Indeed. However it's even more disingenuous (or perhaps even downright arrogant) to ask the court to set a price, but suggest that they don't wish to be bound by it, and only wish Motorola to be bound by it as a maximum. In fact, this inability of the court to set a binding judgement based on Apple's case seems to have been a big part of why the case was dismissed.
When only the extremes vote, you end up with extreme representatives.
Also, it's hard to claim a government is truly representative when only 40-60% of the populace voted for it (This btw is also an argument against FTTP voting)
Make voting compulsory and the issues around disenfranchisement we hear a lot about the US over here (The poor and voting, usually), mostly go away. And hey, if forced speech is an issue, there's nothing saying you have to actually vote *valid* if you don't want to. You can scrawl "Donald Duck" on a ballot or just screw it up and throw it in the bin (or the electronic equivalent)
Apple’s request is rooted in Motorola’s contracts with ETSI and IEEE to offer its essential patents on FRAND terms. Dkt. No. 194 (Summary Judgment Order of Aug. 10, 2012) at 46. Motorola’s commitment to the SSOs does not create a contractual obligation on Apple to accept the rate that Motorola offers, let alone to blindly accept any such offer and write a blank check before it even knows exactly what that offer is. The Court should therefore determine whether Motorola was required to offer the particular rate to Apple, not whether Apple had to accept that rate....
D. Although It Is Not So Obligated, Apple Is Willing To Pay the FRAND Rate of Not More Than $1 Per Unit Going Forward
Apple has publicly spoken about the necessity for setting a rational and reciprocal framework for assessing the FRAND rate on wireless declared standards-essential portfolios. In fact, Apple has been a leader in adhering to FRAND policies for licensing cellular standards-essential patents on rates proportional to the share of standards patents and on common bases that actually embody the standardized technology. Apple’s litigation conduct has been fully consistent with its public statements regarding the proper approach to evaluating the FRAND rate. And as an industry leader, Apple conducts itself responsibly and owns up to its own public statements.
Although Apple does not believe that Motorola may now seek an order compelling Apple to pay the rate this Court sets, Apple would be willing to pay a Court-ordered FRAND rate of less than or equal to $1 per covered product on the going-forward basis. This is the rate that Apple believes is appropriate in these circumstances for Motorola’s portfolio of cellular and WiFi essential patents. It is also consistent with the reasoned framework Apple has publicly articulated, and the only rate that can be supported by the evidence at this trial. Because neither party is asking this Court to draft a fully executable cross-license with all the necessary terms, Apple does expect that further negotiation will need to take place before the parties actually come to an agreement, covering topics such as the FRAND value of Apple’s cross-license, the role of Apple’s existing license to Motorola’s portfolio through Qualcomm, and the treatment of past sales.
Generally the tone here is "Give us something less than $1 and we'll *think* about paying that. Anything else, forget about it"
Actually you're probably on the money here. It's all Offices' fault.
Why?
Because the only reason the desktop stack exists on Windows RT is to support Office, because the Office team couldn't get their sh.. together fast enough to natively metro-ize Office (alternatively, because they couldn't think of a sane way to natively metro-ize Office. Take your pick)
So that means along with all the Metro UI stuff, they now have to lug along a full explorer & shell32 desktop environment and supporting apps, just to make one app work. If you dropped office and everything needed to support only Office from RT, I suspect you'd easily cut that 13GB figure in half, if not more.
(Yes, technically office is several apps, but given it's a bundle and a "feature" in its own right, it might as well be considered one app from a product point of view)
If is impossible to get a representative sample or voters because no one knows who is going to vote on the day
See - this problem goes away if voting is compulsory. The census bureau tells you what the demographics of the general population are, and you poll to that. We here in Oz figured that out a looong time ago;)
Seriously though - the US now has a law essentially making taking out health insurance mandatory (with caveats) but it won't pass a law making voting mandatory...?
What letter of the law did they not follow? They had a link, they had the statements required, in 14 pt font.
They actually put it in 14px font, which is not the same as 14pt (usually anyway). It's smaller.
