>I would say a $4B penalty claim in such a case is unconscionable, and not foreseeable.
No. That's not how it works. It's not whether the penalty is unconscionable. That's just HP asking for relief. They can ask for any number they want. But in cases like this, you always ask for more than what you need because it only gets adjusted down anyway.
You only get out of it if *the clause in the contract itself* is unconscionable or otherwise unenforceable. According to HP, Oracle signed a contract saying that Oracle would continue to support Itanium. HP is telling the court that to make them whole for Oracle to break the contract, it would be 4 billion to call it even, because that's what the projected damage would be, according to HP.
Whether the court agrees with that amount or not, the court has to first determine whether the clause itself was unconscionable or otherwise unenforceable. If it's a valid clause, it's just a matter of determining how much it would be to make HP "whole" for Oracle breaking the contract.
Proving the clause is unconscionable or otherwise unenforceable is a pretty high hurdle for Oracle to clear, since their lawyers are experienced in handling contracts like this and they should have known before signing that it was unconscionable. Proving this means that their lawyers were incompetent at the time of signing. Not proving it means that their current lawyers are incompetent.
THE CONTRACT IS INVALID BECAUSE I WAS DRUNK, YOUR HONOUR.
Oracle only gets out of the contract for development if the clause on it is unconscionable or otherwise unenforceable.
Unlike your average joe, Oracle has lawyers that they pay to go over this stuff and pick out and cross out the unenforceable and unconscionable stuff for revision before signing.
>HP didn't pay Oracle to develop, or maintain their software for HP systems. Oracle did it because they thought it was good business.
Larry signed the contract. They're on the hook.
Just like David Boies signed a contract to prosecute SCO's lawsuits until the heat death of the universe, because he thought he was going to get a chunk of the 5 billion SCO was suing IBM for.
Greed leads to bad decisions. Who woulda thunk it.
The worst offenders are the ones that drive me to noscript and adblock plus. The more these fruitcakes at sites like Gawker Media^1 insist on throwing more crud at me, the more I will further fortify my position and flush all ads and tracking.
And now, if the world was ending, and the only way to save myself was to get a lottery ticket from Gawker Media for the next space ship leaving Earth, I wouldn't, on principle.
-- BMO
1. Gawker Media is: gawker gizmodo kotaku jezebe deadspin lifehacker jalopnik io9
They're not special privileges. They are *reasonable accommodations* for business who serve the public. Don't like it? Tough bananas. That's the price you pay for living in a civilised society. Go move to Somalia if you don't like the rule of law.
If you can't build a web page that looks and works well in Lynx as the other user mentioned, you're a shitty web designer.
I was in North Kingstown, so I also called up IDS and Off Broadway, but anything in Warwick was TOO FAH. LizardKing on here ran The Lair of the Lizard King BBS in 884-land and thus was the node for OmniNet that allowed traffic to northern RI from South County.
Many hours dialled into the MicroVax at IDS before Andy went legal and many hours after, into the used Vax 11/781 washing machine. Some nice IDS and LOCnet cookouts at Ft. Wetherill. "Hey, let's go watch those people jump off the cliff." - soon to find myself doing same. Never leave your camera alone with TwoFace unless you want a SPB in the roll of film.
LOCNet Rock&Bowl every Saturday until they closed and tore down Aquidneck Lanes and many RHPSs at the Meadowbrook with the Mike H., Jennifer J., the Dermanualians, etc.
The local scene was pretty nice. Then the public Internet happened.
In South County RI, we had a handful of BBSes and URI's access to Bitnet if you had an academic account or begged for one, not even the Internet. Everyone was still at 300, 1200, and a few at 2400, and almost nobody had v32 (9600bps) modems because they were new in 1989 and ridiculously expensive.
If you had more money than sense, you subscribed to CompuServe, Prodigy, or GEnie (to be called AOL later) and paid by the minute and also paid for the long distance to the Warwick or Providence numbers (Yay in-state long distance in a state only 47 miles the long way!). BBSes were free.
The community was so small. You could literally visit all the boards from Block Island to East Greenwich and read all the messages in an hour if you ignored the redialling. We also didn't have OmniNet or LOCNet yet to tie north/south RI and the Islands/East Bay together yet. That had to wait for the heyday of BBSes in the early 90s, and even then, you could fit everyone who cared about OmniNet administration (north AND south!) into one Baskin Robbins ice cream parlor (we couldn't meet at Casey's because half of everyone was under-age).
And everyone knew each other.
There wasn't much to lie about online at all. Really, there wasn't. It puzzles me as to what prompted this legislation that far back.
The only big whopper of a lie I remember was Matt saying his BBS couldn't be hacked, some time in the early 90s. This was a challenge to everyone at the meeting and pissed off his co-sys, who gave him up to the rest of us hyenas.
