Ahh, Grasshopper, thou hast not yet learned The Way of/.
The Way of/. is this - if it doesn't parrot the liberal line, if it suggests that private, especially intellectual, property is good, it is blasphemous and is modded accordingly. Now, when Apple commits all manner of corporate, nay Gatesian, mortal sins, then it's just "being competitive."
If a post suggests that America is anything other than the Great Satan, it is similarly blasphemous.
The military budget consumes the bulk of US tax dollars, so its nice to finally see some projects being cut.
BZZZT! WRONG!
An old leftie chestnut that. About 75% goes to entitlement programs and interest on the national debt. Only about 18% gets spent on any national defense program.
As soon as you pay by some method other than cash, they tie the card to your real information. Swapping the cards around is so common that they're quite good at sorting it out as soon as you pay with plastic again on your newly traded card.
That's easy - get a new card every time. That's what I do. On my way out the door, I throw my shiny new Club Card in the trash. Repeat process every time.
I stand by what I said about what schools are teaching. So much of education nowadays (starting in preschool and continuing into higher ed and beyond) is devoted to obedience and social indoctrination. Think I'm kidding? Write a paper agreeing with, say, the NRA and see what happens. That is, if the student can even write a paper without the help of inventive spelling, whole language, or other somesuch educrat trendy bilge.
I do, however, fully appreciate your struggles as a teacher. While there are some bad teachers who need to be promptly given the sack (impossible because the NEA protects incompetents), you guys are, on the whole, grossly underpaid and underappreciated.
Education underfunding is a myth - education receives more money than anything else, bar none, in this state. Trouble is, it all gets eaten up in administrative overhead. Case in point: The Seattle School District just promoted its deputy superintendent to superintendent. This was after spending $60,000 on a search firm and almost hiring a candidate who had run two previous school districts into the ground. My "money grubbing" comment was referring to the Seattle School District's levy election tomorrow. I will be happy to vote "HELL NO!" Why? It won't go to the teachers - it will all go to the suits in the head shed. If you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got. It doesn't matter anyway, they'll just re-run the levy ad infinitum until it passes. When it passes, the suits will give themselves a raise while teachers like you have to buy art supplies, etc., out of your own pocket. Ridiculous!
To put it another way, get past your TV addiction. Read a book or listen to some realmusic (no, the latest indie band or rap crap doesn't count) instead. Trouble is, those activities require an attention span, something TV robs you of!
RANT: If more people did those things, and if our schools taught people to be free thinkers rather than obedient sheep (when they're not grubbing for money), then we likely wouldn't be in the mess we're in!
I find it interesting: the/.ers who caterwaul and bitch the most about the *AA and Hollywood are the first ones to gladly pony up their scarce money for LOTR, Star Wars, etc. In the latter case, George Lucas is Mister DRM!
I'm sure I've committed blasphemy and will be modded into oblivion, but what the hell, I've got karma to burn.
I'm a philosophy major. Most primary philosophy texts are available online. If I do buy the books, they can be easily had at most bookstores. The notable exception was for my symbolic logic class - $120 for the book!
I know the instructor who teaches it at a nearby junior college and he puts the book on reserve in the library and gives students a list of the assigned problems. He even suggested buying the book, copying the problems, and returning it.
I suggested the "wine brick" approach to the latter. Pass out a handout on the first day that says:
ABSOLUTELY, POSITIVELY DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES:
1. Purchase the textbook.
2. Copy the pages and problem sets listed below at your favorite locally-owned print shop.
3. Return the textbook to the bookstore for a full refund.
TO DO THE FOREGOING WOULD CONSTITUTE COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, A VIOLATION OF FEDERAL AND STATE LAW.
1. Film Episode III with a Beowulf cluster of G5s in Soviet Russia. 2. ????? 3. Include footage of Anakin banging Queen Amidala (for sexually frustrated/. geeks/Star Wars fans.) 4. PROFIT!
1. Film Episode III with a Beowulf cluster of G5s in Soviet Russia.
2. ?????
3. Include footage of Anakin banging Queen Amidala (for sexually frustrated/. geeks/Star Wars fans.)
4. PROFIT!
BZZZT! WRONG! QFC is 0wn3d by Kroger. So are many stores. I spelled "owned" that way because QFC used to be a nice place to shop for good products, but now all they do is sell the same generic Kroger crap at QFC (read: higher) prices.
For a nice, locally-owned, discount-card-free place to shop in the Seattle area, check out Larry's Markets. Besides, Larry's is union and its management treats the employees like human beings. Other good, card-free ones are Town and Country Market and Top Foods.
