Without a noncompete, the only basis for a lawsuit would probably be using your former company's proprietary trade secrets to compete with them in your new position.
There's lots that they could sue for. As we are hearing only one side of the story here, its hard to say what the suit would be about. If, for example, the poster had set up a fake supplier of equipment and bilked the company our of say $25,000,000, wouldn't you guess that they could sue him for restitution?
What makes you think they are suing for failure to give proper notice?
They could sue alleging the poster stole property or information. The could sue if he took equipment home and didn't return it. They could sue for anything. And, BTW, it could be that the poster has done something he deserves to be sued for.
Why is it so easy to be outraged with stories like this? Perhaps its because we've all had something similar happen to us (or someone we know). Its usually not exactly as extreme as the posted story. Maybe we've had an employer be upset when we've quit. Maybe we had to quit...a better offer...our sanity...then lost friends.
However, in this case, I think the poster's story is too extreme. I suspect there's more here than's being said.
Maybe some files where stolen? Maybe there was some financial impropriety? Maybe someone overheard someone saying something inappropriate in a corporate environment? I don't intend to immune the poster...other than to say that perhaps he's leaving out some key information.
Full disclosure...to avoid the glass house...I lease a server from the poster's former employer and host some stuff there plug.
However, if you want to read a lot of SPAM, I invite you to visit my site : www.testcompany.com
I've been posting all the email I've received @ testcompany.com for a few years now. If you like SPAM, and feel like you don't get enough, click on through:)
It wasn't the time to fire off a letter and sit and wait to see what happens
But in fact there was plenty of time to wait and see what happens.
The information had already been posted all over the internet, and specifically to Fyodor's site for quite some time. What was the rush?
There was no "Exigent Circumstance" requiring immediate action. There was no danger of leaving the material on his site because it had already been so widely dispersed. Another hour, or day, or even another week with the file on his site would make no difference.
You need to consider how many other sites are hosting the same content, and the amount of time it had already been posted.
As there are dozens of other sites where the offending file resides, and it had been available for (weeks?), it seems to me there was no need to take down his site without waiting for a call back. In a case like this, I would question why GoDaddy felt they should be involved at all.
In this case, why couldn't Myspace send Fyodor a letter asking for the content to be removed? Why didn't GoDaddy ask Myspace that question?
Remember, Fyodor had done nothing wrong. A quick check of his website would have revealed this fact to anyone bothering to take the time to investigate. Why did GoDaddy feel it was their responsibility to intervene? They are not hosting the information. They are not providing the means for the information to be distributed. They are only providing the glue to Fyodor's name servers.
If you read the "Expert's" blog in question http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_11396.html , she suggests that a meteorologist who is quoted as saying "I try to read up on the subject to have a better understanding, but [its] complex..." should perhaps loose his certification. Not because he's skeptical of global warning, but because he's not taking the time to study up on it.
The "Expert" even goes on to write "I agree with every meteorologist who says the topic of global warming has gotten too political". Doesn't sound like someone wanting to silence skeptics. Sounds like someone who wants to stress informed open scientific debate.
OK - I read TFA - and of course I'm outraged. TFA suggests to call the number provided - oh as a note, you'll have to give them your Paypal account information...
Anyone else a little suspicious? How do we know they aren't just phishing for paypal accounts/passwords with a made up story about Paypal stealing from veterans widows?
I'm guessing we would only give the vaccine to people. Seems to me that other species are the major hosts to the flu virus (migratory birds?). As long as we don't let the birds get a hold of it, we should be ok.
In February 1998, a team led by Jeffery Taubenberger of the US Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP) recovered samples of the 1918 influenza from the frozen corpse of a Native Alaskan woman buried for nearly eight decades in permafrost
They don't think it changed 100 years ago, they just know it hasn't in the last 100.
Check out the difference between the LGPL and the GPL. AFAIK, under the GPL, if you link (dynamic or static) with a GPL library (and license the library under the GPL), and distribute the resultant software, then you need to provide your source code under the GPL.
In other words, if you distribute software using a GPL jar, you have to give up your source code. So, if all of Java is released under the GPL, if java GPLs its standard jars, and if you decide to distribute your software with GPL'd java, then your software is GPL'd too.
