If there's a 3d driver for the chipset I don't see why it wouldn't. It's been a while, but I remember all the ID games I've played having a software rendering option, though, so I'm not sure it matters that much.
Ergo, the "no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause" statement makes probable cause unconstitutional grounds search until a warrant is issued, supported by oath or affirmation. Rights come before enforcement, anyone who understands their rights should know this.
I'm sure you'd like to believe that, but I'm afraid that isn't how it plays out in the real world. Anyone who understands the law should no this.
Did you even read the post? He said he couldn't find one WITHOUT WinXP, not that he couldn't find one with his favorite distro. I think that's strange, also, since Transmeta actually puts out it's own distro (Midori).
It might just show that there is no possible way SCO can come up with the cash for the bond they would have to post. Remember that if a preliminary injunction to be granted, not only do they have to show a reasonable chance of winning, they also have to pay all damages caused by the injunction if they lose, and that has to be provided for up front in cash. IBM had something like $3.6 billion in revenue from AIX last year, and the preliminary injuction would have to be in effect for probably 3 years (until the end of the trial). Where is SCO going to get $10 billion in cash?
Actually AIX has been involved from the beginning. AIX is a real Unix, so it contains some original AT&T code which SCO now claims it has the rights to. SCO's original complaint, which spawned this whole mess, was that IBM copied code from AIX to Linux. Since doing that would be a violation of IBM's Unix license, SCO is trying to terminate it.
An interesting point, though, is that SCO is seeking a permenant injunction, which has to go through trial and will likely take years to have any actual effect. They are not seeking a preliminary injunction, which some say indicates that they don't feel nearly as confident in their position as they're trying to look. If they got a preliminary injunction they would have to pay damages if they were proven wrong.
Basically, they just announced that they're going to crash the moon into the earth. We'll just have to see how that works out for them...
Actually, it's more like this: IBM licensed Unix from AT&T and used it to make their own Unix, called AIX. AT&T sold Unix rights, except trademark, to Novell. Novell sold some of those rights to SCO. SCO and IBM worked together on Project Monterey. IBM recognizes the Linux, not Unix, is the way of the future and backs out of Project Monterey. SCO got bought up by Caldera, a Linux company. Caldera changes name to SCO because they think Unix, not Linux, is the way of the future. SCO gets notion that Linux steals code from Unix, and places blame on IBM. SCO tries to revoke license to Unix code from IBM, thereby revoking it from AIX - all while suing over supposed stolen code in Linux.
IIRC, in CA it is a felony to excede the posted speed limit by 20MPH (the number might be wrong, but not by much). Of course, the posted speed limit is really only relevant under optimal conditions due to the Basic Speed Law, which states that the actual speed limit is based on what is safe for the conditions.
But so would a murderer whose house was searched without his permission if that evidence were admitted.
Talk about a gross misunderstanding of the law.
His permission is totally irrelevant as long as the investigating officers have either a warrant or probable cause. The CHP, for example, doesn't even do permission searches (meaning that they will never ask you for permission to search your car). If they see something that would give them probable cause, like a bong in the back seat for example, they can tear your car apart (literally) searching for drugs and there's not a damned thing you can do about it. Your rights aren't violated because your dumb ass left evidence of a crime in plain sight.
If our legal system required in all cases having permission to do a search, we'd be in pretty sorry shape.
As for this guy, the entire car was crime scene evidence, and the judge issued a search warrant for the information on the EDR. His rights were not violated in any way.
I don't think it has anything to do with teachers not being paid enough. I think enough of the old ruler-weilding hags have died off and the younger ones realize that for the vast majority of the population teaching cursive is pointless and stupid. I will not mourn it's passing a bit, except for the purposes of telling my grandchildren uphill-both-ways-in-the-snow stories (and I won't really miss that either).
