Apu: Perhaps you would like to try an experimental flavour of my own concoction. A delicious Chutney Squishee. Bart: Oh, okay Apu: You can really taste the chutney!
they want IBM to provide the complete revision history of every file in AIX, including programmer notes, so that they can read through it all and try to find places where programmers writing IBM code were 'tainted' with SysV knowledge.
But that's not the best part - they want to do this because they say it will be *faster* than simply comparing Linux to SysV.
Yup - we have too much data to look through, so the only way to make it faster is to give us *MORE* data!
Maybe they're hoping that after reading their filings, the judges head will explode, and they can get another delay?
Yes, I have. If you're a true geek, you're smart, and would want a smart dog.
like most border collie owners, would very likely end up with a dog with serious emotional problems due to lack of stimulation.
got a reference for that statistic? Every single border collie I know (and I know a lot) has emotionally stable, happy dogs. My experience has been that if you can't handle a border collie, you can't handle having a dog at all.
Geeks need cats.
First of all, please stay on-topic - what good is a housecat against an intruder? Second of all, as the owner of two cats, they require more than three minutes excercise per day.
border collies aren't very big
They are in the same size category as labs and sheperds. Male border collies average 50Lbs, which is large enough for a watchdog - they have a deep enough bark to scare someone who can't see behind the door.
an 80lb+ dog is more of a deterrant
I've owned large breed dogs (great dane). 80lb+ dogs require much more room than a border collie, while a border collie needs room to run, they require very little space indoors.
They're big enough that they will make an intruder think twice, and they're smart enough that you can teach them to do some pretty amazing things - and sometimes you don't even *have* to teach them.
Then I looked down and saw he was coiled up front under the steering wheel just daring anyone to try and get in the car.
I went to the store one day, and left my border collie in the car.. while I'm in there, I hear someone honking their car horn - LOTS.. when I come out, there's some teenagers looking warily at my car, and my border collie inside, sitting in the driver's seat, hitting the horn whenever one got too close.
The kids weren't up to anything, but it kept them away.
Seriously, get a border collie - they're a lot of work (you have to take them running every day) but they're the best all-around dogs there are.
If *everyone* would just get valid, signed certificates to authenticate themselves as a given entity with a given email address, then *everyone* could turn on a switch in their mail client that says "reject all mail that isn't signed with a cert which matches the sender's address and that's signed by an authority I trust".
And (apart from that no longer being decentralized, which is a separate issue) how exactly does that stop spam?
If you make spam completely accountable to a real-world entity via cryptography, it largely solves the problem, because the problem is so easy to solve at that point
Again, how? You'll still have spammers, only now you'll know who they are. The problem isn't that spammers are anonymous, the problem is that they are spammers.
The closer analogy would be you walking up to me, saying "Hey, the Bank of America is over there", and giving me directions to an address where you have, overnight, erected an identical replica of a bank of america branch. (OK, perhaps the font on the logo is just slightly wrong if I think to look really closely.)
And even closer analogy than that would be you saying "I work for the Bank of America - you must go to that new office over there and enter your banking information, because otherwise we'll shut your account down."
The rights they claim are being infringed are owned by the people they represent.
Yes, and they claim that the material in question belongs to those people.
They are NOT claiming that the rights of the person they are contacting are being infringed.
Because the person whom they are contacting is, in fact the owner of the rights, and they say that the person they are contacting is infringing those rights, then they are *by definition* lying.
Just because they are incorrect
Being "incorrect" has nothing to do with it.
They saw something they thought belonged to someone else, and instead of investigating to see if it *really was* what they thought it was, they sent a takedown notice. In this notice, they stated under penalty of perjury *THAT THEY REPRESENTED THE OWNER* - which they didn't.
They made two mistakes. First, they didn't check that the file was what they thought. Second, they made an assertion that they were representing the legitimate owner. (Note, they *DID NOT* say "we think these files belong to Fox" - if they had, they would be off the hook.)
Oil companies would be richer than ever if this pans out.
I disagree.
The oil won't stop being needed, it'll just stop being burned.
