DailyDirt: Animals With Tools

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

The more we watch animals, the more we can see them show off their intelligence. A bunch of different animals have been observed making and using tools -- and sharing how to use them with their friends. Here are just a few examples of some animals using tools in fascinating (and maybe dangerous) ways.

• A captive cockatoo has been seen creating a tool spontaneously and improving upon its design. This behavior has not been observed in the wild (yet?), and it hasn't been replicated by other captive cockatoos. Still, it shows there's tool-building potential in these birds. [url]
• Female chimps are usually the innovators in primate communities. The female chimps tend to leave their families when they mature... and the socializations and sharing create opportunities for starting new cultural trends -- like ant fishing with twigs or washing food before eating. [url]
• Unfortunately, a mobile chat app for bonobos didn't get funded on Kickstarter. But this could still be a really cool zoo exhibit to get people communicating with apes. [url]
• Forget sharks with lasers attached to their heads. The Ukrainian navy is training dolphins "to attack enemy combat swimmers using special knives or pistols fixed to their heads." Hmm. Arming dolphins doesn't seem necessary since they're already powerful enough to kill a person underwater... but maybe dolphins with guns will look more menacing to enemies. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post.

Filed Under: animals, biology, bonobos, chimps, cockatoo, dolphins, intelligence, primates, smart animals, tools

Oh Look: Police Can Use Backpage.com To Track Down, Arrest & Convict Pimps & Prostitutes

from the why-didn't-anyone-think-of-that-before... dept

A few years ago, there was a ton of political grandstanding against Craigslist, because there was some prostitution on the site. As we noted at the time, it was pretty misguided. Craigslist cooperated with law enforcement and many law enforcement officials realized that Craigslist was an excellent tool to help them find and arrest law breakers. We pointed out that going after Craigslist instead of the actual law breakers would mean that the activity would just move somewhere else. Indeed, Craigslist finally caved to tons of public pressure and blocked any ad that might be related to prostitution... and it did nothing to stop prostitution or human trafficking. It just moved elsewhere. The same crowd that wrongfully targeted Craigslist then shifted all of their attention to Backpage.com. Even though the law has made it clear that Backpage, as a third party service provider is not liable, the grandstanding continues against Backpage. The whole thing has gotten to be so much, that Backpage's owners, Village Voice Media, have sold off the newspapers to separate them out from the site, and to avoid having the two properties connected.

The crusading against Backpage.com has become increasingly intense and increasingly misguided lately. We get press releases all the time, full of emotional, but legally false, language, all attacking Backpage.com. No one seems to even want to recognize that attacking Backpage instead of those actually responsible only makes it that much more difficult to track down the real criminals. Some law enforcement officials are not quite as misguided. As with Craigslist, we're seeing cases where Backpage.com is instrumental in putting together the case -- in this case, against someone who had set up a brothel.

And yet, the attacks on Backpage.com continue. The whole thing is stunning to me. Here's a tool that is a goldmine for the police to collect evidence against those actually responsible for prostitution and human trafficking... and the response is to try to shut it down and drive those efforts further underground, rather than actually going after and arresting those responsible. It's shocking.

Filed Under: liability, prostitution, third party liability, tools
Companies: backpage.com, village voice media

DailyDirt: Tools For The Blind

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Visually impaired folks have access to more technology than ever before. Despite various setbacks that prevent some ingenious innovations, plenty of developers are still working on hardware and software tools to help out people with disabilities. Here are just a few examples of some interesting projects for the blind.

• An iPhone app called VizWiz helps blind users by letting them take a picture of something that is confusing -- and then crowdsourcing a helpful description to make things clear. This app uses Amazon's Mechanical Turk service to obtain helpful people, and the average turnaround time for a description is 27 seconds. [url]
• The Poet image description tool is open source software that helps to crowdsource image descriptions for digital books. This tool is aimed at textbook illustrations that aren't too helpful for people who can't see them. [url]
• The Tacit project is developing a hand-held sonar device with haptic feedback -- a technological take on the white cane. It's still just a prototype device, but so far, users seem to be able to use it fairly quickly without much training. [url]
• Haptic shoes could help people navigate by vibrating different parts of the shoe to tell the wearer if there are obstacles ahead. These shoes, like the Tacit project's handheld, are based on open Arduino hardware -- allowing other developers to contribute improvements and build upon existing tools. [url]

If you'd like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post.

