I don't think that any of these three claims is correct.
First, the only addenda I've seen are in the IBM-ATTIS contract. This is not an action against IBM, but against SGI. The IBM addenda may change the outcome for AIX, but have absolutely no impact on Irix. More, the AIX issues are clouded by the question of Sequent's contract: it does not contain the extensions of rights clauses in the IBM addenda. If the Sequent-ATTIS contract is held to be binding on IBM for those items which were developed using Sequent's expertise, then the terms of the IBM-ATTIS addendum are irrelevant.
Second, we know that SCO did, in fact, start the clock against SGI some months ago -- SGI's last SEC filing demonstrated that.
And, third: no, there is no reason at all the SCO would ever be eager to get into court. Just because you're right doesn't mean you'll win. Look at Microsoft and Eolas. Microsoft is "right", but Eolas won anyway. Will that be reversed? Possibly, but how much is the doubt worth?
SCO's best strategy is to convince one company that they've got a claim and that the company is in violation of that claim. If they can do that without going to court, then they are golden: if any entity which they sued caves, then SCO can move against companies like Red Hat and SuSE, and against the Australian Competition Commission.
The click count argument sounds really pretty, until you have a working scroll-button on your mouse and wind up unintentionally pasting into the middle of a file while you're scrolling through it.
If the Hungarian wart for a given type is , then the Hungarian wart for a pointer to a type is p or lp. In Win16, those meant something different, but these days, they don't. Sometimes, people use lp out of habit. It's still LPCWSTR to me; my fingers just won't type PCWSTR.
Thus, if an object of type "STYLE" is warted with "sty", then an object of type "pointer to style" is warted with "psty", or perhaps "lpsty". Thus, in the header of a given function, I could have:
LPSTY lpsty;// style of the current fubar LPFUBAR pfbNext;// next fubar in the list
What's bizarre about Hungarian is that it is the minimal solution to the problem. If you have warted all your variables, then you, or anyone else, really can look at the code, and know in an instant what a given variable is (its wart type), what it does (its name), and how you can use it (its modifies: m_, k_, etc.)
Bengali, Kannada, and Tamil use Devanagari-like scripts. They have similar character-merger rules, and we support them as well as Hindi-like languages.
Hmm...it would depend. We are forbidden to look at any GPL'ed code. BSD code is a grey area, and we need to consult with legal. If the indic language support is truly in the public domain, then we can certainly look at it.
That said, I have trouble with the base story. We've had full support for all the Indic (Devanagari-based) languages since Windows 2000 and Office 2000 shipped. So I don't see why on Earth we'd need to license the Indian technology.
So would wrapping a sales pitch in a promise to donate 5% of all proceeds to support make the pitch political or charitable enough to pass legal muster?
The case law is quite clear: speech, commercial or other, can only be restricted if the government can show clear damage from the speech itself (libel or slander, conspiracy, incitement) and if the restriction is content neutral (libel or slander must be false; conspiracy must involve a plan to engage in criminal activity. Incitement's harder -- but, then again, there's a reason the incitement cases are hard to win). Unfortunately, I think that the proposed ban probably fails on both of those points: I don't see the clear harm in my landline ringing, since I don't pay for incoming calls, and I think that the judge in Denver is right: the regulation is not content neutral.
Ironically, though, there are better ways of achieving the same thing. The easiest would be to provide a means for consumers to charge money for the availability of their phone to telemarketers, and allow class action suits against them and the entities that they represent. That would make the industry unprofitable without regulating speech at all.
Actually, G22 probably killed itself -- and the governments certainly killed a lot of their own people -- by their posturing at Cancun. The EU and the US gave the G22 basically everything they asked for -- but asked for governmental transparency in return. (Effective anticorruption laws, acceptance of financial standards considered the norm everywhere else, etc.)
The G22 said "Hell, no!" That isn't a surprise: if your government props itself up with blood diamonds, you probably don't want that fact known. Problem is, it's going to be very hard to sell French farmers on reducing their obscene price supports under the circumstances. I can't see American agribusiness feeling a lot of pressure to pony up to support Charles Taylor's exile.
Just so that nobody falls for your troll, Malaria is really a big deal. For example:
Malaria causes more than three hundred million acute illnesses and kills at least one million people every year. Ninety per cent of deaths due to malaria occur in Africa, south of the Sahara, and most deaths occur in children under the age of five.
