1) Commercial speech is not a protected form of free speech as Nike just recently found out. Telemarkters are running into the same thing since the introduction of a national "Do Not Call" list here in then the states. I still generally can't stop someone from saying something (prior restraint) but now someone also can't force me to both listen to them and pay for the mechanism they use to transmit to me (i.e., my phone or my internet account). This issue was also addressed some time ago with regard to junk faxes. It costs the recipient and the sender cannot force the recipient to pay for something they don't want.
2) The California law would probably be difficult to enforce against unsolicited, non-commercial (e.g., political, religeous, charitable, etc.) e-mail for the same reason. These are generally protected speech. I would be very surprised if they didn't allow this loophole.
3) The concern about "guilty until proven innocent" is unfounded since this just says that the burden of proof that someone wanted to get a particular e-mail is on the sender. That is, whoever sends the spam has to have some sort of "opt in" record if someone challenges them. This is as opposed to each individual recipient being required to prove a negative: that they never requested the spam.
My bet is that Fedora will move "up" the release scale while the various Red Hat "Advanced Server" products will move down the scale. Fedora will be more like "rawhide" and AS will be more like Debian stable. Both will remain free [as in beer] but the only *easy* way to get the exact set of RPMs that constitute the Adavanced Server line will be to cough up some money. This still won't get you the support, updates, etc. It just means that Red Hat can't stop you from finding and assembling the exact same set of RPMs as constitute AS. Otherwise they violate the GPL. The RPMs will still be available and downloadable, Red Hat just don't have to provide the ISOs unless they want to and they still meet the letter of the GPL without competing with themselves by giving the product away for free.
I don't consider this at all bad. Red Hat makes more money as a *service company* selling a very stable version of Linux to companies and organizations that are willing to pay for the service. They continue to support the open source community by providing Fedora. They don't have to continue to be both on the cutting edge and providing a stable product at the same time through the same product. Linux continues to advance through Fedora with new versions getting "released" and Red Hat incorporates the results into AS when it is sufficiently shaken out. Red Hat benefits from Fedora by allowing them to steer more so than they would be able to otherwise.
One other benefit: this also takes some of the competitive pressure off of Mandrake and some of the other mainstream (not just for developers like say gentoo) consumer/desktop distros since Red Hat effectively pulls out of the "boxed set for end users" distro business.
Patents are intended to protect inventions that are specific and tangible. An algorithm is neither. It is not specific in that it can be implemented in several different ways and it is obviously not tangible since algorithm must be expressed in a program and run on hardware of some sort (DSP, general purpose computer, etc.). Even hand execution of an algorithm such as a minimal spanning tree algorithm, etc. still requires a person to perform the steps of the algorithm.
Patenting the algorithm in your example would meant that *any* expression of the algoritm, even one developed independently, would infringe on the patent. Copyrighting an expression of the algorithm (e.g., a DSP with the algoritm in encrypted firmware) does not present the same issue. Thus, a company that puts significant resources into inventing some complex algorithm for solving a problem can rely on a combination "trade secret" protection (e.g., the formula for Coke, the recipe for Kentucky Fried Chicken, etc.) and copyright protection with the copyright ensuring that someone doesn't simply copy their invention and the trade secret approach protecting the actual invention.
So there are sufficient protections besides patenting for *non-trivial* software/algorithms. Trivial software patents (e.g., Amazon's one-click shopping) appropriately receive little or no protection from this mechanism (trade secret plus copyright) since they implement something that is obvious. Amazon is free to copyright their expression of the "one click shopping" but their copyright just means that a competitor can't use a verbatim copy.
The key is that sending spam becomes illegal. This means that ISPs can take whatever technological countermeasures they wish without worrying that they are infringing on the spammer's supposed right to spam. They still have to be careful to not block legitimate e-mail but at least they now have the law on their side if they can find effective mechanisms for blocking and/or filtering.
Failure of the motion to dismiss means that Red Hat has grounds for their suit. Or, in plain English, the judge is saying, "If they're right, you owe."
