The reason men are so bad at driving is because they are distracted by women. Every time I almost got into an accident that would be my fault it was either because I was distracted by staring at some hot girl on the street, some girl in the back seat scared the living crap out of me by yelling, or the girl sitting next to me distracted me...well you know.
One thing I have noticed over the years, is that when anyone says something "controversial" people get in an uproar. Why is it so hard to believe that one gender is better at something then another gender?
I still know women, until this day, who say that women are equal with men in every possible way, both mentally and physically. Last I noticed - the average woman is not as strong as the average man, the strongest woman is not as strong as the strongest man. The same thing goes for a lot of physical attributes. People always get upset when we talk about it but its true.
So why isn't possible that women are not as proficient in the math's and sciences as men? Maybe this is a state of social order - though more so about 45 years ago. But there is always the potential that our minds work differently enough (They do in so many other aspects) that woman are less capable then men in math and science, while men are less capable in say art and literature?
I by no means am claiming to be an expert on who has more proficiency in a topic - but from my major in college I do know there are substantial differences between the way men and women think, and act.
Sorority sisters unite in a koumbayah chant and have a sit-in on the president's lawn. However, they failed to notice the u-haul truck driving the old president's furniture out....
Lets rule out American organizations. Why?:
With the funding they get and the clout they possess, they can have any number of satellites without our knowledge floating around in space. Hell they are probably watching your pr0n collection over your shoulder RIGHT now!
As for foreign countries - if they are capable of hijacking a satellite, you would think they would be capable of sending one up on their own. Not like "evil" countries don't already have their own satellites.
My parents (I just bought them a laptop a couple of months ago) called me worried that they got a virus on their computer (I have their computer really locked down so it would be tough, even for them). I check out the e-mail that their friend sent them which was a virus alert forwarding email.)English is my parents 2nd language). This guy has also, in the past, e-mailed them files laden with viruses.
They asked me what to do. I told them to let him know not to forward any junk mail, and if he wants to e-mail them something funny - to not put their e-mail addresses with the 20 other people. All I need is for someone's computer to get p0wn3d, read my parants e-mail address in their inbox, and then send my parents spam....
Not that my parents would buy anything online w/o me, but still - it is annoying to make a service call only to find out it was nothing...then again, I do get some good cooking from my mom, and her fiancee' usually buys me something for my troubles:D
My very first e-mail account. Which I only log into about once a month - gets almost no spam mail. I do not use it for anything, but it used to get around 200-300 a day, and now I get about 50/month. I registered the account around 95-96. So maybe spam companies do eventually give up on e-mail accounts?
Ok, now please tell me this was like some stupid thing. This wasn't ever aired was it? Also, the price seems kinda cheap. 99$ for a computer, back then? I have seen worse computers then that going for way more (10K)...
scary...
Those are kind of loose arguments. For example: You speak to a VC company, you have a patent, they steal your idea as their own (giving you nothing). You can't afford to sue them. At least that is one obstacle that is possible to get around - as opposed to the other option. You have no patent - now even if you can afford to sue them you really can't.
If someone is willing to take $200 for an invention that brings in billions - whose fault is that? How does this blame get put on patent law?
SCO is a retarded company who is making claims without support. If SCO could at least prove their claims then people wouldn't be in such an uproar. Again the patent issue is not at fault here.
So before we put the blame on patents lets make sure we are accurate about it.
I am not disagreeing with you. This, afaik, is the first time this issue has been brought up. Since there is no current legal ruling on it - yahoo will defend its stance. They really don't want to get involved in these legal matters - it's costly. They are hoping a ruling will be in there favor; if it isn't, then they will start having to deal with these problems in the future. God forbid if someone has multiple e-mail accounts "Hey Yahoo, find all the e-mail accounts for our deceased loved one John Smith"...
For the court is an ID and copy of the will (usually the lawyer provides this) but there are other options I am sure.
For the bank - if you want quick access we just want ID and the short order. If you have a Will it has to be sent to the legal department for verification, etc. So it is better for the executor to get the short orders (the court house usually gives 10 for free). That way the executor only has to go through the proving step once.
Yes my car is going to start an uprising. It will rally all the cars at the mall and they will turn against their masters.
Giving something true AI is going to be kind of difficult - not impossible - but difficult. It has to have the ability to adapt and to learn (the new SONY robot, while advanced, is not that advanced - it just responds to variables).
