My understanding of minors and contracts is that the contract CAN NOT BE ENFORCED AGAINST A MINOR, not what you said.
An example would be a minor who signed up for high speed internet service. If the service was defective, the minor COULD sue and win. On the other hand, if the minor did not pay the bill, the provider COULD NOT sue the minor (rather, they could not win). Notice that, if both parties are satisfied with the performance of the other, there is no bar to the contract itself.
It is this inequity (not a law making it illegal) that makes most unwilling to enter into contracts with minors.
As another example, minors can obtain and use a credit card. But because the card company can not sue to compel payment, they require an adult co-signer (who CAN be sued to compel payment).
I do, howwever agree with your other points, expecially this: "Minors can be legally made to do all sorts of things under duress."
To stop these lawsuits, there needs to be proper disincentives for the party filing the suit, right?
Right. And who is filing these lawsuits? THE LAWYERS are for their client.
This raises the question: why the hell did you go for the lawyers and not the clients?
Because the lawyer should have the knowledge to KNOW that the suit is frivolous, while the client may not know that it is.
The lawyers are just doing their jobs,...
No they are not.
Their job is to use their expertise in the legal field to HELP their client. They are not helping their client if they are filing frivolous lawsuits that CAN NOT WIN. They are only lining their own pockets with their fees while going through the motions. Smack them down hard enough, and they will forgo the cases as not worth the penalties involved.
...while their clients take pot-shots at people without due dilligence[sic].
What 'due diligence'? They have consulted a lawyer who took their money, told them they have a case, and started the process of filing a suit. The client does not (probably, although they might) know the suit is frivolous, BUT THE LAWYER SHOULD KNOW!
If a client goes to a lawyer and their request is turned down because the lawyer thinks it is frivolous and would result in the lawyer being sanctioned, the client has the opportunity to go to another lawyer for a second opinion. If the client goes to several lawyers AND THEY ALL REFUSE THE CASE, there is a chance the client will get the message not to pursue the case. Or the client could pursue it on their own, with the attached risk of the penalties associated with bringing a frivolous case which several EXPERTS IN THE LEGAL AREA have told them they WILL be hit with.
When a lawyer can bring a frivolous case with NO DISINCENTIVE or PENALTY, why should they turn the case down? It is money in their pocket, with (currently) no disincentive at all.
My own suggestion would be that the lawyer for the frivolous suit should be fined the entire amount of the client fees and expenses claimed, plus an amount equal to that amount. That way the client gets to pay their lawyer (no free lunch HERE!), but the lawyer does not profit by filing the case - in fact they LOSE money on frivolous suits (surely an incentive to NOT file stupid lawsuits).
For his client - which is what he is required to do.
And accomplished a great result.
This I don't see. He (Mr Ledford) did do a good thing for his client by getting the action dismissed, but he failed to get a dismissal 'with prejudice' to prevent a re-filing ofthe action, and he failed to get an acknowledgement that the RIAA had no case in the first place. He did not prevent these same actions by these same people against other defendants.
I fail to see any "great" accomplishment achieved.
On the other hand, not caving to confidentiallity demands, and making public their own defense, as well as the back-down generated, may give other lawyers a plan of attack that may help them defend THEIR clients effectively. That COULD result in a great accomplishment - we don't know yet, only time will show if it was great or not.
Diebold uses TWO kinds of paper, one for disabled voters, the other for everyone else. Sort the ballots by paper type, and you know how the disabled voters voted.
AutoMARK uses ONE paper for both disabled and non-disabled voters.
Not a "GPL zealot", but you are somewhat mistaken.
BSD gives away all rights to the software (except for advertising/copyright notices) which allows anyone to take the free code and chain it up in a propriatary product. They can also make changes to the base and not disclose the changes or the base on which they are made.
GPL does what BSD does, but with the additional requirement that the developer has to "keep the software free" by not allowing them to lock it up in a propriatary product or make derivative works and not make them as free as the base used.
BSD says 'This is free, I don't care what you do with it.', while GPL says 'This is free, you can do anything with it EXCEPT MAKE IT LESS FREE THAN WHEN YOU GOT IT.'
GPL is less free than BSD, in that GPL puts restrictions on the your ability to ADD restrictions to the original copyrighted work.
Which is more free: software released free under a license that allows you to make it non-free, or software released free under a license that requires you to keep it free? The additional requirement is a restriction on your freedom, but it ensures the freedom OF THE SOFTWARE.
Why have the '1 car length per 10 mph'? For reaction time. If the cars are all wired together, there is no reaction time, they can remain at 5 foot intervals.
Race car drivers do still have reaction times, but they routinely drive at between-car-intervals measured in INCHES (see drafting).
I didn't feel my hair move, and I don't hear well so I might have missed the hollow 'WHOOSH' of sarcasim flying over my head, but I am assuming you were serious.
