I've used a bunch of different crash carts and the best by far is the old standby AV cart with a monitor keyboard and mouse strapped to the top. Its cheap, it fits down the aisles and it has lots of convenient flat space on which to set tools, screws, cds and whatever else you need to solve the current problem.
A judge can (and will!) strike various parts of the agreement if he finds them to be in conflict with either the law or the intent of the agreement.
No, he won't. The GPL deliberately omits the severability clause commonly found in contracts. This means that if any part of it is contrary to local law, the entire thing is void in that jurisdiction.
What a judge can do is clarify the contract. "I interpret this clause to mean X, not Y."
I notice you set up a straw man argument using tortious interference with a contract rather than the more applicable tortious interference with a business activity. No matter. Lets go ahead and go through the five elements again, shall we?
The existence of a [...] beneficial business relationship between two parties.
Tough to prove.
Trivial to prove: The individual who brought this complaint up had a longstanding relationship with irc.vel.net as a user of their service. That's why he noticed Cox was redirecting it in the first place.
Knowledge of that relationship by a third party.
Even tougher.
Trivial to prove. Cox redirected the DNS to a server which responded with the IRC protocol. They demonstrably understood that irc.vel.net was in the business of providing IRC service to individuals on Cox's network.
Intent of the third party to induce a party to the relationship to breach the relationship.
Questionable, at best.
It was indisputably Cox's intent to cause users attempting to communicate with irc.vel.net to communicate with Cox's IRC server instead. What argument would you make that doing so doesn't breach the relationship between those users and irc.vel.net?
Lack of any privilege on the part of the third party to induce such a breach.
?
In other words, does Cox in its contract with the user have a reasonable right to come between the user and irc.vel.net in the manner that they did. This is the first element that is actually hard to prove.
Damage to the party against whom the breach occurs.
Plausible in the example above.
Frankly, this is the one that makes it a weak claim. I can't see how you'd make a case for monetary damage, which means the most you get in court is an injunction preventing Cox from further DNS tampering.
If you're inferring that the ISP's users are being caused harm by such a disruption then you're missing a KEY point. The users do NOT own said network,
Suggestion: Google "tortious interference," click the first link (its a nicely written Wikipedia article) and read. If you still think your "key point" makes any sense at all, come back and I'll explain why you're wrong.
"Tortious interference," is part of english common law roughly defined as the causing of harm by disrupting something that belongs to someone else. The original example was a guy who repeatedly drove ducks away from his neighbors' pond by firing a gun in the air on his own property.
So no, its not legal. But if you want to pursue it in court, you have only one of the weaker common-law torts to rely on.
Whenever someone brings it up, just point out that Alexa's demographic is restricted to non-technical users who click "yes" when their browser says, "That's a horrible idea. Are you really sure you want to do that?"
If the advertiser wants to reach technically adept users with a large disposable income, Alexa's numbers will not help them.
The idea of a 5-finger chording keyboard is not new. It features the same advantages to data input that shorthand offers writing.
The problem with the chording keyboard is the same as the problem with shorthand: its hard to learn and virtually useless until you've learned it well. A regular keyboard is as useful to a novice who visually hunts for each key as it is to a touch-typeist who never looks at the keyboard. The chording keyboard is thoroughly opaque to the novice and no one has found a way to make it useable without instruction.
Different experience with hotmail
on
Hotmail vs Goodmail
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I wrote to Hotmail in 2006 about their users missing our e-mails because of the filter blocking them as "spam", [...] they said they knew it wasn't spam, but they told me several times they would not even talk about unblocking it unless I paid the $1,400.
That's funny. I contacted Hotmail about an identical filtering issue, also in 2006. There was no mention dollars. They did want to make sure my list was opt-in. They also asked me to join a feedback loop where list messages that hotmail members mark as spam are stripped of their identifying information and returned so I can identify problems with my system where unintended recipients have slipped in.
I did find it difficult to get through to folks who could help, but once I reached those folks I found them to be cordial and helpful.
