Really when it comes to cars, generally the way they cover themselves, is by knowing who is using their cars at all times. Lets say hypothetically a rental car was used in a crime, anything from a getaway car for a bank robbery, to running a red light with cameras. The police contact the rental car company and ask who was driving the car with the license plate at 7:30PM on monday. The rental car company shows their copy of the ID, the form of payment they took, etc... and the police move on to look for the actual crook. Forced entry into a car, the police will likely look at as a stolen car and whatever the crime is. A loaned car, they will probably ask you who you loaned it to and analyze it. Of course open wifi, is more akin to leaving the car on the street, door open keys in the ignition, that could be negligence. IMO it's a grey area depending on how the wifi was breached, but that's where it opens up the can of worms, wifi cracking usually leaves no trace. Distinguishing, open wifi, secured wifi used by authorized users, and broken secure wifi, is where the case lies, and IMO should be required to file the suit. IMO the RIAA should have to send a goon to the location, determine if there is wifi, if there is then determine if it is open. If the location has no or closed wifi, have to work with local police and have the police obtain a search warrent, and actually prove the files are on a machine in said house. The batch lawsuits of gathering 10,000+ IPs at a time and suing them all requiring the defendants to prove their innocence is an abomination to due process.
Now whether the laws should even exist in the first place, is a whole other matter. IMO no, but that is off the subject, the discussion isn't on whether the law is right or not, but on whether just sniffing trackers for IP addresses, is enough to fairly judge someone guilty. My view on that is absofrickinlutely not.
Absolutely, the computer obviously has to work with the data, though whether they give access for ANY humans to read it, is not a 100% certainty. It is more than possible to write a computer that stores data in a form that it can understand, but it's users owners and even coder can't decode within a realistic amount of time. Now proving that you don't secretely have a key, that is a whole extra challenge though.
I believe it is from the advertisers viewpoint, possibly even from human knowledge within google. People picking keywords to target their adds can see that there are 500,000 people who have sent e-mails mentioning the phrase toe fungus in New york city, to target their anti fungal cream advertisements. None of those advertisers will know that John Smith who lives at X, that is the one who has that. Google employees most likely don't know that, depending on how their system is set up it could even be rigged so that humans themselves cannot figure it out (Yes the software may or may not have it, but it is possible to design the software to not actually allow the humans themselves to view this information). Of course beyond the source code to the entire system being given, we would have to take them entirely at their word as to whether or not it is indeed set up that way.
You are correct on the technical side, but wrong on the marketing side. The decentralization, privacy control etc... was the advantage for the hardcore geeks. However your average computer user dosn't understand that part, has no desire to run their own servers and instead has to be hooked by unique features with a directly visible effect. The circles portion has a clear usable effect to the common user, Oooh sweet so I can post the pictures of me drunk at a party to my frat buddies, without sharing it with my boss and co-workers. That is an instantly visible use to sell something to the commonfolk. Explaining that you can host your profile on a webserver held by someone who isn't invisibly selling their data to other invisible entitites, not so easy to sell.
I think pretty much the whole GOP candidate list was close to that. Watching Herman Cain doing joint projects with Steven Colbert and humor segments on the daily show http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M25fBW5BA88 Considering he was formerly a frontrunner in the GOP competition, and honestly he doesn't sound too much different when he's acting purely for humor.
Many people would love to, myself included, but until one of us gets elected to both the presidency and another few hundred of us into congress (or maybe if congress listened to it's constituents over the defense contractors that pay them), the best the common man can do is write to the congressmen, vote for the least appalling candidates, and offer what we can to the troops who are stuck over there.
Perhaps the morals are still boarderline, as is the definition of defensive/offensive, but based on their current business model, google would prefer all sides losing their weapons even at the cost of their own weapons. IMO the losses far outweigh the gains for google, invalidating the entire war is far more in googles intents.
Why would they, can you name a situation where google attacked with a patent? So far I've only seen them used by google defensively. If google were to have used the patents entirely defensively. If google could invalidate all of the offensive patents coming at them on a regular basis, they would have virtually no use for patents at all.
