All we need now is for Andrew Schlafly and his Conservapedia to welcome those scorned by Wikipedia to come to them. Should go nicely with their other crap (see evolution, global warming, anything related to Obama and just about everything else near and dear to the far-right).
This. Focus on what they need to know for this decision. The part part about proprietary vs open source? ONLY if you're considering a proprietary package and an open source package. If they think you are wasting their time, they will tune you out and you will all be wasting your time.
And sgroyle, this really just look like a cheap grab at publicity for your books. You seriously need to update your blog with an apology at least to Kobo and probably to WHSmith.
There was a post on the Kobo boards where someone contacted Kobo about this. Apparently there was a known problem on the WHSmith website where it would show the books as having DRM. When they'd go to Kobo to actually DL the books it would be DRM free. Just looked at the books on WHSmith's website and getting a different format availability than the OP's blog - Format Availability: epub. Apparently they've fixed the bug.
Go to a store and you'll generally see competing products next to each other and that's okay. But try to do something similar on-line? Horror! Unfair! Must file lawsuit! It's become our culture but the practice of suing for anything and everything has become utterly ridiculous in the last decade or so.
Yawn. The linked "article" is just a press-release from a fringe candidate. I'll be impressed if I see a mainstream candidate saying something like this and it's not just in a press-release.
Bungie didn't make Tribes, that was Dynamix (at least for the versions that were worth a damn). Before Halo, Bungie's big games were Marathon and Myth.
Nope! No drawbacks here. Why would the headline be written in anything other than pure, positive spin? Especially since this was probably posted from a chipped car with big brother watching quite carefully for any accidents, traffic or wrong thoughts.
Isn't this the way it should be working? Allocate X dollars to group. Group really needs X + Y dollars to do everything they want so they create a group to review all the projects and allocate the dollars. If you don't have enough funding, programs WILL be cut or scaled back. Save program A and program B is cut, which costs jobs around program B. Congrats though, program A's jobs are intact.
Prioritization sucks but if you don't have all the funding you need you have to make the call at some point. Having a (theoretically neutral) group review everything and make the call is better than having Congress make the decisions for you. And yeah, it would be much better for everyone if there was enough funding, that's the easy way out of this dilemma.
"1) Transparency. If an opponent is making a claim against you then be transparent about the issue and prove them wrong. Allow an independent body to investigate and verify your taxes or whatever is in question."
Congrats - utterly ineffective. Candidate A releases a claim shortly before the election about Candidate B. Claim is false, but has JUST enough plausibility to get it through libel laws. Claim affects the election because you can't prove it false in time. Yup, happens now quite often and one of the most effective dirty tricks out there. Transparency is a great way to make someone feel better... after the fact and rarely makes up for the damage done.
The appeal court decision mentioned that the original request was for some 26k. Personally, I think the fine is intended as a "wake up" slap. The nice part of the sanction is #2. He's been bad and now potentially lots of other courts will know about it and be able to check if he's pulling the same stunt again. And usually subsequent sanctions get harsher.
From the ruling, "the court imposed $10,000 in sanctions on Stone and also required the following: 1) Stone shall serve a copy of this Order on each ISP implicated and to every person or entity with whom he communicated for any purpose in these proceedings. 2) Stone shall file a copy of this Order in every currently-ongoing proceeding in which he represents a party, pending in any court in the United States, federal or state. 3) Stone shall disclose to the Court whether he received funds, either personally or on behalf of Mick Haig, and whether Mick Haig received funds for any reason from any person or entity associated with these proceedings, regardless of that person’s status as a Doe Defendant or not, (excepting any fees or expenses paid by Mick Haig to Stone). 4) Stone shall pay the Ad Litems’ attorneys’ fees and expenses reasonably incurred in bringing the motion for sanctions. The Ad Litems shall file an affidavit or other proof of such fees and expenses with the Court within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order. Stone may contest such proof within seven (7) days of its filing. Stone shall comply with these directives and supply the Court with written confirmation of his compliance no later than forty-five (45) days after the date of this Order."
