I predict that SCO's stock WON'T descend so quickly.
The newly leaked internal MS memos seem to be saying that MS has earmarked x millions for uses such as this; artificially maintaining SCO's stock high.
The problem is the typical investor can't see that going on and will simply believe there really is some interest in SCO's stock.
It's a doomed tactic, but MS are more interested in causing harm than actually winning at this point.
I think you have some good arguments. However, there are a lot of short interests in SCOX that are held by people who *are* savvy in the tech field and know SCO's claims to be the crack-rock-induced pipe dreams they truly are. At some point, those people are going to cash in those shorts and what happens next?
So this declaratory judgement that IBM is not infringing copyright is very tangent to the SCO vs IBM case. But of course, it would give very nice munition against the SCO out-of-court FUD, which is probably why IBM is asking for it. It might also have an impact on SCO vs google etc., I don't understand the issue well enough to judge this.
SCO vs google? When did that happen? Seriously, I wouldn't be surprised to see this motion turn very quickly into a request for an order that would muzzle SCO and prevent them from spreading further FUD and close up their SCOsource nonsense.
I'm most of the way through IBM's pleading of the counterclaims. I have one word:
Wow!
This is so well laid out that even a child of 6 could understand what it is that SCO has been up to these past 12 months. When I read IBM's lawyers' work, I want to jump up and dance with glee at the utter beauty seen within.
When I read the work of SCO's lawyers or any statements made by the buffoons directing them, I want to cry. It seriously makes my head hurt, trying to wrap my brain around the utter bullshit they continue to spout.
IBM has landed a crushing blow to SCO's claims. I predict that over the remainder of this week and through next we will see SCO's stock plummet back to its true value -- less than $1.
Do you believe Howard Stern should also be legally permitted to waggle his genitals in the face of a small child on the subway? Assuming your answer is no, that's just another degree of "legislation of morality".
Right, as if that happened. This country needs to grow the fuck up. I'm certainly not a baby, the on/off switch and tuner knobs work on my radio/tv, and I certainly remember how to work them when I find content I consider disturbing. You figure that children aren't listening to his show as they should all either be under a parent's supervision or at school during his program.
You give these government assholes an inch, and they take a mile. Our basic freedoms are being eroded here and you're complaining about a hypothetical event. Howard has never waved his genitals in front of children and you're an idiot for saying such.
Ontario is in Canada. CAN-SPAM is a US act. This is Yahoo suing a spammer, the CAN-SPAM act is completely and utterly irrelevant.
Being that these gents did business in the US by sending their spam to Yahoo addresses, they're fully culpable under US law. Same goes for any Canadian corporation doing business with the US: Fuck up and you'll be sued under the laws of the country where you fucked up.
In fact, IIRC, the CAN-SPAM act specifically prohibits individuals / companies from taking legal action against alleged spammers.
Seeing as how Yahoo is an internet service provider by the definition of the CANSPAM act, they're well within their rights to bring suit against the Heads.
It's just too bad that there's not another brother named Richard to lend a comedic air to it all.
I'm already trying to block as many banner ad sites as possible, using MozillaFirebird on Linux. Now, I'm seeing text ads in their place, along with flash animated ads. How can I escape this barrage of advertising? I rarely, if ever, click on any of these ads unless there's something truly compelling about them.
Since the story broke about SCO suing IBM a year ago, I've said that the hand up Darl's puppet anus belonged to Billy Gates. Now here's the confirmation.
I will never, *ever* knowingly buy another Microsoft product again. I will do all I can to steer my customers away from Microsoft products where I can.
It would be wise if as many people as possible were to join in this boycott. Yes, I know it's difficult getting windows users to port to something unfamiliar. However, I'm going to keep working on my own friends and customers.
I don't see why customers could be upset with a company that makes a business decision to protect themselves and their customers. I do understand that individuals can think "that's dumb...I hate SCO". But this was a business decision...nothing more.
Protect them from *what* exactly???
The corporate likeness of the Windy Wolf from The Three Little Pigs fairy tale??
SCO has no clear claim to the IP they think they own full rights to. Novell is on the table claiming rights to it. Only an idiot would pay a license on something that the seller cannot show clear title to.
This guy is just a sell-out. He's sold his business, his customers and his ideals down the river for false security.
