For the purposes of law email is considered correspondence. Your email box is a box of electronic documents. documents are transferred to the estate upon death.
"What's nonsense about not revealing someone's email without their permission?"
However the estate is the legal interests of the deceased. The heirs of that estate control the legal interests of the deceased unless specifically stated otherwise by the deceased in their will.
"What rights are they? If there's a law that says heirs should be able to read email, you might have a point. But is there such a law? "
Email are documents, documents are property, property of the deceased belongs to the estate of the deceased.
"The post office doesn't store letters"
Actually they do...its called a Post office box. In case you die, the post office releases mail to the next of kin or designated legally responsible parties (ie the attorney handling your estate)
"Yahoo doesn't need a "right" to prevent unauthorised people from accessing their email"
The whole point of a will or estate is to designate among other things the "authorized" person to receive things like "the papers and personal effects" of the deceased.
Im not an idiot and Im not a redneck(im fairly liberal) and you dont know what you are talking about. Yahoo email is still personal correspondence regardless of boilerplate clickthroughs.
1. Yahoo policy is NOT law 2. Yahoo policy cannot supersede law 3. Any Yahoo policy contrary to law is unenforceable.
The legal system views mail and correspondence as property, property belongs to the estate after the person dies. Yahoo cannot strip rights away using boilerplate language. Those terms can be found unenforceable if they are against public policy(ie enforcing the legal rights of heirs and the legal rights of the estate is considered good public policy).
Also if yahoo owns your email is upheld, there is nothing legally preventing them from publishing or selling your email after you are dead.
Emails are like letters, and letters are property of the estate. Unless there are specific instructions to the contrary(like in a will)...your heirs should get your emails like any other document.
The privacy claim of yahoo is nonsense, the click through is standard boilerplate and is not intended to supersede the rights of heirs.
The post office cannot withhold your mail from your heirs, what gives yahoo that right?
Apparently recently green laser items have been sold to the general public. Unlike red lasers , green lasers apparently have a far greater range( a green laser pointer can have rannge of a couple miles) and are far brighter than the red lasers.
Why would the general public need a laser with a two mile range?
The letters(e-mail) are the personal property of the deceased. A court could reasonably issue an order telling yahoo to turn over "personal effects" unless the deceased person specifically requested them not to.
You cannot give human rights to a computer...human rights as such do not exist under law.
Constitutional protections exist. The 13th amendment outlaws slavery. Therefore a sentient being cannot be held in servitude, biological or not. The 13th amendment does NOT refer to persons, only to partys. Under the 13th amendment a sentient being could not be held as property.
A computer is not a person, under existing common law and the 14th amendment therefore they are not citizens of the united states. An AIs status is sort of that of a legal resident.
HOWEVER, congress could provide for naturalization. In other words if congress so provided an AI could apply to become a citizen.
Just like the weirdoes who grew up on star trek invented flip phones and PCs...these guys grew up on Japanese anime, where androids and 50 foot tall battlerobots are commonplace. These guys are trying to invent this stuff for real!...and unlike us it looks like they are making some progress at least on the small scale. If you can have a robot rollerskate or do sumo moves you can replace those arms with machine guns or grenade launchers. Weve watched in Iraq how useless tanks are in cities.
We are all acting like a bunch of babies regurgitating frankenstein/terminator pablum or making ooh cute toys, instead of doing serious work.
Are the robots going to take all our jobs away...a lot of them... eventually. but new jobs will be created...and no they wont be burger flipping(the robots will be doing that too).
If you guys remember we didnt invent the car either, but American car companies still did okay for almost 80 or 90 years and some are still profitable.
All you IT guys thrown out of work by Indian programmers now have something to do. Whos going to be the Apple computer of robotics?
All you know is nothing...
on
The Jobs Crunch
·
· Score: 5, Informative
"He not only turned a routine recession into the great depression, he instituted the practice of the federal government taxing the wages of each and every worker in the country."
In 1933...