I don't have a definition for you, but here are several analogies (OH NOOOS!)
If I had a teenage daughter and I kept a bowl of condoms on the coffee table, I would not be distributing them, but I would be making them available. If one of her friends took one home and the police were called (not sure why the police might be called, but just go with it...) I could (theoretically) be charged with 'making available' but not distributing them.
Given that mindset, then the answer to your questions are Yes.
If you did not lock down your OS and a shared folder was accessible inadvertently, then you are not making distributing it, but you are making it available - because if you had properly locked your OS down, it would not be available.
If you leave your iPod unattended, you have made the contents AVAILABLE, even though you did not distribute the contents.
And if you know that your OS needs patching and you do not do so, then yes, you are making everything on your hard drive available.
It looks to me like the difference is in intent. If you make available ON PURPOSE, then you may be distributing, but if you have no intent to distribute, then you are only making available.
On the other hand, if I make available pig crap that no one wants, and I do it on purpose, I may not be distributing, as no one wants what I am offering.
I think in this specific case and in all cases of file sharing, the people or organization bringing the claim should have to prove that the file is actually a copy of their copyrighted work, not just a screen shot of a listing of files that have names that MIGHT be copies of copyrighted work, and they should have to prove INTENT to contravene copyright. From the transcript, it looks like they are approaching that by claiming if it was in the shared folder, therefore it was intended to be shared, but that does not address someone who puts ALL their ripped songs in one folder - and that folder inadvertently gets shared.
I find it interesting that there was nothing given showing that ANYTHING was downloaded by the defendant, that there was any evidence that the works were ever downloaded by anyone other than the plaintiff, or that ANY of the files were actually copyrighted work belonging to the plaintiff.
For what it is worth, IANAL, I don't have a teenage daughter, and I don't have a coffee table.
Re:Does it matter?
on
SCO Vs. Groklaw
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Groklaw has always been in opposition to SCO
Either you don't read Groklaw or don't understand what it is.
Groklaw is not ANTI 'SCO', it is PRO TRUTH and intended to educate about the legal process.
When TSG (The SCO Group) comes out with a claim, i.e., "mountains of evidence" or "copied code", Groklaw does not attack them. Instead, it says "show us the evidence, show us the code'.
I do not feel it is Groklaws fault that TSG is wanting to use lies, PR (is that redundant?), and FUD to try to prevail over IBM.
Groklaw points out when IBM is right and when they are wrong and they also point out when TSG is right and when they are wrong. That TSG has not been right is not due to Groklaw being 'antiSCO' but due to TSG not being right. Claims otherwise are just handwaving and attempts at distraction - "Look at the Wookie!"
What part of TSG claiming to own copyrights that they would have bought from Novell but Novell states were never sold would PJ be able to testify about?
In my opinion, any attempt to depose PJ would be a fishing expedition, looking for information to gag a journalist, not for information expected to be of value in the litigation at issue.
I also find it interesting that TSG has been claiming they knew all about PJ, but now they can't seem to find her. Looks to me like either their prior claims were true but they are bungling the service of the deposition, or their prior claims were lies. Putting my best PROSCO spin on the situation, they are either liars or incompetent.
If the emperor really is not wearing any clothing, then pointing out that the emperor is not wearing any clothes is not pro-emperor or anti-emperor, it is just the truth - no matter how inconvenient it might be for the emperor.
If TSG is lying, then pointing out that TSG is lying is not proSCO or antiSCO, it is just the truth - no matter how inconvenient it might be for TSG.
The whole premise behind it's existence was to oppose what amounts to an appropriation of an entire tranche of human creative thought by corporate interests using ethically questionable legal methods.
I think that is just a fortuitous result, the stated purpose of Groklaw is to examine and learn about the legal process using cases that are of interest. TSGs effort to extort fees from linux users definitely piques a lot of interest, and their claims, being so easily debunked, have made great fodder for the examination portion of the equation, and TSGs continued efforts to delay have contributed just as greatly to the education side of the equation.
I think TSGs efforts at "appropriation of an entire tranche of human creative thought by corporate interests using ethically questionable legal methods." is deplorable, and I applaud IBMs meticulous defense against basically baseless claims, but Groklaw is only highlighting TSGs mis-steps, not opposing them.
Light causes cockroaches to scurry for cover, but the light is not anti-cockroach, nor does it oppose cockroaches, it is just something the cockroaches don't like. Reminds me a lot of TSG and the truth.
If I buy someone a plane ticket to come visit me, they're not taxed for it as income.
If it is a part of their employment, then under the tax code it IS income, and must be reported as such.
If it is a gift, then it falls under the gift tax, and is not reported as income, but as a gift. Currently you are allowed to give a certain amount each year and a maximum lifetime amount without paying any taxes ON WHAT YOU GIVE, and without the recipient paying any taxes on WHAT THEY RECEIVE. I think the current annual limit is something like $10,000.00 - a BUNCH less than the assessed value of the trip.
