This SCO thing has been going on for quite a while now, and I don't think any of it has made it into a courtroom. What is the hold up? Why aren't IBM, Redhat, et al clammoring for a court date?
As the other posters have remarked, the right to a speedy trial only applies to criminal proceedings, but there is more to it than that.
As the publicly-known evidence accumulates, it becomes glaringly obvious that any case SCO has is purely a figment of Darl's and David Boies's fevered imaginations. Let's not forget who the defendants are here. IBM and RedHat each have sufficient funds available to grind SCO into subatomic particles just by the cost of paper discovery and depositions. Of course, running up SCO's attorney fees is about all the harm RH can do.
The beauty of the way IBM has played SCO is that they have fairly well backed them into a straight-up breach of contract suit, in which MOST states have statutes that provide an opportunity for the prevailing party (which I REALISTICALLY expect to be IBM) to recover attorney's fees from the loser.
So here's the way I see the scenario playing out. RH and IBM both engage in crushingly expensive discovery proceedings against SCO. Following about 5 or so years of discovery, IBM goes to trial first and wins. SCO files Chapter 7 bankruptcy and the stockholders pursue Darl to the ends of the earth dragging a portable burning stake and tar & feathers behind them. IBM then makes a substantial investment in RedHat to repair some of the damage caused by RH opening up a "second front" in the war.
This is because kids are not yet mature enough to handle the violence of these games but you are.
In contrast with my prior post, I don't think the ability to "handle violence" is really the issue. While I don't necessarily subscribe to the "violent games make violent kids" theory, as a parent of two now-adult offspring, I know from experience that a minor's ability to discriminate between fantasy and reality doesn't really "ripen" until much later than optimistic ("My kid is SO mature") parents realize.
I do stand by what I said earlier... good parenting is tough, but the rewards of getting it right are worth it.
"... does it seem a little unfair that the indictment charges him with "hacking"... "
No, the volume of mail they are talking about would require use of multiple "zombies" to send... consider the fact that a significant amount of spam is sent through Win95/98/Me boxes with DSL/cable connections. Since none of those OSs include smtp servers, does it not seem necessary that this dork "hack" into the box, install his MTA and THEN set it to spewing out spoofed e-mails?
Yes. You are also human. You are no more hypocrite than a former stoner/hippie parent cringing at the idea of their kids trying weed or some free love.
I disagree. I see no harm in an adult with a fairly firmly-set value system playing games in the Doom/Quake*/GTA*/Postal genre. I see nothing hypocritical at all about that same adult denying access to such games to a 10 year old, or even a 16/17 year old youth.
I won't argue the point that SOME teens (very damned few, in my experience) are more mature than some adults. The fact of the matter is that it is a parent's right/responsibility to guide their kids into development of a sound moral framework to use as a guide in making life's decisions.
The problem is that too many parents cave in today when their 10 year old says "You do it, so it's not FAIR for you to not let ME do it." Sorry, gang "I'm the {Mommy|Daddy}" may not be fair, but that's the way it's SUPPOSED to be. Don't like it? Get married as soon as your state of residence allows and go pay your own way in life. If you want the same rights an adult has, shoulder the same responsibilities we do.
GOOD parenting is both the most difficult AND the most rewarding job you will face in life.
Hurrah. ICANN in Washington having a go at Verisign...within two or three years Verisign'll have some serious gum marks, and they might get sucked to death in a little under a decade.
Who knows? It's entirely possible that attitudes like this:
ICANN has already called on VeriSign to suspend Site Finder pending a review of the system, but VeriSign rejected that request.
and this:
"We certainly are in favor of the community having a healthy discourse on all of the technologies and innovations on the Internet, Site Finder is one of those. We are looking at how the (Oct. 7) meeting is shaping up and we will make our determination on participation based on that," said VeriSign spokesman Brian O'Shaughnessy.
might get ICANN in the mood for a little bitch-slapping. It seems like the ultimate in arrogant bad judgment for a TLD registrar to thumb their nose at the agency that MADE them a TLD registrar.
