Because here, in the Slashdot Political section whenever someone post something that is contrary to your point of view it gets modded as flamebait no matter how insightful, informative, or interesting it is.
Since the majority of Slashdot readers tend to lean to the left that means that most right-leaning comments get modded as flamebait or troll.
The purpose of this political section seems to be one thing and one thing only: Advance the DNC's message and talking points and to expose all the evil Republicans for the rich, lying, fascist pigs that they are.
I mean, describing George Soros website as being interesting from an apolitical point of view? Come on! This guy has said that he would spend all the money he had if he could guarantee that President Bush wasn't reelected. He's one of the top contributors to the Bush-bashing 527 groups.
Soros is interested in one thing only and that is himself and his wealth.
When CmdrTaco said that there would be a balance, he meant that they'd show both viewpoints: Pro-Kerry and anti-Bush.
No, the balance he was talking about was Kerry's one viewpoint and then Kerry's other viewpoint:
Kerry for the war vs. Kerry against the war. Kerry wanting to spend more money on the war vs. Kerry wanting to spend less money on the war. Kerry for financing the troops vs. Kerry against financing the troops. Kerry for unilateralism vs. Kerry against unilateralism. Kerry believing there were WMD vs. Kerry believing there weren't any WMD.
And then for everybody that's just plain confused, Kerry speaks to them too:
I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it.
I really can't believe Kerry isn't doing better than he is. I mean whatever ideals or beliefs you have, he's taken your side. He's the only guy out there that will bravely take every position on every issue and defend all of them. With Bush, he just takes one position on each issue and sticks with it, it's crazy.
I think Israel has the right idea. Why don't we kill every leader, every member, every supporter of any such militant group or any group that uses terrorism as its tactic.
Groups that use terror as their tactics need to be met with so much furor, so much destruction, and so much death that no other group would dare to follow in their footsteps.
The 32-year-old documents produced Wednesday by the CBS News program "60 Minutes," shedding a negative light on President Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard, may have been forged using a current word processing program, according to typography
experts.
Three independent typography experts told CNSNews.com they were suspicious of the documents from 1972 and 1973 because they were typed using a proportional font, not common at that time, and they used a superscript font feature found in today's Microsoft Word program. (emphasis mine)
What do you have to say about that? This has been analyzed by EXPERTS, not a bunch of no-nothing, self-righteous Slashdotters that can look up when the first proportional font typewriter was made. Why don't you try looking at similar documents from the time and try to find one that uses a proportional font, let alone a "th" superscript?
Even if they are real, it doesn't matter. Bush is running on his record as President, not on what he did 30 years ago (unlike Kerry)
The 32-year-old documents produced Wednesday by the CBS News program "60 Minutes," shedding a negative light on President Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard, may have been forged using a current word processing program, according to typography
experts.
Three independent typography experts told CNSNews.com they were suspicious of the documents from 1972 and 1973 because they were typed using a proportional font, not common at that time, and they used a superscript font feature found in today's Microsoft Word program. (emphasis mine)
What do you have to say about that? This has been analyzed by EXPERTS, not a bunch of no-nothing, self-righteous Slashdotters that can look up when the first proportional font typewriter was made. Why don't you try looking at similar documents from the time and try to find one that uses a proportional font, let alone a "th" superscript?
Even if they are real, it doesn't matter. Bush is running on his record as President, not on what he did 30 years ago (unlike Kerry)
I strongly suggest you take a moment to read Salon, The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, or The Washington Post.
Ah, yes. Salon is a great source of unbiased news. The others aren't nearly as biased as Salon, but they aren't exactly fair and impartial either. Incidentally, I've read most of the articles in the Washington Post and New York Times and their "debunking" of the Swift Boat Veterans claims isn't exactly convincing.
Indeed, Thurlow won a Bronze Star for his actions in rescuing a comrade under enemy fire.
Why don't you go to the source on this one and check out Thurlow's response. In all likelihood the language from his citation came directly from John Kerry's after action report since Kerry seems to be the only one that filed a report describing the incident.
Also, Kerry's citation claims that they were under constant small arms and automatic weapons fire for 5000 meters while they fled the scene. I'm sorry, but if that were true they would probably all be dead. Also, how did they rescue and repair the damaged PCF-3 boat if they were under constant fire?
