Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Adobe Building Zoetrope, a Web "Time Machine"

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 5 years ago | from the data-lovers-unite dept.

The Internet 133

Khuffie writes "Adobe, along with the University of Washington, are developing Zoetrope, an application that will offer a dynamic new view of the web. It is hard to explain on paper, but you can see a brilliant video of the application in action. Essentially, Zoetrope will allow users to travel back in time through a website, and see how the website gets changed. A user can create lenses on the website, for example, focusing on the price of a DVD at Amazon, and see how the price went up and down over the coming months. More interestingly, you can link lenses together across different websites, and for example, see how the price of gas was affected by say, the aggregated google news result of 'war.'"

cancel ×

133 comments

I feel like... (4, Funny)

Facegarden (967477) | more than 5 years ago | (#26037981)

I feel like there is a porn joke in here somewhere...
-Taylor

Re:I feel like... (5, Funny)

DeadDecoy (877617) | more than 5 years ago | (#26038105)

That's awesome. You could see the internet before: goatse, tub girl, and 2-girls on cup. Think of all the things you could un-watch!
Hell, I could un-rick-roll myself, thereby destroying that meme forever!

Re:I feel like... (5, Funny)

hal2814 (725639) | more than 5 years ago | (#26038307)

I don't think that's such a good idea. Un-goatse yourself now and next thing you know you'll be clicking through a lively discussion, see a good point with a reference so some "goatse" site (probably some sort of wiki), click the link, and then NOOOOOOO!!!! There's the goatse all over again.

Re:I feel like... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26039065)

You've just postulated the endless goatse loop!

Nerd Mashup! (2, Funny)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039783)

Someone photomorph tubgirl with a Klein bottle.

Re:I feel like... (1)

Brigadier (12956) | more than 5 years ago | (#26041117)

only if I can go back and hit the big red button.

Re:I feel like... (4, Funny)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 5 years ago | (#26038163)

O god... watching Pam Anderson change from the pretty girl-next-door to monster of modern science she is.

Re:I feel like... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26038595)

come now, pam anderson always embodied the pornstar look, never the girl next door look

Re:I feel like... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26038899)

at least now u know what kind of girls live next door to him :)

Re:I feel like... (1)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 5 years ago | (#26038971)

You're thinking of Britney Spears. Pamela Anderson has always been skanky. Britney was actually pretty cute before the devil took his payment.

Re:I feel like... (1)

abigor (540274) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039081)

Actually, PA was very cute back in the day, when she was a Labatt's Blue Girl from Comox, BC. She had this wholesome beer babe thing going on. All the plastic surgery and stuff came later.

Re:I feel like... (1)

Uchiha (811374) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039691)

Oh, and disease. But that doesn't compare to that cartoon. :(

Re:I feel like... (1)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 5 years ago | (#26040805)

Weird Science! Weird Science!

She's my creation.... nm

Web "Time Machine": http://www.archive.org/web/web (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26038017)

Dear Khuffie:

I'm afraid that wiping too vigorously after using the restroom will make me gay. Usually I try closing my eyes and praying during the moment of defecation and wiping but I'm still terrified. I thought of installing a bidet that sprays holy water but I'm afraid it won't be enough. How do I avoid becoming homosexual and angering god?

Thank you,
Rob Malda

Re:Web "Time Machine": http://www.archive.org/web/ (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26038495)

Too late.

First Ninnle Post! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26038043)

Ninnle rocks!

email address (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26038065)

anyone know what "communist hree vowels" is?

it can see into the future! (4, Funny)

Digitus1337 (671442) | more than 5 years ago | (#26038139)

. . . and see how the price went up and down over the coming months.

This is all I need to make the change from more traditional investments to a DVD-based retirement plan!

Re:it can see into the future! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26039225)

They are ahead of the wayback-machine!

Just so we're on the same page (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26038149)

<meta name="ROBOTS" content="NOARCHIVE">

Re:Just so we're on the same page (4, Funny)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#26038359)

Oh please. Clearly Adobe, Google, Microsoft, etc. don't have to pay attention to that. Information wants to be free!

who cares (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26038191)

Oh great, more crap that Adobe "fan boy" developers can play with.

Re:who cares (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26038277)

Adobe has fan-boys??

