Personally, I'd trust a newspaper over blatant assertions by an activist site any day.
And, the newpaper may have accurately quoted the sheriff and the charges brought by the sheriff. So, while I may trust the newpaper more, I don't trust the sheriff, or the activist site. And, regardless of whether the guy asked for $300,000 or not, it is perfectly within his right to stop providing a service that he is not contracted to provide.
I think the sheriff department is going to get hammered on this one. He asked for money in order to maintain the website, regardless of the amount he is not obligated under any law to continue providing uncompensated services to anyone. The arrest could be considered an attempt to seize the defendants's property i.e. bandwidth costs to continue operating the website indefinitely. Which would be an unlawful seizure by the government. Let's say not only that, but he is expected to continue maintenance activities, i.e. adding new content. That would be indentured servitude. Which is again illegal.
Best case for the sheriff, the defendant did ask for an ungodly amount to maintain the site. The sheriff knew that he was screwed because he didn't have a contract for the site from its inception, and either had to pay, or let the site be shutdown, and not have any rights to the material created by te defendant on the original site. Instead, he decided to bring criminal charges. That is the best case for the sheriff. Worst case for the sheriff, the defendant wanted the bandwidth costs to be paid, and asked for it. After not receving shutdown the site, and the sherrif arrested in an abuse of police power. In between the sheriff is still a vindictive bastard.
And, to preach to the choir, once you've made a machine that's verifiable and produces a proper audit log, is it actually any less expensive and troublesome than the paper ballots?
Yes, in the case where the results go unchallenged.
The idea of the voter verified paper trail is to allow the computer results to be checked against voter verified paper results when challenged. It should also be done on randomly selected precincts as an audit of the computer's accuracy.
Isn't the Linux kernel distributed under the GPL? Can't SCO's license to distribute the Linux kernel be revoked? That would mean they couldn't sell any distributions of Linux and, subsequently, couldn't force people to buy licenses from them...right?
This happens to be one of IBM's counter claims. Since, IBM has code in Linux that is under IBM's copyright, IBM has claimed that SCO is violating their copyright by attempting to sublicense IBM's code according to terms other than the GPL, and continuing to distribute Linux on its FTP site while claiming non-GPL rights.
I think this would explain why SCO has gone the GPL is invalid route, but they have not gone far enough. Let's assume SCO wins its claims. If one piece of code in Linux is copyright IBM, but not related to the System V contract, then IBM's counter claim also wins, since SCO has no rights to distibute, modify, or sublicense that IBM code except under the GPL. SCO actually needs to somehow claim that contributing code to Linux is contributing the code to the public domain, which I really can't see a judge going for, sinc copyrights can only be tranferred in writing, and it seems to me that a transfer to the public domain would also have to be in writing. IANAL
So, what happens if one party wins a breach of contract claim against another party that at the same time has won a copyright infringement claim against the first party?
The problem isn't whether the officer had probable cause. The problem is that the law in question creates probable cause and a crime from the act of not speaking to an officer who thinks you might be doing something suspicious, but doe snto have probable cause. If the officer has probable cause of a crime then the person should have been arrested, charged, and tried for that crime. Not for choosing not to give information to the officer.
I haven't watched the video. In this case given the way the defendant was acting, arrest may have been reasonable, especially since he did actually get charged with domestic battery (which he was aqcuitted or charges dropped). Which then leaves only the crime being not speaking or presenting papers to a police officer prior to arrest. Which just seems strange, i.e. once arrested you can legally not tell an officer anything, but before beign arrested you have give an officer identification. That seems a little off to me.
"All patented contributions must be freely licensed for this work and automatically so for any legally derived works."
As another poster said the GPL already says this. The clause that makes the Apache license incompatible is that it adds a sentence that terminates any patent rights granted by others to use the product if you exert patent rights on the product differently from what is stated in the license. Basically, this is implied in the GPL with regards to copyright. i.e. if you don't distribute your copyrighted material in the product according to the GPL, you have no right to distribute my copyrighted product. Apache makes it explicit with regard to patents.
