Yes, but it has to be told to do so, and told where to do so. The lock-out means the pilots can't do that. The jamming means ground control can't do that. And if you think having the plane decide when and where to land on it's own you obviously haven't thought about the likely consequences of a jumbo jet plowing head-long through heavy air traffic and onto an occupied runway. Machines, remember, are dumb: they do exactly what they're told to do, regardless of whether or not it's a good idea.
A lot. The copyrights to much of the critical software on Novell's Linux distribution are held by the FSF, and we can expect all of that software to migrate to GPLv3 as soon as it's finalized. Such critical software as bash and gcc will suddenly have all future versions released under "GPLv3 or later" terms. I expect a fair amount of non-FSF software to follow suit, such as Samba. At that point Novell has a problem: they can't bring the new versions into their distribution without being caught squarely between the GPLv3's terms and their deal with MS, but keeping the last GPLv2 versions up-to-date without being able to use any of the community's code is going to be a logistical and financial nightmare.
The "or later" language means just what it says: if you receive software under GPLv2 with the "or later" language, you can redistribute it under the terms of the GPLv2 or any later version of the GPL. Yes, that means you're relicensing it if you redistribute it under GPLv3. The "or later" language is the copyright holder explicitly giving you permission to change the license in that particular way. And once you have, anyone receiving the software from you can only redistribute it under GPLv3 or later (although if you didn't modify the software in any way before redistributing the recipient could simply get a GPLv2 version and go from there, so in practice unmodified software can be reverted back to any version of the GPL under which it's still available from someone).
Activate high-power jammer to prevent remote control of the aircraft. You're a lot closer to the receiver than any ground-based transmitters are, so the jammer's got a lot less work to do to drown out their signals.
Wait for aircraft to run out of fuel.
Buddies enjoy watching the world watch on in horror as hundreds of people wait for hours for certain death and nobody can do a single thing to prevent it.
Buddies go on the air thanking the nice folks at Boeing and in the US Government for making this all possible.
GPLv3 can't address patent-holders who don't use or distribute Linux enforcing any patents that might be infringed by Linux, but that's IMO right and proper. Any such patent-covered code would've been in Linux by mistake, and should and will be removed. GPLv3 does address two classes of patent issues, though:
Patent-holders like TiVO who benefit from using GPL'd software as the basis for their products. If they want to continue to use the GPL'd code in their product, they have to allow anybody else to use their patents in the code (including to make a competing product). If they want to enforce their patents and block anyone else from using them, they have to give up the GPL'd code and write their own.
Deals like the Microsoft-Novell one. The GPLv3 proposed language puts Novell in a bind. If they want to distribute GPLv3'd software containing patents for which they have a license, they have to sub-license all direct and indirect recipients for those patents. If they can't sub-license, they can lose the right to distribute the GPLv3'd code entirely. GPLv3 can't do anything to the Microsoft half of such a deal, but it can and does force the Novell half to either negotiate terms compatible with the GPLv3 or find themselves unable to comply with one set of terms without breaking the other set. This isn't perfect, but it's the best that can be done.
I connect to Windows Update. They get some identifiable information.
Windows Update sends me a list of what's available.
I select what I want to install.
Windows sends Windows Update a list of what I want to install.
Windows Update sends me what I've asked for.
Note that nowhere in there should my computer be sending Windows Update anything about what I haven't asked for. It doesn't need to know that to send me what I did ask for, it's got no business sending that information without telling me it is or giving me the opportunity to say "No.". If Microsoft chooses to collect information it doesn't need, that's it's prerogative but that doesn't give it a "get out of jail free" card to avoid the consequences of that choice.
I'd argue you're incorrect. As far as IP address goes, my ISP assigns them long-term enough to consider them permanent (typical is 2-3 years between changes) and ties that address directly to my billing information. It's personal information in the same sense my bank account and credit-card account numbers are: they don't in themselves reveal my identity but they're tied uniquely and directly to it and can be used to get it without my knowledge and consent. The computer information is the same: part of what's sent is the GUID assigned to the computer, which is intended to be unique to that computer and which is tied directly to information like my name embedded in word-processing documents and other information available to the same entity receiving the computer information. This is sufficient to let them tie that WGA data directly to my personal identity. At the very least it allows them to identify everything else they have that belongs to me, even if they don't know my name (yet). That's personal enough in my book.
