Though I love the games, the Tomb-Raider games are a perfect example. You can save as often as you want.
I think you should only be allowed to save at particularly difficult points in a level, where it wouldn't be uncommon to fail three or more times before succeeding.
There is just as much reason to believe that SCO set this whole thing up as that FS/OSS advocates DoS'ed them. Even if FS/OSS advocate did DoS them, that's not "us". That is specific individuals taking part in a certain activity. There is no "us" about it, so stop defaming the FS/OSS community.
Since these guys (those who make CD-Rs) are leading consumeers on to believe that CD-R's will last basically forever, they have really been acting fraudulently here.
People are *fucking morons*. Anyone investing in SCO right now is obviously a total idiot who does not do any significant research, and who should NOT be investing in stocks at all. If you can't even do enough research to look past mindless headlines and find the real truth behind something like this (and, let's face it, the real truth about this is all over the web), then you are too stupid to be investing in the stock-market anyways. But thank god for these kinds of morons, for they create the stock-market inefficiency that Vanguard says doesn't exist, which allows intelligent investors to profit.
"From a PR standpoint, they're able to extract themselves from (the dispute), and so they throw Red Hat at us, they throw Novell at us, they have (Open Source Initiative President) Eric Raymond on their payroll. They have all these guys that they fund and then they just step back and watch the fracas go on."
Scientology alert! Scientology alert! Apparently, the schizo-paranoid thinking of Ron Hubbard has perpetuated itself within SCO. Apparently, they think, the whole world is allied in a great conspiracy against them and their plans.
I haven't looked at many of these screenshots, but it seems like the concept of "clickable" has been completely destroyed. Things which are clickable appear just the same as those that aren't. This is not helpful.
You can thank the world-wide web for that. Thanks to the WWW, developers start to count on "a sense" end-users may have for what's clickable and what isn't. Anyone who's browsed the web for long enough knows what I'm talking about -- the clicking force. When you visit a webpage, clickable things often appear no different than things that aren't clickable. You just have a sense of what's clickable and what's not. You can't explain it, but you feel it.
It is bad that developers count on this, since not everyone has this "force" and it's hardly fool-proof.
"We will cover any legal issues that arise from use of our code, as it pertains to intellectual property ownersip issues." Period.
Which still doesn't stop anyone from suing you, the user. Nor does it prevent them from demanding that you pay them a fee for using "their IP".
Since FOSS software has an insignificant risk of misappropriating intellectual-monopolism, this is not necessary. There is no way that misappropriated code in a FOSS project is going to go unknown for long; nor would few even have the gall to submit it.
This article is filled with so much misinformation as to be astounding:
Choosing a user of AIX and Dynix would help the company to back up its position that it terminated IBM's licenses for Unix in AIX and Dynix in June and August respectively
No, actually, it wouldn't help prove that, because SCO could not and can not terminate IBM's right to use AIX. IBM created AIX and has the absolute and unquestioned right to use or not use it.
"There is no warranty for infringement of intellectual property [in the GPL], so all of the liability ends up with end users."
There is no warrantee against infringement for *any* software you buy, from *anyone*, including Microsoft, SCO, IBM, etc. This is also true of the GPL. In fact, to even imply that there could be a warrantee for infringment is absurd. It is, quite frankly, impossible. There is so much bullshit crap out there that you can't write a single line of code without violating some trivial bullshit patent somewhere. At least, with FS and OSS licenses, the code is open-source, so issues of infringment can easily be identified.
There is no hiding skeletons in the closet when you develop FS and OSS software. It's all out in the open. If there really was an infringement issue, it would have been found and dealt with long long long ago (e.g., like when SCO was distributing Caldera). Also, by having distributed GNU/Linux, SCO loses the ability to seriously do any of this crap (which is why they have to attack the GPL).
