Slashdot Mirror
SCO Says 'Linux Doesn't Exist'
4A6F656C writes "In an article on LinuxWorld.com.au, Kieren O'Shaughnessy, director of SCO Australia and New Zealand, details SCO's plans for Australia, stating that they have 'prepared a hit list' and "would approach Australian Linux users to ensure they had an IP licence." In closing, he adds 'Linux doesn't exist. Everyone knows Linux is an unlicensed version of Unix'." UnknowingFool writes "IBM's lawyers have been busy the last few days. Groklaw has reported a number of different filings. On the heels of last week's motions (1) and (2) for summary judgement, they have filed more documents. First, IBM wants large portions of SCO's testimonies striken (removed) on multiple grounds. Deep in the motion, they call out SCO to produce the 'experts' that did the code comparison analysis. If IBM wins on most of these points, SCO will have very little left in the way of legal evidence. SCO answers on IBMs 10th counterclaim. IANAL but from I understand SCO says this copyright infringment that SCO has allegedly committed on one of IBM's patents is irrelevant to the case and the court doesn't need to decide on it. So SCO is saying that they can sue IBM for infringing on their Unix copyrights and patents but IBM can't counter sue on a specific patent. IBM also filed another memo to support summary judgement. As a matter of law, SCO has to produce evidence to backup its claims. This mountain of evidence SCO has claimed all this time: If they don't produce it, the court has to rule in IBM's favor."
You don't exist, go away!
Bullshit.
Terrorists want Bush there. They love extremists in power, because it swells their ranks. With the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the U.S. under Bush's leadership has been a better recruiting tool than anyone could have imagined. I find it sad that you believe that terrorists honestly are afraid of Bush.
Where's Bin Laden? Oh, that's right. Bush "honestly doesn't care" about that guy.
You need to listen to your president more, and pull your head out of the ground.
So anyone who opposes Bush's bungling of the war on terror and the war in Iraq (two separate wars, despite his rhetoric and weak attempts to link the two) is a terrorist?
That's not what some terrorists said soon after the Madrid bombings--but of course, it must have been reverse psychology by DemocRAT operatives to fool America into appeasing the terrorists, right?
Yep. Vote for Kerry and hand over your sovereignty to the UN.
A lot of things SCO does reminds me of a child's behaviour, and this is one of them. Kids often dwell on things that please them, and act as if problems don't exist.
That's odd. Seems to describe the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, as well.
Trusted by cats.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
No you read to much into it. The sig infers that terrorists would vote for someone else because then it would be easier to commit a terrorist act without Bush invading your country. It's similiar to the "Who would Bin Laden vote?" for ad.
It's one persons opinion, we still can have them can't we?
To be a terrorist you have to fund or commit a terrorist act. To help a terrorist all you have to do is throw away your vote or not vote at all. I'm not telling you who to vote for, make up your own mind, vote and be quiet about it.
You'll notice that Bin Laden isn't releasing videos to Al Jazera(SP?) anymore. If fact, there have been more terrorists captured, then in the previous 20 years. There have been several plots that have been foiled. Bushes domestic policies suck, the Cheney-Haliburton connection stinks to high heaven, but he has marginalized Osama bin Laden and removed a very evil dictator from office. Most Americans didn't need the WMD accusations to know Saddam Hussein needed to be removed. Many people who end up voting for Bush will do so not because they like Bush. Rather they don't trust John Kerry, he has admited to war crimes in vietnam (Entering Cambodia and shooting someone). Insulted vets claiming it was routine for U.S. soldiers to rape, pillage like "Genghis Khan" and cut off ears. And then brags how he was a war hero. Well real heros are quiet about it. A real hero doesn't tell everyone who'll listen they are a hero. The braggard is a drunk at the end of the bar who can't keep their facts straight. It's not just a few vets who are calling Kerry on his claims it's 267! It amazes me how the Democrats hounded Bush about his guard service, made Michael Moore their golden boy, yet cry foul when a group of veterans organize against him.
God I wish their was a viable third choice!!!!!!!!!
. . .
10 out of 10 Terrorists agree - Anybody but Bush in 2004
That makes all those who support anybody but Bush in league with the terrorists - Good fallacy.
