You can, from this time forward, change the terms of future licenses, but you can not retroactively change past licenses. In addition, the only person who can then change a piece of software from GPL to non-GPL is the person who wrote the original GPL'ed software. Everyone who made and distributed modifications UNDER THE ORIGINAL GPL LICENSE can continue to distribute those modifications - but I believe they would not be able to make additional modifications.
Actually, they can. If foobar v. 1.0 is GPL and the author changes the license to closed source at version 1.01, then 1.0 is still under the GPL and subject to the same terms. You can fork it, and develop it independently, as long as you abide with the GPL. The original author can NOT take away the fact that 1.0 was GPL, and can't take away your right to use that version under the GPL. Once a version is GPL, it is always GPL.
The owner of copyright has sole discretion as to allowing a work to be copied and distributed, and can ask any price he wants. He can allow 1 copy for $10,000, or 50,000 copies for $19.95 each, or even infinite copies for $0. In the latter case, Public Domain has been created.
Don't fall into the trap of confusing price with copyright. They are not relative. Just because it is free, that doesn't make it Public Domain. If I want, I can sell any Public Domain software for any amount I can get. If there are any restrictions on charging, then it isn't PD.
PD means just that: It is in the public domain, and the public can do anything they want with it. Charge for it, modify and resell it, print T-shirts with the code, etc. The author is giving up all rights to inforce any restrictions when he PD's any software. He has no copyright to protect at that point. If MS wants to take it and incorporate it into Windows, the PD author has no recourse.
All we need is one slashdotter on the jury and SCO is doomed. I just hope it isn't the penis bird man, the Natalie Portman stalker, or the grits fetishist.
I am not so sure. In criminal law (in most states) it requires "beyond a reasonable doubt" and all jurists agreeing. But the standard is lower in civil suits, and in some states, 10 of 12 have to agree is all. If it goes federal, I am also not sure. Any lawyers want to make yourself useful and fill us in?
SCO can say that it not valid, but they are probably wrong.
Always trying to find the silver lining in the cloud, if this IS fought and likely won in court, this WILL strengthen Copyleft and help to instill warm fuzzy feelings about it. Its a sucky lawsuits on many levels, but assuming SCO is sent to the poorhouse with its tail between its legs, it will launch Linux to new heights. Not only will it reinforce the legality of Copyleft and Linux code, but it has served to do two other things: Make more people aware of the name Linux, and make them think it must be pretty good if the big Unix company is suing them over it.
This has to be a hoax. Rabbits are mammals and give live birth.
Human females have eggs, too. You obviously are not familiar with the female body, but thats the whole reason they get bitchy once a month, getting rid of an egg that didn't get fertilized.
I especially like your "won't get jobs" bit, in the "Ha ha I have a job and being made redundent or unable to find employment will never, ever happen to me!" sort of way. I believe there are a couple of million unemployed people right now who had the exact same attitude as you before the recession.
Still, it'll never happen to you. Right?
No, it HAS happened to me. At 38 years old, I have worked for more than a few companies. Some, I quit. A couple went out of business. I have even been fired. But I have never seen an unemployment check, partially due to the fact that I am motivated enough to keep looking, live modest enough that I don't get behind in my bills, and have enough self respect that I WILL take a job that is "beneath" me rather than take Govt. charity.
Not everyone is so "lucky", but most the unemployeed people I know look at it as a paid vacation while the checks are coming in. If you are not looking everyday 8 hours a day (same as you would work) then expect no pity from me. Been there, did that.
People who "won't" get jobs? What about people like myself who have a four-year degree but get turned down everywhere but food service??
I can't explain. Meanwhile, guys like me that do not have a 4 year degree are doing quite well, and turn down opportunities regularly. I guess some companies are more concerned with what you can do instead of where you went to school.
10 years ago I expected some truly breath-taking an immersive 3D games with excellent gameplay for the present. However, I often times find that today's games are simply breath-taking in a graphical sense but really lack in the gameplay. Am I just spoiled or does anyone else feel this way? Maybe it's just that I'm remembering my childhood playing those side scroller games for hours.