Linksys is a strong proponent of both Linux and the Open Source movement. The code within our routers is using User Space code without linking dynamically or statically to any GPL (GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE) code. Any code which does not have a static or dynamic link to anything covered by the General Public License is not GPL'ed, and can be considered closed source.
I beg to differ with their position wrt the correctness of their analysis on how to go about withholding some of their code as 'closed source.'
As an example of the RIGHT way to do this (whether you agree with the politics of it or not), I would submit that Nvidia withholds the source to their binary-only video drivers, but makes the glue code that adapts it to a specific kernel freely available. In addition, NOT having the source to the Nvidia drivers in no way impedes my ability to compile a kernel.
The fact that it is not possible to configure, much less compile, the kernel tree available from Linksys's GPL software page indicates that they have withheld code which SHOULD be released under the GPL because of how tightly it is interwoven into the kernel code.
- anything at all to do with linear algebra, especially solving systems of equations or matrix manipulations. RREF is a bitch by hand.
I absolutely, positively HAVE to second this statement. I would not have passed Numerical Methods absent the matrix manipulation capabilities of the TI-92 PLUS to check my grind-it-out pencil-and-paper homework!
Sidebar comment: try doing a Newton-Raphson solution of a system of non-linear equations by hand some time. IIRC, that sucker took about eight hours and nine pages of densely-packed hand calculation (the prof was a "show all your steps sadist" Inverting the Jacobian of PDE's at each iteration and being able to check the interim results in a few seconds was a life saver).
For more "pure" math (like Diff. Eq.), I agree that pencil and paper are generally easier.
Agreed, completely.
But any applied math (a.k.a. engineering) requires an insane amount of busy work that could not be handled with a puny scientific calculator. I know you said Engineering and Physics are different stories, but everything I just wrote could certainly apply to all sciences (even the "soft" ones like Psych. and Sociology), or anything at all requiring data collection.
No kidding. I also took a Finite Math course that, while mathematically simple, required an INSANE amount of hand calculation (combinations, permutations, probabilities given a discrete dataset, optimization by solving multiple inequalities, etc., etc., hell, even variations on the theme of compound interest, in a LOT of cases I got through it by coding up custom functions in the TI-92 PLUS's strangish "macro language").
In short, don't knock the entire TI line just because the low end is kind of wimpy. My first, second and third HP programable calculators all cost $450.00 (the first was an HP-45 kiddies). My TI-92 PLUS cost $200 and it can blow the socks off any one of the three HP's.
Don't get me wrong... I LOVE RPN calculators because I can get VERY efficient results from them, but for sheer, unmitigated number-crunching power, give me a high-end TI.
OpenSSH... A Microsoft product, right? Oppss... Forgot, one can not criticize open source on the same standards we hold "M$"
Well, yes, we should hold them both to the same standard... so when Microsoft starts announcing it's own self-discovered vulnerabilities and releasing Day-Zero patches to fix them I will be just as critical of OpenSSH security as I am of Windows *cough*security*cough*.
I use an old IBM PS/2 keyboard, with the IBM logo on it and everything. It took me forever to find it but it makes my life wonderful.
Same with me. I'm still using the Compaq-branded PS/2 keyboard from my first Pentium-166 class machine way back in 1996. The key action is *prefect* for the way I type and the damned thing's almost indestructible. After almost 8 years of heavy use, the letters on the keycaps are as legible as new.
Another thing I like about it is that I can just pop off the keycaps, drop them in a mesh bag and throw them in the dishwasher for cleaning. Even with severe cleaning like that, the letters on the keycaps are as legible after almost 8 years of heavy use as they were when the keyboard was brand-new.
If they file "John Doe" they don't know who they're actually suing until they've already won (if they lose, end of story).
Actually, no...
