Doctors aren't gentle when scraping pebbles out of your skin after you put the bike down.
Difficult to transport $100 worth of groceries without a sidecar or a tow-behind trailer, and with many bikes, you're now approaching the cost of economy cars.
Becoming a cop-magnet.
Having to be extra careful for everyone else's driving styles.
Making sure to keep a close watch on where Congressman Janklow is when you're making the trip to Sturgis.
Helmet head.
Not wearing a helmet results in bug-filled mouth at best, road pizza at worst.
Wearing full gear terribly hot during summer, but wreck consequences are nasty.
WHAT?!?!? YOU'LL HAVE TO SPEAK LOUDER!!! EVER SINCE I GOT MY HARLEY, I CAN'T HEAR ANYTHING AS WELL ANYMORE!!!
One quick question this bring to mind is whether the company that purports to have researched this number tracks a bug in a Linux kernel multiple times for the multiple distributions out there.
IOW, is a kernel bug that is patched by Red Hat, Debian, Mandrake, and Gentoo counted as one bug or four?
The communication is not quite asynchronous, as you state. There is one specific reaction occuring following nearly every statement from SCO -- their stock continues to rise in price. So the feedback to SCO is occurring on Wall Street by investors continuing to respond with continued purchases of SCOX stock.
Of course, like any Ponzi scheme, there will come a time when SCO can no longer say, "We can't tell you why, but buy our stock and you'll get more for it tomorrow than you paid today" and at that point, the whole deck of cards is going to come tumbling down.
Absolutely. Used music is the best deal around to get what you want that someone else didn't want. And like the poster said, it's completely out of the RIAA's hands. During the early 90's I purchased the overwhelming majority of my CD's from a number of local resellers near the Ohio State campus and I still own and listen to just about all of them. By far, the best deal around.
Exactly. The Internet itself is not the problem -- it's the chaotic nature of its unchecked and unmoderated usage that puts us at risk. Kind of like the streets of a big city and its neighborhoods -- there's areas of the city you don't go into because you can't be sure for your safety, but that doesn't mean that the roads leading there are at fault. The difference is that there's little protection from the Internet thugs coming into your neighborhood.
I think it's perfectly clear that we're at a crossroads with respect to the current open access to the Internet and the need for protection from the direct and/or indirect damage being perpetrated by those who either exploit it for their own means without paying for their usage of it, or those who actually want to destabilize its very foundation. Even though I'm not generally in favor of governmental controls (I'm a libertarian), even I can see that there's a problem here that needs to addressed from a socio-political standpoint. I want to see laws made that have real teeth against Internet abuse, have the enforcement of these laws be strong, and levy severe enough penalties against the abusers to show others that we will not put up with this anti-social behavior. If it goes against the will of the public, then the public needs to force their governments to take action.
Until social reaction finally catches up to deal with the spammers, virus/worm writers, and DDoS script kiddies, we will continue to have to figure out ways to fend them off. But in spite of that, partitioning the Internet is not the answer, nor the problem. This needs to be made perfectly clear. It's not a technological problem, it's a sociological one.
Actually, it's no different than that at all. For all our current love of IBM, don't forget that they were the inspiration for companies like Microsoft. IBM has been involved in what could be called anti-competitive practices for a very long time. For examples, check here, here, and especially here.
Remember, IBM exists to serve its own needs, not to be the torchbearer for OSS. In spite of the fact that OSS is affording them the chance to challenge Microsoft's dominance, if they see an opportunity to gain that market share without it, for example producing superior CPU's and compilers, you bet your ass that they'll do it.
And is there a particular reason why IBM couldn't apply their work towards gcc? So much for the whole open-source, contribute-to-the-community philosophy.
First off, most companies develop compilers for their hardware/software because they have the behind-the-scenes knowledge necessary to produce a superior product, and therefore, make money off of it. It's called having a competitive advantage, and I see nothing wrong with that.
Second, who says that they won't eventually work to get these performance enhancements included into a future release of GCC? Just because they haven't done so yet does not mean that they never will.
Yup, but applying it to Johnny Cash gives it such a deeper meaning, and although he admits his life isn't quite as bleak as the song, there are a lot of parallels. And the video itself is spooky, considering June died not long after the video was finished...