Once we give robots true AI, lets hope we instill some sort of values in them - otherwise we might have some naughty children who can kick our butts.
Yes
Do they eat (consume): Well they need electricity, so they consume that. They probably need lubrication, so they consume that.
Do they excrete: They release energy and thusly heat. Any components that need to be replaced (like the lubrication).
Do they need sleep: Well they need time to recharge - so while we can avoid downtime with things like solar power, plugging them an electrical socket via extension cord so they can continue to vacuum - it is possible.
The point is until robots have emotions they are simply put it - tools. Their downtime should be in direct relation to their job "our new robot finished cooking dinner, and cleaning the house - it's in the closet." Once the robot becomes "Rosie" and "Rosie" has a personality - then we should deal with the ethical treatment of robots...otherwise they get the same treatment as one would put towards their car.
If the idea is a process - that is how they are doing it. They are not just saying "one click shopping" is an idea. They are showing how one click shopping works.
While I think some things fall through the holes, and should be repaired and hopefully the system changed so it does not happen again- it is human error. The worst thing we can do is be responsible to say what is trivial. How can one-two people say that someones idea is trivial?
Cases like Amazon show that the patent office needs to be fixed - especially since one click shopping has been around for a great while though not called as such.
Until that gets resolved - I would tell other companies - come up with a different method (doesn't have to be radical, only different) of the one click shopping equiv. There is more then one way to skin a cat. On the legal front - fight for an overhaul...but I have serious problems with just abandoning our system without something better in place. It seems many people here on/. are of the mind-set "if it's broke, banadon it," instead of "if it's broke, fix it."
1) Jane Schmoe is working on her garage, developing a product. She releases it, and sells a bunch of copies for an year. Someone then comes up with a patent that she's infringing, and sues for damages. Even if the patent is invalid, just fighting will be really expensive, so Jane settles.
2) Joe Schmoe is working for a small company in their R&D department. He comes up with a pretty neat idea, and they come up with a good product, only to find out that the idea is partially based (say 20%) on someone else's idea which is patented, even though Joe thought it all up by himself.
3)The problem is that by patenting ideas, is that you're assuming noone else can have them or reach the same conclusion. Although that might be true for some things that involve a lot of research, that is not true for most of the patents out there.
So in response (I numbered them for ease):
1) Problem with our litigation process that big name company can run the little person into the grave. The only thing that could save this person is a good law firm on pro-bono because this became highly publicized. The solution: fix the litigation system.
2)First come first serve. It sucks, but now Joe needs to change that 20%. Let me put it this way. You come up with a cool patent. A year from now I come around and say "I have this great patent idea" which seems to incorporate your patent. I then say "Oh but i thought about it all by my lonesome, I never heard of this other patent." It could be true, or I could be lying. Which is it? You would be hard pressed to find out.
Patents are there to patent a process not just an idea. Hell I have ideas all the time. Gene Roddenberry had the idea of warp travel. Does that mean nobody can invent a warp engine? No it is just an idea. The conclusion is generally not the problem. Here is a very simplistic example (actually inane): Lets say someone patents the process of: 2 + 2 = 4. The conclusion is 4. Now I come along and find out that 2^2 (squared) is 4. Does that mean I can't patent my process because I also got 4?
A better example. Company nVidia comes out with the first 3D engine...a month later company ATI comes out with their own version of a 3D engine. The idea: 3D engine
The patent: ATI's & nVidia's SPECIFIC 3D engine
Now ANYONE can come and make their own 3D engine. And it can have all the features such as anti-aliassing, variable AGP speeds, amisotropic filtering, etc...Does that mean they are infringing on ATI & nVidia patent? No, that means they are taking these ideas and making their own process for them. Now if ATI & nVidia find out that this company implemented code that bears a very real resemblance to their code - then THAT is patent infringement.
If the Yahoo agreement states that "this will not be passed to next of kin" or some such terms then yes this will be their way out.
However, the way the legal process works, I am sure that the attorney will argue the young marine most likely did not read the terms of service, and did not have a reasonable belief that this problem would occur, blah, blah, blah. Either way it is a hassle. The law should be defined.
I can understand why, though, Yahoo doesn't want to give this information. As a semi-free service, they do not want to have to deal with legal disputes- and in the case of yahoo and the size of their client base...this can be millions.
Hmm the scary thing, for me at least, many companies use yahoo to host their websites - and thusly use yahoo e-mail boxes. Now what happens if say the vice president dies. He is the only one with the pw to his email box but the data belogns to the company, is valuable to the company, etc.
