And the engineering of the New Orleans area is part of its problem. There are various types of subsidence, ranging from ground loading of unconsolidated surficial sediments, lack of flooding and replenishment of surface sediments and ground water withdrawal.
Not only was it a bad choice of places to live, building it up has exacerbated its sinking.
Lawyers live by e-mail, so it wasn't stupid of her to use a supposedly secure personal web mail account in her situation.
Larry Mendte installed a hardware keystroke logger on her work computer to steal her username and password. Then, he started leaking embarrassing information to a reporter for the Daily News (one step above a tabloid in Philly).
When Alicia Lane (the victim) got into a scuffle in New York, the arresting officer exaggerated the charges; Lane entered a deal that would see the charges dropped after several months of good behavior. But with all the negative personal publicity from Mendte's leaks, the station fired her.
As part of her lawsuit against the station, her attorney contacted the FBI with a suspicion that someone was accessing her account and leaking information and the focus quickly turned to Mendte, who obsessively viewed her as a rival. The FBI decided to pursue it as a criminal case because it resulted in substantial damage (loss of an $800,000 per year job and serious damage to her reputation).
It isn't like she was using the company e-mail system to work with her lawyer. She was using a private web mail account. Her legal problems (and Mendte's leaks) threatened her job.
If it is, and that person is the CEO, then there are bigger problems for the investor. If the CEO does not delegate and the company does not have a succession plan, there are definitely bigger problems.
What if the CEO dies suddenly in an accident? Do you really want to invest in a company that is so reliant upon one person that an accident would adversely impact its value?
No, Steve Jobs should not have to reveal any medical information about himself. Yes, Steve Jobs should make sure a succession plan is in place and the investor should be able to make informed decisions based upon that.
You left out something very important. Is your large company publicly traded in the US? If yes, it could be looking at violations of Sarbanes-Oxley if they really are purging (and not retaining) e-mail "in an attempt to limit the organization's exposure to legal risk."
But that is likely not the case. It is more likely the company is trying to limit the amount of data stored on its Exchange system. Adding storage and additional backup capacity is expensive. Implementing a policy that requires end users to keep the size of their mailboxes down does not work, because many people insist they need every bit of those six years of archived e-mail; people use e-mail as much for CYA as doing real business. So, this solution was selected. If it really is important, make the end users do some work to keep it and don't force the company to re architect its storage system to keep years of CYA and personal mail.
FWIW, I spent ten years doing environmental work, including NEPA.
At present, each proposed action must perform its own National Environmental Policy Act assessment, whether that is an Environmental Assessment or a more comprehensive (and expensive) Environmental Impact Statement.
BLM is streamlining the process for the long-term by preparing a "Programmatic" EIS; that is a comprehensive document that assess an entire class of proposed actions over a large geographic area, in this case building solar power sites in the referenced states. With that in place, companies that apply for permits have guidance that lets them know where the best locations are. They can then reference the Programmatic EIS and get environmental approval much faster and cheaper.
It slows things down to wait for it to be completed, but long-term, it will be a much faster process in terms of EIS preparation, review, public comment and acceptance.
We have been mining Ogalala Aquifer ground water for decades. Now, with increased subsidies, we have expanded the area and rate at which we are depleting the resource.
And the interest rate is LIBOR + 1,700 Basis Points. That translates to 20% - 22.5% annual interest (using LIBOR rates over the past 1 year) which must be paid MONTHLY. SCO has lost money every single quarter of its existence, except for its blockbuster one in which it sold licenses to Sun and MS (which the court found to be improperly converted in its preliminary summary judgments). And now they have to pay credit card rates for financing?
Hello conspiracy theorists! This "deal" is nothing more than a cover to take the company private in an attempt to protect it from investigation into the PIPE fairies who funded its litigation from the word go. And you can bet (based upon the failed York deal they tried to shove down the BK court's throat in November) it was cooked up by people more powerful and "financially creative" than the existing SCO management.
Don't be surprised if an attempt to limit his liability is Darl's Golden Parachute.
