Re:Fraud? I don't think so.
on
Stealth Inflation
·
· Score: 2, Informative
In Britain, preserved railways (aka private railways that operate steam trains as an attraction) get billed a 'connection fee' (last I heard, around 300) by the main rail operator (Network Rail) for being connected to the network. The smart ones send it back with a connection fee to Network Rail.
I don't see why you can't bill the company for the amount of your time their facilities used. You couldn't stop them closing their relationship with you, however, which could be difficult for credit checks, and a bit of a pain anyway.
Has someone else heard of XFS (eXtensible Filing System). Based on SQL, it sounds as if you aren't allowed to choose where you put your files (it groups them for you), and I've heard that compatibility with other systems on the same disk is close to nil, as it uses a dispersed system to reduce fragmentation.
Which stinks of DRM: If the file system classifies all your files (and gets more information off the internet), no doubt it will check licenses for your files.
1) Lack of space. A big problem with the channel tunnel rail link was that the decent routes went through population centres, and the curves are too sharp.
2) Lack of existing functioning rail infrastructure. The TGV project travels on standard track for some of its journey (in Paris, and in some other places); Britain's rail network is too badly built, and unreliable for that.
You have to issue these bills to provide a basis for loss on which you can sue. I.E. If you don't issue the bills, you aren't claiming anything from your rights, and don't have a basis for claiming loss in court. This isn't "wilful deception".
You are allowed to sue for unproved gain, and let the court decide on the lawfulness of the gain. Otherwise you could never bring any violations to court in the first place. Filing a suit that you then lose isn't fraud.
"Unlawful Gain" is decided by the courts. You take the suit to them, and they decide. Continuing to claim the revenue is unlawful (and contempt of court). The test here is whether Darl believes his claims in "good faith".
He wants, by 2006, to have a through-the-night solar flight (36h). If he could do the circumnavigation in 24h, though, he could just avoid the night, and travel around the world at the same speed a day travels across the earth. Seems risky, if you suddenly hit problems over the pacific.
It's only fraud if Darl and Co know that what they say is false. Trying to recover revenue from an IP violation that he believes in good faith isn't fraud. Darl's statements make it look like he believes everything Boies says (which, let us face it, is a good assumption - Boies is one of the best lawyers in the country). Of course, if Boies thinks he is lying, that is negligence.
This isn't just to do with operating systems. I use Lotus Notes on WinXP. Now, Notes is not a good mail program, but every time everyone else in the business is shutting down their mail servers and running around screaming because some jerk's sent them an auto-propogating email, I just keep on working with it.
But there is a deeper problem. Diversity in systems would only work with diversity in protocol. That means non-interoperability. Diversity is a great solution, but come the big time, when someone exploits SMTP, or some other widely-used protocol (such as DNS), then the combined standards for interoperability will bring us down. Diversity must be assisted by secure, open protocol. Why do MS Exchange servers get exploited so much? Is it because nobody ever gets to see the code? Or is it because Microsoft adds insecure 'features' to well-known protocols?
Re:and anotehr one -- make hash function expensive
on
Who Is An ISP?
·
· Score: 1
Make the function really expensive.
So nobody uses it anyway as they haven't the time.
If your intepretation is correct, then that is a good thing. Far more worring, is the provision of an opt-out list. If the world can see that my e-mail, even if only so that I can say I don't like spam, then I reckon I'll get spammed all the more.
1) They assert that they have IP rights over Linux.
2) Given those asserted IP rights it would be criminal for Darl McBride not to take action against Linux users (because he has a duty to maximise profit). Clearly this duty only exists, however, if assertion 1) is reasonable.
However, so long as they include the IP assertion in every suit they file, they are effectively launching mini-I(C)BM suits at each company. That isn't extortion.
Clearly, if Darl McBride believes the assertion (i.e. believes Boies, one of the top lawyers in the country), he has the duty to sue.
Though in making Darl believe that assertion, Boies may be negligent himself. It's what they call a lawyer's feast.
When people start doing these kinds of things, (look at the video) you really wonder whether people have a point about real and imaginary violence. Wandering around (or lying, pretending to be dead) re-enacting Star Wars scenes is exactly the kind of idiocy that causes people to say that gamers become violent.
As to repeated reincarnation, that could also be read as a message that death doesn't really matter.
