|
|
|
| Authored by: nsomos on Tuesday, September 04 2012 @ 10:31 PM EDT |
Please post corrections in this thread.
A summary in the title may be helpful.
Check against originals before offering any corrections to PDFs.
Thanks[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SilverWave on Tuesday, September 04 2012 @ 10:42 PM EDT |
:-)
---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Xfce 4.10, the Sane Linux Desktop - Authored by: SilverWave on Tuesday, September 04 2012 @ 10:46 PM EDT
- Ubuntu 12.04 – How to Install the Xubuntu Desktop *Should have done this years ago!* - Authored by: SilverWave on Tuesday, September 04 2012 @ 10:53 PM EDT
- iPhone Toppled! PC World - Galaxy S III Sales Top iPhone 4S in August - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 12:23 AM EDT
- 100% of publicly educated students in Estonia will learn how to code starting in the 1st grade - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 02:07 AM EDT
- Cambridge University helps new Raspberry Pi users break the crust with free guide, tutorials - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 04:20 AM EDT
- Just for fun BBC - 7 Questions on Patents - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 09:00 AM EDT
- I got 5 right - Authored by: artp on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 02:14 PM EDT
- I only got 3 n/t - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 03:03 AM EDT
- Re: I only got 3 - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 04:49 AM EDT
- Re: I only got 3 - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 10:41 AM EDT
- Leaked Prototype: Nokia “Lauta” RM-742 – Cancelled “Immediate” N9 Successor - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 09:57 AM EDT
- Working link - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 10:05 AM EDT
- Infographic: Ppatent-wars - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 11:19 AM EDT
- The Delphic Oracle's advice ought to be heeded by both Apple and Oracle - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 05:51 PM EDT
- Wikimedia Foundation seeks declaratory relief in response to legal threats from Internet Brands - Authored by: uchuha on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 01:29 AM EDT
- 4th Amendment v. your text messages - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 04:17 AM EDT
- Nokia apologises for 'faked' smartphone advertNokia apologises for 'faked' smartphone advert - Authored by: tiger99 on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 08:01 AM EDT
- The Linux Graphics Stack - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 08:50 AM EDT
- Bot-Mediated automatic takedowns of streaming video - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 10:49 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: SilverWave on Tuesday, September 04 2012 @ 10:43 PM EDT |
:-P
---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Is Congress Finally Considering Killing Patent Trolls? - Authored by: albert on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 01:54 PM EDT
- more likely - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 03:27 PM EDT
- FBI, AntiSec Spar On Apple IDs - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 04:03 PM EDT
- NP: "First Lady's convention speech removed from YouTube" - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 11:03 PM EDT
- Apple patent could remotely disable protesters' phone cameras - Authored by: soronlin on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 04:02 AM EDT
- Apple patent could remotely disable protesters' phone cameras - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 04:23 AM EDT
- Novel?? Non-obvious?? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 04:25 AM EDT
- Security - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 02:05 PM EDT
- Security - Authored by: albert on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 02:24 PM EDT
- Apple patent could remotely disable protesters' phone cameras - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 04:43 AM EDT
- or a car - Apple patent could remotely disable protesters' phone cameras - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 05:32 AM EDT
- Apple patent could remotely disable protesters' phone cameras - Authored by: Wol on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 05:35 AM EDT
- Apple patent could remotely disable protesters' phone cameras - Authored by: squib on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 06:10 AM EDT
- But... - Authored by: complex_number on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 07:24 AM EDT
- But... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 07:34 AM EDT
- But... - Authored by: JamesK on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 11:39 AM EDT
- But... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 12:35 PM EDT
- But... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 06:09 PM EDT
- Quiet carriages - Authored by: Wol on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 06:15 PM EDT
- But... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 11:59 AM EDT
- Apple patent could remotely disable protesters' phone cameras - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 07:49 AM EDT
- Criminal offence in the UK - Authored by: tiger99 on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 07:51 AM EDT
- Telecoms laws too - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 12:52 PM EDT
- Dear Barak: USPTO needs cease4 and desist order...(n/t) - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 07:52 AM EDT
- This must mean that a technology to ENABLE ownership of devices is also patentable... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 07:58 AM EDT
- Apple patent could remotely disable protesters' phone cameras - Authored by: kuroshima on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 08:40 AM EDT
- Apple patent could remotely disable protesters' phone cameras - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 08:47 AM EDT
- Sounds like Apple is asking for trouble. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 10:33 AM EDT
- Apple patent could remotely disable protesters' phone cameras - Authored by: JamesK on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 11:17 AM EDT
- Apple patent could remotely disable protesters' phone cameras - Authored by: JamesK on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 11:23 AM EDT
- Not the worst patent ever by far - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 01:21 PM EDT
- incentive not to buy an iPhone - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 02:03 PM EDT
- Apple patent could remotely disable protesters' phone cameras - Authored by: albert on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 03:15 PM EDT
- robots.txt - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 04:30 PM EDT
- Oh, Puhleeeze - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 04:47 PM EDT
- The vote is counted but doesn't affect the final outcome. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 03:47 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: SilverWave on Tuesday, September 04 2012 @ 10:43 PM EDT |
:-|
---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 04 2012 @ 10:50 PM EDT |
Ha, ha, chew on *that*, Larry. I can just imagine him seething
as he strokes his cat (as all evil "geniuses" are wont to do).
