It's actually very bad for SCO if the IBM lawsuit is delayed, which could happen as soon as the January 23rd hearing. It could play out with SCO asking for a continuance if IBM says SCO's response to discovery was inadequate. Or IBM may move for a continuance by citing Novell's correspondence with SCO and the desire to avoid giving SCO all its code so it can go fishing.
In any case, SCO will be taking a giant step backward if the IBM trial is delayed. It will become harder to convince investors that they'll eventually win. They've shouted non-stop for a year about owning UNIX rights and now they have to prove that they do in court. Even before they get to proving that IBM violated those rights. They now need two court victories before they see any money. The only way it will be a benefit is if SCO can get an injunction against Novell, which is highly unlikely.
Also SCO just amended it's SEC filings last week to include the risk factors related to Novell contesting it's ownership rights to UNIX. Clearly, SCO knew about Novell's position for a very long time as shown in the correspondence and failed to mention it to investors until now. This will have a significant impact on investor confidence, which will further hurt the stock price.
When a company that is built on falsehoods and lies collapses it is generally swift and brutal (e.g., Enron, MCI Worldcom, Parmalat, etc.). The first signs of cracks in the facade are quickly followed by more and more revelations until the whole thing crumbles. I would not be at all surprised if SCO collapses rapidly after the hearing on January 23rd. With the requisite recriminations, lawsuits and trials to follow.
I don't think it's an accident that Novell released all it's correspondence with SCO this week. Novell is giving IBM a lot of ammunition in it's legal battle with SCO. In those correspondence, Novell is clearly trying to exercise its rights under its agreement with SCO and consistently sites the relevant passages in those agreements to back up its requests. SCO just dismisses every Novell request out of hand without reference to anything.
Of particular interest is Novell's assertion that derivative works belong to IBM, SGI, etc. This claim of ownership of derivative works is SCO's core argument. Without ownership of derivative works, SCO only has rights to actual code and not the methods, processes, etc.
I suspect Novell is hoping that IBM may be able to short circuit the entire process. If IBM can show that SCO is violating the agreement with Novell and that SCO's ownership is in dispute, SCO may not even have standing with the court to bring the lawsuit. In other words, SCO's suit could be dismissed until it has established clear ownership of the copyrights it claims IBM is violating.
SCO would then have to file a lawsuit against Novell. In the interim, SCO's stock price would freefall to nothing and it would not have the money to continue its fight. Novell could probably reclaim all the UNIX rights it supposedly sold if SCO is forced out of business.
Taken in isolation, your argument that outsourcing will ultimately lead to more job creation through increased entrepreneurship makes sense. However, this is not an isolated event. It is part of a series of steps and policy choices by the Bush administration. The overall picture includes:
1. Record deficits, which will increase borrowing costs for Americans.
2. Tax breaks that favor the rich, who will not spend that money but instead invest it.
3. Efforts to legalize illegal immigrants, which will force minimally skilled wages down.
4. Outsourcing of technology jobs overseas, forcing wages for skilled workers down.
5. Continued high levels of H1B and L1 visas allowing overseas technology workers to come to the US even though there are unemployed US technology workers.
6. Tax breaks for companies that outsource jobs, which has been found illegal by the WTO.
7. New medicare entitlements that are likely to cause massive increases in government spending in the future.
8. Continued underfunding of social security even though baby boomers are fast approaching retirement age.
So you have to ask yourself was is the most likely outcome of these factors when taken together. The unfortunate answer is a significant lowering of the standard of living of most Americans as wages are permanently forced down. The news is not bad for the rich though. The American stock markets will be based upon globalized corporations meaning that the rich will continue to get excellent returns even as average Americans get hosed. There will, of course, have to be massive tax increases in the next decade but the rich will not have to bear their fair share if the Republicans are still in power.
I think the whole terrorism use is just a strawman. I can't see it actually being used as a viable way to stop a hijacking in progress as there will have to be an override switch. However, that doesn't prevent it from being lauded as a deterrent to would-be terrorists. The idea is to create enough perceived obstacles so as to make anyone planning a hijacking think that it will be unlikely to succeed.