Webster on Groklaw (a lawyer) says yes. Not criminal, but personal civil liability against the directors. There is already a finding by Kimball in Utah that the MS and Sun license money was converted (legal term) and should have gone to Novell. That opened them up to civil suits from Novell.
It won't last for years, at least with current SCO management in charge.
The reason they tried to push through a super-duper must have it now sale of every asset to that troll company was to avoid having anything left for the creditor's committee to object to. You see, once that committee is established, everyone will have to agree or object to any attempt that SCO tries to keep its plaintiff litigation cases alive (Autozone) alive and take all the guaranteed-liability counterclaims (Novell, IBM) with the SCO shell. And then certain creditors (MS) will have to show their hands in a vote.
SCO wants to end this ASAP, while keeping the FUD alive through another party. But the trustee, Novell and IBM will fight tooth and nail any outrageous attempt and it will soon be forced into Chapter 7 because it is dissipating its remaining assets so quickly. Now, the Chapter 7, THAT will go on for YEARS if the appointed BK Trustee (not US Trustee) decides to follow the money back to BSF, MS and Sun.
Not given up, but realistic. When you go to several CFO's with a a six month ROI and get shot down because that's too long to wait, you get the idea. Most companies work that way, but not all. It's just tough to find the ones who think beyond the next quarter.
Ahh, it's good to see some thought process going on out there. But an engineering degree does not an engineer make. My education began in earnest after I graduated and worked under experienced engineers in an entrepreneurial situation. It took two years in the field -- 1987 to 1989 -- before I was ready to play. I maintain contact with college profs and its a good two-way exchange. They have the theory and new ideas, I have the practical experience.
But to make new companies it takes experience and a business plan. Enter the bean counters. And the bean counters now control the playing field.
It can be done, and it still happens. But primarily, engineering is no longer respected. The engineer as innovator is underfunded and engineer as quality/safety voice is unheard.
I'm not that old, 43, but feel like an old timer in engineering. Son of a EE gone Chief Engineer and trained as a GeolE (1987).
Olin is not inventing a new kind of engineer, they are trying to bring back the engineers of my father's generation. But they can put out the finest people on earth and it won't matter. Bean counters run companies now and they don't like what a good engineer has to say. Horrible things like "we need money to develop this idea", "saving ten cents per item will not save you money in the long run when it breaks and you have to replace it" and the ever-popular "outsourcing production to the cheapest labor you can find is not a good idea because it takes a little bit of skill and QA/QC to build it right".
Exactly right. Big screw up, yes. Dangerous situation, no.
I'm not sure why the media has pumped this up like they were Broken Arrows. BUFF crews have been carrying nukes for decades, live and ready for delivery, without incident. It's not like the act of flying them over American territory was dangerous. I lived on the end of a SAC runway during the Cold War and those contrails weren't all passenger flights. But the mistake of having live loads on a BUFF was a paper-pusher nightmare that breached security and possibly treaty agreements.
Some O's just got a quick exit from the USAF.
Re:Judge should be disgusted with himself
on
SCO Loses
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Two words: avoid appeal.
Kimball knew he was up against BSF, masters at gaming the system. Those statements were in his denial of IBM's initial PSJ motions, which he declined only because discovery was not finished. That discovery was not finished was due to BSF's masterful motion practice.
One ruling in February 2005 does not a case make. While it seems apparent he had a decision in mind at that time, he followed procedure to assure his ruling would be safe from appeal.
Don't blame the judge, blame the lawyers (BSF).
Re:Conversion
on
SCO Loses
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Yeah, that comment caught my eye, too. There are two remedies for conversion: damages or return of property. Novell asked for damages and a constructive trust. The judge ruled that Novell must prove how much of the deals involved SVRX (subject to the 95% going to Novell) and how much involved UnixWare (not subject). That is the matter of fact that needs to be decided by a jury; that SCO Group owes Novell money is not a fact in dispute, only how much is owed. Thus he could not grant a constructive trust.
But does this open the door to allowing Novell discovery of MS and Sun records should they demand return of the property? I'm still reading the ruling, too, but the judge seemed disgusted that a case with almost no factual basis was brought before the court and took SO much of its time. That SCO Group was unable to bring disputable facts allowed him to gut the case as a matter of law.
Re:For once..
on
SCO Loses
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I've been following this one since groklaw started. I'm still reading the ruling and it's like four years of groklaw and Novell debunking SCO. This is a potent ruling and he just set up IBM to write the PSJ ruling he intends to issue in that case, too.
I was interested in his use of the term "subject to conversion" with respect to the MS and Sun deals. There are two remedies for conversion: return of the property or damages. Novell claimed damages, but I wonder if Judge K opened the door for Novell to demand return of the property (the SVRX licenses Sun and MS got) as a method of opening the documents behind those deals up to discovery in suits by Novell against Sun and MS.
Whatever, this judge was disgusted by what he saw and ruled about as forcefully as possible.
Kind of a nitpick, but the PSJ ruling was not about facts, but about law. Facts are something a jury needs to decide (in the ruling's instance, the disputed fact is how much of the money SCO Group got from MS and Sun was SVRX -- money owed to Novell -- vs. UnixWare -- money not owed Novell).
The judge's rulings are based upon undisputed facts that have already been addressed by law. Thus, since there is no dispute of facts, the force of law has already been established for him to rule. Matters of law are much more potent than matters of fact in civil suits, and SCO Group just got eviscerated. BSF can try to raise disputed facts when they appeal, but the opinion is VERY well documented and the relevant laws well-cited.
Then, he asked SCO Group and IBM to file their opinions of what the Novell ruling means to that case. That just makes it easier for him to write the PSJ ruling that dismisses SCO Groups claims because he has already ruled Novell had the write to waive SCO Groups claims against IBM.
SCO Group's evidence to the court was the equivalent of pissing on the third rail. BSF's masterful motion practice was all that kept this mess before the court for as long as possible.
Please evaluate when you take the actions and statements of Lyons, MOG and Dildio in their entirety, not just the context of this incident.
The point PJ made was about "unbiased" journalism. She was stalked and outed in a mean-spirited attack. Lyons, MOG and Dildio have been consistent supporters of SCO Group in the face of community debunking of SCO Groups claims.
PJ has voiced a valid concern that one of the SCO Group's supporters and a possible MS shill was caught in a fake blog, as he wrote about blogging as a threat to the truth.
Get real. There is a story here and PJ reported responsibly.
An "analyst" who supported SCO Group and is suspected as an MS front man. You wonder why there are conspiracy theories about MS being behind SCO Group's actions?
With 20/20 hindsight, it had to be Lyons, MOG or Dildio.
WRONG! Here's some civics, something American schools gloss over.
In America, you are TREATED as innocent until proven guilty. Not presumed.
The "executive" branch (police and prosecuters are part of the "executive" branch) arrested you because they believe you are guilty of violating a criminal law passed by the legislative branch. The judicial branch treats you as innocent by allowing you to post a reasonable bail based upon its interpretation of the merits of your case (past record, flight risk, seriousness of the crime, etc.).
The police think they have a case and brought it to the prosecuters. The prosecuters think they can prove guilt in court. So somebody believes he's guilty. But he is TREATED as innocent by the court system and allowed to post bail to make sure he shows up in court until the judicial system decides his guilt or innocence.
I brew from grain; it's all about that fine-tuning of recipes to make something I enjoy and can share with friends. It's a weekly get-together for a group of us.
But why stop there? I also make wine, although only from kits. You can get very interesting wines in kits that can be VERY expensive (e.g. Amarone, Viognier) from the vinyards. At $3 - $4 per bottle.
I most enjoy aged vinegar. Commercial vinegar is another travesty, being made from cheap, flavorless ingredients like cane and beet sugar. Try making a Trappist ale and then adding acetobacter for a magnificent malt vinegar. I also have a balsamic vinegar aging (2004 harvest Malvasia grape wine, a little of this that and the other red wines, three oaks, sugar maple, cherry, apple and pecan woods). That will take five years before it begins to taste like the real thing. It's a lot of work to destem, crush and press the grapes, but worth it for something that would sell for $100 US per 200 ml bottle.
