It has no use in CPU processing until it works at CPU temperatures. Yes, it would decrease the CPU operating temperature, but it still needs to handle the heat of nearby transistors and at the very least ROOM TEMPERATURES.
Yes, again, "Excluded Assets: All copyrights and trademarks, except for the copyrights and trademarks owned by Novell as of the date of the Agreement required for SCO to exercise its rights with respect to the acquisition of UNIX and UnixWare technologies."
So in other words, all copyrights and trademarks are excluded. The exception is for copyrights and trademarks owned by Novell required by SCO to perform its business with the acquisition of the UNIX and UnixWare tech. An additional requirement is that this is as of the date of the agreement, not some FUTURE or PAST date. So just because SCO might "require" those copyrights NOW, doesn't mean they required them back then. The case in point being that old SCO never requested them, didn't believe they needed them, and thus, didn't get them and told new SCO this when they sold the business to them that they did not have records of owning the copyrights and didn't believe they received any with the agreement because they never had a requirement for them to collect royalties, promote UNIX, and develop and promote a branch of Unix (UnixWare).
Still more to come though...
on
Novell Wins vs. SCO
·
· Score: 5, Informative
There are several important ruling that need to occur. There is still at issue a decision of "Specific Performance", where SCO has made an argument that if the Jury says the APA + admendments did not constitute an official transfer of copyrights, that Novell should be required to create such a document to transfer the copyrights since they are "needed".
Unfortunately for SCO's theory on this, old SCO didn't need the copyrights for their business, which is what was sold to new SCO, and Darl himself testified that the business can be run without the copyrights (statements he made after the FIRST time Novell was told they owned the copyrights by the previous Judge in this case). The wording is also to the effect of "copyrights needed at the time of this APA", which is BEFORE the SCOSource business was conceived to sue Linux users. And then you also have to deal with the fact that "Specific Performance" is only enforced when the party requesting "Specific Performance" has itself performed to the letter of the contract, which there is already case law and verdict on file that SCO has not done so, by not remitting the portion of the license buy-out from Sun and the SCOSource license to Microsoft which were both found to be SYSV Unix licenses, not solely UnixWare licenses (as SCO would change their story afterwards when realizing they were contractually required to remit 95% of the funding SYSV licenses to Novell and not keep it for themselves, and after they have filed to the SCC that they were Unix licenses not UnixWare... one of the stumbling blocks they hit when trying to claim otherwise later).
Well, the case in point is that if/when people do protest by stopping purchasing (and even stop pirating), it doesn't matter because the publisher/distributors simply BLAME PIRATES for the loss of sales and put MORE INVASIVE DRM on the product, which is the very thing you are PROTESTING AGAINST!
You don't simply go from Grade 6 to Grade 7 because you sat through a year at Grade 6... You have to earn it. You progress as you grasp and understand the concept, nut because you spent X amount of time on that topic. In order to get your High School diploma, you need to have learned a certain set of concepts. You can learn more than those, up to a point that there are teachers teaching the concepts in the school system, and once you reach the the end of the school year that you reach 15 or 16 and have already surpassed the requirements for a High School Diploma, you should be allowed to graduate and start college (if you have been accepted at that point). If you have not reached or surpassed the requirements for a High School Diploma upon reaching the end of the school year of your 18th birthday, you would either have to continue on your own as an adult for a GED, or can simply say I am done with this (in fact you can say you are done with this upon reaching 18).
The vast benefits of this system is that students are encuraged to learn. People who have good study habits, or are gifted are not held back by anyone else. People who simply can not grasp a concept can spend the time they need to really understand it and are not forced to continue onwards because there are other concepts that they need to learn for a mandated test which the school itself is having its performance graded against.
That is a good question, however, I would assume that it would be if the project itself is operating under the GPL, at least in the case of patches/changes to existing source code files. Since the only way for the user to have legal access to the source code to make the changes would require that person to agree to the GPL and this release their changes under the GPL, the "default" release for any said patch/change would thus be GPL, for anything else would mean they were in violation to even create the patch/change, as there was no non-GPL version for them to gain access to the source code before this change occurred.
No, this is what happens when you can afford to spend some money up front for long term benefits, something that a lot of the US has forgotten how to do. China has seen that they can lure all these high tech jobs to their country by cutting deals with the companies that are going to operate them. It is just like how Delaware has a HUGE amount of the US Corporate Headquarters located in their state because they give such good tax incentives for the company, and make it up on income/property taxes instead of corporate earnings.
But to do this, you have to be looking at the long term numbers. China obviously did the math and looked at the projections out 100+ years on some of these moves (75year lease is in this example).
