In general, no, you can't agree to a contract that says you will agree in the future to anything that one side proposes. A binding contract (which a EULA may or may not even be in the first place) certainly can't say you agree to anything the writer might propose in the future.
For starters, it violates the principle of Meeting of the Minds - you can't have agreed to a principle in a contract that you haven't seen yet simply by having generally agreed to a term saying you will agree to whatever they say in the future.
Furthermore, it is on the face of it unconscionable, in any form of contract (adhesion, license or traditional contract) to agree to something that you aren't told at the time and that may be unilaterally changed to anything else in the future. As it is, many jurisdictions hold many EULA terms to be unconscionable - even the most egregiously pro-EULA jurisdictions won't enforce a term like this.
I'm not a lawyer, but I don't know what kind of idiot lawyer would tell somebody to put stuff like this in a contract when he knows it's unenforceable. The problem is that even though it's entirely unenforceable, it's not actually illegal to sneak anything you want into a contract. It would be nice if there were some sort of penalties to discourage this kind of thing. Unfortunately, bad PR doesn't work because nobody outside of Slashdot geeks and IP lawyers cares about this sort of thing, so stories about EULA hijinks go nowhere in the mainstream press.
Thanks for the excellent suggestion! I added these to my AdBlock filter list and it seems to have successfully blocked the Facebook crud from CNN.com. I assume it will do the same for other sites that seem to think this is a feature. Moreover, it doesn't seem like this breaks anything on Facebook itself (at least from a cursory examination - no promises).
Completely agreed - I'd pay it too, if they'd put it on my Roku. I love Roku and all the Netflix and Amazon content (and some of the other content is okay, but not exactly worth much), but it would be *the* killer set-top box with Hulu content.
However, the problem as I understand it though isn't that Hulu are being dicks, it's that the licensing terms they've been able to negotiate simply don't allow them to put content on set-top boxes or even make it easy for set-top boxes to access that content.
I just don't think big media is going to let that content go to Roku or any equivalent set-top box. I mean, you'd have people canceling their subscriptions to cable right and left if that started happening. You can do it now, but you need an HTPC setup and to navigate to Hulu via a browser, and that's not quite mass-market.
It clearly is working for Zynga to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. And yes, I think it's stupid, but that doesn't mean people don't shell out money for it.
Now when I go to CNN.com I suddenly find information about my "friends" and their activities on CNN.com. I don't want to see this shit. And I sure as hell don't want my "friends" (keeping in mind that the several hundred FB-friends I have aren't particularly my real 'friends' anyway) seeing what I do on CNN.com.
The worst thing - this is happening even though I disabled the only privacy setting on Facebook that I could find related to sharing information with third party websites. And even though I never opted in to Facebook Connect or connected CNN.com to Facebook.
Also, CNN does not seem to have a function to disable this 'wonderful' sharing feature. The only way I could disable it was to log out of my Facebook account manually on Facebook.com. I didn't have a browser open at Facebook mind you, I just had a cookie in my browser from having logged into Facebook earlier this morning at the office.
So now Facebook forces me to log out manually every time I leave the site lest I be barraged with Facebook content on other, completely unrelated, websites. Thanks, but no fucking thanks. I guarantee I won't be logging into Facebook anywhere near as often any more since they've made their service an utter pain in the ass now.
Call me a grumpy old 30-year old man if you will. I probably am. Get off my lawn and all that. But seriously, I was an early adopter of Facebook, and before that of Friendster. I enjoy seeing a little bit of mindless drivel from my acquaintances and the like out there, and keeping in touch on my terms is nice, but it has to be on my terms. I'm not interested in having my web browsing at work be a social experience - I prefer to keep my "social experiences" sandboxed to the websites they originate from, thank you very much.
The primary difference between the two religions being that Muslims seem to like to kill people for disagreeing with them or not believing in their sky-fairy.
I will grant that there are incomplete markets and markets with externalities in the real world. Fossil fuels do indeed have significant negative externalities related to the net release of carbon dioxide, above the rate at which nature sequesters it away.
The time nature took to create the resource isn't the relevant part though to me - it's the negative effect that consumption has on the rest of the world.
As a result, one can argue for taxing consumption of gasoline and using the funds raised by that tax to reduce free carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. We have part 1 down fairly well, though we could do it more like the Europeans do, which probably comes closer to representing the real economic costs of gasoline use.