With requirements like these, it seems impossible to get a job unless you've already worked there before.
That's just it - they don't want to find someone who meets the qualification. "Gosh, these are the requirements, can't find anyone qualified, damn labor shortage . . . Shuckie-darn, gotta get an H1B."
They took away the right to litigate except for 1 loophole that is completely useless and that somehow makes it all right?
Okay, let me get out a crayon. State laws dealing with falsity are NOT pre-empted. It's nigh unto impossible to litigate under the Federal "CAN-SPAM" act, but it is perfectly okay to litigate under laws like Washington's.
As I said in my parent post, the CAN-SPAM act sucks. But politics is the art of the possible.
Too late. The spammers "CAN-SPAM" act has already taken away our individual rights to redress grievances through courts of law. Individual recipients of spam cannot sue spammers. The power is left in the hands of attorney generals.
(sigh) Yet another legal illiterate/. er. The sky is not falling, Chicken Little.
The "CAN-SPAM" act, while a shitty law, specifically exempts laws like Washington's that prohibit falsifying headers and subject lines. For those too lazy to RTFA, here's the relevant section:
(1) IN GENERAL- This Act supersedes any statute, regulation, or rule of a State or political subdivision of a State that expressly regulates the use of electronic mail to send commercial messages,
except to the extent that any such statute, regulation, or rule prohibits falsity or deception in any portion of a commercial electronic mail message or information attached thereto. (emphasis added for blithering/. conspiracy buffs!)
What this means is, law's like Washington's are untouched by CAN-SPAM. So take off the tinfoil hat and join the real world.
These RIAA bastards are hassling vendors who don't even speak English. From the article, the guy was "speaking through an interpreter . . . " Why? Simple. Legally, if they approached you, you could politely tell them to go "reproduce themselves" and they'd have to. If they laid a hand on you, you could sue them for damages under a number of legal theories (false arrest, false imprisonment, etc.) And they know it.
This shows how desperate the RIAA has become. They're really going out on a libm here and exposing themselves to liability.
It's very simple, really: A lot of people think IBM will ultimately capitulate and buy SCOX out, win or lose. If that happens, then they get paid (i.e., their stock is bought out.) This kind of thing happens on Wall Street all the friggin time.
So now they will send spam to you with a subject line of "Hi" about Mini RC Cars and Viagra and you can't do a thing about it under Federal or WA law.
Why not? Washington law specifically forbids "false or misleading information in the subject line." The Federal law specifically does not pre-empt any law dealing with falsity.
The primary reason that spammers had in falsifying information in their headers was that many states had prohibitions on spam. WA (and MD, etc) put laws on their books prohibiting emails with such falsehoods which nicely side-stepped the problem of being content related.
And they still do. Friend, if you think the spammers are going to start putting their real IP addresses in the headers, you're smoking weed. If you think Washington's law has made a difference in this regard, you're on crack. No, I suspect that there will be plenty of grist for my mill for the foreseeable future.
Had you read the bill (which is more than most congresscritters do, but I digress) you would have seen that:
This Act supersedes any statute, regulation, or rule of a State or political subdivision of a State that expressly regulates the use of electronic mail to send commercial messages,
except to the extent that any such statute, regulation, or rule prohibits falsity or deception in any portion of a commercial electronic mail message or information attached thereto.
In other words, laws like Washington's are affected not in the slightest.
Wake up,/.'ers, the sky isn't falling. True, it isn't the greatest (or even a terribly "good" antispam bill,) but politics is the art of the possible. Nowhere is it more true than in politics that the perfect is the enemy of the good. We'll get a good law eventually.
This is not legal advice. You are not a client. I'm not even an attorney. If you want legal advice, contact an attorney admitted to the bar in your jurisdiction. What I am saying here is probably 100% wrong and if you do anything based on it, you are a blitering idiot who deserves whatever bad shit is very likely to befall you.
Upon motion by a party or by the person from whom discovery is sought, accompanied by a certification that the movant has in good faith conferred or attempted to confer with other affected parties in an effort to resolve the dispute without court action, and for good cause shown, the court in which the action is pending . . . may make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including one or more of the following:
(2) that the disclosure or discovery may be had only on specified terms and conditions, including a designation of the time or place;
(5) that discovery be conducted with no one present except persons designated by the court;
(7) that a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information not be revealed or be revealed only in a designated way . . .
Here, the court would likely enter a protective order under one or more of those three subdivisions if SCO moves for one. The purpose is to balance IBM's right to get at discoverable information to prepare for trial with SCO's right to protect its "trade secrets" however flimsy that claim may be. Essentially, it would be saying to SCO, "Your 'proprietary' information is protected. Now, give IBM what they're asking for."
