It would seem to a poor Brit here the case is simple. Are the school responsible for the childrens safety?
This case isn't about a child. It's about an adult (18 year old at the time of the incident) student by he name of Jospeh Fredrick who didn't attend school that day, although he was near the school at the time of the incident. If you're interested in the issues then I recommend reading the appeal court's ruling.
Was he released from school free to leave to do whatever he wanted or was school still in session and students supervised by teachers while watching the event.
Was he accompanied by his teacher or supervised by his teacher.
Frederick says that students were simply released from school so that they could watch the privately sponsored Olympic Torch being carried through a public street, and a student affidavit he submitted pointed out that the students did not have to obtain parental permission slips to be released, as is the routine for field trips and other supervised events off of the school premises. Principal Morse says that the release was "an approved social event or class trip," noting that the pep band played as the torch passed the school, the cheerleaders were out in uniform to greet the torchbearers, and teachers supervised.
Frederick says (without contradiction) that he had not gone to school that day prior to the banner display, that the banner display was off school property across Glacier Avenue from the campus, and that there were a lot of people, students and non-students, there to watch the torch pass. Other students filed affidavits saying that they were just released, not required to stay together or with their teachers, except for the gym class, and school administrators did not attempt to stop students who got bored and left.
From these facts the court concluded that school was still in session:
Even though Frederick never got to school that morning, that was only because he got stuck in his driveway because of the snow. School had started and the students were released to watch the Olympic torch pass. And even though supervision of most students was minimal or nonexistent, the school could have supervised them more if it chose to, as it did with the gym class and perhaps the pep band and cheerleaders. Frederick was a student, and school was in session.
It seems to me that this was a school function, at least from reading the CNN version. "They had been let out of classes and were accompanied by their teachers." It was like a field trip, and they probably went back to class afterward. I wish the article made it more clear.
If you're sincere in wishing that the article was clearer then you might want to read the appeals court ruling which summarises the findings of fact as well as the appeal court's application of the law in this case.
For what it's worth, no it doesn't sound like they went back to class afterwards, or at least this wasn't enforced. From the ruling:
Other students filed affidavits saying that they were just released, not required to stay together or with their teachers, except for the gym class, and school administrators did not attempt to stop students who got bored and left."
I appreciate that you only drew an inference from the article and made it clear that you were doing so. Others have just announced without support that the students were marched back to class afterwards, or that Joseph Fredrick was a child at the time of the incident (compare to the ruling : "Frederick was an adult citizen of Alaska, not a minor, at the time he displayed the sign.").
Judge K said he wouldn't accept dispositive motions before the end of discovery so Novell couldn't have filed this before now
You're confusing SCO v IBM with SCO v Novell. Discovery is ongoing in the Novell case. In fact there's a motion by Novell to compel discovery from SCO coming up for hearing soon. Agree with everything else you say though, and yes this is just one more motion in an ongoing case. It's not like Novell have been sitting on their hands until now as some people seem to think.
Novell *waives* IBM's transgression rather than letting the court prove there wasn't one in the first place. Now, coming as it does after the MS deal
Novell's waiver was over 3 years ago and has been public knowledge for most of that time. All that's happening now is that Novell are asking for a judgment declaring that their waiver is valid. IBM's motions for partial summary judgment on the copyright issue are all ready on the table. Chance are the judge will find that the 300 odd non-contiguous lines of allegedly infringing code don't amount to infringement of a protectable element anyway even IF they turn out to have been copied verbatim from SysV (very unlikely) and even if SCO is eventually ruled to own SysV (very unlikely). This is at most a back up motion in case the judge isn't convinced by everything else.
You'd think that Novell could have filed this lawsuit a year or three ago instead of waiting till right before SCO vs IBM goes to trial (in a few months).
