Not when they have the choice of buying a machine with no OS or Linux pre-installed. Why pay for a license youre not going to use? Whereas a machine with Linux on adds no extra license costs on top, so people don't care whether or not it has it on if they intend to wipe it.
Actually, many vendors charge the same for Windows XP home or Linux (Dell, for example). This is because their cost for Windows is about as low as the labor to intall Linux. You are paying for labor instead of license. Their installs of Windows are more automated since 95% of what they ship IS Windows, and MS has provided the tools to make it faster to install at the OEM level. If they shipped more Linux boxes, I am sure they would mirror the drives over as well.
Many people still build computers from parts, and while this is a small number of systems, they are probably more likely to use Linux by, by more than a few percentage points, considering the OEM pricing of XP, $80/$140, or the retail price, $250+.
Also, like many others, I have taken older boxes with Windows 98/ME and deleted it to install Linux (500mhz-1ghz) for performance and security reasons. This also doesn't account for dual boot machines, which probably number in the hundreds of thousands, at least. There are also many older boxes slower than 500mhz that are wiped and used as file sharing boxes, routers, firewalls and home servers. Most of those started their life as Windows boxes.
Since there is no forced registration of Linux, so many distros of Linux and no central authority for Linux distros, the numbers will always be suspect.
Those are primal animal instincts, causing from howling at the moon on Friday night, and needing some hair of the dog the next morning. Often, this is also associated with tom cat'ing.
Actually, I just witnessed the slashdotting. Got the page. Got a "missing" error. Got a blank page. Got a "down for maintenance". All about 30secs from each other. But the home page for them works fine, loads fast. My guess is they are pissed that/. deeplinked them or something, so put up a "fuck you, we are down" page.
So i clicked on them a few hundred times just to be sure, and wrote a script on my linux box:
#!/bin/sh white true do wget -m -p http://www.apolloarchive.com/ & done
Just to make sure I get copies of the purdy pictures;)
how do you figure? At a flea market I have the goods in my hand when I pay.
Because many items you can't test until you get home, and most flea marketers don't accept Visa/MC. With Ebay, I get, I test, if its not like it was stated, I call my bank, they reverse the charges even IF the seller wont.
Well, I never understood the craze about ebay. You're dealing with unknown untrusted people, giving them money in advance (as I understood) I just can't trust anyone on such sites. In case I want something I'd rather buy it new. If I can't afford something new, I just won't buy it. So, buying anything in those priceranges is taking a huge risk. I'm not saying that these scammer should get away with it (they should be thrown in jail), I'm just saying that I prefer not to take risks.
I have eBayed since 98, and have sold tens of thousands of dollars worth of stuff, and bought thousands of dollars worth as well. Never directly ripped off. Of course, I only buy from people with good ratings, use a credit card/pay pal only, and take other precautions, but still its safer than buying from a flea market.
I don't know what kind of webmaster you are, but the reg information per user is probably less than a single Kilobyte worth of data. Say we saved them the slashdot crowd of two hundred thousand clicks. 200k. WOOOhoooo... Hallelujah... Lord be praised.
Now, on the other hand, 200k at 1cent per click for some sort of advertising company, that's $2k...
Think/say what you will, even if the per click/user fee was a tenth of a cent, it would by FAR cover the costs of storage.
The kind of webmaster I am? lol. We only get about 6 to 8 million hits a year, so its a moderate traffic system, but the same truths hold. Then again, most sites are less than 1 mil a year.
The data saved per registered visitor is far greater than you state, usually 50x larger. In our case (albeit, atypical) its typically 500k which is 500 TIMES larger than you state. Plus you have to actually *do something* to that data, it doesn't just sit there passively. Users that login in and view one time just creates dead weight in the database, which is why many sites that purge users that have not logged in after a year. If you don't purge, after 2 or 3 years, the vast majority of your database is invalid entries, which makes maintenance and space many times more space and CPU time than is needed.
And they still get their 1c if you are using a shared login, they don't loose any money, since it is still a "targeted ad", so they get paid the same, regardless. The ad is just not as targeted as the advertisers would like. Sorry, but the arguement just doesn't hold water.
Sure, there is less information from using bugmenot logins, but that isn't what NYT wants. If NYT didn't want a database full over people who visit the site every 6-12 months, they wouldn't require registration at all.
NYT wants a database full of individual readers, so they can track their reading habits, see what people click on, what people are interested in.