The only way this would be without "penalty" to SCO would be if there was a problem with Red Hat's filing (e.g., typos, wrong form, wrong jurisdiction, etc.). If that's what you mean by, "Red Hat's lawyers know how to start a lawsuit...", that's fine but that's different than SCO asserting that there is no grounds for the suit.
Microsoft has a habit of just redefining standards to be whatever they want them to be. Why shouldn't standard usage be one of them? Microsoft will just use their normal tactic and re-define the word "Engineer" to mean what they want.
I keep one hidden under the spare tire for my Canyonero where hopefully no one else will see it. Its got a brown paper bag inside with eye holes already cut out in case I ever have to drive it.
Re:Big problem: Press Access.
on
Back To SCO
·
· Score: 1
Sent the following to Reuters on the assumption that it never hurts to ask:
I find the one sided coverage of SCO's claims regarding Linux and the open source community deplorable but sadly, to some extent, understandable. SCO has an excellent public relations staff to manage their story and access to news services such as PR Newswire to make their story told. On the other hand, the Linux and open source community has no such resources and rarely speaks with a single voice.
As an example, Reuters provided coverage of Darl McBride's "open letter" to the Linux community but has not covered the responses to this letter from from Linus Torvalds and from Bruce Perens and Eric S. Raymond. An on-line copy of Mr. Torvalds response can be found at this location:
http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/09/10/HNtorv al dssco_1.html
while an on-line copy of the response from Mr. Perens and Mr. Raymond can be found here:
I especially point you to the response from Mr. Perens and Mr. Raymond since Mr. McBride seriously misrepresented statements made by both of them in his "open letter."
I hope you find this information useful. Please let me know if there is a more effective means for responses such as these to be provided to you. Please note that this effort to bring these responses to your attention is solely on my part and has not been endorsed by any of the principals.
I clicked around on the mouthpiece (thanks to tomhudson for posting it) that routes SCO's FUD. I ran across the following under their terms and conditions:
"Member is responsible for the content and accuracy of all news copy and other information submitted by it. Because of the volume of information and copy submitted to PR Newswire, PR Newswire cannot be responsible for verifying any facts contained therein. Member represents and warrants to PR Newswire that (i) it has the right to deliver to PR Newswire all information and copy submitted to it, (ii) it will comply with all applicable laws, rules and regulations, including but not limited to the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 and laws relating to "spam", and (iii) no information or copy submitted by Member will contain any content that is obscene, libelous, slanderous or otherwise defamatory, false or misleading or which violates any copyright, right of privacy or publicity or other right of any person. Member shall indemnify and hold harmless PR Newswire, its affiliated companies and its third party vendors, including distributors, from and against any and all claims, losses, damages, liabilities, costs and expenses (including reasonable attorney's fees) arising out of or relating to any breach by Member of the foregoing representations and warranties or otherwise arising out of or relating to the contents or nature of copy and other information provided by Member.
(emphasis mine)
I suggest that Bruce and Eric file a complaint with PR Newswire that Darl and SCO are not complying with their terms and conditions.
Probably because he's Finish. Seems most people who grow up speaking English associate "bated" with having something to do with bait. If someone writes "baited breath", I ask if they mean someone has a worm on their tongue.
Have a definition:
"Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)" Bate Bate, v. t. imp. & p. p. Bated; p. pr. & vb. n.
Bating. From abate.
1. To lessen by retrenching, deducting, or reducing; to abate; to beat down; to lower.
He must either bate the laborer's wages, or not employ or not pay him.
--Locke.
2. To allow by way of abatement or deduction.
To whom he bates nothing or what he stood upon with the parliament.
--South.
3. To leave out; to except. Obs.
Bate me the king, and, be he flesh and blood. He lies that says it.
--Beau. & Fl.
4. To remove. Obs.
About autumn bate the earth from about the roots of olives, and lay them
bare.
--Holland.
5. To deprive of. Obs.
When baseness is exalted, do not bate The place its honor for the person's
sake.
--Herbert.
"Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)" Bated Bat"ed, a.
Reduced; lowered; restrained; as, to speak with bated breath.