They significantly twisted the court-proposed wording, substantially changing the implied meaning
They also designed the front page so that no matter how big your monitor, the "hero" image would resize to push the link to the notice off the bottom of the page. It could be argued that this in fact means in a sense it is no longer on the front page (where a page is defined as visual division of the page into large logical units)
Also From other recent news events (From the US, like the content lobby (**AA), patent industry and absurd anticompetitiveness accusations) Google should probably eliminate anything and all things American [US] from its search results. Let those crazy people go.
Just a point - if all you need is a one-liner, then the news sites are wasting their time with you. An RSS feed, a news ticker on TV, walking past a newsstand, or even word of mouth would be all it takes for you to get your news, in which case the papers probably wouldn't have generated any income from you had there been no Google News anyway. So either you're not the target of this issue, or the newspapers are trying to find a way to suck down money from Google that they would not have previously been entitled to.
And that assumes both instant changes (babies, especially boys, can cause a change to turn into a major deal if they choose the wrong moment and targeting for urination) and that you can get them to go to sleep straight after feeding... It's not uncommon to have a hard-to-settle baby so mum (or dad, if using formula or expressed breast milk) is stuck with maaaaaybe 40-90min breaks. In which not only sleeping but housework, personal and baby's hygiene, parental feeding and ablutions, obtaining of provisions and potentially even work must be squeezed in.
<said with sandpaper eyes after 11 weeks of this as the working dad>
I'm told it gets better though...
You used to be Libertarian, so given you can see both sides of the fence, perhaps you can answer a genuine question from a non-USian:
The concept of the "legal person" used by business corporations (and other entities) purely exists by government fiat. As it is a government-created status, the government necessarily must set conditions under which it exists. This implies some level of regulation of incorporated entities, of which business corporations are definitely the most prominent, and probably the most numerous
The use of the "legal person" fiction has allowed the large super-corporations we see today to exist, and indeed could be seen to have driven the success of the capitalist model to some degree thanks to its insulation of people from the failures (both financial and legal) of their businesses.
Given the Liberian stance against business regulation, and a general dependency on responsibility to ensure self-regulation, would Libertarians generally feel that the "legal person" fiction should be removed as a large source of regulations and as a means to reinforce direct responsibility?
If so, would the potential economic impact of such a move be considered problematic?
Personally, I'd guess that such a move would potentially result in drastic changes in the structure of the economy, and may even introduce significant uncertainty in predicting the outcome of a libertarian model.
However, given what I've read on Libertarianism and from conversations with people I cannot see how the "legal person" fiction is compatible with it.
Just run the phone number equivalent of a blacklist directory. Exempt such directories from any legal liability, and just make it compulsory for telcos to provide (as an opt-in service) call filtering based on the blacklisting.
The carriers always know the calling number even if the caller id is blocked, so it should work if done at the exchange.
Alternatively, someone could throw together a little telephony device (or app in the case of smartphones) that sits in between the phone and the wall socket and queries public blacklists based on caller ID, and screens out anonymous calls.
I'm going to assume that you have made up your mind (and have the business owner/manager's agreement) that you want to avoid Windows/Exchange if you can, and you want to keep everything in-house for a reason (as opposed to cloud/hosted arrangements).
Firstly, stop using your Windows SBS installation as a virtualization host. Set up a new box running a dedicated hypervisor (vmware, windows, linux, whatever you're more comfortable with) and either use that or use it as a staging box to virtualize the existing SBS server.
Second, if you want to use a non-exchange groupware platform, test. This is a business, so the first groupware solution you find isn't always going to be the best. Install SOGo, Zimbra, Citadel, Kerio, etc on different VMs and determine if they'll meet the business's needs. Once you've narrowed the field down to a couple, get buy-in from other people in the business - get them to have a play and see how they deal with it.
Once you've decided on the groupware platform, blow it away and rebuild it. Do NOT use your experimenting environment in production. In fact, rebuild it through several iterations of testing. It will ensure you're very familiar with it. Document while you go, too. One day you won't be there, and someone might need that documentation.