-- Why won't he (kerry) release all his medical and other service records?
He has. The only records he has not released are his review papers.
Um, no he hasn't. Look for "Standard Form 180" and "FOIA"; the Washington Post only received six of about 100 pages. And "review papers" seem to be pretty important if we're trying to figure out if this guy deserves to be President.
Was Kerry in Cambodia? Almost certainly - Larry Thurlow, one of his chief accusers, was recorded telling Nixon that he (Thurlow) had been in Cambodia.
It was actually John O'Neill, not Thurlow, that was recorded speaking to Nixon. Also, O'Neill, unlike Kerry, does a pretty good job of clarifying the recording. Keep in mind that we don't get to hear the entire conversation from the recording.
Also, the statements you provided are both 1) nothing like what Kerry has said about Cambodia, and 2) don't address Kerry's lies about Cambodia. This isn't just a small, little claim. This is something that Kerry says was "seared -- seared -- in [him]." He has repeated this story many times for over 15 years at least, and now that it has been proven to be a total fabrication, he has been forced to change it.
First, you are stretching the term "served with him". You mean "were also in Vietnam during the war".
No, I mean served WITH him. Like on his boat, next tohis boat during combat, and as his commanding officers. While not all of the Swift Boat Veterans served as closely with Kerry, I'm addressing and talking about those that did. These guys (the vocal ones of the SBVT) were eye witnesses to Kerry and their accounts should be heard.
Kerry's campaign has been forced to backtrack on his fraudulent Christmas in Cambodia story and they have now been forced to backtrack on his first Purple Heart, admitting that his wound may have been self-inflicted. From what I've seen the Swift Boat Vets have been solid in their claims and have forced Kerry to backtrack. This goes to show that there is at least some tr
Ah, yes, this answers the question by providing an example of how the Swifties are lying. If the "journalist" ripped the guy to shreds then the Swift Boat Veterans must be lying.
he also exposed that the swift boat guy has had an agenda against Kerry for over 20 years (It's actually over 30 years)
So I suppose that George Bush has been secretly behind John O'Neill for over 30 years just so O'Neill could come out against Kerry now, right? Personally I might be upset at Kerry too if he had lied about me and then used his lies for his own personal gain over the last 30 years. Oh, and if you want to see someone "ripping the other guy to shreds," you might want to watch the John O'Neill vs. John Kerry debate of June 30, 1971.
Oh, and just so I can prove my point about providing specific examples, here are a couple from the Swift Boat Veterans:
2) John Kerry lied about soldiers committing war crimes, himself included. Though it is true some small number of soldiers committed war crimes, it was not at all common to engage in these acts as Kerry describes it, nor was it fair to condemn the entire military based on the acts of a few. Also, this is an interesting point, either Kerry was truthful about committing war crimes and he, himself is a war criminal (far worse a criminal than those involved in the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal I might add), or John Kerry is again lying. Which would you rather have, a pathological liar or a war criminal?
Lastly, for those who will whine and moan about why are we still talking about Vietnam, I'll tell you why. Because John Kerry can't stop talking about it! Kerry can't seem to complete a sentance without mentioning that he served in Vietnam. If Kerry wants us to look at his Vietnam record above his Senate record for the past 20 years then we're going to do it. And we won't back down.
Wow, this is news to me. I'm sorry but out of all the news stories and coverage in the so-called "right-wing" mainstream media, all I've seen is attacks on this group of veterans. I've hardly seen ANY attempt at all to discredit even a single claim of theirs.
So far almost every attack on the Swift Boat Veterans has been a personal, ad hominem attack on these veterans' character, not on their claims. The Kerry campaign, and many ex-Clintonistas, keep repeating crap like "Bush is behind it" (patently false), "these men didn't serve on Kerry's boat" (many of them were next to his boat, but hey look, they now have Kerry's gunner, who WAS on Kerry's boat), or "they're funded by Republicans" (so, should Democrats be funding them? Or, how does that change their message?) and lots of other junk like that.
Why doesn't Kerry confront their claims head-on? Why won't he release all his medical and other service records? Why did Kerry lie about spending Christmas in Cambodia? An event that he claims was "seared -- seared -- in [him]," and changed his life. Why do so many people that served alongside and above Kerry (including almost all of his commanding officers) feel that Kerry is not fit to be Commander in Chief? When are we going to get answers from Kerry and not ad hominem attacks?
