text:
If you are a new resident in SL, this post is for you!
ELATE sent out a notice in the subscribomatic yesterday to inform it's members of a Newbie Starter Pack they have just placed out for Under 30 Day Residents. This is a fantastic pack for "noobs", and is available to EVERYONE for a limited time only. In these photos I am wearing a few things from the pack, but it's loaded with goodies and helpful notecards to explain how to wear them too.
The pack contains:
– a white top
– a black mesh skirt
– a pair of black stockings
– a black striped shirt
– a pair of jeans
– a pair of silver flats
– a shape in the five standard sizes
Have you seen our FabFree 30 Days List? This is a very useful tool for residents who are new to SL – Check it out for yourself and share it with new residents!
Love is wearing…
Skin – PXL Creations Kate (not free) – http://maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/Cindel/193/101/26
Eyes – IKON Eternal Eyes Azure (not free) – http://maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/Hot/227/92/39
Eyelashes – *FTL* S02 Kirei (not free) – http://maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/Kusanagi/222/22/2322
Hair – Truth Jade (not free) – http://maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/Truth%20Hair/113/35/27
ELATE Newbie Starter Pack (free / 0L) – http://maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/Celtic%20Bay%20Island/122/97/2703
Poses by Adorkable – http://maps.secondlife.com/secondlife/The%20Deck/134/192/21


text:
All About Glass
All About Glass
This is your resource for exploring various topics in glass: delve deeper with this collection of articles, multimedia, and virtual books all about glass. Content is frequently added to the area, so check back for new items. If you have a topic you'd like to see covered, send us your suggestion. If you have a specific question, Ask a Glass Question at our Rakow Research Library.
The Compagnie des Verreries et Cristalleries de Baccarat, the most famous name in French glass, was founded in 1764 by Monseigneur de Montmorency-Laval, the bishop of Metz, as a way to utilize the wood on the heavily forested land of his estate. In its early years, the factory operated under the

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Frank Pyburn tossed another log into the fireplace, poured two fingers bourbon into his coffee and settled into his easy chair. With joints that ached, he ran a gnarled hand through a shock of white hair. The newest Zane Grey novel lay on the table next to his chair. He kicked off his worn boots, switched on the lamp and reached for it.
That man sure knew how to write a good western.
Frank grunted a little as he settled in and reached for the coffee. The burn felt good and warmed him on the inside.
"Ah," he said to no one.
After he found his reading glassed under a two-day pile of newspapers, he opened the book.
Halfway through the first chapter, the sound of hooves clomping across his front porch brought him to his feet.
"Damn bears again," he muttered. "But, since when did bears grow hooves?"
He slipped on his boots and grabbed the Winchester propped beside the door.
"Who's out there?" He yelled.
A loud whinny cut through the cold Montana air, followed by a snort and a hoof pawing on the wood.
Frank cursed and eased the front door open two inches. He peered out with one eyeball. A saddled brown pony with no rider stamped his foot and nickered.
"Who's out there?" Frank yelled again.
The horse tossed his head and let out a long whinny.
Frank swung the door open wide and stepped out into the porchlight, gun cocked and aimed.
The horse backed off the porch and continued to toss his head and nicker.
When Frank saw no one, he walked toward the horse and grabbed the trailing reins. "Good boy." He patted the horse's thick neck.
"Where's your rider?"
The horse pulled against the reins and reared.
"Whoa, boy. Whoa." Frank kept a tight grip on the leather.
The horse jerked against Frank's hold and whinnied.
"You're trying to tell me something, aren't you, boy?" Frank peered into the cold blackness of the night. His gut told him someone was in trouble. "All right. I'll go with you, you stubborn horse, but I've got to get my coat and gloves."
He pulled on the reins and the horse followed him. "Damned if this don't beat all. The coldest night of the year and you're gonna drag me away from my warm fire. You better have a good reason."
If someone was in trouble, this weather would freeze a person to death in no time.
He tied the horse to the porch rail and stepped back into the warmth of the small ranch house. He shot a longing glance at the fire, his book and the rest of his coffee while he slammed his hat on his head, slipped into his heaviest coat and gloves.
The minute he swung up into the saddle, the horse spun around and took off.
To Be Continued…


text:
Course Title: Business Information Systems - Business Strategy
Part A: Course Overview
Course Title: Business Information Systems - Business Strategy
Credit Points: 12.00
Course Code
Learning Mode
Teaching Period(s)
City Campus
620H Business IT and Logistics
Sem 1 2006,
Sem 2 2006,
Sem 1 2007,
Sem 2 2007,
Sem 1 2008,
Sem 1 2009,
Sem 2 2009,
Sem 1 2010,
Sem 2 2010,
Sem 1 2011,
Sem 2 2011,
Sem 1 2012
Course Coordinator: Paul Rubens
Course Coordinator Phone: +61 3 9925 5619
Course Coordinator Email: firstname.lastname@example.com
Pre-requisite Courses and Assumed Knowledge and Capabilities
Eligibility for "Supervised Professional Practice" as specified by the school in which students are enrolled
Co-requisites: Students must also enrol in
ITNE2114 Business Information Systems – Learning Portfolio
INTE2115 Business Information Systems – Industry Based Project
Course Description
The Business Strategy or Business Policy Game (BPG) is a computer-based simulation of the operations of a manufacturing firm with domestic and international subsidiaries. Students compete with each other as members of a management team of simulated companies producing and selling a consumer durable product. The computer model used is an interactive one so that marketing, financing and production decisions have an influence on competitors performance as well as that of the decision making form.
If you are undertaking this course in Melbourne from semester 2, 2012 onwards your teacher will advise you if you require access to a computer for the course. It is recommended that you have access to a mobile computing device to allow greater flexibility in terms of where you can work on campus outside class times.
Objectives/Learning Outcomes/Capability Development
You will develop teamwork skills and an understanding of the range of outcomes of the interaction between company divisions. You will apply knowledge and skills from your previous course work (e.g. accounting, marketing, finance etc) in a simulated environment and be exposed to the varied other business skills used by your team members and their competitors.
At the conclusion of this course you should be able to:
• Develop and understand how to produce a Business Plan.
• Develop an understanding of the business planning processes.
• Apply knowledge and models to validate and inform decision-making in a simulated business.
• Understand how businesses are affected by external influences.
• Apply your best efforts and business knowledge (marketing, finance, accounting, logistic etc.) as well as your developing skills in communication and leadership when solving problems in your team.
Overview of Learning Activities
Students work in teams and compete in operating a business that manufactures and markets a consumer durable product. The course is instruction and application focused. After 3 weeks of intensive orientation and learning, the student management teams meet at "Board Meetings" in class every week. Extra curricular meetings are necessary and need to be organised by the teams themselves. A team Business Plan, including team and individual input is required before the first decisions are made. This requires participants to define and articulate their corporate missions, set objectives, develop strategies to realise the objectives and create operating policies to ensure that operating decisions support the strategies. Constant analyses by the teams of actual performance against expected outcomes. Participants are responsible for making quarterly operating decisions for each of the functional areas of finance, marketing and production and to integrate those decisions for the purpose of meeting the firm's overall goals and aspirations. Following every decision set, reports reflecting the performance of the teams are generated. The reports are assessed and commented upon by the facilitator, as well as the team members themselves. The reports reflect the performances, and the analyses of the variances provide direction for improvements.
Overview of Learning Resources
Resources will include
• Textbook
• Access to simulation software
• Chaired regular board meetings
• Support of an academic mentor
Overview of Assessment
Overview of Assessment: Assessment will be continuous throughout semester. There will be individual and group assessment including a business plan, business report and an in-class test.


text:
Developed by Wolfgang Palm
Available in iTunes App Store
Wolfgang Palm changed the world of synthesizers with the development of wavetable synthesis in the 1970s. Since then he has been responsible for numerous innovations, contributing greatly to the world of synths. Recently he brought his inventions to iOS with a collection PPG apps that have given inspiration and previously unavailable options to many artists, myself included. PPG Infinite goes in a direction that offers massive freedom with intricate sound designing, taking notes from nature by manipulating harmonic and inharmonic frequencies not found in typical synthesizers.
For about three weeks I have explored and experimented with Infinite, and each time discovered new tonal realms. You might think by looking at the GUI that there's not much to it. You'd be very wrong. It is simply laid out in a way that shouldn't intimidate, but also has countless doors to open; leading to more doors and so on. Before you know it you're reading the various "Help" articles, learning new ways to make something interesting. Just about any sound is possible. Any complaints I've seen have essentially been because of operator error or plain old laziness.
What makes PPG Infinite so special is its ultra deep editing and morphing options. I don't want to get all "tutorial" about it but to put it simply you can edit individual wave partials by the hundreds. This can lead to many different tones coming and going with their independent frequencies and envelopes while holding one key. A truly infinite audio adventure. Maybe it starts out as a stab that fades out as a drone comes in, then soon after a melody starts repeating with background ambience of any number of various sweeps or random chimes clinking about. You could rather easily have a single patch that sounds like multitrack recordings.
It's all in how much the user chooses to spend their time in the many mod routing and parameter adjustments as they behave with the noise, morpher, and spectral filtering molders. The two Sine editors have different impacts on the sounds. Sine 1 is where you can create and edit your Sine values as they track in the waveform. Sine 2 is where the structure of the sine 1 volume or amplitudes for each partial is adjusted. All with a detailed wave graphic showing you what's happening to your sound in real time. Additionally there is a Random panel that allows you to make changes to each sinusoids 6 parameters changing their intensity etc. Hit the "Go" button after making some adjustments and that new overtone variation is set. Adjust and repeat while being careful to save the changes. The in app "Help" does a far better job of explaining how each of these work. I recommend reading as many of these articles as you can.
With so many editable pieces it's not hard to get lost. Fortunately you can always revert to the original saved version of your patch and compare it to your new edits with the A B button. There is also parameter copy and paste which will become very useful, especially when you want certain partials to have the same behaviors.
PPG Infinite's deep mod matrix, 4 LFOs with 4 common waveforms, envelopes, filtering, morphing, molding and all the highly detailed overtone editing can have a nice delay, reverb or distortion effects added. Want more? You can also import wavetables from PPG WaveTable, and WaveMapper or phonic utterances from PPG Phonem to the Molder to expand even further upon the already massive library of included sound sources. I might add that the Molder being so versatile does make for some seriously wild filtering type effects depending on what source is selected. It's another incredibly powerful unit that shouldn't be overlooked.
There's so much good stuff in PPG Infinite that I can't cover it all. It's no lightweight. Be patient and if you think something doesn't work or can't be done, take the time to read up on the in app "Help" articles or try contacting support. It can seem a bit complicated at first for some people, but in all likelihood there is a way to do what you want.
My only complaints are a little minor. First is that the mod matrix is tiny. If there is a way to blow it up, I can't find it-please correct me if I'm wrong.
My other complaint is that I've experienced some crashes on my freshly restarted iPad Air 2 and no background apps. That is likely something that will be corrected in the near future, and I wouldn't consider it a deal breaker since this is a very new app. Lastly, (another thing that's hardly a deal breaker and has no impact on my overall enjoyment and satisfaction) I've never been a fan of how PPG's preset managers are laid out. Other than that PPG Infinite is a marvel. It's so nice to see something that isn't another classic hardware reproduction. Infinite brings something new and powerful to this summer's table of great new synthesizers for iOS. Don't miss this one.
*supports MIDI, Audiobus 2, Inter-App Audio, and AU extensions with multiple instances.