Yes, but what happens when you have an internal architecture change within the major release that makes the previous interface go away? This is what happened with several major component re-works in the 2.6 series. Versioning of the ABI doesn't help you there, because retaining the old ABI would make it impossible to implement the new features. Remember that at the kernel level the interface the drivers use isn't just a set of function calls, it's things like how the data structures the kernel uses to manage memory are laid out. Change those structures, you break the driver interface. Yet to improve memory management you have to change how those structures are laid out.
Unfortunately there's very little Linux can do about game developers not releasing Linux versions. And I'd note that Microsoft themselves make it as hard as possible for game developers to support anything non-Windows. For example, there's an open standard for 3D graphics: OpenGL. iD Software has used it extensively for their games. But Microsoft has tended to ignore OpenGL in favor of their own Windows-only APIs, Direct3D and the other DirectX family. Using OpenGL involved third-party library support, and if the game developers had problems the only response from Microsoft would be "It must be a problem in your OpenGL libraries, can you replicate it in Direct3D? No? Sorry, we won't help.". Vista takes this even further: OpenGL isn't just ignored, it's actively hindered and interfered with by Vista. That leaves game publishers with a choice: release only for Windows, or maintain 2 complete code-bases since the DirectX APIs are so drastically different from OpenGL (OpenGL is relatively hardware-independent while DirectX is basically a direct mapping of hardware interfaces and a set of functions to let you figure out which set of interfaces you've got at the moment).
For #3, I'd refer you to Linus' position on the stability of the internal kernel ABIs. I happen to think he makes a very good point: while stable defined ABIs are good for public interfaces, they're bad internally. A fixed, unchangeable internal ABI means that if you've figured out a rework of the device-driver architecture that'll double performance across the board, you can't implement it because it'd break the ABI. Even though the change would be invisible to applications and require not even a recompile of any application code. This would be a very bad thing for Linux, since it'd foreclose things like the memory-management and scheduler changes that made such massive improvements in the 2.6 kernel series.
One has to wonder. Surely this same kind of spill could happen with any semi-liquid item, eg. ketchup or mustard, with equal consequences for the equipment and people. There's plenty of chemicals that can spill and present as much of a vapor/inhalation hazard as wasabi if not more. And it's not like NASA doesn't know things like this can happen, we've got 40+ years of experience with zero-gee and more than that of sci-fi stories featuring comedy based around stuff in zero-gee floating where it's not supposed to be. Shouldn't this have been a total non-event, something long planned and prepared for?
Compatibility. DoT has thousands of people using the old versions of Office, and for them handling the new file formats is going to be a major headache. DoT does not want to deal with that time- and money-sink. So given the choice between massive headaches for thousands of people or declining to update a few dozen, which is the easier option to take?
Look at the comparable technology and if its not priced below it then perhaps they are being unreasonable.
Except that this doesn't involve technology. The EU is making a statement about the specifications, not the implementation. The specification for the TCP protocol isn't a TCP protocol stack, it's only MS that wants to call it one.
That's Microsoft's problem, confusing the interface specification with the source code implementing the interface. The EU is commenting on the interface, not the implementation. When they say the interface specification contains no protectable innovation, that doesn't mean that Microsoft's particular implementation of that specification doesn't contain any innovation but simply that that innovation isn't going to be present in the mere API spec.
I think the court will sidestep the whole "making available" issue by looking deep enough into the cases cited to rule that, while "making available" may be infringement, it may also not be and the result depends on the facts of the particular case. Since it's a fact-based decision, the court can't decide it at this point and thus must refuse the request for summary judgment. That lets the court dispose of the motion without actually ruling in either direction.
If you want to get a ruling that "making available" isn't infringement, you're going to need a squeaky-clean defendant. It's going to seem to the court like letting the defendant get away on a technicality with something that seems like it shouldn't be allowed. The only way that's going to fly is if the defendant can prove they never downloaded anything they weren't authorized to and either that they never made anything available to others they weren't authorized to or that they had a reasonable belief that they weren't making anything available at all. And the only way you're going to get that kind of defendant into a position to request summary judgment on this point is if the *AA screw up by the numbers (which, sadly, is actually pretty likely given their track record).
When I type in their mis-spelled domain name into IE6's address bar, I don't get the advertising page they say I should. All I get is the page from IE saying the hostname couldn't be resolved.