Shout out to LizardKing on here, who is the only RIer I know on here from that era.
>but the ruling is still significant for recognizing that Internet sites may fall under the purview of the Americans with Disabilities Act."
Web designers have ignored the sight impaired for far too long and had it far too easy. They have ignored standards, done stupid shit as use pictures for blocks of text, flash-only (like the IOC did once) and engaged in "get the hell out, you peon with a screen-reader" nonsense ever since the term "rich content" slipped out of someone's lips 15+ years ago.
Every web designer should spend a week using the Internet blindfolded, using only JAWS.
03:58 <@tab> those 2 bots are stationed in #macbot 03:58 <&Macbot> i don't want to ask for the universe prove that the universe exists 03:58 <@tab> doing that 03:58 <@tab> forever 03:58 <@Dr_Venture> tab that's awful 03:58 <@tab> back and forth 03:58 <@tab> ))<>(( 03:58 <+bmo> tab: that's like a criticality of macbots 03:58 <&Macbot> any awesomewm users are trolling is a art 03:58 <%slamm> tab, why 03:58 <@tab> for science 03:59 <%slamm> xd 04:00 <@Dr_Venture> you're a modern day tesla 04:00 <@Dr_Venture> or turing 04:00 <&Macbot> that's like a strapon 04:00 <@Dr_Venture> or a strapon
Chatbots, for when there aren't enough strapons in the world.
I hang in IRC with a certain individual who actively creates his own botnets by uploading infected software to torrent sites. He hasn't been on the channel lately because Rizon bans him repeatedly for running C&C operations there among other shenanigans.
Do the ratings systems flag his malicious software? No. Because:
1. Nobody ever checks MD5s 2. Nobody ever scans. 3. Those that do scan don't realise that malware attached to recent uploads have been already checked against the current top 10 scanners before uploading to make sure it doesn't get detected. Scanning software is only as good as the most recent update. If it ain't in the database, it's going undetected. 4. The cries of "false positive" are rampant. "Because that's the way the crack works" 5. People take 4 at face value. And shit just stays up for years.
For shits and giggles, last year, I downloaded Catia from a torrent. Because the version I saw apparently runs in Wine and I wanted to check it out. I ran it through a scanner. It was infected. Did *any* of the comments mention even a false positive? No. It's just that malware scanning had finally caught up to the malware being spread.
It sat there for a year before I ran into it and scanned it. A year of positive comments and spreading malware.
1. Unless you can get your grubby hands on the physical media, check the MD5. 2. If it doesn't match, don't use it. It's poisoned. Even if it scans clean, it's fucking poisoned.
This rules out every single "custom" eXPerience "trimmed" Windows. Because even if eXPerience himself does not infect his ISOs, other people take his, add their malware, and upload. And since the MD5 sum never matches the Microsoft MD5 in the first place anyway, and eXPerience doesn't sign his own versions, who the fuck is to tell is the uninfected one?
Uploading an infected torrent is the best way to build a botnet from scratch. QED.
So go ahead, tell me again how I am an agent of the BSA.
Each of those things under B are connected by OR statements.
What you cited doesn't have to be tied to the last bit that I bolded.
>whether I care
At this point, I don't any more. You're not a lawyer even though you are trying to pretend to be one. I'm not a lawyer, but I can logic and I can read. The cases you are citing are not applicable to this situation because they are about different parts of that stuff between the ORs.
I would be more inclined to agree with your side if you actually cited cases that were applicable.
Slashdot Mirror
Whichever is kinkier.
--
BMO
>I would say a $4B penalty claim in such a case is unconscionable, and not foreseeable.
No. That's not how it works. It's not whether the penalty is unconscionable. That's just HP asking for relief. They can ask for any number they want. But in cases like this, you always ask for more than what you need because it only gets adjusted down anyway.
You only get out of it if *the clause in the contract itself* is unconscionable or otherwise unenforceable. According to HP, Oracle signed a contract saying that Oracle would continue to support Itanium. HP is telling the court that to make them whole for Oracle to break the contract, it would be 4 billion to call it even, because that's what the projected damage would be, according to HP.
Whether the court agrees with that amount or not, the court has to first determine whether the clause itself was unconscionable or otherwise unenforceable. If it's a valid clause, it's just a matter of determining how much it would be to make HP "whole" for Oracle breaking the contract.
Proving the clause is unconscionable or otherwise unenforceable is a pretty high hurdle for Oracle to clear, since their lawyers are experienced in handling contracts like this and they should have known before signing that it was unconscionable. Proving this means that their lawyers were incompetent at the time of signing. Not proving it means that their current lawyers are incompetent.