Give away enough plane tickets (to the same person, I think) and don't report it, and you will be in trouble with the IRS.
I think you have fallen into the same trap so many othes have fallen into.
That's still a lot higher than the $1,500 a year the average U.S. homeowner spends on energy, according to the federal government.
That is what the average U.S. homeowner spends NOW on energy.
How much would you like to bet that the average U.S. homeowner will spend considerably MORE than that in 10 years? 15 years? 25 years? For every $0.03 the avereage price per KWh goes up, the average U.S. homeowner pays an additional $500
Also, the cost of gasoline was not included in the $1,500 (Even if gasoline costs averaging about $1,000 per car annually are included in the energy mix,).Assuming the average miles the average driver puts on a car is 12,000 per year, that $1,000 for gasoline works out to roughly $1 (12 MPG) to $1.50 (18 MPG) per gallon. Current prices are probably close to double that.
Again don't you think the price of gasoline will go up in the next 10 years? 20 years?
Using the numbers in the article as a starting point, if the cost per KWh increased an average of $0.03 in the year after the article, and gasoline prices STAYED THE SAME AS THEY ARE NOW, the average U.S. homeowner is ALREADY at $4,000 for electricity and gasoline.
I do have to mention that this is assuming that there is no natural gas or other energy source included in the $1,500 mentioned in the article, but I also have to mention that my natural gas bill went up MORE than my electric bill (per unit) in each of the last three years, so cost (to me) for energy went up MORE than the amount I gave above.
According to your link, the system MIGHT finish building a warehouse sometime this year, the systems are not available at all yet, you can sign up now but you get nothing for an unknown period.
You can lock in for 1, 5, or 25 years according tothe link - although I do not see a good reason for opting for the one year term.
Also, according to the link, you can get the system moved ONCE for free (additional times if you pay) if you move. How many people do you know that have moved only once in 25 years?
Dillywankers that can't get your change right at Mickey Ds without the register display probably use 'and/or' just because they don't know any better, others use it because they heard it at Micky Ds!;-)
Due to Novell being allowed to 'go first', the trial has been unscheduled and is currently not scheduled at all. Judge Kimball has hinted that perhaps the next trial date could be in september '07.
Not knowing where "around here" is, I suspect it is your math that might be off.
At the national average of $0.09 per KW/hr, $9.00 gives 100 KW/hr of juice. To deliver that in 5 minutes, the rate would have to be 1200 KW/h. That is 1.2 MEGA watts per hour.
On the other hand, that level of power is already being used. The "Superman" roller coaster uses liner induction motors to accelerate to over 100 MPH in under 7 seconds, and uses about 1.2 MW to power the system. Of course, they are running two cars side by side, and I don't know if that 1.2MW is for one or both cars...
But I was thinking, if the technology exists (at the time) for such ultracapacitors, why would the 'service station' not have a bank of capacitors that charge at a lower rate over a much longer time, then discharge on demand to fill the capacitor banks of the vehicle(s)?
That the food value of a tank of biofuel could feed a human for six months.
Question: How many calories (actually kilocalories) are there in a tank of biofuel? (related questions - how high is up, and how long is a string?)
Average US diet is assumed to be around 2000 kilocalories per day, so 6 months worth would be 360,000 kilocalories. At 9 Kilocalories per gram, that would be 40,000 grams, or 40 Kilograms, roughly 90 pounds. Sounds reasonable. Roughly 10-15 gal.
On the other hand, a normal person who gets 100% of their calories daily from fat will die - I would assume it would take slightly more than 6 months, but without 'essential amino acids' from PROTEIN their body will devour itself and they __will__ die. I would bet in less than a year.
What is needed is a source for high quality (possibly not complete) protein - coincidentally, a byproduct of making biofuel!
I, too, live in Kansas. I also live next to a river. It may be that the river water needs treatment to be human consumable, but it doesn't need anything to be used as cooling water for a distillation tower. And as the ethanol produced is never intended for human consumption, river water is fine for the fermentation as well. No need to take the water from an aquifer.
Grow corn, soybeans, canola, rapeseed, sunflowers, even - this is Kansas, after all! Press the seeds for oil. What is left is seedcake. Mix with water, ferment the sugars, distill the ethanol produced. What is left is dried and fed to animals - pigs, cows, rabbits, whatever. Instead of growing a field of corn and feeding it to the cows, you grew a field of corn, extracted the oils for production of biodiesel or bioheating oil, running in a digester to convert starches to sugars then fermented the sugars to produce ethanol for additional fuel, THEN fed the protein and fiber rich residue to the cows (or to people, if processed into a form that was marketable). After running it through a cow, pig, rabbit, or chicken you get methane (less than currently as there are less sugars and starches remaining) meat, and great fertilizer.
