I dunno. SCO seems to be saying this in public. The stuff they're saying in court may be a subset of this. It's all a little confusing which is which.
As for copyright - I'm not sure what agreements IBM signed with SCO, whether the copyright was transferred (or even if this is legally possible), or whether they simply gave them an exclusive licence, or whether they did something else entirely. If it is the first of these, then I'd have thought that SCO does have a case for copyright infringement since SCO owns the rights. If it is the second of these, then it's simply a contract violation. I am neither a legal expert, nor party to the exact agreements SCO and IBM signed, but I think it's still too early to consider this cut and dried.
Doh! Sorry. Me stupid. I meant that the legal case is more carefully orchestrated. The media campaign appears to be pretty chaotic, and having trouble trying to square Darl's comments with the official corporate position.
Until the actual court case. This is all preliminaries. They probably only have one trump card. If they used it here and now, they'll squander it. There is no way SCO will be refused permission to file suit.
It was the same with DeCSS, it will be the same here. Everyone thinks they know what the result will be because they can't imagine the other side will pull something out of their hat, and they all have their own opinion about how the law should work.
SCO's comments in the media are not SCO's legal case. That's another matter entirely, and one that has been considerably more carefully orchestrated. They know they have a pretty strong case against IBM. We just don't know what it is yet.
Microsoft isn't likely to be willing to put additional chips in the box to ensure hardware compatibility. Moreover, he suggests that current Xbox games make use of Nvidia's proprietary graphics shaders and that Microsoft might have to license them to use them again.
Doesn't the X-Box use the same shaders as all other nVidia cards? i.e. The DirectX ones. All recent ATI cards have run these natively. As far as I can see, assuming the games use DirectX only, there should be no features that aren't supported by ATI.
Then they just need enough processor speed to emulate the CPU effectively.
The thing is, it's probably heaper to have a single model of phone with all the features you could ever need than it is to have several models with only the features you need. Cameras and colour screens are still a little pricey, but most of it costs virtually nothing. Most of the features are a part of the chip. They could make a chip without a lot of the features, and it would cost a fraction less, but then it would cost a lot of money to develop and test it.
Not so sure we'd get those proportions. GPUs are getting so sophisticated that graphics are taking up a smaller proportion of CPU time. I find a lot of games work perfectly adequately on my P500 with a GeForce 4.
The little things are important. Standardised fonts make the government look better, make their correspondance easier to read and identify, amongst lots of other small niggling issues. As long as no real time was spent on this, then it's worth changing.
The decade that Andrew was the most popular name is the 1980's. In that decade, 1.4% of all American males were named Andrew (source). We can also assume that he speaks English as a first language, which makes him one of roughly 326,652,000 people. Halving this (because we're assuming male), we get roughly 2,300,000 people. Now we just need to eliminate the proportion that have the ability to write a virus.
If we make some reasonable assumptions - that he's between 14 and 22, and has an interest in computers, is fond of Linux, tends to be interested in, and good at maths and Sciences, and has near exclusive access to his own computer - we could eliminate a lot of these 2,300,000. Still probably leaves several quite a few people though.
I wasn't aware that you needed to download special software to run this Google search application
True. However, it is a fact (I think) that for a long time, Netscape was one of the busiest sites on the internet thanks to the number of users who had that as their homepage.
The reason they had that as their homepage was that they didn't even consider that they could change it, let alone look into how to do it.
MS will get a lot of inital acceptance simply by making IE default to their own search site.
I know! I was the one on the ladder. One of the scariest moments of my life, as well. Hanging from a chopper is bad enough, but having sharks take dives at you is worse.
The separate images that the debunkers claim they're made up from are the fakes.
IBM probably wouldn't have learned, and would have ended up playing second fiddle to Apple, or finding that the PC has been cloned by countless other companies using a reverse engineered BIOS, PC-DOS, and Microsoft Windows.
i.e. things wouldn't be much different except the MS wouldn't have pushed PC-DOS out of the market.
While I disapprove for environmental reasons, I think the basic concept seems like a good idea.
