This happened earlier in court when they met in chambers. It was commented that IBM lawyers were looking smug coming out from that meeting. We suspected the judge had gagged Darl, but it wasn't confirmed until ~today.
(5) is good too. If I understand it correctly they'll have to tell the judge that they're still distributing linux 2.4.21 to the world under the license "GNU GPL", and we can all be on the list:
"SCO is to provide and identify with specificity the lines of code that SCO distributed to other parties. This is to include where applicable the conditions of release, to whom the code was released, the date and under what circumstances such code was released."
Let's all help them out by posting our names, dates and the fact that the license is the GNU GPL and the circumstances is "public SCO FTP and HTTP server"
What will happen is that they will NOT get an injuction, the judge will find that that would cause undue grievous harm to AutoZone. So what then? Well, SCOX will be locked in another costly long term litigation game with a giant, litigation that will only cost them money and give nothing in return. Oh, they'll try to get good PR, but it'll fail.
Seconded. It's pretty interesting. Good to see someone with a little bite-back, not the regular "Yes Master McBride, We Do Believe You Unconditionally".
(Though I thought the joke about the wife-murderer was a little too obvious to deserve laughter)
Where someone -- either TV4 or they're simply tools -- is trying to create the news that 'video games make children violent'. It's been going on for two days now and will culminate tomorrow with some sort of 'documentary', which I'm going to _assume_ was produced by that former US Army guy who always seems to pop up when there's talk about video games and violence.
We have a word over here for this "moralpanik" ("Moral panic"). To pimp this documentary the TV4 news 'previewed' it for some [woman] politician or another known for her prowess at shouting "BUT THINK OF THE CHILDREN". Oh, well.
Want to bet that this 'documentary' won't say a thing about violent games being an _outlet_ so you don't have to go hit someone IRL?
Somewhat ironically, todays news also included "Football fans get together to fight", which is just that. Apparently two opposing teams set a time and a place and number (they want even teams), then the fight it out. No weapons allowed.
Oddly enough, I haven't heard of any new studies being started to see if being a sportsfan leads to violence. Maybe we should restrict sports to people of age?
All in all it stinks. They're manufacturing "news", and bad "news" at that. I'm going to watch this 'documentary' and if it's too one sided I'll report it to "Granskningsnamnden for radio & TV" which is an institution whose job it is to study news and the like to make sure it's fair and impartial and not too loop sided. A "conviction
" by GNR will require the channel to make a public retration of sorts, so there's not a lot of tooth there, but it's something.
Consider this, though: They care enough about their customers and their own business that they're willing to take this "voluntary" hit of over a million bucks
Oh my, you really bought that PR spinn hook line and sinker, didn't you?
I read this earlier today. Marsh is just doing spin. End-users were never liable anyhow, if there'd been a problem they'd refer SCOX to EV1 (since they're buying the service from them), which would refer to RedHat (the OS supplier) which is already in litigation with SCOX anyhow.
He claims this was 'cheap' insurance. However, he refuse to tell us how much it actually was. If it was so cheap, why wouldn't he like to be able to tell his customers "Look, we only paid $X, it's cheap!". On the other hand, if it was cheap then SCOX wouldn't want the numbers to be out there ("We gave away 20K server license for PR-rights" wouldn't sound too great), which brings us to the fact that EV1 was in a position of power over SCOX, and chose to agree to not disclose the sum. In other words, they're helping SCOX out.
I think that Marsh is pretty much alone in thinking this was a good idea. There was no pressure from linux-customers _at all_. He's He did this for the PR. New server-center around the corner, using SCO to make headlines sounded great!
He just can't admit it in public. Reading his 'this was a sound business-decision'-bullshit is sickening.
SCO says: "Copyrights and patents are protection against strangers," [...] "Contracts are what you use against parties you have relationships with. From a legal standpoint, contracts end up being far stronger than anything you could do with copyrights." -- http://e-businessadvisor.com/doc/12514
I have a domain which I've had for years (3+), before that someone else had it. To this day I'm recieving spam to users that doesn't exist on my system and which thus are directly rejected by my mailer.