I don't think that they're positing a persistent luminosity increase due to fusion; I think that they're claiming that the thermal enery of the impact created a transient spike in the stellar brightness. That's not as wild as it seems: you're talking about a gas giant with 0.001 Solar Mass. That's gonna create a lot of kinetic energy to dissipate.
As to the metal enrichment thesis, though, yeah, that does seem pretty bogus.
That's a great page you pointed at. It explains why both of you are right.
For each of the classes of vehicle, the number of deaths in multi-vehicle accidents was lower than the number of deaths in single-vehicle accidents. Light SUVs, in particular, have a huge number of deaths in rollovers.
Bottom line: in a multi-vehicle, head-on, collision, I'd rather be in an SUV. If I'm in a car, and you're in an SUV, I'd rather you had lower bumpers. Those are rare, though; if you're in an SUV, you want a better roll-cage and a lower center of gravity.
Social security is not a voluntary system. Your employer is required to make contributions to your account; failing to do so is a federal offense. Failing to make your own contributions is merely tax evasion. (FICA is not a contribution, it is a tax, and it is so named under the federal code.)
I don't suppose you thought about the fact that the suggestion is hilariously funny?
Your employer is the one entity which is required to ask for your SSN -- it's used to pay your FICA and Medicare taxes, as well as to route your employer's contribution to your account. Those taxes? Well, if Social Security is still around when you retire, they're what sets your benefit level...
First, IBM, Sequent, SGI and Linux wouldn't be off the hook if the provenance of each line of code were proven to have come from other sources. There are a number of trade secret issues that still could crop up.
But let's assume that Raymond's work was actually run on the SCO source and on Linux. Would the results be meaningful?
No.
Suppose I have a routine that comes originally from source B. I work for a company which has the right to copy B, but which redistributes the results of its work under a closed license. Call that new source S. It so happens that the code my company got from B had a nasty bug in it, and I spent a month finding a fix for that bug. Suppose also that the fix is quite small relative to the original code, as is ususally the case. A shredder is going to find significant similarities between at routine as implemented in source B and source in S. Now, suppose source L comes along. The authors of L had the right to copy from B, but not from S. They have a very similar routine, originally derived from B. After shredding, the routines in B, S, and L will all look similar -- but whether there's an infringement between S and L will depend solely on a tiny fragment of the code. Without disclosing that fragment, there is no way to determine if there's in infringment or not.
Balderdash. The great circle route from Seattle to London passes over the North Pole, and need never cross land. Why didn't Concorde ever fly that route?
I suggest that it was because the Concorde was a fuel-guzzling white elephant.
Uhh...no. Your story is refuted by the fact that the Russian program (which would have suffered none of the enivronmental concerns of the Boeing and Concorde efforts) failed as well, despite being hugely helped by data stolen from the Concorde's testing. The Russian SST died when their test plane crashed horribly at the Paris Air Show. Despite the Russian air fleet's total lack of interest in passenger safety, the Air Ministry decided to kill the project.
The big barrier to SST success has always been economics. It's incredibly expensive to fly faster than sound. Boeing had a quite successful SST program, but cancelled it when it became clear that SSTs would not be economical. Concorde never made money for either of its parent airlines, despite the incredibly expensive tickets for the flights for which it made any sense at all.
Have you ever stayed up all night and watched the sun rise or gone outside in the evening to watch it set? I imagine that you believe so, since otherwise you wouldn't be speak intelligently about the color of the sky at evening. Really, though, the answer is "Of course not. The Sun is essentially a fixed object relative to the Earth on the time scale of a day." What you've watched is an illusion of motion caused by the rotation of the Earth.
So what? Well, the setting of the sun is a perceptual phenomenon which is both convenient and compelling. Whether or not it's phyically correct to speak of it, it's perceptually correct to speak of it. It doesn't make sense to live your daily life ignoring sunsets, or the twinkling of the stars, or the color of the sky, even though all of these are perceptual distortions.
So, yes, the sky is blue -- because it, itself, is an illusion and nothing more.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think that any of these three claims is correct.
First, the only addenda I've seen are in the IBM-ATTIS contract. This is not an action against IBM, but against SGI. The IBM addenda may change the outcome for AIX, but have absolutely no impact on Irix. More, the AIX issues are clouded by the question of Sequent's contract: it does not contain the extensions of rights clauses in the IBM addenda. If the Sequent-ATTIS contract is held to be binding on IBM for those items which were developed using Sequent's expertise, then the terms of the IBM-ATTIS addendum are irrelevant.