Re:250,000 Euros... Per Violation
on
Today's SCO News
·
· Score: 1
I work for a French company, and at the most recent meeting the VP said that American employees had lost less on their options than European employees because of the Euro being worth more. The question he was answering was about how the difference between the Euro and the Dollar effected stock price. That's the entire basis for my comment, as I don't generally pay attention to such things. That's why I have no idea about the Brits using the Euro, although I seem to remember that if they hadn't signed on the whole thing would have died.
Re:250,000 Euros... Per Violation
on
Today's SCO News
·
· Score: 1
You're thinking of Canadian Dollars. The Euro is actually worth slightly more than the US Dollar, so it's more like $275,000.
Re:Does Linux have legal vulnerabilities?
on
SCO SCO SCO!
·
· Score: 1
What safeguards are in place to prevent such a scenario from coming true? Are these safeguards adequate?
The fact that it's Open Source and Mr Smith would have to be operating under the assumption that ACME would find out about his unlawful donation and go after him for copyright infringement, which BTW carries a penalty of $150,000 per violation. Not only would Mr Smith be exposing himself to a HUGE amount of debt, but he would also effectively end his career as a programmer, especially in the Open Source world. It takes a long time to earn $150k flipping burgers.
As for ACME going after Linus and AC, a rep from SuSE already answered that question. When they accept code it is contingent on the copyright of that code being owned by the submitter, since if they don't own the copyright they can't legally GPL it. The responsibility for due-dilligence is not on them, it is on the person submitting the code under the GPL, and thus claiming that it is theirs. How would they know it was ACME's code, since ACME refused to show them their code? They couldn't, and that's exactly where ACME's case would fall apart.
Re:Conundrum with open source?
on
SCO SCO SCO!
·
· Score: 1
I think that quote from SCO shows a fundamental lack of understanding on SCO's part, which can be neatly summed up in this question:
In a FOSS project, where is the incentive to cheat?
FOSS programmers do their work with the knowledge that it will be open to the world. In fact, that is often their intention from the get-go. There is no incentive to cheat by copying proprietary code because there is no expectation that they will be able to get away with it. They expect anyone and everyone to be looking at their code, especially the people who wrote whatever code they might consider misappropriating.
Also, FOSS programmers are not operating under deadline pressure. Since there is little to no economic pressure to get the package out fast, there is no incentive to cheat in order to do so.
It would seem that it is in fact the producers of proprietary software who have both the incentive to misappropriate code and the expectation of getting away with it. Indeed, Microsoft has been convicted of doing so, and has exposed it's end-users to liability by doing so.
As for people doing things for reasons other than money, that isn't a conundrum at all. Altruism is a fundamental part of societal structure, and thus a genetic predisposition in social animals. Without it, we'd be nothing more than solitary predatory monkeys, still living in trees. Why should it be a suprise that some people would choose to express that by giving away some code that they wrote?
Re:So let me get this straight...
on
SCO SCO SCO!
·
· Score: 1
I disagree.
If SCO only pointed out the code in Linux that they beleive infringes on their IP, the Linux community would be more than equiped to ferret out the details of it's origins, and thus either prove or disprove SCO's claims. No need for the SCO source tree, the Linux source tree, combined with the resources and collective knowledge of the Linux community, should be sufficient.
Re:NOBODY has mentioned SCO being shutdown in Germ
on
SCO SCO SCO!
·
· Score: 1
How about, "But, Judge, SCO's website was shut down in Germany after a legal ruling based on the fact that SCO couldn't back up the claims they're making in this case."
Sure, SCO's lawyers will still object, that's what they're paid to do, but that doesn't mean it will be sustained.
Actually, it could hurt their chances in court. Here's my reasoning:
The Linux community is a HUGE resource, much bigger than anything IBM can bring to bear. The Linux community can have the complete history of every single line of code they reveal available in a matter of days, with testimonials and offers of deposition from the submitters. Even the most obscure cases would be revealed. That's a discovery wet dream for IBM's lawyers.
