They do realize that people use Hulu because they do not want to buy cable at home.
Yeah, but Comcast (that is, NBCUniversal--the owner of the biggest share of Hulu) would rather use Hulu to promote its cable business than use Hulu to provide an alternative to its cable business.
But they won't buy cable to watch Hulu. Not a chance. They'll take their business elsewhere.
To all the other distribution option to which the content-owning firms (NBCUniversal, Fox, and Disney-ABC) that own Hulu are distributing the same new content as quickly that aren't cable companies?
If you want to say the design was flawed for it's ability to react to emergency situations such AS sinking after said ship as begun to sink.
There may be an argument that the design was flawed in its maneuvering capacity to avoid, say, icebergs, given the visibility conditions that could reasonably be expected to occur on the route for which it was designed, and that, but for that design flaw, the design flaws impacting post-collision safety might not have been dramatically desmonstrated.
I'm done with lock in. I'll wait for the books, buy from DRM free publishers (Hi Baen! Hi TOR!), or read Jane Austin. Meanwhile, piracy. The hardware exists (the Kobo Touch is delightful), and open will win because it's a better f'ing product.
The Nook line (I currently use a Nook Color) of devices has no problem with DRM-free epubs (or PDFs, or a number of other formats) acquired from outside of the Nook store. In fact, that's the main thing I use my Nook Color for. If B&N wants to go DRM-free (or even, since AFAIK its actually DRM-at-publishers-option now but doesn't distinguish DRM-infested from DRM-free titles, just goes to DRM-identified), I'll think about buying e-books from them, but I don't need to buy e-books from them to get value out of their reader.
Roughly a year ago B&N was fighting MS on android licensing fees, now MS is investing in them?
MS is buying a 17.6% stake in the exact piece of B&N that it was suing (the Android-based reader/tablet business.)
Given that B&N's strategy to counter the MS "pay us to use Android" lawsuit was to challenge the validity of the Microsoft patents that were used in the lawsuit, it looks a lot like a $300 million payment from MS to B&N to stop challenging MS's patents, in order that the patents won't be struck down in court.
How could a heavily modded e-reader beat full-size tablets by major PC vendors?
Because its marketed as a color reader, priced as a color reader (well below typical tablet prices), from the leading reader vendor, and, oh yeah, the reader market was something like an order of magnitude bigger than the tablet market in number of units being sold, and growing faster than the tablet market, even before the Kindle Fire was released.
It's cheaper than any other tablet or e-reader on the market, for one thing.
Except, no, its not. Even if you only mean tablets and color e-readers as opposed to traditional e-ink e-readers, its more expensive than B&N's Nook Color, and the same price as B&N's Nook Tablet, and more expensive than numerous other inexpensive tablets..And if you don't restrict it that way, its even less true, as there are plenty of much cheaper e-ink e-readers.
The fact that he has it indicates that we've moved from the rule of law to the rule of man.
"The rule of law" is always and everywhere, where it appears to exist at all, illusionary. The only actual constraint on anyone's power is the willingness of other people to go along with it. Period, end of story.
The principle of legality -- and meaningful systems of accountability are important, but they are important not to prevent moving from a fictional "rule of law" to the rule of man, but precisely because there is no such thing as the "rule of law" except in the manner in which the rule of man is applied.
At the same time, the principle of legality needs to not become a fetishization of legalism.
Who wants to guess how long it'll take before Trimble decides to nix the free version? (or perhaps to move basic tools into the non-free pro version)
The press release seems to indicate that the agreement goes beyond a simple sale, and involves significant SketchUp related cooperation between Google and Trimble going forward. This suggests that the availability and features of the free version may be preserved for at least some period going forward as part of the agreement.
Do these screeners have a portable chemical lab kit right next to the pornoscanner? Are they trained chemists who know what to do with this lab kit to tell the difference between a drug and an explosive?
Their called "Explosives Trace Detection systems", and, yes, TSA checkpoints have them.
Where I've seen them in use, IIRC, its not by the same agent doing the other screening, and I seem to recall that, to expand flexibility, they are now using mobile systems that aren't fixed to a particular checkpoint.
If they are being more explicit about it, then it should not involve a 'take' on it. It should be stated clearly.