The real purpose of the system is to prevent crashes into mountains, which are referred to by the euphemism "controlled flight into terrain". Basically, the pilot doesn't realize that a mountain or hill is in the flight path and just slams the plane right into it. This system will go a long way to preventing that type of accident, which is actually one of the more common.
The wrongful termination claim could be made on the basis of "Defamation of Character". Which is basically that your employer intentionally defamed you to justify terminating you. They accused you of being a security risk. Now it will be tricky because they have a third party's report naming you a security risk. However, it should be possible to use that report against them by forcing disclosure of all communications and the financial relationship between the third party and your former employer.
Also look at forcing disclosure from the third party of its practices on the basis of tortious interference, which is basically illegally interfering in your relationship with your employer. Basically, do they normally name people as security risks and how often do they get business as a result of getting people fired. IANAL but I play one the Internet.
Generally former government officials are hired for the easy access they have to government officials. They have lots of connections and are able to effective lobby in the area where they formerly worked.
I'm not the tinfoil hat type but this hiring raises some serious questions about the RIAA's strategy. If they had hired from the Justice Department, it would be a continuation of their current strategy of suing people.
But hiring from an agency involved in policing and undercover operations may signal a significant strategy change. Perhaps they will be lobbying for the government to take policing actions. That is, the kick down the "criminal's" door and seize their computer type. Alright that last sentence was a little tinfoil hat like. But my point is that the RIAA may be looking for the government to undertake the task of tracking down file sharers and filing criminal cases instead of civil ones.
I'm not convinced that Darl et al are capable of such well coordinated machinations. If anything, the statements that SCO has made publicly have already hurt them in court. They were used effectively by IBM to show that SCO was being deceitful in saying they couldn't comply with discovery. Their public statements clearly contradicted their court filings. Further, IBM has opened the door to having all of SCOs public statements brought into court by filing a counter claim stating that SCO is interfering with its business by its public statements. Even if SCOs lawsuit is dismissed, IBMs case will continue and Darl's wild statements will be fully vetted by the court.
IBM already started to Rochambeau SCO for it. Today we are beginning to see the results of IBM's square kick in SCO's nuts. SCO is lying on the ground cupping their balls. Yelling about how next time they're gonna get them with a Copyright violation. With any luck, SCO's balls will shrivel up and fall off from the trauma.
It similar to the strategy that insurance companies and HMOs take, which is to just deny a portion of the claims. Even if the claims are valid and all the documentation is provided, they will deny some. Because they know that a certain percentage of people won't bother following up to insure that they get reimbursed.
The biggest mistake my insurance company made was to give me online access to my account. Now I don't have to spend an hour on the phone disputing some claim, only to have to call back again and again because it still isn't paid. I can now just relentlessly resubmit it online until it is actually paid, which has proven to be a very effective strategy.
During a business trip to Malaysia, I was unfortunate enough to see the dark underbelly of the sex trade. It was just one block off of Jalan Sultan Ismail, which is one of the main roads in the city with big malls and many 5-star hotels. One of my business associates wanted to eat a duran, which is a horrendous smelling tropical fruit. He saw a fruit stand selling duran on a side street while we were walking down Jalan Sultan Ismail. I wasn't going to eat anything served by a street vendor as a number of them hold the belief that cooking dirty underwear in the food attracts customers (which is another whole disgusting problem and why you need hepatitus vaccinations before visiting). But this guy insisted.
So as soon as we get to the fruit stand we see this girl in underwear climb out the third floor window of a hotel--one that advertised massages. She climbs outside the windows all the way across the front of the hotel. She then tries to climb down the sign advertising massages as one of her pimps and the rest of the sex slaves look out the windows. The crowd including myself was yelling at her in a cacophony of different languages not to do it. She then loses her grip and falls three stories most likely to her death. Some locals then put her mangled bloodied body in a cab. I impulsively had to look away as they carried her lifeless body past me. It was a truly horrible thing to witness.
