Why would Microsoft want to buy the right to collect licensing fees for Novell, pass 100% of those fees to Novell, and receive 5% back for their service?
Or were you refering to some other, currently undefined rights TSG may have purchased even though the company they would have had to have purchased from is in court stating they DIDN'T purchase?
TSG got money from Microsoft and SUN for licensing - not for licensing LINUX, but it still counts to 'SCOsource licensing revenue'.
So if you exclude the SUN/Microsoft payola as non-Linux related revenue, then you are left with "SCO collected $11,000 from this licensing program in the three months ended April 30, down from [some unknown amout that included $8.3 million from SUN/Microsoft] a year earlier. "
I compose a text message and hit send. It is sent to the network. There is now two copies on the message - the one on my phone and the one on the network. The network determines the closest access to the recepiant and forwards the message - there are now three copies of the message. If the recepiant is not available, the message is transfered to storage instead of to the access point closest to the recepiant - still three copies, but now when the recipiant is available, the network forwards the message to the closest access point (copy four, now) for delivery.
For those with per-message pricing, there is additional accounting and possibly copies for use in billing disputes (RTFA, this is mentioned).
The postcard CAN be read by anyone handling it in the system but there is no need for copies to be made (same for th eFedEx example) while the text message REQUIRES copies - multiple copies - for delivery.
"British Telcom Blocks Access to [Child Porn] Sites."
"British Telcom Blocks Access to [Internet] Sites."
"British Telcom Blocks Access to [Linux] Sites."
Censorship is censorship, and whenever someone - anyone - starts telling us that they are limiting your freedom "For your own good", people in general should be up-in-arms against them.
Either you are stupid and gulliable sheep and NEED to be lead around so that you don't hurt yourself in the big, bad world, or you are men and women who can think for yourself and make your own decisions without "big brother" making rules "for your own good".
I can just hear BT now - "Here is the Internet (except for some parts we thought were bad, so you can't see them, take our word for it, they are BAD and we are only looking out for you. By the way, Microsoft did NOT pay us to exclude the Linux sites, they were BAD, really bad, so you can't see them, either. Also the sites about the electronic voting machines and how the elections could be manipulated - the politicians and the laws they passed had NOTHING TO DO with our not letting you see those sites - they were BAD. Take our word for it)."
I am sorry, you want the Department of Redundancy Department. Go down the hall past the ICU Unit and the ED Department. When you get to the ATM machine, take a right - can't miss it!
Clues for the clueless: High-tech technology = high technology technology. ICU Unit = Intensive Care Unit Unit. ED Department = Emergency Department Department. ATM machine = Automatic Teller Machine machine.
If 'windows' is NOT trademarkable due to being in common usage before being hijacked by Microsoft, then ANYONE can use ANY PART of the name and it does not matter that Microsoft was using it first - they have no claim on it just by using it first.
Yes, Lindows seems to have made a blatant ripoff of their competitors name for OS software, BUT IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN TRADEMARKED in the first place as it was a generic term in the industry BEFORE MS hijacked it for their product.
Lindows IS riding on Windows' success - but it is legally (if not morally) allowed as Microsoft had/has no prior claim legally (and possibly morally) to the word.
"as close as possible to a blatant trademark infringment."
If the court rules the term generic, there is no trademark, so no trademark infringment - now or ever.
"identifiable simply because of the trademark of their competitor."
Again, if the term was in general usage in the industry prior to Microsoft stealing it for themselves, the court will have to rule there is no trademark - which means ANYONE can use the word Windows (or any non-trademarked variation) in their name.
"You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means." PB quote, horribly mangled to suit the occasion by me.
I actually agree with most of what you wrote, with at least one exception.
'We' - the computer industry, I had nothing to do with it:) - did not 'usurp' the kilo- and mega prefixes.
I could be entirely mistaken, but I understand that kilo- as a prefix means 1000 of what ever the next thing is - kilograms means 1000 grams, for example. However, kilobytes - one word with part of the word that (unfortunately) looks like another word that means 1000 - has never meant 1000 bytes, it was originally and has continually meant 1024 bytes.
Same with mega- and megabytes. 'Megabyte' was defined and has always meant 1024*1024 bytes. Note that when hard drive makers and marketers use the word to mean 'mega-' (1,000*1,000) bytes they specify that they are using the term in a non-standard way in small print somewhere.