Indeed, the weapon analogy is a pretty solid one. It is more or less a similar concept (though massively different consiquences) to any other weapon. Say nukes as our example. I dislike the idea of nukes being out there at all. I am not happy or comfortable with the idea of the US having enough nukes to more or less destroy the planet. I would be less scared if say Canada or Switzerland had said nukes (though the idea of them seeking to get them would still be a bit unnerving). I would shit my pants if this full arsonal say fell into the hands of North Korea, Iran, Pakistan etc... and it would be even worse if it fell directly into the hands of say Al-Queda, the IRA or any other rogue terrorist group that has a history of attacks that specifically are going for the highest possible civilian count. Now that being said, in the case of patents, sadly with the broken system we currently have, someone is going to get the patent either way. Unless a major reform is done on the system, no matter how obvious, how trival or stupid a patent is, someone is going to land the patent, and there is a high chance that the court will grant them huge money even if the darn thing is both obvious and has been used for years. I can't directly condemn google for filing the patent, as the patent being granted to someone is inevitable, and there are worse hands it could have wound up in. I still do firmly believe that the entire patent system needs rewritten, but well that's just fantasy.
Currently who knows, long term, with enough data and analysis, probably significantly better than the average human. Eventually the algorythem will learn to recognize these things even if it doesn't already, and you also have to factor in from the sounds of it, you are miles above the average driver. In the real world there are likely more drivers matching the other guy in example 4, than there are people who would have slowed down for the ice in 3. For a long time even when they are released to the public, they will almost certainly have the manual override for the cautious inteligent drivers, and long detailed disclaimers people have to sign basically saying that they will pay attention to the road, and if they don't override in dangerous circumstances, they are still liable for the accident, google will likely log every override for collecting the data for how to prevent it from being needed when they do their next update.
What exactly is your point? The idea of comparing it to humans is for the decision of whether it is going to be a good idea long term to start migrating cars to being more CPU driven instead of human driven. Unless you are implying that to make the cars more realistic, self driving cars need to start doing more stupid actions to fairly compeat with humans. The fact is they have this track record on roads driven by normal humans, meaning the transition period where some cars are self driving and some are human driven, and in those cases they still out perform humans. I also see more potential for them to outperform humans in surprise situations. Namely because humans make terrible decisions under panic. When our cars start hydroplaning, the first instinct is to slam on the breaks, yet an automated car could actually make a decision, and base the driving on the exact amount of traction each of the 4 wheels is getting, and make a very educated decision and calculation that no human could ever pull off. Same goes if a pedestrian or a deer jumps in front of the car. An algorithm could in theory almost certainly make a good estimate in a fraction of a second as to whether swerving or breaking or a combination has the highest chance to avoid impact.
Well, one thing we also know, coming down over water isn't exactly harmless either. I'd imagine the tsunami's from such a case, wouldn't be much prettier of an outcome, and there's no shortage of metropolitan areas near coastlines around the world.
I beliee the point isn't that they ONLY made bad decisions, that would be rediculously simplistic on any front. I believe the point is on the whole the bad decisions have been outweighing the good ones. They aren't growing and increasing in popularity, they are slightly holding onto the markets they had, markets that are in fact shrinking, meanwhile they are pouring massive amounts of money into markets in which they are barely scratching into. IE tablets, phones, search and to a lesser extent video games (I say to a lesser extent because the X-Box seems to be the one new market that they aren't virtually unnoticed in)
as someone who has some degree of ADD, I have to wonder how a video game would detect it. In general someone with ADD has less focus in many areas of life, but in many cases other activities can lead to a more solid focus, and in many cases, video games are one of those cases. Unless they intentionally make parts of the game extremely boring, I can't quite see that working.
Google and facebook I could see fighting for that to an extent. Amazon a bit less so, and FSM help us if microsoft or apple calls the right to join this unified front.
Well half of that makes sense, but one huge incomprehensible part. Why the heck do they feel the need to release the OS in the same style for both. With win 7 they had like several versions, home, pro, ultimate etc... With domains and such not set up on home, as they wouldn't be used in a typical home network... Why does MS see the difference between a tablet and a PC as less than the difference between a work desktop and a home desktop
don't forget the one other issue. you have to clean a touchscreen far more often. a mouse or keyboard covered in fingerprints is no big deal, can't say the same for a touchscreen. Come to think of it that is going to be a huge issue were thousands of geeks to use their home desktops... for well what many single males use home desktops for. A slightly sticky mouse is only a minor inconvenience.