Finally, pilot the system running in parallel to your existing arrangements (on a second domain for example) for a while before going live, to get out any remaining issues.
Always ensure the most important and "loudest" people who'll need to use the system have buy-in before going live, too.
As for products, SOGo is nice but you need to know what you're doing to run it properly. Other solutions are less-intensive, but can be correspondingly less flexible. Kerio's nice and straightforward for instance but has a number of known gotchas to be careful of. All depends on your skills and available time, and what the business actually needs.
Next.
Phones are probably the most important thing in a business. Not only are they the usual first port of call for customers and suppliers, but there's usually legal requirements here too. Don't put a system in place that you and management are not 100% happy with. Run comparison trials the Test. Test again. Test again. Run LONG pilot programs (months). Get rigorous specifications on how it needs to work (call groups/queues, menus, extension numbering schemes etc) from relevant people, then get them to confirm those specs. If that phone system plays up blame will come down on you hard.
Basically the same rules apply here as with groupware - experiment phase, shortlisting, expanded experiments, testing, pilot, implementation, with rebuilds and documentation at every step, and full buy-in from those who'd complain if it broke.
Anything *can* work for you here - raw homespun Asterisk, AsteriskNow!, Asterisk in a flash, trixbox, or other packaged non-asterisk solutions. Depends again on you and on the business.
I hope that doesn't scare you off though. It's a rewarding pursuit and once done, if done properly, can last the business years (for groupware) or decades (for phones), and can save them a lot of money after your time investment.
Actually from a quick google it looks like the term comes from Scottish Gaelic dialects.
I'm not going to bother linking because it was the first 5 results for kerfuffle:)
Well they do basically ask if you're a terrorist in the border entry paperwork/visa application...
(I forget the exact phrasing now, but I remember wondering if anyone who would answer yes there would be dumb enough to)
On the other hand, the EU has had a hard time finding a position on software patents, and the key difference is that copyright is automatic, patents have a specific set of conditions to be granted and go through a review process (even if it's not a terribly *good* review process)
Permitting the *automatic* granting of monopolies on ideas would be a disaster
Any heavy number-crunching will suffer from being virtualized.
I've not seen any hard numbers (that I can remember) but given userspace code runs directly on the CPU, with hardware-assisted memory translation, in most modern hypervisors - I'm not sure why this would be the case?
The problem with the "Pick a representative based on the [realistic] choices available at election time" method is that you're forced to vote for someone who has a wide range of positions, some of which you may agree with, and some not so much. Unfortunately once elected representatives tend to assume they have approval for their whole platform, and anything else they may decide on later in their term, and act as such. Then by the time the next election rolls round they've spent 6-12 months appeasing people ready for the next election, and everyone's forgotten.
This is especially apparent with Australia's preferential voting system, which is designed to essentially give people the representative everyone hates least, rather than that the most people want. [As an aside this does seem to force the parties to get closer and closer on platform however - as everyone aims for the most central ground where they're most likely to be "least hated", especially given compulsory voting]
Yes I know the article's about the US.
The representative's job IMHO is/should be to represent the electorate - essentially do as he's told, and yes do some legwork interpreting laws and communication that interpretation back to their constituency. The representative therefore is a replaceable civil servant - the electoral process is in turn then just a method to ensure that the constituency control the representative and not the other way around.
In that light going back to the electorate to determine voting decisions seems like a great idea for a representative, as long as measures are taken to ensure fair representation occurs.
Perhaps we need a (working, not theoretical) FOSS platform for secure, anonymous, one-time-per-person polling? I've had a look around previously and haven't been able to find anything that's actually open and available now... any suggestions folks?
Slashdot Mirror
Copyright owners have been telling us for years that we dont own our software/music/movies, only a license to them...
Indeed. However it's even more disingenuous (or perhaps even downright arrogant) to ask the court to set a price, but suggest that they don't wish to be bound by it, and only wish Motorola to be bound by it as a maximum. In fact, this inability of the court to set a binding judgement based on Apple's case seems to have been a big part of why the case was dismissed.
When only the extremes vote, you end up with extreme representatives.
