My wife is a junior high teacher and I raid her book supply for commuter reading. The best of the lot that I've come across is the Artemis Fowl by Eoin Colfer. It's tongue in cheek fantasy about a brilliant young thief who decides to steal gold from the Lower Elements Police Reconnaissance (LEPRecon for short). The sixth book in the series has just been released.
Now, regularly using a neighbor's wireless to avoid needing to pay for your own ISP (unless you have an agreement to split the cost - Of course, the ISPs hate this, but I see no ethical problem with it) or downloading kiddie porn or sucking a large portion of the available bandwidth... That gets into abusive territory, and such people should feel guilty.
If we're looking for a "legal" definition, these activities (with the exception of the kiddie porn) are unethical rather than illegal. If someone leaves a WAP open with the understanding that others may use it, they're leaving themselves open to others who abuse the privilege. A bit like telling the neighbors they can borrow stuff from the workshed and assuming they'll return it in good condition. Those who abuse the privilege should feel guilty, but they shouldn't be arrested.
And if the neighbors ain't neighborly, it's time to padlock the workshed.
A recent NPD Group report estimates that 19 per cent of US internet subscribers 13 and older download free music from P2P services, barely less than the 20 per cent reported when the RIAA began its user litigation campaign in 2003.
We're not comparing apples to apples here. We're comparing a number generated by a market research group to the number the RIAA used to justify its "litigation campaign." Based on the reliability of numbers the RIAA has produced in the past, I would take this to indicate a substantial increase in downloads of copyrighted music.
I wonder if the RIAA's campaign has served as an advertisement for the availability of free music?
How exactly is the GPL violating Anti-Trust laws? Doesn't the GPL do the exact *opposite*? The whole point of open source is to allow others to have access to the same code, thereby leveling the playing field
SCO tried this same stunt, and we know how well it worked out for them. It all turns on the parts of the anti-trust laws that targets predatory pricing. With predatory pricing, your company sells your product at a loss in order to bankrupt your competitor, then mark your prices up to a level you couldn't sustain if there was any competition. The argument goes that Linux, with a price of zero, must be anticompetitve since it is impossible to underprice them.
There's a whole raft of problems with this argument. Here's my short list. Feel free to add your own.
* The GPL isn't a monopoly. There's plenty of competition for software out there, including a convicted monopolist.
* GPL code cannot be priced up if a monopoly is ever achieved. The terms of the GPL prohibit charging for GPL code ever, so real predatory pricing is precluded.
* The antitrust laws have been gutted by a series of court cases. One of the "new" standards is harm to the consumer, an almost impossible to prove issue. (So, how do you know Netscape wouldn't have gone bankrupt anyway?) While Microsoft has benefited from this standard, it also will require Skype to prove that giving away software for free harms the consumer.
That's my short list. Like I said, please feel free to add your own.
It may be they listed it under scosource to show that scosource wasn't an unmitigated failure. A public relations stunt that is backfiring on them badly now.
If you read the transcripts you'll find that the deals were all about selling rights to SVRX source code, the same thing as SCOSource. Of course Darl et al are trying to backpedal on that one, but the protests ring hollow. Of course, you're probably right about them not having to list it as a SCOSource license and that's burning them in court now, but a SCOSource license was what it was.
Hanlon was just ripping off Napoleon. His quote was, "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence." I suppose that would make you both right, since stupidity and ignorance are both forms of incompetence. I think I'd categorize greed in with malice, since it requires a deliberate choice to do harm.
Bingo. The problem isn't that a good person couldn't use the information gathered for good, the problem is that bad people could use the information for a grand array of nefarious schemes.
It is obvious that once the question 'Who should rule?' is formulated, it is very hard to avoid an answer such as 'the best', 'the most clever', 'the born ruler'.... But this kind of answer, no matter how convincing it sounds - because who would side with a government led by 'the worst', 'the stupidest person', 'the born slave'? - is of no use at all. It is not easy to have a government who relies absolutely on kindness and goodness. If we allow this to happen, then we have to ask, if the political thinking should not consider the possibility of a bad government, if we should not be prepared for the worst leaders but hope for the best ones. That leads to a new approach to politics, because it forces us to replace the question 'Who should rule?' with the question 'How should we arrange the political institutions so the bad and incompetent rulers will not be able to cause too much harm?
