I'm sure there were people saying the same thing about the Titanic, 30 minutes after it hit the iceberg, but before the last of the hull went beneath the waves.
It's no secret that SCOX is hemorraging cash. They have less than $9M in the bank right now, and the only reason they have that is because someone gave them $10M last December.
You *really* think that "they're still around" is a good indicator of how well a company is doing? I think it's you that's naive about business.
So if the Asset Purchase Agreement is held by the court to be valid then SCO owes Novell tens of millions. If the court says that the Asset Purchase Agreement is invalid then SCO does not have any property over the Unix code and Novell owns it all
Completely wrong. This has nothing to do whether the APA is valid or not. It *is* valid. Novell isn't contesting that at all. If both parties to a contract say that the contract is valid, then it's valid, end of story.
This was an attempt to spread fear about Linux... and when that wasn't working, it became a pump-and-dump scam so SCO executives could sell off their stock options at a profit
No. If you look at the timeline, it began as an attempt to extort money from IBM. Caldera was dead (apparently they never figured out that nobody would buy a Linux distro that used per-seat licensing) so they hired Darl McBride to sue IBM for "something", in an attempt to get a buyout.
When IBM called their bluff, Caldera (now SCOX) began their media slams against them. This was when the stock pumping began (presumably, the stock pumping was done in an effort to encourage IBM to buy them sooner, rather than later.) At this time, they were publically stating that Linux was "clean", and it was just IBM who was at fault.
Around April 2003, MS threw $60M at them (this is the money that they owe Novell) for "licenses" that MS already had, and wasn't even using. It was at this point that SCOX changed their tune and started the whole "millions of lines of code was dumped into Linux", their threats to sue Linux end-users, and their $699 "license". (The inference is that MS saw an opportunity to spread FUD, and that's what the money was for. The timing is just too good.)
1. Dogs take big piles of steaming shit wherever they please.
And it's usually in the same place - dogs are creatures of habit, and like to go in the same place each day.
3. The cat by its size is unlikely to cause damage to property.
Except for said shit in the garden.
the cat is not a pack animal like a dog
Correct, but that doesn't mean it's not a pack (social) animal at all. Cats are very social animals, and form heirarchies and complex social relationships. They are also trainable (but of course, you have to use slightly different methods than that of a dog.)
The average dog is naturally subservient, which is why you can train it, and are responsible if your training fails.
The average cat is also naturally subservient, and you can also train it. You are also responsible if the training fails (whether or not you even try.)
The biggest thing about cats is that because they're small, their owners tend to treat them as babies, and act subservient towards them. This, combined with silly things like leaving food out for them 24 hours a day, leads the cats to believe that they are the alpha, complete with all of the behavioural problems that most cat owners believe are normal.
In summary, you get service from dogs, to whom you present orders, but companionship from cats, to whom you can only present reasonable propositions.
Totally false. Most cat owners believe this because they really have no clue about how to train their animals.
If you pay $200/mo rent for an apartment in the US, I really don't want to visit that area.
In rural Northeast Iowa (where I am from) you can rent a very nice 4 bedroom house for $150
Two things to point out:
First, he specifically said apartments, not houses - I sincerely doubt that you'll find any apartment buildings on $150.00/month Iowa farmland.
Second, if you're living in a rented house on Iowa farmland, I doubt you'll be able to get DSL (which, in case you missed it, is the entire point of this discussion.)
I was exposed to porn off and on from about 6 on up.
So was I.
I had to overcome issues with women and the degrading light that some of those images portrayed combined with my naive mind.
I haven't.
Being raised by a single parent father without much of a female influence may have had some to do with this, but I did have issues in my view of women when it came to sex later on in my late teens and early twenties.
I was raised by a single mother, without much male influence. Perhaps the issues you had was because of your father and the way he relates to women, rather than the porn?
Consider this message proper notice that I am suing you in Australian Federal court. The court date is October 10, 2006, you must be present at the courthouse located at 123 Kangaroo Ct, Melbourne, Australia. Failure to appear will result in a default judgement against you in the amount of $100,000,000 Australian Quatloos.