text:
Brian Vickers to run for Nationwide championship with Joe Gibbs Racing
CHARLOTTE, N.C. – Brian Vickers will race for the Nationwide Series championship next season for Joe Gibbs Racing.
He returns to the series 10 years after he became the youngest champion in series history by winning the title at 20 for Hendrick Motorsports. Vickers has been driving a partial Sprint Cup schedule this season for Michael Waltrip Racing this year, and will again share that car next season with Mark Martin and Waltrip.
His Nationwide car with Gibbs will be sponsored by Dollar General.
Dollar General also will sponsor 17 Sprint Cup races for Matt Kenseth, including the Daytona 500.


text:
We`ll since my last post are now more than 6 months ago.
It`s About my Project to create a german Tabletop - Website for Information about Tabletop Gaming to get new Players.
Informacial - Non Commercial.
I don`t want to sell anything.
Some User`s of coolminiornot gave me some pictures, so i could integrate them in the website.
Today I haven`t finished at all.
I`m looking for more Tutorials and pictures of Different Tabletop-games.
Hi there, first I`ll try to give a short overview in english, and after that you will see a german discription of this Blog Entry.
(Sorry for non perfectly english)
After some Time, i got it.
I thought about a online informative german Tabletopsite of different Tabletops, to explain them, show Tutorials and Matches.
Now the start is good.
Actually I`m filling the Website with content day after day.
It will have
Privacy Policy |
Terms and Conditions |
Contact Us |
The Legion
Copyright © 2001-2018
CMON Inc.


text:
By Michel Verhoef
My photography tries to communicate emotion. Some of my images may be classified as art photography, while some may be seen as a documentary or a crossover between both. I usually want to capture an emotion within our daily lives that is laying a bit deeper, or very deep, or a just-below-the-surface.
You may see my love for the old-style photographers in my work: the Bressons, the Friedlanders, the Parrs or even a Norman Rockwell could be hidden in there. Just to name a few. The Dutch photographer Erwin Olaf is also a great inspiration.
Essentially I want to keep the scene as original as possible without changing it by copying or adding in information from other pictures. The basic mood of a picture has to be already in the picture through the real-life content of the scene. I just need to enhance my images by dodging and burning to emphasize the feeling and to guide the viewer's eye. Every picture needs to tell a story, preferably through an interaction between people or between people and their environment. In most cases my subjects are people who demand a quick response from the camera's shutter and sometimes a lot of patience is required to get people used to that lingering-guy-with-a-camera.
Michel Verhoef was born in Germany and immigrated to the Netherlands at age nine. His father was a Dutch jazz musician and his mother a German housewife. Verhoef started at about that young age to make his first pictures with a Brownie that he got from his mother. From her he inherited his feeling for the visual art photography. It has always, though, stayed a hobby besides his actual job as a housing engineer.
Website: http://michel-verhoef.artistwebsites.com/
Michel's Recommended/Interesting Links:
Magnum Photos–The Changing of a Myth


text:
London: An innovative scheme to use prisoners with genuine British accents in call centres inside UK jails is being considered by the Ministry of Justice as part of its work programme for prisoners.
One of the consumer complaints against British companies who have call centres in India has been that Indian workers sometimes do not understand the many regional British accents of callers, resulting in errors.
There are reports that some British companies have closed down call centres in India following such complaints, while others highlight the fact that their call centres are within the UK and that their customers can rest assured of a speedy and efficient service.
According to The Guardian, a company supported by the Ministry of Justice called the call centre scheme a "rehabilitation revolution", but the ministry said the company was no longer involved in the programme after it had filed for liquidation recently.
However, a ministry spokesperson said "Prisoners who learn the habit of real work inside prison are less likely to commit further crime when they are released.
"For that reason the Prisons Service is looking at a number of potential schemes to increase work opportunities in prisons".
The spokesperson added: "All contracts with outside employers must comply with a strict code of practice which sets out that prisoners cannot be used to replace existing jobs in the community.
"Prisoner wages, for those in closed prisons, are set by prison governors and companies have no control over the level of payment".
Using British prisoners in call centres in jails may work, but some raise worries about safety of data. Under the call centre scheme, prisoners may be paid 3 pounds per day.


text:
I understand why BuzzFeed's trying to turn this into a Rove/Palin war — the RINO/true conservative conflict is irresistible traffic bait — but I don't see this as a shot aimed specifically at her so much as a statement of simple fact. Simple fact: Most endorsements don't mean snot. Ask Romney fan Nikki Haley about that.
Karl Rove mockingly dismissed the value of Sarah and Todd Palin's endorsements on a private conference call today, noting that their backing of Newt Gingrich in Alaska "demonstrated that endorsements don't mean snot."
BuzzFeed obtained the dial-in information for the conference call with Barclays Capital clients and employees, in which Rove outlined the state of the Republican race for the presidency and the path forward for the candidates…
Rove also said on the call that he expects Democrats to hold the Senate, and that Newt Gingrich is on the brink of becoming "irrelevant" to the presidential race.
Hard to judge without an exact quote but he's probably citing her because she does, in fact, have more influence with grassroots righties than most big-name conservatives. I.e. if even Palin's stamp of approval can't rescue Gingrich in her home state then endorsements simply don't matter much. Seriously, how many over the entire span of this deathless campaign have made a difference? Haley and Pawlenty, a current and former governor, respectively, couldn't save their home states for Romney. Mike DeWine, a former senator from Ohio, flipped from Romney to Santorum but that wasn't enough to hand the state to Team Sweater Vest. Mitt did win Arizona after McCain backed him, but according to a PPP poll taken a week before the vote, twice as many voters cited that as a negative than as a positive. (Jan Brewer's support may have been more significant.) The only endorsement I can think of that likely did tilt an election was Rob Portman's, partly because he campaigned hard for Romney in Ohio over the last month and a half and partly because he happens to have influence in a specific part of the state that ended up being crucial to Mitt's win. Apart from him, who else?
Via Mediaite, here's Steve Doocy wondering on Fox this morning why, if Palin was willing to admit that she voted for Newt in Alaska, she didn't go ahead and formally endorse him a week ago. The answer, I think, is because she's savvy enough to know that Rove is right. Newt's in too deep of a hole up north and nationally for anyone to dig him out, so why should she spend valuable political capital to try? (In fact, Gingrich finished fourth in Alaska's "presidential preference poll," 10 points behind third-place Ron Paul.) The last time she endorsed in a major Alaska race, it didn't end well. Go figure that she didn't want to make the Haley/Pawlenty/DeWine mistake this time.


