Currently I'm using, and loving, Perl. It has a very active and helpful community, plus tons of modules that come with the system. While I do like Python, it doesn't have the support behind it that Perl does. Thats why I use Perl, and not Python.
Java seems to have the mark of the corporate beast on it: while it has its benefits and benefactors, it hasn't kept steam like Perl has. Personally, I'm liking the looks of JDK 1.4, with select(), assert(), faster Swing, and mostly-Perl-friendly regex classes built in.
Blackjack strategy cards have been around for ages. They come in laminated business-card size, so that you can put them in your wallet to study them anywhere.
There are dealer rule variations, which change the chart somewhat. For example, dealer hits on soft 17 means that if the dealer has 16, or has a 'soft 17' including an ace, but doesn't have 17 with non-ace cards or higher, then the dealer must hit. This is usually printed on the felt of the casino's blackjack tables, so it's hardly a secret.
There are other "moves" besides HIT and STAND. For maximum advantage, you have to know when to double down, or split, also. You don't need to know anything about Insurance-- it's a bad bet and the house makes a lot of profit from it.
The odds at perfect play are just barely in the house's favor, if you don't count cards. If you do count cards (even a simple increment/decrement on high/low cards), you may swing the odds to be slightly in your favor. The fewer decks the dealer uses, the worse it is for card counting, and the dealer can shuffle more often if they think you're counting. Some casinos will also ask you to leave if they analyze that you're a card-counting savant.
For an example, I just searched Google, and got this link.
By 2009 I think they should be sufficiently out of business.;)
Since they've been in business for over twenty years already (first product under X10 name was in 1979), that's probably not as likely as you'd think. The web just gave them a new way to reach a wider audience than the Radio Shack class of geeks.
Not a flame, but I don't think the suit did much to Microsoft's stock. Its initial fall may have in fact triggered the rest of the hi-tech correction, but it's basically recovered. Have many other companies in the same sector? How about all those "dot com bubble" companies doing 1:25 reverse splits, or the Linux companies who even attempted an IPO in the last year or so?
The Microsoft Algorithm:
1. Float trial balloon with extremely controversial idea.
2. Observe public reaction.
3. If people are sufficiently upset to consider switching to Linux, tone down the idea and go back to 1, looking like the public-sensitive hero. Else implement the idea and make a bundle of money.
4. Go to 1.
This is Microsoft. They're competent programmers. They know the best ins and outs of writing good programs. This skill is what has kept Microsoft on top all these years.
So any Microsoft programmer knows you're supposed to add new line numbers by TENs, so that you have room to insert bug fixes later.
So that's:
10 Float trial balloon with extremely controversial idea. ... and so on.
I really don't care what the actual ratio is, but I have seen first-hand pallets full of fake product ready to be distributed to various "expos" where unbundled wares and other stuff is laundered like regular semi-used product.
I've always figured that "shelfware" balances "fakeware." By "shelfware", I count all the unused copies of Microsoft products that were preinstalled but then deleted, or bought for an employee as a package but never actually used, for example.
I imagine the fakeware and the casual copying mostly just balance out this picture, but I don't have numbers to back this up.
If the BSA figures of "1 in 3" pirated applications being used today are anywhere near correct, do you think it's because corporations can't afford software?
No, it's because they figure that nobody will catch them ignoring the licensing issues.
China is only one of the large producers of fake Microsoft products. Fake Adobe and Autodesk and Macromedia products, as well, but fakes of these are a little harder to spot.
As a producer of any fake products, like Rolexes and Gucci items, they do it because there's a market for it.
But Open Source is free-as-in-beer, so why would they circumvent the licenses? The thicker the cultural apathy, the more prevalent it will be. They don't care about Western license law, they just grab what they can use, and use it. There are plenty of people in the USA and Britain and Canada and Australia who don't care about Western license law, so people in Eastern and Middle-Eastern and Latin-American and African countries are going to care even less.
Capitalism and Opportunism are often confused, so anywhere that capitalism is sprouting... opportunism thrives.
Stop mis-using First Amendment!
on
ORBS Forks
·
· Score: 2
First, I definitely think that ORBS-style blacklisting at the ISP level is bad for consumer choice, and blacklisting at the recipient level is where it should be done.
But PLEASE stop mis-using the First Amendment.
When you prevent someone from telling people about their issue or product, what ever it might be, in the United States, you are restriting their Constitutionally-guarenteed rights to free speech.
