Slashdot Mirror
Randall Davis: IBM Has No SCO Code
Mick Ohrberg writes "As reported by Groklaw, Randall Davis, renowned professor of Computer Science at MIT has after an extensive search found no evidence of SCO's claims that IBM has incorporated parts of the Unix System V code. Davis says "Accordingly, the IBM Code cannot be said, in my opinion, to be a modification or a derivative work based on the Unix System V Code." Surprised, anyone?"
frist psot
This "early post" is brought to you by the ECFA (Euthanasia for Canus Familirous Association). We are an organization dedicated to the eradication of dogs. ECFA (Euthanasia for Canus Familirous Association) is committed to protect our oxygen, to clean our streets, and to curb noise pollution - through the simple eradication of canine pests.
We have recently "connected" with the GNAA to form one ECFA. Stay connected. Please note that since we are moving to a larger demographic (the untold scores of people who deal with dog messes, noises, and annoyances daily), most of the current GNAA content is offline. In fact, we're pulling all of it except the "early post", which is now a ECFA-style "early post". The traditional GNAA "early post" will continue to be posted on all SCO stories, as insisted by upper GNAA management and its core team of fans. The illicit images and language will not be a part of the new combined organiztion. We do not condone any sexual lifestyle or race.
Have you ever stepped in DOG DOO-DOO
Are you MAD?
Do you KILL DOGS?
Are you a MAD DOG KILLER?
If you answered "YES" to any of the above questions the ECFA (Euthanasia for Canus Familirous Association) is for you! You no longer need change your skin color or sexual lifestyle in order to become a member of an "EVIL TROLLING ORGANIZATION." Instead, you can work toward the noble of goal of INCREASING OUR SUPPLY OF O2! OVERPOPULATION of DOGS is RAPANT in this country. Did you know that DOGS turn BENEFICIAL O2 into CO2 simply to gain their energy to bark, drool, and howl? They ACTUALLY BURN OUR OXYGEN SUPPLY!!! One dog easily waste the Oxygen output of ten mature trees! This country has MANY UNWANTED, ABANDONED DOGS that WE ARE PAYING MONEY TO KEEP ALIVE. We are FEEDING them our food supply while making the homeless STARVE! Are you TIRED of having your TAXES increased? Humane Societies cost our country over $100 million annually. By using a Dog Killing Gadget, a dog can be turned into beneficial food, helping us all. We let children go hungry yet feed our **UNWANTED** dogs like royalty.
One dog can output over 10 lbs of droppings daily. One dog can aggrivate the allergies of untold numbers of people with its fast growing hair and all too common dandruff. Do you own a dog? Are you tired of its mess? Don't feel like planting ten trees and waiting 10 years for them to reach maturity? Then get it euthanized. Euthanasia is a painless way for a dog to... terminate. However, it can be too expensive to buy these drugs for the LARGE NUMBER of DOGS in the HUMANE SOCIETIES. It is thus proposed that these dogs be turned into food for the homeless. One dog can feed up to five homeless children for one day.
Many have wondered the best way to exterminate dogs. Euthanasia is by far the most clean method, but it taints the meat and is cost prohibitive. Thus, the most economical method is our K9Zap product featured on TechTV ($29.95), which deals a fatal shock to a dog up to 60lbs. Alternatively, the slightly messier bakers chocolate approach costs only about $0.30 per pound of dog. For more information, reply to this message or contact Gadgets for the Elimination of Dogs (GED). A rifle also works wonders, but may be against local codes, and is generally best to avoid in dog elimination.
WANT TO SUPPORT THE ECFA? Simply participate in our propaganda campaign to exterminate dogs. You can become a member of our slashdot trolling team, our usenet trolling team, or you can be a member of our local campaigning - by simply handing out brocures or posting signs outside humaine socities. If you have MOD POINTS, alternatively you can moderate this post UP to support our cause.
==This post brought to you by the Proud Dog Killers in #windows on EFNET.
Why does it seem that something like one out of every ten articles on Slashdot have something to do with MIT?
I support our troops and our future President.
Kerry 2004.
How can you do both? It's hard to say one supports the troops while sending them on a mission under false pretenses and without proper preparation (even previous military people under the great military leader Clinton (ha ha) recognized that armed uprising was likely if Hussein was removed in Iraq by force, something GWB et al. couldn't bother preparing for) while cutting their and their families' benefits, all the while touting the job as "Mission Accomplished". If the lack of military preparation or readiness was Clinton's fault, GWB should have come up with better/legitimate reasons why the military had to go when they did (announcing it all the while) rather than building up quietly and then executing.
Supporting the military (and the Constitution, and the economy) and supporting GWB are mutually exclusive.
Dey Tuk R Jarbs!
by anonymous coward
a little sheeple
hides behind a war
conformist J
Sorry, responding to parent's sig. And the only reason I wrote the post was because I resent the Republican assertion that to be against Bush is to be unpatriotic or to wish our armed forces ill. This is simply not so.
/. who said Bush was spoiling for war as hysterics who did not understand diplomacy. How humbling to find out how completely wrong I was.
Also, opposition to Bush doesn't imply complete opposition to the policies of his administration (just most of them in my case). For example, I completely support our intervention in Afghanistan. The Taliban regime, apart from being every bit as oppressive to its own people as Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq (perhaps more so), was also harboring Osama Bin Laden and allowing terrorist training camps to operate within its borders. Those "institutions" actually carried out a massive attack on our soil (remember?) The toppling of that regime was a legitimate act of national defense.
At this point, I am convinced that we had no such justification for our action in Iraq. I also suspect that the Bush administration knew that (although I'd like to give them the benefit of the doubt). When Bush pressed for congressional authorization, I honestly believed it was to back up the demand for inspections with a credible threat of force. I wrote off the people here on
So there is room for legitimate disagreement in a free society, and I believe that the United States is still a (barely) free society. As soon as loyal opposition is branded treason (Anne Coulter) however, we are in deep, deep trouble.
So, again, I support our troops. I oppose our President. My right to do that is patriotism (as, I think, your right to support our President is as well. It's the linkage of the two I mistrust, not your right to support the President).
And in other news, SCO released documentation showing that IBM did not completely fulfill it's national guard duty.....
Umm... and your problem is what, exactly? Did you honestly think that after telling Hussein "Cooperate with UN inspections, or we will invade your country, topple your regime and try you for war crimes against your own people", the US was going to laugh and shout "Psyche!" and give him a noogie or something?
"Great men are not always wise: neither do the aged understand judgement." Job 32:9
Did you notice that he only allowed inspectors back in after the authorization bill passed? I thought that was the point and what the administration wanted. I thought they wanted to make sure Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. I'm saying I was wrong about the Bush administration intent. I thought the purpose was to get inspectors in. I thought it was a means to an end, not an end in itself. I was wrong.
;-)
BTW, I'm getting hammered "offtopic." I don't think it should be possible to moderate any child of a post already marked "offtopic" as "offtopic." Your post, this post, and the parent of your post are on-topic. Only the initial one is off-topic.
But how to mod this message? Half of it is off-topic by my own definition. The funny thing is I have mod points right now.