Well, I posted my opinion at about 6:00, and it never went through.
Thus I post again.
I just wanted to say 'Thank You' to Roblimo and everyone at Slashdot for giving us the feedback, even if its 'things are being done, we have support from Andover and the lawyers, and we can't say more than that for legal reasons.'
I appreciate that.
I would also like to say thank you to the Management of Andover net for backing up Slashdot when it would be easy not to do so. Thank you to the Lawyers for 'Getting It' and realizing the ethical issues involved.
And even (or even especially) Thank you to the good people that work for Microsoft that had the good grace and backbone to speak out when it is obviously a very uncomfortable time for them to take a position at odds with the people they work for. I wish all those people the best, Thanks - Pug
This has been a test of the Slashdot Broadcast Network . . .
Here it is - each of the comments, and why MS thinks it's a violation, plus my opinion. You wanted my opinion right? Suuurrreee you did.
Comments Containing A Copy of the Specification:
"by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday, May 02, @03:37PM EST (#197)"(Score 5: Funny? (Why ? ? ?) Basically a copy of the original. If this were copyrighted, rather than a trade secret, this would be a violation. Since they foolishly called it a trade secret, it's only a violation if AC signed an NDA with MS.
Comments Containing Links to Internet Sites with Unauthorized Copies of the Specification
"by ka9dgx on Tuesday May 02, @2:52PM EST (#133)"(Score:5, Informative) Oh look, another link. MS - maybe you don't entirely undertand the term Trade Secret? Implying that people don't already know it?
Comments Containing Instructions on How to Bypass the End User License Agreement and Extract the Specification:
All in all, my final opinion is . . . MS doesn't have a leg to stand on. They'd be in better shape if they hadn't called it a trade secret, since then they could claim copyright. I think they'd lose, even then, but it would be possible. Now it's just out there.
Given the ease it took to bypass the NDA, and the fact that it could be done accidently of all things, even under the UCITA, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on. I would say, in my laymans opinion, that Andover and slashdot are at no risk whatsoever.
But that's just my opinion.
This has been a test of the Slashdot Broadcast Network . . .
Actually, although I own the copyright on my post, there is some legal precedent that, as publisher, Slashdot owns the copyright on the compilation of the comments.
There have been several precedents on this issue - as IANAL and I sure as hell ANAIPL, I would recommend you get a good book on copyright for further perusal.
This has been a test of the Slashdot Broadcast Network . . .
That's the rub. They didn't publish it as a 'Copyrighted' text. They published it, in the open, with no 'protection' but a online NDA, as a 'Trade Secret'
Trade Secrets are only protected as long as they don't become public knowledge, and the corporation and associated affiliates must take 'proper precautions' that they don't get out.
So if I break into 'The MS Vault', steal their source code, and publish it on/., I've broken the law. If Bill forgets that I've not signed an NDA, sends it to me, and I publish it on/., A- I haven't broken the law, and B- It loses Trade Secret protection. Nor am I at fault if Bill leaves it on a park bench, and I pick it up and read it - even if I know it's a trade secret. If I haven't signed a NDA, and it reaches me without my committing corporate espionage, I'm not at fault.
By claiming it as a Trade Secret, and then publically publishing it without adequate protection, any reasonable court would say that they've lost all protection.
So why would they do this? So they can set a precedent. They want to be able to publish 'source code' publically, without it's actually being useful to anyone. Makes being forced to open their software by Judge Jackson *much* less painful, if no-one can actually use it.
I'd like to see Slashdot and Andover fight this on the principle of it, but there is a good, practical reason for them to fight this as well.
This has been a test of the Slashdot Broadcast Network . . .
"I don't like what you said here. Would you please remove it?" is a far cry from announcing people who don't toe the party line to be unpersons.
If that was all they were implying, that would be the case. "I don't like what you said here. Would you please remove it? Or would rather deal with our lawyers" seems a bit closer, with the unspoken impication "You're an ISP. We're the biggest company on the planet. Who do you think will win." - I would say that that qualifies as Big Brother in Training.
This has been a test of the Slashdot Broadcast Network . . .
You know, these days never cease to amaze me. When will they learn that Freedom and Truth are to be embraced?
When they can make a profit by them.
On a more interesting note, this finally makes sense to why they 'released' the source in such a funky and strange way.
They have offered to 'release their source code' in return for not getting broken up.
They're looking for a way to release their source code, without actually releasing their source code. This actually needs to be brought to the attention of the Judge (Jackson, or am I misremembering) in the MS vs DoJ case, as evidence of intent to act in bad faith.
