why hasn't the judge either a) slapped SCO silly for not obeying her orders or b) thrown the case out?
Because that's what SCOX wants. They want her (or Kimball) to pull a Judge Jackson so that they can drag it out even more in the appeals court.
SCOX is gaming the system, but they're near the end of their rope. From the attitude Wells displayed in the court yesterday, it's pretty clear that SCOX has used up all of the "benefit of the doubt" they had.
SCO has so far not been asked to make a specific accusation yet for gods sake.
You are incorrect. SCOX has been not only been "asked", but they have beeb ORDERED to specify what their allegations are, on *THREE* separate occasions. They've failed to do so (while claiming they have) each and every time.
The last time they did it, they filed everything under seal, so that nobody besides IBM can point out that they've failed again (and yes, IBM has pointed it out to the court - out of the 294 items that SCOX filed, IBM has said that only one (yes, *ONE*) is "specific" enough for the court, but that one doesn't actually identify anything that IBM did.
Why hasn't anybody asked SCO what bits of unix they own, what pieces SCO alleges Ibm stole.
Again, they did (and not just "asked", but *ordered*, by a federal judge.)
They still haven't said what IBM stole form them.
This bit is correct, but that doesn't mean that nobody has "asked".
Nowhere in the article does it say they conficated CD's.
Yes, however, nowhere in the article does it say that they *didn't* confiscate CDs, and the author said that he asked the officer to "return any confiscated CDs."
So it's still possible (and implied) that there were CD consfiscated.
They were contacting him BEFORE they took action.
The action referred to is prosecution. Trading services officers are allowed by law to confiscate goods if they believe they are being traded unfairly. Once the goods are confiscated, they press charges.
companies that censor themselves so they can still be allowed to the white house press conferences? Or maybe companies that are allied to some backward thinking group?
A relationship between parity and life span was found by Kitagawa and Hauser (1975), and Doblhammer (1996). Both studies found a U-shaped mortality pattern: mortality is highest for childless women and women of higher parity, while it is lowest for parities two and three.
I go to ARIN and want to deploy a community wireless network using all IPv6. They want to charge me just as much for IPv6 addresses as they're charging for IPv4.
Organizations that are General Members in good standing prior to requesting an initial IPv6 allocation are not charged IPv6 registration fees. Annual renewal fees for IPv6 allocations are also waived for General Members in good standing. ARIN will continue to waive these fees as long as the organization remains a General Member in good standing at the time of renewal, up until Dec. 31, 2006.
Also, if you do have to pay, that page shows that IPV6 addresses are less expensive than IPV4, because the blocks are larger. An IPV4/21 (2048 addresses) costs the same amount as an IPV6/48 (1.2e24 addresses)
The court basically said "prove to me that an act of infringement was committed" - and they couldn't.
It's perfectly legal for someone to use your equipment to make copies of your music. What makes an act of infringement is who is pushing the buttons, not who owns the equipment.
Your solution, rather than allowing people who are offended by those words to create their own space within the game, is to have them monitor everyone's conversation, and ruin the game for people who don't really know any better?
Yeah, that sounds great - rather than a win-win solution, go with the lose-lose solution!
"Fair Use" is broadly supposed to have minimal to nil financial effects on the copyrightholder
Before we address this (false) assumption, here's what's happening:
Copyright holder makes a web page available *FOR FREE* to the general public. Google caches it. Please explain how Google's cache financially hurts the copyright holder. Providing something *FOR FREE* that is available *FOR FREE* would seem to have a "nil financial effect on the copyright holders", no?
Google's cache is basically a large-scale financial transfer from the copyrightholders
Sorry, WHAT?!!??!
Financial == monetary matters. I haven't checked in the past 5 minutes, but prior to that, someone visting your (free, publically accessible) website doesn't move money from your bank account to theirs.
if everyone was educated who would do the hard labor?
How about the ones who *want* to?
You seem to believe that if everyone gets the same education, that everyone will be a scientist - that's absurd on its face.
I know lots of farmers who actually *enjoy* farming. Or mechanics who enjoy working on cars. Chefs who do it because they enjoy cooking.
