And yet, curiously, despite falling over herself to draw our attention to and debunk every other claim, PJ declines to deny this one, even when asked directly about it.
It's far more efficient than a helicopter. It's getting lift both from the airflow over the rotating blades, and from the flow of the downwash over the body. In a traditional helicopter, most of that downwash is simply wasted.
Did IBM donate $50,000 to SCO via the IBM-chaired OSDL organization, as SCO alleges that they did with "Groklaw" (i.e. PJ)?
Or... are we still not allowed to talk about that part of SCO's allegations, or PJ's refusal to so much as discuss, let alone deny it, until she gets (quote) "lawyered up"?
Because OSDL, under an IBM Chairman, gave $50,000 of IBM-donated cash to "Groklaw" (i.e. PJ). That's their allegation, one which PJ has declined to deny or even comment on until, quote, she gets "lawyered up".
You may now commence troll rating me for wanting to discuss SCO's actual core allegation rather than a silly strawman adjunct.
What is the intersection between people who're smart enough to have installed Linux on their iPods, and people stupid enough to run a random executable?
Would anyone in that set like to make themselves known? Anyone? Don't be shy; anyone at all?
Wow, they just came out and said it. How they can call themselves "editors" is quite beyond me then. I wonder what their job actually is, beyond being guests at Taco's wedding.
The accusation is that she's been paid by OSDL, under an IBM chairman, using funds provides by IBM, so technically she hasn't been paid directly by IBM. Read her recent replies about the OSDL money; she won't comment on that until she gets (quote) "lawyered up". Maybe there's no fire, but if it's not true, then why not make an equally clean denial?
if RIAA does hold the copyright and did not give permission for Trent Reznor to distribute via USB key in the restroom, then they are legally required to sue Trent Reznor for copyright infringement or risk losing their copyright.
That's trademarks you're thinking of. This has been explained many, many times on this very site.
Do you know what an editor's job involves? I mean, the Slashdot editroll squad clearly don't, but I was wondering if you're aware that one of the traditional functions of an editor is to check reported stories for accuracy rather than just republishing them verbatim.
First: (obligatory IANAL) downloading movies is perfectly legal - uploading them is illegal.
You are dumber than toast. Downloading a movie makes a copy of it. If you're not authorised to make that copy, you're infringing the owner's rights. Just because the MPAA are only choosing to sue uploaders doesn't make downloading legal.
Why would they need to? They sell a million units at $100 to Elbonia, and Elbonia sells 500,000 of them on to us decadent imperialist pigdogs for $200 a unit. OLPC break even and only have to deal with one customer, Elbonia get their 500,000 units for free, we get it for the same price either way. We seem to be vastly underestimating 3rd world countries' ability to leverage a good deal.
Slashdot Mirror
..every other claim in this document. Don't take my word for it; go and read Groklaw and see if you can spot her addressing this one specific issue.
Synopsis: SCO == stupid Microsoft catspaws, PJ == clever IBM catspaw.
And yet, curiously, despite falling over herself to draw our attention to and debunk every other claim, PJ declines to deny this one, even when asked directly about it.
There's a little goblin inside who spins it the other way.
Not funny, not informative, but at least it's not another dupe.
It's far more efficient than a helicopter. It's getting lift both from the airflow over the rotating blades, and from the flow of the downwash over the body. In a traditional helicopter, most of that downwash is simply wasted.
Did IBM donate $50,000 to SCO via the IBM-chaired OSDL organization, as SCO alleges that they did with "Groklaw" (i.e. PJ)?
Or... are we still not allowed to talk about that part of SCO's allegations, or PJ's refusal to so much as discuss, let alone deny it, until she gets (quote) "lawyered up"?
Commence troll ratings in 5... 4... 3...
Why, no... until you mentioned it, I had no idea that the post was a spoof. I thank you for bringing it to my attention. You're a real American hero.
Commence troll ratings in 5... 4...
Because OSDL, under an IBM Chairman, gave $50,000 of IBM-donated cash to "Groklaw" (i.e. PJ). That's their allegation, one which PJ has declined to deny or even comment on until, quote, she gets "lawyered up".
You may now commence troll rating me for wanting to discuss SCO's actual core allegation rather than a silly strawman adjunct.
What is the intersection between people who're smart enough to have installed Linux on their iPods, and people stupid enough to run a random executable?
Would anyone in that set like to make themselves known? Anyone? Don't be shy; anyone at all?
Didn't think so.
Not safe at all, until you factor in whomever the Mob has their money riding on.
SCO is trying that. Y'all might want to knock the fuck of shooting the messenger, by the way.
The comment wasn't for his benefit. Apparently other people can read our replies.
Wow, they just came out and said it. How they can call themselves "editors" is quite beyond me then. I wonder what their job actually is, beyond being guests at Taco's wedding.
The accusation is that she's been paid by OSDL, under an IBM chairman, using funds provides by IBM, so technically she hasn't been paid directly by IBM. Read her recent replies about the OSDL money; she won't comment on that until she gets (quote) "lawyered up". Maybe there's no fire, but if it's not true, then why not make an equally clean denial?
That's trademarks you're thinking of. This has been explained many, many times on this very site.
Do you know what an editor's job involves? I mean, the Slashdot editroll squad clearly don't, but I was wondering if you're aware that one of the traditional functions of an editor is to check reported stories for accuracy rather than just republishing them verbatim.
She'd work for IBM because they paid her $50,000 dollars via OSDL. I note that she's curiously reticent on the substance of this allegation.
You are dumber than toast. Downloading a movie makes a copy of it. If you're not authorised to make that copy, you're infringing the owner's rights. Just because the MPAA are only choosing to sue uploaders doesn't make downloading legal.
And do you include the right to marry "other" humans in there, or are you just as speciesist as the rest of us?
Stand up and close your eyes. What's stopping you from falling over? Touch your nose. Wow! You must have ESP or something!
I think that was Firefly's entire audience.
I do hope that you're not implying that I might have poked a stick into this nerd hive on purpose. The very thought is reprehensible!
Why would they need to? They sell a million units at $100 to Elbonia, and Elbonia sells 500,000 of them on to us decadent imperialist pigdogs for $200 a unit. OLPC break even and only have to deal with one customer, Elbonia get their 500,000 units for free, we get it for the same price either way. We seem to be vastly underestimating 3rd world countries' ability to leverage a good deal.
In the same way that with a webcam, you don't need to be on-hand (or on anything else) to contribute to a bukkake.