On another note,FRCP 37(b)(2)(C) allows the court to enter:
An order striking out pleadings or parts thereof, or staying further proceedings until the order is obeyed, or dismissing the action or proceeding or any part thereof, or rendering a judgment by default against the disobedient party;
In other words, if SCO keeps this up, their case could end up getting tossed. IBM will likely clip them for attorney's fees in any case.
The bottom line is, judges do NOT like this kind of screwing around with discovery. They especially hate having to get involved by entering orders such as this one. SCO lost a lot of face with the judge here. Any intelligent attorney would be having, or have had, the proverbial "come -to-Jesus" talk a long time ago. But then, this is SCO, and it has nothing to do with justice and everything to do with smear and spin.
An obvious troll, and a febble attempt at one at that.
Federal judges are appointed by the President (who is elected) and only are seated if they are confirmed by the Senate (which is elected.) The latter is by no means a rubber stamp, a number of Bush's judicial nominees have been blocked in the Senate. It should be noted that, in the Senate, a minority (the Democrats) can use a filibuster to thwart the will of the majority (the Republicans.)
The reason they are appointed for life is to guarantee the independence of the judiciary. For instance, when Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka came down, many people were calling for the heads of the Supreme Court justices, or at least for them to be given the sack. But since they're not subject to being sacked for ideological reasons, they were able to make the right decision against vigorous opposition.
If SCO said "we'll dismiss ours if you dismiss yours," IBM would undoubtedly go for it, since IBM's suit is really only defensive.
Undoubtedly? Hardly. Many, I would venture to say most, companies will simply settle a case for its nusiance value. "Mr. Plaintiff, your case sucks, it's going to be resolved in our favor on summary judgment, so how much do you want just to go the fsck away?" is how the negotiations go. To IBM, a purchase of SCO would have likely been in the nusiance category. As I understand these transactions, this is especially true if it was an all-stock deal (i.e., give Darl, et al, Wall Street funny money rather than "dead Presidents" for the POS that is SCOX.)
Unfortunately for SCO, IBM doesn't appear to be in settlement mode at this point. However, they also don't yet appear to be more interested in the principle of the thing either. All they're saying to SCO is, "show us this 'infringing' code or STFU." Ultimately, time is on SCO's side. The longer this drags on, the more lawyer bills IBM gets and the more attractive a nusiance settlement looks.
Slashdot Mirror
Ahh, Grasshopper, thou hast not yet learned The Way of /.
The Way of /. is this - if it doesn't parrot the liberal line, if it suggests that private, especially intellectual, property is good, it is blasphemous and is modded accordingly. Now, when Apple commits all manner of corporate, nay Gatesian, mortal sins, then it's just "being competitive."
If a post suggests that America is anything other than the Great Satan, it is similarly blasphemous.
(Mod me to hell, I'm maxed on karma.)
Quoth the poster:
The military budget consumes the bulk of US tax dollars, so its nice to finally see some projects being cut.
BZZZT! WRONG!
An old leftie chestnut that. About 75% goes to entitlement programs and interest on the national debt. Only about 18% gets spent on any national defense program.
Quoth the poster:
As soon as you pay by some method other than cash, they tie the card to your real information. Swapping the cards around is so common that they're quite good at sorting it out as soon as you pay with plastic again on your newly traded card.
That's easy - get a new card every time. That's what I do. On my way out the door, I throw my shiny new Club Card in the trash. Repeat process every time.
I stand by what I said about what schools are teaching. So much of education nowadays (starting in preschool and continuing into higher ed and beyond) is devoted to obedience and social indoctrination. Think I'm kidding? Write a paper agreeing with, say, the NRA and see what happens. That is, if the student can even write a paper without the help of inventive spelling, whole language, or other somesuch educrat trendy bilge.
I do, however, fully appreciate your struggles as a teacher. While there are some bad teachers who need to be promptly given the sack (impossible because the NEA protects incompetents), you guys are, on the whole, grossly underpaid and underappreciated.
Education underfunding is a myth - education receives more money than anything else, bar none, in this state. Trouble is, it all gets eaten up in administrative overhead. Case in point: The Seattle School District just promoted its deputy superintendent to superintendent. This was after spending $60,000 on a search firm and almost hiring a candidate who had run two previous school districts into the ground. My "money grubbing" comment was referring to the Seattle School District's levy election tomorrow. I will be happy to vote "HELL NO!" Why? It won't go to the teachers - it will all go to the suits in the head shed. If you always do what you always did, you always get what you always got. It doesn't matter anyway, they'll just re-run the levy ad infinitum until it passes. When it passes, the suits will give themselves a raise while teachers like you have to buy art supplies, etc., out of your own pocket. Ridiculous!
