Don't forget that IBM has a counter-suit. SCO cannot just make that go away by crying 'UNCLE!' to the court. IBM is getting its shots in regardless of how the original suit against it proceeds.
Darl and Co. really grabbed a tiger by the tail by picking this fight.
I wonder if The Scum Group's message to 1500 business entities might be subject to criminal prosecution granted that their claims are eventually proven to be willfully false and were intended to generate revenue from frightened licensees.
If so, IMHO, that could be pursued as mail/wire fraud.
While details remain vague, Cell will differ from existing microprocessors in that it will have multiple personalities. The chip will not only perform the heavy computational tasks required for graphics, but it also will contain circuitry to handle high-bandwidth communication and to run multiple devices, sources say.
(paragraph omitted)
This esoteric approach is possible because a single chip will contain multiple processing cores (hence Cell), a design concept rapidly gaining steam, sources said. Communications features expected to be in the chips will also allow devices to form powerful, peer-to-peer like networks, some analysts believe.
Hey, maybe it really is a DBZ reference. The Palm PDA uses the Dragonball CPU, after all.
The dissenting states should also demonstrate the use of tools such as apt-get and rpm and up2date. OS modularity is one the most obvious design concepts and for M$ to be ignoring that is obvious proof of the fact that they want certain monopoly-maintaining apps to be as non-removable as a motor oil stain on parking lot pavement.
Some people say the judge is biased against the states. I don't think so. I believe her main concern is running a tight ship so that her performance isn't criticized by her colleagues later on. Whatever her judgement is at the end, she wants it to stick and to withstand all challenges. It's just too bad if myopia or sloppiness on the part of the dissenting states results in a lessening of Microsoft's well deserved punishment.
Nike says it doesn't have sweatshops in Asia. Microsoft says Windows can't be feasibly modularized. They say these things under oath to speak the truth. And the list goes on...
Marketroids and corporate attack dogs don't seem to feel bound by law. Are they really so unaccountable?
Who is accountable? Management? Owners? Pondering corporate personhood, it dawns on me that it presents a possible legal contradiction. If a corporation is a person, and that person has owners, is that person a slave? Slavery was made illegal by a constitutional amendment.
The idea of corporate personhood as an extension of the idea of human personhood is too much of a stretch. Let's discard the idea entirely and codify a limited set of rights and responsibilities for these abstract entities. For-profit corporations exist for commerce and should be restricted to that role. If their owners and managers want to play in the political arena, they should do it personally. I'm talking about campaign finance reform. Oh, and maybe MSFT should try paying some dividends to shareholders. (BTW, I do not own shares of MSFT.) </rant>
...the federales want to make nanotechnology into no-no technology? Brilliant. Just how do they plan to keep a lid on this stuff internationally? Will they use the DMCA? Geez...
> > If only the oil companies > > would allow it... > > Do you not think that there would just > be a new group of powerful companies > selling hydrogen instead?
Exactly. It comes down to whether they think of themselves as OIL companies or ENERGY companies. This could be a huge opportunity for them.
To go even further, I believe we need a very simple form of campaign finance reform: allow monetary contributions ONLY from REGISTERED VOTERS.
Of course, this will require some kind of challenge/modification of the idea in the U.S. that a corporation is a natural person. In my opinion, a conscience-less thing like a corporation, in spite of its usefulness in our modern economy, simply cannot be held accountable in quite the same way as an individual citizen. And we need our lawmakers to be more focused on OUR issues. That is the heart of the matter.
Discuss this amongst yourselves. Reading up during the last couple of weeks on Hollings' pandering to the likes of Eisner motivated me to get off my lazy ass and register to vote. I say to anybody else who is able to, please do the same. These greedy fools aren't likely to stop their attempts to cripple our hardware and software for their selfish and myopic ends.
...but I don't see why they should be forced to allow open access from other OS's.
If they want to block out whatever, I think that they should have that right.
They? Why should it be up to M$? Whoever pays for the product should get to decide how it's used. If I have this stuff licensed and I want it to inter-operate with my other (non-M$) systems, I sure as hell ain't gonna let the vendor dictate to me otherwise, either directly or by closed protocols. This is restraint of trade. The federal courts say that M$ is a lawbreaker.
They have that right? What about our rights? Are we mere consumers or are we citizens?
In my book, consumer==livestock at the feed trough.
Which actually brings up an interesting point: How compatablie is Lindows? To illustrate: the other day, I tried to install command and conquer on a windows 2000 instalation. It wouldn't install, citing that it needed "Windows version 95 or later" and i was running "Windows version 5" of course meaning windows 2000, or NT5. Will this happen on lindows? Will software that is supposed to check compatability before install prevent you from installing it? If office checks for the string VERSION: Microsoft Windows, Lindows can't possibly put that string in their registry, how can you install office?
Well, that shouldn't be a problem since M$IE uses the Mozilla name in its user-agent string.
Slashdot Mirror
You're thinking of a shaped charge round.
We'll get our performance reviews in 140 characters or less.
Hmmm, mounting...
<SHIVER>
Ctrl-W
Guns don't kill people, BULLETS kill people.