This was planned. Stupid, but planned.
This has been a test of the Slashdot Broadcast Network . . .
If some idiot tries to put embedded NT into a life support system, should Microsoft be liable when it bluescreens?
If MS was contracted and aware of what it was being used for, or even stated (as I believe they do) that it was capable of fulfilling (I've spaced the wording I'm looking for) 'critical mission tasks', then yes, they should be culpable when it fails. Should a single failure break a company? no. Should a single set of unforeseen but devastating failures break a company. Still no.
For those items, there are Insurance Companies. You know - People who say, if you maintain certain quality levels, we will bet our bank accounts against your regular premiums that the items you design are pretty safe.
Of course, it's lots cheaper for software companies to simply rewrite the law to escape taking responsibility for their actions.
This has been a test of the Slashdot Broadcast Network . . .
You keep missing the point - GPL isn't a contract waiving a right to a warranty. Warranties are part of Uniform Commercial Code, and in this case the key word is Commercial.
GPL is not a commercial license - If I download, compile, and execute code that no-one has asked me to pay for, it's not a commercial transaction, thus not covered by UCC, thus no warranty is expressed or implied by either the author or the UCC.
GPL (That is, the current version) might become a shrink-wrap if the author sells me a copy of his code for my use, having stated or implied that it is suitable for certain uses. But as written, GPL is purely a license stating that you have certain additional rights above and beyond those of standard copyright if and only if you act in accordance to the responsibilities set out by the GPL.
This has been a test of the Slashdot Broadcast Network . . .
I must not be most people then - The thing that has always annoyed me about these shrink-wrap agreements is that they seem to let the vendor write their own laws. In Washington, evidently they can.
Now of course, the companies are trying to push UCITA down the throats of the legislatures too. They keep this up, the various legislatures will do themselves out of jobs - why bribe a corrupt politician, when you can just write-up your own law in the form of a shrink-wrap agreement.
This has been a test of the Slashdot Broadcast Network . . .
A Trade secret is based on the 'Owner' taking reasonable precautions. I don't think you can 'license' a trade secret as such - once you do, it's no longer a trade secret. Indeed, according to 'praireelaw' it's the employers responsibility to conduct exit interviews regarding what is considered proprietary. Trade secrets cab be developed independently, and there's no protection (Think Shipstones from the Heinlein book 'Friday'). Trade secrets are (by definition) not public knowledge. I think trying to put up a 'genersl public license' for a trade secret is contradictory.
Of course, between the thrice-damned DMCA and the UCITA acts which practically allow Software companies to write their own laws regarding intellectual property, who knows . . .
Seems awfully unfair for Corps to limit those laws to Software. I'm sure lots of manufacturing companies would like to have that capability too - "The safety features of this car are proprietary and licensed rather than sold. No guarantee regarding the safety features is expressed or implied for any particular set of circumstances. Any attempt to reverse engineer or otherwise test the features of this car will be considered a violation of the Chevrolet(TM) licensing agreement, unless implemented by licensed chevrolet engineers familiar with the current implementations of Chevrolet Safety Features (TM). Some Portions of this License Aggreement may be void in Idaho . .."
This has been a test of the Slashdot Broadcast Network . . .
Ummm - because we're the consumers, and the basis behind capitalism is that of providing an item or service to consumers in exchange for money . . .
Generally, if you can make money by providing a service to consumers despite the fact that the consumers don't like it, it's considered evidence of things like having a monopoly . . . you may have heard the term in the news recently . . .
So, yes, I do have the god-given right to tell them how I think they should run their business . ..
This has been a test of the Slashdot Broadcast Network . . .
In yet another ruling from the increasingly liberal court, the court held 5-4 that in fact people should be held liable for their own actions.
Officials from the MPAA quickly announced a new and groundbreaking set of proposals to protect Intellectual Property from law-abiding consumers as well those in violation of the law.
"After much discussion with Director Freeh of the FBI, we felt that limiting the full force of the law to those that have broken it shows a narrow vision, while by enacting legislation to take away those rights only invoked by pirates and hackers, we can more easily and safely bring our artistic message to the consumer"
This has been a test of the Slashdot Broadcast Network . . .
I certainly agree that a good programmer should learn logic, code design, etcetera
Now if only the Colleges would consider teaching them. I've programmed for 20 years, and have yet to have two people agree on what they mean when talking about 'object-oriented programming', and so on.
