I can't believe you got modded insightful for that!
Do you think most lawyers really have much of a clue on this sort of thing?
Heard of convergent evolution? Even the stuff about matching code comments doesn't prove anything as they could both be separately developed from a single pseudocode implementation.
As many have speculated, this might have started as an attempt to get bought out by Big Blue. If getting bought is their sole remaining reason to be in business, what does it matter to SCO's management if they keep burning funds in that pursuit? All the management team get is more paychecks. All the lawyers get is more paychecks. All the stockholders get is burnt, but they don't get to complain till the AGM.
If they have got a claim, how can it possibly aid their case to keep it secret? If they want payment and their IP back, they should be clearly showing what it was so it can be removed or licensed. It gets harder to do that with every day that passes.
There's no point arguing that SCO must have a strong case else they wouldn't try it on against IBM when not only the above point two, but the precise reverse argument can be made: if they have a strong argument, why is IBM getting a stitch from laughing so much and issuing borderline insulting PRs?
So much for fantasy worlds... seems to me that people hear have read about the case and come to some reasonable conclusions.
Whilst I haven't done any background checking on the Initiative for Software Choice
Widely believed to be MS with a wide-brimmed hat on, but no-one has proved it yet. I've done some surfing on the names that've come out so far, but never found anyone's CV or similar to see of there's any truth in it. Try it yourself: whoever Bob Kramer (signatory on the letter) is, he's not got a public persona to speak of.
I think what they seem to be saying is that the best tool for any particular job should be picked
Absolutely they are. However, to rehash this argument again, the government is entitled to choose for reasons other than ROI. There is also the non-locked-in nature to consider, and the good security per dollar offered by OSS.
In short, the Initiative for Software Choice can say what it likes, but the Australian government can do what it likes.
That's two new things I've learnt today and it's only twenty to ten!
That's a really strange arrangement as far as the rest of the world is concerned. We use www.xxx.gov.uk for the regional government websites. Still, the whole DNS structure is a bit barmy.
I can only assume that, because the US is so large, they thought it unreasonable to expect everyone to come up with a unique name.
[Aside: By humans, you're only about four times as big as us in the UK!] I did assume that it'd be unique within states, but I can see that, as you say, historically it would be difficult, as the states 'started' with a completely evolved business structure imported from other countries, but no infrastructure.
In today's society, one does not admit in public any ties to the militia, past, future or present.... It only gets you investigated by the 'homeland security' department.
This is presumably cos most recent militias haven't really been militias in the old sense, but gun nuts with paranoia.
Though I don't think it was out of context, it is the letter of the constitution...
It is. However, I personally don't think the writers of the constitution would have written it that way if they'd know the huge reduction in the cost of guns that would occur, or if they'd known about the huge number of deaths by gun that we see today in America.
Also: my apologies for 'poking you with a stick' a couple of posts ago. I was bored and irritated with what I'm doing and let my worst argument-picking nature get the better of me.
I just wanted to see which you were: a gun nut or a member of a well-ordered militia. If you have no intention of ever forming a militia, then you're just owning guns cos you like guns. You are within the letter, not the spirit, of the constitution if you will.
Anyway, it's OT (but I was bored) and quoting half-sentences of the constitution out of context doesn't do the pro-gun lobby any favours.
It's prolly the standard server farm effect, like the variable numbers for result from Google searches. Give it a while and it'll propogate over, whether manually or not.
What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" do you not understand?
Which part of "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" did you miss out? Are you really ever going to form a well-regulated militia, or do you just like owning and firing guns?
Moderators: Go on, mod me troll, you know you want to! I have lots of karma and no patience for gun nuts.
There's been another reply to this, which makes this less relevent, but my short answer is yes, they are liable, if they send another mail to the user after the 28 days
I take it we both accept the principle that a company which wants the right to send unsolicited mail, accepts that as the condition. If they can continue sending mail then they must continue to provide a means to tell them to stop.
