Ain't a whole lot going on in Blacksburg, Va. My brother is a physics student there. Wonder if he'll take me to see it if I buy him some beer.
Re:Suing SCO in small claims court?
on
SCO Roundup
·
· Score: 1
In most states, you can't sue a foreign (meaning out-of-state) corporation in small-claims court. So, unless you're a kernel developer, and a resident of Delaware....
Because ESR is a publicity-hound troll. "Um, yeah, so, like, I heard from the guys who were doing it. I told 'em it wasn't cool 'stop, yo,'and they were like, 'okay.'" Ummhmm. Right. I wonder if he'll stick to the story when the FBI comes looking for the e-mail. DDoS is a crime, remember. ESR, last time I checked, isn't a priest or a reporter....
McBride is mistaken -- Free Software users and producers aren't Communists. There are a few idealists who swallow everything like RMS. There are the pragmatists who use GNU/Linux or the BSD's because there's nothing better commercially (IBM, The Debian project, the BSD's), there are the enthusiasts who just dig computers (me, probably 90% of the rest of./), and then there are the moochers, who contribute very little, but talk alot, giving lip service to the ideals without understanding them in the least (ESR, Anonymous Coward, "Open Source" advocates -- WinCE is "Open Source").
People missed my point. I mentioned the big manufacturers because they've got *money*.
I think the only way I'd ever drink a standard Coors, or gawdforbid a Coors Light, is if it was free (erm. as in beer).
As far as the beers themselves go, no, they're not great. But they're certainly not as vile as malt liquor or anything like that (Zima, Smirnoff Ice, etc). I grew up in Germany -- I appreciate good beer. But Budweiser can be okay if you let it. No need to be snobbish.
So much for "journalism" from CNN. That story is sucking up to MS. I guess the AOL/MS lovefest continues.
Yeah, they're offering the patches free of charge. But it wouldn't be that big of a deal if their junk wasn't broken so much to begin with! If MS actually *charged* for security patches, okay, it needn't be MS necessarily -- any proprietary software vendor, they'd take a hit in sales.
Notice that Server 2k3 is affected, too. Keeping count, the rate of vulnerabilities is slowing down a bit, but they're still very much there.
You're missing the point. JFS, NUMA, RCU, were all added to AIX/SysV long after IBM simply licensed the code from Novell/AT&T. There probably isn't a hell of a lot of original SysV code in AIX anymore, either, seeing as how it's been out for what, fifteen, sixteen years (1987, if memory serves)?
Caldera's argument is that even if you add, you have to keep all of your additions secret in perpetuity -- even if they are of your own creation. So, in the case of JFS, if that reasoning holds, even though MS had nothing to do with JFS, IBM can't release it because it was released non-free first.
The reasoning is a bit convoluted, of course, but that's what I got from it. The reasoning is even more suspect when you consider that Caldera released the source of even older versions of Unix under a BSD-style license.
1. This bozo spokesman essentially affirmed what Linus said, that the lawsuit is a contract case between IBM and Caldera. Caldera has no claim on the technologies that IBM contributed, other than to say, "Hey, you can't tell them that! That's a part of proprietary Unix, and can't be disclosed, even if you wrote it!" Doesn't bode well for some other companies who've contributed parts of their proprietary Unixes to Linux. *cough* Silicon Graphics *cough* But that covers NUMA, RCU, and JFS. If IBM loses here, they are also open to a lawsuit from Microsoft. Why? Because JFS didn't come initially from AIX. It came from OS/2.
2. All that said, there's no resolution of the "copied" code sections Caldera has brought up. From many, many, of their previous statements, it would seem that the technologies mentioned above are what they're trying to milk GNU/Linux users for. If it's *not* NUMA, RCU, and JFS, what, exactly, are the infringments GNU/Linux users are responsible for? I eagerly await a cogent answer, but I know the chances of getting such are slim to none. I will use GNU/Linux (when I'm not playing around with the Hurd) until an individual user loses a lawsuit to SCO over copyright or patent infringement.
On that I disagree. ClearChannel is pretty blatant about having a political bias. Their sending a corporate memo out to stations prohibiting them from broadcasting the Dixie Chicks, even if requested by listeners... their staging of pro-war rallies, etc. It shouldn't come as any surprise to people that the CEO of Clearchannel is very good friends with President Bush.