Archive.org (3, Insightful)

chonglibloodsport (1270740) | more than 5 years ago | (#26038193)

Guess they haven't heard of the Wayback Machine [archive.org] .

Re:Archive.org (1)

moniker127 (1290002) | more than 5 years ago | (#26038281)

Yeah I was just about to mention that too.

Re:Archive.org (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26038297)

Wayback machine is shoddy cache at best ... does not have advanced functionaly like the proprosed "lens" feature ... which sounds pretty dog gone fun to me.

Re:Archive.org (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#26038397)

Sounds like a gimmick taped onto the wayback machine, or any other internet archive, to me.

There's no indication to suggest Adobe's web cache will be any better or worse than what we've seen in other internet archives.

Re:Archive.org (2, Interesting)

ClassMyAss (976281) | more than 5 years ago | (#26040085)

Sounds like a gimmick taped onto the wayback machine, or any other internet archive, to me.

Sometimes a gimmick is the difference between something being a major pain in the ass to use and a useful tool, though. Simple user interface improvements can be key, and the wayback machine has a pretty terrible UI (as in, it's very difficult to quickly see how something has changed over days/weeks/months without many, many clicks).

I, for one, would definitely use this to assist with data scraping, which is something I have to do a lot.

Re:Archive.org (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26038337)

Guess it's more like "we want our own".

+1 Sinatra! (1, Funny)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039811)

You did it your way.

Re:Archive.org (4, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | more than 5 years ago | (#26038345)

I think the whole point of this is the analysis capability. It's not just snapshots of old web pages. For that matter it might use archive.org as its data source.

Re:Archive.org (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26038439)

No, it will be just like Archive.org but with valuable statistics gathering that I'm sure Adobe will give away for free. /sarcasm

Basically, after having read the article I see this as a tool for creating "Business Intelligence" rather than simple Internet Navel Gazing. I'm sure somewhere at Adobe Prime there are marketing meetings deciding how best to secure and sell this information once it is packaged.

Re:Archive.org (5, Informative)

Justin Hopewell (1260242) | more than 5 years ago | (#26038503)

From the article: "Kris Carpenter, who directs efforts to record Web pages at the Internet Archive, is enthusiastic about the new tool. "This is a fantastic leap forward," she says, adding that Zoetrope could be used as a stand-alone application or eventually become part of the browser. "The advances of the interface are phenomenal in terms of being able to navigate data in a very different way and associate it across websites," Carpenter says. "I think most users have an interest in trying to connect the dots between different sources of information, but there are almost no tools available to make that an easy thing to do." She adds that the Internet Archive is interested in sharing its data with the Zoetrope researchers."

Re:Archive.org (2, Insightful)

negRo_slim (636783) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039355)

Guess they haven't heard of the Wayback Machine [archive.org] .

Well except for the fact The Archive now retroactively obeys robots.txt [archive.org] made it all but worthless the last half dozen times I was there.

Re:Archive.org (1)

Chris Pimlott (16212) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039933)

Yep, this is a damn shame. Add this to IA's general flakiness and you will learn to _always_ save a local copy of an IA page if you care about it, it may not be there the next time...

Re:Archive.org (5, Funny)

Toonol (1057698) | more than 5 years ago | (#26040039)

Use the wayback machine to visit it before it started retroactively honoring robots.txt.

Re:Archive.org (1)

sgbett (739519) | more than 5 years ago | (#26040765)

It makes you wonder if it was adobe who actually collected all the retrospective data that is driving their new 'machine' !

Sloganeering (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26038265)

From the blurb:

More interestingly, you can link lenses together across different websites, and for example, see how the price of gas was affected by say, the aggregated google news result of 'war.'"

Actually, no... You can't use this tool to see how the one thing was affected by the other. You can see how they both changed with respect to time, but that isn't the same.

Please to keep in mind the famous Slashdot Mantra: Correlation is not causation.

Re:Sloganeering (1)

Zephyrmation (1372025) | more than 5 years ago | (#26038911)

Please to keep in mind the famous Slashdot Mantra: Correlation is not causation.

Funny, I always thought it was something more along the lines of: Don't be a dumbass.