Amen. I'm also disappointed that as computers get faster, software finds a way to require more cpu cycles to do the same work. I was burning cd's with a 486, why is my xp box sluggish as all hell when i burn one now at just 12x? (2.5ghz, 512ram) I ran a 2 line bbs on a 386SX with 4mb of ram, and qemm, 2400 and the new 14.4... it just seems like you could do relatively more then because the software was simpler and more optimized.
Game wize, I still play TFC and run several servers. Decent graphics, killer gameplay, from 1998. I used to have a lot of really good shareware games too (remember those?) but most don't like running in DOS emulation on xp. Very simple games that required imagination and strategy. Now games are more about entertainment than fluidity of gameplay. Then again, they want you to get bored eventually and go buy another game.
Wait a second, webmail does not require SMTP/port 25 to send mail. Your client isn't sending mail. Its basically sending a form to the server, via a CGI process (perl or php typically) and the SERVER uses port 25 to actually send it. You only need port 80 for insecure and 443 for secure webmail.
I block port 25 on my home windows and linux boxes simply because if I DO get infected, at least my box won't send out to anyone else on 25, regardless of what program is trying to do it, including the virus itself. I have not used stunnel to ssl my mail yet, but that is in the works. But I know I am not using 25 on SquirrelMail, and I am sure with any webmail server.
R: I'll pay you $6
D: I'll pay you $10, but I need $5 of that in taxes Who helps the poor?
You left out part of it. It should be "I'll pay you $10, but I need $5 of that in taxes which will cover basic healthcare and help improve your local schools."
I think you made a typo: It should be:
R: I'll pay you $6 D: I'll pay you $10, but I need $5 of that in taxes which will cover basic healthcare and help improve local schools for people who won't get jobs, or are here illegally.
Speaking as one who has played Civilisation until the late hours of the morning, I can confidently say that the country with the most advanced technology, wins.
That term makes a lot of people uncomfortable: win.
People assume that when you have winners, you must have losers. While this is true in Civilization, it need not be true in life. It is true that when America innovates, it may benefit more, but everyone else that uses the product can benefit as well.
America put more money into developing the Internet, through DARPA, starting in 1969, and many of the companies (not all) that build equipment for using the Internet, from computers to routers, are American companies. But this has created tons of jobs in China and other countries, sparked competition in Europe and the Pacific Rim, and has created many jobs along the way. America certainly didn't do it alone, but it was the Cold War and the space race that fueled much of DARPA, and now, in its adolesence, the internet is just as accessible in England, France, Japan, Brazil or America, and its getting better every year for poorer countries. In this respect, there are winners, and those who are doing better.
We win in that we develop the most technology, but since it shared, there are very few losers. Some have a problem with the fact that we benefit more, at least initially. Some will always have problems when one group benefits more. I just don't share their world view. I think it was Winston Churchill that said "Capitalism is wealth distributed unequally. Socialism is misery shared equally." (something like that)
Like most of us, I have no issue with sharing technology and helping others, but I still want to be on the winning team.
Prepare for a Win* exclusive machine to be released.
The funny thing is, the first models sold would be to hackers trying to port it to BSD or Linux. Just the very IDEA that MS would try to make a box "MS only" would force them to port it: Like moths to a candle. There is no reason to make a MS ONLY box unless it is cheaper, which is another reason the hackers would be trying to port it. The other, of course, is because it would irritate bgates.
Don't think so? Ever heard of X-box? A MS only box, with all the Palladin etc. you want, would create yet another "$10,000 to the first person who can boot linux and document it to be recreated" contest.
Yeah. And in most states, you only have to get through high school with a diploma to hold a position in office. Seeing how 9 out of 10(litterally) high schools in my local area don't meet federal guidlines, I wouldn't trust any of their graduates to sharpen pencils at city hall.
I have NEVER seen a political office that REQUIRES any level of education. Even when i lived in Texas, you can elect a judge that is NOT a lawyer. I would love to see some links to the effect that being a politician requires any level of education. I know for a fact you don't have to have any to be US President (easy to check the constitution) and since public education is no where to be found as a right in the constitution anyway (really) I would find this hard to believe, or at the very least, I would find this to be illegal/unconstitutional.
If you need a degree or any level of education for a position, then maybe that position shouldn't be voted on, and instead hired by the other elected officials.
Seriously, any link to any place that requires any education level to be elected, I would love that. That has to be totally unconstitutional and very discriminitory.