--Macaulay.
"I deeply regret the deaths and injuries that resulted from the atomic bombings, but my best explanation of why I do not regret working on weapons is a question: What if we hadn't?"
Edward Teller, 1908-2003
(Dr. Teller died today. This was quoted in his obituary.)
The gist is to *ballance* things out so that kids coming out of primary school have an appreciation for the things that this country has done right as well as knowledge that there are things that probably weren't all that good. In particular, the emphasis will be on democratic principles, rule of law, etc. According to the article, the people who contributed felt that the current curriculum puts too much emphasis on the bad (Viet Nam, Watergate, etc.) and problems (campaign financing, judicial system, etc.) without ballancing that against the fact that governement here runs about as well as it does anywhere (and better than most) and has been doing so for over 200 years.
Now that I'm done being reasonable, I doubt if they will correct the widespread misconception that the U.S. was anything but the decisive factor in defeating the axis powers during WWII. I would not have expected anything more from a product of the same education system that so badly needs to be reformed. Thanks for confirming how badly this reform is needed.
CNN is running an article about reforming the primary education curriculum with regard to U.S. history. In particular, there is broad support across the political spectrum for less emphasis on the negative aspects of U.S. history in favor of a more ballanced approach. Maybe once this happens we will get fewer blathering idiots who can't distinguish between an armed policeman upholding the law and an armed criminal breaking the law. They see only that both are armed and, therefore, both must be bad.
I am continually amazed at the number of intelligent people (based on their academic credentials) who don't have an ounce of common sense.
Last time I checked it was still considered theft to take my car even if I left the keys in the ignition and the engine running. The ease with which someone can steal something has nothing to do with whether it is theft or not. It becomes theft when you deny to the property owner the value of his or her property.
If you read the rest of my post I think you'll find I don't exactly come out "singing the praises" of the RIAA (if you'll pardon the horrible pun). I see the RIAA in the same position as closed source software vendors: their business model has to change. Before the internet there was no way for independent artists to disseminate their work since the record companies had control of the means of mass producing recordings. That isn't the case any more. It remains to be seen what business model will replace it that allows the artist to profit (also known as eat) from their art.
1) Darl implies that because one person allegedly associated with the open source community has launched a DDoS attack against SCO and, again allegedly, ESR didn't turn this person in, the whole open source community is suspect. I don't think so.
2) Allegedly (again) some SCO proprietary code made its way through SGI into the Linux source tree with the SCO copyright notices removed at some point along the way. Darl claims that this means that all Linux code is therefore suspect. Again, I don't think so.
3) Continuing from 2, this conveniently ignores copyrighted BSD (Berkely Packet Filter) code that was presented as an example of Linux code that infringes on SCO copyrights. It seems that somehow the original BSD copyright notice got removed at some point and now SCO calls the code their own. For Darl, SCO employees removing someone else's copyright is not a problem.
4) Darl seems to be really concerned about warranties and indemnifications not provided by open source software and Linux but he must not have ever read a software EULA. They always claim to limit the liability of the licensor to the cost of the product. As an aside, this concept doesn't work with open source software since the customer has the source code and is freely permitted to change it as they see fit. No one can warrant a product when the end user can make changes, not that the warranties provided by closed source software vendors are anything to make you sleep well.
5) Darl (talking about profitable business models) apparently wants to return to the time when software companies thought they could make big bucks by selling software licenses. All it takes is a quick look at the TCO and ROI arguments for Windoze vs. Linux to see that these times are long gone and that isn't just because of pricing pressure from Linux. Software buyers are more concerned now about support, service, stability, maintainability, etc. The initial cost of the software license is a small component at what buyers look at when selecting an operating platform for a business. A litiguous vendor such as SCO is not someone I would consider even if there weren't technical arguments against choosing them. Also, I haven't exactly heard of SCO as being a paragon of customer support which is supposed to be the argument for selecting a closed source vendor.
You might want to look into the history of the concept of "theft of goods services" and, especially, "defrauding an innkeeper." You don't have to physically steal something to be a theif. Stay in a hotel and skip out on the tab. See what happens if you tell the judge that you didn't steal anything because the room is still there. The fact that the legal concept is known as "defrauding an inkeeper" gives you some idea of how far back the concept goes in history.
Theft occurs when you deny the value of property to the owner without compensating the owner for the loss. It doesn't matter whether you physically remove the property or you make illegal copies of someone's intellectual property. You have denied them the value of their property.
If you really love music that much, your choices are:
1) Pay the RIAA price for their mass-marketed, overproduced, over-hyped junk. 2) Make your own music. 3) Find artists who allow their music to be shared.
Just don't try to convince the rest of us that stealing music is moral because its from the big, bad music industry. Theft is theft.
Someone needs to do a real world study to compare the achieved security between:
1) Tight password rules and users get instructions on how to ceate good passwords but only need to change say every 6 months.
vs.
2) Real world where passwords must be changed every 30 days but there is little or no emphasis on quality of the password, how they're kept by users, etc.
At the moment someone at work has decided to start reminding people that their password needs to be changed 15 days before it expires on a 30 day expiration schedule. I think I'll change mine to P455w0rd.53pt.
Actually, when you're playing SCO's game you look for victims who can't afford to fight back. SCO isn't after the little bit of money SGI has left. They'll offer SGI a sweatheart deal to take a fall: all SGI has to do is sell their soul and admit that XFS infringes on SCO's IP.
My guess is that SCO will SLAPP some of the smaller companies, less healthy, remaining Unix companies that don't take a fall. This is the same tactic used by PanIP. Go after companies who will find it cheaper to settle with them rather than fight and who don't have the financial resources to fight even if they wanted to. The goal is to build up a body of cases settled in SCO's favor.
Redmond spews vaporware at about the same rate that SCO spews litigation and threats. Both only serve to keep the market in turmoil.
Such a strange coincidence! Two closed sopurce companies that have both adopted the strategy of, "If you can't dazzle 'em with your brilliance, baffle 'em with your bullshit." Its a great way for a company with a technologically inferior product to keep people from seeing their piece of junk for what it really is.
Err, um, no. The Peter Principle says nothing about any individual in a particular position. It only explains why there is a tendency for people rise to their level of incompetence. Any person in any position may or may not be competent to hold that position. A person who is in a position who is incompetent to hold that position probably got there by the Peter Principle: they were competent to do the subordinate job and got promoted.
The Peter Principle especially doesn't apply to the presidency since it requires a management chain and promotion by management to the next spot. Somehow I don't recall Slick Willy naming Dubya as his hand picked replacement. It does opperate somewhat in parliamentary democracies since there is more of a "pecking order" amongst the various MPs up to the point they become minister for some particular post or Prime Minister.
The Peter Principle sounds dark and sinister when stated the I and other usually put it but it isn't. It makes sense to promote someone who is competently doing a job both as a reward and because it beats the alternative since it makes no sense to promote someone who isn't competent to do the job they are currently doing. The Peter Principle exists because there is no viable alternative.
The Peter Principle: People rise to their own level of incompetence.
Its really simple, if you can do your current job reasonably well and your immediate bosses job becomes vacant, you're a candidate. Run this algorithm over time and everyone eventually gets promoted to a job they are not competent to hold.
Some firms attempt to circumvent the Peter Principle by bringing in "management" from outside. This is generally worse since the people doing the work see a constant steam of incompetents who know nothing of the business brought in to tell them what to do. With this scenario, not only is the "boss" incompetent but he or she also doesn't understand the business whereas promoting someone from inside may mean you get someone who doesn't know how to manage but at least understands the business.
Regardless of whether you promote from inside or bring management in from outside, there will always be a percentage of people attracted to these positions because their motivations are power, prestige, etc. Since they generally have few useful skills, these people will generally be more politically adept than the poor slob who is actually technically competent and happens to be a person who still hasn't topped out against the Peter Principle. Been there; had this happen to me. That was when I decided that a management career track wasn't for me.