Based on what I've seen, I have to say the police have their priorities correct. The problem of some pirated software pales in comparison. Priated software which no one would have the money to pay retail price for anyway.
2000$ isn't awfully much for five day a course that gets you certified in something
Most of the 5-day training courses are priced for companies who want training for their employees. They are generally way too expensive for individuals to pay for out of pocket.
If you want to get a Linux certification and not spend a lot of money (and you basically already have Linux skills and can do some self study), then the Linux Professional Institute Certification is a better way to go. To reach Intermediate Level you have to take 4 tests, which cost $100 each for an affordable $400 total cost.
I am not sure there really is an answer as to how to protect information 100% without it both hurting the consumer and being crackable by a cracker.
The problem is that those who are promoting DRM see the issue in black and white. They want the absolute strongest protection technology and the absolute harshest punishment for violators. There is no way to achieve absolute protection with current technology and continuing to push for it only makes consumers less like to adopt DRM products because of the significant hassle.
A more reasonable approach to DRM would be to aim for relatively strong protection but one that does not create a hassle for the consumer. It should also be bundle with a service that actually creates a benefit for using the DRM product. If the consumer gains by using the DRM product, they'll be inclined to use it. Admittedly there will still be those that will crack the DRM technology but that cannot be eliminated anyway. So why aim for 100% when 80% will lead to wider and faster adoption of the DRM technology?
Re:What are you talking about?
on
Effective XML
·
· Score: 1
XML is just text!
Exactly. It is just a form of text tagging. XML is evolutionary and not revolutionary in terms of technology. First there was SGML (Standard Generalized Markup Language) and then there was HTML.
I remember working with SGML a dozen years ago. It was certainly not easier to use than the old system of formatting manuscripts. In fact it was much more time consuming. But the real benefit was the ability to make an archive of searchable articles with results that could be pulled up and be properly formatted.
I view XML in the same way. It hurts performance but it allows information to be stored in a format that is much more searchable. That will ultimately create value. Just as SGML tagging created value by allowing publishing companies to have archives of articles that now go back a dozen years.
Machiavelli was the Renaissance equivalent of a management consultant. His advice is designed to achieve quick results but is not long-term viable. He takes credit for any improvements. He collects his consulting fees and adds another "success story" to his resume. Then he moves onto the next victim.
You may welcome them. But have you been anointed into your sacred duty as Holy Informer of the Slashdot? Ashcroft was
anointed with oil by Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas after being sworn in as Attorney General.
Perhaps Ashcroft could anoint you with cooking oil or some monitor cleaning fluid. Or at least give you a blast in the forehead with one of those duster cans. Although you might want to close your eyes before being blasted.
"Ahhhh, my eyes! I'm blind," you scream.
"Blinded by the rapture of the Lord. Now speak in tongues lest ye get another blast," says Ashcroft.
It was shut down because John Poindexter was running the project. Eveyone assumed they had run that ass clown out of town long ago. They were absolutely shocked that he had weaseled his way back into government and that he was once again associated with something that sounded untoward. No one was going to sit down and analyze the merits of the system itself. Johnnyboy has the permanent stench of scandal and everyone knew it. The administration quickly dumped him and the project as a result.
The market in China is mostly VCDs with pirated DVDs being mostly for tourists and the high-end local consumers. It seems like they are positioning the EVD as a local alternative to DVDs. It'll probably replace VCDs as the local format of choice.
I suspect the EVD might actually be endorsed by the big US media companies. If the country responsible for a lot of piracy uses a peculiar local format, it essentially makes those discs region encoded. Of course the manufacturers in the US and Europe would also have to agree not to support the format for it to be effective at stemming piracy.
While not illegal, the use of stock options for payment of legal fees has come under fire lately because of the inevitable conflicts of interest and their association with recent corporate scandals.
Richard Painter, a Professor at the University of Illinois who was an early proponent of the legal reforms now included in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, wrote to the SEC recently. He stated that they should examine "conflicts created by unorthodox methods of compensating lawyers (particularly receipt of stock in lieu of legal fees and contingent fee arrangements such as the fee of over $30 million reported to have been earned by Time Warner's counsel in that company's merger with AOL)."
