often the religious courts gave non-capital sentences while secular ones executed more people
In the Spanish Inquisition the Inquisitors did not hand out the death sentences that much is true. They did determine "guilt" and then told the secular authorities what you were guilty of when they turned you over for punishment. Of course they had already told the secular authorities that heresy merited burning alive. By declaring your guilt and turning you over to the secular authority they were just keeping their hands clean of the actual sentence while controlling its nature. If between the sentencing and execution you confessed they would declare you to no longer be a heretic and the sentence would be changed to strangulation (followed by burning the corpse) which shows that they were in actual control of the sentence. That was of course to "save your soul" by not allowing you another chance to lapse into heresy.
Notably while the Inquisition persecuted heretics they mostly left accused witches alone while Protestant nations of the time were burning witches.
The true motivation behind the Inquisition in Spain is shown by following the money. The estate of "heretics" was divided between the inquisition and the crown. It could be quite profitable to find someone guilty of heresy, either by confiscation of their estates or by "donations" from rivals of the "heretic".
Re:a game that tells the truth about religion
on
Religion in Video Games
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
So are you saying that the Catholic Church was full of extremists during the Crusades and Inquisition?
Conventional historians would say that their motivations were more about control, power, and geopolitics.
The leadership of the Catholic Church had those motivations. They promoted extremism among the followers of the church to achieve those goals. How many Popes went on Crusade.
Note the Spanish inquisition went far beyond the control of the Pope. If the Inquisition had been purely of the Catholic church as a whole it would have spread the same way to many other nations yet it was only in countries that were under Spanish control that it went to extremes and carried on for centuries.
Historical note on the Inquisition. While the Spanish controlled the Netherlands the Inquisition ordered the extermination of all the people there as it was considered too difficult to sort out the Catholics from the Heretics. Fortunately before it could be done the Netherlands broke free of Spain.
What is their tune? There haven't really been cases where MS is patent trolling other companies
You might want to look up Steve Ballmers "I have a LIST" press talks where he claims to have a list of over 200 MS patents that Linux distributions "violate". He won't show the list to anyone out of fear that they will be challenged and invalidated.
This may not count as patent trolling but it is spreading patent FUD. It also reminds me of Senator McCarthy and his "lists" of communists used to scare monger with little or no facts behind them.
Why would i4i, a Toronto, Ontario based company, sue Microsoft, a Redmond, Washington based company in a Texan court if they aren't a patent troll?
Multiple reasons:
1/ Software patents are not valid in Canada so the patent was applied for and granted in the U.S..
2/ They have to sue in the jurisdiction they want to collect money in. They can't collect money in Canada over a patent that isn't legal here and to collect in the U.S. they have to sue in the U.S..
3/ East Texas is popular for patent lawsuits in the U.S. for the high awards.
4/ They were not going to sue on Microsofts home territory in Redmond. Don't you know that you never attack the monster in its lair? So they chose territory unfriendly to the defense.
On the other hand, ODF is a proprietary SUN standard couched in the clothing of an international standard. Yes, ODF does seem to be somewhat less baroque and better documented then OOXML, but they are in fact both formats created for a particular piece of software which has been extracted for wider use.
ODF a standard which unlike OOXML is used by a number of competing products.
In other words one actually used and useful for the purpose the standard was created, unlike OOXML.
Are you serious? What kind of small company actually designs "...software...which they showed to Microsoft..." and doesn't expect
a) the ideas to be stolen by Microsoft.
b) be bought out by Microsoft.
c) be "corporate cannibalized" by Microsoft.
d) ALL OF THE ABOVE!
This was around the time that Microsoft was being tried and convicted on anti trust grounds in the U.S. and supposedly was reforming into a "kinder gentler" Microsoft that didn't resemble the black widow spider any more.
Yes, that's right. Supplying your own browser with your own operating system is analogous to murdering someone. Good work.
Microsoft did more than just supply a browser for their own OS. They forbade OEMS from installing any other browser. They programmed it into the system so that end users couldn't easily remove it. They did everything they could to KILL competing browsers. In short they used their OS monopoly to force a browser monopoly and that was and is illegal. Now attempts are being made to rebuild competition in the browser field.
slippery slope in decreasing any copyright restrictions. they have worked too hard to get them increased to see things start going the other way....
There is also the other half of the slippery slope. Tighten down copyright law too far and no one can actually use your copyright protected product and so they stop buying it.
