The reason for allowing a low barrier intitially is that history has shown that if you don't do so you can get stuck in just figuring out what the plaintiff is trying to sue over. The Federal rules basically want to avoid this and get the parties into the meat of the suit--whether they did it or not. Some states still require very specific pleadings. That is, the plaintiff has to spell out in specifics what the defendant did. However, this leads to a lot of legal ploys. One time in a state which required specifics as an attorney for the defense I delayed the lawsuit for eight years withoug getting into any meaningful discovery or even allowing the plaintiffs to move the case forward. Compared to that I'll take the low barrier anyday.
As a former federal practice attorney this motion is going nowhere.
Federal rules allow a plaintiff in a lawsuit to just give enough notice to the defendant so they have a clue; a small clue. Further procedures such as discovery, document requests and depositions are meant to bring out the specifics of how and why. Federal Judges allow alot of leeway in these because that's what the case law lets them do. And, even if the defendants were to show that the plaintiff didn't provide them with enough notice 99 times out of 100 the Judge just rules that the plaintiff has to file a restated complaint with more information. (I have rarely heard of any case which was thrown out because of failure to plead.) Further, the cases these attorneys rely upon are mainly just district court opinions which are presuasive but not necessarily binding. The two appeals court cases they do rely on don't really help--one is out of the appellate circuit which does not make it binding and the other in circuit is just a general clarfication. This is nothing but a drive by the defendants attorneys to rack up billing hours or gain media attention.
The usage is really only good for comparing BSD distributions between each other. If someone doesn't use BSD they most likely won't spend the time filling out a BSD survey when they don't use the product (and besides they probably won't know about it anyway).
I am surprised by how high OpenBSD and NetBSD is. I would have initially thought it would be lower.
That's probably exactly what happened. They announced the move and then were confronted with incentives to stay with their current vendors. This happens all the time in business. A lot of times you (the business) are not getting the bottom line unless you are prepared to move on to a new vendor. And chances are they did not even migrate very much at all, if any.
Who bases their entire decision process (or any substanial part of it) on comments from J.C. from Dallas?
I guess I always assumed that these comments were spiked. Go look at a lot of books on Amazon. The first ten reviews are always by the writer of the book and their family. I found one book in which the review was the same, but just the paragraphs were changed around. Eight different people wrote the same words but re-arranged? Don't think so.
I mean, if you can't maintain and be compliant with the standards, then why even try
The reason is simple. With 90%+ market share in the browser world Microsoft just figures whatever they do *is* the standard. I don't agree with this but I can understand their thought process. If almost everyone is using my software product then what do I really care what the small other percentage is doing?
The only part repeated was the part where you don't understand that the resolution has no authority to do anything. You don't seem to understand the difference between affecting real change and just talking about it. You call me spineless because I think a non-binding resolution is crap.
You're right -- I would never vote for something which doesn't do anything. It's a waste of my time. Answer this though -- if the resolution passes what has it done to stop the situation in China? What impact will it have on China? What impact will it have on the management? Come back in one year and see what has changed. You can have the last word. Bye.
The reason why is that they can use this against the small developers who can't afford to fight the valid or invalid patent. Getting a bunch of patents and then you can make sure that you won't be left behind if someone does come up with a new innovation.
If you have a patent filing you can sick the lawyers on the small developers and squelsh them while you develop the product. A small software company would likely give in to the patent filing and the lawyers. The patents won't hold up against IBM or someone else in this class, but it certainly is an advantage against the small guys.
This is why the patent system is not fully functional at this time.
He couldn't find space for an Mac mini? It's only 6.5 inches wide and 2 inches tall.
If space was such a critical factor just get the iMac with the computer built into the monitor. Add a wireless keyboard and wireless mouse and you can store them in a drawer when not needed.
So, in reality we need more people to bring forth non-binding resolutions. Yes, a non-binding resolution will change everything...no, wait it does "NOTHING". Non-binding, i.e., optional. What kind of impact does a optional, ignore whenever you want, resolution change anything for a multi-billion dollar corporation?
No, the problem with people is that they say they want change only to talk the talk, and not walk the walk.