-- Karl Popper, Open Society and its Enemies
And I can guess what the next step in the dance is. Now that they've suggested that teachers pick out the Bad Seeds, there are going to be objections. The next step is to "compromise" and offer the more "democratic" option of simply requiring that everyone provide DNA samples. All your heritage and genetic dispositions available and ready for browsing in the database. Feel better now?
Critics are already comparing Apple's methods to Comcast's anti-net neutrality filtering, and Microsoft's Netscape-killing antitrust tactics. Could Apple face government regulators?
Now that's just silly. In order to be subject to the antimonopoly laws, you need to have a monopoly in the relevant market. Just when did Apple corner the market on smart phones? Despite iPhone's current sales surge, Blackberry still has more phones out there than Apple. Add it Palm's Treo and the assortment of phones from companies like Nokia, and iPhone is practically a bit player.
Antitrust laws are a last resort for when the market can't correct itself. If Apple keeps up with this crap they risk the more dire consequence of consumers simply abandoning their platform. Can you say, Apple Lisa?
But is it collaborative if you can come in after the fact, see what other people have done and write down the answers yourself without any interaction with the original group.
First of all, that sort of cheating is easy to do and hard to catch. It goes on all the time without the benefit of the internet.
And it doesn't help its practitioners. Keep in mind that even if you got every answer from the forum and it was always right (not guaranteed if you have no idea how things work or how to sift the right answers from the wrong) this was only 10% of the grade. The homework is just an exercise to get you to understand the subject, which is why it's such a low percent of the grade. The other 90% of the grade is presumably in lab work and exams where you can't just use a posting from the net. The only way a study forum helps is if the participants actually learn the topic at hand rather than just quoting others by rote.
And isn't that supposed to be the point of the exercise?
It's always important to notice when an article starts off with "The SCO Group plans..." and then doesn't seek out any verification or outside opinions. It's probably another lazy journalism piece where the author simply rewords a press release and calls it "news". All this article does is lay out a motion with no investigation into the context.
For example, you would think he would have noticed that Novell has already objected to the reorg because of the sketchy details. Like, does SNCP even have access to that kind of money? There is this article that says Norris might have Middle East connections, but no explanations of why those connections would want in on the SCO case. Or how much of the bill they'd be willing to cough up. The schedule's a bit iffy too. Novell points out that SCO's hanging on to the "definitive documents" on the reorg and isn't planning on releasing them until the day that objections to the reorg are due. Read carefully and you'll see that objections are due by March 26th at 4:00pm, while the documents are to be released on March 26th, but with no time stated. Any bets on SCO planning on providing those at 4:01pm?
Keep in mind that SCO has already proposed and scrapped a bailout deal. In that one, they were playing a shell game where all the company's assets (and execs) went one way, while all the company's liabilities went the other. Needless to say, the courts weren't going to let that happen.
The bottom line is that this is SCO, so you already know it's a scam. It's just a matter of waiting and watching to determine what kind of scam they're trying to run this time.
Each former CEO said that it was his understanding that Novell had sold Santa Cruz the entire UNIX operating system business, including copyrights.
And this matters how? CEOs don't negotiate contracts or worry about details like that. Their job is to set the general direction of the business and delegate the details. Frankenburg decided to get out of the UNIX business and sell it to Santa Cruz, then delegated the details to the lawyers. It was the lawyers who found out Santa Cruz didn't have nearly enough money to compensate Novell for all the cash the UNIX licensing business brought in, so they worked out an agreement to send the proceeds from that on to Novell. And they were concerned about what would happen if Santa Cruz went bankrupt, so they held on to some rights, including the copyrights. But those were all just implementation details. Even at the time, Frankenburg wouldn't have been more than passingly intrested in those sorts of details.
Which is why they have contracts. This kind of stuff needs to be written down if anybody is going to remember the details all these years later.
Starting from the deliberately inflammatory headline -- note that he never tries to explain how a ruling by a District Court judge after three years of trial amounts to "mob justice" -- Parloff is scrounging for a pro-SCO angle here. He finally settles on this:
And as any second-semester law student knows, a judge can grant such a motion only when, as innumerable courts in every state and federal jurisdiction have repeatedly written, "the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion [i.e., SCO, in this situation], shows there are no genuine issues of material fact."