I went to school with a straight-A student who became a geophysicist, and quit to become a courier - because he enjoyed driving.
What's wrong with people doing what they enjoy? If you give everyone the chance to become a scientist, not everyone will actually do it. Isn't it better to give the same chance to people who would actually enjoy it and do good at it?
I asked about why they would sign a contract they couldn't fulfill. He said it happens all the time and is standard operating procedure.
You say this like it's something unusual. If so, I doubt you have much experience with company with an employee base of >1.
Here's a story that might help you understand a little better:
A salesman and a technician wenet bear hunting. They hiked up into the mountains, to get to a remote cabin. When they got there, the salesman said "OK, you unpack, and I'll go find us something to hunt," and left before the technician could object.
About 10 minutes later, the technician heard the salesman screaming from outside. He went out, and across the field, he saw the salesman running for his life, being chased by the largest, angriest bear the technician had ever seen in his life.
Stunned, the technician could only stare as the salesman ran right up to the cabin, the bear inches behind him. Just as he reached the cabin door, the salesman bolted to the side, and the bear having too much momentum, barreled straight into the cabin. The salesman quickly closed the door, and looked to the technician with a big smile on his face.
The technician could hear the bear destroying the inside of the cabin, and as he turned to the salesman, the salesman said "OK, you finish up with this one, and I'll go get us some more." ---------
A salesman I worked with once told me the "secret" of sales: "Never confuse selling with supplying." I've never met a salesman who feels differently.
Slashdot Mirror
why hasn't the judge either a) slapped SCO silly for not obeying her orders or b) thrown the case out?
Because that's what SCOX wants. They want her (or Kimball) to pull a Judge Jackson so that they can drag it out even more in the appeals court.
SCOX is gaming the system, but they're near the end of their rope. From the attitude Wells displayed in the court yesterday, it's pretty clear that SCOX has used up all of the "benefit of the doubt" they had.
SCO has so far not been asked to make a specific accusation yet for gods sake.
You are incorrect. SCOX has been not only been "asked", but they have beeb ORDERED to specify what their allegations are, on *THREE* separate occasions. They've failed to do so (while claiming they have) each and every time.
The last time they did it, they filed everything under seal, so that nobody besides IBM can point out that they've failed again (and yes, IBM has pointed it out to the court - out of the 294 items that SCOX filed, IBM has said that only one (yes, *ONE*) is "specific" enough for the court, but that one doesn't actually identify anything that IBM did.
Why hasn't anybody asked SCO what bits of unix they own, what pieces SCO alleges Ibm stole.
Again, they did (and not just "asked", but *ordered*, by a federal judge.)
They still haven't said what IBM stole form them.
This bit is correct, but that doesn't mean that nobody has "asked".
Yes, but why would the author automatically assume that CD's had been confiscated?
It's pretty clear that there is an implication that CD's were confiscated. If there weren't, why would he mention it at all?
Nowhere in the article does it say they conficated CD's.
Yes, however, nowhere in the article does it say that they *didn't* confiscate CDs, and the author said that he asked the officer to "return any confiscated CDs."
So it's still possible (and implied) that there were CD consfiscated.
They were contacting him BEFORE they took action.
The action referred to is prosecution. Trading services officers are allowed by law to confiscate goods if they believe they are being traded unfairly. Once the goods are confiscated, they press charges.
What they don't realise is language changes.
No, they realize it just fine.
What *you* don't realize is that they're not talking about the language changing, but that it's changing too quickly, and for the worse.
you could easily fit 10,000 account numbers into a tab-deliminated text file, and it'd only take up a few megabytes.
Exactly how many digits is your bank account number, and why the hell do you bank there?
Edison was mostly an invention through brute force guy.
You misspelled "slave labour".
companies that censor themselves so they can still be allowed to the white house press conferences? Or maybe companies that are allied to some backward thinking group?
/me ducks :o)
How are these two different?
The Red Cross was founded by a guy from Switzerland, and he adopted as their logo the Swiss flag with the colors inverted.
This paper disagrees with you.
From the link:
.. molten lava, a blast furnace..
