I would love to have this technology so everyone sitting in front a monitor could view others naked in front of their monitors. It would be great for business.
p.s. I really would like to see the bodies of most of the people posting at slasdot...:)
Open Source skills are highly regarded by employers.
So, they are going to teach open source skills? What is that? And whom in the business world regards open source skills as highly regarded?
Don't businesses just hire the best person with the skills they want? Is there such a thing as an open source skill? I have heard of open source, but never of open source skills (except for this self promotion by Sun.
Now, being someone who deals in Linux, Unix and "gasp" Windows, I can tell you that knowledge of these operating systems, their software, their programming all help and are highly regarded. But just the phrase "open source skills"?
Let's be realistic here...there are no open source skills; there is just a conduit into the universities by claiming their students are missing out on fundamentals of the changing business world. And the person's whispering this into the Deans' ears are the ones who stand to gain the most. This is just a marketing approach to further propogate their market share (not that I am against it at all; that's what business is for). But, let's call it what it is:
Teaching students to use their products so the companies benefit later.
Senior Editorial Staff of LinuxWorld Magazine Announce Resignations
MONTVALE, New Jersey, May 14th, 2005 --- The entire senior editorial staff of LinuxWorld Magazine has today announced that they will be leaving the magazine, effective immediately.
The following statement was released by the group. "We regret that Sys-Con Media has been unable to apply a standard of journalistic ethics that we can comfortably operate under. We feel that recent articles published with the consent of Sys-Con Media fail to meet minimum generally accepted journalistic codes, and because the management of Sys-Con Media has failed to acknowledge that the articles are by all informed judgment ethically unsupportable, we have decided we must find other avenues for our work."
FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: James Turner turner@blackbear.com 603-552-2020
Dee-Ann LeBlanc dee@renaissoft.com (604) 898-8433
Hold on, I need to type a message to 911...
on
Microsoft's 911 Patent
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Actually it looks too complex from the screenshot. It should be something simple like a big button for 911. Press it and your GPS sends an emergency to 911. Most emergencies are not going to allow you to type with a stylus. Further an one button approach makes it easy for children to do (if you are going to use this in a car).
I tried calling but the call was outsourced to India and I could not understand the customer service representative. But on the upside I was able to provide him with all my credit card and banking information so I know I will be safe flying.
I too think screenshots don't do anything. How about a review of performance for the new apps rather than a change of the color of the title bar to the application?
[i]A preliminary injunction is absurd in this case, because the alleged damages are easily monetized. Prelims are only supposed to be for situations in which an irreversable wrong might occur.[/i]
Not really true. A preliminary injunction is the appropriate response here. Basically the plaintiff is arguing Microsoft stole their IP. They do not want anyone using it who does not pay them for the license. They also do not have to let anyone ever use it. Why would a court force a company to license their IP against their will? They would not. This is the case here. Microsoft did not license the technology, but still used it (the plaintiff's argument). Therefore the plaintiff says to the court we ask you to force them to stop using it. If the plaintiff can show that there is a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of the case and that there is damage from not stopping them from using it now then the judge will grant the preliminary injunction. What the plaintiff argued (and it appears successfully) is that the harm they would suffer is that their trade secrets, their IP, is being used by someone else to unlawfully profit. If released by Microsoft someone could reverse engineer or possibly someone at Microsoft could be sloppy and release the source code, thus depriving the plaintiff of unspecific future losses.
You do not just deny a preliminary injunction because there is also the potential for money damages. In the legal system you have money damages (law) and non-money damages (equity). In this case they would have pleaded (asked for) both. First, money for stealing the IP and second a court order to stop them from using it.
What makes this newsworthy is that preliminary injunctions are hard to get and more difficult to win than a normal trial. Either the judge totally blew the hearing/order or there is enough evidence to support the plaintiff's claims at this point. And if there is enough to support their claims then Microsoft could be in a problem if they have to remove the code before release. However, I personally believe if this is the case they would simply buy the license or buy the company.
They choose CentOS because it is the stable version of the Redhat ES/AS server software. So, in effect, they are getting the same stable version as Redhat is selling minus the logo and copyright material.
Redhat still distributes the entire source code via the GPL. The volunteers at CentOS remove the copyrighted material and then release CentOS.
The reason why they use CentOS over the other distributions is that in a production environment you do not want to use anything potentially unstable (i.e., fedora) or anything constantly updated (i.e., the others). Rather than spending their time tinkering with the OS (i.e., upgrading or bug fixing) they concentrate on what the OS is supposed to be doing which is producing results for the department.