Again, my point is that the terms used in the computer industry mean specific thing to those in the computer industry and should not have to be changed to conform to expectations from those not in the computer industry. I also think non-standard usage (your example of the 250 gig drive that won't hold 250 gigs is excellent example - unless using 'raw volumns' unformatted capacity is useless information.) as a marketing term is deceptive advertising and should not be allowed. Instead of advertising a 250Gig hard drive that only has 232.8Gigs available, advertise it as what it is, a 232.8G hard drive. If all the drive sellers were honest in their advertising, then we would still have apples-to-apples comparisons and could make informed choices.
As it currently stands, marketing knows you would rather have a 250Gig hard drive than a 232.8Gig hard drive - even if they are the same drive. And as long as vendor A is willing to sell you the 232.8Gig hard drive as a 250Gig hard drive, vendors B, C,and D have to use the same marketing slight-of-hand to inflate the storage capacity or lose the sale to vendor A - just as 21" screens now specify that there is only 19" viewable but are not sold as 19" screens as they should be.
I also agre that if the original creators of the terms had used more imagination with their naming this would not have been a problem. If they had originally used words other than ones that already had meanings in other areas like Kilo- and Mega- then this confusion would have been avoided.
Sounds to me like he is saying "we made up the words and terminology to describe industry specific meanings and terms, so now others should not tell us they are wrong and try to change them."
Or as you might have put it, "we CREATED the terminology, how dare they corrupt it?"
Byte is specific to the computing field as far as I can determine. Therefore, kilobyte and megabyte are also specific to the computing field and should be defined in relation to the computing field - not by others stating 'we have a word that is simular and means X, so your word also has to mean X or we get confused.'
If you had had a word for our situation, we would have used your word and your definition. You didn't, so we created a word with our own definition. Too bad, our (made up, industry wide understood) word doesn't change meaning just to make your life easier or to prevent your confusion. If you want to use our words, us our meanings.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
You have fallen into a common misconception. The first amendment ONLY RESTRICTS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (actually just Congress...), as do all the amendments.
1) It is illegal to yell 'fire' in a crowded movie theater. Get over it.
2) It is illegal to discuss certain national security matters with citizens of several foreign countries.
3) It is illegal to be heard saying 'Hi Jack!" in an airport. There are fines of up to $10,000 for even joking about terrorism or terroristic activities in an airport. whoops! Where is the over-riding first amendment protection you are claiming there?
Copyright can't stop them, since it is a fact that the answer to question #115 is letter D, and you cannot copyright a fact.
Right. BUT! You can PATENT the fact, or copyright the collection of facts - all that is required is that there be an element of creativity in the collection or presentation - and that the collection be non-obvious. You can not copyright the telephone listings (basicly a listing of names and the associated telephone numbers), BUT YOU CAN COPYRIGHT THE ADVERTISEMENTS and the arrangement of advertisements - for example the yellow pages.
And aren't some of these kids under 18 anyway? An NDA can't apply to them, since any contract they enter into is null and void.
No. The contract is not enforceable AGAINST THE MINOR, but is not void. In addition, this is also directed toward the "Take the test and PASS! GUARANTEED!" businesses where they have people go in and take the test, memorize some of the questions, and then use VERBATIM test questions in their prep materials.
Basically the only recourse they have again people discussing the test is arbitrarily making their score zero. This is stupid, it denies reality, and is generally evil.
Must be nice being as young, stupid, and naive as you seem in your post. The company is selling their expertise in crafting the test. The colleges are depending on the testing companies maintaining a high correlation between the scores and college performance. Your contention that the testing company should NOT discard the scores of people that are flouting the testing rules, cheating, or ignoring instructions and harming the testing company and college "is stupid, it denies reality, and is generally evil." Oh, wait a minute, you must be a college student that cheats, ignores instructions, and breaks the rules. Nevermind.
I grant you that that may be the issue he is talking about, but as long as the pentagon/US Army is not DISTRIBUTING the modifications they are making outside their organization (note that the GPL ONLY puts limits on DISTRIBUTING outside your organization, not on using inside the organization) the GPL does not apply.
I did not read anywhere in the article where distributing (especially outside the organization) was an issue, if you saw something I didn't I would be more than happy to read the article again...