A software license is a contract. In the US, contracts codified in the UCC which has been passed in all 50 states although contracts' history goes all the way back to English common law. Were you under the impression that a software license was some unique device set up under the copyright statutes? Its not.
Outside of Maryland and Virginia (which passed UCITA before it stalled) there is no legal device by which someone in the US can be assumed to have accepted a contract. They either explicitly agree or they do not.
You have the gist of it, but its even simpler than that: If you don't agree to the proposed terms of a contract then there is no contract. Period. By explicitly stating that they don't accept the terms of GPL3, Microsoft avoids being bound by it. It really is just that simple.
They might conceivably through some twist of law end up infringing someone's copyright as a result but the remedies available in GPL3 won't be available to any author who sues... Only the statuatory and common law remedies will be available: injunctions and cash.
Copyrights versus physical property is a moot issue. The GPL is a CONTRACT and contract law under the UCC is the same for both. Pamela's analysis is that by distributing payment coupons for a third party's software which happens to be covered by a particular contract, Microsoft subjects themselves to the contract. This is false.
It is possible that Novell breaches the contract by redeeming those coupons, though that would be about as easy as writing an enforceable contract stipulating that a franchisee is only permitted to accept payment in Rubles. I sincerely hope the FSF didn't try to pull something like that; the GPL has no severability clause so if a court finds one of the terms unconscienable then its dead for everybody and all use of GPLed open source infringes the auhors' copyrights.
So now Microsoft has modified what you get with the vouchers, or tried to. Novell won't agree not to provide support for GPLv3 software, though, so that blunts the effectiveness of Microsoft's announcement and I must say thank you to Novell for that. I doubt Microsoft realistically thought Novell would stop supporting the software it sells. Microsoft just wanted to say, "Hey, it's not us doing that. We don't authorize or approve. We tried to stop it." And since Eben Moglen has pointed out that the vouchers have no cutoff date, Microsoft, by my analysis, still has to face what it will mean for them if even one such voucher is turned in after Novell begins to offer GPLv3 software.
This analysis is wrong. If Novell chooses to provide software and services beyond what is required by the voucher, Novell is free to do so. That choice is not in any way binding on Microsoft. This is no different than saying that a grocery store may choose to give me a free box of cereal in exchange for a 35 cent coupon. That store's choice does not in any way compel Kellogg's to give me more free Froot Loops.
My network monitoring system gives me a status board. The first thing I do is glance at the board to see if anything is red.
The second thing I do is ask the early guy if there is anything going on that I need to know about. I also ask about anything I noticed back when I checked my email before breakfast.
The third thing I do is plug in and boot my laptop.
Its not so much that computer science isn't related to math. Its more that CS students are assigned the wrong math courses.
Algebra is an obvious key to understanding computation. Discrete mathematics including probability and combinatorics tend to pop up in computing problems over a wide range of disciplines.
On the other hand, it would not be unfair to suggest that computing is more useful to calculus than calculus is to computer science. Continuous mathematics, like calculus, show up rarely if ever in most computer science specialties.
Fant also seems to be stuck on the word "algorithm." Computer scientists have a very different definition of an algorithm than mathematicians. LISP was the only moderately successful attempt to introduce computer scientists to the mathematical notion of an algorithm. I'll take the groans and dearth of hands raised to the question, "Is LISP your primary programming language?" as proof of just how little regard computer scienctists have for the mathematical notion of an algorithm.
I am not alone [...] in finding [80 columns] insufficient for coding, much less more verbose writing.
There's almost always an efficient way to break up the section of code so that it fits in 80 columns. Doing so sensibly will usually make the code easier to read and understand.
That was largely true back when it was 40 columns on a TV screen for the Atari and Commodore home computers as well.
Using more than 80 columns to express yourself just means you're not as clever a programmer as you think you are.
You misunderstand. The point of the lawsuit is to get a temporary injunction so they can't file anything with the credit bureaus until the matter is resolved. The law is unambiguous and credit card companies tend to avoid throwing good money after bad, so as soon as the matter leaves their billing department and enters their legal department, the whole thing will evaporate in a puff of smoke. All I have to do is make sure they can't do anything until then to hurt me.