When FDR entered office the unemployment rate was 25%, with an underemployment rate of 50%. He had to close the banks to stop from them from failing. Germany that year would appoint an austrian named Adolf Hitler as their leader. Veterans the previous year had rioted in washington. If you want to make the argument that FDR had prolonged the depression through bad policies...you can make that argument but calling the economy of 1933 "a routine recession" is idiocy.
Second of all the relocation camps didnt happen until TEN YEARS LATER in the middle of a little conflict called "world war II".
Other than not knowing anything about history, economics, or politics the author of this comment seems relatively well informed.
Parody is protected because you are making fun OF THE SONG.
Satire is NOT protected because you are using someones song for an alternate purpose.
Why should satire not be protected? Imagine you are the author of a song about how much you love linux. Imagine if Microsoft used your song in a commercial that was bashing linux, and just changed a few words. They are not making fun of the song, they are using the song for their own purposes in violation of your copyright.
For everyone saying "the first amendment"... Copyright is in the constitution.
The reason why "This land" is not protected is NOT the first amendment but because the copyright expired...a strong argument for limited copyrights. The founders had the right idea...14+14. Personally I would give authors a break 28+28 like it was before 1976.
He doesnt address the most obvious reason why software should not be always free.
If I create software its mine, not RMS or whomever wants to copy it. It is mine by right of creation. If I want to sell it, thats my right, If I want to give it away thats also my right.
The constitutional creation of copyright is merely a restatement of the common law of copyrights. Do I think there should be unlimited copyrights? No...I think pre-1976 system of 28 plus a renewal of 28 years is more than sufficient.
I also think software should have a more limited copyright maybe 10-15 years including an abandonware clause that allows programs not in publication for at least 7 years to be put in the public domain. However authors should have a period where they control their work before its put in the public domain.
When that guy gets a surplus he can sell that surplus and have cash to spend on his family.
When his kid doesnt have to work to keep his family fed...he can go to high school and get a job in a factory or in an office. Then that guys kids can get a job as an office manager and send his kids to college.
We have staroffice and we have some games, but as a technology coordinator for an elementary school the lack of educational programs for linux has been a serious impediment to adoption. The secret to getting linux adopted in schools is educational courseware with SITE licenses and technical support.
The reason why macs are dying in education is because is because a brand new Dell is $800 while a brand new mac is $1200. Mac is a niche product like the people who own bose stereos. Whether that Dell/Gateway/Ibm computer has win XP or (favorite) flavor of Linux is a separate issue.
If a nuke the size of the world war II atomics(weighing 10,000 lbs) existed in World war I, you could have delivered it via Zeppelin. Of course the Zeppelin probably would not have survived the blast unless the zeppelin crew could get their craft to at least 3 or 4 miles up(not impossible but very difficult). In fact in late 1917, a zeppelin crew had escaped fighters by doing their entire mission above 20,000 feet.
The nanotechnology glass as designed is designed NOT to break...that is not safe in case of collision or car going into a canal. This is not hypothetical, dozens of people in MY COUNTY ALONE died because they were trapped in their car when the car was submerged or burning. They did a special on it where people couldnt break the glass because they didnt have a simple icepick in their car.
If you make it out of nano, its also going to be an issue for paramedics to try and get into the car.
A seatbelt has a button to release it. There should be some safety measure built into nanowindshields that will allow them to be broken or removed in case of an emergency.
On my recently purchases HP desktop I have an integrated Realtek ALS650 chipset with built in 5.1 sound. Its light years above my old computer and if Soundblaster has something better I dont care because its not better enough for me to spend $100 on.
A complete rework of Ultima Online adding Complexity and using the Ultima interface which is so much more sensible than that gawdawful EQ interface might topple EQ.
Slashdot Mirror
"In what other way are they alike?"
For the purposes of law email is considered correspondence. Your email box is a box of electronic documents. documents are transferred to the estate upon death.
"What's nonsense about not revealing someone's email without their permission?"
However the estate is the legal interests of the deceased. The heirs of that estate control the legal interests of the deceased unless specifically stated otherwise by the deceased in their will.
"What rights are they? If there's a law that says heirs should be able to read email, you might have a point. But is there such a law? "
Email are documents, documents are property, property of the deceased belongs to the estate of the deceased.
