I was originally going to do a Linux distribution review this month. However, when I tried a couple of distributions that I wanted to test, none of them would properly boot from a live USB, so I gave up on those. Instead, I wanted to use this space to ramble a bit on what the near-future of self-driving cars might look like. It comes from some conversations I had with my family last weekend while visiting California, after having seen the limited self-driving capabilities of a Tesla Model S (namely, its ability to autonomously pull in and out of a parking space). Moreover, as some of you who know me personally would know, I have a disability that prevents me from driving, so the sight of even minimally-autonomous cars as a present reality excites me, and I'm keeping an eye on current developments in that field/market. Given this, if you'll indulge me, then follow the jump to (not exhaustively) explore some possibilities for self-driving cars.
Showing posts with label techdirt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label techdirt. Show all posts
2011-10-03
KevJumba and Google Search Results
I know I'm quite late on this one, but I just thought of a better way to explain this somewhat recent TechDirt post on why US Senators' assertions that Google remove all biases and put up "natural" search results is wrongheaded, because Google's search results are inherently influenced by people's searches, companies' advertising, and Google's own algorithms. The issue, if I remember correctly, revolves around the fact that Google is advertising for Canadian drugs when people search online to buy drugs, and it is in some instances illegal to buy Canadian drugs that are the same type and quality as comparable American drugs. Since then, it has basically become an antitrust lawsuit against Google (or the two cases may be separate, I'm not sure which), despite the fact that Google doesn't seem to have done anything like Microsoft did in its monopoly position to actually bar other competitors from entering or raise costs for consumers, and that's the key to actually making an antitrust suit successful. Plus, the Senators themselves have basically admitted that the issue is to stop Google from growing for the sole sake of stopping it from getting to a certain size (and not actually for protecting consumers), and they've even claimed that Google was destined to succeed and monopolize, which is totally false given that quite a few famous names in computer technology predicted in 1998 that Google would fail and that in 1998, there were about 10 different big competing search engines, and few people thought Google could muscle into the market.
But I'd like to share a thought or two specifically regarding the "biased search results", and show why they would be inherently biased anyway. As I've mentioned a few times before, I'm a fan of the videos of Kevin Wu, who goes by KevJumba on YouTube. In the first video posted here, KevJumba tells the viewers about how searching on Google the phrase "Is KevJumba" yields "Is KevJumba gay?" as the first suggestion. Leaving aside the issues of homophobia and all that, it's clear that happened because thousands upon thousands of users searched for that, and that became the search result most associated with his name. In response, he asked his users to make the result a bit more masculine: "Is KevJumba a heterosexual bear wrestler?" In the second video posted here, KevJumba thanks the viewers for making his dream come true, as "Is KevJumba a heterosexual bear wrestler?" is now the first suggestion not only for the phrase "Is KevJumba" but also just for the word "Is". That only happened because of his legions of fans rushing to Google and searching it repeatedly to make that the best suggestion for the phrase "Is". That already shows in two ways the fact that Google has no "natural/unbiased" search results; for now, I rest my case.
But I'd like to share a thought or two specifically regarding the "biased search results", and show why they would be inherently biased anyway. As I've mentioned a few times before, I'm a fan of the videos of Kevin Wu, who goes by KevJumba on YouTube. In the first video posted here, KevJumba tells the viewers about how searching on Google the phrase "Is KevJumba" yields "Is KevJumba gay?" as the first suggestion. Leaving aside the issues of homophobia and all that, it's clear that happened because thousands upon thousands of users searched for that, and that became the search result most associated with his name. In response, he asked his users to make the result a bit more masculine: "Is KevJumba a heterosexual bear wrestler?" In the second video posted here, KevJumba thanks the viewers for making his dream come true, as "Is KevJumba a heterosexual bear wrestler?" is now the first suggestion not only for the phrase "Is KevJumba" but also just for the word "Is". That only happened because of his legions of fans rushing to Google and searching it repeatedly to make that the best suggestion for the phrase "Is". That already shows in two ways the fact that Google has no "natural/unbiased" search results; for now, I rest my case.
2011-01-07
Homeless Radio Announcer Video Taken Down
If you've been keeping up with the news around the Internet, you know that there's a viral video of a homeless man named Ted Williams who has a great radio-announcing voice. The video spread everywhere, and within a day or two, he got dozens of offers for both local and national announcing gigs.
