Short answer - no. The proposed Ch11 plan will be voted on by the "impaired" creditors. An impaired creditor is one that is scheduled to get less than 100% plus interest under the plan. IN SCO's plan, the only class of impaired creditors are the current shareholders of SCO. All other creditors will be paid in full if they have liquidated claims and the claims currently in litigation will just continue after the confirmation of the Plan and be decided in their respective courts. Current shareholders are scheduled to get the value of their stock at the time of the filing of the bankruptcy plus "up to 49%" of any "net recovery" that SCO realizes from the IBM litigation.
Typically, you would get this type of information unless the resisting party can show it would be unduly burdensome and/or not relevant or reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence. If there is secret or proprietary information involved, the documents are generally required to be produced subject to a protective order requiring the receiving party's attorney to keep the documents and their contents secret and only disclose them to the attorney's expert witnesses for analysis. That's what will probably happen here.
During the Cold War, the USSR used Cuba as a proxy to support "wars of liberation" in Africa and other areas. I specifically remember Angola where Cuban military advisers were active in socialist insurgent movements. They were also very active throughout Central and South America as well as the Caribbean in exporting their socialist revolution. I think it's pretty accurate to characterize Cuba as a thorn in the side of US during the Cold War era. After the fall of the USSR, Cuba has been pretty much irrelevant.
And you can't do a deal like this without authorization from the Bankruptcy Court. This will probably all be part of a Chapter 11 plan of reorganization the details of which have yet to be filed by SCO. The devil is in the details with these things and you can be sure SCO will be out to screw all general unsecured creditors; that's pretty much par for the course in all Chapter 11 plans. Also, expect a lot of Bankruptcy Court litigation over the status of Novell's claim, i.e. SCO will attempt to lump them in with the other general unsecured creditors and Novell will assert its trust theory. At any rate the post petition funding here will not be available to SCO's pre-petition creditors, including Novell. All those claims are dealt with in the CH 11 Plan and are discharged by the approval of the Plan.
MS intends to do what they have always done - leverage there monopoly in desktop operating systems to move into another market. It just hasn't been working too well lately.
The difference is that with ubuntu, you, and more importantly, developers, can know exactly what has changed in the new kernel and how that may, or may not, potentially impact performance of other applications. With MS updates you never know and they have a terrible history of breaking things with their updates and doing nothing about it.
Nobody expects the Ethics Education Committee of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. It's chief weapons are surprise, terror and a fanatical devotion vertebrate paleontology.
Again, what they are saying and how it will be characterized is not so clear cut. Google's claim, whether express or implied, is that they will return search results that are relevant to your search query. When you are put on the bottom, the implied statement is "Don't go there, it's not relevant". That may or may not be actionable; it's just not clear.
The Ebert analogy wasn't mine. My point was that the original Ebert analogy fails to address the underlying issue of what exactly is being said in each case, i.e. fact vs opinion, and assumes without analysis that the an Ebert review and the results of a google search are the same for purposes of this distinction. They seem to be quite different creatures to me, one is an automated data sort to a search query and the other is Ebert's opinion as to the artistic merit of a movie.
Do Hollywood studios have the right to question Ebert on his methodology? This really begs the question because it depends on what Ebert says in his review. If he says that you should not go see this movie because the director is a known pedophile and that statement is false, then Hollywood can sue Ebert and get discovery into his methodology. The legal distinction is between opinion which is generally not actionable under the libel laws and false statements of fact which may be actionable under the libel laws if other criteria are met. That opinion vs fact distinction is not as clear as your analogy would imply. For example, Ebert would not be saved from a successful Hollywood libel suit by saying "In my opinion, the director is a pedophile".
What is a protected opinion vs what is an actionable false statement of fact has a large grey area under libel law. Exactly how this will play out with google searches is far from clear in all cases. It's not clear to what extent a low google ranking may be considered a statement of fact vs. an opinion under classic libel law analysis. The relevancy of a given url to your requested search has arguable characteristics of both objective fact and opinion. In the end, these characterizations are outcome determinative and dwelling on whether a statement is fact or opinion hides what's really going on. How statements are characterized really reflect an underlying social policy decision as to what type of speech should be protected from libel actions in a free society and which types should be actionable. That's the real issue here with respect to google and how that will play out is far from clear.
Ubuntu is fast becoming a powerful player in this area; as the article says, the reason for supporting it was sizable customer demand. That is the logic here. People wanted to run Ubuntu on their enterprise desktops, they wanted IBM to have Notes on that platform, IBM agreed. No mystery. I'd like to know where this is happening. I haven't seen or read anything that would support this statement apart from the relentless ubuntu PR. It's all RH and Novel/Suse in the enterprise; ubuntu is virtually nonexistent in this space.
eroding incentives for Linux adoption Because those incentives have been so effective in the past - we're up to nearly 2% already!!! This can be nothing but a win for linux and certainly a win for open source - you have the potential to distribute open source software to a much wider audience.
