The label is meaningless, but not because it is not defined. How much spam do you get from "legit" sources? None of those "See-young-boys-getting-it-on-with-farm-animals" emails are going to be affected at all by this law -- because the egregious spammers, the ones who have raised the problem from the level of junk mail (of the snail variety) to the scourge of modern communication, will simply ignore the law.
The lack of the private remedy is bad (there's nothing more intimidating than looking down the barrel of a loaded lawyer), but at least the law requires the spam to be labeled. That will make it a lot easier to filter out - - provided, of course, that those anonymous sellers of penis lengtheners obey the law. If you can't trust someone like that to be a law-abiding citizen, who can you trust?
The article is a good summary for those of you tuning in late, or if you are perhaps a bit confused by the whole mess. Like the majority of the SCO news of late, it merely rehashes the situation, but it does provide a clearly articulated dissection of SCO's crack-induced legal arguments.
On the count of three, everybody make the obligatory SCO and/or Darl McBride is insane/Satan/Microsoft's toady comments. Ready? 1, 2, . ..
Well, I was going to write that at least they couldn't prosecute you for anything they found without a court-approved warrant, but unfortunately that's not true. It may be information about you, but if it's not in your possession it is not a "search" that triggers your 4th Amendment protections. At least under existing law, I don't think that subpoena-ing your ISP would be considered a "search" -- just like if you had friend hold your plans for world domination (along with the crack you were going to sell to finance said plans) and they got searched by the FBI, you'd be out of luck as far as griping about the search.
But, hey, if you don't have anything to hide, what are you worried about?
Yep, it's called a statute of limitations. My copyright law is a little rusty -- so I don't know what limitations issues there might be as to the supposed infringement -- but for contracts and the like, the limitations period starts running when there's a breach. So if they'd argued over these "longstanding issues" for years, it might be too late to sue over them. But if they just discovered something, well that's a whole 'nother ballgame.
In advocating resistance to the Microsoft "monoculture" in schools, Cesarini is aiming at the wrong target. Public schools will probably be the very last to "resist" and switch from Microsoft. The "widespread budgetary woes" and "ever-increasing licensing fees" don't effect them. Microsoft gives its products to schools for free or at a steep discount, and is more and more likely to do so the more viable the competition becomes. I don't have any hard data, but I imagine that a transition to Open Source would be more expensive for most schools than hanging on to the goodies from Redmond. And if anybody wonders why MS is so generous to schools, it's not because Bill is such a swell guy - if kids spend their school careers using Windows, Office, Outlook, Exploer . . . well, the first one's always free, right?
If you actually read the article you'd already know this, but the startup referred to in the post is actually Wallflower [http://www.wallflower-systems.com/], not Roku.
We believe that these moves compromise SCO's mission as a software company.
No news here if you've been keeping up the story on/., but some good points -- although most are common sense. I knew analysts weren't all that bright or quick on the uptake, but it looks like they eventually do get there sometimes. But what I can't figure out is why they think SCO is a software company . . .
"Although the bottom line is that the surveillance order was rejected, the real effect of it is that this kind of monitoring is permissible as long it does not interfere with the service."
So how long until there is a federal law or regulation requiring these services to be able to work effectively even when the FBI is tapping in?
Any local, state, or even federal tax would be absolutely useless, other than as a revenue tool. A nationwide (U.S.) tax on email may slow or stop U.S. spammers (provided they are using U.S. ISPs, etc.), but in effect it would just "outsource" spamming to other countries that did not have a tax.
If there were a world-wide tax, it would probably work to at least reduce spam, but you and I both know that there will always be a hold-out country somewhere that would make the whole idea useless.
Noncompete? Not likely.
on
SCO News Roundup
·
· Score: 2, Informative
(1) A promise is unenforceable on grounds of public policy if it is unreasonably in restraint of trade.
(2) A promise is in restraint of trade if its performance would limit competition in any business or restrict the promisor in the exercise of a gainful occupation.
That's section 186 of the Restatement of the Law (Second), Contracts (a summary of U.S. contract law). In order to enforce it's noncompete agreement with Novell, SCO would have to show that there was direct competition, that the competition was of the type comtemplated by the noncompete agreement, and that their rights outweighed all the nasty effects of the agreement (harm to the public, etc.). Considering that SCO is hardly in the software business at all anymore and the agreement concerned Unix (not Linux, no matter how the IBM suit ends up), this is just more SCO FUD.
Yes, Darl, maybe Linux was intended to compete with your core products. But so what? Novell agreed not to compete with SCO's Unix business. What effect will Novell's buying SuSE have on SCO's Unix business? None.
But I do have to applaud Darl and crew for keeping so many attorneys gainfully employed. As long as there are businesses out there as short-sighted and unethical as SCO, I've got job security baby! Now if only I could get my hands on some of those millions in attorney's fees . ..
Slashdot Mirror
The label is meaningless, but not because it is not defined. How much spam do you get from "legit" sources? None of those "See-young-boys-getting-it-on-with-farm-animals" emails are going to be affected at all by this law -- because the egregious spammers, the ones who have raised the problem from the level of junk mail (of the snail variety) to the scourge of modern communication, will simply ignore the law.
The lack of the private remedy is bad (there's nothing more intimidating than looking down the barrel of a loaded lawyer), but at least the law requires the spam to be labeled. That will make it a lot easier to filter out - - provided, of course, that those anonymous sellers of penis lengtheners obey the law. If you can't trust someone like that to be a law-abiding citizen, who can you trust?
The article is a good summary for those of you tuning in late, or if you are perhaps a bit confused by the whole mess. Like the majority of the SCO news of late, it merely rehashes the situation, but it does provide a clearly articulated dissection of SCO's crack-induced legal arguments.
On the count of three, everybody make the obligatory SCO and/or Darl McBride is insane/Satan/Microsoft's toady comments. Ready? 1, 2, . . .
But, hey, if you don't have anything to hide, what are you worried about?
"Brains . . . brains . . . "
Must be legal reasons, I suppose.
Yep, it's called a statute of limitations. My copyright law is a little rusty -- so I don't know what limitations issues there might be as to the supposed infringement -- but for contracts and the like, the limitations period starts running when there's a breach. So if they'd argued over these "longstanding issues" for years, it might be too late to sue over them. But if they just discovered something, well that's a whole 'nother ballgame.
Just reading the story made my teeth tingle.
"Most types of matter are transparent to microwaves, but metallic conductors . . . strongly absorb them, which in turn heats the material."Maybe somebody with better physics can help me out here, but I think I'd rather be shot than have all my fillings melt.
In advocating resistance to the Microsoft "monoculture" in schools, Cesarini is aiming at the wrong target. Public schools will probably be the very last to "resist" and switch from Microsoft. The "widespread budgetary woes" and "ever-increasing licensing fees" don't effect them. Microsoft gives its products to schools for free or at a steep discount, and is more and more likely to do so the more viable the competition becomes. I don't have any hard data, but I imagine that a transition to Open Source would be more expensive for most schools than hanging on to the goodies from Redmond. And if anybody wonders why MS is so generous to schools, it's not because Bill is such a swell guy - if kids spend their school careers using Windows, Office, Outlook, Exploer . . . well, the first one's always free, right?
If you actually read the article you'd already know this, but the startup referred to in the post is actually Wallflower [http://www.wallflower-systems.com/], not Roku.
I'm sorry sir, could you spell your last name for me again? Was that F-u-d-d, or F-U-D?
We believe that these moves compromise SCO's mission as a software company.
No news here if you've been keeping up the story on /., but some good points -- although most are common sense. I knew analysts weren't all that bright or quick on the uptake, but it looks like they eventually do get there sometimes. But what I can't figure out is why they think SCO is a software company . . .
"Although the bottom line is that the surveillance order was rejected, the real effect of it is that this kind of monitoring is permissible as long it does not interfere with the service."
So how long until there is a federal law or regulation requiring these services to be able to work effectively even when the FBI is tapping in?
All your space are belong to us!!
Mwa-ha-ha-ha!
But wait -- the article mentions oxygen, energy, water and propellant . . . but what about food?
you can't understand something until you have broken it.
Ah, grasshopper, you do not yet have full understanding: breaking alone is not sufficient. There must also be a desire to keep it from breaking again.
If all you care about is making work long enough to sucker Joe Average into buying it, well . . .
World-wide or what?
Any local, state, or even federal tax would be absolutely useless, other than as a revenue tool. A nationwide (U.S.) tax on email may slow or stop U.S. spammers (provided they are using U.S. ISPs, etc.), but in effect it would just "outsource" spamming to other countries that did not have a tax.
If there were a world-wide tax, it would probably work to at least reduce spam, but you and I both know that there will always be a hold-out country somewhere that would make the whole idea useless.
That's section 186 of the Restatement of the Law (Second), Contracts (a summary of U.S. contract law). In order to enforce it's noncompete agreement with Novell, SCO would have to show that there was direct competition, that the competition was of the type comtemplated by the noncompete agreement, and that their rights outweighed all the nasty effects of the agreement (harm to the public, etc.). Considering that SCO is hardly in the software business at all anymore and the agreement concerned Unix (not Linux, no matter how the IBM suit ends up), this is just more SCO FUD.
Yes, Darl, maybe Linux was intended to compete with your core products. But so what? Novell agreed not to compete with SCO's Unix business. What effect will Novell's buying SuSE have on SCO's Unix business? None.
But I do have to applaud Darl and crew for keeping so many attorneys gainfully employed. As long as there are businesses out there as short-sighted and unethical as SCO, I've got job security baby! Now if only I could get my hands on some of those millions in attorney's fees . . .