"End users are improperly using this copyrighted material, and under copyright law SCO is entitled to damages and injunctive relief"
Until there's some actual evidence and a court rules, no-one is using misappropriated material. No-one is obligated to do anything until a court rules on real evidence, that SCO actually has valid claims. This is, of course, why they're pressing so hard, because they know the court will find that their case is non-sense. If they want to have any serious case against end-users, they need to show end-users *proof* that the software they use violates SCO's copyright. Even then, they still have no case, because they distributed a GNU/Linux distribution.
"Those who have chosen to ignore the license are more in a situation of potential willful infringement"
Actually, no, they aren't, since SCO hasn't presented any evidence what-so-ever that anyone is violating SCO's copyrights.
There is no such thing as being "over-qualified". However, a pHD will not immensely improve your salary. It may open the door for some higher-paying positions which require the vision and innovation that many BS' and MS' aren't capable of; it also gives you much more mobility.
You should not go about trying to get a pHD because you want a better paying job. A masters is much better for that, and you should get it while working. Work experience is critical for two reasons: (1) Companies like it; (2) You get paid. Remember, that while your working your ass off trying to get a pHD, what are you paid a year? A $20,000 dollar stipend, maybe. Some places don't even do that.
You have to remember that if you completely devote yourself to pursuing a pHD, that's 3-8 years out of your life that you've spent doing nothing but research, and getting paid a 3rd-world salary. I have a BS in molecular genetics, and -- honestly -- I take home more money than graduate students.
For the practical person, a pHD is probably something you should do while working, if you can. It may take longer, but at least your life won't be put on a 8-year hiatus while you pursue the religious quest.
A pHD is indeed very valuable. It shows that you have the ability to think completely independently and come up with solutions on your own. That's a good quality no matter which way you look at it. Having a pHD allows you to get into some of the higher echelon of positions; having diversification gives you greater job mobility; and having job-experience makes you a top-candidate for the specific positions your applying for. Also, remember, if you really think a company won't hire you because you have a pHD, don't tell them. It's unethical of you say you've done things that you haven't; it's not unethical if you leave out various accomplishments on your job-application.
Diversification will probably become increasingly important in today's melding world. For example, computer-science, nano-technology, biotechnology, and biological research are starting to merge into one field, where knowledge of all four areas is useful. In today's world, an understanding of economics and probably an MBA are also extremely useful for these technically-oriented people, to be able to obtain higher positions.
1. Considering that lifting regulations and letting the free market work has done very well in many areas, yes, you can trash those reports (which, btw, you don't cite).
2. In many areas, "de-regulation" is really no such thing, but merely regulates to death how to de-regulate; and all regulations are not lifted, with often the worst ones remaining.
3. You still can't justify theft. Taxes (and inflation, tarrifs, etc) amount to nothing less than stealing from people. Legislating it into law doesn't change the fact that it is the moral equivalent of stealing. Government buerocracies naturally do whatever they can to try to ensure their own perpetual existence. Those legislating may have "good intentions", but good intentions don't produce good results, and they hardly have the knowledge to centrally plan how power companies are to be run thousands of miles away.
You assert that, but have no proof. In fact, there are many places where de-regulation and competition has worked very well (e.g., Australia). You provide no evidence for why the free market can't work to supply water and power. Since taxes are theft (thievery under any other name is still thievery), taxing people to support your property-violating regulations is not justified (sorry, the ends justifies the means is a morally bankrupt argument).
Yea, sure, monopolies are the best thing for consumers. Riiiiiight. Sure. That's optimistic thinking at best, idiotic at worst. The way for consumers to get the best prices at the highest quality is via competitive market. This allows the mainstream consumer interest to be met as best as possible, and for niche companies to satisfy the needs of niche consumers.
A government sponsored monopoly with government regulation is bound to be inefficient and costly. It also eliminates any leverage consumers have, and any choice, because they can't switch to companies which better suit their needs. Ultimately, a government-sponsored monopoly is theft from you and me (because it takes taxes to support that, which is theft) and a violation of the property rights of the company share-holders (because they can't run the company as they otherwise would).
So, instead of having less government intervention and destruction of the private market, we should have more, and decrease consumer-choice even further? What is really needed is a completely free market for power, free of regulations and open to fierce competition, not these super-socialistic programs.