Filed Under: arduino, blind, crowdsourced, haptics, hardware, innovations, mechanical turk, software, sonar, tacit project, tools, visually impaired, vizwiz
Companies: amazon

Twitter's Lawsuits Against Spam Tool Providers Could Easily Backfire

from the risky dept

It's no secret that there's a fair bit of spam on Twitter -- which is annoying -- and it's nice to know that Twitter knows this is an issue that it needs to fight. But I'm a bit concerned by the news that it's now suing spamming tool providers as well as some spammers. Going after the spammers directly for terms of service violations makes sense and they're fair game. But going after tools providers? That seems risky. I'm reminded of a very similar situation from a few years ago, in which Craigslist went after spam tool providers as well. Some of the details there raised significant questions -- most specifically in Craigslist arguing that service providers could and should be liable for actions of their users. That approach rejects the core concept behind protection from secondary liability -- something that's been quite important to tons of internet sites over the years, including Craigslist and Twitter.

I recognize how tempting it is to go after the tools providers over spam. But just as we don't blame Twitter or Craigslist for how users use (or abuse) their system, those companies shouldn't blame tools providers for the actions of their users either. At the very least, I could see it coming back (in a big, bad way) to haunt Twitter, by giving opponents in lawsuits the ability to point to Twitter's own claims against these tool providers to suggest that it, too, should be liable for the actions of its users. From the details (embedded below), it appears that Twitter is arguing that all users breached the terms of service -- and it carefully notes that each of the software providers have registered accounts -- meaning they agreed to the terms at some point. I understand why it's being argued this way, but I'm not sure it makes sense. The terms apply to that account, not everything that someone with an account does outside of the account. Twitter also claims that the spamware providers are involved in tortious interference with a contract as well as fraud and "unlaweful, unfair and fraudulent business practices" under California law.

To its credit, Twitter does not go as far as Craigslist did in its anti-spam lawsuits -- which actually tried to use copyright and trademark law, as well as claiming that violations of terms of service are a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Thankfully, Twitter avoids going down those paths where those very specific laws might come back to haunt it -- and sticking with slightly more defensible claims.

While I'm incredibly sympathetic towards Twitter's position here, and the goal of stomping out spammers, I still find it troubling in a few ways. Twitter can and should (absolutely) look at ways to kill spammer accounts and to block spamming tools through technological means. It's when things go legal that it could get tricky. While my heart wants them to win -- I still fear that the arguments that the service provider itself is guilty because their tools are used for spamming floats a little too close to arguments about whether or not Twitter is responsible for how its users use Twitter.

Filed Under: liability, spam, tools
Companies: craigslist, twitter

EU Commissioner Kroes: Copyright Is 'A Tool To Punish And Withhold'; New Business Models, Not More Enforcement Needed

from the she-really-gets-it dept

Neelie Kroes is that rare thing: a politician who actually seems to understand digital technologies. Before she became the European Commissioner for Digital Agenda, her current post, she was European Commissioner for Competition, and in that capacity made a speech about open standards in 2008 that included the following interesting statements:

It is simplistic to assume that because some intellectual property protection is good, that such protection should therefore be absolute in all circumstances.

and

if we extend intellectual property protection for technology, then we should only do so when it is justified under intellectual property principles, i.e. on the basis of evidence that such extension will lead to more innovations and will therefore promote consumer welfare.

Those comments were about problems with the patent system, and now Kroes has brought her frankness to bear on copyright:

let's ask ourselves, is the current copyright system the right and only tool to achieve our objectives? Not really, I'm afraid. We need to keep on fighting against piracy, but legal enforceability is becoming increasingly difficult; the millions of dollars invested trying to enforce copyright have not stemmed piracy. Meanwhile citizens increasingly hear the word copyright and hate what is behind it. Sadly, many see the current system as a tool to punish and withhold, not a tool to recognise and reward.

