11 files changed, 108 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/old/published/Webmonkey/Monkey_Bites/2007/08.20.07/Thu/Facebook.txt b/old/published/Webmonkey/Monkey_Bites/2007/08.20.07/Thu/Facebook.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3a75714
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/published/Webmonkey/Monkey_Bites/2007/08.20.07/Thu/Facebook.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+Facebook plans to unveil a new advertising scheme later this fall. According to a recent Wall Street Journal [report][1], Facebook is planning a system that will target ads based on the wealth of information people have placed in their Facebook profiles.
+
+The WSJ says that Facebook plans to target ads somewhat like Google's AdSense tool, but take advantage of user profile data such as "favorite activities and preferred music." Facebook tells the WSJ that its ad technology will "point the ads to the selected groups of people without exposing their personal information to the advertisers."
+
+The ads will apparently be inserted into the user's "news feed," and will run in addition to the various banners that surround the page.
+
+But here's where it gets really creepy, the WSJ's source say that Facebook's ad system will be able to "predict what products and services users might be interested in even before they have specifically mentioned an area."
+
+Essentially it sounds like Facebook plans to mine your profile for interesting tidbits of data which can be used to serve relevant ads and then compile that into its own profile that the system can use to predict what additional ads you might click.
+
+Back when I wrote that Facebook should [open up its walled garden][3], the number one response from readers was that they liked the fact that Facebook pages are limited in viewing scope, which makes me wonder how they'll react to having that walled garden opened up and extracted for the purposes of advertising.
+
+While Facebook may claim that the private data won't be revealed to advertisers, somehow that doesn't seem very comforting. Facebook users already have a [history of revolting][2] when things don't go their way, which leads us to predict the new ads will enjoy all the success of a lead balloon.
+
+[1]: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118783296519606151.html
+[2]: http://blog.wired.com/monkeybites/2006/09/facebook_yields.html?entry_id=1553092
+[3]: http://www.wired.com/software/webservices/news/2007/08/open_social_net
+\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/old/published/Webmonkey/Monkey_Bites/2007/08.20.07/Thu/Streetviews.jpg b/old/published/Webmonkey/Monkey_Bites/2007/08.20.07/Thu/Streetviews.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a9aa48c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/published/Webmonkey/Monkey_Bites/2007/08.20.07/Thu/Streetviews.jpg
diff --git a/old/published/Webmonkey/Monkey_Bites/2007/08.20.07/Thu/cert.jpg b/old/published/Webmonkey/Monkey_Bites/2007/08.20.07/Thu/cert.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..072188b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/published/Webmonkey/Monkey_Bites/2007/08.20.07/Thu/cert.jpg
diff --git a/old/published/Webmonkey/Monkey_Bites/2007/08.20.07/Thu/getthefacts.txt b/old/published/Webmonkey/Monkey_Bites/2007/08.20.07/Thu/getthefacts.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..32d881e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/published/Webmonkey/Monkey_Bites/2007/08.20.07/Thu/getthefacts.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
+Microsoft has taken down its controversial anti-Linux site, "Get The Facts" and replaced it with a [new kinder, gentler version][2] that only slags Linux distros which haven't bowed to the company's patent threats -- namely RedHat.
+
+The old site garnered a good deal of publicity when it was revealed that Microsoft tried to influence the analysts hired to perform "impartial" studies comparing Windows and Linux in order to show Microsoft offerings in a more favorable light. 
+
+The new site, which is now called simply, Windows Server Compare, tones down the anti-Linux rhetoric, perhaps in deference to Microsoft's agreements with Novell, Xandros and others.
+
+Naturally the new site still paints Microsoft as clearly the winner in head-to-head comparisons, but really, who expects an impartial answer from Microsoft?
+
+Kudos to Microsoft for recognizing that the old site was a dinosaur and spread more ill-will in the Linux world than it did good cheer in the Microsoft world, but we can't help wonder what the point of the new site is? 
+
+If you want impartial information about the pros and cons of open source versus Microsoft try a search engine. Or, even better, download some open source software and try it yourself, after all, it's free and you can always throw it away if it doesn't suit your needs.
+
+[via [ZDNet][2]]
+
+[1]: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver/compare/default.mspx
+[2]: http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=670
+\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/old/published/Webmonkey/Monkey_Bites/2007/08.20.07/Thu/iMovie.txt b/old/published/Webmonkey/Monkey_Bites/2007/08.20.07/Thu/iMovie.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b6fe0ad
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/published/Webmonkey/Monkey_Bites/2007/08.20.07/Thu/iMovie.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+Apple has released an update for the [recently announced iMovie '08][4]. Apple hasn't given many details about [the update][1], but the company says it solves some problems with iMovie's integration into .Mac's new Web Gallery feature.
