The "offending" sight seems awfully slim. I get the sense that this whole exchange might be a bit of a publicity ploy to promote Second Life.
That's an interesting thought, and if so then I would guess it would be an employee of Linden Labs. However after looking it over I'm inclined to think that perhaps you might be only half right -- that while it's a publicity maneuver (and a very clever one at that) it was designed to protect their intellectual property at the same time.
The creator of the getalifefirst.com website is in a different city than Linden Labs, registered through a different registrar, on different nameservers and different IP netblocks. While I admit none of this means anything it does mitigate my suspicions.
Honestly, I think Gates takes advantage of the fact that people look to him to foretell the future. The futures he predicts are those that are the most equitable to Microsoft's vision of the future of tech.
"Nobody will ever need more than 640k RAM"
"The Internet? We are not interested in it"
"Two years from now spam will be solved."
If you want to listen to a real soothsayer of tech read to Cingely.
I feel the opposite as you. I feel that any employee that stayed during this course of action (especially into 2004) must condone what the company is doing, and is part and supporter of the "Caldera FUD movement" (for a lack of a better term I guess). As I recall many of them volunteered to make anti-Linux signs on the behest of a SCO executive on the day when the Provo Linux Users' group held a "protest SCO" day (original Slashdot story)
I imagine one day should I notice any of the current 166 alleged SCO employees standing on freeway on-ramps with "will work for food" signs would be better off to stand clear of my car or any adjacent puddles in my path. At the very least they should have the sense to omit Caldera/SCO from their resumes -- they can mitigate this work history by claiming to have been in prison.
Those are the words from Novell's lawyers. Perhaps the IBM/SCO case could close earlier than planned? Perhaps we can finally be rid of this sphincter once and for all?
You've got it exactly backwards. If I have an agreement for a service that includes email, I have a right to expect that any email sent to me can reach my account. It is not the rights of the sender that are being infringed, it is the rights of the recipient.
You need to read before you click submit; go back and read my post again. Pay particular attention this time to where I mention the words "private contracts". Did you hear me talk about my private property? Please tell me what law requires that I accept e-mail from anyone barring a contract to do so.
Even then I still must disagree with you, and so have courts:
References:
"The University of Texas was within its rights to block spam sent by an internet dating agency, even though the unsolicited emails complied with the requirements of federal anti-spam laws, an Appeals Court has ruled."
The error in your reasoning starts when you assume that self-appointed do-gooders have the right to infringe the rights of third parties. (I'm not going to answer any posts about how actually it's just a list and no-one has to use it bla bla - save it for the bar-room barristers.) Vigilantes are always a menace, especially when they have a policy of hurting the innocent.
What the hell are you talking about? It's quite the opposite -- barring private contracts you have no implicit right to send e-mail to any mail server. What rights do you believe are being infringed? -- please enlighten us with your vast legal know-how Mr. Internet lawyer, and disclose the details of these alleged rights. As the administrator of my mail servers I have the right to block you for any reason I deem whatsoever, and even more should I have determine that your network is a threat to the stability of mine.
The Internet is not a public resource but a network of private LANs. If anyone is the self-appointed do-gooders it's those that believe they have some god-given right to re-appropriate others' private property.
My servers, my rules. If you don't like it die in a fire while pounding sand.
and I can explain the tailgating issue here succinctly (although I think mythosaz did a fairly good job of summing up many of the issues).
We have a lot of elderly drivers here -- we like to call them snowbirds. It gets really cold up north in Minnesota or Wisconsin so they all come here during the winter and relocate for the season. Now I really like older people but the reality is that many of them have a hard time keeping a normal pace on the roads here. Phoenix is just as bad as Los Angeles, in fact you could Phoenix L.A. traffic in training, but I digress.
Tailgating is a response to people blocking the passing lane. The reason this is done is a stimulus response to driving behind slower impeding traffic. Drivers here by nature do not want to let someone ahead of them because when they have they have been rewarded by some white haired driver with Montana plates driving 15 MPH in a 45 zone.
Lets not forget those that sold themselves as "expert witnesses" during the SCO saga. In this particular case the expert witness was one Dr. Thomas Cargill.
I will never buy his books (e.g., his C++ book). If he speaks at the local university I will boycott his appearances. If given the opportunity I will protest any attempt by any company I have influence over to use him as a consultant.