Here's the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, in FULL:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Does that say anywhere in it that ISPs cannot choose who or what to block from their networks? Let me repeat: ORBS at ISP level is bad business because it removes choice from the consumer. It is not, however, against the First Amendment. ORBS and ISPs are NOT the US Federal Government. They are NOT beholden to the First Amendment. They can do whatever boneheaded bad business decisions they want to do, with respect to controlling their own networks.
Secondly, the right to free speech does NOT mean that you have the right to be heard. If someone refuses to listen to your advertising message, that's their choice. You do not have the right to force them to hear your jingles or your offers for sexy hot teens.
It's such a short amendment, with such clear wording. Why does everyone mistake it so much?
Did you see that there's nothing but a front page? All of the links off the front page go back to the front page.
The product and its marketing materials aren't ready for prime time, and it's still getting flooded with slashdot referrer hits. I'm sure that just encourages "beta" press releases like this.
Snap Server supporting AppleShare, NetWare Bindery, SMB, NT Domain Controller, and remote administration.
Also, less interesting, basically a plain headless PC box with drive bays. Axis Storage Server, from the same guys who make the self-contained network-attached web camera.
I'm looking for a cheap and simple "appliance"-grade storage scheme. An ethernet jack, fixed IP address or DHCP, some Samba and FTP, and a drive bay. Nothing more. No shells, no boot sequence, no integrated USB jacks.
It would seem like this CerfCube and a matching DiskCube device would make a great little pair for simple stuff... of course you wouldn't want to host 10Khits/hour on it, but it could probably run a few fetch-and-store daily operations.
Federally funded software is most generally distributed without a copyright of any kind (Title 17, Section 105).
If it's released without any copyright, thus into the public domain, then can't anyone just appropriate it, alter it trivially, and claim copyright on the whole work? And thus GPL their trivially different strain?
The fact is Justice should have pursued this when it really mattered, back when 95 was coming onto the scene. Back when there were alternatives to Windows on the desktop.
Um, when Windows 95 was released, almost nobody was using Mosaic or Netscape or anything about the Internet. There was no standard TCP/IP stack for Windows, just a few good third party hacks.
I think you're confusing this case with the "One CPU, One EULA" cases that the OEMs were bringing to the courts. And even those didn't happen in a newsworthy way until 1997.
I suggest you read Scott McCloud's book, Reinventing Comics. He tackles the same self-deprecating issues that face comic artists throughought the last century.
Even legendary comic artists decided that what they were producing wasn't "art." When discussing Will Eisner's political views, the reknowned Rube Goldberg (of bizarre contraption comic fame) said, "Bullshit! What we do is not art! We're vaudevillians! And don't you ever forget that." (Not to mention that even vaudeville stage acts are a form of art!)
If you express yourself, it's art. If you didn't do it to further some physical need, it can be argued, then it may be art.
Scott McCloud also comments constantly about micropayments, writer's rights versus the big publishers, and other issues I see as near-and-dear to the software developer. His focus is on comics, but I see a LOT that applies to non-comics industries like software engineering.
If you have an icon that represents a floppy drive, I can think of a few ways to intuitively eject the disk: 1. A "button" on the icon that looks like an eject button - click on it to eject the disk.
I dunno, how about "a button on the DRIVE" to eject the disc? Just because software CAN do it, doesn't mean software should become the ONLY way to do it.
People have had 'eject' buttons since the first reel-to-reel tape devices, and a physical control to manipulate a physical process makes the most sense to a newcomer.
Sure, it might be separated out with software catches; today's CDROM drives have a physical button that merely asks the software to shut it down, and Macs were the first personal computer that didn't merely sever the electrical supply in order to power down.
I repeat, the physical control is often the most intuitive way to control the physical.
a poster to Slashdot could later demand it be deleted?
This case is different from Slashdot in two ways:
The freelancers were paid for the printing rights to their contract, and the printers then also took that to mean they had web-publishing rights as well. The court said no, you have to secure rights for the new medium with the original creators separately.
The posters on Slashdot are aware of the subsequent archival and searchability. They (1) posted content with the expectation of immediate publishing in this venue, so (2) they have granted web-publishing rights for the works. Subsequent small print on this site and others are just strengthening this case. The authors petitioning the court wrote and assigned rights for a known medium, print, and the court said that other mediums are not "by default" included.
