Not to mention that the same big business also has a deathgrip on the media and can see to it that their candidates hog all the air time.
And also that anyone they don't want upsetting their cozy arrangement gets scandalously smeared enough to have the sheeple give them the old heave ho off the ballot.
If Wikileaks allowed a third party to have access to unredacted ANYTHING they are idiots.
Said third party might have government moles or spies looking to bust whoever leaked the stuff...or enemy moles looking to use the sensitive stuff to inflict damage.
The problem with "voting with your wallet" is that you are out numbered a hundred to one by sheeple that don't give a shit about anything but their own pocketbook.
Doing what's right costs money, so having a conscience is expensive.
But in today's cutthroat international environment there's MUCH to gain from cheating. Especially in the case of sovereign nations that cannot be put in prison or fined.
At this point I would put it on simple greed. The lawyers want to hog the kitty for themselves and are doing everything they can to milk SCO dry just to make sure NOBODY else gets anything, since a dollar going into a creditor's pocket is a dollar not going into theirs.
They probably know they haven't a snowball's chance in hell of winning, but since they made a deal to keep the case alive they may as well keep charging legal fees while they are at it.
Of course, considering that Microsoft was caught backdoor funding the whole thing, a bit of spite against Linux might not be out of place here either.
Deliberately violating Novell's constructive trust could however be seen as tortious conversion, and any bigwigs knowingly allowing it to happen may well be personally negligent in not stopping it, if not outright deliberately letting it fly.
If I were Novell I would start suing SCO's financial bosses individually. Maybe even the bankruptcy trustee as well if he was negligent in his duties as guardian of the bankruptcy estate.
More importantly, if they do, why is it being wasted on lawyers instead of being paid out to creditors?
Particularly Novell which actually has a constructive trust on a large chunk of that money, which means that it actually belongs to Novell and is merely in SCO's custody.
Which means that SCO had no legal right to spend it in the first place and is therefore liable for tortious conversion.
Novell might consider *personally* suing whoever at SCO authorized the payments without first coughing up Novell's funds.
I'm also curious if the bankruptcy trustee has been negligent in its fiduciary duty to the creditors by allowing the bankruptcy estate to be diminished.
Slashdot Mirror
They do have a reason.
It's called "for the lulz"
Not to mention that the same big business also has a deathgrip on the media and can see to it that their candidates hog all the air time.
And also that anyone they don't want upsetting their cozy arrangement gets scandalously smeared enough to have the sheeple give them the old heave ho off the ballot.
Especially when politicians are willing to cheat the system to stay in power.
Ohio elections anyone?
The game is rigged and nobody can win if they are honest.
Which means only the cheats get in power.
Good grammar and spelling are like ECC in a communication protocol.
I don't mind grammar nazis as long as they are
1) right
2) not deliberately being a dick
3) willing to yield to more important problems
The systemic corruption is what keeps those so called "individual" cops from being held accountable for what they are doing.
The actions might be lone wolf stuff, but the coverups are institutional.
Look at the milwaukee voucher program.
Parents get to be picky about what schools to send their kids to.
That's right, good old fashioned competition.
Naturally, the teacher's unions lobbied the crap out of it to get it killed in house, and then when that didn't work they sent lawyers to sue.
They fought tooth and nail to kill the program and the people had to drag it all the way to the supreme court.
Sadly, anything that pisses off a big organization is probably a good thing these days.
If Wikileaks allowed a third party to have access to unredacted ANYTHING they are idiots.
Said third party might have government moles or spies looking to bust whoever leaked the stuff...or enemy moles looking to use the sensitive stuff to inflict damage.
My bet is that we only found out about it because it was an Apple supplier.
Badmouthing the locals would probably have been squelched by the golden firewall.
We consumers aren't powerless.
More often than not we either don't have a clue or just don't fucking care.
The average uninformed consumer is at best simply ignorant, so all they see is $$ vs $$$.
If we want consumers to start being "informed wallet voters" we need to educate them.
Taking bets on if the elite that like things the way they are would fight the effort.
Trickle down economics is a load of bull, because people are inherently greedy.
The problem with "voting with your wallet" is that you are out numbered a hundred to one by sheeple that don't give a shit about anything but their own pocketbook.
Doing what's right costs money, so having a conscience is expensive.
Both for companies and for consumers.
Corporations cannot afford to have a conscience unless the government forces both them AND their competitors to.
The only thing the PRC has to lose is all the bribes it's collecting from companies to look the other way.
Consumers are just as selfish as any other entity.
They benefit from low prices while chinese citizens are the ones that suffer.
That's nice in a cooperative world.
But in today's cutthroat international environment there's MUCH to gain from cheating. Especially in the case of sovereign nations that cannot be put in prison or fined.
How much would that iPad actually cost for Apple to manufacture?
I'd even bet that the Chinese authorities only cared because it was an American business at the bottom of the supply chain.
lol, ass.
Conversion is the tort of wrongfully disposing of someone else's property.
For example. If you loan someone your car, and they sell it, they have converted your car.
It's the civil version of embezzling.
At this point I would put it on simple greed. The lawyers want to hog the kitty for themselves and are doing everything they can to milk SCO dry just to make sure NOBODY else gets anything, since a dollar going into a creditor's pocket is a dollar not going into theirs.
They probably know they haven't a snowball's chance in hell of winning, but since they made a deal to keep the case alive they may as well keep charging legal fees while they are at it.
Of course, considering that Microsoft was caught backdoor funding the whole thing, a bit of spite against Linux might not be out of place here either.
Deliberately violating Novell's constructive trust could however be seen as tortious conversion, and any bigwigs knowingly allowing it to happen may well be personally negligent in not stopping it, if not outright deliberately letting it fly.
If I were Novell I would start suing SCO's financial bosses individually. Maybe even the bankruptcy trustee as well if he was negligent in his duties as guardian of the bankruptcy estate.
And why are they still paying their legal bills instead of coughing up Novell's constructive trust?
That money doesn't even belong to SCO to begin with, so they (and possibly the legal firm they are paying) would be hard pressed to justify it.
Which also means massive clawback from breach of contract if BS&F backs out.
They quit and they have to refund their legal fees.
Since Novell had the benefit of a constructive trust, would somebody at SCO be personally liable for tortious conversion?
More importantly, if they do, why is it being wasted on lawyers instead of being paid out to creditors?
Particularly Novell which actually has a constructive trust on a large chunk of that money, which means that it actually belongs to Novell and is merely in SCO's custody.
Which means that SCO had no legal right to spend it in the first place and is therefore liable for tortious conversion.
Novell might consider *personally* suing whoever at SCO authorized the payments without first coughing up Novell's funds.
I'm also curious if the bankruptcy trustee has been negligent in its fiduciary duty to the creditors by allowing the bankruptcy estate to be diminished.