The funniest thing about this is that this is just SCOX demonstrating (again) their complete and utter lack of reading comprehension skills.
Read the Project Monterey Agreement - the limitation on specific archetecture applies to SCO, not IBM!
IBM was free to use "SCO's" code on any platform they choose, but SCO was not allowed to do the reverse. The rights of each party are explicitly spelled out separately. IBM gets to use SCO's code on any platform they choose (including PowerPC), SCO can only use IBM's code on i386.
(c) License
to SCO of Licensed IBM Materials and IBM Project Work
The rights and licenses granted in this Section (c)(2), with respect to the IA-64 Product, shall be limited to use and distribution solely in connection with SCO products designed to operate on the Intel Architecture
There is no corresponding paragraph in the section entitled "License to IBM of Licensed SCO Materials and SCO Project Work"
the only difference between slashdot and Sco is that Sco actually turns a profit.
Sweet Zombie Jesus, what color is the sky in your world? SCO has been hemmoraging cash for years - the only reason they haven't declared bankruptcy is the infusion from MS (so they could continue their frivilous lawsuits.)
And "the only difference"?!?!?!? When (exactly) was the last time/. sued someone?
A recent poll by CNN suggests that 50% of Americans believe that Saddam was involved in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks (contrary to the fact that 'nobody' in the White House has ever 'said' this was the case.)
First off, I think Bill is a pretty smart guy, and he usually makes a ton of sense.. and I loathe Shrubya - the faster you get him out of office, the better, IMHO.
On the face of it, what Maher says is correct - being willing to die for what you believe is pretty much proof that you're not a coward - but what Shrubya said, and the response from Maher (if it was a response to him, and not to someone else) isn't quite right. From Shrubya's comment, it's not clear exactly who he's calling a coward - it could be argued that he's calling the higher-up members of the terrorist group cowards (which would be correct, IMHO, as they weren't willing to do it themselves.) The link you provided had one quote, but mentioned that Shrub used the word 'coward' more than once - if he used it to describe the hijackers themselves, I'd like to know about it (and not just because it would vindicate Maher:o)
If Shrubya is referring to the hijackers themselves, then he's completely wrong, but I'm not sure that's what he meant (good god, does anyone know what he means when he speaks?) But if he meant the people who sent the hijackers, then he's correct.
The hijackers were not cowards - but the people who planned the attacks certainly are.. as much as Shrubya himself for sending troops into danger he himself would avoid at any cost.
id Software lost $2.75 million to record-breaking piracy
Wow, those pirates sure are bad, breaking into iD's bank account to steal all that money. (you have to assume that it's in a bank - nobody's stupid enough to leave $2.75M lying around the office.)
But doesn't the bank have safeguards? Insurance? At the very least they should be held accountable for allowing unauthorized people access to the account.
The Ascend Pipeline ISDN routers had enough flash space for two ROM images.
I think that the parent poster hasn't ever used real routing equipment - Linksys is hardly in the same league as Ascend (before they were bought out.) Pipeline products retailed for 5-10x what that Linksys sells for.
It's called 'you get what you pay for.' Consumer-grade stuff is cheap - when you buy it, you have to expect corners to be cut.
Obviously, to make low level system calls for direct hardware access in a copy protection scheme.
Sounds like a cop-out to me. 'low-level' system calls are just that - *system* calls, and the system should have a way to allow processes run under non-admin accounts.
At the very least, why can't the installer put a 'setuid' (or whatever the windows equivalent is) program that does the bit-banging? Does the 'system' not allow it? (If not, then the system is indeed broken.)
The effects of an outright SCO win would be devastating to the (at least the US) economy. These are the questions to be asking, and potentially planning for.
I see. And what (exactly) are your contingency plans for when monkeys fly out of your butt?
You did say that everybody need contingency plans. Please share yours with the group; I for one am extremely interested.
How about if it starts raining cows tomorrow? Not just a couple, but thousands and thousands of cows in the span of a few minutes.
Surely you have a contingency plan for that too, right?
That was pretty much my point. I guess you missed the sarcasm tags.:o)
Basically, if the longevity of the suit is the marker by which you measure chance of success, you have bigger problems (like - what would happen if monkeys flew out of your butt?)
The Canadian government does NOT require a mathematical question be answered for giveaways.
