Desultory Thoughts

In what looks to be some possible competition (or at least an alternative) to Flickr, Google has released a tool that is used in conjunction with the lastest build of Picasa 2.  According to Google:

It’s available by invitation, along with the latest downloadable version of Picasa, and offers:

• One-click web upload using Picasa’s new “Web Album” button
• Free storage space to post and share approximately 1000 photos, with the option to upgrade to more space
• High-quality photos, automatically resized and optimized to fill available screen space
• Pre-loaded images enable quick scrolling using arrow keys, and mimic a desktop experience of “flipping” through photos, even on the web
• End-to-end photo management that makes it easy to download uploaded photos back to your computer

Take a look at this public gallery to see what it’s like to share photos using Picasa Web Albums.

The new version of Picasa includes a ‘Web Album” button that when selected will upload pictures to your own Picasaweb page. This requires an account on Picasaweb.google.com using your Gmail address.

Here is my first album located at http://picasaweb.google.com/tslack

Flickr enthusiasts won’t give a dang about Google’s attempt to further spread their foothold on all things web and will likely ridicule it. I’m so new to both services that I won’t be as biased. As I use both services, I’ll report back and let you know what I think of each.

At first glance, however, it’s obvious that Flickr has a lot more feautures. But for simple uploading and sharing of pictures located on your computer, Google has them beat hands down. Of course, Flickr doesn’t require a program be installed on your computer, which is part of what makes it so easy with Google.

For those of you who are trying this service (it’s only available on an invitation basis), let me know what you think. I think it’s interesting that Google is trying to get away from the “Beta” label on this one. Calling it “Test” instead of “Beta” may be the first time that I’ve seen any company release something that’s in Beta and calling it anything different. We’ll see how their test goes.

From my previous post about the Haditha photo “error”:

Clearly, the bodies in this picture are the victims of the U.S. Marines November massacre in Haditha, Iraq, right? That’s definately what the Times implies by leading their Haditha article with this photo. So your average UK Times reader sees this horrific photo and takes a mental snapshot, automatically associating it with the Haditha incident. Nice, UK Times, nice. The Left is grinning ear to ear…

Your “error” was published by a major news outlet and appeared on millions of computer screens around the globe, not to mention the numerous print copies that cannot be recalled and corrected. After seeing this picture with this caption and headline, I seriously doubt all those budding jihad boys will pay any attention to your apology.

Seems the UK Times apology went completely unnoticed (or ignored). The following editorial cartoon appeared in the June 6 Chicago Sun Times:

Michelle Malkin, who brought this to light in the first place, called the Sun Times on the smear, prompting a retraction and an apology. Again, a little too late.

A cartoon by Jack Higgins in Tuesday’s Chicago Sun-Times incorporated inaccurate imagery to make a statement about the allegations that U.S. Marines killed Iraqi civilians in Haditha. Jack Higgins and the Sun-Times deeply regret the mistake and apologize to the U.S. servicemen, especially those in the Marine Corps, and to our readers who were understandably offended by the cartoon. Higgins, in doing Web research on the Haditha story, searched the Internet for images. A Yahoo search engine displayed a number of photos, one of which was labeled “IraqBodi…rd.jpg.” Clicking on that image took Higgins to the MSNBC/Newsweek site. On his screen then was the original Yahoo search preview image and under it a Newsweek page with a small image of the magazine’s current cover with the headline “The Haditha Question.” Higgins made the erroneous assumption that the image in the photo preview was a photograph of victims of the killings that unproven allegations say were committed by U.S. Marines. Further scrolling down the page would have produced another image of this photo with a caption that clearly identities the dead as victims of Iraqi insurgents. The caption reads, “Insurgents in Haditha executed 19 Shiite fishermen and National Guardsmen in a sports stadium.” Again, Higgins and the editors of the Sun-Times apologize for this egregious error. (emphasis mine)

Ok, so Higgins was duped. But only because the image of victims of Islamic terrorists had already been instantly and globally associated with the Haditha incident, thanks to the UK Times “error.”

But it gets worse. Al Jazeera is running an article about the Haditha massacre that leads with the now famous “inaccurate imagery.” This time the caption (accidently, I’m sure) reads “The Haditha Massacre is far worse than My Lai.” You’ve got to be freaking kidding me. If the jihadis didn’t catch the photo the first time around, Al Jazeera is making darn sure it’s burned into their 15th century brains.

In February, 2004, terror chief Abu Musab al Zarqawi wrote a letter for Osama bin Laden, outlining the importance of using the infidels’ own media against them. We took care of the Zarkman last Wednesday, but influential media outlets, blinded by their leftist bias and hatred of George W. Bush, are clearly playing right into Al Qaeda’s hands. As evidenced by reporting errors like Newsweek’s flushing the Koran story, Islamist fury is a backdraft ready to explode. Just as Newsweeks “erroneous” report triggered mass hysteria resulting in 15 deaths, this inaccurate imagery is sure to play a role in future American deaths.

What makes this all especially sad is that as time goes by, the more we find out about the alleged Haditha massacre, the more it’s looking like an elaborate hoax.

UPDATE: The photo leading the Al Jazeera article has been changed as of 11:00 PM GMT. The caption reads the same.