I worked as an EMT with a county ambulance service for 10 years in the 80s (1980 - 1990) and we went 'round and 'round with the government body we worked for about the overtime issue. They tried to use the FLSA 7(k) and 13(b)(20) sections to exempt us from overtime for time when we might have been asleep (we almost never actually were allowed to sleep during that time, I remember one time we were out polishing the ambulance wheels at 3:30 because there was no calls at the time and the crew chief didn't want anyone to think they let us sleep on the job...) - so they were going to require us to be in the station house for 24 hours, but pay us for 16, even if we were working non-stop all 24 hours.
Of course, we were not very happy at the prospect, and complained loudly!
We were then routinely dispatched to fire scenes for 'standby' so that the county government could try to argue that we were 'fire fighting personnel' and fell under that exemption. When that didn't fly with the workers either (and the law was pointed out to the county commissioners), a LARGE chunk of back pay was paid.
The current law requires overtime for anything over 212 hours in a 28 day period for fire fighting personnel - for anyone else covered by the FLSA it is any hours over 160 in 28 days.
For you or I, that means working slightly over 10.5 hours a day every work day (5 days per week) for 4 weeks - WITHOUT GETTING OVERTIME PAY. (by the way, I am salaried and don't get overtime, anyway - but I do get compensatory time off...)
So when the article mentions the overtime protection already afforded to Fire, Police, and EMS workers, it is deceptive, as they are NOT paid under the same rules as other people.
My take on this is this is another "business friendly - fsck everyone else" move by the Bush administration. I don't like it.
How can a person have that level of familiarity with Linux and the GPL, and still not get it?
Linux is released to ANYONE, ANYWHERE to use for ANY PURPOSE. That is the GPL
From the Preamble - "the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its user". Note that is does not say "for SOME of its users..." or "unless you are the United States Military in a mid-East foreign country while G.W.Bush is in Commander in Chief and the month has an 'A' in it..."
From the Terms and conditions for Copying, Distribution, and Modification: "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."
How does this person reconcile their current actions with their past actions and beliefs? You don't (or, in my opinion, shouldn't) get to the position they were in without some idea of the nature and dedication to the OpenSource community. How can they say now that they didn't know that "Free as in Speech" meant everyone, not just those they agreed with?
Has this person taken the position of CFO for The SCO Group? Their stated position seemd to coincide with TSGs quite well. (ObSCO_Ref)
Reminds me of the Voltaire quote "I don't agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it", except this person seems to be saying "I don't agree with what you say - so shut up." This person seems to be a firm believer in President Bush's stated belief that "there ought to be limits to freedom!" which is a moron oxymoron in my opinion.
Amazing the people that CAN think but DON'T, and the ones that CAN'T think that get elected...
How is the parent insightful? It just restates the obvious, but with a highly unlikely condition.
If I won the lottery, wouldn't it have a detrimental effect on my level of poverty?
If cows could fly, wouldn't it have a detrimental effect on commercial aviation?
You are also incorrect in the statement about the value of the shares. Their PRICE rose, but their value has not changed. Their value, as a share of ownership in a doomed company is still nil.
As far as the stock price, it started the year at about $18, it is now at about $11. Since April 1st, it is up about $1.30 - but it is down $0.45 already today.
In addition, the maximum trade volume hour for any day in the previous four months was an order of magnitude smaller than all but two trades since April 1st. Kinda interesting that the TSG board of directors authorized a stock buyback from themselves (on the open market, in block trades and in privately negotiated transactions privately negotiated transactions - with 88.58% ownership by institutions and insiders, that effectively means buying from themselves - and specifically does not preclude buying from themselves...interesting...) on March 10th, and that purchases made after April 1st won't show up on SEC filings until at least August - oh wait, the first 100k transaction took place after April 1st... Gee, I am SURE there is no connection...
So it looks like TSG is buying stock back from TSG executives, paying 800-900% more than the price of the options that got them the stock in the first place, and that is keeping the price up in the stock market. Hey, everyone, mod me insightful!
You are wrong if you are talking about the case in the article. The dismissal was of a TSG motion to dismiss the RedHat request for Declarative Judgement AGAINST TSG. By not dismissing it, the judge has said that TSG could still have the judgement go against them.