Speaking as a webmaster, I would disagree. If someone is a regular user, yes. But someone who only visits once or twice a year does not benefit them very much. They are still getting the same data from all the people that use that one login, albeit it will appear as one user who reads alot and has eclectic tastes, so they are registering the same number of clicks, the same page hits.
we have to show web sites that forcing registration for marketing / tracking purposes leads to a reg database full of crap.
Actually, doing this leads to the NYT having a smaller database, including one entry for all users that share the login. I think the site is a good idea, but its probably doing them a favor, by letting many users who almost never view their site use a single logend. This is better (for them) than a database full of people that visit the site every 6-12 months. But it is probably not really sticking it to them.
The thing that surprised me though looking at it was that it seemed that there was a sudden rally at the end of the day, allowing SCOX to close slightly up. The stock went down all day and then *suddenly* popped back up to where it started. This makes me think that someone bought a whole lot of shares.
Strangely it is back up. Wonder who is buying large numbers of shares to prop it up.
Its still amazing how many normally intellegent people still think SCO is a company being ripped off by Linux, appearantly with no deep understanding of the lawsuit. You still see it in the way the suits are being reported by "the mainstream press", who tend to take the side of the biggest corporation, by default.
It is as if they put up two photos, one of Darl in a suit, and one of RMS (pick any, they all look the same) so the uneducated naturally assume the hippy looking guy must have stolen the code, right?
Electric utilities, cable companies, etc. are GRANTED monopolies. Monopolies are not bad, in and of themselves, and the Sherman act doesn't apply to companies who simply grow legally into a monopoly.
If you make the best tasting cola, and after a few years, everyone (90%+) is drinking it, you have not violated the law, but you have a monopoly.
Having a monopoly is not illegal in the US. Abusing a monopoly is. MS is legally entitled to purchase all the IP they want, and to pursue legal recourse on infringers. The only time legality comes into effect is if they are seen as abusing the monopoly in order to maintain it.
If they purchase what SCO thinks is its IP, and use it to hang over HPs head (what it looks like now) then they can slow the adoption of Linux, and keep vendors from offering it, without a single court case. This is the essence of FUD, by simply hanging a cloud over the the market. How difficult will it be to get venture capital for a project if MS is saying the project would be illegal? What investor would want to invest in something that they know MS is going to go after? None. And its hard to prosecute MS for this. So VC is reduced, innovation is reduced, and no court case is ever filed. This is what I fear may be the goal.
The poster might have mis-stated Bush's actual words on the Geneva convention but he clearly got the sense completely right.
You and I disagree on many points, mainly in degrees, and I am sure agree on many points. Either way, I enjoy a rational, reasoned opinion, particularly when it differs from mine. The original post from EnderWiggnz did not share those qualities, and appears more flamebait than fact, an absurd oversimplification. I feel confident that if you view it again you will be able to understand why someone would view it that way, whether or not you agree with the interpretation.
A 37-page memo written by Assistant Attorney General Jay S. Bybee and addressed to White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales and the Pentagon's general counsel, William J. Haynes II. Bybee argued that that the War Crimes Act and the Geneva Convention did not apply to al Qaeda prisoners and that President Bush had constitutional authority to "suspend our treaty obligations toward Afghanistan" because it was a "failed state.
So if you are going to call "bullshit", at least READ the article you are quoting. It is almost a direct quote of what I said, and doesn't use the word invalid anywhere.
You know, the facts never stopped Michael Moore, champion of the Left.
To be honest, I don't think Moore is really a champion of the Left. He is just smart enough *fool* the people on the left into thinking he cares about Liberals. Think about it: All he did was tell a bunch of lies, mixed with some truth, charge $8 a pop, and convinced everyone that they MUST see it if they are a patriotic democrat. Sounds to me like he is exploited BOTH sides of the isle.
The ELF bit is a weak arguement, but what can they do? They have a medium-sized pile of money and a dead-end product line. They can litigate, piss the money away trying to outdevelop both the open-source community and Microsoft in the OS space, or give up and find a new business to try and develop. Given the source of their pot of money, it makes sense to take their shot a the IBM lottery...
I think we must be missing something here. I understand your logic, but if you only have $5, you don't go buy a slingshot and take on a Kodiac bear, unless your goal isn't to win to begin with.