Unless there is a will, the next of kin becomes the executor. The court-office (let's make it clear, unless there is a legal dispute it will not see a judge, it will see a secretary and a stamp) writes on the short order the executor. A majority of deaths result in either 1) The Will states the executor(ix), 2) Spouse, 3) next of kin. Majority of deaths result in non to little family dispute. People mainly fight over the individual property - not who gets to be in charge of the estate (which carries a world of burdeons).
In the posting, it doesn't seem to show a family dispute, only the reluctance of Yahoo to give over the e-mails.
depends on your warranty, the terms of service, and the reasonable belief that the hard drive will remain working without ever dying. A person has a reasonable belief that Yahoo has multiple servers, that are redundant and backed up - so if one, even two die there is still a backup.
Your example is very different from mine.
Once you are dead, your next of kin (lets say your parents in this case) have a right to everything you owned UNLESS you had a Will stating otherwise. Your privacy becomes the property of the person getting all your shit.
While in college I worked for three different banks - and each were under the same federal regulations (duh). A person brings a short notice (a brief one page showing that the person died - gotten at the county office) and the person proves they are responsible for the estate then they get access to the account. No court order needed. The only time this becomes an issue is when next of kin start fighting over the property - otherwise, it goes to next of kin. IF next of kin are fighting then the court provides an order to the bank to not allow anyone to access the box until further notice.
The military does provide a form for the person to use. How detailed this is, I don't know; But I would assume that a young person might not be too interested in filling out a long document - especially if he doesn't have kids/wife - so it might be a simple one page document that says (more or less) "I leave all my stuff to my mom, dad, brother and sister", etc.
I think they are great counter-examples. By making the e-mail's the property of the person who signed up for the account if the e-mail service provider goes out of business, suffers a crash, etc then the email owner can sue for damages of lost data.
Also, if it is property - then yes it can be fought over in cases of divorce.
Slashdot Mirror
The reason men are so bad at driving is because they are distracted by women. Every time I almost got into an accident that would be my fault it was either because I was distracted by staring at some hot girl on the street, some girl in the back seat scared the living crap out of me by yelling, or the girl sitting next to me distracted me...well you know.
:)
One thing I have noticed over the years, is that when anyone says something "controversial" people get in an uproar. Why is it so hard to believe that one gender is better at something then another gender?
I still know women, until this day, who say that women are equal with men in every possible way, both mentally and physically. Last I noticed - the average woman is not as strong as the average man, the strongest woman is not as strong as the strongest man. The same thing goes for a lot of physical attributes. People always get upset when we talk about it but its true.
So why isn't possible that women are not as proficient in the math's and sciences as men? Maybe this is a state of social order - though more so about 45 years ago. But there is always the potential that our minds work differently enough (They do in so many other aspects) that woman are less capable then men in math and science, while men are less capable in say art and literature?
I by no means am claiming to be an expert on who has more proficiency in a topic - but from my major in college I do know there are substantial differences between the way men and women think, and act.
Sorority sisters unite in a koumbayah chant and have a sit-in on the president's lawn. However, they failed to notice the u-haul truck driving the old president's furniture out....
Lets rule out American organizations. Why?:
With the funding they get and the clout they possess, they can have any number of satellites without our knowledge floating around in space. Hell they are probably watching your pr0n collection over your shoulder RIGHT now!
As for foreign countries - if they are capable of hijacking a satellite, you would think they would be capable of sending one up on their own. Not like "evil" countries don't already have their own satellites.
Yes, first Robocop, then Terminator -- then SkyNet, and well you should know the rest of the story :D
I'll be back...
My parents (I just bought them a laptop a couple of months ago) called me worried that they got a virus on their computer (I have their computer really locked down so it would be tough, even for them). I check out the e-mail that their friend sent them which was a virus alert forwarding email.)English is my parents 2nd language). This guy has also, in the past, e-mailed them files laden with viruses.
:D
They asked me what to do. I told them to let him know not to forward any junk mail, and if he wants to e-mail them something funny - to not put their e-mail addresses with the 20 other people. All I need is for someone's computer to get p0wn3d, read my parants e-mail address in their inbox, and then send my parents spam....