That's right, as far as it goes. Kimball actually said that SCO didn't have any genuine issues of material fact on their side. Parloff then goes on to pull up some stuff he thinks qualifies as "issues of material fact":
The then-CEOs of both Santa Cruz and Novell (yes, of Novell too) each supported SCO's position in their testimony -- i.e., the position Judge Kimball rejected without even letting a jury hear it.
True enough. The trouble is that the CEOs weren't involved in writing that contract. All the lawyers who were actually involved (on both sides) agreed with Novell. As did all the contemporaneous documents.
But the key issue is that none of that matters. The contract has specific language, called an "integration clause" saying that only what's in the contract matters. Anything outside the contract, like who remembers what, is irrelevant. The contract cannot possibly be read to say that SCO owns the copyrights because the contract explicitly says that copyrights are not to be transferred. Parloff actually touches on this near the bottom of his article, but then dismisses it based on SCO's argument that -- elsewhere in the contract -- it says "all rights and ownership". Now he's just being coy because the actual wording is something more like "all rights and ownership, except those included in section X". And copyright law is very explicit about the kind of language you have to use to transfer copyrights.
It's not always possible to tell a shill from an honest journalist, but SCO and their obvious shills (like Maureen O'Gara) started making claims that Kimball was legally incompetent and often overturned on appeal (not true) at about the same time Parloff came up with this bit of legal opinion. None of the regular press came to the same conclusion. Since he's playing the same riff, I'm guessing he's with the band.
Microsoft wouldn't touch SCO with a pole, regardless of length. First of all, it's SCO's creditor committee -- soon to be headed by Novell -- which gets to determine what happens with SCO's assets. Secondly, SCO doesn't have any assets worth buying. Kimball's decision made it perfectly clear that SCO's rights could not be used the way SCO was attempting to use them. Finally, Microsoft tries to leave the impression that any FUD is not coming from them, preferring to fund a cat's paw like SCO to do their dirty work. It would be far more likely for Microsoft to fund a patent troll to attempt to pull off an "emergency" purchase of assets from the bankruptcy.
However, while the stay will be lifted in order to enable the District Court to determine the License Issues, this Court will determine whether a constructive trust is appropriate because it is the very essence of a bankruptcy court's jurisdiction to decide what is property of the estate.
The constructive trust is a big deal because it would immediately remove a chunk of money from SCO's hands, handicapping SCO's ability to pursue the lawsuits. However, in practical terms, it probably doesn't make a difference. If Kimball sets the dollar amount SCO owes Novell anywhere near the amount expected, it means Novell becomes SCO's chief creditor and head of the creditor committee. From there, Novell largely calls the shots in any "reconstruction" plans SCO proposes. One of Novell's options would be to request to convert the bankruptcy from Chapter 11 to Chapter 7 based on the fact that SCO has never been able to make money, aside from what they "converted" (a.k.a., "stole") from Novell.
In any case, just because Judge Gross is reserving the right to order a constructive trust for himself doesn't mean he won't decide to order one once Kimball rules anyway.
But a purchase price of $30,000 for a hybrid (which you'll need if you plan to drive it more than 120 miles round trip without a recharge), no cargo space, and room for only one passenger makes this an extremely limited option.
According to Wikipedia the average electric costs two to four cents a mile to run. For arguments sake, let's call it three cents. And suppose a gasoline vehicle gets thirty miles per gallon. So the thirty miles that you can travel with a gallon of case would cost ninety cents for an electric car (YMMV). If you buy ten gallons of gas a week, that's twenty bucks a week and $1040.00 a year. Double that if you buy twenty gallons a week.
All this depends on your situation, so you're going to have to run the numbers for yourself, but -- since bigger batteries are one of the things that make electric cars more expensive -- you're going to want to take the all-electric range of the vehicle into account when considering the cost. The Aptera has a 120 mile all-electric range, but it's only forty miles for the Volt. If you only have a twenty mile commute, the Aptera might not be worth it, but might be if you're dealing with a sixty mile commute.