I haven't seen the Dixie Chicks memo, but the post-911 thing was real. Assuming what you say about that is true, I disagree with it. But it's just one more reason not to listen to them and let them die.
As for the rallies, those have been quite misconstrued, I think. I listen to Glenn Beck, who organized the rallies, and I think that they were just something that he wanted to do, and the corporation backed that idea. Yeah, he's got a political bias, but that's what he's there for.:-) But I wouldn't necessarily term them "pro-war" rallies, either.
Now like I said, I agree with your sentiment and I don't listen to Clearchannel. In fact the one Rock station I do listen to makes it a point to mention they are NOT owned by ClearChannel during their station announcements, which I think is funny.
Yeah, but not unheard of elsewhere.:-) CC's desire is to try to do network integration like the television networks do. I don't like it, but whatever, it's their thing.
But ever since the FCC changed the laws back in 1987 to eliminate the need to maintain public interest from radio and TV broadcasts, things have largely gone down hill. The quality of news has gone down, everything about broadcast TV and radio has gone down hill.
Here I do have to take issue with you. It is still part of the license, and re-licensing process that you have to prove that you serve the community interest. Maintaining the public file, and running public information programs, etc. etc. All of that still happens. I know. I have to do it.
So I take issue with the people saying "Oh don't worry, this little FCC change won't effect anything...", because quite clearly it would effect things or people wouldn't be trying to push it through.
As Bush says, "Fool me once shame on you, Fool me twice you can't get fooled again."
Either way, it's one of those things where nobody is going to be happy about the outcome. Unfortunately, the broadcast spectrum is a finite resource metered out by the FCC, so everybody's lobbying. It's like splitting a piece of candy for kids, "His piece is bigger than mine....WAAAAAAAAA!"
We're talking about placing ownership limits. That's it. If you own media outlets, you are limited in what you can own. Limits. On. Ownership. No government ownership. No "socialization" of the media. Lim. Its.
Did you bother to read the OP? If corporations/individuals do not own the media outlets, governments are the only other possible owners.
I find it fascinating that you think that a topic shouldn't enter into a dicussion based on geography. So should it be discussed in Canada? Peru? Bangladesh, perhaps?
Oh, but perhaps you meant that the idea shouldn't be discussed because it goes against American ideals. Ideals such as a strong belief in free speech, the free exchange of ideas, and that the power to govern rests in the hands of the people. Hmm. Sounds pretty goddamn idealistic to me. Lord knows we ain't got room for idealism in MERKA.
Yes, the ideals which are embodied in the Bill of Rights, and its predecessor, the Virginia Declaration of Rights. These socialist-inspired rights which have come after should have no bearing on a discussion of American law. If other countries want to use the UD as the basis of thier constitutions, I suppose that's okay. But ours predates it, and is superior.
And Zenger? How the hell is that even relevant? Thanks for reminding us how things were 200 years ago. I just bet you patted yourself on the back for that obscure historical reference: "How many people know about that? Heh, heh, heh. That'll learn 'em."
It's very relevant. What goes on here on the Internet is very similar to what Zenger did. And it's by no means an obscure historical reference -- merely a significant. I suppose I could go back to Martin Luther if I wanted to.
News flash, Don Quixote: things be different now. Jurisprudence has changed, laws have changed, interpretation of the Constitution has changed.
But the fundamental rights have not. The right to speech is as strong as any point in history. And those rights are better than any the UN might grant you, which they can invalidate if necessary to serve the purposes of the UN. Oh well.
The problem with these declarations, and many of the "rights" which have developed are that they are enslaving. If you have a "right" to a job, and I have to provide it for you, I am your slave. If, in this case, you have the "right" to any form of access to media, and I have to provide it for you....
Rights are only rights inasmuch as they don't require an action by another in order to be exercised. There is nothing in this law that prevents you, legally, from owning a broadcast outlet. Go buy one if it bothers you so much.
I was waiting for this kind of comment. I work in radio, and not for Clear Channel. I don't like what they've done to radio in many respects. But what you're saying is nonsense. I've heard hostson Clear Channel stations talk about Patriot 2. The reason DMCA doesn't get alot of press is because it's hard for most people to comprehend at first. It's not an easy talk radio subject, like say, abortion or the death penalty.
