How we plan to expose cloud-based filesystems in Samba:
How we plan to expose cloud-based filesystems in Samba:
I know you're just a random slashdot poster, and I really shouldn't expect any better, but would it hurt you to look at the list of Document Foundation (the Org behind LibreOffice) and look at the list of supporters:
"Chris DiBona, Open Source Programs Manager at Google, Inc., has commented: "The creation of The Document Foundation is a great step forward in encouraging further development of open source office suites. Having a level playing field for all contributors is fundamental in creating a broad and active community around an open source software project. Google is proud to be a supporter of The Document Foundation and participate in the project".
Hint - supporters mean we fund them. I represent Google on the Board of Directors, and yes, nagging them about getting a full Android port is something I do *every* meeting.
I now return you to your regularly scheduled slashdot poster 2-minute-hate on "Big Corporations".
from this git entry I would suspect meta data parsing errors.
However, one cannot be sure about this.
Oh I am so going to do this and post a vid. This is a must do...
Comments like this make me giggle. I could say that same thing about most attempts at making a middleware engine out of Java (ICAN, JCAPS) that moves data around in Healthcare requiring more hand-holding and debugging than is worth it - but that too is just an opinion...
Then again, any badly created system in any language can share the same root "turdiness" - it depends upon how it's built and maintained. I've seen some awesome Perl code that is elegant and readable, as well as some that looks like it was coded by a lemur tripping on acid and smacking a keyboard with his tail because of the cool "clickety-click" sound it made.
Were you even a programmer for Quest? Granted I knew some of them back in the day - and a couple of them were rather scary to me - but I could also say the same about some Java, PHP or
Not quite. In COS (Cache Objectscript) just a superset of M really, the whole point of the language is to manipulate the data. You have the best of both worlds - the ability to store data hierarchically as well as relationally at the same time. Just figure out what you want to do and add in the appropriate indexes and write reports off of that. Like anything else you have to PLAN what the Hell you want to build before you go off and build it.
I have coded in MUMPS since it was on a PDP 11/84 called Digital Standard MUMPS (DSM), though the VAX years and up through the PC and now highly scaled systems. Coded, managed and maintained systems on AIX, Linux, Windows and HPUX, so I kind of have at least a modicum of understanding of its abilities. It's no slouch. It handles transactions - FAST. But then again, understand it was a system designed in the day when there wasn't a lot of money put into healthcare IT. It had to do stuff on little PC's (Micronetics MUMPS and DataTree MUMPS) when a small PC had to run an entire clinical laboratory - instrument interfaces and all. Try that back then with an early version of Oracle in the late 90's and a little computer would bawl its eyes out. I seem to recall Oracle at one point needing THREE CD's just for the ODBC driver? Yeah. That would have never flown in the "M" community. There wouldn't have been enough money to put out the three CD's
No - it's not magical. It's not the Hammer to Make All Problems Look Like a Nail. Though it is one of the most flexible, competent languages I have used - but like ANY language, it can be abhorrently abused and butchered. You can make structured code in M be simple enough that an 8 year old can understand it, or you can make it look like your computer just took a core dump on your screen. It's totally up to you if you want to avoid making "wicked" or "readable" code. It's the same in Perl, PHP or anything else...
You pick the toolset appropriate for your industry, company, product, need, etc. you have and code into its strengths. It can be a very capable back-end transactional server that would pound a comparable Oracle box into the sand and make it its bitch, but that is also dependent on having capable programmers to make it happen. You certainly won't need as many "handlers" in the way of FTE's to administer a Cache installation that you do with Oracle - but again, that too comes from experience working on both sides of the fence. You can have processes that support insanity or not. Totally up to the corporate culture everyone embraces.
Personally I love working with the toolset, but then again I'm biased. I've had to interface it to
The one reason that flash does not run on the iPhone is that a man with a black collar did not want all kind of flash games on his phone, he wanted to sell those games native from the app-store, and take a percentage on that.
But since flash is no longer a 99% cross platform solution people tend to look for solutions that are more cross platform.
(beside that, linux and android run old version that i doubt about security..)
If other judges follow this precedent, it will be the death knell of civil litigation involving the internet in any way. I don't like how trolls do business, but I don't think changing the rules like this is a good idea overall.
This isn't changing the rules. This is following the rules.
See my article in the ABA's Judges Journal about how judges had been bending the rules for the RIAA. "Large Recording Companies v. The Defenseless: Some Common Sense Solutions to the Challenges of the RIAA Litigation". The Judges' Journal, Judicial Division of American Bar Association. Summer 2008 edition, Part 1 of The Judges Journals' 2-part series, "Access to Justice".
Remember, Malibu Media can just change venues too and start this all over again... This judge didn't do anything worth while for you and me and opened himself up to an appeal where he obviously will be slapped. About the only thing he accomplished is getting Malibu Media out of his courtroom and off his docket, for now. Nothing else will change.
I beg to differ.
Malibu Media can't choose the venue, or the judge.
If Judge Hellerstein's decision is followed by other judges, it will be the death knell of the present wave of Malibu Media litigation.
I fully appreciate your perspective and I agree that the waters are getting pretty muddy when you start trying to tie an IP address to a person, but the issue here is the issuing of the subpoena and not letting Malibu Media pursue discovery. They must be allowed to protect their rights in civil court, and that means they must be allowed to subpoena third parties for information so they can move from "John Doe" to an actual name and in this case, that takes a subpoena from the court.
While your argument for discovery has some logic to it, it is based on a false assumption of fact : that Malibu Media, once it obtains the name and address of the internet account subscriber, will serve a subpoena on that person in an attempt to find out the name of the person who should be named as a defendant.
Malibu Media's uniform practice, once it gets the name and address, is to immediately amend the complaint to name the subscriber as the infringer/defendant and then serve a summons and amended complaint, not a subpoena, on the subscriber.
This is in every single case .
I'm not so sure I agree that this make sense...
You didn't read the judges 11 page opinion then, where he makes his reasons very clear. Among other things, the trolls claim that they need the information to take people to court, but they never do; they just abuse the courts as a cheap way to get information for their blackmail scheme. The point that an IP is not an ID is exactly the point here, because the copyright troll wouldn't have any right to the name of anyone than the copyright infringer. And the fine judge found out that these copyright trolls have in several instances just ignored court orders and have just lied to the courts.
There's apparently a blanket rule against using the court system to conduct fishing expeditions.
If so, most judges have been unaware of it these past 10 years.
Hi Ray, nice to see the NYCL moniker around here again. I have a few questions if you're willing. First, you indicate that a judge has denied discovery due to several factors, one being that an IP address does not identify any particular individual. Can you speak to the weight or breadth of this specific Court's opinion here, in layman's terms? I see references to the Eastern and Southern districts of New York, might this decision influence cases outside of those jurisdictions?
It's not binding on anyone. But Judge Hellerstein is a very well respected judge, so it will probably have a lot of 'persuasive authority'.
Second, this business of "if the Motion Picture is considered obscene, it may not be eligible for copyright protection." I've read about certain cases where the Court stated that obscenity has no rigid definition, but "I'll know it when I see it." Does that have any bearing on the Malibu case? Was this some kind of completely outrageous pornography, where any community standard would likely find it to be obscene, or was it just run-of-the-mill porn? Would it matter either way? Would the opinion have likely been the same if the case involved a blockbuster Hollywood film instead of a pornographic and potentially obscene film?
I haven't researched that question yet, and I may well be litigating that issue in the near future, since I have several cases against Malibu Media which are now in litigation mode... so all I can say is, stay tuned.
Lastly, I'm curious whether or not you've kept up with developments in the case regarding Prenda Law, and how you might compare this case to that one, if at all. I try to read Ken White's PopeHat blog every once in awhile to see how poorly the Prenda copyright trolls are faring. It doesn't look good for Prenda, and I wonder if you would put Malibu in the same proverbial boat.
The Prenda people are a bunch of strange people who, based on reports I've read, may well wind up doing jail time. I know nothing about the Malibu Media people. If I did find out something really bad about them in would probably wind up in my court papers if relevant to the case or to their credibility.
I should clarify: I didn't mean actual expansion of the law. What I meant in regard to item "F" was: since when does difficulty of enforcement, even if they did prove it, justify loosening the standards of evidence? I did not think that was allowable.
Well I knew exactly what you meant Jane, even before you 'clarified' it.
Crazee Edeee, his prices are INSANE!!!