While his computer is stuttering, he goes out and lays sod in people's yards. Sod is the dirt/grass layer that you can literally roll onto an unfinished lot and it will grow into a normal lawn.
This is a technical expression, which signifies, that something has been done after another thing, in relation to the latter. 2. An estate granted, may be made good or avoided by matter ex post facto, when an election is given to the party to accept or not to accept. 3. The Constitution of the United States, art. 1, sec. 10, forbids the states to pass any ex post facto law; which has been defined to be one which renders the act punishable in a manner in which it was not punishable when it was committed. 6 Cranch, 138. This definition extends to laws passed after the act, and affecting a person by way of punishment of that act, either in his person or estate.
There isn't even a working alpha of WinFS, so it's nothing but vaporware. This Gnome guy shouldn't worry about some boasting white paper published by Microsoft when he is writing his software.
I agree that block ALL port 25 traffic on your mail server from Windows computers is a good thing.
Or even configuring the mail to bounce back with a helpful message such as "Please upgrade to a secure operating system if you wish to send email to this domain."
Back at Slackware 9, Pat altered adduser to reject usernames that were not all lowercase, citing the case-sensitivity of usernames, and case the case insensitivity of MTA's.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada explicitly grants citizens the Right to freely move about within the country. Under Section 6 "Mobility Rights" http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/#circulation
(1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada. (2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.
Strip all attachments. All of them. Don't process them, just ban them. If you want to send a file, use ftp or send a link to a read-only http or smb/nfs share.
Using email server blacklists instead of filters on the spam will work a lot better too. Hopefully they aren't using a brain damaged email server like Exchange.
EV1 is free to consult thier own lawyer(s), present them with the facts, the license, and the blatant public awareness of how wrong SCO is, and that there is no way end users are culpable for IBM putting code that was covered in an agreement between IBM and SCO.
Again, end users, even really big companies like EV1 or Google, can't be help accountable for IBM breaching an agreement that they(IBM) had with SCO.
If you are in your car, you need proof of license and proof of insurance, that's just the way it is.
1. What's your name? It's on my license 2. Can I see some ID? Yes here is my drivers license 3. What is your reason for being here? I prefer not to discuss that with you 4. Can I see what's in your trunk? I do not consent to a search of the vehicles storage compartments 5. Can I see what's in your pockets? I do not consent to a search of my person 6. Can I see what you have in your garage at home? I do not consent to a search of my dwelling 7. Can I take a look at the contents of your hard drive? I do not consent to a search of my personal computer
Remember also "Can I leave now?" "Am I under arrest?" "Why am I being detained?" and "I do not wish to speak with you now."
Let's pretend that IBM is indeed guilty of breaching whatever contract they had with SCO.
Why is SCO trying to bill users for using Linux? If IBM breached the contract, then it's 100% IBM's fault, not mine or yours. It shouldn't/doesn't matter if IBM has "indemnified" linux user or not - they are the sole guilty party. The code in Linux does not belong to SCO. Users should not have to pay for IBM's mistake.
Of course it is up to a court of law to determine what has happened with regards to the contract breach, which again, has nothing to do with anyone outside SCO or IBM, including you and I.
It has already come out through all the McBride interviews that it is a breach of contract lawsuit with IBM.
SCO says that any technologies built on AIX (which sysv part belongs to SCO), must be held in trust by IBM and not released to the community. So even though IBM owns RCU, JFS, SMP improvements etc, it was originally developed on top of AIX first, so it was supposed to be kept in-house at IBM.
That's what the SCO vs IBM suit is about. If they beat IBM in court, if IBM was stupid enough to agree to a contract with those terms, then step 2 is seeking out those other than IBM that are using the technologies, which in this case is users of Linux.
So it's not copyright per se, IBM owns the copyright on the technologies, but IP that was to be held secret, released to the wild.
Find out which IBM engineers commited patches to the kernel. Find out which SCO engineers commited patches to the kernel.
You just narrowed it down. It's probably pretty easy to find out what code it is.