I agree. There were actually very few original written episodes. Everything was just a spin-off script from another ST season. If they had different writers with new ideas then it would have taken off. But rehashing the same old holodeck incident, time travel, alternate reality is just the same story, different characters. What makes any television show a blockbuster (or movie) is new ideas written without the tired old hash.
Look at anything which has had a new concept on television and been successful and you will not see any comments like oh, that show is the same as the one which was on years ago.
True, you will only get back what you actuall lost (Actual Damages). In this case it would be the cost of the domain for one year.
You could make an argument for implied damages based upon the loss of the domain if you had a business but you would have to show that there was some negligence or contractual arrangement between you and the registrar which allow for these damages (I'm guessing there isn't and there was terms which disclaimed any fitness of use warrant; that is, you are only out the cost of the domain).
Actually an unsatisfactory record due to unanswered complaints just means they didn't respond one way or another to the BBB. Either you have responded to the BBB or you haven't. If you have responded to the BBB but not made anyone happy you get a satisfactory rating. If you just blow off the BBB because they lack any power or jurisdiction over you and you don't want to take the time to respond to some nut case then you get an unsastifactory rating. Ratings from the BBB really don't mean anything anymore. The only benefit you get with the BBB is if the company is willing to work the the BBB (they are under no obligation to do so ever) to negotiate between the customer and the company. Take the rating with a grain of salt
First, a draft of a letter from an attorney will cost $100 minimum. Want to spend $100 chasing $10?
Then if they are like most people they will ignore the letter as it really means "nothing" in the business world. (I should know because as a former attorney I used to draft these all the time).
Just taking the letter to a judge will not do anything. You will have to file a lawsuit in at least small claims court (here that is about another $100; now down $200 for $10).
And if they show up most likely it will an attorney representing them, not a person who could do anything for you. The attorney will just be there to fight you.
And if they don't show up you will get a judgment. Big whip; it doesn't mean they have to pay. If they don't have assets in the state you are in they you need to file the judgment in their state (more cash to do this).
Then so what? They have a judgment against them; do you know how many people and companies have judgments against them and don't pay and you still can't get the cash? Lots. And this assumes you did everything correctly and did not miss a step AND that the court in the other state accepts the judgment without review (they are supposed to but if the defendant makes an argument that there wasn't due process they could reject the judgment and force you to litigate there). (Another $100 for filing fees, plus plane ticket, plus expenses).
As for the forced liquidation that doesn't happen. And even if you could do this you are not going to do it without an attorney who is going to charge $150 per hour which will take about $10,000 in fees, usually around $1000 upfront non-refundable.
Of course all of this assumes they even have any cash to begin with. If they are a corporation and the corporation has no cash left in it (or any assets) then you have your judgment and you are out how much?
$100 lawyer letter $100 filing fee $100 filing fee, second state $200 plane ticket to litigate in second state $1000 non-refundable retainer new lawyer
At a minimum $1500 cash out for a domain...
Look, while hiring an attorney seems to be a good idea for small amounts it isn't. When I was a practicing attorney if someone had a case which dealt with an amount less than $10,000 it usually wasn't worth it for them to hire an attorney at all. They needed to go to small claims court and if the amount was really small suck it up and move on. You can spend a lot of money chasing principle but you have to weigh that against what your time is worth. If it is worth more then drop it.
Oh, did I mention that at any time you have a judgment in small claims court you can invalidate it and retry the case again in the state I am in? That means after $1500 the defendant can make you start all over again.
It costs $75.00 to $96.00 where I am at. Not really small for a domain name. You can recoup this if the other side pays, but if they don't and you just get a judgement then you are out the money.
While this tactic might work in most areas it is definately will not do much here.
Aside from the fact that the lawyer will cost one thousand times more than the price of the domain if the place is just a reseller and is no longer in business then you are not going to get squat for cash even if you win. (Plus a lawsuit will take 6 months to even get to the point where you could do something.) And I know of no class action lawyer who would even be interested in something so small--they want large liquid corporations or it is a waste of their time.
Your best bet is to wait and redeem after the no-pick phase if it is a domain of a personal nature. If it is for business then go to another domain registrar and have them fight for you.
