It's high-time that someone high up in the judiciary pointed a finger at the MPAA/RIAA legal departments and said "What you're doing is legal but is not fair. Be fair. Be ethical." But elephants will fly before that happens, because there's just too much money flowing into people's pockets from the racket, and that includes lawyer's pockets.
Unfortunately, you are both right and wrong.
It is easy to defing what is legal or illegal - something is legal if the laws specifically say it is legal or the laws DO NOT specifically say it is illegal. That is the job of lawyers and judges.
Now you (or anyone) define what is fair or what is ethical. In addition, specify who is to determine what meets the definitions.
It really has nothing to do with the money going into someones pocket - anytime you have that amount of money being bandied about, you will find someone to do the dirty work - but with the difficulty of defining justice, fairness, and ethics.
There are many LEGAL rulings that do not meet my definitions of fairness, justice, or ethicalness (is that even a word?).
In a personal injury lawsuit, let us say the lawyer convinces the jury that the past and future medical needs of the injured will require $10M. The Jury awards the injured person $10M. Now the lawyer gets 1/3rd to 1/2 of that award - so the injured person now no longer has enough to meet their future medical bills. How is it fair, or ethical, or just for the lawyer to take that money? But it IS legal, and happens all the time in contingency cases, one reason why personal injury lawyers are so ubiquitious - the chance for one fat paycheck given the right client!
Another example would be the person convicted of having 'over-the-legal-limit' of a drug who is sentenced to more time than a violent offender. It is legal, but how is it fair, or just?
Justice in the legal system is defined as being when all the laws have been appropriately applied. Not my definition of justice, but I have no means of changing that definition.
Why would I pay SCOX a fee to license IBM's code, when IBM has already given me a license?
TSCOG is claiming that IBM signed a contract giving control of the code to both IBM and TSCOG (many, MANY legal problems with this theory, but it seems to be what they are claiming), so IBM could not legally let you have a license, so you are using the code illegally if you don't also have TSCOGs permission which you can have for the low, low price of $699 - BUT WAIT!! call in the next 10 minutes and get this Ginsu knife ABSOLUTELY FREE!!
SCOX has accused IBM of contributing IBM's OWN CODE to Linux. Not SCOX code, but code that IBM wrote and is the sole copyright holder.
Except that TSCOG is claiming that IBM signed a contract giving control of the release of the code to both IBM and TSCOG. So, although the code was developed by IBM, TSCOG is claiming a legal veto on the release, claiming the contract gives them that right.
TSCOG is saying IBM did something they shouldn't have, namely releasing code that they signed a contract NOT to release. As punishment, TSCOG is asking for BILLIONS AND BILLIONS BWAAHAAAAHAAA...
And for just $699, they promise not to sue YOU as well for using the code IBM released that TSCOG has control over based on the contract (that does not say what TSCOG says it says, at least according to AT&T, et al).
This is/was a straight out extortion attemt - pay us now, or we will sue everyone for outrageous sums later. The 'license' was a 'get out of jail cheap' card, not an actual license for what belonged to IBM but was, according to TSCOGs novel legal theory, controlled by TSCOG.
I even think if their underlying (pun?) contention was true - that IBM signed over the rights TSCOG is claiming they did - then the remainder of their argument might have some merit. As TSCOG has not proven ANYTHING yet and seems not to be able to prove anything going forward, I really don't have any fears I will be needing to shell out the $$$.
1) Never underestimate the power of wishful thinking and stupidity.
2a) You don't, as TSCOG released THE EXACT SAME CODE under the GPL.
2b) Any fine IBM would be assessed (the 5 (pinky to mount) BILLION dollars) would be a legal punishment, not a fee to license. Under your scenerio (not the actuality) TSCOG would still own the IP they started with, plus the $5B, and the right to license their IP any way they want to. Of course, here in the real world where TSCOG didn't have any IP in the first place...
What they were buying was a document that said TSCOG would not sue them for using their IP in Linux.
When it is proven there is not TSCOG IP in Linux, they now have TWO assurances of not being sued - the 'license' they bought and the court decision that there is no TSCOG IP in Linux.
The only way they could have a case against TSCOG is if they buy a "license" that says TSCOG won't sue them for using TSCOGs IP by using Linux, then TSCOG DOES sue them.
In much the same way, I can't sell you the title to the Golden Gate Bridge (I don't own the Golden Gate Bridge), but I CAN sell you "all my rights to the Golden Gate Bridge" for whatever we decide between us is a fair price. The fact that you are buying something that doesn't exist is inmaterial.
AIX is propriatary to IBM, and they have not released it to the general public.
Linux is available to the general public.
If I said "some part of Linux is also in AIX, and some parts or concepts from AIX are in Linux" you have gained little useful knowledge. But if I said "This specific routine is in both Linux and also AIX" you may have gained quite a bit of helpful reverse engineering knowledge.
IBM was required by the court to provide source code for their propriatary AIX product to TSCOG, but did so under provisions that limited the ability of TSCOG to release it to the public (and to TSCOG, competitors to IBMs Unix OS, AIX). For TSCOG to now say "This code is in both AIX and Linux" is probably covered under the provisions that limited the release of information and could open TSCOG to court sanctions if NOT sealed.
That analogy only works if the girl was already a famous swimsuit model and the comparison is between two sets of publicly available photos.
No, the point is that one of the sets of photos is NOT public (IBMs AIX). The original analogy is more correct. In fact, in the case of nude photos, by proving guilt (authenticating that the photos are of the person bringing suit) the harm done is increased - instead of thinking MAYBE it is nude photos of that person now we KNOW it is nude photos of them) - exactly the reason for sealing portions of the record.
TSCOG (The SCO Group - NOT SCO, even though TSCOG is claiming to be the reincarnation of SCO) is claiming that IBM signed a contract prohibiting the release of information, then released that information anyway and doing so broke the contract, so TSCOG should be paid 5 (pinky to mounth) BILLION dollars.
So you are partly correct -
isn't the lawsuit about IBM supposedly making this proprietary (secret) knowledge, public?
except that the propriatary or secret part actually has nothing to do with it.
Copyright law says that by creating a work, I own a copyright on that work. Contract law says I can agree to give up the rights given me by Copyright law on that work if I want to. TSCOG seems to be saying that IBM gave up their rights in writing, then broke the contract and should be punished.
As far as keeping it sealed, TSCOG may not have a choice.
Some of the AIX code was provided to TSCOGs lawyers by IBM under the condition it would not be provided to TSCOG programmers. If the lawyers released the code in such a way that TSCOG programmers COULD get at it, they could be in violation of court orders. By providing it to the court sealed they could be meeting the requirements of the court on several different levels.
Now, if that is the case, IBM can unseal the code.
As I posted above this subthread, Massachusetts IS a current (and potential future) customer, and Microsoft is, so far, refusing to include a (reasonable, in my opinion) support of a non-propriatary format.
Nothing I have seen so far says that the ODF has to be the ONLY format supported (so Microsoft can keep offering.doc for anyone who wants it).
I am amazed that Microsoft can think that they can dictate terms to the government - even a state government.
Microsoft: We are a monopoly, and you WILL buy our product because you have no choice! Massachusetts: We will not buy your product if it does not meet our needs. Microsoft: WAAAA! That's not fair!!!
Point one, petition signatures do not equate to customer demand. Note the word 'customer'. I.e., the claim is that, if enough CUSTOMERS request the feature, then a future version MIGHT contain the requested feature.
Point two. The state of Massachusetts IS a current customer, and IS demanding this 'feature' and Microsoft is, so far, refusing to include it in any future version. So much for claims of "...will support the OpenDocument format in MS Office if there is customer demand."
Once their claim has been PROVEN FALSE, additional appeals based on that claim (as in this petition) are doomed from the start.
I think efficiency has something to do with it, but natural gas is currently used to generate heat and electricity.
The fuel cells in the article generate heat, electricity, and hydrogen.
Looks to me like the demand for natural gas for heating and power generation would decrease, offsetting (at least to a degree) the increase in demand for natural gas for hydrogen synthesis.
Is she insuring the virus DOES get spread - is that why the terrorist is alive - and so the 'ruling class' in the future gets to become (stay) the ruling class, (if so why was there the effort to do the whole time travel thing in the first place), or is she insuring that the virus DOESN'T spread - in which case why does the movie end there?
Didn't the terrorist expose himself and everyone else in the airport when he opened the sample flask? If everyone was exposed, and in a high traffic area such as the airport, then she could not be insuring that the virus DOESN'T spread.
But there was no effort to show that the ruling class had any reason or intention of trying to retain their position.
Oh, wait, it is actually less than 60%, and the number of cases is under 150, and the number of fatalities is actually less than 100.
Oh and ALL the cases are in areas that I have come to associate with grade A, Prime, top notch health care (NOT!!), good hygiene (NOT!!), and excellent diet (NOT!!), such as rural Vietnam, Hong Kong, rural China, etc.
I feel your pain, and I am going to send you a LiveCD that will, when put into almost any computer with a CD drive and available internet access and the machine booted, give you access to federal aid - a browser and email application that, if you have internet access will let you contact FEMA and start the process of rebuilding your life.
Oh, wait a minute, the FEMA website requires IE6 running on an OS that can run IE6, which requires licensing fees and hardware advanced enough to run that OS.
Never mind.
Everyone that might have gotten a head start on rebuilding, sorry about that.
The agency charged with helping you has put ARTIFICIAL ROADBLOCKS IN THE WAY.
Sorry about that, but try to have a nice day anyway.
Second, you wrote five sentences and got four of them wrong.
If you survived hurricane katrina and need to file a FEMA claim, the likelyhood that you have a working PC (or at least access to it) is pretty low.
Relief operations are working on getting kiosks up and running and computer access in shelters so that people can communicate to their loved ones that they are still alive as well as providing access to other functions including access to FEMA forms and registration.
Access to running computers should be fairly common either now or Real Soon Now.
In addition, many fled when the hurricane was known to be hitting the area. Those people ARE NOT NECESSARLY IN N.O. and quite probably either brought a laptop with them or have access to computers where ever they are. They still need the FEMA access.
Most people that will NEED FEMA aid are going to be filing via PAPER or PHONE, probably with assistance from their shetler[sic].
While many (perhaps even most) will be filing via paper, the phone call is only to get the forms MAILED TO YOUR (UNDERWATER/BLOWN AWAY) HOME. In fact there are postings telling of being on hold for extended periods only to reach a recording telling the caller that they can go online to get the information! In addition, there are efforts under way to get computer access in the shelters, so haveing a website that is accessable would be a good option, at least in my opinion...
These claims aren't for frivolity.
Correct. People should not be trying to see if their browser can access the site if they don't have a claim.
If you have a working computer and have access to it, you don't need to file.
Wrong in general. See my comments above about how people can need to file AND have access to a working computer.
If you didn't have other insurance and are not in a dire situation then it's really on you to repair.
This is wrong as written, but I am not sure it was written as you wanted. If you DO have other insurance and are not in dire staits, then you probably should not be taking time and energy from FEMA right now.
This web site was originally an in-house job FOR IN-HOUSE USE ONLY, and FEMA policy is to only use IE, so they never had to see if it worked on any other browser. Testing on other browsers was to have happened later this year/early next year, but the site was rolled out early due to the disaster.
I don't think it is arrogance (they were trying to get the tool available because something like it was needed despite KNOWING that there had not been sufficient testing of the current app.) that needs to be answered for, I think it is the 'M$ only' policy that needs to be answered for.
If the agency had been using non-propriatory software, I would like to think the site would have been writen to the current HTML standards, not the non-standards-compliant IE HTML 'standard' and would then be available to all browsers INCLUDING IE.
This is somewhat similar to a state regulation in Iowa that all government forms are only available in English
Yes, in that they are both stupid.
All forms SHOULD be AT LEAST available in English. Other languages should be an option if demand is high enough and/or the price is set high enough to cover the cost.
In the FEMA case, creating a website TO THE CURRENT HTML STANDARDS would insure that ALL the web browsers would work for that site. EXTRA EFFORT IS REQUIRED TO BREAK THE STANDARDS TO MAKE THE SITE USEABLE BY IE6. ONLY.
FEMA had to spend extra money, time, and effort to break the site sufficiently so that IE6.0 was required - actually, spoofing the browser allows most of the site to be viewed to a point; I have not tried to progress past that to see if the site has any mechanism that actually is broken under other browsers.
If the site doesn't actually need something that is non-standards-compliant in IE6 then not allowing other browsers is stupid and should be penalized, while if something in the site DOES require IE6 then that is just stupid and short sighted - inexcusable in an agency that is charged with PLANNING AHEAD for emergencies - and should be penalized.
/humor/ They are obviously too 'busy' or too cheap to hire someone who speaks spanish for the large hispanic population... and in this case their[sic] just too stupid to write a webpage that can work in both IE and real browsers.
I didn't realize it was the large hispanic population of Iowa who had writeen the FEMA web page. I take back most of what I said as I would not want to be labeled anti-Iowaian-hispanic! /endhumor/
This is an application that was originally intended for use internally to FEMA and as IE is the 'Official' browser of the agency, it was designed to be used by that browser.
This is not something that was "whipped up" when "speed was of the esence" so shoddy workmanship is inexcusable.
This is an application that has been used internally at FEMA for more than a year.
With their houses flooded or destroyed, those who had computers in the first place now don't have them (and don't have power either) and those who didn't have computers to begin with weren't going that route anyway.
Congratulations, you have just joined the swelling ranks of dumbshits with an opinion and a method of expressing it, but apparently without the ability to think a thing through.
Relief organizations are setting up kiosks with Linux and NON-IE browsers so that people affected by the hurricane can let loved ones know they are alive as well as register for FEMA assistance - Oh, wait, yuo can't register for FEMA assistance from a NON-IE browser. Oops! So instead of using crap hardware and an OS that supports it (and both FREE, not taking resources from the rescue and relief efforts) Newer hardware, higher quality hardware, SUPPORTED hardware is required, and a LICENSE needs to be purchased for the OS, and the OS in question is known to be compromised when connected to the internet IN LESS THAN 5 MINUTES, less time than is required to download the patches to allow the OS to survive for longer than that on the 'net.
In addition, the donated hardware can be used with a LiveCD OS - Plug in the cabling, insert the CD, and power the machine. You have a working system with browser, email, everything when the machine finishes booting. with the OtherOS (Microsoft) you have to install, configure, download, etc.
You mentioned that speed was of the essence here, so which is faster -
1) install a CD and boot, or
2) install an OS that requires multiple boots of
the machine, then install the patches, then
install IE, then configure everything.
You were right in two things (as far as I can tell, you ONLY got three things right, though, the first was when you stated you didn't know any details) in your post.
There is a whole lot of blame to go around here
and
Blame it on the management
Repeat that last.
Blame it on the management !!
Blame it on the FEMA management for endorsing and even REQUIRING a closed source, PROPRIATARY software browser in the first place.
As far as the victoms of the hurricane, I empathize with them, their whole world has been turned upside down and ripped apart. HOWEVER!!! I live in an area which gets tornados, and MY HOUSE HAS A BASEMENT, BATTERY POWERED RADIO, AND FLASHLIGHT (and other emergency gear). We routinely get snow here, AND MY HOUSE HAS A FURNACE. It can get hot here (over 100F) and I HAVE AN AIRCONDITIONER.Power occasionally goes out AND I HAVE A GENERATOR.
My point is that there are unavoidable natural disasters, and some planning has to be done for 'what if'.
Building next to the sea and below sea level (strike one, not very smart),
next to a lake and below the lake level (strike two, not very smart),
and next to a swamp but below the swamp water level (strike three, not very smart),
in an area that is known to get hurricanes (strike four),
with no plans or provisions to leave if a hurricane occures (strikes five and six),
and no emergency supplies stockpiled in advance (strike seven),
and not leaving when WARNED THAT A HURRICANE IS GOING TO STRIKE (strike eight) Is NOT condusive to engendering massive amounts of sympathy from me.
Failure to plan on your/their part does not constitute an emerg
The article is about a new method of making the current test more accurate and faster, it is not a new test.
You are precisely correct in that vCJD is thought to be caused by injesting BSE contaminated meat whereas CJD is classified as either inherited or 'sporatic' - i.e., no known cause or risk factor.
BSE is thought to be a Transmissable Spongiform Encephalopathy (TSE) where CJD is not known to be transmissable unless the victom is eaten - as the disease Kuru is/was in cannibals who ate the brains of their dead.
If the email has a forged address then the spammer sent it from one machine but tried to make it seem it came from another. WHATEVER machine it was sent from would have had to have paid the micropayment to get it sent/accepted. If the originating machine was the spammers' machine then the spammer would have to have paid in the amount of the micropayment.
IF THE SPAMMER HIJACKED YOUR MACHINE, they would be sending their spam FROM YOUR ACCOUNT, using money YOU paid into YOUR account for YOUR use. Repeat after me, the cost to THE SPAMMER is zero.
Have you ever received metered mail? That is the mail that doesn't have a stamp, but instead has an imprint or printed (I have mostly seen printed in red, don't know if that is a requirement or not but at one time a special dye was required that was machine readable under alternative light sources so that the validity of the imprint was checked) with a notice that the postage has been paid. The Meter is a sealed unit that is (or at least was when I worked at a local postal service branch) brought to the Post Office and 'recharged' by giving the clerk an amount of money that was then securely added to the meter. The owner of the meter could then affix 'postage' to their mail up to the amount they had bought. When the postage amount bought was used up, the meter was returned to the Post Office and the process was repeated.
Sound familiar? Reminds me of the micropayment idea, except instead of paying the PO to DELIVER your mail you are paying the recipient to ACCEPT your email.
If you had such a meter and put money into postage on that meter, and I somehow gained access to your meter, I could send mail for free - free TO ME, because I was using YOUR money for the postage.
That is my point that you have missed. Assume I put money into MY account in order to send MY email with a micropayment attached. EvilSpammer(tm) cracks my machine and sends email FROM MY ACCOUNT, USING MY MONEY for the micropayment. EvilSpammer(tm) could not care less about Paypal or any other micropayment system. They have not forged anything, they have STOLEN from my account my money and used it for their own purposes.
If I put $100 into a micropayment account in order to send 10,000 emails at $0.01 each but EvilSpammer(tm) uses it all up and I can't send that email chain letter to all my family and friends and so wind up with 40 years of bad luck, I might be MOTIVATED to find a more secure OS.
Your final comment was about the registration pages. You are correct, they are used to track demographics. Why are demographics tracked? So that advertisers can be pitched to buy advertising space based on those demographics, and the price of the advertising can be increased with teh demographic data as justification. Possibly also so that marketing email can be sent to those who register, or so that telemarketing persons can use the information for cold calling purposes - I don't know if this would constitute a 'prior business relationship' under the telemarketer laws or not. I don't know that The New York Times (TNYT) does any of that or not, but the possibility exists, and all of those activities are intended to generate income.
Again, my point which you seem to have missed, is that the POINT of the registration page is to gain income at some point; my micropayment alternative would give the website an immediate payment IN ORDER TO COMPENSATE FOR NOT GAINING INCOME FROM THE REGISTRATION PAGE, thereby causing the registration page to 'go-away' quietly and painlessly for those using the micropayment system.
Yes, you only have to do the registration once - if you enable cookies. Some people don't want cookies tracking their web movements. Some people delete cookies when found on their machine. Those people have to register again and again.
In addition, some people use bogus information to register, messing with the demographic information. I am pretty sure TNYT would prefer an accurate demographic from those who WANT their information included (or just don't care), while a micropayment from those who really would rather not give out their information would be felt to be better than a false entry in their demographic data.
I am not replying to you (parent poster) alone, but to all who have posted that this would stop spam.
It won't.
When did you last get email from a.spammer@myrealaddress.com?
I agree that, if spammers used their own accounts it would, but with things like zombies, spoofing, and all the other ways of sending spam I have read about that use OTHERS email accounts to send spam the cost to the spammer is zero, the OWNER of the account is the one who has to pay.
Of course, if there is real money at issue there is an additional tool for attacking spammers (actual theft of money as opposed to theft of bandwidth or what-have-you).
On the other hand, if I put $$ into an account to be able to email when I want, and a spammer drains my account, I have additional incentive to secure my machine - or change to a more secure OS, like maybe Linux.
Least anyone think I am against the idea, I LIKE the idea of micropayments ($0.01 or less per transaction) as long as the content is WORTH the price. Some ideas already mentioned were web comic strips, pr0n, and MP3 files. What I DON'T want to see is a per page fee to surf, or a per search fee to use Google, or a portal fee to go to a page found through a Google search.
I can see where Google could charge a fee to search, and then charge another fee to portal you to a search result site, then have the site charge a fee to view...
Each a separate transaction, each wholly justifiable in their owners mind, and each killing the internet with the death of a thousand cuts.
Would you (generic you, not the parent poster) pay an ADDITIONAL $1.00 per day for internet access - in addition to whatever you are currently paying? If not, then the aggregate micropayments would have to be less than $1.00 per day.
In addition, I would assume there would be a notice when you were going to a pay-per-view site, and if a majority of web sites were PPV you could be hitting a notice every other click!
Although an ANONYMOUS payment would be much preferable to the annoying registration screens from, for example, The New York Times. Not sure how an anonymous payment could possible work - probably it can't, but it would be a nice alternative.
Assuming your numbers are accurate, and there is exactly 2 million sqare kilometers of ice and it is all 3km in thickness...
6,000,000,000,000,000,000 liters x 1000 cc/liter = 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 cc of ice.
1cc ice != 1cc water, but assume it DOES = 1cc water for this exercise.
Surface area of current oceans/seas in cm^2 is about 31,640,000,000,000,000,000.
Therefore, 2 million square kilometers of ice 3 kilometers thick, if spread evenly over the oceans surface would result in 189.6 cm of ice over every sqare centimeter of ocean, or 1.9 meters (roughly).
Still working on how many "LibraryofCongress" that 'metric ass load of ice' equates to:)
Oreskes (Science 2004 (vol 306, p1686), studied 928 peer-reviewed papers on climate change published between 1993 and 2003, and found "near universal" consensus.
Reminds me of when I was a kid, everyone thought the sun rotated around the Earth. Ask any scientest and they would tell you the same thing - 'Of course the sun rotates around the Earth! Now get out of my yard!'
'Course, now, we know that was just not true, no matter how many scientists told us otherwise.
Those pesky scientists, always saying things HAVE to be this way or that, then coming back later saying something else when their pet theory no longer holds water.
Me? Glad you asked. Personally, I think it is turtles all the way down.
Slashdot Mirror
It's high-time that someone high up in the judiciary pointed a finger at the MPAA/RIAA legal departments and said "What you're doing is legal but is not fair. Be fair. Be ethical." But elephants will fly before that happens, because there's just too much money flowing into people's pockets from the racket, and that includes lawyer's pockets.
Unfortunately, you are both right and wrong.
It is easy to defing what is legal or illegal - something is legal if the laws specifically say it is legal or the laws DO NOT specifically say it is illegal. That is the job of lawyers and judges.
Now you (or anyone) define what is fair or what is ethical. In addition, specify who is to determine what meets the definitions.
It really has nothing to do with the money going into someones pocket - anytime you have that amount of money being bandied about, you will find someone to do the dirty work - but with the difficulty of defining justice, fairness, and ethics.
There are many LEGAL rulings that do not meet my definitions of fairness, justice, or ethicalness (is that even a word?).
In a personal injury lawsuit, let us say the lawyer convinces the jury that the past and future medical needs of the injured will require $10M. The Jury awards the injured person $10M. Now the lawyer gets 1/3rd to 1/2 of that award - so the injured person now no longer has enough to meet their future medical bills. How is it fair, or ethical, or just for the lawyer to take that money? But it IS legal, and happens all the time in contingency cases, one reason why personal injury lawyers are so ubiquitious - the chance for one fat paycheck given the right client!
Another example would be the person convicted of having 'over-the-legal-limit' of a drug who is sentenced to more time than a violent offender. It is legal, but how is it fair, or just?
Justice in the legal system is defined as being when all the laws have been appropriately applied. Not my definition of justice, but I have no means of changing that definition.
Ah, I think I see now.
Why would I pay SCOX a fee to license IBM's code, when IBM has already given me a license?
TSCOG is claiming that IBM signed a contract giving control of the code to both IBM and TSCOG (many, MANY legal problems with this theory, but it seems to be what they are claiming), so IBM could not legally let you have a license, so you are using the code illegally if you don't also have TSCOGs permission which you can have for the low, low price of $699 - BUT WAIT!! call in the next 10 minutes and get this Ginsu knife ABSOLUTELY FREE!!
SCOX has accused IBM of contributing IBM's OWN CODE to Linux. Not SCOX code, but code that IBM wrote and is the sole copyright holder.
Except that TSCOG is claiming that IBM signed a contract giving control of the release of the code to both IBM and TSCOG. So, although the code was developed by IBM, TSCOG is claiming a legal veto on the release, claiming the contract gives them that right.
TSCOG is saying IBM did something they shouldn't have, namely releasing code that they signed a contract NOT to release. As punishment, TSCOG is asking for BILLIONS AND BILLIONS BWAAHAAAAHAAA...
And for just $699, they promise not to sue YOU as well for using the code IBM released that TSCOG has control over based on the contract (that does not say what TSCOG says it says, at least according to AT&T, et al).
This is/was a straight out extortion attemt - pay us now, or we will sue everyone for outrageous sums later. The 'license' was a 'get out of jail cheap' card, not an actual license for what belonged to IBM but was, according to TSCOGs novel legal theory, controlled by TSCOG.
I even think if their underlying (pun?) contention was true - that IBM signed over the rights TSCOG is claiming they did - then the remainder of their argument might have some merit. As TSCOG has not proven ANYTHING yet and seems not to be able to prove anything going forward, I really don't have any fears I will be needing to shell out the $$$.
Speaking of redundant...
"moron mods" -- redundant
Also, for speed, most skip the spellchech - I do, anyawy.
1) Never underestimate the power of wishful thinking and stupidity.
2a) You don't, as TSCOG released THE EXACT SAME CODE under the GPL.
2b) Any fine IBM would be assessed (the 5 (pinky to mount) BILLION dollars) would be a legal punishment, not a fee to license. Under your scenerio (not the actuality) TSCOG would still own the IP they started with, plus the $5B, and the right to license their IP any way they want to. Of course, here in the real world where TSCOG didn't have any IP in the first place...
No.
What they were buying was a document that said TSCOG would not sue them for using their IP in Linux.
When it is proven there is not TSCOG IP in Linux, they now have TWO assurances of not being sued - the 'license' they bought and the court decision that there is no TSCOG IP in Linux.
The only way they could have a case against TSCOG is if they buy a "license" that says TSCOG won't sue them for using TSCOGs IP by using Linux, then TSCOG DOES sue them.
In much the same way, I can't sell you the title to the Golden Gate Bridge (I don't own the Golden Gate Bridge), but I CAN sell you "all my rights to the Golden Gate Bridge" for whatever we decide between us is a fair price. The fact that you are buying something that doesn't exist is inmaterial.
I have to disagree.
AIX is propriatary to IBM, and they have not released it to the general public.
Linux is available to the general public.
If I said "some part of Linux is also in AIX, and some parts or concepts from AIX are in Linux" you have gained little useful knowledge. But if I said "This specific routine is in both Linux and also AIX" you may have gained quite a bit of helpful reverse engineering knowledge.
IBM was required by the court to provide source code for their propriatary AIX product to TSCOG, but did so under provisions that limited the ability of TSCOG to release it to the public (and to TSCOG, competitors to IBMs Unix OS, AIX). For TSCOG to now say "This code is in both AIX and Linux" is probably covered under the provisions that limited the release of information and could open TSCOG to court sanctions if NOT sealed.
That analogy only works if the girl was already a famous swimsuit model and the comparison is between two sets of publicly available photos.
No, the point is that one of the sets of photos is NOT public (IBMs AIX). The original analogy is more correct. In fact, in the case of nude photos, by proving guilt (authenticating that the photos are of the person bringing suit) the harm done is increased - instead of thinking MAYBE it is nude photos of that person now we KNOW it is nude photos of them) - exactly the reason for sealing portions of the record.
TSCOG (The SCO Group - NOT SCO, even though TSCOG is claiming to be the reincarnation of SCO) is claiming that IBM signed a contract prohibiting the release of information, then released that information anyway and doing so broke the contract, so TSCOG should be paid 5 (pinky to mounth) BILLION dollars.
So you are partly correct -
isn't the lawsuit about IBM supposedly making this proprietary (secret) knowledge, public?
except that the propriatary or secret part actually has nothing to do with it.
Copyright law says that by creating a work, I own a copyright on that work. Contract law says I can agree to give up the rights given me by Copyright law on that work if I want to. TSCOG seems to be saying that IBM gave up their rights in writing, then broke the contract and should be punished.
As far as keeping it sealed, TSCOG may not have a choice.
Some of the AIX code was provided to TSCOGs lawyers by IBM under the condition it would not be provided to TSCOG programmers. If the lawyers released the code in such a way that TSCOG programmers COULD get at it, they could be in violation of court orders. By providing it to the court sealed they could be meeting the requirements of the court on several different levels.
Now, if that is the case, IBM can unseal the code.
"I'd buy THAT for a dollar!!"
As I posted above this subthread, Massachusetts IS a current (and potential future) customer, and Microsoft is, so far, refusing to include a (reasonable, in my opinion) support of a non-propriatary format.
.doc for anyone who wants it).
Nothing I have seen so far says that the ODF has to be the ONLY format supported (so Microsoft can keep offering
I am amazed that Microsoft can think that they can dictate terms to the government - even a state government.
Microsoft: We are a monopoly, and you WILL buy our product because you have no choice!
Massachusetts: We will not buy your product if it does not meet our needs.
Microsoft: WAAAA! That's not fair!!!
Point one, petition signatures do not equate to customer demand. Note the word 'customer'. I.e., the claim is that, if enough CUSTOMERS request the feature, then a future version MIGHT contain the requested feature.
Point two. The state of Massachusetts IS a current customer, and IS demanding this 'feature' and Microsoft is, so far, refusing to include it in any future version. So much for claims of "...will support the OpenDocument format in MS Office if there is customer demand."
Once their claim has been PROVEN FALSE, additional appeals based on that claim (as in this petition) are doomed from the start.
I think efficiency has something to do with it, but natural gas is currently used to generate heat and electricity.
The fuel cells in the article generate heat, electricity, and hydrogen .
Looks to me like the demand for natural gas for heating and power generation would decrease, offsetting (at least to a degree) the increase in demand for natural gas for hydrogen synthesis.
Totally off topic, but...
I never understood the last line in the movie.
The woman says she is in 'Insurance'.
Is she insuring the virus DOES get spread - is that why the terrorist is alive - and so the 'ruling class' in the future gets to become (stay) the ruling class, (if so why was there the effort to do the whole time travel thing in the first place), or is she insuring that the virus DOESN'T spread - in which case why does the movie end there?
Didn't the terrorist expose himself and everyone else in the airport when he opened the sample flask? If everyone was exposed, and in a high traffic area such as the airport, then she could not be insuring that the virus DOESN'T spread.
But there was no effort to show that the ruling class had any reason or intention of trying to retain their position.
confusing...
60%!?!
HOLY BATSHIT, BATMAN!!!
QUICK, EVERYONE PANIC!!!!
Oh, wait, it is actually less than 60%, and the number of cases is under 150, and the number of fatalities is actually less than 100.
Oh and ALL the cases are in areas that I have come to associate with grade A, Prime, top notch health care (NOT!!), good hygiene (NOT!!), and excellent diet (NOT!!), such as rural Vietnam, Hong Kong, rural China, etc.
I feel your pain, and I am going to send you a LiveCD that will, when put into almost any computer with a CD drive and available internet access and the machine booted, give you access to federal aid - a browser and email application that, if you have internet access will let you contact FEMA and start the process of rebuilding your life.
Oh, wait a minute, the FEMA website requires IE6 running on an OS that can run IE6, which requires licensing fees and hardware advanced enough to run that OS.
Never mind.
Everyone that might have gotten a head start on rebuilding, sorry about that.
The agency charged with helping you has put ARTIFICIAL ROADBLOCKS IN THE WAY.
Sorry about that, but try to have a nice day anyway.
First, I admire your low ID.
Second, you wrote five sentences and got four of them wrong.
If you survived hurricane katrina and need to file a FEMA claim, the likelyhood that you have a working PC (or at least access to it) is pretty low.
Relief operations are working on getting kiosks up and running and computer access in shelters so that people can communicate to their loved ones that they are still alive as well as providing access to other functions including access to FEMA forms and registration.
Access to running computers should be fairly common either now or Real Soon Now.
In addition, many fled when the hurricane was known to be hitting the area. Those people ARE NOT NECESSARLY IN N.O. and quite probably either brought a laptop with them or have access to computers where ever they are. They still need the FEMA access.
Most people that will NEED FEMA aid are going to be filing via PAPER or PHONE, probably with assistance from their shetler[sic].
While many (perhaps even most) will be filing via paper, the phone call is only to get the forms MAILED TO YOUR (UNDERWATER/BLOWN AWAY) HOME. In fact there are postings telling of being on hold for extended periods only to reach a recording telling the caller that they can go online to get the information! In addition, there are efforts under way to get computer access in the shelters, so haveing a website that is accessable would be a good option, at least in my opinion...
These claims aren't for frivolity.
Correct. People should not be trying to see if their browser can access the site if they don't have a claim.
If you have a working computer and have access to it, you don't need to file.
Wrong in general. See my comments above about how people can need to file AND have access to a working computer.
If you didn't have other insurance and are not in a dire situation then it's really on you to repair.
This is wrong as written, but I am not sure it was written as you wanted. If you DO have other insurance and are not in dire staits, then you probably should not be taking time and energy from FEMA right now.
Parent pretty close to got it.
This web site was originally an in-house job FOR IN-HOUSE USE ONLY, and FEMA policy is to only use IE, so they never had to see if it worked on any other browser. Testing on other browsers was to have happened later this year/early next year, but the site was rolled out early due to the disaster.
I don't think it is arrogance (they were trying to get the tool available because something like it was needed despite KNOWING that there had not been sufficient testing of the current app.) that needs to be answered for, I think it is the 'M$ only' policy that needs to be answered for.
If the agency had been using non-propriatory software, I would like to think the site would have been writen to the current HTML standards, not the non-standards-compliant IE HTML 'standard' and would then be available to all browsers INCLUDING IE.
This is somewhat similar to a state regulation in Iowa that all government forms are only available in English
/humor/
Yes, in that they are both stupid.
All forms SHOULD be AT LEAST available in English. Other languages should be an option if demand is high enough and/or the price is set high enough to cover the cost.
In the FEMA case, creating a website TO THE CURRENT HTML STANDARDS would insure that ALL the web browsers would work for that site. EXTRA EFFORT IS REQUIRED TO BREAK THE STANDARDS TO MAKE THE SITE USEABLE BY IE6. ONLY.
FEMA had to spend extra money, time, and effort to break the site sufficiently so that IE6.0 was required - actually, spoofing the browser allows most of the site to be viewed to a point; I have not tried to progress past that to see if the site has any mechanism that actually is broken under other browsers.
If the site doesn't actually need something that is non-standards-compliant in IE6 then not allowing other browsers is stupid and should be penalized, while if something in the site DOES require IE6 then that is just stupid and short sighted - inexcusable in an agency that is charged with PLANNING AHEAD for emergencies - and should be penalized.
They are obviously too 'busy' or too cheap to hire someone who speaks spanish for the large hispanic population... and in this case their[sic] just too stupid to write a webpage that can work in both IE and real browsers.
I didn't realize it was the large hispanic population of Iowa who had writeen the FEMA web page. I take back most of what I said as I would not want to be labeled anti-Iowaian-hispanic!
/endhumor/
I don't know any details,
Obviously.
This is an application that was originally intended for use internally to FEMA and as IE is the 'Official' browser of the agency, it was designed to be used by that browser.
This is not something that was "whipped up" when "speed was of the esence" so shoddy workmanship is inexcusable.
This is an application that has been used internally at FEMA for more than a year.
With their houses flooded or destroyed, those who had computers in the first place now don't have them (and don't have power either) and those who didn't have computers to begin with weren't going that route anyway.
Congratulations, you have just joined the swelling ranks of dumbshits with an opinion and a method of expressing it, but apparently without the ability to think a thing through.
Relief organizations are setting up kiosks with Linux and NON-IE browsers so that people affected by the hurricane can let loved ones know they are alive as well as register for FEMA assistance - Oh, wait, yuo can't register for FEMA assistance from a NON-IE browser. Oops! So instead of using crap hardware and an OS that supports it (and both FREE, not taking resources from the rescue and relief efforts) Newer hardware, higher quality hardware, SUPPORTED hardware is required, and a LICENSE needs to be purchased for the OS, and the OS in question is known to be compromised when connected to the internet IN LESS THAN 5 MINUTES, less time than is required to download the patches to allow the OS to survive for longer than that on the 'net.
In addition, the donated hardware can be used with a LiveCD OS - Plug in the cabling, insert the CD, and power the machine. You have a working system with browser, email, everything when the machine finishes booting. with the OtherOS (Microsoft) you have to install, configure, download, etc.
You mentioned that speed was of the essence here, so which is faster -
1) install a CD and boot, or
2) install an OS that requires multiple boots of
the machine, then install the patches, then
install IE, then configure everything.
You were right in two things (as far as I can tell, you ONLY got three things right, though, the first was when you stated you didn't know any details) in your post.
There is a whole lot of blame to go around here
and
Blame it on the management
Repeat that last.
Blame it on the management !!
Blame it on the FEMA management for endorsing and even REQUIRING a closed source, PROPRIATARY software browser in the first place.
As far as the victoms of the hurricane, I empathize with them, their whole world has been turned upside down and ripped apart. HOWEVER!!! I live in an area which gets tornados, and MY HOUSE HAS A BASEMENT, BATTERY POWERED RADIO, AND FLASHLIGHT (and other emergency gear). We routinely get snow here, AND MY HOUSE HAS A FURNACE. It can get hot here (over 100F) and I HAVE AN AIRCONDITIONER.Power occasionally goes out AND I HAVE A GENERATOR.
My point is that there are unavoidable natural disasters, and some planning has to be done for 'what if'.
Building next to the sea and below sea level (strike one, not very smart),
next to a lake and below the lake level (strike two, not very smart),
and next to a swamp but below the swamp water level (strike three, not very smart),
in an area that is known to get hurricanes (strike four),
with no plans or provisions to leave if a hurricane occures (strikes five and six),
and no emergency supplies stockpiled in advance (strike seven),
and not leaving when WARNED THAT A HURRICANE IS GOING TO STRIKE (strike eight)
Is NOT condusive to engendering massive amounts of sympathy from me.
Failure to plan on your/their part does not constitute an emerg
The article is about a new method of making the current test more accurate and faster, it is not a new test.
You are precisely correct in that vCJD is thought to be caused by injesting BSE contaminated meat whereas CJD is classified as either inherited or 'sporatic' - i.e., no known cause or risk factor.
BSE is thought to be a Transmissable Spongiform Encephalopathy (TSE) where CJD is not known to be transmissable unless the victom is eaten - as the disease Kuru is/was in cannibals who ate the brains of their dead.
You seem to have missed my point.
If the email has a forged address then the spammer sent it from one machine but tried to make it seem it came from another. WHATEVER machine it was sent from would have had to have paid the micropayment to get it sent/accepted. If the originating machine was the spammers' machine then the spammer would have to have paid in the amount of the micropayment.
IF THE SPAMMER HIJACKED YOUR MACHINE, they would be sending their spam FROM YOUR ACCOUNT, using money YOU paid into YOUR account for YOUR use. Repeat after me, the cost to THE SPAMMER is zero.