Second, we know that SCO did, in fact, start the clock against SGI some months ago -- SGI's last SEC filing demonstrated that.
And, third: no, there is no reason at all the SCO would ever be eager to get into court. Just because you're right doesn't mean you'll win. Look at Microsoft and Eolas. Microsoft is "right", but Eolas won anyway. Will that be reversed? Possibly, but how much is the doubt worth?
SCO's best strategy is to convince one company that they've got a claim and that the company is in violation of that claim. If they can do that without going to court, then they are golden: if any entity which they sued caves, then SCO can move against companies like Red Hat and SuSE, and against the Australian Competition Commission.
Insightful? Funny, yes -- double-plus unduckquack, too. But insightful?
The click count argument sounds really pretty, until you have a working scroll-button on your mouse and wind up unintentionally pasting into the middle of a file while you're scrolling through it.
Have you ever seen a drunk Canadian? They're scary -- polite even when smashed...
If the Hungarian wart for a given type is , then the Hungarian wart for a pointer to a type is p or lp. In Win16, those meant something different, but these days, they don't. Sometimes, people use lp out of habit. It's still LPCWSTR to me; my fingers just won't type PCWSTR.
// style of the current fubar // next fubar in the list
Thus, if an object of type "STYLE" is warted with "sty", then an object of type "pointer to style" is warted with "psty", or perhaps "lpsty". Thus, in the header of a given function, I could have:
LPSTY lpsty;
LPFUBAR pfbNext;
What's bizarre about Hungarian is that it is the minimal solution to the problem. If you have warted all your variables, then you, or anyone else, really can look at the code, and know in an instant what a given variable is (its wart type), what it does (its name), and how you can use it (its modifies: m_, k_, etc.)
Aren't self-sustaining network effects evidence of magnetic monopolies?
Bengali, Kannada, and Tamil use Devanagari-like scripts. They have similar character-merger rules, and we support them as well as Hindi-like languages.
Hmm...it would depend. We are forbidden to look at any GPL'ed code. BSD code is a grey area, and we need to consult with legal. If the indic language support is truly in the public domain, then we can certainly look at it.
That said, I have trouble with the base story. We've had full support for all the Indic (Devanagari-based) languages since Windows 2000 and Office 2000 shipped. So I don't see why on Earth we'd need to license the Indian technology.
Yeah. Just like VA Software's price is plummeting too. After all, we know that IBM is going after LNUX and Red Hat.
So would wrapping a sales pitch in a promise to donate 5% of all proceeds to support make the pitch political or charitable enough to pass legal muster?
The case law is quite clear: speech, commercial or other, can only be restricted if the government can show clear damage from the speech itself (libel or slander, conspiracy, incitement) and if the restriction is content neutral (libel or slander must be false; conspiracy must involve a plan to engage in criminal activity. Incitement's harder -- but, then again, there's a reason the incitement cases are hard to win). Unfortunately, I think that the proposed ban probably fails on both of those points: I don't see the clear harm in my landline ringing, since I don't pay for incoming calls, and I think that the judge in Denver is right: the regulation is not content neutral.
Ironically, though, there are better ways of achieving the same thing. The easiest would be to provide a means for consumers to charge money for the availability of their phone to telemarketers, and allow class action suits against them and the entities that they represent. That would make the industry unprofitable without regulating speech at all.
Actually, G22 probably killed itself -- and the governments certainly killed a lot of their own people -- by their posturing at Cancun. The EU and the US gave the G22 basically everything they asked for -- but asked for governmental transparency in return. (Effective anticorruption laws, acceptance of financial standards considered the norm everywhere else, etc.)
The G22 said "Hell, no!" That isn't a surprise: if your government props itself up with blood diamonds, you probably don't want that fact known. Problem is, it's going to be very hard to sell French farmers on reducing their obscene price supports under the circumstances. I can't see American agribusiness feeling a lot of pressure to pony up to support Charles Taylor's exile.
You are a Leo. Leos believe nothing they read. Your horoscope has nothing to do with you. You are Bertrand Russell.
(Source: UNICEF and WHO, April 25, 2003.)
I don't think that they're positing a persistent luminosity increase due to fusion; I think that they're claiming that the thermal enery of the impact created a transient spike in the stellar brightness. That's not as wild as it seems: you're talking about a gas giant with 0.001 Solar Mass. That's gonna create a lot of kinetic energy to dissipate.
