|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DaveNet: How to be a revolution. "You can't undermine by trying to dictate the terms, you have to do it by invading at night, slipping in the back door unnoticed. Then when the old folks wake up, it's too damned late."  Emergent Music is the "seed of a new, better, music industry." Dan Bricklin comments on the NY Times auto-blog. "This type of news feed, with reverse-chronological headlines, summaries, and links to articles in real-time, is good for catching up. It's different than a normal news page, sorted by what's most important, where the new stuff may be at the bottom. Breaking stories have frequent updates, and they show up as that." Steve Pilgrim: "I've been prowling the weblog world today." Fred von Lohman: "The BPDG standard is not about stopping piracy. It's about Hollywood regaining some measure of control over what you can and can't do with television. It's about cramming the VCR genie back in the bottle, and giving Hollywood the power to bring new technologies to heel before they can deliver new capabilities to consumers." Roland Piquepaille: Political Shocker in France. InfoWorld: Gates testifies in remedy hearing.  AP: "Gates echoed arguments by Microsoft chief executive Steve Ballmer that a modular Windows requirement is impossible to engineer and would force the company to pull Windows off the market." Survey: Is Gates Lying? Mike Deem: "When simplifying for mass consumption any issue as complex as this one, one could 'spin' it in any number of ways without abandoning the 'truth.' Gates is spinning this one in the way that is best for Microsoft's bottom line. It is his responsibility to Microsoft's share holders to do this." I responded "Mike, while I'm not a lawyer, I don't think it's legal to spin when you're under oath. I think it's required that you tell the truth." Steve Gillmor: Google, Dave and Ozzie. Great article Steve. This is the InfoWorld I used to love. An inspirational article. I won't give up on Groove yet. If they open it up so that Radio can participate in their network without jumping into the box, we'll be all over it, as we are on the Google API.  Two years ago on this day, I posted a snip that sparked an intense debate in weblog-land. I took a photo that had become an international obsession, and artistically juxtaposed the two faces that made the full picture so emotional and took them into a different context. Faces of people in shock connect in a deep way to all of us. It's the lizard brain that processes these things and dumps massive amounts of fight-or-flight chemicals into our bloodstream. Today, there's been a court case that validates this as fair use, and ethical. I wanted to resolve that. I also pointed to an article on CNN that contained the full story of Elian and the trooper, so attribution is there. We've come a long way in two years. Worth recognizing, imho. I added a sixth disclaimer to the docs for the Google-to-XML-RPC gateway. "UserLand does not keep a copy of the keys that pass through this server. We don't use this information in any way, and will not do so in the future."  I needed a testbed to expose bugs in our implementation of the MetaWeblog API, so I did an experiment I've wanted to try for some time. This new weblog tracks NY Times articles as they enter UserLand's content management system, on their way to people's desktops via the news aggregator in Radio. All these articles appear on the Times website, but they can be hard to find unless you know where to look. If the NY Times had a weblog, this is what it might look like. If it becomes popular, I might dress it up with a new template and a better address. Paul Nakada: "Links are the weblog equivalent of venture capital, except, without the strings. We just got funding for this blog today!" Hehe. Here's a second round.  Lots of discussion of deep-link philosophy. Here's another analogy. Suppose I told you about this great book. Read it, but read the last chapter first, and if you want you can skip the rest. Would that land me in court? Another one. Suppose I'm writing a scholarly paper. Two years ago another scholar published a copyrighted book on a different but related topic. On page 49 he discusses an experiment he conducted that I want to base part of my argument on. I put a footnote on my citation, telling my readers to look on page 49 of his book. Did I just violate his copyright? BTW, if you're a friendly lawyer (there are some) read today's NY Times article about Bertelsmann and let me know what's up with the antitrust case against the BigCo's of the music industry. It seems they don't want us to look at that. Let's look at that. Howard Kurtz: Who Cares What You Think? Blog, and Find Out. Steve MacLaughlin: Taking the "R" Out of Free. On this day last year: "I write software for guys like Doc." |
 
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
© Copyright 1997-2005 Dave Winer. The picture at the top of the page may change from time to time. Previous graphics are archived. Previous/Next |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