They may move up on next years list, something like:
$3 billion lawsuit with IBM dismissed when they cannot produce sufficient evidence during discovery to continue with the case. Files for bankruptcy a month later, and liquidates holdings. Novell buys back UNIX business for pennies on the dollar and BSDs entire SVR4 codebase.
This isn't meant for sharing. It's meant for a tight-beam point-to-point protocol for backbone connections in remote areas where wires are hard to run.
Isn't 802.16a point to multipoint? Or is that b,c,d,e,f or g?
When they start making noise about "replacement for DSL" - well...does enough bandwidth _exist_ that it makes sense to have 50Mb/second to your house?
This is wireless though, so all users within a particular tranceivers coverage area would share that bandwidth. 802.11g gets close, but to ge the kind of range 802.16 is supposed to provide you have to hack together directional antennas, and there is no standard for that.
And you've got to have power. Solar's not efficient enough, and the mirrors/collectors are going to be covered in dust in short order--so they've got to be maintained. Forget the meteorites that hit it all of the time.
You are referring to space dust, or dust kicked up by impactors, right? Is that really sufficient to "cover in dust in short order"?
The actions of these vendors today doesn't change the fact that SCO's intellectual property is being found in Linux. Commercial end users of Linux that continue to use SCO's intellectual property without authorization are in violation of SCO's copyrights. SCO continues to publicly show evidence of this infringement.
A post at Linux Daily news had an interesting take. Sentence one makes a true statement because we all know SCO (as Caldera) contributed to the kernel. Sentence 2 is also a true statement as using intellectual property without authorization would be inviolation fo SCO's copyrights. Sentence 3 says SCO continues to show proof of infringement which since there is no infringement is nothing. Therefore, SCO has put together a series of true statements that sound ominous, but actually are harmless.
Stasi is short for Ministerium fur Staatssicherheit (Ministry of/for State Security).
Sounds very similar to the Department of Homeland Security. And, KGB means Commitee of State Security. Give you warm fuzzies about the Department of Homeland Security doesn't it?
I'd say a comment on the realities of speculative investing is on-topic.
Ask and you shall receive. Based on the public information SCO's stock price is based on the probability of the company winning multiplied by the billions from IBM and Linux users they supposedly would get. So, with a market cap of 250 million, and assuming maybe 50 million is based on actual operating performance, another 20 million on actual assets (1.57 book value x 13.5m) we are left with 180 million of speculative value based on winning the lawsuit and getting Linux royalties. Assuming a windfall, of 4 billion from both would suggest Wall Street considers SCO a 20 to 1 longshot. You could probably put that up towards 40 to 1 if you exclude speculators trying to cash in on short-term movement of the stock.
have a certain amount of respect for Ellison (purely down to his PR image, of course:-) but if he's manipulated power into his own hands as much as the review makes out, Oracle is doomed. No one man can provide the needs of a gigantic company like Oracle over the long term - it has to be a collabarative effort...
So, you read "Good to Great"? Basically, it looks like Larry has put Oracle into the position where the second he leaves they will be screwed. But, they may still do well while he is around. He sounds like the architypical CEO that creates companies that self-destruct when he leaves.
Nonsense. It was the Democrat who forced the issue to the Tex. Supreme Court which would predictably (for a variety of reasons) decide to keep the districts as they were; if they had passed a redistricting bill like they should have, Democrats would have inevitably lost seats. I would say that handing over a constitutional power to another branch of government that is not supposed to have that power is "gaming" pretty hard...
And, wouldn't this be a symptom of Gerrymandered districts that are guaranteed to a party resulting in election sthat are decided in primaries which are decided by the most extreme partisans in the party, resulting in the most extreme partisans being elected. Therefore, resulting in a situation where both sides cannot come up with a redistricting plan that is acceptable to both sides?