Good beer isn't cheap
on
Green Geek Beer
·
· Score: 3, Informative
And cheap beer isn't good. Ahh, brewing, water and energy -- enough to spark an old geologist's interest; I homebrew from grain and got up early to knock out an ESB.
Brooklyn and New Belgium are both good breweries in that they use REAL grains (mostly malted barley) instead of the cheap and tasteless adjuncts (rice, corn) that make up 50% of cheap American swill. That alone is worthy of support.
But seeing them spend more money to be environmentally friendly is truly impressive. It takes a lot of enery to brew -- the grain must soak in 150F water (the mash), then be rinsed with 170F water to wash out the maltose (the lauter) and finally that resultant wort boiled for 60 - 120 minutes. That ain't cheap. Geting rid of the spent grains through farms is not unusual for small breweries -- but it is cheaper than landfill disposal costs. The wastewater treatment is not cheap either, because brewing produces a lot of it -- rich in yeast and sanitizing chemicals. However, most brewers just drop it into the sewer system.
It's not only admirable, but impressive that these breweries can keep costs in line while going the extra mile in energy and water treatment.
Was that even a serious question? Whenever the "entertainment factory" runs out of ideas and needs to get something in front of an audience, they go for a remake. Sadly, they've chosen the culmination of a great actor's TV spy incarnation to mistranslate this time.
Check into the Danger Man -- First Season (1960-1961) and Secret Agent -- aka Danger Man (1964-1966) series if you like The Prisoner. There is a lot of interesting context. McGoohan was the first choice for James Bond in Dr. No based upon the cancelled, original half-hour series. As the spy-genre took hold, the character was modified and came back in the Secret Agent series (you'll recognize the theme song from the Wal-Mart "Roll-Back Man"). That was cancelled after two seasons and then McGoohan went on to make The Prisoner. Agent John Drake was the antithesis of the Hollywood spy-genre because it relies on plot instead of sex and violence.
The Prisoner was the result of the evolution of a concept that had (arguably) failed twice before. McGoohan just managed to get it better each time.
And now the entertainment industry wants to remake something a real talent took to its logical (??!!) conclusion almost 40 years ago. They don't have the vision to evolve the concept, so they will goose it for a couple bucks.
Nothing new here. The Brits have stated a policy of first-strike nuclear deterrent as described iin the Wikipedia article here, but it's OK because the Defence Secretary had no W's in his name:
The above examples envisage nuclear warfare at a strategic level, i.e. total war. The United Kingdom has a declared policy of sub-strategic nuclear strikes, in which case a limited strike would be carried out. The then Defence Secretary Malcolm Rifkind described this as a deterrence against harm to the UK's vital interests. Rifkind argued that following the end of the Cold War agressors may believe the threat of a strategic nuclear attack to be bluff, and that a policy of a more limited strike would ensure that the nuclear deterrent had credibility.
This sub-strategic policy, and the related potential for a new generation of limited yield "battlefield" nuclear weapons from the United States alarms anti-nuclear groups who believe it will make the use of nuclear weapons a more acceptable part of a country's arsenal."
Not intended as flamebait (I contributed $100 to the Red Cross), but people just refuse to learn to move away from flood-prone areas, even after they are destroyed.
The author survived the 1972 Rapid City flood in which 237 people were killed and adopted the philosophy of never rebuilding homes in the flood plain. Rapid City learned its lesson, and only commercial and industrial buildings are allowed in the flood plain. There are also a lot of parks and public use areas on the flood plain.
Yet, the monetary amount of damage done by floods increases with time as people continue to develop flood plains and barrier islands. Folks, flood control structures fail too often to justify their cost to the country's taxpayers. It is a shame thousands died in New Orleans and we will again fail to learn our lesson.
Slashdot Mirror
And the engineering of the New Orleans area is part of its problem. There are various types of subsidence, ranging from ground loading of unconsolidated surficial sediments, lack of flooding and replenishment of surface sediments and ground water withdrawal.
Not only was it a bad choice of places to live, building it up has exacerbated its sinking.
Lawyers live by e-mail, so it wasn't stupid of her to use a supposedly secure personal web mail account in her situation.
Larry Mendte installed a hardware keystroke logger on her work computer to steal her username and password. Then, he started leaking embarrassing information to a reporter for the Daily News (one step above a tabloid in Philly).
When Alicia Lane (the victim) got into a scuffle in New York, the arresting officer exaggerated the charges; Lane entered a deal that would see the charges dropped after several months of good behavior. But with all the negative personal publicity from Mendte's leaks, the station fired her.
As part of her lawsuit against the station, her attorney contacted the FBI with a suspicion that someone was accessing her account and leaking information and the focus quickly turned to Mendte, who obsessively viewed her as a rival. The FBI decided to pursue it as a criminal case because it resulted in substantial damage (loss of an $800,000 per year job and serious damage to her reputation).
It isn't like she was using the company e-mail system to work with her lawyer. She was using a private web mail account. Her legal problems (and Mendte's leaks) threatened her job.
If it is, and that person is the CEO, then there are bigger problems for the investor. If the CEO does not delegate and the company does not have a succession plan, there are definitely bigger problems.
What if the CEO dies suddenly in an accident? Do you really want to invest in a company that is so reliant upon one person that an accident would adversely impact its value?
No, Steve Jobs should not have to reveal any medical information about himself. Yes, Steve Jobs should make sure a succession plan is in place and the investor should be able to make informed decisions based upon that.
You left out something very important. Is your large company publicly traded in the US? If yes, it could be looking at violations of Sarbanes-Oxley if they really are purging (and not retaining) e-mail "in an attempt to limit the organization's exposure to legal risk."
But that is likely not the case. It is more likely the company is trying to limit the amount of data stored on its Exchange system. Adding storage and additional backup capacity is expensive. Implementing a policy that requires end users to keep the size of their mailboxes down does not work, because many people insist they need every bit of those six years of archived e-mail; people use e-mail as much for CYA as doing real business. So, this solution was selected. If it really is important, make the end users do some work to keep it and don't force the company to re architect its storage system to keep years of CYA and personal mail.
FWIW, I spent ten years doing environmental work, including NEPA.
At present, each proposed action must perform its own National Environmental Policy Act assessment, whether that is an Environmental Assessment or a more comprehensive (and expensive) Environmental Impact Statement.
BLM is streamlining the process for the long-term by preparing a "Programmatic" EIS; that is a comprehensive document that assess an entire class of proposed actions over a large geographic area, in this case building solar power sites in the referenced states. With that in place, companies that apply for permits have guidance that lets them know where the best locations are. They can then reference the Programmatic EIS and get environmental approval much faster and cheaper.
It slows things down to wait for it to be completed, but long-term, it will be a much faster process in terms of EIS preparation, review, public comment and acceptance.
Not to mention that corn and ethanol production has expanded to areas where it requires irrigation and ground water for industrial use.
We have been mining Ogalala Aquifer ground water for decades. Now, with increased subsidies, we have expanded the area and rate at which we are depleting the resource.
And the interest rate is LIBOR + 1,700 Basis Points. That translates to 20% - 22.5% annual interest (using LIBOR rates over the past 1 year) which must be paid MONTHLY. SCO has lost money every single quarter of its existence, except for its blockbuster one in which it sold licenses to Sun and MS (which the court found to be improperly converted in its preliminary summary judgments). And now they have to pay credit card rates for financing?
Hello conspiracy theorists! This "deal" is nothing more than a cover to take the company private in an attempt to protect it from investigation into the PIPE fairies who funded its litigation from the word go. And you can bet (based upon the failed York deal they tried to shove down the BK court's throat in November) it was cooked up by people more powerful and "financially creative" than the existing SCO management.