Also, it's hard to claim a government is truly representative when only 40-60% of the populace voted for it (This btw is also an argument against FTTP voting)
Make voting compulsory and the issues around disenfranchisement we hear a lot about the US over here (The poor and voting, usually), mostly go away. And hey, if forced speech is an issue, there's nothing saying you have to actually vote *valid* if you don't want to. You can scrawl "Donald Duck" on a ballot or just screw it up and throw it in the bin (or the electronic equivalent)
Apple’s request is rooted in Motorola’s contracts with ETSI and IEEE to offer its essential patents on FRAND terms. Dkt. No. 194 (Summary Judgment Order of Aug. 10, 2012) at 46. Motorola’s commitment to the SSOs does not create a contractual obligation on Apple to accept the rate that Motorola offers, let alone to blindly accept any such offer and write a blank check before it even knows exactly what that offer is. The Court should therefore determine whether Motorola was required to offer the particular rate to Apple, not whether Apple had to accept that rate....
D. Although It Is Not So Obligated, Apple Is Willing To Pay the FRAND Rate of Not More Than $1 Per Unit Going Forward
Apple has publicly spoken about the necessity for setting a rational and reciprocal framework for assessing the FRAND rate on wireless declared standards-essential portfolios. In fact, Apple has been a leader in adhering to FRAND policies for licensing cellular standards-essential patents on rates proportional to the share of standards patents and on common bases that actually embody the standardized technology. Apple’s litigation conduct has been fully consistent with its public statements regarding the proper approach to evaluating the FRAND rate. And as an industry leader, Apple conducts itself responsibly and owns up to its own public statements.
Although Apple does not believe that Motorola may now seek an order compelling Apple to pay the rate this Court sets, Apple would be willing to pay a Court-ordered FRAND rate of less than or equal to $1 per covered product on the going-forward basis. This is the rate that Apple believes is appropriate in these circumstances for Motorola’s portfolio of cellular and WiFi essential patents. It is also consistent with the reasoned framework Apple has publicly articulated, and the only rate that can be supported by the evidence at this trial. Because neither party is asking this Court to draft a fully executable cross-license with all the necessary terms, Apple does expect that further negotiation will need to take place before the parties actually come to an agreement, covering topics such as the FRAND value of Apple’s cross-license, the role of Apple’s existing license to Motorola’s portfolio through Qualcomm, and the treatment of past sales.
Generally the tone here is "Give us something less than $1 and we'll *think* about paying that. Anything else, forget about it"
Actually you're probably on the money here. It's all Offices' fault.
Why?
Because the only reason the desktop stack exists on Windows RT is to support Office, because the Office team couldn't get their sh.. together fast enough to natively metro-ize Office (alternatively, because they couldn't think of a sane way to natively metro-ize Office. Take your pick)
So that means along with all the Metro UI stuff, they now have to lug along a full explorer & shell32 desktop environment and supporting apps, just to make one app work. If you dropped office and everything needed to support only Office from RT, I suspect you'd easily cut that 13GB figure in half, if not more.
(Yes, technically office is several apps, but given it's a bundle and a "feature" in its own right, it might as well be considered one app from a product point of view)
If is impossible to get a representative sample or voters because no one knows who is going to vote on the day
See - this problem goes away if voting is compulsory. The census bureau tells you what the demographics of the general population are, and you poll to that. We here in Oz figured that out a looong time ago ;)
Seriously though - the US now has a law essentially making taking out health insurance mandatory (with caveats) but it won't pass a law making voting mandatory...?
What letter of the law did they not follow? They had a link, they had the statements required, in 14 pt font.
They actually put it in 14px font, which is not the same as 14pt (usually anyway). It's smaller.
They significantly twisted the court-proposed wording, substantially changing the implied meaning
They also designed the front page so that no matter how big your monitor, the "hero" image would resize to push the link to the notice off the bottom of the page. It could be argued that this in fact means in a sense it is no longer on the front page (where a page is defined as visual division of the page into large logical units)
Apple tried to get smart and it backfired.