Unfortunately, as Mike Masnick of TechDirt reports, that video has been taken down from YouTube at the request of the Columbus Dispatch, an employee of which shot the original video.
The person who shot and posted the video online specifically asked for viewers to forward this to friends and contacts to spread the word and help the gentleman land a job. And yes, all the good things that happened to Ted Williams happened because of the video going viral and people taking notice. So now the employee's company is claiming copyright infringement/DMCA violations? What?
This is a huge slap in the face of all the people who did the right thing and let other people know to help this man. I have a feeling that someone higher up in the company said something along the lines of "the video served its purpose, so it's no longer needed, and keeping it up any longer would be copyright infringement." (I think the reason they can claim that is because anything the employee creates is the company's copyright (as it is a work-for-hire or something like that).) It reminds me of the part of Animal Farm by George Orwell where Napoleon the pig and new leader abolishes the old anthem (which extolled freedom, equality, and the like) and replaces it with a new anthem (extolling Napoleon, Napoleon, and Napoleon) for the reason that the animals are already free from the dictatorial farmer so it no longer serves a purpose.
If there are any readers from Ohio, can you please send the Columbus Dispatch polite angry letters asking for the video to be reinstated?
Unfortunately, as Mike Masnick of TechDirt reports, that video has been taken down from YouTube at the request of the Columbus Dispatch, an employee of which shot the original video.
The person who shot and posted the video online specifically asked for viewers to forward this to friends and contacts to spread the word and help the gentleman land a job. And yes, all the good things that happened to Ted Williams happened because of the video going viral and people taking notice. So now the employee's company is claiming copyright infringement/DMCA violations? What?
This is a huge slap in the face of all the people who did the right thing and let other people know to help this man. I have a feeling that someone higher up in the company said something along the lines of "the video served its purpose, so it's no longer needed, and keeping it up any longer would be copyright infringement." (I think the reason they can claim that is because anything the employee creates is the company's copyright (as it is a work-for-hire or something like that).) It reminds me of the part of Animal Farm by George Orwell where Napoleon the pig and new leader abolishes the old anthem (which extolled freedom, equality, and the like) and replaces it with a new anthem (extolling Napoleon, Napoleon, and Napoleon) for the reason that the animals are already free from the dictatorial farmer so it no longer serves a purpose.
If there are any readers from Ohio, can you please send the Columbus Dispatch polite angry letters asking for the video to be reinstated?
2010-12-08
Lage Raho Wikileaks!
In the last couple days, there have probably been more news stories about the leaked government documents put on Wikileaks than there are actual leaked documents on Wikileaks. TechDirt has a funny (sadly, it's true) article about how the State Department supposedly wants the leaked documents back. Evidently, it somehow thinks that digital goods are simply analogue goods on computers that can be "reclaimed". Unfortunately, it doesn't realize that online, once it's out there, it can never be put back; this is also true of businesses and trade secrets, and businesses know this, so I'm not sure why the Department of State has become the Department of State of Denial.
To show them just how ridiculous and tone-deaf their demands are, I propose a nonviolent protest along the lines of the movie Lage Raho Munna Bhai (which I watched over the summer and whose plot synopsis, especially the part about sending roses, you can read in Wikipedia here). A commenter on TechDirt suggested, just for fun, compressing the documents into a ZIP file and emailing the compressed file to a State Department email address (which, obviously, cannot and does not do what the State Department wants done). This seems a little boring, so I'd like to take this a step further.
If you want to do this through email, do the ZIP file idea, but change the permissions on all the files, while adding an additional fake "document" that is actually a Rickroll video. If you are really savvy (and if this is possible), try to rig the properties of the ZIP file so that when opened, the ZIP file automatically opens the Rickroll video (and the other documents are inaccessible).
If you, like me, want to do this in the style of the movie, print out some of the leaked documents and put them in an envelope or box. Include in this box a "Get Well Soon" card (with a polite message about, as Munna Bhai says, their "disease of dishonesty") and a bouquet of flowers.
This is just nonviolent protest against stupidity in the State Department, and as far as I know, this isn't breaking any laws. (Please don't be stupid and include viruses in the emails. That would be illegal.) How does it all sound?