Actually you are mistaken in that you make the assumption he was spamming. The person merely said complaints were not handled fast enough. You assume he was the one spamming; he may have been just in the IP block next to the spammer or not at all. Also, you jump to the conclusion that the complaints were valid. They might be or they might not. I know of several situations where people submit false reports just to try to penalize others. Granted I do not know anything about the situation but you seem to call him a spammer and that is premature in this situation.
On that note, there are multiple black hole lists which do this and some of them are worse. I have never found multiple blocking to work that well because you do end up blocking legitimate traffic. And from what I have seen (and deal with) people would rather put up with the spam rather than block the legitimate traffic as well. Merely blocking whole blocks of Ips just makes people mad. If you have concrete proof of spamming from the datacenter go after them by unleashing the lawyers.
I was just looking a new housing development which was approved in late 2003 and just started the next phase. The images on this development show the new construction so at most the image was a year old and from the best I can see it appears to within 6 months. So while some images might be years old I think some are very up to date.
It would be very interesting to know how often images will be updated though.
You can see the key word in that defination as "declaration". This word has special meaning is is not what happened here. The attorney was arguing a case and not making a legal declaration. Further, it was in response to a question, and could be constued as a hypothetical.
In real life attorneys state a lot of different things in arguments and easily go back and forth on positions. This case does not have the issue of fair use in front of it so a passing statement like this will get news headlines but will not be binding.
Furthermore, even if this does come back up it can be easily defended by stating that one interpretation under the law is that it is fair use. However, at any time a client can assert a position contrary if they feel the situation has changed or they believe an extension or repeal in the law is now proper. That is, "I changed my mind and a better reading of the law now is that it is now fair use." That's okay to do.
If you had the situation where MGM was relying on fair use to win a case where they copied something as used it and stated that ripping a CD was okay under their circumstances then later they try to win another case where they are now asserting that it is illegal--that's was the defination is talking about.
The transition to an IP selling to others sounds like a bad idea for the company. I know several people who are chip designers and it seems there is a lot of competition in this area now. And the people I talk to do the design in house. Unless there is some great achievement no one is going to pay for IP to someone else when they can do it for themselves right now and have the staff and resources to do it.
Slashdot Mirror
I would love to have this technology so everyone sitting in front a monitor could view others naked in front of their monitors. It would be great for business. p.s. I really would like to see the bodies of most of the people posting at slasdot... :)
So, they are going to teach open source skills? What is that? And whom in the business world regards open source skills as highly regarded?
Don't businesses just hire the best person with the skills they want? Is there such a thing as an open source skill? I have heard of open source, but never of open source skills (except for this self promotion by Sun.
Now, being someone who deals in Linux, Unix and "gasp" Windows, I can tell you that knowledge of these operating systems, their software, their programming all help and are highly regarded. But just the phrase "open source skills"?
Let's be realistic here...there are no open source skills; there is just a conduit into the universities by claiming their students are missing out on fundamentals of the changing business world. And the person's whispering this into the Deans' ears are the ones who stand to gain the most. This is just a marketing approach to further propogate their market share (not that I am against it at all; that's what business is for). But, let's call it what it is:
Teaching students to use their products so the companies benefit later.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Senior Editorial Staff of LinuxWorld Magazine Announce
Resignations
MONTVALE, New Jersey, May 14th, 2005 --- The entire senior editorial staff of
LinuxWorld Magazine has today announced that they will be leaving the magazine,
effective immediately.
The following statement was released by the group. "We regret that Sys-Con Media has
been unable to apply a standard of journalistic ethics that we can comfortably operate
under. We feel that recent articles published with the consent of Sys-Con Media fail to
meet minimum generally accepted journalistic codes, and because the management of
Sys-Con Media has failed to acknowledge that the articles are by all informed judgment
ethically unsupportable, we have decided we must find other avenues for our work."
FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:
James Turner
turner@blackbear.com
603-552-2020
Dee-Ann LeBlanc
dee@renaissoft.com
(604) 898-8433
Actually it looks too complex from the screenshot. It should be something simple like a big button for 911. Press it and your GPS sends an emergency to 911. Most emergencies are not going to allow you to type with a stylus. Further an one button approach makes it easy for children to do (if you are going to use this in a car).
I tried calling but the call was outsourced to India and I could not understand the customer service representative. But on the upside I was able to provide him with all my credit card and banking information so I know I will be safe flying.
Stop making sense and move along.
I too think screenshots don't do anything. How about a review of performance for the new apps rather than a change of the color of the title bar to the application?
The social contract they (whoever they is) refer to is as good as the paper it was written on; no more, no less.
