Two answers- either they have a stockpile (not likely considering stores have been empty for almsot a year) - OR - they DIDN'T sell 350 000 units in the previous weeks.
They did. At least, a lot of stores did. We recently bought the last Wii available for sale at the local Gamestop just before they were ordered from on high to hold them back so there'd be a few on sale for Black Friday. They only had maybe two more in the store that they could hold anyway, so maybe "stockpiling" is a little overstated.
For example, Canadian union membership is around 30% nationally, as opposed to around 12% in the US. But yet their dollar is worth more than ours, and their life expectancy exceeds ours. Oh, and their educational system is often more highly regarded than ours.
Yes, but it's colder there and they say "aboot" instead of "about". As long as we're going off on unrelated tangents.
Isn't reverse engineering with the tools used in this article disallowed by the license agreement for the game?
My house rules are that visitors can make themselves at home, but don't get to snoop around in my underwear drawer. That "license" doesn't carry a lot of weight if the police are searching my house because I'm a suspect in a crime.
I know it's a flawed analogy, but wanted to point out that there's precedent for being allowed to violate agreements under certain conditions.
Besides, what if the reverse engineer never actually used the game but dove right in to hacking around on its media? In that case, he'd never have agreed to any stupid EULA, binding or otherwise, in the first place.
So, it seems fairly clear to this non-economist that SCOX is royally screwed. However, are there fates worse than bankruptcy? There have been a lot of (mostly wishful thinking) suggestions that SCO's board was doing all this as a big pump-and-dump and that it's only a matter of time until the SEC folks move in. As I'm wholly ignorant of such things, how likely is something like that to happen? I mean, it certainly appears to me that they committed a long list of sins, but are any of those likely to translate into criminal charges?
It's very easy to imagine that if the ground had been muddy, the wind could slide the rocks around.
There are few sights as graceful as the majestic stoneships with their rocky sails gliding across the bounding main.
OK, I can possibly imagine storm winds so ferocious that they can drag rocks across a rough surface. I just can't imagine said surface being neatly lined and clean-edged afterward. If the mud were soft enough for the rocks to move across it easily, wouldn't it be prone to the soil equivalent of whitecaps with little ripples across it?
Why does that phrase only show up in conjunction with SCOX? I didn't see any news that looked like it would have triggered that warning. I admit that I'm glad to see it, but don't have the financial knowledge to really understand what it all means, or who decided that it was so. From your link it appears that someone at NASDAQ said that it's a required message, but what triggers it?
Now, being the kind of nerd I am, my immediate reaction was, "How do you know you're free?" and "What do you mean by at least?"
In the context of that song, it means that "everything might not be perfect in my life, but even if I have nothing else, I have my freedom". You probably don't need to spend a lot of time reading between the lines there.
So, what's this all about? The SCOX page in Yahoo! Finance is the only Google result for that phrase. Is this a prankster at Yahoo!, or something more entertaining?
Ok, name 3 bits of hardware with Vista only drivers
NVidia 7150M graphics and the accompanying motherboard chipset. That might add up to quite a few if you count each device separately.
My wife needed a laptop for work and we bought a midrange HP with those components. I tried to upgrade it to XP but was stuck with VGA mode graphics and a whole slew of other nonfunctional parts (wireless? SATA? I don't remember). I don't have the model number in front of me so I kind of have to ask you to take me at my word when I say that I searched high and low, and as of last month when I tried this, there were no XP drivers to be found for any of it.
If you can prove me wrong, please do! I'd love to get this dog of an OS off our laptop.
Obviously Vista has to follow certain rules in order to play HD-DVD and/or Blu-Ray content, but that's the fault of the MPAA, not Microsoft.
BS. The *AA members need Microsoft more than Microsoft needs them. Imagine the hurt if MS announced that their systems will no longer play anything other than Red Book audio CDs. What's Jane Teenager more likely to do: run out and buy a Mac or just download her albums from now on?
Microsoft happily caved, pure and simple. They give the excuse that "the *AA made us do it!", but that's just a convenient cover story so they don't have to admit that they want DRM (so they can be the next iTunes Music Store). If they truly didn't want DRM, they wouldn't have it and there's not much that anybody would be able to do about it.
A chemical reaction is not a nuclear reaction. I think that any company that doesn't understand this difference shouldn't really be in the business of making portable nuclear reactors.
