This got +5? Mods don't know what they are reading about.
PowerPC does not store the return address on the stack; it shows up in the link register (LR), and is generally copied to a GPR when your function calls another function (because the call will overwrite the LR). That GPR may or may not wind up on the stack, depending on the number of GPRs needed by the callee. The architecture does not require that it ever be placed on the stack, which is totally defined by the ABI and not by the hardware anyway. There is absolutely no reason why PowerPC-based operating systems could not define a separate stack for data and return addresses, if the OS designers chose to do so.
"These documents do not appear to have been the result of technology that was available in 1972 and 1973," said Bill Flynn, one of country's top authorities on document authentication. "The cumulative evidence that's available ? indicates that these documents were produced on a computer, not a typewriter:"
Errr, in 1973 Bell Labs got a 1972 model Wang CAT Phototypesetter, for which the default font was Times Roman. Joe Ossana wrote a program called troff to drive it. This guy Flynn is clueless about the state of technology in those days. Why should we believe anything else he says?
This patent looks a lot like MPEG: DCT, Huffman/RLE, motion vectors, error prediction, intra and inter frames, and so forth. They're probably targeting JPEG because it's more prevalent and uses a subset of what they're claiming. I'm wondering myself whether prior art can totally contain JPEG - it seems likely.
Briefs have a very formal style which requires a very arcane table of contents. With WordPerfect I hit one button and it generates a table of contents and table of authorities which meet the nitpicking requirements of the anal rednecks before whom I practice.
Full Form/Short Form marking does take some time, especially when you have to go into Reveal Codes and fix something, and I always found that WP managed to screw up the TOA in some small way (usually an extra carriage return in the middle of a citation for some reason). I found that LaTeX is a better solution. I generally practice before two types of appellate courts (NY and federal), so I have two document classes, which ensure that all mandatory sections (e.g., Opinion Below, Jurisdiction) are included, that the fonts and line spacing is correct, and so forth. A simple regex and about two minutes of hunting up page numbers from a DVI file makes the TOA. It's actually much easier, because the computer handles all the formatting.
That being said, WP 5.1 for DOS was way better than Word ever dreamed of being!
Very little, in fact. The old license (1.0) required:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE XFREE86 PROJECT BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
Except as contained in this notice, the name of the XFree86 Project shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use or other dealings in this Software without prior written authorization from the XFree86 Project.
The new license makes this a bit more specific:
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions, and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution, and in the same place and form as other copyright, license and disclaimer information.
3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution, if any, must include the following acknowledgment: "This product includes software developed by The XFree86 Project, Inc (http://www.xfree86.org/) and its contributors", in the same place and form as other third-party acknowledgments. Alternately, this acknowledgment may appear in the software itself, in the same form and location as other such third-party acknowledgments.
4. Except as contained in this notice, the name of The XFree86 Project, Inc shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use or other dealings in this Software without prior written authorization from The XFree86 Project, Inc.
You'll note that point 4 was already in the old license, and that the required notices are exactly the same. So what's different?
In reality, not much at all! The new license just makes specific that if you are distributing XFree86 in binary form, you must include the notices in "the same place and form as other copyright, license and disclaimer information" and/or in "the same place and form as other third-party acknowledgments [are in the end-user documentation, if such documentation exists]... [or] in the software itself, in the same form and location as other such third-party acknowledgments [apparently if you don't put it in the end-user documentation]."
So, in other words, they want credit for writing your X server and libraries, of you want to leverage that software. They're concerned that the old license appeared only to require that you only give credit if you distributed it in source form. Notably, nothing in this new license requires that you list the names of all the programmers, only "The XFree86 Project, Inc (http://www.xfree86.org/) and its contributors."
This isn't entirely responsive to your question, but Mac on Linux has been around for a few years. Obviously, you need a copy of MacOS (9, X, whatever) to use it, but that comes with the machine, right?;)
If I can get a goahead from someone (maybe an off-the-record lawyer, or a paralegal or something) saying it's okay to post the comments without the code, I'll put them up on a site for everyone to look at.
"Microsoft Corp. warned customers Tuesday about unusually serious security problems with its Windows software that could let hackers quietly break into their computers to steal files, delete data or eavesdrop on sensitive information." What "usually serious"? Code Red? Nimda?