Sure, IBM can data-mine lkml or whatever, but they aren't going to find the lurker who's a personal friend of the guy that submitted that one line of code way-back-when, and who knows that the submitter has been working for the Peace Core in Uganda for the last 5 years. There's no way for IBM to find that guy, he has to come forward on his own, and there's a good chance that he'll only do that if he's sure, and how can he be sure unless the allegedly infringing code is publicly revealed?
SCO could very well win in court, even though their claims are actually false, simply because no company in the world can put up the kind of discovery resources that the Linux community can to find the proof that those claims are false. That's a powerful weapon, and it makes sense that SCO wouldn't want to put it in IBM's hands.
That assumes, of course, that SCO's claims are baseless. Obviously SCO still has some lingering doubts, or there would be nothing for them to fear from revealing the code.
Re:Shareholders have lost already, the Jackals fee
on
SCO SCO SCO!
·
· Score: 1
Well, then Boies is a dumb-ass, because he's working on contingency.
Read the rest of my post, because I did address that. The fact that you experience pain from writing in no way invalidates my point, it just means that particular mnemonic tool is less likely to be used by you. Just because the costs outweigh the benefits doesn't mean there are no benefits.
If you aren't primarily T-K you can probably function just fine without it, but it would still improve your memory if it were viable for you. Writing in a notebook isn't particularly good for T-K anyway, as it's mostly small motor, so you really aren't missing out on much (which is why I said a few percent in my origional post). Writing on a whiteboard is best, especially if you use color-coding.
It sucks that you had to fight so hard for that. Not accepting assignments just because they're printed out from a computer is just plain stupid (with the possible exception of math I guess). I hope you were able to deal out a few healthy blows with the clueX4.
Just out of idle curiousity, why is underlining considered to be a superior alternative?
Because it's more subtle.
Highlighting stands out much more, and so you are more likely to only read, or only pay attention to, the highlighted portion. I guess this problem increases with the intensity of the markup, and underlining is least intense, assuming you're using a normal writing color like dark blue or black.
First, my first computing experiences were on a Commodore PET, so I will probably always have warm fuzzies for green on black.
Second, green is a primary color on monitors, so it also reduces the blurring problem that many crappy monitors have, and those are usually the monitors that I feel the need to use an inverted color scheme on.
Slashdot Mirror
My mistake.
Reckless driving which causes bodily injury can be a felony, but that's the only thing speeding related that can be one.
If there's a 3d driver for the chipset I don't see why it wouldn't. It's been a while, but I remember all the ID games I've played having a software rendering option, though, so I'm not sure it matters that much.
In CA it's the county that sets the fine (and gets the money).
Ergo, the "no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause" statement makes probable cause unconstitutional grounds search until a warrant is issued, supported by oath or affirmation. Rights come before enforcement, anyone who understands their rights should know this.
I'm sure you'd like to believe that, but I'm afraid that isn't how it plays out in the real world. Anyone who understands the law should no this.
Did you even read the post? He said he couldn't find one WITHOUT WinXP, not that he couldn't find one with his favorite distro. I think that's strange, also, since Transmeta actually puts out it's own distro (Midori).
SCO isn't a Linux company anymore, and even when they were they were the assholes of the community.
It might just show that there is no possible way SCO can come up with the cash for the bond they would have to post. Remember that if a preliminary injunction to be granted, not only do they have to show a reasonable chance of winning, they also have to pay all damages caused by the injunction if they lose, and that has to be provided for up front in cash. IBM had something like $3.6 billion in revenue from AIX last year, and the preliminary injuction would have to be in effect for probably 3 years (until the end of the trial). Where is SCO going to get $10 billion in cash?
Actually AIX has been involved from the beginning. AIX is a real Unix, so it contains some original AT&T code which SCO now claims it has the rights to. SCO's original complaint, which spawned this whole mess, was that IBM copied code from AIX to Linux. Since doing that would be a violation of IBM's Unix license, SCO is trying to terminate it.
An interesting point, though, is that SCO is seeking a permenant injunction, which has to go through trial and will likely take years to have any actual effect. They are not seeking a preliminary injunction, which some say indicates that they don't feel nearly as confident in their position as they're trying to look. If they got a preliminary injunction they would have to pay damages if they were proven wrong.
