I would have thought any assets (be they physical or intangible like copyrights) held by Nazi leaders would have been confiscated by the allies at the end of the war, meaning the descendents of Goebbels would have no claim to the copyrights.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
And now the Federal Trade Commission wants to talk about what it means for consumers. The agency announced Friday it will host a public workshop to "examine competition, consumer protection, and economic issues raised by the proliferation of online and mobile peer-to peer business platforms" in June.
“We are seeing a dramatic growth in products and services that are built on peer-to-peer platforms, such as ride-sharing and property rentals, as more entrepreneurs harness the power of technology to reach more consumers,” said FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez in a press release. “Through our workshop, we want to better understand the competitive impact of these new business models, as well as their interactions with existing regulatory frameworks.”
False analogy. There's a huge difference between a personal assistant, who by definition *I* know personally, and a faceless business entity who I know not at all (read adversarial entity) scraping 'enough' information about me to presume it knows me sufficiently to second guess what I want and give me that instead of what I requested.
I'd say there's a good argument that all of the information I give Google actually exceeds what a personal assistant would know about me. The real difference (thus far) lies in the assistant's ability to understand human context which Google's systems lack. But that's merely a problem to be solved.
Note, BTW, that I'm not saying everyone should want what I want, or be comfortable giving any search engine enough information to be such an ideal assistant. That's a personal decision. I'm comfortable with it... but I'm not yet getting the search results I want.
Why would I want crappy results? I want it to give me what I want, which by definition isn't "crappy".
And you think a system built by man can divine what you and everyone else wants at the moment you type it in? That'll be the day. Until then, assume I know what I want and not your system.
I think systems built by man that knows a sufficient amount about me, my interests and my needs can. We're not there yet, certainly, but the question was what I want... and that's it.
Put it this way: Suppose you had a really bright personal assistant who knew pretty much everything about you and could see what you are doing at any given time, and suppose this assistant also had the ability to instantly find any data on the web. I want a search engine that can give me the answers that assistant could.
Then came the Treo... their smartphone. They reduced the size of the screen to 1/2 or even less of what it had been before, added chicklet-style keyboard ala Blackberry, and dropped the Graffiti written input.
Oh, you mean like the Tungsten C?
Now, finally, we have smartphones that match or best the Tungsten's color screen in size and resolution.
So I looked it up, and the highest-resolution Tungsten device was at 320 x 480 and now median phones are 720p, the display was only TFT and now phones are starting to be OLED, and the screen was 3.7" while modern phones are 4-5". The specs of the best Tungsten phone were beaten by feature phones some years ago.
We could have had that many years ago,
We did, and no, Palm's 3.7 inch display with almost no dots and also very few colors by modern standards was not comparable to a modern smartphone display. Not even a cheap one.
The true burden lies in thinking a "high IQ" means you're better than other people. There are many valuable skills and talents which are not measured by an IQ test, including art, music, empathy, and so on.
The burden is the arrogance of presuming IQ means intelligence. It does not. It is simply one metric for measuring skillsets.
Link to Original Source
Search for what I type in, not what you think I want
I want a search engine that searches for what I want, not what I type, and not even what I think I want.
I just want the search engine to stop changing what I'm searching for. I don't want to have to quote every word like I have to do with Google to make sure that the word is actually in the page, and by "the word", I mean "the word I type, not a word that Google things may be similar to the one I typed". It's worst when you're searching for foreign words, product names, acronyms, or whatnot and Google tries to treat them as if they're English words and declines them or chooses synonyms.
"Did you mean X?" is fine. Even "Searching for X (see original results here)", if you're very confident that the person made a common spelling error or whatnot. But just going in and swapping out words as if this is expected behavior? Terrible. At least let me disable it if you want to do that...
Beyond all this: I do like how one can do simple commonn operations on Google - math, conversions, etc. The more of these the better IMHO, so long as they have a standardized format - be they tracking numbers, flight lookups, whatever. It's okay in my book to be a bit Wolfram-y.
Just my thoughts.
I want a search engine to identify when someone is attempting to manipulate it and to counter that. I don't want Google Bombs like "miserable failure" regardless of how I feel about the actual politics, to make the results useless. I'm not so childish as to expect an echo-chamber everywhere I look.
This means no more companies whose entire existence is to try to improve someone's search rankings.
As to data being collected, I'm actually okay with the top 80% of searches in a given day being used for advertising revenue, assuming no geographic data beyond nation, and no personally-identifiable data is collected. That's how a search engine would make money, by selling ads based on what people want to know about. If Ford has a press-release about the new Focus, and people search for that, I'm okay with ads related to the Focus or to Fords coming up. I just don't want more than "this term is being asked for this many times on this day" to be reported.
The estate of Joseph Goebbels, Adolf Hitler’s minister of propaganda, is taking legal action against the publisher Random House over a new biography, claiming payment for the use of extracts from his diaries. Peter Longerich's biography of Goebbels is to be published in May (Random House/ Siedler).
Longerich, who is the professor at Royal Holloway's Holocaust Research Centre, maintains this case has important censorship implications. “If you accept that a private person controls the rights to Goebbels’ diaries, then – theoretically – you give this person the right to control research,” he said."
Link to Original Source