This guy’s coming home next week. The difference between ROSAT and UARS is ROSAT’s a LOT sturdier than UARS was. When this one comes down, that entire dish is supposedly going to be intact. It’s made out of gold and some stuff that doesn’t melt until about 1100 degrees. It just won’t get that hot coming down. There’s another big difference between the two as well. UARS’s path was mostly over the Pacific and some pretty remote and isolated areas of the planet such as Siberia and Africa. It spent very brief periods of time over some populated areas. The path for ROSAT is a little different:
ROSAT will be flying over the US, South America, Indonesia, and some pretty crowded places.
One thing that will be the same as UARS tho, they won’t have a clue when it’s coming down until about one day in advance. That of course tells you where it’s coming down.
As with that last one, just keep your head up next week!
Am toying with Firefox 4.0 right now. Actually kind of loving it. It does a lot of things IE 9 doesn’t do, like display pages correctly and not freeze up certain types of input fields. About THIS close to making it my default browser over Chrome.
Google, based in Mountain View, California, had said it considered the trial a threat to freedom on the Internet because it could force providers to attempt an impossible task — prescreening the thousands of hours of footage uploaded every day onto sites like YouTube.
“We will appeal this astonishing decision,” Google spokesman Bill Echikson said at the courthouse. “We are deeply troubled by this decision. It attacks the principles of freedom on which the Internet was built.”
The precedent for Google’s defense was set a long time ago. Basically, the concept of “guns don’t kill people, people do” set the standard. Now, that argument was rather simple. A gun is an inanimate object. It does nothing but fire a projectile. If you lock a gun safely away, unloaded, you never have to look at it to see that it’s not doing any harm.
The internet however, has never been that simple. From its inception, it was something people assumed was something safe, and anonymous. It was a place where people could go to live out their wildest fantasies and be a person they never could, or would, be in real life. The problem was even then that this was never true. You’re never anonymous, and your actions quite often will eventually come back to you. It also became a dangerous place because people use the assumed anonymity as a tool to entice victims of all kinds of crimes.
And any time anyone mentioned some way of addressing those crimes, people threw fits about “the principles of freedom on which the Internet was built”.
Slowly but surely over the years some levels of protections started seeping into the internet. The most obvious was the piracy issues over music. Now, this is where things get dicey for Google. Try uploading a Prince video to Google. I double dog dare ya. I uploaded a copy of David Bowie’s Saturday Night Live performance in 1980 or so and got my entire account deleted. No warning, just shut down.
But, in a case where a horrid crime was committed, Google says it’s impossible to monitor their videos in a timely manner. That didn’t fly too well in Italy. And, it doesn’t fly with me. A crime is a crime. There is no right to privacy when committing a crime. To assume the internet is some magical place where anything goes, including crimes, is a farce that grown men like the executives at Google know is not true. Now, to assume Google is even the least bit concerned about anything other than lawsuits, once again, go look for a video by Prince on Google. Now, watch this:
Google allows people to upload the song so long as it’s not the video. Piracy? Who needs it. I just stream Youtube a lot. Google knows damn well Prince doesn’t want his stuff on Youtube. That’s piracy in its purest form. The only difference is the lawsuits went after the videos. So, for those same people to argue that showing a video of an assault is OK because they waited for someone else to tell them it was there just falls back on that same “it’s not piracy if it’s not an exact copy”, and, “guns don’t kill people”. It’s not the mechanics, it’s the intent. Google intends to allow anything on their site until someone else complains. By that point, the intent quite often has already been fulfilled. If it’s to embarrass another kid, it’s done. Then it’s yanked. If it’s to show how strong some thug is assaulting an innocent kid, it’s done, everyone knows, then it’s pulled.
Sorry Google, I’m with the Italians on this. Aiding and abetting in a crime is not justified by lack of staff. In this day and age, it’s too easy to filter out stuff being uploaded. That just leaves the un-obvious stuff to be screened. Sure, it’s a profit drag, but everyone else in the world has to worry about legal liability, there’s no reason Google can just ignore it. And, the internet will be just as “free” as it was before. There are all kinds of ways of transmitting your message, a public video forum is just one of many.
And, I assure you folks at Google, if my seven year old had stumbled on something like that trying to watch videos of John Wall, Italy would not be the only country you’d be having legal problems with. If I set my filter to “G”, you better make damn sure I only get “G” stuff.
Sure, it’s not as easy as just setting up a server and letting everyone run wild with it. But, that’s just tough.
The code that was used to hack Gmail accounts in China is now publicly available on the Internet, and security experts are urging computer users throughout the world to be highly vigilant until a patch can be developed.
The hack involves Internet Explorer 6, the browser that came with the Windows XP operating system that, while outdated, still powers millions of businesses and home computers and is now dangerously compromised.
Am toying with Google’s Chrome browser. So far, I like it. Nothing real fancy. It does however, lean heavily on Google’s search capabilities to make the default blank page a lot more usable than “You’ve opened a new tab”. So far it hasn’t really helped me any, but I think over time and usage, it will become a lot more of an asset. It does seem faster, but I have a feeling they’re not worrying themselves too much about phishing and other malware that has slowed down Internet Explorer. We’ll see. I actually wrote this post using Chrome and it seems to work perfectly here whereas there is some bugginess with IE7. My over-all thought so far is this is definitely a thumbs up experience. Much more so than Firefox or Safari ever was for me. I haven’t used it enough yet to say whether or not to toss Explorer in the garbage yet, but I have a feeling that’s just a matter of time.
UPDATE 10/24/2008: I am switching computers at home. I won’t be re-installing Chrome. I have run into way too many shortcomings and problems with it. Mainly with any type of video streaming or java intensive sites. I am not one of those anti-Microsoft people, so Internet Explorer more often than not works fine for me. It certainly is a lot more reliable at this point than Chrome has been. It is fast, but so far that has been it’s only upside.
Not according to Google. As of tomorrow, if you bought a video from Google Video, it won’t work anymore. Just for chucks and giggles, and to amuse my son, we “bought” the Choo-Choo episode since he loves trains. We watched it and watched it. As of tomorrow, I’ll have to tell him Google won’t let him watch it any more.
So, I’m stuck in a predicament. Do I disappoint my child who wants to watch what he paid for? Or, do I download it and he lives happily ever after? I already know what my decision is, please tell me what you would, or intend to do.