But seriously, I think this will be an easy and fast way to get statistical data. I can see it coming in handy for anyone looking to do a little research into a particular event/phenomenon. I'm not suggesting that Zoetrope will become the forefront in statistical research, but I can foresee it becoming very useful. Time may prove any one of us wrong. But if Adobe takes over the world, they'll use Zoetrope to find its first proponents...

Re:Sloganeering (1)

srmalloy (263556) | more than 5 years ago | (#26038923)

And the "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc" fallacy.

The value of this ability to link views is going to be pretty minimal at first unless they plan on pulling data from sites like www.archive.org, since an application like this relies on having the archived data to be able to show the changes over time, and without linking into or hoovering an existing internet archive, they'll never be able to take you back earlier than they first started saving websites. But over time it will get more valuable.

Re:Sloganeering (4, Insightful)

Angostura (703910) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039127)

Please to keep in mind the famous Slashdot Mantra: Correlation is not causation.

Please bear in mind the slightly less pithy, but more useful version:

Correlation is not necessarilycausation.

Re:Sloganeering (4, Funny)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039315)

Or the completely accurate but much less trite version:

Correlation implies either causation or mutual causation by a third factor.

Re:Sloganeering (4, Informative)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039545)

Or the completely accurate but much less trite version:

Correlation implies either causation or mutual causation by a third factor.

That's not completely accurate. The completely accurate form is:

Degree of correlation implies a certain probability of some causal link (either direct or through a shared cause.)

Its quite possible for corresponding values from two completely unrelated sequences to show some degree of correlation, after all. If I have two sequences whose corresponding (e.g., by time) values lok like this:

S1: 1 1 2 3 4 3 2 1 1
S2: 2 2 3 4 5 4 3 2 2

I certainly might suspect that there is a tight correlation between S1 and S2, but each of them could just be random integers chosen from the range 1 to 6, inclusive. Using statistics, I can say how unlikely that coincidence is, but that doesn't mean that I can simply state as a fact that there is a causal link because there is a correlation.

Re:Sloganeering (1)

Fmuctohekerr (841734) | more than 5 years ago | (#26040107)

Yes, exactly, thank you.

Re:Sloganeering (1)

DrVomact (726065) | more than 5 years ago | (#26040191)

Or we could be completely accurate and succinct:non-correlation proves non-causality.

Now, what was this about, again?

Re:Sloganeering (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 5 years ago | (#26040463)

I should have specified: "correlation" implies an ACTUAL correlation.

We can only ever establish to a certain (often arbitrarily small) probability that an actual correlation exists.

In your example, if the two number sequences are just random integers, then they are not actually correlated, no matter how much they may appear to be so.

Re:Sloganeering (1)

Vexorian (959249) | more than 5 years ago | (#26040267)

I prefer "There's a correlation between correlation and causation"

zoetrope, eh? (1)

MoFoQ (584566) | more than 5 years ago | (#26038291)

at first, I thought AlphaChrome [wikipedia.org] was back.

Buried on page 2 of TFA: (4, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 5 years ago | (#26038323)

The system is limited, however, by how much historical data is available. To test the tool, the researchers chose 1,000 frequently updated websites and stored information captured every hour over four months.

But for Zoetrope to cover the entire Web would mean capturing huge amounts of data, says Eytan Adar, a PhD student at the University of Washington who was involved with the research. He has investigated the rates at which people tend to check different pages for updates and says that such information could provide insights into how often pages need to be recorded, thereby reducing the amount of data that needs to be stored. "It's impossible to crawl and capture some of these things at the rate at which they're changing," Adar says. "But for something like Zoetrope, it's a smaller percentage of the Web that we want to track. We don't actually need to get every single page that's out there."

To make any money, the Zoetrope people will either have to sell this application to websites or setup their own very limited search engine with ads. And if they go search engine style, they'll have no historical data.

It's a neat idea, but the practical applications are still questionable at best.

"practical applications are still questionable" (1)

MrMista_B (891430) | more than 5 years ago | (#26038445)

"practical applications are still questionable at best."

Funny, I heard the same thing about Livejournal, Facebook, and later, Twitter.

Now each of those are worth hundreds of millions, and are used by hundreds of millions of people. "Practical" isn't a neccessary prerequisite for success.

Re:"practical applications are still questionable" (1)

WhatAmIDoingHere (742870) | more than 5 years ago | (#26038989)

Is Twitter worth millions? Last I heard they were having a hard time figuring out how to make any money...