It took Sputnik to kickstart our spacemindedness; I for one consider it sad that a "tremendous amount of interest" -- and the funding that comes with it -- in high-performance computing seems only to have arisen/regenerated with the influence of competitive international politics. Are we really so hardly advanced that our respective national egos are still the driving force behind enthusiasm, financial or otherwise, in certain areas of science?
I don't really see that as bad. Yes, it may look like pure ego, but the space race gave us so much that filtered into the commercial/private sector. From advanced computers to Velcro(tm). From my perspective, being the most advanced nation in as many areas as possible is a good defense, both economically and in a homeland security sense.
Frankly, I don't want the fastest computer chips on the desktop to be designed by a company in another country (even if Intel makes them outside of the US) and I would rather that the cutting edge, be cut here, in my native country. I am sure other people in other countries feel the same, that pushed all of us to new heights. In the end, the technologies are shared anyway. Most anyone in the world can buy Intel chips, for example.
If no one cared who could race a bicycle the fastest, Lance Armstrong would be just some guy who had cancer. Instead, our desire to compete and excell and outdo our neighbors has benefited EVERYONE a great deal. It can bring out the bad side from time to time, but the benefits far outweigh the costs. This urge to compete and win is not unique to America by any means, it is part of being human: man the animal.
I say bring on the computer chip wars: Lets all compete, Japanese, Americans, Europeans, Russians, come one come all. In the end, we will all benefit, no matter who has the bragging rights for a day.
Ignoring size, how does the cost of a cluster of fewer, highly specialized computers (with special interconnects, etc.) compare with that of a cluster of more, less specialized computers?
I am guessing that cost is not the most important factor when it comes to supercomputers anyway. If you are the CIA, NOAH or biotech, yes keeping costs down are nice but performance is more of an issue. There was a similar article a few days back about the new Crays, and how Crays sales are up significantly. I can see how this would really matter for weather forcasting (not good to take 3 days to calculate what tomorrow's weather is going to be) and in crypto (can't wait the extra time either) and more.
Sometimes you just have to have the most power you can get, cost be damned. From my limited experience, agencies that buy supercomputers are not doing it because it is more cost effective in any way.
Naturally, this doesn't mean IBM is in on it, but it does support the idea that SCO was just using this ruse for free money. Clearly they're using their stock price to get stuff for free.
Perhaps that is the goal: You realize your company is worth $100 (example, easy math). You convince everyone it is worth more, say $1000. You take the $900 in extra stock you just issued, and buy $900 worth of real companies. In the end, your company is theoretically worth $1900, until you lose your lawsuit, at which time it is back to worth $900 purely because of the assets you purchased. Now, the key is to sell when it is as close to $1900 as possible, but anything between $900 and $1900 is worth your time, especially if you don't really own the stock, just the options, thus not costing you anything. You CAN get rich doing this, but it involves one extra step.
This is the critical part: You have to start writing your new book WHILE you are in prison, not after you get out. This works out pretty well because you will have lots of free time in between sodomy sessions. The good thing is you don't have to pretend your innocent anymore, those books don't sell anyway. Instead, write about how you learned from the experience, and how its really "the systems" fault, because it was so easy to do. So, instantly, even though YOU did it, you can blame the system, sell some book, probably get a great consulting gig or go on a speaking tour, and you will probably only have to spend 3 to 5 years actually in jail.
Unless someone is watching their mail queue, then they don't know how many messages to send - if response is pretty large, then they're not going to be able to pull one over. If response is fairly small, and conspirators were to send many messages, then it's obvious something is wrong.
So, should they let the same guy responsible for managing the hacked ftp site verify this incoming mail to make sure its not all from the same person?
Actually, its the fact that the server was owned back in March and they just now figured it out that bothers ME. One good thing about FSF is they don't dick around once they do find out, it becomes public fast, which is pretty honest.
What I do on my server, and what you do on your server is our own problem, but you would think the primary FTP site for all FSF would have a little better security. Yea, its like how mechanics don't take great care of their own cars, but this really is a black eye, and potential marketing tool, mainly because the server has been 0wned for MONTHS now. Doesn't shake my faith (been with linux 4 years now), but it MIGHT shake someone considering migrating.
