27 July 2008

Politicians lie? No!

I've been bleeding my RSS feeds dry recently, which means I'm forced to read the bottom of the barrel:



80% of Digg articles are about the same thing: some politician said something that makes people sad. Usually, said politician is on record saying the opposite thing sometime in the past. Diggers are shocked, hurt, betrayed, etc. Diggers will never vote for said politician ever. Unfortunately, every politician is in the category of politicians that can never be voted for, which puts us in a predicament (if we listen to Diggers, anyway).

This just in: All politicians lie an alarming percentage of the time. They have to, or they'd never get elected to anything. Too many voters have positions that are deal-breakers, so if a politician has solid positions on everything a majority of people will disagree with one of them, and they're screwed. Not to say politicians don't have standings on these issues; of course they do. They just have to make sure you don't know about them. This either means they have to dance around things they know will alienate voters (that is, everything), or they need to change their position depending on who they're talking to. Unfortunately, with the Internet this no longer works, because now we know that the things they told people on the other end of the country aren't the same things they're telling us, but that doesn't stop them from doing it over and over again.

Yes, it would be awesome if we could elect politicians who didn't lie to us on a regular basis, but there are so many issues that America is divided on that it can't happen anymore. Stop being surprised when it turns out a politician lied about something.

04 July 2008

Harriet Jones uses Saitek

In the first part of the Doctor Who finale (which, for the record, was excellent), Harriet Jones is controlling the subwave network from her house:



I do believe that's a Saitek Eclipse she's typing on. Nice choice, if I do say so myself, and high five for good product placement. And since the subwave network got the Doctor to Earth, Saitek pretty much saved the world

I am uncreative

I was halfway through a blog post about Haskell when I suddenly realized the blog's name is "Things that amuse me". So apparently my blog title is thoroughly uncreative; if I recall correctly, my title was originally going to be exactly that, but I added the "or depress" when I realized many of my posts would probably be things that are bad. Maybe I'll rename my blog, if I can think of anything else

03 July 2008

Viacom vs Google

There's a fairly unbelievable ridiculous stunning typical case going through the courts right now. I saw it mentioned on other sites, but they focused on the vast privacy violations and generally sidelined the other impressively absurd parts of the lawsuit. Somehow Viacom has gotten it into its head that people occasionally post copyrighted videos on Youtube (Lies!). I read through the filing, it's impressive. For example in (4):

YouTube itself publicly performs the infringing videos on the YouTube site . . . It is YouTube that knowingly reproduces and publicly performs the copyrighted works

This is somewhat clever, and practically ubiquitous in these cases: abusing pre-Internet laws. When they say YouTube "performs the copyrighted works", we all know perfectly well what they mean: YouTube sits there while people stream off them. It's like saying my SMTP server performs recitations of my e-mails as I send them. Obviously that law was meant to forbid me setting up a projector and selling people tickets to watch videos I've bought, that's what "performing" a copyrighted work is. In case there's any doubt, they just come out and say it in (31):

YouTube then publicly performs the chosen video by sending streaming video content from YouTube's servers to the user's computer

Then Viacom complains because they're lazy (6):

it has decided to shift the burden entirely onto copyright owners to monitor the YouTube site on a daily or hourly basis to detect infringing videos and send notices to YouTube demanding that it "take down" the infringing works

Unbelievable, Google. What makes you think you can possibly shift the burden entirely onto copyright owners? Actually, they probably think that because of the DMCA. Yes, I was shocked too, but the DMCA actually does have a section buried in the middle entitled "Limitations on liability relating to material online". And in section 512, subsection d, bullet 3 (actually, pretty much every subsection of 512 is identical, this thing is absurdly redundant) it states that YouTube needs to, "upon notification of claimed infringement as described in subsection (c)(3), respond[] expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing". DMCA: fighting for the people.

