I agree completely - I think "Brian" is easily the funniest of the major films and tragically underrated, but you have to be pretty familiar with the source material to get all the jokes, which means knowing Biblical history, and a decent bit about sociopolitcs in the 1st century.
Since we all know explaining why something is funny kills it, there's seems to be a lot of muttering "never mind" to your less informed friends during a showing of "The Life of Brian".
Comedy Central's "The Daily Show" is decent political satire. "Tough Crowd" also does a mix of political and social commentary, but for me is a bit hot and cold.
Social satire prgramming includes (but is certainly not limited to) shows like "The Chappelle Show", "South Park", "The Simpsons" (which is still one of the most subtle), and when it was still airing, "Futurama". It's interesting how many of these kinds of programs are animated. Is it easier to speak dangerous words when your face isn't on the screen?
The Sony and Philips drives will use somewhat different discs. Sony calls its variant DVD-R DL. The Philips equivalent is DVD+R DL. Both disc types should be readable in standard DVD drives and players.
It's even more insidious, I think. That the user has to enter a password to open the file can lead them to believe that the attachment is "secure" and therefore somehow guaranteed "OK". Nice bit of social engineering, that, even if unintentional.
Yet at the same time, Google has reported an increase in the percentage of Mac users using Google.
The default searchbar engine in Safari is Google, and cannot be easily changed. It's not surprising to me that a larger portion of Apple users are using Google.
Here are some movies in which Tom Cruise did a pretty good job of acting. Seriously.
In no particular order - TAPS, The Color of Money, Rain Man, Jerry McGuire, Magnolia, Eyes Wide Shut.
I'd have to admit that he's not one of my favorite actors to watch, but that's not because he's a bad actor. He's had some bad roles. That's not uncommon, for any actor.
The player will reportedly also adopt a video output jack that will allow users to connect their iPods to television sets, sources said. Meanwhile, no mention was made in regards to an output jack capable of relaying audio to a home entertainment center.
I can see how you can say it's unfair to the competition, but again I ask if that's not ALWAYS the case? For example, most Hondas come with a rebranded Honda stereo. These days, you don't even have a choice - the car comes with a stereo. Find me one that doesn't. So is that "unfair" to JVC or Sony or other manufacturers? Seems to me the aftermarket stereo market is quite brisk.
The difference is that Honda isn't a monopoly in the car market, and in the OS market, Microsoft is.
A monopoly is not allowed to use the same competetive tactics that a smaller share competitor is, so what needs to be done is punish the monopolist (in this case Microsoft) for having engaged in practices prohibited to a monopolist in a marketplace.
That's the law.
Re:199$ Neuros, 20gb HD, FM, FM transmitter Open s
on
iPod Mini Sells Out
·
· Score: 1
You forgot "Won't sync with iTunes". To me, this is a big deal, since iTunes is my preferred music player.
The iPod works with iTunes. No other player will, so no other player is pknoll-compatible.
Somewhat OT, but I actuall have an old friend who used to steal cars. At times, he was so annoyed by people installing expensive alarm systems on cars he'd never consider stealing, he'd steal them.
Meaning, he'd steal the alarm system, leaving the car where it was parked.
I consider his most shining moment, however, his stealing of a car that had an alarm system installed. However, this time he left the alarm behind, sitting in the car's now empy parking space with it's own battery, shrieking away...
You may very well be right. I'm no expert on IP litigation, and I've not studied law either. Furthermore, this is certainly a complex case, dealing with a complex history of IP rights within the complex history of Unix.
I agree with you, I it may be SCO isn't looking for a judgement of any kind. They haven't filed but one lawsuit - and that one I think they filed just to open the stage setting for a FUD campaign to discredit Linux and Open Source in the public eye.
So I guess it doesn't matter what they can do legally in regards to UCB v. AT they haven't actually begun a legal process at all. Thanks for the replies.
As somebody else pointed out, SCO is USL's successor in interest to the SysV code, so they actually are an interested party in the BSD case.
True enough, but this same 1994 litigation is what gave us BSD4.4 Lite, the legally unencumbered public version of AT&T's code. This is precedent; the current BSD derivatives are based on a code fork that was found to be non-infringing, once four files were replaced.
The settlement we're talking about was for the countersuit brought by BSD against AT&T, asserting that AT&T had BSD code in their codebase. It was settled out of court for an undisclosed sum, as you point out.
It is this settlement that I assert SCO inherited no interest in; since the creation of BSD4.4 Lite absolved BSD of infringing upon AT&T's IP.
If SCO wants to assert that BSD contains code that is in their IP portfolio, they're going to have to invent a time machine.
I'm not following you here. Why would this be necessary?
The settlement in question was when BSD countersued AT&T, since the AT&T codebase contained copyrighted code produced at UCB. The original suit brought by AT&T against BSD concluded in a finding that BSD's codebase was unencumbered save 4 files, which were replaced to create BSD4.4 Lite, the codebase upon which all the current BSD derivatives are based.
That finding says there is no AT&T code in BSD's codebase. If SCO wants to say there is, fine; but they'd have to have aquired rights to the AT&T code -prior- to the creation of BSD4.4 Lite to do so, wouldn't they?
Unix has a complex history, and I may have confused myself. SCO saying this stuff doesn't help. =) But I can't see how they can lay claim to ANY code in the current BSD (or derived) codebases since 4.4 Lite was created as a result of the litigation in '94.