If he'd been smart, he'd have sat on his $million$ and waited to see the final results of all this, just like everyone else.
Now, he's going to lose tons of business, has effectively alienated thousands of people and other businesses, and committed political suicide by siding with SCO.
Maybe I'm missing something...though a clarification/correction would be welcome.
Remember back in... what was it, early December, when Darl and his other brother Darl, released that idiotic document stating that the GPL was null and void, that GPL software may as well be in the public domain, that it was unconstitutional, violated the Berne Convention, etc, etc, blah blah blah??
When they stated that bunch of gobbledygook, that is *precisely* when they violated the GPL. By not holding it up as the perfectly good license for software that is free/libre, and being unwilling to abide by its terms, they have violated the license under paragraph four of the license. They are no longer able to distribute, copy, modify, etc, any of the Linux/GNU software, or any other software licensed under the GPL.
I'd highly recommend you at least head over to Groklaw and read the text transcript of Professor Moglen's Harvard speech. It will open your eyes.
In my reading of copyright law, theres nothing that would allow a copyright holder to retract a license, and the GPL doesn't have anything specifically granting that (most licenses do). Are you aware of any case law that supports the idea that a copyright creator can arbitrarily revoke a license it has already granted? Fyodor can certainly add a special condition to his latest version, though that would make his license not-free and therefore conflict with the GPL:P
What you're missing here is this:
SCO, with their silliness and shenanigans of trying to get the GPL rendered as invalid, along with attempting to extort additional licensing fees and conditions over Linux, has violated the GPL.
Read it again:
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
By attempting to get users of Linux to cough up fees for SCO's extra license for Linux, GNU, and Fyodor's NMAP program as one of many other GPL'd program distributed with Linux and SCO's own product offerings, SCO is in violation of the GPL. Fyodor is well within his rights to terminate SCO's license to use the software. Once upon a time, Caldera very happily distributed GNU/Linux and Nmap for free, with all the conditions intact to remain in compliance with the GPL. By attempting to charge an additional licensing fee and dictating conditions that are not in line with the GPL's own, they are in violation.
When Microsoft reigns in it's bcentral spammer arm will they actually do something to combat spam. Also, when we are able to educate Joe Average to stop buying the shit that spammers sell, then and only then will we be able to say goodbye to spam. Right now, spamming is too profitable. We just haven't found what it takes to make it unprofitable.
Well, they certainly seem to have been leaving the door open for future claims and arguments. Or at least, that's how I interpret their continuing refusal, in court, to detail all of their claims -- a few allegations here, a few lines of code there, but not even the judge can get out of them exactly what they're claiming.
Maybe they're still checking the details themselves, maybe they're trying to give IBM as little time as possible to respond, maybe they have something really clever up their sleeves. But personally, I think they know they have nothing, and are either hoping something will turn up (maybe from all the discovery they want from IBM), or that by adding new claims at long intervals, they'll be able to spin it out until everyone gets fed up.
From everything I've read in the case, especially the transcript, Mark Heise, counsel for SCO, practically requested that the judge allow him a fishing license so they could go through the IBM/Sequent codebases on an expedition to find something, anything to substantiate their code. The requests to see AIX/Dynix are nothing more than SCO saying, "We think we have a case, however, without being able to compare the current code bases, which we do not have, to our own code base and to Linux, we cannot substantiate our claims any better."
In other words, they don't have a case, they know they don't have a case, and they're praying that they can get enough leeway outta the judge that she'll allow discovery on the two code bases in question so they can come up with a case. IBM has known all along that SCO et al are completely full of shit, has anticipated that SCO has no proof of anything and will do anything they can to keep SCO from getting the code they need for their fishing expedition.
The judge can see right through all of the SCO shenanigans. I'd have loved to have been in judges chambers on the 6th to have heard the exchange that went on. I'm betting Heise got a very stern talking to over what's happened so far, and ordered Heise, et al, to do several things:
1. Produce the discovery items that IBM has requested per the order to compel.
2. Indicated that SCO's side of discovery will continue to be stayed until SCO coughs up *everything*.
3. Put a muzzle on McBride, Sontag and the rest of the idiot windbags at SCO as it appears that anytime any one of them opens their mouth, it's been quite damaging to their own case.