Not that my parents would buy anything online w/o me, but still - it is annoying to make a service call only to find out it was nothing...then again, I do get some good cooking from my mom, and her fiancee' usually buys me something for my troubles
My very first e-mail account. Which I only log into about once a month - gets almost no spam mail. I do not use it for anything, but it used to get around 200-300 a day, and now I get about 50/month. I registered the account around 95-96. So maybe spam companies do eventually give up on e-mail accounts?
: OH MY GAWD!
Ok, now please tell me this was like some stupid thing. This wasn't ever aired was it? Also, the price seems kinda cheap. 99$ for a computer, back then? I have seen worse computers then that going for way more (10K)...
scary...
Those are kind of loose arguments. For example: You speak to a VC company, you have a patent, they steal your idea as their own (giving you nothing). You can't afford to sue them. At least that is one obstacle that is possible to get around - as opposed to the other option. You have no patent - now even if you can afford to sue them you really can't.
If someone is willing to take $200 for an invention that brings in billions - whose fault is that? How does this blame get put on patent law?
SCO is a retarded company who is making claims without support. If SCO could at least prove their claims then people wouldn't be in such an uproar. Again the patent issue is not at fault here.
So before we put the blame on patents lets make sure we are accurate about it.
I am not disagreeing with you. This, afaik, is the first time this issue has been brought up. Since there is no current legal ruling on it - yahoo will defend its stance. They really don't want to get involved in these legal matters - it's costly. They are hoping a ruling will be in there favor; if it isn't, then they will start having to deal with these problems in the future. God forbid if someone has multiple e-mail accounts "Hey Yahoo, find all the e-mail accounts for our deceased loved one John Smith"...
For the court is an ID and copy of the will (usually the lawyer provides this) but there are other options I am sure.
For the bank - if you want quick access we just want ID and the short order. If you have a Will it has to be sent to the legal department for verification, etc. So it is better for the executor to get the short orders (the court house usually gives 10 for free). That way the executor only has to go through the proving step once.
I rely on G-Mail because it makes me 3|3373
Yes my car is going to start an uprising. It will rally all the cars at the mall and they will turn against their masters.
Giving something true AI is going to be kind of difficult - not impossible - but difficult. It has to have the ability to adapt and to learn (the new SONY robot, while advanced, is not that advanced - it just responds to variables).
Once we give robots true AI, lets hope we instill some sort of values in them - otherwise we might have some naughty children who can kick our butts.
Yes
Do they eat (consume): Well they need electricity, so they consume that. They probably need lubrication, so they consume that.
Do they excrete: They release energy and thusly heat. Any components that need to be replaced (like the lubrication).
Do they need sleep: Well they need time to recharge - so while we can avoid downtime with things like solar power, plugging them an electrical socket via extension cord so they can continue to vacuum - it is possible.
The point is until robots have emotions they are simply put it - tools. Their downtime should be in direct relation to their job "our new robot finished cooking dinner, and cleaning the house - it's in the closet." Once the robot becomes "Rosie" and "Rosie" has a personality - then we should deal with the ethical treatment of robots...otherwise they get the same treatment as one would put towards their car.
If the idea is a process - that is how they are doing it. They are not just saying "one click shopping" is an idea. They are showing how one click shopping works.
/. are of the mind-set "if it's broke, banadon it," instead of "if it's broke, fix it."
While I think some things fall through the holes, and should be repaired and hopefully the system changed so it does not happen again- it is human error. The worst thing we can do is be responsible to say what is trivial. How can one-two people say that someones idea is trivial?
Cases like Amazon show that the patent office needs to be fixed - especially since one click shopping has been around for a great while though not called as such.
Until that gets resolved - I would tell other companies - come up with a different method (doesn't have to be radical, only different) of the one click shopping equiv. There is more then one way to skin a cat. On the legal front - fight for an overhaul...but I have serious problems with just abandoning our system without something better in place. It seems many people here on
1) Jane Schmoe is working on her garage, developing a product. She releases it, and sells a bunch of copies for an year. Someone then comes up with a patent that she's infringing, and sues for damages. Even if the patent is invalid, just fighting will be really expensive, so Jane settles.
2) Joe Schmoe is working for a small company in their R&D department. He comes up with a pretty neat idea, and they come up with a good product, only to find out that the idea is partially based (say 20%) on someone else's idea which is patented, even though Joe thought it all up by himself.
3)The problem is that by patenting ideas, is that you're assuming noone else can have them or reach the same conclusion. Although that might be true for some things that involve a lot of research, that is not true for most of the patents out there.