MANY people have complained about program trading before with far better credentials than Mark, yet it's suddenly news because he whines about it? It took him 10+ years to figure this out, or did he take some serious losses and it just whining about losing (something else)?
Pack what's critical first. Servers. Critical networking gear. Workstations. Ignore the phones, printers and wireless gear unless you've got extra time. And good luck.
Since you linked to the article with the announcement from Germany, you really should have actually read the article.
If you had, you'd have known that the German announcement was just a general warning, posted on the shipping page. Contrary to the ominous warning about the Lusitania you make it sound like, it was anything but.
Of course, I shouldn't expect any less from someone that links to Conservipedia.
While IANAL, if you read the EFF brief & the judgement in depth, an interesting defense is being promulgated... Even if the defendants specifically allowed MediaSentry to download these files, as authorized agents of the copyright holders, no copyright infringement actually took place!!! There's case law that says that a copyright holder (or their agent) cannot infringe on their own copyright... Hence the new, stupid, "making available" claim...
What does that mean? Assuming this argument is valid (which I can't see how it couldn't be), the plaintiffs would have to go back to square one and find someone else on Kazaa who downloaded specific files from the defendants--specifically infringing on copyright law. And for anyone who has used P2P before, how often do you know (or remember) who you're downloading from? Personally, I think that borders on impossible to prove--unless Kazaa keeps some sort of detailed log data file that MediaSentry would have to gain access to...
The judge threw that argument out the window.
From the ruling "Amicus curiae, Electronic Frontier Foundation ("EFF"), responds that a copyright owner cannot infringe its own copyright, so its agent also cannot infringe the copyright owner's rights when acting on the owner's behalf. But the recording companies obviously did not intend to license MediaSentry to authorize distribution or to reproduce copies of their works. Rather, "the investigator's assignment was part of [the recording companies'] attempt to stop [Howell's] infringement," and therefore the 12 copies obtained by MediaSentry are unauthorized. "
Anytime a Judge uses the words "most amateurish pleadings", "bumbling", or "a pig is still a pig" to describe the efforts of the attorneys, it's going to be a bad day for someone. Or in this case, both someones.
"Now, alas, the Court must return to grownup land." - priceless! We need more people as judges with a biting sense of humor (and the nerve to use it liberally!) like this!
They were also ordered to preserve the ram of their servers in real time.
That alone should invalidate everything else the judge had to say.
Bullshit - read it, will you? The Judge said that the IP's were available to TorrentSpy as the information was present in the RAM at some point. They required that TorrentSpy log that information. That's quite a bit different from "preserve the ram".
TorrentSpy fucked up big time on this, and got caught. Courts don't like people that destroy evidence and smack them around. They especially don't like people that destroy evidence after the case is filed, or lie what about what they can/cannot do.
I have zero sympathy for TorrentSpy. Without their actions, they would have had a chance to beat this case.
It looks as if this guy believes the judge plainly shouldn't have ruled on the issues he did. I think he should put his money where his mouth is and, pro-bono, file an appeal on SCO's behalf reverting Kimball's decision and repeating the entire 5-year process.
In the article, he addresses the appeal point. Kimball denied SCO's request to immediately appeal the decision. They can still appeal it, but only after the jury trial concludes and they'll be able to appeal everything. If the author's notes on cash and burn rate are accurate, SCO doesn't have the time for that.
-- Ravensfire
Slashdot Mirror
I'm shocked, shocked that the LAPD would try to hide their behavior so they could keep acting like asshats.
All we need now is for Andrew Schlafly and his Conservapedia to welcome those scorned by Wikipedia to come to them. Should go nicely with their other crap (see evolution, global warming, anything related to Obama and just about everything else near and dear to the far-right).
Because the NSA doesn't have backdoor access to Microsoft?
They do, but there are too many bugs in the code for them to get any information!