+
+The update does not, however, address the complaints of many users that iMovie 08 is a step backwards from its predecessor.
+
+IMovie '08 (version wise it's iMovie 7) was a complete redesign of the iMovie program and has seen its fair share of user disappointment. David Pogue recently slammed the new iMovie in his review, saying "I can't remember any software company pulling a stunt like this before: throwing away a fully developed, mature, popular program and substituting a bare-bones, differently focused program under the same name."
+
+Similar sentiments can be found in Apple's [iMovie discussion forums][2] and numerous readers have e-mailed Compiler to tell us how much they dislike the new version.
+
+Judging by my experiments with both iMovie 7 and iMovie 6, I will agree that the new iMovie is more or less not iMovie at all, but an entirely new program designed for very a different set of tasks and audience.
+
+Apple says the iMovie is designed primarily for quickly throwing together a movie and some new features, like one-click export to YouTube, clearly indicate iMovie is not for the sophisticated video producer looking to fine tune edits and add extras like music. At the same time Michael tells me he was able to go from camera to YouTube in 15 minutes. Clearly iMovie 7 is good as at some things.
+
+The problem is, iMovie 7 *isn't* capable of many of the things. Based on comments here, posts in the Apple forums and e-mails sent to us, the three main contention points most users have with iMovie 7 are:
+
+>*	No timeline. IMovie is (so far as I know) the only video editing software on the market that doesn't use a timeline metaphor for editing and arranging your clips. Consequently it's difficult to determine basic things like where you are in terms of the overall movie at any given point.
+
+*	Audio editing is virtually non-existent. There's no multi track audio support, no manual audio controls in a scene, no ability to extract audio from a clip and the fade-out at the end of an audio clip can't be controlled.
+
+*	iMovie 7 can't even import projects created with previous version. 
+
+*	And finally, no plugin support. There are dozens, possibly even hundreds of plugins from third part developers for iMovie 6, none of which work in iMovie 7.
+
+The good news though is that if you purchased iMovie '08, you can still get the previous version, as we've [mentioned before][3]. Or you could always go super old school, as one witty reader has suggested: "if I was living in Des Moines, Iowa in 1939 I would have more precise editing capabilities with my Kodak movies and some rusty farm tools."
+
+[1]: http://www.apple.com/support/downloads/imovie701.html
+[2]: http://discussions.apple.com/forum.jspa?forumID=1194&start=0
+[3]: http://blog.wired.com/monkeybites/2007/08/apple-is-giving.html
+[4]: http://blog.wired.com/monkeybites/2007/08/apple-debuts-il.html
+\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/old/published/Webmonkey/Monkey_Bites/2007/08.20.07/Thu/streetviews.txt b/old/published/Webmonkey/Monkey_Bites/2007/08.20.07/Thu/streetviews.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6dc498e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/published/Webmonkey/Monkey_Bites/2007/08.20.07/Thu/streetviews.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,14 @@
+Google Maps Street View is a stunning display of highly detailed 360 degree views of American cities and hordes of people have poured over it looking for funny and sometimes disturbing things in the backgrounds of the images. But ever since its launch some privacy advocates have been criticizing Google for showing photographs of faces and license plate numbers.
+
+Yesterday, Google quietly changed it's policy on how the company deals with privacy complaints in Street Views. To address privacy concerns, shortly after the launch of Street Views, Google said that anyone who could identify themselves could ask for the image to be removed. 
+
+Of course, that's not easy given the massive amount of data you'd have to sift through, which is why Google has quietly changed its policy -- now anyone can alert the company and have an image of a license plate or a recognizable face removed even if it isn't you.
+
+Google says the move is intended not just to protect privacy, but also the "clarify the intent of the product," as vice president of search products and user experience at Google, Marissa Mayer, put it recently at the ongoing Search Engine Strategies conference.
+
+CNet [reports][1] that Mayer says Google "looked at it and we thought that's really silly because that's not the point of this product. The purpose is to show what the stores look like, what houses look like, if someone says, 'Hey, there's a face here,' ... it doesn't matter whose face it is."
+
+While it may not have been Google's intent, that doesn't mean users don't love to dig through Street Views, for some highlights check out our earlier collection of the [best of Google Street Views][1].
