Slashback: Bankruptcy, SUVdiving, Singalongs

Slashback updates tonight on sky-diving cars, Microsoft's new code Glasnost (guess who's signed up to see the code?), the fate of the PCI-SIG list, the SCO and Linux licensing brouhaha, music royalties in Finland, and more. Read on for the details.

Not like that un-American GPL. agentZ writes "The first Microsoft government customer to buy access to the Windows source code is Russia according to this CNet story. Interesting to note FAPSI, one of their intelligence agencies, authorized the purchase. Perhaps they're looking for vulnerabilities in the U.S. Government's dependence on Microsoft?"

The difference between Chapter 11 and The End. prostoalex writes "In regards to a recent heated discussion on whether tech companies can make it out of Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, XO Communications, the telecom company of the dot-com era, seems to be doing quite well after filing Chapter 11. The article on Internet.com also mentions another company, Covad Communications, picking up customers and more business after filing for Chapter 11."

There's hope in PCI Land. Regarding the Slashdot post of a few days ago about the PCI-SIG ("The End of the Free PCI Device List"), PCI-SIG Chairman Tony Pierce writes

"YourVote.com Supporters:

Thank you for making us aware of your concerns regarding Jim Boemler's online Vendor and Device Lists for the PCI technology.

There has been a misunderstanding between PCI-SIG and Jim - PCI-SIG officers are currently working with Jim to resolve the issues as quickly as possible. We respect Jim Boemler's work and are committed to support the PCI specification efforts industry-wide. We are confident that we will come to an amicable resolution.

We are pleased to see the strong industry support for PCI technologies and value your response to the issues. We understand this site has been a very valuable tool and are working together to find a solution to make sure that the tool is available to the public in some way.

Thank you for your support over the years. We will be sure to keep you informed as we come to resolution in this situation."

This lowers Finland on my list of vacation spots. E-Tray writes "It seems that Finnish equivalents of American RIAA, Teosto, which represents songwriters and publishers, and Gramex, which represents music producers and artists, want to force Finnish day nurseries to pay royalties every time nursery staff sings along with kids. Previously Teosto enforced a law that taxi drivers have to pay royalties if they play music while a customer is in the backseat."

Would still rather see a statement signed in blood. Error27 writes "Earlier this week, Slashdot linked to a Maureen O'Gara article that claimed SCO was probably going to try charge Linux users $96 per CPU. More than one person thought SCO's denial was, "Awfully ambiguous". Hopefully this article clears up any doubts. Essentially, SCO will continue to charge IBM but not RedHat or SCO's UnitedLinux partners."

Perhaps I can volunteer my dad's Suburbans? Finally, joe jennings writes

"A few months ago you ran a story about the cars my team and I skydived with and crashed into the desert. This is a bit of an update.

Next month, we're going to blow up my Nissan Pathfinder. Its twisted remains will be welded to a steel beam and planted on a plot of land in the mojave desert. We're starting "suv ranch," a tribute to gas guzzlers, a dying trend (we hope).

I intend to thoroughly document the project and will post images and quicktime videos on gaspig.com."

Comments

What a load of crap...

[LordNightwalker]

We understand this site has been a very valuable tool and are working together to find a solution to make sure that the tool is available to the public in some way.

And one can't but wonder why it hasn't occured to them that the best way to do it is not to send a cease & decist letter in the first place... What a load of hogwash. The tool was already available to the public in some way untill they started interfering, and now they're looking for a way to make sure that... *sigh*

Re:SUVs

[cliveholloway]

If you need 4 trips in a regular car to transport all your crap, you're hardly "camping" now, are you?

The SUV is simply the icon of the overconsumerist society that we've become.

Consume, consume, consume and fuck the rest of the world. That seems to be the American way these days.

Damn sheeple...

.02

cLive ;-)

Re:dumping suvs out of planes to protest gas hogs?

[RealTimeFreeAgent]

I think the parent poster's point was there might possibly be a more environmentally friendly way to protest the SUV than dropping them out of a gas guzzling airplane. Taking your argument and beating it into the ground, it's akin to protesting starvation by holding a hot dog eating contest at the local country club.

Also in my experience, sarcastic ad hominem attacks are the last vestiges of a defeated argument.