I took Calculus because I *enjoyed* it - not because my degree required it (it didn't), but these idiots coming out of the Comp Sci programs don't know the *tools*. They know 'Design Methodology', and 'Object Oriented Design Theory', and 'CASE Systems Analysis' but they will screw up any actual design they touch.
I'm pretty sure they all eventually go to work for Microsoft. That is BTW, not a slam - merely an indication that most of MS's office suite and bloatware share the design features these young 'Computer Science' people try to insert in software.
This is of course, only my limited experience.
Pug
Of course, this is way Off-Topic for this thread - grin
This has been a test of the Slashdot Broadcast Network . . .
Notation - My mother drove a truck - Every Trucking I'm aware of has GPS systems, cellular access, . . . I actually started this with 'virtually every large' as a disclaimer, then I realized it was every large, then I realized it was *every*. I am not aware of *any* trucking company that can try to compete in this day and age without them.
Mechanic? I hope your not using this as an example - You may have noticed . . .
This has been a test of the Slashdot Broadcast Network . . .
No. This is not his punisment. This is his probation
Probation is the suspension of a sentence of imprisonment and the imposition of conditions the defendant must meet to satisfy the probation terms.
A defendant is placed on probation where incarceration is unwarranted and not required by law.
The conditions of probation insure that the defendant leads a law-abiding life.
At the end of the probationary period, the defendant is free of the state's supervision. Violating probation terms can result in the revocation of probation and the imposition of the original sentence.
What Mitnick has been sentenced to is not a three years probation. It is a three year vendetta by a legal system that was unable to prove the charges and simply chose to suspend all rights and procedures.
To paraphrase Dr. McCoy - "I'd like to thank the legal system for saving time and effort with such things as a legal system, evidence, or the right to consoul, nevermind that these are seen as the hallmarks of civilized leaders, such as Mussolini . .."
Quite frankly, in this day and age, the purpose seems designed in the futile hope that he will starve to death rather than reveal how thoroughly corrupt the system has become.
Pug
This has been a test of the Slashdot Broadcast Network . . .
IANAP - But doesn't this demolish the requirement that information cannot be transmitted faster than the speed of light? Every explanation that I've seen that keeps the Bell Theorem from violating relativity theory is based on the fact that no 'information' is actually being transmitted, merely useless 'data' on the quantum state of an entangled particle that is outside the observable universe at the time.
But if you can use that data as a key, doesn't that move Bell's Theorem out of the realm of merely unnerving to actually violating relativity and (potentially) causality?
This has been a test of the Slashdot Broadcast Network . . .
What your referring to is what was (as I recall) referred to as the 'Hidden Variables' Hypothesis, and was advanced by no less a figure than Einstein himself. AKA 'God does not play dice with the universe'
Einstein turned out to be provably wrong on this, because (As I understand it - IANAP) the hidden variable hypothesis doesn't allow for the double slit experiment, in which you get dual wave/particle interactions depending on the presence on an observer.
As always, Noone is quite what constitutes an observer, because no-one has been able to get a 'non-observer' to say what the wavicle looks like to it. Grin
As I read the Pear findings, the results were only there when someone was actively concentrating on producing them - I.E. an active, not a passive effect.
I suspect it could be used to note whether someone actively intended to do something to a specific item (i.e. blow up this plane), but I don't think it could be used in the more general sense (Someone intends to rob a bank, somewhere . ..) As far as something used to alter and control thoughts, well - those already exist. They're called women . . .
That presumes that the other 90%, not being used for muscular control, isn't being used at all.
If (BIG if) that other portion of the brain is being used to affect things at the quantum level, that would appear to have considerable survival value to me. A better chance of tracking prey, finding ripe fruit, noticing that the observations of a predator are collapsing some of your quantum wavicles, all potentially have survival value.
Come on, everyone that's ever seen military action has known someone who just had an 'instinct' that they were being watched - even if it was through a sniper scope miles away.
Perhaps the better question is - What makes a good manual, online or offline?
I certainly prefer to have a paper manual, simply because you can relax while you read a paper book, and I retain more when I'm enjoying myself with a book and a cup of coffee in my living room than when I'm reading at my computer.
But more importantly, I've *never* seen an electronic manual I've been helped by. PDF is a pain to look at when your dealing with a problem, MS-Help files are consistently badly written, for *any* program I've ever seen - to the point of being a waste of HD space to have. HTML file are an improvement over either one on average, but it's still a matter of trying to flip through information in one program while dealing with the program itself . . .
If an electronic document was written well, then I might be able to deal without it, but I've never seen one written well.
Slashdot Mirror
Thus I post again.
