AOL responds

AOL reacted pretty quickly to all the negative publicity about their AIM Terms of Service. The new language is much better. The power of the web, eh?

The new text (with my emphases):“You or the owner of the Content retain ownership of all right, title and interest in Content that you post to public areas of any AIM Product. However, by submitting or posting Content to public areas of AIM Products (for example, posting a message on a message board or submitting your picture for the ‘Rate-A-Buddy’ feature), you grant AOL, its parent, affiliates, subsidiaries, assigns, agents and licensees the irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide right to reproduce, display, perform, distribute, adapt and promote this Content in any medium. Once you submit or post Content to any public area on an AIM Product, AOL does not need to give you any further right to inspect or approve uses of such Content or to compensate you for any such uses. AOL owns all right, title and interest in any compilation, collective work or other derivative work created by AOL using or incorporating Content posted to public areas of AIM Products.”

AIM Terms of Service

Welcome to the revised AIM Terms of Service from AOL. The interesting thing is that AOL wants the benefits of being a common carrier (e.g. they disclaim all responsibility for what passes through their system) while at the same time gaining full rights over that content. Would you use a VoIP service from somebody that reserved the right to record your conversations and publish them? If these various communications media (POTS, VoIP, IM, email, etc.) are really converging, let’s make sure that AOL doesn’t set the standard for privacy:

“Although you or the owner of the Content retain ownership of all right, title and interest in Content that you post to any AIM Product, AOL owns all right, title and interest in any compilation, collective work or other derivative work created by AOL using or incorporating this Content. In addition, by posting Content on an AIM Product, you grant AOL… the irrevocable, perpetual, worldwide right to reproduce, display, perform, distribute, adapt and promote this Content in any medium. You waive any right to privacy. You waive any right to inspect or approve uses of the Content or to be compensated for any such uses.”

(Via BoingBoing.)

Snow and zombies

Yet another snowstorm this weekend, bringing us to over 90 inches for the season. It snowed most of Saturday: big, wet flakes that stuck to all the trees and left inches of slushy stuff on the driveway. Very pretty… now go away!
Rather than venture out, I spent most of the weekend curled up with philosophy. Not only do I have a mid-term paper due in a couple of weeks, and my regular reading to do for class; I also received the new Dennett book, Sweet Dreams, on Saturday. (Amazon.com is hopelessly confused about this book: in some places it says that it’s coming on April 1, in others that it’s available now, shipping in 24 hours.)
Back in November, I blogged about David Chalmers and his obsession with zombies (philosophical and otherwise). In Sweet Dreams, Dennett discusses what he calls the Zombic Hunch: the intuitive idea that there might conceivably be zombie-like creatures that are EXACTLY LIKE ORDINARY PEOPLE except that they don’t have consciousness. Personally I find the notion of zombies incoherent – even in principle – but apparently a lot of people take them seriously. Like Dennett, I find the idea of philosophers arguing about the number of zombies that can fit on the head of a pin to be slightly unedifying. Oh well. If you want to get a feel for the issue without buying Dennett’s or Chalmers’ books, you can read this account of their debate.
And now I have to finish my notes on Searle’s infuriating Chinese Room. There are some interesting issues in this famous thought experiment, but ever since I first read it in The Mind’s I (over 20 years ago) I’ve been frustrated by the blatant equivocation and contradiction in the way Searle presents it. Perhaps it’s a useful discipline for me: learning to concentrate on [the important bits of] the message without being distracted by the lousy medium.

deadwing

Oh joy, oh bliss.
From the News section of the Porcupine Tree website:
The new Porcupine Tree album Deadwing is released on 28th March by Warner Music in Europe, and on 19th April by Lava in the US. […] There are guest appearances by Mikael Akerfeldt of Opeth, and Adrian Belew of King Crimson.
The track listing of the album is:
1. Deadwing (9.46)
2. Shallow (4.17)
3. Lazarus (4.18)
4. Halo (4.38)
5. Arriving Somewhere But Not Here (12.02)
6. Mellotron Scratch (6.57)
7. Open Car (3.46)
8. The Start of Something Beautiful (7.39)
9. Glass Arm Shattering (6.12)
deadwing.com is a microsite dedicated to the album, with audio, video and other media relating to the album and the film screenplay on which it is based.
The European tour starts at the end of March, and a US tour will commence in mid May.

You can download a 19MB QT video mashup of some of the tracks from the album here; the single Shallow is on iTunes. And I just received email from Ticketmaster:
Porcupine Tree
Somerville Theatre, Somerville
Wed, 05/18/05 8:00pm
On Sale Fri, 03/11/05 10:00am

(Thanks for the corrections from the men from the ministry….)