They can't really be expecting to make money licensing Linux. They can't expect to win against the other litigants, since even they know all the other judges want to wait until the IBM case is settled before proceeding. They may not have known this before it all started, but they have to know it now. Its as if:
1. Sue everyone 2. ???? 3. Profit!
And they REALLY DONT KNOW what step 2 is, so they are trying a little of everything. As hard as I look, I just can't believe that they really think they can win, so it begs the questions: What is the *real* motivation?
Microsoft? Did you read the article about how MS was going to go after open source the other day? (the HP internal docs) I am still waiting for MS to let SCO completely self destruct, then buy their "IP" at a bargain, to hold a cloud over open source. Its like getting your buddy hooked on crack, just so you can buy his stereo cheap.
Submarine patents is the word Submarine patent - but do SCO have anything they actually 'own'?
Certainly not stock, since many in their management sold theirs earlier in the year. But patents are irrelevent here, as there are zero patent claims in the suits, and they can't make a patent claim this late in the suit. They are just muddying the waters and saying that an industry group that came with a new standard, had no right to come up with a new standard, because they put it in the public domain.
Keep in mind that almost all kernels can still use a.out binaries (at the very least, as a kernel module), so a source distro can simply be reconfiged to generate a.out instead of binary. The real question is: What will this break, if anything, on a purely source distro?
I admit to not knowing much about the GPL, but if it does turn out that the code went from Linux -> SCO, doesn't that mean that the SCO property would be subject to the GPL (what with it being "viral" and all, right?)
The GPL is very clear that if someone tries to use the GPL on software that they have no right to use the GPL on, then they can't use the GPL for it. This means, if someone GPL's someone elses code, it is considered NOT GPLed at all, and it never was, regardless of any claim. In order to license any software, you must first possess the RIGHT to do so.
Only the legal owner of any code can choose the license his/her software is under. No one can take that away by illegally releasing it under a different license. It is no different than if I stole the source for Windows 98, then "released in under the GPL". That doesn't make it GPL because I never had the rights to do so.
they're just learning from the bush administrations... i mean - they've called the geneva conventions "invalid" for a while now...
I call FUD on you. He said they didn't apply to the people at GITMO, he NEVER said they were invalid. He also said the the UN is at risk of becoming irrelevent, which some would argue is a bit late. He parses his words carefully, and I wish people would quit misinterpreting them intentionally. There is plenty I disagree with Bush on, but misquoting the facts isn't benefiting anyone.
If you are going to bash Bush, at least get the facts straight lest you lend no credibility to yourself, and all anyone could conclude is that FUD is your goal.
Why water? Many Sci Fi authors have predicted life cycles based on other substances, in various and other temperature gradients.
I think the main point here is that we know that life can grow where there is water, and we have some pretty good ideas what to look for. For instance, we are looking for proof of water on Mars, and then we know to look where the water USED to be in order to find where life MAY have been.
When it comes to life that isn't carbon based and/or came from water, we simply don't know what to look for. We could be looking right at it and not see it because we have no point of reference, no experience, no tell tale signs that say "life was/is here". That doesn't mean life doesn't exist without water (or without being carbon based). It just means we would be unlikely to understand what we found with the limited tools on a probe unless the think came up and started waving "hi" to us.
Considering that water is relatively common in the areas of the solar system that we would THINK there could be life (venus thru mars + moons of outer planets), the smartest investment we can make is to look for the kind of life we know can exist, where we think it can exist. This means where liquid water is or was.
Making a death threat on ANYBODY is illegal, not just a judge or agent.
In many places, this would fall under a couple of different statues. Assault, which is the threat of physical harm. In most places, you don't have to actually DO the harm, if "a reasonable person" would believe the threat was genuine.
Extortion, which is the threat of violence if a term is not met. Obvious, "give me money or I hurt you", which this absolutely is.
"Terroristic Threat" since it is sent to one or several people, which is using a threat soley for the purpose of instilling fear for any purpose. This would cover stuff like threatening to burn down the homes of anyone of a particular race or religion, for example.
I am sure that using the Internet would also qualify as a wire transfer of the threat, adding new dimensions. There are also MANY possibilies in Civil Court, such as the proverbial "pain and suffering" of the victim after being threatened.
That said, I doubt much will come of these, since the police seem to view anything that happens over the internet as a non local issue, unless they are running a sting operation.
Slashdot Mirror
Not when they have the choice of buying a machine with no OS or Linux pre-installed. Why pay for a license youre not going to use? Whereas a machine with Linux on adds no extra license costs on top, so people don't care whether or not it has it on if they intend to wipe it.