None of those rules (except maybe checking your statements carefully) will help with the problem the article described. His wife was "shown" a page that obscured the opt-out of an offer, then charged for it. You might catch it if you go over your statements every month, but he observed that they deliberately keep the payments low so they can slip in under the radar. Basically, they're "selling" you something without your knowing it, using the cached credit card information from your previous transaction. I suggest you add one of his suggestions to your list:
After you complete the transaction (the page will say this) and BEFORE YOU DO ANYTHING ELSE, close the browser. Kill it -- and the session data. Then open a new browser to continue whatever you want to do. Never navigate away from a completed transaction page.
I think the easiest way to do this would be using Firefox tabs. When you click on "go to checkout", use a right click and select "Open Link in New Tab". As soon as you have the confirmation from the thing you wanted to buy, close the tab without clicking anything else. That way, any browsing history still works so you could go back and look at something else and only the information associated with the transaction itself is killed.
As a side note, I noticed that the scammers showed up in the blog protesting their innocence. Out of curiosity I went to the Webloyalty web site to see what they were selling. But the pitch is targeted solely at web site operators based on the commissions that Webloyalty will give them. You have to follow a couple links in before you find out that what they "sell" is a list of garbage services nobody in their right mind would actually pay for. Curiously, it's mostly some form of "protection" (travel protection, elite entertainment protection, identity theft protection, et cetera).
Mandriva can "imply" that the deal is "legally questionable", but this tells us nearly nothing about the actual legal situation.
Okay, let's stick with what the article does tell us.
A government agency -- the USPF -- had determined that Mandriva Linux was the best choice on the new machines it had purchased.
The government hired a contractor -- TSC -- to install the new machines with Mandriva Linux.
Microsoft's local manager claims that they're cutting a deal with the contractor to pay them (not the government) $400,000 for "marketing" when the machines are converted to Windows. (Umm, marketing? What marketing?)
The contractor begins the process of converting the machines to Windows, dropping Mandriva.
The government finds out and vetoes the deal.
I'm no expert on international law, but I would love to hear how this would not be bribery.
Novell needs to become an official creditor first.
on
Novell to SCO - Pay Up
·
· Score: 1
As matters stand, SCO is trying to put together a debtor's committee which does not include Novell. The debtor's committee is supposed to be composed of SCO's biggest creditors, but -- since Kimball's court hasn't set an amount yet -- SCO has been claiming that Novell isn't on that list. Keep in mind that the top dollar amount on SCO's list is around half a million. Novell claims that SCO converted (a.k.a. "stole") about $25 million of Novell's money. By excluding Novell from the list, PJ over at Groklaw has been complaining that SCO's list looks more like a "list of perps" for SCO's Linux shakedown. SCO's lawyers make the list, as do both Microsoft and Sun. And the Canopy Group. Conspicuously absent are IBM and Novell, either one of which would become the lead creditor if it wasn't for the automatic stay. And, in bankruptcy, the person who is owed the most has the most to say about what happens with the debtor.
If SCO gets their way, SCO's bankruptcy will be resolved without reference to the companies which SCO owes the most money.
Someone, maybe Novell, needs to ask the Bankruptcy Court to deny SCO's filing for Chapter 11 on the grounds that there's no way they can re-organize into a viable operation, and therefore they need to be liquidated. Then the creditors can auction off the honor of kicking Darl out on his ass.
They need to lift the stay on the trial first. As matters stand, Kimball has said that SCO owes Novell money, but has not set an amount. SCO's declaration of bankruptcy stayed that trial -- which was scheduled to start Monday -- so, theoretically, the amount SCO owed Novell could be trivial. Novell needs to get the stay lifted so that Kimball can declare how much money SCO owes Novell. Then Novell could return to the bankruptcy court and request that the filing be changed to a chapter 11 since there is no way for SCO to make good on their debts.
Keep in mind that Novell isn't in exactly the same boat as the other SCO creditors. Novell is claiming that SCO breached it's fiduciary duty and converted (i.e., stole) money that belonged to Novell. As a result, any money SCO has isn't SCO's money at all, but stolen goods. Expect Novell to argue that it would be inappropriate for SCO to be allowed to use Novell's money to finance SCO's reorganization.
