Funny how freetrade enables white colar jobs to move oversea;s but farming is untouchable.
It works the same way individuals and retail companies buying from abroad to get the cheapest deal on, CDs, purfume, jeans, etc. Suppliers go to court to stop this happening...
Its selective freetrade towards campaign contributors and its corruption to its core. Same is true with your government. Famers probably gave less to a conservative PM candidate and those who are in manufactoring and IP gave towards Murdochs campaign. They will hapilly now outsource your jobs away.
Since farming is a primary industry it can't be "outsourced" very easily in the first place.
Where you have supposedly "nationalist" political parties constantly moaning about the EU, which does have some political representatives elected from the UK. Whilst making no fuss at all about American influence...
I mean geez, Howard, if you're going to send troops to Iraq to support an unpopular war, couldn't you at least get some financial benefit from it?
Or even remember that the average Australian soldier probably signed up to defend Australia, not to go and invade some country which has never been any kind of threat to the Australian public.
And I thought he was a smart political operative. I guess his love of Bush (trust me even conservative Murdoch-owned newspapers here put in cartoons showing Howard worshipping Bush in bed) over-road his political smarts.
Murdoch might be the owner but the editors still have to sell papers to the average "Aussie".
This brings up an interesting notion. At what point does financial globalization lead to the homogenization of national laws, even horrible ones?
With copyright the only effect appears to be more copyright. Both longer terms and increased scope. Whereas you'd expect that a genuine attempt at "haromonization" would mean that the tendency would be towards some kind of average copyright definition, rather than the most extreme.
Could anyone comment on "enterprise-scale equipment" and the idea of the impossibility that "hobbyists" could make Linux work at the enterprise level?
Enterprise-scale is a marketing type term without a definite meaning. What SCO appears to be missing is that quite a few of these "hobbyiests" had access to universities or similar organisations.
SCO claims that the sysv license they inherited in their acquisition of novell's ip gives them right to all derived implementations, the way the GPL does.
Except that this is not what the GPL does. SCO also apparently feel that FUDing and badmouthing the GPL allows them to redistribute GPL software under their own licence. By their logic saying nasty things about the SYSV licence would place all of the SYSV code into the public domain.
By extension, they claim a right to anything ibm ever implemented on top of the sysv code.
The GPL never takes away rights from copyright holders. The fact that IBM have added code to the Linux kernel and made that code available under the GPL does not prevent IBM also offering the same code under any other licence.
IBM does not want the case dismissed. They are calling SCO's bluff for a reason: They want to see it through and have out in the clear that what SCO is trying is simply not done and make sure the entire world knows that.
Effectivly what SCO are arguing is that proprietary Unix contains a licencing "virus" such that anything which has ever been linked to it becomes "infected" and is able to infect anything it is later linked to. SCO are using this kind of argument to claim that they have control of code with supercedes that of the copyright holder(s) of the code in question. If SCO are not utterly destroyed the whole issue of copyrights on software will become an utter mess. With all sorts of third parties claiming control over pieces of software...
But if they, as is rumored, assess fines of hundreds of millions of dollars (Euros), then that will put Microsoft in a bad position either way.
Any fine will undoubtedly be in Euros, which will hurt Microsoft on both the exchange rate and the commission. Also the EU is likely to want actual money, not Windows licences.
That is completely absurd. If an appointment like this happened in the third world, the adminstration would assess the impact on US business (especially on campaign contributors). If they found a negative impact, then they would call it corruption based on their findings.
If it was a large negative impact more "shock and awe"... If the impact was "positive" expect much mentionings of how that country is a "great example of democracy".
This blanket statement that the US condemns all third world corruption is absurd.
Especially when the US government is behind said corruption.
They know it's a poor case they have so they keep adding more and more claims to their position along with the necessary bravado stupid investors have come to love.
Also probably with the hope that throwing in yet another claim will delay the date at which a judge makes a decision.
If two parts of the Constitution are found to be ambiguous or in conflict with each other, it may (barring resolution by the Supreme Court) require a Constitutional Amendment (Oh, so THAT's what those are...) to resolve.
These two solutions are really only applicable if the parts in question were added together. Otherwise the the most recent part should be considered to supercede any older part. Since the most recent text is already part of an ammendment.