I do agree with you in that what is needed is a clear, unambiguous message to other would-be Microsoft serfs that doing stupid stuff gets you stepped on so firmly that there would be no other takes of the Proprietary Software pieces of silver.
As bad as it might sound I think a company will have to buy the IP rights to UNIX in order to shut SCO up. SCO will not win this case and the value of the "company" will drop. At this point someone will buy them.
Why would anyone buy them? I am serious.
What does TSG have that is worth ANYTHING to another business? Their claim to the IP that is supposedly in Linux is being fought in court, and TSG has not yet shown they will (or even could possibly on a day when the weather forecast in Hades is particularly chilly) prevail in their claims of ownership.
They don't own office space (rented from Canopy), real estate (rented from Canopy), office furnishings (rented from Canopy), inventions or patents that are in demand. They don't have any key technology, resources, or even executives that have a clue. Why would anyone want to buy TSG?
With a book value of $1.31 per share, buying them AT MARKET would entail a premium of about 840% over what it would cost to start over from scratch.
The only asset they have is a lawsuit against IBM that, IF they win (not bloody likely, from what I have been reading) could be worth about 20 times their current market capitalization. Other than some Microsoft shills (Enderly? Didio?) they are not convincing many that they have any chance of winning, though - and I really think the Microsoft shills are not convinced, they are just selling their integrity to the highest bidder.
Again, why would anyone buy them?
I do agree, though, that it would be nice for SOMEONE to shut them up. SEC, DOJ, are you listening?
I don't understand your point. Are you saying it is ok for unknown software to modify SOME data on your computer? Who gets to define what data it is ok for a trojan program to modify and what is not?
Because the program exists as data on the computer, and because it modifies itself to track users (read the article), then the program modifies data on the computer.
Hey, I wasn't being sensitive - I was agreeing with you! (see my second post) I AM being anti-Bush. Yes, he is the president. No, I don't think he is doing a good job. Yes, I am a registered voter. No, I will not be voting for him in November.
I must still be dense, as I can't see how, if you USED TO pay CAN$1.58 (US$1.00) for a loaf of bread and you NOW pay CAN$1.34 (US$1.00), you have lost anything unless you are actually taking home less - which I can't figure out how to make Duh'byas fault.
It seems to me you are saying you are receiving less when you exchange your US$ for CAN$, but the prices you pay are going down by the same amount - i.e., the bread thing above - which to me does not represent a pay cut.
I can see where a lease or long term payment obligations (i.e., pay out of fixed number of CAN$) can be a hassle if they are not pegged to the exchange rate, but to say you used to be able to buy 1,000 loaves of bread with your take-home pay and now with the change in exchange rate your take-home pay can only buy 1,000 loaves of bread so you must have gotten a pay cut does not follow.
As I said, I can see that your disposable income as a percentage of total income has dropped, but that is because of the amount of the fixed expenses; as the total CAN$ income drops, the proportion needed to service fixed costs rises - and the amount of fixed costs is not a US policy/exchange rate issue.
Seems to me that the landlord / car loan note holder / bank are enjoying the weak exchange rate now, where you were enjoying it when the USD was strong. I thought you were aware the Duh'bya was pro-business...
I think he's referring to the fact that each dollar he earned used to be worth CDN$1.50.
Good point, I hadn't thought of that.
On the other hand, I also think 'duh'bya is doing all he can to weaken the US dollar against ANY foreign currency, so I really don't think the original poster can blame his 'pay cut' exchange rate on Bush...
Yes, as you point out, "Nearly every major piece of software on any OS, especially those that accept network connections have had multiple vulnerabilities over time".
BUT - and here is where your post leaves rationality - what NEW vulnerability was discovered, investigated, fixed, extensively tested, and released in those 24 hours?
G'parent post is not asinine, it makes a good point - why was a fix that evidently was already in the pipeline not released 24 hours earlier with the other patch, or, if 24 hours more testing was needed for the 'critical' patch, why was the earlier patch not delayed 24 hours so that only one patch (and reboot) would be required?
You posted that you earn USD but live in Canada. Therefore each dollar you earn buys CDN$1.34 of groceries/CDs/rent/utilities/etc at the exchange rate as of the time of this posting.
Sorry. I appologize if my conclusion jumping was in error, but I thought your post met the criteria of a troll.
Law and morality aren't the same thing.