Actually, many vendors charge the same for Windows XP home or Linux (Dell, for example). This is because their cost for Windows is about as low as the labor to intall Linux. You are paying for labor instead of license. Their installs of Windows are more automated since 95% of what they ship IS Windows, and MS has provided the tools to make it faster to install at the OEM level. If they shipped more Linux boxes, I am sure they would mirror the drives over as well.
Many people still build computers from parts, and while this is a small number of systems, they are probably more likely to use Linux by, by more than a few percentage points, considering the OEM pricing of XP, $80/$140, or the retail price, $250+.
Also, like many others, I have taken older boxes with Windows 98/ME and deleted it to install Linux (500mhz-1ghz) for performance and security reasons. This also doesn't account for dual boot machines, which probably number in the hundreds of thousands, at least. There are also many older boxes slower than 500mhz that are wiped and used as file sharing boxes, routers, firewalls and home servers. Most of those started their life as Windows boxes.
Since there is no forced registration of Linux, so many distros of Linux and no central authority for Linux distros, the numbers will always be suspect.
Those are primal animal instincts, causing from howling at the moon on Friday night, and needing some hair of the dog the next morning. Often, this is also associated with tom cat'ing.
According the article:
;)
A zoo veterinarian says he's not sure why she has altered her behaviour, speculating that the illness could have caused brain damage.
So, we are similar to monkeys, but mainly the brain damaged ones?
Actually, I just witnessed the slashdotting. Got the page. Got a "missing" error. Got a blank page. Got a "down for maintenance". All about 30secs from each other. But the home page for them works fine, loads fast. My guess is they are pissed that /. deeplinked them or something, so put up a "fuck you, we are down" page.
;)
So i clicked on them a few hundred times just to be sure, and wrote a script on my linux box:
#!/bin/sh
white true
do
wget -m -p http://www.apolloarchive.com/ &
done
Just to make sure I get copies of the purdy pictures
how do you figure? At a flea market I have the goods in my hand when I pay.
Because many items you can't test until you get home, and most flea marketers don't accept Visa/MC. With Ebay, I get, I test, if its not like it was stated, I call my bank, they reverse the charges even IF the seller wont.
Well, I never understood the craze about ebay. You're dealing with unknown untrusted people, giving them money in advance (as I understood) I just can't trust anyone on such sites. In case I want something I'd rather buy it new. If I can't afford something new, I just won't buy it.
So, buying anything in those priceranges is taking a huge risk. I'm not saying that these scammer should get away with it (they should be thrown in jail), I'm just saying that I prefer not to take risks.
I have eBayed since 98, and have sold tens of thousands of dollars worth of stuff, and bought thousands of dollars worth as well. Never directly ripped off. Of course, I only buy from people with good ratings, use a credit card/pay pal only, and take other precautions, but still its safer than buying from a flea market.
thanks for posting the text, since the sites are /.ed already, even tho the mods are smoking crack.
I don't know what kind of webmaster you are, but the reg information per user is probably less than a single Kilobyte worth of data.
Say we saved them the slashdot crowd of two hundred thousand clicks. 200k. WOOOhoooo... Hallelujah... Lord be praised.
Now, on the other hand, 200k at 1cent per click for some sort of advertising company, that's $2k...
Think/say what you will, even if the per click/user fee was a tenth of a cent, it would by FAR cover the costs of storage.
The kind of webmaster I am? lol. We only get about 6 to 8 million hits a year, so its a moderate traffic system, but the same truths hold. Then again, most sites are less than 1 mil a year.
The data saved per registered visitor is far greater than you state, usually 50x larger. In our case (albeit, atypical) its typically 500k which is 500 TIMES larger than you state. Plus you have to actually *do something* to that data, it doesn't just sit there passively. Users that login in and view one time just creates dead weight in the database, which is why many sites that purge users that have not logged in after a year. If you don't purge, after 2 or 3 years, the vast majority of your database is invalid entries, which makes maintenance and space many times more space and CPU time than is needed.
And they still get their 1c if you are using a shared login, they don't loose any money, since it is still a "targeted ad", so they get paid the same, regardless. The ad is just not as targeted as the advertisers would like. Sorry, but the arguement just doesn't hold water.
Sure, there is less information from using bugmenot logins, but that isn't what NYT wants. If NYT didn't want a database full over people who visit the site every 6-12 months, they wouldn't require registration at all.
NYT wants a database full of individual readers, so they can track their reading habits, see what people click on, what people are interested in.