Notice how since the last hearing, SCO has become *very quiet*. They issued a very short press release, and didn't hold the press conference that had been promised for after the hearing. McBride hasn't had anything to say since the Harvard thing. This is a good thing. Their attempts to spread FUD have completely backfired, and I'd believe that they finally have figured out the first rule any attorney tells a client: Don't say anything to anyone about ongoing litigation. Shut the fuck up!
IBM and their attorneys appear very confident that they have all the loose ends and every possible defense lined up in case of anything that SCO tosses at them. Notice how much the case has morphed since it's been filed, worse than any chameleon with a bad case of the jitters. I could tell that Heise, with all his whining about what a burden discovery has been for his client so far, hasn't scored *any* points with the judge.
In the end, I believe the judge is going to come back and issue an order stating that SCO is to produce what's been asked of them, *everything* requested by IBM, within 30-45 days. Until then, discovery in the other direction will remain on hold. If SCO again fails to meet what's required of them, I believe that the judge will end up tossing the case as it's already quite weak in substantial claims.
I work for a small computer service company in the Detroit area. We get typically $149/hour for operating systems/software support. Given the case of a small company with 20 workstations and a server for their employees to use that has nothing in place for virus protection, and that most, if not all machines have become infected, figure this:.25-.75 hours per machine to disinfect.25 hour to load new AV software per machine, download updates for program and signatures, etc...
Figures to 21 hours max at $149/hour... $3129 in labor. Norton AV Corporate edition with 25 seat licensing (don't forget, that server is included as a seat, and you can only buy in 5, 10 and 25 seat increments) costs $869.00 per Symantec's website. With the 30% markup my employer would add and state sales tax added, that comes to software costs of $4326.48.
Figure in any additional labor to reinstall any software or operating system components that were damaged by the infection and you've got one whopper of a bill for a small business to drop because a multibillion-dollar corporation cannot spend the proper amount of money and time to thoroughly investigate and secure their operating system products. Then figure in the cost of annual subscription fees to download updates to the virus updates (I don't recall the actual figures for annual subscription fees, but my sister's company has three pc's in a peer-to-peer environment and each machine costs $20 annually for that subscription). Pretty hefty.
you do realise they released a patch to dekill those drives, right? *dumpster dives*
Yep. However, when you've started an install on someone else's machine and that someone else expects his machine to work the same way it did before you started, you do what you need to do to get it working for him. At least that's for those who aren't ethically challenged. I needed it to work and I got it to work with the least effort necessary and without making the poor bugger wait the week and a half that it took to patch the problem.
... in a month or so we should have quite a bit more stability in that department. I don't know whether or not Mandrake are planning for 10.0 to be 2.6-based but it would seem appropriate for a new major version.
Trust me, 10.0 will be at least six weeks in coming. This is simply the first beta release. People will load them on development servers (only a fool would use a beta distro on a production machine), report the bugs and the programmers will get the fixes in. Several iterations (beta2, maybe beta3, then RC1, RC2, maybe RC3 if needed). They go through a good deal of development phases. I feel that they may have rushed 9.2 out but they may also have learned a lesson. Anyone can get distracted when dealing with financial issues.
Give it time and a chance. I think 10.0 will be a very good thing.
Re:How much was operating revenue?
on
MandrakeSoft Roundup
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
how much of their income last quarter was due to donations, and do they expect to be able to keep that up? I really don't know, and I'd like to hear from soemone in the know.
MandrakeClub is a worthwhile service in my own personal opinion, one which I'm glad to purchase. I had paid my subscription 2 years in advance, so I'm just surfing along. I continue to buy the distribution in the powerpack cd version, 7 cd's loaded with stuff. Yes there have been quality control issues but my own equipment wasn't affected. I was embarrassed, though, when I had to replace a friend's CDROM drive when the install of 9.2 went sour.
I've got stock in the company and I love the distribution. It's easy to use, comes very well customized to my own needs, and is easily tweaked up with everything that I need, whether I'm running it on my serversl or laptops or whatever. I'm proud to say that I support Mandrake.
It has been mentioned before in threads on Slashdot, but since the joke keep coming up, here we go again: Prison rape isn't really funny.
Jeebus... Every time someone mentions "relay rape" on NANAE, some kneejerk rape victim immediately chimes in with her reaction that rape isn't a joke, that anyone's use of the word rape in connection with the unauthorized use of an open mail relay only belittles the victims.