Ain't that the truth. I just threw away my last portable nuclear battery because its makers didn't know the difference between the two and it just barely worked. Well, that and the lead paint (it was a Chinese knockoff).
Out of curiosity, what part of "portable nuclear battery" would suggest that it was made by anyone other than a nuclear engineer? And even if the spokesman was really that clueless, isn't it remotely possible that this person is not on the engineering team? I've heard past bosses describe my work to customers like it ran on unicorn blood and pomegranates, but that doesn't mean that was my take on the matter.
Walmart, of all people, have done an amazing job of turning some of their stores into very energy efficient buildings in part using 'solar energy'.
That doesn't surprise me in the slightest. In Wal-Mart culture, profit is king. If that helps their bottom line, then I'd be more surprised if they didn't do it.
Actually, GPL violation seems to my non-lawyer mind to be pretty close. An important part of "stealing" is that I remove property from your possession, which is why I can't "steal" an MP3 by copying it. However, if Asus kept this code private on purpose, then they would be keeping it from my rightful possession.
Again, IANAL, but that seems fairly close to actual stealing - at least more so than most of the times we hear that word used incorrectly.
are you saying that if you intended to release a piece of software under the GPL, but the licence grant wasn't legally valid [...]
No, and neither was the GP:
Some people started bitching to me that I had to include build files, or that my copyright text wasn't right and so on.
As the author of a work, you're not obligated to release the build files or use the exact words other people do or anything else. While those are probably good things to do, they're not mandatory. For example, if you tack "Distributable under the GPL" into a comment in the top of a program and put it up on a server somewhere, I have no legal, moral, or ethical right to tell you that you have to also give me a bunch of extra stuff. If I want to use your work, I should be grateful that you released any of it. Now, I might want to politely ask you if I can have a copy of your build system setup, but if you don't want to for any reason, I have no recourse whatsoever.
This caused me to have to go and look it up in the license (which is not trivial because as an original author, not all conditions apply) just to be able to respond.
As the original author, no conditions of the GPL apply to you (except that you can't keep people from distributing a GPL version of your software even if you decide not to anymore) because you already have the rights to copy it. In general, the correct response to any such trolls is "kiss my butt".
I think this is one of the advantages of owning a few domains and having a catch-all. My email address is whatever I want it to be @domain.com.
Oh dear God no. Chances are good that your MTA supports recipient delimiters which are vastly preferred to catchall addresses. For instance, slashdot@strauser.com will bounce, but kirk+slashdot@strauser.com will go right through.
Security through obscurity, sure, but no more so than is a catchall address and much less friendly to spammers.
From the restaurant's perspective, that's fine. They'd rather turn away someone who may never have come back anyway than a regular who provides them consistent income.
Slashdot Mirror
They did. At least, a lot of stores did. We recently bought the last Wii available for sale at the local Gamestop just before they were ordered from on high to hold them back so there'd be a few on sale for Black Friday. They only had maybe two more in the store that they could hold anyway, so maybe "stockpiling" is a little overstated.
Yes, but it's colder there and they say "aboot" instead of "about". As long as we're going off on unrelated tangents.
My house rules are that visitors can make themselves at home, but don't get to snoop around in my underwear drawer. That "license" doesn't carry a lot of weight if the police are searching my house because I'm a suspect in a crime.
I know it's a flawed analogy, but wanted to point out that there's precedent for being allowed to violate agreements under certain conditions.
Besides, what if the reverse engineer never actually used the game but dove right in to hacking around on its media? In that case, he'd never have agreed to any stupid EULA, binding or otherwise, in the first place.
So, it seems fairly clear to this non-economist that SCOX is royally screwed. However, are there fates worse than bankruptcy? There have been a lot of (mostly wishful thinking) suggestions that SCO's board was doing all this as a big pump-and-dump and that it's only a matter of time until the SEC folks move in. As I'm wholly ignorant of such things, how likely is something like that to happen? I mean, it certainly appears to me that they committed a long list of sins, but are any of those likely to translate into criminal charges?
There are few sights as graceful as the majestic stoneships with their rocky sails gliding across the bounding main.
OK, I can possibly imagine storm winds so ferocious that they can drag rocks across a rough surface. I just can't imagine said surface being neatly lined and clean-edged afterward. If the mud were soft enough for the rocks to move across it easily, wouldn't it be prone to the soil equivalent of whitecaps with little ripples across it?
Thanks for the information!
