> If you're not willing to pay this company's legal fees then you > shouldn't expect them to be willing to pay for the cost of > defending your principals.
Now you're the one being melodramatic. TSG does not yet have universal standing to bring a suit like this, and even if they did they'd probably want to go slow since, hey, SCO doesn't exactly have the cashflow to spread around to a million suits. This is the same tactic that the RIAA is using (TSG has said as much) where as long as nobody fights back and shows the rest that TSG doesn't have any teeth (since contesting the suit would effectively freeze it) then the settlers get to feel good knowing that they got out easy.
They don't really know because they are paranoid of litigation and as such do not realize that they would not have to litigate this to the end instantly, they pay a couple grand for a stay until the Novell suit is done. TSG talks a big game, but they're a bunch of bullies. Unfortunately the (Microsoft-backed, for EV1) Linux space is the cowering fool on the playground.
Uh no. 9/11 didn't happen because of anything the citizens of the US did. I certainly don't see any changes in foreign policy in response to 9/11 that would eliminate the possibility of a local attack and there's for sure not going to be the equivalent of street cameras in the stock exchanges, boardrooms of the Fortune 500, and the Presidential Cabinet meetings. That's where the seeds were sown.
apples and oranges. it's not that great strides haven't been made in spite of christianity, it's that christianity hasn't produced any great strides that couldn't have been made without it.
Yes, but the neutral and international standards bodies aren't as susceptible to political wrangling as the UN is. Plus, the US doesn't hold the purse strings for those independent bodies.
Hey, how about a refund of all fees ever paid if it turns out they have no claim? That is, all SCOSource fees should be payment for indemnification in the case that SCO IP is absent from *nix.
Re:There shouldn't be a problem with mobiles
on
Cell-Phone Wars
·
· Score: 1
Two things: it's more than "a few people" if the Cox news service is spitting an article on the controversy to their network of media outlets. That, and your assertion that jammers are somehow "worse" than the rude cell talkers rings quite hollow when there are plenty of non-ignorant fools who are delberately selfish with their cellphones. The cellphones count two sets of idiots among their ranks while the jammers are only one!
You really can't beat the overwhelming wordiness of a crackpot, though. Add a perl script to that crackpot and you have a robotic crackpot, truly a useless invention.
No, you could not as easily argue that. If it can be interpreted as having miniscule financial value, how do you explain the number of companies who are using it to make, you know, money?
Ah, quit being so melodramatic. You can't use stuff in business that you have no rights to, it's a simple as that. You can try to soften the offense by calling it "misuse", but if someone doesn't have the rights to use GPL (or Microsoft) code in their product, then they can't make the product.
I don't know what "practically by default" is supposed to mean, but I'll tell you what Unices (even beyond your Linux "distros") don't have Perl or Python: the ones where/usr is unavailable at the time you need to do something.
You'll hide behind freedoms you wouldn't have unless better people than you actively defended those freedoms.
If this is the allusion to the military providing the freedoms that American citizens enjoy, consider the changes since 9/11 that suggest that Americans actually have their freedoms curtailed when battle is in the air. Americans would seem to have the freedoms they enjoy *in spite* of the military actions. Furthermore you would have us believe that the military can do whatever they want and that we should define "freedom" as whatever is left over after they have their pie. No thanks, my standards for freedom seem to be higher than yours.
Your assumption is that calls would be jammed regardless of context. How do you ask someone on the freeway to politely refrain from neglecting their automotive responsibilities? Sure jamming may be illegal in certain places, but for the greater good? I think most people have ethical considerations as solid as those who wrote the laws against jamming.
I never implied that I hate cellphones "so much", but I did imply that there are circumstances when a "network glitch" could come in handy. It's fine that you are so considerate with your public phone habits, but my experience is that this kind of consideration is a lagging indicator of common sense. In other words, the exception doesn't prove the rule.
Check yourself. You seem to be saying that all of your cell conversations concern these important aspects of your life, certainly this doesn't reflect your reality! You further assume that cellphone jamming would be used only in arbitrary situations or for frivolous reasons. While that may be true in some instances, I would feel perfectly justified using one of these in a restaurant, movie, or other environment where one person can ruin things for a larger group. This includes talking on the phone while operating the most common of deadly weapons: the car.
Revenge is one of the most self-righteous of desires, will your instinct to destroy anything that annoys you (even if it is aggravated by your own behavior) stop you from engaging in frivolous conversations in a public setting? Is other peoples' annoyance secondary to your own? It seems so, given that you are blind to the basic idea that two wrongs don't make a right.
The exception doesn't prove the rule, buddy. The fact that you would elect to beat a child up speaks volumes about how lame your reasoning is. Good luck, hockey-dad.
Are you 100 years old or something? Because it sounds like you're calling 411 and saying something like "I want the number of the hardware store over on McGillicuddy across the street from the old Mill. You know the one."...which hasn't been possible in a long time.
Slashdot Mirror
The first thing that sprang to mind when I was reading this was, "so what are you going to do about it?" Nothing but bluster and contrition it seems.
"It's easier to ask forgiveness than permission" and all that.
> If you're not willing to pay this company's legal fees then you
> shouldn't expect them to be willing to pay for the cost of
> defending your principals.
