It sounds like the judge is really pissed at being lied to and made a fool over the penalty he imposed, and is setting up the legal basis to say "We award the plaintiff their actual damages of $.20 for the lost profit per son in online sale. The total comes to $5.80. The defendant may pay by cash or check immediately."
The case was decided on the immediate question before it: whether there was sufficient evidence of libel that it overrode the privacy rights of the accused. That has ALWAYS been the principle in anonymous libel, even before adding "on the internet" made every lawyer in the country stupid. The trial judge said "yes"; the appeals court said "no". Personally I believe it was the wrong ruling; decisions over whether there is sufficient evidence is a matter of fact that is supposed to be decided by the trial judge and an appeal typically isn't granted on a different interpretation of the facts. But, it's a judgement call (pun intended).
As for the rest of it, that seems to be dicta tacked onto the ruling. Living as I do in the Free State (what a joke THAT is), delusions of grandeur seem to be systemic in all levels of our government. Baltimore thinks it is Maryland, and the Governor fancies himself a "national leader". So it wouldn't surprise me that the judges in this case are trying to put their court on the mark with a "pioneering" set of criteria that have nothing to do with the case at hand.
My bad - when you said you spoke to a man, I assumed you meant Jim before he had died - the "no PDF" policy has been in place for a loooong time.
I have all of the CD's except the latest, both from Fifth Imperium and from a torrent tracker whose name escapes me now. I've actually bought ebooks from them - I went on a round trip to Guam and read all the graphic novels a friend gave me on the way out. Facing another 18 hour flight in coach with no entertainment, I bought 3 newer books and read them on my Treo. Worked pretty good, too.
You probably talked directly to Jim Baen, the publisher, and I'd guess he was irritated that you didn't read the FAQ.
"But what about PDF?
These formats have been extensively considered for WebScriptions. However, Baen Books does not currently plan to support them. If you would like to discuss these decisions, please visit Baen's Bar."
That's not a blow-off answer; Baen's Bar is a very active forum that the authors and publisher use and pay attention to, and they've responded to the PDF question many times before.
Oh, and considering that Jim Baen was an editor for many years, I'd guess he's read more books than you and I combined.
"Yeah but they mostly publish the glorified-war-sci-fi kind. But sure I really recommend buying books from them they have some really good book and they are cheap."
That's not particularly true. They publish a lot of fantasy, and have had a huge success in the alternate history genre. That being said, Jim Baen (rest his soul) was quite conservative and tended to buy from authors who he liked, so they tend to be conservative as well. With notable exception - Eric Flint was a labor organizer, and Bujold could hardly be described as "right of center".
As for the "glorified-war-sci-fi" comment, have you ever actually read any David Drake, particularly works from the Hammer's Slammers series? His stories are mostly through the eyes of soldiers who have no illusions as to "the glory of war". Or if they do, it doesn't last very long. But yes, some of the other series lay it on a bit thick.
Unfortunately, I think the lesson propagated here is that you should sneak your patents into standards you are supposedly helping with, as no harm will come to you from your misdeed. Rambus and Microsoft are not the first companies to do this, and thanks to the encouragement they received from the Supreme Court they probably won't be the last.
The only lesson to be learned here is that the FTC needs to mount a better case. The original 3 judge appeals panel ruled that the FTC basically did a poor job showing how Rambus violated the law. The full circuit declined to hear the case, and then the USSC declined. That generally means that the initial 3 judge panel got it right, and that the FTC didn't make their case.
What Rambus did was slimy and unethical, but that doesn't mean it was illegal. The activities may have been illegal, but the FTC didn't present a compelling enough case to prove it.
I'm reminded of the woman they put in front of Congress to explain the AG firings. I listened to it on the radio and thought "Who the hell put a 15 year old in charge of hirings at Justice?" NPR even did a segment on how women who have little girl voices aren't taken seriously.
WWII was over 50 years ago, well before NZ declared itself a nuclear free zone.
