Ok, I did a little digging, since everyone has been proclaiming how huge IBM was and how puny SCO was. My conclusion is that they are right. Here is what I found:
SCO
Net Assets: $37.4m (Source: Multex)
Total Employees: 340 (Source: Multex & Yahoo! Finance)
Legal Department Employees: Unknown (See below*)
IBM
Net Assets: $96,484m (Source: Multex)
Total Employees: 315,889 (Source: Multex)
Legal Department Employees: 308 (Source: Law.com)
Sources:
IBM Balance Sheet - http://yahoo.multexinvestor.com/IS.aspx?ticker=IBM &target=%2fstocks%2ffinancialinfo%2fstatements%2fb alancesheet%2fannual
SCO Balance Sheet - http://yahoo.multexinvestor.com/IS.aspx?ticker=SCO X&target=%2fstocks%2ffinancialinfo%2fstatements%2f balancesheet%2fannual
IBM Legal Department as of 2002 - http://www.law.com/special/professionals/nlj/2002/ nlj_client_list_who_defends_corporate_america.shtm l
IBM Legal Department in 2000 and 1999 -
http://www.corporatelegaltimes.com/editorial/surve ys/aug01.cfm
*SCO's legal department is not anywhere in the top 200, naturally, and no mention of size or otherwise is made in any SEC filings, etc. However, unlike IBM, SCO has no "Head Counsel," nor is any real mention made of an in-house legal department. From this, I construe that SCO either outsources its legal needs to a third-party firm, or does not employ enough lawyers to require a full "department." The acquisition of David Boies perhaps corroborates the first. Any additional information that anyone has would be helpful.
Just did a Google Groups search and Mr. Harvery Dunkirk is nowhere to be found in their archives, which I think we all will agree are pretty extensive (although not complete).
I don't know of too many technically-able people who have never posted to Usenet....
As a group of rather senior judges, I would sincerely hope that this court has reviewed the case well enough not to make statements such as the one comparing open source to a piracy group. The fact that they indeed HAVE made that statement indicates a misunderstanding that they have no excuse for.
Excusing them by saying that open source is not public is like saying that because most people aren't Amish they should be forced to go to war (and not be exempted, as they actually are). Just because the judges do not initially know about the circumstances, they have a duty to fully understand the case, and not simply let their preconceptions guide them.
That is, after all, the reason for appeals, to avoid one bad court and instead be tried in front of a fair one.
Sorry, it won't. Your old Palm Professional, much like my Palm IIIe, does not have FlashROM, and therefore you cannot replace the PalmOS with this little OS.
Well, I hate taking quotes directly from your post, FFFish, because it will then seem like I am dissecting your opinions and individually shredding them. That is not my intent, and I can only hope you understand that, as I am going to cite from you, simply because it will make more sense to the readers.
It's part of the 'going to hell in a handbasket'
problem we've got going in this society.
Sort of. You see, that 'phenomenon' does not exist, or at least not as far as I can tell. I would be very interested if you can show one way society is 'going to hell.' And Taco's does not count, as I shall show later. You see, for whatever reason, we illogical humans think that today is worse than yesterday. "Oh the times, oh the morals" as Cicero said. You see, they ain't. There was teenage pregnancy in the 50's, 60's, 70's, and etc, just as today. There were divorces, JUST as common as today, stretching into the very, very distant past. People stole, murdered, and were rude and hateful to one another for as long as humanity has been around. Allright, fine for me to say this, show me proof, since I am the one postulating. Very well, my proof is This Book by one Richard Shenkman. Read it, it's enlightening.
The root cause seems to boil down to one thing: a lot of people these days are out for #1, and don't give a fuck for the consequences that affect others.
Hello ladies and gentlemen, welcome to life. All life, human or otherwise, is governed by the rules of evolution (except in certain states, see your local laws for details). In evolution, we have this thing called survival of the fittest. Therefore, if you are not fit, you don't survive. How are you fit? By looking out for yourself first, and everyone else last. And I mean everyone else. Now we humans like to think we're above that sort of thing, but it's awfully damn hard to just drop a few couple billion (OK, I exaggerate) years of evolution. That means that although we are social animals, and work in groups, we still look after ourselves first and everything else last.
...the assholes with their 110dB subwoofer ripping through residential neighbourhoods at 2AM. Yes, they are annoying, aren't they? Well, don't worry, at least there're people to get under his skin, too, just like he gets under ours.
Perhaps it's because they're so powerless in every other aspect of their lives. Between their boss and the government, they can't fart without permission. So they take out their frustrations by pissing off everyone else. Maybe that's it.
