Cody Taylor

Miracle Jones writes “A recent memo from the ‘Author’s Guild’ to the writers and publishers that it supposedly represents shows that only million of the 5 million dollar settlement with Google will be paid to writers, and that the most a writer can receive for a book is 0. Many people speculate that Google’s monopoly over all of out-of-copyright works will result in a brutal monopoly that will hurt both writers and readers, and that the ‘Author’s Guild’ had no right to make the deal in the first place. How will it all shake down? Should writers be paid at all for their work? Will Google be any good at the publishing racket?”

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Hugh Pickens writes “Satellites have shown how the Arctic sea-ice has been shrinking in recent years, but a three-man scientific team making an expedition to the North Pole should give scientists a better idea of how thin the ice is becoming. ‘We’re making the surface journey because that’s the only way we have of gathering these direct observations of how thick the snow and the ice is,’ said team leader Pen Hadow, who in 2003 became the first person to trek solo and without support from Canada to the North Pole. ‘That’s what the scientists really need to know.’ There is more at stake for the British team than achieving some invented personal goal: ‘The journey’s going to be about 700 miles in distance, taking about three months,’ said Hadow. ‘In the earlier phases, the temperatures are about minus 50 degrees … And we’re towing sledges with our camping equipment and our survey equipment — almost twice our body weights — for most of the distance.'”

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

jonr writes “‘I call it my billion-dollar mistake. It was the invention of the null reference in 1965. At that time, I was designing the first comprehensive type system for references in an object oriented language (ALGOL W). My goal was to ensure that all use of references should be absolutely safe, with checking performed automatically by the compiler. But I couldn’t resist the temptation to put in a null reference, simply because it was so easy to implement. This has led to innumerable errors, vulnerabilities, and system crashes, which have probably caused a billion dollars of pain and damage in the last forty years. In recent years, a number of program analysers like PREfix and PREfast in Microsoft have been used to check references, and give warnings if there is a risk they may be non-null. More recent programming languages like Spec# have introduced declarations for non-null references. This is the solution, which I rejected in 1965.’ This is an abstract from Tony Hoare Presentation on QCon. I’m raised on C-style programming languages, and have always used null pointers/references, but I am having trouble of grokking null-reference free language. Is there a good reading out there that explains this?”

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

An anonymous reader writes “Pages at ireport.com and extortionletterinfo.com have been documenting and researching the activities of George P. Riddick III, previously known for his lawsuits against IMSI and Xoom at the turn of the century. In 2007 he issued a largely-ignored press release claiming the majority of clip art online infringes a copyright and has ranted about how Microsoft and Google are stealing from him. In recent months, he’s apparently made a business model of going after web site operators who were using clip art they believed to be legally licensed or public domain, telling them they’re infringing clip art collections he hasn’t offered commercially in years and making outrageous settlement demands. He seems to have tested the waters on this some years back, but emboldened by the passage of the PRO-IP act, he’s gone aggro with it. A few dodgy anonyblogs had popped up to ‘out’ him as a copyright abuser, but these recent ireport.com and extortionletterinfo.com reports go much deeper in documenting and researching Riddick’s recent one-man campaign to be the RIAA of clip art.”

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Kleiba writes “The highest German Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht, Federal Constitutional Court) ruled that electronic voting machines like Nedap ESD1 and ESD2 are not permissible in Germany. Der Spiegel, a well-known German newspaper, is featuring article on today’s decision (in German; Babelfish translation here) which was the result of a lawsuit by physicist Ulrich Wiesner and his father Joachim Wiesner, a professor emeritus of political science. The main argument against the voting machines in the eyes of the Court is that they conflict with the principle of transparency. 2009 is a major election year for Germany, with parliamentary elections in the fall.” Reader Dr. Hok writes “Voting machines are not illegal per se, but with these machines it wasn’t possible to verify the results after the votes were cast. The verification procedure by the German authorities was flawed, too: only specimens were tested, not the machines actually used in the elections, and the detailed results (including the source code) were not made public. The results of the election remain legally valid, though.”

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

We recently discussed the perspective that the harrowing of Wall Street was caused by over-reliance on computer models that produced a single number to characterize risk. Wired has a piece profiling David X. Li, the quant behind the formula that enabled the creation of such simple risk models. “For five years, Li’s formula, known as a Gaussian copula function, looked like an unambiguously positive breakthrough, a piece of financial technology that allowed hugely complex risks to be modeled with more ease and accuracy than ever before. With his brilliant spark of mathematical legerdemain, Li made it possible for traders to sell vast quantities of new securities, expanding financial markets to unimaginable levels. His method was adopted by everybody from bond investors and Wall Street banks to ratings agencies and regulators. … [T]he real danger was created not because any given trader adopted it but because every trader did. In financial markets, everybody doing the same thing is the classic recipe for a bubble and inevitable bust.”

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

An anonymous reader writes “PlayingWithWire profiles two open source tools for Web development, comparing Joomla! and WordPress through the lens of usability. The article has apparently upset a few people at the Joomla! forum, but it does bring up a good point. Many open source projects are developed by engineers for engineers — should they focus more on usability? PlayingWithWire makes a bold analogy: ‘If Joomla! is Linux, then WordPress is Mac OS X. WordPress might offer only 90% of the features of Joomla!, but in most cases WordPress is both easier to use and faster to get up and running.'” The article repeatedly stresses that blogging platform WordPress and CMS harness Joomla! occupy different levels of the content hierarchy. How fair is it to twit Joomla! on usability?

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

jamie found a blog entry by Paul Lamere, working for audio company Echo Nest, in which he experiments with detecting which songs use a click track. Lamere gives this background: “Sometime in the last 10 or 20 years, rock drumming has changed. Many drummers will now don headphones in the studio (and sometimes even for live performances) and synchronize their playing to an electronic metronome — the click track. …some say that songs recorded against a click track sound sterile, that the missing tempo deviations added life to a song.” Lamere’s experiments can’t be called “scientific,” but he does manage to tease out some interesting conclusions about songs and artists past and present using Echo Nest’s developer API.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Imagine if “Backrub” had become the verb instead of Google? Could have been, as shown in this collection of historical resources, including: a rundown on the original hardware supporting what was in 1997 a fledgling search engine called Backrub; links to an early version; and, a Stanford paper by Brin and Page explaining the then novel concept.

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes “Lest there be any doubt that District Judge Michael J. Davis, presiding over the Duluth, Minnesota, case, Capitol Records v. Thomas, really does ‘get it’ about the toxic effect the RIAA, its lead henchman Matthew Oppenheim, and their lawyers have had on the judicial process, all such doubt should be removed by the order he just entered (PDF). It removes control of the decision-making process from the RIAA, Oppenheim, and the lawyers. In the order Judge Davis spells out, in the clearest possible terms so that there can be no misunderstanding, that at the extraordinary 2-day settlement conference he has scheduled for later this month, each record company plaintiff is ordered to produce an ‘officer’ of the corporation, or a ‘managing agent’ of the corporation, who has corporate, decision-making, ‘power.’ The judge makes it clear that no one who has ‘settlement authority’ with any limits or range attached to it will be acceptable. This means that ‘RIAA hitman’ Matthew Oppenheim will not be able to control the settlement process as he has been permitted by the Courts to do in the past.”

Read more of this story at Slashdot.