This is akin to saying that a game developer who sells his idea to a CDROM publisher does not automatically forfeit the web publishing rights, nor any movie rights, nor any future medium such as on-site virtual reality theme park rights, and so on.
ts also almost 5 years to the date that my grades started slipping, and I started failing all of my classes. But those all-night frag-fests were worth it, eh?
Ah, so that's what they mean by "changed the world forever." The braindrain of millions of college-grade would-be engineers in North America and Europe. This is a good thing?
From: Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce
To: Slashdot Readership
Re: Use of the SMOG trademark
The Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce has worked hard to provide our visitors with the premium SMOG brand of processed air particles, and we feel it is a unique product in the world today. Thus, we must protect our unique product image with a trademark on the term SMOG.
We do not object to use of the slang term "smog" to describe unsolicited commercial air particles, although we do object to the use of our product image in association with that term. Also, if the term is to be used, it should be in all lowercase letters to distinguish it from our trademark SMOG, which should be used with all uppercase letters.
Sincerely,
The Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce
www.lachamber.net
So now the "endo-kerenl" OS will be upside-down: OS running in userspace processes for protection, but applications running in kernel space for performance!
You'll be happy to know that this was indeed the way that Windows (2.0) 386 was developed. The intended user vs system rings of the first protected mode Intel processor were used in the opposite way it was intended. This was to provide backwards compatibility with non-protected mode applications and unaware hardware.
One: Counter to some arguments here, GPS still has the feature called 'Selective Availability', Clinton just had it set to ZERO introduced error. It could be restored in any time of need, even on a continent-by-continent basis (that's the Selective part). But even with the SA set to its 1997 levels, a good 12channel GPS receiver would calculate a typical Estimated Positional Error (EPE) that would STILL only introduce a variation of about 5mph instantaneous velocity at highway speeds. Now it's about 2mph error even if the sampled satellites are mostly coplanar.
Two, a lot of people are commenting about their GPS giving a freak "200mph" moment when the receiver goes under a bridge or around a rock. In the three years and 76000+ miles I've driven on Garmin GPS III and III+ receivers, I've never seen this happen. Good GPS units do some initial statistical smoothing: tossing out single obviously bizarre readings. Throw out anything with a magnitude of acceleration greater than a certain cutoff maximum, or throw out deviations that last less than a minimum overall time. And if the company's logging you, they can do even more smoothing. Sure, you hit 76pmh for 20sec, but if you're passing someone on the highway, that's normal. Obviously you didn't go from 55mph to 135mph in 0.5sec, just to return to 56mph.
Acceleration and position analysis can give the car companies MORE ways to judge your driving habits with their equipment. SURCHARGE FOR QTY (2) SPINNING "DONUT" MANEUVERS: $45 ea. SURCHARGE FOR QTY (3) SPRINTING MANEUVERS: $45 ea. SURCHARGE FOR QTY (5) PANIC BREAKING MANEUVERS: $45 ea.
Four, the obvious seems to have missed many people here: it's a contract, and if you don't like it, don't sign it. If they write in the contract YOU WILL BE BILLED A SURCHARGE IF OUR CAR DETERMINES YOUR DRIVING EXCEEDS SAFE LIMITS, then honor it. It's their car. They can do what they want to do with it, and put what restrictions they want to put on it. Almost all 4WD cars are rented with the provision: THIS 4WD CAR MUST ONLY BE OPERATED ON PAVED ROADS; OFF-ROAD EXCURSIONS ARE FORBIDDEN. They don't want to fix it after you break it. Same thing here.
A very lengthy and detailed account of a currently pending case in the US 7th Circuit Federal Court system. It chronicles the case of one Bob Kolody as he fights Coca-Cola over some marketing intellectual property.
A very lengthy and detailed account of a currently pending case in the US 7th Circuit Federal Court system. It chronicles the case of one Bob Kolody as he fights Coca-Cola over some marketing intellectual property.
By the end of the article, we've seen armed US Marshals bursting into courtrooms, a judge's connection to the Chicago mafia, complicity in frauds on the Federal Courts and on the Copyright Office, and the whole fate of the case resting on a little-known angle on how the US Supreme Court works.
A definite must-read for the slashdot-type crowd.
There is a LOT that could be improved in this story. Specific references to court papers are made, but not enough detail is really presented to make it entirely convincing. It needs more footnotes, more links, more actual testimony, more data to go with this narrative. As it stands, it is just a very interesting outline for a John Grisham novel, made especially for conspiracy theorists. But if it's more than a quarter true, it's quite a worthy feat of "not scared of the big boys" journalism.