If bodyguards aren't allowed to respond with violence, what the hell do they do? If a crazed fan decides that she simply MUST get close to Russel Crowe, will his bodyguards not stop her physically? Is that not violence.
As for the police, I wasn't aware that NZ was a monarchy, because only then would a citizen be absolved of the actions of the police. In a democracy, you're not so lucky - the people elect those that make laws and pay the people that enforce the laws. With violence or threat of violence.
As for my friends, they wouldn't need a gun, because all they would need to do cut your phone line, open your door, and start taking stuff. What are you going to do to stop them?
Nice ad hominem at the end, BTW. Actually it's not my "fantasy", but my nightmare. There IS crime in my area. There have been a rash of armed home invasions lately. The homeowners wound up dead because the robbers decided to kill them - they didn't offer any resistance. I'm glad NZ is so violence free (although I'd bet you'd say differently if you lived in certain parts of your cities), but for the rest of us, the need and right of self defense, armed or not, is older than any civilization.
Abandoned oil rigs need to remain abandoned, at least during hurricane season. Last thing emergency officials need are a bunch of earth-firsters not following protocol and being stranded in the middle of a storm. It makes a lot more sense to topple the rigs.
Q. What do call a bunch of eco-tourists lost at sea when an abandoned oil rig collapses?
Where have these clowns been for the last 2 years? Big dollar theme vacations are dead for now - people are happy to have the money to go to the NJ shore.
I mean, ballooning over the amazon was neat when you could just pull the $10k out of the equity on your McMansion, but now?
The science of climate change, by contrast, is on very solid theoretical footing; but sometimes every science has to deal with bad data, as in this case. The notion that this somehow discredits the theoretical basis of radiative forcing and the greenhouse effect is sheer lunacy. Simple stock-and-flow box models are enough to understand that anthropogenic climate change is inevitable. If you can understand how a bathtub overfills when you leave the faucet running, you should be able to understand that climate change is real and unavoidable.
Then you say:
Any one who is genuinely interested in learning about how and why complex systems change catastrophically should read "Limits to Growth" - the classic by the MIT team headed by Donella Meadows.
So the climate can be modeled by a simple system which OBVIOUSLY shows we are headed for disaster, but the climate is an extremely complex phenomenon which can only really be analyzed using complex models. Which is it?
Oh, wait - you wanted both. I see the problem. Go back to kindergarten and relearn that you can't have it your way all of the time.
"Senselessly prosecuting gun manufacturers and torrent indexes for what end users do with them really isn't ever going to be very effective, because the murderers and infringers aren't even the ones affected."
Actually it was quite effective, though not in the way intended by those bringing the suits.
When the gun manufacturers were sued and under intense legal and political pressure, they hung together. That is, until Smith & Wesson reached a settlement and agreed to the plaintiff's terms.
The effect was immediate. Smith & Wesson's sales plummeted, because the legal gun owning and buying population boycotted them. They went bankrupt within months. Their assets were liquidated, bought by an individual, who reconstituted the company and immediately repudiated the previous agreement.
This showed 2 things: first, the vast majority of revenue from firearms sales are to lawful buyers, thereby wiping out the assertion that these companies were making windfall profits from illegal sales; and second, it galvanized many gun owners, and the entire industry, in a way not seen before. People finally recognized that gun control needn't be implemented via statute, but could be implemented via an expansion of tort law. Gun owners saw that the weapons they already owned may not be under threat, but the ability to purchase one in the future was being attacked.
"You'd be better off if you'd said it more like if H&K or S&W made no effort to ensure that their guns were sold legally, or if they took advantage of the desire of criminals to have guns and deliberately sold to them.
Oddly, there was a Law and Order episode about this, with a gun company being taken to court for manufacturing a gun that could be quite easily modified to fire automatically."
Oh, FFS - that's what happened in REAL LIFE. Various cities tried to sue firearms manufacturer's for "negligent distribution", because they didn't monitor how the independant distributors were selling them to dealers. Never mind the fact that it would be illegal under anti-trust.