So, you're gonna buy a ticket to Australia now that I've said that?
The problem with your logic is that they *didn't* ignore a court summons - they were never served with a summons. You can't ignore a summons that was never served.
you say that you support the right of the people to choose their government but how can that be possible if the truth about a government and it's actions are being actively censored by said government?
If he doesn't feel okay about releasing details until they've patched the driver that's one thing. But insinuating that the big bad lawyers have silenced you is quite another.
If you read the article, he says that it's the former, and not the latter.
Specifically, his employer (who would have paid him to do the work, and thus owns the exploit code in question) has said that they won't release the exploit until Apple has had a chance to release a fix.
The "apple lawyer" crap is pure ungrounded speculation.
an atmosphere where people do not want to attack us...
This is - IMHO - means violent retribution against anyone involved, their friends, their families, their countries, their religious centers, etc.
Are you really that stupid?
How will that make them less likely to want to attack you? These are people who are willing to blow themselves up to prove a point. What on earth makes you think that unfounded retribution will make them hate you any less?
All you'll end up doing is making even more people who want to attack you.
Slashdot Mirror
Last I checked, they're still around.
I'm sure there were people saying the same thing about the Titanic, 30 minutes after it hit the iceberg, but before the last of the hull went beneath the waves.
It's no secret that SCOX is hemorraging cash. They have less than $9M in the bank right now, and the only reason they have that is because someone gave them $10M last December.
You *really* think that "they're still around" is a good indicator of how well a company is doing? I think it's you that's naive about business.
No Company would ever enter into any agreement where they invest a large some of money like they did without a CONTRACT.
What the hell does that have to do with the story?
There *WAS* a contract - between Baystar and SCOX.
Microsoft may have had to pay it in order to legally distribute their Services for Unix product.
Except that MS had *already* paid for that.
So if the Asset Purchase Agreement is held by the court to be valid then SCO owes Novell tens of millions. If the court says that the Asset Purchase Agreement is invalid then SCO does not have any property over the Unix code and Novell owns it all
Completely wrong. This has nothing to do whether the APA is valid or not. It *is* valid. Novell isn't contesting that at all. If both parties to a contract say that the contract is valid, then it's valid, end of story.
This was an attempt to spread fear about Linux ... and when that wasn't working, it became a pump-and-dump scam so SCO executives could sell off their stock options at a profit
.)
No. If you look at the timeline, it began as an attempt to extort money from IBM. Caldera was dead (apparently they never figured out that nobody would buy a Linux distro that used per-seat licensing) so they hired Darl McBride to sue IBM for "something", in an attempt to get a buyout.
When IBM called their bluff, Caldera (now SCOX) began their media slams against them. This was when the stock pumping began (presumably, the stock pumping was done in an effort to encourage IBM to buy them sooner, rather than later.) At this time, they were publically stating that Linux was "clean", and it was just IBM who was at fault.
Around April 2003, MS threw $60M at them (this is the money that they owe Novell) for "licenses" that MS already had, and wasn't even using. It was at this point that SCOX changed their tune and started the whole "millions of lines of code was dumped into Linux", their threats to sue Linux end-users, and their $699 "license". (The inference is that MS saw an opportunity to spread FUD, and that's what the money was for. The timing is just too good
1. Dogs take big piles of steaming shit wherever they please.
And it's usually in the same place - dogs are creatures of habit, and like to go in the same place each day.
3. The cat by its size is unlikely to cause damage to property.
Except for said shit in the garden.
the cat is not a pack animal like a dog
Correct, but that doesn't mean it's not a pack (social) animal at all. Cats are very social animals, and form heirarchies and complex social relationships. They are also trainable (but of course, you have to use slightly different methods than that of a dog.)
The average dog is naturally subservient, which is why you can train it, and are responsible if your training fails.
The average cat is also naturally subservient, and you can also train it. You are also responsible if the training fails (whether or not you even try.)
The biggest thing about cats is that because they're small, their owners tend to treat them as babies, and act subservient towards them. This, combined with silly things like leaving food out for them 24 hours a day, leads the cats to believe that they are the alpha, complete with all of the behavioural problems that most cat owners believe are normal.
