You were modded "funny", but I remember an article in the Wall Street Journal about a man getting in legal trouble for adding marijuana to his beer. He got in trouble BECAUSE THE LAW SAID HE COULD ONLY USE HOPS, MALT, YEAST, AND WATER if he wanted to call it "Beer", not because it was marijuana he was adding!
Also, the $6,000 PER BOTTLE fine would give me pause...
The police don't care; the hemp in his beer is very low in the active ingredient people smoke marijuana for. But Germany's image-conscious big brewers last month threatened to sue him. If Mr. Gerlach should lose in court, he could be fined $6,000 a bottle for violating the country's strict beer-purity law.
The Reinheitsgebot law, enacted in 1516, is one of the first consumer-protection measures in history. It requires that beer be made from malt, hops, yeast and water -- and nothing else. If you want to call it beer, you can't use flavorings. No chocolate, no cinnamon, no tequila and certainly no marijuana.
"Privately, in meetings we've had with them, some very large companies in the IT industry have told us that they have a lot of problems with the GPL," said the SCO Group spokesman. from the article
I wonder WHOSE dirty work they are doing...?
Let me see, large - no VERY large company, in the IT business... My guess is... MICROSOFT!
Did I win??
Re:I don't believe it -Richard Nixon had a gap too
on
Microsoft vs. Burst.com
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Ever notice how many times enough scandal accumulates by the time a president hits the second term that he probably wouldn't be elected a third term?
Interesting, but as there is no allowed third term, I think the actual process is more like keep the scandals down for the first term, then who cares. It isn't like they can run again.
ignorance of law is no defense of violation of law.. how can ignorance of contract be any defense at all?
By definition of contract law. A contract is an agreement BETWEEN two (or more) parties, not something imposed on one party by another. If the terms and conditions of the agreement were known beforehand, and you had the chance to read and understand them and then you agreed to them, then the EULA would definitely be enforceable. It is the fact that most EULAs are not available until AFTER you supposedly agreed to them that makes them legally shakey as far as enforcement.
"After all this, we *did* try to boot off a Linux install CD. That just took us to the same screen as before. So we had to go into the BIOS so that it would try to boot off the CD before the hard disk, but after we did that, Windows started to boot, without having displayed the "press a key to agree" screen. We quickly powered the machine down before Windows started. [Though now you no longer get the "press a key to agree" screen when you turn it on, even with the BIOS settings back the way they were.]"
Actually, no, according to them, the code that "they own" was not submitted by them to be used in Linux and therefore is not legally under GPL. When they were distributing Linux from their servers they did not know that their "stolen code" was in it.
Here is one place we see differently. I agree that they claim they DID NOT submit the claimed proprietary code originally, but when they DID license their distribution, THAT IS WHEN THEY LICENSED THEIR CODE - all of it, even the stuff they claim was not intended to be licensed, even the stuff they say was introduced improperly or without their permission.
In addition, they were distributing THEIR OWN LINUX PRODUCT from their servers, not a hodge-podge they found somewhere and decided to give out.
They never entered into the GPL contract
I think I am following what you are saying, but it still makes no sense - legally or logically.
SCO/Caldera took GPLed code, made changes to it, and distributed it. By distributing it they did enter into the GPL contract as the ONLY way they could LEGALLY distribute the code was by agreeing to the licensing agreement that is part of the GPLed code - and that licensing agreement states that all modifications and additions if released are also released under GPL.
By distributing GPLed code, they put their additions and modifications under the GPL. Their choice was to either USE the code and make any modifications but not distribute it, OR distribute it and LICENSE their code - changes, additions, what-have-you - under the same license that allowed them to use the code in the first place, the Gnu Public License.
Part of the requirements of the license is that the source code be given to anyone who requests it. SCO/Caldera did that, so they HAD the source code - including the parts they claim was theirs. By then distributing it under the GPL, they DID license it under the GPL terms.
When they were distributing Linux from their servers they did not know that their "stolen code" was in it.
Why not? They were modifying the collection of software and redistributing it; did they not look at what they were selling?
SCO gave the right to use the product Linux to the people downloading it, not to use stolen code that happens to be in it.
Except that the license they released under DOES give people the right to use the code.
Everyone seems to like analogies, so here is one for you.