Even if Novell is said to not own the copyrights, no one has anything to worry about because SCO released their own flavor of linux, which as the "owner" of the copyrights, means they released them under the GPL for those that wants to use them. So either they owned the copyrights, and have always owned the copyrights, and released them under the GPL, or they did not own them. Either way, they can't sue any linux end users without themselves being in violation of the GPL and thus have everyone counter-sue for the same exact copyright violation that SCO would attempt to sue for.
I know you said a tape library is impractical, but depending on how many customers you have, it may still be your best solution. An LTO-4 tape drive with a small multi-tape bay and robotic picker really isn't that expensive (in the scheme of things) anymore. You can get a small sized LTO-4 vault/autoloader (24 slots) from Oracle/Sun for about $5k. Tapes are around $40-50 a piece and store 1.6TB each, which is a heck of a lot cheaper than hard drives for the size. So for your 2-3TB you would need 2 $50 tapes, vs., 7 $70 500GB hard drives, for a savings of almost $400 just for one customer's data sets. If you have 10 data sets, you just paid for your tape autoloader and are using a proven long term storage safe solution.
My boss doesn't have the passwords to the systems. He isn't cleared to have the passwords. There are briefings and paperwork that would need to be signed stating that he read the rules associated with that level of access and control, that he was trained in knowing how to operate with that access level, that he had technical certifications and/or a vetting process to approve that he could be trusted to not F everything up.... So yes, I would say very quickly that Childs may very well have been correct in his actions. I know that I can be put in jail for giving the passwords away to someone who hasn't gone through the above process, and I don't care if you are the president of the company, I am personally liable if the process is not followed, and not just to my company, but to the Federal Government, specifically several arms of the military and their oversight entities who dictate the rules that shall be followed.
The police in an investigation can and will only ever help the prosecution. They are not going to help the defense of anyone. The only person who will do that is you and your lawyer. Even if you have proof that you were not the person, if the local DA or Magistrate or whatever it is in your country decides to have charges brought against you, whatever you said, did, provided, etc., will be used against you. Even if you are simply saying something like that you were not in the area at that time, you don't know if the police already have a witness that said they saw you, and as such, unless you have real "proof", you are simply "lying", and thus they will think even more so that you are the guilty party. I know people think that they should "help" the police in many of these cases, but the best thing you can do is say, "I am sorry, but I will not talk to you without a lawyer", and leave it at that. All you can do is get yourself in trouble.
You know what, I actually agree... There should be a limit. This was why the original copyright was for only a few years in the USA. While that original limit might be a little short, for some things I believe that there should be additional limits, especially for things like video games. Unless you are actively selling or have documented intentions (with writers, designers, and coders) actively working on the game, it should be opened up to allow the public to continue. I would say 10 years without being able to purchase or use the game on active consoles/hardware would be sufficient. Just look back on video game history and you would see that is probably a very legitimate timeframe which gives plenty of opportunity for the owners of the IP to keep their IP. The wording might have to be worked on and rules ironed out, because we would not want, say ID releasing "DOOM! Sudoku" to count for the FPS DOOM! franchise.
Games that still have a large followings would definitely stay active. You would also see more old games get updated ports to new consoles and systems if/when it makes economic sense. There would be lots more Retro Remixes like "Bionic Commando Rearmed". We would see game franchises like Tie Fighter, Wingcommander, and even Mechwarrior continue (well, in the case of Mechwarrior, looks like its 7 year exile (and more of bastardization) under the hands of Microsoft is near its end).
I just love how the anti-nuclear comes out every time. Yes, it is significant that this leak was hidden from the NRC. Yes, it should affect that company from getting an extension. And yes, because they lied to the government about these pipes when they knew they existed (since they obviously covered up the previous leak), they should get heavy fines (to the individuals, not just the corporation), and even jail time. And absolutely should get denied operating license extension, and possibly even have their existing license revoked.
But all of the above is already covered under existing law and policy, and has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with a DIFFERENT COMPANY building a NEW PLANT in a DIFFERENT STATE. It would be like arresting every person in the country who owns a Silver or Gray car because a Silver/Gray car was involved in a hit and run Rhode Island.
Again, in this case, the RIAA and respective parties brought no such evidence of damages to distribution rights. With multiple distributors available for the songs on the internet at the same specified prices, the actually damages again in evidence to the case is $21. Feel free to point out such distribution rights with a contract from the distributors to the copyright holders to show that there are additional damages, even if it can't be easily determined what percentage of those costs these 30 song would entail (since I do not believe that the contract rights would have had a song limit, but more likely a time limit for distributing songs from the music companies catalog). Again, that was not brought into evidence, and thus is not available in this case to be factored into the actual damages cost. So again, we are STILL left with the fact that in this case, actual damages have been set at $21.