"Why is it that people who refuse to show ID to board a plane because it "violates their rights" are the same ones that are perfectly happy letting the state of California change the thermostat settings in their home?"
Because, just as in the time of Hammurabi, it depends upon whose ox is gored.
For the climate change deniers among you, this is how science is supposed to work. Scientist A says something, scientist B says "hang on my experiment gives different results", scientist A checks and says "sorry, yes, we goofed" and it gets fixed.
Cute. Now can I give as simplistic an explanation as to how science actually works?
1) A wants to do research on GW. 2) A writes a grant proposal, which shows that he is trying to prove GW exists. 3) A gets money from NON scientific groups that agree with his hypothesis. 4) A publishes results that agree with his hypothesis. He gets more funding from his sponsors, who are delighted that A has given them more ammo for their non-science related cause. 5) B disagrres with A's results, and thinks he can prove it. 6) B writes a grant proposal, which shows that he is trying to dispute A's results. 7) Crickets chirp. 8.1) B moves on - scientists need to eat, after all. OR 8.2) B asks for funding from other sources, and his results are assailed as biased because of the interests of the funder.
In science, like everything else, it's all about the money.
"What may or may not be important to you is not what the populace as a whole agrees with. You're definitely entitled to your own opinion (and I will agree with you to some extent), but given the number of users of these sites, it's important to consider the bigger picture and implications."
You mean that the world is populated by even higher numbers of idiots than we ever imagined?
The worst they can do in such a situation is fire you. But your job is to do as you are told, and if they tell you to fuck it all up, then you can either quit or capitulate.
And I believe you've identified the crux of the problem.. Childs was asked to give root access to someone he judged unqualified. Childs refused. Then he was ordered to do so, he refused again, and he was fired. then they said "Give us your password" and Childs said "No - I don't work for you anymore". Then he was arrested.
The SF city government showed their ignorance of how complex computer systems work in 2 ways: first, demanding that a privileged person be given root access to the whole system as if it was a laptop; and second, by only having 1 guy with "the keys to the kingdom". That isn't Childs' fault - I'm sure he would have been more than happy to share the admin load with another employee who was competent enough to do it. But the city government viewed him like a customer call center employee - knowledgeable about computers, but basically replaceable. I'm sure that the guy who fired Childs thought that someone could "hack" the password like it was a Word document.
This was a colossal failure of business management, but because it is a government, they have the police to cover up their mistakes.
I get the impression that his defense is not going to be "I didn't do it" but "I did it, but it's not a crime"
Personally I think he's holding out for the fat paycheck at the end of the inevitable lawsuit, and good for him. This whole thing is about the city of SF trying to save face.
Slashdot Mirror
It sounds like the judge is really pissed at being lied to and made a fool over the penalty he imposed, and is setting up the legal basis to say "We award the plaintiff their actual damages of $.20 for the lost profit per son in online sale. The total comes to $5.80. The defendant may pay by cash or check immediately."
"Then again, vintage car fans don't hesitate to break out the paint and the rust remover."
That's not exactly true - if a car has original paint, it's worth more money. You just polish it so it looks like new.
Likewise on old furniture and guns - refinishing bad, cleaning and polishing good.
You are correct, but not in the way you think.
The case was decided on the immediate question before it: whether there was sufficient evidence of libel that it overrode the privacy rights of the accused. That has ALWAYS been the principle in anonymous libel, even before adding "on the internet" made every lawyer in the country stupid. The trial judge said "yes"; the appeals court said "no". Personally I believe it was the wrong ruling; decisions over whether there is sufficient evidence is a matter of fact that is supposed to be decided by the trial judge and an appeal typically isn't granted on a different interpretation of the facts. But, it's a judgement call (pun intended).
As for the rest of it, that seems to be dicta tacked onto the ruling. Living as I do in the Free State (what a joke THAT is), delusions of grandeur seem to be systemic in all levels of our government. Baltimore thinks it is Maryland, and the Governor fancies himself a "national leader". So it wouldn't surprise me that the judges in this case are trying to put their court on the mark with a "pioneering" set of criteria that have nothing to do with the case at hand.