Obviously I simplified for the sake of clarity. As you appear to need help filling in the blanks, I'll explain. The process goes something like this:
1. Get a new phone. Transfer the number. 2. Old provider accepts the transfer and closes the account with the early termination penalty. 3. Dispute the fee. (call #1-2) 4. Escalate the dispute to a supervisor. (call #3-4) 5. Request name and number of company's lawyer. (call #5) 6. Advise lawyer that contract is void due to material breach and provide initial documentation by postal mail (call #6) 7. Highly paid lawyer realizes anything other than dropping the matter will cost the company more than it will recover and instructs billing to cancel out the account. (call #7) 8. Verify credit ratings still intact (call #8-10) 9. The end.
I have not had to take on a cell phone carrier this way, but I did take on the local natural gas company when they misbilled and wouldn't fix it. That's much harder: there's no one else you can buy gas service from during the dispute. Yes, I won and yes, I still have natural gas service.
And if it didn't get resolved any time soon? Would you have just sucked up the $4000 charges?
If it was me, I'd have cancelled the credit card and if necessary taken them to court. My time is too valuable to make 25 calls a month every month for a year over the issue and credit card companies have a legal obligation to reverse charges on demand -without- determining whether the charges were valid.
Likewise, if a cell phone carrier couldn't get it right after the second month of 25 calls, I'd go buy one from another company and require the first to cancel without penalty. Anything which requires 50 calls over two months is an egregious breach of contract on their part which easily justifies early termination.
Any reasonable person would reach this conclusion.
I used to work for an ISP with about 18,000 customers. They had two or three jokers who made numerous calls to tech support every month asking for help with the same tasks. The callers were perfect gentlemen but unsurprisingly they only wanted to talk to the female support reps.
Clearly sprint is correct that they are, "unable to meet the current needs," of such customers.
The only "trick" is burning out the temperature sensors so it runs the fans faster without burning out anything else. You'd be better off just hotwiring the fans direct to the 12 volt supply so it can't attempt to moderate the fan speed.
Seriously, towel trick? You get the "I'm desperate and not too smart" award. I invented it today. Just for you.
It may be tied to a specific computer. Or a specific router / firewall. Or even a specific UNSECURED wireless access point. But it is NOT tied to a specific person.
This is a valid point. If they have not demonstrated that a particular IP address was assigned to a particular student then the subpoena should be quashed in favor of a subpoena asking the university to identify the character of the system associated with the IP address (student, shared server, etc.) Once the university specifies that a particular address was assigned to a single individual, they may proceed with the original subpoena.
Their second biggest mistake is claiming (without any evidence) that each file being "pirated" represents a lost sale.
That is irrelevant to the motion to quash the subpoena. That will be proven or not in the course of the case. For now its sufficient that they claim damage has occured. They don't have to try the case during the discovery phase; trying the case happens later after all the facts have been discovered.
Their third biggest mistake is that the machine with the IP address, that is associated with the "piracy" is 100% under the conscious, knowing control of the person who is being charged.
This is also irrelevant. For a subpoena its sufficient that it be assigned to a particular individual. There will be time later to argue whether or not the assigned user was in control of the equipment using that IP address, though this is certainly a worthwhile avenue to explore for the defense.
The reason why the Judge wanted Libby to go to jail NOW is to force the President to pardon him now. [...] You could also say this is a move by the Democrats to bring more bad press from Libby in any way they can.
You could say that, but you'd be wrong. Walton, the judge who ordered immediate prison, was appointed to the bench by Bush himself during his first term. If memory serves, two of the three appeals court judges were also Republican appointees, one considered the most conservative judge sitting on that circuit.
Slashdot Mirror
I've used a bunch of different crash carts and the best by far is the old standby AV cart with a monitor keyboard and mouse strapped to the top. Its cheap, it fits down the aisles and it has lots of convenient flat space on which to set tools, screws, cds and whatever else you need to solve the current problem.
- 23676--RUB9T28
http://www.eofficedirect.com/ProductDetails--895-
A judge can (and will!) strike various parts of the agreement if he finds them to be in conflict with either the law or the intent of the agreement.