IANAL as well, but no one is arguing that $21 is the punishment that is due. $21 is the actual damages proven in the course of this case. The case is for 30 counts of copyright infringement for items which have a known price of $.99 each, of which $0.30 would be kept by the distributor (Apple Itunes, or Amazon, or any of the other sites which sell MP3 or digital music), and the other approx $0.70 goes to the copyright holder, in this case the record companies who brought the action. Since it is ONLY the damages to the record companies that are part of this litigation which matter, the damages are for approx $0.70 per song multiplied by the 30 counts that were found to have happened, in other words approx $21 of ACTUAL damages. No other alleged acts of infringement are at question in the matter, as copyright infringement BY LAW is for each specific act of actual, not possible act, available act (in other words you have not breaken copyright laws by OFFERING to make a copy of the sheet music to a song to someone, you only break the laws WHEN you make the copy).
I would also argue that in any case involving P2P software, that the responsible party for breach of copyright is the person who DOWNLOADED the individual file, thus if you downloaded a file, you are responsible for breaking copyright as you just made the copy of that file from someone else's copy. The fact that someone else can download it from you again means nothing, as it takes the act of that other person to MAKE the copy, and thus, they are then accountable for that act of infringement. The analogy would be that a person leaves sheet music out on the sidewalk next to a copy machine, where anyone has access to make a copy.
And such contract would immediately be thrown out by a court since a legal contract by definition can not cover illegal activities, which in the case if the original uploader/sharer is found guilt of copyright infingment, the contract would be null and void and all participants would also be subject to lawsuits since the IP addresses or names would be discoverable since the original seeder would have that information to try and enforce the now void contract...
It already HAS been appealed AND stood up ON APPEAL! It has to go to the Supremes now... And quite frankly, the way they have been ruling makes me wonder lately of their sanity. Just look at the floodgates they opened in political finances...
Slashdot Mirror
Seriously... That has 64 cores in one CPU. Sun/Oracle sells several systems which use 2 or 4 of these in a single system.
And not an insignificant amount. Even if just 100 people get a refund from Amazon, you can sure bet that Amazon will go after Sony.
I thought the question was, will it blend?
http://www.blendtec.com/willitblend/videos.aspx?type=unsafe&video=airsoftgun
It has no use in CPU processing until it works at CPU temperatures. Yes, it would decrease the CPU operating temperature, but it still needs to handle the heat of nearby transistors and at the very least ROOM TEMPERATURES.
Yes, again, "Excluded Assets: All copyrights and trademarks, except for the copyrights and trademarks owned by Novell as of the date of the Agreement required for SCO to exercise its rights with respect to the acquisition of UNIX and UnixWare technologies."
So in other words, all copyrights and trademarks are excluded. The exception is for copyrights and trademarks owned by Novell required by SCO to perform its business with the acquisition of the UNIX and UnixWare tech. An additional requirement is that this is as of the date of the agreement, not some FUTURE or PAST date. So just because SCO might "require" those copyrights NOW, doesn't mean they required them back then. The case in point being that old SCO never requested them, didn't believe they needed them, and thus, didn't get them and told new SCO this when they sold the business to them that they did not have records of owning the copyrights and didn't believe they received any with the agreement because they never had a requirement for them to collect royalties, promote UNIX, and develop and promote a branch of Unix (UnixWare).
There are several important ruling that need to occur. There is still at issue a decision of "Specific Performance", where SCO has made an argument that if the Jury says the APA + admendments did not constitute an official transfer of copyrights, that Novell should be required to create such a document to transfer the copyrights since they are "needed".
Unfortunately for SCO's theory on this, old SCO didn't need the copyrights for their business, which is what was sold to new SCO, and Darl himself testified that the business can be run without the copyrights (statements he made after the FIRST time Novell was told they owned the copyrights by the previous Judge in this case). The wording is also to the effect of "copyrights needed at the time of this APA", which is BEFORE the SCOSource business was conceived to sue Linux users. And then you also have to deal with the fact that "Specific Performance" is only enforced when the party requesting "Specific Performance" has itself performed to the letter of the contract, which there is already case law and verdict on file that SCO has not done so, by not remitting the portion of the license buy-out from Sun and the SCOSource license to Microsoft which were both found to be SYSV Unix licenses, not solely UnixWare licenses (as SCO would change their story afterwards when realizing they were contractually required to remit 95% of the funding SYSV licenses to Novell and not keep it for themselves, and after they have filed to the SCC that they were Unix licenses not UnixWare... one of the stumbling blocks they hit when trying to claim otherwise later).