I'm sorry, but the number of veterans that served with Kerry and don't want him to be president far outnumbers the veterans that served with him and want him to be president. These vets earned their right to speak just as much as Kerry did and they should be allowed to tell their story. This is still America isn't it? We do still have freedom of speech don't we? Or is it only when John Kerry agrees with it?
Of course no one will be able to read what I have to say because Slashdot is so "anybody but Bush" that the moderators here would mod up Satan, Bill Gates or even Darl McBride before they'd allow a right-leaning point of view.
What about the fact that one of our current presidential candidates, John Kerry, is calling for a book ban himself? In his relentless attack on a group of veterans, Kerry's campaign has asked the publisher of the book, Unfit for Command, to stop selling it and for bookstores to not carry it as well.
Agree with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth or not, this is still America and we still do believe in free speech. Well, unless your John Kerry of course.
Mark my words, there will be a day that will come when you will all see many, many documents that will directly contradict IBM's current public posturing.
Just what I thought too before I RTFA. I was going to comment on how someone used a Handspring at a SCO vs. IBM hearing to provide live coverage of the court proceedings via IRC.
Supposedly the person involved got permission from the bailiff since it was not a recording device. But the bailiff probably didn't really understand what the device was doing and probably shouldn't have allowed it.
I was hoping that the article was going to say that people were being allowed to text message reports out of a live courtroom. Especially since there's another SCO vs. IBM hearing today and I was hoping for another live report. =(
I mean seriously, I live in a high-rise luxury apartment building and only have Macs. Why should I care about securing my access point?
At the moment I'm sharing a neighbor's connection (who hasn't changed his router from its default settings) until my broadband arrives on Saturday. I'm of the opinion that if other people want to use my Internet connection then go right ahead. I make sure that all of my machines are secured and fire-walled.
So why is it so bad if my network is not secured? I leave it open on purpose.
Canada is just in its infancy concerning privacy laws. At one point I'm sure US companies thought it was just the right thing to do, but all it takes is one or two companies to sell out their customers' privacy and then the laws are needed. Then when there's more abuse, even more laws and stiffer penalties come in to the point that companies no longer care about the right thing to do, but they are concerned about protecting their own asses 'cuz they don't want to get sued or fined again.
Then come the opportunistic lawyers that look for ways in which companies are violating the law so they can trump up some frivolous privacy lawsuit and rake in the dough.
Yes Canada, enjoy it while you can. Soon you will grow up, just like your Brother, the US.;)
Yes, IBM is saying that a Summary Judgment should be granted on their Tenth Counterclaim because SCO has not shown, and should no longer be allowed to show, any evidence. IBM is effectively saying that SCO should no longer be allowed to show any more evidence because SCO has sworn by affidavit to the court that they have already shown all their evidence. Since the evidence that SCO has provided doesn't show any copyright violations on IBM's part then a Summary Judgment should be issued in favor of IBM. From page 30 of IBM's memorandum:
SCO has advised the court that it has provided complete and detailed responses to the court's orders. If that is true, then summary judgement is appropriate because SCO has no evidence of IBM's alleged infringement (as SCO has adduced none). If it is not true, then summary judgement is appropriate because SCO has not only defied two orders of the Court, but it has also falsely certified that it has provided complete, detailed and thorough answers to IBM's interrogatories and the Court's orders.
It's not a "put up or shut up." IBM's saying that even if SCO's right, they're still wrong.;)
If this motion is granted it will effectively kill any attempts by SCO to extort money from people for using Linux. If IBM is found to not infringe any SCO copyright through their use of Linux, then everybody else is safe too.
This would reduce the case to whether or not IBM breached their contract by contributing to Linux (based on SCO's radical definition of "derivative works"). Everybody else would be OK and it would probably kill their lawsuits against AutoZone and DC.
The documents are just getting posted, but IBM has just filed a "Cross-motion for partial summary judgment on claim for declaratory judgment of non-infringement." They are asking for summary judgment on IBM's "Tenth Counterclaim." This is the counterclaim in question:
IBM is entitled to a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U. C. 9 2201 that IBM does not infringe, induce the infringement of, or contribute to the infringement of any SCO copyright through its Linux activities, including its use, reproduction and improvement of Linux, and that some or all of SCO' s purported copyrights in UNIX are invalid and unenforceable.