+
+[1]: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/05/request_for_urb.html
+[2]: http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9764512-7.html?part=rss
+\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/old/published/Webmonkey/Monkey_Bites/2007/08.20.07/Thu/tafiti.txt b/old/published/Webmonkey/Monkey_Bites/2007/08.20.07/Thu/tafiti.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..8437ea0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/published/Webmonkey/Monkey_Bites/2007/08.20.07/Thu/tafiti.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+Microsoft recently released an experimental search product, dubbed [Tafiti][2], which combines  the company's Live Search offering with Silverlight. According to Microsoft Tafiti, which means "do research" in Swahili, is "designed to help people use the Web for research projects that span multiple search queries and sessions by helping visualize, store, and share research results."
+
+Primarily Microsoft seems to intend Tafiti as a means of showing off Silverlight and indeed, Tafiti has a gorgeous and slick front end. Search results occupy the main portion of the frame and the right hand side holds a "shelf" where you can save search results via drag-and-drop.
+
+
+On the left is a carousel which allows you to cycle through the various search result options -- Web, Images, etc -- which can also be saved. All of your saved search results can be shared through Windows Live Spaces.
+
+Tafiti has a great interface and actually makes Silverlight seem like a compelling platform, which is ostensibly the purpose of the project. But unfortunately Tafiti is tied to Live Search, which, let's face it, is a pretty poor search engine next to Google. In my tests Tafiti was dog slow and didn't return nearly as many relevant results as Google or Yahoo.
+
+And while Tafiti certainly delivers on the eye candy and interface design level, as Google has so decisively demonstrated, users just don't care about fancy interfaces when it comes to searching for things on the web -- we want speed and simplicity.
+
+Still, Tafiti is a nice preview of Silverlight and we're looking forward to seeing what else developers come up with.
+
+[via [Liveside][1]]
+
+[1]: http://www.liveside.net/blogs/main/archive/2007/08/21/microsoft-launches-tafiti-search-and-silverlight-experiment.aspx
+[2]: http://www.tafiti.com/
+\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/old/published/Webmonkey/Monkey_Bites/2007/08.20.07/Thu/tafiti1.jpg b/old/published/Webmonkey/Monkey_Bites/2007/08.20.07/Thu/tafiti1.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..0fbc491
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/published/Webmonkey/Monkey_Bites/2007/08.20.07/Thu/tafiti1.jpg
diff --git a/old/published/Webmonkey/Monkey_Bites/2007/08.20.07/Thu/tafitihead.jpg b/old/published/Webmonkey/Monkey_Bites/2007/08.20.07/Thu/tafitihead.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..97b7c7c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/published/Webmonkey/Monkey_Bites/2007/08.20.07/Thu/tafitihead.jpg
diff --git a/old/published/Webmonkey/Monkey_Bites/2007/08.20.07/Thu/tafititree.jpg b/old/published/Webmonkey/Monkey_Bites/2007/08.20.07/Thu/tafititree.jpg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..303078f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/published/Webmonkey/Monkey_Bites/2007/08.20.07/Thu/tafititree.jpg
diff --git a/old/published/Webmonkey/Monkey_Bites/2007/08.20.07/Thu/youtube.txt b/old/published/Webmonkey/Monkey_Bites/2007/08.20.07/Thu/youtube.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..a4e8c15
--- /dev/null
+++ b/old/published/Webmonkey/Monkey_Bites/2007/08.20.07/Thu/youtube.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
+<img border="0" alt="Youtube_logo_8" title="Youtube_logo_8" src="http://blog.wired.com/photos/uncategorized/youtube_logo_8.png" style="margin: 0px 0px 5px 5px; float: right;" />Predictably, YouTube's announcement about its new [in-stream video ad format][2] did not go over well with users. Responses to a post on the [company's blog][1] range from the typical "you've ruined your service" comments, to users wondering about revenue sharing options.
+
+Much of ire seems to be directed at this statement from YouTube: "If you choose not to click on the overlay, it will simply disappear, so that you're in full control of your YouTube experience."
+
+As a number of people point out, involuntarily being subjected to video ads is not "full control" over one's YouTube "experience."
+
+It would seem that many people prize ad-less content as one of the keys to the YouTube experience. User taminhthien writes:
+
+>Every crappy video site that has these ads sucks, I always thought great that YouTube doesn't have them. Good job, you just turned YouTube in yet another crappy video site.
+
+But despite some attempts at clever analogies like user PHPerik who writes, "it's like putting a billboard on Mona Lisa," most users seem to miss the part of the announcement where the ads are opt-in for the content producers and limited to YouTube's various content partners.
+
+Despite the initial outrage we believe most users will accept the new ads in the long run, though several competing video sites did claim to see a significant jump in new user registration following the YouTube announcement.
+
+[1]: http://www.youtube.com/blog?entry=rQpNsTzbgqM
+[2]: http://blog.wired.com/monkeybites/2007/08/google-brings-n.html
+\ No newline at end of file