Slashdot Mirror
Analysis of SCO vs. IBM
icantblvitsnotbutter writes "An excellent -- and clear! -- article over at LinuxWorld.com has a multipoint analysis of SCO's 40-page complaint (this is a brief?!). For all those IANAL's out there, here's something to sink your teeth into. On the balance, the outlook seems positive for IBM. Still, the parallel invocation of a contractural clause potentially nixing AIX lends some credence to claims that this is a just way for SCO to coerce IBM into buying them out..." Some old documents from a similar lawsuit have surfaced, and naturally ESR has his own take on the case.
w00t...
OMG! Wau!
FP
That's why I always wear rubber these days.
no they didnt
this sig steers like a cow. and i can prove it
Chronology of Events
Seymour Hersh writes an article in The New Yorker:
A Hawk's Business: Why was Richard Perle meeting with Adnan Khashoggi?
Ricard Perle, on Wolf Blitzer's, show calls Seymour Hersh a terrorist
Read the interesting comments with historical comparisons at Talkingpointsmemo.com
More details available at: ENOUGH IS ENOUGH:
Richard Perle brands journalist Seymour Hersh a "terrorist"
Cheers,
W00t
From the CNN transcript:
There's an article in the New Yorker magazine by
Seymour Hersh that's just coming out today in which
he makes a serious accusation against you that you
have a conflict of interest in this because you're
involved in some business that deals with homeland
security, you potentially could make some money if,
in fact, there is this kind of climate that he
accuses you of proposing. Let me read a quote from
the New Yorker article, the March 17th issue, just
out now. "There is no question that Perle believes
that removing Saddam from power is the right thing
to do. At the same time, he has set up a company
that may gain from a war."
PERLE: I don't believe that a company would gain
from a war. On the contrary, I believe that the
successful removal of Saddam Hussein, and I've
said this over and over again, will diminish the
threat of terrorism. And what he's talking about
is investments in homeland defense, which I think
are vital and are necessary. Look, Sy Hersh is the
closest thing American journalism has to a
terrorist, frankly.
BLITZER: Well, on the basis of -- why do you say
that? A terrorist?
PERLE: Because he's widely irresponsible. If you
read the article, it's first of all, impossible
to find any consistent theme in it. But the
suggestion that my views are somehow related for
the potential for investments in homeland
defense is complete nonsense.
BLITZER: But I don't understand. Why do you
accuse him of being a terrorist?
PERLE: Because he sets out to do damage and he
will do it by whatever innuendo, whatever
distortion he can -- look, he hasn't written a
serious piece since Maylie (ph).
BLITZER: All right. We're going to leave it right there
Get Your Unilateral War On Iraq On
Oh, and keep drinking that Jaegermeister. You already look like a full-time drunk.
While I don't disagree that students you should have the right to criticize government in school, private citizens are still responsible for their opinions and the consequences they bring. As long as the government doesn't get in the habit of building blacklists (McCarthy), and it's a simple free market decision (now), so be it. Plenty of people would choose not to employ someone who publicly supports the Klan or Nazism. If an actor can't find work because of their stance, well, too bad. If you can only make $500,000 on your next movie instead of $5,000,000, well, boo frickin hoo.
The government also isn't responsible for the way the press behaves. If they choose to be lazy, then they'll pay for that in time when other non-lazy journalists step up.
Plenty of people would choose not to employ someone who publicly supports the Klan or Nazism.
So it'll be perfectly O.K with the goverment if I choose not to employ Black people or Seventh Day Adventists. Cool!
1. Piracy funds terrorism
2. Linux violates SCO's IP
3. Linux supports terrorism <---
4. Profit!
There is a lot of scope for MS for spreading FUD. Watch out.
Everybody is talking about IBM buying SCO. What are the chances of Microsoft buying SCO?
Sorry sir/ma'am, you're gay/female/disabled/ugly/short/liberal/Jewish nad you really just flaunt it too much. I'm going to pay you half as much as I pay this guy over here who looks like me and has a similar last name.
Here's a quick legal status of the things you mention:
gay = mostly not protected
female = mostly protected
disabled = mostly protected
ugly = not protected
short = not protected (uncless classed as disabled)
liberal = not protected
Jewish = protected
"Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?"
Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?
Thou art more lovely and more temperate:
Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May,
And summer's lease hath all too short a date:
Sometime too hot the eye of heaven shines,
And often is his gold complexion dimm'd;
And every fair from fair sometime declines,
By chance, or nature's changing course, untrimm'd;
But thy eternal summer shall not fade,
Nor lose possession of that fair thou owest;
Nor shall Death brag thou wander'st in his shade,
When in eternal lines to time thou growest;
So long as men can breathe, or eyes can see,
So long lives this, and this gives life to thee.
If you knew the facts of the case, you'd agree that the woman was injured by McDonalds, and she should be compensated. The coffee was way too hot, and there was nothing at all that she did to cause the accident, nor could you say that it was her stupidity, ignorance, or greed that led to the judgement in her favor.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
The real problem comes when this is not a personal decision, but an institutional manifestation.
When the government (and any person representing the government is 'the government' for all intents and purposes) makes an outrageous statement, it certainly does not fall into the same class as a private citizen making the same statement. This is so because the government has access to private records and has an army (FBI, CIA, Local Law Enforcement, as well as the regular standing army) to suppress individual's rights (we have seen this done in the past; it will be done in the future).
The government branding someone a 'terrorist' serves to put desired 'punishment' behind a faceless agency, and thus allows personal vendettas to move forward under the veil of 'law enforcement'. This was seen during the McCarthy era, and the implications in Mr. Pearle's statements are shockingly similar, in words if not substance (replace 'terrorist' with 'communist' and you have a perfect example of past history).
Our country is built upon freedom of expression. It is a dark day, indeed, when that pillar of our system is suppressed by the very people who swear to uphold the Constitution (and thus freedom of expression). I could not abide hipocracy when I was a child, and I can not stand for it as an adult.
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
-- Fuck Beta