Neither.
To put it another way, get past your TV addiction. Read a book or listen to some real music (no, the latest indie band or rap crap doesn't count) instead. Trouble is, those activities require an attention span, something TV robs you of!
RANT: If more people did those things, and if our schools taught people to be free thinkers rather than obedient sheep (when they're not grubbing for money), then we likely wouldn't be in the mess we're in!
I find it interesting: the/.ers who caterwaul and bitch the most about the *AA and Hollywood are the first ones to gladly pony up their scarce money for LOTR, Star Wars, etc. In the latter case, George Lucas is Mister DRM!
I'm sure I've committed blasphemy and will be modded into oblivion, but what the hell, I've got karma to burn.
And bathing!
I'm a philosophy major. Most primary philosophy texts are available online. If I do buy the books, they can be easily had at most bookstores. The notable exception was for my symbolic logic class - $120 for the book!
I know the instructor who teaches it at a nearby junior college and he puts the book on reserve in the library and gives students a list of the assigned problems. He even suggested buying the book, copying the problems, and returning it.
I suggested the "wine brick" approach to the latter. Pass out a handout on the first day that says:
1. Film Episode III with a Beowulf cluster of G5s in Soviet Russia. /. geeks/Star Wars fans.)
/. while studying for midterm.)
2. ?????
3. Include footage of Anakin banging Queen Amidala (for sexually frustrated
4. PROFIT!
(Must'nt read
1. Film Episode III with a Beowulf cluster of G5s in Soviet Russia. 2. ????? 3. Include footage of Anakin banging Queen Amidala (for sexually frustrated /. geeks/Star Wars fans.)
4. PROFIT!
1. Anakin grows up.
2. Anakin bangs Queen Amidala.
3. Queen Amidala begat Luke Skywalker and Leia.
The end.
Quoth the poster:
QFC is owned by Starbuck's.
BZZZT! WRONG! QFC is 0wn3d by Kroger. So are many stores. I spelled "owned" that way because QFC used to be a nice place to shop for good products, but now all they do is sell the same generic Kroger crap at QFC (read: higher) prices.
For a nice, locally-owned, discount-card-free place to shop in the Seattle area, check out Larry's Markets. Besides, Larry's is union and its management treats the employees like human beings. Other good, card-free ones are Town and Country Market and Top Foods.
Quoth the poster:
With requirements like these, it seems impossible to get a job unless you've already worked there before.
That's just it - they don't want to find someone who meets the qualification. "Gosh, these are the requirements, can't find anyone qualified, damn labor shortage . . . Shuckie-darn, gotta get an H1B."
Dixie Normus.
Dick Hertz.
Mike Hunt.
Dick Gozinya.
Funny, after awhile, "Dixie Normus" became "valued Safeway customer" on the receipt.
They took away the right to litigate except for 1 loophole that is completely useless and that somehow makes it all right?
Okay, let me get out a crayon. State laws dealing with falsity are NOT pre-empted. It's nigh unto impossible to litigate under the Federal "CAN-SPAM" act, but it is perfectly okay to litigate under laws like Washington's.
As I said in my parent post, the CAN-SPAM act sucks. But politics is the art of the possible.
Gheeeeez . . .
Quoth the poster:
Too late. The spammers "CAN-SPAM" act has already taken away our individual rights to redress grievances through courts of law. Individual recipients of spam cannot sue spammers. The power is left in the hands of attorney generals.
(sigh) Yet another legal illiterate /. er. The sky is not falling, Chicken Little.
The "CAN-SPAM" act, while a shitty law, specifically exempts laws like Washington's that prohibit falsifying headers and subject lines. For those too lazy to RTFA, here's the relevant section:
What this means is, law's like Washington's are untouched by CAN-SPAM. So take off the tinfoil hat and join the real world.
Quoth the poster:
The sixty pages referred to in the original story are pages that SCO has promised to deliver to IBM when they get around to it.
Quick solution: send 'em one of these.
These RIAA bastards are hassling vendors who don't even speak English. From the article, the guy was "speaking through an interpreter . . . " Why? Simple. Legally, if they approached you, you could politely tell them to go "reproduce themselves" and they'd have to. If they laid a hand on you, you could sue them for damages under a number of legal theories (false arrest, false imprisonment, etc.) And they know it.
This shows how desperate the RIAA has become. They're really going out on a libm here and exposing themselves to liability.