I'm for change, not just b.s. resolutions which don't do anything but grab media attention for an organization who really doesn't want to change anything. If they wanted to make a real change they would have made it non-binding.
Cisco sold their product with full knowledge that it was going to be used to censor people, therefore they have some responsibility.
But this just leads to a silly portioning of responsiblity. What if I bought my shares two years ago. Do I now get a free pass? Under this you are saying yes. (Assuming the deal wasn't going on then.) So, anyone who now buys Cisco is morally liable but everyone else gets a free ride? Some investors are morally liable but others aren't? Am I morally liable because I now hold on to my shares? What about someone who bought because they know Cisco grants millions of dollars of charity each year. Are they morally responsible for that or for the censorship? What about the person who buys a mutual fund and the fund buys Cisco now? Are they responsible? What about the person who buys a Linksys router? Linksys is owned by Cisco and therefore they are supplying money to a corporation who is selling the equipment to China. What about the charity which accepts a Linksys product? Are they supporting this censorship because they made the concious decision to use a product from a corporation supplying equipment to China? This is just an undefinable slippery slope. You can't give a black and white answer to any of these questions because there will always be exceptions because the owners of shares of stock are not the ones committing the censorship in this case. That's why they are not morally responsible.
Under your definition if you have any say in something you are therefore morally responsible. I don't believe that. I believe you have to have the power of the situation and have to be the one making the action in order to be morally responsible.
But, with your logic, if you can't change everything right away, it's not worth trying because it does nothing.
I totally don't understand this. If nothing happens, then what changes? We "feel" better because we voiced our opinion? I'm for real change, not for false contrivances. And that's all this is. It is not imposing real change, nor is it a step in the right direction. It's just media attention. And back to my original point, if they (the shareholders who brought this petition) really meant this they would not have made it totally optional (i.e., non-binding).
What I want to know is when they have a presentation or talk at What the Hack do they multicast in different languages? Or if you only know German you are out of luck for a Finnish speaker, etc.
Noun 1.investor investor - someone who commits capital in order to gain financial returns
Not, political change, financial return. That being said I would guarantee that 99.99% (or more) of all people who have bought Cisco stock don't own the stock because of Cisco's political motives. Do you own stock? If so, did you purchase the stock because you sought social change? Or are you trying to make a little money?
My main point in starting the thread was that this doesn't matter is because even if the shareholder's win they don't do anything. It's a non-binding resolution. That tells me they aren't even serious about it.
As for reaching the Chinese people I have never had a problem. I have had multiple Chinese clients in a wide variey of businesses and have never encountered censorship in reaching them via postal, telephone or electronic communications. I believe that if the Chinese truly wanted change they would effect the change themselves.
By this logic, if someone voted for Clinton in the past is morally responsible for the Monica Lewinski affair. If someone voted for FDR during WWII they would be morally responsible for the atomic bombing in Japan even though Truman gave the order? If so, then because the President is the Commander and Chief are they responsible for any war crimes committed by soldiers during the war. After all the President was in charge of the military.
Would those who against FDR/Truman be held not liable because their canidate lost the election? And anyone who voted for Nixon would be morally responsible for Watergate? And anyone who voted for Carter would be morally responsible for anyone held hostage in the Iran Crisis?
Exercising your right to vote one way or another does not absolve responsiblity to the person you are voting for, nor does it make you responsible for another person's actions. Granted in this case you can say you get what you voted for but it does not personally make you personally responsible for actions you are not directly taking.
If I shoot someone I am responsible. If I let a tree grow and then leave a stick on the ground am I morally responsible if someone pokes someone else with the stick. I know that sticks can be used this way, but I didn't do the action. Could it be forseen that someone might poke a stick at someone? Yes, but just because there is a possiblity that something could happen automatically make me morally responsible? If so, then everyone is responsible for everything as all possibilities are eventually possible. If I vote for someone and they kill someone would I then be morally responsible for the death? Even though I did not personally kill the person?
Therefore it's the people who vote to let Cisco keep providing the tools of oppression who have the responsability of helping to censor a population.
You miss the point. Even if they win it does nothing. And that's the original point of this thread. It's a non-binding resolution. It does nothing if they win, it does nothing if they lose. Putting it to a vote is a waste of time and resources to begin with.