IBM doesn't go to trial in a few months. Judge Kimball has just postponed the trial date. Hearings on the summary judgment motions will be in March. Rulings on them probably a few months after that. Actual trial, if ever needed, maybe 2008. Part of the reason for that schedule is because Judge Kimball ruled that the Novell trial should proceed first. It's worth noting that when he asked the lawyers for IBM and SCO, IBM's lawyers argued that Novell should go first.
So that's one reason for 'why now' - because it's recently been held that the Novell case proceeds ahead of the IBM case.
Another reason? Because of the recent rulings limiting SCO's list of infringing materials in the IBM case to that which they disclosed by the deadline. So that's 300 odd lines of code potentially subject to copyright infringement. When there were still wild claims of millions of lines SCO might have had better luck arguing that the contract terms just COULDN'T have been meant to allow Novell to waive such a massive breach. Now that argument just looks silly.
Last reason I can think of off hand, as noted IBM's motions for PSJ have their hearings scheduled for March. Ideally, Judge Kimball will rule at that point that there is no copyright infringement, and not just because of the Novell waiver but because there was no breach needing to be waived. If he doesn't feel that he can rule that then all the arguments from all parties are on the table to rule on the waiver instead as a second best option (from the viewpoint of Linux supporters).
There are a lot of pieces falling into place right now.
Even if your figures are right I'd still jump at the chance to go into space, but quoting a fatality rate of less than one in twenty isn't going to comfort anyone. There are probably wars with lower death rates than that.
it's a choice whether to believe in God, and that's a choice that you have to make for yourself.
So how does that work? I don't believe there are any gods just like I don't believe I have a twin sister. I can imagine that someone could convince me of either, though I don't expect it to happen (I'm really certain I don't have a twin but if you can produce a birth certificate, someone who looks just like me and some parents apologizing for keeping it secret then I'm going to have to think again) but I don't see how I could CHOOSE to believe differently. I'm trying right now to believe that there is a god and I have a twin. Neither is working. I don't believe it.
This doesn't apply to the PS3; very few people would buy one simply because not many of them exist.
I have no way of measuring the effect in relation to the PS3 but there are many many people for whom getting something that others don't have (or can't have) yet is a motivation. To witness companies taking this to absurd extreme, look at some of the ridiculous "collector" editions of games.
This is followed by "keeping up with the Joneses" where those left out need to catch up because just as having something limited is a source of pleasure to many, being the one without is a source of discomfort to many.
I'm also unconvinced that scarcity enhances the beauty of diamonds but maybe that's a problem with my eyes. Seems to me that it enhances their usefulness as a display of wealth (and in relation to matrimony, a display of how much boy is willing to spend on girl).
I already said I agree that this isn't fraudulent.
I disagree. The demand for diamond engagement rings is almost certainly higher due to the suppressed supply. Otherwise nobody would want them.
I don't think there's any doubt that low supply (and apparent or actual exclusivity) can boost demand. Of course, it would be absurd to suggest that that demand was any less "real" or more "fraudulent" than demand boosted by showing pretty girls drooling over the latest car, or adverts proclaiming how wonderfully white the latest washing powder washed, or demand boosted by a campaign pushing the wonderfulness of some new controller.
I agree with you about the rootkits, including that that's a more than good enough reason to boycott their products. I don't honestly know whether they tried a "massive overup" over the batteries, but that's a serious matter if they did and again more than good enough reason for a boycott. I couldn't care less whether they tell customers to get second jobs if they want to buy premium products and I don't really know enough about the other claims you make. But none of that makes any sense in context.
Either there is something wrong with their actions towards Lik-Sang or there isn't. Giving a list of unrelated things that they've done is irrelevant to that. You really sound like you're frothing at the mouth here.
Then try to explain to a die-hard science type that religion/God can account for a lot of the things that science can't currently account for.
Like what, exactly?
An omnipresent omnipotent invisible entity that moves in mysterious ways can be used to explain absolutely anything. I can't see that that's remotely helpful, but it is true.
The courts will uphold the right of the ESRB to give an opinion on any game they choose to, without having to jump through government mandated hoops. This is their right under the first amendment. The courts will uphold the right of game publishers to display the ESRB's opinions on their games if they choose to. This is their right under the first amendment.