To show them just how ridiculous and tone-deaf their demands are, I propose a nonviolent protest along the lines of the movie Lage Raho Munna Bhai (which I watched over the summer and whose plot synopsis, especially the part about sending roses, you can read in Wikipedia here). A commenter on TechDirt suggested, just for fun, compressing the documents into a ZIP file and emailing the compressed file to a State Department email address (which, obviously, cannot and does not do what the State Department wants done). This seems a little boring, so I'd like to take this a step further.
If you want to do this through email, do the ZIP file idea, but change the permissions on all the files, while adding an additional fake "document" that is actually a Rickroll video. If you are really savvy (and if this is possible), try to rig the properties of the ZIP file so that when opened, the ZIP file automatically opens the Rickroll video (and the other documents are inaccessible).
If you, like me, want to do this in the style of the movie, print out some of the leaked documents and put them in an envelope or box. Include in this box a "Get Well Soon" card (with a polite message about, as Munna Bhai says, their "disease of dishonesty") and a bouquet of flowers.
This is just nonviolent protest against stupidity in the State Department, and as far as I know, this isn't breaking any laws. (Please don't be stupid and include viruses in the emails. That would be illegal.) How does it all sound?
2010-12-01
It Really is Security Theater
I was going to write about the failed Oregon bombing plot and how the TSA would be powerless to stop it with its scanners and pat-downs for it was a domestic plot that was to use cars and such. Then, I saw this gem of an article (Mike Masnick, TechDirt) saying that the FBI helped the would-be bomber throughout the process and then arrested him just to bolster its own reputation. It links to many different other articles (which I will leave you to read on your own) that talk about this as well as similar fabricated plots.
There really isn't a whole lot to say here, except "what?" This really does give a whole new meaning to "security theater" — now complete with actors and a set!
There really isn't a whole lot to say here, except "what?" This really does give a whole new meaning to "security theater" — now complete with actors and a set!
2010-10-15
KevJumba + The Amazing Race = CBS*(CwF + RtB)
I'm a fan of (and have subscribed to) KevJumba on YouTube. Recently, KevJumba and his dad made it onto CBS's TV series The Amazing Race, and KevJumba has made 3 videos out of this so far. The most recent one (which I will embed at the end of this post) details how they almost didn't make it because one of the tasks in the beating Ghanaian sun almost made his dad suffer a heat stroke (so his dad needed serious medical help); I was truly touched by this uncut show of mutual affection and support, and I was happy to see that this round was not an elimination round (more on that later) and that KevJumba and his dad can stay on the show.
Then, after watching the video, I realized something: he has been putting clips (each a few minutes long) of the show in his video. That's copyrighted material. Yet, CBS isn't going after him for it. Now, I don't know if that's because he's using his own footage (but considering that he shoots almost all of his own videos (except when he's collaborating with other people on projects), I don't think he's shooting his own video this time, so this must be footage from CBS), but in any case, CBS isn't going after him for it, and I think that's great.
[speculation] What if CBS decided to be anal about it and send his channel DMCA takedown notices? Well, of course, he would have to comply or risk being sued; the former is far more likely. Keep in mind that while his audience is quite diverse, the largest portion of his viewers is probably of East Asian origin. Many of these viewers probably did not watch the show on CBS prior to his selection to participate in the show; hence, thanks to him, the show now has an entirely new (and quite significant) viewing demographic. If CBS really did send out takedown notices to KevJumba, while there would be a few people who are now interested enough in the show to continue watching, many more would be angered by the removal of the YouTube videos, and not having this alternate avenue for keeping up with KevJumba's progress through the show (because YouTube videos, unlike TV without a DVR, can be watched at any time), these viewers will likely stop watching the show altogether. [/speculation]
But CBS hasn't done this. In fact, I and many other YouTube commenters suspect that this round was made to not be an elimination round on purpose to keep KevJumba and his dad on the show. Why would CBS and the show producers do this? I think they recognize and appreciate the great service KevJumba has done in terms of increasing the size of the audience. Thus, not only has CBS allowed KevJumba to post clips of the show in his videos, but they have kept him on the show specifically to let this continue and thus let the viewers (and, by extension, the money) keep flowing in. In TechDirt parlance, this would be an example of connecting with fans and giving them a reason to buy (CwF + RtB): the CwF is CBS allowing KevJumba to bring viewers in by showing his viewers clips of the show, and the RtB is CBS keeping him on the show, giving viewers a reason to continue watching. Eventually (though this will take a little time), these new current viewers will probably form a more permanent portion of the audience who will enjoy watching the show regardless of KevJumba's presence on the show. Bravo, CBS, for doing the smart thing (so far), and keep it up!