The question isn't "will oil still be needed", it's "HOW MUCH oil will still be needed?" And the answer (quite obviously) is "much less than is needed right now."
Yes, some oil will still be needed, but the fact that a great deal of it is burned means that the *demand* side of the "supply and demand" equation will drop. Significantly.
And guess what happens then?
quite a few "oil companies" have figured out that they are in the energy business, not the oil business.
Oil companies currently have it pretty good - why would they want to actually have to go out and *compete* if they don't have to? It's just like the RIAA and the MPAA - when new technology comes out that creates competition for their current business model, they're more inclined to fight the technology, rather than embrace it, even if embracing it would provide a new revenue stream that will dwarf their current profits.
correctly done experiments now result in 250% over-unity
No. Energy production is still under unity. It's impossible for over-unity to exist. (Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed.)
Unity refers to the total amount in and out, including fuel. As their device uses fuel (heavy water), it's not over-unity, any more than a diesel generator is over-unity.
the higher the risk the higher the percentage the laywers demand
Only if there actually is a chance of winning.
Boies and co knows that SCOX can't win, and will lose *big* on IBM's counterclaims. That's what the $31M is for (note that it's actual cash that's being put into escrow - you don't do that if you think you're gonna win.)
Well here is evidence SCO knows its going to lose and the lawyers think they are going to win.
No, this is Darl's attempt to make you *think* that the lawyers think they're gonna win.
If you had a client on contingency, and you thought they were gonna lose, wouldn't you try to get a fixed amount of money out of them? That's what the $31M is for - it's in a reserved account that SCO can't touch until the case is over.
The "increase" in contingency is window dressing so that Darl can tell people that their lawyers think they'll win.
You can bet that Boies insisted on the $31M, and Darl insisted on the 33%.
Think about it. If you were a lawyer, and you had a client who you thought wouldn't be able to pay you after a lawsuit, what would you do?
Answer: You'd ask them for money up front.
This is SCOX putting $31M aside (which, incidentally, is almost everything they've got right now) to make sure that Boise continues to represent them. The 'increase' in contingency is just window dressing so that Darl can crow about it.
When this started, SCOX probably approached them and said "we want you to help us sue IBM - we have an ironclad case against them, but we don't have much money. How about you give us a discount, in exchange for 20% of our winnings?" (They then show the printouts of SysV and Linux to show that they have a case - Boise takes them at their word that the copying went from SysV to Linux, and not the other way around.)
After the case has wound on, Boise realises that they've been had - there's no infringing code in Linux, it turns out that SCOX didn't have the copyright *anyway*, and SCOX is about to have their ass handed to them because of IBM's counterclaims. Boise decides that SCOX is gonna lose, and lose BIG - and after IBM takes them to the cleaners, SCO will have no money left.
So Boise hedges his bet - it doesn't matter how much he'd get 'if' they win - he knows they're gonna lose, so he accepts a fixed sum, as long as it's guaranteed. SCOX then says "umm, this makes it look like you've got no faith in our case", so Boise agrees to an 'increase' in the contingency.
Slashdot Mirror
Apu: Perhaps you would like to try an experimental flavour of my own concoction. A delicious Chutney Squishee.
Bart: Oh, okay
Apu: You can really taste the chutney!
"Our spin detector says that's negative."
--
Now it make sense - they used the SCO press releases to tune the detector!
Heisenberg is driving his car, when he gets pulled over by a cop. The cop asks him "Do you know how fast you were going?"
To which Heisenberg replies "No, but I know where I am!"
The presidency is an office of limited power
Don't worry, Shrubya is doing everything he can to change this.
they want IBM to provide the complete revision history of every file in AIX, including programmer notes, so that they can read through it all and try to find places where programmers writing IBM code were 'tainted' with SysV knowledge.
But that's not the best part - they want to do this because they say it will be *faster* than simply comparing Linux to SysV.
Yup - we have too much data to look through, so the only way to make it faster is to give us *MORE* data!
Maybe they're hoping that after reading their filings, the judges head will explode, and they can get another delay?
have you considered your audience?