Slashdot Mirror
It could be said, as well,
Currently I'm using, and loving, Perl. It has a very active and helpful community, plus tons of modules that come with the system. While I do like Python, it doesn't have the support behind it that Perl does. Thats why I use Perl, and not Python.
Java seems to have the mark of the corporate beast on it: while it has its benefits and benefactors, it hasn't kept steam like Perl has. Personally, I'm liking the looks of JDK 1.4, with select(), assert(), faster Swing, and mostly-Perl-friendly regex classes built in.
Blackjack strategy cards have been around for ages. They come in laminated business-card size, so that you can put them in your wallet to study them anywhere.
There are dealer rule variations, which change the chart somewhat. For example, dealer hits on soft 17 means that if the dealer has 16, or has a 'soft 17' including an ace, but doesn't have 17 with non-ace cards or higher, then the dealer must hit. This is usually printed on the felt of the casino's blackjack tables, so it's hardly a secret.
There are other "moves" besides HIT and STAND. For maximum advantage, you have to know when to double down, or split, also. You don't need to know anything about Insurance-- it's a bad bet and the house makes a lot of profit from it.
The odds at perfect play are just barely in the house's favor, if you don't count cards. If you do count cards (even a simple increment/decrement on high/low cards), you may swing the odds to be slightly in your favor. The fewer decks the dealer uses, the worse it is for card counting, and the dealer can shuffle more often if they think you're counting. Some casinos will also ask you to leave if they analyze that you're a card-counting savant.
For an example, I just searched Google, and got this link.
By 2009 I think they should be sufficiently out of business. ;)
Since they've been in business for over twenty years already (first product under X10 name was in 1979), that's probably not as likely as you'd think. The web just gave them a new way to reach a wider audience than the Radio Shack class of geeks.
Not a flame, but I don't think the suit did much to Microsoft's stock. Its initial fall may have in fact triggered the rest of the hi-tech correction, but it's basically recovered. Have many other companies in the same sector? How about all those "dot com bubble" companies doing 1:25 reverse splits, or the Linux companies who even attempted an IPO in the last year or so?
The Microsoft Algorithm:
1. Float trial balloon with extremely controversial idea.
2. Observe public reaction.
3. If people are sufficiently upset to consider switching to Linux, tone down the idea and go back to 1, looking like the public-sensitive hero. Else implement the idea and make a bundle of money.
4. Go to 1.
This is Microsoft. They're competent programmers. They know the best ins and outs of writing good programs. This skill is what has kept Microsoft on top all these years.
So any Microsoft programmer knows you're supposed to add new line numbers by TENs, so that you have room to insert bug fixes later.
So that's:
... and so on.
Get with the program, guys!
excuse me, but we atlantans don't take kindly to idle talk of being bombed or enslaved...
Oh, but having commercials with McDonald's drive-through employees "talking" in that sacred tongue doesn't bother your image as an Atlantan, at all.
Or a sphere, floating in the air...
Brings a whole new meaning to the term, Bernoulli Drive.
I really don't care what the actual ratio is, but I have seen first-hand pallets full of fake product ready to be distributed to various "expos" where unbundled wares and other stuff is laundered like regular semi-used product.
I've always figured that "shelfware" balances "fakeware." By "shelfware", I count all the unused copies of Microsoft products that were preinstalled but then deleted, or bought for an employee as a package but never actually used, for example.
I imagine the fakeware and the casual copying mostly just balance out this picture, but I don't have numbers to back this up.
If the BSA figures of "1 in 3" pirated applications being used today are anywhere near correct, do you think it's because corporations can't afford software?
No, it's because they figure that nobody will catch them ignoring the licensing issues.
China is only one of the large producers of fake Microsoft products. Fake Adobe and Autodesk and Macromedia products, as well, but fakes of these are a little harder to spot.
As a producer of any fake products, like Rolexes and Gucci items, they do it because there's a market for it.
But Open Source is free-as-in-beer, so why would they circumvent the licenses? The thicker the cultural apathy, the more prevalent it will be. They don't care about Western license law, they just grab what they can use, and use it. There are plenty of people in the USA and Britain and Canada and Australia who don't care about Western license law, so people in Eastern and Middle-Eastern and Latin-American and African countries are going to care even less.
Capitalism and Opportunism are often confused, so anywhere that capitalism is sprouting... opportunism thrives.