No, he won't. The GPL deliberately omits the severability clause commonly found in contracts. This means that if any part of it is contrary to local law, the entire thing is void in that jurisdiction.
What a judge can do is clarify the contract. "I interpret this clause to mean X, not Y."
I notice you set up a straw man argument using tortious interference with a contract rather than the more applicable tortious interference with a business activity. No matter. Lets go ahead and go through the five elements again, shall we?
The existence of a [...] beneficial business relationship between two parties.
Tough to prove.
Trivial to prove: The individual who brought this complaint up had a longstanding relationship with irc.vel.net as a user of their service. That's why he noticed Cox was redirecting it in the first place.
Knowledge of that relationship by a third party.
Even tougher.
Trivial to prove. Cox redirected the DNS to a server which responded with the IRC protocol. They demonstrably understood that irc.vel.net was in the business of providing IRC service to individuals on Cox's network.
Intent of the third party to induce a party to the relationship to breach the relationship.
Questionable, at best.
It was indisputably Cox's intent to cause users attempting to communicate with irc.vel.net to communicate with Cox's IRC server instead. What argument would you make that doing so doesn't breach the relationship between those users and irc.vel.net?
Lack of any privilege on the part of the third party to induce such a breach.
?
In other words, does Cox in its contract with the user have a reasonable right to come between the user and irc.vel.net in the manner that they did. This is the first element that is actually hard to prove.
Damage to the party against whom the breach occurs.
Plausible in the example above.
Frankly, this is the one that makes it a weak claim. I can't see how you'd make a case for monetary damage, which means the most you get in court is an injunction preventing Cox from further DNS tampering.
If you're inferring that the ISP's users are being caused harm by such a disruption then you're missing a KEY point. The users do NOT own said network,
Suggestion: Google "tortious interference," click the first link (its a nicely written Wikipedia article) and read. If you still think your "key point" makes any sense at all, come back and I'll explain why you're wrong.
Is hijacking DNS legal?
"Tortious interference," is part of english common law roughly defined as the causing of harm by disrupting something that belongs to someone else. The original example was a guy who repeatedly drove ducks away from his neighbors' pond by firing a gun in the air on his own property.
So no, its not legal. But if you want to pursue it in court, you have only one of the weaker common-law torts to rely on.
Whenever someone brings it up, just point out that Alexa's demographic is restricted to non-technical users who click "yes" when their browser says, "That's a horrible idea. Are you really sure you want to do that?"
If the advertiser wants to reach technically adept users with a large disposable income, Alexa's numbers will not help them.
The idea of a 5-finger chording keyboard is not new. It features the same advantages to data input that shorthand offers writing.
The problem with the chording keyboard is the same as the problem with shorthand: its hard to learn and virtually useless until you've learned it well. A regular keyboard is as useful to a novice who visually hunts for each key as it is to a touch-typeist who never looks at the keyboard. The chording keyboard is thoroughly opaque to the novice and no one has found a way to make it useable without instruction.
there's one obvious thing [Microsoft] can do to help protect users: offer to buy up the security vulnerabilities themselves.
Sure, because the way to keep folks off your lawn is to erect a fortress and then reward anyone who breaches it with cash.
Making a false claim under the DMCA is PERJURY. It's a criminal offense.
Wake me up the first time someone is convicted of perjury for making a false DMCA claim. Its not real until the prosecutors, well, prosecute it.
Click on my web site and email me.
I wrote to Hotmail in 2006 about their users missing our e-mails because of the filter blocking them as "spam", [...] they said they knew it wasn't spam, but they told me several times they would not even talk about unblocking it unless I paid the $1,400.
That's funny. I contacted Hotmail about an identical filtering issue, also in 2006. There was no mention dollars. They did want to make sure my list was opt-in. They also asked me to join a feedback loop where list messages that hotmail members mark as spam are stripped of their identifying information and returned so I can identify problems with my system where unintended recipients have slipped in.
I did find it difficult to get through to folks who could help, but once I reached those folks I found them to be cordial and helpful.