Also, Microsoft's own document on "Trustworthy Computing" (warning: MS Word format!) establishes as a goal that "[t]he company is open in its dealings with customers. Its motives are clear, it keeps its word, and customers know where they stand in a transaction or interaction with the company." I suppose that waiting six months before fixing this "unusually serious" problem somehow satisfies that criterion?
Kerney v. Fort Griffin Fandangle Ass'n, Inc., 624 F.2d 717, 721 (5th Cir. 1980) is one case that is cited, although it is somewhat limited in scope (it applies to members of unincorporated associations being certified as a class). My sense is that the expectation from the scholars might be somewhat broader than the actual case law. I seem to recall that Siegel discussed the issue in his notes to McKinney's (that's the NY annotated code for those outside the Empire State), which would lend it an air of legitimacy even in the absence of case law here in New York (although it may not have been Siegel - I last looked at this 8 years ago and my memory has been known to fade!)
It's pretty obscure, and I'd imagine that most lawyers wouldn't know about it. The only reason I do is that in the one class action I was involved with (about 8 years ago) there was some threat by the defendants to bring a class counterclaim against the plaintiff class, so we needed to know whether that was even possible.
Rich white criminals don't land in pound-me-in-the-ass prisons.
A friend of mine had a couple of clients in federal criminal cases at the same time. One was a white guy who embezzled over $100k. The other was a black kid who sold 4 grams (yes, grams) of crack. Guess who got 5 years, and guess who got 8 months of what he described as the easiest time you could possibly serve.
No, you cannot name a "class" as defendants, no such animal. However, you can name a very large number of defendants (though they will not called a "class" no matter how many you name).
You can certify a defendant class. Check out FRCP Rule 23 ("sue or be sued...") or run a Google search on "defendant class action." It's rare, but it's available.
$7 million is 14,000 billable hours at $500 per (NYC rates, perchance) or 28,000 billable at a more reasonable $250 per. That's a lot of litigation. Hell, I'd do the summary judgment motion for $100k.;)
One's won-lost record is not the measure of a lawyer. Clarence Darrow (who lost his most famous trial - Scopes) noted that "lost causes are the only ones worth fighting for." You're only as good as your facts. A lawyer can have a tremendous won-loss record, if he cherry picks his cases (or if he is a prosecutor - oops, some thing). There are incredible lawyers who rarely win, because they choose to take really tough cases (e.g., federal habeas petitions).
Keyword: modern. Many people still have perfectly good monitors from years past that could potentially be damaged by incorrect settings. If it still works, why toss it out?
He'll be sentenced under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, probably based upon a negotiated plea. This will take into account his past record (32 months for vandalism), the amount of the loss (and the Government will have a big number in this case, given the sheer volume of emails, and considering that some of these sportswriters were depending on email to get stories to the editor), and whether he accepts responsibility for his crimes. From all this the district court will compute a sentencing level, and there's not a very wide range of sentences available. He'll probably get less time than Mitnick did, all things considered.
I write legal briefs using vim and LaTeX. These tools actually provide a significant advantage over word processors, since appellate courts have strict formatting rules, and will send your brief back if you don't follow the rules (not a minor concern, since you paid a printer real money to copy and bind at least a dozen copies and ship them to the court, and now will have to duplicate that expense after you fix the problem).
With LaTeX, I created a documentclass for each court once, and just plug in the text for each new brief. Since the class requires that the mandatory sections exist (e.g., Opinion Below, Jurisdiction, Issues Presented, Summary of Argument, etc.), I can't make bonehead mistakes that will get my brief rejected, and it also assures that the font sizes, margins and linespacing are correct. My appellate printer tells me that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit bounces nearly a quarter of the briefs he reproduces, but I've never had one sent back.
Using a plaintext format also facilitates the use of grep and friends to find material from old briefs quickly.
Guy from NiMo is on the radio right now here in Buffalo saying that they're only getting power from up north (Canada, I'd assume) - all the other generators tripped offline as the outage cascaded (whatever that means).
Slashdot Mirror
This got +5? Mods don't know what they are reading about.
PowerPC does not store the return address on the stack; it shows up in the link register (LR), and is generally copied to a GPR when your function calls another function (because the call will overwrite the LR). That GPR may or may not wind up on the stack, depending on the number of GPRs needed by the callee. The architecture does not require that it ever be placed on the stack, which is totally defined by the ABI and not by the hardware anyway. There is absolutely no reason why PowerPC-based operating systems could not define a separate stack for data and return addresses, if the OS designers chose to do so.