If you're powerless, it's because you let yourself be. Every day your life is filled with decisions, and you will make those decisions, even if your choice is to not choose, you are still choosing. If you don't like your life, start making different choices. The government makes a convenient scapegoat, and we all need one of those, don't we (see point two)? But scapegoating solves nothing, and that is something which I hope should be self-evident.
Bottom line, at any rate, is that it's time for the nice guys to put their foot down and demand better from others. Don't like the behaviour you see? Don't be a milquetoast -- stand up and demand better!
That may be the way it sounds in the law, but in reality I doubt that that clause means much more than that you can't use pathetically weak encryption which you KNOW will be hacked in no time and expect to be protected under the DMCA.
Makes sense (not the law, your explanation). I had basically figured this was an independent firm, but this simply makes the rest fall in place.
I don't know if you know (unless you're a lawyer, I doubt you will), but could he simply change the name, offer to pay a reasonable bill (IE the post above this one) and that would be it? Or can Adobe intercede and leash the lawyers?:-)
Of course, maybe they'll view that as being wimpy, but it's better than 200,000 angry Slashdotters./Tangfan
Re:But you PROMISED me...
on
Review: A.I.
·
· Score: 1
I know, dammit! It was an effing trick, dude! They just wanted to know all the Katz-haters so they could exterminate us with the Black UN Choppers! I have my weaponry for when they come, I suggest you do the same, my brother!
More seriously, though, what the hell do we have to do? I checked it too (three times), but NOOO here he is, still writing. Although, I've found a use for Katz. See, if he likes a movie, I hate it (every one so far), so I simply look for his reviews! That way, if he loves it, I never go see it, if he hates it, I run as fast as I can to the theater. It's a beautiful system, and has YET to fail ONCE.
Try it, you'll see. I don't even read the reviews, just check to see if he liked it;-D/Tangfan
Christ I wish I had karma! And thank you a thousand, million times, luge! I was screaming as I read Kiss_the_Blade's depressingly deluded post... I am quite curious where he got his statistics, too (maybe from Here?). And the quite random connection between violence, the US government, and the portrayal of Americans as religious fanatics smacks oh so much of fresh, steaming FUD more than actual logical thought. Old Testament paranoia... that sounds silly even to an 'devout' atheist such as I. But I troll myself, and digress.
The IDEA that the British government somehow represents the people more fairly than any other democracy is to me laughable. Simply ignoring the issue of cameras, the British government has a long history of doing exactly anything but representing the people (*cough*American Revolution*cough*). And although it is somewhat unfair to discuss issues far in the past, today's government is a descendent of that government and certainly hasn't shed all of its values yet.
I'm going to stop now, because if I go further I need to dredge up sources to support myself, and I am far too damn lazy to do that. And it's dessert time, too.
He's smart, he's not superhuman. Just because he's very intelligent doesn't mean he's a god or something, it just means he's able to learn more quickly and remember better (I presume at least, from what you've said).
I do have to agree with the one person, though. Be careful that he still has a childhood before he grows up and programs... and try to get him into something besides computing, so that he is not the one-track child prodigy who, once they've done everything there is to do in their field, he doesn't burn out like so many others have.
As far as programming, I agree with the others, but let him choose what he wants to do. If he can pick things up really quickly, it might not be long before he knows more than you do. Don't worry about it, just guide him as best you can and let him osmose stuff, because it sounds like he can just about do that;) Dunno about just slinging code at him, though... maybe if you sat and showed him what it all meant, but just giving it to him is like trying to teach him Ancient Greek by handing him the Illiad.
My own personal bigotry as far as future techs goes would be to try to get to to work in the mind-to-computer direct link, but that's just my own opinions. You're the tutor, not me.
Good luck, either way.
How they have any right to complain. Mom Bell and co have been gypping Americans for around 40 years now, and now that we can turn the tables on them, they want to go whine to some paid congressman? I say to hell with them. In fact, I say to hell with the entire telephone network, once broadband solutions that don't require telephone lines make up the bulk of internet access. I'd rather just give various groups my email address or an internet telephony number or name than bother with telephone numbers. Essentially, telephony, email, and IM outdates telephones, and all the more so once we have wireless PDAs (which are the future, whether everybody likes it or not). By that time, telephones will be completel obsolete, and, given how little I and many other people I know use them, I say they won't be missed. Teenagers are switching over to IM, and presumably will use the telephony services that both AIM and ICQ (and probably others, I don't know) provide already, they certainly don't need telephones.
