The only person who has real standing is dead, so it doesn't have to hold up.

And if you enter a contract that terminates when you do, suicide is probably not the best follow-up act. Lesson learned, check the small print.

With that logic, they would be hosting child rape fantasies, calls for assassination on named targets, and all manner of things that, while speech, violate the TOS. And more importantly put them in legal crosshairs.

And I don't think it has been tested, but killing yourself may take you out of having rights to vote, from searches since officials have to verify cause of death, and probably speech.

And his license said anyone could do anything with it. Yahoo did exactly that.

While generally true, how is that observation relevant here?

Google does not need to pay people 1/5 of their salaries to hack on random projects whetheir offerings are mature, and between android and chromebook they have plenty of actual development on real products.

They are unlikely to die from this, and if they need to it is easily reinstated.

Knee jerk much?

with the exception of some of the Alzheimer stuff he mentioned every thing he described is treatable

That makes me feel bad for the dude. You mean he didn't actually have any reason to off himself? You could have told him that, I'm sure he would have listened to reason in his highly emotional state of mind.

Why isn't this tagged with the censorship logo?

Because it's not censorship.

And the idea that a corporation with shareholders should in some way show compassion, you're cute.

Yahoo should have considered the negative publicity, proving that pre-paid means nothing after death. More likely they have legal advice that keeping a site which will be cited as a suicide advocate is more expensive in the long term than lost revenue.

It doesn't matter that the site is a personal opinion and as neutral as it can be while still explaining. If a ridiculous court case popped up, Yahoo would have to defend itself with no way to either pass the blame onto the guy, or at least have him explain that it was not an advocacy position. Because he's dead.

And that is the important bit. If Yahoo had found out about this while he was alive, he would have been able to switch providers, and probably ask for a refund. But it was not an actual suicide note until he did it, so it could have qualified as fantasy or even therapy.

When the dude bit it, it became reality, and business hates ties to reality when it could point to legal issues later. Kind of a catch-22 where it doesn't bother Yahoo until it's too late to talk to the dude about it.

But it's not censorship. Your misunderstanding of words doesn't mean that's what they mean.

Better quality of life is the whole point of treating aging. Longevity will probably be a nice benefit.

If we keep bodies healthy until they expire, they can enjoy old age without the health issues.

And no one will be forced treatment, so you can still suffer frailty and restriction if you want.

The whole point is you are an outlier. Politics is all about mobilizing an uninformed yet passionate base. The more ignorant and irrational the better.

And nowhere near enough reasonable people to make a dent.

The two party system is the ultimate stasis point. There is always someone to demonize, and always someone on your side. You can hate a person and live their party due to normal turnover. The ultimate straw man to draw attacks without real harm.

And the few reasonable and intelligent people are irrelevant.

For a first time office, that is impossible. The president has different responsibilities from a legislator. That makes their responses different. New information, New advisors, and the candidate ceases to exist.

So it really only works for reelection, and then the evil you know may be better than the one you don't.

There is an entire field called Risk Communication to find ways of explaining this to people. RC consultants are needed again and again to explain, in all facets of life, how to determine risk without using fear and bad data.

Logic does not help. Data does not help. You need to get an entire country to a risk seminar and understand what their brain is doing to them first. While factual, this is actually the worst way to convert people's beliefs.

Don't be surprised when you, and everyone else preaching the same message, fail to make progress.

I leave plastic out, it becomes brittle and breaks. Are you suggesting it is more durable than it is when exposed to ultraviolet?

Or did you focus is a single word and use it to post a knee jerk response that, while it may be true, is unrelated?

And, outside of laws, some companies do sell a green message, and provide products intended to degrade more quickly. Are those not within the scope of discussions?

The sort of encryption needed was illegal to export from the USA during most of that time. And USA was driving or pushing adoption of the internet, the web, the browser, email, AOL keywords...

Business made a concerted effort to make putting credit card info into a website look secure. But no one ever questioned if putting their mails to friends and relatives required the same protection.

No demand meant early providers of paid services and clients did not put effort into encryption. Then people grew up in that world, and it seems normal.

Now, encrypted mail is reported with news of terrosts and pedo rings and drug cartels, so it is not just "not normal" - it is "abnormal" to encrypt.

Assuming your question wasn't rhetoric, I hope that helps.

The latter, and Lessig explains it well. http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/March-April-2004/story_lessig_marapr04.msp

"Sure, but can it substitute feet for meters?"

No, It's a copier, not rocket science.

I resent your characterization of unfairness - if not for that I might have not posted what I prepared. Which is why I post this here. The remainder of the "you" references are aimed at the author of the article (that's what you see if people here would read and critically think about the page that appears after clicking). Apologies for slashdot's pasting being retarded.