True, but the law relating to conduct of a monopoly is different than the law for other companies. In this case, IF Microsoft was drumming up support for TSG it may be anti-competitive behavior and warrent a smack down by the legal system. Notice the behavior was not open and public, and has been disavowed by Microsoft - IF Microsoft was drumming up financial support for TSG they were doing it in a mannor that seems to indicate they were aware of the, at best, appearance of improper - or immoral - behavior.
It doesn't to me; these were statements from Baystar
The BayStar statement was that they were contacted by "senior level executives", not BG or SB. Your post was that they were not BG or SB. My point is that there are many more "senior level executives" at Microsoft that DO have the power and authority to make decisions binding on the company, and to throw the weight of the 800# gorilla behind influencing investors to make decisions that benefit Microsoft.
Gotcha. Thanks for the fact (first one so far from anyone on this thread).
You are welcome, but remember, that is from late 2002. Microsoft may claim that they had severed all ties to BayStar at some time between then and now, so their claim of no financial relations may be literally true RIGHT NOW - but misleading as they MIGHT have "had relations" AT THE TIME OF THE BAYSTAR DEAL, even if they don't currently have a relationship.
I'd like to see if they back pedal on that one or just leave the lie(s) out there
Several good ways to lie - Tell the truth, but not all of it, Don't correct incorrect assumptions, Answer a question that was not asked, let questioner read into your answer, Do not respond responsively.
I think Microsoft has the first one and last two down to a science.
"Did Microsoft orchestrate the TSG funding?" "Microsoft has no direct or indirect financial relationship with BayStar."
Answer non-responsive as the question was a Yes/No question, while answer was neither yes nor no, neither did it include a yes or no. Answer also may be true RIGHT NOW, but may not be true at the time of the financing activity. Questioner may think they are talking about the time of the incident, but that was not said by the Microsoft spoksman.
Slashdot Mirror
Even better, if TSG is claiming they LIED in their SEC filing, maybe the SEC would be interested in knowing about it?
Personally, I would assume the quarterly filings are most accurate, and the conference call people where liars.
Is that redundant if Darl was one of the speakers?
So far, he has had one profitable quarter in a row.
Last year.
When SUN/Microsft bought "licenses".
Bad Darl! No bonus!
Why would Microsoft want to buy the right to collect licensing fees for Novell, pass 100% of those fees to Novell, and receive 5% back for their service?
Or were you refering to some other, currently undefined rights TSG may have purchased even though the company they would have had to have purchased from is in court stating they DIDN'T purchase?
TSG got money from Microsoft and SUN for licensing - not for licensing LINUX, but it still counts to 'SCOsource licensing revenue'.
So if you exclude the SUN/Microsoft payola as non-Linux related revenue, then you are left with " SCO collected $11,000 from this licensing program in the three months ended April 30, down from [some unknown amout that included $8.3 million from SUN/Microsoft] a year earlier. "
Let me see...
I compose a text message and hit send. It is sent to the network. There is now two copies on the message - the one on my phone and the one on the network. The network determines the closest access to the recepiant and forwards the message - there are now three copies of the message. If the recepiant is not available, the message is transfered to storage instead of to the access point closest to the recepiant - still three copies, but now when the recipiant is available, the network forwards the message to the closest access point (copy four, now) for delivery.
For those with per-message pricing, there is additional accounting and possibly copies for use in billing disputes (RTFA, this is mentioned).
The postcard CAN be read by anyone handling it in the system but there is no need for copies to be made (same for th eFedEx example) while the text message REQUIRES copies - multiple copies - for delivery.
Interesting article from just two days ago...
Exactly.
"British Telcom Blocks Access to [Child Porn] Sites."
"British Telcom Blocks Access to [Internet] Sites."
"British Telcom Blocks Access to [Linux] Sites."
Censorship is censorship, and whenever someone - anyone - starts telling us that they are limiting your freedom "For your own good", people in general should be up-in-arms against them.
Either you are stupid and gulliable sheep and NEED to be lead around so that you don't hurt yourself in the big, bad world, or you are men and women who can think for yourself and make your own decisions without "big brother" making rules "for your own good".