This has nothing to do with making things fair. It is solely about power on both sides. And, the voters get screwed.
The spin I have heard from an X-Ray equipment technician, so I am pretty sure it is good info
You need to be very careful when you use the term "spin" when talking about radiation and subatomic particles. As note by myself and others when you say spin you must be referring to the rotation of the radiation source (or multiple beams) around the target in order to minimize the radiation dose delivered to healthy tissue while maximizing the dose delivered to the tumor.
The way you use it in your original post suggests it is a property imparted to the radiation particles. In the context of particle physics spin is a quantum property of particles, that sort of acts like angular momentum, but nothing is spinning. Regardless quantum spin should have little to do with radiation penetrating depth.
that's not quite enough. a correlation can usually be found between other factors, such as income, ethnicity, or how close the area is to certain types of business... and party registration.
You are right, but according to the article party registration does not correlate perfectly to votes. So, trying to use these other factors to gerrymander districts is much more unreliable.
A telling statement in the article is that in the past excesive gerrymandering would be self defeating. The concept being that the more districts you try to get in your favor the closer the win margins will be in that district, and the more likely even a tiny shift in voter sentiment will screw the party doing the gerrymandering. The problem is that with computers and the data available the margin needed to guarantee a district can be thinner while still leaving little risk of losing the district. Thus, the gerrymandering party gets more seats with less risk.
Actually, if you read the article instead of the Slashdot synopsis. The point of using anti-protons is that you get the same effect as Bragg Peak (didn't know the name until you mentioned it thanks!) with regular protons. In addition, shortly after dumping most of the ionization energy into the tumor tissue, the anti-proton meets a proton causing more damage at the targeted location. I think the idea is that even while proton treatments can be well targeted they still deliver radiation doses to intervening tissue, by using anti protons you can deliver more radiation for the same dose to intervening tissue.
Even regular X-Ray therapy those pesky alpha particles receive quite a spin, so they go straight to the set depth and then disperse, thus forming a focal point, without destroying any tissue in-between.
What?!? This sentence makes no sense.
X-rays and alpha particles are two different things. Alpha particles are high energy helium nuclei emitted by the decay of large atomic nuclei (Uranium, plutonium...). X-rays are high energy light. I doubt alpha paticles are useful for treating cancer as they do not penetrate skin.
Are you referring to radiation treatments where they rotate the radation source around the person , with the axis of rotation being the targeted tumor. In this case you can deliver a much higher dose of radiation to the targeted region while minimizing the radiation dose to any individual intervening region of healthy tissue.
No LAWS need to be made DICTATING what people want. They are allowed to express it. Collectively.
Just wanted to add that laws are useful though to make sure that people are not dictated to about what they want, due to artificially created barriers by businesses. In this case, number portability.
2 year contracts are out there, but I haven't seen them as the only option. With Sprint it came with an additional freebie, and that seems to be the case with a lot of the 2 year contracts. They come with a freebiw, like free mobile to mobile, extra $100 rebate for your phone (i.e. you can get the color, camera, internet phone for free)
I took a two year with Sprint because I wanted the free Mobile to Mobile that came with it, since 90% of the people I call long distance have Sprint phones. The two year contract has cut my long distance bill by nearly as much as I pay monthly for the phone. I am tempted to sign for another two years to get 7pm evenings because that will pretty much knock out the final source of long distance calls on the land phone, which is pre-9pm long distance to non-SprintPCS phones.
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, I'd trust a newspaper over blatant assertions by an activist site any day.
And, the newpaper may have accurately quoted the sheriff and the charges brought by the sheriff. So, while I may trust the newpaper more, I don't trust the sheriff, or the activist site. And, regardless of whether the guy asked for $300,000 or not, it is perfectly within his right to stop providing a service that he is not contracted to provide.