Is that why my RFC 1149 packets keep disappearing?
"These documents do not appear to have been the result of technology that was available in 1972 and 1973," said Bill Flynn, one of country's top authorities on document authentication. "The cumulative evidence that's available ? indicates that these documents were produced on a computer, not a typewriter:"
Errr, in 1973 Bell Labs got a 1972 model Wang CAT Phototypesetter, for which the default font was Times Roman. Joe Ossana wrote a program called troff to drive it. This guy Flynn is clueless about the state of technology in those days. Why should we believe anything else he says?
See this, for example.
This patent looks a lot like MPEG: DCT, Huffman/RLE, motion vectors, error prediction, intra and inter frames, and so forth. They're probably targeting JPEG because it's more prevalent and uses a subset of what they're claiming. I'm wondering myself whether prior art can totally contain JPEG - it seems likely.
Briefs have a very formal style which requires a very arcane table of contents. With WordPerfect I hit one button and it generates a table of contents and table of authorities which meet the nitpicking requirements of the anal rednecks before whom I practice.
Full Form/Short Form marking does take some time, especially when you have to go into Reveal Codes and fix something, and I always found that WP managed to screw up the TOA in some small way (usually an extra carriage return in the middle of a citation for some reason). I found that LaTeX is a better solution. I generally practice before two types of appellate courts (NY and federal), so I have two document classes, which ensure that all mandatory sections (e.g., Opinion Below, Jurisdiction) are included, that the fonts and line spacing is correct, and so forth. A simple regex and about two minutes of hunting up page numbers from a DVI file makes the TOA. It's actually much easier, because the computer handles all the formatting.
That being said, WP 5.1 for DOS was way better than Word ever dreamed of being!
What exactly has changed in the 4.4 release?
... [or] in the software itself, in the same form and location as other such third-party acknowledgments [apparently if you don't put it in the end-user documentation]."
Very little, in fact. The old license (1.0) required:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE XFREE86 PROJECT BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
Except as contained in this notice, the name of the XFree86 Project shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use or other dealings in this Software without prior written authorization from the XFree86 Project.
The new license makes this a bit more specific:
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions, and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution, and in the same place and form as other copyright, license and disclaimer information.
3. The end-user documentation included with the redistribution, if any, must include the following acknowledgment: "This product includes software developed by The XFree86 Project, Inc (http://www.xfree86.org/) and its contributors", in the same place and form as other third-party acknowledgments. Alternately, this acknowledgment may appear in the software itself, in the same form and location as other such third-party acknowledgments.
4. Except as contained in this notice, the name of The XFree86 Project, Inc shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use or other dealings in this Software without prior written authorization from The XFree86 Project, Inc.
You'll note that point 4 was already in the old license, and that the required notices are exactly the same. So what's different?
In reality, not much at all! The new license just makes specific that if you are distributing XFree86 in binary form, you must include the notices in "the same place and form as other copyright, license and disclaimer information" and/or in "the same place and form as other third-party acknowledgments [are in the end-user documentation, if such documentation exists]
So, in other words, they want credit for writing your X server and libraries, of you want to leverage that software. They're concerned that the old license appeared only to require that you only give credit if you distributed it in source form. Notably, nothing in this new license requires that you list the names of all the programmers, only "The XFree86 Project, Inc (http://www.xfree86.org/) and its contributors."
This isn't entirely responsive to your question, but Mac on Linux has been around for a few years. Obviously, you need a copy of MacOS (9, X, whatever) to use it, but that comes with the machine, right? ;)
If I can get a goahead from someone (maybe an off-the-record lawyer, or a paralegal or something) saying it's okay to post the comments without the code, I'll put them up on a site for everyone to look at.
IAAL, and IMO that would be a really bad idea.
"Microsoft Corp. warned customers Tuesday about unusually serious security problems with its Windows software that could let hackers quietly break into their computers to steal files, delete data or eavesdrop on sensitive information." What "usually serious"? Code Red? Nimda?