I think the article is conflating two things: manipulation of the DNS network to return actual A records for domains that don't exist vs. IE redirecting any request that yields a DNS error to a pre-configured page. The first breaks all uses of names, the second only breaks IE. The first is a fatal problem because it affects software that doesn't have a human being to interpret the data, may not be able to handle contact with arbitrary hosts and may easily depend on getting accurate "record does not exist" answers from DNS. The second is merely a major annoyance because there's usually a human being sitting there to see the page, get annoyed and fix the configuration so that doesn't happen again.
Having looked at a lot of resumes for candidates at the place where I work, I'd had to say the answer is yes and no. Yes, when I see an applicant who's gone through 8 jobs in the last 3 years, I do tend to wonder why and ask questions at the interview intended to see if it's because of the applicant. On the other hand, someone starting out does tend to change jobs as they acquire experience and skills, so if the applicant's just starting their career I'm not so concerned. And you seem to have the perfect reason: your job changes offered work you liked and large pay increases. Looking at that salary history I'd have to conclude the applicant was perfectly justified in changing jobs like that. The only thing I might worry about is whether my company was making the same mistake all those other employers had made, failing to keep salary matched to the market.
I think the "start to worry" flag about job-hopping is when the new jobs tend not to be obvious large improvements over the previous ones.
Is it really so hard to put a password on a credit card? That's all I ask for: one little password.
You mean like the CCV that's on every current credit card (or at least all Visa, Mastercard, Discover and American Express cards I've seen)? The one that merchants are supposed to ask for and use to validate the transaction but never ever store on their systems?
Short form from the follow-up: the officer and his lawyer had a private conference with the judge, the officer requested a private meeting with the couple which they declined, the officer then withdrew the request for a warrant.
My guess is that the judge advised him he wasn't going to win, and that given he was a cop and what they were doing was informing his employer when he broke the law that even making the attempt would be a Bad Thing for him.
"There is no 'I' in team. There is, however, an 'I' in life."
"I don't want the workaholic drone who spends all his time doing things over and over and over. I want the lazy <elided> who'll figure out how to not need to do it again."
I think the basic problem is the phrase "work/life blend". I'm sorry, work is work, life is life. The two are mutually exclusive. Work pays me for a normal workday 5 days a week, and reasonable emergencies and after-hours work considering I'm salaried. I don't see employers offering unlimited paid time off so people can meet the demands of life, I fail to see why they should expect me to take unlimited uncompensated time away from my life to meet the demands of work. That, after all, is what most of the people using the "work/life blend" phrase mean: how does the employee juggle his schedule to accommodate what the employer wants. I have a simple answer: I juggle it based on how much my employer's willing to pay for my time.
And that's not an empty position. I've left two employers in my life over this. Oddly, in both cases I ended up getting more money and significantly reducing my workload as a result. I'm not afraid of doing the same again. Fortunately at my current job that's not something I'm having to deal with.
Yes, that's probably a mistake. But the mistake is the merchant's responsibility. It's good manners for me to call it to their attention, but I'm not legally required to do so. When they charged my card $0 plus shipping (the point where I tendered payment) and I received the item (the point by which they patently had to have accepted my offer of payment), they formed a contract and agreed to the terms including the price. If they decide they made a mistake after they'd made the initial charge and I'd received the goods, their only (legal) recourse would have been to contact me and request additional payment, and sue me if I refused and argue to a judge why they should be allowed to change the terms of the sale (that they'd set) and take money from my account without authorization. And frankly the only argument I can think of that wouldn't get them saddled with paying my legal costs would be that I actively did something to change the price their system showed me.
I think you're overlooking the last bit where the judge said that if it was anyone's responsibility to protect her, it was her parents'. I think that's where his ruling originated from. They're not just asking that MySpace be burdened with a responsibility that'd put them out of business, they're asking that MySpace be forced to take on that responsibility so that they won't have to take on any responsibility of their own. No, under those circumstances MySpace shouldn't be burdened with that responsibility, and the judge said as much.
