Thats because investors have realized that SCO has signed a secret deal with Microsoft that will mean great profits.
In return for megabucks from Redmond, SCO has agreed to make itself much more hated than Microsoft, thereby allowing Microsoft to win the hearts and minds of the/. hoards... after all, they'll be too busy hating SCO to defend against Microsoft trickery.
Re:SCO still packs a punch?
on
SCO SCO SCO!
·
· Score: 1
I wish IBM would finally get irritated enough at the whiny buzzing, act like the giant they are, and destroy SCO once and for all. Forget buy-outs, counter-sue them out of existence!
Doing so would probably be the best PR move ever, IBM would simultaneously earn the favor of the raving/. hoards, Linux zealots, and every other company currently being irritated by those SCO assclowns.
No, you aren't. I'm pretty sure the conversation was of the "we'll sue you out of existance" variety.
I also don't consider the NVidia/Futuremark fiasco to be that significant. Benchmark "cheating" is nothing new, but for some reason the word seems to need to rip Nvidia a new one for getting caught cheating... or, according to this join PR, getting caught !cheating.
Personally, I don't consider synthetic benchmarks to be important anyways. When I sit down to play a game, I guaranty you it isn't one developed by Futuremark;)
Except they don't own the copyrights and patents, according to Novell. They own the contractual rights for licensing, not the intellectual property itself. I expect to see a suit any day now wherein SCO tries to get a court to declare that they own the IP.
Ya, I think I missed the memo. Are we all supposed to hold Debian up as the One True Linux? I thought Slackware was the distro we were all supposed to mindlessly acknowledge as the most l33t.
Are we also supposed to chant "Mandrake is for newbies, Mandrake is about Ease-of-Use" repeatedly, or has it finally become fashionable to recognize their ties with clueful things like Bastille, Prelude, and other security-related projects?. Sorry, I'm a little behind on my groupthink;)
Linux is what you make of it, any distribution can be installed and configured to promote ease-of-use, security, maximum customization, and fine-grained control.
I don't know how much goes to spam, but I can tell you for a fact that broadband services will count themselves lucky with only 60% P2P traffic. That sounds pretty average from what I've seen.
The sad thing is that this isn't FUD, but the IP Fascists like the RIAA and SOCAN in Canada will use it as leverage in their battle.
BTW, a whole lot of the non-P2P traffic is used up by protocols like IRC, FTP and NNTP... for filesharing purposes. Fileservs on IRC, the classic FTP warez/pr0n server, and the plethora of "free" software, porn and music on USENET still have those other sources chipping in significantly. P2P is the easiest to use, and therefore more accessible to the majority, hence its dominance over traffic consumption.
I wonder if this could also be due to some sort of concern over personal liability in the context of future anti-trust (or past anti-trust) action that could have or could go very poorly.
Less of a controlling share could be legally perceived as evidence that Gates and Ballmer are just "cogs in the machine". I'm no expert (and barely even slightly knowledgable), so I don't know if this theory has any merit.
I care about relative performance and quality in actual applications, such as UT2003, etc. That, and I care about the quality of drivers, the usefullness of the hardware in Linux, FreeBSD, and other Open Source OSes.
ATI has sucked too much in the past for me to trust them now, whether or not they've owned the benchmarks for awhile.
I thought SCO was already irrelevant, and has been for years.
I've only seen their useless OS used in a couple of times in almost a decade, and only in a dinky little home office. The only reasons people still talk about these guys is because of their rediculous lawsuits.
Could someone please send SCO a memo to remind them that they don't matter, and it has nothing to do with alleged misuse of their intellectual property.
I don't think more than 5 people read the book... and I don't think Lucas cares.
Having not read the book myself, I would suggest that that first paragraph perhaps was written from the perspective of someone who didn't know the truth (i.e., the clone theory). Like I said, I haven't read it so I acknowledge that I'm completely guessing here.
Actually, thats my theory too. I was trying not to be a complete asshole and post it to/., but seeing as you've opened the floodgates and Lucas is about as clever as the chair I'm sitting on, I'll expand on the idea.
There is plenty of evidence to support our theory. The key is that the Chancellor doesn't radiate anything. Yoda views him with great suspicion in Episode 2 as he essentially pressures Amidala into leaving under the protection of Mannequin Skywalker. Yoda knows something is up. They managed to get some CGI eyebrow raising action out of the li'l deathfrog.
You'll also notice that Palpatine is looking kinda... drained. You might read that this is the darkside wearing at him, but the Jedi should be able to pick it up like you've said despite the "blindness" problem they are experiencing.