I think the sheriff department is going to get hammered on this one. He asked for money in order to maintain the website, regardless of the amount he is not obligated under any law to continue providing uncompensated services to anyone. The arrest could be considered an attempt to seize the defendants's property i.e. bandwidth costs to continue operating the website indefinitely. Which would be an unlawful seizure by the government. Let's say not only that, but he is expected to continue maintenance activities, i.e. adding new content. That would be indentured servitude. Which is again illegal.
Best case for the sheriff, the defendant did ask for an ungodly amount to maintain the site. The sheriff knew that he was screwed because he didn't have a contract for the site from its inception, and either had to pay, or let the site be shutdown, and not have any rights to the material created by te defendant on the original site. Instead, he decided to bring criminal charges. That is the best case for the sheriff. Worst case for the sheriff, the defendant wanted the bandwidth costs to be paid, and asked for it. After not receving shutdown the site, and the sherrif arrested in an abuse of police power. In between the sheriff is still a vindictive bastard.
IANAL
And, to preach to the choir, once you've made a machine that's verifiable and produces a proper audit log, is it actually any less expensive and troublesome than the paper ballots?
Yes, in the case where the results go unchallenged.
The idea of the voter verified paper trail is to allow the computer results to be checked against voter verified paper results when challenged. It should also be done on randomly selected precincts as an audit of the computer's accuracy.
Isn't the Linux kernel distributed under the GPL? Can't SCO's license to distribute the Linux kernel be revoked? That would mean they couldn't sell any distributions of Linux and, subsequently, couldn't force people to buy licenses from them...right?
This happens to be one of IBM's counter claims. Since, IBM has code in Linux that is under IBM's copyright, IBM has claimed that SCO is violating their copyright by attempting to sublicense IBM's code according to terms other than the GPL, and continuing to distribute Linux on its FTP site while claiming non-GPL rights.
I think this would explain why SCO has gone the GPL is invalid route, but they have not gone far enough. Let's assume SCO wins its claims. If one piece of code in Linux is copyright IBM, but not related to the System V contract, then IBM's counter claim also wins, since SCO has no rights to distibute, modify, or sublicense that IBM code except under the GPL. SCO actually needs to somehow claim that contributing code to Linux is contributing the code to the public domain, which I really can't see a judge going for, sinc copyrights can only be tranferred in writing, and it seems to me that a transfer to the public domain would also have to be in writing. IANAL
So, what happens if one party wins a breach of contract claim against another party that at the same time has won a copyright infringement claim against the first party?
The problem isn't whether the officer had probable cause. The problem is that the law in question creates probable cause and a crime from the act of not speaking to an officer who thinks you might be doing something suspicious, but doe snto have probable cause. If the officer has probable cause of a crime then the person should have been arrested, charged, and tried for that crime. Not for choosing not to give information to the officer.
I haven't watched the video. In this case given the way the defendant was acting, arrest may have been reasonable, especially since he did actually get charged with domestic battery (which he was aqcuitted or charges dropped). Which then leaves only the crime being not speaking or presenting papers to a police officer prior to arrest. Which just seems strange, i.e. once arrested you can legally not tell an officer anything, but before beign arrested you have give an officer identification. That seems a little off to me.
"All patented contributions must be freely licensed for this work and automatically so for any legally derived works."
As another poster said the GPL already says this. The clause that makes the Apache license incompatible is that it adds a sentence that terminates any patent rights granted by others to use the product if you exert patent rights on the product differently from what is stated in the license. Basically, this is implied in the GPL with regards to copyright. i.e. if you don't distribute your copyrighted material in the product according to the GPL, you have no right to distribute my copyrighted product. Apache makes it explicit with regard to patents.
Suggestion... Port the locust world MeshAP stuff over rather than rewriting from scratch?
http://www.locustworld.net/
They may move up on next years list, something like:
$3 billion lawsuit with IBM dismissed when they cannot produce sufficient evidence during discovery to continue with the case. Files for bankruptcy a month later, and liquidates holdings. Novell buys back UNIX business for pennies on the dollar and BSDs entire SVR4 codebase.