A software license is a contract. In the US, contracts codified in the UCC which has been passed in all 50 states although contracts' history goes all the way back to English common law. Were you under the impression that a software license was some unique device set up under the copyright statutes? Its not.
Outside of Maryland and Virginia (which passed UCITA before it stalled) there is no legal device by which someone in the US can be assumed to have accepted a contract. They either explicitly agree or they do not.
You have the gist of it, but its even simpler than that: If you don't agree to the proposed terms of a contract then there is no contract. Period. By explicitly stating that they don't accept the terms of GPL3, Microsoft avoids being bound by it. It really is just that simple.
They might conceivably through some twist of law end up infringing someone's copyright as a result but the remedies available in GPL3 won't be available to any author who sues... Only the statuatory and common law remedies will be available: injunctions and cash.
Copyrights versus physical property is a moot issue. The GPL is a CONTRACT and contract law under the UCC is the same for both. Pamela's analysis is that by distributing payment coupons for a third party's software which happens to be covered by a particular contract, Microsoft subjects themselves to the contract. This is false.
It is possible that Novell breaches the contract by redeeming those coupons, though that would be about as easy as writing an enforceable contract stipulating that a franchisee is only permitted to accept payment in Rubles. I sincerely hope the FSF didn't try to pull something like that; the GPL has no severability clause so if a court finds one of the terms unconscienable then its dead for everybody and all use of GPLed open source infringes the auhors' copyrights.
So now Microsoft has modified what you get with the vouchers, or tried to. Novell won't agree not to provide support for GPLv3 software, though, so that blunts the effectiveness of Microsoft's announcement and I must say thank you to Novell for that. I doubt Microsoft realistically thought Novell would stop supporting the software it sells. Microsoft just wanted to say, "Hey, it's not us doing that. We don't authorize or approve. We tried to stop it." And since Eben Moglen has pointed out that the vouchers have no cutoff date, Microsoft, by my analysis, still has to face what it will mean for them if even one such voucher is turned in after Novell begins to offer GPLv3 software.
This analysis is wrong. If Novell chooses to provide software and services beyond what is required by the voucher, Novell is free to do so. That choice is not in any way binding on Microsoft. This is no different than saying that a grocery store may choose to give me a free box of cereal in exchange for a 35 cent coupon. That store's choice does not in any way compel Kellogg's to give me more free Froot Loops.
My network monitoring system gives me a status board. The first thing I do is glance at the board to see if anything is red.
The second thing I do is ask the early guy if there is anything going on that I need to know about. I also ask about anything I noticed back when I checked my email before breakfast.
The third thing I do is plug in and boot my laptop.
Its not so much that computer science isn't related to math. Its more that CS students are assigned the wrong math courses.
Algebra is an obvious key to understanding computation. Discrete mathematics including probability and combinatorics tend to pop up in computing problems over a wide range of disciplines.
On the other hand, it would not be unfair to suggest that computing is more useful to calculus than calculus is to computer science. Continuous mathematics, like calculus, show up rarely if ever in most computer science specialties.
Fant also seems to be stuck on the word "algorithm." Computer scientists have a very different definition of an algorithm than mathematicians. LISP was the only moderately successful attempt to introduce computer scientists to the mathematical notion of an algorithm. I'll take the groans and dearth of hands raised to the question, "Is LISP your primary programming language?" as proof of just how little regard computer scienctists have for the mathematical notion of an algorithm.
I am not alone [...] in finding [80 columns] insufficient for coding, much less more verbose writing.
There's almost always an efficient way to break up the section of code so that it fits in 80 columns. Doing so sensibly will usually make the code easier to read and understand.
That was largely true back when it was 40 columns on a TV screen for the Atari and Commodore home computers as well.
Using more than 80 columns to express yourself just means you're not as clever a programmer as you think you are.
You misunderstand. The point of the lawsuit is to get a temporary injunction so they can't file anything with the credit bureaus until the matter is resolved. The law is unambiguous and credit card companies tend to avoid throwing good money after bad, so as soon as the matter leaves their billing department and enters their legal department, the whole thing will evaporate in a puff of smoke. All I have to do is make sure they can't do anything until then to hurt me.