Then, after watching the video, I realized something: he has been putting clips (each a few minutes long) of the show in his video. That's copyrighted material. Yet, CBS isn't going after him for it. Now, I don't know if that's because he's using his own footage (but considering that he shoots almost all of his own videos (except when he's collaborating with other people on projects), I don't think he's shooting his own video this time, so this must be footage from CBS), but in any case, CBS isn't going after him for it, and I think that's great.
[speculation] What if CBS decided to be anal about it and send his channel DMCA takedown notices? Well, of course, he would have to comply or risk being sued; the former is far more likely. Keep in mind that while his audience is quite diverse, the largest portion of his viewers is probably of East Asian origin. Many of these viewers probably did not watch the show on CBS prior to his selection to participate in the show; hence, thanks to him, the show now has an entirely new (and quite significant) viewing demographic. If CBS really did send out takedown notices to KevJumba, while there would be a few people who are now interested enough in the show to continue watching, many more would be angered by the removal of the YouTube videos, and not having this alternate avenue for keeping up with KevJumba's progress through the show (because YouTube videos, unlike TV without a DVR, can be watched at any time), these viewers will likely stop watching the show altogether. [/speculation]
But CBS hasn't done this. In fact, I and many other YouTube commenters suspect that this round was made to not be an elimination round on purpose to keep KevJumba and his dad on the show. Why would CBS and the show producers do this? I think they recognize and appreciate the great service KevJumba has done in terms of increasing the size of the audience. Thus, not only has CBS allowed KevJumba to post clips of the show in his videos, but they have kept him on the show specifically to let this continue and thus let the viewers (and, by extension, the money) keep flowing in. In TechDirt parlance, this would be an example of connecting with fans and giving them a reason to buy (CwF + RtB): the CwF is CBS allowing KevJumba to bring viewers in by showing his viewers clips of the show, and the RtB is CBS keeping him on the show, giving viewers a reason to continue watching. Eventually (though this will take a little time), these new current viewers will probably form a more permanent portion of the audience who will enjoy watching the show regardless of KevJumba's presence on the show. Bravo, CBS, for doing the smart thing (so far), and keep it up!
2010-10-07
FOLLOW-UP: Six Divided by Two is Patented
A few weeks ago, I wrote about a new IBM patent on estimating the average weight of passengers in a vehicle. Well, I just read a TechDirt article about an even more frivolous patent by IBM for similar things. Basically, this patents the measurement of a car's speed and the division of 60 mi/hr by the speed to determine the refresh rate of a billboard at that location.
How is this even more ridiculous than the last one? The last one didn't explicitly use a symbolic formula; it just described the calculation in words. Here, an explicit symbolic formula is given. I would say that goes against every precedent saying that mathematical formulas (especially ones so simple as this one) are not patentable. The person who submitted this tip to TechDirt asked what I also asked upon reading the introduction: would the refresh rate be infinite if traffic was backed up? There doesn't appear to be any sort of backup plan (no pun intended) in the abstract of the patent, though further down in the details there vaguely does appear to be some provision of this sort.
There is much more for me to say about this. I think the ridiculousness of the patent filing speaks for itself. All I hope is that the USPTO rejects this one, but at that rate, I might as well hope to find a magnetic monopole.
How is this even more ridiculous than the last one? The last one didn't explicitly use a symbolic formula; it just described the calculation in words. Here, an explicit symbolic formula is given. I would say that goes against every precedent saying that mathematical formulas (especially ones so simple as this one) are not patentable. The person who submitted this tip to TechDirt asked what I also asked upon reading the introduction: would the refresh rate be infinite if traffic was backed up? There doesn't appear to be any sort of backup plan (no pun intended) in the abstract of the patent, though further down in the details there vaguely does appear to be some provision of this sort.
There is much more for me to say about this. I think the ridiculousness of the patent filing speaks for itself. All I hope is that the USPTO rejects this one, but at that rate, I might as well hope to find a magnetic monopole.