If they sue "John Doe" whom they suspect is a customer of RandomInternet due to the IP address recovered from Kazaa/Gnutella/whatever, they can issue a third-party subpoena against RandomInternet for its DHCP server logs to find out who had that IP address at the time in question. This is basic discovery under most jurisdictions' Rules of Civil Procedure. Then, having discovered the name/address/telephone number of "John Doe," they can amend their pleadings to name that individual as the party defendant.
However, it protects users' privacy and due process rights by requiring the plaintiff (RIAA) to file suit alleging a specific incident of infringement rather than allowing them to go on a "fishing expedition," which is what they (the RIAA) CLAIM the current law allows.
Of course, it's no better for the RIAA from a PR point of view, but I just don't think they give a great hairy damn what their customers and potential customers think of them. For this reason, I will continue to not buy new CDs.
Personally, I think very few Americans "live to work," but to quote my father, "I consider myself one of the luckiest people on the face of the planet. Doing exactly what I WANT to do with my time pays me a fairly handsome income." He was a physician (retired now), and was often heard to say, "I love practicing medicine so much I'd probably do it even if they DIDN'T pay me."
I don't feel QUITE that strongly about my job as a Sysadmin, but I don't exactly have to drag myself out of bed in the morning to go do it. Most happy American professionals consider their careers to be an extension of themselves and identify very strongly with what they do for a living. I feel sorry for those who work solely for the money/benefits.
How many people do you know that don't have sex very often because they're too tired from working their jobs? This is one of commonest reasons for poor sex lives in marriages in N. America.
If I have a poor sex life, that's news to both myself AND my fiance. (Oh, I'm 53 years old, BTW, and she's 48)
I hope I never see you complaining about infringements on free speech. This is a federal judge, as such he is subject only to the US Constitution and federal law (so no State issues unless they conflict). Under Article I and Article III of the US Constitution, the judge has no authority to create law.
Your misunderstanding of the constitution and its interaction with the common-law system of jurisprudence is only exceeded by your ignorance of the jurisdiction of federal judges.
All judges make law every single day that they sit on the bench. The essence of the common-law system is that the legislature makes law with a double-bitted ax and the judges refine it from the bench until it is (in the best of case) a finely-honed rapier. Sometimes they don't get it right, but that's why we have appellate courts. The federal courts have the power to overrule the legislature by declaring a statute to be unconstitutional. If that is not making law, just what the hell IS it?
Secondly, federal judges have not only the power, they have the DUTY to enforce state laws as they apply to a case before them. In the case of civil suits, the most COMMON route to the federal courthouse is removal of the suit from state court because of diversity of citizenship. That does not change the fact that the lawsuit proceeds under state law.
Under the First Amendment, Congress shall make no law infringing on the freedom of speech. Spam, like it or not, is speech.
Spam is, for the most part, commercial speech. Commercial speech is not subject to NEARLY as much protection as artistic, journalistic, political or religious speech is. I'd cite you to several U.S. Supreme Court cases directly on point with that statement, but I don't have my Constituional Law materials with me at this time. Go do a search at CLII for the term "commercial speech" if you want to check it out for yourself. What REALLY prevents your Congresscritters from outlawing a VAST amount of spam is that several MAJOR corporations want to be free to spam you as freely as the "MAKE MONEY FAST!!!!" guys do, and they have the money it takes to make sure that they CAN spam you.
The Fourth Amendment's garuntee that the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures should prove effective at stopping such practices (it does not limit this right to be secure against unreasonable government searches and seizures).
The Fourth Amendment ONLY applies to "state actors" (read, the feds, the states, your local cops, etc.).
If a consumer brought the case and argued the Fourth Amendment and laws based upon it...
The Judge would be falling off the bench giggling as he dismissed the case and awarded the defendant monetary sanctions under FRCP 11.
On the other hand authors like David Webber try from the start to make each story a universe in which they(or their assistants) can keep writing endless series (serii?).
I would hardly consider co-authors like Eric Flint and John Ringo to be assistants. As for the "Worlds of Honor" series, I don't think S.M. Stirling (a Baen top-lister in his own right) would appreciate being called an "assistant."