Basically, they just announced that they're going to crash the moon into the earth. We'll just have to see how that works out for them...
Is it the word "leading" or the word "solutions" you take issue with?
I think describing SCO as "a leading provider of business software problems" would be perfectly valid.
Actually, it's more like this: IBM licensed Unix from AT&T and used it to make their own Unix, called AIX. AT&T sold Unix rights, except trademark, to Novell. Novell sold some of those rights to SCO. SCO and IBM worked together on Project Monterey. IBM recognizes the Linux, not Unix, is the way of the future and backs out of Project Monterey. SCO got bought up by Caldera, a Linux company. Caldera changes name to SCO because they think Unix, not Linux, is the way of the future. SCO gets notion that Linux steals code from Unix, and places blame on IBM. SCO tries to revoke license to Unix code from IBM, thereby revoking it from AIX - all while suing over supposed stolen code in Linux.
I hope that clears things up.
Id actually does developement on *nix, so all their games are ported.
IIRC, in CA it is a felony to excede the posted speed limit by 20MPH (the number might be wrong, but not by much). Of course, the posted speed limit is really only relevant under optimal conditions due to the Basic Speed Law, which states that the actual speed limit is based on what is safe for the conditions.
But so would a murderer whose house was searched without his permission if that evidence were admitted.
Talk about a gross misunderstanding of the law.
His permission is totally irrelevant as long as the investigating officers have either a warrant or probable cause. The CHP, for example, doesn't even do permission searches (meaning that they will never ask you for permission to search your car). If they see something that would give them probable cause, like a bong in the back seat for example, they can tear your car apart (literally) searching for drugs and there's not a damned thing you can do about it. Your rights aren't violated because your dumb ass left evidence of a crime in plain sight.
If our legal system required in all cases having permission to do a search, we'd be in pretty sorry shape.
As for this guy, the entire car was crime scene evidence, and the judge issued a search warrant for the information on the EDR. His rights were not violated in any way.
I don't think it has anything to do with teachers not being paid enough. I think enough of the old ruler-weilding hags have died off and the younger ones realize that for the vast majority of the population teaching cursive is pointless and stupid. I will not mourn it's passing a bit, except for the purposes of telling my grandchildren uphill-both-ways-in-the-snow stories (and I won't really miss that either).
I work for a French company, and at the most recent meeting the VP said that American employees had lost less on their options than European employees because of the Euro being worth more. The question he was answering was about how the difference between the Euro and the Dollar effected stock price. That's the entire basis for my comment, as I don't generally pay attention to such things. That's why I have no idea about the Brits using the Euro, although I seem to remember that if they hadn't signed on the whole thing would have died.
You're thinking of Canadian Dollars. The Euro is actually worth slightly more than the US Dollar, so it's more like $275,000.
What safeguards are in place to prevent such a scenario from coming true? Are these safeguards adequate?
The fact that it's Open Source and Mr Smith would have to be operating under the assumption that ACME would find out about his unlawful donation and go after him for copyright infringement, which BTW carries a penalty of $150,000 per violation. Not only would Mr Smith be exposing himself to a HUGE amount of debt, but he would also effectively end his career as a programmer, especially in the Open Source world. It takes a long time to earn $150k flipping burgers.
As for ACME going after Linus and AC, a rep from SuSE already answered that question. When they accept code it is contingent on the copyright of that code being owned by the submitter, since if they don't own the copyright they can't legally GPL it. The responsibility for due-dilligence is not on them, it is on the person submitting the code under the GPL, and thus claiming that it is theirs. How would they know it was ACME's code, since ACME refused to show them their code? They couldn't, and that's exactly where ACME's case would fall apart.
I think that quote from SCO shows a fundamental lack of understanding on SCO's part, which can be neatly summed up in this question:
In a FOSS project, where is the incentive to cheat?