text:
The Education: Early Childhood Track is designed for students who are interested in pursuing teaching children from birth through Grades 2 as a career and who plan to transfer to Brooklyn College.
The Early Childhood Track is coordinated by the Education and Language Department and is designed for students who are interested in teaching children Birth through Grade 2. This Track provides a clearly defined academic path that leads to continued study at a four-year college. Successful completion of LaGuardia's Associate in Arts (AA) degree requirements in the Early Childhood Track can result in admission to the Professional Sequence at Brooklyn College, Department of Early Childhood Education leading to the New York State Initial Certificate in Early Childhood Education (Birth-Grade 2).
In support of the LaGuardia's mission to educate and graduate its students to become critical thinkers and socially responsible citizens, the College has undertaken a team approach toward advising, designed to support you in your major from orientation through graduation. Your Advising Team is made up of faculty, professional and peer advisors. They will guide you at every step during your college career. They are ready to help you:
Visit the Advising page to learn more about when to get advised and how to prepare for an advising appointment, and check out the Advising Calendar for information sessions, events and more.
The Early Childhood Education Option was established as a response to a predicted teacher shortage nationwide. This shortage is envisioned as being particularly acute among minority teachers, especially in the City of New York. The Liberal Arts Options in the Education program are also designed to respond to the shortcomings within the teaching profession itself by combining a strong Liberal Arts course of study with an early experiential component. The program provides a broad intellectual foundation and an understanding of the world we live in, its history, diversity and cultures. Preschool teachers are required to have an associate's degree and Pre-Kindergarten through Grade 2 Elementary School teachers are required to have a bachelor's degree in addition to state certification; New York City public school teachers are required to obtain a master's degree. Private schools have various degree and certification requirements. The Liberal Arts: Early Childhood Education Option at LaGuardia will prepare you for continued studies to earn a four-year degree. Explore career possibilities on Career Connect.
Visit the Articulation Agreements page to learn more about transfer opportunities.
Current Students Log in to My LaGuardia to review your Degree Audit to find out what classes to take. Have questions about using Degree Audit? Visit LaGuardia's Degree Audit page for tutorials and how-to guides. Prospective Students Review the curriculum. Please note: Students will be held to the program and degree requirements of the year that they enter the College, unless the student changes their major in a different academic year. In that case, the student will be held to the current year requirements as listed in the catalog. Learn more. Degree Map Use the Degree Map and DegreeWorks to assist in academic planning and creating your own graduation plan in ePortfolio. See a full list of Flexible Core courses on the Pathways page. For information about this program's retention and graduation rate visit the Office of Institutional Research and Assessment website page.
Fieldwork hours in a New York City public
school (Pre-K-Grade 2) or a New York State Approved Childcare Center are
required in Education Program core courses. See course descriptions for number
of fieldwork hours required in each course. These fieldwork hours are designed
to integrate theory and practice. Fieldwork hours at LaGuardia will partially
satisfy New York State Certification Requirements. The intent of fieldwork
component is to involve students in the educational life of the classroom, to
let them experience a variety of school settings and to learn beginning skills
in a teaching role. Through this experiential component, students will have the
opportunity to clarify their personal goals, gain insight into the teaching
profession and make informed career decisions about continuing in the field of
urban education. For further information please contact the Education Program
Fieldwork Coordinator.
All Education and TESOL students at LaGuardia Community College must be registered in the New York City Department of Education (NYCDOE) Personnel Eligibility Tracking System (PETS) database specifically for LaGuardia Community College students and Fingerprinted by the NYCDOE before registering for an education course. Click here for New York City Department of Education (NYCDOE) Fingerprint Verification and Security Clearance Requirements.


text:
I haven't had a chance to post my wrap up for the read-a-thon Bout of Books mainly because I ended up getting the flu. EWWW anyway, I figured I would go ahead and share with you what I read and all that jazz.
So for Bout of books, even though I ended up getting sick, I was able to finish two books and started the third. Which for me is great. During read-a-thons I always lose interest around the end of the first beginning of the second book. So for me this was a sucessful read-a-thon.
Books Read: 2
Pages Read: 463 pages
I haven't decided if I want to participate in any other read-a-thons this year, but I'll let you know if I decide to do so.
If you participated, how did you do?


text:
Minn. counties planning vaccinations clinics for kids
Minnesota counties are ironing out the final details on public vaccination clinics for kids that could begin as early as Nov. 16. A large shipment of H1N1 flu vaccine is expected to arrive in Minnesota counties by that date.
The supply is still limited, so the doses will only be available to kids age 9 and under. And Even then, counties won't have enough vaccine to immunize everyone in that age group.
So some counties are encouraging parents to check with their own health care provider first, to help conserve doses for under-insured and uninsured kids who don't have access to a doctor.
Ramsey County is planning to set up four H1N1 immunization clinics. The dates, times and locations are still in the works.
Grow the Future of Public Media
MPR News is Member supported public media. Show your support today, donate, and ensure access to local news and in-depth conversations for everyone.
Jane Norbin directs health planning for the county. She says the clinics will be open to all children age 6 months through 9 years. But ideally, she says, the county clinics will attract kids who don't have other ways to get the flu vaccine.
"We are encouraging families who have private providers to use that resource as long as they have the vaccine," said Norbin. "We'll try to back up and be the safety net for people who don't have other places to go."
Norbin added that Ramsey County won't turn away children who do have insurance coverage.
Norbin says the clinics will probably be located in community buildings, rather than schools. The county is still talking with schools about using their facilities, but there are scheduling issues that might make those locations too challenging.
In Dakota County, officials say they won't bother with school clinics this month because they aren't getting enough vaccine to justify those locations.
Bonnie Brueshoff, Dakota County's public health director, said the clinics will be held in community buildings or county facilities, based on the availability of the space.
Dakota County also hopes to schedule its clinics during the week of Nov. 16. Brueshoff says the county has been told it will receive mostly the nasal spray form of the vaccine, which can only be used in healthy people from age 2 to 49. So she says the immunization campaign will focus mostly on kids from age 2 to 9.
Dakota County is still planning to set up school-located clinics in December to immunize older children, assuming enough vaccine is available by then.
There are some advantages to holding public vaccination clinics in places other than school buildings.
Susan Palchick, public health manager for Hennepin County, says, for example, it's easier to keep track of paperwork when kids don't have to take home consent forms for their parents to sign.
"If the parents are bringing their kids to a site, then you don't have that issue of worrying about consent forms that don't come back," she said.
Hennepin County is also expecting a limited supply of vaccine for its first public clinics. But Palchick says the county should be able to make a good dent in immunizing children against the H1N1 virus.
"We have enough to have a respectable size clinic. We just don't have enough to do all the 6-month to 9-year-olds in the county," she said.
Like Ramsey County, Palchick says Hennepin County is encouraging parents to check first with their health providers to see if they have vaccine, before bringing their kids to the public clinic.
She says the county wants to direct a good share of its vaccine to kids who don't have health insurance.
Public health officials have a lot of details to work out between now and mid-November -- not the least of which is figuring out when and where they can schedule a second round of public clinics in December.
That's when all the kids who get immunized during the first clinics need to return to receive their second dose of the vaccine. Without that second dose, the kids won't have sufficient protection against the H1N1 virus.


text:
Our Handmade Christmas Ornaments celebrate people who create their vision for making ornamental art in different mediums. We are proud to support these talents and bring handmade Christmas ornaments to your home for decorations. We carry a variety of handmade Christmas ornaments from countries around the world that celebrate different crafts such as the remarkable reverse painting process ornaments that are painted on the inside from China. Enjoy the artistic expression, discipline and artistic skills used to make our handmade Christmas ornaments.
unique, handmade & glass christmas ornaments
You'll find 1000s of them here to decorate your tree!
You'll find 1000s of them here to decorate your tree!
Free shipping
when you purchase 5 or more items!
learn more »
learn more »
Sign Up...
to receive updates & extras


text:
MICHAEL BARONE: Jack Lew's sweet deal at Citigroup.
Should the Senate confirm as treasury secretary a man who was paid $1.1 million by Citigroup after it was bailed out and whose employment contract gave him favorable stock option treatment if he left his job for a high federal government post but not for another governmental or nonprofit job? That's the question raised by the nomination of Jack Lew, according to Bloomberg News's Jonathan Weil, who got hold of the first three pages of Lew's Citigroup employment agreement and interviewed a Citigroup spokesman about it. One inference you could draw is that Robert Rubin, the Clinton administration treasury secretary who has been exceedingly well paid at Citigroup even as it headed to bailout territory, wants to keep a Citigroup alumnus running Treasury.
Ya think?


text:
It was just about two months ago that LibreOffice 4.0 made its official debut, but business users and others more interested in stability than cutting-edge features also have another option from the Document Foundation.
Specifically, LibreOffice 3.6 is currently the version of the free and open source productivity suite recommended for enterprises. On Thursday it got a significant update that fixes more than 50 bugs.
"This new release is suited to the increasing number of organizations migrating to LibreOffice, which is steadily growing worldwide," the Document Foundation noted in its announcement.
Export and import improvements
Building upon LibreOffice 3.6, which was released last August, the new version 3.6.6 of the software further enhances its stability with numerous bug fixes and updates.
Among 51 bugs fixed in the first release candidate of the software, for instance, are one affecting the export of .ppt files, another obscuring the visibility of chart files after saving, and yet another affecting OOXML import.
The second release candidate of the software added another three key fixes, including an editing issue in the Calc spreadsheet module.
The original LibreOffice 3.6 added features including support for importing Microsoft Office SmartArt, a new widescreen format for slideshows, and PDF export with a watermark option.
50 million users (or more)
Since LibreOffice is free to download, usage estimates are tricky. Nevertheless, the Document Foundation estimates that 20 million to 30 million Linux users plus 30 million to 40 million Windows users are currently using the software, it recently told Ars Technica.
By last fall, downloads to date were already about 20 million, not including all the many Linux users who get the software through their operating system's repositories. LibreOffice is now typically the productivity suite of choice in most major Linux distributions.
The updated LibreOffice is available as a free download from the LibreOffice.org site. To get version 3.6.6, select "Change System, Version or Language" and specify your requirements from there. Ultimately, you'll get an option to choose version 3.6.6, as shown in the screenshot above.


text:
- SC.edu
- Study
- Majors and Degrees
- Film and Media Studies
Film and Media Studies
Motion pictures have moved us and shaped our society since the early 20th century. The Film and Media Studies Program offers critical study of moving image culture — its history, theory and criticism.
What to Expect
As a film and media studies major, you will develop an array of critical skills necessary for actively interpreting and productively engaging film and media culture from essential media literacy skills to advanced research methods in historical and textual film and media analysis.
By working closely with program faculty members, you may also undertake undergraduate research on almost any aspect of media culture — from early Hollywood to contemporary Asian cinema and European television, from home movies and experimental films to selfies and social networks, from problems of industrial organization to questions of genre development and social habit. You will pursue additional skills through your minor.
As a film and media studies major, you will also have the opportunity to get involved in Columbia's local film culture, which is anchored by the Nickelodeon Theater and Film Society and its unique media literacy programs, part of the Helen Hill Media Education Center. You may choose to volunteer, intern or even work at the theater or center to gain experience in film programming, film festival operations and the teaching of media literacy skills to young people.
Undergraduate Degree
B B.A. in Film and Media Studies
The Film and Media Studies Program has grown steadily since the major was unveiled in 2001 and has quickly become among the most popular of interdisciplinary majors in the College of Arts and Sciences. Devoted to the critical study of moving images, the program also offers coursework in film and media productions.
The following courses fulfill some of the requirements for a major in film and media studies:
- Introduction to Film and Media Studies
- Film and Media History
- Film and Media Theory and Criticism
- Topics in Film and Media Histories (recent topics include: Tarantino; Hong Kong Action Cinema; The Teen Film; Art and Cinema; Surveillance; Hollywood in the 1950s and 1960s)
- Documentary Film and Media Studies
- Courses in Media Arts and Theater
Apply for Undergraduate Admission
Our Office of Undergraduate Admissions provides the most current information on the application process so you can check the requirements based on your current status and find university scholarships.