The problem is that I agreed to the price shown as the total for the order. Whatever the advertised prices for the items were is irrelevant, the total I authorized the merchant to charge to my card is the total he gave me for the order. If he bills anything other than what I authorized, he's breaking his merchant agreement with the credit-card company. And he may be breaking the law as well. In most place it's considered the merchant's responsibility to ring up the correct price, not the consumer's. The consumer had better have a printed copy of the receipt or order confirmation showing the price and a record showing they paid that amount, but if they do the merchant may not be able to legally charge more because of the merchant's error.
Consider who's trying to find her
on
SCO Vs. Groklaw
·
· Score: 1
When SCO says they can't find her to serve the subpoena, think about who's trying to serve it. These are the people who couldn't manage to find a valid mailing address for DaimlerChrysler. If Maureen O'Gara can pretty much find PJ, that SCO can't says more about SCO than anything else.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but it has to be told to do so, and told where to do so. The lock-out means the pilots can't do that. The jamming means ground control can't do that. And if you think having the plane decide when and where to land on it's own you obviously haven't thought about the likely consequences of a jumbo jet plowing head-long through heavy air traffic and onto an occupied runway. Machines, remember, are dumb: they do exactly what they're told to do, regardless of whether or not it's a good idea.
A lot. The copyrights to much of the critical software on Novell's Linux distribution are held by the FSF, and we can expect all of that software to migrate to GPLv3 as soon as it's finalized. Such critical software as bash and gcc will suddenly have all future versions released under "GPLv3 or later" terms. I expect a fair amount of non-FSF software to follow suit, such as Samba. At that point Novell has a problem: they can't bring the new versions into their distribution without being caught squarely between the GPLv3's terms and their deal with MS, but keeping the last GPLv2 versions up-to-date without being able to use any of the community's code is going to be a logistical and financial nightmare.
The "or later" language means just what it says: if you receive software under GPLv2 with the "or later" language, you can redistribute it under the terms of the GPLv2 or any later version of the GPL. Yes, that means you're relicensing it if you redistribute it under GPLv3. The "or later" language is the copyright holder explicitly giving you permission to change the license in that particular way. And once you have, anyone receiving the software from you can only redistribute it under GPLv3 or later (although if you didn't modify the software in any way before redistributing the recipient could simply get a GPLv2 version and go from there, so in practice unmodified software can be reverted back to any version of the GPL under which it's still available from someone).
GPLv3 can't address patent-holders who don't use or distribute Linux enforcing any patents that might be infringed by Linux, but that's IMO right and proper. Any such patent-covered code would've been in Linux by mistake, and should and will be removed. GPLv3 does address two classes of patent issues, though:
Only if I want it to. If I don't, I've several ways of insuring that, while the receiving end gets an IP address, it's not my IP address. :)
Not quite. The Windows Update protocol should be:
- I connect to Windows Update. They get some identifiable information.
- Windows Update sends me a list of what's available.
- I select what I want to install.
- Windows sends Windows Update a list of what I want to install.
- Windows Update sends me what I've asked for.
Note that nowhere in there should my computer be sending Windows Update anything about what I haven't asked for. It doesn't need to know that to send me what I did ask for, it's got no business sending that information without telling me it is or giving me the opportunity to say "No.". If Microsoft chooses to collect information it doesn't need, that's it's prerogative but that doesn't give it a "get out of jail free" card to avoid the consequences of that choice.I'd argue you're incorrect. As far as IP address goes, my ISP assigns them long-term enough to consider them permanent (typical is 2-3 years between changes) and ties that address directly to my billing information. It's personal information in the same sense my bank account and credit-card account numbers are: they don't in themselves reveal my identity but they're tied uniquely and directly to it and can be used to get it without my knowledge and consent. The computer information is the same: part of what's sent is the GUID assigned to the computer, which is intended to be unique to that computer and which is tied directly to information like my name embedded in word-processing documents and other information available to the same entity receiving the computer information. This is sufficient to let them tie that WGA data directly to my personal identity. At the very least it allows them to identify everything else they have that belongs to me, even if they don't know my name (yet). That's personal enough in my book.
Yes, but what happens when you have an internal architecture change within the major release that makes the previous interface go away? This is what happened with several major component re-works in the 2.6 series. Versioning of the ABI doesn't help you there, because retaining the old ABI would make it impossible to implement the new features. Remember that at the kernel level the interface the drivers use isn't just a set of function calls, it's things like how the data structures the kernel uses to manage memory are laid out. Change those structures, you break the driver interface. Yet to improve memory management you have to change how those structures are laid out.