Hopefully these types of arrangements will be put to an end soon. While I don't see an end to contingency fees (because that's how many people are able to afford lawyers), I can certainly see practice of using stock options as payment coming to an end.
Agent Gates: I hate this place. This GNU. This open source. This license, whatever you want to call it. I can't stand it any longer. It's the free software, if there is such a thing. I feel saturated by it. I can taste your GPL. And every time I do, I fear that I've somehow been infected by it.
I think the issue isn't that the computer will learn in between matches. I think the issue is that the computer will be reprogrammed in between matches.
One of the main shortcomings of these matches is calling them "man versus machine". Because that's really a misnomer and obscures the actual situation. Which is, that the Kasparov is playing a computer program that is not thinking entirely for itself. A lot of the decisions that the program makes have been pre-programmed by the team of chess experts prior to each match. It's the group of experts that evaluates the opponent and decides the general strategy of each game.
The program isn't altered in the middle of a game. But it also isn't Kasparov versus a completed chess program thinking for itself. I would go so far as to say the reprogramming during a multiple game match and the evaluation of the opponent by the chess experts is cheating. And really relegates these matches to novelties to be gawked at but not to be considered real.
Slashdot Mirror
In any case, SCO will be taking a giant step backward if the IBM trial is delayed. It will become harder to convince investors that they'll eventually win. They've shouted non-stop for a year about owning UNIX rights and now they have to prove that they do in court. Even before they get to proving that IBM violated those rights. They now need two court victories before they see any money. The only way it will be a benefit is if SCO can get an injunction against Novell, which is highly unlikely.
Also SCO just amended it's SEC filings last week to include the risk factors related to Novell contesting it's ownership rights to UNIX. Clearly, SCO knew about Novell's position for a very long time as shown in the correspondence and failed to mention it to investors until now. This will have a significant impact on investor confidence, which will further hurt the stock price.
When a company that is built on falsehoods and lies collapses it is generally swift and brutal (e.g., Enron, MCI Worldcom, Parmalat, etc.). The first signs of cracks in the facade are quickly followed by more and more revelations until the whole thing crumbles. I would not be at all surprised if SCO collapses rapidly after the hearing on January 23rd. With the requisite recriminations, lawsuits and trials to follow.
"Surveys are lies compounded by statistics."
I don't think it's an accident that Novell released all it's correspondence with SCO this week. Novell is giving IBM a lot of ammunition in it's legal battle with SCO. In those correspondence, Novell is clearly trying to exercise its rights under its agreement with SCO and consistently sites the relevant passages in those agreements to back up its requests. SCO just dismisses every Novell request out of hand without reference to anything.
Of particular interest is Novell's assertion that derivative works belong to IBM, SGI, etc. This claim of ownership of derivative works is SCO's core argument. Without ownership of derivative works, SCO only has rights to actual code and not the methods, processes, etc.
I suspect Novell is hoping that IBM may be able to short circuit the entire process. If IBM can show that SCO is violating the agreement with Novell and that SCO's ownership is in dispute, SCO may not even have standing with the court to bring the lawsuit. In other words, SCO's suit could be dismissed until it has established clear ownership of the copyrights it claims IBM is violating.
SCO would then have to file a lawsuit against Novell. In the interim, SCO's stock price would freefall to nothing and it would not have the money to continue its fight. Novell could probably reclaim all the UNIX rights it supposedly sold if SCO is forced out of business.
1. Record deficits, which will increase borrowing costs for Americans.
2. Tax breaks that favor the rich, who will not spend that money but instead invest it.
3. Efforts to legalize illegal immigrants, which will force minimally skilled wages down.
4. Outsourcing of technology jobs overseas, forcing wages for skilled workers down.
5. Continued high levels of H1B and L1 visas allowing overseas technology workers to come to the US even though there are unemployed US technology workers.