God I hate this place.
My bad - when you said you spoke to a man, I assumed you meant Jim before he had died - the "no PDF" policy has been in place for a loooong time.
I have all of the CD's except the latest, both from Fifth Imperium and from a torrent tracker whose name escapes me now. I've actually bought ebooks from them - I went on a round trip to Guam and read all the graphic novels a friend gave me on the way out. Facing another 18 hour flight in coach with no entertainment, I bought 3 newer books and read them on my Treo. Worked pretty good, too.
You probably talked directly to Jim Baen, the publisher, and I'd guess he was irritated that you didn't read the FAQ.
That's not a blow-off answer; Baen's Bar is a very active forum that the authors and publisher use and pay attention to, and they've responded to the PDF question many times before.
Oh, and considering that Jim Baen was an editor for many years, I'd guess he's read more books than you and I combined.
"Yeah but they mostly publish the glorified-war-sci-fi kind. But sure I really recommend buying books from them they have some really good book and they are cheap."
That's not particularly true. They publish a lot of fantasy, and have had a huge success in the alternate history genre. That being said, Jim Baen (rest his soul) was quite conservative and tended to buy from authors who he liked, so they tend to be conservative as well. With notable exception - Eric Flint was a labor organizer, and Bujold could hardly be described as "right of center".
As for the "glorified-war-sci-fi" comment, have you ever actually read any David Drake, particularly works from the Hammer's Slammers series? His stories are mostly through the eyes of soldiers who have no illusions as to "the glory of war". Or if they do, it doesn't last very long. But yes, some of the other series lay it on a bit thick.
The only lesson to be learned here is that the FTC needs to mount a better case. The original 3 judge appeals panel ruled that the FTC basically did a poor job showing how Rambus violated the law. The full circuit declined to hear the case, and then the USSC declined. That generally means that the initial 3 judge panel got it right, and that the FTC didn't make their case.
What Rambus did was slimy and unethical, but that doesn't mean it was illegal. The activities may have been illegal, but the FTC didn't present a compelling enough case to prove it.
I'm reminded of the woman they put in front of Congress to explain the AG firings. I listened to it on the radio and thought "Who the hell put a 15 year old in charge of hirings at Justice?" NPR even did a segment on how women who have little girl voices aren't taken seriously.
Your self righteousness is astounding.
WWII was over 50 years ago, well before NZ declared itself a nuclear free zone.
If bodyguards aren't allowed to respond with violence, what the hell do they do? If a crazed fan decides that she simply MUST get close to Russel Crowe, will his bodyguards not stop her physically? Is that not violence.
As for the police, I wasn't aware that NZ was a monarchy, because only then would a citizen be absolved of the actions of the police. In a democracy, you're not so lucky - the people elect those that make laws and pay the people that enforce the laws. With violence or threat of violence.
As for my friends, they wouldn't need a gun, because all they would need to do cut your phone line, open your door, and start taking stuff. What are you going to do to stop them?
Nice ad hominem at the end, BTW. Actually it's not my "fantasy", but my nightmare. There IS crime in my area. There have been a rash of armed home invasions lately. The homeowners wound up dead because the robbers decided to kill them - they didn't offer any resistance. I'm glad NZ is so violence free (although I'd bet you'd say differently if you lived in certain parts of your cities), but for the rest of us, the need and right of self defense, armed or not, is older than any civilization.
How would you know...wait, don't answer that.
Q. What do call a bunch of eco-tourists lost at sea when an abandoned oil rig collapses?
A. A good start
FTFY
Where have these clowns been for the last 2 years? Big dollar theme vacations are dead for now - people are happy to have the money to go to the NJ shore.
I mean, ballooning over the amazon was neat when you could just pull the $10k out of the equity on your McMansion, but now?
Ok. First you say:
Then you say:
So the climate can be modeled by a simple system which OBVIOUSLY shows we are headed for disaster, but the climate is an extremely complex phenomenon which can only really be analyzed using complex models. Which is it?