In any case, my original point now seems somewhat muddled - but it's that weird, artificial subsidies of certain energy production regimes (like ethanol from corn) create perverse incentives - rather than worry about people doing weird things that aren't net energy producers and are thus wasteful, if we got rid of the weird subsidies, the net energy losing propositions would all be money losing.
Taxes on consumption that has real negative externalities don't create such perverse incentives, and thus are cool by me.
There's this *really* cool thing called a free market economy that prevents bozos from implementing cockamamie schemes that don't create any economic value. Then we go and do stupid shit like subsidizing corn production to fuck up these economics. I'm not an absolutist, but when it comes to energy production technologies, we really should just let the market sort it out, and abolish the corn subsidies.
Things that make no sense in terms of net energy production will inherently be money-losing ventures in the absence of state intervention. So we won't have to listen to people whining about how bioethanol is inherently a net energy-wasting fuel (gee, if it is, and it produces no economic value otherwise, it will be a money losing venture and nobody will make it).
Beyond that research funding and venture capital investment should finance the technologies that are actually capable of producing net energy, rather than those that have figured out how to game the system of subsidies best.
I guess the question is why OpenSolaris instead of Linux as an open platform? I mean, Linux makes sense for IBM. Lots of other people invest dollars into it so they can just put money into making it work well on their hardware, and it becomes part of their platform to upsell you proprietary software, services and so on for.
And you could replace OpenSolaris with Linux and all your arguments make sense - in fact, probably make more sense.
So as an acquirer of Sun, it would be natural for any company to look at this and say "what does OpenSolaris get us that closed source Solaris or open source Linux doesn't?" I think it's a fair question to ask.
Agreed, it was fast as hell compared to Mobile Safari when I tested it yesterday morning. Today it seems a bit more sluggish, I'm guessing it's a load-related issue with the servers on Opera's end.
I don't think the rendering quality is better than Safari. That's the only area where Mobile Safari sims to win though.
However, the rendering speed is significantly, significantly faster. And the forward/back buttons are so much faster it's absurd (why Mobile Safari has this horrific need to reload and re-render pages it's already processed, I will never know, but often pressing the back button on EDGE is followed by a 45 second or minute long wait).
It seems subjectively 3-4 times faster on average over wifi than Mobile Safari on my iPhone on several sites I quickly tested. Some sites were only marginally faster (maybe 20% to 40%) at initial loading, but the fact that you can go forward and backward without reloading and re-rendering the entire damned page like Mobile Safari does makes the experience sooooo much faster to skim through a site.
This is just based on some wifi usage - so mostly CPU and rendering bound stuff, not network traffic bound stuff.
Haven't tested it out over EDGE very extensively yet. I have an iPhone 3G unlocked, but use T-mobile so I'm stuck at EDGE speeds.
One other critical observation - seems to burn through battery at about half the rate as heavy Safari browsing does. Again, not particularly surprising.
2 mins of EDGE usage has me convinced about the back/forward without re-loading thing is a massive advantage in browsing when out of wifi range. Initial loading of some sites is still painfully slow as always with EDGE. But browsing of partially loaded pages is much smoother and actually works, unlike Mobile Safari where it often just hangs while it tries to finish loading a page on EDGE.
Rendering quality is definitely not as good as Safari in some cases (NYTimes.com, for instance). But it's not bad, and the speedup is generally well worth it.
Granted, I don't 100% trust any company (or even non-profit - look at how the Mozilla Foundation seeks revenue). But for anything short of online banking or secret scheming against government entities, I think it's probably fine. Most of the browsing I do on my iPhone tends to be pretty innocuous stuff.
And Opera mini is fast on the iPhone. And I do mean blazingly fast. Well worth the risk for general purpose browsing.
When I really want to be secure with browsing, like online banking activities, I'll do it from a desktop or laptop that I own and control. And if I want to be really secure, I'll have private browsing features enabled, and go through an anonymizing proxy network.
I don't think there ever was a mythical, open Wozniak-era at Apple. As other responses indicate, no geeks I know really cut their teeth hacking on Macintoshes, and the original Macs were pretty locked down themselves.
The Apple that many geeks I know fell in love with was the Apple that finally took a Unix core and put a pretty face on it. The Apple that took cool stuff like Display Postscript from the Nextstep universe and married it with Darwin.