Sun probably would continue to also offer Java under an alternative license in this case, much like how MySQL dual licenses their JDBC connector.
This dual licensing would force Java to be controlled by Sun. They would not be able to dual license code they didn't have copyright of. If a non-Sun developer wanted to contribute code under the GPL license and not give Sun control of the copyright, I would guess that Sun wouldn't allow its inclusion.
I don't think its a publicity stunt. They are not building a better mouse trap either though.
They are proving that RedHat has no fundamental value in that they are selling freely available open source software. As we know, Centos is just as good as RedHat except for the support (which is provided by Google just as well as Redhat IMHO). Non-geeks though don't seem to know about Centos. They will (and have judging by Redhats stock tumble) understand about Oracle.
Oracle can take Redhat's business by reselling their product without paying for it (and without buying out Redhat). Thats no stunt.
Seems like Adams also suffers from focal dystonia, "Adams was diagnosed with the condition -- a neurological movement disorder, marked by involuntary muscle spasms--back in 1992...The problem affects his right hand -- the one he uses to draw."
Slashdot Mirror
Aha - I think the summary is perhaps misleading. Wikipedia explains its only even integers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goldbach's_conjecture
Perhaps I didn't have my coffee this morning, or I am missing something. What two primes add together to form 17?
Domain Name: SEIZEDSERVERS.COM
Registrar: NETWORK SOLUTIONS, LLC.
Whois Server: whois.networksolutions.com
Referral URL: http://www.networksolutions.com/
Name Server: NS1.SEIZEDSERVERS.COM
Name Server: NS2.SEIZEDSERVERS.COM
Status: clientTransferProhibited
Updated Date: 24-nov-2010
Creation Date: 24-nov-2010
Expiration Date: 24-nov-2011
Interesting. SEIZEDSERVERS.COM was registered two days ago. Its a hoax.
Everyone is aware that the Mozilla Corporation makes some money
I am so out of touch. Must be getting old.
How do they make money?
How about : ."
"[The article] shows who's on target, and who(m) you probably shouldn't rely on asshole
http://fsnews.findlaw.com/cases/ca/caapp4th/slip/2 007/c050766.html
Hello, my name is Barry, and I have a spellcheck problem.
I'm sorry, but I'm having trouble understanding this story. The borked link doesn't help.
If they are promising not to sue, isn't that a good thing?
Without a noncompete, the only basis for a lawsuit would probably be using your former company's proprietary trade secrets to compete with them in your new position.
There's lots that they could sue for. As we are hearing only one side of the story here, its hard to say what the suit would be about. If, for example, the poster had set up a fake supplier of equipment and bilked the company our of say $25,000,000, wouldn't you guess that they could sue him for restitution?
What makes you think they are suing for failure to give proper notice?
They could sue alleging the poster stole property or information. The could sue if he took equipment home and didn't return it. They could sue for anything. And, BTW, it could be that the poster has done something he deserves to be sued for.
Why is it so easy to be outraged with stories like this? Perhaps its because we've all had something similar happen to us (or someone we know). Its usually not exactly as extreme as the posted story. Maybe we've had an employer be upset when we've quit. Maybe we had to quit...a better offer...our sanity...then lost friends.
However, in this case, I think the poster's story is too extreme. I suspect there's more here than's being said.
Maybe some files where stolen? Maybe there was some financial impropriety? Maybe someone overheard someone saying something inappropriate in a corporate environment? I don't intend to immune the poster...other than to say that perhaps he's leaving out some key information.
Full disclosure...to avoid the glass house...I lease a server from the poster's former employer and host some stuff there plug.
Sorry to hear that SpamArchive.org is offline.
:)
However, if you want to read a lot of SPAM, I invite you to visit my site : www.testcompany.com
I've been posting all the email I've received @ testcompany.com for a few years now. If you like SPAM, and feel like you don't get enough, click on through
It wasn't the time to fire off a letter and sit and wait to see what happens
But in fact there was plenty of time to wait and see what happens.
The information had already been posted all over the internet, and specifically to Fyodor's site for quite some time. What was the rush?
There was no "Exigent Circumstance" requiring immediate action. There was no danger of leaving the material on his site because it had already been so widely dispersed. Another hour, or day, or even another week with the file on his site would make no difference.