Whether environmentalists like it or not, there are some matierials which are better suited than others for certain tasks. They might be poisonous, hard to recycle, but the stuff works without shortening the product's lifetime. What good is it, replacing those materials with lesser poisonous ones, which in term might be not so easy to recycle, cost more money to fabricate, and turn the product into a piece of dump within noticeable time.
To the point where the "environmentally friendly" version might even be more polluting than the older stuff. Simply because more of it ends up in land fills.
Open source costs you in training your techs how to maintain it, closed source costs you in a repurchase every couple of years, plus the time required to upgrade everyone and everything (I had to shut down their billing for an entire day because SQL 2k refused to take the SQL 98 backup I made).
Not forgetting that proprietary software also requires training. Including that addressing the "how to make the new version do what the old version did" issue.
Sorry to say but this whole licensing scheme is getting out of hand. Not to troll about this but how many licenses are there? GPL, BSD, etc? Now another scheme?
Compared with proprietary licencing there arn't a large number. Nor do these kind of licences tend to do nasty things like changing terms and conditions behind your back or requiring a relicence for an "update" or even a bug fix. Then compare with the variety of licencing which exists on copyright materials other than software.
I decide to go with the "non commercial" license.
N.B. the issue of "commercial" or "non commercial" is othogenal to the issue of "proprietary" or "non-proprietary". There is plenty of proprietary software which is not remotly commercial.
Say I run my own machine with 60 users. Friends, friends of friends, etc. Now I decide to host a domain for one of these friends, and he decides he's going to run something commercial then what? Am I breaking license standards here.
If it's your machine then you set the rules on how it should be used. If your friend has not followed the terms and conditions on the usage of your machine then they are in the wrong. This ussue of licences would only apply if you were using (or allowing to be used) someone else's software in a not approved by the copyright holder or any relevent statute/case laws.
Just because you say it's law here, why should someone follow the laws of land A when they live in land B.
Quite often country B will have similar laws to country A. Especially with respect to copyright where there are several treaties involved.
Neither--no one understands my point here! A consumer OS (linux is a consumer OS, BTW) should NOT be controlling fly-by-wire... human life is at risk.
You appear to be confusing Linux with Commercial Off The Shelf. The latter tends to equate to building a bespoke system on top of a proprietary OS. Whereas what you get with Linux is software you can use to build a "consumer OS" as well as any other kind of OS.
Shouldn't fly-by-wire be using some sort of professional, embedded, highly redundant proprietary system?
In many cases "professional" and "proprietary" almost appear to be mutually exclusive.
The fact that some 14 year old's kernel patch is under the hood of a 100 ton hunk of metal holding me 6 miles in the air is scary at the least.
No matter who wrote it the software is likely to have been examined by engineers who know about flight control systems. Quite a few aircraft pioneers started young, it's not impossible that some of the systems on a modern aircraft were originally designed by teenagers.
Not many people realize that a lot of us in the aerospace community rely on older versions of the kernel due to its "nimbleness" for fly-by-wire systems, etc. A lot of us don't need the newer features of more recent kernels, and having something that does the bare minimum--fast-- is optimal.
With many embedded systems there is little reason to use the "latest and greatest" in terms of either hardware or software. Especially since the newer stuff is likely to be more complex, more power hungry and more likely to have unknown shortcommings.
They did not answer in any way what right they have to distribute Samba if they believe that the GPL is invalid.
Sounds like Darl is in training to become a politican.
If the GPL is proven invalid (unlikely), it does not mean that the work suddenly becomes public domain. They cant seem to admit to the fact that they are basically screwed either way.
Even if most, possibly even all, of their accusations are eventually accepted by the court they will have admitted to what amounts to commercial software piracy.
So now we're looking for anyone NOT named Andy, because even someone as stupid as a virus-writer wouldn't be so dumb as to put their real name on something this destructive.
So you'd be better off looking for someone who dosn't like "Andy". Maybe the next virus will be signed "George", "Tony", "Saddam", "Osama", "Ariel"...
You're expecting everyone that uses a computer, including your grandma, to know what mime types are and how they work and how to drill down the preferences in Mozilla to set them.
As opposed to asking what application to use...
Desktop systems need to be fully usable by a person who knows absolutely nothing about the internals of the programs or the operating system.