Even if I get clever?
And write about the year US and the Vatican established full diplomatic relations? Or the year when Apple released a computer with the humorous name "Macintosh?" Or make an aside mention of the Los Angeles Olympics? Or talk about the publication of "Neuromancer?"
Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachtani?
www.fogbound.net
BUT the SBVFT are clearly lying, they are clearly organized by people who have done similar things in the past. Is that of no consequence to their message, is that not foul play ?
Calling Moores work foul play doesn't work. He is clearly stating his purpose (and nobody has collected the reward for proving him factaully at fault)
As for the many vets supporting it - there can be a tonne of reasons, mainly I think they are bitter that Kerry had the audacity to speak up about atrocities committed by the US in Vietnam. NONE of the vets in question served WITH Kerry. They either just served in Vietnam or in other boats.
Check out my PHP Url Validator
Maybe because:
- Nearly everything those veterans have said about Kerry is, according to both the U.S. Navy and the folks who were there at the time, a lie.
- Those veterans lied about themselves.
- Bush's friends financed it and his advisors both appeared in the commercials and provided legal advice to the group.
- The Swift Boat book is co-authored by Jerome Corsi who has said anti-Catholic, anti-Muslim and anti-Semitic things on a right-wing Website.
These are not just any vets, they are the same folks Nixon hired in the 1970s to disrupt his political enemies at any cost. Looks to me like Bush is borrowing from Nixon's old ethically-challenged playbook and even hiring the same old players.FreeSpeech.org
well, I'm a baby boomer, had a lot of nam vet friends. Every single one (combat vets) I have spoken to in meatspace privately admits to what we would call warcrimes, like torturing prisoners, taking heads and ears, fingerbones, etc. Killing prisoners. And how would YOU classify something called a "free fire zone" where everything that moved from chickens to old men and children was called a "legitimate target"? To continue, they almost all admit to a lot of statutory rape (screwing very young girls like 10 years old to teens was like about 50 cents in Ps if you even paid for it there) as well as regular rape if they happened to catch a live one inside a free fire zone once on the ground. And I'd say around 3/4ths of them admit to pretty heavy drug use while they were over there. In other words, most were guilty, some were not, it's completely backwards to what the very public ones say out loud now, because their past behavior is indefensible.
Admittedly, this is just my anecdotal second hand, but I find it amusing so many claim how honest and forthright they are in public now decades later, when way back you got the real war skinny close to real time. Could it be now a lot of them are just plain ashamed of their actions, and are in denial? I mean, who could look their wives and children and neighbors in the face and admit to such things? Much better to have a public personna of all righteousness and uber Johm Wayneism and that always lie-the "honor" of war, of which there has never been any. Never confuse the two terms, bravery is not automatically honor. Two different words, friend. You can be a complete skunk and still be brave. You can be the biggest coward in sight but still retain some honor.
There's a LOT of revisionist history when it comes to nam which started off as a war based on a complete total lie, ie, the "tonkin gulf attack", which they finally admitted never happened..
As to voting third party, there is at least one extremely important reason to do so, every election, it helps to get the third parties permanently on the ballot, without having to reinvent the wheel every other year and wasting all their time and limited resources on petition drives. R's and Ds crossed that threshold generations ago, so they are automatically on the ballot. And we have also have forked up government since they hijacked it and took it over, and you and me and thee and thou only got ONE vote, so make it count, use that one vote for the long term goal of eliminating the R and D partys, don't give in to that "wasted vote" nonsense, that's the boogie man the two headed but one demon dual-party likes to spew every election.
As to saddam, no way we should be rewarding the same dingbats who helped get saddam into power in the first place. It's time to break the hegelian dialectic cycle of problem/reaction/solution once and for all. Stop supporting dictator mongers. Saddam is a problem NOW (or was) because the earlier neocons and profiteering dems SET HIM UP. Saddam AND bin laden were CIA ASSETS to start out.
That's a "clue" where I come from....