This just means that they will use locally produced copies of Cisco equipment. Which is dramatically different from what they do now ... Yeah...
This. Focus on what they need to know for this decision. The part part about proprietary vs open source? ONLY if you're considering a proprietary package and an open source package. If they think you are wasting their time, they will tune you out and you will all be wasting your time.
And sgroyle, this really just look like a cheap grab at publicity for your books. You seriously need to update your blog with an apology at least to Kobo and probably to WHSmith.
There was a post on the Kobo boards where someone contacted Kobo about this. Apparently there was a known problem on the WHSmith website where it would show the books as having DRM. When they'd go to Kobo to actually DL the books it would be DRM free. Just looked at the books on WHSmith's website and getting a different format availability than the OP's blog - Format Availability: epub. Apparently they've fixed the bug.
Go to a store and you'll generally see competing products next to each other and that's okay. But try to do something similar on-line? Horror! Unfair! Must file lawsuit! It's become our culture but the practice of suing for anything and everything has become utterly ridiculous in the last decade or so.
Yawn. The linked "article" is just a press-release from a fringe candidate. I'll be impressed if I see a mainstream candidate saying something like this and it's not just in a press-release.
Bungie didn't make Tribes, that was Dynamix (at least for the versions that were worth a damn). Before Halo, Bungie's big games were Marathon and Myth.
Nope! No drawbacks here. Why would the headline be written in anything other than pure, positive spin? Especially since this was probably posted from a chipped car with big brother watching quite carefully for any accidents, traffic or wrong thoughts.
-- Ravensfire
Isn't this the way it should be working? Allocate X dollars to group. Group really needs X + Y dollars to do everything they want so they create a group to review all the projects and allocate the dollars. If you don't have enough funding, programs WILL be cut or scaled back. Save program A and program B is cut, which costs jobs around program B. Congrats though, program A's jobs are intact.
Prioritization sucks but if you don't have all the funding you need you have to make the call at some point. Having a (theoretically neutral) group review everything and make the call is better than having Congress make the decisions for you. And yeah, it would be much better for everyone if there was enough funding, that's the easy way out of this dilemma.
-- Ravensfire
"1) Transparency. If an opponent is making a claim against you then be transparent about the issue and prove them wrong. Allow an independent body to investigate and verify your taxes or whatever is in question."
Congrats - utterly ineffective. Candidate A releases a claim shortly before the election about Candidate B. Claim is false, but has JUST enough plausibility to get it through libel laws. Claim affects the election because you can't prove it false in time. Yup, happens now quite often and one of the most effective dirty tricks out there. Transparency is a great way to make someone feel better ... after the fact and rarely makes up for the damage done.
-- Ravensfire
The appeal court decision mentioned that the original request was for some 26k. Personally, I think the fine is intended as a "wake up" slap. The nice part of the sanction is #2. He's been bad and now potentially lots of other courts will know about it and be able to check if he's pulling the same stunt again. And usually subsequent sanctions get harsher.
-- Ravensfire
From the ruling,
"the court imposed $10,000 in sanctions on Stone and also required the following:
1) Stone shall serve a copy of this Order on each ISP implicated and
to every person or entity with whom he communicated for any purpose
in these proceedings.
2) Stone shall file a copy of this Order in every currently-ongoing
proceeding in which he represents a party, pending in any court in
the United States, federal or state.
3) Stone shall disclose to the Court whether he received funds,
either personally or on behalf of Mick Haig, and whether Mick Haig
received funds for any reason from any person or entity associated
with these proceedings, regardless of that person’s status as a Doe
Defendant or not, (excepting any fees or expenses paid by Mick Haig
to Stone).
4) Stone shall pay the Ad Litems’ attorneys’ fees and expenses reasonably
incurred in bringing the motion for sanctions. The Ad
Litems shall file an affidavit or other proof of such fees and expenses
with the Court within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order.
Stone may contest such proof within seven (7) days of its filing.