I drooled over the idea of using a *nix box, with all my command line toys and powerful capabilities, but without the fugly, inconsistent user interface experience that was basically par for the course in Linux-land at the time OS X first launched (the era of completely disjointed looking Gtk and Qt app ecospheres - it was eyeball-gougingly ugly to try to mix and match back then, and Linux apps were so all-over-the-place in terms of UI design it was insane, fonts sucked, etc.).
So I'd say the Apple that many geeks fell in love with was the post-Nextstep-resurgence-of-Jobs-and-OS-X Apple. The Apple that many geeks fell back out of love with was the Steve-Jobs-does-consumer-devices Apple.
My answer is to primarily eat wild, sustainably caught fish. It's generally much healthier than farmed fish anyway, which are fed the same garbage that factory farm cattle and pigs are fed, thus removing much of the health benefits of eating fish in the first place. I don't want my beef fattened on corn, and I don't want my salmon fattened on corn either.
Check out http://www.ecofish.com or http://www.wildplanetfoods.com/ for some examples. Also, I eat lots of sardines - small fish that have short lifespans and thus tend to accumulate fewer mercury and nasty stuff, and can quickly replenish their population.
My understanding about the kidofspeed site is that she was not being honest when she said she rode her motorcycle there (she was in buses/tour cars with other people), but that the pictures are all actually taken there. Though apparently, I just found a site mentioning that some were staged or set up here which seems to be a credible source.
As long as they can measure it in Libraries of Congresses, I'm okay with it.
Re:Apple has, what, 9% of the market?
on
The Apple Two
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
To be fair, that 9% has been one of the fastest growing parts of the computer industry over the last few years. And Apple has a 91% share of the $1000+ PC market. And a significant share of the laptop market (something like 18%, couldn't find the exact number offhand.
And if you look at their profits as a percentage of the overall computer industry, you'd see that they almost certainly account for much more than 9%, since they have significantly higher margins than average in the industry.
So yeah, in a time when margins have been falling, and prices have fallen over a cliff, the fact that Apple has managed to grow their revenues significantly, grow their market share significantly, and keep their unit prices high in the face of falling average prices in their industry says they are doing something right from a business perspective. That makes it significant in my book.
This is an interesting theory of yours. A quick search online turned up no information on whether such RRVs exist or not. I had never heard of that. If true, it does put some context on this (though I still think you can't just open fire on a vehicle with children in it regardless of whether you have strong evidence that the person behind the wheel might be a bad person or terrorist operative).
I never said you have the right to not be offended - I find that concept rather scary, since there is something out there that will offend everyone. This situation is about a very different thing than "that picture of Jebus offended my religious sensibilities". And I never suggested that pitchforks were the correct response to any sort of misdeed. If they lose their jobs, and aren't shielded from a civil suit, and face public shame, I think that's more than sufficient punishment - just because what they did was wrong doesn't mean that I think it requires jail time or that their lives be ruined. In fact, there are very few crimes that should really ruin people's lives.
And nobody stopped you from opening your mouth and saying what you will. Or picking up a pen and writing what you will. But surely you can't tell me that the Framers intended for government officials to have the right to take pictures of people who died in the most horrific of ways, taken in the line of duty, and send them around as a sick joke, resulting in a family being terrorized by anonymous internet fucktards with a barrage of photos of their dead daughter?
Surely you can't tell me that this was what they meant by Free Speech?
Freedom of Speech doesn't mean Freedom of Action, and doesn't mean that a sick action like disseminating pictures of dead bodies for use as a part of a harassment campaign or as a demented prank is protected speech. Furthermore, there are other rights in the Constitution that inherently abridge each other when they run up against each other.
There has to be a legal process to balance these rights against each other when enforcing one person's right would infringe on another person's right. It doesn't mean you don't have the right to Freedom of Speech, it just means your rights have to be abridged somewhere around where the next man's rights begin.
I think this is the first non-April Fool's story today. Thank god. It's funny when it's one or two stories. It's just fucking annoying when it's the entire day.
AI used to be the subfield of computer science that developed cool algorithms and hyped itself grandly. Five years later, the rest of the field would be using these algorithms to solve actual problems, without the grandiose hype.
These days, I'm not sure if AI is even that. But maybe some of this stuff will prove to be useful. You just have to put on your hype filter whenever "AI" is involved.
Slashdot Mirror
In general, no, you can't agree to a contract that says you will agree in the future to anything that one side proposes. A binding contract (which a EULA may or may not even be in the first place) certainly can't say you agree to anything the writer might propose in the future.