Using this criteria no OS that Microsoft has ever made available is "ready for the desktop":)
Microsoft imposed this license per cpu formula many years ago and kept it up until the courts stopped them.
Assuming the courts did actually stop them. Which is far from apparent looking at quite a few suppliers. It's not as if there were any horrible consequences for Microsoft in exploiting any loopholes they could find in the original ruling.
It's entirely possible that the authors of this virus targeted SCO, simply to make it appear that Linux zealots were responsible...to throw off the law enforcement officials who might look for the culprit in the Linux community.
It's also perfectly possible that the authors are SCO or employed by SCO.
Err, I don't think this one has anything to do with Outlook's various features. This worm doesn't execute automatically, it relies on the user opening an attached executable file to work.
With Outlook/Outlook Express all you have to do is click on the attachment an you get an option to run it. With other software the only option you are given with executables is to first save them. With a unix type system you'd also have to set execute permissions on the saved file before it would run...
At best a single study is a guess. At worst, it is an opinion. This is the case in every field. This is a fundamental reality. Even in the best studies, that do their best to use the hardest science possible and the scientific method and be as objective as humanly possible, a study is still a guess.
Which is why scientific studies go into enough detail of methodology so that further work can be done.
That is why the second step of any serious study is peer review and the third step is duplication by disinterested parties. Reality begins to form after many different comparable studies are done and synthesized into a consensus.
With marketing "studies" only those which give the "right" conclusions will get to see the light of day. Whereas in scientific studies it's possible for studies with unexpected results to be circulated.
It is true that MS or anyone else can contract a study and tell the researchers to design tests that will tend towards a preset abstract. That is their prerogative. It doesn't really matter because critical thinkers will discount the results until such results are subject to the adversarial system of science.
Problem is that many of the people choosing to spend vasts sums of money with Microsoft are not in this group in the first place...
Slashdot Mirror
Funny how freetrade enables white colar jobs to move oversea;s but farming is untouchable.
It works the same way individuals and retail companies buying from abroad to get the cheapest deal on, CDs, purfume, jeans, etc. Suppliers go to court to stop this happening...
Its selective freetrade towards campaign contributors and its corruption to its core. Same is true with your government. Famers probably gave less to a conservative PM candidate and those who are in manufactoring and IP gave towards Murdochs campaign. They will hapilly now outsource your jobs away.
Since farming is a primary industry it can't be "outsourced" very easily in the first place.
No, no, that's the UK.
Where you have supposedly "nationalist" political parties constantly moaning about the EU, which does have some political representatives elected from the UK. Whilst making no fuss at all about American influence...
I mean geez, Howard, if you're going to send troops to Iraq to support an unpopular war, couldn't you at least get some financial benefit from it?
Or even remember that the average Australian soldier probably signed up to defend Australia, not to go and invade some country which has never been any kind of threat to the Australian public.
And I thought he was a smart political operative. I guess his love of Bush (trust me even conservative Murdoch-owned newspapers here put in cartoons showing Howard worshipping Bush in bed) over-road his political smarts.
Murdoch might be the owner but the editors still have to sell papers to the average "Aussie".
This brings up an interesting notion. At what point does financial globalization lead to the homogenization of national laws, even horrible ones?
With copyright the only effect appears to be more copyright. Both longer terms and increased scope. Whereas you'd expect that a genuine attempt at "haromonization" would mean that the tendency would be towards some kind of average copyright definition, rather than the most extreme.
Could anyone comment on "enterprise-scale equipment" and the idea of the impossibility that "hobbyists" could make Linux work at the enterprise level?
Enterprise-scale is a marketing type term without a definite meaning. What SCO appears to be missing is that quite a few of these "hobbyiests" had access to universities or similar organisations.
SCO claims that the sysv license they inherited in their acquisition of novell's ip gives them right to all derived implementations, the way the GPL does.
Except that this is not what the GPL does. SCO also apparently feel that FUDing and badmouthing the GPL allows them to redistribute GPL software under their own licence. By their logic saying nasty things about the SYSV licence would place all of the SYSV code into the public domain.
By extension, they claim a right to anything ibm ever implemented on top of the sysv code.
The GPL never takes away rights from copyright holders. The fact that IBM have added code to the Linux kernel and made that code available under the GPL does not prevent IBM also offering the same code under any other licence.