Clear Channel's profitibility is suspect. Why? I'm not quite sure. But their solution for every problem they've got seems to be to acquire more things. Take a look at their financials, and you'll see that they're a paper tiger right now, having taken out something like ten billion dollars in debt to make their acquisitions.
Clear Channel is not destroying this country. If you don't like their stuff, don't consume it. Convince your friends to do likewise. But the people who work for CC aren't bad, and don't have dubious motives. I see them as just competition...sure, they've got more bucks backing them, but the audience will decide ultimately.
Yes, iirc, the new rules do relax that kind of thing. Gannett, NYTimes, Tribune Co., etc. If memory serves, it doesn't allow a company to own as many broadcast stations if they've got a paper than if they didn't, but it relaxes it. In smaller markets, this wasn't much of an issue until a few years ago, when the big papers bought out local dailies. In the big cities (Milwaukee and Chicago come immediately to mind), there was a grandfather clause.
Faster hard drives would need a faster bus to operate off. I went looking for a non-server board the other day with PCI-X (for gigE), and couldn't find one in a store.
Which is why I sort of asked...I don't know of that many pure cocoa network apps. The only one that I use on a regular basis is iJournal. I don't have my mac with me right now to check on iChat.
Any machine you can get physical access to is insecure.
It shouldn't be that difficult to prove, though, if there's a cocoa-based network app where you could dump more than 2048 characters (Camino, perhaps?).
Slashdot Mirror
Ain't a whole lot going on in Blacksburg, Va. My brother is a physics student there. Wonder if he'll take me to see it if I buy him some beer.
In most states, you can't sue a foreign (meaning out-of-state) corporation in small-claims court. So, unless you're a kernel developer, and a resident of Delaware....
Because ESR is a publicity-hound troll. "Um,
./), and then there are the moochers, who contribute very little, but talk alot, giving lip service to the ideals without understanding them in the least (ESR, Anonymous Coward, "Open Source" advocates -- WinCE is "Open Source").
yeah, so, like, I heard from the guys who were doing it. I told 'em it wasn't cool 'stop, yo,'and they were like, 'okay.'" Ummhmm. Right. I wonder if he'll stick to the story when the FBI comes looking for the e-mail. DDoS is a crime, remember. ESR, last time I checked, isn't a priest or a reporter....
McBride is mistaken -- Free Software users and producers aren't Communists. There are a few idealists who swallow everything like RMS. There are the pragmatists who use GNU/Linux or the BSD's because there's nothing better commercially (IBM, The Debian project, the BSD's), there are the enthusiasts who just dig computers (me, probably 90% of the rest of
Oh well.
The SEC couldn't care less about that -- but the Attorney General in Utah might.
Jeeze..can you imagine how many corporate execs are seen with multiple women?
People missed my point. I mentioned the big manufacturers because they've got *money*.
I think the only way I'd ever drink a standard Coors, or gawdforbid a Coors Light, is if it was free (erm. as in beer).
As far as the beers themselves go, no, they're not great. But they're certainly not as vile as malt liquor or anything like that (Zima, Smirnoff Ice, etc). I grew up in Germany -- I appreciate good beer. But Budweiser can be okay if you let it. No need to be snobbish.
PBR is okay, too.
Red Lizard Ale sounds nice to me. Anybody got some connections with Anheuser Busch, Miller, or Coors to get some real $$$ rolling into the project?
Actually, "officials" were only able to take down thirteen of the twenty hosts targed. Six were already down due to MS Blaster.
But Dennis had an excuse -- it was 1976.
I certainly didn't get the "buy licenses" part from the story.....
The issue of the case was CA was supposed to help sell licenses and didn't.
So, where is the evidence which leads you to believe?
Except extorition is a criminal complaint....
Class Action suits are worthless, BTW. Only the attorneys involved get rich.
More than just government agencies have been affected by this.
But, yes, the guy and his message wreak of "asshole."
My network is secure from what I can tell -- but I don't admin the windows machines either....
Buy out SCO. Hostile takeover. Somebody. I guess they're waiting for the price to fall a bit, but jeeze.....
I am curious to see what Novell is going to come up with next to challenge those bozos.
So much for "journalism" from CNN. That story is sucking up to MS. I guess the AOL/MS lovefest continues.
