> I don't regret not buying SCO. The investment > premise is that there's a one-in-ten chance that > they'll be able to slip this scam past a judge, > and sock IBM to the tune of ONE... BILLION... > DOLLARS.
When did they drop their claim from three billion?
>...on the off chance that the judge falls for > the scam and lets Darl wipe Linux off the face > of the earth.
Even if SCO wins on all counts and IBM loses all appeals, IBM will just _buy_ them. They'll only be worth three billion. IBM has more cash on hand than that.
I'm extremely nearsighted but I can't make the 'parallel' method work, glasses on or off. On the other hand, I can make all the "cross-eyed' pairs work, including the last ones that are supposed to be too big for that.
> There's plenty of advice out there for dealing > with addiction, but I'm really interested in how > other/. users have managed and controlled their > own caffeine intake...
I had to give up a 10 cup a day habit last spring for health reasons. I tapered off over three days. I had a few minor headaches, but nothing serious.
> If Gates wanted to, he could by up every Linux > company with pocket change...
Which would accomplish precisely nothing he couldn't accomplish by starting his own distribution. Buying up Linux companies would just encourage the founding of more Linux companies.
> I put a little more credence into what financial > analysts are saying...
Well, of course. Just look how well they predicted the dot-bomb crash.
Someone is paying those analysts for those opinions. It isn't you and I. I wonder who it might be?
> wouldn't it be great for the OS community if we > could provide a law to facilitate tax cuts to > companies who give to OS...
And have government define OS?
>...or at least make it mandatory to for-profit > organizations to give a certain minimum amount > and take it out of their taxes?"
When I release a piece of software under a particular set of terms and conditions I damn well intend for it to be subject to those terms and conditions and no others. If I want to require certain types of organizations to be subject to special conditions I will damn well say so. I don't need politicians trying to tell me what is good for me.
> The email is sent and the server runs it through > the scoring process. If the message scores more > than 6/10 the server sends the sender an > authentication message, asking to validate the > email.
So you are one of those resposible for bomabarding me with those damn things.
> This would require spammers to manually > intervene and waste tons of their time. if they > forged the sender email...
They always do. My domain is a favorite.
>...their email would go to someone else's > email...
Yes. Mine.
>...and they would just trash it...
Isn't that what the spammers say? "If you don't want it, just delete it. What's the big deal?" The big deal is that about a quarter of my email is bogus bounces and useless "confirmation" message from systems such as yours.
> There's no way they can patent code that is > derived from GPL'd code, unless the patent is made > available under a non-restrictive (i.e., > GPL-compatible) license.
I've never understood how the operators of all the various chess-playing computers have been able to resist the temptation to construct a Turk replica to make moves for their machines.
> I do believe that would be illegal - fraudulent > speech isn't protected by the first amendment.
IANAL either, but I believe that the phrase "fraudulent speech" in nonsensical. Fraud, like any other crime, implies some sort of an act. Saying untrue things, no matter how outrageous, is merely lying. The First Amendment protects your right to lie. It does not, however, protect you against the consequences of your lies should they damage someone.
> What really need to happen is the courts need to > put a gag order on everyone involved with the case
Gag orders are rare in US civil lawsuits for obvious reasons. Even if one were to be granted (IBM would have to ask for it) it would only cover statements having a direct bearing on the suit. Most of SCO's bloviations would therefor be exempt.
>...they shouldn't be allowed to keep attacking > IBM and the Linux community until they win their > case in court...
Why do you believe that their bloviations will have any effect on the outcome of the case?
Lying is not illegal and is only a tort if it harms someone. If you believe that their lies are damaging you sue them for libel.
Interesting, isn't it. In the US where the evil corporations hold infinite power the most they were able to achieve against DeCSS was a civil court order applying only to certain individuals and organizations, while in Norway where they are utterly powerless they were able to get a teenager charged with a crime and tried over and over.
> Let's hope that Mr Johansen has learned from the > Skylarov case, and won't be stupid enough to > visit the US in the near future.
Yes. Much better that he stay in Norway and be tried over and over on the same criminal charge. God forbid that he should come to the US and risk being subjected to the horrors of a limited civil court order, or the faint possibility of having chages filed against him and then dropped before trial like Skylarov.
Slashdot Mirror
> ...when you're about to enter a credit card number
> online it's assuring to see that the SSL cert is
> signed by a real organization...
Unfortunately, we usually have to settle for Verisign instead.
> But that's what SCOX has to prove by Jan 11...
...we'll all find out about it roughly 2 weeks
They don't have to prove anything Jan 11. They have to give IBM the documents IBM has demanded. Not the same thing at all.
>
> after that.
What makes you think so?
> I don't regret not buying SCO. The investment
...on the off chance that the judge falls for
> premise is that there's a one-in-ten chance that
> they'll be able to slip this scam past a judge,
> and sock IBM to the tune of ONE... BILLION...
> DOLLARS.
When did they drop their claim from three billion?
>
> the scam and lets Darl wipe Linux off the face
> of the earth.
Even if SCO wins on all counts and IBM loses all appeals, IBM will just _buy_ them. They'll only be worth three billion. IBM has more cash on hand than that.