"First Linux steals Unix property from SCO, and now their servers were hacked and it took them months to figure it out."
I'm not trolling, I'm wincing... Right or wrong, some people WILL see it this way.
There are two problems I see with the theory. First, I don't see SCO taking over any small companies right now.;)
Actually, they are. Computer World published and article on it called SCO's Shell Game. Also found other tidbits while Googling(tm) around. They make a claim, their stock goes up, they issue new shares and buy stuff by trading the new shares.
Now, I don't say the parent is absolutely correct, but there is some real validity to his claims. Not necessarily probable, but very possible. The parent is not that far off my line of reasoning.
If you actually listened to NPR, you would realize that they are the only organization besides the BBC that is anywhere near "fair and balanced."
Absolute horseshit. I have listen to NPR from 1 to 3 hours every day (including BBC am report here on the east coast) for years. I also listen to Rush a few hours a week, plus other programs (everything but music on radio).
NPR is as left as BBC. Thats fine, I don't expect them to NOT be. Ironically, more Republicans listen to NPR than Democrats (not my opinion, recent study, could be googled I guess). But it IS left of center, just as Rush is right of center. This fact is not news, and not a recent event even. They do have some good programming, I just take their opinions with a grain of salt. I am a conservative, but I have no problem hearing how the left thinks (or feels, rather). I am secure enough in my beliefs that I have no issue with anyone questioning them or disagreeing. NPR is not as left as it used to be, they will at least acknowlege that there is more than one reasonable opinion on some matters now.
But to think NPR and BBC is center, is just plain silly. Perhaps closer to center than your own opinions, but that is relative.
IBM licenses used to allow you to have a fully operational backup computer on the same license, as long as it was NOT in standard use (on is ok, with first backing up to it). This was so you could instantly fire up the backup without any installing. As long as you only used ONE of the boxes, you were in compliance with the license.
I wonder if you can claim that with the twin: Its just a backup of the first kid, in case the first kid crashes, to avoid the extra $2499?
Slashdot Mirror
You can, from this time forward, change the terms of future licenses, but you can not retroactively change past licenses. In addition, the only person who can then change a piece of software from GPL to non-GPL is the person who wrote the original GPL'ed software. Everyone who made and distributed modifications UNDER THE ORIGINAL GPL LICENSE can continue to distribute those modifications - but I believe they would not be able to make additional modifications.
Actually, they can. If foobar v. 1.0 is GPL and the author changes the license to closed source at version 1.01, then 1.0 is still under the GPL and subject to the same terms. You can fork it, and develop it independently, as long as you abide with the GPL. The original author can NOT take away the fact that 1.0 was GPL, and can't take away your right to use that version under the GPL. Once a version is GPL, it is always GPL.
The owner of copyright has sole discretion as to allowing a work to be copied and distributed, and can ask any price he wants. He can allow 1 copy for $10,000, or 50,000 copies for $19.95 each, or even infinite copies for $0. In the latter case, Public Domain has been created.
Don't fall into the trap of confusing price with copyright. They are not relative. Just because it is free, that doesn't make it Public Domain. If I want, I can sell any Public Domain software for any amount I can get. If there are any restrictions on charging, then it isn't PD.
PD means just that: It is in the public domain, and the public can do anything they want with it. Charge for it, modify and resell it, print T-shirts with the code, etc. The author is giving up all rights to inforce any restrictions when he PD's any software. He has no copyright to protect at that point. If MS wants to take it and incorporate it into Windows, the PD author has no recourse.
And three lefts make a right, also.
All we need is one slashdotter on the jury and SCO is doomed. I just hope it isn't the penis bird man, the Natalie Portman stalker, or the grits fetishist.
I am not so sure. In criminal law (in most states) it requires "beyond a reasonable doubt" and all jurists agreeing. But the standard is lower in civil suits, and in some states, 10 of 12 have to agree is all. If it goes federal, I am also not sure. Any lawyers want to make yourself useful and fill us in?
SCO can say that it not valid, but they are probably wrong.
Always trying to find the silver lining in the cloud, if this IS fought and likely won in court, this WILL strengthen Copyleft and help to instill warm fuzzy feelings about it. Its a sucky lawsuits on many levels, but assuming SCO is sent to the poorhouse with its tail between its legs, it will launch Linux to new heights. Not only will it reinforce the legality of Copyleft and Linux code, but it has served to do two other things: Make more people aware of the name Linux, and make them think it must be pretty good if the big Unix company is suing them over it.