I just wanted to say 'Thank You' to Roblimo and everyone at Slashdot for giving us the feedback, even if its 'things are being done, we have support from Andover and the lawyers, and we can't say more than that for legal reasons.'
I appreciate that.
I would also like to say thank you to the Management of Andover net for backing up Slashdot when it would be easy not to do so.
Thank you to the Lawyers for 'Getting It' and realizing the ethical issues involved.
And even (or even especially) Thank you to the good people that work for Microsoft that had the good grace and backbone to speak out when it is obviously a very uncomfortable time for them to take a position at odds with the people they work for. I wish all those people the best,
Thanks - Pug
This has been a test of the Slashdot Broadcast Network . . .
Comments Containing A Copy of the Specification:
"by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday, May 02, @03:37PM EST (#197)"(Score 5: Funny? (Why ? ? ?)
Basically a copy of the original. If this were copyrighted, rather than a trade secret, this would be a violation. Since they foolishly called it a trade secret, it's only a violation if AC signed an NDA with MS.
"by BlueUnderwear on Tuesday, May 02, @04:09PM EST (#239)"(Score 2, Informative)
A Link, that's it.
"by BlueUnderwear on Tuesday, May 02, @04:15PM EST (#248)"(Score:2, Informative)
another link
"by smartin on Tuesday, May 02, @02:20PM EST (#86)"(Score:3, Insightful)
MS are idiots - No reason whatsoever.
Comments Containing Links to Internet Sites with Unauthorized Copies of the Specification
"by ka9dgx on Tuesday May 02, @2:52PM EST (#133)"(Score:5, Informative)
Oh look, another link. MS - maybe you don't entirely undertand the term Trade Secret? Implying that people don't already know it?
Comments Containing Instructions on How to Bypass the End User License Agreement and Extract the Specification:
"by myconid (my S conid@ P toge A the M r.net) on Tuesday May 02, @07:27PM EST (#362)"(Score:3, Informative)
A deeply sophisticated method for cracking the heavy MS security (Snigger)
"by markb on Tuesday May 02, @05:47PM EST (#321)"(Score:1)
Ohh, another heavy duty method.
"by Sami (respect.my@authorita-dot-net) on Tuesday May 02, @01:47PM EST (#19)"(Score:4, Informative)
You Hacker/Crackers. I'm soo Jealous. Evidently, so is MS
"by iCEBalM (icebalm@[NOSPAM]bigfoot.com) on Tuesday May 02, @01:52PM EST (#33)"(Score:5, Informative)
One of the more sophisticated ways - you have to download something first!!! I can see where MS might assume that their average user might not be able to handle that without us malicously showing them how . . .
"by Jonny Royale (moc.mocten.xi@notners) on Tuesday, May 02, @01:59PM EST (#51)"(Score:2, Redundant)
Yes, good old Winzip. The bane of law-abiding citizens everywhere!
"by rcw-work (rcw@d.e.b.i.a.n.org.without.dots) on Tuesday, May 02, @07:12PM EST (#353)"(Score:1)
Look - those linux using bastiches didn't even notice our license agreement. Release the Dogs . . .
All in all, my final opinion is . . . MS doesn't have a leg to stand on. They'd be in better shape if they hadn't called it a trade secret, since then they could claim copyright. I think they'd lose, even then, but it would be possible. Now it's just out there.
Given the ease it took to bypass the NDA, and the fact that it could be done accidently of all things, even under the UCITA, they wouldn't have a leg to stand on. I would say, in my laymans opinion, that Andover and slashdot are at no risk whatsoever.
But that's just my opinion.
This has been a test of the Slashdot Broadcast Network . . .
The only way to lose a copyright is for it to expire - i.e. life plus 70 years
This has been a test of the Slashdot Broadcast Network . . .
There have been several precedents on this issue - as IANAL and I sure as hell ANAIPL, I would recommend you get a good book on copyright for further perusal.
This has been a test of the Slashdot Broadcast Network . . .
Trade Secrets are only protected as long as they don't become public knowledge, and the corporation and associated affiliates must take 'proper precautions' that they don't get out.
So if I break into 'The MS Vault', steal their source code, and publish it on /., I've broken the law. If Bill forgets that I've not signed an NDA, sends it to me, and I publish it on /., A- I haven't broken the law, and B- It loses Trade Secret protection. Nor am I at fault if Bill leaves it on a park bench, and I pick it up and read it - even if I know it's a trade secret. If I haven't signed a NDA, and it reaches me without my committing corporate espionage, I'm not at fault.