FOSS programmers do their work with the knowledge that it will be open to the world. In fact, that is often their intention from the get-go. There is no incentive to cheat by copying proprietary code because there is no expectation that they will be able to get away with it. They expect anyone and everyone to be looking at their code, especially the people who wrote whatever code they might consider misappropriating.
Also, FOSS programmers are not operating under deadline pressure. Since there is little to no economic pressure to get the package out fast, there is no incentive to cheat in order to do so.
It would seem that it is in fact the producers of proprietary software who have both the incentive to misappropriate code and the expectation of getting away with it. Indeed, Microsoft has been convicted of doing so, and has exposed it's end-users to liability by doing so.
As for people doing things for reasons other than money, that isn't a conundrum at all. Altruism is a fundamental part of societal structure, and thus a genetic predisposition in social animals. Without it, we'd be nothing more than solitary predatory monkeys, still living in trees. Why should it be a suprise that some people would choose to express that by giving away some code that they wrote?
I disagree.
If SCO only pointed out the code in Linux that they beleive infringes on their IP, the Linux community would be more than equiped to ferret out the details of it's origins, and thus either prove or disprove SCO's claims. No need for the SCO source tree, the Linux source tree, combined with the resources and collective knowledge of the Linux community, should be sufficient.
How about, "But, Judge, SCO's website was shut down in Germany after a legal ruling based on the fact that SCO couldn't back up the claims they're making in this case."
Sure, SCO's lawyers will still object, that's what they're paid to do, but that doesn't mean it will be sustained.
Actually, it could hurt their chances in court. Here's my reasoning:
The Linux community is a HUGE resource, much bigger than anything IBM can bring to bear. The Linux community can have the complete history of every single line of code they reveal available in a matter of days, with testimonials and offers of deposition from the submitters. Even the most obscure cases would be revealed. That's a discovery wet dream for IBM's lawyers.
Sure, IBM can data-mine lkml or whatever, but they aren't going to find the lurker who's a personal friend of the guy that submitted that one line of code way-back-when, and who knows that the submitter has been working for the Peace Core in Uganda for the last 5 years. There's no way for IBM to find that guy, he has to come forward on his own, and there's a good chance that he'll only do that if he's sure, and how can he be sure unless the allegedly infringing code is publicly revealed?
SCO could very well win in court, even though their claims are actually false, simply because no company in the world can put up the kind of discovery resources that the Linux community can to find the proof that those claims are false. That's a powerful weapon, and it makes sense that SCO wouldn't want to put it in IBM's hands.
That assumes, of course, that SCO's claims are baseless. Obviously SCO still has some lingering doubts, or there would be nothing for them to fear from revealing the code.
Well, then Boies is a dumb-ass, because he's working on contingency.
Read the rest of my post, because I did address that. The fact that you experience pain from writing in no way invalidates my point, it just means that particular mnemonic tool is less likely to be used by you. Just because the costs outweigh the benefits doesn't mean there are no benefits.
If you aren't primarily T-K you can probably function just fine without it, but it would still improve your memory if it were viable for you. Writing in a notebook isn't particularly good for T-K anyway, as it's mostly small motor, so you really aren't missing out on much (which is why I said a few percent in my origional post). Writing on a whiteboard is best, especially if you use color-coding.
It sucks that you had to fight so hard for that. Not accepting assignments just because they're printed out from a computer is just plain stupid (with the possible exception of math I guess). I hope you were able to deal out a few healthy blows with the clueX4.
Just out of idle curiousity, why is underlining considered to be a superior alternative?
Because it's more subtle.
Highlighting stands out much more, and so you are more likely to only read, or only pay attention to, the highlighted portion. I guess this problem increases with the intensity of the markup, and underlining is least intense, assuming you're using a normal writing color like dark blue or black.
I usually go with green on black, for 2 reasons:
First, my first computing experiences were on a Commodore PET, so I will probably always have warm fuzzies for green on black.
Second, green is a primary color on monitors, so it also reduces the blurring problem that many crappy monitors have, and those are usually the monitors that I feel the need to use an inverted color scheme on.