Oh, wait - you wanted both. I see the problem. Go back to kindergarten and relearn that you can't have it your way all of the time.
"Senselessly prosecuting gun manufacturers and torrent indexes for what end users do with them really isn't ever going to be very effective, because the murderers and infringers aren't even the ones affected."
Actually it was quite effective, though not in the way intended by those bringing the suits.
When the gun manufacturers were sued and under intense legal and political pressure, they hung together. That is, until Smith & Wesson reached a settlement and agreed to the plaintiff's terms.
The effect was immediate. Smith & Wesson's sales plummeted, because the legal gun owning and buying population boycotted them. They went bankrupt within months. Their assets were liquidated, bought by an individual, who reconstituted the company and immediately repudiated the previous agreement.
This showed 2 things: first, the vast majority of revenue from firearms sales are to lawful buyers, thereby wiping out the assertion that these companies were making windfall profits from illegal sales; and second, it galvanized many gun owners, and the entire industry, in a way not seen before. People finally recognized that gun control needn't be implemented via statute, but could be implemented via an expansion of tort law. Gun owners saw that the weapons they already owned may not be under threat, but the ability to purchase one in the future was being attacked.
So yes, I'd say the lawsuits were very effective.
Target shooting.
Hunting.
Seeing if you can hit that tree stump at 150 yds.
Making loud noises and putting bullets downrange because you enjoy it.
And killing people, when they need to be killed.
"Why is it that people who refuse to show ID to board a plane because it "violates their rights" are the same ones that are perfectly happy letting the state of California change the thermostat settings in their home?"
Because, just as in the time of Hammurabi, it depends upon whose ox is gored.
Cute. Now can I give as simplistic an explanation as to how science actually works?
1) A wants to do research on GW.
2) A writes a grant proposal, which shows that he is trying to prove GW exists.
3) A gets money from NON scientific groups that agree with his hypothesis.
4) A publishes results that agree with his hypothesis. He gets more funding from his sponsors, who are delighted that A has given them more ammo for their non-science related cause.
5) B disagrres with A's results, and thinks he can prove it.
6) B writes a grant proposal, which shows that he is trying to dispute A's results.
7) Crickets chirp.
8.1) B moves on - scientists need to eat, after all.
OR
8.2) B asks for funding from other sources, and his results are assailed as biased because of the interests of the funder.
In science, like everything else, it's all about the money.
Too late - she'd been draining various accounts for a while. Turns out this was well planned, and the demotion was simply an excuse.
So millions of people were unable to tell their friends they were taking a dump? Oh, the humanity!
"What may or may not be important to you is not what the populace as a whole agrees with. You're definitely entitled to your own opinion (and I will agree with you to some extent), but given the number of users of these sites, it's important to consider the bigger picture and implications."
You mean that the world is populated by even higher numbers of idiots than we ever imagined?
I don't know...60 minutes can nearly destroy corporations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/60_Minutes#Unintended_acceleration
And I believe you've identified the crux of the problem.. Childs was asked to give root access to someone he judged unqualified. Childs refused. Then he was ordered to do so, he refused again, and he was fired. then they said "Give us your password" and Childs said "No - I don't work for you anymore". Then he was arrested.
The SF city government showed their ignorance of how complex computer systems work in 2 ways: first, demanding that a privileged person be given root access to the whole system as if it was a laptop; and second, by only having 1 guy with "the keys to the kingdom". That isn't Childs' fault - I'm sure he would have been more than happy to share the admin load with another employee who was competent enough to do it. But the city government viewed him like a customer call center employee - knowledgeable about computers, but basically replaceable. I'm sure that the guy who fired Childs thought that someone could "hack" the password like it was a Word document.
This was a colossal failure of business management, but because it is a government, they have the police to cover up their mistakes.
I get the impression that his defense is not going to be "I didn't do it" but "I did it, but it's not a crime"
Personally I think he's holding out for the fat paycheck at the end of the inevitable lawsuit, and good for him. This whole thing is about the city of SF trying to save face.