Any attempt to interfere with these rights will be struck down. This is a waste of time and money.
Re:Just the "Haves" Protecting Themselves again
on
The Culture of Evasion
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
I'm shocked that she didn't resign or that she wasn't fired the day she stepped down from the chair.
More astonishing is that Mark "I don't recall" Hurd seems to have managed to get a promotion out of this, adding Chairman to his list of titles.
Why not? They're the ones who are lying about the level of bandwidth they can provide.
Make people pay for their actual usage and it will all be fair.
How do you suggest that I make people do that? If you mean that a solution would be for the ISPs to be honest with people and specify a price based on usage and then apply that rate then I agree; that would be fair. But that brings us back to the problem. The ISPs aren't doing that. They're pretending to have more bandwidth available than they really have and then they're complaining when customers who have paid for it try to use it.
They think that people won't be willing to pay usage rates, so instead the ISPs lie about what they can afford to offer.
Why not just let them blow up a plane once in a while, I say, and perhaps we can get rid of some of these increasingly absurd security procedures.
It's hard to imagine why they should pick on planes in particular apart from the challenge of beating the security anyway. A train or a supermarket or a road junction or the airport checkin area would be as good a target for just killing people. Presumably some other motive is involved. Beating the security seems like the obvious one.
If they have to go to these lengths to investigate an ipod device in a toilet (where, after all, it is likely to be wet and no longer functioning) then what should they do in order to investigate all the hundreds of ipods and telephones and laptops that are taken on every airline flight?
If he'd noticed at the time that he dropped it in the toilet and reported it straight away then sure, it seems obvious that little investigation is required. But what he reports is very different to that. He didn't realise that he'd lost it until after he'd watched them having whispered conversation and examining the toilet. Then he approaches them and says not to bother calling anyone about it because he's just realised he lost his ipod.
From their perspective, they started investigating and then someone who'd seen they were aware of something wrong approached them with a story to allay suspcicions. They pretty much had to investigate further. Some of the stuff on the ground, especially with the customs guy after the ipod had been removed is another matter.
For example, if by reprogramming your remote you could control your neighbor's TV across the street (lousy battery life, but really really long range) would this be something that is in anyone's interest? Are there any laws, regulations or anything else that would prevent someone from doing this or punish them if they did?
If there aren't any legal principles that apply then we're going to need to develop them. Saying that the solution is that people won't be able to modify the software but that if they modify the hardware to achieve the same effect then ahhhh... look a three headed monkey... isn't going to work.
People have always been able to annoy their neighbours. People have always been able to act irresponsibly. Saying that all of a sudden we have to be able to control all their possesions now that software makes it possible just makes you sounds like a control freak. Sorry, but it really does.
You're right that you can't link GPL3 only code to GPL2 only code. One or other author would have to dual license.
You're wrong that there couldn't be a gradual migration, at least if I understand what you mean correctly. For a gradual migration each author would have to initially dual license under version 2 and version 3 (or version 2 and any later version). Then when you reach the point where there is no longer any version 2 only code left, you release as version 3 only. In practice that would mean replacing the code of anyone not willing to make the change. If Linux is one of those people then no chance. If he isn't then it'd still be tricky.
Slashdot Mirror
This case isn't about a child. It's about an adult (18 year old at the time of the incident) student by he name of Jospeh Fredrick who didn't attend school that day, although he was near the school at the time of the incident. If you're interested in the issues then I recommend reading the appeal court's ruling.
So tag it "flamebait"
From the appeals court ruling:
From these facts the court concluded that school was still in session:
If you're sincere in wishing that the article was clearer then you might want to read the appeals court ruling which summarises the findings of fact as well as the appeal court's application of the law in this case.