Its really sad commentary about the so-called planned economies of the Soviet Union, etc. that this "system" is still more efficient than any planned economy.
Slashdot Mirror
1) Commercial speech is not a protected form of free speech as Nike just recently found out. Telemarkters are running into the same thing since the introduction of a national "Do Not Call" list here in then the states. I still generally can't stop someone from saying something (prior restraint) but now someone also can't force me to both listen to them and pay for the mechanism they use to transmit to me (i.e., my phone or my internet account). This issue was also addressed some time ago with regard to junk faxes. It costs the recipient and the sender cannot force the recipient to pay for something they don't want.
2) The California law would probably be difficult to enforce against unsolicited, non-commercial (e.g., political, religeous, charitable, etc.) e-mail for the same reason. These are generally protected speech. I would be very surprised if they didn't allow this loophole.
3) The concern about "guilty until proven innocent" is unfounded since this just says that the burden of proof that someone wanted to get a particular e-mail is on the sender. That is, whoever sends the spam has to have some sort of "opt in" record if someone challenges them. This is as opposed to each individual recipient being required to prove a negative: that they never requested the spam.
My bet is that Fedora will move "up" the release scale while the various Red Hat "Advanced Server" products will move down the scale. Fedora will be more like "rawhide" and AS will be more like Debian stable. Both will remain free [as in beer] but the only *easy* way to get the exact set of RPMs that constitute the Adavanced Server line will be to cough up some money. This still won't get you the support, updates, etc. It just means that Red Hat can't stop you from finding and assembling the exact same set of RPMs as constitute AS. Otherwise they violate the GPL. The RPMs will still be available and downloadable, Red Hat just don't have to provide the ISOs unless they want to and they still meet the letter of the GPL without competing with themselves by giving the product away for free.
I don't consider this at all bad. Red Hat makes more money as a *service company* selling a very stable version of Linux to companies and organizations that are willing to pay for the service. They continue to support the open source community by providing Fedora. They don't have to continue to be both on the cutting edge and providing a stable product at the same time through the same product. Linux continues to advance through Fedora with new versions getting "released" and Red Hat incorporates the results into AS when it is sufficiently shaken out. Red Hat benefits from Fedora by allowing them to steer more so than they would be able to otherwise.
One other benefit: this also takes some of the competitive pressure off of Mandrake and some of the other mainstream (not just for developers like say gentoo) consumer/desktop distros since Red Hat effectively pulls out of the "boxed set for end users" distro business.
Patents are intended to protect inventions that are specific and tangible. An algorithm is neither. It is not specific in that it can be implemented in several different ways and it is obviously not tangible since algorithm must be expressed in a program and run on hardware of some sort (DSP, general purpose computer, etc.). Even hand execution of an algorithm such as a minimal spanning tree algorithm, etc. still requires a person to perform the steps of the algorithm.
Patenting the algorithm in your example would meant that *any* expression of the algoritm, even one developed independently, would infringe on the patent. Copyrighting an expression of the algorithm (e.g., a DSP with the algoritm in encrypted firmware) does not present the same issue. Thus, a company that puts significant resources into inventing some complex algorithm for solving a problem can rely on a combination "trade secret" protection (e.g., the formula for Coke, the recipe for Kentucky Fried Chicken, etc.) and copyright protection with the copyright ensuring that someone doesn't simply copy their invention and the trade secret approach protecting the actual invention.
So there are sufficient protections besides patenting for *non-trivial* software/algorithms. Trivial software patents (e.g., Amazon's one-click shopping) appropriately receive little or no protection from this mechanism (trade secret plus copyright) since they implement something that is obvious. Amazon is free to copyright their expression of the "one click shopping" but their copyright just means that a competitor can't use a verbatim copy.
The key is that sending spam becomes illegal. This means that ISPs can take whatever technological countermeasures they wish without worrying that they are infringing on the spammer's supposed right to spam. They still have to be careful to not block legitimate e-mail but at least they now have the law on their side if they can find effective mechanisms for blocking and/or filtering.
Failure of the motion to dismiss means that Red Hat has grounds for their suit. Or, in plain English, the judge is saying, "If they're right, you owe."