Either a UI should mimic windows completely and perfectly, or not at all.
If you're not going to imitate windows, you can still take good ideas from it, but that's it. You can't have users thinking that something works like windows and then it not working like windows.
If a user sits down and thinks it works like windows, then it should work like windows; if s/he doesn't think it should work like windows, then it shouldn't.
The whole point is, because there's no competition on the power-company market right now (no free market, government-sponsored monopoly), you *can't* switch. That's exactly what the problem is. The government needs to eliminate regulations (all of them) and allow the free market (competition) to solve the power-problem.
the problem isn't de-regulation. The best service for consumers is provided by a completely de-regulated free market with competition. If companies cut corners, and consumer's don't like that, those company's will lose business to other company's that don't cut corners.
Get rid of all these stupid regulations, and introduce real competition into the power-supply market -- so that consumers can actually choose between power-company A and B. Right now, the power-company's haven't lost anything other than a day's worth of money. If this had happened to one power company in a free market, it would lose millions of customers to other company's.
Simply de-regulating and leaving these government-designated monopolies in their position of monopolization doesn't help.
What you need is to completely deregulate everything and allow for real true competition, so that companies have to compete to keep customers.
It is very much broke, and does very much need fixing. The problem is that due to liberal propaganda about how evil capitalism is for "public goods" like power, no-one even questions that maybe we shouldn't have a government-supported power monopoly, that maybe we should have real true competition.
The problem isn't deregulation. Deregulation is a good thing, not a bad thing. The problem was that it wasn't accompanied by eliminating the power-supply monopolies that the government created.
Right now, we have no choice where we get our power from. What we need is to completely deregulate the industry and introduce real competition, which would mean that consumers would have a choice of which power-company they use.
This would take some time, as new companies would have to enter the market, build their utilties, and what-not. However, this problem is *never* going to be solved until we completely de-regulate the power-industry and create a free market there.
Simply regulating one monopoly is not going to solve problems. Decreeing by law will not change economic realities. Currently, there are regulations on how much power-companies can charge. This means that they can't put in the investment to upgrade their facilities, and leads to problems with there being shortages of supply (similar to there being shortages of water due to absurd regulations). You say that people can only charge so much, then they don't want to supply their product.
However, simple de-regulation, if not accompanied by the introduction of competition, will solve nothing, because companies will act from a monopoly position, and will have no incentive to provide the best service to their customers. How much business have the power-companies lost? One day, maybe a couple of days. They haven't lost *any* customers, because customers have no choice. If customers had a choice, then power-companies that have these kind of problems would lose millions of them.
They don't violate natural copyright law. They take away rights granted by natural copyright law (fair use). Thus, if you say that the GPL -- which grants rights over natural copyright law -- is invalid, so too must be all EULA's.
If the GPL is declared invalid, then ALL EULA's are automatically invalid. The GPL grants rights not present under normal copyright law, EULA's take rights granted under normal copyright law away. Thus, if the GPL is invalidated in a court of law, so too are the EULA's of ALL software.
Those who distribute a copyrighted work may grant rights beyond what's granted by standard copyright. Copyright laws in no way hinder an author's ability to grant others extra rights. There is no way to interpret the standard copyright backup clause (1 copy) as preventing distributors from allowing unlimited copies.
That Boies can argue this shows that he is clearly a moron, or that he is completely unethical. If he thinks that there is any possibitlity of legitimacy to this absurd claim, he's a moron. More likely, though, he realizes it is bullshit -- completely untenable -- and is putting it forward anyways. That places him in violation of his oath to the court, as an officer of the court. Which makes him crooked, corrupt, evil, and possibly criminal.
Slashdot Mirror
Though I love the games, the Tomb-Raider games are a perfect example. You can save as often as you want.
I think you should only be allowed to save at particularly difficult points in a level, where it wouldn't be uncommon to fail three or more times before succeeding.
