> As I've said before, the agencies responsible for buying this equipment and software should bear a good deal of the blame for anything that goes wrong. It seems to me that some gross negligance or incompetence is going on here.
Problem is, the people who should take them to task for it will be the people who just got erroneously elected (or appointed by same), and will therefore be the least likely of all people to make a fuss over the error.
> I think that they have simply painted themselves into a corner.
You know the drill; you tell one little white lie, and find yourself iteratively telling bigger and bigger lies to try to keep your story consistent.
IMO SCO's puppetmasters tried one little white lie in order to extract some un-earned cash out of IBM, and now they're having to make grander and grander claims every week in order to shore up what they've said before.
> What I just can't understand why somebody would want to have some fancy voting machine (be it computer-controlled or not), if such simple technology as a sheet of paper and a pen would do it, too.
Because when governments buy expensive voting machines, it's a "legitimate" excuse for transferring taxpayer dollars to corporate coffers.
> "I need some answers! Our department is being audited by the County. I have been waiting for someone to give me an explanation as to why Precinct 216 gave Al Gore a minus 16022 when it was uploaded...."
> No matter if he won or lost, quotes like this now make me understand why he at least wanted a recount.
The Florida Secretary of State could have been gracious and offered to let him count his votes for that precinct twice.
BTW, looks suspiciously like an overflow on a 15-bit twos' complement number, i.e. 16745 votes on a -16384..+16383 counter. Anyone know what the voting population of that precint is?
Yeah, that would be a really idiotic bug... but I've fixed many just like it.
> Although Microsoft may be the Evil Empire, they're not stupid. It's quite likely the project managers estimated the time-to-release at 12-18 months and then doubled that to come up with the 2006 release date.
a) Why would they do that, when no one else in the industry does it?
b) Have you seen any evidence that that's what they've done in the past?
> No, seriously. How are they gonna maintain an active interest during the next two years of development?
Two years? In general you should double the estimated time-to-release for IT products.
And I thought they were saying 2006, so the problem is how to maintain interest for 5-6 years.
> Microsoft, I've seen many claim, is drumming up support and mostly trying a publicity stunt. The question is, how do you run a 2-3 year publicity stunt?
When you have several billion dollars to throw at it, and the press hangs on your every word to begin with, it shouldn't be that hard a problem.
Hell, how long has it been going on already? When was the first time you heard of MS Longhorn?
> It's a so-called 'guided tour of Longhorn', which consists of no actual imagery, but rather a gigantic step-list of things for you to click on in your Longhorn alpha, to make you go 'ooooh'.
> Just brutal. I mean, if its really a 'bet-the-company' strategy, you'd think they'd splash out just a little cash for a Flash or non-ass-looking PPT prez... or even screenshots.... something other than this. Just looks really amateur.
Yeah, you'd think their legal team could whip up another fake demo for them.
> The U.S. government is tired of invading poor countries. Since Australians are possibly doing something that is annoying, the U.S. will invade tomorrow.
> Don't worry Australians, it will be less than a year until you get your $87 billion of U.S. taxpayer money for reconstruction, government corruption, and to help make the Halliburton company richer.
> Electronic Frontiers Australia (www.efa.org.au) claims that the raids organized by the music industry on mp3s4free.com have come up with nothing. Only links to other sites and not copyrighted material have been found. The music industry is now saying that just linking is in itself illegal.
> Seems like every time they come out with a new 0-cal sweetener, that is safer then the last, it turns out to have some unforseen side effect that makes it worse then the last.
Fortunately, this one merely makes the water in your toilet spiral down the wrong way when you flush it.
> > 7th Affirmative Defense - The GPL is selectively enforced by the Free Software Foundation such that enforcement of the GPL by IBM or others is waived, estopped or otherwise barred as a matter of equity
> I guess they don't know the difference between copyright and trademark. Selective enforcement has zero effect on enforcebility of copyright. Black letter law.
Also, why is it the FSF's job to enforce the GPL, selectively or otherwise?
Unless the FSF happens to be the copyright owner on a particular bit of GPL'd code, they don't have any rights or ownership to defend for it:
Slashdot Mirror
> You don't merge with Microsoft, they simply take you over.
But you rarely end up welcoming your new Redmondian overlords.
> What if this shell actually knocks the socks off *sh?
> What if Longhorn does indeed provide more security, not only in default settings, but more inherently in the OpenSource?
What if they send two horny supermodels to tell me I won the lottery?
> Maybe users will be able to help themself a little bit...
killall DRM && killall clippy && killall klez
-t
bash
$
> Just want until it turns on Longhorn is based on the Doom3 engine. Then you'll be lucky to play solitaire without lag.
Yeah, but it's gonna be so cool playing solitaire with a rocket launcher!
> With that much computer power.
Shouldn't we get our flying cars before all the inventors go chasing after these new ideas?
> There has been a long, long list of games that were steaming turds and yet sold very well at retail.
s/games/retail products/
Sturgeon's Law doesn't say that 90% of everything doesn't get sold...
> As I've said before, the agencies responsible for buying this equipment and software should bear a good deal of the blame for anything that goes wrong. It seems to me that some gross negligance or incompetence is going on here.