Now, we have males claiming the same thing about prison rape. I should throw my laptop and all the other PC's in this house in the garbage and find something else to fuckin' do. In a land where there's six inches of snow on the ground, the temperature is in the single digits Farenheit, that's gonna be damned hard to do.
On the Electronic Frontier Foundation site (EFF) site I found http://action.eff.org/action/index.asp?step=2&item =2775 talking how to fight back.
I have not yet found, statistics on how many registered voters are fighting back, what state does these voters come from, etc etc. I think it would be interesting if EFF had that to show what kind of support against SCO exists. Anyone know if this exists? (Please tell me I am blind and cant read:)
I had one of these letters sent to my congresscritters back during the summer. I remember recently getting a response to the tune that the congresscritters could not intervene, that the case would have to wind its way through the courts and that congresscritters by law are not allowed to step in to help stop SCO's actions.
Anyone bothering to send that letter off to their congresscritters should think again. All you're doing is wasting your congresscritter's time and resources responding to a challenge they can do nothing about.
I'd be careful not to use an important email account. These guys are scummy faxers, so I wouldn't be surprised if any complaint email addresses also end up being sent to "online soliciting" partners...
I'd use a loaded address, such as forbes@example.com, to see what exactly happens. I'd use it in/etc/aliases, mapped to my regular user, and the instant a spam hits it, remove the alias and let it bounce, watching the logs to see who exactly starts spamming it. Then lart the fuck out of it.
Slashdot Mirror
/me waves private parts in air in front of me...
Tax this, mutherf'r.
Fished in!! Fished in!!! Here fishy fishy fisy!!
Tug harder, I think the hook is caught in yer gullet.
I think you have some good arguments. However, there are a lot of short interests in SCOX that are held by people who *are* savvy in the tech field and know SCO's claims to be the crack-rock-induced pipe dreams they truly are. At some point, those people are going to cash in those shorts and what happens next?
I can hear the whistle as that bomb drops.
Blake Stowell??
SCO vs google? When did that happen? Seriously, I wouldn't be surprised to see this motion turn very quickly into a request for an order that would muzzle SCO and prevent them from spreading further FUD and close up their SCOsource nonsense.
I'm most of the way through IBM's pleading of the counterclaims. I have one word:
Wow!
This is so well laid out that even a child of 6 could understand what it is that SCO has been up to these past 12 months. When I read IBM's lawyers' work, I want to jump up and dance with glee at the utter beauty seen within.
When I read the work of SCO's lawyers or any statements made by the buffoons directing them, I want to cry. It seriously makes my head hurt, trying to wrap my brain around the utter bullshit they continue to spout.
IBM has landed a crushing blow to SCO's claims. I predict that over the remainder of this week and through next we will see SCO's stock plummet back to its true value -- less than $1.
Happy happy happy
Joy joy joy
As others have pointed out already, the SCO license fees are non-refundable. He's stuck.
It's not like you can go out and sue the Mafia for that protection money, either.
Right, as if that happened. This country needs to grow the fuck up. I'm certainly not a baby, the on/off switch and tuner knobs work on my radio/tv, and I certainly remember how to work them when I find content I consider disturbing. You figure that children aren't listening to his show as they should all either be under a parent's supervision or at school during his program.
You give these government assholes an inch, and they take a mile. Our basic freedoms are being eroded here and you're complaining about a hypothetical event. Howard has never waved his genitals in front of children and you're an idiot for saying such.
Being that these gents did business in the US by sending their spam to Yahoo addresses, they're fully culpable under US law. Same goes for any Canadian corporation doing business with the US: Fuck up and you'll be sued under the laws of the country where you fucked up.
Seeing as how Yahoo is an internet service provider by the definition of the CANSPAM act, they're well within their rights to bring suit against the Heads.
It's just too bad that there's not another brother named Richard to lend a comedic air to it all.
I'm already trying to block as many banner ad sites as possible, using MozillaFirebird on Linux. Now, I'm seeing text ads in their place, along with flash animated ads. How can I escape this barrage of advertising? I rarely, if ever, click on any of these ads unless there's something truly compelling about them.
Since the story broke about SCO suing IBM a year ago, I've said that the hand up Darl's puppet anus belonged to Billy Gates. Now here's the confirmation.