For what it's worth, no it doesn't sound like they went back to class afterwards, or at least this wasn't enforced. From the ruling:
I appreciate that you only drew an inference from the article and made it clear that you were doing so. Others have just announced without support that the students were marched back to class afterwards, or that Joseph Fredrick was a child at the time of the incident (compare to the ruling : "Frederick was an adult citizen of Alaska, not a minor, at the time he displayed the sign.").
You're confusing SCO v IBM with SCO v Novell. Discovery is ongoing in the Novell case. In fact there's a motion by Novell to compel discovery from SCO coming up for hearing soon. Agree with everything else you say though, and yes this is just one more motion in an ongoing case. It's not like Novell have been sitting on their hands until now as some people seem to think.
Novell's waiver was over 3 years ago and has been public knowledge for most of that time. All that's happening now is that Novell are asking for a judgment declaring that their waiver is valid. IBM's motions for partial summary judgment on the copyright issue are all ready on the table. Chance are the judge will find that the 300 odd non-contiguous lines of allegedly infringing code don't amount to infringement of a protectable element anyway even IF they turn out to have been copied verbatim from SysV (very unlikely) and even if SCO is eventually ruled to own SysV (very unlikely). This is at most a back up motion in case the judge isn't convinced by everything else.
IBM doesn't go to trial in a few months. Judge Kimball has just postponed the trial date. Hearings on the summary judgment motions will be in March. Rulings on them probably a few months after that. Actual trial, if ever needed, maybe 2008. Part of the reason for that schedule is because Judge Kimball ruled that the Novell trial should proceed first. It's worth noting that when he asked the lawyers for IBM and SCO, IBM's lawyers argued that Novell should go first.
So that's one reason for 'why now' - because it's recently been held that the Novell case proceeds ahead of the IBM case.
Another reason? Because of the recent rulings limiting SCO's list of infringing materials in the IBM case to that which they disclosed by the deadline. So that's 300 odd lines of code potentially subject to copyright infringement. When there were still wild claims of millions of lines SCO might have had better luck arguing that the contract terms just COULDN'T have been meant to allow Novell to waive such a massive breach. Now that argument just looks silly.
Last reason I can think of off hand, as noted IBM's motions for PSJ have their hearings scheduled for March. Ideally, Judge Kimball will rule at that point that there is no copyright infringement, and not just because of the Novell waiver but because there was no breach needing to be waived. If he doesn't feel that he can rule that then all the arguments from all parties are on the table to rule on the waiver instead as a second best option (from the viewpoint of Linux supporters).
There are a lot of pieces falling into place right now.
Err... one in twenty five. Okay, so I'd fail the cosmonaut math test so the dying bit isn't even an issue :(
Even if your figures are right I'd still jump at the chance to go into space, but quoting a fatality rate of less than one in twenty isn't going to comfort anyone. There are probably wars with lower death rates than that.
So how does that work? I don't believe there are any gods just like I don't believe I have a twin sister. I can imagine that someone could convince me of either, though I don't expect it to happen (I'm really certain I don't have a twin but if you can produce a birth certificate, someone who looks just like me and some parents apologizing for keeping it secret then I'm going to have to think again) but I don't see how I could CHOOSE to believe differently. I'm trying right now to believe that there is a god and I have a twin. Neither is working. I don't believe it.
I have no way of measuring the effect in relation to the PS3 but there are many many people for whom getting something that others don't have (or can't have) yet is a motivation. To witness companies taking this to absurd extreme, look at some of the ridiculous "collector" editions of games.
This is followed by "keeping up with the Joneses" where those left out need to catch up because just as having something limited is a source of pleasure to many, being the one without is a source of discomfort to many.
I'm also unconvinced that scarcity enhances the beauty of diamonds but maybe that's a problem with my eyes. Seems to me that it enhances their usefulness as a display of wealth (and in relation to matrimony, a display of how much boy is willing to spend on girl).
I already said I agree that this isn't fraudulent.
I disagree. The demand for diamond engagement rings is almost certainly higher due to the suppressed supply. Otherwise nobody would want them.