I can just hear BT now - "Here is the Internet (except for some parts we thought were bad, so you can't see them, take our word for it, they are BAD and we are only looking out for you. By the way, Microsoft did NOT pay us to exclude the Linux sites, they were BAD, really bad, so you can't see them, either. Also the sites about the electronic voting machines and how the elections could be manipulated - the politicians and the laws they passed had NOTHING TO DO with our not letting you see those sites - they were BAD. Take our word for it)."
High-tech technology
I am sorry, you want the Department of Redundancy Department. Go down the hall past the ICU Unit and the ED Department. When you get to the ATM machine, take a right - can't miss it!
Clues for the clueless:
High-tech technology = high technology technology.
ICU Unit = Intensive Care Unit Unit.
ED Department = Emergency Department Department.
ATM machine = Automatic Teller Machine machine.
Moderators on crack - again.
This is funny, not off-topic.
Sheesh!
You have put the cart before the horse.
If 'windows' is NOT trademarkable due to being in common usage before being hijacked by Microsoft, then ANYONE can use ANY PART of the name and it does not matter that Microsoft was using it first - they have no claim on it just by using it first.
Yes, Lindows seems to have made a blatant ripoff of their competitors name for OS software, BUT IT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN TRADEMARKED in the first place as it was a generic term in the industry BEFORE MS hijacked it for their product.
Lindows IS riding on Windows' success - but it is legally (if not morally) allowed as Microsoft had/has no prior claim legally (and possibly morally) to the word.
"as close as possible to a blatant trademark infringment."
If the court rules the term generic, there is no trademark, so no trademark infringment - now or ever.
"identifiable simply because of the trademark of their competitor."
Again, if the term was in general usage in the industry prior to Microsoft stealing it for themselves, the court will have to rule there is no trademark - which means ANYONE can use the word Windows (or any non-trademarked variation) in their name.
"You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means." PB quote, horribly mangled to suit the occasion by me.
I actually agree with most of what you wrote, with at least one exception.
:) - did not 'usurp' the kilo- and mega prefixes.
'We' - the computer industry, I had nothing to do with it
I could be entirely mistaken, but I understand that kilo- as a prefix means 1000 of what ever the next thing is - kilograms means 1000 grams, for example. However, kilobytes - one word with part of the word that (unfortunately) looks like another word that means 1000 - has never meant 1000 bytes, it was originally and has continually meant 1024 bytes.
Same with mega- and megabytes. 'Megabyte' was defined and has always meant 1024*1024 bytes. Note that when hard drive makers and marketers use the word to mean 'mega-' (1,000*1,000) bytes they specify that they are using the term in a non-standard way in small print somewhere.
Again, my point is that the terms used in the computer industry mean specific thing to those in the computer industry and should not have to be changed to conform to expectations from those not in the computer industry. I also think non-standard usage (your example of the 250 gig drive that won't hold 250 gigs is excellent example - unless using 'raw volumns' unformatted capacity is useless information.) as a marketing term is deceptive advertising and should not be allowed. Instead of advertising a 250Gig hard drive that only has 232.8Gigs available, advertise it as what it is, a 232.8G hard drive. If all the drive sellers were honest in their advertising, then we would still have apples-to-apples comparisons and could make informed choices.
As it currently stands, marketing knows you would rather have a 250Gig hard drive than a 232.8Gig hard drive - even if they are the same drive. And as long as vendor A is willing to sell you the 232.8Gig hard drive as a 250Gig hard drive, vendors B, C,and D have to use the same marketing slight-of-hand to inflate the storage capacity or lose the sale to vendor A - just as 21" screens now specify that there is only 19" viewable but are not sold as 19" screens as they should be.
I also agre that if the original creators of the terms had used more imagination with their naming this would not have been a problem. If they had originally used words other than ones that already had meanings in other areas like Kilo- and Mega- then this confusion would have been avoided.
Sounds to me like he is saying "we made up the words and terminology to describe industry specific meanings and terms, so now others should not tell us they are wrong and try to change them."
Or as you might have put it, "we CREATED the terminology, how dare they corrupt it?"
Byte is specific to the computing field as far as I can determine. Therefore, kilobyte and megabyte are also specific to the computing field and should be defined in relation to the computing field - not by others stating 'we have a word that is simular and means X, so your word also has to mean X or we get confused.'