The way I see it, it is not a question of crops for food or for fuel, but making efficient use of the crops - for fuel, THEN for food.
What percentage of crops is already grown for (food grade) oil production, what percentage for (food grade) sweetener production, what percentage for starch production, and what percentage for animal feed production? If you are processing corn for corn syrup production, corn oil is a waste byproduct. Use it for biofuel production. Processing corn for cornstarch? Then both oil and syrup are byproducts. Use them for biofuel production.
On the other hand, it is possible, I suppose, that the efficiency of the system is already at 100% so that any production used for fuel would directly reduce the amount available for all other possible uses. In that case, stop paying farmers to NOT grow crops which will increase the total amount available and so make some available for fuel production.
"OK, Microsoft shareholders, you law breakers you! 10 years in the pokey!"
Let me see, that is (60*60*24*365*10) or 315360000 seconds. There are 10.2 Billion shares, so each share would be responsible for about 0.0309 seconds. If you held less than 2,796,117 shares, you would be responsible for less than 1 day in the slammer.
Own one hundred shares? Better watch out, you will be spending 3 seconds with Bubba!
Given a PROTOCOL and an example (the source code) anyone should be able to implement the interface.
Given the source code (without the protocol you are trying to achieve), you only have one posible way of doing something, maybe not even the intended 'something'.
Windows API source code is intended to achieve several different goals - talk between two programs, maintain Microsofts' market share, and possible make it easier for other Microsoft software to interact with the application. So any 'peeking' at the source code would give you the method to achieve ALL those goals without knowing which part does what. However, if you are not interested in "maintain Microsoft's market share", you don't know which part of the source code you need to pattern after and which part is extranious TO YOUR NEEDS.
Given a protocol, you are free to come up with your own (better, faster, more efficient) implimentation. That your version is free from 'IP' incomberance (from having seen MS code) is just another plus.
They (Microsoft) were ordered to provide documentation for their software (especially the APIs) so that the playing field for ALL competitors was more level than MS wanted.
Microsoft has not done that.
Showing the source code does not accomplish the goal of allowing other software to EFFECIENTLY communicate with the Windows OS, nor to know what is intended to occur, only what Microsoft has managed to get working and shoved out the door.
Microsoft has neither complied with the letter of the requirement, nor with the intent (as understood by many).
Microsoft could comply, but chooses not to. Maybe there are evil reasons, maybe not. The fine is to help them to want to choose compliance.
I would not call you a fanboy, but you do seem to be going some distance to stick up for Microsoft, a distance that seems to be uncalled for based on the circumstances. And what is up with "Microsoft, which represents the most recent of the great American capitalist successes." You are just THAT close to stepping over the line into fanboy territory.
Some other corrections.
Not open XML, a propriatary version with licensing and redistribution restrictions.
Even before being 'deemed a monopoly' Microsoft was EFFECTIVELY a monopoly - which the court RECOGNIZED, it did not create the situation.
Whether the EU is corrupt or not, it has the power to levy this fine, and for Microsoft to not comply with the requirements that would result in NOT having to pay the fine in the first place does not mean they are standing up for Truth, Justice, and THE AMERICAN WAY!, it just means they think they don't have to obey the same rules as anyone else.
I don't see how the EU is trying to "squash a competitor" (as you say Microsoft has done) when Microsoft is not a competitor to the EU, and the EU is not a competitor to Microsoft.
YES! Exactly! They are guilty of unlawfully dulplicating, of copying without permission, of breaking the contract that is the license that they agreed to when they obtained the legal copy that was illegally copied (assuming the original was legally obtained, if not that is ANOTHER matter).
There are penalties under the laws for anyone conviced of unlawful copying, just as there are penalties under the laws for theft. But they are NOT THE SAME LAWS or the same PENALTIES because the actions are not CONSIDERED THE SAME under the law.
If it isn't your property (and remember, just because you may own a CD doesn't mean that the music on it is your property) then you don't have a right to do anything you want with it.
Again, I totally agree. You buy a CD, you own the CD. You can microwave it if you want. You can use it as a flying disk if you want. You can hang it from a string and make a wind chime of it if you want. You can give it away if you want. What you CAN'T (legally)do is COPY THE CONTENTS (except for legally allowed exceptions) just because you want to without permission from the copyright owner.
Slashdot Mirror
My understanding of minors and contracts is that the contract CAN NOT BE ENFORCED AGAINST A MINOR, not what you said.
An example would be a minor who signed up for high speed internet service. If the service was defective, the minor COULD sue and win. On the other hand, if the minor did not pay the bill, the provider COULD NOT sue the minor (rather, they could not win). Notice that, if both parties are satisfied with the performance of the other, there is no bar to the contract itself.
It is this inequity (not a law making it illegal) that makes most unwilling to enter into contracts with minors.