The only way this would be without "penalty" to SCO would be if there was a problem with Red Hat's filing (e.g., typos, wrong form, wrong jurisdiction, etc.). If that's what you mean by, "Red Hat's lawyers know how to start a lawsuit...", that's fine but that's different than SCO asserting that there is no grounds for the suit.
BTW, IANAL
Microsoft has a habit of just redefining standards to be whatever they want them to be. Why shouldn't standard usage be one of them? Microsoft will just use their normal tactic and re-define the word "Engineer" to mean what they want.
Maybe the article should be "The Jedi meets MSCE" as in Must Someone Call Else 'cuz I always heard it as MCSE: Must Call Somone Else.
I keep one hidden under the spare tire for my Canyonero where hopefully no one else will see it. Its got a brown paper bag inside with eye holes already cut out in case I ever have to drive it.
Sent the following to Reuters on the assumption that it never hurts to ask:
v al dssco_1.html
- 09 -10-016-26-OS-CD-CY
I find the one sided coverage of SCO's claims regarding Linux and the open source community deplorable but sadly, to some extent, understandable. SCO has an excellent public relations staff to manage their story and access to news services such as PR Newswire to make their story told. On the other hand, the Linux and open source community has no such resources and rarely speaks with a single voice.
As an example, Reuters provided coverage of Darl McBride's "open letter" to the Linux community but has not covered the responses to this letter from from Linus Torvalds and from Bruce Perens and Eric S. Raymond. An on-line copy of Mr. Torvalds response can be found at this location:
http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/09/10/HNtor
while an on-line copy of the response from Mr. Perens and Mr. Raymond can be found here:
http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2003
I especially point you to the response from Mr. Perens and Mr. Raymond since Mr. McBride seriously misrepresented statements made by both of them in his "open letter."
I hope you find this information useful. Please let me know if there is a more effective means for responses such as these to be provided to you. Please note that this effort to bring these responses to your attention is solely on my part and has not been endorsed by any of the principals.
Best Regards,
"Member is responsible for the content and accuracy of all news copy and other information submitted by it. Because of the volume of information and copy submitted to PR Newswire, PR Newswire cannot be responsible for verifying any facts contained therein. Member represents and warrants to PR Newswire that (i) it has the right to deliver to PR Newswire all information and copy submitted to it, (ii) it will comply with all applicable laws, rules and regulations, including but not limited to the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998 and laws relating to "spam", and (iii) no information or copy submitted by Member will contain any content that is obscene, libelous, slanderous or otherwise defamatory, false or misleading or which violates any copyright, right of privacy or publicity or other right of any person. Member shall indemnify and hold harmless PR Newswire, its affiliated companies and its third party vendors, including distributors, from and against any and all claims, losses, damages, liabilities, costs and expenses (including reasonable attorney's fees) arising out of or relating to any breach by Member of the foregoing representations and warranties or otherwise arising out of or relating to the contents or nature of copy and other information provided by Member.
(emphasis mine)
I suggest that Bruce and Eric file a complaint with PR Newswire that Darl and SCO are not complying with their terms and conditions.
Why is it the line from "Apocalypse Now" comes up for me:
...Napalm, son. Nothing else in the world smells like that. I love the smell of napalm in the morning..."
Kilgore: "You smell that? Do you smell that?
Probably because he's Finish. Seems most people who grow up speaking English associate "bated" with having something to do with bait. If someone writes "baited breath", I ask if they mean someone has a worm on their tongue.
Have a definition:
"Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)"
Bate Bate, v. t. imp. & p. p. Bated; p. pr. & vb. n.
Bating. From abate.
1. To lessen by retrenching, deducting, or reducing; to abate; to beat down; to lower.
He must either bate the laborer's wages, or not employ or not pay him.
--Locke.
2. To allow by way of abatement or deduction.
To whom he bates nothing or what he stood upon with the parliament.
--South.
3. To leave out; to except. Obs.
Bate me the king, and, be he flesh and blood. He lies that says it.
--Beau. & Fl.