However easy you make it to return a disc, it will always be a lot easier if you can throw it away even if you live next door to the video store. It was better than Divx; which was broken from the start because you had to essentially ask permission to play a DVD you'd just bought.
The problems seems to be that because they sold using a rental model, consumers couldn't quite understand whether they were buying or renting, and that the extra convenience wasn't worth the extra cost.
I said don't use IE. And suggested firebird instead. IE doesn't have what Firebird has. Other people managed to get it. Perhaps you could have read the other comments to try and work out what I meant.
I try to convince other people of this. Firebird conatains a popup blocker, supports tabbed browsing, is more secure, and has a gestures plugin.
The other people just don't. It's not like they don't know how. These are proper techies. they just make up daft excuses like not trustin free software.
Maybe trust is importatn. You can trust IE after all. You can trust it to be insecure.
Well, they could possibly be DVD-ROMS or free for some other inexplicable reason.
Still, buying them is good. The old bandwidth of a truckload of DVDs thing is relevant here. Especially because with that sort of data you'll probably be burning them to disc anyway.
They have no actual objection to firewalls. It would just potentially make it illegal. The point is that the law should not implicitely include devices that are not harmful.
The example is to just show that the language is unclear because it disallows items that nobody could possibly disapprove of.
How dumb can people be and still be accounted for as people? No, seriously? At some point you get retarded legally speaking, and are put to care (usually due to mental illness, but some people have extra cromosons and stuff. You know..).
Very. This is why you get ridiculous warning labels on things, e.g. "Do not try to stop chainsaw with hand" (or is this one an urban legend? Snopes doesn't have an opinion)
Google wants to protect themselves from losing these stupid people. They rely on too many of them for revenue.
Slashdot Mirror
I dunno. SCO seems to be saying this in public. The stuff they're saying in court may be a subset of this. It's all a little confusing which is which.
As for copyright - I'm not sure what agreements IBM signed with SCO, whether the copyright was transferred (or even if this is legally possible), or whether they simply gave them an exclusive licence, or whether they did something else entirely. If it is the first of these, then I'd have thought that SCO does have a case for copyright infringement since SCO owns the rights. If it is the second of these, then it's simply a contract violation. I am neither a legal expert, nor party to the exact agreements SCO and IBM signed, but I think it's still too early to consider this cut and dried.
Doh! Sorry. Me stupid. I meant that the legal case is more carefully orchestrated. The media campaign appears to be pretty chaotic, and having trouble trying to square Darl's comments with the official corporate position.
Until the actual court case. This is all preliminaries. They probably only have one trump card. If they used it here and now, they'll squander it. There is no way SCO will be refused permission to file suit.
It was the same with DeCSS, it will be the same here. Everyone thinks they know what the result will be because they can't imagine the other side will pull something out of their hat, and they all have their own opinion about how the law should work.
SCO's comments in the media are not SCO's legal case. That's another matter entirely, and one that has been considerably more carefully orchestrated. They know they have a pretty strong case against IBM. We just don't know what it is yet.
Looking at other comments - Spybot seems to be fairly popular.
Microsoft isn't likely to be willing to put additional chips in the box to ensure hardware compatibility. Moreover, he suggests that current Xbox games make use of Nvidia's proprietary graphics shaders and that Microsoft might have to license them to use them again.
Doesn't the X-Box use the same shaders as all other nVidia cards? i.e. The DirectX ones. All recent ATI cards have run these natively. As far as I can see, assuming the games use DirectX only, there should be no features that aren't supported by ATI.
Then they just need enough processor speed to emulate the CPU effectively.
The thing is, it's probably heaper to have a single model of phone with all the features you could ever need than it is to have several models with only the features you need. Cameras and colour screens are still a little pricey, but most of it costs virtually nothing. Most of the features are a part of the chip. They could make a chip without a lot of the features, and it would cost a fraction less, but then it would cost a lot of money to develop and test it.
Not so sure we'd get those proportions. GPUs are getting so sophisticated that graphics are taking up a smaller proportion of CPU time. I find a lot of games work perfectly adequately on my P500 with a GeForce 4.