As another example, minors can obtain and use a credit card. But because the card company can not sue to compel payment, they require an adult co-signer (who CAN be sued to compel payment).
I do, howwever agree with your other points, expecially this: "Minors can be legally made to do all sorts of things under duress."
To stop these lawsuits, there needs to be proper disincentives for the party filing the suit, right?
...while their clients take pot-shots at people without due dilligence[sic].
Right. And who is filing these lawsuits? THE LAWYERS are for their client.
This raises the question: why the hell did you go for the lawyers and not the clients?
Because the lawyer should have the knowledge to KNOW that the suit is frivolous, while the client may not know that it is.
The lawyers are just doing their jobs,...
No they are not.
Their job is to use their expertise in the legal field to HELP their client. They are not helping their client if they are filing frivolous lawsuits that CAN NOT WIN. They are only lining their own pockets with their fees while going through the motions. Smack them down hard enough, and they will forgo the cases as not worth the penalties involved.
What 'due diligence'? They have consulted a lawyer who took their money, told them they have a case, and started the process of filing a suit. The client does not (probably, although they might) know the suit is frivolous, BUT THE LAWYER SHOULD KNOW!
If a client goes to a lawyer and their request is turned down because the lawyer thinks it is frivolous and would result in the lawyer being sanctioned, the client has the opportunity to go to another lawyer for a second opinion. If the client goes to several lawyers AND THEY ALL REFUSE THE CASE, there is a chance the client will get the message not to pursue the case. Or the client could pursue it on their own, with the attached risk of the penalties associated with bringing a frivolous case which several EXPERTS IN THE LEGAL AREA have told them they WILL be hit with.
When a lawyer can bring a frivolous case with NO DISINCENTIVE or PENALTY, why should they turn the case down? It is money in their pocket, with (currently) no disincentive at all.
My own suggestion would be that the lawyer for the frivolous suit should be fined the entire amount of the client fees and expenses claimed, plus an amount equal to that amount. That way the client gets to pay their lawyer (no free lunch HERE!), but the lawyer does not profit by filing the case - in fact they LOSE money on frivolous suits (surely an incentive to NOT file stupid lawsuits).
Mr. Ledford did the right thing.
For his client - which is what he is required to do.
And accomplished a great result.
This I don't see. He (Mr Ledford) did do a good thing for his client by getting the action dismissed, but he failed to get a dismissal 'with prejudice' to prevent a re-filing ofthe action, and he failed to get an acknowledgement that the RIAA had no case in the first place. He did not prevent these same actions by these same people against other defendants.
I fail to see any "great" accomplishment achieved.
On the other hand, not caving to confidentiallity demands, and making public their own defense, as well as the back-down generated, may give other lawyers a plan of attack that may help them defend THEIR clients effectively. That COULD result in a great accomplishment - we don't know yet, only time will show if it was great or not.
On that note, someone else is helping greatly by making this more widely visable - thanks, Mr. Beckerman and http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/ your web site.
Diebold uses TWO kinds of paper, one for disabled voters, the other for everyone else. Sort the ballots by paper type, and you know how the disabled voters voted.
AutoMARK uses ONE paper for both disabled and non-disabled voters.
Not a "GPL zealot", but you are somewhat mistaken.
BSD gives away all rights to the software (except for advertising/copyright notices) which allows anyone to take the free code and chain it up in a propriatary product. They can also make changes to the base and not disclose the changes or the base on which they are made.
GPL does what BSD does, but with the additional requirement that the developer has to "keep the software free" by not allowing them to lock it up in a propriatary product or make derivative works and not make them as free as the base used.
BSD says 'This is free, I don't care what you do with it.', while GPL says 'This is free, you can do anything with it EXCEPT MAKE IT LESS FREE THAN WHEN YOU GOT IT.'
GPL is less free than BSD, in that GPL puts restrictions on the your ability to ADD restrictions to the original copyrighted work.
Which is more free: software released free under a license that allows you to make it non-free, or software released free under a license that requires you to keep it free? The additional requirement is a restriction on your freedom, but it ensures the freedom OF THE SOFTWARE.
Why have the '1 car length per 10 mph'? For reaction time. If the cars are all wired together, there is no reaction time, they can remain at 5 foot intervals.
Race car drivers do still have reaction times, but they routinely drive at between-car-intervals measured in INCHES (see drafting).
I didn't feel my hair move, and I don't hear well so I might have missed the hollow 'WHOOSH' of sarcasim flying over my head, but I am assuming you were serious.
Didn't read the linked transcript, did you? :-)
There is a whole bunch of discussion with the udge about a case where a library made copyrighted work available and got into trouble.
There was more to it than just that, but still...
I don't have a definition for you, but here are several analogies (OH NOOOS!)