Also From other recent news events (From the US, like the content lobby (**AA), patent industry and absurd anticompetitiveness accusations) Google should probably eliminate anything and all things American [US] from its search results. Let those crazy people go.
Just a point - if all you need is a one-liner, then the news sites are wasting their time with you. An RSS feed, a news ticker on TV, walking past a newsstand, or even word of mouth would be all it takes for you to get your news, in which case the papers probably wouldn't have generated any income from you had there been no Google News anyway. So either you're not the target of this issue, or the newspapers are trying to find a way to suck down money from Google that they would not have previously been entitled to.
More the targeting for boys. From the change table they can happily cover you, or the stack of clean nappies, or their ear... or all of the above :)
And that assumes both instant changes (babies, especially boys, can cause a change to turn into a major deal if they choose the wrong moment and targeting for urination) and that you can get them to go to sleep straight after feeding... It's not uncommon to have a hard-to-settle baby so mum (or dad, if using formula or expressed breast milk) is stuck with maaaaaybe 40-90min breaks. In which not only sleeping but housework, personal and baby's hygiene, parental feeding and ablutions, obtaining of provisions and potentially even work must be squeezed in.
<said with sandpaper eyes after 11 weeks of this as the working dad>
I'm told it gets better though...
Incidentally, I know TFA is Canada-related not USA, but from over here Libertarianism is something strongly associated with the US :)
You used to be Libertarian, so given you can see both sides of the fence, perhaps you can answer a genuine question from a non-USian:
The concept of the "legal person" used by business corporations (and other entities) purely exists by government fiat. As it is a government-created status, the government necessarily must set conditions under which it exists. This implies some level of regulation of incorporated entities, of which business corporations are definitely the most prominent, and probably the most numerous
The use of the "legal person" fiction has allowed the large super-corporations we see today to exist, and indeed could be seen to have driven the success of the capitalist model to some degree thanks to its insulation of people from the failures (both financial and legal) of their businesses.
Given the Liberian stance against business regulation, and a general dependency on responsibility to ensure self-regulation, would Libertarians generally feel that the "legal person" fiction should be removed as a large source of regulations and as a means to reinforce direct responsibility?
If so, would the potential economic impact of such a move be considered problematic?
Personally, I'd guess that such a move would potentially result in drastic changes in the structure of the economy, and may even introduce significant uncertainty in predicting the outcome of a libertarian model.
However, given what I've read on Libertarianism and from conversations with people I cannot see how the "legal person" fiction is compatible with it.
Just run the phone number equivalent of a blacklist directory. Exempt such directories from any legal liability, and just make it compulsory for telcos to provide (as an opt-in service) call filtering based on the blacklisting.
The carriers always know the calling number even if the caller id is blocked, so it should work if done at the exchange.
Alternatively, someone could throw together a little telephony device (or app in the case of smartphones) that sits in between the phone and the wall socket and queries public blacklists based on caller ID, and screens out anonymous calls.
Not that hard surely?
I'm going to assume that you have made up your mind (and have the business owner/manager's agreement) that you want to avoid Windows/Exchange if you can, and you want to keep everything in-house for a reason (as opposed to cloud/hosted arrangements).
Firstly, stop using your Windows SBS installation as a virtualization host. Set up a new box running a dedicated hypervisor (vmware, windows, linux, whatever you're more comfortable with) and either use that or use it as a staging box to virtualize the existing SBS server.
Second, if you want to use a non-exchange groupware platform, test. This is a business, so the first groupware solution you find isn't always going to be the best. Install SOGo, Zimbra, Citadel, Kerio, etc on different VMs and determine if they'll meet the business's needs. Once you've narrowed the field down to a couple, get buy-in from other people in the business - get them to have a play and see how they deal with it.
Once you've decided on the groupware platform, blow it away and rebuild it. Do NOT use your experimenting environment in production. In fact, rebuild it through several iterations of testing. It will ensure you're very familiar with it. Document while you go, too. One day you won't be there, and someone might need that documentation.
Finally, pilot the system running in parallel to your existing arrangements (on a second domain for example) for a while before going live, to get out any remaining issues.
Always ensure the most important and "loudest" people who'll need to use the system have buy-in before going live, too.
As for products, SOGo is nice but you need to know what you're doing to run it properly. Other solutions are less-intensive, but can be correspondingly less flexible. Kerio's nice and straightforward for instance but has a number of known gotchas to be careful of. All depends on your skills and available time, and what the business actually needs.
Next.
Phones are probably the most important thing in a business. Not only are they the usual first port of call for customers and suppliers, but there's usually legal requirements here too. Don't put a system in place that you and management are not 100% happy with. Run comparison trials the Test. Test again. Test again. Run LONG pilot programs (months). Get rigorous specifications on how it needs to work (call groups/queues, menus, extension numbering schemes etc) from relevant people, then get them to confirm those specs. If that phone system plays up blame will come down on you hard.
Basically the same rules apply here as with groupware - experiment phase, shortlisting, expanded experiments, testing, pilot, implementation, with rebuilds and documentation at every step, and full buy-in from those who'd complain if it broke.
Anything *can* work for you here - raw homespun Asterisk, AsteriskNow!, Asterisk in a flash, trixbox, or other packaged non-asterisk solutions. Depends again on you and on the business.
I hope that doesn't scare you off though. It's a rewarding pursuit and once done, if done properly, can last the business years (for groupware) or decades (for phones), and can save them a lot of money after your time investment.
Actually from a quick google it looks like the term comes from Scottish Gaelic dialects. :)
I'm not going to bother linking because it was the first 5 results for kerfuffle
Well they do basically ask if you're a terrorist in the border entry paperwork/visa application...
(I forget the exact phrasing now, but I remember wondering if anyone who would answer yes there would be dumb enough to)
Or of course if disk, network or almost any other external I/O is involved
Non-E3 Xeons?
On the other hand, the EU has had a hard time finding a position on software patents, and the key difference is that copyright is automatic, patents have a specific set of conditions to be granted and go through a review process (even if it's not a terribly *good* review process)
Permitting the *automatic* granting of monopolies on ideas would be a disaster
The only limitations for x86 virtualization are proprietary cards, clock skew and overhead (not an issue for 95% of cases).
And the proprietary cards thing can often be worked around with PCI passthrough technologies these days.
In which case the answer is either more fibre ports or changed storage design, no?
Any heavy number-crunching will suffer from being virtualized.
I've not seen any hard numbers (that I can remember) but given userspace code runs directly on the CPU, with hardware-assisted memory translation, in most modern hypervisors - I'm not sure why this would be the case?
VMware ESXi is actually a supported guest for VMware Workstation...
Whilst that may sound crazy, it makes system design, testing, and generally skilling up a lot easier.
The problem with the "Pick a representative based on the [realistic] choices available at election time" method is that you're forced to vote for someone who has a wide range of positions, some of which you may agree with, and some not so much. Unfortunately once elected representatives tend to assume they have approval for their whole platform, and anything else they may decide on later in their term, and act as such. Then by the time the next election rolls round they've spent 6-12 months appeasing people ready for the next election, and everyone's forgotten.
This is especially apparent with Australia's preferential voting system, which is designed to essentially give people the representative everyone hates least, rather than that the most people want. [As an aside this does seem to force the parties to get closer and closer on platform however - as everyone aims for the most central ground where they're most likely to be "least hated", especially given compulsory voting]
Yes I know the article's about the US.
The representative's job IMHO is/should be to represent the electorate - essentially do as he's told, and yes do some legwork interpreting laws and communication that interpretation back to their constituency. The representative therefore is a replaceable civil servant - the electoral process is in turn then just a method to ensure that the constituency control the representative and not the other way around.
In that light going back to the electorate to determine voting decisions seems like a great idea for a representative, as long as measures are taken to ensure fair representation occurs.
Perhaps we need a (working, not theoretical) FOSS platform for secure, anonymous, one-time-per-person polling? I've had a look around previously and haven't been able to find anything that's actually open and available now... any suggestions folks?