This isn't meant for sharing. It's meant for a tight-beam point-to-point protocol for backbone connections in remote areas where wires are hard to run.
Isn't 802.16a point to multipoint? Or is that b,c,d,e,f or g?
When they start making noise about "replacement for DSL" - well...does enough bandwidth _exist_ that it makes sense to have 50Mb/second to your house?
This is wireless though, so all users within a particular tranceivers coverage area would share that bandwidth. 802.11g gets close, but to ge the kind of range 802.16 is supposed to provide you have to hack together directional antennas, and there is no standard for that.
And you've got to have power. Solar's not efficient enough, and the mirrors/collectors are going to be covered in dust in short order--so they've got to be maintained. Forget the meteorites that hit it all of the time.
You are referring to space dust, or dust kicked up by impactors, right? Is that really sufficient to "cover in dust in short order"?
The actions of these vendors today doesn't change the fact that SCO's intellectual property is being found in Linux. Commercial end users of Linux that continue to use SCO's intellectual property without authorization are in violation of SCO's copyrights. SCO continues to publicly show evidence of this infringement.
A post at Linux Daily news had an interesting take. Sentence one makes a true statement because we all know SCO (as Caldera) contributed to the kernel. Sentence 2 is also a true statement as using intellectual property without authorization would be inviolation fo SCO's copyrights. Sentence 3 says SCO continues to show proof of infringement which since there is no infringement is nothing. Therefore, SCO has put together a series of true statements that sound ominous, but actually are harmless.
Stasi is short for Ministerium fur Staatssicherheit (Ministry of/for State Security).
Sounds very similar to the Department of Homeland Security. And, KGB means Commitee of State Security. Give you warm fuzzies about the Department of Homeland Security doesn't it?
I'd say a comment on the realities of speculative investing is on-topic.
Ask and you shall receive. Based on the public information SCO's stock price is based on the probability of the company winning multiplied by the billions from IBM and Linux users they supposedly would get. So, with a market cap of 250 million, and assuming maybe 50 million is based on actual operating performance, another 20 million on actual assets (1.57 book value x 13.5m) we are left with 180 million of speculative value based on winning the lawsuit and getting Linux royalties. Assuming a windfall, of 4 billion from both would suggest Wall Street considers SCO a 20 to 1 longshot. You could probably put that up towards 40 to 1 if you exclude speculators trying to cash in on short-term movement of the stock.
Get access point, router and quota capability in one machine.
Start at IdotPC Which appears to be down now.
Add a wireless card, and install software from here:
Mesh AP site
Use Linux skills to setup whatever routing or traffic shaping you need.
Plus, the alternate reality within an alternate reality has been done before. Why keep doing it?
And, for a detailed analysis of why Oracle will be unable to sustain its results see this book:
Good to Great
And, this excerpt here:
Excerpt
have a certain amount of respect for Ellison (purely down to his PR image, of course :-) but if he's manipulated power into his own hands as much as the review makes out, Oracle is doomed. No one man can provide the needs of a gigantic company like Oracle over the long term - it has to be a collabarative effort ...
So, you read "Good to Great"? Basically, it looks like Larry has put Oracle into the position where the second he leaves they will be screwed. But, they may still do well while he is around. He sounds like the architypical CEO that creates companies that self-destruct when he leaves.
Nonsense. It was the Democrat who forced the issue to the Tex. Supreme Court which would predictably (for a variety of reasons) decide to keep the districts as they were; if they had passed a redistricting bill like they should have, Democrats would have inevitably lost seats. I would say that handing over a constitutional power to another branch of government that is not supposed to have that power is "gaming" pretty hard...