Let's just take the references to computers out of this allegedly brilliant invention and see what we have:
A system which associates on-line information with geographic areas, said system comprising... an organizer... configured to search requests... comprising.. a database of information organized into a hierarchy of geographical areas wherein entries corresponding to each one of said hierarchy of geographical areas is further organized into topics and... a search engine... configured to geographically and topically... to elect one of said hierarchy of geographical area prior to selecton of a topic so as to provide a geographical search area... within said selected geographical search area.
I remember back when I was a kid (we're talking about the sixties here) that some libraries had phone books from all the surrounding areas. Each phone book represented a distinct geographic area and the back of the phone book had businesses listed by type. The phone books were also grouped by area, meeting the test for a "hierarchy" of geographical areas. You just grabbed the book (or books) that represented the geographical area you were interested in and flipped to the topic you're searching for.
I submit that merely automating an existing clerical process is inherently too obvious to pass the bar as a patentable invention.
It is possible that Judge K. will rule on Novell's request (from four months ago iirc) that all the money in SCO's possession be put in a trust account.
While it's possible that Kimball will rule from the bench, it has not been his style to do so with anything major. He tends to assemble rulings that cover every point raised in the hearing, including some he claims weren't really worth listening to in the first place. For example, in the IBM case, SCO argued that a ruling had to be reviewed from the starting point ("de novo"). Kimball said SCO was wrong and that a de novo review wasn't required, but that he did one anyway "out of an abundance of caution" and still found against SCO. Best guess is that he's doing it so the outcome of the case is bulletproofed against appeals; probably a good idea because SCO fights every detail tooth and nail, regardless of how hopeless the situation.
I do expect the hearing to at least generate some humor, especially item 180. This is where SCO tells the court (apparently with a straight face) that "the parties' intent under the APA and Amendments thereto is undisputed in SCO's favor." In English, they are saying there is no way the contract did not transfer copyrights in spite of the fact that the contract explicitly includes the copyrights in the list of things not transferred. I'm really looking forward to hearing their explanation of that one.
Well, we all knew that. According to the this documentary, the second bullet must have come from Kennedy's gun (the Kennedy from the alternate timeline) on the grassy knoll in order to correct the timeline and get the crew back to Red Dwarf. If Lister wasn't so hung up on Indian food, we wouldn't have these problems.
We're not talking about the real world here; the laws of physics do not apply. How hard would it be to simply make a character rape-proof and/or assault-proof? Maybe an unbreakable bubble that forms on command and overrides any other programming or animations. Or just the ability to "freeze" the avatar at it's current status or to teleport away from the problem.
If a "rape" -- in any sense of the word -- is possible, it's because the rules of the sim make it possible. Change the rules. End of problem.
I hope this kid's parents have a lot of money so that they can get some justice for their son.
If I understand correctly, there are plenty of lawyers who are willing to work for a contingency fee; a percentage of the money made from a civil suit. I hope they're talking to one to see who can be profitably sued for what. I'd guess the teachers and school district at a minimum. I'd let the teachers off if they agreed to rat out the school board, who I see as the real villians of the piece.
Slashdot Mirror
My wife is a junior high teacher and I raid her book supply for commuter reading. The best of the lot that I've come across is the Artemis Fowl by Eoin Colfer. It's tongue in cheek fantasy about a brilliant young thief who decides to steal gold from the Lower Elements Police Reconnaissance (LEPRecon for short). The sixth book in the series has just been released.
And if the neighbors ain't neighborly, it's time to padlock the workshed.
I wonder if the RIAA's campaign has served as an advertisement for the availability of free music?
There's a whole raft of problems with this argument. Here's my short list. Feel free to add your own.
- * The GPL isn't a monopoly. There's plenty of competition for software out there, including a convicted monopolist.
- * GPL code cannot be priced up if a monopoly is ever achieved. The terms of the GPL prohibit charging for GPL code ever, so real predatory pricing is precluded.
- * The antitrust laws have been gutted by a series of court cases. One of the "new" standards is harm to the consumer, an almost impossible to prove issue. (So, how do you know Netscape wouldn't have gone bankrupt anyway?) While Microsoft has benefited from this standard, it also will require Skype to prove that giving away software for free harms the consumer.
That's my short list. Like I said, please feel free to add your own.If it quacks like a duck . . .