Another way to look at it

[porkface]

If 10 people drove SUV's once a week as part of a publicity stunt, it wouldn't be the environmental problem it is.

And pollution is just one of the arguments against SUVs.

The pollution problem is a cumulative effect. The most effective way to cut pollution is to pollute less on our twice daily commutes by driving more efficient vehicles more often. It's not by out and out banning any one type of vehicle. California made great progress over the last 10 years, and their system should be copied. However, it's clear that it was only a first step, and it now needs to be taken farther through more widespread adoption, and more stringent efficiency regulations.

Re:Parachuting cars is saving the enviroment?

[Desert Raven]

Just in case anyone DIDNT know, one of the major reasons Americans *BUY* SUVs in the first place is because they can then buy a Luxury Vehicle and get a tax break .

Interesting statement, since I own a large SUV, and had no idea such a tax law existed.

I bought my Suburban because I do a lot of volunteer work for a couple of animal rescues, and need a vehicle that can transport several large dogs, plus any equipment/supplies I need for awareness events etc... plus tow a large trailer. I've had as many as six greyhounds plus supplies in the truck for a single run. For my part, I keep it in as good of tune as possible, and only drive it when there's no better choice.

Personally, I'm getting pretty pissed off at every bleeding heart that gives me a dirty look for having it. Or better yet, those who harangue me into defending my need for it. More and more I don't bother to explain, I just tell 'em to f-off.

As for these whack-jobs dropping vehicles into the desert, they should be prosecuted for environmental crimes. I live in the desert, it's a highly fragile ecosystem that just doesn't need any more abuse by mental midgets with weak justifications for blowing up things. The desert's already littered with tens of thousands of things that people took out to shoot up or blow up. Plus, you're just not going to get me to believe that they completely sanitized these vehicles by removing every last millileter of fuel, oil, transmission fluid, power steering fluid, engine coolant, freon, etc from the vehicle. I won't even get into the by-products from burning the vehicle that will saturate the ground for a couple hundred feet around the burn site.

Re:SUVs

[technos]

Oh come now. The Humvee may be bad compared to a Metro, but I bet it still gets better gas mileage and lower emissions out of the Chevy 350 it has under the hood than any of the millions of 60's,70's and early 80's vehicles on the road. Cripes, there are probably a thousand times as many high-school and college student tweaked Camaros and Mustangs on the road than Hummers, each getting much worse mileage and belching emissions like a nut, not to mention the fact they all leak something.

Re:Parachuting cars is saving the enviroment?

[chriso11]

Everyone always has a reason why they need an SUV. "I have to tow horses" or "I need to go into the mountains" or "I carry food and blankets for the poor homeless people".

But you know, 90% of the time, I see one person in a 3 ton vehicle, commuting 30miles, or driving over speed bumps in the mall. And I bet that most people could RENT one for those occasions where an SUV was really needed. But that's not the American way.

And SUVs are light trucks, so they don't have the same emissions requirements as cars. They aren't safer, either.

Last, I don't EVER want to hear anyone driving a fat gas hog complaining about gasoline prices.

Re:Windows is now less secure

[Glass of Water]

Don't you see how brilliantly evil this is on Microsoft's part?

Say the Russians buy the source, or view it, or whatever. Now the US has to buy it to check for backdoors that Microsoft might have missed but the Russians know about! The US Gov't is running all these computers and Rusia has the source, but the US doesn't! HA HA HA! In [post-]Soviet Russia, all your source are belong to us!

As soon as the Israelis get it, the Palestinians need it. As soon as the Pakistanis get it, the Indians need it! Soon, everyone needs to see this source code!

(Mabye)

Re:dumping suvs out of planes to protest gas hogs?

[tshak]

The problem is not simply that SUV's guzzle gas. My friend has a F350 extended cab which, although get's better mileage than many SUV's, is still quite a guzzler compared to my Honda. However, he's constantly moving TONS of stuff around for his business. The problem with SUV's is that people use them for commuting to and from work, the store, and their friends house - all activities which could be done by burning a lot less fuel, taking less space on the road, and making the roads safer for all by driving a small to midsize car.

So no, the one time (or even occasional) use of an airplane for recreational purposes is not hypocrital. Not all of us who are anti-SUV's drive hybrid's either. It's just that SUV's are generally such an extreme waste that something needs to be said.