Suppose you were an author. Suppose I wrote a novel that used enough of your copyrighted work that you had legal right to take action. Now suppose I took my novel and put it into a collection. I GIVE that collection to you under a license that is what the GPL would be for written works, and you add more stories of your own, modify some stories, change the order of the stories, etc., and license the further distribution of the collection under the same license. I contend you DID NOT give up your licensing rights when I TOOK your work, but you DID when you then voluntarily released it yourself.
You are confusing SCO distributing software and SCO claiming ownership of parts of said software (which they have stopped distributing, imagine that). They are separate actions and they are unrelated in this matter.
Nope, no confusion. First, they were still distributing it from their servers until just recently - and they might still be; I have not checked recently. They may not be SELLING it, but they were still making it available. SCO is claiming ownership of some of the code. They have not proven that claim, but it is what they are putting forward. HOWEVER, by distributing that software, by selling that software under the license they chose, they DID NOT give up ownership, but they DID give up the right to retroactively change the licensing terms.
As far as I can tell, until SCO specifies parts of the code as being theirs and that claim is investigated and proven to be correct,
Red Hat sued SCO, there is no "counter suite". (Actually, RedHat sued for a declaratory judgement - i.e., a legal opinion from a judge that they were in the clear as far as copyright material in the kernel was concerned. Sort of spiking SCOs guns in the matter.)
Microsoft and SUN gave over $8,000,000 - over 96% of SCOs quarterly revenue. Without that chunk of $$$ SCO would have had another lose that quarter - the same as the quarter beforee that, and the one before that, and the one before that...
Stupid enough, or smart enough to capitalize on the greed of corporate officers of a dying company.
I am sure in some alternative universe, you are correct. In this one, however, you are not.
What you are trying to say is that the person who "stole their code" distributed it under GPL, and SCO gave up their rights as soon as it was distributed by someone else. - important part you don't seem to grasp emphasized.
SCO "gave up their rights" to restrict usage of the code when they, SCO, decided to, and then actually did distribute it under the GPL, which is a license that allows unlimited usage, modification, and redistribution by anyone as long as the terms of the license are adheared to.
There are no requirements for additional licenses at ANY price, as you already have a license to use it FROM SCO - when they released it under the GPL.
the optical and ultraviolet regions do not lie in the infrared region.
Yeah, but...
Ultraviolet range is anything with a frequency above violet light, optical is the frequencies between violet to red, and infrared is anything with a frequency below red light.
Light that was emitted at an ultraviolet or optical wavelength can be slowed down in frequency - Dopler shift is probably the most well known. Heard of red-shift?
Any frequency - gamma rays to visible, if red-shifted far enough is now infrared, and that is what this telescope is looking for.
The entire statement you selectively quoted is: As a result of the expansion of the Universe, most of the optical and ultraviolet radiation emitted from stars, galaxies, and quasars since the beginning of time now lies in the infrared. I added emphasis to the important part you left out.
So, while you are pedantically correct in that "Optical (visible?), ultraviolet and infrared are distinct parts of the electronmagnetic spectrum. [T]he optical and ultraviolet regions do not lie in the infrared region.", what was originally said is correct and your post does not correct anything.
By the way, unless you go with a definition of red and violet based on specific wavelengths, the designations "ultraviolet" and "infrared" are subjective, and may overlap with visible light to some extent. I am saying that MY definition of where the frequency gets high enough to no longer be visible and therefore becomes "ultraviolet" may not be the same point for you. It should be relatively close, but almost certainly not the exact same as it is subjective.
From the evidence in the case, the reason for the temperature was that THE COFFEE KEPT LONGER, so they did not have to throw out old batches and make new - they just kept the temperature up and served the old.
That was one of the reasons given for the size of the jury award - the only reason McDonald's had for keeping the temperature that high, even after paying several hundres of thousands of dollars in prior claims was it saved them more in supplies than they paid out in penalties. The jury was trying to make the penalties high enough that McDonald's would no longer think it was more profitable to keep the coffee that hot.
You are correct, liquids, including water, do not cause 'charring' - but at the temperature it was served - actually the temperature a few minutes later, when the cup collapsed and spilled the coffee onto her lap as she tried to remove the top to add creamer - it WAS hot enought to cause full thickness tissue destruction - the definition of third degree burns. Because of the full thickness burns, skin grafting was required to repair the damage.