It's the same thing as kB versus kb.
:o)
Actually, I think that the "k" stands for "kilo" (or "kibi", if you're retarded) in both of those.
I call bullshit.
From the link:
Also, if you do have to pay, that page shows that IPV6 addresses are less expensive than IPV4, because the blocks are larger. An IPV4
Sharing != uploading.
The court basically said "prove to me that an act of infringement was committed" - and they couldn't.
It's perfectly legal for someone to use your equipment to make copies of your music. What makes an act of infringement is who is pushing the buttons, not who owns the equipment.
Almost exactly the comment I was going to post.
The answer to "should businesses have mobile friendly websites" is MU!
If the website is designed correctly, it will already be "mobile" friendly (as well as everything-else friendly).
See This thread.
I think you just broke my sarcasm meter!
.. then you're not much of a geek.
I'm watching it right now with Mplayer (Slackware 10.1)
So..
Your solution, rather than allowing people who are offended by those words to create their own space within the game, is to have them monitor everyone's conversation, and ruin the game for people who don't really know any better?
Yeah, that sounds great - rather than a win-win solution, go with the lose-lose solution!
"Fair Use" is broadly supposed to have minimal to nil financial effects on the copyrightholder
Before we address this (false) assumption, here's what's happening:
Copyright holder makes a web page available *FOR FREE* to the general public. Google caches it. Please explain how Google's cache financially hurts the copyright holder. Providing something *FOR FREE* that is available *FOR FREE* would seem to have a "nil financial effect on the copyright holders", no?
Google's cache is basically a large-scale financial transfer from the copyrightholders
Sorry, WHAT ?!!??!
Financial == monetary matters. I haven't checked in the past 5 minutes, but prior to that, someone visting your (free, publically accessible) website doesn't move money from your bank account to theirs.
tax things you want to destroy. ...Like "personal income" and "sales"?
Great point. I wonder how well he'll do if his opponent quotes him, and then alludes to the conclusion that the man is obviously a Communist.
if everyone was educated who would do the hard labor?
How about the ones who *want* to?
You seem to believe that if everyone gets the same education, that everyone will be a scientist - that's absurd on its face.
I know lots of farmers who actually *enjoy* farming. Or mechanics who enjoy working on cars. Chefs who do it because they enjoy cooking.
I went to school with a straight-A student who became a geophysicist, and quit to become a courier - because he enjoyed driving.
What's wrong with people doing what they enjoy? If you give everyone the chance to become a scientist, not everyone will actually do it. Isn't it better to give the same chance to people who would actually enjoy it and do good at it?
You're trying to tell us that you bake beer and toffee?
He was correct. In almost every case, when baking, the thermometer is used as a measure of doneness.
Just watch who you are calling moron, you more often than not end up becoming one yourself
I'd guess this is one of the "not" cases, eh?
I wish they would bring back Farscape.
They did, only they dropped the muppets, and renamed it Fargate SG-1.
I asked about why they would sign a contract they couldn't fulfill. He said it happens all the time and is standard operating procedure.
You say this like it's something unusual. If so, I doubt you have much experience with company with an employee base of >1.
Here's a story that might help you understand a little better:
A salesman and a technician wenet bear hunting. They hiked up into the mountains, to get to a remote cabin. When they got there, the salesman said "OK, you unpack, and I'll go find us something to hunt," and left before the technician could object.
About 10 minutes later, the technician heard the salesman screaming from outside. He went out, and across the field, he saw the salesman running for his life, being chased by the largest, angriest bear the technician had ever seen in his life.
Stunned, the technician could only stare as the salesman ran right up to the cabin, the bear inches behind him. Just as he reached the cabin door, the salesman bolted to the side, and the bear having too much momentum, barreled straight into the cabin. The salesman quickly closed the door, and looked to the technician with a big smile on his face.
The technician could hear the bear destroying the inside of the cabin, and as he turned to the salesman, the salesman said "OK, you finish up with this one, and I'll go get us some more."
---------
A salesman I worked with once told me the "secret" of sales: "Never confuse selling with supplying." I've never met a salesman who feels differently.