Now my question is this; since we can be 99.99% sure that everything mailed to these non-existant users (which haven't existed here for years and no normal person would try and contact over and over again) are spam, where/how could I use this information?
I'd like to have a script (I run exim so if I could set up rules to trigger it directly that'd be great) which basically updated realtime block lists with the IPs of these spammers contacting me.
Not a good idea? I wouldn't mind using such a list.
They're doing this together with some large AV-vendor like Symantec... or are they going to piss off all of them?
I guess the only solution then is to make the software just barely usable such that the AV-vendors can continue to "user friendly" products. See, no toes hurt.
Or I guess MS could stand for the infrastructure and then [help] sell subscriptions from differnet vendors, but that'd be a mess.
>Yes, INtel is so bad for not mentioning there competitor.
No, they're bad for not mentioning in their PR/docs that they are in fact AMD x86-64 compatible. Okay, let's try this again: Being compatible == good, not mentioning that you are == bad. M'kay?
>Now, if only AMD could make a chip that doesn't melt if you don't have the heat sink on perfectly.
I hope the IETF is smart enough to not support any solution that would make it impossible for me as a regular joe-home user to run my own mailserver. If some other server wants to talk to mine and ask "did you send me this?" that's great, but if some other server decides to/dev/null a message from me because my IP doesn't backward resolve to the domain claimed when sending, then that's bad.
I'm actually a bit scared that this 'anti-spam' crusade will end with an even bigger wall between "users who should pay and consume" and "legitimate service providers".
>[...] a larger LRE means a smaller relative error
Precisely.
>It looks like Gnumeric improved or stayed the same on every data point
So far so good...
>except Pidigits, Numacc2, and Origin1[...]
... where the new version scored worse according to the table; lower numbers meaning fewer correct digits.
Even so the description reads:
"As can be seen, Gnumeric 0.67 used an unstable algorithm for computing the sample standard deviation, and on this basis its performance can be considered unacceptable. This was fixed in Gnumeric 1.1.2." (my emphasis)
This to me is inconsistent, but I'm still open to the possibility that I'm misunderstanding something.
Anyone understand this table? The text doesn't match the table, where gamma-S log relative error, unless I'm an idiot (which is entirely possible), is actually worse in v1.1.2 than v0.67?
Sometimes the sqeeky justice wheels sound just like hamster wheels.
..when I say "Squeeky wheel gets the kick! Go for the eyes Boo!"
This sucks, but go out nova style.
on
WB Cancels Angel
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Angel was one of few shows worth dow... watching. I totally dig the combination of humor and darkness.
I guess the only good thing about this is that they can go out with a bang. C'mon writers, let's fuck us good in the last few episodes. Have Angel yearn for the Angelus years. Kill off Lorne. Kill off Gunn. Push Westley back into the darkness, and have him take Fred with him.
It should be noted that the Didio quote as since been removed from that article, but here it is for those who missed it. Don't ever forget this one, this is straight from Yankee Group and they should not be allowed to get away with it without a public apology IMHO:
"With the open source community, there are a large percentage of tinkers and 'ankle biters' who are trying their hand at hacking. Some are even communicating with each other. So it only takes one or two of these groups sharing information to be able to pull something off. When you have this type of passion, it's hard to fight because these people are like virtual suicide car bombers."
Is this people you'd want to buy services of? I don't consider myself "PC" in the least, but this is so fucking wrong and off the track it's not funny.
Slashdot Mirror
How much was spent on professional mouthpieces Laura DiDio, Daniel Lyons and Rob Enderle?
This happened earlier in court when they met in chambers. It was commented that IBM lawyers were looking smug coming out from that meeting. We suspected the judge had gagged Darl, but it wasn't confirmed until ~today.
You can hear it for yourself in the recording: http://sco.penguinman.com/2004-03-03-SCOX.torrent
(5) is good too. If I understand it correctly they'll have to tell the judge that they're still distributing linux 2.4.21 to the world under the license "GNU GPL", and we can all be on the list:
wget --http-user= --http-passwd= wget http://linuxupdate.sco.com/scolinux/update/RPMS.up dates/kernel-source-2.4.21-138.i586.rpm
"SCO is to provide and identify with specificity the lines of code that SCO distributed to other parties. This is to include where applicable the conditions of release, to whom the code was released, the date and under what circumstances such code was released."