Re:"practical applications are still questionable" (1)

owlnation (858981) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039283)

Is Twitter worth millions? Last I heard they were having a hard time figuring out how to make any money...

Worth? No. Neither is Facebook. They are only worth something to the executives who run those sites -- IF they get bought by some foolish large corporation. It was foolish to buy them 2 years ago, and it would be certifiably insane to do so in the current economic climate. These sites are only a means to advertise to a specific (gullible, obviously) demographic. They are just billboards in cyberspace. A way of leading the easily-led to one place to be advertised at. Since fewer people are consuming right now and global ad-spend is down, the value of these sites is dropping. I'd be astonished if they will last much longer.

Twitter is a bad idea, badly marketed (viral spam essentially), badly implemented, and at the wrong time. They may have to wait until Dot.com III to make any money. Given the instability of their site, I doubt they'll be around then.

Re:Buried on page 2 of TFA: (3, Insightful)

A beautiful mind (821714) | more than 5 years ago | (#26038637)

I can see this working if the websites offer a way through a standardized API to share this information. Then support becomes the problem of the website. If this thing catches on, it would be the best interest of website owners to support it and the users would love it. This is similar in concept to a more complex version of RSS support.

Re:Buried on page 2 of TFA: (2, Insightful)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 5 years ago | (#26040931)

If this thing catches on, it would be the best interest of website owners to support it

So every mistake made on their website ever is kept around? Mmm, I have a feeling website owners won't be as happy about it as you think.

Re:Buried on page 2 of TFA: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26038655)

"It's a neat idea, but the practical applications are still questionable at best."

Since when has that stopped a software company? During the Dotcom boom there were billion dollar corporations with sole assets that fit this description.

Re:Buried on page 2 of TFA: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26039585)

I guess I could see a system where free Zoetrope user accounts are allotted a certain number of sites to track, and/or a certain amount of disk space, then for more data storage the user signs up for a paid account or something.

About The name (3, Insightful)

syngularyx (1070768) | more than 5 years ago | (#26038333)

Zoetrope sucks

Re:About The name (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26038489)

Actually, zoetrope [reference.com] is descriptive and apt.

Re:About The name (1)

treeves (963993) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039353)

Reminds me of Francis Ford Coppola.

Re:About The name (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26040123)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoetrope [wikipedia.org]
It's actually quite a fitting word to describe what they have designed.

Very few supported sites (1)

utahraptor (703433) | more than 5 years ago | (#26038429)

The article mentions only a small portion of the internet being Zoetroped so you will probably be limited to data that is not useful. Who cares what a DVD cost yesterday if I am stuck with the price today?

Auto-update (3, Insightful)

syousef (465911) | more than 5 years ago | (#26038485)

Just like Acrobat Reader, the real innovation will be a user interface with options that don't stick, and invasive phone home auto-update technology that is difficult or impossible to switch off. It'll be a time machine allowing you to see just how little Adobe have changed over the years.

Re:Auto-update (3, Insightful)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039817)

Don't forget the hideous bloat and geometrically increasing load times with each successive versions.

The Acrobat Reader was a bizarre creature. The first couple versions were almost unusably bad, then they finally got it right around version 4, and each successive version has been bigger, slower and less useful (even if it supported more features). Like Windows 2000, Office 97, and the old /. user homepages... something that actually worked really well but was ruined by the relentless, mindless drive to Add More Stuff.

I could never figure out how software developers can make a program that does something simple quickly, and then add a ton of features and end up with a version that is 10 times slower to do the exact same simple thing it used to do quickly. Moore's Law has created a generation of retarded programmers.

Anyone else find this scary? (2, Insightful)

NinthAgendaDotCom (1401899) | more than 5 years ago | (#26038527)

The power of the Internet to retain acts, deeds, and knowledge for so long is disturbing to me. There are Usenet posts I made 10 years ago that will never go away.

Re:Anyone else find this scary? (1)

Facegarden (967477) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039959)

The power of the Internet to retain acts, deeds, and knowledge for so long is disturbing to me. There are Usenet posts I made 10 years ago that will never go away.