Well, the case in point is that if/when people do protest by stopping purchasing (and even stop pirating), it doesn't matter because the publisher/distributors simply BLAME PIRATES for the loss of sales and put MORE INVASIVE DRM on the product, which is the very thing you are PROTESTING AGAINST!
You don't simply go from Grade 6 to Grade 7 because you sat through a year at Grade 6... You have to earn it. You progress as you grasp and understand the concept, nut because you spent X amount of time on that topic. In order to get your High School diploma, you need to have learned a certain set of concepts. You can learn more than those, up to a point that there are teachers teaching the concepts in the school system, and once you reach the the end of the school year that you reach 15 or 16 and have already surpassed the requirements for a High School Diploma, you should be allowed to graduate and start college (if you have been accepted at that point). If you have not reached or surpassed the requirements for a High School Diploma upon reaching the end of the school year of your 18th birthday, you would either have to continue on your own as an adult for a GED, or can simply say I am done with this (in fact you can say you are done with this upon reaching 18).
The vast benefits of this system is that students are encuraged to learn. People who have good study habits, or are gifted are not held back by anyone else. People who simply can not grasp a concept can spend the time they need to really understand it and are not forced to continue onwards because there are other concepts that they need to learn for a mandated test which the school itself is having its performance graded against.
That is a good question, however, I would assume that it would be if the project itself is operating under the GPL, at least in the case of patches/changes to existing source code files. Since the only way for the user to have legal access to the source code to make the changes would require that person to agree to the GPL and this release their changes under the GPL, the "default" release for any said patch/change would thus be GPL, for anything else would mean they were in violation to even create the patch/change, as there was no non-GPL version for them to gain access to the source code before this change occurred.
No, this is what happens when you can afford to spend some money up front for long term benefits, something that a lot of the US has forgotten how to do. China has seen that they can lure all these high tech jobs to their country by cutting deals with the companies that are going to operate them. It is just like how Delaware has a HUGE amount of the US Corporate Headquarters located in their state because they give such good tax incentives for the company, and make it up on income/property taxes instead of corporate earnings.
But to do this, you have to be looking at the long term numbers. China obviously did the math and looked at the projections out 100+ years on some of these moves (75year lease is in this example).
I put this on my latest Win7 build. I use Avast! on a vista laptop and ClamAV on another.
Even if Novell is said to not own the copyrights, no one has anything to worry about because SCO released their own flavor of linux, which as the "owner" of the copyrights, means they released them under the GPL for those that wants to use them. So either they owned the copyrights, and have always owned the copyrights, and released them under the GPL, or they did not own them. Either way, they can't sue any linux end users without themselves being in violation of the GPL and thus have everyone counter-sue for the same exact copyright violation that SCO would attempt to sue for.
I know you said a tape library is impractical, but depending on how many customers you have, it may still be your best solution. An LTO-4 tape drive with a small multi-tape bay and robotic picker really isn't that expensive (in the scheme of things) anymore. You can get a small sized LTO-4 vault/autoloader (24 slots) from Oracle/Sun for about $5k. Tapes are around $40-50 a piece and store 1.6TB each, which is a heck of a lot cheaper than hard drives for the size. So for your 2-3TB you would need 2 $50 tapes, vs., 7 $70 500GB hard drives, for a savings of almost $400 just for one customer's data sets. If you have 10 data sets, you just paid for your tape autoloader and are using a proven long term storage safe solution.
RTFA
My boss doesn't have the passwords to the systems. He isn't cleared to have the passwords. There are briefings and paperwork that would need to be signed stating that he read the rules associated with that level of access and control, that he was trained in knowing how to operate with that access level, that he had technical certifications and/or a vetting process to approve that he could be trusted to not F everything up.... So yes, I would say very quickly that Childs may very well have been correct in his actions. I know that I can be put in jail for giving the passwords away to someone who hasn't gone through the above process, and I don't care if you are the president of the company, I am personally liable if the process is not followed, and not just to my company, but to the Federal Government, specifically several arms of the military and their oversight entities who dictate the rules that shall be followed.
The police in an investigation can and will only ever help the prosecution. They are not going to help the defense of anyone. The only person who will do that is you and your lawyer. Even if you have proof that you were not the person, if the local DA or Magistrate or whatever it is in your country decides to have charges brought against you, whatever you said, did, provided, etc., will be used against you. Even if you are simply saying something like that you were not in the area at that time, you don't know if the police already have a witness that said they saw you, and as such, unless you have real "proof", you are simply "lying", and thus they will think even more so that you are the guilty party. I know people think that they should "help" the police in many of these cases, but the best thing you can do is say, "I am sorry, but I will not talk to you without a lawyer", and leave it at that. All you can do is get yourself in trouble.