The Honorverse is an exceptionally detailed universe that Weber has developed over several years (I would guess that it's probably as complex with subplots and spin-off potential as Gordon Dickson's "Chylde Cycle"). I think the fact that Weber invites other authors to pick a hanging thread from one of his past books and spin it into a yarn, and that such stories stay fairly consistent with the rest of the series in both content and style, speaks highly of the amount of work David did in planning the Honorverse. I don't know many authors who could work in a story universe for as long as he has and still generate as few inconsistencies and contradictions of "past events" as he has. Even if you don't like his writing style or the way he develops his characters you've got to admire the quality of his craftsmanship.
SF authors who still have spaceships but put character ahead of science include Asaro, Moon, and Cherryh. All have some intersting science or engieneering in the Doc Smith tradition, but not as the core of the tale.
To this list I would add David Weber, Eric Flint, John Ringo, David Drake and most of the other SF top-listers and mid-listers at Baen.
Well, the Cyberpunk sub-genre treats the techno as background, or as McGuffin, with conflicting motivations a major factor.
For Cyberpunk, I like Bruce Sterling and William Gibson (the originals), although Neal Stephenson is teetering on the edge of joining the list of favorites.
Can't say I disagree with, or can add to, the other authors you list in the same paragraph.
Funny Spider Robinson should complain about this though. The Callahan's stories fall under Clarke's Law; the Future Beings who drop into the Cross-Time Saloon might as well be magicians from Myth Adventures.
True, but I don't really consider Callahan's to be hard-core SF... and the wierdness of the characters is part of their charm.
Just my US$.02
<disclaimer> All opinions expressed herein are my own, rather than those of my employer, family, friends, acquaintances, enemies or any other person or creature whether living or dead, factual, fictional or imagined. </disclaimer>
ever read any of the fine print on any software? "Makes no guarantee for suitability for any purpose..." or somesuch.
As a matter of fact I have read those alleged disclaimers and, under the law of at least one state, they are wholly ineffective because they fail to meet the requirements for an effective disclaimer of the "implied warranty of merchantability." As for the "implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose" that rarely applies to software unless the program is being sold directly to the buyer FOR a particular use that is known to the vendor. Even then I doubt that the alleged disclaimer would be enforced because representations that the program WAS suitable for a particular purpose would, no doubt, have been made in the course of negotiating the sale. Such representations would, if nothing else, trigger the doctrine of "detrimental reliance" by the buyer on the seller's representations. In addition to these issues, the defender of these licenses would also have to fight the fact that they fit the definition of an "adhesion contract" to a "T."
Don't ever think that "click-through" and "shrink wrap" licenses are bulletproof. A contract is only enforceable when then terms are freely negotiated between parties having equal power to influence the terms.
I've wondered if this is in response to a feeling of a lack of due process when the U.S. was founded, or if we just have gotten to where anyone feels that they're entitled to sue "just because".
To which parent respondeth:
Huh? This fine is a result of LinuxTag's claim against SCO, for commercial speech that would be entirely protected in the US.
Not really. There are laws against commercial disparagement in most of these United States and they have all passed constitutional muster. Commercial speech is subject to some constraints that political, artistic, journalistic and social speech are not because the objective of commercial speech is to make money whereas the purpose of most other forms of speech is to communicate facts and/or express ideas.
The reason SCO hasn't been hit with a preliminary injunction in the US is because nobody has asked for one. US courts like cases being "tried in the media" even less than European courts do.
B: Allow APT to exist, but don't give it any easier interface than what it comes with standard. Those geeky enough to understand it may have it,...
Understanding "apt-get install <pkg_name> and editing/etc/apt/sources.list makes one an "Alpha Geek?" I don't fscking THINK so... especially since there are explicit instructions what to put in/etc/apt/sources.list on the Debian website.
Now resolving dependency conflicts with RPM's... THAT's geeky!