It isn't just that notch has a metric ass-tonne of money, compared to most of the targets he has sued, notch is probably one of the poorest. The real reason notch can fight, is that he isn't a public company. Most publicly traded companies would rather settle and get rid of the guy, than gamble in court, pay legal fees that outweigh the costs of the settlement and still have a risk of a stupid judge thinking it is a legitimate patent.
Right, they now we have a huge library of ideas, some of them to vague to make anything without using, yet all of them are in place indefinently and requesting rediculous amounts of money. Having information out there that no one can actually use, is a bit like a universal health care system that is automatically void if you get sick in any way. Yes we have the information... we just aren't allowed to use it.
Almost all of the ones I saw in the PDF were pretty bogus ones. Claims by competitors that google pushes it's own results to the top of the results. So far I've yet to see a case for that one presented convincingly, the top results tend to be whatever is most often the more popular item, in things that google is the most popular, google's items show up, in the ones they aren't their competitors show up. Then warnings and alogations of patent abuse. Can you even name a time google used a patent offensively? Can you crop out the fat and point out 1 or 2 that google was actually ruled guilty in, most of those are either undecided or not found not guilty. I'm not saying google isn't debatably bad, I'm saying that particular list is focusing on pretty ridiculous stuff. Google deserves quite a bit of flack in the privacy area, but their patent practice in the phone arena? I've yet to see them do anything shady in that arena besides attempt to cover their own ass from incoming fire.
Well I'm not going to pretend to be an ultimate expert on parenting or anything, just saying what works for my family but it also takes knowing when your kid is just messing with ya. There's a pretty big difference between asking questions to things that they honestly don't understand, and the game where you just say Why? to whatever the parent says and see how far they go and watch them get frustrated. In the case with my son if it is clear he actually is trying to understand things, I applaud it, when it is clear he is uninterested in the answer and just pulling it as a game, depending on my mood I'll either let him continue the questioning in the car or just tell him to stop clowning around.
But hey he knows what hot means now. Hey junior everything in the room is hot! *child immidiately freezes into a statue. Joking aside, kids aren't actually too stupid to put things together from 1 answer. Teaching children to think, means them actually learning. Unless the child in this example hasn't heard of a dentist, a pretty simple I need to get to a dentist appointment, would be sufficient,
That's all well and good, sure some parents may squeek by, and hopefully their child dosn't get stuck clinging to a bad authority later. But that doesn't mean someone else teaching them how to think and arrive at decisions and make judgement calls, is a bad thing. Perhaps if someone else teaches them to think, they will actually be able to figure out for themselves why their parents are "saying so" even if their parents are too incapable of telling them. It isn't about never doing something without knowing the reason, it is about the child being able to figure out the reasons for themselves. A child not being able to think for himself has 2 flaws to it, 1. following a bad authority "but the priest told me not to tell anyone". 2. A lack of common sense when no authority figures are around "mom told me not to run in the house, this china shop seems fine to run in"
OK fine not everyone is capable of teaching children that, but seriously are you going to tell me it is wrong for others to teach the child to think and learn why the instructions are given?
Slashdot Mirror
Now whether the laws should even exist in the first place, is a whole other matter. IMO no, but that is off the subject, the discussion isn't on whether the law is right or not, but on whether just sniffing trackers for IP addresses, is enough to fairly judge someone guilty. My view on that is absofrickinlutely not.
Absolutely, the computer obviously has to work with the data, though whether they give access for ANY humans to read it, is not a 100% certainty. It is more than possible to write a computer that stores data in a form that it can understand, but it's users owners and even coder can't decode within a realistic amount of time. Now proving that you don't secretely have a key, that is a whole extra challenge though.
I believe it is from the advertisers viewpoint, possibly even from human knowledge within google. People picking keywords to target their adds can see that there are 500,000 people who have sent e-mails mentioning the phrase toe fungus in New york city, to target their anti fungal cream advertisements. None of those advertisers will know that John Smith who lives at X, that is the one who has that. Google employees most likely don't know that, depending on how their system is set up it could even be rigged so that humans themselves cannot figure it out (Yes the software may or may not have it, but it is possible to design the software to not actually allow the humans themselves to view this information). Of course beyond the source code to the entire system being given, we would have to take them entirely at their word as to whether or not it is indeed set up that way.