text:
Blackrock City can kiss my ass. Santa Fe's been burning a giant dude to for way longer and with a lot less hippie.
Yuppers, it's Zozobra time (I want to put that in all caps because I'm so excited). Zozobra is the best day ever in Santa Fe. We all gather on a baseball field and send our gloom away by burning Zozo, or Old Man Gloom.
Side note: Someone tweets under the Old Man Gloom moniker and it's hilarious.
Anyway, Burque, I know you all want to come but driving back after the excitement of seeing a giant puppet go up in flames is a lot. So don't. I mean, come to Zozobra, but don't drive home. You can't crash at my house but you can ride the Rail Runner from the Santa Fe Depot at 11 p.m.
Thursday, Sept. 9
3 p.m.
Fort Marcy Park, Santa Fe


text:
The Decemberists came to Madison last Wednesday and rocked the plushly appointed concert hall. The Overture Center for the Arts ain't no Mudd Club or CBGB, but it's ideal for live performances of concept albums like Brian Wilson's Smile or The Decemberists' new rock opera, The Hazards of Love, brainchild of frontman Colin Meloy. Katjusa Cisar's generally positive 77 Square review of the show is for the most part on target, even her amusing—if snarky—nutshell appraisal of the album's story line:
The story—well, nevermind the story. A mash-up of renaissance fair, Rush and The Titanic, sprung from the mind of Meloy, it's all very mystic: a druid-nymph love affair torn by a jealous queen and snarled by deals-gone-bad and marriage-by-drowning. Someday, it'll make juicy fodder for an ambitious graduate student studying the link between Nordic folk tales and prog rock.
The Hazards of Love is compelling musically and dramatically (after locating a synopsis, here or here, which is something the CD booklet could really use). I do take issue with Cisar's characterization of Meloy's performance as "weirdly stiff" and "emotionally flat." He seemed ironic and cerebral to me. Weirdly stiff and emotionally flat in a good way. No question that guest vocalist Shara Worden brought classic rock sizzle to her Not Nice to Fool Mother Nature role as the forest Queen. But "upstaging" Meloy, as Cisar claims? I'd say instead that their contrasting styles define the composition's strength, its off-kilter clash of hot and cool, intellect and bombast. Colin Meloy's penchant during the evening for alternating sips from a long-stemmed glass of red wine and a cheap plastic bottle of water pretty much says it all.
Worth noting for fans: Meloy appears to be blogging now, quoting from Infinite Jest and recounting childhood disagreements with his sister about Depeche Mode lyrics. His sister is Maile Meloy, who has a well-received new book of short stories out, Both Ways is the Only Way I Want It.
[Editor's update: I'd be remiss if I didn't give the last word on the Decemberists' show to Augie, who's penned his own enthusiastic review.]


text:
On April 8 and 9, I'll be teaching two new classes at the Art Director's Guild in Los Angeles. The classes are free to ADG members.
April 8 – Back Projection and Scaling From Photographs
Prerequisite: none. Class size limit: 12
Tools needed: notebook, calculator (does not have to calculate feet or inches, one on a phone will work fine)
The technique of 'back projection' was developed as a way of extracting necessary information from photographs for use with rear projection systems to build set pieces that would match the scale and perspective of the projected 'plates'.
You'll learn the basics of this system to find sizes, camera heights, focal lengths of lenses and more. You'll learn additional methods of basic photographic scaling that you can use to work from printed images, books or even your computer screen. You'll leave with a set of tools, including digital calipers, and the knowledge to be able to use this practical and valuable skill.
April 9 – Architectural Moulding
Prerequisite: none. Class size limit: 20
Tools needed: notebook
Curb your fear of moulding! This class will examine the history and development of architectural moulding in the western architectural tradition and trace their roots from ancient cultures. You'll learn the 8 basic shapes that make up most profiles, understand the transition from Greek to Roman moulding, learn the proper names of mouldings from their beginnings, and learn the correct use of moulding profiles by architectural period and style.
You'll learn what's wrong with your moulding catalogue and also get a list of moulding catalogue profiles by date so you can classify them by their period.
And, I'll be bringing in many of my 18th and 19th century British, American and French moulding planes and you'll see a demonstration of 'sticking', or creating traditional wood mouldings by hand.