This site has a lot of window dressing (pun intended) to change the look and add a few items to XP to customize your interface.
Not really true. A preliminary injunction is the appropriate response here. Basically the plaintiff is arguing Microsoft stole their IP. They do not want anyone using it who does not pay them for the license. They also do not have to let anyone ever use it. Why would a court force a company to license their IP against their will? They would not. This is the case here. Microsoft did not license the technology, but still used it (the plaintiff's argument). Therefore the plaintiff says to the court we ask you to force them to stop using it. If the plaintiff can show that there is a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of the case and that there is damage from not stopping them from using it now then the judge will grant the preliminary injunction. What the plaintiff argued (and it appears successfully) is that the harm they would suffer is that their trade secrets, their IP, is being used by someone else to unlawfully profit. If released by Microsoft someone could reverse engineer or possibly someone at Microsoft could be sloppy and release the source code, thus depriving the plaintiff of unspecific future losses.
You do not just deny a preliminary injunction because there is also the potential for money damages. In the legal system you have money damages (law) and non-money damages (equity). In this case they would have pleaded (asked for) both. First, money for stealing the IP and second a court order to stop them from using it.
What makes this newsworthy is that preliminary injunctions are hard to get and more difficult to win than a normal trial. Either the judge totally blew the hearing/order or there is enough evidence to support the plaintiff's claims at this point. And if there is enough to support their claims then Microsoft could be in a problem if they have to remove the code before release. However, I personally believe if this is the case they would simply buy the license or buy the company.
They choose CentOS because it is the stable version of the Redhat ES/AS server software. So, in effect, they are getting the same stable version as Redhat is selling minus the logo and copyright material.
Redhat still distributes the entire source code via the GPL. The volunteers at CentOS remove the copyrighted material and then release CentOS.
The reason why they use CentOS over the other distributions is that in a production environment you do not want to use anything potentially unstable (i.e., fedora) or anything constantly updated (i.e., the others). Rather than spending their time tinkering with the OS (i.e., upgrading or bug fixing) they concentrate on what the OS is supposed to be doing which is producing results for the department.
I agree. There were actually very few original written episodes. Everything was just a spin-off script from another ST season. If they had different writers with new ideas then it would have taken off. But rehashing the same old holodeck incident, time travel, alternate reality is just the same story, different characters. What makes any television show a blockbuster (or movie) is new ideas written without the tired old hash.
Look at anything which has had a new concept on television and been successful and you will not see any comments like oh, that show is the same as the one which was on years ago.
Hmmm, 9% on $10.00 per year is how much to retire on? :(
In ten years the interest would be enough to buy another domain!
(Well, assuming there is no inflation on the price of the domain).
Dotster is good.
GoDaddy is good.
MelbourneIT is good.
Network Solutions is good.
The cheapest usually isn't.
True, you will only get back what you actuall lost (Actual Damages). In this case it would be the cost of the domain for one year.
You could make an argument for implied damages based upon the loss of the domain if you had a business but you would have to show that there was some negligence or contractual arrangement between you and the registrar which allow for these damages (I'm guessing there isn't and there was terms which disclaimed any fitness of use warrant; that is, you are only out the cost of the domain).
Actually an unsatisfactory record due to unanswered complaints just means they didn't respond one way or another to the BBB. Either you have responded to the BBB or you haven't. If you have responded to the BBB but not made anyone happy you get a satisfactory rating. If you just blow off the BBB because they lack any power or jurisdiction over you and you don't want to take the time to respond to some nut case then you get an unsastifactory rating. Ratings from the BBB really don't mean anything anymore. The only benefit you get with the BBB is if the company is willing to work the the BBB (they are under no obligation to do so ever) to negotiate between the customer and the company. Take the rating with a grain of salt
While this looks good in theory, it isn't.
First, a draft of a letter from an attorney will cost $100 minimum. Want to spend $100 chasing $10?
Then if they are like most people they will ignore the letter as it really means "nothing" in the business world. (I should know because as a former attorney I used to draft these all the time).
Just taking the letter to a judge will not do anything. You will have to file a lawsuit in at least small claims court (here that is about another $100; now down $200 for $10).
And if they show up most likely it will an attorney representing them, not a person who could do anything for you. The attorney will just be there to fight you.
And if they don't show up you will get a judgment. Big whip; it doesn't mean they have to pay. If they don't have assets in the state you are in they you need to file the judgment in their state (more cash to do this).