How about Johnny Cash's video of his recent song "Hurt", which is quite good IMHO, and I don't think I'd consider him to be a paragon of beauty and youth...
Not to mention the video and genre are WAY out of the ordinary compared to MTV[2]'s typical programming...
Wow...longest run on sentence in Slashdot history...
But anyway, I don't know how much this closure of the code is to blame more than the "just barely good enough" practices of Microsoft's software development teams. I tend to put more stock in the latter...
The slide shown here is transliterated english with Greek characters. Retransliterating it, it reads:
* As part of the kernel evolution towards modular naming, the * functions malloc and mfree are being renamed to rmalloc and rmfree. * Compatibility will be maintained by the following assembly code: * (also see mfree/rmfree below) */
Fucking coward. You got something to say, then say it to my face and be man enough (or woman, although I doubt you have the courage of a woman) to sign it and not to hide behind your cowardice.
Kean -- don't fret too much over the position of the/.'ers. We're a rabid bunch, quick to anger, and ready to vent when any topic infringes upon our utopian ideals of "free as in beer" and fairness in all actions. Of course, you know well enough that TANSTAAFL and life ain't fair.
What people don't understand about what they're saying here is that whatever the turnout of the SCO vs. IBM lawsuit and RedHat and IBM's countersuits, there will still be a SCO OpenServer and UnixWare OS out there, and whether or not the parent company is still encumbered by the lawyers or not, the OS is still going to have some amount of users out there that will want your contributions. People here seem to not be able to differentiate between "The SCO Group" and "SCO UnixWare/OpenServer". That's not to say that the actions of your executives haven't warranted the mass exodus of techies with respect to all things SCO, because they have, and unfortunately, you and the rest of the SCO users and developers are the real losers in this battle (not calling you a loser, just saying you have the most to lose).
Now if you get people wanting to debate the merits of the OpenServer and UnixWare OS's vs. Linux, then you're on your own.;-) But until then, just thicken up your skin (I imagine you already have) and thanks for continuing to contribute. BTW, don't abandon/. entirely after today -- I'm sure there's much you can gain from us and us from you. Just start ignoring your regular mail from now on....;)
Well, anyone with a half-decent digital printer can roll his own Jacksons and Franklins. Again, the law is the law, and the men in suits will find you no matter your "method" of crime.
Sure, with a decent photo printer and an excellent image of the dollar bill in question, perfect image copies can be produced, but the missing link is the paper on which it is printed. That certain type of paper that American money is printed on is nearly impossible to duplicate from a material sense and is heavily guarded from creation to printing. Also, the advent of watermarks, different kinds of ink, and the upcoming different colors on larger denomination bills make it even harder to reproduce.
Of course when the thought police comes looking for me and tracks me down to the bottom of container #4 at the city's waste processing plant, I'll have the last laugh....
The insider trades listing at Yahoo is missing all of this year's stock grants to all the execs at SCO. Does anyone have the list from some other place? IIRC, the entire executive board bought hundreds of thousands of SCOX stock at something like $0.001, and now that data is missing....
The problem is that people like SCO, McBride, and the Canopy group are hydras. You cut one head off and two more appear. If they throw all these guys in jail for securities fraud, it still doesn't prevent the next group of litigious bastards from abusing the same system to pump-n-dump again.
The Germans really have it right in this respect. Put up or shut up.
If this judgement is to hold up in court, then Smith & Wesson need to be held accountable for publishing their owner's manual to the S&W 22A pistol online. Otherwise, this is hypocritical.
Showing people how to do something does not equate to them actually doing it. Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater does not equate to telling others what would happen if you did such a thing. There's a difference between intent and deed, and it's being trampled on here.
OK, then riddle me this. Perhaps RHAT will not be stupid enough to exhaust their cash assets on litigation, but SCOX sure as hell will because they know that they can call on their buddies for more. If not for the possibly libelous smear campaign to drive up the stock price and the purchases of licenses by MSFT and what is probably SUNW, where else do you think the money is coming from?
Earnings other than licensing were reported earlier this year as $168K, not million, THOUSAND. That's barely enough to pay one halfway decent lawyer for a year, and they've got a whole team of them, not counting the entire executive board with McBride and his cohorts being lawyers themselves.