2010-09-29
Sun Tzu and File Sharing
Yesterday, I was reading articles about eBook software for various OSs when I stumbled on the site Feedbooks which distributes eBooks of public domain works in various formats (including PDF). One of the featured books was Sun Tzu's The Art of War. I've heard several times that this book (handbook, really) is often used now for improving business and management strategies, and producing and selling movies and music is one such business, which file sharing is supposedly destroying. The debate over file sharing is often portrayed in popular media as a war between the poor, starving artists and the greedy freeloaders. In reality, of course, the poor, starving artists are just the RIAA and MPAA (though there are a handful of artists/filmmakers who genuinely resent and want to stop file sharing because they believe it harms there business), while the greedy freeloaders are actually people who would pay for such content if it was easy to buy and use and didn't have so many restrictions on its use (though there are quite a few people who would in fact only listen to music or watch videos for free (without regard to the legal status of said listening/watching)). So what if Sun Tzu was talking about file sharing? I can't analyze every single point made in the original book (I believe this is the Giles translation), but I will list a few that are very relevant to this issue (the citation of point Y in chapter X will be given as "(X.Y)"):
- Sun Tzu said: The art of war is of vital importance to the State. (1.1)
- It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected. (1.2)
- According as circumstances are favourable, one should modify one's plans. (1.16)
- Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardour damped, your strength exhausted and your treasure spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue. (2.4)
- Thus, though we have heard of stupid haste in war, cleverness has never been seen associated with long delays. (2.5)
- Sun Tzu said: In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to capture an army entire than to destroy it, to capture a regiment, a detachment or a company entire than to destroy them. (3.1)
- Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting. (3.2)
- The general, unable to control his irritation, will launch his men to the assault like swarming ants, with the result that one-third of his men are slain, while the town still remains untaken. Such are the disastrous effects of a siege. (3.5)
- Therefore the skillful leader subdues the enemy's troops without any fighting; he captures their cities without laying siege to them; he overthrows their kingdom without lengthy operations in the field. (3.6)
2010-09-13
How I Multiplied Subscribers and Page Views in 2 Weeks
 |
| Blogger Page View Statistics |
I would like to start this post (well, it isn't technically the very beginning anymore) by thanking Linux Today for posting some of my articles (mainly Linux distribution reviews); I would not have so many comments (which I hugely value and would love to see even more of) and subscribers if it wasn't for Linux Today accepting my submission of the KDE distribution comparison test. Since then, I've been able to get a couple more articles on Linux Today's home page, for which I am equally (if not more) grateful.
Well, there's one way to do it: submit your articles to Linux Today, as you will not regret it (and your article will most likely be accepted; furthermore, once you get your foot in the door and the article is positively received by the community, your future articles are more likely than the previous ones to get accepted).
I also want to thank TuxMachines for picking up on a couple of my review posts, as this has also hugely contributed to the traffic seen on this site; I didn't even send in the submission links, so I am hugely grateful for readers and editors of TuxMachines finding my reviews. In addition, I want to thank TechDirt for accepting my story on Microsoft's shutdown patent.
I have also created a Facebook page (and a "Like" widget for this site) and a Twitter account for this blog. If you are on these social networks, please do take a moment to either "Like" this site on Facebook or follow it on Twitter. While the Facebook page's notes application isn't working quite right (I'll try to fix it soon), I update the Twitter page with posts as they are published. That said, these are relatively new additions, so I don't think they really impacted the statistics.
 |
| Statcounter Page View Statistics |
Subscribers are much harder to retain, as most people who visit blogs do not stay long to look around at other content besides what they've just looked out (which is why I am really thankful for the readers of this blog who do just that). That said, Feedburner's statistics on subscribers does show a tripling of my subscriber level; where before I was averaging 5 subscribers every day, now I'm averaging around 15 (and there was one day when I peaked at 39).
So, to recap: if you write about free software and related news and reviews, do not hesitate to submit posts to sites like Linux Today, TuxMachines, and TechDirt. Also, please do take the time (as I have) to list your blog on Technorati, BlogCatalog, and other blog catalog sites. These will all certainly contribute to higher traffic and more subscribers.
Dear readers, thank you all very, very much!