For starters, it violates the principle of Meeting of the Minds - you can't have agreed to a principle in a contract that you haven't seen yet simply by having generally agreed to a term saying you will agree to whatever they say in the future.
Furthermore, it is on the face of it unconscionable, in any form of contract (adhesion, license or traditional contract) to agree to something that you aren't told at the time and that may be unilaterally changed to anything else in the future. As it is, many jurisdictions hold many EULA terms to be unconscionable - even the most egregiously pro-EULA jurisdictions won't enforce a term like this.
I'm not a lawyer, but I don't know what kind of idiot lawyer would tell somebody to put stuff like this in a contract when he knows it's unenforceable. The problem is that even though it's entirely unenforceable, it's not actually illegal to sneak anything you want into a contract. It would be nice if there were some sort of penalties to discourage this kind of thing. Unfortunately, bad PR doesn't work because nobody outside of Slashdot geeks and IP lawyers cares about this sort of thing, so stories about EULA hijinks go nowhere in the mainstream press.
Thanks for the excellent suggestion! I added these to my AdBlock filter list and it seems to have successfully blocked the Facebook crud from CNN.com. I assume it will do the same for other sites that seem to think this is a feature. Moreover, it doesn't seem like this breaks anything on Facebook itself (at least from a cursory examination - no promises).
Completely agreed - I'd pay it too, if they'd put it on my Roku. I love Roku and all the Netflix and Amazon content (and some of the other content is okay, but not exactly worth much), but it would be *the* killer set-top box with Hulu content.
However, the problem as I understand it though isn't that Hulu are being dicks, it's that the licensing terms they've been able to negotiate simply don't allow them to put content on set-top boxes or even make it easy for set-top boxes to access that content.
I just don't think big media is going to let that content go to Roku or any equivalent set-top box. I mean, you'd have people canceling their subscriptions to cable right and left if that started happening. You can do it now, but you need an HTPC setup and to navigate to Hulu via a browser, and that's not quite mass-market.
My understanding is that the several large Facebook game companies are making a lot of money off of micropayments for virtual goods.
See, for example: this article and more recently this one.
It clearly is working for Zynga to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. And yes, I think it's stupid, but that doesn't mean people don't shell out money for it.
Now when I go to CNN.com I suddenly find information about my "friends" and their activities on CNN.com. I don't want to see this shit. And I sure as hell don't want my "friends" (keeping in mind that the several hundred FB-friends I have aren't particularly my real 'friends' anyway) seeing what I do on CNN.com.
The worst thing - this is happening even though I disabled the only privacy setting on Facebook that I could find related to sharing information with third party websites. And even though I never opted in to Facebook Connect or connected CNN.com to Facebook.
Also, CNN does not seem to have a function to disable this 'wonderful' sharing feature. The only way I could disable it was to log out of my Facebook account manually on Facebook.com. I didn't have a browser open at Facebook mind you, I just had a cookie in my browser from having logged into Facebook earlier this morning at the office.
So now Facebook forces me to log out manually every time I leave the site lest I be barraged with Facebook content on other, completely unrelated, websites. Thanks, but no fucking thanks. I guarantee I won't be logging into Facebook anywhere near as often any more since they've made their service an utter pain in the ass now.
Call me a grumpy old 30-year old man if you will. I probably am. Get off my lawn and all that. But seriously, I was an early adopter of Facebook, and before that of Friendster. I enjoy seeing a little bit of mindless drivel from my acquaintances and the like out there, and keeping in touch on my terms is nice, but it has to be on my terms. I'm not interested in having my web browsing at work be a social experience - I prefer to keep my "social experiences" sandboxed to the websites they originate from, thank you very much.
The primary difference between the two religions being that Muslims seem to like to kill people for disagreeing with them or not believing in their sky-fairy.
Thank God! Mice of the world can now sleep easy at night.
I will grant that there are incomplete markets and markets with externalities in the real world. Fossil fuels do indeed have significant negative externalities related to the net release of carbon dioxide, above the rate at which nature sequesters it away.
The time nature took to create the resource isn't the relevant part though to me - it's the negative effect that consumption has on the rest of the world.
As a result, one can argue for taxing consumption of gasoline and using the funds raised by that tax to reduce free carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. We have part 1 down fairly well, though we could do it more like the Europeans do, which probably comes closer to representing the real economic costs of gasoline use.