I agree that this seems to be a case of user error - until I wonder WHY McDonalds gave her a cup of coffee that was that hot, in a cup that obtained a large part of its' structural strength from its' lid, AND the creamer. How was she supposed to get the creamer into the coffee?
I guess that, since there was no safe way to remove the lid - which was keeping the hot liquid in a safe condition - McDonald's was criminally negligent IN GIVING HER THE CREAMER - not in serving their coffee to hot!
The people shorting the stock are betting the stock price will drop - so they can buy back the shares and return them to the owners when the price is lower than it was when they borrowed the stocks. This means the owners fo the stock are betting the stock price will rise (or at a minimum not fall) otherwise they are getting back stocks worth less than when they lent them.
The people who originall held the SCO shares that were lent for short selling read the news and are getting a clue that this stock really is a steaming pile of horsesh*t. Because they lent their shares, they are feeling scared the market may drop out and they will be stuck with stocks worth materially less than they were when lent out.
So they are demanding the return of their shares - which the short-sellers are required to buy at market and therefore drives up the price short-term.
This may be GREAT news if this is, in fact, the case. If the owners who are willing to loan stock are not seeing any up-side (or more down-side than up-side? Remember, they are betting the stock will go up) to the stock, then possibly the end of this fiaSCO is near?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know about the shipping to Canada part, but try this www.ibutton.com as a source.
Hey, dummy, you spelled Moron wrong...
You were modded "funny", but I remember an article in the Wall Street Journal about a man getting in legal trouble for adding marijuana to his beer. He got in trouble BECAUSE THE LAW SAID HE COULD ONLY USE HOPS, MALT, YEAST, AND WATER if he wanted to call it "Beer", not because it was marijuana he was adding!
Also, the $6,000 PER BOTTLE fine would give me pause...
The police don't care; the hemp in his beer is very low in the active ingredient people smoke marijuana for. But Germany's image-conscious big brewers last month threatened to sue him. If Mr. Gerlach should lose in court, he could be fined $6,000 a bottle for violating the country's strict beer-purity law.
The Reinheitsgebot law, enacted in 1516, is one of the first consumer-protection measures in history. It requires that beer be made from malt, hops, yeast and water -- and nothing else. If you want to call it beer, you can't use flavorings. No chocolate, no cinnamon, no tequila and certainly no marijuana.
Cogito ergo spud
I think, therefore I yam...
"Looks like Michael Dell is showing some balls with this subject...don't think they are his though"
"Damnit Carly, you don't work here!"
I say, if this Carly is willing to show their balls for you, give them a paycheck, you insensitive clod!
"Privately, in meetings we've had with them, some very large companies in the IT industry have told us that they have a lot of problems with the GPL," said the SCO Group spokesman. from the article
... MICROSOFT!
I wonder WHOSE dirty work they are doing...?
Let me see, large - no VERY large company, in the IT business... My guess is
Did I win??
Ever notice how many times enough scandal accumulates by the time a president hits
the second term that he probably wouldn't be elected a third term?
Interesting, but as there is no allowed third term, I think the actual process is more like keep the scandals down for the first term, then who cares. It isn't like they can run again.
Why isn't there a moderation "disturbingly sick, but funny"?
" No, officer. I didn't actually READ the posted speed limit. May I go now? "
Except that the speed limit sign is notifying you of the LEGALLY restricted speed - there is no contract, implied or explicit.
ignorance of law is no defense of violation of law.. how can ignorance of contract be any defense at all?
By definition of contract law. A contract is an agreement BETWEEN two (or more) parties, not something imposed on one party by another. If the terms and conditions of the agreement were known beforehand, and you had the chance to read and understand them and then you agreed to them, then the EULA would definitely be enforceable. It is the fact that most EULAs are not available until AFTER you supposedly agreed to them that makes them legally shakey as far as enforcement.
How do you get into the BIOS without pressing any keys on the keyboard and agreeing to the EULA - or is it OK BEFORE the screen pops up?
Honest question.
Read the rest of the article.
"After all this, we *did* try to boot off a Linux install CD. That just took us to the same screen as before. So we had to go into the BIOS so that it would try to boot off the CD before the hard disk, but after we did that, Windows started to boot, without having displayed the "press a key to agree" screen. We quickly powered the machine down before Windows started. [Though now you no longer get the "press a key to agree" screen when you turn it on, even with the BIOS settings back the way they were.]"