Let's all help them out by posting our names, dates and the fact that the license is the GNU GPL and the circumstances is "public SCO FTP and HTTP server"
I didn't mean to suggest that it's "The Big Thing". I meant it like "the big change in the new revision"
I saw the writing on the wall.
Jawadali> Full Throttle 2 was cancelled, but the new Sam and Max isn't.
I'm always right, in the end. ;-)
Some info here. SSE3 is the big thing.
What will happen is that they will NOT get an injuction, the judge will find that that would cause undue grievous harm to AutoZone. So what then? Well, SCOX will be locked in another costly long term litigation game with a giant, litigation that will only cost them money and give nothing in return. Oh, they'll try to get good PR, but it'll fail.
I love SCO, they're so fucking clueless.
Seconded. It's pretty interesting. Good to see someone with a little bite-back, not the regular "Yes Master McBride, We Do Believe You Unconditionally".
(Though I thought the joke about the wife-murderer was a little too obvious to deserve laughter)
I don't think they'll sue EV1... yet, but they'll definitely go after current or former TSG customers (for running the compatibility layer on linux)
So this isn't actually directed directly at linux, it's more about SCO following through on their slogan:
"Contracts are what you use against parties you have relationships with" -- http://e-businessadvisor.com/doc/12514
They'll just hope the press will go with them and focus on the Linux part not the "SCO Unix(R)" part.
Correction: GNR can actually fine a channel. TV4 was just ordered to pay 250,000SEK (~$25000) for airing an episode of Dr. Phil.
Where someone -- either TV4 or they're simply tools -- is trying to create the news that 'video games make children violent'. It's been going on for two days now and will culminate tomorrow with some sort of 'documentary', which I'm going to _assume_ was produced by that former US Army guy who always seems to pop up when there's talk about video games and violence.
We have a word over here for this "moralpanik" ("Moral panic"). To pimp this documentary the TV4 news 'previewed' it for some [woman] politician or another known for her prowess at shouting "BUT THINK OF THE CHILDREN". Oh, well.
Want to bet that this 'documentary' won't say a thing about violent games being an _outlet_ so you don't have to go hit someone IRL?
Somewhat ironically, todays news also included "Football fans get together to fight", which is just that. Apparently two opposing teams set a time and a place and number (they want even teams), then the fight it out. No weapons allowed.
Oddly enough, I haven't heard of any new studies being started to see if being a sportsfan leads to violence. Maybe we should restrict sports to people of age?
All in all it stinks. They're manufacturing "news", and bad "news" at that. I'm going to watch this 'documentary' and if it's too one sided I'll report it to "Granskningsnamnden for radio & TV" which is an institution whose job it is to study news and the like to make sure it's fair and impartial and not too loop sided. A "conviction " by GNR will require the channel to make a public retration of sorts, so there's not a lot of tooth there, but it's something.
Consider this, though: They care enough about their customers and their own business that they're willing to take this "voluntary" hit of over a million bucks
Oh my, you really bought that PR spinn hook line and sinker, didn't you?
I read this earlier today. Marsh is just doing spin. End-users were never liable anyhow, if there'd been a problem they'd refer SCOX to EV1 (since they're buying the service from them), which would refer to RedHat (the OS supplier) which is already in litigation with SCOX anyhow.
He claims this was 'cheap' insurance. However, he refuse to tell us how much it actually was. If it was so cheap, why wouldn't he like to be able to tell his customers "Look, we only paid $X, it's cheap!". On the other hand, if it was cheap then SCOX wouldn't want the numbers to be out there ("We gave away 20K server license for PR-rights" wouldn't sound too great), which brings us to the fact that EV1 was in a position of power over SCOX, and chose to agree to not disclose the sum. In other words, they're helping SCOX out.
I think that Marsh is pretty much alone in thinking this was a good idea. There was no pressure from linux-customers _at all_. He's He did this for the PR. New server-center around the corner, using SCO to make headlines sounded great!
He just can't admit it in public. Reading his 'this was a sound business-decision'-bullshit is sickening.