By claiming it as a Trade Secret, and then publically publishing it without adequate protection, any reasonable court would say that they've lost all protection.
So why would they do this? So they can set a precedent. They want to be able to publish 'source code' publically, without it's actually being useful to anyone. Makes being forced to open their software by Judge Jackson *much* less painful, if no-one can actually use it.
I'd like to see Slashdot and Andover fight this on the principle of it, but there is a good, practical reason for them to fight this as well.
This has been a test of the Slashdot Broadcast Network . . .
If that was all they were implying, that would be the case. "I don't like what you said here. Would you please remove it? Or would rather deal with our lawyers" seems a bit closer, with the unspoken impication "You're an ISP. We're the biggest company on the planet. Who do you think will win." - I would say that that qualifies as Big Brother in Training.
This has been a test of the Slashdot Broadcast Network . . .
When they can make a profit by them.
On a more interesting note, this finally makes sense to why they 'released' the source in such a funky and strange way.
They have offered to 'release their source code' in return for not getting broken up.
They're looking for a way to release their source code, without actually releasing their source code. This actually needs to be brought to the attention of the Judge (Jackson, or am I misremembering) in the MS vs DoJ case, as evidence of intent to act in bad faith.
This was planned. Stupid, but planned.
This has been a test of the Slashdot Broadcast Network . . .
If MS was contracted and aware of what it was being used for, or even stated (as I believe they do) that it was capable of fulfilling (I've spaced the wording I'm looking for) 'critical mission tasks', then yes, they should be culpable when it fails. Should a single failure break a company? no. Should a single set of unforeseen but devastating failures break a company. Still no.
For those items, there are Insurance Companies. You know - People who say, if you maintain certain quality levels, we will bet our bank accounts against your regular premiums that the items you design are pretty safe.
Of course, it's lots cheaper for software companies to simply rewrite the law to escape taking responsibility for their actions.
This has been a test of the Slashdot Broadcast Network . . .
GPL is not a commercial license - If I download, compile, and execute code that no-one has asked me to pay for, it's not a commercial transaction, thus not covered by UCC, thus no warranty is expressed or implied by either the author or the UCC.
GPL (That is, the current version) might become a shrink-wrap if the author sells me a copy of his code for my use, having stated or implied that it is suitable for certain uses. But as written, GPL is purely a license stating that you have certain additional rights above and beyond those of standard copyright if and only if you act in accordance to the responsibilities set out by the GPL.
This has been a test of the Slashdot Broadcast Network . . .
Now of course, the companies are trying to push UCITA down the throats of the legislatures too. They keep this up, the various legislatures will do themselves out of jobs - why bribe a corrupt politician, when you can just write-up your own law in the form of a shrink-wrap agreement.
This has been a test of the Slashdot Broadcast Network . . .
"By Double-clicking on this attachment you are taking full responsibility for the consequences of this program . . . Not valid in Idaho . . ."
This has been a test of the Slashdot Broadcast Network . . .
A Trade secret is based on the 'Owner' taking reasonable precautions. I don't think you can 'license' a trade secret as such - once you do, it's no longer a trade secret. Indeed, according to 'praireelaw' it's the employers responsibility to conduct exit interviews regarding what is considered proprietary. Trade secrets cab be developed independently, and there's no protection (Think Shipstones from the Heinlein book 'Friday'). Trade secrets are (by definition) not public knowledge. I think trying to put up a 'genersl public license' for a trade secret is contradictory.
Of course, between the thrice-damned DMCA and the UCITA acts which practically allow Software companies to write their own laws regarding intellectual property, who knows . . .
Seems awfully unfair for Corps to limit those laws to Software. I'm sure lots of manufacturing companies would like to have that capability too - ."
"The safety features of this car are proprietary and licensed rather than sold. No guarantee regarding the safety features is expressed or implied for any particular set of circumstances. Any attempt to reverse engineer or otherwise test the features of this car will be considered a violation of the Chevrolet(TM) licensing agreement, unless implemented by licensed chevrolet engineers familiar with the current implementations of Chevrolet Safety Features (TM). Some Portions of this License Aggreement may be void in Idaho . .
This has been a test of the Slashdot Broadcast Network . . .
Seems only fair, after all the pentiums of the time doubled as stoves . . .
This has been a test of the Slashdot Broadcast Network . . .
Ummm - because we're the consumers, and the basis behind capitalism is that of providing an item or service to consumers in exchange for money . . .