If you want to run a 'game of chance' (which a giveaway is), there are several qualifications you must follow: you have to represent a registered community charity (and have completed several forms, stating where the proceeds will go), you have to post odds of winning, and more.
So, the workaround is to make it a 'game of skill' instead - and asking a 'skill-testing question' of the winners is the easiest way to do that. There is no requirement that it be a *math* question, but most companies use math questions because they are skill-based, and generally don't provide an impediment to the winner.
And the answer is 100 (just like the square root of 10,000 in decimal would be 100 in decimal, or the square root of 10,000 in octal would be 100 in octal, or the square root of 10,000 in hexadecimal would be 100 in hexadecimal.)
Well, as that's one of the signs of the Apocalypse, I think we'll all have bigger things to worry about.
Seriously - wondering "what if SCO is right?" is like wondering "what will I do if monkeys fly out of my butt?" After all, you've never had monkeys fly out of your butt before, so therefore the longer you go without having monkeys fly out of your butt, the greater the chance that they eventually will, right?
the length this has drawn out does make one wonder.
The length of time is simply a demonstration of how long someone can game the system. Why not simply ask "why has this drawn out so long, and SCO has yet to produce a single shred of evidence to support their claims?"
There's a BIG difference between "nobody" and "hardly anybody".
In the context used, I believe that the difference is pretty much semantic.
He's arguing that not enough people take advantage of it to make it useful, whereas that is provably untrue. (Apache, for example, is as sucessful as it is *solely* because there are enough people who wanted to modify it, and were able to.)
there are two aspects to copyright: The economic rights (the right to make money off your work, and preventing others from doing the same) and the moral rights -- attribution and the right to control how your work is use, in what context etc.
With software in the USA, there is only economic rights. The US grants moral rights only for visual works (see the 1997 VARA bill.)
The Anglosaxon style copyright has mostly been concerned with the economical aspects of copyright.
Ehrm, I think you mean the American style copyright. Pretty much every anglo nation (Canada, the UK, etc) have strong recognition of moral rights.
No, you don't have it straight.
on
Are You Annoying?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
It's not what you say, it's how you say it.
This is annoying: "Well, my email is working, so it must be a problem on your end."
This is not: "Hmm, let me check our mail server - well, everything seems OK there, let's see if the problem is on your computer."
Two ways of saying the same thing, one is antagonistic, the other is constructive.
That's what social skills are all about - learning to communicate effectively.
Re:Full text (because slow servers are annoying)
on
Are You Annoying?
·
· Score: 4, Funny
This line gave me a laugh:
if you have a tendency to blurt things out and interrupt people, tell your listeners they'd be helping you by pointing out every time you do that
Reminds me of this line from Wargames (spoken to Malvin, the stereotypical nerd):
"Remember you told me to tell you when you were acting rudely and insensitively? Remember that? You're doing it right now."
No, traditionally, SCSI provided higher capacity than IDE.. For example, when the largest IDE drive you could get was 130MB, 2GB SCSI drives were available.
would this judgment also apply to independent distributors of Sitecome's product who happen to be listed on their site?
Logically, it would apply to *anyone* distributing the product, whether they were listed on the website or not.
Think of it this way: The product contains pirated firmware (by not complying with the terms of the GPL, the manufacturer is engaged in large-scale copyright infringement for profit - aka piracy.)
Now that there's a ruling barring distribution, any company distributing the product would be just as guilty - whether they are listed on the website or not.
Not nearly enough tundra there for the reindeer to graze.
Uhh, *HELLO* - they're magic reindeer. They can travel around the world in one day (making a few million stops along the way) but you think they can't leave the north pole for the other 364 days of the year?
And even if they couldn't, you think Santa can afford the raw resources for a toy for 50 million children, but can't spring for food for his reindeer?
Your lack of faith is disturbing. Next you're gonna tell me that the Easter Bunny doesn't really lay the eggs himself!
Slashdot Mirror
Read the Project Monterey Agreement - the limitation on specific archetecture applies to SCO, not IBM!
IBM was free to use "SCO's" code on any platform they choose, but SCO was not allowed to do the reverse. The rights of each party are explicitly spelled out separately. IBM gets to use SCO's code on any platform they choose (including PowerPC), SCO can only use IBM's code on i386.
There is no corresponding paragraph in the section entitled "License to IBM of Licensed SCO Materials and SCO Project Work"
the only difference between slashdot and Sco is that Sco actually turns a profit.