Don't be surprised if an attempt to limit his liability is Darl's Golden Parachute.
Webster on Groklaw (a lawyer) says yes. Not criminal, but personal civil liability against the directors. There is already a finding by Kimball in Utah that the MS and Sun license money was converted (legal term) and should have gone to Novell. That opened them up to civil suits from Novell.
It won't last for years, at least with current SCO management in charge.
The reason they tried to push through a super-duper must have it now sale of every asset to that troll company was to avoid having anything left for the creditor's committee to object to. You see, once that committee is established, everyone will have to agree or object to any attempt that SCO tries to keep its plaintiff litigation cases alive (Autozone) alive and take all the guaranteed-liability counterclaims (Novell, IBM) with the SCO shell. And then certain creditors (MS) will have to show their hands in a vote.
SCO wants to end this ASAP, while keeping the FUD alive through another party. But the trustee, Novell and IBM will fight tooth and nail any outrageous attempt and it will soon be forced into Chapter 7 because it is dissipating its remaining assets so quickly. Now, the Chapter 7, THAT will go on for YEARS if the appointed BK Trustee (not US Trustee) decides to follow the money back to BSF, MS and Sun.
Not given up, but realistic. When you go to several CFO's with a a six month ROI and get shot down because that's too long to wait, you get the idea. Most companies work that way, but not all. It's just tough to find the ones who think beyond the next quarter.
Ahh, it's good to see some thought process going on out there. But an engineering degree does not an engineer make. My education began in earnest after I graduated and worked under experienced engineers in an entrepreneurial situation. It took two years in the field -- 1987 to 1989 -- before I was ready to play. I maintain contact with college profs and its a good two-way exchange. They have the theory and new ideas, I have the practical experience.
But to make new companies it takes experience and a business plan. Enter the bean counters. And the bean counters now control the playing field.
It can be done, and it still happens. But primarily, engineering is no longer respected. The engineer as innovator is underfunded and engineer as quality/safety voice is unheard.
I'm not that old, 43, but feel like an old timer in engineering. Son of a EE gone Chief Engineer and trained as a GeolE (1987).
Olin is not inventing a new kind of engineer, they are trying to bring back the engineers of my father's generation. But they can put out the finest people on earth and it won't matter. Bean counters run companies now and they don't like what a good engineer has to say. Horrible things like "we need money to develop this idea", "saving ten cents per item will not save you money in the long run when it breaks and you have to replace it" and the ever-popular "outsourcing production to the cheapest labor you can find is not a good idea because it takes a little bit of skill and QA/QC to build it right".
Exactly right. Big screw up, yes. Dangerous situation, no.
I'm not sure why the media has pumped this up like they were Broken Arrows. BUFF crews have been carrying nukes for decades, live and ready for delivery, without incident. It's not like the act of flying them over American territory was dangerous. I lived on the end of a SAC runway during the Cold War and those contrails weren't all passenger flights. But the mistake of having live loads on a BUFF was a paper-pusher nightmare that breached security and possibly treaty agreements.
Some O's just got a quick exit from the USAF.
Two words: avoid appeal.
Kimball knew he was up against BSF, masters at gaming the system. Those statements were in his denial of IBM's initial PSJ motions, which he declined only because discovery was not finished. That discovery was not finished was due to BSF's masterful motion practice.
One ruling in February 2005 does not a case make. While it seems apparent he had a decision in mind at that time, he followed procedure to assure his ruling would be safe from appeal.
Don't blame the judge, blame the lawyers (BSF).
Yeah, that comment caught my eye, too. There are two remedies for conversion: damages or return of property. Novell asked for damages and a constructive trust. The judge ruled that Novell must prove how much of the deals involved SVRX (subject to the 95% going to Novell) and how much involved UnixWare (not subject). That is the matter of fact that needs to be decided by a jury; that SCO Group owes Novell money is not a fact in dispute, only how much is owed. Thus he could not grant a constructive trust.