Whether data is public-by-default, private-by-default, or shared-within-some-limited-scope-by-default varies from service to service. The ToS explicitly recognizes that service-specific "terms and settings" further narrow the scope of Google's use of data.
If it is explicitly well stated, then I shouldn't need to ask for clarification.
If you actually read the whole thing, I don't think you would.
Usually has the required elements of mutual consideration, offer, and acceptance, so it probably is.
You may be confusing "binding" with "written", which is a mistake.
Any service based upon copyrighted material is a derivative work and such rights cannot be transferred without a binding contract.
Under US Copyright law, a signed agreement is necessary for some copyright transactions, but not for most copyright licenses, including those to create derivative works.
Clicking 'I agree" is not the same as attaching a 'digital signature'.
Which would be relevant iff this were a situation where a written contract was generally required and the theory under which the agreement was binding was statutes making documents with attached "digital signatures" meeting certain requirements legally equivalent to written documents.
Google's ToS - or at least the section quoted there, I haven't memorized the whole thing - doesn't include the same sort of limitation to limiting one service's rights to one service's information.
The section that references service-specific settings that narrow the scope of Google's use of content does something similar in privacy terms.
as written, could they take my videos from Drive - one of their services - and move it onto YouTube - another service?
Sure, as long as the content submitted through Drive as private-to-you (the default setting for Drive content) was also private-to-you through YouTube unless you did something to change it.
The promoting part gets me too. I don't see that in Dropbox or MS' TOS.
Given the explicit reference to "terms or settings" in particular services narrowing the scope of Google's use of content, this seems to do no more than: 1: Allow your existing content (private or public) to be used in the promotion of new Google services to you; 2: To use your shared (publicly or to specific individuals, according to the settings applied to particular content) to promote Google services to people to whom that content would otherwise be accessible per the settings applied to the content in the service through which it is controlled.
The really important part, in the context of Drive, is: "in some of our Services, there are terms or settings that narrow the scope of our use of the content submitted in those Services."
The default setting in Drive is private-to-you-only.
The recognition of settings narrowing the scope of use in the ToS means that it is part of the offer of service that you can use settings that purport to limit the use of content to, in fact, limit the scope of Google's use of that content, and, in the context of Drive, that material you put in it with the default, private-to-you setting, will be used only to create copies (e.g., replicas on various servers, etc.), derivative works (e.g., transformation in different formats, which Drive has hooks to support), and distribution (e.g., over the "series of tubes" connecting your devices to Google's servers), etc., to support delivering that content and its derivative products to you.
Or to third-parties (e.g., apps) that you've explicitly approved for access to your private Drive content (as that's, again, within the scope of how the settings in Drive purport to restrict the use of your content.)
No, not it is not. There is a huge difference between Microsoft's (The Service) and Google (Our Services). If Google decided to come out with a new service where they allowed you to search anyones documents on their site, you've already agreed to it.
No, you haven't if the specific service has privacy controls that purport to restrict visibility of your data, because the ToS specifically calls out the availability of the ability to control the use of content through settings in particular services.
All of the hyperventilating relies on two things: selective reading of part of the agreement while ignoring other parts and assuming that, contrary to the way the controlling law actually works, that any ambiguities in the language of the agreement would be viewed by a court in the light most favorable to the drafter of the agreement rather than the other party.
When Google collects it and starts distributing your family photos as part of GIS, you've already agreed to it.
Only if they did so in a way which respected the settings (which default to private-to-you-only in Drive) set in the service through which you contributed the content. So, if Google add your images stored in your Drive to GIS but only included them in your own search results if you hadn't changed the default settings on the images, you have agreed to that. And if you've expressly shared the pictures with someone else, and GIS showed it in their search results, you've agreed to that. But you haven't agreed to Google making public what is set as private through the settings of the particular service.
I suspect that with future versions, we'll see more and more useful stuff sneak into siri.
I suspect that in the future Google will have something very much like Siri, only available on a much wider array of platforms, and with an open API for providers to plug into.
Google will never be in the lead because the attitude at Google is that, what they have no is no different than what Siri is.
Right. That's why they keep improving what they have in regular search, and why they are working on Assistant.
Take for instance. Google has unit conversion.
[snip list of forms that don't work in Google Calculator currently]
Google's philosophy is that the user accommodates to Google. Not Google accommodates the user.
