The courts can and do precisely the actions I've listed regularly. Or are you saying that no court has ever ordered a business procedure implemented to prevent recurring violations? Perhaps you've heard of DOJ v Microsoft?
Show me a case where you are allowed to keep stolen goods and continue a practice that has an ongoing monetary cost to as successful plaintiff. SCO has already placed a monetary value on the code. If it is proven that the code is stolen you will likely not be subject to any penalties for your actions up until that date but continuing to run the code unlicensed after that point will be blocked. Likely you will be able to sue your distributor for selling you stolen IP and they in turn will be able to sue IBM.
How do you do this? Simple. SCO is claiming that the code they licensed to IBM is the offending code. To be safe, you black-box every single bit of code that IBM has ever touched.
At best it isn't "a matter between SCO and IBM only". If IBM loses, the "at best" result is:
IBM pays Billions of dollars in monetary and punative damages
Every Linux release since the IBM code was included is now stolen property and cannot be sold or distributed
Users who purchased stolen versions have the right to sue the distributor for damages
All Linux dev work since the IBM code is suspect and must prove that it is not derived from the stolen code
All copies of Linux in use that include the stolen code must either be licensed or destroyed including those in use
Anyone continuing to use a more recent Linux release that contains the stolen code is now subject to separate charges and penalties
The Linux dev tree is reset under court order to the point prior to violation
The court will impose a code review and check-in process that makes violations of this kind less likely
Hardly "a matter between SCO and IBM only"
Of course, there's always the possibility that there's absolutely no code in Linux that isn't IP Clean. But that's pretty small odds if you think about it in any reasonable way.
You make a very naieve assumption in thinking that an injunction will not be ordered until the end of multiple trials. What is more likely is that SCO will file a brief asking the court for injunctive relief by claiming that each day that the contested code is in use costs them revenue (and by setting a licencing price they've established the value of that revenue).
The courts will almost always grant injunctive relief for the duration of the trial if there is any reasonable evidence that there is any merit to the claim. For an example, look at Microsoft's having to change every disk they produced (not just OS disks but even training manuals) that included the MS Java Runtime. That injunction was ordered at the BEGINNING of the Sun v Microsoft case before evidence was even presented.
And you really think that every user of Linux, every vendor and every company should bet that all 890,000+ lines of code come from 1979 or earlier? Do you really think UNIX Version 7 in 1979 had a NUMA implementation?
Face it. They showed an example that didn't give away any IP rights. The ability to maintain their IP is why you can't see stolen code with value unless you sign an NDA protecting their IP rights.
Again, if nobody's started doing a black-box implementation of the suspect code, there are going to be a lot of people seeing the recipients end of a very big injunction with very big penalties for violation and having no choices but to violate it, pay the SCO license or switch operating systems.
Of course stealing comments is IP infringement. The damages would likely be less if the value of the IP is less but it is out and out theft nonetheless.
Now, if you think all 890,000 lines of code they cited in just one instance were comments, continue to live in that dreamworld. SCO has made their point very well with the identical comments. Only the most blind advocate would suspect that somebody wrote new code in a black box and then stole comments that coincidentally happened to match correctly. Sadly, some people here fall into that blind advocate category and live in that dreamworld.
Face it. There is stolen code in Linux. How much and how severe the value of the theft is to be determined but that there was theft is almost certain.
A reasonable advocate would be working on a method to right now to find coders who have NEVER seen either the SCO code, the licensed IBM code or the stolen Linux code and begin a process of writing true black-box replacements. In that way, when the courts inevitably rule that the offending code cannot be used in ANY release and blocks ALL USERS from using ANY recent distributions the amount of time when every Linux user has the choice of shutting off their computers or violating a court order will be minimal.
Since it minimized the death of civilians, it also minimizes the ability to blame quite intentional civilian deaths and civilian target damage as "unavoidable collateral damage".