Slashdot Mirror
As the other posters have remarked, the right to a speedy trial only applies to criminal proceedings, but there is more to it than that.
As the publicly-known evidence accumulates, it becomes glaringly obvious that any case SCO has is purely a figment of Darl's and David Boies's fevered imaginations. Let's not forget who the defendants are here. IBM and RedHat each have sufficient funds available to grind SCO into subatomic particles just by the cost of paper discovery and depositions. Of course, running up SCO's attorney fees is about all the harm RH can do.
The beauty of the way IBM has played SCO is that they have fairly well backed them into a straight-up breach of contract suit, in which MOST states have statutes that provide an opportunity for the prevailing party (which I REALISTICALLY expect to be IBM) to recover attorney's fees from the loser.
So here's the way I see the scenario playing out. RH and IBM both engage in crushingly expensive discovery proceedings against SCO. Following about 5 or so years of discovery, IBM goes to trial first and wins. SCO files Chapter 7 bankruptcy and the stockholders pursue Darl to the ends of the earth dragging a portable burning stake and tar & feathers behind them. IBM then makes a substantial investment in RedHat to repair some of the damage caused by RH opening up a "second front" in the war.
Just my US$0.02
In contrast with my prior post, I don't think the ability to "handle violence" is really the issue. While I don't necessarily subscribe to the "violent games make violent kids" theory, as a parent of two now-adult offspring, I know from experience that a minor's ability to discriminate between fantasy and reality doesn't really "ripen" until much later than optimistic ("My kid is SO mature") parents realize.
I do stand by what I said earlier
No, the volume of mail they are talking about would require use of multiple "zombies" to send
Just my US$0.02
Quoth the poster:
To which the parent responded:
I disagree. I see no harm in an adult with a fairly firmly-set value system playing games in the Doom/Quake*/GTA*/Postal genre. I see nothing hypocritical at all about that same adult denying access to such games to a 10 year old, or even a 16/17 year old youth.
I won't argue the point that SOME teens (very damned few, in my experience) are more mature than some adults. The fact of the matter is that it is a parent's right/responsibility to guide their kids into development of a sound moral framework to use as a guide in making life's decisions.
The problem is that too many parents cave in today when their 10 year old says "You do it, so it's not FAIR for you to not let ME do it." Sorry, gang "I'm the {Mommy|Daddy}" may not be fair, but that's the way it's SUPPOSED to be. Don't like it? Get married as soon as your state of residence allows and go pay your own way in life. If you want the same rights an adult has, shoulder the same responsibilities we do.
GOOD parenting is both the most difficult AND the most rewarding job you will face in life.
Whatever it takes to get them to vote is a GOOD thing.
Who knows? It's entirely possible that attitudes like this:
and this:
might get ICANN in the mood for a little bitch-slapping. It seems like the ultimate in arrogant bad judgment for a TLD registrar to thumb their nose at the agency that MADE them a TLD registrar.
Just my US$0.02
I beg to differ with their position wrt the correctness of their analysis on how to go about withholding some of their code as 'closed source.'
As an example of the RIGHT way to do this (whether you agree with the politics of it or not), I would submit that Nvidia withholds the source to their binary-only video drivers, but makes the glue code that adapts it to a specific kernel freely available. In addition, NOT having the source to the Nvidia drivers in no way impedes my ability to compile a kernel.
The fact that it is not possible to configure, much less compile, the kernel tree available from Linksys's GPL software page indicates that they have withheld code which SHOULD be released under the GPL because of how tightly it is interwoven into the kernel code.
Just my US$0.02
You obviously have never had to use a PC as a serial console for a headless server.
Funny?
If I had mod points, I'd mod this one "Insightful"
Just MY US$0.02 worth
Oops ... I don't usually reply to my own posts, but I mis-remembered ... my first HP programmable was the HP-65, NOT the 45 ... I learned RPN on the 45.
I absolutely, positively HAVE to second this statement. I would not have passed Numerical Methods absent the matrix manipulation capabilities of the TI-92 PLUS to check my grind-it-out pencil-and-paper homework!