It's very simple, really: A lot of people think IBM will ultimately capitulate and buy SCOX out, win or lose. If that happens, then they get paid (i.e., their stock is bought out.) This kind of thing happens on Wall Street all the friggin time.
Even if you had access to the goodies, there's no way in H-E-double-hockey-sticks you'd have the capability to do the machining required.
Not to mention that you'd probably kill yourself from radiation poisoning trying.
Quoth the poster:
So now they will send spam to you with a subject line of "Hi" about Mini RC Cars and Viagra and you can't do a thing about it under Federal or WA law.
Why not? Washington law specifically forbids "false or misleading information in the subject line." The Federal law specifically does not pre-empt any law dealing with falsity. The primary reason that spammers had in falsifying information in their headers was that many states had prohibitions on spam. WA (and MD, etc) put laws on their books prohibiting emails with such falsehoods which nicely side-stepped the problem of being content related.
And they still do. Friend, if you think the spammers are going to start putting their real IP addresses in the headers, you're smoking weed. If you think Washington's law has made a difference in this regard, you're on crack. No, I suspect that there will be plenty of grist for my mill for the foreseeable future.
So, tell me again what the problem is?
How in the hell did this get modded informative?
Had you read the bill (which is more than most congresscritters do, but I digress) you would have seen that:
In other words, laws like Washington's are affected not in the slightest.
Wake up, /.'ers, the sky isn't falling. True, it isn't the greatest (or even a terribly "good" antispam bill,) but politics is the art of the possible. Nowhere is it more true than in politics that the perfect is the enemy of the good. We'll get a good law eventually.
/* DISCLAIMER
This is not legal advice. You are not a client. I'm not even an attorney. If you want legal advice, contact an attorney admitted to the bar in your jurisdiction. What I am saying here is probably 100% wrong and if you do anything based on it, you are a blitering idiot who deserves whatever bad shit is very likely to befall you.
DISCLAIMER */
Now that that's out of the way . . .
Rule 26(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs this. It provides, in pertinent part, that:
Here, the court would likely enter a protective order under one or more of those three subdivisions if SCO moves for one. The purpose is to balance IBM's right to get at discoverable information to prepare for trial with SCO's right to protect its "trade secrets" however flimsy that claim may be. Essentially, it would be saying to SCO, "Your 'proprietary' information is protected. Now, give IBM what they're asking for."
On another note,FRCP 37(b)(2)(C) allows the court to enter:
In other words, if SCO keeps this up, their case could end up getting tossed. IBM will likely clip them for attorney's fees in any case.
The bottom line is, judges do NOT like this kind of screwing around with discovery. They especially hate having to get involved by entering orders such as this one. SCO lost a lot of face with the judge here. Any intelligent attorney would be having, or have had, the proverbial "come -to-Jesus" talk a long time ago. But then, this is SCO, and it has nothing to do with justice and everything to do with smear and spin.
An obvious troll, and a febble attempt at one at that.
Federal judges are appointed by the President (who is elected) and only are seated if they are confirmed by the Senate (which is elected.) The latter is by no means a rubber stamp, a number of Bush's judicial nominees have been blocked in the Senate. It should be noted that, in the Senate, a minority (the Democrats) can use a filibuster to thwart the will of the majority (the Republicans.)
The reason they are appointed for life is to guarantee the independence of the judiciary. For instance, when Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka came down, many people were calling for the heads of the Supreme Court justices, or at least for them to be given the sack. But since they're not subject to being sacked for ideological reasons, they were able to make the right decision against vigorous opposition.
Nice try.
IANAL, TINLA blah blah blah . . .
Quoth the poster:
If SCO said "we'll dismiss ours if you dismiss yours," IBM would undoubtedly go for it, since IBM's suit is really only defensive.
Undoubtedly? Hardly. Many, I would venture to say most, companies will simply settle a case for its nusiance value. "Mr. Plaintiff, your case sucks, it's going to be resolved in our favor on summary judgment, so how much do you want just to go the fsck away?" is how the negotiations go. To IBM, a purchase of SCO would have likely been in the nusiance category. As I understand these transactions, this is especially true if it was an all-stock deal (i.e., give Darl, et al, Wall Street funny money rather than "dead Presidents" for the POS that is SCOX.)
Unfortunately for SCO, IBM doesn't appear to be in settlement mode at this point. However, they also don't yet appear to be more interested in the principle of the thing either. All they're saying to SCO is, "show us this 'infringing' code or STFU." Ultimately, time is on SCO's side. The longer this drags on, the more lawyer bills IBM gets and the more attractive a nusiance settlement looks.
Or you think IBM will capitulate and buy them out. Now that it looks like neither is going to happen, well . . .