THE CONTRACT IS INVALID BECAUSE I WAS DRUNK, YOUR HONOUR.
--
BMO
What about chain loading XP from the Canonical boot loader?
Secure Boot only looks at the first boot loader to see if it's certified. Whatever happens after that is anyone's guess.
--
BMO
Oracle only gets out of the contract for development if the clause on it is unconscionable or otherwise unenforceable.
Unlike your average joe, Oracle has lawyers that they pay to go over this stuff and pick out and cross out the unenforceable and unconscionable stuff for revision before signing.
IANAL, but I trust Oracle hires good lawyers.
--
BMO
And then BMO was enlightened.
--
BMO
>HP didn't pay Oracle to develop, or maintain their software for HP systems. Oracle did it because they thought it was good business.
Larry signed the contract. They're on the hook.
Just like David Boies signed a contract to prosecute SCO's lawsuits until the heat death of the universe, because he thought he was going to get a chunk of the 5 billion SCO was suing IBM for.
Greed leads to bad decisions. Who woulda thunk it.
--
BMO
FYI, SPARC and PPC don't run VMS, which is what this is all about.
--
BMO
And it took forever for IT departments to switch off of NT4 or 2K to XP.
Microsoft's biggest competition is its older versions.
--
BMO
>didn't the ADA sue Target for their terrible and inaccessible website and win?
The ADA is not a group. It's a law. The Americans with Disabilities Act. It was the National Federation for the Blind who sued.
http://usefularts.us/2008/09/04/target-ada-accessibility-california/
There was no judgement. It was a settlement, so there's no precedent.
There should have been one, though.
--
BMO
The worst offenders are the ones that drive me to noscript and adblock plus. The more these fruitcakes at sites like Gawker Media^1 insist on throwing more crud at me, the more I will further fortify my position and flush all ads and tracking.
And now, if the world was ending, and the only way to save myself was to get a lottery ticket from Gawker Media for the next space ship leaving Earth, I wouldn't, on principle.
--
BMO
1. Gawker Media is: gawker gizmodo kotaku jezebe deadspin lifehacker jalopnik io9
>pleonasm
"Gee, Porgie, I didn't know you masturbated!" - Mudhead
--
BMO - Defoliating a victory garden sure works up an appetite.
What I suggested was not a way of designing web pages, but a way to get web designers to get some empathy for those who use screen readers.
For overall design and best practices, I agree - if your website looks good and operates well in Lynx, then you've done it right.
--
BMO
They're not special privileges. They are *reasonable accommodations* for business who serve the public. Don't like it? Tough bananas. That's the price you pay for living in a civilised society. Go move to Somalia if you don't like the rule of law.
If you can't build a web page that looks and works well in Lynx as the other user mentioned, you're a shitty web designer.
--
BMO
I was in North Kingstown, so I also called up IDS and Off Broadway, but anything in Warwick was TOO FAH. LizardKing on here ran The Lair of the Lizard King BBS in 884-land and thus was the node for OmniNet that allowed traffic to northern RI from South County.
Many hours dialled into the MicroVax at IDS before Andy went legal and many hours after, into the used Vax 11/781 washing machine. Some nice IDS and LOCnet cookouts at Ft. Wetherill. "Hey, let's go watch those people jump off the cliff." - soon to find myself doing same. Never leave your camera alone with TwoFace unless you want a SPB in the roll of film.
LOCNet Rock&Bowl every Saturday until they closed and tore down Aquidneck Lanes and many RHPSs at the Meadowbrook with the Mike H., Jennifer J., the Dermanualians, etc.
The local scene was pretty nice. Then the public Internet happened.
Signing with my full alias from back then:
--
Boyle M. Owl
AKA, danielpi on IDS.
Your sig and your thoughtlessness on the whole subject speaks volumes.
It's not about Angry Birds.
--
BMO
RI resident here...
Let me think about what we had back in 1989...
In South County RI, we had a handful of BBSes and URI's access to Bitnet if you had an academic account or begged for one, not even the Internet. Everyone was still at 300, 1200, and a few at 2400, and almost nobody had v32 (9600bps) modems because they were new in 1989 and ridiculously expensive.
If you had more money than sense, you subscribed to CompuServe, Prodigy, or GEnie (to be called AOL later) and paid by the minute and also paid for the long distance to the Warwick or Providence numbers (Yay in-state long distance in a state only 47 miles the long way!). BBSes were free.
The community was so small. You could literally visit all the boards from Block Island to East Greenwich and read all the messages in an hour if you ignored the redialling. We also didn't have OmniNet or LOCNet yet to tie north/south RI and the Islands/East Bay together yet. That had to wait for the heyday of BBSes in the early 90s, and even then, you could fit everyone who cared about OmniNet administration (north AND south!) into one Baskin Robbins ice cream parlor (we couldn't meet at Casey's because half of everyone was under-age).