So, if the DNS record gets screwed, then the user'll need to try again in up to 24 hours. If the DNS record is allegedly out for more than the 28 days described, and they are still sending mail, then it's not an outage: it's avoiding responsibility and they get rightly screwed.
After that, it's for the courts to define exceptions. That's what Case Law and Precedent are all about: refining the statutes.
if you walk up to the door of your own accord in order to do xyz, then it should come as no surprise to you when you bear the responsibility of doing that job.
The problem here is that this 'land-equiv' can be created and can also become useless (who's going to want walmart.com if Walmart is sold to Tesco?).
The disputes tend mostly to be quite reasonable. If I have a company called Fred, based in France and you have a company called Fred based in the US, who gets fred.com? (If you lot would only use.co.us like you should've in the first place, most of this stuff wouldn't be a problem!)
In this case though, the problem is that there are complete morons working at Verisign who passed over a domain based on a blatantly forged letter, then would'nt transfer it back when their error was pointed out.
That's like a public notary accepting a badly forged will without checking with the deceased. No, hang on, I'll change that: accepting a badly forged contract of sale for a house without checking with the current owner.
As I see it, this is entirely Verisign's fault, and they are currently trying to argue that domains aren't property precisely to avoid the responsibility they have to administrate domains competently
Hmmm. That's a bloody good point. I could fake that so easily on my home box: pull the wire, send the mail, flush the spool, put the wire back in, mail the lawyers.
OK, so it'll need something cleverer. How about a page to visit to be removed, which is required by this law we are considering, to provide a signed receipt/confirmation file. Doesn't matter what the mechanism is (ASP,.NET, perl, JSP or whatever), but it must provide a signed receipt file.
It'd cost slightly for small businesses, but it's so simple you'd be able to either buy a package or download an OSS implementation in no time.
Slashdot Mirror
The effect of RNA interference is to stop a particular gene being expressed, without removing or modifying the gene in any way.
J.
If you bred from these genes, the offspring plants would be caffeine producing.
J.
- Do you think most lawyers really have much of a clue on this sort of thing?
Heard of convergent evolution? Even the stuff about matching code comments doesn't prove anything as they could both be separately developed from a single pseudocode implementation.
- As many have speculated, this might have started as an attempt to get bought out by Big Blue. If getting bought is their sole remaining reason to be in business, what does it matter to SCO's management if they keep burning funds in that pursuit? All the management team get is more paychecks. All the lawyers get is more paychecks. All the stockholders get is burnt, but they don't get to complain till the AGM.
- If they have got a claim, how can it possibly aid their case to keep it secret? If they want payment and their IP back, they should be clearly showing what it was so it can be removed or licensed. It gets harder to do that with every day that passes.
- There's no point arguing that SCO must have a strong case else they wouldn't try it on against IBM when not only the above point two, but the precise reverse argument can be made: if they have a strong argument, why is IBM getting a stitch from laughing so much and issuing borderline insulting PRs?
So much for fantasy worlds... seems to me that people hear have read about the case and come to some reasonable conclusions.J.
Wossat then?
More likely he was there hitting reload... reload...reload... with his inpirational message on the clipboard ready to paste 'n' post.
Sad isn't it.
J.
It's mostly fine and reasonable, except for: "No government should legislate interoperability".
J.
Widely believed to be MS with a wide-brimmed hat on, but no-one has proved it yet. I've done some surfing on the names that've come out so far, but never found anyone's CV or similar to see of there's any truth in it. Try it yourself: whoever Bob Kramer (signatory on the letter) is, he's not got a public persona to speak of.
I think what they seem to be saying is that the best tool for any particular job should be picked
Absolutely they are. However, to rehash this argument again, the government is entitled to choose for reasons other than ROI. There is also the non-locked-in nature to consider, and the good security per dollar offered by OSS.
