That only works if the user has a reason to overcome those obstacles. In this case, the user bears absolutely no consequences for his action, so he has absolutely no motivation to change.
If you allowed the user to drive a high-performance automobile after using his e-mail for a while, but only if he used the "Mark as Spam" button correctly, then maybe we'd see some change.
NASA's success rate is extremely high? They've lost about 1 out of every 70 Shuttle launches, and that's manned spaceflight, with people getting killed when they fail. I haven't checked it, but presumably their unmanned launchers have a considerably worse record simply because unmanned launchers always have a considerably worse record.
There's a reason why "rocket science" is used as a euphamism for "something extremely difficult". Three launch failures of a brand spanking new rocket is nothing unusual in this field. NASA has certainly not done any better with theirs. To the extent that they do better now, it's because they're using proven designs, with the major early failures well in the past.
This is fundamentally a Human-Computer Interaction problem. Namely, the button is built to mark mail that is unsolicited advertisement, but is being used to mark any mail that is unwanted.
And it's a truism that in HCI you never blame the user. Not because it's never the user's fault, but because blaming the user is pointless. You can't change the user. You can't make him behave differently. You usually can't even educate him (they never read manuals or help or tooltips or any other form of instructions).
So yeah, you can say that it's the user's fault for using "Mark as Spam" instead of unsubscribing. But the fact is that they're doing it, and they're going to keep on doing it no matter what you say. Blaming them isn't going to fix anything. Instead, Yahoo needs to adapt to this and fix their code so that users who use "Mark as Spam" as a general "unwanted mail" button don't screw up the system.
You have to remember that trademarks are much more limited than, say, patents.
If you patent something, you have exclusive say in who gets to use that patent for its lifetime. You can license it out at a price you decide, you can market your own product in a monopolistic fashion, or you can just sit on it. You can prevent anyone else from using something described in your patent, even if they invent it independently, even if they only use it privately, even if they're using it for something totally different than what you originally envisioned.
Trademark, on the other hand, only applies to a specific area of business. For example, you could have an Apple Records and an Apple Computer both trademarking the name "Apple" with no conflict. (The famous serious of lawsuits between the two was over Apple Computer's various forays into music.)
So yeah, you can trademark "It's Rude To Stare", but you're not going to get in trouble for using it with your vacuum cleaner business, and you're certainly not going to get in trouble for using it in everyday life.
Pontiac fails it, then. Thanks for the additional info.
In general though I have to say that most people don't seem to check their "blind" spots, relying entirely on mirrors. So even if the car in question isn't badly designed, and even if it's the driver's fault for not looking, it's unhealthy to stay in that spot.
Unless you're driving a van, you can check your "blind" spots by turning your head. Certainly worked when I've driven a Grand Prix, although it was a while ago and maybe you had a newer model with extra large posts or something. But if you're just checking your mirrors and not moving your head, you have only yourself to blame.
As for the economy "they destroyed"... who? Which party has been in control of Congress when gas prices shot up and the economy downturned?
The Republicans, of course. The Democrats misplaced their balls long ago, and are so afraid of doing anything remotely controversial that they let the Republicans lead them around by the nose even when they have a majority.
Indeed. Columbus took the smallest available estimate of the size of the earth, and the largest available estimate of the size of Asia, and decided he could just barely sail there. It's the same kind of cherrypicking of favorable data that got us into Iraq.
They've also going with an approach in their falcon 9 which alows them to lose engines and still accomplish the mission, enhancing reliability.
Just a note on this, engine-out capability is nothing new. Except for a few seconds at certain critical stages of flight, the Saturn V first stage could lose an engine with no consequences to the mission. And in fact it did so on two Apollo flights (6 and 13), with the former resulting in a different orbit due to losing two engines, and the latter causing no problems. The Shuttle is also capable of reaching orbit after an engine failure, although it's much less likely to be able to make the originally planned orbit. This happened once (STS-51-F) resulting in an "abort to orbit", and did not impact the mission work.
Of course, this capability is still tough to achieve and it can definitely be a good thing to have.
That's kind of like asking whether the Burj Dubai is doing anything new over the ancient Egyptians, or whether it's just advances in materials science.
Rockets live and die on materials. Going to low-Earth orbit with a single stage requires that over 90% of your vehicle's mass be fuel. (Multiple stages helps this out, which is why it's done.) Getting the remaining 10% to be anything other than engine and fuel tank is really tough, and requires advanced designs and, you guessed it, highly advanced materials. Advances in electronics help as well, both due to taking up less mass for controllers on the vehicle, and for being able to run better simulations and use better design tools.
In terms of stuff going out the back making the rocket go forward, there's nothing new here. But in terms of getting to space faster and cheaper, there's plenty new.
Think of it like a 787 compared to a 707. All the fundamental principles are there, but all of the incremental improvements used on the 787 come together to give you a significantly better rocket.