text:
Chinese style name, Civil procedure, Fonts, Language, Law, Lawsuit, Lawyer, Lawyers and Law Firms, Linguistics, Natural, Pro se legal representation in the United States, Services, Social Sciences, Times Roman, Typeface, United States
Civil Procedure Outline
I. The Adversarial System
A. Four Lessons
1. Doctrine
a. Formal rules of litigation (FRCP)
2. Strategy
a. Practical considerations (time, money principle)
3. Theory
a. Different frameworks for understanding the civil litigation system
4. Skills
a. Actual practice (drafting a complaint, answer, negotiation)
B. Theories of Adjudication − FRCP 1: Rules shall be construed and administered to secure the just, speedy and inexpensive determination of every action. FRCP 1 does not provide much guidance. Therefore, the three theories below are applied
1. Fair Fight
a. Judge is passive referee that simply follows and enforces the rules
b. The only interests are those party to the litigation.
c. Mitchell v. A&K − Truck on the premises
2. Justice Between the Parties
a. Judge is active and corrects for disparities between the parties
b. Only interests are those party to the litigation
c. Conley − Black workers' complaint lacks sufficiency but is accepted because need discovery
3. Greater Good
a. Judge is active and considers larger interests of society
b. Takes into account third parties (other interest than just those before the court)
c. Band's Refuse − Judge called own witnesses and introduced own evidence
II. Initiating the Lawsuit
A. Plaintiff's Claim (Complaint)
1. Process
a. File − FRCP 3: Action is started by filing the complaint with the court
b. Serve − Complaint is given to the opposing party or parties
2. Rules for assessing a complaint
a. FRCP 8(a) − A pleading which sets forth a claim for relief shall contain
· 8(a)(1) − A short plain statement of the grounds upon with the court's jurisdictions depends, unless the court already has jurisdiction and the claim needs no new grounds for jurisdiction to support it;
· 8(a)(2) − Short, plain statement of a claim showing pleader is entitled to relief; and
§ Flaws to avoid
§ Missing an element
i. Concerns include
· Δ cannot answer
· Notice to the court
· Flush out meritless claims
§ Negating an element
§ Establishing an affirmative defense
· When flawed − Subject to motion to dismiss
§ Particularity
§ Beyond reasonable doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts to establish claim Connely = Mere possibility
§ Particular enough that can draw fair inference
Sutliff = fair inference
· 8(a)(3) − a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks; relief in the alternative or of several different types may be demanded
b. Background rules
· Allegations taken as true
· Allegations considered on their face (no evidence) Mitchell v. A&K
· No legal argument Sutliff
3. Notice Pleading − level of detail or specificity
a. FRCP 12(b)(6) − complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond a doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of claim
i. Mere possibility
Complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief
1. Conely v. Gibson − Black union members sue for discrimination, defendant moves to dismiss for failure to state a claim, court holds for plaintiff
ii. Fair inference
Complaint must contain either direct allegations on every material point necessary to sustain a recovery or allegations from which an inference fairly may be drawn that evidence of material points will be introduced at trialSutliff v. Donovan
iii. Specific facts
Not good law Gillispie
b. FRCP 12(e) – Request for the Π to give a more definite statement of the allegations in the complaint
i. Board of Harbor Commissioners
Facts: Oil discharged into waterway. Unclear who did it. D moves for more definite statement in order to frame an appropriate response pursuant to Rule 7. Court held for P.
Rule: Leans toward the fair inference standard. Information is specific enough b/c all of the elements are addressed.
(If P gives more definite statement that is still not specific enough can follow up with motion to dismiss)
c. FRCP 12(f) − Motion to strike redundant, immaterial, impertinent and scandalous matter
4. Policy considerations for determining whether the complaint is specific enough (background policy considerations for borderline cases)
a. Sufficient notice to the D
b. Allows investigation
c. Provides early assessment of the merits
d. Prevents a fishing expedition
e. Who has access to the additional info
f. Harm is worthy of the litigation
5. Pleading in the alternative
a. FRCP 8(e)(2): A party may set forth 2 or more statements of claim or defense alternately or hypothetically
i. If by the nature of the circumstance the P would not know which allegations are right
ii. Lack of knowledge – pleading in alternative is OK
iii. If facts should be known – pleading in the alternative not OK
iv. Can only collect on one of the claims
b. McCormick v Kopmann (Car Crash Case)
Facts: McCormick dies in head on collision. Wife sues (1) bar owner (Huls) for over-serving alcohol and (2) driver (Koppman) for crossing over the center line, causing the collision with her husband. Koppmann moves to dismiss b/c of contradicting allegations. Denied.
Rule: Pleading in the alternative is allowed where the P lacks knowledge about the key facts in good faith
Policy: Look at the models of adjudication
i. Justice between the parties − Should not be able to plead in the alternative if she knows the truth
ii. Fair fight − Should be able to use the evidence b/c it could be used against her
6. Heightened Pleading Standard
a. FRCP 9(b)– In all averments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with particularity. Malice, intent, knowledge and other condition of the mind of a person may be averred generally
i. Strong inference standard
b. PSLRA(Private Securities Litigation & Reform Act) − State with particularity facts giving rise to a strong inference that D acted with required state of mind
i. 2nd Circuit – Strong Inference Standard (majority approach)
· P must show motive and opportunity to commit fraud
ii. 9th Circuit – Great Detail Standard
· P must plead with great detail for deliberately reckless OR conscious misconduct (allegations in detail of who, what, when, where, how)
c. Background policies for general particularity and heightened pleading
i. Giving notice to the D and the court
ii. Sometime giving the court the ability to assess the merits
iii. Preventing fishing expeditions
iv. Being attentive to who has the factual information
d. Ross v. Robins (Faulty Birth Control Case) – 2nd Circuit
Facts: Ross purchases shares of Robins. Robins did not report safety and efficiency problems with the Dalkon Shield, but knew about them. After FDA made a public disclosure of the problem, stock prices fell. D moves to dismiss under 12(b)(6) for failure to comply with 9(b). Move to dismiss granted. P appeals.
Rule: Cases involving the Private Securities & Litigation Reform Act must meet a heightened pleading standard. . . strong inference standard.
e. Cash Energy v. Weiner (Environmental Cleanup Case)
Facts: Cash Energy engaged in storage and/or transfer of chemical solvents on a site adjacent to Weiner's property. Weiner believes his land has been contaminated as a result of this activity. D moves to dismiss under 12(b)(6) for failure to comply with 9(b). Court grants motion to dismiss. P appeals.
Rule: Court holds cases involving CERCLA to heightened pleading standard, but this is not the law.
f. Leathermann v.Tarrant County (Drug Bust Case)
Facts: Tarrant Co. obtains search warrants. Homeowners claimed assault. Rule: Rule 9(b) only applies to cases involving fraud, mistake or PSLRA. Rule 8(a)(2) still stands otherwise. Cash Energy is NOT the law. Rely on Leatherman.
7. Voluntary dismissal
a. FRCP 41(a)(1) − P can dismiss the case unilaterally as long as it is before service of an answer or a motion for summary judgment. If after the answer or motion, must have stipulation of both parties.
b. FRCP 41(a)(2) − If parties are not in agreement, will need dismissal by order of the court
i. First time dismissed without prejudice
ii. Second time dismissed with prejudice
iii. If court doesn't otherwise say, it is dismissed without prejudice.
c. Reasons for voluntary dismissal
i. To file in another jurisdiction (don't like the judge)
ii. A way to avoid sanctions under Rule 11
iii. If judge may grant a motion to dismiss under Rule 12, might want to pre-empt the ruling
iv. The SOL may be running so just decide to go away quietly
B. Defendant's Response
a. Rule 12(a) − Timing to file responsive pleading
i. 12(a)(1)(A) − Answer complaint w/in 20 days
ii. 12(a)(4)(A) − After filing and serving 12(b)(6) motion, wait to hear back from court
iii. 12(a)(4)(A) − 12(b)(6) denied then must answer within 10 days
iv. 12(a)(4)(A) − If court postpones ruling on 12(b)(6), must answer withing 10 days
v. If court grants motion to dismiss do not need to answer
vi. 12(a)(1)(A) − Grants leave to amend, court will specify timing
vii. 12(a)(4)(A) − If court denies motion to strike then must answer within 10 days
viii. 12(a)(4)(B) − If court grants motion to strike then must answer within 10 days
Timing under 12(a)
Within 20 days
Within 10 days
Answer complaint
File and serve a 12(b)(6) motion
12(a)(4)(A) wait for court to rule
12(b)(6) motion is denied
Court postpones ruling on 12(b)(6) motion
12(a)(4)(A) after notice by court
12(b)(6) motion is granted
Grants leave to amend
12(a)(1)(A) Once P has amended, court will specify timing
Denies 12(e) motion for more definite statement
Grants 12(e) motion for more definite statement
12(a)(4)(B) after P fixes complaint
b. Rule 12(b)
(b)(1) − Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the suit
(b)(2) − Court lacks proper jurisdiction over D
(b)(3) − Court is not the proper location for the suit; improper venue
(b)(4) − Insufficiency of process
(b)(5) − Insufficiency of service of process
(b)(6) − Failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted
i. Motion to dismiss flaws
1. Missing an element
2. Negating an element
3. Establishing an affirmative defense
ii. Use Conely and Sutliff standards to assess whether 12(b)(6) should be granted
iii. Court is limited to the four corners of the complaint and must take all of the allegations as true
(b)(7) − Failure to join a party
c. Rule 12(c) − Motion for judgment on the pleadings (after the complaint and answer are done)
i. Vehicle for the D to answer
ii. For failure to state a claim
iii. Motion by the P if the Δ admits all of the relevant allegations
iv. Can be just like motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, but is normally after the answer; same analysis
v. Must be brought forward without undue delay
d. Rule 12(e) − Motion for a more definite statement
i. Usually used b/c unintelligible, not for want of detail
ii. If you understand what the P is saying but want more detail, some courts grant the motion; others don't (e.g. US v. Board of Harbors)
e. Rule 12(f) − Motion to strike
f. Rule 12(g) − All then available Rule 12 motions must be consolidated into one pleading. All defenses not brought are waived except as under 12(h)
g. Rule 12(h): Waiver or preservation of certain defenses
i. 12(h)(1) − Disfavored defenses
· Lack of personal jurisdiction – 12(b)(2)
· Improper venue – 12(b)(3)
· Insufficiency of process – 12(b)(4)
· Insufficiency of service of process – 12(b)(5)
ii. 12(h)(2) − Favored defenses
· Failure to state claim upon which relief can be granted – 12(b)(6)
· Failure to join a party – 12(b)(7)
iii. 12(h)(3) − Most favored defenses
· Lack of subject matter jurisdiction – 12(b)(1)
Rule Explanation
Lack of subj matter jurisdiction
Most favored 12(g), 12(h)(3)
Bring at any time
Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted
Favored 12(g), 12(h)(2)
Can be made in any pleading or by motion for judgment on the pleadings or at trial on merits
Failure to join a party
Favored 12(g), 12(h)(2)
Can be made in any pleading or by motion for judgment on the pleadings or at trial on merits
Lack of personal jurisdiction
Disfavored 12(g), 12(h)(1)
Will be waived forever if you did not bring it with other Rule 12 motions
Improper venue
Disfavored 12(g), 12(h)(1)
Will be waived forever if you did not bring it with other Rule 12 motions
Insufficiency or process
Disfavored 12(g), 12(h)(1)
Will be waived forever if you did not bring it with other Rule 12 motions
Insufficiency of service or process
Disfavored 12(g), 12(h)(1)
Will be waived forever if you did not bring it with other Rule 12 motions
a. FRCP 55(a) − Default entry by the clerk when the Δ has failed to respond
b. FRCP 55(b) − Default judgment by
(b)(1) − Clerk if the award amount is certain; have to give 3 days notice
(b)(2) − Court, P must show damages
c. FRCP 55(c) − Setting aside entry of default for good cause shown; if judgment has been entered, may likewise set aside under Rule 60(b)
d. FRCP 60(b) − relevant grounds for setting aside default judgment would be mistake, inadvertence, excusable neglect, surprise; this is more likely to not be set aside because it is that much more in the process
e. Three factors courts use to evaluate setting aside (Shepard Claims)
i. Non-defaulting party will not be prejudiced
· Witnesses, evidence, SOL
ii. Defaulting party has meritorious defense
iii. No culpable conduct by defaulting party
· If no prejudice and has meritorious defense, then culpable conduct must be willful for default to the set aside
f. Shepard v. Darrah
Facts: Shepard (independent claims adjuster) alleges that Darrah (insurance broker) failed to pay him for services rendered. After delivery of the complaint Darrah's attorney misses filing date for answer due to confusion about extension
Rule: Default judgment will be set aside if P is not prejudiced, D has a meritorious defense and the conduct was not willful
a. Admitting or Denying
i. Admit an allegation as true
ii. Deny
iii. Lack knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
iv. Hybrid- give more particular responses, combo of above
b. Rules
i. FRCP 8(b) − D shall respond to each averment by either (1) admit, (2) deny or (3) lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief
· LKISFB is treated as a denial
· If it is found that you have sufficient knowledge or info, then LKISFB is treated as an admission (David v. Crompton & Knowles)
ii. FRCP 8(d) − Failure to deny – All averments are taken as admitted when not denied. All averment to which no responsive pleading is required or permitted shall be taken as denied or avoided
iii. FRCP 10(b) − Form of pleadings. Each claim or defense should be in a separate numbered paragraph; one allegation per paragraph
c. Purpose of the answer
i. Respond to the allegations
ii. Assert defenses
iii. Provide any counter or cross claims
d. David v. Crompton & Knowles
Facts: David was injured by a shredding machine in a factory. Δ says they don't have sufficient knowledge to respond an allegation, then want to move to amend the answer to a denial. Motion to amend denied.
Rule: If you claim lack of knowledge and are found to have knowledge, could have acquired the knowledge ("Should have known") or the info was within your control ("Only one who could have known"), then you have improperly used lack of knowledge answer and your answer will be deemed admitted instead of denied.
e. Affirmative Defenses (shield)
i. FRCP 8(c) − Affirmative Defenses (list is not exhaustive)
· D must include in answer, answer to amended complaint, or motion to dismiss or lose them FRCP 12(h)(1)
· D must raise the issue and the D must prove it
· SOL is a common affirmative defense
· 15(a) says you may amend an answer to insert affirmative defense
f. Counter Claim and Cross Claim (sword)
i. FRCP 13(a) − Compulsory Counterclaims must be brought or lost
· Must arise from same T&O weigh following factors
§ Logical relationship between the claims for them to be compulsory (liberal view)
§ Substantially the same evidence/facts – If the same evidence would substantially dispose of the issues raised by the opposing claims then the counterclaims are compulsory; if not, then they are permissive
§ Substantially same law applies
ii. FRCP 13(b) − Permissive Counterclaims may be brought but do not have to; different T&O
iii. FRCP 13(g) − Cross-Claim against Co-Party may be brought if same T&O as any of claims or counter-claims
iv. Purpose
· Judicial efficiency − same jury, same case load
· Consistency − Courts could rule differently on the same case or issue if raised at different times in different courts
· Destroys P's image
Type of Claim
Same T&O
Different T&O
Opposing Party
Compulsory 13(a)
Permissive 13(b)
v. Wigglesworth v. Teamster's Union
Facts: During union meetings, Wigglesworth was prevented from exercising his free speech rights. After the complaint was filed, Wigglesworth holds a press conference at which he accused the union of being mafia run and that certain union elections had been fixed. Δ files counterclaim. Δ files motion to dismiss under 12(b)(1). Motion to dismiss granted.