Problem is, the people who should take them to task for it will be the people who just got erroneously elected (or appointed by same), and will therefore be the least likely of all people to make a fuss over the error.
> Even anarchists have a logo, for god's sake!
They just can't agree on what it is!
> Does Mr Adams want all the technology people to be given twinkies and be locked in a cave?
Isn't that the programmer's life already?
Sure, maybe we eat Snickers rather than Twinkies, and get locked in cubicles rather than caves, but that's just a different skin on the same engine.
I use a picture of a double-headed axe, or a chainsaw for the big jobs.
> I think that they have simply painted themselves into a corner.
You know the drill; you tell one little white lie, and find yourself iteratively telling bigger and bigger lies to try to keep your story consistent.
IMO SCO's puppetmasters tried one little white lie in order to extract some un-earned cash out of IBM, and now they're having to make grander and grander claims every week in order to shore up what they've said before.
> What I just can't understand why somebody would want to have some fancy voting machine (be it computer-controlled or not), if such simple technology as a sheet of paper and a pen would do it, too.
Because when governments buy expensive voting machines, it's a "legitimate" excuse for transferring taxpayer dollars to corporate coffers.
> "I need some answers! Our department is being audited by the County. I have been waiting for someone to give me an explanation as to why Precinct 216 gave Al Gore a minus 16022 when it was uploaded.
> No matter if he won or lost, quotes like this now make me understand why he at least wanted a recount.
The Florida Secretary of State could have been gracious and offered to let him count his votes for that precinct twice.
BTW, looks suspiciously like an overflow on a 15-bit twos' complement number, i.e. 16745 votes on a -16384..+16383 counter. Anyone know what the voting population of that precint is?
Yeah, that would be a really idiotic bug... but I've fixed many just like it.
> Indeed.. I know not of any vertebrate that sinks in water.
Supposedly chimps can't float (or swim), due to their reduced body fat.
> Although Microsoft may be the Evil Empire, they're not stupid. It's quite likely the project managers estimated the time-to-release at 12-18 months and then doubled that to come up with the 2006 release date.
a) Why would they do that, when no one else in the industry does it?
b) Have you seen any evidence that that's what they've done in the past?
> No, seriously. How are they gonna maintain an active interest during the next two years of development?
Two years? In general you should double the estimated time-to-release for IT products.
And I thought they were saying 2006, so the problem is how to maintain interest for 5-6 years.
> Microsoft, I've seen many claim, is drumming up support and mostly trying a publicity stunt. The question is, how do you run a 2-3 year publicity stunt?
When you have several billion dollars to throw at it, and the press hangs on your every word to begin with, it shouldn't be that hard a problem.
Hell, how long has it been going on already? When was the first time you heard of MS Longhorn?
> It's a so-called 'guided tour of Longhorn', which consists of no actual imagery, but rather a gigantic step-list of things for you to click on in your Longhorn alpha, to make you go 'ooooh'.
> Just brutal. I mean, if its really a 'bet-the-company' strategy, you'd think they'd splash out just a little cash for a Flash or non-ass-looking PPT prez... or even screenshots.... something other than this. Just looks really amateur.
Yeah, you'd think their legal team could whip up another fake demo for them.
> The fix was simple. They simply swapped:
$error.backcolour=#0000ff;
for
$error.backcolour=#000000;
Now, no Blue screen of death!
I would have used
$error.backcolour=#dea74
or just
$error.backcolour=#b50d
> The U.S. government is tired of invading poor countries. Since Australians are possibly doing something that is annoying, the U.S. will invade tomorrow.
> Don't worry Australians, it will be less than a year until you get your $87 billion of U.S. taxpayer money for reconstruction, government corruption, and to help make the Halliburton company richer.
Coming to a theatre near you soon...
> Electronic Frontiers Australia (www.efa.org.au) claims that the raids organized by the music industry on mp3s4free.com have come up with nothing. Only links to other sites and not copyrighted material have been found. The music industry is now saying that just linking is in itself illegal.
MP3s, WMDs, it's all the same...
> Seems like every time they come out with a new 0-cal sweetener, that is safer then the last, it turns out to have some unforseen side effect that makes it worse then the last.
Fortunately, this one merely makes the water in your toilet spiral down the wrong way when you flush it.
> It sounds like the GPL is going to get an airing in court.
It's doubtful that SCO intends to let this or any of the rest of their idiotic claims get to court.
> As an RBC customer, this makes me sad. I think I might complain.
All the way to the bank?
...though the FSF does hold the rights to the text of the GPL itself. You reckon that's what SCO thinks they need to defend?> > 7th Affirmative Defense - The GPL is selectively enforced by the Free Software Foundation such that enforcement of the GPL by IBM or others is waived, estopped or otherwise barred as a matter of equity
> I guess they don't know the difference between copyright and trademark. Selective enforcement has zero effect on enforcebility of copyright. Black letter law.
Also, why is it the FSF's job to enforce the GPL, selectively or otherwise?
Unless the FSF happens to be the copyright owner on a particular bit of GPL'd code, they don't have any rights or ownership to defend for it: