This is much the same thing I've been saying for quite some time, but one thing I haven't been able to adequately address is the possibility of a third party buying out SCO. Say someone like Microsoft.
If you disregard the stupidity of such a purchase from an investment and liabilities standpoint, and just focus on the effects of such a buyout, you then have Microsoft putting their weight behind the motion, which could then drag out the case forever. It also protects the SCO execs from being absorbed by IBM and having their files investigated for wrongdoings. Despite the aforementioned stupidity of such a move, if Microsoft is in bed with SCO, this would be an advantageous move for bg and company to make if the possibility of IBM gaining access to information that could result in a major lawsuit against Microsoft.
Question is could IBM or the courts prevent someone from buying SCO (other than IBM) while this lawsuit is pending? IANAL, so I'm asking non-rhetorically.
Geek's Friends: I'll bet you $20 you couldn't get a pair of underwear this year. The Geek: One pair? No problem. It's a bet. [Geek's Friends look at each other] Geek's Friends: GIRLS UNDERWEAR! The Geek: "Dang...."
Probably before most of the average Slashdotters' time, but anyway...
Unless you have the gumption to stand by your statements, have your data be verified and objective, and refuse to cave in to pressure, then you should be picked apart and discredited. Business is not about handouts and feeling good about yourself. It's about continually coming up with better ways to do things and selling it. If your ideas or products aren't better, then you'd better be able to sell it. If you can't sell it, then you need to refine it. If you can't refine it and can't sell it, but you persist in trying to push a stupid idea to an unreceptive audience, then you need to be made aware of that, and getting beat up in meetings is sometimes necessary in this case.
But on the flipside, if your corporate culture values not only the tough business decisions but also the realization of life after work, you had better be ready to "play ball", so to speak, if you want to get on your cow-orkers and managers' good sides. It might be a "follow the herd" mentality in this case, but it's as invaluable towards career advancement as doing your job better than everyone else.
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed at the next zebra crossing.
P2P clients are much easier to use than torrent or newsgroup clients.
The breadth of coverage available at any given time on P2P networks far exceeds that via torrents or newsgroups.
Many P2P clients automatically setup the user as both a user and a supplier, which allows the RIAA to determine if someone has crossed that line into sharing, not just downloading. Without that ability to monitor for sharing, the RIAA is powerless unless they co-opt the ISP's to allow RIAA drones to monitor their network traffic.
Remember, the RIAA is targeting distributors. The fact that some just happen to be users is coincidental.
Why the hell is this modded up? Java has nothing to do with javascript, jscript, ecmascript, or jboss. That faulty premise is so old and tired that it surprises me that people still are confused by it.
And as far as Java 1.2 vs. Java 2 goes -- ever heard of versions? You really think that everything in the original specifications were rock solid and that nothing needs to change? That's ignorant.
"And when you saw that this woman had no ability to remove herself from harm's way whatsoever, to the point that, were she buckled into her seatbelt and a pot of scalding hot coffee to fall into her lap, she would be unable to prevent herself from serious injury, *you deemed her fit to be her own escort on a commercial airline flight, with all the risks that entails?*"
Do you have to be limbless for this scenario to be possible? Suppose you (and I'm assuming that you have 2 arms and 2 legs) were strapped in like you're supposed to be, and that coffee pot came at you. Do you really think you'd be fast enough to unbuckle and move fast enough to avoid being scalded?
Nature abhors a vacuum. Even if the US enacts legislation or otherwise finds ways to protect failing business models, there will be others outside this country that will find a way to fill the void left behind.
For example, the Japanese auto industry did just that in the 70's after the American Big 3 failed to deliver a product that the American consumer market actually wanted -- cheap and efficient automobiles with a low defect rate. That single product smashed the self-imposed stagnation of the Big 3 when they stopped innovating because they figured that people would still buy their products regardless of quality. The new Japanese cars ate their lunch because they met the needs of their customers while the Big 3 ignored them. In short, since they wouldn't innovate, someone else came in, filled the void, and reaped the rewards.
So I fear not for innovation as a whole, but that another round of American isolationism and shortsightedness is going to result in lost opportunities. And sure, we can let others innovate and buy their products or even their companies, but we risk another trade imbalance crisis along the lines of what we have faced with Japan, but this time on a global scale. And while this might be good for others, and I fully encourage others to compete, it's not good for me as an American, and by allowing protectionist policymaking to keep these dinosaurs alive instead of fostering innovation, either within said mastodons or from new startups, we ultimately ensure that we lose our edge.