If I had a teenage daughter and I kept a bowl of condoms on the coffee table, I would not be distributing them, but I would be making them available. If one of her friends took one home and the police were called (not sure why the police might be called, but just go with it...) I could (theoretically) be charged with 'making available' but not distributing them.
Given that mindset, then the answer to your questions are Yes.
If you did not lock down your OS and a shared folder was accessible inadvertently, then you are not making distributing it, but you are making it available - because if you had properly locked your OS down, it would not be available.
If you leave your iPod unattended, you have made the contents AVAILABLE, even though you did not distribute the contents.
And if you know that your OS needs patching and you do not do so, then yes, you are making everything on your hard drive available.
It looks to me like the difference is in intent. If you make available ON PURPOSE, then you may be distributing, but if you have no intent to distribute, then you are only making available.
On the other hand, if I make available pig crap that no one wants, and I do it on purpose, I may not be distributing, as no one wants what I am offering.
I think in this specific case and in all cases of file sharing, the people or organization bringing the claim should have to prove that the file is actually a copy of their copyrighted work, not just a screen shot of a listing of files that have names that MIGHT be copies of copyrighted work, and they should have to prove INTENT to contravene copyright. From the transcript, it looks like they are approaching that by claiming if it was in the shared folder, therefore it was intended to be shared, but that does not address someone who puts ALL their ripped songs in one folder - and that folder inadvertently gets shared.
I find it interesting that there was nothing given showing that ANYTHING was downloaded by the defendant, that there was any evidence that the works were ever downloaded by anyone other than the plaintiff, or that ANY of the files were actually copyrighted work belonging to the plaintiff.
For what it is worth, IANAL, I don't have a teenage daughter, and I don't have a coffee table.
Groklaw has always been in opposition to SCO
Either you don't read Groklaw or don't understand what it is.
Groklaw is not ANTI 'SCO', it is PRO TRUTH and intended to educate about the legal process.
When TSG (The SCO Group) comes out with a claim, i.e., "mountains of evidence" or "copied code", Groklaw does not attack them. Instead, it says "show us the evidence, show us the code'.
I do not feel it is Groklaws fault that TSG is wanting to use lies, PR (is that redundant?), and FUD to try to prevail over IBM.
Groklaw points out when IBM is right and when they are wrong and they also point out when TSG is right and when they are wrong. That TSG has not been right is not due to Groklaw being 'antiSCO' but due to TSG not being right. Claims otherwise are just handwaving and attempts at distraction - "Look at the Wookie!"
What part of TSG claiming to own copyrights that they would have bought from Novell but Novell states were never sold would PJ be able to testify about?
In my opinion, any attempt to depose PJ would be a fishing expedition, looking for information to gag a journalist, not for information expected to be of value in the litigation at issue.
I also find it interesting that TSG has been claiming they knew all about PJ, but now they can't seem to find her. Looks to me like either their prior claims were true but they are bungling the service of the deposition, or their prior claims were lies. Putting my best PROSCO spin on the situation, they are either liars or incompetent.
If the emperor really is not wearing any clothing, then pointing out that the emperor is not wearing any clothes is not pro-emperor or anti-emperor, it is just the truth - no matter how inconvenient it might be for the emperor.
If TSG is lying, then pointing out that TSG is lying is not proSCO or antiSCO, it is just the truth - no matter how inconvenient it might be for TSG.
The whole premise behind it's existence was to oppose what amounts to an appropriation of an entire tranche of human creative thought by corporate interests using ethically questionable legal methods.
I think that is just a fortuitous result, the stated purpose of Groklaw is to examine and learn about the legal process using cases that are of interest. TSGs effort to extort fees from linux users definitely piques a lot of interest, and their claims, being so easily debunked, have made great fodder for the examination portion of the equation, and TSGs continued efforts to delay have contributed just as greatly to the education side of the equation.
I think TSGs efforts at "appropriation of an entire tranche of human creative thought by corporate interests using ethically questionable legal methods." is deplorable, and I applaud IBMs meticulous defense against basically baseless claims, but Groklaw is only highlighting TSGs mis-steps, not opposing them.
Light causes cockroaches to scurry for cover, but the light is not anti-cockroach, nor does it oppose cockroaches, it is just something the cockroaches don't like. Reminds me a lot of TSG and the truth.
If I buy someone a plane ticket to come visit me, they're not taxed for it as income.
If it is a part of their employment, then under the tax code it IS income, and must be reported as such.
If it is a gift, then it falls under the gift tax, and is not reported as income, but as a gift. Currently you are allowed to give a certain amount each year and a maximum lifetime amount without paying any taxes ON WHAT YOU GIVE, and without the recipient paying any taxes on WHAT THEY RECEIVE. I think the current annual limit is something like $10,000.00 - a BUNCH less than the assessed value of the trip.
Give away enough plane tickets (to the same person, I think) and don't report it, and you will be in trouble with the IRS.
I think you have fallen into the same trap so many othes have fallen into.