I don't think there's any doubt that low supply (and apparent or actual exclusivity) can boost demand. Of course, it would be absurd to suggest that that demand was any less "real" or more "fraudulent" than demand boosted by showing pretty girls drooling over the latest car, or adverts proclaiming how wonderfully white the latest washing powder washed, or demand boosted by a campaign pushing the wonderfulness of some new controller.
In illiterate New Zealand, exm brd mipsells U!
From Slashdot of course.
What's any of that got to do with Lik-Sang?
I agree with you about the rootkits, including that that's a more than good enough reason to boycott their products. I don't honestly know whether they tried a "massive overup" over the batteries, but that's a serious matter if they did and again more than good enough reason for a boycott. I couldn't care less whether they tell customers to get second jobs if they want to buy premium products and I don't really know enough about the other claims you make. But none of that makes any sense in context.
Either there is something wrong with their actions towards Lik-Sang or there isn't. Giving a list of unrelated things that they've done is irrelevant to that. You really sound like you're frothing at the mouth here.
An omnipresent omnipotent invisible entity that moves in mysterious ways can be used to explain absolutely anything. I can't see that that's remotely helpful, but it is true.
The courts will uphold the right of the ESRB to give an opinion on any game they choose to, without having to jump through government mandated hoops. This is their right under the first amendment. The courts will uphold the right of game publishers to display the ESRB's opinions on their games if they choose to. This is their right under the first amendment.
Any attempt to interfere with these rights will be struck down. This is a waste of time and money.
More astonishing is that Mark "I don't recall" Hurd seems to have managed to get a promotion out of this, adding Chairman to his list of titles.
Why not? They're the ones who are lying about the level of bandwidth they can provide.
How do you suggest that I make people do that? If you mean that a solution would be for the ISPs to be honest with people and specify a price based on usage and then apply that rate then I agree; that would be fair. But that brings us back to the problem. The ISPs aren't doing that. They're pretending to have more bandwidth available than they really have and then they're complaining when customers who have paid for it try to use it.
They think that people won't be willing to pay usage rates, so instead the ISPs lie about what they can afford to offer.
It's hard to imagine why they should pick on planes in particular apart from the challenge of beating the security anyway. A train or a supermarket or a road junction or the airport checkin area would be as good a target for just killing people. Presumably some other motive is involved. Beating the security seems like the obvious one.
If he'd noticed at the time that he dropped it in the toilet and reported it straight away then sure, it seems obvious that little investigation is required. But what he reports is very different to that. He didn't realise that he'd lost it until after he'd watched them having whispered conversation and examining the toilet. Then he approaches them and says not to bother calling anyone about it because he's just realised he lost his ipod.
From their perspective, they started investigating and then someone who'd seen they were aware of something wrong approached them with a story to allay suspcicions. They pretty much had to investigate further. Some of the stuff on the ground, especially with the customs guy after the ipod had been removed is another matter.
Oh. I was thinking that someone should read the previous time this story was posted to Slashdot. But I guess modern philosophy would be a good alternative.
If there aren't any legal principles that apply then we're going to need to develop them. Saying that the solution is that people won't be able to modify the software but that if they modify the hardware to achieve the same effect then ahhhh... look a three headed monkey... isn't going to work.
People have always been able to annoy their neighbours. People have always been able to act irresponsibly. Saying that all of a sudden we have to be able to control all their possesions now that software makes it possible just makes you sounds like a control freak. Sorry, but it really does.
You're right that you can't link GPL3 only code to GPL2 only code. One or other author would have to dual license.
You're wrong that there couldn't be a gradual migration, at least if I understand what you mean correctly. For a gradual migration each author would have to initially dual license under version 2 and version 3 (or version 2 and any later version). Then when you reach the point where there is no longer any version 2 only code left, you release as version 3 only. In practice that would mean replacing the code of anyone not willing to make the change. If Linux is one of those people then no chance. If he isn't then it'd still be tricky.
So surely you have 'total freedom of choice' as to whether to use GPLd code or not too.