And everyone knew each other.
There wasn't much to lie about online at all. Really, there wasn't. It puzzles me as to what prompted this legislation that far back.
The only big whopper of a lie I remember was Matt saying his BBS couldn't be hacked, some time in the early 90s. This was a challenge to everyone at the meeting and pissed off his co-sys, who gave him up to the rest of us hyenas.
Shout out to LizardKing on here, who is the only RIer I know on here from that era.
--
BMO
>graphic details about extremely violent deaths of Star Trek characters, especially about Spock.
I believe you've spent way too much thinking about this for far too long.
Tell me about your mother.
--
BMO
>but the ruling is still significant for recognizing that Internet sites may fall under the purview of the Americans with Disabilities Act."
Web designers have ignored the sight impaired for far too long and had it far too easy. They have ignored standards, done stupid shit as use pictures for blocks of text, flash-only (like the IOC did once) and engaged in "get the hell out, you peon with a screen-reader" nonsense ever since the term "rich content" slipped out of someone's lips 15+ years ago.
Every web designer should spend a week using the Internet blindfolded, using only JAWS.
"But who cares about the blind?"
There but for the grace of the Universe go you.
--
BMO
03:58 <@tab> those 2 bots are stationed in #macbot
03:58 <&Macbot> i don't want to ask for the universe prove that the universe exists
03:58 <@tab> doing that
03:58 <@tab> forever
03:58 <@Dr_Venture> tab that's awful
03:58 <@tab> back and forth
03:58 <@tab> ))<>((
03:58 <+bmo> tab: that's like a criticality of macbots
03:58 <&Macbot> any awesomewm users are trolling is a art
03:58 <%slamm> tab, why
03:58 <@tab> for science
03:59 <%slamm> xd
04:00 <@Dr_Venture> you're a modern day tesla
04:00 <@Dr_Venture> or turing
04:00 <&Macbot> that's like a strapon
04:00 <@Dr_Venture> or a strapon
Chatbots, for when there aren't enough strapons in the world.
--
BMO
Should an editor who headlines an article with a question mark be impaled with a pine cone?
Just asking a question.
--
BMO
*sigh*
Let me explain something to you.
I hang in IRC with a certain individual who actively creates his own botnets by uploading infected software to torrent sites. He hasn't been on the channel lately because Rizon bans him repeatedly for running C&C operations there among other shenanigans.
Do the ratings systems flag his malicious software? No. Because:
1. Nobody ever checks MD5s
2. Nobody ever scans.
3. Those that do scan don't realise that malware attached to recent uploads have been already checked against the current top 10 scanners before uploading to make sure it doesn't get detected. Scanning software is only as good as the most recent update. If it ain't in the database, it's going undetected.
4. The cries of "false positive" are rampant. "Because that's the way the crack works"
5. People take 4 at face value. And shit just stays up for years.
For shits and giggles, last year, I downloaded Catia from a torrent. Because the version I saw apparently runs in Wine and I wanted to check it out. I ran it through a scanner. It was infected. Did *any* of the comments mention even a false positive? No. It's just that malware scanning had finally caught up to the malware being spread.
It sat there for a year before I ran into it and scanned it. A year of positive comments and spreading malware.
1. Unless you can get your grubby hands on the physical media, check the MD5.
2. If it doesn't match, don't use it. It's poisoned. Even if it scans clean, it's fucking poisoned.
This rules out every single "custom" eXPerience "trimmed" Windows. Because even if eXPerience himself does not infect his ISOs, other people take his, add their malware, and upload. And since the MD5 sum never matches the Microsoft MD5 in the first place anyway, and eXPerience doesn't sign his own versions, who the fuck is to tell is the uninfected one?
Uploading an infected torrent is the best way to build a botnet from scratch. QED.
So go ahead, tell me again how I am an agent of the BSA.
Jerk.
--
BMO
Incidentally, I removed the foe status, because I set it in a fit of pique.
--
BMO
I goofed the first sentence. It should read:
Each of those things under B and A are connected by OR statements.
--
BMO
Each of those things under B are connected by OR statements.
What you cited doesn't have to be tied to the last bit that I bolded.
>whether I care
At this point, I don't any more. You're not a lawyer even though you are trying to pretend to be one. I'm not a lawyer, but I can logic and I can read. The cases you are citing are not applicable to this situation because they are about different parts of that stuff between the ORs.
I would be more inclined to agree with your side if you actually cited cases that were applicable.
--
BMO
And to follow up, I anticipate that you are going to say that I am arguing semantics.
Logical operators in laws mean the same thing in language as they do in math and symbolic logic (also math).
--
BMO