There is just as much reason to believe that SCO set this whole thing up as that FS/OSS advocates DoS'ed them. Even if FS/OSS advocate did DoS them, that's not "us". That is specific individuals taking part in a certain activity. There is no "us" about it, so stop defaming the FS/OSS community.
but still, to give such a high honor to such a useless invention is silly.
PS: How is splitting an atom going to help anyone? I don't know, maybe has something to do with nuclear power.
how the fuck is MIT making a robo-strider going to help anyone?
Since these guys (those who make CD-Rs) are leading consumeers on to believe that CD-R's will last basically forever, they have really been acting fraudulently here.
People are *fucking morons*. Anyone investing in SCO right now is obviously a total idiot who does not do any significant research, and who should NOT be investing in stocks at all. If you can't even do enough research to look past mindless headlines and find the real truth behind something like this (and, let's face it, the real truth about this is all over the web), then you are too stupid to be investing in the stock-market anyways. But thank god for these kinds of morons, for they create the stock-market inefficiency that Vanguard says doesn't exist, which allows intelligent investors to profit.
Scientology alert! Scientology alert! Apparently, the schizo-paranoid thinking of Ron Hubbard has perpetuated itself within SCO. Apparently, they think, the whole world is allied in a great conspiracy against them and their plans.
I haven't looked at many of these screenshots, but it seems like the concept of "clickable" has been completely destroyed. Things which are clickable appear just the same as those that aren't. This is not helpful.
You can thank the world-wide web for that. Thanks to the WWW, developers start to count on "a sense" end-users may have for what's clickable and what isn't. Anyone who's browsed the web for long enough knows what I'm talking about -- the clicking force. When you visit a webpage, clickable things often appear no different than things that aren't clickable. You just have a sense of what's clickable and what's not. You can't explain it, but you feel it.
It is bad that developers count on this, since not everyone has this "force" and it's hardly fool-proof.
I found Wolf3D, Doom, Quake, Unreal, and Half-life all to be very boring. I found Descent to be a lot more fun.
"We will cover any legal issues that arise from use of our code, as it pertains to intellectual property ownersip issues." Period.
Which still doesn't stop anyone from suing you, the user. Nor does it prevent them from demanding that you pay them a fee for using "their IP".
Since FOSS software has an insignificant risk of misappropriating intellectual-monopolism, this is not necessary. There is no way that misappropriated code in a FOSS project is going to go unknown for long; nor would few even have the gall to submit it.
This article is filled with so much misinformation as to be astounding:
Choosing a user of AIX and Dynix would help the company to back up its position that it terminated IBM's licenses for Unix in AIX and Dynix in June and August respectively
No, actually, it wouldn't help prove that, because SCO could not and can not terminate IBM's right to use AIX. IBM created AIX and has the absolute and unquestioned right to use or not use it.
"There is no warranty for infringement of intellectual property [in the GPL], so all of the liability ends up with end users."
There is no warrantee against infringement for *any* software you buy, from *anyone*, including Microsoft, SCO, IBM, etc. This is also true of the GPL. In fact, to even imply that there could be a warrantee for infringment is absurd. It is, quite frankly, impossible. There is so much bullshit crap out there that you can't write a single line of code without violating some trivial bullshit patent somewhere. At least, with FS and OSS licenses, the code is open-source, so issues of infringment can easily be identified.
There is no hiding skeletons in the closet when you develop FS and OSS software. It's all out in the open. If there really was an infringement issue, it would have been found and dealt with long long long ago (e.g., like when SCO was distributing Caldera). Also, by having distributed GNU/Linux, SCO loses the ability to seriously do any of this crap (which is why they have to attack the GPL).
"End users are improperly using this copyrighted material, and under copyright law SCO is entitled to damages and injunctive relief"
Until there's some actual evidence and a court rules, no-one is using misappropriated material. No-one is obligated to do anything until a court rules on real evidence, that SCO actually has valid claims. This is, of course, why they're pressing so hard, because they know the court will find that their case is non-sense. If they want to have any serious case against end-users, they need to show end-users *proof* that the software they use violates SCO's copyright. Even then, they still have no case, because they distributed a GNU/Linux distribution.