We could still do with some improvements though. Having to be a resident in the riding you represent would be a good one. Another should be ONLY people who can vote for you can contribute money or "volunteer" labour for your election.
I'd also like to see the whole "vote as the party orders of else" power taken away. My MP is SUPPOSED to represent my riding NOT the party.
What we REALLY need to do is ban all contributions except those that come from registered voters. If you're not a voter, you can't donate to a Congresscritter's campaign. That would eliminate bribes from corporations which skew our system
Close but needs a little more refinement. Not just voters but voters eligible to vote for THAT candidate and disallow contributing to more than one person running for a particular office.
Why should a company which has no vote be allowed to use its wealth to twist an election? Why should a wealthy person be able to contribute to a candidate they can't vote for?
Done right and even the party could not contribute or raise money for a candidate and it breaks the power of the party over office holders.
You know, I really wonder why MS even bothers getting into open source.
If Microsoft tries to get into open source, it's seen as a move to stranglehold OSS Development and software.
If Microsoft closes the door and goes completely proprietary, it's seen as a move to stranglehold OSS Development and software.
The problem Microsoft has is they don't actually get into open source. They attempt to create the illusion that they are. Look at what they actually do, they create their own licenses and foundation rather than using existing licenses and joining existing organizations. They create their own so they can control things. Open source is in part about not having a centralized control.
Add to this their "the GPL is a cancer" and "Linux violates over 200 of our patents" and you see they are not really getting into open source but have another agenda. The "200 patents" issue wouldn't be so bad but they won't say WHAT patents out of fear that they will be challenged. If the patents are valid why should Microsoft fear them being challenged?
Just like with a desktop app, if the provider chooses to lock you in, you're locked in. If they let you export to a standards based format, you're fine.
That is true if you don't make sure to use non proprietary formats. Which is why I am in favour of and use ODF.
Or did I completely miss the bus? Something I missed?
You missed the lock in model of being forced to work with the applications that the cloud provider supports.
Or did I completely miss the bus? Something I missed?
You missed the lock in model of being forced to work with the applications that the cloud provider supports.
Also the bit where your data is locked into whatever file formats the cloud provider has and you will have difficulty maintaining your own back ups and migrating to a different provider if the current one is inadequate or fails.
Imagine the Outer Limits Control Voice telling you how they control your data and how you use it.
There is nothing wrong with your computer.
Do not attempt to install software. We are controlling what you may use and do.
We will control the file formats.
We will control the data.
We control all that you may do with your computer and your data.
Experience the awe and majesty of paying us for the use of your own data in ways that we strictly control and limit.
Google is on the verge of monopolistic powers... already have that in search. Being in control of search is much more scarier to me than in control of PC platforms. If you hate Microsoft, you should also hate/fear Google.
Having a monopoly is not illegal.
How you obtain a monopoly may be illegal and what you do with the monopoly once you have it may be illegal.
The TRUE facts:
1/ The ruling reinforces SCO's case that THEY own Unix.
The ruling says that the ownership is REMANDED to a jury trial. In otherwords that the ownership is currently not decided by the courts. They both claim ownership but a jury must decide.
2/ The rest of the case is strengthened by this decision, and SCO still has lots of proof that Linux is an illegal derivative of Unix.
Nothing in the case was decided in SCOs favour. What was decided was that certain issues (such as copyright ownership) were to be decided by a jury trial not by summary judgment as had been done. At most this means that SCO might possibly in the future get a beneficial ruling from a jury.
3/ When SCO wins they will begin to collect a lot of money from investors and companies like Novell and Red Hat who continue to use and distribute Linux illegally.
To have a chance at collecting money they need to win two things in SCO vs Novell.
1/ Copyright ownership
2/ Demonstrate that the contractual right to waive does not apply to SCO vs IBM.
4/ SCO's case against IBM is solid (see above, re solid evidence that IBM took Unix code and put it into Linux illegally), they may not be able to win the patent counter-lawsuit that IBM launched against them, but what else would one expect from a company that supported the Nazis.
SCO avoided showing any solid evidence in SCO vs IBM and at this point all that really is left in that case is IBMs counter claims against SCO.
Please provide for us the "solid evidence" that you claim SCO has. They seem to have lost both Blepps briefcase and the "MIT Deep Divers". IBM on the other hand presented such things as the internal SCO memo stating they couldn't find ANY infringements.