It's also just as likely that SCO copied the code from Linux, since we can trust Linus' logs, but SCO could fabricate thier own logs at a moments notice.
(A) Slander/Libel isn't protected by 'free speech' unless in the 'public interest':it is perfectly possible to be in favour of 'free speech' and still not support the right to slander/libel other persons.
It's only slander/libel if it is not true. This is Tucker Max's personal account of the happenings, and she has maintained that it is true. That makes it, guess what? Not slander. Just because someone says you don't like doesn't mean you have the right to shut them up.
"The public has a legitimate interest in knowing whether or not her own behavior is consistent with the virtuous image that she publicly seeks to promote."
That's exactly what she is doing, and some bleeding hard conservative judge agreed. Her behavior clearly was not congruent with her desired image. (B) Do we know whether her opinions on temperance and abstinence were the same prior to the 'Tucker' incident? She could only be called a hypocrite if they were. And after reading that story, can you really blame her for thinking that maybe abstaining from sex and alcohol in the future might be a good idea. At least for her personally. Trying to learn from experience isn't necessarily the same as hypocrisy.
This has nothing to do with the courts order. So she got drunk a lot and fucked like a banshee. Now she is trying to delete that memory from the ex boyfriends life. That is not her property. (C) So her drawings are... shall we say, somewhat childish; her homilies are purely asinine; nor does she come across as the most fascinatingly interesting person in the world (indeed, are there any interesting Mensa members out there? And if yes: are they all in hiding?) So what?! Surely, she too has the right to free speech?! Or is that a right that becomes slashdotters only?
How is shutting somebody up to protect your false-career promoting abstinence the same as free speech? Did you even read the story and the mirror of the "illegal" account?
Did she have a sexual relationship with Tucker Max? Yes. Did she get drunk and do stupid things? Yes. Does a judge have the right to gag an American citizen so that the woman in question can promote her childish website? No.
It completely blows me away that a judge ruled in her favor. Truly your American legal system is going to hell. The fact that Katy Johnson, Miss Vermont 1999 was in fact part of that crooked pageant reeks of scandal.
Tucker Max is a class act asshole, that being said he was in law school and knows whats what.
The relationship between them happened between them, it belongs to both of him, and he is free under the first to share his 'half' as he sees fit. Since what he is saying is true, it is not slander.
The photograph on the other hand is another story. Even though he may have taken it and owns it, since he doesn't appear in it, it's not 'his'. If he has a photo with him and her in it, then he can use it as he sees fit.
I can see him riding this one right to the Supreme Court.
I don't see why thier jackbooted BSA/Microsoft thugs don't work in the following manner.
BSA/Microsoft accuses you of being a pirate of the high seas, and demands license proof. Microsoft puts up $LARGE_SUM to a trusted authoritive third party. Audit ensues, licensing is verified.
If you are stealing software, BSA/Microsoft gets $LARGE_SUM back, and the entity stealing the software has to pay $FINES, $LICENSES, or $OUT_OF_COURT_SETTLEMENT.
If your licenses are in order, or you are using GNU/Linux, BSA/Microsoft's $LARGE_SUM is awarded to you, covering your work disruptions, legal fees, and more.
This is how it works at the local track if you think one of your competitors has modified thier engine outside of the class specifications. You pony up for the accusation and get rewarded if it's true, and take a loss if it's not.
Slashdot Mirror
..And Linux is Just For Fun" too.
Canadians pay a tax on all materials used to store digital data, which licenses them to reproduce copyrighted works.
http://neil.eton.ca/copylevy.shtml
Can you post an example of what is included in your waiver/disclaimer?
I regularly clean computers too, but I don't give much thought to liability.
While his computer is stuttering, he goes out and lays sod in people's yards. Sod is the dirt/grass layer that you can literally roll onto an unfinished lot and it will grow into a normal lawn.
I've not been a victim of a single IE security hole
Run spybot search and destroy, you will whistle a different tune.
EX POST FACTO, contracts, crim. law.
This is a technical expression, which signifies, that something has been done after another thing, in relation to the latter.