You certainly have provided no evidence of such a philosophy. You've provided evidence that what Google currently provides doesn't interpret everything that a human could reasonably interpret as a request to convert inches to meters as such a request. That neither supports the idea that they have a philosophical preference for the user accommodating Google nor supports the idea that they have an attitude that what they currently have available in search is no different than Siri.
"Linux squeezebox" should NOT find pages that discuss a Linux distro and link to a boombox ad. But they do.
I just did that search, and it didn't, at least on the first page of results. I suppose if I dug down through all 899,000 results, I'd probably find some that were bad.
On the other hand, when I want a restaurant review, I want Yelp or something like Yelp. And when I ask Siri for restaurants, it gives me Yelp reviews. Google for some reason doesn't do this
When I ask Google for restaurant reviews, the top results are Zagat, Urbanspoon, and then local restuarants with Google reviews. And then Yelp. I suppose if I specifically wanted Yelp reviews rather than "something like Yelp", I would ask for Yelp.
And I suppose if I actually wanted Yelp (a preference I would reveal to Google by bypassing the other results and using Yelp), Yelp would get promoted when doing similiar searches in the future (since I don't particularly want Yelp, I don't do that.)
The point is they decide the provider, not Google.
Assuming that, you know, there is a dividing line between "mobile device makers", "mobile OS providers", and "Google".
Google's already all of these but the first, has has let out that it is working on its own tablet under the Nexus brand as well being in the middle of purchasing Motorola Mobility.
But when Siri can help you with flights it will no longer search the web. That's the idea behind siri.
Which means that when its first guess as to what you mean is right, it will be no better than when Google is using its ever-improving semantic features to figure out what you mean and present it first, and when its first guess is wrong, it will be worse than Google.
So, the question is will Siri's ever-improving semantic processing to find the best result always be better than Google's? Because unless it is, Siri won't be on-balance better than Google.
It doesn't really have anything to do with the voice entry, that's sort of a red herring. The real issue is wether mobile device makers will be able to use the fact that they live in their customers pockets to give themselves an upper hand over search engines and Big Data.
And the answer is no, since mobile device makers need Big Data -- and much of the technology underlying search engines -- to actually use the fact that they live in their customers pockets to do anything productive.
That still doesn't cut it. By putting something on their system I have to give them rights to "perform" the work? As in YouTube? But I just want to store that video [...] not let it be posted on YouTube.
The terms of service expressly note that the user has further power to control the use of content on particular services via settings on those services. While perhaps that could be highlighted more, I can't see any reasonable way of reading that that doesn't commit Google to respect those settings when they are present in a service (as settings are in, among other services, both Drive and YouTube which allow content to be designated as non-public -- and this is the default in Drive.)
The performance clause is almost certainly for other services besides Google Drive like YouTube.
It is also for services like Docs/Drive that, like YouTube, allow sharing content and which, like YouTube, allow something that might be construed as "performing" the content. (E.g., showing of Docs presentations.)
Note that the terms of service both expressly recognizes that the user retains ownership of content and expressly references user control of content through "settings" in particular Services.
Also note that in US law (under which, and particularly California law, per its own terms the Google TOS are governed), an agreement whose terms are wholly controlled by one party is generally interpreted as generously as it can be reasonably read in favor of the other party.
The theory being that the written terms of an agreement aren't what is controlling so much as the "meeting of the minds" for which the terms serve as evidence. So when you have an agreement that is a public offer with terms controlled by one party rather than the product of negotiation between the parties, the only fair interpretation of where the "meeting of the minds" was is the place most favorable to the party who didn't control the text, but only read it.
Slashdot Mirror
Quit the opposite, actually.
Yeah, but Comcast (that is, NBCUniversal--the owner of the biggest share of Hulu) would rather use Hulu to promote its cable business than use Hulu to provide an alternative to its cable business.
To all the other distribution option to which the content-owning firms (NBCUniversal, Fox, and Disney-ABC) that own Hulu are distributing the same new content as quickly that aren't cable companies?
There may be an argument that the design was flawed in its maneuvering capacity to avoid, say, icebergs, given the visibility conditions that could reasonably be expected to occur on the route for which it was designed, and that, but for that design flaw, the design flaws impacting post-collision safety might not have been dramatically desmonstrated.