I'm not suggesting that physical destruction of anyone's lives here, but rather that if you stand to benefit due to the crooked dealings of your family or friends, then you are a knowing accomplice to their actions and you should be held liable, definitely in a civil manner and possibly in a criminal one, for not stepping in and preventing the kinds of actions that you benefitted from. It's the kind of deterrent that should make you carefully consider the possible side-effects to your own family and friends should you get caught for your illegal behavior.
I will submit though that this is overly idealistic and in cases where their is a physical threat to family members for whistleblowing, such as with RICO cases, this may not be enforceable nor an ideal way to deal with the problem. Additionally, there is the problem of punishing children for the misdeeds of the parent(s), so yes, it's not a bulletproof idea, but I still think it's not unreasonable in the general sense.
That's because the risks most definitely do not outweigh the rewards. For example, the Ken Lay's, Bernie Ebbers', John Rigas', and Darl McBride's of this world aren't going to go broke anytime soon, even if they destroy the bank accounts and viability of all the employees of the companies they mis-managed. Instead, they might have to spend some minimal amount of time at a country club prison, followed by having to spend the rest of their lives in comfortable luxury, while the employees whose careers and retirement accounts they've destroyed will struggle to make ends meet for the rest of their lives.
The only acceptable punishment for these people is the complete destruction of their lives and their families lives. It's no less damaging than what they did to their employees. Pure Hammurabi code here.
Because buying them validates the barratry business model. If you want all current and potential litigious bastards to go away forever, you do not pump money into their friends' bank accounts because it makes them more likely to take up the cause if there's a greater possibility of a big paycheck at the end of it.
Instead, you want to make sure that IBM and others continue to use their formidable might to squash these bugs into oblivion.
No offense, but unless Microsoft themselves put up a statement with this MD5 checksum as being valid, I think I will pass on the BitTorrent method in this case. Chances are that it is 100% legit, but given the nature of the patch, I'll go with better safe than sorry and download it directly, even if it takes hours or days.
Our chief weapon is multiple hardware support...support and faster desktop execution...execution and support. Our two weapons are multiple hardware support and faster desktop execution...and ruthless efficiency. Our *three* weapons are multiple hardware support, faster desktop execution, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to Bill Gates. Our *four*...no....amongst our weaponry...are such elements as multiple hardware support, faster desktop execution...I'll come in again...
Not exactly. According to published figures, Sun currently has cash reserves of $3.6 billion. A controlling interest in Novell would equate to 50.1% of the current outstanding shares, or 192.3 million shares.
If Novell refuses Sun's buyout tender, a hostile takeover would require a premium of about 30% over the current value of the stock, pushing it to roughly $9.50/share, and multiplying that by the amount of shares needed to control puts the worst case buyout figure at $1.83 billion. This is well within Sun's means to accomplish.
Now whether it's a good idea to do or not is the subject for another discussion.
IIRC, mich refers to his wife/pseudonym "Michelle Heinlein", which in and of itself is a reference to author Robert Heinlein's book "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" and the alter-ego of the computer of the book is named Michelle.
The 617 part refers to a birth date, as in 6/17. Probably Sal's BD, but it's hard to tell. This was referenced on one of the website entries, I think from the forum that Justin setup.
That depends on the content and the credibility of the post, not the location of the post. For example, if I'm doing a paper on General Relativity and I find an article on sci.physics.relativity that supports my position, and the post represents accepted opinion/theory, or even suggests plausible hypotheses, then it would be wrong to suggest that just because it was found in Usenet that the content and source isn't credible. How many theories have been published in "respectable journals" and textbooks that were outright wrong? Why is this any better?
My problem is with dismissing with prejudice the source of information without verifying that citation. It shows an inherent bias. Like I mentioned, if the student's work and the article it is based on are true garbage, then the teacher/professor/etc will be able to verify it by following the reference and providing a refutation. But to dismiss before verification goes against scholastic norms.
Is quoting a website that is solely authored by one person different than a Wiki article? What makes a printed article more correct than an online article? Would you dismiss an idea gleaned from Usenet newsgroups just because the information's veracity is unverified? What makes Wiki any different?
Basically, if you're the teacher and you (a) disagree, (b) don't follow the student's references, and (c) don't provide evidence as to why the student's work is incorrect, then you're no different than a schoolyard bully, and in fact, you're discouraging the learning process. Yes, it's possible that the student's work is loaded, but to dismiss it out of hand due to an unverified bias against a certain information source smacks of ignorance, and actually makes you a worse part of the problem than a student that is trying to cheat his/her way through.
Slashdot Mirror
This is much the same thing I've been saying for quite some time, but one thing I haven't been able to adequately address is the possibility of a third party buying out SCO. Say someone like Microsoft.