2. An estate granted, may be made good or avoided by matter ex post facto, when an election is given to the party to accept or not to accept.
3. The Constitution of the United States, art. 1, sec. 10, forbids the states to pass any ex post facto law; which has been defined to be one which renders the act punishable in a manner in which it was not punishable when it was committed. 6 Cranch, 138. This definition extends to laws passed after the act, and affecting a person by way of punishment of that act, either in his person or estate.
http://www.martianbuddy.com (Wonder how many hits this site got before the official release)
Around 0508 hits!
There isn't even a working alpha of WinFS, so it's nothing but vaporware. This Gnome guy shouldn't worry about some boasting white paper published by Microsoft when he is writing his software.
I agree that block ALL port 25 traffic on your mail server from Windows computers is a good thing.
Or even configuring the mail to bounce back with a helpful message such as "Please upgrade to a secure operating system if you wish to send email to this domain."
Back at Slackware 9, Pat altered adduser to reject usernames that were not all lowercase, citing the case-sensitivity of usernames, and case the case insensitivity of MTA's.
Clifford Stoll, Cuckoos Egg.
a cking_a_Spy_Through_the_Maze_of_Computer_Espionage _0743411463.html
Lesson to learn is secure that stuff, what they don't know will hurt them.
http://www.programming-reviews.com/Cuckoos_Egg_Tr
Don't use an account that has elevated privileges.
Internet Explorer runs with System priveleges, which is higher than Administrator(root), no matter what group the user is in.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada explicitly grants citizens the Right to freely move about within the country. Under Section 6 "Mobility Rights" http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/#circulation
(1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.
(2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right
a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and
b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.
Strip all attachments.
All of them. Don't process them, just ban them.
If you want to send a file, use ftp or send a link to a read-only http or smb/nfs share.
Using email server blacklists instead of filters on the spam will work a lot better too. Hopefully they aren't using a brain damaged email server like Exchange.
The Court can order it so, a media blackout on SCO* and the like. Offenders pay dearly.
It happens all the time in Canada.
EV1 is free to consult thier own lawyer(s), present them with the facts, the license, and the blatant public awareness of how wrong SCO is, and that there is no way end users are culpable for IBM putting code that was covered in an agreement between IBM and SCO.
Again, end users, even really big companies like EV1 or Google, can't be help accountable for IBM breaching an agreement that they(IBM) had with SCO.
If you are in your car, you need proof of license and proof of insurance, that's just the way it is.
1. What's your name?
It's on my license
2. Can I see some ID?
Yes here is my drivers license
3. What is your reason for being here?
I prefer not to discuss that with you
4. Can I see what's in your trunk?
I do not consent to a search of the vehicles storage compartments
5. Can I see what's in your pockets?
I do not consent to a search of my person
6. Can I see what you have in your garage at home?
I do not consent to a search of my dwelling
7. Can I take a look at the contents of your hard drive?
I do not consent to a search of my personal computer
Remember also "Can I leave now?" "Am I under arrest?" "Why am I being detained?" and "I do not wish to speak with you now."
Let's pretend that IBM is indeed guilty of breaching whatever contract they had with SCO.
Why is SCO trying to bill users for using Linux? If IBM breached the contract, then it's 100% IBM's fault, not mine or yours. It shouldn't/doesn't matter if IBM has "indemnified" linux user or not - they are the sole guilty party. The code in Linux does not belong to SCO. Users should not have to pay for IBM's mistake.
Of course it is up to a court of law to determine what has happened with regards to the contract breach, which again, has nothing to do with anyone outside SCO or IBM, including you and I.
Why can't they take this evidence to court first thing Monday morning and have the case thrown out?
Is the American justice system so fucking retarded that this is not possible?
It has already come out through all the McBride interviews that it is a breach of contract lawsuit with IBM.
SCO says that any technologies built on AIX (which sysv part belongs to SCO), must be held in trust by IBM and not released to the community. So even though IBM owns RCU, JFS, SMP improvements etc, it was originally developed on top of AIX first, so it was supposed to be kept in-house at IBM.