The Nook line (I currently use a Nook Color) of devices has no problem with DRM-free epubs (or PDFs, or a number of other formats) acquired from outside of the Nook store. In fact, that's the main thing I use my Nook Color for. If B&N wants to go DRM-free (or even, since AFAIK its actually DRM-at-publishers-option now but doesn't distinguish DRM-infested from DRM-free titles, just goes to DRM-identified), I'll think about buying e-books from them, but I don't need to buy e-books from them to get value out of their reader.
MS is buying a 17.6% stake in the exact piece of B&N that it was suing (the Android-based reader/tablet business.)
Given that B&N's strategy to counter the MS "pay us to use Android" lawsuit was to challenge the validity of the Microsoft patents that were used in the lawsuit, it looks a lot like a $300 million payment from MS to B&N to stop challenging MS's patents, in order that the patents won't be struck down in court.
Because its marketed as a color reader, priced as a color reader (well below typical tablet prices), from the leading reader vendor, and, oh yeah, the reader market was something like an order of magnitude bigger than the tablet market in number of units being sold, and growing faster than the tablet market, even before the Kindle Fire was released.
Except, no, its not. Even if you only mean tablets and color e-readers as opposed to traditional e-ink e-readers, its more expensive than B&N's Nook Color, and the same price as B&N's Nook Tablet, and more expensive than numerous other inexpensive tablets..And if you don't restrict it that way, its even less true, as there are plenty of much cheaper e-ink e-readers.
"The rule of law" is always and everywhere, where it appears to exist at all, illusionary. The only actual constraint on anyone's power is the willingness of other people to go along with it. Period, end of story.
The principle of legality -- and meaningful systems of accountability are important, but they are important not to prevent moving from a fictional "rule of law" to the rule of man, but precisely because there is no such thing as the "rule of law" except in the manner in which the rule of man is applied.
At the same time, the principle of legality needs to not become a fetishization of legalism.
The press release seems to indicate that the agreement goes beyond a simple sale, and involves significant SketchUp related cooperation between Google and Trimble going forward. This suggests that the availability and features of the free version may be preserved for at least some period going forward as part of the agreement.
Their called "Explosives Trace Detection systems", and, yes, TSA checkpoints have them.
Where I've seen them in use, IIRC, its not by the same agent doing the other screening, and I seem to recall that, to expand flexibility, they are now using mobile systems that aren't fixed to a particular checkpoint.
Whether data is public-by-default, private-by-default, or shared-within-some-limited-scope-by-default varies from service to service. The ToS explicitly recognizes that service-specific "terms and settings" further narrow the scope of Google's use of data.
If you actually read the whole thing, I don't think you would.
Usually has the required elements of mutual consideration, offer, and acceptance, so it probably is.
You may be confusing "binding" with "written", which is a mistake.
Under US Copyright law, a signed agreement is necessary for some copyright transactions, but not for most copyright licenses, including those to create derivative works.
Which would be relevant iff this were a situation where a written contract was generally required and the theory under which the agreement was binding was statutes making documents with attached "digital signatures" meeting certain requirements legally equivalent to written documents.
The section that references service-specific settings that narrow the scope of Google's use of content does something similar in privacy terms.
Sure, as long as the content submitted through Drive as private-to-you (the default setting for Drive content) was also private-to-you through YouTube unless you did something to change it.
Given the explicit reference to "terms or settings" in particular services narrowing the scope of Google's use of content, this seems to do no more than:
1: Allow your existing content (private or public) to be used in the promotion of new Google services to you;
2: To use your shared (publicly or to specific individuals, according to the settings applied to particular content) to promote Google services to people to whom that content would otherwise be accessible per the settings applied to the content in the service through which it is controlled.
The really important part, in the context of Drive, is: "in some of our Services, there are terms or settings that narrow the scope of our use of the content submitted in those Services."
The default setting in Drive is private-to-you-only.
The recognition of settings narrowing the scope of use in the ToS means that it is part of the offer of service that you can use settings that purport to limit the use of content to, in fact, limit the scope of Google's use of that content, and, in the context of Drive, that material you put in it with the default, private-to-you setting, will be used only to create copies (e.g., replicas on various servers, etc.), derivative works (e.g., transformation in different formats, which Drive has hooks to support), and distribution (e.g., over the "series of tubes" connecting your devices to Google's servers), etc., to support delivering that content and its derivative products to you.