Oh me, oh my, we got a gang problem in the 'hood, what should we do about it? Well, I can think of several things to do, and one NOT to do, and that is to NOT hire past gang leader overlords to clean up their own gangs. That's what we keep doing when we keep electing Ds and Rs to top levels in this nation.
I'm wondwring:
With all non-sense words from a dying company (SCO)... Is worth to mention this crazy stuff?
I think the best response to that would be a huge silence
I wonder what happens if there's a 'freak accident" at SCO headquarters, and someone steals the 'critical evidence', or the buidling is possibly burned to the ground?
Seems suspicous to me. I'd not put it past them.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
" Nietzsche: God is dead ..a bit later:
..
..a bit later:
God: Nietzsche is dead"
This should be
"Nietzsche: God is dead
Nietzsche is dead"
God has never spoken to anybody about Nietzsche or anybody else for that matter. He may very well be dead too.
evil is as evil does
From your post:
That makes all those who support anybody but Bush in league with the terrorists - Good fallacy [nizkor.org].
You claimed that I merged all who don't support Bush with terrorists into one group. But that's not the case.
Call B terrorists, call A non-Bush supporters.
I said terrorists don't like Bush
(All B are in A)
That does NOT imply anyone who doesn't support Bush is a terrorist.
(all A are NOT necessarily in B)
Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
Steve Gardner manned a double .50-caliber machine-gun mount in Lt. John Kerry's swiftboat.He served under Kerry and served under several other officers as well. His recollections are featured prominately in "Unfit for Command".This is what he has to say:
How can Kerry possibly be commander in chief when he couldn't competently command a six-man crew? Kerry was erratic. He hardly ever did what he was supposed to do. His command decisions put us in more peril then he should have. But mostly he just ran. When John Kerry looked out the bow of the boat and he saw tracer fire coming after him, he'd turn and run.
Those other veteran include his entire immediate chain of command
BUT the SBVFT are clearly lying, they are clearly organized by people who have done similar things in the past. Is that of no consequence to their message, is that not foul play ?
And $100 million spent by MoveOn.org to launch a series of personal attack ads against the veterans who have challenged Mr. Kerry's Vietnam "service." MoveOn.org is financed and run by numerous Clinton-era Democratic donors. This same organization has repeatedly run ads comparing G.W to Hitler. Sorry, Hitler was a much better speaker and I haven't yet seen him call anyone the "Master Race". It really hard to take anyone seriously who is an extremist whether liberal or conservative. Bush is not Hitler & Kerry is not a baby killing Ghegis Khan. Funny, but that's what Kerry called every veteran who served in vietnam, except himself of course. This is why vietnam vets that lost limbs were spit upon by the very people they lost those limbs for. People who were never there claim rampant abuses, but it's always second or third hand information. Even Kerry said he never saw any abuses but it was common. I'm not saying some people weren't animals, with the amount of people who served there (Millions over 10 Years) there are suprisingly few. But people who make blanket statements about an entire group of people without any first hand specifics are no better than racists, or gay bashers. They are just idiots. We already have an intellectually challenged leader thank you very much!
Calling Moores work foul play doesn't work. He is clearly stating his purpose (and nobody has collected the reward for proving him factaully at fault)
Are you aware of the fact that the mother of U.S. Air Force Maj. Gregory Stone, who was killed in Iraq, has called the filmmaker Michael Moore "a maggot that eats off the dead," for using the major's funeral in his film - and also using, without family permission, footage of Army Reservist Peter Damon, who lost part of both of his arms. Michael Moore's film is nothing more than 2 hours of footage taken out of context to make a point he said early on in the movie. It is just a complete collage of inuendo and half truths made to fool the public. Because Mr. Moore thinks he is superior in intellect to the american public and you'll overlook any innaccuracies because, hey, it's just a movie right?
Now let me emphasize, I'm not pro-Bush!
I want a reasonable third choice! I'm not going to debate everyone here about this election because, there isn't a good choice!
>10 out of 10 Terrorists agree - Anybody but Bush in 2004
Not even true. From The Economist, June 3 issue:
"A communiqué from a Saudi jihadi group expresses the hope that George Bush will be re-elected because his 'haste to use force, his lack of wisdom and religious fanaticism have roused the Islamic nation'."