As for an uninvolved party -- that's not true. AT&T sold all rights on the source code in question to Novell, who then sold it (with strings) to the company that is now SCO.
What I meant by "uninvolved" is that SCO wasn't a party to the agreement to settle. Since the case was closed previous to their involvement (they aquired certain Unix rights in 1995, one year after the settlement) they'd have been aware of the settlement when they aquired those rights.
Though no case law was established since it was settled, there is a record of the findings - BSD code is unencumbered save 4 files, which were re-written to produce BSD4.4 Lite.
I'm still wondering why SCO thinks they have anything at all about this. The settlement is history.
Slashdot Mirror
Since we all know explaining why something is funny kills it, there's seems to be a lot of muttering "never mind" to your less informed friends during a showing of "The Life of Brian".
Social satire prgramming includes (but is certainly not limited to) shows like "The Chappelle Show", "South Park", "The Simpsons" (which is still one of the most subtle), and when it was still airing, "Futurama". It's interesting how many of these kinds of programs are animated. Is it easier to speak dangerous words when your face isn't on the screen?
The land of the free is also a former British colony.
Quoted quote is also misspelled - it's chihuahua.
The Sony and Philips drives will use somewhat different discs. Sony calls its variant DVD-R DL. The Philips equivalent is DVD+R DL. Both disc types should be readable in standard DVD drives and players.
Clever in more ways than one.
I'd say it can be an enterprise level solution bereft of licensing costs.
Implementing an enterprise solution isn't free, by any measure, even ignoring the cost of the software.
The default searchbar engine in Safari is Google, and cannot be easily changed. It's not surprising to me that a larger portion of Apple users are using Google.
In no particular order - TAPS, The Color of Money, Rain Man, Jerry McGuire, Magnolia, Eyes Wide Shut.
I'd have to admit that he's not one of my favorite actors to watch, but that's not because he's a bad actor. He's had some bad roles. That's not uncommon, for any actor.
*cough* Headphone jack?
=)
As for "affordable", see previous sentence. Affordable is all about percieved value, and the iPods have plenty, even the mini version.
Geeks may think they're too expensive, but the people buying them clearly don't.
The difference is that Honda isn't a monopoly in the car market, and in the OS market, Microsoft is.
A monopoly is not allowed to use the same competetive tactics that a smaller share competitor is, so what needs to be done is punish the monopolist (in this case Microsoft) for having engaged in practices prohibited to a monopolist in a marketplace.
That's the law.
The iPod works with iTunes. No other player will, so no other player is pknoll-compatible.
But then, that would make moderation work better, so...
ei is the wave of the future.
It doesn't take long for the Grammar Nazi to rear its ugly head. It's a sign of their low esteem.
=)
Meaning, he'd steal the alarm system, leaving the car where it was parked.
I consider his most shining moment, however, his stealing of a car that had an alarm system installed. However, this time he left the alarm behind, sitting in the car's now empy parking space with it's own battery, shrieking away...
Ah. Memories.
It's interesting to be the parent, and the one who's listening to more avant-garde music.
Mailed! Whew. Thought you'd said "mauled"... er, wait...
Dealbreaker for me.
I agree with you, I it may be SCO isn't looking for a judgement of any kind. They haven't filed but one lawsuit - and that one I think they filed just to open the stage setting for a FUD campaign to discredit Linux and Open Source in the public eye.
So I guess it doesn't matter what they can do legally in regards to UCB v. AT they haven't actually begun a legal process at all. Thanks for the replies.
Yeah, version is a bad way to say it. Derivative, perhaps, is better.
True enough, but this same 1994 litigation is what gave us BSD4.4 Lite, the legally unencumbered public version of AT&T's code. This is precedent; the current BSD derivatives are based on a code fork that was found to be non-infringing, once four files were replaced.
The settlement we're talking about was for the countersuit brought by BSD against AT&T, asserting that AT&T had BSD code in their codebase. It was settled out of court for an undisclosed sum, as you point out.
It is this settlement that I assert SCO inherited no interest in; since the creation of BSD4.4 Lite absolved BSD of infringing upon AT&T's IP.
I'm not following you here. Why would this be necessary?
The settlement in question was when BSD countersued AT&T, since the AT&T codebase contained copyrighted code produced at UCB. The original suit brought by AT&T against BSD concluded in a finding that BSD's codebase was unencumbered save 4 files, which were replaced to create BSD4.4 Lite, the codebase upon which all the current BSD derivatives are based.
That finding says there is no AT&T code in BSD's codebase. If SCO wants to say there is, fine; but they'd have to have aquired rights to the AT&T code -prior- to the creation of BSD4.4 Lite to do so, wouldn't they?
Unix has a complex history, and I may have confused myself. SCO saying this stuff doesn't help. =) But I can't see how they can lay claim to ANY code in the current BSD (or derived) codebases since 4.4 Lite was created as a result of the litigation in '94.
What I meant by "uninvolved" is that SCO wasn't a party to the agreement to settle. Since the case was closed previous to their involvement (they aquired certain Unix rights in 1995, one year after the settlement) they'd have been aware of the settlement when they aquired those rights.
Though no case law was established since it was settled, there is a record of the findings - BSD code is unencumbered save 4 files, which were re-written to produce BSD4.4 Lite.
I'm still wondering why SCO thinks they have anything at all about this. The settlement is history.