Sidebar comment: try doing a Newton-Raphson solution of a system of non-linear equations by hand some time. IIRC, that sucker took about eight hours and nine pages of densely-packed hand calculation (the prof was a "show all your steps sadist" Inverting the Jacobian of PDE's at each iteration and being able to check the interim results in a few seconds was a life saver).
Agreed, completely.
No kidding. I also took a Finite Math course that, while mathematically simple, required an INSANE amount of hand calculation (combinations, permutations, probabilities given a discrete dataset, optimization by solving multiple inequalities, etc., etc., hell, even variations on the theme of compound interest, in a LOT of cases I got through it by coding up custom functions in the TI-92 PLUS's strangish "macro language").
In short, don't knock the entire TI line just because the low end is kind of wimpy. My first, second and third HP programable calculators all cost $450.00 (the first was an HP-45 kiddies). My TI-92 PLUS cost $200 and it can blow the socks off any one of the three HP's.
Don't get me wrong
Well, yes, we should hold them both to the same standard
Same with me. I'm still using the Compaq-branded PS/2 keyboard from my first Pentium-166 class machine way back in 1996. The key action is *prefect* for the way I type and the damned thing's almost indestructible. After almost 8 years of heavy use, the letters on the keycaps are as legible as new.
Another thing I like about it is that I can just pop off the keycaps, drop them in a mesh bag and throw them in the dishwasher for cleaning. Even with severe cleaning like that, the letters on the keycaps are as legible after almost 8 years of heavy use as they were when the keyboard was brand-new.
Actually, no
If they sue "John Doe" whom they suspect is a customer of RandomInternet due to the IP address recovered from Kazaa/Gnutella/whatever, they can issue a third-party subpoena against RandomInternet for its DHCP server logs to find out who had that IP address at the time in question. This is basic discovery under most jurisdictions' Rules of Civil Procedure. Then, having discovered the name/address/telephone number of "John Doe," they can amend their pleadings to name that individual as the party defendant.
However, it protects users' privacy and due process rights by requiring the plaintiff (RIAA) to file suit alleging a specific incident of infringement rather than allowing them to go on a "fishing expedition," which is what they (the RIAA) CLAIM the current law allows.
Of course, it's no better for the RIAA from a PR point of view, but I just don't think they give a great hairy damn what their customers and potential customers think of them. For this reason, I will continue to not buy new CDs.
Not to mentiion Nalatie Protmna and girts.
even though I'm SURE to get modded into oblivion ...
this is SO COOL!
Personally, I think very few Americans "live to work," but to quote my father, "I consider myself one of the luckiest people on the face of the planet. Doing exactly what I WANT to do with my time pays me a fairly handsome income." He was a physician (retired now), and was often heard to say, "I love practicing medicine so much I'd probably do it even if they DIDN'T pay me."
I don't feel QUITE that strongly about my job as a Sysadmin, but I don't exactly have to drag myself out of bed in the morning to go do it. Most happy American professionals consider their careers to be an extension of themselves and identify very strongly with what they do for a living. I feel sorry for those who work solely for the money/benefits.
If I have a poor sex life, that's news to both myself AND my fiance. (Oh, I'm 53 years old, BTW, and she's 48)
Your misunderstanding of the constitution and its interaction with the common-law system of jurisprudence is only exceeded by your ignorance of the jurisdiction of federal judges.
All judges make law every single day that they sit on the bench. The essence of the common-law system is that the legislature makes law with a double-bitted ax and the judges refine it from the bench until it is (in the best of case) a finely-honed rapier. Sometimes they don't get it right, but that's why we have appellate courts. The federal courts have the power to overrule the legislature by declaring a statute to be unconstitutional. If that is not making law, just what the hell IS it?