Rule: Test for same Transaction and Occurrence:
Logical relationship between the claims for them to be compulsory (liberal view)
Substantially the same evidence/facts – If the same evidence would substantially dispose of the issues raised by the opposing claims, then the counterclaims are compulsory; if not, then they are permissive
Substantially same law applies
NOTE: All of the above factors do not need to be met for there to be same transaction and occurrence
C. Amended Pleadings
1. Process for amending
a. FRCP 15(a) − Party allowed to amend once as of right
i. Before a responsive pleading is served or
ii. If no responsive pleading is permitted, the party may amend within 20 days after it is served
Otherwise may only amend by:
(1) leave of the court or
(2) stipulation of the parties.
Leave shall be freely given as justice so requires
b. FRCP 15(b) − When issues not raised in the pleadings are tried by express or implied consent of both parties, they shall be treated as if they are part of the pleadings. Amended pleading allowed, but not required
c. If a disfavored Rule 12 motion is not brought in the answer, you can still amend the answer to include this Rule 12 motion so long as it is in the 20 day period
2. Standard for the court to allow a party to amend
a. Leave to amend will be given freely when justice so requires
3. Factors the court will take into account in denying leave to amend:
a. Undue delay
b. Bad faith
c. Prejudice to the opposing party
4. Relation back of an amended pleading
a. FRCP 15(c) − Relation back of amendment
i. 15(c)(2) − Relation back of a claim – amending to add a new claim when the statute of limitations has run from the original service of the pleading, must be same T&O (T&O test as above)
ii. 15(c)(3) − Relation back of a party − changing a party's name or adding a party
· Change the D or the name of the D
· Name T&O (T&O test as above)
· Timing of notice – date of filing of original complaint + 120 days (Rule 4(m))
· Form of notice
§ Can be informal, just need to notify the party
· D is aware that but for a mistake of identity, he would have been named
§ Some jurisdictions say ignorance is not a mistake
iii. Swartz v. Gold Dust Casino
Facts: Swartz falls down stairs at the Gold Dust Casino. She alleges that the stair were thread bare, worn and slippery. Also, the stair violates the building code. Π files and serves a complaint against Gold Dust and Does I through V for negligence. Δ answers by denying the allegations. After discovery and interrogatories, Π discovered the true identity of Doe I and requests leave to amend their complaint. Δ files motion for summary judgment. Judge denies the motion for summary judgment. Motion for leave to amend is granted. Amended complaint is filed and served upon John Cavanaugh. Δ Cavanaugh raises 2-year statute of limitations as an affirmative defense in answer to amended complaint and moves for judgment on the pleadings.
Rule: Meets requirements for relation back
· Changing the party or changing the name of the party − Yes, Doe I becomes Cavanaugh
· Same transaction and occurrence − Yes, same day, same woman, same stairs (facts and evidence are the same); they are both negligence claims (doesn't have to be the exact same claim)
· Timing of the notice − Notice (not filing) within 120 days of the filing of the complaint; ONLY NOTICE OF THE COMPLAINT IS REQUIRED, NOT FILING
· Form of notice − Cavanaugh got the amended complaint in the motion for leave to amend, also companies are so overlapped it is reasonable to assume that Cavanaugh would have known of the action
· But for a mistake about identity − Cavanaugh knew but for a mistake of identity that they would have been sued
Cavanaugh would argue wasn't a mistake, it was ignorance
iv. David v. Crompton & Knowles
Rule: Meets the requirements for relation back
· Change the defendant − Yes, change Crompton to Hunter
· Same T&O − Yes, same accident, law, etc.
· Timing of notice − Maybe, Hunter is a division of Crompton (overlap of corporate entities)
· Form of notice − yes
· But for a mistake − Hunter would recognize that they would be on the hook for the machine; David thought Crompton was the manufacture. Maybe a mistake about ownership rights, not who is the manufacturer
D. Rule 11
1. FRCP 11(a) − Failure to sign a pleading, written motion or other written paper
2. FRCP 11(b) − In representations to the court attorney is certifying that he has made a reasonable inquiry and that to the best of his knowledge, information and belief
a. No improper purpose
b. Claims, defenses or other legal contentions are supported by existing law or by a non-frivolous argument for the extension of existing law
c. Allegations have evidentiary support
d. Denials of factual contentions are warranted on the evidence or are reasonably based on a lack of information or belief
3. FRCP 11(c) − Sanctions
4. FRCP 11(d) − Rule 11 sanctions do not apply to discovery (Rules 26-37)
5. Rule 11 Sanctions Process – 11(b)
a. Basis under 11(b)(1)-(4)
i. 11(b)(1) − Improper purpose, including delay
ii. 11(b)(2) − No basis in existing law
(two components, only have to meet one)
· Subjective − must believe had legal argument
· Objective − must actually have legal argument
iii. 11(b)(3) − No basis in evidence for the allegation or assertion
iv. 11(b)(4) − No basis in evidence for the denial
v. Creates standards/duty
vi. Notwithstanding your good faith if knowledge or information was not reasonably researched, subject to sanctions
b. Initiating Process − by motion or by court (no safe harbor when court initiates)
i. Serve motion on party who then has 21 days to correct problem or motion is filed in court
ii. Motion has to describe conduct
iii. Motion has to be separate from any other motion
c. Decision Process
i. Court has to give party chance to respond
ii. Describe conduct explicitly
iii. Describe basis for sanctions
d. Discretion
i. Can violate the basis and not be sanctioned
e. Type of Sanctions
i. Designed to deter not to compensate, because court was using as cost shifting mechanism
ii. Only strong enough sanction to deter conduct
iii. Court can refer to state bar, or to go to school, reprimand
iv. A represented party can be sanctioned
· Not monetary if basis is 11(b)(2) because client is not expected to know the law
v. Attorney's fees and costs only available on motion
f. Target
i. Attorney
ii. Firm
iii. Party
Identify the action
Basis for sanction
Types of Sanctions
Target of Sanction
11(a): Failure to sign paper
Notify party, court
Shall. 11(a)
No other option
Signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating position with…
-improper purpose (b)(1)
-no basis in law (b)(2)
-no basis in evidence for allegation or assertion (b)(3)
-no basis in evidence for denial (b)(4)
Sanctioned if frivolous either:
-subjectively (belief) or
-objectively (no reasonable inquiry; frivolous legal argument) 11(b)
Party's motion:
-serve 21 days before filing (safe harbor)
-describe conduct
-only if not corrected
-not combine with other motion 11(c)(1)(A)
-order to show cause (OSC)
-describe conduct at issue 11(c)(1)(B)
Notice and opportunity to respond 11(c)
-describe conduct
-explain basis for sanction 11(c)(3)
May. 11(c) Can use discretion
Goal: Deter, not compensate 11(c)(2)
-nonmonetary directive (go to classes)
-monetary fine to court
pay other side's attorney's fees or costs 11(c)(2)
-represented party not pay money under (b)(2). 11(c)(2)(A)
-attorney's fees and costs only if on motion. 11(c)(2)
-no monetary sanction on court's initiative unless OSC before voluntary dismissal or settlement. 11(c)(2)(B)
Party, attorney, law firm, or combination. 11(c)
6. Zuk
Facts: Zuk, psychologist, had EPPI record therapy sessions for rental. Writes books that has transcripts from session and gets copyright. Zuk furloughed (fired). Zuk requests copies of the tapes. EPPI ignores the requests. Requests them again 1994. Requests are denied.
III. Discovery
A. Analyze
1. Proper use of device
a. Must be described with reasonable particularity
2. Responsive
a. Did the party ask for it?
3. Relevance − Rule 26(b)(1)
a. Reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence pertaining to claim or defense
i. Merits
ii. Background
iii. Impeach/Corroborate
iv. Clues
Ø If relevant to claim or defense do not need to make showing
Ø If relevant to subject matter, burden of proof shifts to party seeking discovery (need court order and good cause shown)
4. Protected
a. Privacy − Rule 26(c)
i. Annoyance, embarrassment
ii. Undue burden or expense − Rule 26(b)(2)
· Other means, source for same information
· Already been ample opportunity for discovery
· Rule 26(b)(2)(iii)
§ How much is it in controversy
§ What are parties' resources
§ Needs of case
§ How relevant
§ What are important issues
§ Are there alternative sources of information
§ Consider models of adjudication
iii. Trade secrets − Rule 26(c)(7)
· Economic detriment
· Secret not generally known
· Injury has to be clearly defined, serious injury
· Competitive disadvantage
· Balance between harm of disclosure and necessity to litigation
b. Protective Order − Rule 26(c)
5. Privilege
a. Elements
i. With client (or prospective client)
· Upjohn − Modified control group test which stated that only those in corporation who are in a position to control or even take a substantial part in decision about any action which the corporation may take upon advice of attorney
§ Modification to protect parties (lower and mid-level employees) who disclose and in corporation will need lower level employees to disclose in order to find out what happened
ii. Legal advice
iii. Legal advisor
iv. Relate to advice
v. In confidence
6. Product − Rule 26(b)(3)
a. Prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial
b. By or for another party, or by of for that other party's representative (including attorney)
· Party may obtain discovery of ORDINARY WORK PRODUCT (but not opinion work product) if:
i. Substantial need
ii. Party cannot get the substantial equivalent without undue hardship
· In ordering discovery of such materials, court shall protect against disclosure of mental impressions, conclusions, opinions or legal theories of attorney or other representative (OPINION WORK PRODUCT)
§ Courts generally abide by this and protect against disclosure of opinion work product
§ 9th Circuit (minority view) − Allows discovery of opinion work product if (1) pivotal issue and (2) compelling need (not applied to attorney opinion work product)
v Must list in privilege log
B. Discovery Devices
1. Initial Disclosures − Rule 26(a)(1)
a. 26(a)(1)(A) − Party must disclose (provide or describe) what she is going to use to support her claim or defense (do not have to provide that which is harmful at this stage)
i. Potential witnesses (name, address, telephone)
ii. Documents
iii. Damages
iv. Insurance
2. Depositions − Rule 30
a. Testimony under oath that is recorded
b. Reasonable notice
c. Limited to 10 depositions
d. One day, seven hours per depositions
e. Only get to depose person once
f. Third parties can be deposed (special rules apply)
g. Rule 30(b)(6) − Describe in reasonable terms the category of person you want to depose, other side must provide the person that fits that category
h. Objections to form
i. Compound
ii. Confusing/Unintelligible
iii. Vague or ambiguous
iv. Misleading
v. Asked and answered
vi. Argumentative
vii. Mischaracterized witness testimony/Assumes facts not in evidence
· If objections not made at deposition, waive right for answer not to be admitted into evidence later
· Even after objection witness may answer, objections only serve to make answer inadmissible later
· Rule 30(d)(1)
§ Instruct not to answer
§ Privilege
§ Protective order in place or going to seek one
§ Any objection must be state concisely, speaking objections not permitted
3. Request for production (RFPs) − Rule 34
a. Describe a category with reasonable particularity
b. 30 days to respond (written response including objections)
c. Rule 34(b) − Produce those documents that are in producing party's protection, control or custody (as kept or in categories, but not scrambled)
d. Rule 26(b)(5) − Privilege or work product
i. Materials that are attorney-client privilege
ii. Work product in preparation of litigation
· Privilege log − Must create a log of those items that are privileged, describe in general terms with objection
4. Interrogatories (Rogs) − Rule 33
a. Limited to 25 in number including subparts
b. 30 days to respond
i. Written answers by attorney and signed off by party
ii. Obligation to answer if reasonably obtainable
· Rule 33(d) − If have to look through a large amount of records can just give other party records in lieu of answering (shift burden to requesting party)
c. Contention interrogatories − Identify every fact (or all evidence) that supports your contention that X
i. Most courts will not allow early on
ii. Used to prove negative (to prove other side has no evidence of X)
5. Exams − Rule 35
a. Parties or those in care, custody or control of party (read narrowly)
b. Must be "in controversy"
c. Good cause shown
d. Must have stipulation by parties or court order
6. Request for admission (RFAs) − Rule 36
a. Extension of pleadings
C. Limitations on discovery
1. Rule 26(b)(2)(iii) − Undue burden
a. Outweighs likely benefits
b. Needs of case
c. Amount in controversy
d. Parties' resources
e. Importance of the issue at stake
f. Importance of proposed discovery in resolving the issue
IV. Summary Judgment
A. Rule 56(a)
1. Claimant can move 20 days after commencement of action or after opposing party moves for summary judgment
B. Rule 56(b)
1. Defending party can move for summary judgment at any time
C. Rule 56(c)
1. Motion must be served at least 10 days before hearing (most courts require at least 21 days)
2. Standard − Summary judgment shall be granted if moving party makes showing that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact
a. What is fact at issue and why is it material?
i. Material if relevant to an element or affirmative defense
b. Is there a genuine issue about it?
i. Is it plausible that could come out either way?
· Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co.
§ Key fact − Was there police officer in store?
§ Material to whether there was a conspiracy
§ D did not come up with enough evidence to initiate
§ D cannot do nothing in moving for SJ, must make some kind of showing (vague as to what this requires)
· Celotex v. Catrett
§ Key fact − Was P exposed to D's product?
§ Material to causation
§ Rather than showing through affirmative evidence, D made showing that absence of evidence on other side (contention interrogatories often used)
§ Absence of evidence − Courts are split on moving party's burden
Ø Point out there is no evidence (just state)
Ø Point to evidence in record to show lack of evidence
D. Rule 56(f)
1. Not enough chance for discovery on issue (premature)
E. Burden of production − Whether party has sufficient evidence to go to trial
F. Burden of persuasion − Which party must convince trier of fact
G. Party with burden of proof moves
1. Every reasonable jury would conclude that it is more likely than not that moving party is right
2. Ex. − Every reasonable jury would conclude that it is more likely than not that Jacques threw the rock
a. Required to make initial showing
b. Only if initial showing is strongly supported does opposing party have to respond
i. Burden of opposing party is to provide enough evidence to undermine moving party's evidence sufficiently such that a reasonable jury could conclude that moving party is not more likely than not right
H. Party who does not have burden of proof moves
1. No reasonable jury would conclude that more likely than not that party opposing summary judgment is right
2. Ex. − No reasonable jury would conclude that it is more likely than not that Jacques threw the rock
a. Initial showing − Logically would make sense not to require initial showing, but if this were the case could be used as a weapon too easily
· Celotex − Ambiguous which of two standard applies
o Either merely point out that other side has no evidence
o Or must do discovery to show that other side has no evidence
i. Burden of opposing party is to provide enough evidence that a reasonable jury could conclude that it is more likely than not right
ii. Note that since party opposing summary judgment will have burden of persuasion at trial, if moving party has met its burden, simply attacking the moving party's evidence will not suffice to survive summary judgment
For More information How You Can Use Some of These Pro Se Civil Litigation Guidelines To Effectively Challenge and Successfully Win Your Wrongful Foreclosure and Save Your Home Visit http://www.fightforeclosure.net