This has to be a hoax. Rabbits are mammals and give live birth.
Human females have eggs, too. You obviously are not familiar with the female body, but thats the whole reason they get bitchy once a month, getting rid of an egg that didn't get fertilized.
you're all relieved the water level won't rise ...
But where the hell is santa gunna live if his homeland is melted??
It's all Santa's own fault. The global warming is from people burning all that coal he stuffs in their stockings.
Santa is evil. Ever notice how SANTA and SATAN are anagrams?
China trying to compete with Hugh and create their own Playboy Bunnies? Not to mention the potential for pleasure, knowing how rabbits multiply....
I especially like your "won't get jobs" bit, in the "Ha ha I have a job and being made redundent or unable to find employment will never, ever happen to me!" sort of way. I believe there are a couple of million unemployed people right now who had the exact same attitude as you before the recession.
Still, it'll never happen to you. Right?
No, it HAS happened to me. At 38 years old, I have worked for more than a few companies. Some, I quit. A couple went out of business. I have even been fired. But I have never seen an unemployment check, partially due to the fact that I am motivated enough to keep looking, live modest enough that I don't get behind in my bills, and have enough self respect that I WILL take a job that is "beneath" me rather than take Govt. charity.
Not everyone is so "lucky", but most the unemployeed people I know look at it as a paid vacation while the checks are coming in. If you are not looking everyday 8 hours a day (same as you would work) then expect no pity from me. Been there, did that.
People who "won't" get jobs? What about people like myself who have a four-year degree but get turned down everywhere but food service??
I can't explain. Meanwhile, guys like me that do not have a 4 year degree are doing quite well, and turn down opportunities regularly. I guess some companies are more concerned with what you can do instead of where you went to school.
10 years ago I expected some truly breath-taking an immersive 3D games with excellent gameplay for the present. However, I often times find that today's games are simply breath-taking in a graphical sense but really lack in the gameplay. Am I just spoiled or does anyone else feel this way? Maybe it's just that I'm remembering my childhood playing those side scroller games for hours.
Amen. I'm also disappointed that as computers get faster, software finds a way to require more cpu cycles to do the same work. I was burning cd's with a 486, why is my xp box sluggish as all hell when i burn one now at just 12x? (2.5ghz, 512ram) I ran a 2 line bbs on a 386SX with 4mb of ram, and qemm, 2400 and the new 14.4... it just seems like you could do relatively more then because the software was simpler and more optimized.
Game wize, I still play TFC and run several servers. Decent graphics, killer gameplay, from 1998. I used to have a lot of really good shareware games too (remember those?) but most don't like running in DOS emulation on xp. Very simple games that required imagination and strategy. Now games are more about entertainment than fluidity of gameplay. Then again, they want you to get bored eventually and go buy another game.
Wait a second, webmail does not require SMTP/port 25 to send mail. Your client isn't sending mail. Its basically sending a form to the server, via a CGI process (perl or php typically) and the SERVER uses port 25 to actually send it. You only need port 80 for insecure and 443 for secure webmail.
I block port 25 on my home windows and linux boxes simply because if I DO get infected, at least my box won't send out to anyone else on 25, regardless of what program is trying to do it, including the virus itself. I have not used stunnel to ssl my mail yet, but that is in the works. But I know I am not using 25 on SquirrelMail, and I am sure with any webmail server.
I think you made a typo: It should be:
R: I'll pay you $6
D: I'll pay you $10, but I need $5 of that in taxes which will cover basic healthcare and help improve local schools for people who won't get jobs, or are here illegally.
Speaking as one who has played Civilisation until the late hours of the morning, I can confidently say that the country with the most advanced technology, wins.
That term makes a lot of people uncomfortable: win.
People assume that when you have winners, you must have losers. While this is true in Civilization, it need not be true in life. It is true that when America innovates, it may benefit more, but everyone else that uses the product can benefit as well.