I think it is very likely that the Chancellor is a clone of Darth Sidious/ Emperor Palpatine, who according to post Return of the Jedi fiction (it was in the comics, at any rate) had a number of clones during the Clone Wars.
"SSH just ensures plaintext passwords aren't bouncing around your network."
JUST?!
Thats like saying "oh, a firewall just keeps external network traffic from getting to services and hosts you don't want them to get to". Well duh.
If your only authentication scheme is passwords, then this is crucial, there is no "just" about it. For example, the only thing separating your hosts from being vulnerable to all local-only exploits is a malicious user authenticating through SSH with a stolen password from sniffed FTP traffic, even if your FTP service is patched and non-vulnerable to priveledge escalation and buffer overflows resulting in shell access.
If you want to write off such a simple attack then <sarcasm>you might as well just leave telnet enabled, tie all your systems together with NIS on a public network, and make sure you have stickies with administrative account authentication information at all physical access points.
Oh ya, don't forget to implement some wireless APs too... and remember: WEP and MAC exclusions are for the paranoid. Information wants to be free</sarcasm>.
You have to guess that Lucas is just some hack? I *know* that Lucas is just some hack. We have several hours of hard evidence for that.
Here is another spoiler: Anakin turns to *gasp* the dark side and *gasp* becomes Darth Vader... and Chancellor Palpatine is *gasp* the same guy as Emperor Palpatine!
While I'm at it, you have 2 movies until Obi Wan dies, 4 movies until Anakin dies, and -2 movies until Darth Maul dies (just in case a few people out there are waiting for all three new Star Wars movies are done to see Episode 1).
Common carrier exemptions don't mean you can't get supoenaed, it means that you aren't liable for content. Verizon is being backed up against the wall by a court order to produce private customer information... of course, the obvious threat they are under is that the RIAA may try to hold them liable for infringing content. ISPs have deep pockets, I'm relative shocked that the recording industry isn't going after them directly like the are up here in Canada (see Tariff 22 will be the death of Canadian Internet Radio if you aren't familiar with whats going on up here).
The issue at hand is not whether or not Verizon can identify customers based on reports of copyright infringement. Of course they can, and ISP can. The issue is that someone without investigative authority has convinced a court to order the release of this informaiton. Would the community be ranting about the death of privacy this much if the subpoena had come from the FBI?
Also worth thinking about: is it a violation of your privacy when your ISP hands over your information when served with a warrant/subpoena that was obtained after showing a judge that they have reasonable suspicion that a crime is taking place?
What American Greetings needs is to get no more sales of their crappy games ever again. That'll show 'em. The PR damage from a petty maneuver like this is far larger and widespread than the PA readership.
Slashdot boycott anyone? Email writing campaign? Addition of American Greetings to the/. list of mandatory hated organizations?;P
What? Theo causing waves with his out-spokenness? Gee, what a surprise.
Remember, this is the same guy who's "unwavering" beliefs included taunting clueless users... which got him kicked off the last li'l *BSD project he was on.
Slashdot Mirror
Secondly, send in a special ops team to wipe out the terrorist group.
How's that for mitigation? Maybe there are some Linux fans working for Tha Man that could convince Pres. Bush that SCO is linked with al Qaeda...
In return for megabucks from Redmond, SCO has agreed to make itself much more hated than Microsoft, thereby allowing Microsoft to win the hearts and minds of the /. hoards... after all, they'll be too busy hating SCO to defend against Microsoft trickery.
Doing so would probably be the best PR move ever, IBM would simultaneously earn the favor of the raving /. hoards, Linux zealots, and every other company currently being irritated by those SCO assclowns.
I also don't consider the NVidia/Futuremark fiasco to be that significant. Benchmark "cheating" is nothing new, but for some reason the word seems to need to rip Nvidia a new one for getting caught cheating... or, according to this join PR, getting caught !cheating.
Personally, I don't consider synthetic benchmarks to be important anyways. When I sit down to play a game, I guaranty you it isn't one developed by Futuremark ;)
SCO doesn't deserve anything more than a pile of asspennies, so that's very appropriate.
Except they don't own the copyrights and patents, according to Novell. They own the contractual rights for licensing, not the intellectual property itself. I expect to see a suit any day now wherein SCO tries to get a court to declare that they own the IP.
Maybe GOBBLES got another contract!
Are we also supposed to chant "Mandrake is for newbies, Mandrake is about Ease-of-Use" repeatedly, or has it finally become fashionable to recognize their ties with clueful things like Bastille, Prelude, and other security-related projects?. Sorry, I'm a little behind on my groupthink ;)
Linux is what you make of it, any distribution can be installed and configured to promote ease-of-use, security, maximum customization, and fine-grained control.