That's still a lot higher than the $1,500 a year the average U.S. homeowner spends on energy, according to the federal government.
That is what the average U.S. homeowner spends NOW on energy.
How much would you like to bet that the average U.S. homeowner will spend considerably MORE than that in 10 years? 15 years? 25 years? For every $0.03 the avereage price per KWh goes up, the average U.S. homeowner pays an additional $500
Also, the cost of gasoline was not included in the $1,500 (Even if gasoline costs averaging about $1,000 per car annually are included in the energy mix,).Assuming the average miles the average driver puts on a car is 12,000 per year, that $1,000 for gasoline works out to roughly $1 (12 MPG) to $1.50 (18 MPG) per gallon. Current prices are probably close to double that.
Again don't you think the price of gasoline will go up in the next 10 years? 20 years?
Using the numbers in the article as a starting point, if the cost per KWh increased an average of $0.03 in the year after the article, and gasoline prices STAYED THE SAME AS THEY ARE NOW, the average U.S. homeowner is ALREADY at $4,000 for electricity and gasoline.
I do have to mention that this is assuming that there is no natural gas or other energy source included in the $1,500 mentioned in the article, but I also have to mention that my natural gas bill went up MORE than my electric bill (per unit) in each of the last three years, so cost (to me) for energy went up MORE than the amount I gave above.
there's Renu.
No, there isn't - at least not yet.
According to your link, the system MIGHT finish building a warehouse sometime this year, the systems are not available at all yet, you can sign up now but you get nothing for an unknown period.
You can lock in for 1, 5, or 25 years according tothe link - although I do not see a good reason for opting for the one year term.
Also, according to the link, you can get the system moved ONCE for free (additional times if you pay) if you move. How many people do you know that have moved only once in 25 years?
A AND/OR B = OR (inclusive by definition)
;-)
A OR B (but not both) = XOR
Dillywankers that can't get your change right at Mickey Ds without the register display probably use 'and/or' just because they don't know any better, others use it because they heard it at Micky Ds!
Ha!
OJ Simpson thinks it is not fscked up at all. In fact, he is gratefull that someone who is otherwise healthy can get away with murder!
When is the trial?
The trial _WAS_ scheduled to start in Feb of '07.
Due to Novell being allowed to 'go first', the trial has been unscheduled and is currently not scheduled at all. Judge Kimball has hinted that perhaps the next trial date could be in september '07.
That sound you just heard was the sound of a joke as it passes so far over your head that your hair didn't even move as it went by.
Not knowing where "around here" is, I suspect it is your math that might be off.
At the national average of $0.09 per KW/hr, $9.00 gives 100 KW/hr of juice. To deliver that in 5 minutes, the rate would have to be 1200 KW/h. That is 1.2 MEGA watts per hour.
On the other hand, that level of power is already being used. The "Superman" roller coaster uses liner induction motors to accelerate to over 100 MPH in under 7 seconds, and uses about 1.2 MW to power the system. Of course, they are running two cars side by side, and I don't know if that 1.2MW is for one or both cars...
But I was thinking, if the technology exists (at the time) for such ultracapacitors, why would the 'service station' not have a bank of capacitors that charge at a lower rate over a much longer time, then discharge on demand to fill the capacitor banks of the vehicle(s)?
Get a bunch of geeks armed with minibar keys...
Ga tha', (hic) wha'sh step two again, ol'buddy?
Sulfer is usually there as a lubricant and to keep any rubber parts from disintegrating.
That the food value of a tank of biofuel could feed a human for six months.
Question: How many calories (actually kilocalories) are there in a tank of biofuel? (related questions - how high is up, and how long is a string?)
Average US diet is assumed to be around 2000 kilocalories per day, so 6 months worth would be 360,000 kilocalories. At 9 Kilocalories per gram, that would be 40,000 grams, or 40 Kilograms, roughly 90 pounds. Sounds reasonable. Roughly 10-15 gal.
On the other hand, a normal person who gets 100% of their calories daily from fat will die - I would assume it would take slightly more than 6 months, but without 'essential amino acids' from PROTEIN their body will devour itself and they __will__ die. I would bet in less than a year.
What is needed is a source for high quality (possibly not complete) protein - coincidentally, a byproduct of making biofuel!
I, too, live in Kansas. I also live next to a river. It may be that the river water needs treatment to be human consumable, but it doesn't need anything to be used as cooling water for a distillation tower. And as the ethanol produced is never intended for human consumption, river water is fine for the fermentation as well. No need to take the water from an aquifer.