First, I definitely think that ORBS-style blacklisting at the ISP level is bad for consumer choice, and blacklisting at the recipient level is where it should be done.
But PLEASE stop mis-using the First Amendment.
When you prevent someone from telling people about their issue or product, what ever it might be, in the United States, you are restriting their Constitutionally-guarenteed rights to free speech.
Here's the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, in FULL:
Does that say anywhere in it that ISPs cannot choose who or what to block from their networks? Let me repeat: ORBS at ISP level is bad business because it removes choice from the consumer. It is not, however, against the First Amendment. ORBS and ISPs are NOT the US Federal Government. They are NOT beholden to the First Amendment. They can do whatever boneheaded bad business decisions they want to do, with respect to controlling their own networks.
Secondly, the right to free speech does NOT mean that you have the right to be heard. If someone refuses to listen to your advertising message, that's their choice. You do not have the right to force them to hear your jingles or your offers for sexy hot teens.
It's such a short amendment, with such clear wording. Why does everyone mistake it so much?
Did you see that there's nothing but a front page? All of the links off the front page go back to the front page.
The product and its marketing materials aren't ready for prime time, and it's still getting flooded with slashdot referrer hits. I'm sure that just encourages "beta" press releases like this.
Responding to self...
Poking around a little, I found this:
Snap Server supporting AppleShare, NetWare Bindery, SMB, NT Domain Controller, and remote administration.
Also, less interesting, basically a plain headless PC box with drive bays. Axis Storage Server, from the same guys who make the self-contained network-attached web camera.
I'm looking for a cheap and simple "appliance"-grade storage scheme. An ethernet jack, fixed IP address or DHCP, some Samba and FTP, and a drive bay. Nothing more. No shells, no boot sequence, no integrated USB jacks.
It would seem like this CerfCube and a matching DiskCube device would make a great little pair for simple stuff... of course you wouldn't want to host 10Khits/hour on it, but it could probably run a few fetch-and-store daily operations.
Federally funded software is most generally distributed without a copyright of any kind (Title 17, Section 105).
If it's released without any copyright, thus into the public domain, then can't anyone just appropriate it, alter it trivially, and claim copyright on the whole work? And thus GPL their trivially different strain?
'natural gas', not natral gas or natrail gas.
'stopped', not stoped.
grammar much?
The fact is Justice should have pursued this when it really mattered, back when 95 was coming onto the scene. Back when there were alternatives to Windows on the desktop.
Um, when Windows 95 was released, almost nobody was using Mosaic or Netscape or anything about the Internet. There was no standard TCP/IP stack for Windows, just a few good third party hacks.
I think you're confusing this case with the "One CPU, One EULA" cases that the OEMs were bringing to the courts. And even those didn't happen in a newsworthy way until 1997.
I suggest you read Scott McCloud's book, Reinventing Comics. He tackles the same self-deprecating issues that face comic artists throughought the last century.
Even legendary comic artists decided that what they were producing wasn't "art." When discussing Will Eisner's political views, the reknowned Rube Goldberg (of bizarre contraption comic fame) said, "Bullshit! What we do is not art! We're vaudevillians! And don't you ever forget that." (Not to mention that even vaudeville stage acts are a form of art!)
If you express yourself, it's art. If you didn't do it to further some physical need, it can be argued, then it may be art.
Scott McCloud also comments constantly about micropayments, writer's rights versus the big publishers, and other issues I see as near-and-dear to the software developer. His focus is on comics, but I see a LOT that applies to non-comics industries like software engineering.
If you have an icon that represents a floppy drive, I can think of a few ways to intuitively eject the disk: 1. A "button" on the icon that looks like an eject button - click on it to eject the disk.
I dunno, how about "a button on the DRIVE" to eject the disc? Just because software CAN do it, doesn't mean software should become the ONLY way to do it.
People have had 'eject' buttons since the first reel-to-reel tape devices, and a physical control to manipulate a physical process makes the most sense to a newcomer.
Sure, it might be separated out with software catches; today's CDROM drives have a physical button that merely asks the software to shut it down, and Macs were the first personal computer that didn't merely sever the electrical supply in order to power down.
I repeat, the physical control is often the most intuitive way to control the physical.
a poster to Slashdot could later demand it be deleted?
This case is different from Slashdot in two ways:
This is akin to saying that a game developer who sells his idea to a CDROM publisher does not automatically forfeit the web publishing rights, nor any movie rights, nor any future medium such as on-site virtual reality theme park rights, and so on.
ts also almost 5 years to the date that my grades started slipping, and I started failing all of my classes. But those all-night frag-fests were worth it, eh?