The names of all those dot-bombs whose stock went up incredibly, driven by the enthusiasm of the same investors who are now buying SCO.
I'm extremely nearsighted but I can't make the 'parallel' method work, glasses on or off. On the other hand, I can make all the "cross-eyed' pairs work, including the last ones that are supposed to be too big for that.
> Don't set up a transparent proxy. Instead, set one
> up that customers can "opt-in" to use.
Yes. Try and force your filtering on me and I'll take my business elsewhere.
> Why not start the same way ... Apple... took by
> forming your own store, getting in touch with
> Asian suppliers...
Um, perhaps you should actually _read_ about how Apple started?
> There's plenty of advice out there for dealing /. users have managed and controlled their
> with addiction, but I'm really interested in how
> other
> own caffeine intake...
I had to give up a 10 cup a day habit last spring for health reasons. I tapered off over three days. I had a few minor headaches, but nothing serious.
There may be no excuse, but it seems to be normal journalistic practice.
Xanadu was _extremely_ nonfree. That's the major reason why it failed.
> 98 and all earlier rescue/bootdiscs are easily
> found
Not legally.
> You wouldn't be able to touch the bios from the
> OS.
Why?
> If Gates wanted to, he could by up every Linux
> company with pocket change...
Which would accomplish precisely nothing he couldn't accomplish by starting his own distribution. Buying up Linux companies would just encourage the founding of more Linux companies.
> I put a little more credence into what financial
> analysts are saying...
Well, of course. Just look how well they predicted the dot-bomb crash.
Someone is paying those analysts for those opinions. It isn't you and I. I wonder who it might be?
> wouldn't it be great for the OS community if we
...or at least make it mandatory to for-profit
> could provide a law to facilitate tax cuts to
> companies who give to OS...
And have government define OS?
>
> organizations to give a certain minimum amount
> and take it out of their taxes?"
When I release a piece of software under a particular set of terms and conditions I damn well intend for it to be subject to those terms and conditions and no others. If I want to require certain types of organizations to be subject to special conditions I will damn well say so. I don't need politicians trying to tell me what is good for me.
> Why not just have the receiving SMTP process call
> sleep(10) at the beginning of the SMTP session?
Hint: the spamming machine will be running more than one process and connecting to machines other than yours.
> The email is sent and the server runs it through
...their email would go to someone else's
...and they would just trash it...
> the scoring process. If the message scores more
> than 6/10 the server sends the sender an
> authentication message, asking to validate the
> email.
So you are one of those resposible for bomabarding me with those damn things.
> This would require spammers to manually
> intervene and waste tons of their time. if they
> forged the sender email...
They always do. My domain is a favorite.
>
> email...
Yes. Mine.
>
Isn't that what the spammers say? "If you don't want it, just delete it. What's the big deal?"
The big deal is that about a quarter of my email is bogus bounces and useless "confirmation" message from systems such as yours.
_NEVER_ _REPLY_ _TO_ _SPAM_
... would be to move the power supply inside the computer. However, that would require that the computer meet UL safety requirements.
...just think how much better Postgresql must be.
> There's no way they can patent code that is
> derived from GPL'd code, unless the patent is made
> available under a non-restrictive (i.e.,
> GPL-compatible) license.
What reason do you have to believe that?
I've never understood how the operators of all the various chess-playing computers have been able to resist the temptation to construct a Turk replica to make moves for their machines.
> I do believe that would be illegal - fraudulent
> speech isn't protected by the first amendment.
IANAL either, but I believe that the phrase "fraudulent speech" in nonsensical. Fraud, like any other crime, implies some sort of an act. Saying untrue things, no matter how outrageous, is merely lying. The First Amendment protects your right to lie. It does not, however, protect you against the consequences of your lies should they damage someone.
"The Brooklyn Bridge is for all intents and purposes mine".
Does this constitute perjury?
Go look up "perjury" on Google.
> What really need to happen is the courts need to
...they shouldn't be allowed to keep attacking
> put a gag order on everyone involved with the case
Gag orders are rare in US civil lawsuits for obvious reasons. Even if one were to be granted (IBM would have to ask for it) it would only cover statements having a direct bearing on the suit. Most of SCO's bloviations would therefor be exempt.
>
> IBM and the Linux community until they win their
> case in court...
Why do you believe that their bloviations will have any effect on the outcome of the case?
Lying is not illegal and is only a tort if it harms someone. If you believe that their lies are damaging you sue them for libel.
Interesting, isn't it. In the US where the evil corporations hold infinite power the most they were able to achieve against DeCSS was a civil court order applying only to certain individuals and organizations, while in Norway where they are utterly powerless they were able to get a teenager charged with a crime and tried over and over.
> Let's hope that Mr Johansen has learned from the
> Skylarov case, and won't be stupid enough to
> visit the US in the near future.
Yes. Much better that he stay in Norway and be tried over and over on the same criminal charge. God forbid that he should come to the US and risk being subjected to the horrors of a limited civil court order, or the faint possibility of having chages filed against him and then dropped before trial like Skylarov.