In summary, you get service from dogs, to whom you present orders, but companionship from cats, to whom you can only present reasonable propositions.
Totally false. Most cat owners believe this because they really have no clue about how to train their animals.
in order to run it, you must make a copy of it (into RAM). Copyright law forbids you from making these copies
Completely false.
Copyright law (in the US) explicitly allows these copies.
You do not need to agree to an EULA in order to run a piece of software.
Why does walmart always get bashed when all the department stores are the same.
Please back up that statement with links to HBC (Zellers) strongarming their suppliers and driving them out of business.
Or better yet, say "Freedom Software" or "Freedomware".
However, this would only be accurate to the US's new definition of "Freedom" if the software was not only proprietary, but contained Sony-style DRM.
Two things to point out:
First, he specifically said apartments, not houses - I sincerely doubt that you'll find any apartment buildings on $150.00/month Iowa farmland.
Second, if you're living in a rented house on Iowa farmland, I doubt you'll be able to get DSL (which, in case you missed it, is the entire point of this discussion.)
I was exposed to porn off and on from about 6 on up.
So was I.
I had to overcome issues with women and the degrading light that some of those images portrayed combined with my naive mind.
I haven't.
Being raised by a single parent father without much of a female influence may have had some to do with this, but I did have issues in my view of women when it came to sex later on in my late teens and early twenties.
I was raised by a single mother, without much male influence. Perhaps the issues you had was because of your father and the way he relates to women, rather than the porn?
So, you're gonna buy a ticket to Australia now that I've said that?
The problem with your logic is that they *didn't* ignore a court summons - they were never served with a summons. You can't ignore a summons that was never served.
1) True
2) False
3) False
4) False
5) Spamhaus has *no* US assets to be seized.
First of all, it is not that difficult to enforce a US judgment in England especially since a 1983 decision
Read the article - they said that you can't enforce a default US judgement in the UK. There is a slight difference.
I'm not sure how Spamhaus works, but I can tell you the SPEWS admins did not care
Judging the Spamhaus operators based on the actions of the SPEWS admins is like judging Americans based on the actions of Nigerian 419 scammers.
In other words, they are two completely independant groups of people, with almost nothing in common.
how anyone can believe they have a right to unpaid-for copyrighted "anything" (that is, stuff they haven't paid the rightful owner for).
Yeah! Goddamned librarians lending stuff to people who haven't paid for it! Throw them all in jail!
Paying of the artists
What makes you think that any of the RIAA money goes to the artists?
It goes to pay the record labels, who don't give one red cent to the artists (after all, it's not in their contracts.)
My dad only wants to go on the internet, access financial information from stocks he either owns or is considering/researching, and get off.
And this didn't make you go "EEEEWWWWWW"?!?!?
you say that you support the right of the people to choose their government but how can that be possible if the truth about a government and it's actions are being actively censored by said government?
Are you talking about China or the US here?
They have enough evidence to start proceedings
Which is to say "none".
You know that line you see in legal filings "On information and belief..." It means they have no evidence.
You're not supposed to start proceedings if you have no evidence, but there's nothing stopping you if you really don't.
Just look at the SCOX vs IBM lawsuit.
Since when are business models subject to patent rights?
Since July 1998.
Round about 1998 or so, my wife and I participated for a couple of weeks (in Canada.)
If he doesn't feel okay about releasing details until they've patched the driver that's one thing. But insinuating that the big bad lawyers have silenced you is quite another.
If you read the article, he says that it's the former, and not the latter.
Specifically, his employer (who would have paid him to do the work, and thus owns the exploit code in question) has said that they won't release the exploit until Apple has had a chance to release a fix.
The "apple lawyer" crap is pure ungrounded speculation.
Are you really that stupid?
How will that make them less likely to want to attack you? These are people who are willing to blow themselves up to prove a point. What on earth makes you think that unfounded retribution will make them hate you any less?
All you'll end up doing is making even more people who want to attack you.
Can you name one country including the muslim ones that has not had a muslim attack in recent history?
Canada.