But does this open the door to allowing Novell discovery of MS and Sun records should they demand return of the property? I'm still reading the ruling, too, but the judge seemed disgusted that a case with almost no factual basis was brought before the court and took SO much of its time. That SCO Group was unable to bring disputable facts allowed him to gut the case as a matter of law.
I've been following this one since groklaw started. I'm still reading the ruling and it's like four years of groklaw and Novell debunking SCO. This is a potent ruling and he just set up IBM to write the PSJ ruling he intends to issue in that case, too.
I was interested in his use of the term "subject to conversion" with respect to the MS and Sun deals. There are two remedies for conversion: return of the property or damages. Novell claimed damages, but I wonder if Judge K opened the door for Novell to demand return of the property (the SVRX licenses Sun and MS got) as a method of opening the documents behind those deals up to discovery in suits by Novell against Sun and MS.
Whatever, this judge was disgusted by what he saw and ruled about as forcefully as possible.
Kind of a nitpick, but the PSJ ruling was not about facts, but about law. Facts are something a jury needs to decide (in the ruling's instance, the disputed fact is how much of the money SCO Group got from MS and Sun was SVRX -- money owed to Novell -- vs. UnixWare -- money not owed Novell).
The judge's rulings are based upon undisputed facts that have already been addressed by law. Thus, since there is no dispute of facts, the force of law has already been established for him to rule. Matters of law are much more potent than matters of fact in civil suits, and SCO Group just got eviscerated. BSF can try to raise disputed facts when they appeal, but the opinion is VERY well documented and the relevant laws well-cited.
Then, he asked SCO Group and IBM to file their opinions of what the Novell ruling means to that case. That just makes it easier for him to write the PSJ ruling that dismisses SCO Groups claims because he has already ruled Novell had the write to waive SCO Groups claims against IBM.
SCO Group's evidence to the court was the equivalent of pissing on the third rail. BSF's masterful motion practice was all that kept this mess before the court for as long as possible.
Please evaluate when you take the actions and statements of Lyons, MOG and Dildio in their entirety, not just the context of this incident.
The point PJ made was about "unbiased" journalism. She was stalked and outed in a mean-spirited attack. Lyons, MOG and Dildio have been consistent supporters of SCO Group in the face of community debunking of SCO Groups claims.
PJ has voiced a valid concern that one of the SCO Group's supporters and a possible MS shill was caught in a fake blog, as he wrote about blogging as a threat to the truth.
Get real. There is a story here and PJ reported responsibly.
Groklaw
1 95515884
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070805
sums it up pretty well.
An "analyst" who supported SCO Group and is suspected as an MS front man. You wonder why there are conspiracy theories about MS being behind SCO Group's actions?
With 20/20 hindsight, it had to be Lyons, MOG or Dildio.
WRONG! Here's some civics, something American schools gloss over.
In America, you are TREATED as innocent until proven guilty. Not presumed.
The "executive" branch (police and prosecuters are part of the "executive" branch) arrested you because they believe you are guilty of violating a criminal law passed by the legislative branch. The judicial branch treats you as innocent by allowing you to post a reasonable bail based upon its interpretation of the merits of your case (past record, flight risk, seriousness of the crime, etc.).
The police think they have a case and brought it to the prosecuters. The prosecuters think they can prove guilt in court. So somebody believes he's guilty. But he is TREATED as innocent by the court system and allowed to post bail to make sure he shows up in court until the judicial system decides his guilt or innocence.
I brew from grain; it's all about that fine-tuning of recipes to make something I enjoy and can share with friends. It's a weekly get-together for a group of us.
But why stop there? I also make wine, although only from kits. You can get very interesting wines in kits that can be VERY expensive (e.g. Amarone, Viognier) from the vinyards. At $3 - $4 per bottle.
I most enjoy aged vinegar. Commercial vinegar is another travesty, being made from cheap, flavorless ingredients like cane and beet sugar. Try making a Trappist ale and then adding acetobacter for a magnificent malt vinegar. I also have a balsamic vinegar aging (2004 harvest Malvasia grape wine, a little of this that and the other red wines, three oaks, sugar maple, cherry, apple and pecan woods). That will take five years before it begins to taste like the real thing. It's a lot of work to destem, crush and press the grapes, but worth it for something that would sell for $100 US per 200 ml bottle.