Ah well, chalk up one rant. I need to go outside and take a walk./TF
Slashdot Mirror
Ok, I did a little digging, since everyone has been proclaiming how huge IBM was and how puny SCO was. My conclusion is that they are right. Here is what I found:
M &target=%2fstocks%2ffinancialinfo%2fstatements%2fb alancesheet%2fannualO X&target=%2fstocks%2ffinancialinfo%2fstatements%2f balancesheet%2fannual/ nlj_client_list_who_defends_corporate_america.shtm le ys/aug01.cfm
SCO
Net Assets: $37.4m (Source: Multex)
Total Employees: 340 (Source: Multex & Yahoo! Finance)
Legal Department Employees: Unknown (See below*)
IBM
Net Assets: $96,484m (Source: Multex)
Total Employees:
315,889 (Source: Multex)
Legal Department Employees: 308 (Source: Law.com)
Sources:
IBM Balance Sheet - http://yahoo.multexinvestor.com/IS.aspx?ticker=IB
SCO Balance Sheet - http://yahoo.multexinvestor.com/IS.aspx?ticker=SC
IBM Legal Department as of 2002 - http://www.law.com/special/professionals/nlj/2002
IBM Legal Department in 2000 and 1999 - http://www.corporatelegaltimes.com/editorial/surv
*SCO's legal department is not anywhere in the top 200, naturally, and no mention of size or otherwise is made in any SEC filings, etc. However, unlike IBM, SCO has no "Head Counsel," nor is any real mention made of an in-house legal department. From this, I construe that SCO either outsources its legal needs to a third-party firm, or does not employ enough lawyers to require a full "department." The acquisition of David Boies perhaps corroborates the first. Any additional information that anyone has would be helpful.
I realized CYA means "Cover Your Ass." Not too hard.
Just did a Google Groups search and Mr. Harvery Dunkirk is nowhere to be found in their archives, which I think we all will agree are pretty extensive (although not complete).
I don't know of too many technically-able people who have never posted to Usenet....
I am not entirely sure, but I believe he is 'only' dyslexic. Not a fun thing, but nothing beyond all hope in this era.
And yes, he can read. Do you suppose he had someone follow him around in law school and read the US Code to him? Right.
As for eidetic... not that I know of.
/Tangfan
As a group of rather senior judges, I would sincerely hope that this court has reviewed the case well enough not to make statements such as the one comparing open source to a piracy group. The fact that they indeed HAVE made that statement indicates a misunderstanding that they have no excuse for.
Excusing them by saying that open source is not public is like saying that because most people aren't Amish they should be forced to go to war (and not be exempted, as they actually are). Just because the judges do not initially know about the circumstances, they have a duty to fully understand the case, and not simply let their preconceptions guide them.
That is, after all, the reason for appeals, to avoid one bad court and instead be tried in front of a fair one.
Sorry, it won't. Your old Palm Professional, much like my Palm IIIe, does not have FlashROM, and therefore you cannot replace the PalmOS with this little OS.
Yeah, sucks, don't it?
Well, I hate taking quotes directly from your post, FFFish, because it will then seem like I am dissecting your opinions and individually shredding them. That is not my intent, and I can only hope you understand that, as I am going to cite from you, simply because it will make more sense to the readers.
...the assholes with their 110dB subwoofer ripping through residential neighbourhoods at 2AM.
It's part of the 'going to hell in a handbasket' problem we've got going in this society.
Sort of. You see, that 'phenomenon' does not exist, or at least not as far as I can tell. I would be very interested if you can show one way society is 'going to hell.' And Taco's does not count, as I shall show later. You see, for whatever reason, we illogical humans think that today is worse than yesterday. "Oh the times, oh the morals" as Cicero said. You see, they ain't. There was teenage pregnancy in the 50's, 60's, 70's, and etc, just as today. There were divorces, JUST as common as today, stretching into the very, very distant past. People stole, murdered, and were rude and hateful to one another for as long as humanity has been around. Allright, fine for me to say this, show me proof, since I am the one postulating. Very well, my proof is This Book by one Richard Shenkman. Read it, it's enlightening.
The root cause seems to boil down to one thing: a lot of people these days are out for #1, and don't give a fuck for the consequences that affect others.
Hello ladies and gentlemen, welcome to life. All life, human or otherwise, is governed by the rules of evolution (except in certain states, see your local laws for details). In evolution, we have this thing called survival of the fittest. Therefore, if you are not fit, you don't survive. How are you fit? By looking out for yourself first, and everyone else last. And I mean everyone else. Now we humans like to think we're above that sort of thing, but it's awfully damn hard to just drop a few couple billion (OK, I exaggerate) years of evolution. That means that although we are social animals, and work in groups, we still look after ourselves first and everything else last.
Yes, they are annoying, aren't they? Well, don't worry, at least there're people to get under his skin, too, just like he gets under ours.