When the chips are down (or fried), and the system's crashed, I want root level access. Sure, it is less secure, but somebody needs permissions to root level edit every file simply in case of emergencies.
The internet was built as a highly decentralised, noncontrolled network, so that, in the event of a nuclear war, military leaders would have unrivalled access to pornography. (3DTIAB)
The truth is that most tech support calls (80-90%) are FTF (First Time Fix).
Remember, Dell is only outsourcing corporate calls. FTF calls are most likely to be technically challenged users (we've all met them - those that complain of funny sounds when the phone while browsing etc.) I'd be willing to bet that far fewer corporate support calls (some of which, clearly, will originate from inhouse tech guys), are FTF.
In other words: Corporate = Slightly less idiotic = Less likely to be FTF
The internet is one of the best forums for discussion (look around you), and potentially to unify many different cultures and viewpoints. The myopic attitude is to limit technology to the rich, which will built up hatred. Clearly teaching people in other countries good English (as any company trying to avoid Dell's mistake will do), and the skills to communicate, will bring cultures closer. Only by doing this can we move together to a more peaceful, unified world.
Except that if they didn't agree to the license, they wouldn't release the program at all. It is very dangerous to tell the community that a part of the community could be isolated protecting its IP. That isn't my view at all (I don't believe that SCO has IP rights on the code, or if it does, they released the code under the GPL anyway), but it could be seen that way by some.
The FSF prohibit the open source community from modifiying the GPL. SCO's actions show why.
In doing this, they take a responsibility as guardians of the GPL; they modify it as appropriate (think about libraries) when modifications are for the good of the community.
As guardians, therefore, they should take action (be it a C&D, suit or whatever) against SCO. Not that this absolves the users of the GPL, simply that the GPL, as the FSFs responsiblity, means that they have the moral, not legal responsibility to deal with SCO.
Slashdot Mirror
In Britain, preserved railways (aka private railways that operate steam trains as an attraction) get billed a 'connection fee' (last I heard, around 300) by the main rail operator (Network Rail) for being connected to the network. The smart ones send it back with a connection fee to Network Rail.
I don't see why you can't bill the company for the amount of your time their facilities used. You couldn't stop them closing their relationship with you, however, which could be difficult for credit checks, and a bit of a pain anyway.
Thanks. I thought it was a horrible new system to be used in Windows from about 2005.
Has someone else heard of XFS (eXtensible Filing System). Based on SQL, it sounds as if you aren't allowed to choose where you put your files (it groups them for you), and I've heard that compatibility with other systems on the same disk is close to nil, as it uses a dispersed system to reduce fragmentation. Which stinks of DRM: If the file system classifies all your files (and gets more information off the internet), no doubt it will check licenses for your files.
Problems with High Speed Rail Links in the UK:
1) Lack of space. A big problem with the channel tunnel rail link was that the decent routes went through population centres, and the curves are too sharp.
2) Lack of existing functioning rail infrastructure. The TGV project travels on standard track for some of its journey (in Paris, and in some other places); Britain's rail network is too badly built, and unreliable for that.
You have to issue these bills to provide a basis for loss on which you can sue. I.E. If you don't issue the bills, you aren't claiming anything from your rights, and don't have a basis for claiming loss in court. This isn't "wilful deception".
You are allowed to sue for unproved gain, and let the court decide on the lawfulness of the gain. Otherwise you could never bring any violations to court in the first place. Filing a suit that you then lose isn't fraud. "Unlawful Gain" is decided by the courts. You take the suit to them, and they decide. Continuing to claim the revenue is unlawful (and contempt of court). The test here is whether Darl believes his claims in "good faith".
True. Perhaps not the best, but certainly one of the most respected and famous, and so Darl should take his advice.
He wants, by 2006, to have a through-the-night solar flight (36h). If he could do the circumnavigation in 24h, though, he could just avoid the night, and travel around the world at the same speed a day travels across the earth. Seems risky, if you suddenly hit problems over the pacific.
It's a long way to glide.
It's only fraud if Darl and Co know that what they say is false. Trying to recover revenue from an IP violation that he believes in good faith isn't fraud. Darl's statements make it look like he believes everything Boies says (which, let us face it, is a good assumption - Boies is one of the best lawyers in the country). Of course, if Boies thinks he is lying, that is negligence.
This isn't just to do with operating systems. I use Lotus Notes on WinXP. Now, Notes is not a good mail program, but every time everyone else in the business is shutting down their mail servers and running around screaming because some jerk's sent them an auto-propogating email, I just keep on working with it.
But there is a deeper problem. Diversity in systems would only work with diversity in protocol. That means non-interoperability. Diversity is a great solution, but come the big time, when someone exploits SMTP, or some other widely-used protocol (such as DNS), then the combined standards for interoperability will bring us down. Diversity must be assisted by secure, open protocol. Why do MS Exchange servers get exploited so much? Is it because nobody ever gets to see the code? Or is it because Microsoft adds insecure 'features' to well-known protocols?
Make the function really expensive.
So nobody uses it anyway as they haven't the time.
The Anatomy of a Large-Scale Hypertextual Web Search Engine, has produced Google. Why make this post longer than it need be?
If your intepretation is correct, then that is a good thing. Far more worring, is the provision of an opt-out list. If the world can see that my e-mail, even if only so that I can say I don't like spam, then I reckon I'll get spammed all the more.
Unlikely
Magnetic induction has been used for years for two things - brain scans (which don't (I hope) cause cancer), and hearing aid loops.
This isn't extortion yet.
Look at the argument
1) They assert that they have IP rights over Linux.
2) Given those asserted IP rights it would be criminal for Darl McBride not to take action against Linux users (because he has a duty to maximise profit). Clearly this duty only exists, however, if assertion 1) is reasonable.
However, so long as they include the IP assertion in every suit they file, they are effectively launching mini-I(C)BM suits at each company. That isn't extortion.
Clearly, if Darl McBride believes the assertion (i.e. believes Boies, one of the top lawyers in the country), he has the duty to sue.
Though in making Darl believe that assertion, Boies may be negligent himself. It's what they call a lawyer's feast.
Sorry, the sig should end "category" (see below) And yes, I know this post is off-topic.
And that link is dead. Hooray for good record-keeping.
When people start doing these kinds of things, (look at the video) you really wonder whether people have a point about real and imaginary violence. Wandering around (or lying, pretending to be dead) re-enacting Star Wars scenes is exactly the kind of idiocy that causes people to say that gamers become violent. As to repeated reincarnation, that could also be read as a message that death doesn't really matter.
When the chips are down (or fried), and the system's crashed, I want root level access. Sure, it is less secure, but somebody needs permissions to root level edit every file simply in case of emergencies.
The internet was built as a highly decentralised, noncontrolled network, so that, in the event of a nuclear war, military leaders would have unrivalled access to pornography. (3DTIAB)
The truth is that most tech support calls (80-90%) are FTF (First Time Fix).
Remember, Dell is only outsourcing corporate calls. FTF calls are most likely to be technically challenged users (we've all met them - those that complain of funny sounds when the phone while browsing etc.) I'd be willing to bet that far fewer corporate support calls (some of which, clearly, will originate from inhouse tech guys), are FTF.
In other words: Corporate = Slightly less idiotic = Less likely to be FTF
It's just myopia
The internet is one of the best forums for discussion (look around you), and potentially to unify many different cultures and viewpoints. The myopic attitude is to limit technology to the rich, which will built up hatred. Clearly teaching people in other countries good English (as any company trying to avoid Dell's mistake will do), and the skills to communicate, will bring cultures closer. Only by doing this can we move together to a more peaceful, unified world.
Except that if they didn't agree to the license, they wouldn't release the program at all. It is very dangerous to tell the community that a part of the community could be isolated protecting its IP. That isn't my view at all (I don't believe that SCO has IP rights on the code, or if it does, they released the code under the GPL anyway), but it could be seen that way by some.
>Why haven't Linux copyright holders sued SCO for copyright infringement?
Because that would destroy the collective ideals of the GPL, and set a precendent for saying: "We don't like you, you can't use our code."
Anyway, can you see Linus wanting a lawsuit?
> should the FSF sue SCO for license violation
The FSF prohibit the open source community from modifiying the GPL. SCO's actions show why.
In doing this, they take a responsibility as guardians of the GPL; they modify it as appropriate (think about libraries) when modifications are for the good of the community.
As guardians, therefore, they should take action (be it a C&D, suit or whatever) against SCO. Not that this absolves the users of the GPL, simply that the GPL, as the FSFs responsiblity, means that they have the moral, not legal responsibility to deal with SCO.