/. sued someone?
Sweet Zombie Jesus, what color is the sky in your world? SCO has been hemmoraging cash for years - the only reason they haven't declared bankruptcy is the infusion from MS (so they could continue their frivilous lawsuits.)
And "the only difference"?!?!?!? When (exactly) was the last time
A recent poll by CNN suggests that 50% of Americans believe that Saddam was involved in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks (contrary to the fact that 'nobody' in the White House has ever 'said' this was the case.)
I'm guessing you just encountered one of them.
Bill Maher was completely right.
:o)
Well, yes and no.
First off, I think Bill is a pretty smart guy, and he usually makes a ton of sense.. and I loathe Shrubya - the faster you get him out of office, the better, IMHO.
On the face of it, what Maher says is correct - being willing to die for what you believe is pretty much proof that you're not a coward - but what Shrubya said, and the response from Maher (if it was a response to him, and not to someone else) isn't quite right.
From Shrubya's comment, it's not clear exactly who he's calling a coward - it could be argued that he's calling the higher-up members of the terrorist group cowards (which would be correct, IMHO, as they weren't willing to do it themselves.) The link you provided had one quote, but mentioned that Shrub used the word 'coward' more than once - if he used it to describe the hijackers themselves, I'd like to know about it (and not just because it would vindicate Maher
If Shrubya is referring to the hijackers themselves, then he's completely wrong, but I'm not sure that's what he meant (good god, does anyone know what he means when he speaks?) But if he meant the people who sent the hijackers, then he's correct.
The hijackers were not cowards - but the people who planned the attacks certainly are.. as much as Shrubya himself for sending troops into danger he himself would avoid at any cost.
id Software lost $2.75 million to record-breaking piracy
Wow, those pirates sure are bad, breaking into iD's bank account to steal all that money. (you have to assume that it's in a bank - nobody's stupid enough to leave $2.75M lying around the office.)
But doesn't the bank have safeguards? Insurance? At the very least they should be held accountable for allowing unauthorized people access to the account.
The sky is not the limit, the ground is.
And if your chute doesn't open, remember: It's not the fall that kills you, it's that sudden stop at the end.
The Ascend Pipeline ISDN routers had enough flash space for two ROM images.
I think that the parent poster hasn't ever used real routing equipment - Linksys is hardly in the same league as Ascend (before they were bought out.) Pipeline products retailed for 5-10x what that Linksys sells for.
It's called 'you get what you pay for.' Consumer-grade stuff is cheap - when you buy it, you have to expect corners to be cut.
I honestly don't see why firmware upgrades should leave devices as bricks
It's called "you get what you pay for".
If you buy something cheap, expect it to *BE* cheap. Don't bitch and whine when you find out that it hasn't got the features of a more expensive unit.
Adding a backup firmware would increase the cost of the unit. Consumers want it cheap, so the manufacturers leave it out to make the consumers happy.
It's simple economics.
Hmm, did you used to work for Adobe? :o)
Obviously, to make low level system calls for direct hardware access in a copy protection scheme.
Sounds like a cop-out to me. 'low-level' system calls are just that - *system* calls, and the system should have a way to allow processes run under non-admin accounts.
At the very least, why can't the installer put a 'setuid' (or whatever the windows equivalent is) program that does the bit-banging? Does the 'system' not allow it? (If not, then the system is indeed broken.)
The biggest problem of drugs is their connection to organized crime
No, the biggest problem with illegal drugs is their connection to organized crime - because (are you sitting down?) they're illegal.
A few years before you were born, the US outlawed alcohol. When that happened, the biggest problem with alcohol was the connection to organized crime.
When prohibition was repealed, the connection went away. Funny, huh?
Borland. Interbase.
The effects of an outright SCO win would be devastating to the (at least the US) economy. These are the questions to be asking, and potentially planning for.
I see. And what (exactly) are your contingency plans for when monkeys fly out of your butt?
You did say that everybody need contingency plans. Please share yours with the group; I for one am extremely interested.
How about if it starts raining cows tomorrow? Not just a couple, but thousands and thousands of cows in the span of a few minutes.
Surely you have a contingency plan for that too, right?