I opened this at work, and the title bar reads:
"Failure is always an option - Microsoft Internet Explorer"
Gotta love it!
Actually, no, according to them, the code that "they own" was not submitted by them to be used in Linux and therefore is not legally under GPL. When they were distributing Linux from their servers they did not know that their "stolen code" was in it.
Here is one place we see differently. I agree that they claim they DID NOT submit the claimed proprietary code originally, but when they DID license their distribution, THAT IS WHEN THEY LICENSED THEIR CODE - all of it, even the stuff they claim was not intended to be licensed, even the stuff they say was introduced improperly or without their permission.
In addition, they were distributing THEIR OWN LINUX PRODUCT from their servers, not a hodge-podge they found somewhere and decided to give out.
They never entered into the GPL contract
I think I am following what you are saying, but it still makes no sense - legally or logically.
SCO/Caldera took GPLed code, made changes to it, and distributed it. By distributing it they did enter into the GPL contract as the ONLY way they could LEGALLY distribute the code was by agreeing to the licensing agreement that is part of the GPLed code - and that licensing agreement states that all modifications and additions if released are also released under GPL.
By distributing GPLed code, they put their additions and modifications under the GPL. Their choice was to either USE the code and make any modifications but not distribute it, OR distribute it and LICENSE their code - changes, additions, what-have-you - under the same license that allowed them to use the code in the first place, the Gnu Public License.
Part of the requirements of the license is that the source code be given to anyone who requests it. SCO/Caldera did that, so they HAD the source code - including the parts they claim was theirs. By then distributing it under the GPL, they DID license it under the GPL terms.
When they were distributing Linux from their servers they did not know that their "stolen code" was in it.
Why not? They were modifying the collection of software and redistributing it; did they not look at what they were selling?
SCO gave the right to use the product Linux to the people downloading it, not to use stolen code that happens to be in it.
Except that the license they released under DOES give people the right to use the code.
Everyone seems to like analogies, so here is one for you.
Suppose you were an author. Suppose I wrote a novel that used enough of your copyrighted work that you had legal right to take action. Now suppose I took my novel and put it into a collection. I GIVE that collection to you under a license that is what the GPL would be for written works, and you add more stories of your own, modify some stories, change the order of the stories, etc., and license the further distribution of the collection under the same license. I contend you DID NOT give up your licensing rights when I TOOK your work, but you DID when you then voluntarily released it yourself.
You are confusing SCO distributing software and SCO claiming ownership of parts of said software (which they have stopped distributing, imagine that). They are separate actions and they are unrelated in this matter.
Nope, no confusion. First, they were still distributing it from their servers until just recently - and they might still be; I have not checked recently. They may not be SELLING it, but they were still making it available. SCO is claiming ownership of some of the code. They have not proven that claim, but it is what they are putting forward. HOWEVER, by distributing that software, by selling that software under the license they chose, they DID NOT give up ownership, but they DID give up the right to retroactively change the licensing terms.
As far as I can tell, until SCO specifies parts of the code as being theirs and that claim is investigated and proven to be correct,
Red Hat has filed a counter suite.
Red Hat sued SCO, there is no "counter suite". (Actually, RedHat sued for a declaratory judgement - i.e., a legal opinion from a judge that they were in the clear as far as copyright material in the kernel was concerned. Sort of spiking SCOs guns in the matter.)
Microsoft and SUN gave over $8,000,000 - over 96% of SCOs quarterly revenue. Without that chunk of $$$ SCO would have had another lose that quarter - the same as the quarter beforee that, and the one before that, and the one before that...
Stupid enough, or smart enough to capitalize on the greed of corporate officers of a dying company.
Whoa, back up the truck there, bucky!
Because you are completely wrong, legally
I am sure in some alternative universe, you are correct. In this one, however, you are not.
What you are trying to say is that the person who "stole their code" distributed it under GPL, and SCO gave up their rights as soon as it was distributed by someone else. - important part you don't seem to grasp emphasized.
SCO "gave up their rights" to restrict usage of the code when they, SCO, decided to, and then actually did distribute it under the GPL, which is a license that allows unlimited usage, modification, and redistribution by anyone as long as the terms of the license are adheared to.