That's what the SCO vs IBM suit is about. If they beat IBM in court, if IBM was stupid enough to agree to a contract with those terms, then step 2 is seeking out those other than IBM that are using the technologies, which in this case is users of Linux.
So it's not copyright per se, IBM owns the copyright on the technologies, but IP that was to be held secret, released to the wild.
Downloading Britney Spears anything, however, should be illegal.
Where did the code come from?
Find out which IBM engineers commited patches to the kernel.
Find out which SCO engineers commited patches to the kernel.
You just narrowed it down. It's probably pretty easy to find out what code it is.
It's also just as likely that SCO copied the code from Linux, since we can trust Linus' logs, but SCO could fabricate thier own logs at a moments notice.
My dear misogynists:
... shall we say, somewhat childish; her homilies are purely asinine; nor does she come across as the most fascinatingly interesting person in the world (indeed, are there any interesting Mensa members out there? And if yes: are they all in hiding?) So what?! Surely, she too has the right to free speech?! Or is that a right that becomes slashdotters only?
(A) Slander/Libel isn't protected by 'free speech' unless in the 'public interest':it is perfectly possible to be in favour of 'free speech' and still not support the right to slander/libel other persons.
It's only slander/libel if it is not true. This is Tucker Max's personal account of the happenings, and she has maintained that it is true. That makes it, guess what? Not slander. Just because someone says you don't like doesn't mean you have the right to shut them up.
"The public has a legitimate interest in knowing whether or not her own behavior is consistent with the virtuous image that she publicly seeks to promote."
That's exactly what she is doing, and some bleeding hard conservative judge agreed. Her behavior clearly was not congruent with her desired image.
(B) Do we know whether her opinions on temperance and abstinence were the same prior to the 'Tucker' incident? She could only be called a hypocrite if they were. And after reading that story, can you really blame her for thinking that maybe abstaining from sex and alcohol in the future might be a good idea. At least for her personally. Trying to learn from experience isn't necessarily the same as hypocrisy.
This has nothing to do with the courts order. So she got drunk a lot and fucked like a banshee. Now she is trying to delete that memory from the ex boyfriends life. That is not her property.
(C) So her drawings are
How is shutting somebody up to protect your false-career promoting abstinence the same as free speech? Did you even read the story and the mirror of the "illegal" account?
Did she have a sexual relationship with Tucker Max?
Yes.
Did she get drunk and do stupid things?
Yes.
Does a judge have the right to gag an American citizen so that the woman in question can promote her childish website?
No.
It completely blows me away that a judge ruled in her favor. Truly your American legal system is going to hell. The fact that Katy Johnson, Miss Vermont 1999 was in fact part of that crooked pageant reeks of scandal.
Tucker Max is a class act asshole, that being said he was in law school and knows whats what.
The relationship between them happened between them, it belongs to both of him, and he is free under the first to share his 'half' as he sees fit. Since what he is saying is true, it is not slander.
The photograph on the other hand is another story. Even though he may have taken it and owns it, since he doesn't appear in it, it's not 'his'. If he has a photo with him and her in it, then he can use it as he sees fit.
I can see him riding this one right to the Supreme Court.
I don't see why thier jackbooted BSA/Microsoft thugs don't work in the following manner.
BSA/Microsoft accuses you of being a pirate of the high seas, and demands license proof. Microsoft puts up $LARGE_SUM to a trusted authoritive third party. Audit ensues, licensing is verified.
If you are stealing software, BSA/Microsoft gets $LARGE_SUM back, and the entity stealing the software has to pay $FINES, $LICENSES, or $OUT_OF_COURT_SETTLEMENT.
If your licenses are in order, or you are using GNU/Linux, BSA/Microsoft's $LARGE_SUM is awarded to you, covering your work disruptions, legal fees, and more.
This is how it works at the local track if you think one of your competitors has modified thier engine outside of the class specifications. You pony up for the accusation and get rewarded if it's true, and take a loss if it's not.