"This article in Wired advances the idea that humans are losing the copyright battle against machines because the fair use laws are tilted against them. The writer wanted to include photos in his book, but the licensing fees were too high. The aggregators, though, like Google, are building their own content by scraping all of the photos they can find. If anyone complains, they just say, 'Fill out a DMCA form.' Can humans compete against the machines? Should humans be able to use the DMCA to avoid copyright fees too? Should web sites be able to shrug and say, 'Hey, we just scraped it?'"

Because many of those people â" and websites â" are notoriously loose with reusing images, and they like to hide behind the blithe view that itâ(TM)s all âoefair use.â

Fair use is fairly clearly laid out, and things like lolcats or other image macros can be considered parody. There is an article in Ars Technica which reproduces the image to illustrate what is the subject of the lawsuit. The lawsuit was ridiculous because the plaintiff had followed proper DMCA takedown, the site complied, then the plaintiff registered the copyright formally and sued Buzzfeed for the infringement of other sites that had subsequently used the photo. In other words the lead-off of this paragraph points to a baseless suit.

This example also shoots the argument in the head. BuzzFeed might as well be a web site with a single editor, author, owner, creator, and janitor. DMCA takedown would have been just as effective, unless the janitor AKA DMCA contact was out that day.

Was BuzzFeed a machine that included the image? Or was the article written by a human? The answer is that this is an exceptional case, and it makes no difference, because the plaintiff wrote the lawsuit and filed it with no legal advice. I can be sued for farting in the state of Wisconsin, despite never having set foot there. The case will likely be thrown out as soon as I submit my response to being served, which is "I was never there, and plaintiff will have to prove that I was, so good luck with that"

Some algorithm assembled the photos and itâ(TM)s enjoying a nice little loophole.

Okay, support that statement.

If I included photos, I needed to share my royalties with the photographers or risk a punitive copyright lawsuit. As a creative worker, I understood sharing with the photographers. And the pictures would really add depth to the book.

You're writing a book? That will be published and people will maybe pay money for? DMCA offers no protection for that. Is that your point, that DMCA offers safe harbor for individuals OR machines, but not for book authors?

one friend told me flat out that if he wanted the pictures, he would just go to Google. And he was right: All the photos were there.

Oh, the book is online, and your book isn't.

The automated machines have me and the photographers beat. Aggregators â" whether listmakers, search engines, online curation boards, content farms, and other sites â" can scrape them from the web and claim that posting these images is fair use

Nope, not even correct. BuzzFeed claims its use is transformative, but that doesn't mean they can scrape them and call them fair use. They have a DMCA waiver, and a baseless lawsuit to defend. How much in legal fees will it cost them? More than your royalty fees of $10,000? Probably, if they want to go with that argument. They will likely go with the DMCA takedown request and response, and spend a few hundred. An automated machine did not create buzzfeed's 30 funniest headers, and you can't support your argument on horseshit.

Anyone who searches for âoeDeath of a Salesmanâ gets search results with a nice sidebar filled with a few facts and some images that Google scraped from websites under fair use. In this way, they can do things that I, a lowly human, canâ(TM)t do. And while I had to pay $10,000, they could âoegetâ them for free.

Google did not write a book and select specific images to illustrate the points made. Google is not reproducing images in print, which was kind of important when you look back at copyright law. I think your complaint is that being in print makes you subject to the laws of print, and being online makes people subject to online laws where things happen more quickly and more easily.

The market therefore punishes the people who try to do the right thing by the photographers. If I raised the price of my book to pay for the images, even more people would choose the book âoewrittenâ by Googleâ(TM)s computers

Do you see now how that conclusion is oh, so very wrong?

Is there recourse? Well, if the algorithm violates a copyright, owners can fill out DMCA takedown forms. But itâ(TM)s an onerous process that canâ(TM)t match the scale of the breach, because it pits human against machine. The aggregatorsâ(TM) machines scrape the web day and night but humans need to fill out the forms in their waking hours.

No, you clearly don't. Because if a human violates a copyright, the DMCA is still an option. In fact, it will offer relief much more quickly than getting a settlement from you and/or blocking publication of your books.

Is it possible that a port to a Windows phone environment is easier than rewriting it in java aka dalvik? That maybe it is a barely funded trial balloon?

The typical Microsoft approach at play is getting in late and screwing up the first version. Two options now - double down and fix it, or claim lack of interest and abandon the project.

This is not about making office a selling point yet, offering a crippled version for Android. That will make office a non starter, and any other suite wins. Clearly not how Microsoft wants to play it. Late to the game, but they have made up ground when they decided it was worth spending to win.