I don't normally engage in Schadenfreude but I'll make an
exception in this case.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 04 2012 @ 10:52 PM EDT |
About 1/10th the cost of mast for a single boat. A trivial amount.
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/10M-Mast-Breaks-on-Ellisons-Boat-69152032.h
tml
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 04 2012 @ 10:57 PM EDT |
Too bad, I wanted to read it. I think PJ may be reading too
much into the fact that the judge chose this order to
mention that there'd be no more "show me your shills" orders.
I suppose he could issue a one-sentence declaration all by
itself, but I don't think it's a big deal that he attached a
statement to another order instead. It doesn't really fit
completely with either of today's two orders, but if I had to
choose one of the two, I'd have made the same choice.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- sorry, i meant 1242 (n.t.) - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 04 2012 @ 10:58 PM EDT
- 1202 is 404 - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 11:40 AM EDT
- 1202 is 404 - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 02:25 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 04 2012 @ 11:02 PM EDT |
Sad about the reasoning for denying the e-discovery costs. It sounds to me like
the discovery effort was basically treated as a development project and hence
described as such in the line items. Next time maybe google will hire clerks to
print out everything and manually produce the discovery, resulting in more
recoverable-sounding costs but at much much greater expense.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: symbolset on Tuesday, September 04 2012 @ 11:06 PM EDT |
Hooray. One more step toward the inevitable appeals, but the court gives Oracle
a good talking to.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 02:36 AM EDT |
So how many "I got it wrong again" feathers does Florian Mueller have?
Or for that
matter does he really care.
/me has lost count.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 08:20 AM EDT |
As an experiment I have tried to get some trade journals to
link to or mention this story - so far to no avail. However if
a story mentions Google in some less than favorable way it
gets written immediately.
Do others have the same kind of experiences?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 10:39 AM EDT |
OK, Alsup said wrote some pretty harsh things about Oracle's
claims, and by extension, their legal team.
But do the lawyers care? Or do they explain it away as
"we were doing our level best for the client" and "law means
using every means at our disposal".
I can see that a critical statement by the judge could even
be seen (by potential new clients) as a reason TO go to
Oracle's law firm, just because of this "overreaching".
Do the judges words matter to the law firm being criticized?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cjk fossman on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 08:20 AM EDT |
I get how it's supposed to work.
My *buntu box has Unity, XFCE and KDE. They do not behave
the same. KDE (I think it's 4.4 or 4.5), for example,
forgets the display arrangement between power on sessions.
The XFCE display manager doesn't even recognize the second
display.
So I think my original question is legitimate.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Xorg etc - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 09:48 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 06 2012 @ 12:23 PM EDT |
Are we EVER Going to see the Requisite Sanctions that are
Supposed to come with
the "F" Word?
I hope a quote from The California
Ethics Rules is allowable.
Cornell Law 3.1:101 Model
Rule Comparison
MR 3.1 sets forth fundamentals with respect to a lawyer's
taking a legal position on behalf of any client. At a
minimum, the lawyer
needs (1) a non-frivolous basis and (2)
a good faith argument for any proposed
change in the law.
(One exception to these fundamentals applies, as discussed
below). This rule describes the boundary between zealous
representation and
abuse of legal procedure. The MR 3.1
Official Comment recognizes that the
boundary cannot be a
"bright-line," due to the murky and ever-changing
requirements of the law.
A California lawyer may maintain only such actions as
are
"legal or just," except when defending criminal actions, see
B&PC
� 6068(c), and "must not encourage either the
commencement or
continuance of an action or proceeding for
any corrupt motive of passion or
interest." CRPC 3-200
precludes a lawyer from accepting or continuing
employment
if he "knows or should know" that the object of employment
is
either (1) to bring an action, conduct a defense, assert
a position, or take an
appeal "without probable cause and
for the purpose of harassing or maliciously
injuring any
person," or (2) to present a claim or defense "not warranted
by
existing law, unless it can be supported by a good faith
argument for an
extension, modification or reversal of
existing law." [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