"The post office doesn't store letters"
Actually they do...its called a Post office box. In case you die, the post office releases mail to the next of kin or designated legally responsible parties (ie the attorney handling your estate)
"Yahoo doesn't need a "right" to prevent unauthorised people from accessing their email"
The whole point of a will or estate is to designate among other things the "authorized" person to receive things like "the papers and personal effects" of the deceased.
Im not an idiot and Im not a redneck(im fairly liberal) and you dont know what you are talking about. Yahoo email is still personal correspondence regardless of boilerplate clickthroughs.
1. Yahoo policy is NOT law
2. Yahoo policy cannot supersede law
3. Any Yahoo policy contrary to law is unenforceable.
The legal system views mail and correspondence as property, property belongs to the estate after the person dies. Yahoo cannot strip rights away using boilerplate language. Those terms can be found unenforceable if they are against public policy(ie enforcing the legal rights of heirs and the legal rights of the estate is considered good public policy).
Also if yahoo owns your email is upheld, there is nothing legally preventing them from publishing or selling your email after you are dead.
Emails are like letters, and letters are property
of the estate. Unless there are specific instructions to the contrary(like in a will)...your heirs should get your emails like any other document.
The privacy claim of yahoo is nonsense, the click through is standard boilerplate and is not intended to supersede the rights of heirs.
The post office cannot withhold your mail from your heirs, what gives yahoo that right?
Apparently recently green laser items have been sold to the general public. Unlike red lasers , green lasers apparently have a far greater range( a green laser pointer can have rannge of a couple miles) and are far brighter than the red lasers.
Why would the general public need a laser with a two mile range?
The letters(e-mail) are the personal property of the deceased. A court could reasonably issue an order telling yahoo to turn over "personal effects" unless the deceased person specifically requested them not to.
You cannot give human rights to a computer...human rights as such do not exist under law.
Constitutional protections exist. The 13th amendment outlaws slavery. Therefore a sentient being cannot be held in servitude, biological or not. The 13th amendment does NOT refer to persons, only to partys. Under the 13th amendment a sentient being could not be held as property.
A computer is not a person, under existing common law and the 14th amendment therefore they are not citizens of the united states. An AIs status is sort of that of a legal resident.
HOWEVER, congress could provide for naturalization. In other words if congress so provided an AI could apply to become a citizen.
If the Janitor is a long term employee with benefits , they are probably the most trustworthy employees in the company.
The custodians who steal tend to be temps/contractors.
Why steal your brain when they can just take a few brain cells and grow them in culture?
They can get them legally from organ donors. While the brain itself has no signal it would still have living cells in it.
The beta version didnt have enough waterproofing for the internal components.
Just like the weirdoes who grew up on star trek invented flip phones and PCs...these guys grew up on Japanese anime, where androids and 50 foot tall battlerobots are commonplace. These guys are trying to invent this stuff for real! ...and unlike us it looks like they are making some progress at least on the small scale. If you can have a robot rollerskate or do sumo moves you can replace those arms with machine guns or grenade launchers. Weve watched in Iraq how useless tanks are in cities.
We are all acting like a bunch of babies regurgitating frankenstein/terminator pablum or making ooh cute toys, instead of doing serious work.
Are the robots going to take all our jobs away...a lot of them... eventually. but new jobs will be created...and no they wont be burger flipping(the robots will be doing that too).
If you guys remember we didnt invent the car either, but American car companies still did okay for almost 80 or 90 years and some are still profitable.
All you IT guys thrown out of work by Indian programmers now have something to do. Whos going to be the Apple computer of robotics?
"He not only turned a routine recession into the great depression, he instituted the practice of the federal government taxing the wages of each and every worker in the country."
In 1933...
When FDR entered office the unemployment rate was 25%, with an underemployment rate of 50%. He had to close the banks to stop from them from failing. Germany that year would appoint an austrian named Adolf Hitler as their leader. Veterans the previous year had rioted in washington. If you want to make the argument that FDR had prolonged the depression through bad policies...you can make that argument but calling the economy of 1933 "a routine recession" is idiocy.