After all, with our "surgical strikes" and "smart bombs" and "precision munitions", we've managed to kill somewhere between 6,087 and 7,798 civilians so far in this war. (Figures from IraqBodyCount.net)
Let's see. I'd say Microsoft telling the truth about security would be:
ISO Common Criteria (CC) security certification for Windows: "Moderate to High" security
ISO Common Criteria (CC) security certification for Linux: "Low to Moderate" security
And Linux was only certified with one specific SuSE distro on specific IBM hardware. I'm guessing it isn't Microsoft who should be saying "Please, don't buy our product."
We now leave facts behind and return you to the usual Microsoft bashing.
Bravo. Finally somebody gets it. The real purpose of the Department of Homeland Appearance of Security is to make life very inconvenient for as many people as possible because if it's inconvenient then it must be really worthwhile.
It's the same reason that people think that the more unpleasant a medicine is, the more it must be doing. You see the same exact mindset in corporate IT security operations.
Now, the real question is why Tom Ridge was idiotic enough to take a job. While nothing happens, he gets to run an vastly underfunded department without control of the actual organizations with any control over seurity. When something inevitably does happen, he gets to be the fall guy blamed for an attack he couldn't do anything to prevent.
OK. Let's look at these. MS-DOS 1.0 was, indeed, very close to the code licensed and later purchased from SCP. Of course, by MS-DOS 2.0 and support for hard drives it was almost totally rewritten and all versions after 2.0 were written in-house except for the miserable 4.00 that IBM insisted on writing (4.01 which was rewritten by MS was pretty good) Since almost nobody here used MS-DOS 1.0 or 1.1 which still had significant amounts of SCP code your point is moot.
As for IE, even 1.0 was written in-house although some code used in it was licensed from NSCA Mosaic. Of course, that code was also included in virtually every other browser on the planet so, again, you don't have a point with this one.
PowerPoint was indeed purchased along with the entire company that made it and they kept developing it in the valley. On the other hand, Excel was totally developed in-house as were Word and Access and Outlook. You could also have mentioned Visio as a purchased product, btw.
So that only leaves the top client OS, top server OS, top word processor, top spreadsheet, top client database, top server database, top mail server, etc, etc, etc as product that Microsoft developed. Wow. What a failure.
Actually, the Nikon D1X and D1H both have plugs for GPS input and the location is written into each picture file's header. Note that this is a feature NOT included in the D2H.
Yes and no. The D2H still writes to the card and then transmits images (via ftp and 902.11b) from the card to the ftp server. It can send either the same images or send a JPEG and write both a JPEG and NEF (Nikon Raw format) to the card.
While you could cut down on card size, you'd still have to clear the already copied images off the card.
Nope, Fortran, COBOL and PL/I (don't laugh, they're incredible for when they were written) are what happens when you allow a programming language to be designed by a committee.
C++0x is what you get when you allow a programming language to be "improved" by a committee
Obviously you weren't around 30 years ago. For example, Pascal didn't exist. Perhaps you should look into the capabilities of PL/I (or PL/S or PL/AS for writing an OS) or ALGOL for examples that had been around a LONG time by then or SmallTalk-72 for an almost exactly 30 year old example.
Handling all data as a byte stream is pretty stupid for a general purpose language. (C was made for reading telecom streams and it makes some sense for that limited use) Handling strings as "start reading a stream at fixed memory location and keep going until you hit the magic cookie" is flat out idiotic.
I'd suggest reading the ACM's history of programming languages books to see what we lost by commonly accepting C just because it was cheap and easy to implement.
Because, 30 years ago, people decided to adopt the idiotic C language rather than any of the existing programming languages that knew what a string was...
Nope. There's no longer a full-size Microsoft Natural keyboard with the full layout. The last one with the full set of keys in the standard layout (well, standard besides the split keyboard) was the Natural Keyboard Pro that dropped off the list last year. The Natural Multimedia Keyboard is close - it does have an inverted-T cursor pad - but the 9 keys above the inverted-T cursor pad have been rearranged.
Slashdot Mirror
The courts can and do precisely the actions I've listed regularly. Or are you saying that no court has ever ordered a business procedure implemented to prevent recurring violations? Perhaps you've heard of DOJ v Microsoft?