5/ The SCO trustee will have access to all of SCO's evidence and will see that the case is solid and worth persuing. SCO has lots of investors waiting in the wings to support this effort for justice.
The trustee will have access to the evidence. Time will tell what he thinks of it. Where have SCOs investors been during the bankruptcy case? They could have picked up a large part of ownership of the company for a relative song if they KNEW that the evidence was "solid" as you claim.
6/ After the SCO vs Novell trial if the trustee pursues it there is still the IBM trial, which SCO is strongly positioned to win.
At present SCO is strongly positioned in SCO vs IBM to be ripped apart and fed to the carrion birds. They MUST win the 2 issues mentioned above even to have a chance of winning SOMETHING in SCO vs IBM.
Sure the trustee will be taking a huge risk when so much of the industry is biased against SCO. Luckily he will have access to all of SCO's knowledge and experience in dealing with the insane Linux community and the biased industry press (except for Rob Enderle and Daniel Lyons, two voices of reason in an otherwise corrupt and heavily biased press).
Time will tell. I am sure that if SCO had the "solid evidence" the trials would have ended years ago in SCOs favour. Yet they haven't.
SCO vs Daimler Chrylser lost
SCO vs Novell partly lost (and they owe Novell $millions$) and partly waiting for trial.
SCO in bankruptcy protection without the money to survive the time required for the legal figtht.
A appeals court yesterday overturned the assignment of UNIX to NOVELL giving SCO clearance to sue IBM for billions.
What was done was "nullify" the summary judgments of certain issues including who owns the copyrights. The issue of who owns the copyright was sent for a jury trial.
SCO can't go after IBM until and unless they win on at least 2 issues 1/ copyright ownership and 2/ Novells right to waive the IBM lawsuit. Both still need a jury trial.
There are a few questions 1/ Can SCO afford the Novell trial (given that the money they owe Novell was confirmed) 2/ Will the trustee go to trial or attempt to negotiate a way out and liquidate the company.
Now that SCO has been rightfully named the owner of the code behind unix
Actual facts:
1/ The ruling leaves SCO owing Novell $2.5 Million + Interest.
2/ The rest of the case (including copyright ownership) goes to a jury trial.
3/ If SCO somehow wins they get no money.
4/ SCO then gets to go ahead with the IBM lawsuit which they were losing badly.
5/ The SCO management has been ordered (by the bankruptcy judge) to be replaced by a trustee. A trustee who may or may not continue the lawsuits. He/she may choose to try and negotiate a way out to stop the bleeding.
6/ After the SCO vs Novell trial if the trustee pursues it there is still the IBM trial.
So the trustee has a problem. The company money is owed to Novell and they don't have the cash to continue until the case goes to trial (which will be delayed due to the new judge needing time to come up to speed).
Only then can they go on with the IBM trial. To make money off the IBM trial they need to have won on the key issues in the Novell trial (copyright and right to waive), they also need to beat the IBM lawyers (who are not nicknamed the Nazgul for nothing).
Even if somehow the trustee can be persuaded to fight these cases and manages to win what are the odds that neither Novell or IBM would appeal? What are the chances that SCO can survive long enough to fight through the appeals if it comes to that?
At most this is a lesser defeat for SCO. So long as they owe Novell the money and still have to fight the trial they are still doomed. The chances that the trustee would be willing to keep the company bleeding to fight dubious lawsuits is pretty low.
Slashdot Mirror
In the Spanish Inquisition the Inquisitors did not hand out the death sentences that much is true. They did determine "guilt" and then told the secular authorities what you were guilty of when they turned you over for punishment. Of course they had already told the secular authorities that heresy merited burning alive. By declaring your guilt and turning you over to the secular authority they were just keeping their hands clean of the actual sentence while controlling its nature. If between the sentencing and execution you confessed they would declare you to no longer be a heretic and the sentence would be changed to strangulation (followed by burning the corpse) which shows that they were in actual control of the sentence. That was of course to "save your soul" by not allowing you another chance to lapse into heresy.
Notably while the Inquisition persecuted heretics they mostly left accused witches alone while Protestant nations of the time were burning witches.
The true motivation behind the Inquisition in Spain is shown by following the money. The estate of "heretics" was divided between the inquisition and the crown. It could be quite profitable to find someone guilty of heresy, either by confiscation of their estates or by "donations" from rivals of the "heretic".