Second of all the relocation camps didnt happen until TEN YEARS LATER in the middle of a little conflict called "world war II".
Other than not knowing anything about history, economics, or politics the author of this comment seems relatively well informed.
Parody is protected because you are
making fun OF THE SONG.
Satire is NOT protected because you are using
someones song for an alternate purpose.
Why should satire not be protected? Imagine you are the author of a song about how much you love linux. Imagine if Microsoft used your song in a commercial that was bashing linux, and just changed a few words. They are not making fun of the song, they are using the song for their own purposes in violation of your copyright.
For everyone saying "the first amendment"...
Copyright is in the constitution.
The reason why "This land" is not protected is
NOT the first amendment but because the copyright
expired...a strong argument for limited copyrights.
The founders had the right idea...14+14. Personally
I would give authors a break 28+28 like it was before 1976.
He doesnt address the most obvious reason why software should not be always free.
If I create software its mine, not RMS or whomever wants to copy it. It is mine by right of creation. If I want to sell it, thats my right, If I want to give it away thats also my right.
The constitutional creation of copyright is merely a restatement of the common law of copyrights. Do I think there should be unlimited copyrights? No...I think pre-1976 system of 28 plus a renewal of 28 years is more than sufficient.
I also think software should have a more limited copyright maybe 10-15 years including an abandonware clause that allows programs not in publication for at least 7 years to be put in the public domain. However authors should have a period where they control their work before its put in the public domain.
When that guy gets a surplus he can sell that surplus and have cash to spend on his family.
When his kid doesnt have to work to keep his family fed...he can go to high school and get a job in a factory or in an office. Then that guys kids can get a job as an office manager and send his kids to college.
Nigeria is like the internet scam capital of the world they lack the legal infrastructure to be a trustworthy place to do business.
Thats not to say they couldnt turn it around...but its going to take a lot of work.
We have staroffice and we have some games,
but as a technology coordinator for an elementary
school the lack of educational programs for linux has been a serious impediment to adoption. The secret to getting linux adopted in schools is educational courseware with SITE licenses and technical support.
The reason why macs are dying in education is because is because a brand new Dell is $800 while a brand new mac is $1200. Mac is a niche product like the people who own bose stereos. Whether that Dell/Gateway/Ibm computer has win XP or (favorite) flavor of Linux is a separate issue.
You dont need to wait for Longhorn or even pay anything for it. Its 220mb in size. Whether it remains free is another issue entirely.
If a nuke the size of the world war II atomics(weighing 10,000 lbs) existed in World war I, you could have delivered it via Zeppelin. Of course the Zeppelin probably would not have survived the blast unless the zeppelin crew could get their craft to at least 3 or 4 miles up(not impossible but very difficult).
In fact in late 1917, a zeppelin crew had escaped fighters by doing their entire mission above 20,000 feet.
The nanotechnology glass as designed is designed NOT to break...that is not safe in case of collision or car going into a canal. This is not hypothetical, dozens of people in MY COUNTY ALONE died because they were trapped in their car when the car was submerged or burning. They did a special on it where people couldnt break the glass because they didnt have a simple icepick in their car.
If you make it out of nano, its also going to be an issue for paramedics to try and get into the car.
A seatbelt has a button to release it. There should be some safety measure built into nanowindshields that will allow them to be broken or removed in case of an emergency.
If my car is in a wreck or goes into a canal. If I cant open the doors I want to be able to break the windows and get out.
If Im dead...my beautiful windshield doesnt mean a damn thing.
Lets See IBM employees invented Fortran the worlds first programming language.
;-)
IBM invented the PC as we know it.
Now IBM is fighting to save linux from SCO.
this almost makes up for the PCjr
On my recently purchases HP desktop I have an integrated Realtek ALS650 chipset with built in 5.1 sound. Its light years above my old computer and if Soundblaster has something better I dont care because its not better enough for me to spend $100 on.
"social" in Christian Social union is like
The social in social security referring to
society.
Somehow I dont think the extra 20 blocks was worth the trouble...
A complete rework of Ultima Online adding Complexity and using the Ultima interface which is so much more sensible than that gawdawful EQ interface might topple EQ.