Tell that to Martha Stewart and Leona Helmsley. American juries don't like bitches and this one sounds like a rip roarin bitch. If they can prove she autorized the illegal surveilance(a big "if"), she better pack a tooth brush because she'll be doing some time.
She's going to skate on this one I bet. The dirty work was done by the private investigators and she will disavow all advance knowledge of their actions. She can now claim that when she found out what they did she felt obligated to inform the board of the questionable surveilance and to take action against the leaker for the good of the company.
Home XP users won't upgrade; the overwhelming majority have no clue on how to install an OS. They won't get Vista until they buy a new computer with it preinstalled. Businesses won't upgrade unless and until they absolutely have to and no competent sysadmin will recommend a Vista upgrade till SP1 comes out or later. Vista uptake is likely to be pretty slow for these reasons alone.
In federal court, each side submits a pretrial statement to the court listing, among other things, the exhibits they intend to introduce at trial. Most of the time, the parties stipulate to the admissibility of most exhibits, or at least to the authenticity of the document exhibits in order to streamline the proceedings. These things are generally not in dispute and the court leans pretty heavy on the parties to enter into these stipulations unless there is a genuine dispute. Absent a stipulation, you must call a witness to lay the foundation for each document entered in evidence.
The courts have a much different role in the US than in most European systems. Here, everything is party driven; the courts do not do any independent investigation of facts. In fact, a court conducting a private investigation on a case would be highly improper. The court's role in the US is to make rulings of law based on the facts and arguments presented by the opposing parties and, where there are factual disputes, to make findings of fact in a bench case based upon the evidence the parties bring forth at trial. In a jury case, the jury resolves the disputed factual issues and the court only rules on matters of law and instructs the jury as to the applicable law. This is called an adversarial system of justice since it is driven by the adversarial parties in the case. Most continental European have an inquisitorial system of justice where the court is expected to make its own invstigation of the case, usually based upon the reports prepared for the court by its own investiagators.
I'll bet they are interested in having a lot of annoying adds and popups blocked. That's the way I sell firefox to my non-techie friends and once they try it they don't want to go back to IE.
No one doubts for a minute what you are saying. For some one starting fresh, learning a basic linux desktop like kde or gnome is no more difficult, and probably easier and safer, than learning any flavor of windows. My two children were raised using both linux and windows. At this point(they are 13 and 11) they know they are different but are equally comfortable in both environments. It's not a big deal to them which they use although they reflect their father's preference for linux. However, for some one schooled on windows, the switch to linux is much more difficult for the simple fact that linux is different than what they are used to.
The quaint notion that those who are poor or needy are genetically inferior to those who are successful is called social darwinism - a theory in vogue around the turn of the century and popularized by the industrial robber barons of the day to justify their ruthless exploitation of the their workers. Unfortunately, their was not a shred of scietific evidence to support this self serving theory then nor is there any such evidence now. Please refrain from trying to revive this long discredited pseudoscientific theory. It has about as much validity as intelligent design. And by the way, unless you are related to a Rockefeller or Pullman, your ancestors and those of the overwhelming majority of the current upper middle class were among those considered genetically inferior and worthy of extinction.
Most people are not in the business of packaging and distributing software. Those that are generally consult their attorney before distributing someone else's software subject to a questionable license if they have any assets to protect, particularly if they are a high profile player in the FOSS community.
Remember, there are different rules for monopolies. As a monopoly, MS was found to have improperly bundled its browser with windows by US courts, while this same bundling commonly occurs in linux distros. It's improper leveraging of a monopoly position to force a competitor out of business that may be at issue here assuming you can show that MS has a monopoly in the office suite area.
Apple's current computer hardware is pretty much intel compatible commodity components; there is nothing that special or superior about it. You can easily get equal or superior hardware from any beige box manufacturer.
That's not what makes Apple products desirable. It's all about industrial design, aesthetics and above all, marketing/branding. Apple has convinced the market that their products are cool, trendy, fashionable, etc, and people have always paid a high premium for products that make them feel fashionable, regardless of the objective merits of the item. How many ipods do you think Apple would sell if being seen with one branded you as the biggest nerd, looser in the world?
Agree totally. On either side, these are big boys with big resources; it's a fair fight at the moment and the government doesn't need to intervene. This was just a "fetch bill", i.e. a proposed bill designed to elicit campaign contributions from big money interests on either side of the bill. This kind of stuff happens every time shortly before an election and there's a midterm Congressional election coming up you know.
What nonsense. I can think of no bigger open source supporter than IBM, a company long ridiculed for one of the most restrictive dress codes in the US. I can remember when every IBMer was required to wear a white shirt and tie. I think they only recently allowed colored shirts.
If sandals and ponytails are code words for the political musings of Mr. Stallman, he may have a point. But I doubt that RMS cares about business or government acceptance.
I think the point is if there was patented MS technology in linux they would have gone after the alleged infringers by now. Anything less would be a breach of fiduciary duty owed to the MS shareholders and subject mangement to shareholder lawsuits. The fact that MS has failed to act speaks volumes, much more than Balmer's lame FUD attempts.
While you may well believe that the world revolves around what very little is known by 16-24 yr olds, it doesn't. Sorry to shock you, but that will not be the legal standard applied in this case. This is a contract dispute based upon the settlement agreement of a prior trademark case between the parties. Likelihood of confusion has nothing to do with this case; it's about whether your beloved Steve Jobs has breached that agreement by distributing music on itunes and whether that constitutes a distribution on physical media in violation of the agreement. Considering Jobs & company have been among the biggest pricks around when it comes to trademark/copyright issues, I am enjoying every moment of this one. This will be settled just like the last one with a big check to Apple Records. There's too much at stake to risk litigation of these murky issues in an English court and everyone knows it. The only issue will be how much.
There's an old expression among trial lawyers - "A lawyer's as good as his case". Every attorney soon learns that an average lawyer with good facts almost always beats a brilliant lawyer with poor facts. The government had overwhelmingly supportive facts in the antitrust trial. That's why they won, at least until they gave away the store in the settlement after the election. I suspect it's no different in the EU.
How do you know it's the same guy?? I can't believe someone with his claimed background wouldn't know how to handle a bootloader problem(heavy unix background, using slack since 3.1, familiar with RH, suse, ect). Also, he claims to be presently using ubuntu and is fairly complementary in the article. For one thing he gives ubuntu a 25% market share which is surely a number he pulled out of his ass but it does make ubuntu look good.
I think you are mistaken. The jerk in that thread can't be the same guy.
Despite the large body of evidence that supports a link between playing violent videogames and aggression, lawmakers still have a difficult time convincing the courts that they should be removed from children's hands.
Lawmakers pass laws; they do not enforce the laws in court. Highschool civics - Congress makes the laws, the executive branch enforces the laws, and the courts interpret the laws. Now that that's out of the way, what is really happening is that every time some states attorney tries to enforce one of these statutes regulating the sale of violent games to minors they fail to prove in a court of law that there is sufficient evidence to support the link between violent games and violent behavior in children which is necessary to overcome a First Amendment challenge to these statutes. In short, the evidence is not there to support the rationale underlying the law. As many courts addressing this issue have noted, these games are just a modern version of storytelling and traditional childrens stories have repeatedly demonstrated a fascination with violent themes; think of burning witches alive in ovens, etc. The courts have wisely understood that upholding these laws would allow potential regulation and court involvement in enforcement of traditional print media as well and have rejected the notion that this is a proper legislative endeavor without very compelling evidence. This is also the rationale for distguishing violent themes from sexual themes in childrens media where regulation is well estabolished. Historically, sexual themes are not present in childrens stories.
Slashdot Mirror
Tell that to Martha Stewart and Leona Helmsley. American juries don't like bitches and this one sounds like a rip roarin bitch. If they can prove she autorized the illegal surveilance(a big "if"), she better pack a tooth brush because she'll be doing some time.
She's going to skate on this one I bet. The dirty work was done by the private investigators and she will disavow all advance knowledge of their actions. She can now claim that when she found out what they did she felt obligated to inform the board of the questionable surveilance and to take action against the leaker for the good of the company.
Home XP users won't upgrade; the overwhelming majority have no clue on how to install an OS. They won't get Vista until they buy a new computer with it preinstalled. Businesses won't upgrade unless and until they absolutely have to and no competent sysadmin will recommend a Vista upgrade till SP1 comes out or later. Vista uptake is likely to be pretty slow for these reasons alone.
Which is exactly why they changed document format.
In federal court, each side submits a pretrial statement to the court listing, among other things, the exhibits they intend to introduce at trial. Most of the time, the parties stipulate to the admissibility of most exhibits, or at least to the authenticity of the document exhibits in order to streamline the proceedings. These things are generally not in dispute and the court leans pretty heavy on the parties to enter into these stipulations unless there is a genuine dispute. Absent a stipulation, you must call a witness to lay the foundation for each document entered in evidence.
Wikipedia celebrates 750 years of American independence: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/50902
Time-Warner owns a lot of content that might be a draw.
The courts have a much different role in the US than in most European systems. Here, everything is party driven; the courts do not do any independent investigation of facts. In fact, a court conducting a private investigation on a case would be highly improper. The court's role in the US is to make rulings of law based on the facts and arguments presented by the opposing parties and, where there are factual disputes, to make findings of fact in a bench case based upon the evidence the parties bring forth at trial. In a jury case, the jury resolves the disputed factual issues and the court only rules on matters of law and instructs the jury as to the applicable law. This is called an adversarial system of justice since it is driven by the adversarial parties in the case. Most continental European have an inquisitorial system of justice where the court is expected to make its own invstigation of the case, usually based upon the reports prepared for the court by its own investiagators.
I'll bet they are interested in having a lot of annoying adds and popups blocked. That's the way I sell firefox to my non-techie friends and once they try it they don't want to go back to IE.
No one doubts for a minute what you are saying. For some one starting fresh, learning a basic linux desktop like kde or gnome is no more difficult, and probably easier and safer, than learning any flavor of windows. My two children were raised using both linux and windows. At this point(they are 13 and 11) they know they are different but are equally comfortable in both environments. It's not a big deal to them which they use although they reflect their father's preference for linux. However, for some one schooled on windows, the switch to linux is much more difficult for the simple fact that linux is different than what they are used to.
The quaint notion that those who are poor or needy are genetically inferior to those who are successful is called social darwinism - a theory in vogue around the turn of the century and popularized by the industrial robber barons of the day to justify their ruthless exploitation of the their workers. Unfortunately, their was not a shred of scietific evidence to support this self serving theory then nor is there any such evidence now. Please refrain from trying to revive this long discredited pseudoscientific theory. It has about as much validity as intelligent design. And by the way, unless you are related to a Rockefeller or Pullman, your ancestors and those of the overwhelming majority of the current upper middle class were among those considered genetically inferior and worthy of extinction.
What kind of waranty do you think you get from any hard drive manufacturer or OS vendor?? It's pretty much the same deal IIRC.
Que flying chair jokes here.
He's the single largest (minority) Disney shareholder after the Pixar buyout not the majority shareholder -- that's a really big difference.
Most people are not in the business of packaging and distributing software. Those that are generally consult their attorney before distributing someone else's software subject to a questionable license if they have any assets to protect, particularly if they are a high profile player in the FOSS community.
Remember, there are different rules for monopolies. As a monopoly, MS was found to have improperly bundled its browser with windows by US courts, while this same bundling commonly occurs in linux distros. It's improper leveraging of a monopoly position to force a competitor out of business that may be at issue here assuming you can show that MS has a monopoly in the office suite area.
"Regardless" is a word. "Irrespective" is a word. "Irregardless" is not a word.
Apple's current computer hardware is pretty much intel compatible commodity components; there is nothing that special or superior about it. You can easily get equal or superior hardware from any beige box manufacturer. That's not what makes Apple products desirable. It's all about industrial design, aesthetics and above all, marketing/branding. Apple has convinced the market that their products are cool, trendy, fashionable, etc, and people have always paid a high premium for products that make them feel fashionable, regardless of the objective merits of the item. How many ipods do you think Apple would sell if being seen with one branded you as the biggest nerd, looser in the world?
Agree totally. On either side, these are big boys with big resources; it's a fair fight at the moment and the government doesn't need to intervene. This was just a "fetch bill", i.e. a proposed bill designed to elicit campaign contributions from big money interests on either side of the bill. This kind of stuff happens every time shortly before an election and there's a midterm Congressional election coming up you know.
What nonsense. I can think of no bigger open source supporter than IBM, a company long ridiculed for one of the most restrictive dress codes in the US. I can remember when every IBMer was required to wear a white shirt and tie. I think they only recently allowed colored shirts. If sandals and ponytails are code words for the political musings of Mr. Stallman, he may have a point. But I doubt that RMS cares about business or government acceptance.
I think the point is if there was patented MS technology in linux they would have gone after the alleged infringers by now. Anything less would be a breach of fiduciary duty owed to the MS shareholders and subject mangement to shareholder lawsuits. The fact that MS has failed to act speaks volumes, much more than Balmer's lame FUD attempts.
While you may well believe that the world revolves around what very little is known by 16-24 yr olds, it doesn't. Sorry to shock you, but that will not be the legal standard applied in this case. This is a contract dispute based upon the settlement agreement of a prior trademark case between the parties. Likelihood of confusion has nothing to do with this case; it's about whether your beloved Steve Jobs has breached that agreement by distributing music on itunes and whether that constitutes a distribution on physical media in violation of the agreement. Considering Jobs & company have been among the biggest pricks around when it comes to trademark/copyright issues, I am enjoying every moment of this one. This will be settled just like the last one with a big check to Apple Records. There's too much at stake to risk litigation of these murky issues in an English court and everyone knows it. The only issue will be how much.
There's an old expression among trial lawyers - "A lawyer's as good as his case". Every attorney soon learns that an average lawyer with good facts almost always beats a brilliant lawyer with poor facts. The government had overwhelmingly supportive facts in the antitrust trial. That's why they won, at least until they gave away the store in the settlement after the election. I suspect it's no different in the EU.
How do you know it's the same guy?? I can't believe someone with his claimed background wouldn't know how to handle a bootloader problem(heavy unix background, using slack since 3.1, familiar with RH, suse, ect). Also, he claims to be presently using ubuntu and is fairly complementary in the article. For one thing he gives ubuntu a 25% market share which is surely a number he pulled out of his ass but it does make ubuntu look good. I think you are mistaken. The jerk in that thread can't be the same guy.