Show me a case where you are allowed to keep stolen goods and continue a practice that has an ongoing monetary cost to as successful plaintiff. SCO has already placed a monetary value on the code. If it is proven that the code is stolen you will likely not be subject to any penalties for your actions up until that date but continuing to run the code unlicensed after that point will be blocked. Likely you will be able to sue your distributor for selling you stolen IP and they in turn will be able to sue IBM.
How do you do this? Simple. SCO is claiming that the code they licensed to IBM is the offending code. To be safe, you black-box every single bit of code that IBM has ever touched.
Hardly "a matter between SCO and IBM only"
Of course, there's always the possibility that there's absolutely no code in Linux that isn't IP Clean. But that's pretty small odds if you think about it in any reasonable way.
You make a very naieve assumption in thinking that an injunction will not be ordered until the end of multiple trials. What is more likely is that SCO will file a brief asking the court for injunctive relief by claiming that each day that the contested code is in use costs them revenue (and by setting a licencing price they've established the value of that revenue).
The courts will almost always grant injunctive relief for the duration of the trial if there is any reasonable evidence that there is any merit to the claim. For an example, look at Microsoft's having to change every disk they produced (not just OS disks but even training manuals) that included the MS Java Runtime. That injunction was ordered at the BEGINNING of the Sun v Microsoft case before evidence was even presented.
And you really think that every user of Linux, every vendor and every company should bet that all 890,000+ lines of code come from 1979 or earlier? Do you really think UNIX Version 7 in 1979 had a NUMA implementation?
Face it. They showed an example that didn't give away any IP rights. The ability to maintain their IP is why you can't see stolen code with value unless you sign an NDA protecting their IP rights.
Again, if nobody's started doing a black-box implementation of the suspect code, there are going to be a lot of people seeing the recipients end of a very big injunction with very big penalties for violation and having no choices but to violate it, pay the SCO license or switch operating systems.
Wow, a licence to use any UNIX code you like as long as it was not in or derived from System III, System V or their successors.
Oh, wait, that exclusion includes every released version of UNIX.
Oops, guess that's not much to celebrate...
Of course stealing comments is IP infringement. The damages would likely be less if the value of the IP is less but it is out and out theft nonetheless.
Now, if you think all 890,000 lines of code they cited in just one instance were comments, continue to live in that dreamworld. SCO has made their point very well with the identical comments. Only the most blind advocate would suspect that somebody wrote new code in a black box and then stole comments that coincidentally happened to match correctly. Sadly, some people here fall into that blind advocate category and live in that dreamworld.
Face it. There is stolen code in Linux. How much and how severe the value of the theft is to be determined but that there was theft is almost certain.
A reasonable advocate would be working on a method to right now to find coders who have NEVER seen either the SCO code, the licensed IBM code or the stolen Linux code and begin a process of writing true black-box replacements. In that way, when the courts inevitably rule that the offending code cannot be used in ANY release and blocks ALL USERS from using ANY recent distributions the amount of time when every Linux user has the choice of shutting off their computers or violating a court order will be minimal.
Since it minimized the death of civilians, it also minimizes the ability to blame quite intentional civilian deaths and civilian target damage as "unavoidable collateral damage".
After all, with our "surgical strikes" and "smart bombs" and "precision munitions", we've managed to kill somewhere between 6,087 and 7,798 civilians so far in this war. (Figures from IraqBodyCount.net)
Let's see. I'd say Microsoft telling the truth about security would be:
ISO Common Criteria (CC) security certification for Windows: "Moderate to High" security
ISO Common Criteria (CC) security certification for Linux: "Low to Moderate" security
And Linux was only certified with one specific SuSE distro on specific IBM hardware. I'm guessing it isn't Microsoft who should be saying "Please, don't buy our product."
We now leave facts behind and return you to the usual Microsoft bashing.
Umm, now they're shielded. Back at the timeframe we were discussing they weren't as I said in the initial post. It's called context.