The leadership of the Catholic Church had those motivations. They promoted extremism among the followers of the church to achieve those goals. How many Popes went on Crusade.
Note the Spanish inquisition went far beyond the control of the Pope. If the Inquisition had been purely of the Catholic church as a whole it would have spread the same way to many other nations yet it was only in countries that were under Spanish control that it went to extremes and carried on for centuries.
Historical note on the Inquisition. While the Spanish controlled the Netherlands the Inquisition ordered the extermination of all the people there as it was considered too difficult to sort out the Catholics from the Heretics. Fortunately before it could be done the Netherlands broke free of Spain.
You might want to look up Steve Ballmers "I have a LIST" press talks where he claims to have a list of over 200 MS patents that Linux distributions "violate". He won't show the list to anyone out of fear that they will be challenged and invalidated.
This may not count as patent trolling but it is spreading patent FUD. It also reminds me of Senator McCarthy and his "lists" of communists used to scare monger with little or no facts behind them.
Multiple reasons:
1/ Software patents are not valid in Canada so the patent was applied for and granted in the U.S..
2/ They have to sue in the jurisdiction they want to collect money in. They can't collect money in Canada over a patent that isn't legal here and to collect in the U.S. they have to sue in the U.S..
3/ East Texas is popular for patent lawsuits in the U.S. for the high awards.
4/ They were not going to sue on Microsofts home territory in Redmond. Don't you know that you never attack the monster in its lair? So they chose territory unfriendly to the defense.
The patent was GRANTED in 98 but filed in 94.
ODF a standard which unlike OOXML is used by a number of competing products.
In other words one actually used and useful for the purpose the standard was created, unlike OOXML.
On Linux? How about on non x86 Linux?
It isn't much of a document standard when only one company actually supports it with a product.
Not THE judge. This has gone through the trial and 2 appeals so it is at least 3 judges now.
Oracle could be sued over OpenOffice.org and its closed brother Star Office. Are you saying Oracle doesn't have any money?
This was around the time that Microsoft was being tried and convicted on anti trust grounds in the U.S. and supposedly was reforming into a "kinder gentler" Microsoft that didn't resemble the black widow spider any more.
Legal definition of Monopoly != to dictionary definition
Under the legal definition of monopoly in the U.S. and the E.U. Microsoft has been ruled A/ a monopoly B/ to have used that monopoly in illegal ways.
The U.S. found Microsoft guilty of illegally using their OS monopoly to destroy competition in the browser market before the E.U. did.
Microsoft did more than just supply a browser for their own OS. They forbade OEMS from installing any other browser. They programmed it into the system so that end users couldn't easily remove it. They did everything they could to KILL competing browsers. In short they used their OS monopoly to force a browser monopoly and that was and is illegal. Now attempts are being made to rebuild competition in the browser field.
There is also the other half of the slippery slope. Tighten down copyright law too far and no one can actually use your copyright protected product and so they stop buying it.
We could still do with some improvements though. Having to be a resident in the riding you represent would be a good one. Another should be ONLY people who can vote for you can contribute money or "volunteer" labour for your election.
I'd also like to see the whole "vote as the party orders of else" power taken away. My MP is SUPPOSED to represent my riding NOT the party.
You can't blame him too much for that. What else is there for an insomniac to do at that time of the day?
Close but needs a little more refinement. Not just voters but voters eligible to vote for THAT candidate and disallow contributing to more than one person running for a particular office.
Why should a company which has no vote be allowed to use its wealth to twist an election? Why should a wealthy person be able to contribute to a candidate they can't vote for?
Done right and even the party could not contribute or raise money for a candidate and it breaks the power of the party over office holders.
Selling at a loss doesn't matter. What does matter is that it was sold. The company sold it and therefore no longer has legal rights to control it.
The problem Microsoft has is they don't actually get into open source. They attempt to create the illusion that they are. Look at what they actually do, they create their own licenses and foundation rather than using existing licenses and joining existing organizations. They create their own so they can control things. Open source is in part about not having a centralized control.
Add to this their "the GPL is a cancer" and "Linux violates over 200 of our patents" and you see they are not really getting into open source but have another agenda. The "200 patents" issue wouldn't be so bad but they won't say WHAT patents out of fear that they will be challenged. If the patents are valid why should Microsoft fear them being challenged?