I will never, *ever* knowingly buy another Microsoft product again. I will do all I can to steer my customers away from Microsoft products where I can.
It would be wise if as many people as possible were to join in this boycott. Yes, I know it's difficult getting windows users to port to something unfamiliar. However, I'm going to keep working on my own friends and customers.
Protect them from *what* exactly???
The corporate likeness of the Windy Wolf from The Three Little Pigs fairy tale??
SCO has no clear claim to the IP they think they own full rights to. Novell is on the table claiming rights to it. Only an idiot would pay a license on something that the seller cannot show clear title to.
This guy is just a sell-out. He's sold his business, his customers and his ideals down the river for false security.
If he'd been smart, he'd have sat on his $million$ and waited to see the final results of all this, just like everyone else.
Now, he's going to lose tons of business, has effectively alienated thousands of people and other businesses, and committed political suicide by siding with SCO.
Bad move dude, bad move.
Remember back in... what was it, early December, when Darl and his other brother Darl, released that idiotic document stating that the GPL was null and void, that GPL software may as well be in the public domain, that it was unconstitutional, violated the Berne Convention, etc, etc, blah blah blah??
When they stated that bunch of gobbledygook, that is *precisely* when they violated the GPL. By not holding it up as the perfectly good license for software that is free/libre, and being unwilling to abide by its terms, they have violated the license under paragraph four of the license. They are no longer able to distribute, copy, modify, etc, any of the Linux/GNU software, or any other software licensed under the GPL.
I'd highly recommend you at least head over to Groklaw and read the text transcript of Professor Moglen's Harvard speech. It will open your eyes.
What you're missing here is this:
SCO, with their silliness and shenanigans of trying to get the GPL rendered as invalid, along with attempting to extort additional licensing fees and conditions over Linux, has violated the GPL.
Read it again:
4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.
By attempting to get users of Linux to cough up fees for SCO's extra license for Linux, GNU, and Fyodor's NMAP program as one of many other GPL'd program distributed with Linux and SCO's own product offerings, SCO is in violation of the GPL. Fyodor is well within his rights to terminate SCO's license to use the software. Once upon a time, Caldera very happily distributed GNU/Linux and Nmap for free, with all the conditions intact to remain in compliance with the GPL. By attempting to charge an additional licensing fee and dictating conditions that are not in line with the GPL's own, they are in violation.
Clear as mud, right??
Really, man. Postfix is the schniznitz.
When Microsoft reigns in it's bcentral spammer arm will they actually do something to combat spam. Also, when we are able to educate Joe Average to stop buying the shit that spammers sell, then and only then will we be able to say goodbye to spam. Right now, spamming is too profitable. We just haven't found what it takes to make it unprofitable.
From everything I've read in the case, especially the transcript, Mark Heise, counsel for SCO, practically requested that the judge allow him a fishing license so they could go through the IBM/Sequent codebases on an expedition to find something, anything to substantiate their code. The requests to see AIX/Dynix are nothing more than SCO saying, "We think we have a case, however, without being able to compare the current code bases, which we do not have, to our own code base and to Linux, we cannot substantiate our claims any better."
In other words, they don't have a case, they know they don't have a case, and they're praying that they can get enough leeway outta the judge that she'll allow discovery on the two code bases in question so they can come up with a case. IBM has known all along that SCO et al are completely full of shit, has anticipated that SCO has no proof of anything and will do anything they can to keep SCO from getting the code they need for their fishing expedition.
The judge can see right through all of the SCO shenanigans. I'd have loved to have been in judges chambers on the 6th to have heard the exchange that went on. I'm betting Heise got a very stern talking to over what's happened so far, and ordered Heise, et al, to do several things:
1. Produce the discovery items that IBM has requested per the order to compel.
2. Indicated that SCO's side of discovery will continue to be stayed until SCO coughs up *everything*.
3. Put a muzzle on McBride, Sontag and the rest of the idiot windbags at SCO as it appears that anytime any one of them opens their mouth, it's been quite damaging to their own case.
Notice how since the last hearing, SCO has become *very quiet*. They issued a very short press release, and didn't hold the press conference that had been promised for after the hearing. McBride hasn't had anything to say since the Harvard thing. This is a good thing. Their attempts to spread FUD have completely backfired, and I'd believe that they finally have figured out the first rule any attorney tells a client: Don't say anything to anyone about ongoing litigation. Shut the fuck up!