(And of course the Falcon is hardly unique in this respect; any modern rocket will benefit similarly. What is interesting about the Falcon is that it exists outside of what I'll call the military-industrial complex, for lack of a better term.)
The reason you don't write laws in Perl (or Python or...) is because laws are not interpreted by interpreters. They are interpreted by judges. Human beings who are (usually) experts in the law and also understand people. If you try to play this sort of idiotic game in front of a judge, you will get smacked down so hard your head will spin.
It's really not that difficult to grasp. Human reason gets applied to the law. It's the whole reason it's there. If you come up with a "clever" game that gets past some ridiculous, twisted reading of the law, it's simply not going to work.
The theory of "making available" is not well established, and has been rejected in court on previous occasions.
The idea that a transcoded version of a file is a derived work of the original has never been debated. It is so obvious that nobody has ever bothered trying to challenge the idea.
Just as you wouldn't want a lawyer barging into your office and telling you what an "object" is in your Java app, maybe you should stop pretending that you know the law and actually listen to what the lawyers say.
Don't be an idiot. Copyright holds the concept of a derived work, and you cannot distribute a work that is derived from a copyrighted work without permission from the copyright holder. An encoded version of a music track is clearly derived from the original music track, and as such distributing it without permission is against the law.
Programmers tend to think that any law which can't be expressed in Perl (or Python or whatever) is too ambiguous to be useful. This is, however, not how things actually work.
Ummm... when I remove those first two negatives, your statement reads "I'm [removed] saying that TSA should [removed] have these powers".
Do you have any concept of logic, or of the English language, or of reason, or of anything involving your brain at all? You can't just cancel out negatives like that! If he's not saying they shouldn't, that is not equivalent to saying that they should. Maybe he doesn't know, maybe he's not addressing the question.
Alright, I understand the last two, but how does the first one work? Does the "omitted" factor of 12/10 just happen to work out to the extra payment which gets applied to pay down the principal?
Not sure why I'm replying to such an obvious idiot, but what the hell.
As far as I can recall, it's never been done to me except by morons like you who like to think that they're being "ironic" or "satirical". But I find it to be one of the most annoying possible things people can do in a slashdot conversation in general.
Slashdot Mirror
That only works if the user has a reason to overcome those obstacles. In this case, the user bears absolutely no consequences for his action, so he has absolutely no motivation to change.
If you allowed the user to drive a high-performance automobile after using his e-mail for a while, but only if he used the "Mark as Spam" button correctly, then maybe we'd see some change.
NASA's success rate is extremely high? They've lost about 1 out of every 70 Shuttle launches, and that's manned spaceflight, with people getting killed when they fail. I haven't checked it, but presumably their unmanned launchers have a considerably worse record simply because unmanned launchers always have a considerably worse record.
There's a reason why "rocket science" is used as a euphamism for "something extremely difficult". Three launch failures of a brand spanking new rocket is nothing unusual in this field. NASA has certainly not done any better with theirs. To the extent that they do better now, it's because they're using proven designs, with the major early failures well in the past.
This is fundamentally a Human-Computer Interaction problem. Namely, the button is built to mark mail that is unsolicited advertisement, but is being used to mark any mail that is unwanted.
And it's a truism that in HCI you never blame the user. Not because it's never the user's fault, but because blaming the user is pointless. You can't change the user. You can't make him behave differently. You usually can't even educate him (they never read manuals or help or tooltips or any other form of instructions).
So yeah, you can say that it's the user's fault for using "Mark as Spam" instead of unsubscribing. But the fact is that they're doing it, and they're going to keep on doing it no matter what you say. Blaming them isn't going to fix anything. Instead, Yahoo needs to adapt to this and fix their code so that users who use "Mark as Spam" as a general "unwanted mail" button don't screw up the system.
You have to remember that trademarks are much more limited than, say, patents.
If you patent something, you have exclusive say in who gets to use that patent for its lifetime. You can license it out at a price you decide, you can market your own product in a monopolistic fashion, or you can just sit on it. You can prevent anyone else from using something described in your patent, even if they invent it independently, even if they only use it privately, even if they're using it for something totally different than what you originally envisioned.
Trademark, on the other hand, only applies to a specific area of business. For example, you could have an Apple Records and an Apple Computer both trademarking the name "Apple" with no conflict. (The famous serious of lawsuits between the two was over Apple Computer's various forays into music.)
So yeah, you can trademark "It's Rude To Stare", but you're not going to get in trouble for using it with your vacuum cleaner business, and you're certainly not going to get in trouble for using it in everyday life.
Pontiac fails it, then. Thanks for the additional info.
In general though I have to say that most people don't seem to check their "blind" spots, relying entirely on mirrors. So even if the car in question isn't badly designed, and even if it's the driver's fault for not looking, it's unhealthy to stay in that spot.
Yeah, right. Lead guitarist of one of the most famous rock bands of all time, unsung? Hilarious.