Obviously I simplified for the sake of clarity. As you appear to need help filling in the blanks, I'll explain. The process goes something like this:
1. Get a new phone. Transfer the number.
2. Old provider accepts the transfer and closes the account with the early termination penalty.
3. Dispute the fee. (call #1-2)
4. Escalate the dispute to a supervisor. (call #3-4)
5. Request name and number of company's lawyer. (call #5)
6. Advise lawyer that contract is void due to material breach and provide initial documentation by postal mail (call #6)
7. Highly paid lawyer realizes anything other than dropping the matter will cost the company more than it will recover and instructs billing to cancel out the account. (call #7)
8. Verify credit ratings still intact (call #8-10)
9. The end.
I have not had to take on a cell phone carrier this way, but I did take on the local natural gas company when they misbilled and wouldn't fix it. That's much harder: there's no one else you can buy gas service from during the dispute. Yes, I won and yes, I still have natural gas service.
And if it didn't get resolved any time soon? Would you have just sucked up the $4000 charges?
If it was me, I'd have cancelled the credit card and if necessary taken them to court. My time is too valuable to make 25 calls a month every month for a year over the issue and credit card companies have a legal obligation to reverse charges on demand -without- determining whether the charges were valid.
Likewise, if a cell phone carrier couldn't get it right after the second month of 25 calls, I'd go buy one from another company and require the first to cancel without penalty. Anything which requires 50 calls over two months is an egregious breach of contract on their part which easily justifies early termination.
Any reasonable person would reach this conclusion.
I used to work for an ISP with about 18,000 customers. They had two or three jokers who made numerous calls to tech support every month asking for help with the same tasks. The callers were perfect gentlemen but unsurprisingly they only wanted to talk to the female support reps.
Clearly sprint is correct that they are, "unable to meet the current needs," of such customers.
I attempted the towel trick to fix it
The only "trick" is burning out the temperature sensors so it runs the fans faster without burning out anything else. You'd be better off just hotwiring the fans direct to the 12 volt supply so it can't attempt to moderate the fan speed.
Seriously, towel trick? You get the "I'm desperate and not too smart" award. I invented it today. Just for you.
It may be tied to a specific computer. Or a specific router / firewall. Or even a specific UNSECURED wireless access point. But it is NOT tied to a specific person.
This is a valid point. If they have not demonstrated that a particular IP address was assigned to a particular student then the subpoena should be quashed in favor of a subpoena asking the university to identify the character of the system associated with the IP address (student, shared server, etc.) Once the university specifies that a particular address was assigned to a single individual, they may proceed with the original subpoena.
Their second biggest mistake is claiming (without any evidence) that each file being "pirated" represents a lost sale.
That is irrelevant to the motion to quash the subpoena. That will be proven or not in the course of the case. For now its sufficient that they claim damage has occured. They don't have to try the case during the discovery phase; trying the case happens later after all the facts have been discovered.
Their third biggest mistake is that the machine with the IP address, that is associated with the "piracy" is 100% under the conscious, knowing control of the person who is being charged.
This is also irrelevant. For a subpoena its sufficient that it be assigned to a particular individual. There will be time later to argue whether or not the assigned user was in control of the equipment using that IP address, though this is certainly a worthwhile avenue to explore for the defense.
The reason why the Judge wanted Libby to go to jail NOW is to force the President to pardon him now. [...] You could also say this is a move by the Democrats to bring more bad press from Libby in any way they can.
You could say that, but you'd be wrong. Walton, the judge who ordered immediate prison, was appointed to the bench by Bush himself during his first term. If memory serves, two of the three appeals court judges were also Republican appointees, one considered the most conservative judge sitting on that circuit.
From http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
What if the work is not much longer than the license itself?
If a single program is that short, you may as well use a simple all-permissive license for it, rather than the GNU GPL.
Hey, that's not nice! Some pretty remarkable software has been written on T-Shirts that are much shorted than the GPL.