The little things are important. Standardised fonts make the government look better, make their correspondance easier to read and identify, amongst lots of other small niggling issues. As long as no real time was spent on this, then it's worth changing.
The decade that Andrew was the most popular name is the 1980's. In that decade, 1.4% of all American males were named Andrew (source). We can also assume that he speaks English as a first language, which makes him one of roughly 326,652,000 people. Halving this (because we're assuming male), we get roughly 2,300,000 people. Now we just need to eliminate the proportion that have the ability to write a virus.
If we make some reasonable assumptions - that he's between 14 and 22, and has an interest in computers, is fond of Linux, tends to be interested in, and good at maths and Sciences, and has near exclusive access to his own computer - we could eliminate a lot of these 2,300,000. Still probably leaves several quite a few people though.
They don't as a general policy. All things being equal, I think they prefer people to have their liberties rather than not have them.
However, if they can make a profit, or avoid a loss from removing our civil liberties, they will do so.
The "Fat Labour Politician" processor is likely to be delayed.
I wasn't aware that you needed to download special software to run this Google search application
True. However, it is a fact (I think) that for a long time, Netscape was one of the busiest sites on the internet thanks to the number of users who had that as their homepage.
The reason they had that as their homepage was that they didn't even consider that they could change it, let alone look into how to do it.
MS will get a lot of inital acceptance simply by making IE default to their own search site.
I know! I was the one on the ladder. One of the scariest moments of my life, as well. Hanging from a chopper is bad enough, but having sharks take dives at you is worse.
The separate images that the debunkers claim they're made up from are the fakes.
That was a pretty good spleen venting.
Was it home grown, found somewhere, or autogenerated?
IBM probably wouldn't have learned, and would have ended up playing second fiddle to Apple, or finding that the PC has been cloned by countless other companies using a reverse engineered BIOS, PC-DOS, and Microsoft Windows.
i.e. things wouldn't be much different except the MS wouldn't have pushed PC-DOS out of the market.
To be fair to him, my grammar wasn't toally clear, and my spelling was atrocious.
Now, anybody care to criticize my grammar?
I tried. Please add at least three spelling mistakes, and a grammatical error. It's traditional.
Good idea. You can even take some random machines, and handcount the paper ballots to verify that the machines are telling the truth.
While I disapprove for environmental reasons, I think the basic concept seems like a good idea.
However easy you make it to return a disc, it will always be a lot easier if you can throw it away even if you live next door to the video store. It was better than Divx; which was broken from the start because you had to essentially ask permission to play a DVD you'd just bought.
The problems seems to be that because they sold using a rental model, consumers couldn't quite understand whether they were buying or renting, and that the extra convenience wasn't worth the extra cost.
They make an excuse up about that as well. Probably "too expensive". They seem to want a commercial, closed source browser that doesn't cost anything.
I said don't use IE. And suggested firebird instead. IE doesn't have what Firebird has. Other people managed to get it. Perhaps you could have read the other comments to try and work out what I meant.
I try to convince other people of this. Firebird conatains a popup blocker, supports tabbed browsing, is more secure, and has a gestures plugin.
The other people just don't. It's not like they don't know how. These are proper techies. they just make up daft excuses like not trustin free software.
Maybe trust is importatn. You can trust IE after all. You can trust it to be insecure.
Well, they could possibly be DVD-ROMS or free for some other inexplicable reason.
Still, buying them is good. The old bandwidth of a truckload of DVDs thing is relevant here. Especially because with that sort of data you'll probably be burning them to disc anyway.
They have no actual objection to firewalls. It would just potentially make it illegal. The point is that the law should not implicitely include devices that are not harmful.
The example is to just show that the language is unclear because it disallows items that nobody could possibly disapprove of.
How dumb can people be and still be accounted for as people? No, seriously? At some point you get retarded legally speaking, and are put to care (usually due to mental illness, but some people have extra cromosons and stuff. You know..).
Very. This is why you get ridiculous warning labels on things, e.g. "Do not try to stop chainsaw with hand" (or is this one an urban legend? Snopes doesn't have an opinion)
Google wants to protect themselves from losing these stupid people. They rely on too many of them for revenue.