If you don't want to be tracked, rather than staying locked away all day, why not fight back against the tracking?
Unless you're driving a van, you can check your "blind" spots by turning your head. Certainly worked when I've driven a Grand Prix, although it was a while ago and maybe you had a newer model with extra large posts or something. But if you're just checking your mirrors and not moving your head, you have only yourself to blame.
Umm, we're talking about the Slashdot summary, not about SpaceX's web site.
Or how about just, you know, GMT?
As for the economy "they destroyed"... who? Which party has been in control of Congress when gas prices shot up and the economy downturned?
The Republicans, of course. The Democrats misplaced their balls long ago, and are so afraid of doing anything remotely controversial that they let the Republicans lead them around by the nose even when they have a majority.
Funny, I never said I was a lawyer.
Reality has a liberal bias.
Indeed. Columbus took the smallest available estimate of the size of the earth, and the largest available estimate of the size of Asia, and decided he could just barely sail there. It's the same kind of cherrypicking of favorable data that got us into Iraq.
They've also going with an approach in their falcon 9 which alows them to lose engines and still accomplish the mission, enhancing reliability.
Just a note on this, engine-out capability is nothing new. Except for a few seconds at certain critical stages of flight, the Saturn V first stage could lose an engine with no consequences to the mission. And in fact it did so on two Apollo flights (6 and 13), with the former resulting in a different orbit due to losing two engines, and the latter causing no problems. The Shuttle is also capable of reaching orbit after an engine failure, although it's much less likely to be able to make the originally planned orbit. This happened once (STS-51-F) resulting in an "abort to orbit", and did not impact the mission work.
Of course, this capability is still tough to achieve and it can definitely be a good thing to have.
That's kind of like asking whether the Burj Dubai is doing anything new over the ancient Egyptians, or whether it's just advances in materials science.
Rockets live and die on materials. Going to low-Earth orbit with a single stage requires that over 90% of your vehicle's mass be fuel. (Multiple stages helps this out, which is why it's done.) Getting the remaining 10% to be anything other than engine and fuel tank is really tough, and requires advanced designs and, you guessed it, highly advanced materials. Advances in electronics help as well, both due to taking up less mass for controllers on the vehicle, and for being able to run better simulations and use better design tools.
In terms of stuff going out the back making the rocket go forward, there's nothing new here. But in terms of getting to space faster and cheaper, there's plenty new.
Think of it like a 787 compared to a 707. All the fundamental principles are there, but all of the incremental improvements used on the 787 come together to give you a significantly better rocket.
(And of course the Falcon is hardly unique in this respect; any modern rocket will benefit similarly. What is interesting about the Falcon is that it exists outside of what I'll call the military-industrial complex, for lack of a better term.)
And here we go again.
The reason you don't write laws in Perl (or Python or...) is because laws are not interpreted by interpreters. They are interpreted by judges. Human beings who are (usually) experts in the law and also understand people. If you try to play this sort of idiotic game in front of a judge, you will get smacked down so hard your head will spin.
It's really not that difficult to grasp. Human reason gets applied to the law. It's the whole reason it's there. If you come up with a "clever" game that gets past some ridiculous, twisted reading of the law, it's simply not going to work.
That's great, it's also irrelevant.
The theory of "making available" is not well established, and has been rejected in court on previous occasions.
The idea that a transcoded version of a file is a derived work of the original has never been debated. It is so obvious that nobody has ever bothered trying to challenge the idea.
Just as you wouldn't want a lawyer barging into your office and telling you what an "object" is in your Java app, maybe you should stop pretending that you know the law and actually listen to what the lawyers say.
Don't be an idiot. Copyright holds the concept of a derived work, and you cannot distribute a work that is derived from a copyrighted work without permission from the copyright holder. An encoded version of a music track is clearly derived from the original music track, and as such distributing it without permission is against the law.
Programmers tend to think that any law which can't be expressed in Perl (or Python or whatever) is too ambiguous to be useful. This is, however, not how things actually work.
Ummm... when I remove those first two negatives, your statement reads "I'm [removed] saying that TSA should [removed] have these powers".
Do you have any concept of logic, or of the English language, or of reason, or of anything involving your brain at all? You can't just cancel out negatives like that! If he's not saying they shouldn't, that is not equivalent to saying that they should. Maybe he doesn't know, maybe he's not addressing the question.
It could be worse. We could be pregnant.
"...shall be considered proof of child", eh? Good going.
Alright, I understand the last two, but how does the first one work? Does the "omitted" factor of 12/10 just happen to work out to the extra payment which gets applied to pay down the principal?
Not sure why I'm replying to such an obvious idiot, but what the hell.
As far as I can recall, it's never been done to me except by morons like you who like to think that they're being "ironic" or "satirical". But I find it to be one of the most annoying possible things people can do in a slashdot conversation in general.