You need to consider how many other sites are hosting the same content, and the amount of time it had already been posted.
As there are dozens of other sites where the offending file resides, and it had been available for (weeks?), it seems to me there was no need to take down his site without waiting for a call back. In a case like this, I would question why GoDaddy felt they should be involved at all.
In this case, why couldn't Myspace send Fyodor a letter asking for the content to be removed? Why didn't GoDaddy ask Myspace that question?
Remember, Fyodor had done nothing wrong. A quick check of his website would have revealed this fact to anyone bothering to take the time to investigate. Why did GoDaddy feel it was their responsibility to intervene? They are not hosting the information. They are not providing the means for the information to be distributed. They are only providing the glue to Fyodor's name servers.
If you read the "Expert's" blog in question http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_11396.html , she suggests that a meteorologist who is quoted as saying "I try to read up on the subject to have a better understanding, but [its] complex..." should perhaps loose his certification. Not because he's skeptical of global warning, but because he's not taking the time to study up on it.
The "Expert" even goes on to write "I agree with every meteorologist who says the topic of global warming has gotten too political". Doesn't sound like someone wanting to silence skeptics. Sounds like someone who wants to stress informed open scientific debate.
OK - I read TFA - and of course I'm outraged. TFA suggests to call the number provided - oh as a note, you'll have to give them your Paypal account information...
Anyone else a little suspicious? How do we know they aren't just phishing for paypal accounts/passwords with a made up story about Paypal stealing from veterans widows?
I guess I haven't been following this very closely - I'm confused.
What are SCOSource license fees? And why would SCO owe Novell money? What does this have to do with Microsoft and Sun license fees?
I tried to read the Groklaw FA but I'm not getting it.
Anyone care to explain?
Thanks in advance.
Strangely, Oxfam and Starbucks had been working together on Fair Trade up until October of 2004 - see : http://www.oxfamamerica.org/newsandpublications/pr ess_releases/archive2002/art3007.html
t ory/0,,1430638,00.html )
There's even some allegation that Oxfam stopped working with Starbucks due to political pressure ( see http://society.guardian.co.uk/charitymanagement/s
I'm guessing we would only give the vaccine to people. Seems to me that other species are the major hosts to the flu virus (migratory birds?). As long as we don't let the birds get a hold of it, we should be ok.
From wikipedia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu#Spanish_
They don't think it changed 100 years ago, they just know it hasn't in the last 100.
Check out the difference between the LGPL and the GPL. AFAIK, under the GPL, if you link (dynamic or static) with a GPL library (and license the library under the GPL), and distribute the resultant software, then you need to provide your source code under the GPL.
In other words, if you distribute software using a GPL jar, you have to give up your source code. So, if all of Java is released under the GPL, if java GPLs its standard jars, and if you decide to distribute your software with GPL'd java, then your software is GPL'd too.
Sun probably would continue to also offer Java under an alternative license in this case, much like how MySQL dual licenses their JDBC connector.
This dual licensing would force Java to be controlled by Sun. They would not be able to dual license code they didn't have copyright of. If a non-Sun developer wanted to contribute code under the GPL license and not give Sun control of the copyright, I would guess that Sun wouldn't allow its inclusion.
I didn't even read your whole ask Slashdot question. Its not stopping me from posting my uninformed point of view.
Please, go out and vote. But please, vote for the correct candidates. Don't vote for the other idiots.
Redhat's market cap today is around $2.87B. Oracle strategy could be to wait until Redhat's stock price sinks, then buy them out for much less.
I don't think its a publicity stunt. They are not building a better mouse trap either though.
They are proving that RedHat has no fundamental value in that they are selling freely available open source software. As we know, Centos is just as good as RedHat except for the support (which is provided by Google just as well as Redhat IMHO). Non-geeks though don't seem to know about Centos. They will (and have judging by Redhats stock tumble) understand about Oracle.
Oracle can take Redhat's business by reselling their product without paying for it (and without buying out Redhat). Thats no stunt.
Seems like Adams also suffers from focal dystonia, "Adams was diagnosed with the condition -- a neurological movement disorder, marked by involuntary muscle spasms--back in 1992...The problem affects his right hand -- the one he uses to draw."
c le/2005/05/09/AR2005050901066.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti