He said they were making sure that the state government was not giving out materials that people might find objectionable.
And that isn't censorship?
No, it isn't.
Just because someone finds something objectionable does not mean it shouldn't be allowed to be seen/heard/viewed/read/whatever.
Sorry, for the rant, it is not specifically directed at you but at all those in the thread who are posting that this is censorship.
/rant/
Where in the article was the words 'interdicted', banned', 'distribution blocked', or 'shouldn't be allowed to be seen/heard/viewed/read/whatever' used?
Hint - I read the article again and did not see any of them anywhere in the article.
IT IS NOT CENSORSHIP when the government says 'read anything you want, listen to anything you want, BUT you won't get it FROM THE GOVERNMENT. You want to listen to Rage Against the Machine? Fine, go buy it from any store but, even though we have a copy, we are not providing it to you. You want to read Penthouse? Knock yourself out, but you won't get it from us. You want to watch Debbie Does Dallas? I enjoyed it, but we won't provide it to you."
It IS censorship when those in authority to enforce their edicts say others can not read/see/view/hear certain things.
THAT IS NOT HAPPENING HERE.
It is NOT censorship when the government says you can watch porn movies, but they won't provide the movies for you.
It is NOT censorship when the government says you can read porn magazines, but they won't provide the magazines for you.
It is NOT censorship when the government says you can listen to Rage Against the Machine, but they won't provide the CDs for you.
NOT PROVIDING THE MATERIAL IS NOT THE SAME AS CENSORSHIP (unless the government is THE ONLY SOURCE - not the case here)/end rant/
Again, sorry for the over-aggressiveness, it is not specifically directed at you and I hope you don't take it personally as it was not intended personally.
Also, the Kansas AG IS forcing libraries to not carry certain materials.
Wrong. All the AG here in Kansas is doing is NOT PROVIDING the material. The libraries are free to get it any other way they may want, or not get it if they don't want.
I am sure that there are things in every library that state authorites would be loathe to endorse, however, they are not being asked to.
Agreed. But you are stating that in this case the state authorities MUST endorse the material on the CDs and provide it even though they don't want to. "This copy of Playboy(c) provided for the enjoyment of your children by your state government..."
Most, if not all, of the interdicted CD's... [bolding added]
NOT interdicted, just not provided by the government.
Nothing is gained by keeping a couple foul CD's out of a library
Isn't happening. If the libraries think their patrons want that music, they are free to obtain it from any sourse they want. The government is just choosing to not be one of the sourses.
The state did not block distribution, they chose not to be a distributor.
NOT THE SAME THING.
The material was not banned. Distribution was/is not blocked.
The libraries can get the material from any source that chooses to supply it, but the State does not choose to supply it, even when it was given to the state without spending anything.
I would think you might have a point - IF the CDs were sent to the libraries and the state said the CDs had to be destroyed. That is not the case. I find no valid point in your post.
Bad analogy: If, in setteling a lawsuit about price fixing on magazine subscriptions the MPAA (Magazine Publishers Association of America - no such actual organization that I know of) gave you (cost to you $0) 100,000 copies of current magazines including 10,000 copies of the August 2004 edition of Hustler(c) and you chose to keep a few of the mags (: and throw the rest in the dump, you are not excercising censorship by not giving the extra copies to the local boys-n-girls club when you gave them the Boys Life(c), Better Homes and Gardens(c), and Redbook(c) mags., You are exercising good judgement. They can still get Hustler(c) magazine if they want it, just not from you. You have not banned anything. You have not blocked distribution of anything.
I read the article. Nothing was said in the article about either banning the material or blocking any distribution.
Because YOU decided that what is happening is censorship, and because those most opposed to censorship don't agree with you they are 'into censorship'?
Circular reasoning is invalid as an argument.
I agree that all the librarians I know would be putting up a fight AGAINST CENSORSHIP, but NONE of the librarians I know are opposed to the AGs actions (I am from Kansas). This tells me that, despite what someone I never heard of posted on slashdot, this is not censorship.
By the way, I disagree with your assertion that driving is not merely a physical activity
OK, you have confused me.
Are you saying that driving IS merely a physical activity?
If so, then I have to disagree.
Having driven professionally in emergency response vehicles for more than 10 years in a college town, and having been trained in mandated driving classes and simulations, I have to vigorously disagree with any assertions that driving is 'merely a physical activity.' It does have many physical activities associated with it, but I saw many, many people at auto accidents that were young, athletic, amazing reflexes and physical ability, and dead because they did stupid things instead of just driving. (I also moonlighted as a coroners (meat wagon) driver, so I also picked up bodies at accidents that were bad enough that the ambulance was never called...)
Agreed, EXCESSIVE thinking is not good. You should think of what you would do and plan an avoidance route in advance - but that means you are thinking about your driving, thinking about road conditions, thinking about other drivers all the time.
On another note, I am sensing some hostility towards cognitive psychologists. I am not sure what that is, but will be googling for the term.
Yeah, but the lifetime subscription is not transfereable to another TiVo - it stays with the hardware. Buy different hardware, you need a new subscription, so they are getting another subscription out of the deal.
You paid $79 for the TiVo hardware and $199 for the subscription. DirecTV programming broke your TiVo, so you buy another for $79. Now you need another subscription - another $199. Total price paid = $556 - less the $79 from Customer Support gives $477 total out-of-pocket. Price paid BEFORE DirecTV broke your system = $278. Difference of $199 in their pocket.
"You already paid me $79 for a TiVo and $199 for a lifetime subscription? I will GLADLY give you $79 if you give me another $278 ($79 TiVo + $199 subscription)..." Sounds like a business strategy to me.
And I agree the original poster was probably joking.
I would like to know what programming was done that would require new hardware - it is possible to break things that badly, but it take EFFORT. Are they (DirecTV et al) giving out the $79 hoping no one is smart enough to notice the additional $199 needed, or are they also paying the $199, or what.
If programming broke the system, why can't the system be fixed with programming - either in the field through schedualed updates, or in the shop - or is it cheaper for them to just send a voucher for a new TiVo so they don't even try to find a solution?
I own two hacked TiVos and love them, I don't own or subscribe to DirecTV - never have. I am assumming the DirecTiVo is the same lifetime subscription price as my TiVos. I well could be wrong.
Re:What would I do with this much bandwidth?
on
Ethernet at 10 Gbps
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
Pointing out stupidity in the hope that people who believe what they read (see posting by Jack9 below) may eventually understand that anyone with a computer - even those who either can't or won't think - can post on the internet and so people should not automatically believe anything they read, that ANYTHING found on the internet should be taken with a healthy dose of scepticism.
By the way, nice low ID number. To bad your early adoption and hopefully wide experience with the internet and the WWW have not made you more aware of how people posting stupid things need correction, not for their own edification (in my experience with those people, they either refuse to think or are not able to think critically about the subject), but to educate others on what NOT to do, what happens when you post without thinking first. Also helps to kill urban legends, chain mail, and possibly responding to SPAM.
Picking at nits, but where do you find an 'X' in DaimlerChrysler?
Yes, the STOCK TICKER symbol is DCX, but that is not an abbreviation, an acronym, or anything else - it is just a group of four or less letters that is used to refer to a specific company in a specific setting, i.e., the stock market. Each company gets to pick their own ticker symbol when they are listed on an exchange. I would assume DCC was taken, or there were 'good and sufficient' reasons to not pick that combination of letters.
Altria has the stock ticker symbol MO. I don't fine either an 'M' or an 'O' in Altria. MO is not an abbreviation for Altria. (Altria used to be Phillip Morris, which may have influenced their choice of stock ticker symbol...)
And thank YOU, Jack9, for missing the fact that GROKLAW is neither a news site, nor an op-ed site, that the posting on the blog site had NO opinions or editorials added by the author of the site (PJ) but were entirely the work of the eye-witnesses, and that spoonyfork should not have mangled their work. Notice the disclaimer at the bottom of the page (just above the creative commons license which he also seems to have disreguarded) where it states All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. For the uninformed, that means eggplant37 owns the copyright to their writing, the narative in question.
Of course, if spoonyfork were also present in the court room and wanted to post their narative in whatever manner they wanted, they are welcome to do so, but from the carping I hear from spoonyfork, they were not in the courtroom.
I don't think breaking copyright laws to remove parts of a work you don't like qualifies as a "Good post" even if it does "giv[e] us the facts succinctly as opposed to the facts mixed with the meaningless subjectivities
2) the person writing specifically stated it was a narrative of what happened ("Here's my narrative of what happened in court: ")
and
3) this is not a news site.
Several more things just for education.
1) PJ is not a news columnist. Not in real life, nor on the internet. She does not claim to be one, and for you to hold her to that standard is foolish.
2) GROKLAW is not a news site. It is not an op-ed site. it IS a blog that many people read. It should be held to blog standards. If you want to visit NEWS sites and complain about their editorial policies, go ahead, but visiting an amateur non-news site and complaining about it not being professional or not having editorial policies equivalent to professional news sites is either dis-ingenious, immature, or just foolish - like going to McDonalds and complaining when you can't get a Whopper(c). You want news (Whopper)? Go to a news site (Burger King). You want to go to Groklaw (McDonalds), you get what is there. Complaining about what you DON'T get is just stupid.
3) For those to lazy to RTFA, here's a couple excepts[sic] that I left out... except you forgot to let people know they were not from PJ, but from the person writing about what they did and saw in the court room - i.e., PJ did not edit their writing, just printed it on her site.
4) Others (by way of moderation) find opinions in news to be annoying and completely unnecessary. I can agree with this, but feel compelled to point out that, in this case at least, there was not opinions added by PJ to the reports. I must assume you are bitching because the eye-witnesses were more verbose than you wanted. Sucks to be you.
To all those who are going to - or have - point out that a monopod has only one leg, remember that SirFozzie is talking about a TRIpod, a THREE legged, very stable, stand-alone device capable of standing without other support.
A tripod with only one working leg is not a unipod, it is a broken tripod - neither stable nor able to stand alone without other support.
Assuming a copyright exists and is owned by a corporation (hypothetical, as TSG has not shown any copyright holdings in or over Unix - including SYSV), the copyright is an asset of the corporation.
If the corporation enters (voluntary or involuntary) bankruptcy such that they can not continue business, their assets are sold to satisfy creditors and shareholders (creditors first, if anything is left it is divided between teh shareholders). All assets, including copyrights.
With that in mind, I seem to remember the rights to Unix that TSG might have having been pledged as collateral for a loan to The Canopy Group.
As for dismissing suits based on precedent, if these lawsuits wither and die WITHOUT LEGAL DECISION, they can not be used as precedent. Also, no new legal decisions were made in the DaimlerChrysler case that I am aware of, so it would not be used as a precedent anyway - the cases used as precedents for this case would be the ones used (they work - they won this case, didn't they?!).
If the company goes belly-up due to no $$$, they file bankruptcy. Their operations are taken over by court appointed conservators whose job it is to get the maximum return on the available assets of the company for the debt holders and shareholders.
If the bankruptcy conservators feel that there actually is a valid copyright asset, they are almost required to continue the lawsuits.
IANAL, but I don't THINK they would find any such thing, and the lawsuits would be dropped by TSG except for the ones AGAINST TSG, and they might be vacated as none are (primarily) requesting monitary damages from TSG - they are mainly wanting TSG to shutup, go away, play fair, etc. If TSG dies, their goals are accomplished.
Before you start thinking about buying the rights to Unix copyright (or any rights TSG might have to IP in Unix - none shown so far in court) from the bankruptcy sale, I seem to remember TSG has pledged them against a loan from Canopy, so if TSG defaults on their payments to Canopy, any rights TSG has in Unix would go to Canopy, not the auction block, and this whole can of worms may reappear some day.
SCO v Novell - Pending Novell response to TSGs modifications in their pleadings relating to special damages.
TSG had 30 days to amend their complaint to meet the requirements for Slander of Title re: specific damages. TSG DID file amended pleadings within the time limit, but IMHO (IANAL) not sufficiently to meet the requirements. Novell now has the ball and can re-request dismissal on not pleading specific damages sufficiently, or possibly follow Judge Kimballs hints and file for a summary judgement on the issue of ownership of the copyrights (not sufficient writing to transfer the copyrights under section 204 of the copyright code).
This case is still alive, even though with one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel.
While the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure MAY have wording about response periods, in this case that authority had nothing to do with the issue. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are rules dealing with litigation, rules ON LAWYERS IN COURT, not on people in general - and not anything TSG can sue anyone over.
The 30 day period was made up by TSG as there was no time period stated in the contract.
As their (TSG) court fileings point out, under NEW YORK law, thay can make that demand legally. Unfortunately for TSG they were in a Michigan courtroom...
Where a contract is silent regarding the time for performance, New York law implies a duty to perform within a reasonable time. See Savasta v. 470 Newport Assoc., 82 N.Y.2d 763, 765, 603 N.Y.S.2d 821, 623 N.E.2d 1171 (1993) (\\"When a contract does not specify time of performance, the law implies a reasonable time.\\").[3] \\"What constitutes reasonable time of performance depends upon the facts and circumstances of the particular case.\\" Id. The inquiry requires consideration of (1) the nature and object of the contract, (2) the previous conduct of the parties, (3) the presence or absence of good faith, (4) the experience of the parties, and (5) the possibility of prejudice or hardship to either one. Zev v. Merman, 73 N.Y.2d 781, 536 N.Y.S.2d 739; 533 N.E.2d 669 (1988); accord Lake Steel Erection, Inc. v. Egan, 61 A.D.2d 1125, 112, 403 N.Y.S.2d 387, 389 (4th Dep't 1978). The question of what is a reasonable period of time for performance in a particular contract is a question of fact for the jury. See Young v. Whitney, 111 A.D.2d 1013, 1014, 490 N.Y.S.2d 330, 331 (1st Dep't 1985) (\\"What is a reasonable time [for performance] is for the jury to determine considering the subject matter of the contract, what the parties contemplated at the time it was entered and the circumstances surrounding performance.\\"); Lake Steel, 61 A.D.2d at 1126, 403 N.Y.S.2d at 389 (\\"The question of whether performance has been delayed beyond a reasonable time is for the jury.\\")
Moreover, where \\"there is no contractual provision making time of the essence, either party may subsequently give notice to that effect so long as the notice is clear, distinct and unequivocal and fixes a reasonable time within which to perform.\\" 76 N. Assoc. v. Theil Mgmt. Corp., 132 A.D.2d 695, 696, 518 N.Y.S.2d 174, 176 (2d Dep't 1987) (finding breach of contract where party failed to perform after receiving notice of 32-day extension of time within which to perform). Thirty days is a commercially reasonable amount of time: the Uniform Commercial Code requires merchants responding to requests for further assurances to do so within thirty days. N.Y.U.C.C. Section 2-609(4). [emphasis added]
"Er, no. The solar panels will charge batteries."?
If so, then you DON'T know what you are talking about, as the article specifically states there will not be batteries used.
Maybe you know solar power. Maybe you know electric vehicles. Maybe you know everything there is to know about 'ultracapacitors' - but the comment posted shows the poster DOESN'T know what they are talking about when the article states no batteries and the comment states batteries.
Where are you coming up with 'ultracapacitors', anyway? I don't see them in the article. Yes they would work in this setup, but so would a portable fusion reactor or even sails - and they were not mentioned in the article, either.
Anyone can win an argument IF THEY ARE ALLOWED TO MAKE UP STUFF AS THEY GO.
I am not arguing that what he is doing is going to be spectacular. I personally don't think it will work very well - mainly because of the point you brought up that they do not provide enough instantaneous power. 25KPH? On a good slope, maybe, with a tailwind.
As far as the adjusting of the angle, that would have to be done anyway - the sun is not stationary in the sky. For even slightly reasonable usage, the sun would have to be tracked from the East to the West as the day progressed - otherwise the panel would only be useful for several hours each day.
In addition, if I set the angle by hand before I started out tot he store, then I would have to reset it when I came back - even assuming I did not have to make any turns on the way to the store.
Correction. His $200 per month is not equivalent to "$4000+/month" unless you mean $4000+$38,228/month. The actual numbers I used are $42,228 per month.
Also, you are right in that the first people to develope some of his ideas may have needed millions of dollars to impliment their ideas, remember this man is using parts that have already been created - no machining, no theory, no understanding of WHY it works, no creating of new pieces with new purposes.
In another post I liken it to putting a bicycle together without the instruction manual. What he is doing is difficult - I don't think I would either have thought to do it or even thought of the possibilities in his place, so kudos to him - but not not of the level people are atributing to him.
Reminds me of the show "JunkYard Wars". All the pieces are there, the contestants just have to put them together.
As far as his inventions being protected, reread the part about his inventinos not being new other than in his area. Therefore they are not eligible for patent at any rate. In fact, if Afghanistan honors others patents, he might be infringing on others patent rights - and making a good living off them, as well. Granted, $200/month is not worth the lawyer fees to prosecute him in the US, but hailing him as some kind of De Vinci is misplaced.
To use your terms, in order for him to profit from his inventions he must not make enough to appear on the radar of the inventions patent owners.
Agreed, but remember these things ARE new - to him.
Unfortunately, he is taking things that can be - and have been - combined in those same combinations by others and putting them together. Quite a bit like putting a bicycle together with all the parts but without the instructions, I would think, rather than developing the first tesla coil or AC motor.
When the average ANNUAL income is $180 - $200, or less than $1 per day, at $2 you are talking about more than two days earnings. Assuming you make $30,000 US per year, you make around $120 per day. So he would be charging you the equivalent of $240 - $360 for his matchbox, some wires and a set of headphones.
According to what I can find, that equates to about $45,000 per month in the US.
$180 - $200 is the average ANNUAL income in Afghanistan, according to the last census the median (NOT average) annual income in the US was about $42,228.
Annually, he is making about the equivilant of $500,000 (half a million) dollars in US terms.
What was the word you used? Paltry? I don't think so.
According to what I can find, the average Afghani earns between $180 and $200 per year, not the number you state. Your post may not be flamebait (don't remember seeing it) but the number you use in this post is wrong (over ten times high) from what I can find.
If he is getting $200 per month, then he is getting an annual income of 12 times the average, PLUS living rent free, PLUS being supported by his four sons.
NOT middle class.
Not only that, but he is probably used to it, as he brought in about 10 years of income from his first invention - he made 'over a thousand' radios and sold them for 'under two dollars' or close to $2000 45 years ago.
That long ago the average income was less (see the links) but not much less (again, see the links - especially the one where the Afghani government states that the Afghani people in twenty years could have gone from $200 to $500 per year if not for the wars and fighting) so I would guess he qualifies as a non-middle class dude, dude.
Slashdot Mirror
He said they were making sure that the state government was not giving out materials that people might find objectionable.
/rant/
/end rant/
And that isn't censorship?
No, it isn't.
Just because someone finds something objectionable does not mean it shouldn't be allowed to be seen/heard/viewed/read/whatever.
Sorry, for the rant, it is not specifically directed at you but at all those in the thread who are posting that this is censorship.
Where in the article was the words 'interdicted', banned', 'distribution blocked', or 'shouldn't be allowed to be seen/heard/viewed/read/whatever' used?
Hint - I read the article again and did not see any of them anywhere in the article.
IT IS NOT CENSORSHIP when the government says 'read anything you want, listen to anything you want, BUT you won't get it FROM THE GOVERNMENT. You want to listen to Rage Against the Machine? Fine, go buy it from any store but, even though we have a copy, we are not providing it to you. You want to read Penthouse? Knock yourself out, but you won't get it from us. You want to watch Debbie Does Dallas? I enjoyed it, but we won't provide it to you."
It IS censorship when those in authority to enforce their edicts say others can not read/see/view/hear certain things.
THAT IS NOT HAPPENING HERE.
It is NOT censorship when the government says you can watch porn movies, but they won't provide the movies for you.
It is NOT censorship when the government says you can read porn magazines, but they won't provide the magazines for you.
It is NOT censorship when the government says you can listen to Rage Against the Machine, but they won't provide the CDs for you.
NOT PROVIDING THE MATERIAL IS NOT THE SAME AS CENSORSHIP (unless the government is THE ONLY SOURCE - not the case here)
Again, sorry for the over-aggressiveness, it is not specifically directed at you and I hope you don't take it personally as it was not intended personally.
Also, the Kansas AG IS forcing libraries to not carry certain materials.
... [bolding added]
Wrong. All the AG here in Kansas is doing is NOT PROVIDING the material. The libraries are free to get it any other way they may want, or not get it if they don't want.
I am sure that there are things in every library that state authorites would be loathe to endorse, however, they are not being asked to.
Agreed. But you are stating that in this case the state authorities MUST endorse the material on the CDs and provide it even though they don't want to. "This copy of Playboy(c) provided for the enjoyment of your children by your state government..."
Most, if not all, of the interdicted CD's
NOT interdicted, just not provided by the government.
Nothing is gained by keeping a couple foul CD's out of a library
Isn't happening. If the libraries think their patrons want that music, they are free to obtain it from any sourse they want. The government is just choosing to not be one of the sourses.
The state did not block distribution, they chose not to be a distributor.
NOT THE SAME THING.
The material was not banned. Distribution was/is not blocked.
The libraries can get the material from any source that chooses to supply it, but the State does not choose to supply it, even when it was given to the state without spending anything.
I would think you might have a point - IF the CDs were sent to the libraries and the state said the CDs had to be destroyed. That is not the case. I find no valid point in your post.
Bad analogy: If, in setteling a lawsuit about price fixing on magazine subscriptions the MPAA (Magazine Publishers Association of America - no such actual organization that I know of) gave you (cost to you $0) 100,000 copies of current magazines including 10,000 copies of the August 2004 edition of Hustler(c) and you chose to keep a few of the mags (: and throw the rest in the dump, you are not excercising censorship by not giving the extra copies to the local boys-n-girls club when you gave them the Boys Life(c), Better Homes and Gardens(c), and Redbook(c) mags., You are exercising good judgement. They can still get Hustler(c) magazine if they want it, just not from you. You have not banned anything. You have not blocked distribution of anything.
I read the article. Nothing was said in the article about either banning the material or blocking any distribution.
Tell me if I have this correct -
Because YOU decided that what is happening is censorship, and because those most opposed to censorship don't agree with you they are 'into censorship'?
Circular reasoning is invalid as an argument.
I agree that all the librarians I know would be putting up a fight AGAINST CENSORSHIP, but NONE of the librarians I know are opposed to the AGs actions (I am from Kansas). This tells me that, despite what someone I never heard of posted on slashdot, this is not censorship.
By the way, I disagree with your assertion that driving is not merely a physical activity
OK, you have confused me.
Are you saying that driving IS merely a physical activity?
If so, then I have to disagree.
Having driven professionally in emergency response vehicles for more than 10 years in a college town, and having been trained in mandated driving classes and simulations, I have to vigorously disagree with any assertions that driving is 'merely a physical activity.' It does have many physical activities associated with it, but I saw many, many people at auto accidents that were young, athletic, amazing reflexes and physical ability, and dead because they did stupid things instead of just driving. (I also moonlighted as a coroners (meat wagon) driver, so I also picked up bodies at accidents that were bad enough that the ambulance was never called...)
Agreed, EXCESSIVE thinking is not good. You should think of what you would do and plan an avoidance route in advance - but that means you are thinking about your driving, thinking about road conditions, thinking about other drivers all the time.
On another note, I am sensing some hostility towards cognitive psychologists. I am not sure what that is, but will be googling for the term.
According to this post, I am wrong in the transferability of the lifetime subscription.
(Still would like to know how they managed to mangle hardware through programming...)
Yeah, but the lifetime subscription is not transfereable to another TiVo - it stays with the hardware. Buy different hardware, you need a new subscription, so they are getting another subscription out of the deal.
You paid $79 for the TiVo hardware and $199 for the subscription. DirecTV programming broke your TiVo, so you buy another for $79. Now you need another subscription - another $199. Total price paid = $556 - less the $79 from Customer Support gives $477 total out-of-pocket. Price paid BEFORE DirecTV broke your system = $278. Difference of $199 in their pocket.
"You already paid me $79 for a TiVo and $199 for a lifetime subscription? I will GLADLY give you $79 if you give me another $278 ($79 TiVo + $199 subscription)..." Sounds like a business strategy to me.
And I agree the original poster was probably joking.
I would like to know what programming was done that would require new hardware - it is possible to break things that badly, but it take EFFORT. Are they (DirecTV et al) giving out the $79 hoping no one is smart enough to notice the additional $199 needed, or are they also paying the $199, or what.
If programming broke the system, why can't the system be fixed with programming - either in the field through schedualed updates, or in the shop - or is it cheaper for them to just send a voucher for a new TiVo so they don't even try to find a solution?
I own two hacked TiVos and love them, I don't own or subscribe to DirecTV - never have. I am assumming the DirecTiVo is the same lifetime subscription price as my TiVos. I well could be wrong.
+1 Insightfull
+1 Informative
You have been pseudo-moderated!
I don't have real mod points right now...
Not a case of win or lose.
Not arguing.
Not a 'fanboy', whatever you mean by that.
Pointing out stupidity in the hope that people who believe what they read (see posting by Jack9 below) may eventually understand that anyone with a computer - even those who either can't or won't think - can post on the internet and so people should not automatically believe anything they read, that ANYTHING found on the internet should be taken with a healthy dose of scepticism.
By the way, nice low ID number. To bad your early adoption and hopefully wide experience with the internet and the WWW have not made you more aware of how people posting stupid things need correction, not for their own edification (in my experience with those people, they either refuse to think or are not able to think critically about the subject), but to educate others on what NOT to do, what happens when you post without thinking first. Also helps to kill urban legends, chain mail, and possibly responding to SPAM.
Picking at nits, but where do you find an 'X' in DaimlerChrysler?
Yes, the STOCK TICKER symbol is DCX, but that is not an abbreviation, an acronym, or anything else - it is just a group of four or less letters that is used to refer to a specific company in a specific setting, i.e., the stock market. Each company gets to pick their own ticker symbol when they are listed on an exchange. I would assume DCC was taken, or there were 'good and sufficient' reasons to not pick that combination of letters.
Altria has the stock ticker symbol MO. I don't fine either an 'M' or an 'O' in Altria. MO is not an abbreviation for Altria. (Altria used to be Phillip Morris, which may have influenced their choice of stock ticker symbol...)
Off to find more nits to pick...
And thank YOU, Jack9, for missing the fact that GROKLAW is neither a news site, nor an op-ed site, that the posting on the blog site had NO opinions or editorials added by the author of the site (PJ) but were entirely the work of the eye-witnesses, and that spoonyfork should not have mangled their work. Notice the disclaimer at the bottom of the page (just above the creative commons license which he also seems to have disreguarded) where it states All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. For the uninformed, that means eggplant37 owns the copyright to their writing, the narative in question.
Of course, if spoonyfork were also present in the court room and wanted to post their narative in whatever manner they wanted, they are welcome to do so, but from the carping I hear from spoonyfork, they were not in the courtroom.
I don't think breaking copyright laws to remove parts of a work you don't like qualifies as a "Good post" even if it does "giv[e] us the facts succinctly as opposed to the facts mixed with the meaningless subjectivities
You and spoonyfork are both wrong.
You seem to have missed the point that
1) this is not a news site,
2) the person writing specifically stated it was a narrative of what happened ("Here's my narrative of what happened in court: ")
and
3) this is not a news site.
Several more things just for education.
1) PJ is not a news columnist. Not in real life, nor on the internet. She does not claim to be one, and for you to hold her to that standard is foolish.
2) GROKLAW is not a news site. It is not an op-ed site. it IS a blog that many people read. It should be held to blog standards. If you want to visit NEWS sites and complain about their editorial policies, go ahead, but visiting an amateur non-news site and complaining about it not being professional or not having editorial policies equivalent to professional news sites is either dis-ingenious, immature, or just foolish - like going to McDonalds and complaining when you can't get a Whopper(c). You want news (Whopper)? Go to a news site (Burger King). You want to go to Groklaw (McDonalds), you get what is there. Complaining about what you DON'T get is just stupid.
3) For those to lazy to RTFA, here's a couple excepts[sic] that I left out... except you forgot to let people know they were not from PJ, but from the person writing about what they did and saw in the court room - i.e., PJ did not edit their writing, just printed it on her site.
4) Others (by way of moderation) find opinions in news to be annoying and completely unnecessary. I can agree with this, but feel compelled to point out that, in this case at least, there was not opinions added by PJ to the reports. I must assume you are bitching because the eye-witnesses were more verbose than you wanted. Sucks to be you.
To all those who are going to - or have - point out that a monopod has only one leg, remember that SirFozzie is talking about a TRIpod, a THREE legged, very stable, stand-alone device capable of standing without other support.
A tripod with only one working leg is not a unipod, it is a broken tripod - neither stable nor able to stand alone without other support.
Assuming a copyright exists and is owned by a corporation (hypothetical, as TSG has not shown any copyright holdings in or over Unix - including SYSV), the copyright is an asset of the corporation.
If the corporation enters (voluntary or involuntary) bankruptcy such that they can not continue business, their assets are sold to satisfy creditors and shareholders (creditors first, if anything is left it is divided between teh shareholders). All assets, including copyrights.
With that in mind, I seem to remember the rights to Unix that TSG might have having been pledged as collateral for a loan to The Canopy Group.
As for dismissing suits based on precedent, if these lawsuits wither and die WITHOUT LEGAL DECISION, they can not be used as precedent. Also, no new legal decisions were made in the DaimlerChrysler case that I am aware of, so it would not be used as a precedent anyway - the cases used as precedents for this case would be the ones used (they work - they won this case, didn't they?!).
And the answer is...
Maybe.
If the company goes belly-up due to no $$$, they file bankruptcy. Their operations are taken over by court appointed conservators whose job it is to get the maximum return on the available assets of the company for the debt holders and shareholders.
If the bankruptcy conservators feel that there actually is a valid copyright asset, they are almost required to continue the lawsuits.
IANAL, but I don't THINK they would find any such thing, and the lawsuits would be dropped by TSG except for the ones AGAINST TSG, and they might be vacated as none are (primarily) requesting monitary damages from TSG - they are mainly wanting TSG to shutup, go away, play fair, etc. If TSG dies, their goals are accomplished.
Before you start thinking about buying the rights to Unix copyright (or any rights TSG might have to IP in Unix - none shown so far in court) from the bankruptcy sale, I seem to remember TSG has pledged them against a loan from Canopy, so if TSG defaults on their payments to Canopy, any rights TSG has in Unix would go to Canopy, not the auction block, and this whole can of worms may reappear some day.
Actually, it should read:
SCO v Novell - Pending Novell response to TSGs modifications in their pleadings relating to special damages.
TSG had 30 days to amend their complaint to meet the requirements for Slander of Title re: specific damages. TSG DID file amended pleadings within the time limit, but IMHO (IANAL) not sufficiently to meet the requirements. Novell now has the ball and can re-request dismissal on not pleading specific damages sufficiently, or possibly follow Judge Kimballs hints and file for a summary judgement on the issue of ownership of the copyrights (not sufficient writing to transfer the copyrights under section 204 of the copyright code).
This case is still alive, even though with one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel.
While the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure MAY have wording about response periods, in this case that authority had nothing to do with the issue. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are rules dealing with litigation, rules ON LAWYERS IN COURT, not on people in general - and not anything TSG can sue anyone over.
The 30 day period was made up by TSG as there was no time period stated in the contract.
As their (TSG) court fileings point out, under NEW YORK law, thay can make that demand legally. Unfortunately for TSG they were in a Michigan courtroom...
Where a contract is silent regarding the time for performance, New York law implies a duty to perform within a reasonable time. See Savasta v. 470 Newport Assoc., 82 N.Y.2d 763, 765, 603 N.Y.S.2d 821, 623 N.E.2d 1171 (1993) (\\"When a contract does not specify time of performance, the law implies a reasonable time.\\").[3] \\"What constitutes reasonable time of performance depends upon the facts and circumstances of the particular case.\\" Id. The inquiry requires consideration of (1) the nature and object of the contract, (2) the previous conduct of the parties, (3) the presence or absence of good faith, (4) the experience of the parties, and (5) the possibility of prejudice or hardship to either one. Zev v. Merman, 73 N.Y.2d 781, 536 N.Y.S.2d 739; 533 N.E.2d 669 (1988); accord Lake Steel Erection, Inc. v. Egan, 61 A.D.2d 1125, 112, 403 N.Y.S.2d 387, 389 (4th Dep't 1978). The question of what is a reasonable period of time for performance in a particular contract is a question of fact for the jury. See Young v. Whitney, 111 A.D.2d 1013, 1014, 490 N.Y.S.2d 330, 331 (1st Dep't 1985) (\\"What is a reasonable time [for performance] is for the jury to determine considering the subject matter of the contract, what the parties contemplated at the time it was entered and the circumstances surrounding performance.\\"); Lake Steel, 61 A.D.2d at 1126, 403 N.Y.S.2d at 389 (\\"The question of whether performance has been delayed beyond a reasonable time is for the jury.\\")
Moreover, where \\"there is no contractual provision making time of the essence, either party may subsequently give notice to that effect so long as the notice is clear, distinct and unequivocal and fixes a reasonable time within which to perform.\\" 76 N. Assoc. v. Theil Mgmt. Corp., 132 A.D.2d 695, 696, 518 N.Y.S.2d 174, 176 (2d Dep't 1987) (finding breach of contract where party failed to perform after receiving notice of 32-day extension of time within which to perform). Thirty days is a commercially reasonable amount of time: the Uniform Commercial Code requires merchants responding to requests for further assurances to do so within thirty days. N.Y.U.C.C. Section 2-609(4). [emphasis added]
Are you the poster of the single line
"Er, no. The solar panels will charge batteries."?
If so, then you DON'T know what you are talking about, as the article specifically states there will not be batteries used.
Maybe you know solar power. Maybe you know electric vehicles. Maybe you know everything there is to know about 'ultracapacitors' - but the comment posted shows the poster DOESN'T know what they are talking about when the article states no batteries and the comment states batteries.
Where are you coming up with 'ultracapacitors', anyway? I don't see them in the article. Yes they would work in this setup, but so would a portable fusion reactor or even sails - and they were not mentioned in the article, either.
Anyone can win an argument IF THEY ARE ALLOWED TO MAKE UP STUFF AS THEY GO.
I am not arguing that what he is doing is going to be spectacular. I personally don't think it will work very well - mainly because of the point you brought up that they do not provide enough instantaneous power. 25KPH? On a good slope, maybe, with a tailwind.
Thanks.
As far as the adjusting of the angle, that would have to be done anyway - the sun is not stationary in the sky. For even slightly reasonable usage, the sun would have to be tracked from the East to the West as the day progressed - otherwise the panel would only be useful for several hours each day.
In addition, if I set the angle by hand before I started out tot he store, then I would have to reset it when I came back - even assuming I did not have to make any turns on the way to the store.
Correction. His $200 per month is not equivalent to "$4000+/month" unless you mean $4000+$38,228/month. The actual numbers I used are $42,228 per month.
Also, you are right in that the first people to develope some of his ideas may have needed millions of dollars to impliment their ideas, remember this man is using parts that have already been created - no machining, no theory, no understanding of WHY it works, no creating of new pieces with new purposes.
In another post I liken it to putting a bicycle together without the instruction manual. What he is doing is difficult - I don't think I would either have thought to do it or even thought of the possibilities in his place, so kudos to him - but not not of the level people are atributing to him.
Reminds me of the show "JunkYard Wars". All the pieces are there, the contestants just have to put them together.
As far as his inventions being protected, reread the part about his inventinos not being new other than in his area. Therefore they are not eligible for patent at any rate. In fact, if Afghanistan honors others patents, he might be infringing on others patent rights - and making a good living off them, as well. Granted, $200/month is not worth the lawyer fees to prosecute him in the US, but hailing him as some kind of De Vinci is misplaced.
To use your terms, in order for him to profit from his inventions he must not make enough to appear on the radar of the inventions patent owners.
Agreed, but remember these things ARE new - to him.
Unfortunately, he is taking things that can be - and have been - combined in those same combinations by others and putting them together. Quite a bit like putting a bicycle together with all the parts but without the instructions, I would think, rather than developing the first tesla coil or AC motor.
Reasonable margin? Yeah, right.
When the average ANNUAL income is $180 - $200, or less than $1 per day, at $2 you are talking about more than two days earnings. Assuming you make $30,000 US per year, you make around $120 per day. So he would be charging you the equivalent of $240 - $360 for his matchbox, some wires and a set of headphones.
Reasonable margin. Riiiight.
RTFA.
Sixth sentence.
In a week, the vehicle is scheduled to be driven through the streets of Kabul, without using petrol, water or batteries.
Emphasis added.
You were saying...
According to what I can find, that equates to about $45,000 per month in the US.
$180 - $200 is the average ANNUAL income in Afghanistan, according to the last census the median (NOT average) annual income in the US was about $42,228.
Annually, he is making about the equivilant of $500,000 (half a million) dollars in US terms.
What was the word you used? Paltry? I don't think so.
Please provide a source for your numbers.
According to what I can find, the average Afghani earns between $180 and $200 per year, not the number you state. Your post may not be flamebait (don't remember seeing it) but the number you use in this post is wrong (over ten times high) from what I can find.
If he is getting $200 per month, then he is getting an annual income of 12 times the average, PLUS living rent free, PLUS being supported by his four sons.
NOT middle class.
Not only that, but he is probably used to it, as he brought in about 10 years of income from his first invention - he made 'over a thousand' radios and sold them for 'under two dollars' or close to $2000 45 years ago.
That long ago the average income was less (see the links) but not much less (again, see the links - especially the one where the Afghani government states that the Afghani people in twenty years could have gone from $200 to $500 per year if not for the wars and fighting) so I would guess he qualifies as a non-middle class dude, dude.
link
link
link
link
link