You are correct on the technical side, but wrong on the marketing side. The decentralization, privacy control etc... was the advantage for the hardcore geeks. However your average computer user dosn't understand that part, has no desire to run their own servers and instead has to be hooked by unique features with a directly visible effect. The circles portion has a clear usable effect to the common user, Oooh sweet so I can post the pictures of me drunk at a party to my frat buddies, without sharing it with my boss and co-workers. That is an instantly visible use to sell something to the commonfolk. Explaining that you can host your profile on a webserver held by someone who isn't invisibly selling their data to other invisible entitites, not so easy to sell.
I think pretty much the whole GOP candidate list was close to that. Watching Herman Cain doing joint projects with Steven Colbert and humor segments on the daily show http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M25fBW5BA88 Considering he was formerly a frontrunner in the GOP competition, and honestly he doesn't sound too much different when he's acting purely for humor.
Many people would love to, myself included, but until one of us gets elected to both the presidency and another few hundred of us into congress (or maybe if congress listened to it's constituents over the defense contractors that pay them), the best the common man can do is write to the congressmen, vote for the least appalling candidates, and offer what we can to the troops who are stuck over there.
Perhaps the morals are still boarderline, as is the definition of defensive/offensive, but based on their current business model, google would prefer all sides losing their weapons even at the cost of their own weapons. IMO the losses far outweigh the gains for google, invalidating the entire war is far more in googles intents.
Why would they, can you name a situation where google attacked with a patent? So far I've only seen them used by google defensively. If google were to have used the patents entirely defensively. If google could invalidate all of the offensive patents coming at them on a regular basis, they would have virtually no use for patents at all.
Indeed, the weapon analogy is a pretty solid one. It is more or less a similar concept (though massively different consiquences) to any other weapon. Say nukes as our example. I dislike the idea of nukes being out there at all. I am not happy or comfortable with the idea of the US having enough nukes to more or less destroy the planet. I would be less scared if say Canada or Switzerland had said nukes (though the idea of them seeking to get them would still be a bit unnerving). I would shit my pants if this full arsonal say fell into the hands of North Korea, Iran, Pakistan etc... and it would be even worse if it fell directly into the hands of say Al-Queda, the IRA or any other rogue terrorist group that has a history of attacks that specifically are going for the highest possible civilian count. Now that being said, in the case of patents, sadly with the broken system we currently have, someone is going to get the patent either way. Unless a major reform is done on the system, no matter how obvious, how trival or stupid a patent is, someone is going to land the patent, and there is a high chance that the court will grant them huge money even if the darn thing is both obvious and has been used for years. I can't directly condemn google for filing the patent, as the patent being granted to someone is inevitable, and there are worse hands it could have wound up in. I still do firmly believe that the entire patent system needs rewritten, but well that's just fantasy.
Currently who knows, long term, with enough data and analysis, probably significantly better than the average human. Eventually the algorythem will learn to recognize these things even if it doesn't already, and you also have to factor in from the sounds of it, you are miles above the average driver. In the real world there are likely more drivers matching the other guy in example 4, than there are people who would have slowed down for the ice in 3. For a long time even when they are released to the public, they will almost certainly have the manual override for the cautious inteligent drivers, and long detailed disclaimers people have to sign basically saying that they will pay attention to the road, and if they don't override in dangerous circumstances, they are still liable for the accident, google will likely log every override for collecting the data for how to prevent it from being needed when they do their next update.
What exactly is your point? The idea of comparing it to humans is for the decision of whether it is going to be a good idea long term to start migrating cars to being more CPU driven instead of human driven. Unless you are implying that to make the cars more realistic, self driving cars need to start doing more stupid actions to fairly compeat with humans. The fact is they have this track record on roads driven by normal humans, meaning the transition period where some cars are self driving and some are human driven, and in those cases they still out perform humans. I also see more potential for them to outperform humans in surprise situations. Namely because humans make terrible decisions under panic. When our cars start hydroplaning, the first instinct is to slam on the breaks, yet an automated car could actually make a decision, and base the driving on the exact amount of traction each of the 4 wheels is getting, and make a very educated decision and calculation that no human could ever pull off. Same goes if a pedestrian or a deer jumps in front of the car. An algorithm could in theory almost certainly make a good estimate in a fraction of a second as to whether swerving or breaking or a combination has the highest chance to avoid impact.
But, but... I like Nintendo... Why did they have to set their office right down the street from microsoft... why????