The next couple pages is the always impressively boring plaintiff exposition, but in skimming it I noticed something that made me smile: they list some of the videos they disseminate online themselves, including:

"SpongeBob SquarePants," and "Dora the Explorer," among others, from Nickelodeon; and "Beavis and Butthead," "Laguna Beach," and "Jackass", among others, from MTV

I would love nothing more than to hear a $500/hour lawyer expounding about how Viacom has willingly given Dora the Explorer and Laguna Beach to the masses

And while Viacom demands catholicons for their problems (can you have more than one? oh well), I can understand their annoyance. But then I found the latest filing from yesterday, which actually manages to top the aforementioned bitching (legal term). This is the one where the judge responds to Viacom's demands, so it's a nice concise summary of what Viacom wants. For example, the logs of everything everyone has done on YouTube ever ("all data from the Logging database concerning each time a YouTube video has been viewed"). This is obviously crazy, except as the wired article points out, it was granted. Viacom and Google probably stared at the ruling with identical slack-jawed amazement. Viacom claims that this isn't a privacy violation, because (quoting a Google blog post) "an IP address without additional information cannot [identify you]". Technically true, although the "additional information" required is really just the date/time you were using it; that's sufficient for an ISP to pinpoint who was using it. And since the data Viacom is demanding includes "the time when the user started to watch the video", this claim is specious. But other site have already talked about that, this is the epic one:

The computer source code which controls both the YouTube.com search function and Google's internet search tool "Google.com"

...right. Viacom knows perfectly well it'll be a cold day in hell before Google gives them the source code to their search engine, so I'm not sure what their angle is here; maybe it's the patent insanity that's lead other sites to ignore this. I purport that Microsoft has intentionally rigged Windows to blue-screen periodically; can I have the source code now? But wait, they're not done yet:

Defendants have purposefully designed or modified the tool to facilitate the location of infringing content

They're not kidding, they claim Google has modified their search engine to intentionally favor copyrighted data. They've apparently forgotten about their earlier filing, when they accosted Google for doing the opposite:

YouTube has also implemented features that prevent copyright owners from finding infringing videos by searching the Youtube site. YouTube thereby hinders Plaintiffs' attempts to locate infringing videos to protect their rights

So either Google is intentionally helping people find copyrighted videos, or they're intentionally thwarting it -- either way, Viacom is pissed off. It's a bold move claiming that Google is making it harder for them to find copyrighted data by taking it down. Not that this thwarting has actually slowed Viacom down (3):

Plaintiffs have identified more than 150,000 unauthorized clips of their copyrighted programming on YouTube

Way to get around that Google blocking, Viacom. You showed 'em. Here's the judge's actual signature on the order to "compel production of all data from the Logging database", just so you can see it :):



BLAME! E-mail that guy and tell him he should learn how computers work before he makes rulings

EDIT: Wow. Speaking of abusing pre-Internet laws, it's like the government saw this post and wanted to show just how far it can go: a woman was charged with violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse act because she signed up for MySpace with a fake name. Viacom sounds downright competent now

01 July 2008

Heck yes it's Web 2.0

Awhile ago, Digg decided to Web 2.0-ify their site. Which I'm cool with, yay for the future and all. So now when you look at a story, the comments aren't included in the initial request, they're loaded via AJAX right after. Annoying but theoretically faster if there are enough comments on the story. What's actually cool is subthreads aren't loaded, just the initial comment tree; comments on comments are loaded as requested. Even digging and commenting is AJAXified...as long as you're logged in. If you're not, you get this:



Is this AJAX? Hell no it's not, to login you have to go to another page, which means all the progress you've made on your current page (which can be considerable since the rest of it is AJAX) is now lost; you have to start over. And it doesn't check to see if you're logged in at click-time like a real AJAX application, it's hard-coded into the link at load-time, so if you open a bunch of different Digg stories and then try to login, you need to reload all of them. Nicely done Digg. At least I've stopped getting a dialog saying I can't digg stories I've left open for too long, it only took them like a year to fix that one