There are no requirements for additional licenses at ANY price, as you already have a license to use it FROM SCO - when they released it under the GPL.
Nope.
You put in a dollar, you get your dollar back you are even, or up 0%.
You get your dollar back, plus another dollar, you are up by a dollar, or 100% of your initial investment.
You get back THREE dollars, you are up twice what you put in, or 200%.
So if you get back 900%, you get back what you put in PLUS 9 times what you put in.
Start with a dollar, you now have $10.
Your figures are all 90x to high. To get the return you are showing, you would have to have 89900% return.
the optical and ultraviolet regions do not lie in the infrared region.
Yeah, but...
Ultraviolet range is anything with a frequency above violet light, optical is the frequencies between violet to red, and infrared is anything with a frequency below red light.
Light that was emitted at an ultraviolet or optical wavelength can be slowed down in frequency - Dopler shift is probably the most well known. Heard of red-shift?
Any frequency - gamma rays to visible, if red-shifted far enough is now infrared, and that is what this telescope is looking for.
The entire statement you selectively quoted is:
As a result of the expansion of the Universe, most of the optical and ultraviolet radiation emitted from stars, galaxies, and quasars since the beginning of time now lies in the infrared. I added emphasis to the important part you left out.
So, while you are pedantically correct in that "Optical (visible?), ultraviolet and infrared are distinct parts of the electronmagnetic spectrum. [T]he optical and ultraviolet regions do not lie in the infrared region.", what was originally said is correct and your post does not correct anything.
By the way, unless you go with a definition of red and violet based on specific wavelengths, the designations "ultraviolet" and "infrared" are subjective, and may overlap with visible light to some extent. I am saying that MY definition of where the frequency gets high enough to no longer be visible and therefore becomes "ultraviolet" may not be the same point for you. It should be relatively close, but almost certainly not the exact same as it is subjective.
Naw, but they CAN change your TV channel!
As well as bashful, sleepy, sneezy, dopey,...
From the evidence in the case, the reason for the temperature was that THE COFFEE KEPT LONGER, so they did not have to throw out old batches and make new - they just kept the temperature up and served the old.
That was one of the reasons given for the size of the jury award - the only reason McDonald's had for keeping the temperature that high, even after paying several hundres of thousands of dollars in prior claims was it saved them more in supplies than they paid out in penalties. The jury was trying to make the penalties high enough that McDonald's would no longer think it was more profitable to keep the coffee that hot.
She was a passenger, not driving. If you got that basic fact wrong, how much of the rest of what you post is also wrong?
You are correct, liquids, including water, do not cause 'charring' - but at the temperature it was served - actually the temperature a few minutes later, when the cup collapsed and spilled the coffee onto her lap as she tried to remove the top to add creamer - it WAS hot enought to cause full thickness tissue destruction - the definition of third degree burns. Because of the full thickness burns, skin grafting was required to repair the damage.
I agree that this seems to be a case of user error - until I wonder WHY McDonalds gave her a cup of coffee that was that hot, in a cup that obtained a large part of its' structural strength from its' lid, AND the creamer. How was she supposed to get the creamer into the coffee?
I guess that, since there was no safe way to remove the lid - which was keeping the hot liquid in a safe condition - McDonald's was criminally negligent IN GIVING HER THE CREAMER - not in serving their coffee to hot!
How about this one?
The people shorting the stock are betting the stock price will drop - so they can buy back the shares and return them to the owners when the price is lower than it was when they borrowed the stocks. This means the owners fo the stock are betting the stock price will rise (or at a minimum not fall) otherwise they are getting back stocks worth less than when they lent them.
The people who originall held the SCO shares that were lent for short selling read the news and are getting a clue that this stock really is a steaming pile of horsesh*t. Because they lent their shares, they are feeling scared the market may drop out and they will be stuck with stocks worth materially less than they were when lent out.
So they are demanding the return of their shares - which the short-sellers are required to buy at market and therefore drives up the price short-term.
This may be GREAT news if this is, in fact, the case. If the owners who are willing to loan stock are not seeing any up-side (or more down-side than up-side? Remember, they are betting the stock will go up) to the stock, then possibly the end of this fiaSCO is near?