Well, one thing we also know, coming down over water isn't exactly harmless either. I'd imagine the tsunami's from such a case, wouldn't be much prettier of an outcome, and there's no shortage of metropolitan areas near coastlines around the world.
Well the US believes might makes right... so I'm assuming the fact that we lost means we were wrong?
I beliee the point isn't that they ONLY made bad decisions, that would be rediculously simplistic on any front. I believe the point is on the whole the bad decisions have been outweighing the good ones. They aren't growing and increasing in popularity, they are slightly holding onto the markets they had, markets that are in fact shrinking, meanwhile they are pouring massive amounts of money into markets in which they are barely scratching into. IE tablets, phones, search and to a lesser extent video games (I say to a lesser extent because the X-Box seems to be the one new market that they aren't virtually unnoticed in)
as someone who has some degree of ADD, I have to wonder how a video game would detect it. In general someone with ADD has less focus in many areas of life, but in many cases other activities can lead to a more solid focus, and in many cases, video games are one of those cases. Unless they intentionally make parts of the game extremely boring, I can't quite see that working.
Google and facebook I could see fighting for that to an extent. Amazon a bit less so, and FSM help us if microsoft or apple calls the right to join this unified front.
Well half of that makes sense, but one huge incomprehensible part. Why the heck do they feel the need to release the OS in the same style for both. With win 7 they had like several versions, home, pro, ultimate etc... With domains and such not set up on home, as they wouldn't be used in a typical home network... Why does MS see the difference between a tablet and a PC as less than the difference between a work desktop and a home desktop
don't forget the one other issue. you have to clean a touchscreen far more often. a mouse or keyboard covered in fingerprints is no big deal, can't say the same for a touchscreen. Come to think of it that is going to be a huge issue were thousands of geeks to use their home desktops... for well what many single males use home desktops for. A slightly sticky mouse is only a minor inconvenience.
It isn't just that notch has a metric ass-tonne of money, compared to most of the targets he has sued, notch is probably one of the poorest. The real reason notch can fight, is that he isn't a public company. Most publicly traded companies would rather settle and get rid of the guy, than gamble in court, pay legal fees that outweigh the costs of the settlement and still have a risk of a stupid judge thinking it is a legitimate patent.
Right, they now we have a huge library of ideas, some of them to vague to make anything without using, yet all of them are in place indefinently and requesting rediculous amounts of money. Having information out there that no one can actually use, is a bit like a universal health care system that is automatically void if you get sick in any way. Yes we have the information... we just aren't allowed to use it.
Almost all of the ones I saw in the PDF were pretty bogus ones. Claims by competitors that google pushes it's own results to the top of the results. So far I've yet to see a case for that one presented convincingly, the top results tend to be whatever is most often the more popular item, in things that google is the most popular, google's items show up, in the ones they aren't their competitors show up. Then warnings and alogations of patent abuse. Can you even name a time google used a patent offensively? Can you crop out the fat and point out 1 or 2 that google was actually ruled guilty in, most of those are either undecided or not found not guilty. I'm not saying google isn't debatably bad, I'm saying that particular list is focusing on pretty ridiculous stuff. Google deserves quite a bit of flack in the privacy area, but their patent practice in the phone arena? I've yet to see them do anything shady in that arena besides attempt to cover their own ass from incoming fire.
Well I'm not going to pretend to be an ultimate expert on parenting or anything, just saying what works for my family but it also takes knowing when your kid is just messing with ya. There's a pretty big difference between asking questions to things that they honestly don't understand, and the game where you just say Why? to whatever the parent says and see how far they go and watch them get frustrated. In the case with my son if it is clear he actually is trying to understand things, I applaud it, when it is clear he is uninterested in the answer and just pulling it as a game, depending on my mood I'll either let him continue the questioning in the car or just tell him to stop clowning around.
But hey he knows what hot means now. Hey junior everything in the room is hot! *child immidiately freezes into a statue. Joking aside, kids aren't actually too stupid to put things together from 1 answer. Teaching children to think, means them actually learning. Unless the child in this example hasn't heard of a dentist, a pretty simple I need to get to a dentist appointment, would be sufficient,
OK fine not everyone is capable of teaching children that, but seriously are you going to tell me it is wrong for others to teach the child to think and learn why the instructions are given?