Step 1: Study these pages.
http://bofh.ntk.net/Bastard.html
http://www.theregister.co.uk/odds/bofh/
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bofh
Good luck!
Does this mean that it's GNU/Zealand now?
[ducks]
> Made me laugh out loud with that editorial :) Classic!
> comment about RMS
Good casting choice, Hopkins as RMS. I wouldn't mind seeing either Wesley Snipes or Jackie Chan have a shot at the role.
Don't forget that IBM has a counter-suit. SCO cannot just make that go away by crying 'UNCLE!' to the court. IBM is getting its shots in regardless of how the original suit against it proceeds.
Darl and Co. really grabbed a tiger by the tail by picking this fight.
Pardon my spelling, I am from Sweden, a country known for their bad English.
;-P
Your spelling is OK. I'm from the U.S.A., a country known for its bad English.
Arise! Sir Osis of Liver! ...
Arise! Milk of Magnesia!
http://www.animationartwork.com/artwork/sku2408
I wonder if The Scum Group's message to 1500 business entities might be subject to criminal prosecution granted that their claims are eventually proven to be willfully false and were intended to generate revenue from frightened licensees.
If so, IMHO, that could be pursued as mail/wire fraud.
Heh, I wonder if RICO could be used...
Any thoughts?
Keep in mind that it will not be ironic for you to post something that is not ironic, but claim that it is. That would just be moronic.
Then if it's not irony, is it morony?
The dissenting states should also demonstrate the use of tools such as apt-get and rpm and up2date. OS modularity is one the most obvious design concepts and for M$ to be ignoring that is obvious proof of the fact that they want certain monopoly-maintaining apps to be as non-removable as a motor oil stain on parking lot pavement.
Some people say the judge is biased against the states. I don't think so. I believe her main concern is running a tight ship so that her performance isn't criticized by her colleagues later on. Whatever her judgement is at the end, she wants it to stick and to withstand all challenges. It's just too bad if myopia or sloppiness on the part of the dissenting states results in a lessening of Microsoft's well deserved punishment.
Peace.
Heralding the end? Maybe so.
Nike says it doesn't have sweatshops in Asia. Microsoft says Windows can't be feasibly modularized. They say these things under oath to speak the truth. And the list goes on...
Marketroids and corporate attack dogs don't seem to feel bound by law. Are they really so unaccountable?
Who is accountable? Management? Owners? Pondering corporate personhood, it dawns on me that it presents a possible legal contradiction. If a corporation is a person, and that person has owners, is that person a slave? Slavery was made illegal by a constitutional amendment.
The idea of corporate personhood as an extension of the idea of human personhood is too much of a stretch. Let's discard the idea entirely and codify a limited set of rights and responsibilities for these abstract entities. For-profit corporations exist for commerce and should be restricted to that role. If their owners and managers want to play in the political arena, they should do it personally. I'm talking about campaign finance reform. Oh, and maybe MSFT should try paying some dividends to shareholders. (BTW, I do not own shares of MSFT.)
</rant>
Hydrogen, I thought it mean ecchi.
Never mind.
Sounds like the Extreme Fajitas from the Tchotchke's chain restaurant in the Office Space movie.
Would you like some Extreme Programming? Some nachos?
...the federales want to make nanotechnology into no-no technology? Brilliant. Just how do they plan to keep a lid on this stuff internationally? Will they use the DMCA? Geez...
> > If only the oil companies
> > would allow it...
>
> Do you not think that there would just
> be a new group of powerful companies
> selling hydrogen instead?
Exactly. It comes down to whether they think of themselves as OIL companies or ENERGY companies. This could be a huge opportunity for them.
I second that motion!
To go even further, I believe we need a very simple form of campaign finance reform: allow monetary contributions ONLY from REGISTERED VOTERS.
Of course, this will require some kind of challenge/modification of the idea in the U.S. that a corporation is a natural person. In my opinion, a conscience-less thing like a corporation, in spite of its usefulness in our modern economy, simply cannot be held accountable in quite the same way as an individual citizen. And we need our lawmakers to be more focused on OUR issues. That is the heart of the matter.
Discuss this amongst yourselves. Reading up during the last couple of weeks on Hollings' pandering to the likes of Eisner motivated me to get off my lazy ass and register to vote. I say to anybody else who is able to, please do the same. These greedy fools aren't likely to stop their attempts to cripple our hardware and software for their selfish and myopic ends.
Peace.
...but did you say Al Gore rhythms?
They? Why should it be up to M$? Whoever pays for the product should get to decide how it's used. If I have this stuff licensed and I want it to inter-operate with my other (non-M$) systems, I sure as hell ain't gonna let the vendor dictate to me otherwise, either directly or by closed protocols. This is restraint of trade. The federal courts say that M$ is a lawbreaker.
They have that right? What about our rights? Are we mere consumers or are we citizens?
In my book, consumer==livestock at the feed trough.
Well, that shouldn't be a problem since M$IE uses the Mozilla name in its user-agent string.
Will anybody file a motion for trial by combat?
Imagine this:
Today's Slashdot has been brought to you by the generous donations of:
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting
The Annenberg/CPB Project
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
etc.