That's pretty stunning stuff for an EU Commissioner to be saying, given the European Commission's whole-hearted support for ACTA, and its plans for IPRED 2. Kroes goes on:

We need to go back to basics and put the artist at the centre, not only of copyright law, but of our whole policy on culture and growth. In times of change, we need creativity, out-of-the-box thinking: creative art to overcome this difficult period and creative business models to monetise the art. And for this we need flexibility in the system, not the straitjacket of a single model. The platforms, channels and business models by which content is produced, distributed and used can be as varied and innovative as the content itself.

Again, that focus on new business models rather than ever-more punitive copyright enforcement is a refreshing recognition by a very senior European politician of the real problem facing the creative industries: their failure to adapt to the vastly-different business landscape created by the Internet. Kroes picks up on that theme in her conclusion:

There are many new ideas out there – ideas, for example, like extended collective licensing as practised in Scandinavia, or other ideas that seek to both legitimise and monetise certain uses of works. Are these ideas the right ones to achieve our goals? I don't know. But too often we can't even try them out because of some old set of rules made for a different age – whether it is the Berne Convention, the legislation exceptions and limitations on the VAT Directive or some other current law. So new ideas which could benefit artists are killed before they can show their merit, dead on arrival. This needs to change.

I can't set out for you now what the model should be and indeed it's not the kind of model that should be developed from the centre. Rather we need to create a framework in which a model – or indeed several models – can develop organically, flexibly, in ways that support artists.

I see how some European stakeholders see with horror the arrival of Netflix, or the expansion of iTunes. We need to react, not to be paralysed by fear. Let's take chances. As Zygmunt Bauman put it, "the function of culture is not to satisfy existing needs, but to create new ones".

So that's my answer: it's not all about copyright. It is certainly important, but we need to stop obsessing about that. The life of an artist is tough: the crisis has made it tougher. Let's get back to basics, and deliver a system of recognition and reward that puts artists and creators at its heart.

It's tremendously good news that Kroes has not only recognized these problems but is prepared to articulate them publicly. It suggests that at least someone within the European Commission gets it. Too bad, then, that Kroes seems to be as exceptional in that respect as in her grasp of the underlying digital technologies that are driving these huge changes.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: business models, copyright, europe, neelie kroes, tools

DailyDirt: Gee, Brain, What Do You Want To Do Tonight?

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Maybe animals are getting smarter. We've covered how some monkeys have figured out how to take pictures of themselves, and we're learning more interesting things about animal behavior all the time. Here are a few more interesting discoveries that could bring us some damn dirty apes.. and fish and bees and lizards.

• There's mounting evidence that fish might be able to use tools. So someday a fish might need a bicycle, like a woman needs a man... [url]
• Bumblebees tackle the traveling salesman problem all the time and seem to get pretty good solutions -- perhaps using some of the same tricks that humans use to try to find optimal solutions. Hmm. Do educated fleas do this kind of thing, too? [url]
• Lizards from Puerto Rico have passed a cognitive test that was designed for birds. Yoda was right about some advanced cognitive skills: "You must unlearn what you have learned." [url]
• To discover more interesting biological curiosities, check out what's currently floating around the StumbleUpon universe. [url]  

By the way, StumbleUpon can recommend some good Techdirt articles, too.

Filed Under: bumblebees, fish, lizards, monkeys, tools, traveling salesman

Why Didn't Media Companies Create Their Own Zite?

from the $40-million-would-have-been-nice... dept

While we're wondering how the NY Times might have better spent the $40 million they dumped into the Emperor's New Paywall, when you combine that with the story of a bunch of big media companies ordering Zite to stop making their content more useful and readable, you come to the natural question of wondering why these big media companies haven't made their own Zites:

For publishers, the problem is that Zite is really, really good at personalization and filtering. In my use of the app over the past few weeks, I’ve consistently found that the app shows me headlines I want to click on – and that’s the test that really matters.

We in media should think about what led us to this place, where major news outlets are targeting a company that is creating something they should create: an innovative, personalized news source.

What efforts have major media companies made to build or enable their own innovative news consumption products?

Couldn't the NY Times or News Corp. have spent the millions they've spent on locking up their content towards something like Zite that actually makes their content more valuable and more useful? The problem seems to be that they value the content over all, and don't realize that, just as important as the content itself, is how people find and interact with it. Unfortunately, it seems unlikely that any of the big media properties recognize that yet.