Speaking as a webmaster, I would disagree. If someone is a regular user, yes. But someone who only visits once or twice a year does not benefit them very much. They are still getting the same data from all the people that use that one login, albeit it will appear as one user who reads alot and has eclectic tastes, so they are registering the same number of clicks, the same page hits.
we have to show web sites that forcing registration for marketing / tracking purposes leads to a reg database full of crap.
Actually, doing this leads to the NYT having a smaller database, including one entry for all users that share the login. I think the site is a good idea, but its probably doing them a favor, by letting many users who almost never view their site use a single logend. This is better (for them) than a database full of people that visit the site every 6-12 months. But it is probably not really sticking it to them.
The thing that surprised me though looking at it was that it seemed that there was a sudden rally at the end of the day, allowing SCOX to close slightly up. The stock went down all day and then *suddenly* popped back up to where it started. This makes me think that someone bought a whole lot of shares.
;)
Microsoft?
Strangely it is back up. Wonder who is buying large numbers of shares to prop it up.
Its still amazing how many normally intellegent people still think SCO is a company being ripped off by Linux, appearantly with no deep understanding of the lawsuit. You still see it in the way the suits are being reported by "the mainstream press", who tend to take the side of the biggest corporation, by default.
It is as if they put up two photos, one of Darl in a suit, and one of RMS (pick any, they all look the same) so the uneducated naturally assume the hippy looking guy must have stolen the code, right?
Electric utilities, cable companies, etc. are GRANTED monopolies. Monopolies are not bad, in and of themselves, and the Sherman act doesn't apply to companies who simply grow legally into a monopoly.
If you make the best tasting cola, and after a few years, everyone (90%+) is drinking it, you have not violated the law, but you have a monopoly.
Having a monopoly is not illegal in the US. Abusing a monopoly is. MS is legally entitled to purchase all the IP they want, and to pursue legal recourse on infringers. The only time legality comes into effect is if they are seen as abusing the monopoly in order to maintain it.
If they purchase what SCO thinks is its IP, and use it to hang over HPs head (what it looks like now) then they can slow the adoption of Linux, and keep vendors from offering it, without a single court case. This is the essence of FUD, by simply hanging a cloud over the the market. How difficult will it be to get venture capital for a project if MS is saying the project would be illegal? What investor would want to invest in something that they know MS is going to go after? None. And its hard to prosecute MS for this. So VC is reduced, innovation is reduced, and no court case is ever filed. This is what I fear may be the goal.
The poster might have mis-stated Bush's actual words on the Geneva convention but he clearly got the sense completely right.
You and I disagree on many points, mainly in degrees, and I am sure agree on many points. Either way, I enjoy a rational, reasoned opinion, particularly when it differs from mine. The original post from EnderWiggnz did not share those qualities, and appears more flamebait than fact, an absurd oversimplification. I feel confident that if you view it again you will be able to understand why someone would view it that way, whether or not you agree with the interpretation.
Lets see, reading from what you link to:
A 37-page memo written by Assistant Attorney General Jay S. Bybee and addressed to White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales and the Pentagon's general counsel, William J. Haynes II. Bybee argued that that the War Crimes Act and the Geneva Convention did not apply to al Qaeda prisoners and that President Bush had constitutional authority to "suspend our treaty obligations toward Afghanistan" because it was a "failed state.
So if you are going to call "bullshit", at least READ the article you are quoting. It is almost a direct quote of what I said, and doesn't use the word invalid anywhere.
You know, the facts never stopped Michael Moore, champion of the Left.
To be honest, I don't think Moore is really a champion of the Left. He is just smart enough *fool* the people on the left into thinking he cares about Liberals. Think about it: All he did was tell a bunch of lies, mixed with some truth, charge $8 a pop, and convinced everyone that they MUST see it if they are a patriotic democrat. Sounds to me like he is exploited BOTH sides of the isle.
Moore is about the money, not the politics.
Dude!
;)
Are you talking about the same guy?
Ok, ok, ok, after careful thought and consideration, I realize how silly that sounded. Let me clarify:
His speechwriters parse their words carefully, right before he unpronounces them
The ELF bit is a weak arguement, but what can they do? They have a medium-sized pile of money and a dead-end product line. They can litigate, piss the money away trying to outdevelop both the open-source community and Microsoft in the OS space, or give up and find a new business to try and develop. Given the source of their pot of money, it makes sense to take their shot a the IBM lottery...
