Slashdot Mirror
SCO's Plan Examined
kevin@ank.com writes "In the best expose I've read since the original Halloween documents, Groklaw has links and analysis of Renaissance Ventures' rationale for investing in The SCO Group. Among other misrepresentations, SCO convinced Ren that SCO owned the root of the entire UNIX tree, and that Linux was just one branch of that tree. Linux gets a SCO tax... forever; or worst case, if Linux gets killed in the process, then so be it. Renaissance also estimated that IBM would have settled with SCO last April under the strength of SCO's claims, and the threat of terminating their UNIX license. Oops."
All the FUD generated by the various groups in the end in will be meaningless.
A little off-topic, I know- but...
/. effect will subside.
I wish slashdot would give some sort of statistics on how many click-throughs to an article have been initiated (say in the last 10 minutes or so)...
As it is there is no way of knowing when the damn
just a thaught.
....move along....nothing to see here....
new SCO story.. my preciousssss, yesssss
All your branch are belong us!
Take life easy: one bit at a time.
Man!!! This comment-o-thingy is great! Can you get it to do the FPs, GNAA and overlord thingy too?
May I use your sig please?
Judge Moore isn't a federal judge.
The first amendment bans Congress from ESTABLISHING a state religion. It says nothing about seperation of church and state.
What I don't like are judges who make law. The judiciary is unlelected, and serves for life. That is hardly a body ANY person who doesn't believe in fascism would want writing laws...
Corporatism != Free Market
...and the 14th amendment extended the 1st amendment ban of establishing religion to the state governments.
As far as "seperation of church and state," this was a quote from Thomas Jefferson that the Supreme Court used in Everton vs Board of Education in 1947. It is the Supreme Court's job to determine constitutionality, and they decided that this "wall of seperation of church and state" was what was intended in the Establishment clause of the 1st amendment.
It says:
That sounds an awful lot like separating church and state to me. Or are you trying to say "establishment of religion" in this case means the act of establishing a religion?
What I don't like are judges who make law. The judiciary is unlelected, and serves for life. That is hardly a body ANY person who doesn't believe in fascism would want writing laws...
The Judiciary being unelected is a very important component in our government. It means that they can look at laws passed by the tyrannical majority and strike them down without fear of losing the next election. Some rogue judge could start interpretting laws in a patently bizarre manner, that is why we have appellate courts.
But where do you get that judges are making laws? They can remove language from existing law if it violates a constitution (state or federal), they can interpret a law in an unusual manner, but I didn't think they could add laws to the books.
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
I'm not so sure about the 14th ammendment, but as far as the 1st goes you have to look at the context also. When the Constitution was written, the monarchy in England was closely tied to the Church of England (in fact wasn't the head of the royal family the head of the church? not sure about that). The founding fathers wanted to guarentee that it wouldn't be possible for the government to establish any one religion as the "Official" religion of this country. This does not mean that there can be no God in the government. For that look at our laws. They are all based on judeo/christian ethics.
In the UK the monarch still is the official head of the Church of England. The US probably wanted to avoid the situation that occurred when Henry VIII established the Church of England and outlawed Catholicism to serve his own ends.