You know what, I actually agree... There should be a limit. This was why the original copyright was for only a few years in the USA. While that original limit might be a little short, for some things I believe that there should be additional limits, especially for things like video games. Unless you are actively selling or have documented intentions (with writers, designers, and coders) actively working on the game, it should be opened up to allow the public to continue. I would say 10 years without being able to purchase or use the game on active consoles/hardware would be sufficient. Just look back on video game history and you would see that is probably a very legitimate timeframe which gives plenty of opportunity for the owners of the IP to keep their IP. The wording might have to be worked on and rules ironed out, because we would not want, say ID releasing "DOOM! Sudoku" to count for the FPS DOOM! franchise. Games that still have a large followings would definitely stay active. You would also see more old games get updated ports to new consoles and systems if/when it makes economic sense. There would be lots more Retro Remixes like "Bionic Commando Rearmed". We would see game franchises like Tie Fighter, Wingcommander, and even Mechwarrior continue (well, in the case of Mechwarrior, looks like its 7 year exile (and more of bastardization) under the hands of Microsoft is near its end).
And say you can stick your fucking no swear week up your fucking ass...
I just love how the anti-nuclear comes out every time. Yes, it is significant that this leak was hidden from the NRC. Yes, it should affect that company from getting an extension. And yes, because they lied to the government about these pipes when they knew they existed (since they obviously covered up the previous leak), they should get heavy fines (to the individuals, not just the corporation), and even jail time. And absolutely should get denied operating license extension, and possibly even have their existing license revoked.
But all of the above is already covered under existing law and policy, and has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with a DIFFERENT COMPANY building a NEW PLANT in a DIFFERENT STATE. It would be like arresting every person in the country who owns a Silver or Gray car because a Silver/Gray car was involved in a hit and run Rhode Island.
Again, in this case, the RIAA and respective parties brought no such evidence of damages to distribution rights. With multiple distributors available for the songs on the internet at the same specified prices, the actually damages again in evidence to the case is $21. Feel free to point out such distribution rights with a contract from the distributors to the copyright holders to show that there are additional damages, even if it can't be easily determined what percentage of those costs these 30 song would entail (since I do not believe that the contract rights would have had a song limit, but more likely a time limit for distributing songs from the music companies catalog). Again, that was not brought into evidence, and thus is not available in this case to be factored into the actual damages cost. So again, we are STILL left with the fact that in this case, actual damages have been set at $21.
IANAL as well, but no one is arguing that $21 is the punishment that is due. $21 is the actual damages proven in the course of this case. The case is for 30 counts of copyright infringement for items which have a known price of $.99 each, of which $0.30 would be kept by the distributor (Apple Itunes, or Amazon, or any of the other sites which sell MP3 or digital music), and the other approx $0.70 goes to the copyright holder, in this case the record companies who brought the action. Since it is ONLY the damages to the record companies that are part of this litigation which matter, the damages are for approx $0.70 per song multiplied by the 30 counts that were found to have happened, in other words approx $21 of ACTUAL damages. No other alleged acts of infringement are at question in the matter, as copyright infringement BY LAW is for each specific act of actual, not possible act, available act (in other words you have not breaken copyright laws by OFFERING to make a copy of the sheet music to a song to someone, you only break the laws WHEN you make the copy).
I would also argue that in any case involving P2P software, that the responsible party for breach of copyright is the person who DOWNLOADED the individual file, thus if you downloaded a file, you are responsible for breaking copyright as you just made the copy of that file from someone else's copy. The fact that someone else can download it from you again means nothing, as it takes the act of that other person to MAKE the copy, and thus, they are then accountable for that act of infringement. The analogy would be that a person leaves sheet music out on the sidewalk next to a copy machine, where anyone has access to make a copy.
And such contract would immediately be thrown out by a court since a legal contract by definition can not cover illegal activities, which in the case if the original uploader/sharer is found guilt of copyright infingment, the contract would be null and void and all participants would also be subject to lawsuits since the IP addresses or names would be discoverable since the original seeder would have that information to try and enforce the now void contract...
It already HAS been appealed AND stood up ON APPEAL! It has to go to the Supremes now... And quite frankly, the way they have been ruling makes me wonder lately of their sanity. Just look at the floodgates they opened in political finances...
However that did lead to one of the greatest "Man Show" episodes ever...
no text