wikileak.org says that its being moved not offline due to demand.
WikiLeakS.org seems to be down for maintenance and upgrades at the PRQ Internet hosting facility in Stockholm, Sweden
Everyone has a bias but if he gives you the information that he used to form his opinion about something then you can read what he says and what he did and form your own opinions. He is giving detailed examples of what he found. He isn't just say "Everything is fine" or "They have WMD", he is giving how he comes to his opinion and showing you the facts.
Yes his company maybe bias in not wanting the format approved, but does that make what he says less true? The facts speak the truth.
Anyone that has done work with contracts knows that till its written in black and white the deal isn't done. Sure you might come to terms but those terms need to be defined otherwise its pointless.
So it would then be ok in your book that a police officer tell you to stop driving a Audi and drive only Ford? Teachers are to teach how to do things not what tools you must use. And teaching that students should follow orders without question is why this nation is going down the drain. You should always question authority its our civic duty to question those in authority.
The Judge is not doing what Jackson did. He is not talking to the media, he is writing this in his order. Where as Judge Jackson was having meetings with media people. So this is completely different.
And would you like the company that makes your car to get that too if it failed to deploy airbags so that they can figure out the problem and slowly release the update the next time your in an authorized repair center they automaticaly update your onboard computr that deploys airbags?
For all the people that say this is two different worlds its not, both companies have a right to have there products do what they say there going to do. Nobody thinks that there airbag won't deploy when they get into a crash, so why shouldn't your software fail to stop a virus. Companies don't like to have bad press about there product or product line. When someone finds something that is a flaw I do belive that people have the right to know, cause then its not just one person saying, hey fix this. They will get TONS of people calling, emailing and faxing them asking for the fix.
well its kindof funny. If a lock maker made a lock that was easy to bypass and sold them, if the criminals started to look for that lock and use the bypass method to break into the house, i think that we would have a class action lawsuit on our hands against the lock maker, sure you should have had more then one lock but its still partly the lock markers fault.
People are forgetting. You can own/have rights to the IP of something without being the owner of the copyright. The APA gives SCO the right to the UNIXWare product and what is needed to sub-licence it and other products of its type. So then SCO doesn't have to prove copyright ownership of it. They want copyright ownership so they can tell Novell to goto hell and do whatever they want with the product because then they would be the copyright owner.
But they haven't yet complied with the order. They only provided part of the answers that IBM Requested and said that once they get IBM's code from AIX that they will be able to answer the reset of the questions.
And if I remeber the judges order was that it wouldn't allow for SCO Motion to Compel till IBMs motions were carried out. Also wouldn't the judge have to give fair amount of time after IBM gets the information for them to go over it and then provide the information that SCO requested. Because IBM has been saying that without knowing what SCO is sueing them over they couldn't provide the data that SCO wanted.
First Report from Grokker Inside Hearing: IBM Wins Both Motions to Compel Friday, December 05 2003 @ 02:30 PM EST
Our first report from a Groklaw volunteer, sam, who attended the court hearing is that IBM won both of its motions to compel and SCO's motion was set for a later date. Here is what sam is telling us, and it's subject to further information and confirmation as more news arrives. We have several attending and I'll do a followup, but this is the first word. Here is what sam is telling us:
"Just returned from the hearing.
"Needless to say there was blood all over the floor on the SCO side of the aisle none on the 'left' side.
"Judge granted both IBM motions to compel, gave SCO thirty days to comply 'with specificity' and suspended further discovery. Did not rule on the SCO motion until next hearing scheduled for Friday, Jan 23 and 10:00 am.
"SCO did say that they will be filing a complaint within days on copyright violations.
"More to come"
So it looks like they have 30 days to finally tell us what code they are talking about "with specificity". Finally.
Slashdot Mirror
Everyone has a bias but if he gives you the information that he used to form his opinion about something then you can read what he says and what he did and form your own opinions. He is giving detailed examples of what he found. He isn't just say "Everything is fine" or "They have WMD", he is giving how he comes to his opinion and showing you the facts.
Yes his company maybe bias in not wanting the format approved, but does that make what he says less true? The facts speak the truth.
Anyone that has done work with contracts knows that till its written in black and white the deal isn't done. Sure you might come to terms but those terms need to be defined otherwise its pointless.
So it would then be ok in your book that a police officer tell you to stop driving a Audi and drive only Ford? Teachers are to teach how to do things not what tools you must use. And teaching that students should follow orders without question is why this nation is going down the drain. You should always question authority its our civic duty to question those in authority.
The Judge is not doing what Jackson did. He is not talking to the media, he is writing this in his order. Where as Judge Jackson was having meetings with media people. So this is completely different.
And would you like the company that makes your car to get that too if it failed to deploy airbags so that they can figure out the problem and slowly release the update the next time your in an authorized repair center they automaticaly update your onboard computr that deploys airbags?
For all the people that say this is two different worlds its not, both companies have a right to have there products do what they say there going to do. Nobody thinks that there airbag won't deploy when they get into a crash, so why shouldn't your software fail to stop a virus. Companies don't like to have bad press about there product or product line. When someone finds something that is a flaw I do belive that people have the right to know, cause then its not just one person saying, hey fix this. They will get TONS of people calling, emailing and faxing them asking for the fix.
well its kindof funny. If a lock maker made a lock that was easy to bypass and sold them, if the criminals started to look for that lock and use the bypass method to break into the house, i think that we would have a class action lawsuit on our hands against the lock maker, sure you should have had more then one lock but its still partly the lock markers fault.
People are forgetting. You can own/have rights to the IP of something without being the owner of the copyright. The APA gives SCO the right to the UNIXWare product and what is needed to sub-licence it and other products of its type.
So then SCO doesn't have to prove copyright ownership of it. They want copyright ownership so they can tell Novell to goto hell and do whatever they want with the product because then they would be the copyright owner.
But they haven't yet complied with the order. They only provided part of the answers that IBM Requested and said that once they get IBM's code from AIX that they will be able to answer the reset of the questions.
And if I remeber the judges order was that it wouldn't allow for SCO Motion to Compel till IBMs motions were carried out. Also wouldn't the judge have to give fair amount of time after IBM gets the information for them to go over it and then provide the information that SCO requested. Because IBM has been saying that without knowing what SCO is sueing them over they couldn't provide the data that SCO wanted.
In case they get /.ed
First Report from Grokker Inside Hearing: IBM Wins Both Motions to Compel
Friday, December 05 2003 @ 02:30 PM EST
Our first report from a Groklaw volunteer, sam, who attended the court hearing is that IBM won both of its motions to compel and SCO's motion was set for a later date. Here is what sam is telling us, and it's subject to further information and confirmation as more news arrives. We have several attending and I'll do a followup, but this is the first word. Here is what sam is telling us:
"Just returned from the hearing.
"Needless to say there was blood all over the floor on the SCO side of the aisle none on the 'left' side.
"Judge granted both IBM motions to compel, gave SCO thirty days to comply 'with specificity' and suspended further discovery. Did not rule on the SCO motion until next hearing scheduled for Friday, Jan 23 and 10:00 am.
"SCO did say that they will be filing a complaint within days on copyright violations.
"More to come"
So it looks like they have 30 days to finally tell us what code they are talking about "with specificity". Finally.