How the FSF really gets its money?

Arriving at Google this morning for a routine search, I noticed that they were highlighting a new feature, Google Local. “I wonder what kind of local resources they cover,” I thought, and I tried a few sample entries. Plumbers? Boring. Restaurants? Lots of them. Escort agencies? The first result was the Free Software Foundation. Hmmm. And the second result was for the local Veterans’ Hospital. Career opportunities for those returing from Iraq? Earth to Google….
[Click image for screenshot]

On how to react to good news

Back in January, Andrew Sullivan announced that he was taking a break from blogging, and so I stopped visiting his site. (A degree of “political burn-out” may also be responsible.) But today, I popped over to see what was new, and I came across an email that he’s received that captured my feelings exactly. I have no idea who sent it – I wish I knew – but I hope it’s OK to quote the entire thing here:
Respectfully, Andrew, I beg to differ on the alleged churlishness of Democrats on progress in the Middle East.
Let me explain what’s maddening to Democrats: no matter what happens that is progressive in the Middle East, Republicans and the Bush regime not only claims credit for it, but also claim that the war in Iraq is the reason for the progress. Libya doing a deal on weapons and Lockerbie so it can back into the international oil market? Must be because Bush invaded Iraq! Lebanese reacting with revulsion to Hariri’s assassination, probably by Syrian agents, and demanding Syria’s exit from their country? Must be because Bush invaded Iraq! Progress in the Palestinian-Israeli peace effort as a result of Arafat’s death? Must be because Bush invaded Iraq! Who’s really peddling nonsequitors here?
In short, what drives Democrats batty [is] the tendency to take partisan political credit for anything progressive, and to blame anything retrograde on political enemies (both foreign and domestic) who “just don’t get it.” Never is there any recognition that Bush’s international strategy even MIGHT be responsible for the negative radicalization we’re seeing in places like Iran, North Korea, and maybe even Venezuela — not to mention alienating essential partners in nation-building.
And what really kills Democrats is the way that Bush not only takes credit for everything that is going well, and denies any responsibility for things that are going badly (and, when we’re honest, how many people really feel that the world is, on balance, headed in the right direction?) — it’s that he then claims these false credit as the basis for “political capital” to spend on what Democrats feel are retrograde domestic policies.
The result is that the first reaction any Democrat has to good news in the Middle East (or anywhere else) is to think, “How can Bush be denied political credit for this, since you know he’s going to claim it.” And the important thing to emphasize is that it is Bush’s own political habits that have created this dynamic, and it started right after 9-11.

Exactly.

SEED meeting

I’m involved in Sun’s engineering mentoring program, known (inevitably) by its acronym SEED (Sun Engineering Enrichment & Development), and today we’re having an all-day meeting for the participants, both mentors and… hmm. What word should I use? I know that some people use mentee, and I’ve even seen it in a dictionary, but it doesn’t work for me.
Anyway, we’ve got various speakers scheduled, including executives and domain specialists. There’s also going to be a session consisting of short presentations by the mentees program participants. As I blog this, Greg Papadopoulos is reprising his CEC presentation “The Future Is Not What It Used To Be”, in which he highlights the shift in software/service business models and the implications for innovation within the company.
Naturally this is a distributed meeting. Most participants are in our Menlo Park campus, and the agenda runs from 9-5 Pacific time. There are five of us in a conference room here in Burlington, Massachusetts; we’re going to have to decide whether to stay until 8pm, taking into account the winter storm that is bearing down on us….
[UPDATE: After a careful risk analysis, I drove home around 3:20pm; it took me about an hour. It started out as snow; by the time I got home it was ice, ice ice. And now I’m dialled back in to the meeting.]
[Blogged on my Ferrari running Solaris 10, using the web interface to my blog. Now I need a good Solaris blogging tool, as good as MarsEdit on my Mac. And despite Alec’s comment. I don’t regard EMACS as an alternative. Maybe it’s a platform on which to build a solution, but…]

Formula 1 the way it's supposed to be

I just watched an excellent Grand Prix in Australia. [My sympathy for my SunUK colleagues: if they stayed up to watch, it’s now 4:45AM over there.] Close competitive racing, plenty of passing, general uncertainty because of all the new rules…. In the end Fisichella scored a solid win for Renault, while Michael Schumacher’s Ferrari was in the garage.
I’ve always been a David Coulthard fan, and I was disappointed when McLaren let him go at the end of last season. While it was gratifying that the new Red Bull (ex-Jaguar) team picked him up, nobody expected very much from them. I was therefore delighted that Coulthard was able to hold on to 3rd for most of the race, and finished 4th, ahead of the Williams and McLaren drivers. Stunning!