That is true if you don't make sure to use non proprietary formats. Which is why I am in favour of and use ODF.
I for one thought your add on was funny and wish I'd thought of it first.
Also the bit where your data is locked into whatever file formats the cloud provider has and you will have difficulty maintaining your own back ups and migrating to a different provider if the current one is inadequate or fails.
Imagine the Outer Limits Control Voice telling you how they control your data and how you use it.
There is nothing wrong with your computer.
Do not attempt to install software. We are controlling what you may use and do.
We will control the file formats.
We will control the data.
We control all that you may do with your computer and your data.
Experience the awe and majesty of paying us for the use of your own data in ways that we strictly control and limit.
Having a monopoly is not illegal.
How you obtain a monopoly may be illegal and what you do with the monopoly once you have it may be illegal.
The ruling says that the ownership is REMANDED to a jury trial. In otherwords that the ownership is currently not decided by the courts. They both claim ownership but a jury must decide.
Nothing in the case was decided in SCOs favour. What was decided was that certain issues (such as copyright ownership) were to be decided by a jury trial not by summary judgment as had been done. At most this means that SCO might possibly in the future get a beneficial ruling from a jury.
To have a chance at collecting money they need to win two things in SCO vs Novell.
1/ Copyright ownership
2/ Demonstrate that the contractual right to waive does not apply to SCO vs IBM.
SCO avoided showing any solid evidence in SCO vs IBM and at this point all that really is left in that case is IBMs counter claims against SCO.
Please provide for us the "solid evidence" that you claim SCO has. They seem to have lost both Blepps briefcase and the "MIT Deep Divers". IBM on the other hand presented such things as the internal SCO memo stating they couldn't find ANY infringements.
The trustee will have access to the evidence. Time will tell what he thinks of it. Where have SCOs investors been during the bankruptcy case? They could have picked up a large part of ownership of the company for a relative song if they KNEW that the evidence was "solid" as you claim.
At present SCO is strongly positioned in SCO vs IBM to be ripped apart and fed to the carrion birds. They MUST win the 2 issues mentioned above even to have a chance of winning SOMETHING in SCO vs IBM.
Time will tell. I am sure that if SCO had the "solid evidence" the trials would have ended years ago in SCOs favour. Yet they haven't.
SCO vs Daimler Chrylser lost
SCO vs Novell partly lost (and they owe Novell $millions$) and partly waiting for trial.
SCO in bankruptcy protection without the money to survive the time required for the legal figtht.
What was done was "nullify" the summary judgments of certain issues including who owns the copyrights. The issue of who owns the copyright was sent for a jury trial.
SCO can't go after IBM until and unless they win on at least 2 issues 1/ copyright ownership and 2/ Novells right to waive the IBM lawsuit. Both still need a jury trial.
There are a few questions 1/ Can SCO afford the Novell trial (given that the money they owe Novell was confirmed) 2/ Will the trustee go to trial or attempt to negotiate a way out and liquidate the company.
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1346293&cid=29185661
Actual facts:
1/ The ruling leaves SCO owing Novell $2.5 Million + Interest.
2/ The rest of the case (including copyright ownership) goes to a jury trial.
3/ If SCO somehow wins they get no money.
4/ SCO then gets to go ahead with the IBM lawsuit which they were losing badly.
5/ The SCO management has been ordered (by the bankruptcy judge) to be replaced by a trustee. A trustee who may or may not continue the lawsuits. He/she may choose to try and negotiate a way out to stop the bleeding.
6/ After the SCO vs Novell trial if the trustee pursues it there is still the IBM trial.
So the trustee has a problem. The company money is owed to Novell and they don't have the cash to continue until the case goes to trial (which will be delayed due to the new judge needing time to come up to speed).
Only then can they go on with the IBM trial. To make money off the IBM trial they need to have won on the key issues in the Novell trial (copyright and right to waive), they also need to beat the IBM lawyers (who are not nicknamed the Nazgul for nothing).
Even if somehow the trustee can be persuaded to fight these cases and manages to win what are the odds that neither Novell or IBM would appeal? What are the chances that SCO can survive long enough to fight through the appeals if it comes to that?
At most this is a lesser defeat for SCO. So long as they owe Novell the money and still have to fight the trial they are still doomed. The chances that the trustee would be willing to keep the company bleeding to fight dubious lawsuits is pretty low.