In any case, my original point now seems somewhat muddled - but it's that weird, artificial subsidies of certain energy production regimes (like ethanol from corn) create perverse incentives - rather than worry about people doing weird things that aren't net energy producers and are thus wasteful, if we got rid of the weird subsidies, the net energy losing propositions would all be money losing.
Taxes on consumption that has real negative externalities don't create such perverse incentives, and thus are cool by me.
There's this *really* cool thing called a free market economy that prevents bozos from implementing cockamamie schemes that don't create any economic value. Then we go and do stupid shit like subsidizing corn production to fuck up these economics. I'm not an absolutist, but when it comes to energy production technologies, we really should just let the market sort it out, and abolish the corn subsidies.
Things that make no sense in terms of net energy production will inherently be money-losing ventures in the absence of state intervention. So we won't have to listen to people whining about how bioethanol is inherently a net energy-wasting fuel (gee, if it is, and it produces no economic value otherwise, it will be a money losing venture and nobody will make it).
Beyond that research funding and venture capital investment should finance the technologies that are actually capable of producing net energy, rather than those that have figured out how to game the system of subsidies best.
Even worse: this is how it's pronounced. Wowsers!
That's all true.
I guess the question is why OpenSolaris instead of Linux as an open platform? I mean, Linux makes sense for IBM. Lots of other people invest dollars into it so they can just put money into making it work well on their hardware, and it becomes part of their platform to upsell you proprietary software, services and so on for.
And you could replace OpenSolaris with Linux and all your arguments make sense - in fact, probably make more sense.
So as an acquirer of Sun, it would be natural for any company to look at this and say "what does OpenSolaris get us that closed source Solaris or open source Linux doesn't?" I think it's a fair question to ask.
Agreed, it was fast as hell compared to Mobile Safari when I tested it yesterday morning. Today it seems a bit more sluggish, I'm guessing it's a load-related issue with the servers on Opera's end.
I don't think the rendering quality is better than Safari. That's the only area where Mobile Safari sims to win though.
However, the rendering speed is significantly, significantly faster. And the forward/back buttons are so much faster it's absurd (why Mobile Safari has this horrific need to reload and re-render pages it's already processed, I will never know, but often pressing the back button on EDGE is followed by a 45 second or minute long wait).
It seems subjectively 3-4 times faster on average over wifi than Mobile Safari on my iPhone on several sites I quickly tested. Some sites were only marginally faster (maybe 20% to 40%) at initial loading, but the fact that you can go forward and backward without reloading and re-rendering the entire damned page like Mobile Safari does makes the experience sooooo much faster to skim through a site.
This is just based on some wifi usage - so mostly CPU and rendering bound stuff, not network traffic bound stuff.
Haven't tested it out over EDGE very extensively yet. I have an iPhone 3G unlocked, but use T-mobile so I'm stuck at EDGE speeds.
One other critical observation - seems to burn through battery at about half the rate as heavy Safari browsing does. Again, not particularly surprising.
2 mins of EDGE usage has me convinced about the back/forward without re-loading thing is a massive advantage in browsing when out of wifi range. Initial loading of some sites is still painfully slow as always with EDGE. But browsing of partially loaded pages is much smoother and actually works, unlike Mobile Safari where it often just hangs while it tries to finish loading a page on EDGE.
Rendering quality is definitely not as good as Safari in some cases (NYTimes.com, for instance). But it's not bad, and the speedup is generally well worth it.
Granted, I don't 100% trust any company (or even non-profit - look at how the Mozilla Foundation seeks revenue). But for anything short of online banking or secret scheming against government entities, I think it's probably fine. Most of the browsing I do on my iPhone tends to be pretty innocuous stuff.
And Opera mini is fast on the iPhone. And I do mean blazingly fast. Well worth the risk for general purpose browsing.
When I really want to be secure with browsing, like online banking activities, I'll do it from a desktop or laptop that I own and control. And if I want to be really secure, I'll have private browsing features enabled, and go through an anonymizing proxy network.
I don't think there ever was a mythical, open Wozniak-era at Apple. As other responses indicate, no geeks I know really cut their teeth hacking on Macintoshes, and the original Macs were pretty locked down themselves.
The Apple that many geeks I know fell in love with was the Apple that finally took a Unix core and put a pretty face on it. The Apple that took cool stuff like Display Postscript from the Nextstep universe and married it with Darwin.