If you disregard the stupidity of such a purchase from an investment and liabilities standpoint, and just focus on the effects of such a buyout, you then have Microsoft putting their weight behind the motion, which could then drag out the case forever. It also protects the SCO execs from being absorbed by IBM and having their files investigated for wrongdoings. Despite the aforementioned stupidity of such a move, if Microsoft is in bed with SCO, this would be an advantageous move for bg and company to make if the possibility of IBM gaining access to information that could result in a major lawsuit against Microsoft.
Question is could IBM or the courts prevent someone from buying SCO (other than IBM) while this lawsuit is pending? IANAL, so I'm asking non-rhetorically.
Yeah, ask Oakley Sunglasses. They seem to have discovered it...
Perhaps, however I'm pretty sure it won't be from Microsoft after this article....
Paraphrased quote from the movie Sixteen Candles
Geek's Friends: I'll bet you $20 you couldn't get a pair of underwear this year.
The Geek: One pair? No problem. It's a bet.
[Geek's Friends look at each other]
Geek's Friends: GIRLS UNDERWEAR!
The Geek: "Dang...."
Probably before most of the average Slashdotters' time, but anyway...
Unless you have the gumption to stand by your statements, have your data be verified and objective, and refuse to cave in to pressure, then you should be picked apart and discredited. Business is not about handouts and feeling good about yourself. It's about continually coming up with better ways to do things and selling it. If your ideas or products aren't better, then you'd better be able to sell it. If you can't sell it, then you need to refine it. If you can't refine it and can't sell it, but you persist in trying to push a stupid idea to an unreceptive audience, then you need to be made aware of that, and getting beat up in meetings is sometimes necessary in this case.
But on the flipside, if your corporate culture values not only the tough business decisions but also the realization of life after work, you had better be ready to "play ball", so to speak, if you want to get on your cow-orkers and managers' good sides. It might be a "follow the herd" mentality in this case, but it's as invaluable towards career advancement as doing your job better than everyone else.
Business is an ugly business.
ObHHG Passage:
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
"But," says Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED."
"Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't thought of that," and promptly vanishes in a puff of logic.
"Oh, that was easy," says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed at the next zebra crossing.
Remember, the RIAA is targeting distributors. The fact that some just happen to be users is coincidental.
You mean, like fraud?
The spam kings aren't sending the emails -- infected PC's are. Until that clears up, there won't be much relief any time soon.
Why the hell is this modded up? Java has nothing to do with javascript, jscript, ecmascript, or jboss. That faulty premise is so old and tired that it surprises me that people still are confused by it.
And as far as Java 1.2 vs. Java 2 goes -- ever heard of versions? You really think that everything in the original specifications were rock solid and that nothing needs to change? That's ignorant.
-1, Troll
"The problem with the rat race is that, even if you win, you're still a rat." -- Lily Tomlin
"And when you saw that this woman had no ability to remove herself from harm's way whatsoever, to the point that, were she buckled into her seatbelt and a pot of scalding hot coffee to fall into her lap, she would be unable to prevent herself from serious injury, *you deemed her fit to be her own escort on a commercial airline flight, with all the risks that entails?*"
Do you have to be limbless for this scenario to be possible? Suppose you (and I'm assuming that you have 2 arms and 2 legs) were strapped in like you're supposed to be, and that coffee pot came at you. Do you really think you'd be fast enough to unbuckle and move fast enough to avoid being scalded?
No offense, but given the stereotypical techie image of an ectomorphic, pasty-white geek with bad hair, I really think this would be a bad idea.
And I don't even want to think about where he'd put his PDA....
Nature abhors a vacuum. Even if the US enacts legislation or otherwise finds ways to protect failing business models, there will be others outside this country that will find a way to fill the void left behind.
For example, the Japanese auto industry did just that in the 70's after the American Big 3 failed to deliver a product that the American consumer market actually wanted -- cheap and efficient automobiles with a low defect rate. That single product smashed the self-imposed stagnation of the Big 3 when they stopped innovating because they figured that people would still buy their products regardless of quality. The new Japanese cars ate their lunch because they met the needs of their customers while the Big 3 ignored them. In short, since they wouldn't innovate, someone else came in, filled the void, and reaped the rewards.
So I fear not for innovation as a whole, but that another round of American isolationism and shortsightedness is going to result in lost opportunities. And sure, we can let others innovate and buy their products or even their companies, but we risk another trade imbalance crisis along the lines of what we have faced with Japan, but this time on a global scale. And while this might be good for others, and I fully encourage others to compete, it's not good for me as an American, and by allowing protectionist policymaking to keep these dinosaurs alive instead of fostering innovation, either within said mastodons or from new startups, we ultimately ensure that we lose our edge.
install Ad Aware or Spybot Search & Destroy
This should not be an or but an and.