The docs are just starting to get up but you can follow the discussion on the Yahoo SCOX message board.
This has nothing to do with the Mac platform or the security of that platform. If I can convince you to run a malicious program, on any platform, then I can do pretty much whatever I want to your system.
This exact same problem exists for Linux, Windows, Solaris, and *BSD. Unfortunately people will probably take this example to mean that the Mac OS X platform is somehow insecure because of it. I could do the exact same thing for Windows and if you would download it from LimeWire (or any other untrusted source) and run it then it could do just as much damage.
This "Linux Insurance" by OSRM is really bad for Linux. As noble as the creators may think it is, the fact that it exists at all shows that SCO has been (somewhat) successful in their campaign to cast uncertainty on the legitimacy of Linux and its code base.
For example, let's say that I want to sell my boss on buying a bunch of Linux servers instead of Windows or Solaris servers. I tell him all the great advantages of Linux - stability, performance, low cost, etc. Then some Windows schmuck interrupts and says that Linux has legal problems. I say "no it doesn't" and explain how the SCO fiaSCO is just a bunch of mumbo-jumbo. Then I go to explain that their is insurance that you can buy in case anyone (SCO or anyone else) tries to sue you.
After this my boss gets scared and thinks that there is legitimate risk involved with going to Linux. Then he thinks, "Why go with Linux and spend extra $$$ on insurance when I can just go with Windows or something else."
This whole insurance thing is just bad. It helps SCO to prove their point (that there is a problem with the Linux development process), makes Linux cost more than it should, and introduces the idea that risk is involved when using Linux.
I haven't used it for a while (College) but it was the most impressive tool I've ever used for Network Sniffing. It's available for pretty much every major platform.
Those people out there that don't think today's April Fools posts are funny is because you fail to realize that these are normal submissions the editors have to deal with on a daily basis.
Please take note of the from the real-submissions-unedited dept. subtitle under each post. These posts were submitted as serious questions and that's what makes them so funny. I think it's great that the editors are sharing with us some of the lamest posts that they've had to read through.
Slashdot Mirror
Because here, in the Slashdot Political section whenever someone post something that is contrary to your point of view it gets modded as flamebait no matter how insightful, informative, or interesting it is.
Since the majority of Slashdot readers tend to lean to the left that means that most right-leaning comments get modded as flamebait or troll.
The purpose of this political section seems to be one thing and one thing only: Advance the DNC's message and talking points and to expose all the evil Republicans for the rich, lying, fascist pigs that they are.
I mean, describing George Soros website as being interesting from an apolitical point of view? Come on! This guy has said that he would spend all the money he had if he could guarantee that President Bush wasn't reelected. He's one of the top contributors to the Bush-bashing 527 groups.
Soros is interested in one thing only and that is himself and his wealth.
Kerry for the war vs. Kerry against the war.
Kerry wanting to spend more money on the war vs. Kerry wanting to spend less money on the war.
Kerry for financing the troops vs. Kerry against financing the troops.
Kerry for unilateralism vs. Kerry against unilateralism.
Kerry believing there were WMD vs. Kerry believing there weren't any WMD.
And then for everybody that's just plain confused, Kerry speaks to them too:
I really can't believe Kerry isn't doing better than he is. I mean whatever ideals or beliefs you have, he's taken your side. He's the only guy out there that will bravely take every position on every issue and defend all of them. With Bush, he just takes one position on each issue and sticks with it, it's crazy.
I think Israel has the right idea. Why don't we kill every leader, every member, every supporter of any such militant group or any group that uses terrorism as its tactic.
Groups that use terror as their tactics need to be met with so much furor, so much destruction, and so much death that no other group would dare to follow in their footsteps.
Subject should have been CNS and not CBS. Oops.
Subject should have been CNS and not CBS. Oops.
'60 Minutes' Documents on Bush Might Be Fake
What do you have to say about that? This has been analyzed by EXPERTS, not a bunch of no-nothing, self-righteous Slashdotters that can look up when the first proportional font typewriter was made. Why don't you try looking at similar documents from the time and try to find one that uses a proportional font, let alone a "th" superscript?