This is where you have to think outside of the box. No offense, but that's where I stopped reading. Anyone that's ever said that to me(generally management type weasels) have been so hopelessly trapped in the box, they couldn't find their way out with a compass and a boy scout. For the love of God, find a new metaphor for original thinking.
I think you also have to factor in the fact that the PS3 is subsidized by future game sales, i.e. they can sell it cheap and make their profit on the games you subsequently will buy for the PS3.
If you have physical access to any box you can get root access; just pop in any livecd and su to root or use sudo. Want to lock down the bios with passwords and prohibit booting off anything but the hard drive? Go ahead, I'll pull the drive out of the box, hook it up to my laptop through usb and and tinker with the mbr to my hearts content. The only sure fire way to protect against a user with physical access is constant surveillance but then you have the who'll guard the guards problem. Nothing new in that observation as it's been made a million times before.
Nobody has to buy anything. And most US households will not be buying either blu-ray or hd-dvd. They'll be sticking with plain old dvd for the foreseeable future. People aren't holding back because of perceived format wars. They're holding back because there's not much value for the consumer in HD anything over what's available today.
It depends on the context. Destruction of evidence in a civil case is not a crime but if proved, the rules of civil procedure in both state and federal courts allow for the imposition of sanctions against the destroying party, the most severe of which is the entry of judgment against that party. That's what happened here. Lying about the destruction of evidence in sworn testimony(which usually happens if someone is willfully destroying evidence) is a crime, however, i.e. perjury, and subjects the lying party to potential criminal prosecution. However, perjury in civil cases is rarely prosecuted.
Willful destruction of evidence in connection with an ongoing criminal investigation or criminal case is a crime, obstruction of justice, and for that you can be criminally prosecuted. Obstruction of justice is a favorite charge of federal prosecutors because the penalties for obstruction of justice are frequently greater than those for the underlying crime. If you can show someone lied about or destroyed evidence in connection with a relatively minor crime, they can do some heavy time for obstruction of justice. See Martha Stewart, Barry Bonds, etc.
Gnome is in a tough spot caused by its founder, Miguel de Icaza. Given Icaza's incredibly stupid and harmful MS pandering over OOXML and other MS technologies, anything short of Gnome's total renunciation of OOXML is viewed with suspicion. Jeff Waugh's comments and Gnome's position seem reasonable to me but then crazy Miguel pops up somewhere spouting nonsense about what a wonderful standard OOXML is. This coupled with Gnome's participation in the standardization process understandably makes people nervous. I don't think Gnome has ever effectively distanced itself from Miguel de Icaza, although I'm sure they've tried.
It's priorities, and MS has its priorities very seriously fucked up. No they don't. MS is a for profit, publicly held company whose number one priority is to return value to their shareholders, i.e. make money. Everything they do is readily understandable if you keep this in mind. And Apple and Red Hat will do the same; they're just in a much different position than MS at the moment.
Please RTFA:
Anyone providing an "electronic communication service" or "remote computing service" to the public who learns about the transmission or storage of information about certain illegal activities or an illegal image, must (a) register their name, mailing address, phone number, and fax number with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children's "CyberTipline" and (b) "make a report" to the CyberTipline that (c) must include any information about the person or Internet address behind the suspect activity and (d) the illegal images themselves I don't see any monitoring requirements imposed by the bill as summarized in the article. As such, the bill imposes an obligation to report these activities only if you somehow learn about them, i.e. you can't knowingly allow these activities on your network without reporting them. That's a lot different than holding network operators responsible for what goes over the network, whether they know or not.
Slashdot Mirror
And now he appears to be sucking up to Google. Can't teach an old dog new tricks.
Short answer - no. The proposed Ch11 plan will be voted on by the "impaired" creditors. An impaired creditor is one that is scheduled to get less than 100% plus interest under the plan. IN SCO's plan, the only class of impaired creditors are the current shareholders of SCO. All other creditors will be paid in full if they have liquidated claims and the claims currently in litigation will just continue after the confirmation of the Plan and be decided in their respective courts. Current shareholders are scheduled to get the value of their stock at the time of the filing of the bankruptcy plus "up to 49%" of any "net recovery" that SCO realizes from the IBM litigation.
Typically, you would get this type of information unless the resisting party can show it would be unduly burdensome and/or not relevant or reasonably likely to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence. If there is secret or proprietary information involved, the documents are generally required to be produced subject to a protective order requiring the receiving party's attorney to keep the documents and their contents secret and only disclose them to the attorney's expert witnesses for analysis. That's what will probably happen here.
During the Cold War, the USSR used Cuba as a proxy to support "wars of liberation" in Africa and other areas. I specifically remember Angola where Cuban military advisers were active in socialist insurgent movements. They were also very active throughout Central and South America as well as the Caribbean in exporting their socialist revolution. I think it's pretty accurate to characterize Cuba as a thorn in the side of US during the Cold War era. After the fall of the USSR, Cuba has been pretty much irrelevant.
And you can't do a deal like this without authorization from the Bankruptcy Court. This will probably all be part of a Chapter 11 plan of reorganization the details of which have yet to be filed by SCO. The devil is in the details with these things and you can be sure SCO will be out to screw all general unsecured creditors; that's pretty much par for the course in all Chapter 11 plans. Also, expect a lot of Bankruptcy Court litigation over the status of Novell's claim, i.e. SCO will attempt to lump them in with the other general unsecured creditors and Novell will assert its trust theory. At any rate the post petition funding here will not be available to SCO's pre-petition creditors, including Novell. All those claims are dealt with in the CH 11 Plan and are discharged by the approval of the Plan.
MS intends to do what they have always done - leverage there monopoly in desktop operating systems to move into another market. It just hasn't been working too well lately.
The difference is that with ubuntu, you, and more importantly, developers, can know exactly what has changed in the new kernel and how that may, or may not, potentially impact performance of other applications. With MS updates you never know and they have a terrible history of breaking things with their updates and doing nothing about it.
Excuse me, we have neither a "mission" of a "vision"; we at Dumass Corporation have a "Passion".
With Balmer's ego, what are the chances of that?
Nobody expects the Ethics Education Committee of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. It's chief weapons are surprise, terror and a fanatical devotion vertebrate paleontology.
The Ebert analogy wasn't mine. My point was that the original Ebert analogy fails to address the underlying issue of what exactly is being said in each case, i.e. fact vs opinion, and assumes without analysis that the an Ebert review and the results of a google search are the same for purposes of this distinction. They seem to be quite different creatures to me, one is an automated data sort to a search query and the other is Ebert's opinion as to the artistic merit of a movie.
What is a protected opinion vs what is an actionable false statement of fact has a large grey area under libel law. Exactly how this will play out with google searches is far from clear in all cases. It's not clear to what extent a low google ranking may be considered a statement of fact vs. an opinion under classic libel law analysis. The relevancy of a given url to your requested search has arguable characteristics of both objective fact and opinion. In the end, these characterizations are outcome determinative and dwelling on whether a statement is fact or opinion hides what's really going on. How statements are characterized really reflect an underlying social policy decision as to what type of speech should be protected from libel actions in a free society and which types should be actionable. That's the real issue here with respect to google and how that will play out is far from clear.
Meanwhile the Debian community has announce their competing project, the 2008 DEB Challenge.
And then make it run linux and return it filled with tux images.
I think you also have to factor in the fact that the PS3 is subsidized by future game sales, i.e. they can sell it cheap and make their profit on the games you subsequently will buy for the PS3.
If you have physical access to any box you can get root access; just pop in any livecd and su to root or use sudo. Want to lock down the bios with passwords and prohibit booting off anything but the hard drive? Go ahead, I'll pull the drive out of the box, hook it up to my laptop through usb and and tinker with the mbr to my hearts content. The only sure fire way to protect against a user with physical access is constant surveillance but then you have the who'll guard the guards problem. Nothing new in that observation as it's been made a million times before.
Nobody has to buy anything. And most US households will not be buying either blu-ray or hd-dvd. They'll be sticking with plain old dvd for the foreseeable future. People aren't holding back because of perceived format wars. They're holding back because there's not much value for the consumer in HD anything over what's available today.
Willful destruction of evidence in connection with an ongoing criminal investigation or criminal case is a crime, obstruction of justice, and for that you can be criminally prosecuted. Obstruction of justice is a favorite charge of federal prosecutors because the penalties for obstruction of justice are frequently greater than those for the underlying crime. If you can show someone lied about or destroyed evidence in connection with a relatively minor crime, they can do some heavy time for obstruction of justice. See Martha Stewart, Barry Bonds, etc.
Gnome is in a tough spot caused by its founder, Miguel de Icaza. Given Icaza's incredibly stupid and harmful MS pandering over OOXML and other MS technologies, anything short of Gnome's total renunciation of OOXML is viewed with suspicion. Jeff Waugh's comments and Gnome's position seem reasonable to me but then crazy Miguel pops up somewhere spouting nonsense about what a wonderful standard OOXML is. This coupled with Gnome's participation in the standardization process understandably makes people nervous. I don't think Gnome has ever effectively distanced itself from Miguel de Icaza, although I'm sure they've tried.
You've never been married, have you.