IBM and their attorneys appear very confident that they have all the loose ends and every possible defense lined up in case of anything that SCO tosses at them. Notice how much the case has morphed since it's been filed, worse than any chameleon with a bad case of the jitters. I could tell that Heise, with all his whining about what a burden discovery has been for his client so far, hasn't scored *any* points with the judge.
In the end, I believe the judge is going to come back and issue an order stating that SCO is to produce what's been asked of them, *everything* requested by IBM, within 30-45 days. Until then, discovery in the other direction will remain on hold. If SCO again fails to meet what's required of them, I believe that the judge will end up tossing the case as it's already quite weak in substantial claims.
I work for a small computer service company in the .25-.75 hours per machine to disinfect .25 hour to load new AV software per machine, download updates for program and signatures, etc...
Detroit area. We get typically $149/hour for operating systems/software support. Given the case of a small company with 20 workstations and a server for their employees to use that has nothing in place for virus protection, and that most, if not all machines have become infected, figure this:
Figures to 21 hours max at $149/hour... $3129 in labor. Norton AV Corporate edition with 25 seat licensing (don't forget, that server is included as a seat, and you can only buy in 5, 10 and 25 seat increments) costs $869.00 per Symantec's website. With the 30% markup my employer would add and state sales tax added, that comes to software costs of $4326.48.
Figure in any additional labor to reinstall any software or operating system components that were damaged by the infection and you've got one whopper of a bill for a small business to drop because a multibillion-dollar corporation cannot spend the proper amount of money and time to thoroughly investigate and secure their operating system products. Then figure in the cost of annual subscription fees to download updates to the virus updates (I don't recall the actual figures for annual subscription fees, but my sister's company has three pc's in a peer-to-peer environment and each machine costs $20 annually for that subscription). Pretty hefty.
Yep. However, when you've started an install on someone else's machine and that someone else expects his machine to work the same way it did before you started, you do what you need to do to get it working for him. At least that's for those who aren't ethically challenged. I needed it to work and I got it to work with the least effort necessary and without making the poor bugger wait the week and a half that it took to patch the problem.
Trust me, 10.0 will be at least six weeks in coming. This is simply the first beta release. People will load them on development servers (only a fool would use a beta distro on a production machine), report the bugs and the programmers will get the fixes in. Several iterations (beta2, maybe beta3, then RC1, RC2, maybe RC3 if needed). They go through a good deal of development phases. I feel that they may have rushed 9.2 out but they may also have learned a lesson. Anyone can get distracted when dealing with financial issues.
Give it time and a chance. I think 10.0 will be a very good thing.
MandrakeClub is a worthwhile service in my own personal opinion, one which I'm glad to purchase. I had paid my subscription 2 years in advance, so I'm just surfing along. I continue to buy the distribution in the powerpack cd version, 7 cd's loaded with stuff. Yes there have been quality control issues but my own equipment wasn't affected. I was embarrassed, though, when I had to replace a friend's CDROM drive when the install of 9.2 went sour.
I've got stock in the company and I love the distribution. It's easy to use, comes very well customized to my own needs, and is easily tweaked up with everything that I need, whether I'm running it on my serversl or laptops or whatever. I'm proud to say that I support Mandrake.
Jeebus... Every time someone mentions "relay rape" on NANAE, some kneejerk rape victim immediately chimes in with her reaction that rape isn't a joke, that anyone's use of the word rape in connection with the unauthorized use of an open mail relay only belittles the victims.
Now, we have males claiming the same thing about prison rape. I should throw my laptop and all the other PC's in this house in the garbage and find something else to fuckin' do. In a land where there's six inches of snow on the ground, the temperature is in the single digits Farenheit, that's gonna be damned hard to do.
I had one of these letters sent to my congresscritters back during the summer. I remember recently getting a response to the tune that the congresscritters could not intervene, that the case would have to wind its way through the courts and that congresscritters by law are not allowed to step in to help stop SCO's actions.
Anyone bothering to send that letter off to their congresscritters should think again. All you're doing is wasting your congresscritter's time and resources responding to a challenge they can do nothing about.
I'd use a loaded address, such as forbes@example.com, to see what exactly happens. I'd use it in