It's Official: Free Online Content Distribution Helps Analog Counterparts
As a few readers of this blog have noticed (judging by my blog statistics), I have modified the layout slightly. I have removed the "Popular Posts", "Labels", and "Archives" widgets from the sidebar to clean it up; I have created pages in their stead (and replaced them on the sidebar with a "Recent Comments" widget) — "Archives" is now its own page, while "Popular Posts" and "Labels" have been combined in the "Popular Posts" page (but each has its own subheading). Furthermore, I have created a "Useful Links" static page, and this is where the content of this post comes in: the "Useful Links" page has a collection of links that I would recommend readers of this blog to read for a better understand of the economics relating to open source, free culture, etc. There are also 3 useful videos (dealing with similar things) that I have embedded on that page, one of which I will also embed in this post, as it has to do very much with the topic. I got the idea for this post from TechDirt's article on the same, which also includes this video:
TechDirt's article does a very good job of summarizing the key points of the video (as it's a long video), so I won't repeat them here. Please do read that portion of the original article (and if you are so inclined, by all means watch the video).
A couple commenters on the TechDirt article said things like, "Of course things like this would be presented at a Google conference because this is exactly what Google wants to hear!" At first, though I generally disagreed with this statement (as the research itself doesn't appear to be funded by Google), I couldn't shake the possibility out of my head. Then, I found this Washington Post article written by Howard Kurtz about how online news articles and videos supplement newspaper/newsmagazine readership and TV news viewership. The article goes on to discuss perceptions of bias (among other things) in the mainstream media by people of various ideologies and political affiliations. I think it's interesting that this story should come out so soon after TechDirt's publication of the video on its website, as it talks about how people get their news (which the video does not discuss) and it does not seem to be funded by major Internet companies. The article does note that while newspaper readership is down by quite a few percentage points from just a few years ago, this doesn't seem to be caused by the presence of online counterparts; in fact, the online counterparts is in some cases increasing print readership, which is an effect similar to one discussed in the video where a TV showing of a movie increases its DVD sales almost immediately.
Mr. Murdoch, are you still thinking of taking your websites off of Google's indexes? If so, I can say (with a fair amount of confidence, especially when compared to before) that you are shooting yourself in the foot.
A Presentation regarding Online Content Distribution's Impact on Analog Counterparts
TechDirt's article does a very good job of summarizing the key points of the video (as it's a long video), so I won't repeat them here. Please do read that portion of the original article (and if you are so inclined, by all means watch the video).
A couple commenters on the TechDirt article said things like, "Of course things like this would be presented at a Google conference because this is exactly what Google wants to hear!" At first, though I generally disagreed with this statement (as the research itself doesn't appear to be funded by Google), I couldn't shake the possibility out of my head. Then, I found this Washington Post article written by Howard Kurtz about how online news articles and videos supplement newspaper/newsmagazine readership and TV news viewership. The article goes on to discuss perceptions of bias (among other things) in the mainstream media by people of various ideologies and political affiliations. I think it's interesting that this story should come out so soon after TechDirt's publication of the video on its website, as it talks about how people get their news (which the video does not discuss) and it does not seem to be funded by major Internet companies. The article does note that while newspaper readership is down by quite a few percentage points from just a few years ago, this doesn't seem to be caused by the presence of online counterparts; in fact, the online counterparts is in some cases increasing print readership, which is an effect similar to one discussed in the video where a TV showing of a movie increases its DVD sales almost immediately.
Mr. Murdoch, are you still thinking of taking your websites off of Google's indexes? If so, I can say (with a fair amount of confidence, especially when compared to before) that you are shooting yourself in the foot.
2010-09-12
Six Divided by Two is Patented
I was reading through TechDirt when I came across this (Mike Masnick, TechDirt) article summarizing how IBM has filed a patent for determining how many passengers are in a vehicle. Naturally, I was a little skeptical that a company would try to patent something so trivial, so I thought the link might be to a less credible rumormill site. Instead, following the link took me to the actual patent filing, where I could see the details of the patent in all of its silliness. This is in stark contrast to the Apple patent filing (which I have written about before) which is downright creepy (but, in all fairness, rather clever and probably original). I figured that at least IBM would have a system that detects the motion and direction of passengers through the doors to determine who has entered and exited to then determine the weight of the bus.
Is it that complicated? Let me ask you this: should 6 divided by 2 be patented?