SCO made this accusation some time ago, this is IBM's response to those claims. IANAL (except on slashdot where everyone is a lawyer), but I believe admitting or denying claims is part of the whole legal process. If both parties admit to something it's not in dispute and probably saves a lot of time.
I'm sure you'll see a lot of tongue-in-cheek questions here about the recent IE team cake--but in all seriousness do you think Microsoft was sending any message, subtle or not, with their gift? Was the cake a gesture of altruism or do you think they were telling Firefox not to forget that they are a competing member of a browser war?
How do Firefox members believe they are perceived by the "competition"?
... that the dangers we face from ManBearPig are only exacerbated by a lack of private investment in space. He concluded his speech by asserting that he was quite "serial".
E360: I'm the head of network abuse for Arizona's oldest ISP and your IP addresses have been in our filters here LONG before the Spamhaus complaints against you.
There is a very hot spot for you in hell someday.
This decision has nothing to do with Freedom of Speech, it's about scum spammers taking advantage of the legal system.
Spammers: Die In A Fire.
Spamhaus: Keep doing a good job.
For those that think I'm trolling, look at my slashdot ID number, I've been around a long time.
What I hope the world sees is that MySQL AB makes up its own mind
Of course MySQL AB has the freedom to make up its own mind. As a consumer I have several criteria that I can use when I decide to spend my corporate dollars. Some of us are offended by your partnership with SCO/Canopy and have chosen to boycott your product despite any technical merit it may or may not have. Freedom works both ways, and in my view MySQL AB caused themselves irreparable damage when they decided to partner themselves with villains.
Slashdot Mirror
The "offending" sight seems awfully slim. I get the sense that this whole exchange might be a bit of a publicity ploy to promote Second Life.
That's an interesting thought, and if so then I would guess it would be an employee of Linden Labs. However after looking it over I'm inclined to think that perhaps you might be only half right -- that while it's a publicity maneuver (and a very clever one at that) it was designed to protect their intellectual property at the same time.
The creator of the getalifefirst.com website is in a different city than Linden Labs, registered through a different registrar, on different nameservers and different IP netblocks. While I admit none of this means anything it does mitigate my suspicions.
Does Randall Schwartz know?
If it wasn't for those meddling F/LOSS kids!
*ducks*
Honestly, I think Gates takes advantage of the fact that people look to him to foretell the future. The futures he predicts are those that are the most equitable to Microsoft's vision of the future of tech.
"Nobody will ever need more than 640k RAM"
"The Internet? We are not interested in it"
"Two years from now spam will be solved."
If you want to listen to a real soothsayer of tech read to Cingely.
"[T]he FCC thinks giving the CPI the data will give a competitive advantage to the other broadband companies."
And forcing Google to turn over search engine data to the USDOJ is okay, but this isn't?
Clippy: "It looks like you're trying to render an image of a spleen -- Is that what you'd like help doing?" ...
User: "Yes."
Clippy: "Are you sure that's a spleen? -- kinda looks like a liver?"
User: "No, it's a spleen, please help render the medical image."
Clippy: "Your liver is done. Onions still on the grill."
Read that article again until it sinks in.
Since the law was passed in 2003, there has only been ONE FARKING SPAMMER CONVICTED under the law! Yes, that's..
*MIND BOGGLES*
FUCKING 4 YEARS!!!
Rest easy folks, you're only getting spammed by one person. Turn off the spam filters. All is well.
But I feel bad for SCO's real employees.
I feel the opposite as you. I feel that any employee that stayed during this course of action (especially into 2004) must condone what the company is doing, and is part and supporter of the "Caldera FUD movement" (for a lack of a better term I guess). As I recall many of them volunteered to make anti-Linux signs on the behest of a SCO executive on the day when the Provo Linux Users' group held a "protest SCO" day (original Slashdot story)
I imagine one day should I notice any of the current 166 alleged SCO employees standing on freeway on-ramps with "will work for food" signs would be better off to stand clear of my car or any adjacent puddles in my path. At the very least they should have the sense to omit Caldera/SCO from their resumes -- they can mitigate this work history by claiming to have been in prison.
Those are the words from Novell's lawyers. Perhaps the IBM/SCO case could close earlier than planned? Perhaps we can finally be rid of this sphincter once and for all?
Typo fixed in original message, no charge.
You've got it exactly backwards. If I have an agreement for a service that includes email, I have a right to expect that any email sent to me can reach my account. It is not the rights of the sender that are being infringed, it is the rights of the recipient.