Management. In the corporate world where billions of shares are floated the person owning 100, 1,000 or even 100,000 shares is just a very small fractional owner.
And saying the statement is a falsehood does not make it so. If the shareholders really cared about the resolution why did they make it non-binding?
The reason? Something else mattered more: the projected revenue from dealing with China.
What's worse? Someone who says I want the company to make money? Or someone who says the company must be politically minded but in secret hope they really don't do that and actually make money?
You misunderstand that statement. The statement is not about morality, but showing that the attempt at morality (or lack thereof) will have zero impact. The point of the petition (at least I hope its there point otherwise it is a waste of time) is to fundamentally change human rights in China. The people behind this petition wish to change the human rights in China by "denying" China equipment they need to do this. This is where the argument is flawed and this statement comes in. In a market where there is more than one vendor unless you have all agreeing to no supply the Chinese with the hardware anything you do at one company will not have an impact.
And, no, as a shareholder in Cisco I am not morally responsible for human rights violations. I being an owner am not actually making those decisions. I, as a shareholder, elected people to run the company and they make those decisions. If I don't like it I can elect a different board of directors or sell my ownership, but in the way the stock market work and capital ownership works I don't have day to day control and I really question whether I am morally responsible for anything I don't control. It's like saying I am morally responsible for what actions the President of the United States does if I voted for him. Does it make me responsible? No, don't think so.
As for the hitman analogy, that is wrong as well. You are trying to compare an analogy where I would be the actor in the situation to a situation where I am at least twice removed (once by the management of Cisco and another by the quote unquote legal government of China by which the people of China want or tolerate).
It's kind of fun to watch, but really screws up the talk schedule when someone announce they found a fed in the middle of a talk. This happened last year. They stop the talk, run to get a moderator and begin the interrogation.
Slashdot Mirror
The reason for allowing a low barrier intitially is that history has shown that if you don't do so you can get stuck in just figuring out what the plaintiff is trying to sue over. The Federal rules basically want to avoid this and get the parties into the meat of the suit--whether they did it or not. Some states still require very specific pleadings. That is, the plaintiff has to spell out in specifics what the defendant did. However, this leads to a lot of legal ploys. One time in a state which required specifics as an attorney for the defense I delayed the lawsuit for eight years withoug getting into any meaningful discovery or even allowing the plaintiffs to move the case forward. Compared to that I'll take the low barrier anyday.
As a former federal practice attorney this motion is going nowhere.
Federal rules allow a plaintiff in a lawsuit to just give enough notice to the defendant so they have a clue; a small clue. Further procedures such as discovery, document requests and depositions are meant to bring out the specifics of how and why. Federal Judges allow alot of leeway in these because that's what the case law lets them do. And, even if the defendants were to show that the plaintiff didn't provide them with enough notice 99 times out of 100 the Judge just rules that the plaintiff has to file a restated complaint with more information. (I have rarely heard of any case which was thrown out because of failure to plead.) Further, the cases these attorneys rely upon are mainly just district court opinions which are presuasive but not necessarily binding. The two appeals court cases they do rely on don't really help--one is out of the appellate circuit which does not make it binding and the other in circuit is just a general clarfication. This is nothing but a drive by the defendants attorneys to rack up billing hours or gain media attention.
The usage is really only good for comparing BSD distributions between each other. If someone doesn't use BSD they most likely won't spend the time filling out a BSD survey when they don't use the product (and besides they probably won't know about it anyway).
I am surprised by how high OpenBSD and NetBSD is. I would have initially thought it would be lower.
That's probably exactly what happened. They announced the move and then were confronted with incentives to stay with their current vendors. This happens all the time in business. A lot of times you (the business) are not getting the bottom line unless you are prepared to move on to a new vendor. And chances are they did not even migrate very much at all, if any.
Actually I think he has blacklisted the entire internet. The ones to be concerned about are spamcop, spamhaus, cbl, etc.
Who bases their entire decision process (or any substanial part of it) on comments from J.C. from Dallas?
I guess I always assumed that these comments were spiked. Go look at a lot of books on Amazon. The first ten reviews are always by the writer of the book and their family. I found one book in which the review was the same, but just the paragraphs were changed around. Eight different people wrote the same words but re-arranged? Don't think so.