If you had had a word for our situation, we would have used your word and your definition. You didn't, so we created a word with our own definition. Too bad, our (made up, industry wide understood) word doesn't change meaning just to make your life easier or to prevent your confusion. If you want to use our words, us our meanings.
haven't you heard of the fucking First Amendment?
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
You have fallen into a common misconception. The first amendment ONLY RESTRICTS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (actually just Congress...), as do all the amendments.
1) It is illegal to yell 'fire' in a crowded movie theater. Get over it.
2) It is illegal to discuss certain national security matters with citizens of several foreign countries.
3) It is illegal to be heard saying 'Hi Jack!" in an airport. There are fines of up to $10,000 for even joking about terrorism or terroristic activities in an airport. whoops! Where is the over-riding first amendment protection you are claiming there?
Copyright can't stop them, since it is a fact that the answer to question #115 is letter D, and you cannot copyright a fact.
Right. BUT! You can PATENT the fact, or copyright the collection of facts - all that is required is that there be an element of creativity in the collection or presentation - and that the collection be non-obvious. You can not copyright the telephone listings (basicly a listing of names and the associated telephone numbers), BUT YOU CAN COPYRIGHT THE ADVERTISEMENTS and the arrangement of advertisements - for example the yellow pages.
And aren't some of these kids under 18 anyway? An NDA can't apply to them, since any contract they enter into is null and void.
No. The contract is not enforceable AGAINST THE MINOR, but is not void. In addition, this is also directed toward the "Take the test and PASS! GUARANTEED!" businesses where they have people go in and take the test, memorize some of the questions, and then use VERBATIM test questions in their prep materials.
Basically the only recourse they have again people discussing the test is arbitrarily making their score zero. This is stupid, it denies reality, and is generally evil.
Must be nice being as young, stupid, and naive as you seem in your post. The company is selling their expertise in crafting the test. The colleges are depending on the testing companies maintaining a high correlation between the scores and college performance. Your contention that the testing company should NOT discard the scores of people that are flouting the testing rules, cheating, or ignoring instructions and harming the testing company and college "is stupid, it denies reality, and is generally evil." Oh, wait a minute, you must be a college student that cheats, ignores instructions, and breaks the rules. Nevermind.
Sure drugs. SOMEONE has to be supplying TheSCOGroup with their smoke...
On the other hand, notice that he was also buying stock in a trash hauling company. Maybe Windows REALLY is junk...?
8-)
I grant you that that may be the issue he is talking about, but as long as the pentagon/US Army is not DISTRIBUTING the modifications they are making outside their organization (note that the GPL ONLY puts limits on DISTRIBUTING outside your organization, not on using inside the organization) the GPL does not apply.
I did not read anywhere in the article where distributing (especially outside the organization) was an issue, if you saw something I didn't I would be more than happy to read the article again...
I worked as an EMT with a county ambulance service for 10 years in the 80s (1980 - 1990) and we went 'round and 'round with the government body we worked for about the overtime issue. They tried to use the FLSA 7(k) and 13(b)(20) sections to exempt us from overtime for time when we might have been asleep (we almost never actually were allowed to sleep during that time, I remember one time we were out polishing the ambulance wheels at 3:30 because there was no calls at the time and the crew chief didn't want anyone to think they let us sleep on the job...) - so they were going to require us to be in the station house for 24 hours, but pay us for 16, even if we were working non-stop all 24 hours.
Of course, we were not very happy at the prospect, and complained loudly!
We were then routinely dispatched to fire scenes for 'standby' so that the county government could try to argue that we were 'fire fighting personnel' and fell under that exemption. When that didn't fly with the workers either (and the law was pointed out to the county commissioners), a LARGE chunk of back pay was paid.
The current law requires overtime for anything over 212 hours in a 28 day period for fire fighting personnel - for anyone else covered by the FLSA it is any hours over 160 in 28 days.
For you or I, that means working slightly over 10.5 hours a day every work day (5 days per week) for 4 weeks - WITHOUT GETTING OVERTIME PAY. (by the way, I am salaried and don't get overtime, anyway - but I do get compensatory time off...)
So when the article mentions the overtime protection already afforded to Fire, Police, and EMS workers, it is deceptive, as they are NOT paid under the same rules as other people.
My take on this is this is another "business friendly - fsck everyone else" move by the Bush administration. I don't like it.
How can a person have that level of familiarity with Linux and the GPL, and still not get it?