"Those who have chosen to ignore the license are more in a situation of potential willful infringement"
Actually, no, they aren't, since SCO hasn't presented any evidence what-so-ever that anyone is violating SCO's copyrights.
SCO: You tresspassed on my property
YOU: Huh? What? Where's your property?
SCO: I can't tell you that, because telling you that would allow you to tresspass on my property again.
YOU: Huh? How the fuck am I supposed to avoid tresspassing on your property if you won't tell me where it is.
SCO: That's your problem.
YOU: Can you show me some evidence that proves I tresspassed on your property?
SCO: No, that would violate our property rights!
YOU: Can you show me how not to tresspass on your property?
SCO: No, that would violate our property rights. Now, we're going to sue you for tresspassing!
There is no such thing as being "over-qualified". However, a pHD will not immensely improve your salary. It may open the door for some higher-paying positions which require the vision and innovation that many BS' and MS' aren't capable of; it also gives you much more mobility.
You should not go about trying to get a pHD because you want a better paying job. A masters is much better for that, and you should get it while working. Work experience is critical for two reasons: (1) Companies like it; (2) You get paid. Remember, that while your working your ass off trying to get a pHD, what are you paid a year? A $20,000 dollar stipend, maybe. Some places don't even do that.
You have to remember that if you completely devote yourself to pursuing a pHD, that's 3-8 years out of your life that you've spent doing nothing but research, and getting paid a 3rd-world salary. I have a BS in molecular genetics, and -- honestly -- I take home more money than graduate students.
For the practical person, a pHD is probably something you should do while working, if you can. It may take longer, but at least your life won't be put on a 8-year hiatus while you pursue the religious quest.
A pHD is indeed very valuable. It shows that you have the ability to think completely independently and come up with solutions on your own. That's a good quality no matter which way you look at it. Having a pHD allows you to get into some of the higher echelon of positions; having diversification gives you greater job mobility; and having job-experience makes you a top-candidate for the specific positions your applying for. Also, remember, if you really think a company won't hire you because you have a pHD, don't tell them. It's unethical of you say you've done things that you haven't; it's not unethical if you leave out various accomplishments on your job-application.
Diversification will probably become increasingly important in today's melding world. For example, computer-science, nano-technology, biotechnology, and biological research are starting to merge into one field, where knowledge of all four areas is useful. In today's world, an understanding of economics and probably an MBA are also extremely useful for these technically-oriented people, to be able to obtain higher positions.
Three points:
1. Considering that lifting regulations and letting the free market work has done very well in many areas, yes, you can trash those reports (which, btw, you don't cite).
2. In many areas, "de-regulation" is really no such thing, but merely regulates to death how to de-regulate; and all regulations are not lifted, with often the worst ones remaining.
3. You still can't justify theft. Taxes (and inflation, tarrifs, etc) amount to nothing less than stealing from people. Legislating it into law doesn't change the fact that it is the moral equivalent of stealing. Government buerocracies naturally do whatever they can to try to ensure their own perpetual existence. Those legislating may have "good intentions", but good intentions don't produce good results, and they hardly have the knowledge to centrally plan how power companies are to be run thousands of miles away.
You assert that, but have no proof. In fact, there are many places where de-regulation and competition has worked very well (e.g., Australia). You provide no evidence for why the free market can't work to supply water and power. Since taxes are theft (thievery under any other name is still thievery), taxing people to support your property-violating regulations is not justified (sorry, the ends justifies the means is a morally bankrupt argument).
Yea, sure, monopolies are the best thing for consumers. Riiiiiight. Sure. That's optimistic thinking at best, idiotic at worst. The way for consumers to get the best prices at the highest quality is via competitive market. This allows the mainstream consumer interest to be met as best as possible, and for niche companies to satisfy the needs of niche consumers.
A government sponsored monopoly with government regulation is bound to be inefficient and costly. It also eliminates any leverage consumers have, and any choice, because they can't switch to companies which better suit their needs. Ultimately, a government-sponsored monopoly is theft from you and me (because it takes taxes to support that, which is theft) and a violation of the property rights of the company share-holders (because they can't run the company as they otherwise would).