Then so what? They have a judgment against them; do you know how many people and companies have judgments against them and don't pay and you still can't get the cash? Lots. And this assumes you did everything correctly and did not miss a step AND that the court in the other state accepts the judgment without review (they are supposed to but if the defendant makes an argument that there wasn't due process they could reject the judgment and force you to litigate there). (Another $100 for filing fees, plus plane ticket, plus expenses).
As for the forced liquidation that doesn't happen. And even if you could do this you are not going to do it without an attorney who is going to charge $150 per hour which will take about $10,000 in fees, usually around $1000 upfront non-refundable.
Of course all of this assumes they even have any cash to begin with. If they are a corporation and the corporation has no cash left in it (or any assets) then you have your judgment and you are out how much?
$100 lawyer letter
$100 filing fee
$100 filing fee, second state
$200 plane ticket to litigate in second state
$1000 non-refundable retainer new lawyer
At a minimum $1500 cash out for a domain...
Look, while hiring an attorney seems to be a good idea for small amounts it isn't. When I was a practicing attorney if someone had a case which dealt with an amount less than $10,000 it usually wasn't worth it for them to hire an attorney at all. They needed to go to small claims court and if the amount was really small suck it up and move on. You can spend a lot of money chasing principle but you have to weigh that against what your time is worth. If it is worth more then drop it.
Oh, did I mention that at any time you have a judgment in small claims court you can invalidate it and retry the case again in the state I am in? That means after $1500 the defendant can make you start all over again.
It costs $75.00 to $96.00 where I am at. Not really small for a domain name. You can recoup this if the other side pays, but if they don't and you just get a judgement then you are out the money.
While this tactic might work in most areas it is definately will not do much here.
Aside from the fact that the lawyer will cost one thousand times more than the price of the domain if the place is just a reseller and is no longer in business then you are not going to get squat for cash even if you win. (Plus a lawsuit will take 6 months to even get to the point where you could do something.) And I know of no class action lawyer who would even be interested in something so small--they want large liquid corporations or it is a waste of their time.
Your best bet is to wait and redeem after the no-pick phase if it is a domain of a personal nature. If it is for business then go to another domain registrar and have them fight for you.
Maybe the troll was the pope?
Actually you are mistaken in that you make the assumption he was spamming. The person merely said complaints were not handled fast enough. You assume he was the one spamming; he may have been just in the IP block next to the spammer or not at all. Also, you jump to the conclusion that the complaints were valid. They might be or they might not. I know of several situations where people submit false reports just to try to penalize others. Granted I do not know anything about the situation but you seem to call him a spammer and that is premature in this situation.
On that note, there are multiple black hole lists which do this and some of them are worse. I have never found multiple blocking to work that well because you do end up blocking legitimate traffic. And from what I have seen (and deal with) people would rather put up with the spam rather than block the legitimate traffic as well. Merely blocking whole blocks of Ips just makes people mad. If you have concrete proof of spamming from the datacenter go after them by unleashing the lawyers.
I was just looking a new housing development which was approved in late 2003 and just started the next phase. The images on this development show the new construction so at most the image was a year old and from the best I can see it appears to within 6 months. So while some images might be years old I think some are very up to date.
It would be very interesting to know how often images will be updated though.
You can see the key word in that defination as "declaration". This word has special meaning is is not what happened here. The attorney was arguing a case and not making a legal declaration. Further, it was in response to a question, and could be constued as a hypothetical.
In real life attorneys state a lot of different things in arguments and easily go back and forth on positions. This case does not have the issue of fair use in front of it so a passing statement like this will get news headlines but will not be binding.
Furthermore, even if this does come back up it can be easily defended by stating that one interpretation under the law is that it is fair use. However, at any time a client can assert a position contrary if they feel the situation has changed or they believe an extension or repeal in the law is now proper. That is, "I changed my mind and a better reading of the law now is that it is now fair use." That's okay to do.
If you had the situation where MGM was relying on fair use to win a case where they copied something as used it and stated that ripping a CD was okay under their circumstances then later they try to win another case where they are now asserting that it is illegal--that's was the defination is talking about.
The transition to an IP selling to others sounds like a bad idea for the company. I know several people who are chip designers and it seems there is a lot of competition in this area now. And the people I talk to do the design in house. Unless there is some great achievement no one is going to pay for IP to someone else when they can do it for themselves right now and have the staff and resources to do it.
You bet ... nothings better than a fresh re-install. Beats having to diagnose a problem.... :)
installing Linux. Solves most of my problems.