You need to read before you click submit; go back and read my post again. Pay particular attention this time to where I mention the words "private contracts". Did you hear me talk about my private property? Please tell me what law requires that I accept e-mail from anyone barring a contract to do so.
Even then I still must disagree with you, and so have courts:
References:
"The University of Texas was within its rights to block spam sent by an internet dating agency, even though the unsolicited emails complied with the requirements of federal anti-spam laws, an Appeals Court has ruled."
http://www.out-law.com/page-5986
The error in your reasoning starts when you assume that self-appointed do-gooders have the right to infringe the rights of third parties. (I'm not going to answer any posts about how actually it's just a list and no-one has to use it bla bla - save it for the bar-room barristers.) Vigilantes are always a menace, especially when they have a policy of hurting the innocent.
What the hell are you talking about? It's quite the opposite -- barring private contracts you have no implicit right to send e-mail to any mail server. What rights do you believe are being infringed? -- please enlighten us with your vast legal know-how Mr. Internet lawyer, and disclose the details of these alleged rights. As the administrator of my mail servers I have the right to block you for any reason I deem whatsoever, and even more should I have determine that your network is a threat to the stability of mine.
The Internet is not a public resource but a network of private LANs. If anyone is the self-appointed do-gooders it's those that believe they have some god-given right to re-appropriate others' private property.
My servers, my rules. If you don't like it die in a fire while pounding sand.
/sbin/ifconfig -a
Walla!
They're more than happy to be a SCO/Canopy partner.
I know where I'll not be spending my IT budget next year.
and I can explain the tailgating issue here succinctly (although I think mythosaz did a fairly good job of summing up many of the issues).
We have a lot of elderly drivers here -- we like to call them snowbirds. It gets really cold up north in Minnesota or Wisconsin so they all come here during the winter and relocate for the season. Now I really like older people but the reality is that many of them have a hard time keeping a normal pace on the roads here. Phoenix is just as bad as Los Angeles, in fact you could Phoenix L.A. traffic in training, but I digress.
Tailgating is a response to people blocking the passing lane. The reason this is done is a stimulus response to driving behind slower impeding traffic. Drivers here by nature do not want to let someone ahead of them because when they have they have been rewarded by some white haired driver with Montana plates driving 15 MPH in a 45 zone.
there wasn't a link to EveryDNS in the article.
Lets not forget those that sold themselves as "expert witnesses" during the SCO saga. In this particular case the expert witness was one Dr. Thomas Cargill.
I will never buy his books (e.g., his C++ book). If he speaks at the local university I will boycott his appearances. If given the opportunity I will protest any attempt by any company I have influence over to use him as a consultant.
but not rirry!
SCO made this accusation some time ago, this is IBM's response to those claims. IANAL (except on slashdot where everyone is a lawyer), but I believe admitting or denying claims is part of the whole legal process. If both parties admit to something it's not in dispute and probably saves a lot of time.
I can't wait to use this in Quake.
I'm sure you'll see a lot of tongue-in-cheek questions here about the recent IE team cake--but in all seriousness do you think Microsoft was sending any message, subtle or not, with their gift? Was the cake a gesture of altruism or do you think they were telling Firefox not to forget that they are a competing member of a browser war?
How do Firefox members believe they are perceived by the "competition"?
... that the dangers we face from ManBearPig are only exacerbated by a lack of private investment in space. He concluded his speech by asserting that he was quite "serial".
When you pry them from my cold dead... Uhh. oh. Nevermind.
The freedom of speech also means the freedom to NOT listen to speech.
This is a win for those who believe in property rights.
My servers. My rules.
E360: I'm the head of network abuse for Arizona's oldest ISP and your IP addresses have been in our filters here LONG before the Spamhaus complaints against you.
There is a very hot spot for you in hell someday.
This decision has nothing to do with Freedom of Speech, it's about scum spammers taking advantage of the legal system.
Spammers: Die In A Fire.
Spamhaus: Keep doing a good job.
For those that think I'm trolling, look at my slashdot ID number, I've been around a long time.
What I hope the world sees is that MySQL AB makes up its own mind
Of course MySQL AB has the freedom to make up its own mind. As a consumer I have several criteria that I can use when I decide to spend my corporate dollars. Some of us are offended by your partnership with SCO/Canopy and have chosen to boycott your product despite any technical merit it may or may not have. Freedom works both ways, and in my view MySQL AB caused themselves irreparable damage when they decided to partner themselves with villains.