Disqus - Latest Comments for windley

Re: Starting a High Tech Business: No Cold Hires

Name — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 20:20:53 -0000

The project/temp to hire concept had slipped my mind at the time of writing, I've volunteered myself for this sort of thing. While not always accepted by the hiring party it is an excellent way to demonstrate your commintment.

Re: Starting a High Tech Business: No Cold Hires

windley — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 17:00:06 -0000

Absolutely true. Anyone can put on a good show for a day. References can help, but they can't be "cold references." They have to come from someone you know, trust, and will tell you the unvarnished truth.

Re: Starting a High Tech Business: No Cold Hires

windley — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:58:52 -0000

Your last sentence is very true and that's frankly a risk. There may be better people for a particular job than those in your network. Even so, the risk of cold hires is huge.

Finding ways to bring new people into the fold in a way that you can "date" them before marriage is a good idea. Hiring someone on a project basis as a 1099 is one way to do that. Frankly I've had more than one person volunteer time for that reason.

Re: Uninstalling Adobe Air on OS X

windley — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 20:09:33 -0000

Yes, or quotes around the whole thing since it's got a space in it.
Thanks.

Re: Unmounting Time Machine Drives

windley — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 10:54:24 -0000

Nice. Thanks for the solution. Snow Leopard is better about this
than previous versions too.

Re: Why Use the Kynetx Rule Language Instead of Javascript?

windley — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:44:25 -0000

yes, that's a good high level description but the overall language is
much more than that. The full language is documented here:

http://wiki.kynetx.com/pages/Report_on_KRL

Re: Gillmor Gang on SideWiki: Building Audience

windley — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 15:34:01 -0000

And apparently too much credit! :-) Sorry for the mistake.

Re: Gillmor Gang on SideWiki: Building Audience

windley — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 15:33:57 -0000

As I've said, the question of whether this is a good business is separate from the question of whether it's right or wrong.

Re: Claiming My Right to a Purpose-Centric Web: SideWiki

windley — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:36:45 -0000

Nice thought Cliff. We're all rewriting something else all the time.

Re: Claiming My Right to a Purpose-Centric Web: SideWiki

windley — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 23:17:27 -0000

Now that's a good analogy.

Re: Claiming My Right to a Purpose-Centric Web: SideWiki

jeremy — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 19:26:25 -0000

True. But that's because no browser extension yet has the large distribution of a MS-backed push. (And also only because ads are simply being removed, rather than supplanted :-)

But on the same point: Things like Sidewiki have existed for years. It's only when it finally acquired the large distribution of a Google-backed push that the blogosphere is erupting.

So does that mean MS can now push their stuff with a lot more ease? After all, they already tried this in 2001 and got smacked down for it. Is Google opening the door for them now?

http://news.cnet.com/Googles-linking-toolbar-ra...

Re: Claiming My Right to a Purpose-Centric Web: SideWiki

windley — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 18:18:07 -0000

Whether 8.2 applies or not depends on whether rending content in your browser is creating a derivative work, I suppose. As far as I know, Google hasn't tried to stop ad blocking browser extensions.

Re: Claiming My Right to a Purpose-Centric Web: SideWiki

jeremy — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 18:01:14 -0000

Yeah, maybe the MS example is taking it to an extreme case. But not to an edge case. MS and Google, and how they mitigate our experiences of the net, are "extremely core" cases right now. Not edge at all.

But if item 5.3 of the TOS doesn't disallow it, what about item 8.2?

http://www.google.com/accounts/TOS

8.2 You should be aware that Content presented to you as part of the Services, including but not limited to advertisements in the Services and sponsored Content within the Services may be protected by intellectual property rights which are owned by the sponsors or advertisers who provide that Content to Google (or by other persons or companies on their behalf). You may not modify, rent, lease, loan, sell, distribute or create derivative works based on this Content (either in whole or in part) unless you have been specifically told that you may do so by Google or by the owners of that Content, in a separate agreement.

The list of search results is the content in the Google search service. And in item 8.2 they explicitly say that you may not modify or create derivative works from that content. My G/Y/B mashup is a modification/derivative work, is it not? My tool for hiding the ads from a Google search, or replacing them with MS ads, is a modification, is it not?

Whether or not they sue, they are in principle against it. And principles matter.

Re: Claiming My Right to a Purpose-Centric Web: SideWiki

windley — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 17:43:31 -0000

Yeah, point 1 is probably something that is better dealt with elsewhere. I'm not trying to distinguish between user controlled and opt-in, just saying user controlled might be a better, more flexible phrase. Not important to this discussion.

On point 2: No, I don't think the TOS disallows it. Would Google care? Maybe. I think they'd have a tough time suing given their current stance.

I think your idea about combining search results is a great example and one that could easily be done with Kynetx, for example. Google can't "disallow" it. That train has left the station. Might they try and sue? Sure, but I think they'd lose and be badly hurt by the effort.

As for "what if MS did this?" that's taking the example to an extreme edge case where of course there would be a battle.