6. Tax breaks for companies that outsource jobs, which has been found illegal by the WTO.
7. New medicare entitlements that are likely to cause massive increases in government spending in the future.
8. Continued underfunding of social security even though baby boomers are fast approaching retirement age.
So you have to ask yourself was is the most likely outcome of these factors when taken together. The unfortunate answer is a significant lowering of the standard of living of most Americans as wages are permanently forced down. The news is not bad for the rich though. The American stock markets will be based upon globalized corporations meaning that the rich will continue to get excellent returns even as average Americans get hosed. There will, of course, have to be massive tax increases in the next decade but the rich will not have to bear their fair share if the Republicans are still in power.
The real purpose of the system is to prevent crashes into mountains, which are referred to by the euphemism "controlled flight into terrain". Basically, the pilot doesn't realize that a mountain or hill is in the flight path and just slams the plane right into it. This system will go a long way to preventing that type of accident, which is actually one of the more common.
Also look at forcing disclosure from the third party of its practices on the basis of tortious interference, which is basically illegally interfering in your relationship with your employer. Basically, do they normally name people as security risks and how often do they get business as a result of getting people fired. IANAL but I play one the Internet.
I'm thinking something along the lines of a caffeine-addled coder in the basic mold of that unstable bird selling Coco Puffs.
"Lie lie lie lie liar you lie
lie lie lie lie lie tell me why
tell me why
why d'you have to lie"
I'm not the tinfoil hat type but this hiring raises some serious questions about the RIAA's strategy. If they had hired from the Justice Department, it would be a continuation of their current strategy of suing people.
But hiring from an agency involved in policing and undercover operations may signal a significant strategy change. Perhaps they will be lobbying for the government to take policing actions. That is, the kick down the "criminal's" door and seize their computer type. Alright that last sentence was a little tinfoil hat like. But my point is that the RIAA may be looking for the government to undertake the task of tracking down file sharers and filing criminal cases instead of civil ones.
I doubt there is very much chance of that. Have you ever taken a look at an Open Source developer? Oh, wait you said forking. Oh Oh. Nevermind.
I'm not convinced that Darl et al are capable of such well coordinated machinations. If anything, the statements that SCO has made publicly have already hurt them in court. They were used effectively by IBM to show that SCO was being deceitful in saying they couldn't comply with discovery. Their public statements clearly contradicted their court filings. Further, IBM has opened the door to having all of SCOs public statements brought into court by filing a counter claim stating that SCO is interfering with its business by its public statements. Even if SCOs lawsuit is dismissed, IBMs case will continue and Darl's wild statements will be fully vetted by the court.
IBM already started to Rochambeau SCO for it. Today we are beginning to see the results of IBM's square kick in SCO's nuts. SCO is lying on the ground cupping their balls. Yelling about how next time they're gonna get them with a Copyright violation. With any luck, SCO's balls will shrivel up and fall off from the trauma.
The biggest mistake my insurance company made was to give me online access to my account. Now I don't have to spend an hour on the phone disputing some claim, only to have to call back again and again because it still isn't paid. I can now just relentlessly resubmit it online until it is actually paid, which has proven to be a very effective strategy.
"Jesus saves, but everyone else in a 10 foot radius takes full damage from the fireball." --from some sig, can't remember who's
So as soon as we get to the fruit stand we see this girl in underwear climb out the third floor window of a hotel--one that advertised massages. She climbs outside the windows all the way across the front of the hotel. She then tries to climb down the sign advertising massages as one of her pimps and the rest of the sex slaves look out the windows. The crowd including myself was yelling at her in a cacophony of different languages not to do it. She then loses her grip and falls three stories most likely to her death. Some locals then put her mangled bloodied body in a cab. I impulsively had to look away as they carried her lifeless body past me. It was a truly horrible thing to witness.
Based on what I've seen, I have to say the police have their priorities correct. The problem of some pirated software pales in comparison. Priated software which no one would have the money to pay retail price for anyway.
2000$ isn't awfully much for five day a course that gets you certified in something
Most of the 5-day training courses are priced for companies who want training for their employees. They are generally way too expensive for individuals to pay for out of pocket.