In short, the Initiative for Software Choice can say what it likes, but the Australian government can do what it likes.
J.
I was young... I was foolish... I was in the lab...
J.
Not that little brat Annekin.
That's a really strange arrangement as far as the rest of the world is concerned. We use www.xxx.gov.uk for the regional government websites. Still, the whole DNS structure is a bit barmy.
Cheers,
J.
[Aside: By humans, you're only about four times as big as us in the UK!] I did assume that it'd be unique within states, but I can see that, as you say, historically it would be difficult, as the states 'started' with a completely evolved business structure imported from other countries, but no infrastructure.
Ta for the info.
J.
This is presumably cos most recent militias haven't really been militias in the old sense, but gun nuts with paranoia.
Though I don't think it was out of context, it is the letter of the constitution...
It is. However, I personally don't think the writers of the constitution would have written it that way if they'd know the huge reduction in the cost of guns that would occur, or if they'd known about the huge number of deaths by gun that we see today in America.
Also: my apologies for 'poking you with a stick' a couple of posts ago. I was bored and irritated with what I'm doing and let my worst argument-picking nature get the better of me.
J.
Anyway, it's OT (but I was bored) and quoting half-sentences of the constitution out of context doesn't do the pro-gun lobby any favours.
J.
J.
Which part of "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" did you miss out? Are you really ever going to form a well-regulated militia, or do you just like owning and firing guns?
Moderators: Go on, mod me troll, you know you want to! I have lots of karma and no patience for gun nuts.
J.
Amusingly, the rest of the world does know that some of the states are quite large. Some of us have even visited them and toured about a bit! ;-)
So, as I'm interested, what's the granularity? How 'close' can two identically named businesses be?
Cheers,
J.
Here, there can only be one company with a certain registered name in the entire country (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Island).
Can you really have two companies with the same registered name in two different states?
J.
J.
J.
Fair enough. I did read it as your justification, rather than your recording of other people's justification.
Can you pop round to all their houses and ask them not to use specious arguments then? ;-)
J.
I take it we both accept the principle that a company which wants the right to send unsolicited mail, accepts that as the condition. If they can continue sending mail then they must continue to provide a means to tell them to stop.
So, if the DNS record gets screwed, then the user'll need to try again in up to 24 hours. If the DNS record is allegedly out for more than the 28 days described, and they are still sending mail, then it's not an outage: it's avoiding responsibility and they get rightly screwed.
After that, it's for the courts to define exceptions. That's what Case Law and Precedent are all about: refining the statutes.
J.
Nah, sorry mate, I'm a contractor ;-)
Justin.
Everyone in the world abuses .com though, not just the yanks: tesco.com? waitrose.com? Daft. .com should be for global enterprises.
Anyway, a Scotsman invented the telly - do the Scots claim rights over your program scheduling? Don't use specious arguments.
J.
The disputes tend mostly to be quite reasonable. If I have a company called Fred, based in France and you have a company called Fred based in the US, who gets fred.com? (If you lot would only use .co.us like you should've in the first place, most of this stuff wouldn't be a problem!)
In this case though, the problem is that there are complete morons working at Verisign who passed over a domain based on a blatantly forged letter, then would'nt transfer it back when their error was pointed out.
That's like a public notary accepting a badly forged will without checking with the deceased. No, hang on, I'll change that: accepting a badly forged contract of sale for a house without checking with the current owner.
As I see it, this is entirely Verisign's fault, and they are currently trying to argue that domains aren't property precisely to avoid the responsibility they have to administrate domains competently
J.
OK, so it'll need something cleverer. How about a page to visit to be removed, which is required by this law we are considering, to provide a signed receipt/confirmation file. Doesn't matter what the mechanism is (ASP, .NET, perl, JSP or whatever), but it must provide a signed receipt file.
It'd cost slightly for small businesses, but it's so simple you'd be able to either buy a package or download an OSS implementation in no time.
How'd that do?
J.