Ah, so that's what they mean by "changed the world forever." The braindrain of millions of college-grade would-be engineers in North America and Europe. This is a good thing?
From: Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce
To: Slashdot Readership Re: Use of the SMOG trademark
The Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce has worked hard to provide our visitors with the premium SMOG brand of processed air particles, and we feel it is a unique product in the world today. Thus, we must protect our unique product image with a trademark on the term SMOG.
We do not object to use of the slang term "smog" to describe unsolicited commercial air particles, although we do object to the use of our product image in association with that term. Also, if the term is to be used, it should be in all lowercase letters to distinguish it from our trademark SMOG, which should be used with all uppercase letters.
Sincerely,
The Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce
www.lachamber.net
So now the "endo-kerenl" OS will be upside-down: OS running in userspace processes for protection, but applications running in kernel space for performance!
You'll be happy to know that this was indeed the way that Windows (2.0) 386 was developed. The intended user vs system rings of the first protected mode Intel processor were used in the opposite way it was intended. This was to provide backwards compatibility with non-protected mode applications and unaware hardware.
One: Counter to some arguments here, GPS still has the feature called 'Selective Availability', Clinton just had it set to ZERO introduced error. It could be restored in any time of need, even on a continent-by-continent basis (that's the Selective part). But even with the SA set to its 1997 levels, a good 12channel GPS receiver would calculate a typical Estimated Positional Error (EPE) that would STILL only introduce a variation of about 5mph instantaneous velocity at highway speeds. Now it's about 2mph error even if the sampled satellites are mostly coplanar.
Two, a lot of people are commenting about their GPS giving a freak "200mph" moment when the receiver goes under a bridge or around a rock. In the three years and 76000+ miles I've driven on Garmin GPS III and III+ receivers, I've never seen this happen. Good GPS units do some initial statistical smoothing: tossing out single obviously bizarre readings. Throw out anything with a magnitude of acceleration greater than a certain cutoff maximum, or throw out deviations that last less than a minimum overall time. And if the company's logging you, they can do even more smoothing. Sure, you hit 76pmh for 20sec, but if you're passing someone on the highway, that's normal. Obviously you didn't go from 55mph to 135mph in 0.5sec, just to return to 56mph.
Acceleration and position analysis can give the car companies MORE ways to judge your driving habits with their equipment. SURCHARGE FOR QTY (2) SPINNING "DONUT" MANEUVERS: $45 ea. SURCHARGE FOR QTY (3) SPRINTING MANEUVERS: $45 ea. SURCHARGE FOR QTY (5) PANIC BREAKING MANEUVERS: $45 ea.
Four, the obvious seems to have missed many people here: it's a contract, and if you don't like it, don't sign it. If they write in the contract YOU WILL BE BILLED A SURCHARGE IF OUR CAR DETERMINES YOUR DRIVING EXCEEDS SAFE LIMITS, then honor it. It's their car. They can do what they want to do with it, and put what restrictions they want to put on it. Almost all 4WD cars are rented with the provision: THIS 4WD CAR MUST ONLY BE OPERATED ON PAVED ROADS; OFF-ROAD EXCURSIONS ARE FORBIDDEN. They don't want to fix it after you break it. Same thing here.
A very lengthy and detailed account of a currently pending case in the US 7th Circuit Federal Court system. It chronicles the case of one Bob Kolody as he fights Coca-Cola over some marketing intellectual property.
http://www.guerillanews.com/cocakarma/
A very lengthy and detailed account of a currently pending case in the US 7th Circuit Federal Court system. It chronicles the case of one Bob Kolody as he fights Coca-Cola over some marketing intellectual property.
By the end of the article, we've seen armed US Marshals bursting into courtrooms, a judge's connection to the Chicago mafia, complicity in frauds on the Federal Courts and on the Copyright Office, and the whole fate of the case resting on a little-known angle on how the US Supreme Court works.
A definite must-read for the slashdot-type crowd.
There is a LOT that could be improved in this story. Specific references to court papers are made, but not enough detail is really presented to make it entirely convincing. It needs more footnotes, more links, more actual testimony, more data to go with this narrative. As it stands, it is just a very interesting outline for a John Grisham novel, made especially for conspiracy theorists. But if it's more than a quarter true, it's quite a worthy feat of "not scared of the big boys" journalism.