Or to third-parties (e.g., apps) that you've explicitly approved for access to your private Drive content (as that's, again, within the scope of how the settings in Drive purport to restrict the use of your content.)
No, you haven't if the specific service has privacy controls that purport to restrict visibility of your data, because the ToS specifically calls out the availability of the ability to control the use of content through settings in particular services.
All of the hyperventilating relies on two things: selective reading of part of the agreement while ignoring other parts and assuming that, contrary to the way the controlling law actually works, that any ambiguities in the language of the agreement would be viewed by a court in the light most favorable to the drafter of the agreement rather than the other party.
Only if they did so in a way which respected the settings (which default to private-to-you-only in Drive) set in the service through which you contributed the content. So, if Google add your images stored in your Drive to GIS but only included them in your own search results if you hadn't changed the default settings on the images, you have agreed to that. And if you've expressly shared the pictures with someone else, and GIS showed it in their search results, you've agreed to that. But you haven't agreed to Google making public what is set as private through the settings of the particular service.
I think you need to reread GP, which is two sentences long and addressed that directly in the second sentence.
I suspect that in the future Google will have something very much like Siri, only available on a much wider array of platforms, and with an open API for providers to plug into.
Right. That's why they keep improving what they have in regular search, and why they are working on Assistant.
[snip list of forms that don't work in Google Calculator currently]
You certainly have provided no evidence of such a philosophy. You've provided evidence that what Google currently provides doesn't interpret everything that a human could reasonably interpret as a request to convert inches to meters as such a request. That neither supports the idea that they have a philosophical preference for the user accommodating Google nor supports the idea that they have an attitude that what they currently have available in search is no different than Siri.
I just did that search, and it didn't, at least on the first page of results. I suppose if I dug down through all 899,000 results, I'd probably find some that were bad.
When I ask Google for restaurant reviews, the top results are Zagat, Urbanspoon, and then local restuarants with Google reviews. And then Yelp. I suppose if I specifically wanted Yelp reviews rather than "something like Yelp", I would ask for Yelp.
And I suppose if I actually wanted Yelp (a preference I would reveal to Google by bypassing the other results and using Yelp), Yelp would get promoted when doing similiar searches in the future (since I don't particularly want Yelp, I don't do that.)
Assuming that, you know, there is a dividing line between "mobile device makers", "mobile OS providers", and "Google".
Google's already all of these but the first, has has let out that it is working on its own tablet under the Nexus brand as well being in the middle of purchasing Motorola Mobility.
Which means that when its first guess as to what you mean is right, it will be no better than when Google is using its ever-improving semantic features to figure out what you mean and present it first, and when its first guess is wrong, it will be worse than Google.
So, the question is will Siri's ever-improving semantic processing to find the best result always be better than Google's? Because unless it is, Siri won't be on-balance better than Google.
And the answer is no, since mobile device makers need Big Data -- and much of the technology underlying search engines -- to actually use the fact that they live in their customers pockets to do anything productive.
The terms of service expressly note that the user has further power to control the use of content on particular services via settings on those services. While perhaps that could be highlighted more, I can't see any reasonable way of reading that that doesn't commit Google to respect those settings when they are present in a service (as settings are in, among other services, both Drive and YouTube which allow content to be designated as non-public -- and this is the default in Drive.)
It is also for services like Docs/Drive that, like YouTube, allow sharing content and which, like YouTube, allow something that might be construed as "performing" the content. (E.g., showing of Docs presentations.)
Note that the terms of service both expressly recognizes that the user retains ownership of content and expressly references user control of content through "settings" in particular Services.
Also note that in US law (under which, and particularly California law, per its own terms the Google TOS are governed), an agreement whose terms are wholly controlled by one party is generally interpreted as generously as it can be reasonably read in favor of the other party.
The theory being that the written terms of an agreement aren't what is controlling so much as the "meeting of the minds" for which the terms serve as evidence. So when you have an agreement that is a public offer with terms controlled by one party rather than the product of negotiation between the parties, the only fair interpretation of where the "meeting of the minds" was is the place most favorable to the party who didn't control the text, but only read it.