text:
Two gems from this morning's New York Times Book Review:
From: The Catastrophist By LEON WIESELTIER (a review of THE SECOND PLANE – September 11: Terror and boredom, By Martin Amis.)
On Sept. 10, 2001, nobody in America seemed to know anything about Islam. On Sept. 12, 2001, everybody seemed to know everything about Islam. Well, not quite; but it is really a wonder the way the arcane particulars of an alien civilization now trip off every tongue. People who would not know if a page of Arabic is upside down or right side up helpfully expound upon the meaning of jahilliyah. Sayyid Qutb is quickly overtaking Reinhold Niebuhr as the theologian about whom the un- or antitheological pronounce with the most serene authority. Nothing creates intellectual confidence like catastrophe. After the mind breaks, it stiffens; in the aftermath of grief, it lets in only certainty. In a time of war, complexity is suspected of a sapping effect, and so a mental curfew is imposed. From the maxim that we must know our enemy, we infer that our enemy may be easily known.Continue reading "A Few Thoughts on Thinking"


text:
Organic food and farm groups ask Obama to require GMO food labels
(Reuters) - Four U.S. lawmakers joined with more than 200 food companies, organic farming groups, health and environment organizations and other groups on Thursday to urge President Barack Obama to require manufacturers to label food products tha...
(Reuters) - Four U.S. lawmakers joined with more than 200 food companies, organic farming groups, health and environment organizations and other groups on Thursday to urge President Barack Obama to require manufacturers to label food products that contain genetically engineered ingredients.
The groups delivered a letter to the president dated January 16 reminding Obama of a campaign pledge the groups said he made in 2007 as he campaigned in Iowa to work to label so-called GMO foods.
The issue is hotly contested, with more than 20 states considering laws to mandate labeling of foods made with gene-altered corn, soybeans, sugar beets and other biotech crops. Currently, labeling of such foods is voluntary.
Advocates of labeling say consumers deserve to know if the food they eat contains GMOs. But the makers of biotech crops, and many large food manufacturers have fought against mandatory labeling, arguing that genetically modified crops are not materially different and pose no safety risk, and labeling would mislead consumers.
Among the signatories on Thursday's letter to President Obama are the ice cream company Ben & Jerry's, cereal maker Nature's Path, organic yogurt maker Stonyfield Farms, the Consumer Federation of America and several environmental and health groups.
"We believe there should be a mandatory national labeling system. FDA has a duty to act when the absence of labeling would leave consumers confused about the foods they buy," the groups said in their letter.
Four Democratic members of Congress held a press conference on Thursday to support the call on Obama for mandatory labeling - U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio from Oregon; U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro from Connecticut; U.S. Rep. Ann McLane Kuster from New Hampshire; and U.S. Rep. Chellie Pingree from Maine.
The move comes as the Grocery Manufacturers Association, which represents more than 300 food companies, is pushing Congress and the Food and Drug Administration to pre-empt any state labeling mandates in favor of a federal standard for voluntary labeling, and to allow some GMO foods to be labeled "natural."
Most of the biotech crops on the market have been genetically altered to repel pests or tolerate direct spraying of herbicides. Those crops are used in a vast array of food products.
The companies that develop them say the crops are safe, and are backed by many scientific studies. But U.S. government regulators do not independently test GMO crops before approving them for commercialization. And there are also many studies showing links to human and animal health problems, and environmental damage.
Last October, an international coalition of scientists declared there still was no consensus in the global scientific community about the safety of genetically modified crops, which were first commercialized in 1996.
(Editing by Ed Davies)


