I would give thumbs up if they were protecting their users by just forbidding any kind of analytics ads. And through technical means instead of legal ones.
The law cares more about intent than what is technically feasible. I tend to agree with you, but in the head of a jurist (or of about any non-technical person) they expect their mails and history to be private and well-behaved people to not go look in their trashes. They expect criminals to be able to do it and government as well (you know, hollywood says they have hackers 'n stuff). They just don't expect a company to do that on an industrial scale and make profits lawfully that way.
I hope that this will help people realize what informations they are broadcasting (wishful thinking !) and gladly label those that expect the informations broadcasted unencrypted to be confidential as "uninformed or dumb", but I agree with them that a company that has "don't be evil" as a motto should be expected to not do this kind of things.
Google tries to bring back a sane practice (public disclosure) as an industry practice. This is GOOD(tm). On this precise example, it can lead to problems for many people, but one can expect that on the long term it will lead to quicker reaction from Microsoft's security team.
I am not a software patent or even patent advocate (they are all evil and stifle innovation) but...
I thought that simply automating a non-automated process is not sufficient to obtain a patent.
You are talking about robotics here. Of course that automating a manual process deserves a patent. That doesn't make it automatically innovating but replacing a human task by an automatic process is often a non trivial process.
If Mars had even a small sea made of 50% oil and 50% water it would be considered incredibely hospitable compared to what it is now. We may be trashing our planet, but others are still incredibely more hostile
Oh, you are talking about actual colonization rather than just silly Apolloesque planting of a flag ? But this is not what most mars missions plan about. If you wanted this, we would need:
- Long term support for enough missions to bring there ~150 people (the minimum genetic pool I heard was necessary for a healthy population genetics)
- Plans for a martian base
- Legal status and serious discussion about militarization of this base
- Regular cargo missions from earth.
None of that is in the missions regularly talked about, and these missions never set steps for this. Actually putting a (wo)man on mars would have huge technological gains by solving the challenges involved in the mission, but would certainly not be the cheapest way to set the grounds of a Martian colony. Why not go the Japanese way and send robots build a base ?
Fact : most Americans have a mental representation of "socialism" that depicts something that never existed outside their borders. A bit like their "football" thing.
If you read the link your provided, you will see that Biosphere 2 was nothing close to a scientific experiment. It was not made by NASA, it was not made by scientists.
The questions about a trip to Mars are political. The only technical question is whether we can make it in 6 month or if we'll have an engine to do it in 2 months. The main science question is : what the hell do we need humans on Mars for ?
...and the method will be criticized because it failed to predict a bubble correctly. Predicting the outcome of a decision that takes the prediction into account is in many cases (not all) an undecidable problem.
I would believe that Microsoft spends more on security than any other software company. Problem is, they take security as a separate issue from software design. I mean, without Microsoft, the whole antivirus field would not even exist. Of course they are spending more than anyone. They also are making other people waste money on security more than anyone
Because if it is the idea that they claim, it is quite silly : http://creativebits.org/files/zoomorphic_calligraphy.jpg (Someone told me this is a fisherman's poem)
But remember : a millenium-old practice is innovative when it is done ON A COMPUTER !
If higher ethical standards were incompatible with efficiency in a given process, I would like them to make their case and their point. The public opinion doesn't have very high ethical standards either.
Just a random thought : if the random chance had been the other way around, namely that the cellphone hive had higher productivity, would it be interesting and warrant new studies ?
Slashdot Mirror
Buy-sell cycles of less than 3 months should be forbidden.
This is what communists like Warren Buffet say.
I am waiting for people in protest or in copwatching to do that.
I would give thumbs up if they were protecting their users by just forbidding any kind of analytics ads. And through technical means instead of legal ones.
The law cares more about intent than what is technically feasible. I tend to agree with you, but in the head of a jurist (or of about any non-technical person) they expect their mails and history to be private and well-behaved people to not go look in their trashes. They expect criminals to be able to do it and government as well (you know, hollywood says they have hackers 'n stuff). They just don't expect a company to do that on an industrial scale and make profits lawfully that way.
I hope that this will help people realize what informations they are broadcasting (wishful thinking !) and gladly label those that expect the informations broadcasted unencrypted to be confidential as "uninformed or dumb", but I agree with them that a company that has "don't be evil" as a motto should be expected to not do this kind of things.
Google tries to bring back a sane practice (public disclosure) as an industry practice. This is GOOD(tm). On this precise example, it can lead to problems for many people, but one can expect that on the long term it will lead to quicker reaction from Microsoft's security team.
The problem is that, yes, you could sue him but you can't sue Microsoft to force you to run faulty software.
At least they didn't say that he wants to IMPROVE the world. Just change it. I mean, Bill Gates changed the world as well. As did Sauron.
Ooooooh ! I thought the pole was behind the vehicle, thanks I understand now !
Is that so ?
There may be something I don't understand by the driver is facing the forward direction, right ? picture
From what I understand, this car was going against the wind
In Norway I believe Russia recognized it was a failed missile test.
100% with you on this.
I thought that simply automating a non-automated process is not sufficient to obtain a patent.
You are talking about robotics here. Of course that automating a manual process deserves a patent. That doesn't make it automatically innovating but replacing a human task by an automatic process is often a non trivial process.
If Mars had even a small sea made of 50% oil and 50% water it would be considered incredibely hospitable compared to what it is now. We may be trashing our planet, but others are still incredibely more hostile
Oh, you are talking about actual colonization rather than just silly Apolloesque planting of a flag ? But this is not what most mars missions plan about. If you wanted this, we would need :
- Long term support for enough missions to bring there ~150 people (the minimum genetic pool I heard was necessary for a healthy population genetics)
- Plans for a martian base
- Legal status and serious discussion about militarization of this base
- Regular cargo missions from earth.
None of that is in the missions regularly talked about, and these missions never set steps for this. Actually putting a (wo)man on mars would have huge technological gains by solving the challenges involved in the mission, but would certainly not be the cheapest way to set the grounds of a Martian colony. Why not go the Japanese way and send robots build a base ?
Fact : most Americans have a mental representation of "socialism" that depicts something that never existed outside their borders. A bit like their "football" thing.
If you read the link your provided, you will see that Biosphere 2 was nothing close to a scientific experiment. It was not made by NASA, it was not made by scientists.
The questions about a trip to Mars are political. The only technical question is whether we can make it in 6 month or if we'll have an engine to do it in 2 months. The main science question is : what the hell do we need humans on Mars for ?
...and the method will be criticized because it failed to predict a bubble correctly. Predicting the outcome of a decision that takes the prediction into account is in many cases (not all) an undecidable problem.
I would believe that Microsoft spends more on security than any other software company. Problem is, they take security as a separate issue from software design. I mean, without Microsoft, the whole antivirus field would not even exist. Of course they are spending more than anyone. They also are making other people waste money on security more than anyone
Because if it is the idea that they claim, it is quite silly : http://creativebits.org/files/zoomorphic_calligraphy.jpg (Someone told me this is a fisherman's poem)
But remember : a millenium-old practice is innovative when it is done ON A COMPUTER !
If higher ethical standards were incompatible with efficiency in a given process, I would like them to make their case and their point. The public opinion doesn't have very high ethical standards either.
Or you can use NoScript
The solution is called cross-compilation.
You generate a binary for system Y on system X thanks to a compiler compiled in system X binary format.
While out field of IT and supercomputers is becoming duller every day :-/
Just a random thought : if the random chance had been the other way around, namely that the cellphone hive had higher productivity, would it be interesting and warrant new studies ?