If you want to get a Linux certification and not spend a lot of money (and you basically already have Linux skills and can do some self study), then the Linux Professional Institute Certification is a better way to go. To reach Intermediate Level you have to take 4 tests, which cost $100 each for an affordable $400 total cost.
The problem is that those who are promoting DRM see the issue in black and white. They want the absolute strongest protection technology and the absolute harshest punishment for violators. There is no way to achieve absolute protection with current technology and continuing to push for it only makes consumers less like to adopt DRM products because of the significant hassle.
A more reasonable approach to DRM would be to aim for relatively strong protection but one that does not create a hassle for the consumer. It should also be bundle with a service that actually creates a benefit for using the DRM product. If the consumer gains by using the DRM product, they'll be inclined to use it. Admittedly there will still be those that will crack the DRM technology but that cannot be eliminated anyway. So why aim for 100% when 80% will lead to wider and faster adoption of the DRM technology?
Exactly. It is just a form of text tagging. XML is evolutionary and not revolutionary in terms of technology. First there was SGML (Standard Generalized Markup Language) and then there was HTML.
I remember working with SGML a dozen years ago. It was certainly not easier to use than the old system of formatting manuscripts. In fact it was much more time consuming. But the real benefit was the ability to make an archive of searchable articles with results that could be pulled up and be properly formatted.
I view XML in the same way. It hurts performance but it allows information to be stored in a format that is much more searchable. That will ultimately create value. Just as SGML tagging created value by allowing publishing companies to have archives of articles that now go back a dozen years.
Machiavelli was the Renaissance equivalent of a management consultant. His advice is designed to achieve quick results but is not long-term viable. He takes credit for any improvements. He collects his consulting fees and adds another "success story" to his resume. Then he moves onto the next victim.
Perhaps Ashcroft could anoint you with cooking oil or some monitor cleaning fluid. Or at least give you a blast in the forehead with one of those duster cans. Although you might want to close your eyes before being blasted.
"Ahhhh, my eyes! I'm blind," you scream.
"Blinded by the rapture of the Lord. Now speak in tongues lest ye get another blast," says Ashcroft.
It was shut down because John Poindexter was running the project. Eveyone assumed they had run that ass clown out of town long ago. They were absolutely shocked that he had weaseled his way back into government and that he was once again associated with something that sounded untoward. No one was going to sit down and analyze the merits of the system itself. Johnnyboy has the permanent stench of scandal and everyone knew it. The administration quickly dumped him and the project as a result.
I suspect the EVD might actually be endorsed by the big US media companies. If the country responsible for a lot of piracy uses a peculiar local format, it essentially makes those discs region encoded. Of course the manufacturers in the US and Europe would also have to agree not to support the format for it to be effective at stemming piracy.
Richard Painter, a Professor at the University of Illinois who was an early proponent of the legal reforms now included in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, wrote to the SEC recently. He stated that they should examine "conflicts created by unorthodox methods of compensating lawyers (particularly receipt of stock in lieu of legal fees and contingent fee arrangements such as the fee of over $30 million reported to have been earned by Time Warner's counsel in that company's merger with AOL)."
Hopefully these types of arrangements will be put to an end soon. While I don't see an end to contingency fees (because that's how many people are able to afford lawyers), I can certainly see practice of using stock options as payment coming to an end.
Agent Gates: I hate this place. This GNU. This open source. This license, whatever you want to call it. I can't stand it any longer. It's the free software, if there is such a thing. I feel saturated by it. I can taste your GPL. And every time I do, I fear that I've somehow been infected by it.
One of the main shortcomings of these matches is calling them "man versus machine". Because that's really a misnomer and obscures the actual situation. Which is, that the Kasparov is playing a computer program that is not thinking entirely for itself. A lot of the decisions that the program makes have been pre-programmed by the team of chess experts prior to each match. It's the group of experts that evaluates the opponent and decides the general strategy of each game.
The program isn't altered in the middle of a game. But it also isn't Kasparov versus a completed chess program thinking for itself. I would go so far as to say the reprogramming during a multiple game match and the evaluation of the opponent by the chess experts is cheating. And really relegates these matches to novelties to be gawked at but not to be considered real.