Clever, perhaps too clever. But of course, why climb to rooftops when you can transmit your beholden evil across a free WiMax network with context sensitive ads helping people get the things they need?
Totally half baked as mixed model. While the restrictions of 2 downloads, 2 computers sucks, some are even worse - my wife and I watch coupling from BBC:
"US customers only. Your rental videos can be stored on your PC for 30 days. Once you press play, you have 168 hours to watch each video before it expires. Learn more "
$1.99 for 22 minute episode rental? Are they joking?
Nice bike, sounds like you're all set. But a thought - wouldn't scrapping you bike be less environmentally friendly than just driving it for the next few years? Also, I would like to fly to work as my grass is solar powered. Couldn't resist.. : )
your constraints seem random. Why not a motorbike? 60mph, 120 mpg, $2k+ insurance, or buy used for under $500.
Absolutely. They'll also take the expensive gyro out and put the wheels in the front and back to make the forward balancing easier.
Seriously, things too expensive to encourage adoption. When the patent does I would expect knockoffs of Kamen's/ P&Gs stairclimbing wheelchair using similar technology.
I thought google ads were better than TV could deliver. Would'nt this be a step backwards? Delivering ads based on tv prefences?