SCO says: "Copyrights and patents are protection against strangers," [...] "Contracts are what you use against parties you have relationships with. From a legal standpoint, contracts end up being far stronger than anything you could do with copyrights." -- http://e-businessadvisor.com/doc/12514
Enjoy your new friends, EV1LServers.
I have a domain which I've had for years (3+), before that someone else had it. To this day I'm recieving spam to users that doesn't exist on my system and which thus are directly rejected by my mailer.
Now my question is this; since we can be 99.99% sure that everything mailed to these non-existant users (which haven't existed here for years and no normal person would try and contact over and over again) are spam, where/how could I use this information?
I'd like to have a script (I run exim so if I could set up rules to trigger it directly that'd be great) which basically updated realtime block lists with the IPs of these spammers contacting me.
Not a good idea? I wouldn't mind using such a list.
Worse, these might make popular bedroom companions.
They're doing this together with some large AV-vendor like Symantec. .. or are they going to piss off all of them?
I guess the only solution then is to make the software just barely usable such that the AV-vendors can continue to "user friendly" products. See, no toes hurt.
Or I guess MS could stand for the infrastructure and then [help] sell subscriptions from differnet vendors, but that'd be a mess.
(No, I didn't RTFA)
>Intel knows this [...]. The only way this is probably ever going to go away is if every one is forced to write a C compiler.
Yes, because we all know how code-generation for IA64 is such a breeze.
>Yes, INtel is so bad for not mentioning there competitor.
No, they're bad for not mentioning in their PR/docs that they are in fact AMD x86-64 compatible. Okay, let's try this again: Being compatible == good, not mentioning that you are == bad. M'kay?
>Now, if only AMD could make a chip that doesn't melt if you don't have the heat sink on perfectly.
They already do, you ignorant git.
What is it like back in the year 2000?
I hope the IETF is smart enough to not support any solution that would make it impossible for me as a regular joe-home user to run my own mailserver. If some other server wants to talk to mine and ask "did you send me this?" that's great, but if some other server decides to /dev/null a message from me because my IP doesn't backward resolve to the domain claimed when sending, then that's bad.
I'm actually a bit scared that this 'anti-spam' crusade will end with an even bigger wall between "users who should pay and consume" and "legitimate service providers".
>[...] a larger LRE means a smaller relative error
Precisely.
>It looks like Gnumeric improved or stayed the same on every data point
So far so good...
> except Pidigits, Numacc2, and Origin1[...]
... where the new version scored worse according to the table; lower numbers meaning fewer correct digits.
Even so the description reads:
"As can be seen, Gnumeric 0.67 used an unstable algorithm for computing the sample standard deviation, and on this basis its performance can be considered unacceptable. This was fixed in Gnumeric 1.1.2." (my emphasis)
This to me is inconsistent, but I'm still open to the possibility that I'm misunderstanding something.
Anyone understand this table? The text doesn't match the table, where gamma-S log relative error, unless I'm an idiot (which is entirely possible), is actually worse in v1.1.2 than v0.67?
Sometimes the sqeeky justice wheels sound just like hamster wheels.
..when I say "Squeeky wheel gets the kick! Go for the eyes Boo!"
Angel was one of few shows worth dow... watching. I totally dig the combination of humor and darkness.
I guess the only good thing about this is that they can go out with a bang. C'mon writers, let's fuck us good in the last few episodes. Have Angel yearn for the Angelus years. Kill off Lorne. Kill off Gunn. Push Westley back into the darkness, and have him take Fred with him.
Boom, sooner or later... boom.
It should be noted that the Didio quote as since been removed from that article, but here it is for those who missed it. Don't ever forget this one, this is straight from Yankee Group and they should not be allowed to get away with it without a public apology IMHO:
"With the open source community, there are a large percentage of tinkers and 'ankle biters' who are trying their hand at hacking. Some are even communicating with each other. So it only takes one or two of these groups sharing information to be able to pull something off. When you have this type of passion, it's hard to fight because these people are like virtual suicide car bombers."
Is this people you'd want to buy services of? I don't consider myself "PC" in the least, but this is so fucking wrong and off the track it's not funny.