Unfortunately there's very little Linux can do about game developers not releasing Linux versions. And I'd note that Microsoft themselves make it as hard as possible for game developers to support anything non-Windows. For example, there's an open standard for 3D graphics: OpenGL. iD Software has used it extensively for their games. But Microsoft has tended to ignore OpenGL in favor of their own Windows-only APIs, Direct3D and the other DirectX family. Using OpenGL involved third-party library support, and if the game developers had problems the only response from Microsoft would be "It must be a problem in your OpenGL libraries, can you replicate it in Direct3D? No? Sorry, we won't help.". Vista takes this even further: OpenGL isn't just ignored, it's actively hindered and interfered with by Vista. That leaves game publishers with a choice: release only for Windows, or maintain 2 complete code-bases since the DirectX APIs are so drastically different from OpenGL (OpenGL is relatively hardware-independent while DirectX is basically a direct mapping of hardware interfaces and a set of functions to let you figure out which set of interfaces you've got at the moment).
For #3, I'd refer you to Linus' position on the stability of the internal kernel ABIs. I happen to think he makes a very good point: while stable defined ABIs are good for public interfaces, they're bad internally. A fixed, unchangeable internal ABI means that if you've figured out a rework of the device-driver architecture that'll double performance across the board, you can't implement it because it'd break the ABI. Even though the change would be invisible to applications and require not even a recompile of any application code. This would be a very bad thing for Linux, since it'd foreclose things like the memory-management and scheduler changes that made such massive improvements in the 2.6 kernel series.
One has to wonder. Surely this same kind of spill could happen with any semi-liquid item, eg. ketchup or mustard, with equal consequences for the equipment and people. There's plenty of chemicals that can spill and present as much of a vapor/inhalation hazard as wasabi if not more. And it's not like NASA doesn't know things like this can happen, we've got 40+ years of experience with zero-gee and more than that of sci-fi stories featuring comedy based around stuff in zero-gee floating where it's not supposed to be. Shouldn't this have been a total non-event, something long planned and prepared for?
Compatibility. DoT has thousands of people using the old versions of Office, and for them handling the new file formats is going to be a major headache. DoT does not want to deal with that time- and money-sink. So given the choice between massive headaches for thousands of people or declining to update a few dozen, which is the easier option to take?
Look at the comparable technology and if its not priced below it then perhaps they are being unreasonable.
Except that this doesn't involve technology. The EU is making a statement about the specifications, not the implementation. The specification for the TCP protocol isn't a TCP protocol stack, it's only MS that wants to call it one.
That's Microsoft's problem, confusing the interface specification with the source code implementing the interface. The EU is commenting on the interface, not the implementation. When they say the interface specification contains no protectable innovation, that doesn't mean that Microsoft's particular implementation of that specification doesn't contain any innovation but simply that that innovation isn't going to be present in the mere API spec.
I think the court will sidestep the whole "making available" issue by looking deep enough into the cases cited to rule that, while "making available" may be infringement, it may also not be and the result depends on the facts of the particular case. Since it's a fact-based decision, the court can't decide it at this point and thus must refuse the request for summary judgment. That lets the court dispose of the motion without actually ruling in either direction.
If you want to get a ruling that "making available" isn't infringement, you're going to need a squeaky-clean defendant. It's going to seem to the court like letting the defendant get away on a technicality with something that seems like it shouldn't be allowed. The only way that's going to fly is if the defendant can prove they never downloaded anything they weren't authorized to and either that they never made anything available to others they weren't authorized to or that they had a reasonable belief that they weren't making anything available at all. And the only way you're going to get that kind of defendant into a position to request summary judgment on this point is if the *AA screw up by the numbers (which, sadly, is actually pretty likely given their track record).
When I type in their mis-spelled domain name into IE6's address bar, I don't get the advertising page they say I should. All I get is the page from IE saying the hostname couldn't be resolved.
I think the article is conflating two things: manipulation of the DNS network to return actual A records for domains that don't exist vs. IE redirecting any request that yields a DNS error to a pre-configured page. The first breaks all uses of names, the second only breaks IE. The first is a fatal problem because it affects software that doesn't have a human being to interpret the data, may not be able to handle contact with arbitrary hosts and may easily depend on getting accurate "record does not exist" answers from DNS. The second is merely a major annoyance because there's usually a human being sitting there to see the page, get annoyed and fix the configuration so that doesn't happen again.