As to the metal enrichment thesis, though, yeah, that does seem pretty bogus.
That's a great page you pointed at. It explains why both of you are right.
For each of the classes of vehicle, the number of deaths in multi-vehicle accidents was lower than the number of deaths in single-vehicle accidents. Light SUVs, in particular, have a huge number of deaths in rollovers.
Bottom line: in a multi-vehicle, head-on, collision, I'd rather be in an SUV. If I'm in a car, and you're in an SUV, I'd rather you had lower bumpers. Those are rare, though; if you're in an SUV, you want a better roll-cage and a lower center of gravity.
Hey -- I payed FICA for years in order to support my grandparents while they were alive. I'm looking forward to supporting my parents and my in-laws.
It's all the rest of the blue-hairs in Boca that bother me...
Social security is not a voluntary system. Your employer is required to make contributions to your account; failing to do so is a federal offense. Failing to make your own contributions is merely tax evasion. (FICA is not a contribution, it is a tax, and it is so named under the federal code.)
I don't suppose you thought about the fact that the suggestion is hilariously funny?
Your employer is the one entity which is required to ask for your SSN -- it's used to pay your FICA and Medicare taxes, as well as to route your employer's contribution to your account. Those taxes? Well, if Social Security is still around when you retire, they're what sets your benefit level...
Uhh...US EOE laws forbid discrimination on the basis of national origin. So it would be illegal discrimination here.
Great. So cool. And so stupid.
First, IBM, Sequent, SGI and Linux wouldn't be off the hook if the provenance of each line of code were proven to have come from other sources. There are a number of trade secret issues that still could crop up.
But let's assume that Raymond's work was actually run on the SCO source and on Linux. Would the results be meaningful?
No.
Suppose I have a routine that comes originally from source B. I work for a company which has the right to copy B, but which redistributes the results of its work under a closed license. Call that new source S. It so happens that the code my company got from B had a nasty bug in it, and I spent a month finding a fix for that bug. Suppose also that the fix is quite small relative to the original code, as is ususally the case. A shredder is going to find significant similarities between at routine as implemented in source B and source in S. Now, suppose source L comes along. The authors of L had the right to copy from B, but not from S. They have a very similar routine, originally derived from B. After shredding, the routines in B, S, and L will all look similar -- but whether there's an infringement between S and L will depend solely on a tiny fragment of the code. Without disclosing that fragment, there is no way to determine if there's in infringment or not.
Balderdash. The great circle route from Seattle to London passes over the North Pole, and need never cross land. Why didn't Concorde ever fly that route?
I suggest that it was because the Concorde was a fuel-guzzling white elephant.
Uhh...no. Your story is refuted by the fact that the Russian program (which would have suffered none of the enivronmental concerns of the Boeing and Concorde efforts) failed as well, despite being hugely helped by data stolen from the Concorde's testing. The Russian SST died when their test plane crashed horribly at the Paris Air Show. Despite the Russian air fleet's total lack of interest in passenger safety, the Air Ministry decided to kill the project.
The big barrier to SST success has always been economics. It's incredibly expensive to fly faster than sound. Boeing had a quite successful SST program, but cancelled it when it became clear that SSTs would not be economical. Concorde never made money for either of its parent airlines, despite the incredibly expensive tickets for the flights for which it made any sense at all.
Imagine a Beowuld cluster of these imaginary objects...
Have you ever stayed up all night and watched the sun rise or gone outside in the evening to watch it set? I imagine that you believe so, since otherwise you wouldn't be speak intelligently about the color of the sky at evening. Really, though, the answer is "Of course not. The Sun is essentially a fixed object relative to the Earth on the time scale of a day." What you've watched is an illusion of motion caused by the rotation of the Earth.
So what? Well, the setting of the sun is a perceptual phenomenon which is both convenient and compelling. Whether or not it's phyically correct to speak of it, it's perceptually correct to speak of it. It doesn't make sense to live your daily life ignoring sunsets, or the twinkling of the stars, or the color of the sky, even though all of these are perceptual distortions.
So, yes, the sky is blue -- because it, itself, is an illusion and nothing more.
What I heard was that Duke Nukem Forever was only going to appear on Windows if it had already appeared on Apple and Linux two months previously.
I suspect that was the an example of Godel sentence marketing: that statement is true, but is certainly unprovable.