... someone sues them for copyright infringement. The voting boot is open. But please be quick: you can only vote while no litigation has been announced.
This is a school server. Buying parts requires them to think and learn more about the computer and it's parts than buying a ready built one. Which is a good thing.
In general, you are right tho. Dell makes excellent servers. It just doesn't fit the bill in this one.
First, I'm not American. I'm Dutch, thank you, so I'm actually pretty close to you (geographically that is).
Second, I'm not a zealot, and not rabid either. The fact that I show some people how to use make their political system work, hardly qualifies me as that I think. Unfortunately, that means that you have to be more concise and less rude with your argumentation towards your MP. At least you use the right grammar.
Third, using cost as the primary deciding factor is generally a bad idea in politics, esp. short term. The British have always been above that. It's sad to see them succumb to american influences.
After programming since I was 9, a few years back I decided that it was time for a change. So I chose something I found interesting.
It's been my main hobby for the past 2 years, and I still have a lifetime to go, but it's great. I've learned to look at things from another perspective, and it may even save me from this economic downturn.
I plan on becoming an IP lawyer (so when we do get those software patents here in Europe, at least I will be able make some money off them). When I get there, it's no longer a hobby, but that's still some time into the future.
Now is the time to write your MP. Write him a _polite_ letter (snail mail is best in this case), in which you explain to him that GPL is good, esp. for government funded software. Read the comments in this thread, to get some arguments.
The most important thing is that you stress that this is important to you. Important decisions win votes.
The SCO-IBM case is centered around two assumptions: 1. Unix Source went into Linux 2. This was because of a violation of an agreement SCO had with IBM
Now that it seems that the Unix sourcecode was in the open, how will they ever prove that IBM put it in Linux, breaching the agreement? Anybody could have done that, if the source code was copied from Unix to Linux at all.
Then band up, threaten to quit unless: a. they pay overtime and b. sign a contract that they will not fire you for a certain amount of time
Better wait until the project is halfway before making that step.
That way, your 1. isn't exceedingly unlikely. You probably will be fired after that period howver, but then you have some savings from your overtime and enough time to find a new job afterwards.
True. I think it's hard to make this one fly by SCO. They are cutting their own lifeline. There's just too many steps that have to be proven to get there:
SCO claims that there is Unix code in Linux, put there by IBM in violation of their agreement.
To revoke the agreement they have to prove 1. That there is code in Unix that is also in linux 2. That the code was actual Unix code, put in linux, not vice versa. 3. That the code was put in there by IBM 4. That putting it in there was a violation of the agreement 5. That this is grave enough to terminate the agreement
If you even get to 5, it is hard to prove, because the damages done to IBM probable are well in excess of the damages suffered by SCO.
So I do think SCO just made it harder on themselves.
A lot of code in the linux kernel comes from companies like redhat and suse, who have developers working for them. I even think that it is more than this alleged unix code. That code _is_ copyrighted by those companies.
In the case mentioned (SCO violates GPL) these companies can try to get compensation through litigation. In plain english: if SCO wins their suit against IBM (which I do not think) due to this kind of reasoning, they'll sue SCO for the damages they had due to SCO violating their licence (GPL) and thus illegally and knowingly(!) distributing their copyrighted code. SCO will lose more than they have won in the first place that way. This course of action would make them vulnerable to the extend that they do not only have to worry about damages they caused, but because it was knowingly they also have to worry about punitive damages too.
Not a pretty sight.
Re:SCO has Dirty Hands. Will not be able to collec
on
SCO To Show Copied Code
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
If anyone argues this, we lose in a bigger way. MS can then say "see, I told you so! GPL caused SCO to lose their IP".
I think that is a moot point. Whatever comes from this, open source will lose, whether SCO wins ("see, linux will lose you money") or loses ("see, your IP is at stake"). I think the second is less damaging because it's simply because of SCO's behaviour, and that can be shown.
The real sting in here is that while the code may well be GPL, the process and ideas it implements may very well, and probably are, still protected by patent laws. It's the same as with LZH compression: the algorithm is proprietary, even when there's GPL-ed code that implements it.
But I am almost (2 years of lawschool and counting), and I think he/she is right.
SCO has a linux distribution, PowerLinux, and any kernel in there, including alleged copyright infringing parts, have been released _by_SCO_ under the GPL.
Thus, it can always be argued that the claiming of copyright on these parts is against their own licence (the GPL) in this case. As the licence is considered a legally binding contract, any code they have in their distribution, is available to anyone under the GPL.
Maybe someone from Belgium could write a letter to the European Commission. Supporting commercial entities with tax money is illegal in the EU, and will lead to harsh penalties (Sabena anyone?).
Then make it public the government's illegal support of the recording industry is costing the community a lot of money.
There are elections in Belgium in 2 months. Make an issue of it.
AMD seems to say that taking off the stock cooler is voiding your warranty. Therefor they indicate that the cooler is an integral part of the proc. Thus if the cooler fails, your proc is defective, and eligible for replacement under the warranty.
I doubt however, that many fans fail before the warranty expires.
I value the quality of my connection above the speed. I know I can get a cable connection that is faster 'on average'. I still chose ADSL, which was more expensive too:
With ADSL I got a real IP address, not a dynamic one. The speed is more constant, so it's also fast when I'm surfing at 20:00, not only at times when I do not use it interactively. There's less downtime (less than 2 days over the past 2 years). And most importantly, to me was that the upspeed is much faster (256 vs 64 kbps). It's not all about downspeed.
By pushing this war on terror the way it's done now, the real terrorists (allegedly Bin Laden and AlQaida) are getting exactly what they want: they create fear (terror), and the subjects of that fear bring themselves down.
So basically, what the US government is doing (and other governments which follow their lead) is giving the terrorists what they want.
The only way to counter this is to convince the masses and the US government that what society is becoming because of these changes, is actually much scarier than the worst these terrorists can do.
Did you know that the technology has been refined enough to eliminate the horizontal lines totally? The only reason they kept them, is because they'd become part of the trinitron brand.
Basically, if your connection to the attacked machine is shorter, the noise you'll receive is less.
Considering that there are thousands of compromised machines on the internet, there'll probably be a machine closeby that is vulnerable to some known exploit. That machine can then be used by the cracker as a proxy that does the timings. It may also do the attack automated, and at the end just relay the resulting key somewhere.
Remember that most machines are in a serverroom or datacenter, no computer is alone on the internet.
Slashdot Mirror
... someone sues them for copyright infringement. The voting boot is open.
But please be quick: you can only vote while no litigation has been announced.
This is a school server. Buying parts requires them to think and learn more about the computer and it's parts than buying a ready built one. Which is a good thing.
In general, you are right tho. Dell makes excellent servers. It just doesn't fit the bill in this one.
First, I'm not American. I'm Dutch, thank you, so I'm actually pretty close to you (geographically that is).
Second, I'm not a zealot, and not rabid either. The fact that I show some people how to use make their political system work, hardly qualifies me as that I think. Unfortunately, that means that you have to be more concise and less rude with your argumentation towards your MP. At least you use the right grammar.
Third, using cost as the primary deciding factor is generally a bad idea in politics, esp. short term. The British have always been above that. It's sad to see them succumb to american influences.
No, I'm not kidding.
After programming since I was 9, a few years back I decided that it was time for a change. So I chose something I found interesting.
It's been my main hobby for the past 2 years, and I still have a lifetime to go, but it's great. I've learned to look at things from another perspective, and it may even save me from this economic downturn.
I plan on becoming an IP lawyer (so when we do get those software patents here in Europe, at least I will be able make some money off them). When I get there, it's no longer a hobby, but that's still some time into the future.
British citizens.
Now is the time to write your MP. Write him a _polite_ letter (snail mail is best in this case), in which you explain to him that GPL is good, esp. for government funded software. Read the comments in this thread, to get some arguments.
The most important thing is that you stress that this is important to you. Important decisions win votes.
The SCO-IBM case is centered around two assumptions:
1. Unix Source went into Linux
2. This was because of a violation of an agreement SCO had with IBM
Now that it seems that the Unix sourcecode was in the open, how will they ever prove that IBM put it in Linux, breaching the agreement? Anybody could have done that, if the source code was copied from Unix to Linux at all.
Then band up, threaten to quit unless:
a. they pay overtime and
b. sign a contract that they will not fire you for a certain amount of time
Better wait until the project is halfway before making that step.
That way, your 1. isn't exceedingly unlikely. You probably will be fired after that period howver, but then you have some savings from your overtime and enough time to find a new job afterwards.
True. I think it's hard to make this one fly by SCO. They are cutting their own lifeline. There's just too many steps that have to be proven to get there:
SCO claims that there is Unix code in Linux, put there by IBM in violation of their agreement.
To revoke the agreement they have to prove
1. That there is code in Unix that is also in linux
2. That the code was actual Unix code, put in linux, not vice versa.
3. That the code was put in there by IBM
4. That putting it in there was a violation of the agreement
5. That this is grave enough to terminate the agreement
If you even get to 5, it is hard to prove, because the damages done to IBM probable are well in excess of the damages suffered by SCO.
So I do think SCO just made it harder on themselves.
then pay for it.
Do not expect the service to exceed what you value it to be. It's a free service.
Free Day Pass access sponsored by
Microsoft
They don't even try to hide it, now don't they?
I humbly bow my head and stand corrected. Thanks
A lot of code in the linux kernel comes from companies like redhat and suse, who have developers working for them. I even think that it is more than this alleged unix code. That code _is_ copyrighted by those companies.
In the case mentioned (SCO violates GPL) these companies can try to get compensation through litigation. In plain english: if SCO wins their suit against IBM (which I do not think) due to this kind of reasoning, they'll sue SCO for the damages they had due to SCO violating their licence (GPL) and thus illegally and knowingly(!) distributing their copyrighted code. SCO will lose more than they have won in the first place that way. This course of action would make them vulnerable to the extend that they do not only have to worry about damages they caused, but because it was knowingly they also have to worry about punitive damages too.
Not a pretty sight.
If anyone argues this, we lose in a bigger way. MS can then say "see, I told you so! GPL caused SCO to lose their IP".
I think that is a moot point. Whatever comes from this, open source will lose, whether SCO wins ("see, linux will lose you money") or loses ("see, your IP is at stake"). I think the second is less damaging because it's simply because of SCO's behaviour, and that can be shown.
The real sting in here is that while the code may well be GPL, the process and ideas it implements may very well, and probably are, still protected by patent laws. It's the same as with LZH compression: the algorithm is proprietary, even when there's GPL-ed code that implements it.
Let me get this straight. This is what they patented, right?
:)
select * from items where name like 'PO%'
order by number_of_requests_last_week
I'm really glad that I'm studying to become an IP lawyer. The more stupid patents, the merrier
I agree on this. Switching 8 channels isn't hard. We did this on a cbm64. It should also be possible in an usb device.
:)
Many usb devices are way more powerful than the commodore, so it shouldn't be too hard at all to make something like it
Maybe there are DIY packages for it already.
It would be nice if I could use all of the expansion port devices I made for the 64 with a modern PC
But I am almost (2 years of lawschool and counting), and I think he/she is right.
SCO has a linux distribution, PowerLinux, and any kernel in there, including alleged copyright infringing parts, have been released _by_SCO_ under the GPL.
Thus, it can always be argued that the claiming of copyright on these parts is against their own licence (the GPL) in this case. As the licence is considered a legally binding contract, any code they have in their distribution, is available to anyone under the GPL.
Maybe someone from Belgium could write a letter to the European Commission. Supporting commercial entities with tax money is illegal in the EU, and will lead to harsh penalties (Sabena anyone?).
Then make it public the government's illegal support of the recording industry is costing the community a lot of money.
There are elections in Belgium in 2 months. Make an issue of it.
AMD seems to say that taking off the stock cooler is voiding your warranty. Therefor they indicate that the cooler is an integral part of the proc. Thus if the cooler fails, your proc is defective, and eligible for replacement under the warranty.
I doubt however, that many fans fail before the warranty expires.
I value the quality of my connection above the speed. I know I can get a cable connection that is faster 'on average'. I still chose ADSL, which was more expensive too:
With ADSL I got a real IP address, not a dynamic one. The speed is more constant, so it's also fast when I'm surfing at 20:00, not only at times when I do not use it interactively. There's less downtime (less than 2 days over the past 2 years). And most importantly, to me was that the upspeed is much faster (256 vs 64 kbps). It's not all about downspeed.
By pushing this war on terror the way it's done now, the real terrorists (allegedly Bin Laden and AlQaida) are getting exactly what they want: they create fear (terror), and the subjects of that fear bring themselves down.
So basically, what the US government is doing (and other governments which follow their lead) is giving the terrorists what they want.
The only way to counter this is to convince the masses and the US government that what society is becoming because of these changes, is actually much scarier than the worst these terrorists can do.
Did you know that the technology has been refined enough to eliminate the horizontal lines totally? The only reason they kept them, is because they'd become part of the trinitron brand.
You still can't spell you mean?
English isn't my primary language. What's your excuse?
Lego in general. It learns children combine basic blocks to form a larger thing. I know it helped me develop my technical skills
...with Sarah Michelle Gellar and Reese Witherspoon. It's a really nice movie, and the classical story of dangerous liaisons in a modern setting.
Because of this movie I really got to like classic literature. It shows that those stories are not outdated, an can be enjoyed.
Theoretically, you are right, practically, no.
Basically, if your connection to the attacked machine is shorter, the noise you'll receive is less.
Considering that there are thousands of compromised machines on the internet, there'll probably be a machine closeby that is vulnerable to some known exploit. That machine can then be used by the cracker as a proxy that does the timings. It may also do the attack automated, and at the end just relay the resulting key somewhere.
Remember that most machines are in a serverroom or datacenter, no computer is alone on the internet.