Perhaps it's because they're so powerless in every other aspect of their lives. Between their boss and the government, they can't fart without permission. So they take out their frustrations by pissing off everyone else. Maybe that's it.
If you're powerless, it's because you let yourself be. Every day your life is filled with decisions, and you will make those decisions, even if your choice is to not choose, you are still choosing. If you don't like your life, start making different choices. The government makes a convenient scapegoat, and we all need one of those, don't we (see point two)? But scapegoating solves nothing, and that is something which I hope should be self-evident.
Bottom line, at any rate, is that it's time for the nice guys to put their foot down and demand better from others. Don't like the behaviour you see? Don't be a milquetoast -- stand up and demand better!
That may be the way it sounds in the law, but in reality I doubt that that clause means much more than that you can't use pathetically weak encryption which you KNOW will be hacked in no time and expect to be protected under the DMCA.
Makes sense (not the law, your explanation). I had basically figured this was an independent firm, but this simply makes the rest fall in place. I don't know if you know (unless you're a lawyer, I doubt you will), but could he simply change the name, offer to pay a reasonable bill (IE the post above this one) and that would be it? Or can Adobe intercede and leash the lawyers? :-)
Of course, maybe they'll view that as being wimpy, but it's better than 200,000 angry Slashdotters. /Tangfan
I know, dammit! It was an effing trick, dude! They just wanted to know all the Katz-haters so they could exterminate us with the Black UN Choppers! I have my weaponry for when they come, I suggest you do the same, my brother! More seriously, though, what the hell do we have to do? I checked it too (three times), but NOOO here he is, still writing. Although, I've found a use for Katz. See, if he likes a movie, I hate it (every one so far), so I simply look for his reviews! That way, if he loves it, I never go see it, if he hates it, I run as fast as I can to the theater. It's a beautiful system, and has YET to fail ONCE. Try it, you'll see. I don't even read the reviews, just check to see if he liked it ;-D /Tangfan
Christ I wish I had karma! And thank you a thousand, million times, luge! I was screaming as I read Kiss_the_Blade's depressingly deluded post... I am quite curious where he got his statistics, too (maybe from Here?). And the quite random connection between violence, the US government, and the portrayal of Americans as religious fanatics smacks oh so much of fresh, steaming FUD more than actual logical thought. Old Testament paranoia... that sounds silly even to an 'devout' atheist such as I. But I troll myself, and digress. The IDEA that the British government somehow represents the people more fairly than any other democracy is to me laughable. Simply ignoring the issue of cameras, the British government has a long history of doing exactly anything but representing the people (*cough*American Revolution*cough*). And although it is somewhat unfair to discuss issues far in the past, today's government is a descendent of that government and certainly hasn't shed all of its values yet. I'm going to stop now, because if I go further I need to dredge up sources to support myself, and I am far too damn lazy to do that. And it's dessert time, too.
He's smart, he's not superhuman. Just because he's very intelligent doesn't mean he's a god or something, it just means he's able to learn more quickly and remember better (I presume at least, from what you've said). I do have to agree with the one person, though. Be careful that he still has a childhood before he grows up and programs... and try to get him into something besides computing, so that he is not the one-track child prodigy who, once they've done everything there is to do in their field, he doesn't burn out like so many others have. As far as programming, I agree with the others, but let him choose what he wants to do. If he can pick things up really quickly, it might not be long before he knows more than you do. Don't worry about it, just guide him as best you can and let him osmose stuff, because it sounds like he can just about do that ;) Dunno about just slinging code at him, though... maybe if you sat and showed him what it all meant, but just giving it to him is like trying to teach him Ancient Greek by handing him the Illiad.
My own personal bigotry as far as future techs goes would be to try to get to to work in the mind-to-computer direct link, but that's just my own opinions. You're the tutor, not me.
Good luck, either way.
Oh.... urp.... omg.... I think.. I think I need to go throw up... you're a sick, sick perverted freak.
How they have any right to complain. Mom Bell and co have been gypping Americans for around 40 years now, and now that we can turn the tables on them, they want to go whine to some paid congressman? I say to hell with them. In fact, I say to hell with the entire telephone network, once broadband solutions that don't require telephone lines make up the bulk of internet access. I'd rather just give various groups my email address or an internet telephony number or name than bother with telephone numbers. Essentially, telephony, email, and IM outdates telephones, and all the more so once we have wireless PDAs (which are the future, whether everybody likes it or not). By that time, telephones will be completel obsolete, and, given how little I and many other people I know use them, I say they won't be missed. Teenagers are switching over to IM, and presumably will use the telephony services that both AIM and ICQ (and probably others, I don't know) provide already, they certainly don't need telephones. Ah well, chalk up one rant. I need to go outside and take a walk. /TF