Not MRI huge but big. (Like to focus the beam)
Bravo. Finally somebody gets it. The real purpose of the Department of Homeland Appearance of Security is to make life very inconvenient for as many people as possible because if it's inconvenient then it must be really worthwhile.
It's the same reason that people think that the more unpleasant a medicine is, the more it must be doing. You see the same exact mindset in corporate IT security operations.
Now, the real question is why Tom Ridge was idiotic enough to take a job. While nothing happens, he gets to run an vastly underfunded department without control of the actual organizations with any control over seurity. When something inevitably does happen, he gets to be the fall guy blamed for an attack he couldn't do anything to prevent.
Um, mpoulton, perhaps you don't realize that x-ray machines have big magnets and until a few years ago they weren't shielded...
OK. Let's look at these. MS-DOS 1.0 was, indeed, very close to the code licensed and later purchased from SCP. Of course, by MS-DOS 2.0 and support for hard drives it was almost totally rewritten and all versions after 2.0 were written in-house except for the miserable 4.00 that IBM insisted on writing (4.01 which was rewritten by MS was pretty good) Since almost nobody here used MS-DOS 1.0 or 1.1 which still had significant amounts of SCP code your point is moot.
As for IE, even 1.0 was written in-house although some code used in it was licensed from NSCA Mosaic. Of course, that code was also included in virtually every other browser on the planet so, again, you don't have a point with this one.
PowerPoint was indeed purchased along with the entire company that made it and they kept developing it in the valley. On the other hand, Excel was totally developed in-house as were Word and Access and Outlook. You could also have mentioned Visio as a purchased product, btw.
So that only leaves the top client OS, top server OS, top word processor, top spreadsheet, top client database, top server database, top mail server, etc, etc, etc as product that Microsoft developed. Wow. What a failure.
Actually, the Nikon D1X and D1H both have plugs for GPS input and the location is written into each picture file's header. Note that this is a feature NOT included in the D2H.
You didn't do quite enough research. The Nikon WT-1 transmitter supports WEP, MAC Address, and ESS-ID.
Check out Digital Photography Review's preview here
Yes and no. The D2H still writes to the card and then transmits images (via ftp and 902.11b) from the card to the ftp server. It can send either the same images or send a JPEG and write both a JPEG and NEF (Nikon Raw format) to the card.
While you could cut down on card size, you'd still have to clear the already copied images off the card.
The transmitter on the D2H takes about 20% of the overall battery use.
Nope, Fortran, COBOL and PL/I (don't laugh, they're incredible for when they were written) are what happens when you allow a programming language to be designed by a committee.
C++0x is what you get when you allow a programming language to be "improved" by a committee
Obviously you weren't around 30 years ago. For example, Pascal didn't exist. Perhaps you should look into the capabilities of PL/I (or PL/S or PL/AS for writing an OS) or ALGOL for examples that had been around a LONG time by then or SmallTalk-72 for an almost exactly 30 year old example.
Handling all data as a byte stream is pretty stupid for a general purpose language. (C was made for reading telecom streams and it makes some sense for that limited use) Handling strings as "start reading a stream at fixed memory location and keep going until you hit the magic cookie" is flat out idiotic.
I'd suggest reading the ACM's history of programming languages books to see what we lost by commonly accepting C just because it was cheap and easy to implement.
Because, 30 years ago, people decided to adopt the idiotic C language rather than any of the existing programming languages that knew what a string was...
We've been paying for that mistake ever since.
Nope. There's no longer a full-size Microsoft Natural keyboard with the full layout. The last one with the full set of keys in the standard layout (well, standard besides the split keyboard) was the Natural Keyboard Pro that dropped off the list last year. The Natural Multimedia Keyboard is close - it does have an inverted-T cursor pad - but the 9 keys above the inverted-T cursor pad have been rearranged.
Microsoft Keyboard info is available at Microsoft's keyboard site
(and, yes, I bought a backup Natural Pro when I saw it dropped)
Lots of people also "remember" Bogart saying "Play it again, Sam". Memory's a funny thing.
Gee, this was only announced 30 weeks ago at Comdex Fall. Perhaps a watch article could be on time?