IBM does not want the case dismissed. They are calling SCO's bluff for a reason: They want to see it through and have out in the clear that what SCO is trying is simply not done and make sure the entire world knows that.
Effectivly what SCO are arguing is that proprietary Unix contains a licencing "virus" such that anything which has ever been linked to it becomes "infected" and is able to infect anything it is later linked to.
SCO are using this kind of argument to claim that they have control of code with supercedes that of the copyright holder(s) of the code in question.
If SCO are not utterly destroyed the whole issue of copyrights on software will become an utter mess. With all sorts of third parties claiming control over pieces of software...
But if they, as is rumored, assess fines of hundreds of millions of dollars (Euros), then that will put Microsoft in a bad position either way.
Any fine will undoubtedly be in Euros, which will hurt Microsoft on both the exchange rate and the commission. Also the EU is likely to want actual money, not Windows licences.
That is completely absurd. If an appointment like this happened in the third world, the adminstration would assess the impact on US business (especially on campaign contributors). If they found a negative impact, then they would call it corruption based on their findings.
If it was a large negative impact more "shock and awe"... If the impact was "positive" expect much mentionings of how that country is a "great example of democracy".
This blanket statement that the US condemns all third world corruption is absurd.
Especially when the US government is behind said corruption.
They know it's a poor case they have so they keep adding more and more claims to their position along with the necessary bravado stupid investors have come to love.
Also probably with the hope that throwing in yet another claim will delay the date at which a judge makes a decision.
If two parts of the Constitution are found to be ambiguous or in conflict with each other, it may (barring resolution by the Supreme Court) require a Constitutional Amendment (Oh, so THAT's what those are...) to resolve.
These two solutions are really only applicable if the parts in question were added together. Otherwise the the most recent part should be considered to supercede any older part. Since the most recent text is already part of an ammendment.
Not really. Many other nations, with quite stable currencies, revamp the look of their banknotes every so often, simply as a matter of course.
:)
As well as such simple things as having more valuable notes physically larger than less valuable ones.
It is the US that is the "odd man out" for having ours look so similar for so long.
The US doing things differently is hardly "news" though
Whether environmentalists like it or not, there are some matierials which are better suited than others for certain tasks. They might be poisonous, hard to recycle, but the stuff works without shortening the product's lifetime. What good is it, replacing those materials with lesser poisonous ones, which in term might be not so easy to recycle, cost more money to fabricate, and turn the product into a piece of dump within noticeable time.
To the point where the "environmentally friendly" version might even be more polluting than the older stuff. Simply because more of it ends up in land fills.
The article (I read it, sorry - I'll hand in my slashdot ID at the end of this posting) mentions an "Anton Pillar order.
A pity such orders are not available in Utah. Otherwise it would be very easy to shut down SCO.
Open source costs you in training your techs how to maintain it, closed source costs you in a repurchase every couple of years, plus the time required to upgrade everyone and everything (I had to shut down their billing for an entire day because SQL 2k refused to take the SQL 98 backup I made).
Not forgetting that proprietary software also requires training. Including that addressing the "how to make the new version do what the old version did" issue.
Sorry to say but this whole licensing scheme is getting out of hand. Not to troll about this but how many licenses are there? GPL, BSD, etc? Now another scheme?
Compared with proprietary licencing there arn't a large number. Nor do these kind of licences tend to do nasty things like changing terms and conditions behind your back or requiring a relicence for an "update" or even a bug fix. Then compare with the variety of licencing which exists on copyright materials other than software.
I decide to go with the "non commercial" license.
N.B. the issue of "commercial" or "non commercial" is othogenal to the issue of "proprietary" or "non-proprietary". There is plenty of proprietary software which is not remotly commercial.
Say I run my own machine with 60 users. Friends, friends of friends, etc. Now I decide to host a domain for one of these friends, and he decides he's going to run something commercial then what? Am I breaking license standards here.
If it's your machine then you set the rules on how it should be used. If your friend has not followed the terms and conditions on the usage of your machine then they are in the wrong.
This ussue of licences would only apply if you were using (or allowing to be used) someone else's software in a not approved by the copyright holder or any relevent statute/case laws.