Having looked at a lot of resumes for candidates at the place where I work, I'd had to say the answer is yes and no. Yes, when I see an applicant who's gone through 8 jobs in the last 3 years, I do tend to wonder why and ask questions at the interview intended to see if it's because of the applicant. On the other hand, someone starting out does tend to change jobs as they acquire experience and skills, so if the applicant's just starting their career I'm not so concerned. And you seem to have the perfect reason: your job changes offered work you liked and large pay increases. Looking at that salary history I'd have to conclude the applicant was perfectly justified in changing jobs like that. The only thing I might worry about is whether my company was making the same mistake all those other employers had made, failing to keep salary matched to the market.
I think the "start to worry" flag about job-hopping is when the new jobs tend not to be obvious large improvements over the previous ones.
Is it really so hard to put a password on a credit card? That's all I ask for: one little password.
You mean like the CCV that's on every current credit card (or at least all Visa, Mastercard, Discover and American Express cards I've seen)? The one that merchants are supposed to ask for and use to validate the transaction but never ever store on their systems?
Short form from the follow-up: the officer and his lawyer had a private conference with the judge, the officer requested a private meeting with the couple which they declined, the officer then withdrew the request for a warrant.
My guess is that the judge advised him he wasn't going to win, and that given he was a cop and what they were doing was informing his employer when he broke the law that even making the attempt would be a Bad Thing for him.
Two come-backs:
I think the basic problem is the phrase "work/life blend". I'm sorry, work is work, life is life. The two are mutually exclusive. Work pays me for a normal workday 5 days a week, and reasonable emergencies and after-hours work considering I'm salaried. I don't see employers offering unlimited paid time off so people can meet the demands of life, I fail to see why they should expect me to take unlimited uncompensated time away from my life to meet the demands of work. That, after all, is what most of the people using the "work/life blend" phrase mean: how does the employee juggle his schedule to accommodate what the employer wants. I have a simple answer: I juggle it based on how much my employer's willing to pay for my time.
And that's not an empty position. I've left two employers in my life over this. Oddly, in both cases I ended up getting more money and significantly reducing my workload as a result. I'm not afraid of doing the same again. Fortunately at my current job that's not something I'm having to deal with.
Yes, that's probably a mistake. But the mistake is the merchant's responsibility. It's good manners for me to call it to their attention, but I'm not legally required to do so. When they charged my card $0 plus shipping (the point where I tendered payment) and I received the item (the point by which they patently had to have accepted my offer of payment), they formed a contract and agreed to the terms including the price. If they decide they made a mistake after they'd made the initial charge and I'd received the goods, their only (legal) recourse would have been to contact me and request additional payment, and sue me if I refused and argue to a judge why they should be allowed to change the terms of the sale (that they'd set) and take money from my account without authorization. And frankly the only argument I can think of that wouldn't get them saddled with paying my legal costs would be that I actively did something to change the price their system showed me.
I think you're overlooking the last bit where the judge said that if it was anyone's responsibility to protect her, it was her parents'. I think that's where his ruling originated from. They're not just asking that MySpace be burdened with a responsibility that'd put them out of business, they're asking that MySpace be forced to take on that responsibility so that they won't have to take on any responsibility of their own. No, under those circumstances MySpace shouldn't be burdened with that responsibility, and the judge said as much.
Because it should go:
- Mistakenly get billed $X.
- Get another bill for $Y-$X.
The problem is that I agreed to the price shown as the total for the order. Whatever the advertised prices for the items were is irrelevant, the total I authorized the merchant to charge to my card is the total he gave me for the order. If he bills anything other than what I authorized, he's breaking his merchant agreement with the credit-card company. And he may be breaking the law as well. In most place it's considered the merchant's responsibility to ring up the correct price, not the consumer's. The consumer had better have a printed copy of the receipt or order confirmation showing the price and a record showing they paid that amount, but if they do the merchant may not be able to legally charge more because of the merchant's error.When SCO says they can't find her to serve the subpoena, think about who's trying to serve it. These are the people who couldn't manage to find a valid mailing address for DaimlerChrysler. If Maureen O'Gara can pretty much find PJ, that SCO can't says more about SCO than anything else.