Yeah, they're offering the patches free of charge. But it wouldn't be that big of a deal if their junk wasn't broken so much to begin with! If MS actually *charged* for security patches, okay, it needn't be MS necessarily -- any proprietary software vendor, they'd take a hit in sales.
Notice that Server 2k3 is affected, too. Keeping count, the rate of vulnerabilities is slowing down a bit, but they're still very much there.
Maybe he can get their website situation straightened out. ;-p /me sits back and waits for people to start making fun of his name.....
You're missing the point. JFS, NUMA, RCU, were all added to AIX/SysV long after IBM simply licensed the code from Novell/AT&T. There probably isn't a hell of a lot of original SysV code in AIX anymore, either, seeing as how it's been out for what, fifteen, sixteen years (1987, if memory serves)?
Caldera's argument is that even if you add, you have to keep all of your additions secret in perpetuity -- even if they are of your own creation. So, in the case of JFS, if that reasoning holds, even though MS had nothing to do with JFS, IBM can't release it because it was released non-free first.
The reasoning is a bit convoluted, of course, but that's what I got from it. The reasoning is even more suspect when you consider that Caldera released the source of even older versions of Unix under a BSD-style license.
1. This bozo spokesman essentially affirmed what Linus said, that the lawsuit is a contract case between IBM and Caldera. Caldera has no claim on the technologies that IBM contributed, other than to say, "Hey, you can't tell them that! That's a part of proprietary Unix, and can't be disclosed, even if you wrote it!" Doesn't bode well for some other companies who've contributed parts of their proprietary Unixes to Linux. *cough* Silicon Graphics *cough* But that covers NUMA, RCU, and JFS. If IBM loses here, they are also open to a lawsuit from Microsoft. Why? Because JFS didn't come initially from AIX. It came from OS/2.
2. All that said, there's no resolution of the "copied" code sections Caldera has brought up. From many, many, of their previous statements, it would seem that the technologies mentioned above are what they're trying to milk GNU/Linux users for. If it's *not* NUMA, RCU, and JFS, what, exactly, are the infringments GNU/Linux users are responsible for? I eagerly await a cogent answer, but I know the chances of getting such are slim to none. I will use GNU/Linux (when I'm not playing around with the Hurd) until an individual user loses a lawsuit to SCO over copyright or patent infringement.
On that I disagree. ClearChannel is pretty blatant about having a political bias. Their sending a corporate memo out to stations prohibiting them from broadcasting the Dixie Chicks, even if requested by listeners... their staging of pro-war rallies, etc. It shouldn't come as any surprise to people that the CEO of Clearchannel is very good friends with President Bush.
:-) But I wouldn't necessarily term them "pro-war" rallies, either.
:-) CC's desire is to try to do network integration like the television networks do. I don't like it, but whatever, it's their thing.
I haven't seen the Dixie Chicks memo, but the post-911 thing was real. Assuming what you say about that is true, I disagree with it. But it's just one more reason not to listen to them and let them die.
As for the rallies, those have been quite misconstrued, I think. I listen to Glenn Beck, who organized the rallies, and I think that they were just something that he wanted to do, and the corporation backed that idea. Yeah, he's got a political bias, but that's what he's there for.
Now like I said, I agree with your sentiment and I don't listen to Clearchannel. In fact the one Rock station I do listen to makes it a point to mention they are NOT owned by ClearChannel during their station announcements, which I think is funny.
Yeah, but not unheard of elsewhere.
But ever since the FCC changed the laws back in 1987 to eliminate the need to maintain public interest from radio and TV broadcasts, things have largely gone down hill. The quality of news has gone down, everything about broadcast TV and radio has gone down hill.
Here I do have to take issue with you. It is still part of the license, and re-licensing process that you have to prove that you serve the community interest. Maintaining the public file, and running public information programs, etc. etc. All of that still happens. I know. I have to do it.
So I take issue with the people saying "Oh don't worry, this little FCC change won't effect anything...", because quite clearly it would effect things or people wouldn't be trying to push it through.
As Bush says, "Fool me once shame on you, Fool me twice you can't get fooled again."
Either way, it's one of those things where nobody is going to be happy about the outcome. Unfortunately, the broadcast spectrum is a finite resource metered out by the FCC, so everybody's lobbying. It's like splitting a piece of candy for kids, "His piece is bigger than mine....WAAAAAAAAA!"