Hey, Xena was hot.
And don't forget the actress playing Xena (Lucy Lawless) has the power of flight.
That information wants to be set free.
I mean, if you can't maintain and be compliant with the standards, then why even try
The reason is simple. With 90%+ market share in the browser world Microsoft just figures whatever they do *is* the standard. I don't agree with this but I can understand their thought process. If almost everyone is using my software product then what do I really care what the small other percentage is doing?
If they can really increase the range they can just stay home and connect to Defcon from the top of their house.
The only part repeated was the part where you don't understand that the resolution has no authority to do anything. You don't seem to understand the difference between affecting real change and just talking about it. You call me spineless because I think a non-binding resolution is crap.
You're right -- I would never vote for something which doesn't do anything. It's a waste of my time. Answer this though -- if the resolution passes what has it done to stop the situation in China? What impact will it have on China? What impact will it have on the management? Come back in one year and see what has changed. You can have the last word. Bye.
The reason why is that they can use this against the small developers who can't afford to fight the valid or invalid patent. Getting a bunch of patents and then you can make sure that you won't be left behind if someone does come up with a new innovation.
If you have a patent filing you can sick the lawyers on the small developers and squelsh them while you develop the product. A small software company would likely give in to the patent filing and the lawyers. The patents won't hold up against IBM or someone else in this class, but it certainly is an advantage against the small guys.
This is why the patent system is not fully functional at this time.
I meant store the keyboard and mouse in the drawer. :) That way all you have is basically the monitor on the counter.
He couldn't find space for an Mac mini? It's only 6.5 inches wide and 2 inches tall.
If space was such a critical factor just get the iMac with the computer built into the monitor. Add a wireless keyboard and wireless mouse and you can store them in a drawer when not needed.
So, in reality we need more people to bring forth non-binding resolutions. Yes, a non-binding resolution will change everything...no, wait it does "NOTHING". Non-binding, i.e., optional. What kind of impact does a optional, ignore whenever you want, resolution change anything for a multi-billion dollar corporation?
No, the problem with people is that they say they want change only to talk the talk, and not walk the walk.
I'm for change, not just b.s. resolutions which don't do anything but grab media attention for an organization who really doesn't want to change anything. If they wanted to make a real change they would have made it non-binding.
you go to get the free beer.
Cisco sold their product with full knowledge that it was going to be used to censor people, therefore they have some responsibility.
But this just leads to a silly portioning of responsiblity. What if I bought my shares two years ago. Do I now get a free pass? Under this you are saying yes. (Assuming the deal wasn't going on then.) So, anyone who now buys Cisco is morally liable but everyone else gets a free ride? Some investors are morally liable but others aren't? Am I morally liable because I now hold on to my shares? What about someone who bought because they know Cisco grants millions of dollars of charity each year. Are they morally responsible for that or for the censorship? What about the person who buys a mutual fund and the fund buys Cisco now? Are they responsible? What about the person who buys a Linksys router? Linksys is owned by Cisco and therefore they are supplying money to a corporation who is selling the equipment to China. What about the charity which accepts a Linksys product? Are they supporting this censorship because they made the concious decision to use a product from a corporation supplying equipment to China? This is just an undefinable slippery slope. You can't give a black and white answer to any of these questions because there will always be exceptions because the owners of shares of stock are not the ones committing the censorship in this case. That's why they are not morally responsible.
Under your definition if you have any say in something you are therefore morally responsible. I don't believe that. I believe you have to have the power of the situation and have to be the one making the action in order to be morally responsible.
But, with your logic, if you can't change everything right away, it's not worth trying because it does nothing.
I totally don't understand this. If nothing happens, then what changes? We "feel" better because we voiced our opinion? I'm for real change, not for false contrivances. And that's all this is. It is not imposing real change, nor is it a step in the right direction. It's just media attention. And back to my original point, if they (the shareholders who brought this petition) really meant this they would not have made it totally optional (i.e., non-binding).
What I want to know is when they have a presentation or talk at What the Hack do they multicast in different languages? Or if you only know German you are out of luck for a Finnish speaker, etc.