Have you ever received metered mail? That is the mail that doesn't have a stamp, but instead has an imprint or printed (I have mostly seen printed in red, don't know if that is a requirement or not but at one time a special dye was required that was machine readable under alternative light sources so that the validity of the imprint was checked) with a notice that the postage has been paid. The Meter is a sealed unit that is (or at least was when I worked at a local postal service branch) brought to the Post Office and 'recharged' by giving the clerk an amount of money that was then securely added to the meter. The owner of the meter could then affix 'postage' to their mail up to the amount they had bought. When the postage amount bought was used up, the meter was returned to the Post Office and the process was repeated.
Sound familiar? Reminds me of the micropayment idea, except instead of paying the PO to DELIVER your mail you are paying the recipient to ACCEPT your email.
If you had such a meter and put money into postage on that meter, and I somehow gained access to your meter, I could send mail for free - free TO ME, because I was using YOUR money for the postage.
That is my point that you have missed. Assume I put money into MY account in order to send MY email with a micropayment attached. EvilSpammer(tm) cracks my machine and sends email FROM MY ACCOUNT, USING MY MONEY for the micropayment. EvilSpammer(tm) could not care less about Paypal or any other micropayment system. They have not forged anything, they have STOLEN from my account my money and used it for their own purposes.
If I put $100 into a micropayment account in order to send 10,000 emails at $0.01 each but EvilSpammer(tm) uses it all up and I can't send that email chain letter to all my family and friends and so wind up with 40 years of bad luck, I might be MOTIVATED to find a more secure OS.
Your final comment was about the registration pages. You are correct, they are used to track demographics. Why are demographics tracked? So that advertisers can be pitched to buy advertising space based on those demographics, and the price of the advertising can be increased with teh demographic data as justification. Possibly also so that marketing email can be sent to those who register, or so that telemarketing persons can use the information for cold calling purposes - I don't know if this would constitute a 'prior business relationship' under the telemarketer laws or not. I don't know that The New York Times (TNYT) does any of that or not, but the possibility exists, and all of those activities are intended to generate income.
Again, my point which you seem to have missed, is that the POINT of the registration page is to gain income at some point; my micropayment alternative would give the website an immediate payment IN ORDER TO COMPENSATE FOR NOT GAINING INCOME FROM THE REGISTRATION PAGE, thereby causing the registration page to 'go-away' quietly and painlessly for those using the micropayment system.
Yes, you only have to do the registration once - if you enable cookies. Some people don't want cookies tracking their web movements. Some people delete cookies when found on their machine. Those people have to register again and again.
In addition, some people use bogus information to register, messing with the demographic information. I am pretty sure TNYT would prefer an accurate demographic from those who WANT their information included (or just don't care), while a micropayment from those who really would rather not give out their information would be felt to be better than a false entry in their demographic data.
I am not replying to you (parent poster) alone, but to all who have posted that this would stop spam.
It won't.
When did you last get email from a.spammer@myrealaddress.com?
I agree that, if spammers used their own accounts it would, but with things like zombies, spoofing, and all the other ways of sending spam I have read about that use OTHERS email accounts to send spam the cost to the spammer is zero, the OWNER of the account is the one who has to pay.
Of course, if there is real money at issue there is an additional tool for attacking spammers (actual theft of money as opposed to theft of bandwidth or what-have-you).
On the other hand, if I put $$ into an account to be able to email when I want, and a spammer drains my account, I have additional incentive to secure my machine - or change to a more secure OS, like maybe Linux.
Least anyone think I am against the idea, I LIKE the idea of micropayments ($0.01 or less per transaction) as long as the content is WORTH the price. Some ideas already mentioned were web comic strips, pr0n, and MP3 files. What I DON'T want to see is a per page fee to surf, or a per search fee to use Google, or a portal fee to go to a page found through a Google search.
I can see where Google could charge a fee to search, and then charge another fee to portal you to a search result site, then have the site charge a fee to view...
Each a separate transaction, each wholly justifiable in their owners mind, and each killing the internet with the death of a thousand cuts.
Would you (generic you, not the parent poster) pay an ADDITIONAL $1.00 per day for internet access - in addition to whatever you are currently paying? If not, then the aggregate micropayments would have to be less than $1.00 per day.
In addition, I would assume there would be a notice when you were going to a pay-per-view site, and if a majority of web sites were PPV you could be hitting a notice every other click!
Although an ANONYMOUS payment would be much preferable to the annoying registration screens from, for example, The New York Times. Not sure how an anonymous payment could possible work - probably it can't, but it would be a nice alternative.
Wasn't he beheaded by a soldier?
Mother of all wedgies!
Damn those jocks!
Let me take a shot at it..
:)
Assuming your numbers are accurate, and there is exactly 2 million sqare kilometers of ice and it is all 3km in thickness...
6,000,000,000,000,000,000 liters x 1000 cc/liter = 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 cc of ice.
1cc ice != 1cc water, but assume it DOES = 1cc water for this exercise.
Surface area of current oceans/seas in cm^2 is about 31,640,000,000,000,000,000.
Therefore, 2 million square kilometers of ice 3 kilometers thick, if spread evenly over the oceans surface would result in 189.6 cm of ice over every sqare centimeter of ocean, or 1.9 meters (roughly).
Still working on how many "LibraryofCongress" that 'metric ass load of ice' equates to
Oreskes (Science 2004 (vol 306, p1686), studied 928 peer-reviewed papers on climate change published between 1993 and 2003, and found "near universal" consensus.
Reminds me of when I was a kid, everyone thought the sun rotated around the Earth. Ask any scientest and they would tell you the same thing - 'Of course the sun rotates around the Earth! Now get out of my yard!'
'Course, now, we know that was just not true, no matter how many scientists told us otherwise.
Those pesky scientists, always saying things HAVE to be this way or that, then coming back later saying something else when their pet theory no longer holds water.
Me? Glad you asked. Personally, I think it is turtles all the way down.
Haven't heard anything from Dr. Bellows or Roger Healy, though...