And cheap beer isn't good. Ahh, brewing, water and energy -- enough to spark an old geologist's interest; I homebrew from grain and got up early to knock out an ESB.
Brooklyn and New Belgium are both good breweries in that they use REAL grains (mostly malted barley) instead of the cheap and tasteless adjuncts (rice, corn) that make up 50% of cheap American swill. That alone is worthy of support.
But seeing them spend more money to be environmentally friendly is truly impressive. It takes a lot of enery to brew -- the grain must soak in 150F water (the mash), then be rinsed with 170F water to wash out the maltose (the lauter) and finally that resultant wort boiled for 60 - 120 minutes. That ain't cheap. Geting rid of the spent grains through farms is not unusual for small breweries -- but it is cheaper than landfill disposal costs. The wastewater treatment is not cheap either, because brewing produces a lot of it -- rich in yeast and sanitizing chemicals. However, most brewers just drop it into the sewer system.
It's not only admirable, but impressive that these breweries can keep costs in line while going the extra mile in energy and water treatment.
Was that even a serious question? Whenever the "entertainment factory" runs out of ideas and needs to get something in front of an audience, they go for a remake. Sadly, they've chosen the culmination of a great actor's TV spy incarnation to mistranslate this time.
Check into the Danger Man -- First Season (1960-1961) and Secret Agent -- aka Danger Man (1964-1966) series if you like The Prisoner. There is a lot of interesting context. McGoohan was the first choice for James Bond in Dr. No based upon the cancelled, original half-hour series. As the spy-genre took hold, the character was modified and came back in the Secret Agent series (you'll recognize the theme song from the Wal-Mart "Roll-Back Man"). That was cancelled after two seasons and then McGoohan went on to make The Prisoner. Agent John Drake was the antithesis of the Hollywood spy-genre because it relies on plot instead of sex and violence.
The Prisoner was the result of the evolution of a concept that had (arguably) failed twice before. McGoohan just managed to get it better each time.
And now the entertainment industry wants to remake something a real talent took to its logical (??!!) conclusion almost 40 years ago. They don't have the vision to evolve the concept, so they will goose it for a couple bucks.
Nothing new here. The Brits have stated a policy of first-strike nuclear deterrent as described iin the Wikipedia article here, but it's OK because the Defence Secretary had no W's in his name:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_war
"Sub-strategic use
The above examples envisage nuclear warfare at a strategic level, i.e. total war. The United Kingdom has a declared policy of sub-strategic nuclear strikes, in which case a limited strike would be carried out. The then Defence Secretary Malcolm Rifkind described this as a deterrence against harm to the UK's vital interests. Rifkind argued that following the end of the Cold War agressors may believe the threat of a strategic nuclear attack to be bluff, and that a policy of a more limited strike would ensure that the nuclear deterrent had credibility.
This sub-strategic policy, and the related potential for a new generation of limited yield "battlefield" nuclear weapons from the United States alarms anti-nuclear groups who believe it will make the use of nuclear weapons a more acceptable part of a country's arsenal."
For those interested in reading on geological hazards, check out Engineering Geology, An Environmental Approach:
0 52770X/qid=1126049667/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl 14/002-0778082-8548014?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/013
Not intended as flamebait (I contributed $100 to the Red Cross), but people just refuse to learn to move away from flood-prone areas, even after they are destroyed.
The author survived the 1972 Rapid City flood in which 237 people were killed and adopted the philosophy of never rebuilding homes in the flood plain. Rapid City learned its lesson, and only commercial and industrial buildings are allowed in the flood plain. There are also a lot of parks and public use areas on the flood plain.
Yet, the monetary amount of damage done by floods increases with time as people continue to develop flood plains and barrier islands. Folks, flood control structures fail too often to justify their cost to the country's taxpayers. It is a shame thousands died in New Orleans and we will again fail to learn our lesson.