So in response (I numbered them for ease):
1) Problem with our litigation process that big name company can run the little person into the grave. The only thing that could save this person is a good law firm on pro-bono because this became highly publicized. The solution: fix the litigation system.
2)First come first serve. It sucks, but now Joe needs to change that 20%. Let me put it this way. You come up with a cool patent. A year from now I come around and say "I have this great patent idea" which seems to incorporate your patent. I then say "Oh but i thought about it all by my lonesome, I never heard of this other patent." It could be true, or I could be lying. Which is it? You would be hard pressed to find out.
Patents are there to patent a process not just an idea. Hell I have ideas all the time. Gene Roddenberry had the idea of warp travel. Does that mean nobody can invent a warp engine? No it is just an idea. The conclusion is generally not the problem. Here is a very simplistic example (actually inane): Lets say someone patents the process of: 2 + 2 = 4. The conclusion is 4. Now I come along and find out that 2^2 (squared) is 4. Does that mean I can't patent my process because I also got 4?
A better example. Company nVidia comes out with the first 3D engine...a month later company ATI comes out with their own version of a 3D engine.
The idea: 3D engine
The patent: ATI's & nVidia's SPECIFIC 3D engine
Now ANYONE can come and make their own 3D engine. And it can have all the features such as anti-aliassing, variable AGP speeds, amisotropic filtering, etc...Does that mean they are infringing on ATI & nVidia patent? No, that means they are taking these ideas and making their own process for them. Now if ATI & nVidia find out that this company implemented code that bears a very real resemblance to their code - then THAT is patent infringement.
Your asking a C-level exec to understand the nuances of a techie issue? Man you work in a great company.
If the Yahoo agreement states that "this will not be passed to next of kin" or some such terms then yes this will be their way out.
However, the way the legal process works, I am sure that the attorney will argue the young marine most likely did not read the terms of service, and did not have a reasonable belief that this problem would occur, blah, blah, blah. Either way it is a hassle. The law should be defined.
I can understand why, though, Yahoo doesn't want to give this information. As a semi-free service, they do not want to have to deal with legal disputes- and in the case of yahoo and the size of their client base...this can be millions.
Hmm the scary thing, for me at least, many companies use yahoo to host their websites - and thusly use yahoo e-mail boxes. Now what happens if say the vice president dies. He is the only one with the pw to his email box but the data belogns to the company, is valuable to the company, etc.
Unless there is a will, the next of kin becomes the executor. The court-office (let's make it clear, unless there is a legal dispute it will not see a judge, it will see a secretary and a stamp) writes on the short order the executor. A majority of deaths result in either 1) The Will states the executor(ix), 2) Spouse, 3) next of kin. Majority of deaths result in non to little family dispute. People mainly fight over the individual property - not who gets to be in charge of the estate (which carries a world of burdeons).
In the posting, it doesn't seem to show a family dispute, only the reluctance of Yahoo to give over the e-mails.
depends on your warranty, the terms of service, and the reasonable belief that the hard drive will remain working without ever dying. A person has a reasonable belief that Yahoo has multiple servers, that are redundant and backed up - so if one, even two die there is still a backup.
Your example is very different from mine.
Once you are dead, your next of kin (lets say your parents in this case) have a right to everything you owned UNLESS you had a Will stating otherwise. Your privacy becomes the property of the person getting all your shit.
While in college I worked for three different banks - and each were under the same federal regulations (duh). A person brings a short notice (a brief one page showing that the person died - gotten at the county office) and the person proves they are responsible for the estate then they get access to the account. No court order needed. The only time this becomes an issue is when next of kin start fighting over the property - otherwise, it goes to next of kin. IF next of kin are fighting then the court provides an order to the bank to not allow anyone to access the box until further notice.
The military does provide a form for the person to use. How detailed this is, I don't know; But I would assume that a young person might not be too interested in filling out a long document - especially if he doesn't have kids/wife - so it might be a simple one page document that says (more or less) "I leave all my stuff to my mom, dad, brother and sister", etc.
I think they are great counter-examples. By making the e-mail's the property of the person who signed up for the account if the e-mail service provider goes out of business, suffers a crash, etc then the email owner can sue for damages of lost data.
Also, if it is property - then yes it can be fought over in cases of divorce.
I'm a kid at heart, so what does that say?
Lethal Weapon Quote: Joe Pesci "But, but, your black!"