4. To remove. Obs.
About autumn bate the earth from about the roots of olives, and lay them
bare.
--Holland.
5. To deprive of. Obs.
When baseness is exalted, do not bate The place its honor for the person's
sake.
--Herbert.
"Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)"
Bated Bat"ed, a.
Reduced; lowered; restrained; as, to speak with bated breath.
--Macaulay.
"I deeply regret the deaths and injuries that resulted from the atomic bombings, but my best explanation of why I do not regret working on weapons is a question: What if we hadn't?"
Edward Teller, 1908-2003
(Dr. Teller died today. This was quoted in his obituary.)
Try reading the CNN article.
The gist is to *ballance* things out so that kids coming out of primary school have an appreciation for the things that this country has done right as well as knowledge that there are things that probably weren't all that good. In particular, the emphasis will be on democratic principles, rule of law, etc. According to the article, the people who contributed felt that the current curriculum puts too much emphasis on the bad (Viet Nam, Watergate, etc.) and problems (campaign financing, judicial system, etc.) without ballancing that against the fact that governement here runs about as well as it does anywhere (and better than most) and has been doing so for over 200 years.
Now that I'm done being reasonable, I doubt if they will correct the widespread misconception that the U.S. was anything but the decisive factor in defeating the axis powers during WWII. I would not have expected anything more from a product of the same education system that so badly needs to be reformed. Thanks for confirming how badly this reform is needed.
I am continually amazed at the number of intelligent people (based on their academic credentials) who don't have an ounce of common sense.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that SCO is interested in establishing the truth.
Last time I checked it was still considered theft to take my car even if I left the keys in the ignition and the engine running. The ease with which someone can steal something has nothing to do with whether it is theft or not. It becomes theft when you deny to the property owner the value of his or her property.
If you read the rest of my post I think you'll find I don't exactly come out "singing the praises" of the RIAA (if you'll pardon the horrible pun). I see the RIAA in the same position as closed source software vendors: their business model has to change. Before the internet there was no way for independent artists to disseminate their work since the record companies had control of the means of mass producing recordings. That isn't the case any more. It remains to be seen what business model will replace it that allows the artist to profit (also known as eat) from their art.
I haven't been called "young" in quite a few years. Thanks!
Dave
Just a few flaws:
1) Darl implies that because one person allegedly associated with the open source community has launched a DDoS attack against SCO and, again allegedly, ESR didn't turn this person in, the whole open source community is suspect. I don't think so.
2) Allegedly (again) some SCO proprietary code made its way through SGI into the Linux source tree with the SCO copyright notices removed at some point along the way. Darl claims that this means that all Linux code is therefore suspect. Again, I don't think so.
3) Continuing from 2, this conveniently ignores copyrighted BSD (Berkely Packet Filter) code that was presented as an example of Linux code that infringes on SCO copyrights. It seems that somehow the original BSD copyright notice got removed at some point and now SCO calls the code their own. For Darl, SCO employees removing someone else's copyright is not a problem.
4) Darl seems to be really concerned about warranties and indemnifications not provided by open source software and Linux but he must not have ever read a software EULA. They always claim to limit the liability of the licensor to the cost of the product. As an aside, this concept doesn't work with open source software since the customer has the source code and is freely permitted to change it as they see fit. No one can warrant a product when the end user can make changes, not that the warranties provided by closed source software vendors are anything to make you sleep well.
5) Darl (talking about profitable business models) apparently wants to return to the time when software companies thought they could make big bucks by selling software licenses. All it takes is a quick look at the TCO and ROI arguments for Windoze vs. Linux to see that these times are long gone and that isn't just because of pricing pressure from Linux. Software buyers are more concerned now about support, service, stability, maintainability, etc. The initial cost of the software license is a small component at what buyers look at when selecting an operating platform for a business. A litiguous vendor such as SCO is not someone I would consider even if there weren't technical arguments against choosing them. Also, I haven't exactly heard of SCO as being a paragon of customer support which is supposed to be the argument for selecting a closed source vendor.
Its time for dinner so I'll stop at this point.