Hanlon was just ripping off Napoleon. His quote was, "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence." I suppose that would make you both right, since stupidity and ignorance are both forms of incompetence. I think I'd categorize greed in with malice, since it requires a deliberate choice to do harm.
Antitrust laws are a last resort for when the market can't correct itself. If Apple keeps up with this crap they risk the more dire consequence of consumers simply abandoning their platform. Can you say, Apple Lisa?
And it doesn't help its practitioners. Keep in mind that even if you got every answer from the forum and it was always right (not guaranteed if you have no idea how things work or how to sift the right answers from the wrong) this was only 10% of the grade. The homework is just an exercise to get you to understand the subject, which is why it's such a low percent of the grade. The other 90% of the grade is presumably in lab work and exams where you can't just use a posting from the net. The only way a study forum helps is if the participants actually learn the topic at hand rather than just quoting others by rote.
And isn't that supposed to be the point of the exercise?
It's always important to notice when an article starts off with "The SCO Group plans ..." and then doesn't seek out any verification or outside opinions. It's probably another lazy journalism piece where the author simply rewords a press release and calls it "news". All this article does is lay out a motion with no investigation into the context.
For example, you would think he would have noticed that Novell has already objected to the reorg because of the sketchy details. Like, does SNCP even have access to that kind of money? There is this article that says Norris might have Middle East connections, but no explanations of why those connections would want in on the SCO case. Or how much of the bill they'd be willing to cough up. The schedule's a bit iffy too. Novell points out that SCO's hanging on to the "definitive documents" on the reorg and isn't planning on releasing them until the day that objections to the reorg are due. Read carefully and you'll see that objections are due by March 26th at 4:00pm, while the documents are to be released on March 26th, but with no time stated. Any bets on SCO planning on providing those at 4:01pm?
Keep in mind that SCO has already proposed and scrapped a bailout deal. In that one, they were playing a shell game where all the company's assets (and execs) went one way, while all the company's liabilities went the other. Needless to say, the courts weren't going to let that happen.
The bottom line is that this is SCO, so you already know it's a scam. It's just a matter of waiting and watching to determine what kind of scam they're trying to run this time.
Darl McBride: "Copyright infringement? There's no copyright infringement here; pay no attention to these people."
Which is why they have contracts. This kind of stuff needs to be written down if anybody is going to remember the details all these years later.
But the key issue is that none of that matters. The contract has specific language, called an "integration clause" saying that only what's in the contract matters. Anything outside the contract, like who remembers what, is irrelevant. The contract cannot possibly be read to say that SCO owns the copyrights because the contract explicitly says that copyrights are not to be transferred. Parloff actually touches on this near the bottom of his article, but then dismisses it based on SCO's argument that -- elsewhere in the contract -- it says "all rights and ownership". Now he's just being coy because the actual wording is something more like "all rights and ownership, except those included in section X". And copyright law is very explicit about the kind of language you have to use to transfer copyrights.
It's not always possible to tell a shill from an honest journalist, but SCO and their obvious shills (like Maureen O'Gara) started making claims that Kimball was legally incompetent and often overturned on appeal (not true) at about the same time Parloff came up with this bit of legal opinion. None of the regular press came to the same conclusion. Since he's playing the same riff, I'm guessing he's with the band.
Microsoft wouldn't touch SCO with a pole, regardless of length. First of all, it's SCO's creditor committee -- soon to be headed by Novell -- which gets to determine what happens with SCO's assets. Secondly, SCO doesn't have any assets worth buying. Kimball's decision made it perfectly clear that SCO's rights could not be used the way SCO was attempting to use them. Finally, Microsoft tries to leave the impression that any FUD is not coming from them, preferring to fund a cat's paw like SCO to do their dirty work. It would be far more likely for Microsoft to fund a patent troll to attempt to pull off an "emergency" purchase of assets from the bankruptcy.
Oh, wait . . .
In any case, just because Judge Gross is reserving the right to order a constructive trust for himself doesn't mean he won't decide to order one once Kimball rules anyway.
All this depends on your situation, so you're going to have to run the numbers for yourself, but -- since bigger batteries are one of the things that make electric cars more expensive -- you're going to want to take the all-electric range of the vehicle into account when considering the cost. The Aptera has a 120 mile all-electric range, but it's only forty miles for the Volt. If you only have a twenty mile commute, the Aptera might not be worth it, but might be if you're dealing with a sixty mile commute.