Secondly, federal judges have not only the power, they have the DUTY to enforce state laws as they apply to a case before them. In the case of civil suits, the most COMMON route to the federal courthouse is removal of the suit from state court because of diversity of citizenship. That does not change the fact that the lawsuit proceeds under state law.
Spam is, for the most part, commercial speech. Commercial speech is not subject to NEARLY as much protection as artistic, journalistic, political or religious speech is. I'd cite you to several U.S. Supreme Court cases directly on point with that statement, but I don't have my Constituional Law materials with me at this time. Go do a search at CLII for the term "commercial speech" if you want to check it out for yourself. What REALLY prevents your Congresscritters from outlawing a VAST amount of spam is that several MAJOR corporations want to be free to spam you as freely as the "MAKE MONEY FAST!!!!" guys do, and they have the money it takes to make sure that they CAN spam you.
The Fourth Amendment ONLY applies to "state actors" (read, the feds, the states, your local cops, etc.).
The Judge would be falling off the bench giggling as he dismissed the case and awarded the defendant monetary sanctions under FRCP 11.
Oh
I would hardly consider co-authors like Eric Flint and John Ringo to be assistants. As for the "Worlds of Honor" series, I don't think S.M. Stirling (a Baen top-lister in his own right) would appreciate being called an "assistant."
The Honorverse is an exceptionally detailed universe that Weber has developed over several years (I would guess that it's probably as complex with subplots and spin-off potential as Gordon Dickson's "Chylde Cycle"). I think the fact that Weber invites other authors to pick a hanging thread from one of his past books and spin it into a yarn, and that such stories stay fairly consistent with the rest of the series in both content and style, speaks highly of the amount of work David did in planning the Honorverse. I don't know many authors who could work in a story universe for as long as he has and still generate as few inconsistencies and contradictions of "past events" as he has. Even if you don't like his writing style or the way he develops his characters you've got to admire the quality of his craftsmanship.
To this list I would add David Weber, Eric Flint, John Ringo, David Drake and most of the other SF top-listers and mid-listers at Baen.
For Cyberpunk, I like Bruce Sterling and William Gibson (the originals), although Neal Stephenson is teetering on the edge of joining the list of favorites.
Can't say I disagree with, or can add to, the other authors you list in the same paragraph.
True, but I don't really consider Callahan's to be hard-core SF
Just my US$.02
<disclaimer>
All opinions expressed herein are my own, rather than those of my employer, family, friends, acquaintances, enemies or any other person or creature whether living or dead, factual, fictional or imagined.
</disclaimer>
Yeah, here's MY Photo ID!
But no hearing has been held on the question. When it has and SCO is "put to their proof" THEN, and only then, will a precedent be established.
As a matter of fact I have read those alleged disclaimers and, under the law of at least one state, they are wholly ineffective because they fail to meet the requirements for an effective disclaimer of the "implied warranty of merchantability." As for the "implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose" that rarely applies to software unless the program is being sold directly to the buyer FOR a particular use that is known to the vendor. Even then I doubt that the alleged disclaimer would be enforced because representations that the program WAS suitable for a particular purpose would, no doubt, have been made in the course of negotiating the sale. Such representations would, if nothing else, trigger the doctrine of "detrimental reliance" by the buyer on the seller's representations. In addition to these issues, the defender of these licenses would also have to fight the fact that they fit the definition of an "adhesion contract" to a "T."
Don't ever think that "click-through" and "shrink wrap" licenses are bulletproof. A contract is only enforceable when then terms are freely negotiated between parties having equal power to influence the terms.
Not really. There are laws against commercial disparagement in most of these United States and they have all passed constitutional muster. Commercial speech is subject to some constraints that political, artistic, journalistic and social speech are not because the objective of commercial speech is to make money whereas the purpose of most other forms of speech is to communicate facts and/or express ideas.
The reason SCO hasn't been hit with a preliminary injunction in the US is because nobody has asked for one. US courts like cases being "tried in the media" even less than European courts do.
Understanding "apt-get install <pkg_name> and editing
Now resolving dependency conflicts with RPM's