Yes, I have. If you're a true geek, you're smart, and would want a smart dog.
like most border collie owners, would very likely end up with a dog with serious emotional problems due to lack of stimulation.
got a reference for that statistic? Every single border collie I know (and I know a lot) has emotionally stable, happy dogs. My experience has been that if you can't handle a border collie, you can't handle having a dog at all.
Geeks need cats.
First of all, please stay on-topic - what good is a housecat against an intruder? Second of all, as the owner of two cats, they require more than three minutes excercise per day.
border collies aren't very big
They are in the same size category as labs and sheperds. Male border collies average 50Lbs, which is large enough for a watchdog - they have a deep enough bark to scare someone who can't see behind the door.
an 80lb+ dog is more of a deterrant
I've owned large breed dogs (great dane). 80lb+ dogs require much more room than a border collie, while a border collie needs room to run, they require very little space indoors.
Get a border collie!
They're big enough that they will make an intruder think twice, and they're smart enough that you can teach them to do some pretty amazing things - and sometimes you don't even *have* to teach them.
Then I looked down and saw he was coiled up front under the steering wheel just daring anyone to try and get in the car.
I went to the store one day, and left my border collie in the car.. while I'm in there, I hear someone honking their car horn - LOTS.. when I come out, there's some teenagers looking warily at my car, and my border collie inside, sitting in the driver's seat, hitting the horn whenever one got too close.
The kids weren't up to anything, but it kept them away.
Seriously, get a border collie - they're a lot of work (you have to take them running every day) but they're the best all-around dogs there are.
If *everyone* would just get valid, signed certificates to authenticate themselves as a given entity with a given email address, then *everyone* could turn on a switch in their mail client that says "reject all mail that isn't signed with a cert which matches the sender's address and that's signed by an authority I trust".
And (apart from that no longer being decentralized, which is a separate issue) how exactly does that stop spam?
If you make spam completely accountable to a real-world entity via cryptography, it largely solves the problem, because the problem is so easy to solve at that point
Again, how? You'll still have spammers, only now you'll know who they are. The problem isn't that spammers are anonymous, the problem is that they are spammers.
Are you saying that spammers won't bother to get their own certificates? Considering that spammers are currently the largest adopters of SPF, why do you believe they'll balk at certs?
The closer analogy would be you walking up to me, saying "Hey, the Bank of America is over there", and giving me directions to an address where you have, overnight, erected an identical replica of a bank of america branch. (OK, perhaps the font on the logo is just slightly wrong if I think to look really closely.)
And even closer analogy than that would be you saying "I work for the Bank of America - you must go to that new office over there and enter your banking information, because otherwise we'll shut your account down."
Plumbers also don't expect you to pay them every time you flush the toilet.
Seriously, by listing people who provide a *service*, you're re-inforcing Lumpy's point.
you have to give up rights to live in a free society
Yeah, and who needs that pesky "right to a fair trial" anyway?
Looks like the file is corrupt.
The rights they claim are being infringed are owned by the people they represent.
Yes, and they claim that the material in question belongs to those people.
They are NOT claiming that the rights of the person they are contacting are being infringed.
Because the person whom they are contacting is, in fact the owner of the rights, and they say that the person they are contacting is infringing those rights, then they are *by definition* lying.
Just because they are incorrect
Being "incorrect" has nothing to do with it.
They saw something they thought belonged to someone else, and instead of investigating to see if it *really was* what they thought it was, they sent a takedown notice. In this notice, they stated under penalty of perjury *THAT THEY REPRESENTED THE OWNER* - which they didn't.
They made two mistakes. First, they didn't check that the file was what they thought. Second, they made an assertion that they were representing the legitimate owner. (Note, they *DID NOT* say "we think these files belong to Fox" - if they had, they would be off the hook.)
They lied, get over it.
In fact, I hit a 6 when I should have hit a 9.
In that case, you have my apologies.
Generally it's the ones who call others trolls early in the dialogue.
I disagree. It's the ones who post unverifiable "facts".
Oil companies would be richer than ever if this pans out.
I disagree.
The oil won't stop being needed, it'll just stop being burned.
The question isn't "will oil still be needed", it's "HOW MUCH oil will still be needed?" And the answer (quite obviously) is "much less than is needed right now."
Yes, some oil will still be needed, but the fact that a great deal of it is burned means that the *demand* side of the "supply and demand" equation will drop. Significantly.
And guess what happens then?
quite a few "oil companies" have figured out that they are in the energy business, not the oil business.
Oil companies currently have it pretty good - why would they want to actually have to go out and *compete* if they don't have to? It's just like the RIAA and the MPAA - when new technology comes out that creates competition for their current business model, they're more inclined to fight the technology, rather than embrace it, even if embracing it would provide a new revenue stream that will dwarf their current profits.
correctly done experiments now result in 250% over-unity
No. Energy production is still under unity. It's impossible for over-unity to exist. (Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only changed.)
Unity refers to the total amount in and out, including fuel. As their device uses fuel (heavy water), it's not over-unity, any more than a diesel generator is over-unity.
Cold fusion has always and obviously been a real nuclear effect, in my mind, as I have publically argued, often on slashdot, since 1986.
Wow, considering that CmdrTaco was in elementary school in 1986, and that the cold fusion wasn't announced until March 23, 1989, that's quite a feat!
So either you're a lying troll, or you have a time machine. Guess where my money is.
Does this mean Pons-Fleschmann used the 100 percent ratio?
Not necessarily. They could just have been extraordinarily lucky.
You *CAN* effectively argue it.
Claiming that any software is attacked more because of market share is *PROVABLY* false.
If it was true, Apache would be attacked a lot more than IIS, because it has a much larger market share.
Apache is more secure than IIS, therefore the assertion that market share affects security is false.
QED.
He's right, linux would be attacked just as frequently as windows.
One word: APACHE
Which gets attacked more, Apache or IIS. Which has more market share?
the higher the risk the higher the percentage the laywers demand
Only if there actually is a chance of winning.
Boies and co knows that SCOX can't win, and will lose *big* on IBM's counterclaims. That's what the $31M is for (note that it's actual cash that's being put into escrow - you don't do that if you think you're gonna win.)
he's talking about Perl and you're talking about line noise. Big difference there
:o)
Judging from some of the perl scripts I've seen, it's not as big as you think.
Well here is evidence SCO knows its going to lose and the lawyers think they are going to win.
No, this is Darl's attempt to make you *think* that the lawyers think they're gonna win.
If you had a client on contingency, and you thought they were gonna lose, wouldn't you try to get a fixed amount of money out of them? That's what the $31M is for - it's in a reserved account that SCO can't touch until the case is over.
The "increase" in contingency is window dressing so that Darl can tell people that their lawyers think they'll win.
You can bet that Boies insisted on the $31M, and Darl insisted on the 33%.
Think about it. If you were a lawyer, and you had a client who you thought wouldn't be able to pay you after a lawsuit, what would you do?
Answer: You'd ask them for money up front.
This is SCOX putting $31M aside (which, incidentally, is almost everything they've got right now) to make sure that Boise continues to represent them. The 'increase' in contingency is just window dressing so that Darl can crow about it.
When this started, SCOX probably approached them and said "we want you to help us sue IBM - we have an ironclad case against them, but we don't have much money. How about you give us a discount, in exchange for 20% of our winnings?" (They then show the printouts of SysV and Linux to show that they have a case - Boise takes them at their word that the copying went from SysV to Linux, and not the other way around.)
After the case has wound on, Boise realises that they've been had - there's no infringing code in Linux, it turns out that SCOX didn't have the copyright *anyway*, and SCOX is about to have their ass handed to them because of IBM's counterclaims. Boise decides that SCOX is gonna lose, and lose BIG - and after IBM takes them to the cleaners, SCO will have no money left.
So Boise hedges his bet - it doesn't matter how much he'd get 'if' they win - he knows they're gonna lose, so he accepts a fixed sum, as long as it's guaranteed. SCOX then says "umm, this makes it look like you've got no faith in our case", so Boise agrees to an 'increase' in the contingency.
How is that different from number two?
Distributing someone's code without their permission is still copyright infringement, whether you claim "I'll remove it if you ask me."