So, instead of having less government intervention and destruction of the private market, we should have more, and decrease consumer-choice even further? What is really needed is a completely free market for power, free of regulations and open to fierce competition, not these super-socialistic programs.
Either a UI should mimic windows completely and perfectly, or not at all.
If you're not going to imitate windows, you can still take good ideas from it, but that's it. You can't have users thinking that something works like windows and then it not working like windows.
If a user sits down and thinks it works like windows, then it should work like windows; if s/he doesn't think it should work like windows, then it shouldn't.
The whole point is, because there's no competition on the power-company market right now (no free market, government-sponsored monopoly), you *can't* switch. That's exactly what the problem is. The government needs to eliminate regulations (all of them) and allow the free market (competition) to solve the power-problem.
the problem isn't de-regulation. The best service for consumers is provided by a completely de-regulated free market with competition. If companies cut corners, and consumer's don't like that, those company's will lose business to other company's that don't cut corners.
Get rid of all these stupid regulations, and introduce real competition into the power-supply market -- so that consumers can actually choose between power-company A and B. Right now, the power-company's haven't lost anything other than a day's worth of money. If this had happened to one power company in a free market, it would lose millions of customers to other company's.
Simply de-regulating and leaving these government-designated monopolies in their position of monopolization doesn't help.
What you need is to completely deregulate everything and allow for real true competition, so that companies have to compete to keep customers.
It is very much broke, and does very much need fixing. The problem is that due to liberal propaganda about how evil capitalism is for "public goods" like power, no-one even questions that maybe we shouldn't have a government-supported power monopoly, that maybe we should have real true competition.
The problem isn't deregulation. Deregulation is a good thing, not a bad thing. The problem was that it wasn't accompanied by eliminating the power-supply monopolies that the government created.
Right now, we have no choice where we get our power from. What we need is to completely deregulate the industry and introduce real competition, which would mean that consumers would have a choice of which power-company they use.
This would take some time, as new companies would have to enter the market, build their utilties, and what-not. However, this problem is *never* going to be solved until we completely de-regulate the power-industry and create a free market there.
Simply regulating one monopoly is not going to solve problems. Decreeing by law will not change economic realities. Currently, there are regulations on how much power-companies can charge. This means that they can't put in the investment to upgrade their facilities, and leads to problems with there being shortages of supply (similar to there being shortages of water due to absurd regulations). You say that people can only charge so much, then they don't want to supply their product.
However, simple de-regulation, if not accompanied by the introduction of competition, will solve nothing, because companies will act from a monopoly position, and will have no incentive to provide the best service to their customers. How much business have the power-companies lost? One day, maybe a couple of days. They haven't lost *any* customers, because customers have no choice. If customers had a choice, then power-companies that have these kind of problems would lose millions of them.
They don't violate natural copyright law. They take away rights granted by natural copyright law (fair use). Thus, if you say that the GPL -- which grants rights over natural copyright law -- is invalid, so too must be all EULA's.
If the GPL is declared invalid, then ALL EULA's are automatically invalid. The GPL grants rights not present under normal copyright law, EULA's take rights granted under normal copyright law away. Thus, if the GPL is invalidated in a court of law, so too are the EULA's of ALL software.
but we already knew that.
Those who distribute a copyrighted work may grant rights beyond what's granted by standard copyright. Copyright laws in no way hinder an author's ability to grant others extra rights. There is no way to interpret the standard copyright backup clause (1 copy) as preventing distributors from allowing unlimited copies.
That Boies can argue this shows that he is clearly a moron, or that he is completely unethical. If he thinks that there is any possibitlity of legitimacy to this absurd claim, he's a moron. More likely, though, he realizes it is bullshit -- completely untenable -- and is putting it forward anyways. That places him in violation of his oath to the court, as an officer of the court. Which makes him crooked, corrupt, evil, and possibly criminal.