We're talking about placing ownership limits. That's it. If you own media outlets, you are limited in what you can own. Limits. On. Ownership. No government ownership. No "socialization" of the media. Lim. Its.
.
Did you bother to read the OP? If corporations/individuals do not own the media outlets, governments are the only other possible owners.
I find it fascinating that you think that a topic shouldn't enter into a dicussion based on geography. So should it be discussed in Canada? Peru? Bangladesh, perhaps?
Oh, but perhaps you meant that the idea shouldn't be discussed because it goes against American ideals. Ideals such as a strong belief in free speech, the free exchange of ideas, and that the power to govern rests in the hands of the people. Hmm. Sounds pretty goddamn idealistic to me. Lord knows we ain't got room for idealism in MERKA
Yes, the ideals which are embodied in the Bill of Rights, and its predecessor, the Virginia Declaration of Rights. These socialist-inspired rights which have come after should have no bearing on a discussion of American law. If other countries want to use the UD as the basis of thier constitutions, I suppose that's okay. But ours predates it, and is superior.
And Zenger? How the hell is that even relevant? Thanks for reminding us how things were 200 years ago. I just bet you patted yourself on the back for that obscure historical reference: "How many people know about that? Heh, heh, heh. That'll learn 'em."
It's very relevant. What goes on here on the Internet is very similar to what Zenger did. And it's by no means an obscure historical reference -- merely a significant. I suppose I could go back to Martin Luther if I wanted to.
News flash, Don Quixote: things be different now. Jurisprudence has changed, laws have changed, interpretation of the Constitution has changed.
But the fundamental rights have not. The right to speech is as strong as any point in history. And those rights are better than any the UN might grant you, which they can invalidate if necessary to serve the purposes of the UN. Oh well.
The problem with these declarations, and many of the "rights" which have developed are that they are enslaving. If you have a "right" to a job, and I have to provide it for you, I am your slave. If, in this case, you have the "right" to any form of access to media, and I have to provide it for you....
Rights are only rights inasmuch as they don't require an action by another in order to be exercised. There is nothing in this law that prevents you, legally, from owning a broadcast outlet. Go buy one if it bothers you so much.
I was waiting for this kind of comment. I work in radio, and not for Clear Channel. I don't like what they've done to radio in many respects. But what you're saying is nonsense. I've heard hosts on Clear Channel stations talk about Patriot 2. The reason DMCA doesn't get alot of press is because it's hard for most people to comprehend at first. It's not an easy talk radio subject, like say, abortion or the death penalty.
Clear Channel's profitibility is suspect. Why? I'm not quite sure. But their solution for every problem they've got seems to be to acquire more things. Take a look at their financials, and you'll see that they're a paper tiger right now, having taken out something like ten billion dollars in debt to make their acquisitions.
Clear Channel is not destroying this country. If you don't like their stuff, don't consume it. Convince your friends to do likewise. But the people who work for CC aren't bad, and don't have dubious motives. I see them as just competition...sure, they've got more bucks backing them, but the audience will decide ultimately.
Yes, iirc, the new rules do relax that kind of thing. Gannett, NYTimes, Tribune Co., etc. If memory serves, it doesn't allow a company to own as many broadcast stations if they've got a paper than if they didn't, but it relaxes it. In smaller markets, this wasn't much of an issue until a few years ago, when the big papers bought out local dailies. In the big cities (Milwaukee and Chicago come immediately to mind), there was a grandfather clause.
And so it's more free if it's controlled by the government?
The UD is utopian crap which shouldn't really enter into any discussion of politics in the United States.
And here, you can always publish your missive. John Peter Zenger. Google for it, you might learn something.
You forgot 32-bit, 33 Mhz PCI bus @ ~150M/sec.
Faster hard drives would need a faster bus to operate off. I went looking for a non-server board the other day with PCI-X (for gigE), and couldn't find one in a store.
Drives aren't the only bottlenecks.
Which is why I sort of asked...I don't know of that many pure cocoa network apps. The only one that I use on a regular basis is iJournal. I don't have my mac with me right now to check on iChat.
....that it's remotely exploitable.
Any machine you can get physical access to is insecure.
It shouldn't be that difficult to prove, though, if there's a cocoa-based network app where you could dump more than 2048 characters (Camino, perhaps?).