Google is flamboyant in its theft, and your local media is now owned by an international conglomerate
So in 2004, with Processing (Processing.org) I took the Processing object "DotsNotPipe" and converted it to color and released "DotsNotGoogle" ... it went viral in 2005-2006 until my website disappeared; today it showed up as the Google logo. No, they didn't ask permission or credit me and I didn't make the one that shows up on their page. I suppose, though, those "skeptics" will tell me I'm just doing this for the money and the fame - that it's only similar and thus not the same and therefore "logic" suggests it was Google's idea all along. I suppose those same skeptics won't believe that Google Instant stems from a 2007 conversation with Brin. Months before Google Instant launched, Ron Bobonis of Hearst.com and I talked and he knows that I was able to leak Google Instant in advance, but he has refused to do a story on it before the announcement. He said something to the effect of "Yay, I get to be one of the people who refuses to help you" - he did have me send him this email the day of the "Google balls" event:
from Herbert Elwood Gilliland III <x>
to date subject mailed-by
xxxI've never been paid a dime by Google for any reason.Original work: "dotsnotgoogle" featured on the MacWorld website in 2006
http://madmerv.com/portfolioSome of the blog post links gathered from: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=dotsnotgoogle
You can find "dots not google" mentioned on these pages:http://www.admit-one.net/index.php/2006/01/09/dotsnotgoogle/
http://poppupot.blogspot.com/2008/04/dotsnotgoogle.html
http://www.web-frog.com/archives/000851.html
http://www.s-anand.net/blog/dots-not-google/
http://zootool.com/watch/z4fzr/
http://www.shivanjaikaran.com/blog/?m=200603
http://www.cjsdn.net/post/print?bid=46&id=167445
http://forum.burek.com/dotsnotgoogle-built-with-processing-t80627.topicseen.html
http://digg.com/news/technology/Java-based_Google_logo
http://ve.processing.org/exhibition/network_page_7.html
http://code.google.com/p/processing/source/browse/trunk/web/content/network.xml?r=1869&spec=svn7180My blog:
The post about this:
http://www.gudagi.com/nopersoncommittee/?p=815Thanks!
He told me on the phone that I had already explained to him "auto-complete for Google" was going to be released under the name "Google Instant" -- I had hoped doing an interview would have helped people know and understand my story, but I guess Hearst doesn't want to print anything negative about the search giant.
Being skeptical is not about ignoring evidence or coming to contrariety just to be a "hard case" - but so often people seem to think that is what skepticism is. It's also too bad journalists like Mr. Bobonis don't see a need to help ordinary people.
Here's an email exchange between me and Paul Van Osdol of Hearst.com on May 19, 2010:
from to
date subject Herb,
Are you interested in doing an interview about your case?
Paul Van Osdol
Investigative Reporter
WTAE-----Original Message-----
From: herb.gilliland@gmail.com [mailto:herb.gilliland@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 4:08 PM
To: team4@thepittsburghchannel.com
Subject: ThePittsburghChannel.com - Website FeedbackX SITE:pit
X COID:2410577
X SECT:WTAE-TV
SELECTLIST:8
NAME:H. Elwood Gilliland III
MESSAGE:
http://www.nopersoncommittee.org
^^^^^^^^^^^ {ts '2010-05-19 15:07:42'} ^^^^^^^^^^^
Paul did write back:
from to date subject
From: Herbert Elwood Gilliland III [mailto:herb.gilliland@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 4:52 PM
To: Van Osdol, Paul
Subject: Re: ThePittsburghChannel.com - Website Feedback
- Show quoted text -
However, I've never been interviewed. He didn't even call:
from to date subject
From: Herbert Elwood Gilliland III [mailto:herb.gilliland@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 25, 2010 12:11 AM
To: Van Osdol, Paul
Cc: team4@thepittsburghchannel.comSubject: Re: ThePittsburghChannel.com - Website Feedback
You can find "dots not google" on these pages:
http://www.admit-one.net/index.php/2006/01/09/dotsnotgoogle/
http://poppupot.blogspot.com/2008/04/dotsnotgoogle.html
http://www.web-frog.com/archives/000851.html
http://www.s-anand.net/blog/dots-not-google/
http://zootool.com/watch/z4fzr/
http://www.shivanjaikaran.com/blog/?m=200603
http://www.cjsdn.net/post/print?bid=46&id=167445
http://forum.burek.com/dotsnotgoogle-built-with-processing-t80627.topicseen.html
http://digg.com/news/technology/Java-based_Google_logo
http://ve.processing.org/exhibition/network_page_7.html
http://code.google.com/p/processing/source/browse/trunk/web/content/network.xml?r=1869&spec=svn7180
September 7th, 2010 - 23:24
Gotta say… between my ears is a load of manure. I don’t see a single page that’s mirrored your creation, and you only seem to be able to produce a static image. Which, unless we’re willing to automatically assume that it reacts to the cursor in much the same way, which is not evident in any of the ‘evidence’ links you’ve provided.
While I’m not willing to completely discount your claim, you don’t really present a strong case in your favor.
Also, the concepts ‘minorly’ – which isn’t even a word – and ‘viral’ are mutually exclusive. I think you mean, ‘featured in several places.’
September 8th, 2010 - 06:11
I’m a little confused because if you click the “my website” link you can see the originals, and I’ve provided only the 10 top links to blogs that link to the defunct 2006 site.
I don’t use the word “minorly”, however if you spoke of something being “minorly viral” I would say it was something that was viral that wasn’t majorly viral. ie: It spread, but not very far.
I don’t know, I think you just felt some egotistical need to use the word “manure” so I’ll probably censor your comment later since you’re trolling.
Also, Dave, it’s in the Web WayBack Machine. As for why it wasn’t mirrored — I didn’t distribute the source code, just the applet was available on my website and my website alone. Several of the links provided lead to websites that remotely embedded it when it was on my original website in 2006 before it was later deleted when my website went offline in 2006 because of an incident involving Holly, my site provider, and Google and some financial records that GoogleBot inadvertently sniffed up and spewed out all over creation.