Re: Claiming My Right to a Purpose-Centric Web: SideWiki

jeremy — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 17:38:14 -0000

Point 1: I don't fully understand the distinction that you're making between opt-in or -out in terms of user control. Something can be opt-out (or opt-in) and still be user-controlled, can it not? It's not like opt-in = user controlled and opt-out = user non-controlled. As long as there is a button to turn something on or off, isn't it still user controlled?

But.. it's a minor point, and it may not be worth it to go into a deeper argument right now.

Point 2: Are you sure this is not disallowed? The example that I tweeted to you yesterday was that of ad overlay. What if I create a toolbar that hides Google ads, and replaces them with MS ads? As long as that toolbar is "user controlled", Google would have no problem with that?

Actually, what I really want to do is mash up Google results with Bing results with Yahoo results. So I want to augment and refactor what I'm getting back from Google, and display the content that they're giving me in my own way. In the mashup, I might not put the top Google result at the top of my results list.

Furthermore, because I have a really wide screen, I might put all 10 results in 2-3 columns, above the fold, and then all the ads (if I choose to show them at all) below the fold.

Rendering the returned results in this manner would be extremely useful to me. You really think that Google would allow it?

And what if MS integrated this functionality into IE, in a "user controlled" way? Google wouldn't care?

I wish it were true. I'm not against it. But I don't share your confidence that it is.

Re: Claiming My Right to a Purpose-Centric Web: SideWiki

windley — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 16:54:03 -0000

Point 1: I view opt-in as crucial, although that word may not be the best one. Better idea is user controlled. User control and freedom of choice for the individual is what legitimizes this.

Point 2: I'm not sure I read Google TOS as disallowing this. The user is accessing the site (be it Google or anything else) in exactly the way Google intends. The browser is merely modifying the returned content in a way that better suits the user's needs (see Point 1).

Note that I'm not claiming the right to access the site in ways the site owner does not allow or hacking the site. I'm merely a proponent of my right to render the returned content--legally and lawfully accessed--in a way that's useful to me.

Re: Claiming My Right to a Purpose-Centric Web: SideWiki

mterenzio — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 12:29:13 -0000

Sorry, I don't have Google Toolbar. I was under the impression that they were rendering or modifying content inside the browser window.
I think there is a difference between you letting a third party service modify my data and you installing local software to modify my data. They are different things.
Technicalities, but different enough to get a service like Napster shut down while similar peer services can continue to operate.

Re: Claiming My Right to a Purpose-Centric Web: SideWiki

windley — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 12:15:23 -0000

But they're not doing ANYTHING with your data.

And why would the specific architecture of how it works matter to your right to see content rendered the way you want and next to what ever other content you want?

Re: Claiming My Right to a Purpose-Centric Web: SideWiki

windley — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:50:11 -0000

I vehemently disagree. First off--it's not property in the land sense and so that analogy doesn't work. It's not at ALL like the home owners' association. Your site ISN'T a place. Second, if every service that wants to let users modify content to better suit their purpose had to agree, no such services would ever be developed and that's not good for anyone. You're thinking like the RIAA or MPAA here.

Re: Claiming My Right to a Purpose-Centric Web: SideWiki

windley — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:47:24 -0000

As an aside Dave, I agree that this particular service might be a bad idea and Google could very well end up abandoning it. I'm not making an argument for SideWiki per se, just the right of users to do it if they want.

Re: Claiming My Right to a Purpose-Centric Web: SideWiki

AA — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:43:04 -0000

I understand that and that's the reason I brought up home owner's association and hosting services because Google is not trashing my home but the outskirts of it. Just because browser allows something to do done around your website doesn't mean it should be done. I think all I am asking is Google allow site owners to choose whether they want their services anywhere near their property on the web. I don't think Sidewiki may be bad but Google appears to be controlling all the switches and it's just wrong.

Re: Claiming My Right to a Purpose-Centric Web: SideWiki

windley — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:37:01 -0000

I think your analogy is flawed because it's equating Web sites to land and they're not. No one is writing graffiti on your site. They're writing about your page somewhere else on the Web. The browser just happens to be displaying them together.

Re: Claiming My Right to a Purpose-Centric Web: SideWiki

dave — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:34:42 -0000

Well Phil I don't want your words to pass through that crazy router. Do I get a say in it? What if I want to read your words without interpretation, as you said them, so I can know what you actually think?

Re: Claiming My Right to a Purpose-Centric Web: SideWiki

windley — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:31:22 -0000

Hi Dave.

Actually Arrington used "defacing" and I've provided a link in the article now. I didn't mean to imply you'd said it. Apologies.

I think if you want to have a router that modified my words then more power to you. I don't need to opt-out. If you're going to redistribute it, then we should talk, but if it's for your consumption and you want them modified in a certain way then have at it. No objections from me. I think its your right.

I don't believe I misquoted you. The only time I quote you, I link to the words you said.

As for calling your thinking silly, I didn't say your thinking was silly, only that thinking of Web sites the same way we do land was silly. If that's what you think, then it's silly. :-)

Peace Dave.

Re: Unmounting Time Machine Drives

windley — Tue, 15 Sep 2009 15:57:02 -0000

You're sure you've got the right disk name? What do you see when you
execute "ls /Volume"