And, wouldn't this be a symptom of Gerrymandered districts that are guaranteed to a party resulting in election sthat are decided in primaries which are decided by the most extreme partisans in the party, resulting in the most extreme partisans being elected. Therefore, resulting in a situation where both sides cannot come up with a redistricting plan that is acceptable to both sides?
This has nothing to do with making things fair. It is solely about power on both sides. And, the voters get screwed.
The spin I have heard from an X-Ray equipment technician, so I am pretty sure it is good info
You need to be very careful when you use the term "spin" when talking about radiation and subatomic particles. As note by myself and others when you say spin you must be referring to the rotation of the radiation source (or multiple beams) around the target in order to minimize the radiation dose delivered to healthy tissue while maximizing the dose delivered to the tumor.
The way you use it in your original post suggests it is a property imparted to the radiation particles. In the context of particle physics spin is a quantum property of particles, that sort of acts like angular momentum, but nothing is spinning. Regardless quantum spin should have little to do with radiation penetrating depth.
that's not quite enough. a correlation can usually be found between other factors, such as income, ethnicity, or how close the area is to certain types of business ... and party registration.
You are right, but according to the article party registration does not correlate perfectly to votes. So, trying to use these other factors to gerrymander districts is much more unreliable.
A telling statement in the article is that in the past excesive gerrymandering would be self defeating. The concept being that the more districts you try to get in your favor the closer the win margins will be in that district, and the more likely even a tiny shift in voter sentiment will screw the party doing the gerrymandering. The problem is that with computers and the data available the margin needed to guarantee a district can be thinner while still leaving little risk of losing the district. Thus, the gerrymandering party gets more seats with less risk.
But they're claiming its in the linux source.. so technically its already public
Which would mean they are no longer trade secrets, and therefore the judge should not seal them.
Ever heard of a Bragg Peak?
Ever heard of multi-beam treatment?
Sheesh!
Actually, if you read the article instead of the Slashdot synopsis. The point of using anti-protons is that you get the same effect as Bragg Peak (didn't know the name until you mentioned it thanks!) with regular protons. In addition, shortly after dumping most of the ionization energy into the tumor tissue, the anti-proton meets a proton causing more damage at the targeted location. I think the idea is that even while proton treatments can be well targeted they still deliver radiation doses to intervening tissue, by using anti protons you can deliver more radiation for the same dose to intervening tissue.
Even regular X-Ray therapy those pesky alpha particles receive quite a spin, so they go straight to the set depth and then disperse, thus forming a focal point, without destroying any tissue in-between.
What?!? This sentence makes no sense.
X-rays and alpha particles are two different things. Alpha particles are high energy helium nuclei emitted by the decay of large atomic nuclei (Uranium, plutonium...). X-rays are high energy light. I doubt alpha paticles are useful for treating cancer as they do not penetrate skin.
Are you referring to radiation treatments where they rotate the radation source around the person , with the axis of rotation being the targeted tumor. In this case you can deliver a much higher dose of radiation to the targeted region while minimizing the radiation dose to any individual intervening region of healthy tissue.
No LAWS need to be made DICTATING what people want. They are allowed to express it. Collectively.
Just wanted to add that laws are useful though to make sure that people are not dictated to about what they want, due to artificially created barriers by businesses. In this case, number portability.
2 year contracts are out there, but I haven't seen them as the only option. With Sprint it came with an additional freebie, and that seems to be the case with a lot of the 2 year contracts. They come with a freebiw, like free mobile to mobile, extra $100 rebate for your phone (i.e. you can get the color, camera, internet phone for free)
I took a two year with Sprint because I wanted the free Mobile to Mobile that came with it, since 90% of the people I call long distance have Sprint phones. The two year contract has cut my long distance bill by nearly as much as I pay monthly for the phone. I am tempted to sign for another two years to get 7pm evenings because that will pretty much knock out the final source of long distance calls on the land phone, which is pre-9pm long distance to non-SprintPCS phones.