Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).


+ - Pinterest doesn't qualify for DMCA Safe Harbor

Submitted by pcause
pcause (209643) writes "There has been a lot of press about Pinterest and copyright infringement. Pinterest says that they are protected by the DMCA Safe Harbor provisions, but is this true? Many point to Youtube, but there is a crucial difference. With Pinterest (and Facebook too) the company's code/servers go and directly get the images off of pages that have copyright notices. There is actual work to find the images and retrieve them but that same work could easily spot the copyright notices and not provide images from copyrighted pages. Youtube received files from users and wasn't involved in actually extracting the files and hence was more like email. They did noting active to obtain the images.

Am I wrong? Isn't it like me being pointed to a copyrighted magazine by someone and cutting out the pictures and using them to publish my own magazine?"

Comment: Major Flaw in Google TV 2.0 (Score 4, Informative) 107

by pcause (#38712902) Attached to: Google TV 2.0 Review, Tweaks, and Screenshots

I saw this demo'ed at CES and Google made a serious mistake in capability. it turns out you can run only a small set of applications available on the market on Google TV 2.0. The reason for the limited selection is that Google TV 2.0 doesn't support touch/multi-touch. I asked the Google TV person why they weren't supporting multi-touch (at least 2 finger touch) from Bluetooth keyboards/keypads that could provide this capability and hence open up pretty much the full market to Google TV 2.0. he said the capability wasn't in the OS/libraries at all because some OEMs - he specifically mentioned Sony - couldn't support it in their devices. What an amazingly stupid decision. Build the capability into the OS and let the manufacturers with half a brain support it. Users will get most of the market apps and developers will have their lives made simpler as opposed to having yet another Android fragmentation issue to deal with. A truly stupid decision.


+ - facebook is tracking you when you're logged out->

Submitted by pcause
pcause (209643) writes "According to this article and apparently confirmed by a Facebook engineer, even when you are logged out of facebook they are still tracking you. The quoted engineer explains that this tracking is only for security related purposes. Maybe, but the bigger question is does this need to be disclosed and does it violate an implied contract with web users as to what logging out means?"
Link to Original Source

+ - Third party cookies and web tracking

Submitted by pcause
pcause (209643) writes "Most of the consumer web tracking is done by third party cookies. An ad network or ad targetting service puts cookies on your system to watch where you go and uses this ti figure out what to give you for ads and to build a profile. All of the major browsers have the ability to block third party cookies. The question is why they do't make this the default behavior, as doing so would immediately reduce unwanted tracking, especially if Flash respected this setting."

+ - "Do no evil" - but only if it doesn't cost us $$-> 1

Submitted by pcause
pcause (209643) writes "The WSJ reports that Larry Page knew Google was running illegal ads, but went for the money over what was legal and right. From the article — "Larry Page knew what was going on," Peter Neronha, the Rhode Island U.S. Attorney who led the probe, said in an interview. "We know it from the investigation. We simply know it from the documents we reviewed, witnesses that we interviewed, that Larry Page knew what was going on."

Google is as greedy and corrupt as anyone other big company."

Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:Just a bigger and better framework (Score 4, Informative) 688

by pcause (#36977964) Attached to: Was<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET All a Mistake?

The key is that Microsoft is porting Windows to ARM. if you built you app with .Net and MS doesn't screw things up you should have an app that works on the ARM version of Windows 8. If that happens, then for MS and developers the entire .Net experience has been a HUGE win. MS will have a Win 8 ARM with a huge supply of apps and developers and developers will have access to the tablet market without having to do much new.

Comment: You are giving them carte blanche (Score 1) 213

by pcause (#36640732) Attached to: Dropbox TOS Includes Broad Copyright License

You are giving dropbox the rights to do whatever they want to with your content, according to this. All of thye examples are just that - examples. The terms give them the right to make the judgment on what they want to do. And, since they are free to change the privacy policy at will, just as they changed the TOS, you have no protections.

They can write this much more tightly to protect themselves and give you absolute control. The problem is that to do so it will be very long and "legalese" and not friendly/simple. They should protect their users and the users' intent in choosing the service and do whatever they have to do to deliver what you thought you were getting.

Comment: It isn't eveil if it benefits Google (Score 3, Funny) 136

by pcause (#34954844) Attached to: Does Google Pin Copyright Violations On the ASF?

Another example of what "do no evil" really means: if Google benefits it isn't evil, right? Pretty amazing and inept theft of IP on Google's part and for being this inept and stealing so blatantly, Oracle will get billions. Shame that we Android users will have to pay for Google's theft.

Comment: If you don't canabalize your own business (Score 4, Insightful) 431

by pcause (#34914908) Attached to: The Fall of Wintel and the Rise of Armdroid

The first rule of technology is that "If you don't canabalize your own business, someone else will do it for you". This is the classic tech product/company dilemna and we have lots of examples of dominant #1's who ignored this rule and are gone. Digital? Wang? Visicorp? Borland?

+ - Obama channels George Orwell 1

Submitted by pcause
pcause (209643) writes "It seems the Obama administration thinks we need a unique ID for the Internet. Do we need this so the advertisers can better track us and invade our privacy? Or does the government want to be able to track everything we do? Of course they say it is secure and more private and not a national ID. They also say they're fixing the economy, reducing the deficit and....."

Make it right before you make it faster.