I think we must be missing something here. I understand your logic, but if you only have $5, you don't go buy a slingshot and take on a Kodiac bear, unless your goal isn't to win to begin with.
They can't really be expecting to make money licensing Linux. They can't expect to win against the other litigants, since even they know all the other judges want to wait until the IBM case is settled before proceeding. They may not have known this before it all started, but they have to know it now. Its as if:
1. Sue everyone
2. ????
3. Profit!
And they REALLY DONT KNOW what step 2 is, so they are trying a little of everything. As hard as I look, I just can't believe that they really think they can win, so it begs the questions: What is the *real* motivation?
Microsoft? Did you read the article about how MS was going to go after open source the other day? (the HP internal docs) I am still waiting for MS to let SCO completely self destruct, then buy their "IP" at a bargain, to hold a cloud over open source. Its like getting your buddy hooked on crack, just so you can buy his stereo cheap.
Submarine patents is the word Submarine patent - but do SCO have anything they actually 'own'?
Certainly not stock, since many in their management sold theirs earlier in the year. But patents are irrelevent here, as there are zero patent claims in the suits, and they can't make a patent claim this late in the suit. They are just muddying the waters and saying that an industry group that came with a new standard, had no right to come up with a new standard, because they put it in the public domain.
Keep in mind that almost all kernels can still use a.out binaries (at the very least, as a kernel module), so a source distro can simply be reconfiged to generate a.out instead of binary. The real question is: What will this break, if anything, on a purely source distro?
I admit to not knowing much about the GPL, but if it does turn out that the code went from Linux -> SCO, doesn't that mean that the SCO property would be subject to the GPL (what with it being "viral" and all, right?)
The GPL is very clear that if someone tries to use the GPL on software that they have no right to use the GPL on, then they can't use the GPL for it. This means, if someone GPL's someone elses code, it is considered NOT GPLed at all, and it never was, regardless of any claim. In order to license any software, you must first possess the RIGHT to do so.
Only the legal owner of any code can choose the license his/her software is under. No one can take that away by illegally releasing it under a different license. It is no different than if I stole the source for Windows 98, then "released in under the GPL". That doesn't make it GPL because I never had the rights to do so.
they're just learning from the bush administrations... i mean - they've called the geneva conventions "invalid" for a while now...
I call FUD on you. He said they didn't apply to the people at GITMO, he NEVER said they were invalid. He also said the the UN is at risk of becoming irrelevent, which some would argue is a bit late. He parses his words carefully, and I wish people would quit misinterpreting them intentionally. There is plenty I disagree with Bush on, but misquoting the facts isn't benefiting anyone.
If you are going to bash Bush, at least get the facts straight lest you lend no credibility to yourself, and all anyone could conclude is that FUD is your goal.
Why water? Many Sci Fi authors have predicted life cycles based on other substances, in various and other temperature gradients.
I think the main point here is that we know that life can grow where there is water, and we have some pretty good ideas what to look for. For instance, we are looking for proof of water on Mars, and then we know to look where the water USED to be in order to find where life MAY have been.
When it comes to life that isn't carbon based and/or came from water, we simply don't know what to look for. We could be looking right at it and not see it because we have no point of reference, no experience, no tell tale signs that say "life was/is here". That doesn't mean life doesn't exist without water (or without being carbon based). It just means we would be unlikely to understand what we found with the limited tools on a probe unless the think came up and started waving "hi" to us.
Considering that water is relatively common in the areas of the solar system that we would THINK there could be life (venus thru mars + moons of outer planets), the smartest investment we can make is to look for the kind of life we know can exist, where we think it can exist. This means where liquid water is or was.
Making a death threat on ANYBODY is illegal, not just a judge or agent.
In many places, this would fall under a couple of different statues. Assault, which is the threat of physical harm. In most places, you don't have to actually DO the harm, if "a reasonable person" would believe the threat was genuine.
Extortion, which is the threat of violence if a term is not met. Obvious, "give me money or I hurt you", which this absolutely is.
"Terroristic Threat" since it is sent to one or several people, which is using a threat soley for the purpose of instilling fear for any purpose. This would cover stuff like threatening to burn down the homes of anyone of a particular race or religion, for example.
I am sure that using the Internet would also qualify as a wire transfer of the threat, adding new dimensions. There are also MANY possibilies in Civil Court, such as the proverbial "pain and suffering" of the victim after being threatened.
That said, I doubt much will come of these, since the police seem to view anything that happens over the internet as a non local issue, unless they are running a sting operation.