You might want to look into the history of the concept of "theft of goods services" and, especially, "defrauding an innkeeper." You don't have to physically steal something to be a theif. Stay in a hotel and skip out on the tab. See what happens if you tell the judge that you didn't steal anything because the room is still there. The fact that the legal concept is known as "defrauding an inkeeper" gives you some idea of how far back the concept goes in history.
Theft occurs when you deny the value of property to the owner without compensating the owner for the loss. It doesn't matter whether you physically remove the property or you make illegal copies of someone's intellectual property. You have denied them the value of their property.
If you really love music that much, your choices are:
1) Pay the RIAA price for their mass-marketed, overproduced, over-hyped junk.
2) Make your own music.
3) Find artists who allow their music to be shared.
Just don't try to convince the rest of us that stealing music is moral because its from the big, bad music industry. Theft is theft.
Someone needs to do a real world study to compare the achieved security between:
1) Tight password rules and users get instructions on how to ceate good passwords but only need to change say every 6 months.
vs.
2) Real world where passwords must be changed every 30 days but there is little or no emphasis on quality of the password, how they're kept by users, etc.
At the moment someone at work has decided to start reminding people that their password needs to be changed 15 days before it expires on a 30 day expiration schedule. I think I'll change mine to P455w0rd.53pt.
My guess is that SCO will SLAPP some of the smaller companies, less healthy, remaining Unix companies that don't take a fall. This is the same tactic used by PanIP. Go after companies who will find it cheaper to settle with them rather than fight and who don't have the financial resources to fight even if they wanted to. The goal is to build up a body of cases settled in SCO's favor.
Redmond spews vaporware at about the same rate that SCO spews litigation and threats. Both only serve to keep the market in turmoil.
Such a strange coincidence! Two closed sopurce companies that have both adopted the strategy of, "If you can't dazzle 'em with your brilliance, baffle 'em with your bullshit." Its a great way for a company with a technologically inferior product to keep people from seeing their piece of junk for what it really is.
Unfortunately, it frequently works.
Err, um, no. The Peter Principle says nothing about any individual in a particular position. It only explains why there is a tendency for people rise to their level of incompetence. Any person in any position may or may not be competent to hold that position. A person who is in a position who is incompetent to hold that position probably got there by the Peter Principle: they were competent to do the subordinate job and got promoted.
The Peter Principle especially doesn't apply to the presidency since it requires a management chain and promotion by management to the next spot. Somehow I don't recall Slick Willy naming Dubya as his hand picked replacement. It does opperate somewhat in parliamentary democracies since there is more of a "pecking order" amongst the various MPs up to the point they become minister for some particular post or Prime Minister.
The Peter Principle sounds dark and sinister when stated the I and other usually put it but it isn't. It makes sense to promote someone who is competently doing a job both as a reward and because it beats the alternative since it makes no sense to promote someone who isn't competent to do the job they are currently doing. The Peter Principle exists because there is no viable alternative.
The Peter Principle: People rise to their own level of incompetence.
Its really simple, if you can do your current job reasonably well and your immediate bosses job becomes vacant, you're a candidate. Run this algorithm over time and everyone eventually gets promoted to a job they are not competent to hold.
Some firms attempt to circumvent the Peter Principle by bringing in "management" from outside. This is generally worse since the people doing the work see a constant steam of incompetents who know nothing of the business brought in to tell them what to do. With this scenario, not only is the "boss" incompetent but he or she also doesn't understand the business whereas promoting someone from inside may mean you get someone who doesn't know how to manage but at least understands the business.
Regardless of whether you promote from inside or bring management in from outside, there will always be a percentage of people attracted to these positions because their motivations are power, prestige, etc. Since they generally have few useful skills, these people will generally be more politically adept than the poor slob who is actually technically competent and happens to be a person who still hasn't topped out against the Peter Principle. Been there; had this happen to me. That was when I decided that a management career track wasn't for me.
Its really sad commentary about the so-called planned economies of the Soviet Union, etc. that this "system" is still more efficient than any planned economy.