Even if they are real, it doesn't matter. Bush is running on his record as President, not on what he did 30 years ago (unlike Kerry)
'60 Minutes' Documents on Bush Might Be Fake
What do you have to say about that? This has been analyzed by EXPERTS, not a bunch of no-nothing, self-righteous Slashdotters that can look up when the first proportional font typewriter was made. Why don't you try looking at similar documents from the time and try to find one that uses a proportional font, let alone a "th" superscript?
Even if they are real, it doesn't matter. Bush is running on his record as President, not on what he did 30 years ago (unlike Kerry)
I strongly suggest you take a moment to read Salon, The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, or The Washington Post.
Ah, yes. Salon is a great source of unbiased news. The others aren't nearly as biased as Salon, but they aren't exactly fair and impartial either. Incidentally, I've read most of the articles in the Washington Post and New York Times and their "debunking" of the Swift Boat Veterans claims isn't exactly convincing.
Indeed, Thurlow won a Bronze Star for his actions in rescuing a comrade under enemy fire.
Why don't you go to the source on this one and check out Thurlow's response. In all likelihood the language from his citation came directly from John Kerry's after action report since Kerry seems to be the only one that filed a report describing the incident.
Also, Kerry's citation claims that they were under constant small arms and automatic weapons fire for 5000 meters while they fled the scene. I'm sorry, but if that were true they would probably all be dead. Also, how did they rescue and repair the damaged PCF-3 boat if they were under constant fire?
-- Why won't he (kerry) release all his medical and other service records?
He has. The only records he has not released are his review papers.
Um, no he hasn't. Look for "Standard Form 180" and "FOIA"; the Washington Post only received six of about 100 pages. And "review papers" seem to be pretty important if we're trying to figure out if this guy deserves to be President.
Was Kerry in Cambodia? Almost certainly - Larry Thurlow, one of his chief accusers, was recorded telling Nixon that he (Thurlow) had been in Cambodia.
It was actually John O'Neill, not Thurlow, that was recorded speaking to Nixon. Also, O'Neill, unlike Kerry, does a pretty good job of clarifying the recording. Keep in mind that we don't get to hear the entire conversation from the recording.
Also, the statements you provided are both 1) nothing like what Kerry has said about Cambodia, and 2) don't address Kerry's lies about Cambodia. This isn't just a small, little claim. This is something that Kerry says was "seared -- seared -- in [him]." He has repeated this story many times for over 15 years at least, and now that it has been proven to be a total fabrication, he has been forced to change it.
First, you are stretching the term "served with him". You mean "were also in Vietnam during the war".
No, I mean served WITH him. Like on his boat, next to his boat during combat, and as his commanding officers. While not all of the Swift Boat Veterans served as closely with Kerry, I'm addressing and talking about those that did. These guys (the vocal ones of the SBVT) were eye witnesses to Kerry and their accounts should be heard.
Kerry's campaign has been forced to backtrack on his fraudulent Christmas in Cambodia story and they have now been forced to backtrack on his first Purple Heart, admitting that his wound may have been self-inflicted. From what I've seen the Swift Boat Vets have been solid in their claims and have forced Kerry to backtrack. This goes to show that there is at least some tr
and the journalist ripped the other guy to shreds
Ah, yes, this answers the question by providing an example of how the Swifties are lying. If the "journalist" ripped the guy to shreds then the Swift Boat Veterans must be lying.
he also exposed that the swift boat guy has had an agenda against Kerry for over 20 years (It's actually over 30 years)
So I suppose that George Bush has been secretly behind John O'Neill for over 30 years just so O'Neill could come out against Kerry now, right? Personally I might be upset at Kerry too if he had lied about me and then used his lies for his own personal gain over the last 30 years. Oh, and if you want to see someone "ripping the other guy to shreds," you might want to watch the John O'Neill vs. John Kerry debate of June 30, 1971.
Oh, and just so I can prove my point about providing specific examples, here are a couple from the Swift Boat Veterans:
1) John Kerry lied about Christmas in Cambodia - This is something that even John Kerry's campaign has been forced to acknowledge.