America put more money into developing the Internet, through DARPA, starting in 1969, and many of the companies (not all) that build equipment for using the Internet, from computers to routers, are American companies. But this has created tons of jobs in China and other countries, sparked competition in Europe and the Pacific Rim, and has created many jobs along the way. America certainly didn't do it alone, but it was the Cold War and the space race that fueled much of DARPA, and now, in its adolesence, the internet is just as accessible in England, France, Japan, Brazil or America, and its getting better every year for poorer countries. In this respect, there are winners, and those who are doing better.
We win in that we develop the most technology, but since it shared, there are very few losers. Some have a problem with the fact that we benefit more, at least initially. Some will always have problems when one group benefits more. I just don't share their world view. I think it was Winston Churchill that said "Capitalism is wealth distributed unequally. Socialism is misery shared equally." (something like that)
Like most of us, I have no issue with sharing technology and helping others, but I still want to be on the winning team.
Prepare for a Win* exclusive machine to be released.
The funny thing is, the first models sold would be to hackers trying to port it to BSD or Linux. Just the very IDEA that MS would try to make a box "MS only" would force them to port it: Like moths to a candle. There is no reason to make a MS ONLY box unless it is cheaper, which is another reason the hackers would be trying to port it. The other, of course, is because it would irritate bgates.
Don't think so? Ever heard of X-box? A MS only box, with all the Palladin etc. you want, would create yet another "$10,000 to the first person who can boot linux and document it to be recreated" contest.
Yeah. And in most states, you only have to get through high school with a diploma to hold a position in office. Seeing how 9 out of 10(litterally) high schools in my local area don't meet federal guidlines, I wouldn't trust any of their graduates to sharpen pencils at city hall.
I have NEVER seen a political office that REQUIRES any level of education. Even when i lived in Texas, you can elect a judge that is NOT a lawyer. I would love to see some links to the effect that being a politician requires any level of education. I know for a fact you don't have to have any to be US President (easy to check the constitution) and since public education is no where to be found as a right in the constitution anyway (really) I would find this hard to believe, or at the very least, I would find this to be illegal/unconstitutional.
If you need a degree or any level of education for a position, then maybe that position shouldn't be voted on, and instead hired by the other elected officials.
Seriously, any link to any place that requires any education level to be elected, I would love that. That has to be totally unconstitutional and very discriminitory.
It took Sputnik to kickstart our spacemindedness; I for one consider it sad that a "tremendous amount of interest" -- and the funding that comes with it -- in high-performance computing seems only to have arisen/regenerated with the influence of competitive international politics. Are we really so hardly advanced that our respective national egos are still the driving force behind enthusiasm, financial or otherwise, in certain areas of science?
I don't really see that as bad. Yes, it may look like pure ego, but the space race gave us so much that filtered into the commercial/private sector. From advanced computers to Velcro(tm). From my perspective, being the most advanced nation in as many areas as possible is a good defense, both economically and in a homeland security sense.
Frankly, I don't want the fastest computer chips on the desktop to be designed by a company in another country (even if Intel makes them outside of the US) and I would rather that the cutting edge, be cut here, in my native country. I am sure other people in other countries feel the same, that pushed all of us to new heights. In the end, the technologies are shared anyway. Most anyone in the world can buy Intel chips, for example.
If no one cared who could race a bicycle the fastest, Lance Armstrong would be just some guy who had cancer. Instead, our desire to compete and excell and outdo our neighbors has benefited EVERYONE a great deal. It can bring out the bad side from time to time, but the benefits far outweigh the costs. This urge to compete and win is not unique to America by any means, it is part of being human: man the animal.
I say bring on the computer chip wars: Lets all compete, Japanese, Americans, Europeans, Russians, come one come all. In the end, we will all benefit, no matter who has the bragging rights for a day.
Ignoring size, how does the cost of a cluster of fewer, highly specialized computers (with special interconnects, etc.) compare with that of a cluster of more, less specialized computers?
I am guessing that cost is not the most important factor when it comes to supercomputers anyway. If you are the CIA, NOAH or biotech, yes keeping costs down are nice but performance is more of an issue. There was a similar article a few days back about the new Crays, and how Crays sales are up significantly. I can see how this would really matter for weather forcasting (not good to take 3 days to calculate what tomorrow's weather is going to be) and in crypto (can't wait the extra time either) and more.