text:
Ginger pins are made of FSC certified wood, sourced from sustainably managed European forests. Knitting pin points for length 60 - 150 cmcan be combined with plastic cords of different lengthsMaterial: WoodBag of 2 piecesGauge: 3 mm
A splendid collection of wooden needles in unique tinted looksMade from the same, much-loved laminated wood, as used for SymfoniePerfectly tapered points, can pick up any stitch with easeLightweight, strong & durable needlesSmooth surface that makes any type of yarn glideProvides hours of pleasurable knitting with no hand fatigueWarm to the touch, and gentle in the hand
This product was added to our catalog on Thursday 17 December, 2020.
© 2007-2023 Wollerei
Programming: webchills Shop Software: Zen Cart


text: On Wed, Sep 12, 2001 at 11:24:41AM -0700, Eric Kuhnke wrote: > It comes with 40 10/100Base-T ports for $1499 from many online stores, and > is expandable to 80 ports total. The only downside is the 8-port modules > are rather expensive ($350 each) if you need to expand beyond 40 ports. It's usually cheaper to buy cards by buying another half-populated 4000M. Then you get a spare chassis and power supply for free! greg


text:
Oracle, Google and Java – Oh My
August 17, 2010 1 Comment
A follow-up to this post, now that some additional information is coming out.
James Gosling has made another interesting post with some historical information, including the fact that as a result of an IBM lawsuit some Sun engineers made an unofficial game out of seeing how ridicuouls of a patent they could get approved:
In Sun's early history, we didn't think much of patents. While there's a kernel of good sense in the reasoning for patents, the system itself has gotten goofy. Sun didn't file many patents initially. But then we got sued by IBM for violating the "RISC patent" – a patent that essentially said "if you make something simpler, it'll go faster". Seemed like a blindingly obvious notion that shouldn't have been patentable, but we got sued, and lost. The penalty was huge. Nearly put us out of business. We survived, but to help protect us from future suits we went on a patenting binge. Even though we had a basic distaste for patents, the game is what it is, and patents are essential in modern corporations, if only as a defensive measure. There was even an unofficial competition to see who could get the goofiest patent through the system. My entry wasn't nearly the goofiest.
He notes that "Apple's expected entry into advertising" (now iAds) may have been the initial impetus for Android and adds "Don't interpret any of my comments as support for Oracle's suit. There are no guiltless parties with white hats in this little drama. This skirmish isn't much about patents or principles or programming languages. The suit is far more about ego, money and power."
Charles Nutter has an extremely detailed post where he breaks down each of the patents one by one. While lengthy, if you're interested in this topic you should read the entire post (probably twice). Here is part of his conclusion:
So, Does the Suit Have Merit?
I'll again reiterate that I'm not a lawyer. I'm just a Java developer with a logical mind and a penchant for debunking myths about the Java platform.
The collection of patents specified by the suit seems pretty laughable to me. If I were Google, I wouldn't be particularly worried about showing prior art for the patents in question or demonstrating how Android/Dalvik don't actually violate them. Some, like the "mixed mode" patent, don't actually seem to apply at all. It feels very much like a bunch of Sun engineers got together in a room with a bunch of lawyers and started digging for patents that Google might have violated without actually knowing much about Android or Dalvik to begin with.
But does the suit have merit? It depends if you consider baseless or over-general patents to have merit. The most substantial patent listed here is the "mixed mode" patent, and unless I'm wrong that one doesn't apply. The others are all variations on prior art, usually specialized for a Java runtime environment (and therefore with some question as to whether they can apply to a non-Java runtime environment that happens to have a translator from Java code). Having read through the suit and scanned the patents, I have to say I'm not particularly worried. But then again, I don't know what sort of magic David Boies and company might be able to pull off.
He also gives his opinion on the "possible outcomes" as: The Nuclear Option (ie. the death of android, which is *very* unlikely), a Google Licensing Deal, Nothing At All, and the Total Collapse of Software Patents (wouldn't that be nice).
Matthew Aslett attempts to answer the question of whether Oracle should now be seen as anti-open source:
I want to address is whether Oracle should now be seen as anti-open source.
I believe this theory is flawed. Firstly, because it assumes the open source community is a single, sentient being. As Matt Asay notes: "There is no Santa Claus. No Easter Bunny. And no such thing as an open-source community separate and distinct from the profit-driven free market that drives software development, generally."
Secondly, because it assumes an emotional relationship between Oracle and open source that is equally non-existent.
As Simon Phipps has explained, corporations are reptiles that react instinctively to survive and thrive. Google's call-to-arms of the Java open source community can be seen in the same light, especially since Google's prior relationship with the Java community in relation to Android has been somewhat tenuous (rather than repeat what has been written elsewhere I recommend reading Carlo Daffara for the details).
And let's not forget that Google's approach to using open source resulted, at least in part, to the creation of a whole new license, one that the company has actively discouraged.
The statement by Oracle's chief corporate architect Edward Screven, that "Oracle doesn't really have an open source-specific strategy" must be understood in the context of this opportunism. The company's engagement with open source is tactical, and changes on a case-by-case basis. It is wrong, therefore, to expect continuity in Oracle's approach to different open source projects.
I'm not trying to excuse Oracle's actions with regards to either Java or OpenSolaris, but I think each must be considered separately. [update – to clarify] Any Oracle related open source project should be approached with caution but… we should all be equally cautious about being encouraged to see the patent claims as a matter of good versus evil or open versus closed.
This is a legal matter between two corporations both of which are opportunistic in their approaches to open source engagement (unless it suits them to be otherwise).
In other words, as Matt Asay explains: "This isn't about open source for Oracle, really. Nor is it about open source for Google, however much it may want to publicly posture as such."
Stephen O'Grady attempts to answer a question that has been on many people minds with this post: WHY?
The latter point is perhaps the most important. It's the only real clue we have to answer the only real question here: what does Oracle want?
Because the answer to that is: not what they've asked for in the complaint. Oracle may indeed request recompense for "the damages sustained and will sustain" as well as "any gains, profits, and advantages obtained by Google as a result of Google's acts of infringement and Google's use and publication of the copied materials." But you can be sure that that's not all they want.
As Andy Updegrove covers, the obvious motivation is financial. Specifically, maximizing the return on the six and a half billion capital expense that bought Sun's assets, the patents in question included. If Oracle realized the same return as Sun from the Microsoft settlement concerning Java, for example, the cost of Sun becomes four billion. Remaking what was arguably a bargain into a steal.
Purely financial justifications for this suit are less than satisfying, however.
To begin with, Oracle would effectively be trading long term ecosystem health for a short term cash windfall. Unless the settlement is historically immense – a difficult outcome to rely on from a planning perspective – it's not clear that this would be a net win. For all of its sustained success in the application and database markets, Oracle remains as fundamentally dependent on the Java ecosystem as Sun was before it. Even for a company that's sought and found growth through stack ownership and category dominance, the health of the ecosystem is and must remain a concern. While the original technology was technically groundbreaking and differentiated, the key to Java's success lay outside its featurelist. What drove its ascension within enterprises was the reality that Java offered at least the potential for independence from vendors. That will not be surrendered lightly, whatever Oracle may believe. A Java ecosystem dominated by Oracle is a doomed ecosystem. While it's far from clear that this action by itself would create that perception amongst current Java ecosystem participants, it, coupled with Oracle's own aggressive history, would be unlikely to be beneficial from a participation standpoint. As Andy put it, "it's less clear to me what the strategic value would be to Oracle to prevent Google for incorporating Java into Android, or to impede the marketplace generally from relying on Java."
It can be argued, then, that this is a high risk exercise for Oracle. The only satisfactory return for high risk exercise is high reward. Based on past software settlements, it's difficult to project this being material to Oracle financially over a multi-year timeframe. Which is why I suspect there's more at stake here than royalties.
What that is is non-obvious. All that we know about what Oracle wants, realistically, is what they are prepared to surrender. Aside from bearing the hard costs of litigation, Oracle is willing to absorb soft costs in risk to reputation and participation rates in the Java ecosystem. We must expect then that Oracle's expected return will be commensurate with these costs. Oracle is many things, but stupid generally isn't one of them.
Perhaps, as Forbes speculates, this is a prelude to a cross-licensing arrangement. Though if that's the case, I'm far less certain that this suit actually has anything to do with Android; might patents like this "Large-scale data processing in a distributed and parallel processing enviornment" or this "Information extraction from a database" be relevant to Oracle's core businesses? Perhaps Google is already or plans to compete directly with Oracle in ways we are not aware of yet. Or maybe Oracle just wants Google to buy a bunch of database licenses.
Whatever the real reason, this is a surprising decision even for a firm as aggressive as Oracle. The only thing more surprising is how quickly it turned Google – excoriated around the web for their questionable net neutrality proposal with Verizon – back into the good guys. Even if you speculate about differences in Oracle's evaluations of its own assets – that Oracle believes that Java has peaked in popularity, for example, and that this is a one time opportunity to cash in on an asset that must, inevitably, decline – the calculus of this move fails. Nothing in Oracle's product roadmaps hint at such a realization. Nor would a one time windfall, however large, be sufficient to offset the costs of a significant decline in Oracle's Java related products.
As for predictions, I'll make only one: whoever wins will also lose. This suit is going to negatively impact – probably substantially – Java adoption. The enterprise technology landscape is more fragmented by the day, as it transitions from .NET or Java othodoxy to multi-language heterogeneity. Oracle's suit will accelerate this process as it introduces for the first time legal uncertainty around the Java platform. Apple and Microsoft will be thrilled by this development, and scores of competitive languages and platforms are likely to see improved traction as a result of Java defections.
Add up these costs, and the only supportable conclusion is that Oracle's ambitions here are big.
As Stephen notes, it's exceedingly difficult to ascertain what Oracle is *really* after here. As more information comes out, their motivation may become more clear and I'll guess this won't be nearly my last post on the topic.
In tangentially related news, it's now confirmed that Oracle is killing OpenSolaris although it remains committed to Solaris itself and will be bringing Solaris Express back from the grave. It also appears that Oracle will continue to commit resources to MySQL, at least for the time being.
Additional Reading:
Matt Asay
Bradley M. Kuhn
VAR Guy