2) John Kerry lied about soldiers committing war crimes, himself included. Though it is true some small number of soldiers committed war crimes, it was not at all common to engage in these acts as Kerry describes it, nor was it fair to condemn the entire military based on the acts of a few. Also, this is an interesting point, either Kerry was truthful about committing war crimes and he, himself is a war criminal (far worse a criminal than those involved in the Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse scandal I might add), or John Kerry is again lying. Which would you rather have, a pathological liar or a war criminal?
Lastly, for those who will whine and moan about why are we still talking about Vietnam, I'll tell you why. Because John Kerry can't stop talking about it! Kerry can't seem to complete a sentance without mentioning that he served in Vietnam. If Kerry wants us to look at his Vietnam record above his Senate record for the past 20 years then we're going to do it. And we won't back down.
Wow, this is news to me. I'm sorry but out of all the news stories and coverage in the so-called "right-wing" mainstream media, all I've seen is attacks on this group of veterans. I've hardly seen ANY attempt at all to discredit even a single claim of theirs.
So far almost every attack on the Swift Boat Veterans has been a personal, ad hominem attack on these veterans' character, not on their claims. The Kerry campaign, and many ex-Clintonistas, keep repeating crap like "Bush is behind it" (patently false), "these men didn't serve on Kerry's boat" (many of them were next to his boat, but hey look, they now have Kerry's gunner, who WAS on Kerry's boat), or "they're funded by Republicans" (so, should Democrats be funding them? Or, how does that change their message?) and lots of other junk like that.
Why doesn't Kerry confront their claims head-on? Why won't he release all his medical and other service records? Why did Kerry lie about spending Christmas in Cambodia? An event that he claims was "seared -- seared -- in [him]," and changed his life. Why do so many people that served alongside and above Kerry (including almost all of his commanding officers) feel that Kerry is not fit to be Commander in Chief? When are we going to get answers from Kerry and not ad hominem attacks?
I'm sorry, but the number of veterans that served with Kerry and don't want him to be president far outnumbers the veterans that served with him and want him to be president. These vets earned their right to speak just as much as Kerry did and they should be allowed to tell their story. This is still America isn't it? We do still have freedom of speech don't we? Or is it only when John Kerry agrees with it?
Of course no one will be able to read what I have to say because Slashdot is so "anybody but Bush" that the moderators here would mod up Satan, Bill Gates or even Darl McBride before they'd allow a right-leaning point of view.
What about the fact that one of our current presidential candidates, John Kerry, is calling for a book ban himself? In his relentless attack on a group of veterans, Kerry's campaign has asked the publisher of the book, Unfit for Command, to stop selling it and for bookstores to not carry it as well.
Agree with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth or not, this is still America and we still do believe in free speech. Well, unless your John Kerry of course.
Taken from the SCO Q2 Conference Call transcript on Groklaw, could these be Darl McBride's famous last words?
Mark my words, there will be a day that will come when you will all see many, many documents that will directly contradict IBM's current public posturing.
Just what I thought too before I RTFA. I was going to comment on how someone used a Handspring at a SCO vs. IBM hearing to provide live coverage of the court proceedings via IRC.
Supposedly the person involved got permission from the bailiff since it was not a recording device. But the bailiff probably didn't really understand what the device was doing and probably shouldn't have allowed it.
I was hoping that the article was going to say that people were being allowed to text message reports out of a live courtroom. Especially since there's another SCO vs. IBM hearing today and I was hoping for another live report. =(
I mean seriously, I live in a high-rise luxury apartment building and only have Macs. Why should I care about securing my access point?
At the moment I'm sharing a neighbor's connection (who hasn't changed his router from its default settings) until my broadband arrives on Saturday. I'm of the opinion that if other people want to use my Internet connection then go right ahead. I make sure that all of my machines are secured and fire-walled.
So why is it so bad if my network is not secured? I leave it open on purpose.
Canada is just in its infancy concerning privacy laws. At one point I'm sure US companies thought it was just the right thing to do, but all it takes is one or two companies to sell out their customers' privacy and then the laws are needed. Then when there's more abuse, even more laws and stiffer penalties come in to the point that companies no longer care about the right thing to do, but they are concerned about protecting their own asses 'cuz they don't want to get sued or fined again.