I drooled over the idea of using a *nix box, with all my command line toys and powerful capabilities, but without the fugly, inconsistent user interface experience that was basically par for the course in Linux-land at the time OS X first launched (the era of completely disjointed looking Gtk and Qt app ecospheres - it was eyeball-gougingly ugly to try to mix and match back then, and Linux apps were so all-over-the-place in terms of UI design it was insane, fonts sucked, etc.).
So I'd say the Apple that many geeks fell in love with was the post-Nextstep-resurgence-of-Jobs-and-OS-X Apple. The Apple that many geeks fell back out of love with was the Steve-Jobs-does-consumer-devices Apple.
My answer is to primarily eat wild, sustainably caught fish. It's generally much healthier than farmed fish anyway, which are fed the same garbage that factory farm cattle and pigs are fed, thus removing much of the health benefits of eating fish in the first place. I don't want my beef fattened on corn, and I don't want my salmon fattened on corn either.
Check out http://www.ecofish.com or http://www.wildplanetfoods.com/ for some examples. Also, I eat lots of sardines - small fish that have short lifespans and thus tend to accumulate fewer mercury and nasty stuff, and can quickly replenish their population.
My understanding about the kidofspeed site is that she was not being honest when she said she rode her motorcycle there (she was in buses/tour cars with other people), but that the pictures are all actually taken there. Though apparently, I just found a site mentioning that some were staged or set up here which seems to be a credible source.
Just to clarify. And you can take the same tour she took yourself for a few hundred bucks (and the time/cost of getting there).
As long as they can measure it in Libraries of Congresses, I'm okay with it.
To be fair, that 9% has been one of the fastest growing parts of the computer industry over the last few years. And Apple has a 91% share of the $1000+ PC market. And a significant share of the laptop market (something like 18%, couldn't find the exact number offhand.
And if you look at their profits as a percentage of the overall computer industry, you'd see that they almost certainly account for much more than 9%, since they have significantly higher margins than average in the industry.
So yeah, in a time when margins have been falling, and prices have fallen over a cliff, the fact that Apple has managed to grow their revenues significantly, grow their market share significantly, and keep their unit prices high in the face of falling average prices in their industry says they are doing something right from a business perspective. That makes it significant in my book.
This is an interesting theory of yours. A quick search online turned up no information on whether such RRVs exist or not. I had never heard of that. If true, it does put some context on this (though I still think you can't just open fire on a vehicle with children in it regardless of whether you have strong evidence that the person behind the wheel might be a bad person or terrorist operative).
I never said you have the right to not be offended - I find that concept rather scary, since there is something out there that will offend everyone. This situation is about a very different thing than "that picture of Jebus offended my religious sensibilities". And I never suggested that pitchforks were the correct response to any sort of misdeed. If they lose their jobs, and aren't shielded from a civil suit, and face public shame, I think that's more than sufficient punishment - just because what they did was wrong doesn't mean that I think it requires jail time or that their lives be ruined. In fact, there are very few crimes that should really ruin people's lives.
And nobody stopped you from opening your mouth and saying what you will. Or picking up a pen and writing what you will. But surely you can't tell me that the Framers intended for government officials to have the right to take pictures of people who died in the most horrific of ways, taken in the line of duty, and send them around as a sick joke, resulting in a family being terrorized by anonymous internet fucktards with a barrage of photos of their dead daughter?
Surely you can't tell me that this was what they meant by Free Speech?
Freedom of Speech doesn't mean Freedom of Action, and doesn't mean that a sick action like disseminating pictures of dead bodies for use as a part of a harassment campaign or as a demented prank is protected speech. Furthermore, there are other rights in the Constitution that inherently abridge each other when they run up against each other.
There has to be a legal process to balance these rights against each other when enforcing one person's right would infringe on another person's right. It doesn't mean you don't have the right to Freedom of Speech, it just means your rights have to be abridged somewhere around where the next man's rights begin.
I think this is the first non-April Fool's story today. Thank god. It's funny when it's one or two stories. It's just fucking annoying when it's the entire day.
AI used to be the subfield of computer science that developed cool algorithms and hyped itself grandly. Five years later, the rest of the field would be using these algorithms to solve actual problems, without the grandiose hype.
These days, I'm not sure if AI is even that. But maybe some of this stuff will prove to be useful. You just have to put on your hype filter whenever "AI" is involved.