What about Plausible Conspiracy?
The sad thing is that this isn't FUD, but the IP Fascists like the RIAA and SOCAN in Canada will use it as leverage in their battle.
BTW, a whole lot of the non-P2P traffic is used up by protocols like IRC, FTP and NNTP... for filesharing purposes. Fileservs on IRC, the classic FTP warez/pr0n server, and the plethora of "free" software, porn and music on USENET still have those other sources chipping in significantly. P2P is the easiest to use, and therefore more accessible to the majority, hence its dominance over traffic consumption.
Less of a controlling share could be legally perceived as evidence that Gates and Ballmer are just "cogs in the machine". I'm no expert (and barely even slightly knowledgable), so I don't know if this theory has any merit.
At this rate, all the Internet will be useful for is opportunities to help Nigerian diplomats free money tied up in political red tape.
I care about relative performance and quality in actual applications, such as UT2003, etc. That, and I care about the quality of drivers, the usefullness of the hardware in Linux, FreeBSD, and other Open Source OSes.
ATI has sucked too much in the past for me to trust them now, whether or not they've owned the benchmarks for awhile.
I thought SCO was already irrelevant, and has been for years.
I've only seen their useless OS used in a couple of times in almost a decade, and only in a dinky little home office. The only reasons people still talk about these guys is because of their rediculous lawsuits.
Could someone please send SCO a memo to remind them that they don't matter, and it has nothing to do with alleged misuse of their intellectual property.
3. PROFIT!
Happy now? I feel sooooo dirty. You forgot the gratuitous cluster reference I'm all over it like a fat kid on a smartie.
LOL. Do you have to put effort into being such an idiot, or does it come naturally?
Will the UN ensure that Iraq is not used to support Legislation of Mass Fascism?
Having not read the book myself, I would suggest that that first paragraph perhaps was written from the perspective of someone who didn't know the truth (i.e., the clone theory). Like I said, I haven't read it so I acknowledge that I'm completely guessing here.
There is plenty of evidence to support our theory. The key is that the Chancellor doesn't radiate anything. Yoda views him with great suspicion in Episode 2 as he essentially pressures Amidala into leaving under the protection of Mannequin Skywalker. Yoda knows something is up. They managed to get some CGI eyebrow raising action out of the li'l deathfrog.
You'll also notice that Palpatine is looking kinda... drained. You might read that this is the darkside wearing at him, but the Jedi should be able to pick it up like you've said despite the "blindness" problem they are experiencing.
I think it is very likely that the Chancellor is a clone of Darth Sidious/ Emperor Palpatine, who according to post Return of the Jedi fiction (it was in the comics, at any rate) had a number of clones during the Clone Wars.
JUST?!
Thats like saying "oh, a firewall just keeps external network traffic from getting to services and hosts you don't want them to get to". Well duh.
If your only authentication scheme is passwords, then this is crucial, there is no "just" about it. For example, the only thing separating your hosts from being vulnerable to all local-only exploits is a malicious user authenticating through SSH with a stolen password from sniffed FTP traffic, even if your FTP service is patched and non-vulnerable to priveledge escalation and buffer overflows resulting in shell access.
If you want to write off such a simple attack then <sarcasm>you might as well just leave telnet enabled, tie all your systems together with NIS on a public network, and make sure you have stickies with administrative account authentication information at all physical access points.
Oh ya, don't forget to implement some wireless APs too... and remember: WEP and MAC exclusions are for the paranoid. Information wants to be free</sarcasm>.
Here is another spoiler: Anakin turns to *gasp* the dark side and *gasp* becomes Darth Vader... and Chancellor Palpatine is *gasp* the same guy as Emperor Palpatine!
While I'm at it, you have 2 movies until Obi Wan dies, 4 movies until Anakin dies, and -2 movies until Darth Maul dies (just in case a few people out there are waiting for all three new Star Wars movies are done to see Episode 1).
The issue at hand is not whether or not Verizon can identify customers based on reports of copyright infringement. Of course they can, and ISP can. The issue is that someone without investigative authority has convinced a court to order the release of this informaiton. Would the community be ranting about the death of privacy this much if the subpoena had come from the FBI?
Also worth thinking about: is it a violation of your privacy when your ISP hands over your information when served with a warrant/subpoena that was obtained after showing a judge that they have reasonable suspicion that a crime is taking place?
Slashdot boycott anyone? Email writing campaign? Addition of American Greetings to the /. list of mandatory hated organizations? ;P
Remember, this is the same guy who's "unwavering" beliefs included taunting clueless users... which got him kicked off the last li'l *BSD project he was on.