Like I said: YMMV.
- After you complete the transaction (the page will say this) and BEFORE YOU DO ANYTHING ELSE, close the browser. Kill it -- and the session data. Then open a new browser to continue whatever you want to do. Never navigate away from a completed transaction page.
I think the easiest way to do this would be using Firefox tabs. When you click on "go to checkout", use a right click and select "Open Link in New Tab". As soon as you have the confirmation from the thing you wanted to buy, close the tab without clicking anything else. That way, any browsing history still works so you could go back and look at something else and only the information associated with the transaction itself is killed.As a side note, I noticed that the scammers showed up in the blog protesting their innocence. Out of curiosity I went to the Webloyalty web site to see what they were selling. But the pitch is targeted solely at web site operators based on the commissions that Webloyalty will give them. You have to follow a couple links in before you find out that what they "sell" is a list of garbage services nobody in their right mind would actually pay for. Curiously, it's mostly some form of "protection" (travel protection, elite entertainment protection, identity theft protection, et cetera).
I guess that makes it the new protection racket.
- A government agency -- the USPF -- had determined that Mandriva Linux was the best choice on the new machines it had purchased.
- The government hired a contractor -- TSC -- to install the new machines with Mandriva Linux.
- Microsoft's local manager claims that they're cutting a deal with the contractor to pay them (not the government) $400,000 for "marketing" when the machines are converted to Windows. (Umm, marketing? What marketing?)
- The contractor begins the process of converting the machines to Windows, dropping Mandriva.
- The government finds out and vetoes the deal.
I'm no expert on international law, but I would love to hear how this would not be bribery.As matters stand, SCO is trying to put together a debtor's committee which does not include Novell. The debtor's committee is supposed to be composed of SCO's biggest creditors, but -- since Kimball's court hasn't set an amount yet -- SCO has been claiming that Novell isn't on that list. Keep in mind that the top dollar amount on SCO's list is around half a million. Novell claims that SCO converted (a.k.a. "stole") about $25 million of Novell's money. By excluding Novell from the list, PJ over at Groklaw has been complaining that SCO's list looks more like a "list of perps" for SCO's Linux shakedown. SCO's lawyers make the list, as do both Microsoft and Sun. And the Canopy Group. Conspicuously absent are IBM and Novell, either one of which would become the lead creditor if it wasn't for the automatic stay. And, in bankruptcy, the person who is owed the most has the most to say about what happens with the debtor.
If SCO gets their way, SCO's bankruptcy will be resolved without reference to the companies which SCO owes the most money.
Keep in mind that Novell isn't in exactly the same boat as the other SCO creditors. Novell is claiming that SCO breached it's fiduciary duty and converted (i.e., stole) money that belonged to Novell. As a result, any money SCO has isn't SCO's money at all, but stolen goods. Expect Novell to argue that it would be inappropriate for SCO to be allowed to use Novell's money to finance SCO's reorganization.
I submit that merely automating an existing clerical process is inherently too obvious to pass the bar as a patentable invention.
I do expect the hearing to at least generate some humor, especially item 180. This is where SCO tells the court (apparently with a straight face) that "the parties' intent under the APA and Amendments thereto is undisputed in SCO's favor." In English, they are saying there is no way the contract did not transfer copyrights in spite of the fact that the contract explicitly includes the copyrights in the list of things not transferred. I'm really looking forward to hearing their explanation of that one.
Well, we all knew that. According to the this documentary, the second bullet must have come from Kennedy's gun (the Kennedy from the alternate timeline) on the grassy knoll in order to correct the timeline and get the crew back to Red Dwarf. If Lister wasn't so hung up on Indian food, we wouldn't have these problems.
We're not talking about the real world here; the laws of physics do not apply. How hard would it be to simply make a character rape-proof and/or assault-proof? Maybe an unbreakable bubble that forms on command and overrides any other programming or animations. Or just the ability to "freeze" the avatar at it's current status or to teleport away from the problem.
If a "rape" -- in any sense of the word -- is possible, it's because the rules of the sim make it possible. Change the rules. End of problem.