That was pretty much my point. I guess you missed the sarcasm tags. :o)
Basically, if the longevity of the suit is the marker by which you measure chance of success, you have bigger problems (like - what would happen if monkeys flew out of your butt?)
Re: giveaway:
The Canadian government does NOT require a mathematical question be answered for giveaways.
If you want to run a 'game of chance' (which a giveaway is), there are several qualifications you must follow: you have to represent a registered community charity (and have completed several forms, stating where the proceeds will go), you have to post odds of winning, and more.
So, the workaround is to make it a 'game of skill' instead - and asking a 'skill-testing question' of the winners is the easiest way to do that. There is no requirement that it be a *math* question, but most companies use math questions because they are skill-based, and generally don't provide an impediment to the winner.
And the answer is 100 (just like the square root of 10,000 in decimal would be 100 in decimal, or the square root of 10,000 in octal would be 100 in octal, or the square root of 10,000 in hexadecimal would be 100 in hexadecimal.)
What if SCO is right?
Well, as that's one of the signs of the Apocalypse, I think we'll all have bigger things to worry about.
Seriously - wondering "what if SCO is right?" is like wondering "what will I do if monkeys fly out of my butt?" After all, you've never had monkeys fly out of your butt before, so therefore the longer you go without having monkeys fly out of your butt, the greater the chance that they eventually will, right?
the length this has drawn out does make one wonder.
The length of time is simply a demonstration of how long someone can game the system. Why not simply ask "why has this drawn out so long, and SCO has yet to produce a single shred of evidence to support their claims?"
There's a BIG difference between "nobody" and "hardly anybody".
In the context used, I believe that the difference is pretty much semantic.
He's arguing that not enough people take advantage of it to make it useful, whereas that is provably untrue. (Apache, for example, is as sucessful as it is *solely* because there are enough people who wanted to modify it, and were able to.)
there are two aspects to copyright: The economic rights (the right to make money off your work, and preventing others from doing the same) and the moral rights -- attribution and the right to control how your work is use, in what context etc.
With software in the USA, there is only economic rights. The US grants moral rights only for visual works (see the 1997 VARA bill.)
The Anglosaxon style copyright has mostly been concerned with the economical aspects of copyright.
Ehrm, I think you mean the American style copyright. Pretty much every anglo nation (Canada, the UK, etc) have strong recognition of moral rights.
It's not what you say, it's how you say it.
This is annoying:
"Well, my email is working, so it must be a problem on your end."
This is not:
"Hmm, let me check our mail server - well, everything seems OK there, let's see if the problem is on your computer."
Two ways of saying the same thing, one is antagonistic, the other is constructive.
That's what social skills are all about - learning to communicate effectively.
This line gave me a laugh:
if you have a tendency to blurt things out and interrupt people, tell your listeners they'd be helping you by pointing out every time you do that
Reminds me of this line from Wargames (spoken to Malvin, the stereotypical nerd):
"Remember you told me to tell you when you were acting rudely and insensitively? Remember that? You're doing it right now."
Hasn't it always been this way?
No, traditionally, SCSI provided higher capacity than IDE.. For example, when the largest IDE drive you could get was 130MB, 2GB SCSI drives were available.
would this judgment also apply to independent distributors of Sitecome's product who happen to be listed on their site?
Logically, it would apply to *anyone* distributing the product, whether they were listed on the website or not.
Think of it this way: The product contains pirated firmware (by not complying with the terms of the GPL, the manufacturer is engaged in large-scale copyright infringement for profit - aka piracy.)
Now that there's a ruling barring distribution, any company distributing the product would be just as guilty - whether they are listed on the website or not.
Open source paralegals.
This is the beauty of open-source (whether software or law)... everybody benefits from it.
Which (IMHO) isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Not nearly enough tundra there for the reindeer to graze.
Uhh, *HELLO* - they're magic reindeer. They can travel around the world in one day (making a few million stops along the way) but you think they can't leave the north pole for the other 364 days of the year?
And even if they couldn't, you think Santa can afford the raw resources for a toy for 50 million children, but can't spring for food for his reindeer?
Your lack of faith is disturbing. Next you're gonna tell me that the Easter Bunny doesn't really lay the eggs himself!
you better recompile everything from scratch so you are sure their is nothing in the binaries that you don't have rights to redistribute
No - if it's compiled as part of the binary, then it's covered under the GPL as well, and you thus *do* have the rights to distribute it.