Why do I say that? The actual patent is nothing more than sifting through existing data showing seasonal average weights, weighing the bus when empty and filled, taking the difference and dividing by the appropriate average weight to arrive at a probable head count. Really?
This is nothing more than primary school subtraction and division. The only other things the patent calls for are a computer system and a GUI to assist in this calculation. There are a couple of sensors on the vehicle hooked up to the computer measuring the weights of various parts of the vehicle, so that these can be subtracted from the total weight reading.
I seriously hope that the courts don't let this one get through, but given their past actions, I think if someone mentions that mathematical operations (and this is one, rather than a complex piece of software) are not patentable, the judges are going to suffer collective amnesia.
Is it that complicated? Let me ask you this: should 6 divided by 2 be patented?
Why do I say that? The actual patent is nothing more than sifting through existing data showing seasonal average weights, weighing the bus when empty and filled, taking the difference and dividing by the appropriate average weight to arrive at a probable head count. Really?
This is nothing more than primary school subtraction and division. The only other things the patent calls for are a computer system and a GUI to assist in this calculation. There are a couple of sensors on the vehicle hooked up to the computer measuring the weights of various parts of the vehicle, so that these can be subtracted from the total weight reading.
I seriously hope that the courts don't let this one get through, but given their past actions, I think if someone mentions that mathematical operations (and this is one, rather than a complex piece of software) are not patentable, the judges are going to suffer collective amnesia.
2010-07-14
An All-In-One RIAA bash
I never thought something like this would happen, but I have seen 3 articles today bashing the RIAA (and one doing so for the MPAA) for different reasons.
The first (Ray Beckerman, Recording Industry vs. The People) summarizes how the RIAA, to get a certain (relatively small, for the RIAA) sum of money back, spent at least 50 times that sum of money on legal fees alone. (They spent $20 million in legal fees to recover $0.4 million in probable lost revenue.)
Well, now we know that the money recovered probably isn't going towards the artists that the RIAA claims are harmed by music sharing.
Actually, on that note, the second article (Mike Masnick, TechDirt) talks about just that. Though the RIAA claims to speak for artists and musicians, the record labels make millions of dollars, while the artists themselves net absolutely no money. I won't go into the numbers here because the analysis in the original article is much more thorough anyway. What I will say is that when labels like Sony-BMG and industry groups like the RIAA claim that piracy hurts the industry, carefully consider who is actually hurt by lost sales (hint: not the artists).
There is a third article (Mike Masnick, TechDirt) that talks about related screwy accounting with MPAA revenue figures. Basically, film companies manage to claim losses on blockbuster movies because a lot of the supposed costs are actually the company paying a studio or themselves (as far as I understand). Thankfully, this can't last because a few companies are now losing lawsuits relating to these bogus claims of monetary losses. Hopefully a similar thing will happen with the record companies.
If you think all hope is lost for artists who can't possibly make a dime under the conventional system, follow the jump to read the solution.
The first (Ray Beckerman, Recording Industry vs. The People) summarizes how the RIAA, to get a certain (relatively small, for the RIAA) sum of money back, spent at least 50 times that sum of money on legal fees alone. (They spent $20 million in legal fees to recover $0.4 million in probable lost revenue.)
Well, now we know that the money recovered probably isn't going towards the artists that the RIAA claims are harmed by music sharing.
Actually, on that note, the second article (Mike Masnick, TechDirt) talks about just that. Though the RIAA claims to speak for artists and musicians, the record labels make millions of dollars, while the artists themselves net absolutely no money. I won't go into the numbers here because the analysis in the original article is much more thorough anyway. What I will say is that when labels like Sony-BMG and industry groups like the RIAA claim that piracy hurts the industry, carefully consider who is actually hurt by lost sales (hint: not the artists).
There is a third article (Mike Masnick, TechDirt) that talks about related screwy accounting with MPAA revenue figures. Basically, film companies manage to claim losses on blockbuster movies because a lot of the supposed costs are actually the company paying a studio or themselves (as far as I understand). Thankfully, this can't last because a few companies are now losing lawsuits relating to these bogus claims of monetary losses. Hopefully a similar thing will happen with the record companies.
If you think all hope is lost for artists who can't possibly make a dime under the conventional system, follow the jump to read the solution.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)