No, i really don't find it scary. Probably just because i have grown up with it, but i know i have forum posts that have been around almost as many years and i don't really care. I think people are adjusting to the idea that this stuff can be permanent, and just changing their behavior accordingly.
-Taylor

Skeptical... (3, Insightful)

grumbel (592662) | more than 5 years ago | (#26038567)

The presented features do look nifty, especially the graph, but one big problem I see is that the timespans it can process will likely end up rather short. Webpage design changes over time and when that happens lensing will get troublesome, since content might no longer be where it used to be. Also the tool only seems to work on portal pages, while most real content is hidden in some sub page, which naturally doesn't have much of a history.

cliches in the digital age (3, Funny)

mblase (200735) | more than 5 years ago | (#26038585)

It is hard to explain on paper,

...which is okay, since neither one of us is using any.

Always makes me wonder: when was the last time anybody actually "dialed" a phone? And someday kids will wonder why it's called "YouTube" when they've only ever watched it on a thin, flat LCD screen....

Re:cliches in the digital age (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26038659)

Tell the kids it's because the interweb is a series of tubes... Not like a truck, that you put things on.

Re:cliches in the digital age (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26039209)

>And someday kids will wonder why it's called "YouTube" when they've only ever watched it on a thin, flat LCD screen....

'cause its comeing through the... uh... tubes?

Re:cliches in the digital age (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26039263)

when was the last time anybody actually "dialed" a phone?

Last time I was at my mom's house.

And someday kids will wonder why it's called "YouTube" when they've only ever watched it on a thin, flat LCD screen....

Not to mention the fact that the YouTube logo is shaped like TV screens of old, before they got square edges.

Re:cliches in the digital age (1)

owlnation (858981) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039363)

And someday kids will wonder why it's called "YouTube" when they've only ever watched it on a thin, flat LCD screen....

They may already not be very familiar with cathode ray tubes. But never fear... Ted Stephens "a series of tubes" should last for a very, very, very long time. At least here, if nowhere else.

Re:cliches in the digital age (2, Interesting)

mea37 (1201159) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039453)

My inner pedant would assert that "dial" doesn't mean what you think it means. Meaning comes from usage; etymology just tries to make some sense of it.

But whatever, I'll play along: Actually, I have a rotary phone still hooked up. I almost never use it. In fact, I put it in a guest room. I find it funny (but I'm not sure if my guests do). I do test it from time to time to make sure the network where I live will still handle pulse dialing; surprisingly it will. So I've "dialed" a phone (in the sense you mean) within the past month.

Re:cliches in the digital age (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26039609)

I wouldn't worry about it, it will take some time until the Internet becomes a big truck you can just dump something on.

Has anyone heard of.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26038607)

http://www.archive.org/index.php

They've had this for years!!

creators universe, web of time/space/circumstance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26038631)

seeing as everything's not quite finished yet, forward browsing may be limited.

Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26038687)

Another pile of crap Adobe can pile onto the Internet.

Re: another ... (2, Funny)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039867)

Followed by Microsoft announcing "Tropz"!

Hristo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26038735)

This thing ... pointless and stupid was created and explained by a bulgarian (Mira Dontcheva). I have detected the glimpses of empty headed pathetic pupmped up speaking of my own birth language. Like any bulgarian gone to university in the US she is trying to get some publicity while not understanting even a bit of what she is trying to do.

Completely useless. Well, I like working with L2 dumps and basic routing for living but....

Pointless (1)

scottuss (1325601) | more than 5 years ago | (#26038761)

Pointless rubbish from the company that brought us other pointless rubbish (Flash anyone?)

Re:Pointless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26038847)

Adobe didn't bring us Flash. They bought it several years after it was created by Macromedia.

Re:Pointless (1)

scottuss (1325601) | more than 5 years ago | (#26040277)

They still develop it... instead of taking over Flash and killing it before it infected every known website with ads and made designers think that having only a Flash version of their site is a good idea they went on and made it even worse (Ok so it's alright in some contexts, I have to say I hardly see any Flash bits, Ad-block takes care of them)

Re:Pointless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26040825)

and made designers think that having only a Flash version of their site is a good idea

Adobe made designers think it was a good idea? Nobody did anything of the sort. Flash was created, people chose to use it in various ways. Some good, some not. Don't blame the technology for its misapplication by idiots. Maybe we should blame Bjarne Stroustrup for every crap C++ application that's ever been written, or Sun for every awful Java app? As for annoying ads, I hate to break it to you but Javascript and GIFs were quite capable of making life simple for asshole ad designers long before Flash ever existed.