Grow corn, soybeans, canola, rapeseed, sunflowers, even - this is Kansas, after all! Press the seeds for oil. What is left is seedcake. Mix with water, ferment the sugars, distill the ethanol produced. What is left is dried and fed to animals - pigs, cows, rabbits, whatever. Instead of growing a field of corn and feeding it to the cows, you grew a field of corn, extracted the oils for production of biodiesel or bioheating oil, running in a digester to convert starches to sugars then fermented the sugars to produce ethanol for additional fuel, THEN fed the protein and fiber rich residue to the cows (or to people, if processed into a form that was marketable). After running it through a cow, pig, rabbit, or chicken you get methane (less than currently as there are less sugars and starches remaining) meat, and great fertilizer.
The way I see it, it is not a question of crops for food or for fuel, but making efficient use of the crops - for fuel, THEN for food.
What percentage of crops is already grown for (food grade) oil production, what percentage for (food grade) sweetener production, what percentage for starch production, and what percentage for animal feed production? If you are processing corn for corn syrup production, corn oil is a waste byproduct. Use it for biofuel production. Processing corn for cornstarch? Then both oil and syrup are byproducts. Use them for biofuel production.
On the other hand, it is possible, I suppose, that the efficiency of the system is already at 100% so that any production used for fuel would directly reduce the amount available for all other possible uses. In that case, stop paying farmers to NOT grow crops which will increase the total amount available and so make some available for fuel production.
"OK, Microsoft shareholders, you law breakers you! 10 years in the pokey!"
Let me see, that is (60*60*24*365*10) or 315360000 seconds. There are 10.2 Billion shares, so each share would be responsible for about 0.0309 seconds. If you held less than 2,796,117 shares, you would be responsible for less than 1 day in the slammer.
Own one hundred shares? Better watch out, you will be spending 3 seconds with Bubba!
(Nice number!)
I agree with you.
Given a PROTOCOL and an example (the source code) anyone should be able to implement the interface.
Given the source code (without the protocol you are trying to achieve), you only have one posible way of doing something, maybe not even the intended 'something'.
Windows API source code is intended to achieve several different goals - talk between two programs, maintain Microsofts' market share, and possible make it easier for other Microsoft software to interact with the application. So any 'peeking' at the source code would give you the method to achieve ALL those goals without knowing which part does what. However, if you are not interested in "maintain Microsoft's market share", you don't know which part of the source code you need to pattern after and which part is extranious TO YOUR NEEDS.
Given a protocol, you are free to come up with your own (better, faster, more efficient) implimentation. That your version is free from 'IP' incomberance (from having seen MS code) is just another plus.
They (Microsoft) were ordered to provide documentation for their software (especially the APIs) so that the playing field for ALL competitors was more level than MS wanted.
Microsoft has not done that.
Showing the source code does not accomplish the goal of allowing other software to EFFECIENTLY communicate with the Windows OS, nor to know what is intended to occur, only what Microsoft has managed to get working and shoved out the door.
Microsoft has neither complied with the letter of the requirement, nor with the intent (as understood by many).
Microsoft could comply, but chooses not to. Maybe there are evil reasons, maybe not. The fine is to help them to want to choose compliance.
I would not call you a fanboy, but you do seem to be going some distance to stick up for Microsoft, a distance that seems to be uncalled for based on the circumstances. And what is up with "Microsoft, which represents the most recent of the great American capitalist successes." You are just THAT close to stepping over the line into fanboy territory.
Some other corrections.
Not open XML, a propriatary version with licensing and redistribution restrictions.
Even before being 'deemed a monopoly' Microsoft was EFFECTIVELY a monopoly - which the court RECOGNIZED, it did not create the situation.
Whether the EU is corrupt or not, it has the power to levy this fine, and for Microsoft to not comply with the requirements that would result in NOT having to pay the fine in the first place does not mean they are standing up for Truth, Justice, and THE AMERICAN WAY!, it just means they think they don't have to obey the same rules as anyone else.
I don't see how the EU is trying to "squash a competitor" (as you say Microsoft has done) when Microsoft is not a competitor to the EU, and the EU is not a competitor to Microsoft.
Sorry, I was wrong. You ARE a fanboy.
...duplicating it unlawfully,...
YES! Exactly! They are guilty of unlawfully dulplicating, of copying without permission, of breaking the contract that is the license that they agreed to when they obtained the legal copy that was illegally copied (assuming the original was legally obtained, if not that is ANOTHER matter).
There are penalties under the laws for anyone conviced of unlawful copying, just as there are penalties under the laws for theft. But they are NOT THE SAME LAWS or the same PENALTIES because the actions are not CONSIDERED THE SAME under the law.
If it isn't your property (and remember, just because you may own a CD doesn't mean that the music on it is your property) then you don't have a right to do anything you want with it.
Again, I totally agree. You buy a CD, you own the CD. You can microwave it if you want. You can use it as a flying disk if you want. You can hang it from a string and make a wind chime of it if you want. You can give it away if you want. What you CAN'T (legally)do is COPY THE CONTENTS (except for legally allowed exceptions) just because you want to without permission from the copyright owner.