Sometimes you just have to have the most power you can get, cost be damned. From my limited experience, agencies that buy supercomputers are not doing it because it is more cost effective in any way.
Naturally, this doesn't mean IBM is in on it, but it does support the idea that SCO was just using this ruse for free money. Clearly they're using their stock price to get stuff for free.
Perhaps that is the goal: You realize your company is worth $100 (example, easy math). You convince everyone it is worth more, say $1000. You take the $900 in extra stock you just issued, and buy $900 worth of real companies. In the end, your company is theoretically worth $1900, until you lose your lawsuit, at which time it is back to worth $900 purely because of the assets you purchased. Now, the key is to sell when it is as close to $1900 as possible, but anything between $900 and $1900 is worth your time, especially if you don't really own the stock, just the options, thus not costing you anything. You CAN get rich doing this, but it involves one extra step.
This is the critical part: You have to start writing your new book WHILE you are in prison, not after you get out. This works out pretty well because you will have lots of free time in between sodomy sessions. The good thing is you don't have to pretend your innocent anymore, those books don't sell anyway. Instead, write about how you learned from the experience, and how its really "the systems" fault, because it was so easy to do. So, instantly, even though YOU did it, you can blame the system, sell some book, probably get a great consulting gig or go on a speaking tour, and you will probably only have to spend 3 to 5 years actually in jail.
Unless someone is watching their mail queue, then they don't know how many messages to send - if response is pretty large, then they're not going to be able to pull one over. If response is fairly small, and conspirators were to send many messages, then it's obvious something is wrong.
So, should they let the same guy responsible for managing the hacked ftp site verify this incoming mail to make sure its not all from the same person?
Actually, its the fact that the server was owned back in March and they just now figured it out that bothers ME. One good thing about FSF is they don't dick around once they do find out, it becomes public fast, which is pretty honest.
What I do on my server, and what you do on your server is our own problem, but you would think the primary FTP site for all FSF would have a little better security. Yea, its like how mechanics don't take great care of their own cars, but this really is a black eye, and potential marketing tool, mainly because the server has been 0wned for MONTHS now. Doesn't shake my faith (been with linux 4 years now), but it MIGHT shake someone considering migrating.
"First Linux steals Unix property from SCO, and now their servers were hacked and it took them months to figure it out."
I'm not trolling, I'm wincing... Right or wrong, some people WILL see it this way.
There are two problems I see with the theory. First, I don't see SCO taking over any small companies right now. ;)
Actually, they are. Computer World published and article on it called SCO's Shell Game. Also found other tidbits while Googling(tm) around. They make a claim, their stock goes up, they issue new shares and buy stuff by trading the new shares.
Now, I don't say the parent is absolutely correct, but there is some real validity to his claims. Not necessarily probable, but very possible. The parent is not that far off my line of reasoning.
If you actually listened to NPR, you would realize that they are the only organization besides the BBC that is anywhere near "fair and balanced."
Absolute horseshit. I have listen to NPR from 1 to 3 hours every day (including BBC am report here on the east coast) for years. I also listen to Rush a few hours a week, plus other programs (everything but music on radio).
NPR is as left as BBC. Thats fine, I don't expect them to NOT be. Ironically, more Republicans listen to NPR than Democrats (not my opinion, recent study, could be googled I guess). But it IS left of center, just as Rush is right of center. This fact is not news, and not a recent event even. They do have some good programming, I just take their opinions with a grain of salt. I am a conservative, but I have no problem hearing how the left thinks (or feels, rather). I am secure enough in my beliefs that I have no issue with anyone questioning them or disagreeing. NPR is not as left as it used to be, they will at least acknowlege that there is more than one reasonable opinion on some matters now.
But to think NPR and BBC is center, is just plain silly. Perhaps closer to center than your own opinions, but that is relative.
So you can have your XY female caused by not responding to testosterone
You just know there is a joke somewhere in there...
IBM licenses used to allow you to have a fully operational backup computer on the same license, as long as it was NOT in standard use (on is ok, with first backing up to it). This was so you could instantly fire up the backup without any installing. As long as you only used ONE of the boxes, you were in compliance with the license.
I wonder if you can claim that with the twin: Its just a backup of the first kid, in case the first kid crashes, to avoid the extra $2499?