I think the SCO lawyers have already been paid all the cash they are going to get. And for any other work they do they get a % of the win.
Article here
From here:
Noun 1.investor investor - someone who commits capital in order to gain financial returns
Not, political change, financial return. That being said I would guarantee that 99.99% (or more) of all people who have bought Cisco stock don't own the stock because of Cisco's political motives. Do you own stock? If so, did you purchase the stock because you sought social change? Or are you trying to make a little money?
My main point in starting the thread was that this doesn't matter is because even if the shareholder's win they don't do anything. It's a non-binding resolution. That tells me they aren't even serious about it.
As for reaching the Chinese people I have never had a problem. I have had multiple Chinese clients in a wide variey of businesses and have never encountered censorship in reaching them via postal, telephone or electronic communications. I believe that if the Chinese truly wanted change they would effect the change themselves.
Sure it does.
By this logic, if someone voted for Clinton in the past is morally responsible for the Monica Lewinski affair. If someone voted for FDR during WWII they would be morally responsible for the atomic bombing in Japan even though Truman gave the order? If so, then because the President is the Commander and Chief are they responsible for any war crimes committed by soldiers during the war. After all the President was in charge of the military.
Would those who against FDR/Truman be held not liable because their canidate lost the election? And anyone who voted for Nixon would be morally responsible for Watergate? And anyone who voted for Carter would be morally responsible for anyone held hostage in the Iran Crisis?
Exercising your right to vote one way or another does not absolve responsiblity to the person you are voting for, nor does it make you responsible for another person's actions. Granted in this case you can say you get what you voted for but it does not personally make you personally responsible for actions you are not directly taking.
If I shoot someone I am responsible. If I let a tree grow and then leave a stick on the ground am I morally responsible if someone pokes someone else with the stick. I know that sticks can be used this way, but I didn't do the action. Could it be forseen that someone might poke a stick at someone? Yes, but just because there is a possiblity that something could happen automatically make me morally responsible? If so, then everyone is responsible for everything as all possibilities are eventually possible. If I vote for someone and they kill someone would I then be morally responsible for the death? Even though I did not personally kill the person?
Therefore it's the people who vote to let Cisco keep providing the tools of oppression who have the responsability of helping to censor a population.
You miss the point. Even if they win it does nothing. And that's the original point of this thread. It's a non-binding resolution. It does nothing if they win, it does nothing if they lose. Putting it to a vote is a waste of time and resources to begin with.
Management. In the corporate world where billions of shares are floated the person owning 100, 1,000 or even 100,000 shares is just a very small fractional owner.
And saying the statement is a falsehood does not make it so. If the shareholders really cared about the resolution why did they make it non-binding?
The reason? Something else mattered more: the projected revenue from dealing with China.
What's worse? Someone who says I want the company to make money? Or someone who says the company must be politically minded but in secret hope they really don't do that and actually make money?
You misunderstand that statement. The statement is not about morality, but showing that the attempt at morality (or lack thereof) will have zero impact. The point of the petition (at least I hope its there point otherwise it is a waste of time) is to fundamentally change human rights in China. The people behind this petition wish to change the human rights in China by "denying" China equipment they need to do this. This is where the argument is flawed and this statement comes in. In a market where there is more than one vendor unless you have all agreeing to no supply the Chinese with the hardware anything you do at one company will not have an impact.
And, no, as a shareholder in Cisco I am not morally responsible for human rights violations. I being an owner am not actually making those decisions. I, as a shareholder, elected people to run the company and they make those decisions. If I don't like it I can elect a different board of directors or sell my ownership, but in the way the stock market work and capital ownership works I don't have day to day control and I really question whether I am morally responsible for anything I don't control. It's like saying I am morally responsible for what actions the President of the United States does if I voted for him. Does it make me responsible? No, don't think so.
As for the hitman analogy, that is wrong as well. You are trying to compare an analogy where I would be the actor in the situation to a situation where I am at least twice removed (once by the management of Cisco and another by the quote unquote legal government of China by which the people of China want or tolerate).
Spot the Fed
It's kind of fun to watch, but really screws up the talk schedule when someone announce they found a fed in the middle of a talk. This happened last year. They stop the talk, run to get a moderator and begin the interrogation.