Also, Microsoft's own document on "Trustworthy Computing" (warning: MS Word format!) establishes as a goal that "[t]he company is open in its dealings with customers. Its motives are clear, it keeps its word, and customers know where they stand in a transaction or interaction with the company." I suppose that waiting six months before fixing this "unusually serious" problem somehow satisfies that criterion?
Kerney v. Fort Griffin Fandangle Ass'n, Inc., 624 F.2d 717, 721 (5th Cir. 1980) is one case that is cited, although it is somewhat limited in scope (it applies to members of unincorporated associations being certified as a class). My sense is that the expectation from the scholars might be somewhat broader than the actual case law. I seem to recall that Siegel discussed the issue in his notes to McKinney's (that's the NY annotated code for those outside the Empire State), which would lend it an air of legitimacy even in the absence of case law here in New York (although it may not have been Siegel - I last looked at this 8 years ago and my memory has been known to fade!)
It's pretty obscure, and I'd imagine that most lawyers wouldn't know about it. The only reason I do is that in the one class action I was involved with (about 8 years ago) there was some threat by the defendants to bring a class counterclaim against the plaintiff class, so we needed to know whether that was even possible.
I wonder how he's going to prove this in court. Did he take a before and after picture or something?
Clerk: Do you swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Witness: I do.
Lawyer: How long did you use defendant's product?
Witness: Two years.
Lawyer: And what results did you obtain in those two years?
Witness: None at all. My weenie is as small as it ever was!
Lawyer: So how can you prove it doesn't work? Man: (Drops pants) Lawyer: I see...
We have paralegals for that job. Seriously.
Rich white criminals don't land in pound-me-in-the-ass prisons.
A friend of mine had a couple of clients in federal criminal cases at the same time. One was a white guy who embezzled over $100k. The other was a black kid who sold 4 grams (yes, grams) of crack. Guess who got 5 years, and guess who got 8 months of what he described as the easiest time you could possibly serve.
No, you cannot name a "class" as defendants, no such animal. However, you can name a very large number of defendants (though they will not called a "class" no matter how many you name).
You can certify a defendant class. Check out FRCP Rule 23 ("sue or be sued...") or run a Google search on "defendant class action." It's rare, but it's available.
$7 million is 14,000 billable hours at $500 per (NYC rates, perchance) or 28,000 billable at a more reasonable $250 per. That's a lot of litigation. Hell, I'd do the summary judgment motion for $100k. ;)
One's won-lost record is not the measure of a lawyer. Clarence Darrow (who lost his most famous trial - Scopes) noted that "lost causes are the only ones worth fighting for." You're only as good as your facts. A lawyer can have a tremendous won-loss record, if he cherry picks his cases (or if he is a prosecutor - oops, some thing). There are incredible lawyers who rarely win, because they choose to take really tough cases (e.g., federal habeas petitions).
It's $150 to file a civil matter in federal court.
Keyword: modern. Many people still have perfectly good monitors from years past that could potentially be damaged by incorrect settings. If it still works, why toss it out?
XFree86 can destroy your monitor if you're not careful. ;)
He'll be sentenced under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, probably based upon a negotiated plea. This will take into account his past record (32 months for vandalism), the amount of the loss (and the Government will have a big number in this case, given the sheer volume of emails, and considering that some of these sportswriters were depending on email to get stories to the editor), and whether he accepts responsibility for his crimes. From all this the district court will compute a sentencing level, and there's not a very wide range of sentences available. He'll probably get less time than Mitnick did, all things considered.
Read some of his manifestos:
Thome Scam Gathers Steam
"Our philosophy does not change"
Phillies Quitting Again
With LaTeX, I created a documentclass for each court once, and just plug in the text for each new brief. Since the class requires that the mandatory sections exist (e.g., Opinion Below, Jurisdiction, Issues Presented, Summary of Argument, etc.), I can't make bonehead mistakes that will get my brief rejected, and it also assures that the font sizes, margins and linespacing are correct. My appellate printer tells me that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit bounces nearly a quarter of the briefs he reproduces, but I've never had one sent back.
Using a plaintext format also facilitates the use of grep and friends to find material from old briefs quickly.
Guy from NiMo is on the radio right now here in Buffalo saying that they're only getting power from up north (Canada, I'd assume) - all the other generators tripped offline as the outage cascaded (whatever that means).
Yes, because under Rule 38(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, you waive your right to a jury if you don't serve and file a jury demand.