It's becoming plain to see that they're acting as a shell company who take in money from others to do their bidding while not taking the heat themselves. All the while, SCOX stock rises and the pawns running the company don their Cheshire Cat grins all the way to the bank as they cash out on what is a hugely successful endeavor for them.
RHAT may not use all their money, sure, but I would not put it past SCOX at all to do this, and to continue to do this due to timely "investments" in their licensing structure. MSFT has already done this twice -- not exactly playing the independent route here.
Slashdot Mirror
...and tell me that this doesn't remind you vaguely of a popular movie series involving people that plug in and out of a virtual reality universe....
One quick question this bring to mind is whether the company that purports to have researched this number tracks a bug in a Linux kernel multiple times for the multiple distributions out there.
IOW, is a kernel bug that is patched by Red Hat, Debian, Mandrake, and Gentoo counted as one bug or four?
The communication is not quite asynchronous, as you state. There is one specific reaction occuring following nearly every statement from SCO -- their stock continues to rise in price. So the feedback to SCO is occurring on Wall Street by investors continuing to respond with continued purchases of SCOX stock.
Of course, like any Ponzi scheme, there will come a time when SCO can no longer say, "We can't tell you why, but buy our stock and you'll get more for it tomorrow than you paid today" and at that point, the whole deck of cards is going to come tumbling down.
Absolutely. Used music is the best deal around to get what you want that someone else didn't want. And like the poster said, it's completely out of the RIAA's hands. During the early 90's I purchased the overwhelming majority of my CD's from a number of local resellers near the Ohio State campus and I still own and listen to just about all of them. By far, the best deal around.
Here come the Johnny #5 posts....
Hmmm....I wonder if SCO still owned DR-DOS if they would be picking on Microsoft with the same fervor as they're doing with IBM?
Exactly. The Internet itself is not the problem -- it's the chaotic nature of its unchecked and unmoderated usage that puts us at risk. Kind of like the streets of a big city and its neighborhoods -- there's areas of the city you don't go into because you can't be sure for your safety, but that doesn't mean that the roads leading there are at fault. The difference is that there's little protection from the Internet thugs coming into your neighborhood.
I think it's perfectly clear that we're at a crossroads with respect to the current open access to the Internet and the need for protection from the direct and/or indirect damage being perpetrated by those who either exploit it for their own means without paying for their usage of it, or those who actually want to destabilize its very foundation. Even though I'm not generally in favor of governmental controls (I'm a libertarian), even I can see that there's a problem here that needs to addressed from a socio-political standpoint. I want to see laws made that have real teeth against Internet abuse, have the enforcement of these laws be strong, and levy severe enough penalties against the abusers to show others that we will not put up with this anti-social behavior. If it goes against the will of the public, then the public needs to force their governments to take action.
Until social reaction finally catches up to deal with the spammers, virus/worm writers, and DDoS script kiddies, we will continue to have to figure out ways to fend them off. But in spite of that, partitioning the Internet is not the answer, nor the problem. This needs to be made perfectly clear. It's not a technological problem, it's a sociological one.
Actually, it's no different than that at all. For all our current love of IBM, don't forget that they were the inspiration for companies like Microsoft. IBM has been involved in what could be called anti-competitive practices for a very long time. For examples, check here, here, and especially here.
Remember, IBM exists to serve its own needs, not to be the torchbearer for OSS. In spite of the fact that OSS is affording them the chance to challenge Microsoft's dominance, if they see an opportunity to gain that market share without it, for example producing superior CPU's and compilers, you bet your ass that they'll do it.
And is there a particular reason why IBM couldn't apply their work towards gcc? So much for the whole open-source, contribute-to-the-community philosophy.
First off, most companies develop compilers for their hardware/software because they have the behind-the-scenes knowledge necessary to produce a superior product, and therefore, make money off of it. It's called having a competitive advantage, and I see nothing wrong with that.
Second, who says that they won't eventually work to get these performance enhancements included into a future release of GCC? Just because they haven't done so yet does not mean that they never will.
Yup, but applying it to Johnny Cash gives it such a deeper meaning, and although he admits his life isn't quite as bleak as the song, there are a lot of parallels. And the video itself is spooky, considering June died not long after the video was finished...
How about Johnny Cash's video of his recent song "Hurt", which is quite good IMHO, and I don't think I'd consider him to be a paragon of beauty and youth...