More useful applications (1)

Shotgun (30919) | more than 5 years ago | (#26038785)

It was reported by a few outlets that Obama's website changed a lot during the political campaign. It would be an interesting application of this technology, to keep a watch on political websites.

Re:More useful applications (1)

moosesocks (264553) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039159)

It was reported by a few outlets that Obama's website changed a lot during the political campaign. It would be an interesting application of this technology, to keep a watch on political websites.

Well, I mean..... that was kind of his entire platform :-P

See prices go up and down in the COMING months?!? (4, Funny)

noidentity (188756) | more than 5 years ago | (#26038883)

A user can create lenses on the website, for example, focusing on the price of a DVD at Amazon, and see how the price went up and down over the coming months

1. See how the price of a stock "went" up and down over the coming months.
2. ???
3. Profit!!!

Any ideas on step 2? It's escaping me at the moment...

Re:See prices go up and down in the COMING months? (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 5 years ago | (#26040503)

I believe it's "buy low, sell high" or somesuch.

And we trust Adobe to do this? (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 5 years ago | (#26038985)

And we trust Adobe to implement this in a non-threatening for-the-greater-good socialistic sorta way?

I don't think so....

Correlation does not imply causation (1)

Alterscape (904055) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039135)

This seems like it's showing correlations, not necessarily causal relationships. Still, neat stuff.

Wow (2, Interesting)

Idiomatick (976696) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039195)

The tool looks really REALLY powerful. They really need to change it so it can be more easily used by the noob though. I would even suggest that the links showing trends can be linked to. That way if you want to make a point in a debate you can point someone to your lensed construct. Or there can be sites that will list interesting correlations like in blogs or w/e. Here it would be VERY useful. If they make it a web-based system with no download it would be much much more powerful again. The only big problem I see is the implementation. Gathering so much info is hard not impossible but! following information as sites move and evolve will be impossible. I think they will need to be able to grab historical data as will as a sites own history... for example instead of linking to your own graph allow linking to google stocks or google trends. A lot of those reach back to the 70s which is more useful than the last 8mnths.

What's in a name (1)

bumagovitch (181060) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039399)

I wonder how Francis Ford Coppola feels about this?

http://www.zoetrope.com/about.cgi [zoetrope.com]

http://www.all-story.com/ [all-story.com]

I know this is my (Mr. Hyde) lit-geek side talking, but I thought he nearly owned that word.

1834? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26039485)

You can't trademark a word like this which has been in use for over one hundred years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoetrope

Re:What's in a name (1)

Krigl (1025293) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039919)

Well, instead of computer app he should be more concerned with an interesting Zoetrope [lustmord.com] album by Lustmord [wikipedia.org] , which is much closer to his area of work.

Real time machine! (1)

machine321 (458769) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039411)

focusing on the price of a DVD at Amazon, and see how the price went up and down over the coming months.

Wow, I can see how the price of a product varied in the future? Wonder if it works with the stock exchange or gambling...

Re:Real time machine! (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039891)

Can the International Date Line help?

Re:Real time machine! (1)

Tacvek (948259) | more than 5 years ago | (#26040699)

No man, the International Date Line will never help. First of all it's a darn 900 number, so the fees are outrageous, and it still did not help me find a date (neither a local one, nor a International date). I think it is a scam. ;D

UI (1)

Snorfalorpagus (1321189) | more than 5 years ago | (#26039617)

The multi-dimensional nature of this app seems to me that it could greatly benefit from the multi-touch interfaces we're starting to see, (although perhaps not as far as Minority Report [slashdot.org] ).

modI up (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26040003)

reciprocating short of a miracle partner. And if and enjoy all the shitheads. *BSD Little-known Exploited that. A officers. Others Cuntwipes Jordan of the warring similarly gr0isly With the laundry website Third, you the bottoms butt numbers. The loss suffering *BSD members' creative time I'm done here, NIGGER community to have regular Wash off hands and its long term the point more To work I'm doing, RAM) for about 20 I know it sux0rs, mutated testicle of a relatively itself backwards, what they think is shall we? OK! for membership. world's Gay Nigger log on Then the Rules to follow
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...