Stone shall comply with these directives and supply the Court with
written confirmation of his compliance no later than forty-five (45)
days after the date of this Order."
-- Ravensfire
MANY people have complained about program trading before with far better credentials than Mark, yet it's suddenly news because he whines about it? It took him 10+ years to figure this out, or did he take some serious losses and it just whining about losing (something else)?
Pack what's critical first. Servers. Critical networking gear. Workstations. Ignore the phones, printers and wireless gear unless you've got extra time. And good luck.
Hmm, seems this has been used by The Fed and European Central Bank for quite a while now.
Since you linked to the article with the announcement from Germany, you really should have actually read the article.
If you had, you'd have known that the German announcement was just a general warning, posted on the shipping page. Contrary to the ominous warning about the Lusitania you make it sound like, it was anything but.
Of course, I shouldn't expect any less from someone that links to Conservipedia.
-- Ravensfire
While IANAL, if you read the EFF brief & the judgement in depth, an interesting defense is being promulgated... Even if the defendants specifically allowed MediaSentry to download these files, as authorized agents of the copyright holders, no copyright infringement actually took place!!! There's case law that says that a copyright holder (or their agent) cannot infringe on their own copyright... Hence the new, stupid, "making available" claim...
What does that mean? Assuming this argument is valid (which I can't see how it couldn't be), the plaintiffs would have to go back to square one and find someone else on Kazaa who downloaded specific files from the defendants--specifically infringing on copyright law. And for anyone who has used P2P before, how often do you know (or remember) who you're downloading from? Personally, I think that borders on impossible to prove--unless Kazaa keeps some sort of detailed log data file that MediaSentry would have to gain access to...
The judge threw that argument out the window.
From the ruling "Amicus curiae, Electronic Frontier Foundation ("EFF"), responds that a copyright owner cannot infringe its own copyright, so its agent also cannot infringe the copyright owner's rights when acting on the owner's behalf. But the recording companies obviously did not intend to license MediaSentry to authorize distribution or to reproduce copies of their works. Rather, "the investigator's assignment was part of [the recording companies'] attempt to stop [Howell's] infringement," and therefore the 12 copies obtained by MediaSentry are unauthorized. "
-- Ravensfire
http://www.nationalreview.com/document/document073001.shtml
Anytime a Judge uses the words "most amateurish pleadings", "bumbling", or "a pig is still a pig" to describe the efforts of the attorneys, it's going to be a bad day for someone. Or in this case, both someones.
"Now, alas, the Court must return to grownup land." - priceless! We need more people as judges with a biting sense of humor (and the nerve to use it liberally!) like this!
-- Ravensfire
Thanks for a nice summary - appreciated! Now, if only people would read it before spewing forth their usual garbage ...
-- Ravensfire
They were also ordered to preserve the ram of their servers in real time.
That alone should invalidate everything else the judge had to say.
Bullshit - read it, will you? The Judge said that the IP's were available to TorrentSpy as the information was present in the RAM at some point. They required that TorrentSpy log that information. That's quite a bit different from "preserve the ram".
TorrentSpy fucked up big time on this, and got caught. Courts don't like people that destroy evidence and smack them around. They especially don't like people that destroy evidence after the case is filed, or lie what about what they can/cannot do.
I have zero sympathy for TorrentSpy. Without their actions, they would have had a chance to beat this case.
-- Ravensfire
It looks as if this guy believes the judge plainly shouldn't have ruled on the issues he did. I think he should put his money where his mouth is and, pro-bono, file an appeal on SCO's behalf reverting Kimball's decision and repeating the entire 5-year process.
In the article, he addresses the appeal point. Kimball denied SCO's request to immediately appeal the decision. They can still appeal it, but only after the jury trial concludes and they'll be able to appeal everything. If the author's notes on cash and burn rate are accurate, SCO doesn't have the time for that. -- Ravensfire
Hmm, so you're willing to lie under oath.
Surely, then, you don't complain when the government lies. Why - that would make you a hypocrit.
-- Ravensfire