Filed Under: aggregation, journalism, readers, tools
Companies: zite

Do Tools Ever Die Off?

from the species-extinction dept

Robert Krulwich, who has done some interviews with Kevin Kelly recently, highlighted a recent discussion in which Kelly makes quite a claim:

"I say there is no species of technology that have ever gone globally extinct on this planet."

Further in the debate, Kelly expanded and even bet Krulwich that he couldn't find any tool, no matter how far back in the past it was from, that wasn't still being made today (and made new) somewhere in the world. Krulwich brings up a few suggestions, each of which gets shot down, including "paleolithic hammers." Turns out they're still being made (mostly by hobbyists). He then went through a bunch of pages of an 1895 Montgomery Ward catalog... and found that every one is still being made. So Krulwich asked people to chime in with suggestions, and they've come up with a few, such as radium suppositories, a Roman corvus (a ship boarding tool) and the ferrite core of a Seeburg Jukebox. Kelly's job is to try to find if all of these are still being made.

Of course, some of this depends on how you view the initial premise. The initial claim from Kelly was that no species of technology has ever gone extinct -- and in that case, you should be able to include more updated technologies that are better/safer/more efficient. But, in the interview, Kelly does seem to take it a step further in claiming that no tool itself was no longer being made new. So, I'm curious if anyone can actually find "new" versions of the things listed above.

Filed Under: extinction, kevin kelly, technology, tools

Film Shot With Canon 7D Bought For $4 Million At Sundance

from the change-is-in-the-air dept

Last summer, we wrote about a short film that was shot entirely with a DSLR camera, a Pentax K-7. Lately, we've been talking about when a feature film is going to be shot with a smartphone. In the interim, however, comes the news that not only was the indie flick Like Crazy shot entirely with a Canon 7D DSLR, but it's been sold to Paramount for $4 million at Sundance. When we've talked in the past about how the tools of filmmaking are getting cheaper and more powerful every day, we always get some folks who brush it aside, and make some sort of elitist statement about how such "low end" cameras can "never" make a quality film that will show in theaters. It would appear that at least some folks in Hollywood disagree.

Filed Under: dslr, movie, sundance, tools

Did The Automobile Dehumanize Walking? No? Then Does Google Dehumanize Intelligence?

from the no dept

Kevin sent over one of Nick Carr's latest ramblings, attacking Google and its VP Marissa Mayer for saying: "It's not what you know, it's what you can find out." That statement is a little too bland to actually catch on, but is hardly a new idea. In fact, we've argued that this is the case for many years. If you have regular access to a vast computer network that lets you find stuff, you can actually have your biological brain focus on more important things, rather than cramming it with things you can easily find out. In fact, with various studies suggesting the real key to intelligence is better forgetting rather than better remembering, you could argue that not having to remember certain things can be of great benefit.

But not to Nick Carr, apparently. To him, this means that people are becoming "intellectually dehumanized." And this is a bad, bad thing:

Truth is self-created through labor, through the hard, inefficient, unscripted work of the mind, through the indirection of dream and reverie. What matters is what cannot be rendered as code. Google can give you everything but meaning.

But this presupposes all sorts of incorrect things -- such as the idea that what information you don't store in your brain can't be used for sussing out meaning. It reminds me of the people who insisted, years ago, that calculators would destroy everyone's ability to do basic math, and that this would inevitably lead to the downfall of society. Sure, I may not totally remember my times tables, but being able to quickly use a calculator to figure out something isn't really a problem at all. And, much more importantly, it means that I can do much more complex mathematical calculations as well. The same is true of Google. Sure, we may not remember little bits of information here or there, but we can more easily bring together a much, much, much larger corpus of information, and synthesize that in a useful way in our brains. There is no rule that you should only use what's stored directly in your mind to think about things.

The calculator didn't dehumanize math. The automobile didn't dehumanize walking. And Google, most certainly, has not dehumanized intelligence. It's only enabled it to do much, much more.

Filed Under: dehumanizing, nick carr, technology, tools
Companies: google