Now you're the one being melodramatic. TSG does not yet have universal standing to bring a suit like this, and even if they did they'd probably want to go slow since, hey, SCO doesn't exactly have the cashflow to spread around to a million suits. This is the same tactic that the RIAA is using (TSG has said as much) where as long as nobody fights back and shows the rest that TSG doesn't have any teeth (since contesting the suit would effectively freeze it) then the settlers get to feel good knowing that they got out easy.
They don't really know because they are paranoid of litigation and as such do not realize that they would not have to litigate this to the end instantly, they pay a couple grand for a stay until the Novell suit is done. TSG talks a big game, but they're a bunch of bullies. Unfortunately the (Microsoft-backed, for EV1) Linux space is the cowering fool on the playground.
Uh no. 9/11 didn't happen because of anything the citizens of the US did. I certainly don't see any changes in foreign policy in response to 9/11 that would eliminate the possibility of a local attack and there's for sure not going to be the equivalent of street cameras in the stock exchanges, boardrooms of the Fortune 500, and the Presidential Cabinet meetings. That's where the seeds were sown.
EV1 says "we didn't pay seven figures!" and SCO says "it was worth seven figures!".
apples and oranges. it's not that great strides haven't been made in spite of christianity, it's that christianity hasn't produced any great strides that couldn't have been made without it.
> There have ALREADY been cases where people died because
> cell phones did not have 911 location services.
I'm with you, this death thing is completely out of control.
Yes, but the neutral and international standards bodies aren't as susceptible to political wrangling as the UN is. Plus, the US doesn't hold the purse strings for those independent bodies.
Hey, how about a refund of all fees ever paid if it turns out they have no claim? That is, all SCOSource fees should be payment for indemnification in the case that SCO IP is absent from *nix.
Two things: it's more than "a few people" if the Cox news service is spitting an article on the controversy to their network of media outlets. That, and your assertion that jammers are somehow "worse" than the rude cell talkers rings quite hollow when there are plenty of non-ignorant fools who are delberately selfish with their cellphones. The cellphones count two sets of idiots among their ranks while the jammers are only one!
Jeez, dude. It was just a Dead Milkmen quote.
You really can't beat the overwhelming wordiness of a crackpot, though. Add a perl script to that crackpot and you have a robotic crackpot, truly a useless invention.
except that nobody is saying that the RIAA members don't own the copyrights they're suing over.
No, you could not as easily argue that. If it can be interpreted as having miniscule financial value, how do you explain the number of companies who are using it to make, you know, money?
Ah, quit being so melodramatic. You can't use stuff in business that you have no rights to, it's a simple as that. You can try to soften the offense by calling it "misuse", but if someone doesn't have the rights to use GPL (or Microsoft) code in their product, then they can't make the product.
I don't know what "practically by default" is supposed to mean, but I'll tell you what Unices (even beyond your Linux "distros") don't have Perl or Python: the ones where /usr is unavailable at the time you need to do something.
You've got a firm grasp of the obvious!
Sure! It's possible that he could be sued for trade libel, similar to what SUSE received their injunction against SCO in Germany for.
You'll hide behind freedoms you wouldn't have unless better people than you actively defended those freedoms.
If this is the allusion to the military providing the freedoms that American citizens enjoy, consider the changes since 9/11 that suggest that Americans actually have their freedoms curtailed when battle is in the air. Americans would seem to have the freedoms they enjoy *in spite* of the military actions. Furthermore you would have us believe that the military can do whatever they want and that we should define "freedom" as whatever is left over after they have their pie. No thanks, my standards for freedom seem to be higher than yours.
Your assumption is that calls would be jammed regardless of context. How do you ask someone on the freeway to politely refrain from neglecting their automotive responsibilities? Sure jamming may be illegal in certain places, but for the greater good? I think most people have ethical considerations as solid as those who wrote the laws against jamming.
I never implied that I hate cellphones "so much", but I did imply that there are circumstances when a "network glitch" could come in handy. It's fine that you are so considerate with your public phone habits, but my experience is that this kind of consideration is a lagging indicator of common sense. In other words, the exception doesn't prove the rule.
Check yourself. You seem to be saying that all of your cell conversations concern these important aspects of your life, certainly this doesn't reflect your reality! You further assume that cellphone jamming would be used only in arbitrary situations or for frivolous reasons. While that may be true in some instances, I would feel perfectly justified using one of these in a restaurant, movie, or other environment where one person can ruin things for a larger group. This includes talking on the phone while operating the most common of deadly weapons: the car.
Revenge is one of the most self-righteous of desires, will your instinct to destroy anything that annoys you (even if it is aggravated by your own behavior) stop you from engaging in frivolous conversations in a public setting? Is other peoples' annoyance secondary to your own? It seems so, given that you are blind to the basic idea that two wrongs don't make a right.
The exception doesn't prove the rule, buddy. The fact that you would elect to beat a child up speaks volumes about how lame your reasoning is. Good luck, hockey-dad.
Just because you're still bitter doesn't mean I'm self-righteous. Your assumptions blind you.
Respected? For what, his high-profile losses and his ability to rack up ethics charges?
David Boies is one of the most *famous* lawyers in the country, but the best? I don't know where you get that from.
Spamcop puts your address in the report it sends to the spammers and their ISPs!
Are you 100 years old or something? Because it sounds like you're calling 411 and saying something like "I want the number of the hardware store over on McGillicuddy across the street from the old Mill. You know the one." ...which hasn't been possible in a long time.