Just because you say it's law here, why should someone follow the laws of land A when they live in land B.
Quite often country B will have similar laws to country A. Especially with respect to copyright where there are several treaties involved.
Neither--no one understands my point here! A consumer OS (linux is a consumer OS, BTW) should NOT be controlling fly-by-wire... human life is at risk.
You appear to be confusing Linux with Commercial Off The Shelf. The latter tends to equate to building a bespoke system on top of a proprietary OS. Whereas what you get with Linux is software you can use to build a "consumer OS" as well as any other kind of OS.
Shouldn't fly-by-wire be using some sort of professional, embedded, highly redundant proprietary system?
In many cases "professional" and "proprietary" almost appear to be mutually exclusive.
The fact that some 14 year old's kernel patch is under the hood of a 100 ton hunk of metal holding me 6 miles in the air is scary at the least.
No matter who wrote it the software is likely to have been examined by engineers who know about flight control systems. Quite a few aircraft pioneers started young, it's not impossible that some of the systems on a modern aircraft were originally designed by teenagers.
Not many people realize that a lot of us in the aerospace community rely on older versions of the kernel due to its "nimbleness" for fly-by-wire systems, etc. A lot of us don't need the newer features of more recent kernels, and having something that does the bare minimum--fast-- is optimal.
With many embedded systems there is little reason to use the "latest and greatest" in terms of either hardware or software. Especially since the newer stuff is likely to be more complex, more power hungry and more likely to have unknown shortcommings.
They did not answer in any way what right they have to distribute Samba if they believe that the GPL is invalid.
Sounds like Darl is in training to become a politican.
If the GPL is proven invalid (unlikely), it does not mean that the work suddenly becomes public domain. They cant seem to admit to the fact that they are basically screwed either way.
Even if most, possibly even all, of their accusations are eventually accepted by the court they will have admitted to what amounts to commercial software piracy.
So now we're looking for anyone NOT named Andy, because even someone as stupid as a virus-writer wouldn't be so dumb as to put their real name on something this destructive.
So you'd be better off looking for someone who dosn't like "Andy". Maybe the next virus will be signed "George", "Tony", "Saddam", "Osama", "Ariel"...
You're expecting everyone that uses a computer, including your grandma, to know what mime types are and how they work and how to drill down the preferences in Mozilla to set them.
:)
As opposed to asking what application to use...
Desktop systems need to be fully usable by a person who knows absolutely nothing about the internals of the programs or the operating system.
Using this criteria no OS that Microsoft has ever made available is "ready for the desktop"
Microsoft imposed this license per cpu formula many years ago and kept it up until the courts stopped them.
Assuming the courts did actually stop them. Which is far from apparent looking at quite a few suppliers. It's not as if there were any horrible consequences for Microsoft in exploiting any loopholes they could find in the original ruling.
It's entirely possible that the authors of this virus targeted SCO, simply to make it appear that Linux zealots were responsible...to throw off the law enforcement officials who might look for the culprit in the Linux community.
It's also perfectly possible that the authors are SCO or employed by SCO.
Err, I don't think this one has anything to do with Outlook's various features. This worm doesn't execute automatically, it relies on the user opening an attached executable file to work.
With Outlook/Outlook Express all you have to do is click on the attachment an you get an option to run it. With other software the only option you are given with executables is to first save them. With a unix type system you'd also have to set execute permissions on the saved file before it would run...
At best a single study is a guess. At worst, it is an opinion. This is the case in every field. This is a fundamental reality. Even in the best studies, that do their best to use the hardest science possible and the scientific method and be as objective as humanly possible, a study is still a guess.
Which is why scientific studies go into enough detail of methodology so that further work can be done.
That is why the second step of any serious study is peer review and the third step is duplication by disinterested parties. Reality begins to form after many different comparable studies are done and synthesized into a consensus.
With marketing "studies" only those which give the "right" conclusions will get to see the light of day. Whereas in scientific studies it's possible for studies with unexpected results to be circulated.
It is true that MS or anyone else can contract a study and tell the researchers to design tests that will tend towards a preset abstract. That is their prerogative. It doesn't really matter because critical thinkers will discount the results until such results are subject to the adversarial system of science.
Problem is that many of the people choosing to spend vasts sums of money with Microsoft are not in this group in the first place...