Generally, if you can make money by providing a service to consumers despite the fact that the consumers don't like it, it's considered evidence of things like having a monopoly . . . you may have heard the term in the news recently . . .
So, yes, I do have the god-given right to tell them how I think they should run their business . . .
This has been a test of the Slashdot Broadcast Network . . .
Officials from the MPAA quickly announced a new and groundbreaking set of proposals to protect Intellectual Property from law-abiding consumers as well those in violation of the law.
"After much discussion with Director Freeh of the FBI, we felt that limiting the full force of the law to those that have broken it shows a narrow vision, while by enacting legislation to take away those rights only invoked by pirates and hackers, we can more easily and safely bring our artistic message to the consumer"
This has been a test of the Slashdot Broadcast Network . . .
Now if only the Colleges would consider teaching them. I've programmed for 20 years, and have yet to have two people agree on what they mean when talking about 'object-oriented programming', and so on.
I took Calculus because I *enjoyed* it - not because my degree required it (it didn't), but these idiots coming out of the Comp Sci programs don't know the *tools*. They know 'Design Methodology', and 'Object Oriented Design Theory', and 'CASE Systems Analysis' but they will screw up any actual design they touch.
I'm pretty sure they all eventually go to work for Microsoft. That is BTW, not a slam - merely an indication that most of MS's office suite and bloatware share the design features these young 'Computer Science' people try to insert in software.
This is of course, only my limited experience.
Pug
Of course, this is way Off-Topic for this thread - grin
This has been a test of the Slashdot Broadcast Network . . .
Mechanic? I hope your not using this as an example - You may have noticed . . .
This has been a test of the Slashdot Broadcast Network . . .
Probation is the suspension of a sentence of imprisonment and the imposition of conditions the defendant must meet to satisfy the probation terms.
A defendant is placed on probation where incarceration is unwarranted and not required by law.
The conditions of probation insure that the defendant leads a law-abiding life.
At the end of the probationary period, the defendant is free of the state's supervision. Violating probation terms can result in the revocation of probation and the imposition of the original sentence.
What Mitnick has been sentenced to is not a three years probation. It is a three year vendetta by a legal system that was unable to prove the charges and simply chose to suspend all rights and procedures.
To paraphrase Dr. McCoy - "I'd like to thank the legal system for saving time and effort with such things as a legal system, evidence, or the right to consoul, nevermind that these are seen as the hallmarks of civilized leaders, such as Mussolini . . ."
Quite frankly, in this day and age, the purpose seems designed in the futile hope that he will starve to death rather than reveal how thoroughly corrupt the system has become.
Pug
This has been a test of the Slashdot Broadcast Network . . .
But if you can use that data as a key, doesn't that move Bell's Theorem out of the realm of merely unnerving to actually violating relativity and (potentially) causality?
This has been a test of the Slashdot Broadcast Network . . .
Einstein turned out to be provably wrong on this, because (As I understand it - IANAP) the hidden variable hypothesis doesn't allow for the double slit experiment, in which you get dual wave/particle interactions depending on the presence on an observer.
As always, Noone is quite what constitutes an observer, because no-one has been able to get a 'non-observer' to say what the wavicle looks like to it. Grin
I suspect it could be used to note whether someone actively intended to do something to a specific item (i.e. blow up this plane), but I don't think it could be used in the more general sense (Someone intends to rob a bank, somewhere . . .) As far as something used to alter and control thoughts, well - those already exist. They're called women . . .
If (BIG if) that other portion of the brain is being used to affect things at the quantum level, that would appear to have considerable survival value to me. A better chance of tracking prey, finding ripe fruit, noticing that the observations of a predator are collapsing some of your quantum wavicles, all potentially have survival value.
Come on, everyone that's ever seen military action has known someone who just had an 'instinct' that they were being watched - even if it was through a sniper scope miles away.
Nice try though.
I certainly prefer to have a paper manual, simply because you can relax while you read a paper book, and I retain more when I'm enjoying myself with a book and a cup of coffee in my living room than when I'm reading at my computer.
But more importantly, I've *never* seen an electronic manual I've been helped by. PDF is a pain to look at when your dealing with a problem, MS-Help files are consistently badly written, for *any* program I've ever seen - to the point of being a waste of HD space to have. HTML file are an improvement over either one on average, but it's still a matter of trying to flip through information in one program while dealing with the program itself . . .
If an electronic document was written well, then I might be able to deal without it, but I've never seen one written well.
They were suing over the 'Look and Feel' of the game, rather than any original coding or research they did . . .
Why does this suddenly seem familiar?