Not to mention the video and genre are WAY out of the ordinary compared to MTV[2]'s typical programming...
Uh, umm....nevermind....
Wow...longest run on sentence in Slashdot history...
But anyway, I don't know how much this closure of the code is to blame more than the "just barely good enough" practices of Microsoft's software development teams. I tend to put more stock in the latter...
is transliterated english with Greek characters. Retransliterating it, it reads:
Fucking coward. You got something to say, then say it to my face and be man enough (or woman, although I doubt you have the courage of a woman) to sign it and not to hide behind your cowardice.
Until then, fuck off coward.
Kean -- don't fret too much over the position of the /.'ers. We're a rabid bunch, quick to anger, and ready to vent when any topic infringes upon our utopian ideals of "free as in beer" and fairness in all actions. Of course, you know well enough that TANSTAAFL and life ain't fair.
;-) But until then, just thicken up your skin (I imagine you already have) and thanks for continuing to contribute. BTW, don't abandon /. entirely after today -- I'm sure there's much you can gain from us and us from you. Just start ignoring your regular mail from now on.... ;)
What people don't understand about what they're saying here is that whatever the turnout of the SCO vs. IBM lawsuit and RedHat and IBM's countersuits, there will still be a SCO OpenServer and UnixWare OS out there, and whether or not the parent company is still encumbered by the lawyers or not, the OS is still going to have some amount of users out there that will want your contributions. People here seem to not be able to differentiate between "The SCO Group" and "SCO UnixWare/OpenServer". That's not to say that the actions of your executives haven't warranted the mass exodus of techies with respect to all things SCO, because they have, and unfortunately, you and the rest of the SCO users and developers are the real losers in this battle (not calling you a loser, just saying you have the most to lose).
Now if you get people wanting to debate the merits of the OpenServer and UnixWare OS's vs. Linux, then you're on your own.
What are your views on the RIAA's recent actions to protect their copyrights?
Sure, with a decent photo printer and an excellent image of the dollar bill in question, perfect image copies can be produced, but the missing link is the paper on which it is printed. That certain type of paper that American money is printed on is nearly impossible to duplicate from a material sense and is heavily guarded from creation to printing. Also, the advent of watermarks, different kinds of ink, and the upcoming different colors on larger denomination bills make it even harder to reproduce.
Of course when the thought police comes looking for me and tracks me down to the bottom of container #4 at the city's waste processing plant, I'll have the last laugh....
The insider trades listing at Yahoo is missing all of this year's stock grants to all the execs at SCO. Does anyone have the list from some other place? IIRC, the entire executive board bought hundreds of thousands of SCOX stock at something like $0.001, and now that data is missing....
The problem is that people like SCO, McBride, and the Canopy group are hydras. You cut one head off and two more appear. If they throw all these guys in jail for securities fraud, it still doesn't prevent the next group of litigious bastards from abusing the same system to pump-n-dump again.
The Germans really have it right in this respect. Put up or shut up.
If this judgement is to hold up in court, then Smith & Wesson need to be held accountable for publishing their
owner's manual to the S&W 22A pistol online. Otherwise, this is hypocritical.
Showing people how to do something does not equate to them actually doing it. Yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater does not equate to telling others what would happen if you did such a thing. There's a difference between intent and deed, and it's being trampled on here.
And so the Matrix is born.
OK, then riddle me this. Perhaps RHAT will not be stupid enough to exhaust their cash assets on litigation, but SCOX sure as hell will because they know that they can call on their buddies for more. If not for the possibly libelous smear campaign to drive up the stock price and the purchases of licenses by MSFT and what is probably SUNW, where else do you think the money is coming from?
Earnings other than licensing were reported earlier this year as $168K, not million, THOUSAND. That's barely enough to pay one halfway decent lawyer for a year, and they've got a whole team of them, not counting the entire executive board with McBride and his cohorts being lawyers themselves.
It's becoming plain to see that they're acting as a shell company who take in money from others to do their bidding while not taking the heat themselves. All the while, SCOX stock rises and the pawns running the company don their Cheshire Cat grins all the way to the bank as they cash out on what is a hugely successful endeavor for them.
RHAT may not use all their money, sure, but I would not put it past SCOX at all to do this, and to continue to do this due to timely "investments" in their licensing structure. MSFT has already done this twice -- not exactly playing the independent route here.