Why does that phrase only show up in conjunction with SCOX? I didn't see any news that looked like it would have triggered that warning. I admit that I'm glad to see it, but don't have the financial knowledge to really understand what it all means, or who decided that it was so. From your link it appears that someone at NASDAQ said that it's a required message, but what triggers it?
In the context of that song, it means that "everything might not be perfect in my life, but even if I have nothing else, I have my freedom". You probably don't need to spend a lot of time reading between the lines there.
So, what's this all about? The SCOX page in Yahoo! Finance is the only Google result for that phrase. Is this a prankster at Yahoo!, or something more entertaining?
NVidia 7150M graphics and the accompanying motherboard chipset. That might add up to quite a few if you count each device separately.
My wife needed a laptop for work and we bought a midrange HP with those components. I tried to upgrade it to XP but was stuck with VGA mode graphics and a whole slew of other nonfunctional parts (wireless? SATA? I don't remember). I don't have the model number in front of me so I kind of have to ask you to take me at my word when I say that I searched high and low, and as of last month when I tried this, there were no XP drivers to be found for any of it.
If you can prove me wrong, please do! I'd love to get this dog of an OS off our laptop.
You have a bright future as a copyright extension lobbyist.
They released working drivers and then Microsoft broke the ABI.
Isn't that the complaint people always use to "prove" that Linux is amateurish?
If that won't make them fix their problems, I don't know what will. Harsh, man.
BS. The *AA members need Microsoft more than Microsoft needs them. Imagine the hurt if MS announced that their systems will no longer play anything other than Red Book audio CDs. What's Jane Teenager more likely to do: run out and buy a Mac or just download her albums from now on?
Microsoft happily caved, pure and simple. They give the excuse that "the *AA made us do it!", but that's just a convenient cover story so they don't have to admit that they want DRM (so they can be the next iTunes Music Store). If they truly didn't want DRM, they wouldn't have it and there's not much that anybody would be able to do about it.
True. Many people don't own printers or scanners or sound cards, and so will never notice that half their peripherals are now driverless.
Is email no longer P2P?
Ain't that the truth. I just threw away my last portable nuclear battery because its makers didn't know the difference between the two and it just barely worked. Well, that and the lead paint (it was a Chinese knockoff).
Out of curiosity, what part of "portable nuclear battery" would suggest that it was made by anyone other than a nuclear engineer? And even if the spokesman was really that clueless, isn't it remotely possible that this person is not on the engineering team? I've heard past bosses describe my work to customers like it ran on unicorn blood and pomegranates, but that doesn't mean that was my take on the matter.
That doesn't surprise me in the slightest. In Wal-Mart culture, profit is king. If that helps their bottom line, then I'd be more surprised if they didn't do it.
Actually, GPL violation seems to my non-lawyer mind to be pretty close. An important part of "stealing" is that I remove property from your possession, which is why I can't "steal" an MP3 by copying it. However, if Asus kept this code private on purpose, then they would be keeping it from my rightful possession.
Again, IANAL, but that seems fairly close to actual stealing - at least more so than most of the times we hear that word used incorrectly.
No, and neither was the GP:
As the author of a work, you're not obligated to release the build files or use the exact words other people do or anything else. While those are probably good things to do, they're not mandatory. For example, if you tack "Distributable under the GPL" into a comment in the top of a program and put it up on a server somewhere, I have no legal, moral, or ethical right to tell you that you have to also give me a bunch of extra stuff. If I want to use your work, I should be grateful that you released any of it. Now, I might want to politely ask you if I can have a copy of your build system setup, but if you don't want to for any reason, I have no recourse whatsoever.
As the original author, no conditions of the GPL apply to you (except that you can't keep people from distributing a GPL version of your software even if you decide not to anymore) because you already have the rights to copy it. In general, the correct response to any such trolls is "kiss my butt".
Mainly because I'm a geek and it takes me about 30 seconds to create a new expiring email address on my own server.
I'd just assumed you had put your porn collection online and Google was finding it.
Oh dear God no. Chances are good that your MTA supports recipient delimiters which are vastly preferred to catchall addresses. For instance, slashdot@strauser.com will bounce, but kirk+slashdot@strauser.com will go right through.
Security through obscurity, sure, but no more so than is a catchall address and much less friendly to spammers.
I'll go along with your intent: I'd leave.
From the restaurant's perspective, that's fine. They'd rather turn away someone who may never have come back anyway than a regular who provides them consistent income.