;)
Then come the opportunistic lawyers that look for ways in which companies are violating the law so they can trump up some frivolous privacy lawsuit and rake in the dough.
Yes Canada, enjoy it while you can. Soon you will grow up, just like your Brother, the US.
Yes, IBM is saying that a Summary Judgment should be granted on their Tenth Counterclaim because SCO has not shown, and should no longer be allowed to show, any evidence. IBM is effectively saying that SCO should no longer be allowed to show any more evidence because SCO has sworn by affidavit to the court that they have already shown all their evidence. Since the evidence that SCO has provided doesn't show any copyright violations on IBM's part then a Summary Judgment should be issued in favor of IBM. From page 30 of IBM's memorandum:
;)
SCO has advised the court that it has provided complete and detailed responses to the court's orders. If that is true, then summary judgement is appropriate because SCO has no evidence of IBM's alleged infringement (as SCO has adduced none). If it is not true, then summary judgement is appropriate because SCO has not only defied two orders of the Court, but it has also falsely certified that it has provided complete, detailed and thorough answers to IBM's interrogatories and the Court's orders.
It's not a "put up or shut up." IBM's saying that even if SCO's right, they're still wrong.
If this motion is granted it will effectively kill any attempts by SCO to extort money from people for using Linux. If IBM is found to not infringe any SCO copyright through their use of Linux, then everybody else is safe too.
This would reduce the case to whether or not IBM breached their contract by contributing to Linux (based on SCO's radical definition of "derivative works"). Everybody else would be OK and it would probably kill their lawsuits against AutoZone and DC.
The documents are just getting posted, but IBM has just filed a "Cross-motion for partial summary judgment on claim for declaratory judgment of non-infringement." They are asking for summary judgment on IBM's "Tenth Counterclaim." This is the counterclaim in question:
IBM is entitled to a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U. C. 9 2201 that IBM does not infringe, induce the infringement of, or contribute to the infringement of any SCO copyright through its Linux activities, including its use, reproduction and improvement of Linux, and that some or all of SCO' s purported copyrights in UNIX are invalid and unenforceable.
The docs are just starting to get up but you can follow the discussion on the Yahoo SCOX message board.
Simultaneously recognizing the most hated man in IT and the analyst that backs him.
This has nothing to do with the Mac platform or the security of that platform. If I can convince you to run a malicious program, on any platform, then I can do pretty much whatever I want to your system.
This exact same problem exists for Linux, Windows, Solaris, and *BSD. Unfortunately people will probably take this example to mean that the Mac OS X platform is somehow insecure because of it. I could do the exact same thing for Windows and if you would download it from LimeWire (or any other untrusted source) and run it then it could do just as much damage.
This "Linux Insurance" by OSRM is really bad for Linux. As noble as the creators may think it is, the fact that it exists at all shows that SCO has been (somewhat) successful in their campaign to cast uncertainty on the legitimacy of Linux and its code base.
For example, let's say that I want to sell my boss on buying a bunch of Linux servers instead of Windows or Solaris servers. I tell him all the great advantages of Linux - stability, performance, low cost, etc. Then some Windows schmuck interrupts and says that Linux has legal problems. I say "no it doesn't" and explain how the SCO fiaSCO is just a bunch of mumbo-jumbo. Then I go to explain that their is insurance that you can buy in case anyone (SCO or anyone else) tries to sue you.
After this my boss gets scared and thinks that there is legitimate risk involved with going to Linux. Then he thinks, "Why go with Linux and spend extra $$$ on insurance when I can just go with Windows or something else."
This whole insurance thing is just bad. It helps SCO to prove their point (that there is a problem with the Linux development process), makes Linux cost more than it should, and introduces the idea that risk is involved when using Linux.
I know that Utah does this, or at least they did last year.
Here's a link.
I haven't used it for a while (College) but it was the most impressive tool I've ever used for Network Sniffing. It's available for pretty much every major platform.
Those people out there that don't think today's April Fools posts are funny is because you fail to realize that these are normal submissions the editors have to deal with on a daily basis.
Please take note of the from the real-submissions-unedited dept. subtitle under each post. These posts were submitted as serious questions and that's what makes them so funny. I think it's great that the editors are sharing with us some of the lamest posts that they've had to read through.
Keep 'em coming!