I'm not suggesting that physical destruction of anyone's lives here, but rather that if you stand to benefit due to the crooked dealings of your family or friends, then you are a knowing accomplice to their actions and you should be held liable, definitely in a civil manner and possibly in a criminal one, for not stepping in and preventing the kinds of actions that you benefitted from. It's the kind of deterrent that should make you carefully consider the possible side-effects to your own family and friends should you get caught for your illegal behavior.
I will submit though that this is overly idealistic and in cases where their is a physical threat to family members for whistleblowing, such as with RICO cases, this may not be enforceable nor an ideal way to deal with the problem. Additionally, there is the problem of punishing children for the misdeeds of the parent(s), so yes, it's not a bulletproof idea, but I still think it's not unreasonable in the general sense.
That's because the risks most definitely do not outweigh the rewards. For example, the Ken Lay's, Bernie Ebbers', John Rigas', and Darl McBride's of this world aren't going to go broke anytime soon, even if they destroy the bank accounts and viability of all the employees of the companies they mis-managed. Instead, they might have to spend some minimal amount of time at a country club prison, followed by having to spend the rest of their lives in comfortable luxury, while the employees whose careers and retirement accounts they've destroyed will struggle to make ends meet for the rest of their lives.
The only acceptable punishment for these people is the complete destruction of their lives and their families lives. It's no less damaging than what they did to their employees. Pure Hammurabi code here.
Because buying them validates the barratry business model. If you want all current and potential litigious bastards to go away forever, you do not pump money into their friends' bank accounts because it makes them more likely to take up the cause if there's a greater possibility of a big paycheck at the end of it.
Instead, you want to make sure that IBM and others continue to use their formidable might to squash these bugs into oblivion.
No offense, but unless Microsoft themselves put up a statement with this MD5 checksum as being valid, I think I will pass on the BitTorrent method in this case. Chances are that it is 100% legit, but given the nature of the patch, I'll go with better safe than sorry and download it directly, even if it takes hours or days.
Our chief weapon is multiple hardware support...support and faster desktop execution...execution and support. Our two weapons are multiple hardware support and faster desktop execution...and ruthless efficiency. Our *three* weapons are multiple hardware support, faster desktop execution, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to Bill Gates. Our *four*...no....amongst our weaponry...are such elements as multiple hardware support, faster desktop execution...I'll come in again...
Not exactly. According to published figures, Sun currently has cash reserves of $3.6 billion. A controlling interest in Novell would equate to 50.1% of the current outstanding shares, or 192.3 million shares.
If Novell refuses Sun's buyout tender, a hostile takeover would require a premium of about 30% over the current value of the stock, pushing it to roughly $9.50/share, and multiplying that by the amount of shares needed to control puts the worst case buyout figure at $1.83 billion. This is well within Sun's means to accomplish.
Now whether it's a good idea to do or not is the subject for another discussion.
Hmmm....sounds very much like the problems that a nefarious company located in Lindon, Utah has undergone over the past year or so.
Rule #1 in legal defense: Shut your damn mouth. Don't make this any worse that it already is.
Some people just won't learn. Fortunately, this is not a bad thing in this (and SCO's) case.
IIRC, mich refers to his wife/pseudonym "Michelle Heinlein", which in and of itself is a reference to author Robert Heinlein's book "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" and the alter-ego of the computer of the book is named Michelle.
The 617 part refers to a birth date, as in 6/17. Probably Sal's BD, but it's hard to tell. This was referenced on one of the website entries, I think from the forum that Justin setup.
That depends on the content and the credibility of the post, not the location of the post. For example, if I'm doing a paper on General Relativity and I find an article on sci.physics.relativity that supports my position, and the post represents accepted opinion/theory, or even suggests plausible hypotheses, then it would be wrong to suggest that just because it was found in Usenet that the content and source isn't credible. How many theories have been published in "respectable journals" and textbooks that were outright wrong? Why is this any better?
My problem is with dismissing with prejudice the source of information without verifying that citation. It shows an inherent bias. Like I mentioned, if the student's work and the article it is based on are true garbage, then the teacher/professor/etc will be able to verify it by following the reference and providing a refutation. But to dismiss before verification goes against scholastic norms.
Is quoting a website that is solely authored by one person different than a Wiki article? What makes a printed article more correct than an online article? Would you dismiss an idea gleaned from Usenet newsgroups just because the information's veracity is unverified? What makes Wiki any different?
Basically, if you're the teacher and you (a) disagree, (b) don't follow the student's references, and (c) don't provide evidence as to why the student's work is incorrect, then you're no different than a schoolyard bully, and in fact, you're discouraging the learning process. Yes, it's possible that the student's work is loaded, but to dismiss it out of hand due to an unverified bias against a certain information source smacks of ignorance, and actually makes you a worse part of the problem than a student that is trying to cheat his/her way through.