Linux is released to ANYONE, ANYWHERE to use for ANY PURPOSE. That is the GPL
From the Preamble - "the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its user". Note that is does not say "for SOME of its users..." or "unless you are the United States Military in a mid-East foreign country while G.W.Bush is in Commander in Chief and the month has an 'A' in it..."
From the Terms and conditions for Copying, Distribution, and Modification: "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."
How does this person reconcile their current actions with their past actions and beliefs? You don't (or, in my opinion, shouldn't) get to the position they were in without some idea of the nature and dedication to the OpenSource community. How can they say now that they didn't know that "Free as in Speech" meant everyone, not just those they agreed with?
Has this person taken the position of CFO for The SCO Group? Their stated position seemd to coincide with TSGs quite well. (ObSCO_Ref)
Reminds me of the Voltaire quote "I don't agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it", except this person seems to be saying "I don't agree with what you say - so shut up." This person seems to be a firm believer in President Bush's stated belief that "there ought to be limits to freedom!" which is a moron oxymoron in my opinion.
Amazing the people that CAN think but DON'T, and the ones that CAN'T think that get elected...
How is the parent insightful? It just restates the obvious, but with a highly unlikely condition.
... Gee, I am SURE there is no connection...
If I won the lottery, wouldn't it have a detrimental effect on my level of poverty?
If cows could fly, wouldn't it have a detrimental effect on commercial aviation?
You are also incorrect in the statement about the value of the shares. Their PRICE rose, but their value has not changed. Their value, as a share of ownership in a doomed company is still nil.
As far as the stock price, it started the year at about $18, it is now at about $11. Since April 1st, it is up about $1.30 - but it is down $0.45 already today.
In addition, the maximum trade volume hour for any day in the previous four months was an order of magnitude smaller than all but two trades since April 1st. Kinda interesting that the TSG board of directors authorized a stock buyback from themselves (on the open market, in block trades and in privately negotiated transactions privately negotiated transactions - with 88.58% ownership by institutions and insiders, that effectively means buying from themselves - and specifically does not preclude buying from themselves...interesting...) on March 10th, and that purchases made after April 1st won't show up on SEC filings until at least August - oh wait, the first 100k transaction took place after April 1st
So it looks like TSG is buying stock back from TSG executives, paying 800-900% more than the price of the options that got them the stock in the first place, and that is keeping the price up in the stock market. Hey, everyone, mod me insightful!
You are wrong if you are talking about the case in the article. The dismissal was of a TSG motion to dismiss the RedHat request for Declarative Judgement AGAINST TSG. By not dismissing it, the judge has said that TSG could still have the judgement go against them.
I do agree with you in that what is needed is a clear, unambiguous message to other would-be Microsoft serfs that doing stupid stuff gets you stepped on so firmly that there would be no other takes of the Proprietary Software pieces of silver.
That message should be delivered in the IBM case.
As bad as it might sound I think a company will have to buy the IP rights to UNIX in order to shut SCO up. SCO will not win this case and the value of the "company" will drop. At this point someone will buy them.
Why would anyone buy them? I am serious.
What does TSG have that is worth ANYTHING to another business? Their claim to the IP that is supposedly in Linux is being fought in court, and TSG has not yet shown they will (or even could possibly on a day when the weather forecast in Hades is particularly chilly) prevail in their claims of ownership.
They don't own office space (rented from Canopy), real estate (rented from Canopy), office furnishings (rented from Canopy), inventions or patents that are in demand. They don't have any key technology, resources, or even executives that have a clue. Why would anyone want to buy TSG?
With a book value of $1.31 per share, buying them AT MARKET would entail a premium of about 840% over what it would cost to start over from scratch.
The only asset they have is a lawsuit against IBM that, IF they win (not bloody likely, from what I have been reading) could be worth about 20 times their current market capitalization. Other than some Microsoft shills (Enderly? Didio?) they are not convincing many that they have any chance of winning, though - and I really think the Microsoft shills are not convinced, they are just selling their integrity to the highest bidder.
Again, why would anyone buy them?
I do agree, though, that it would be nice for SOMEONE to shut them up. SEC, DOJ, are you listening?
I don't understand your point. Are you saying it is ok for unknown software to modify SOME data on your computer? Who gets to define what data it is ok for a trojan program to modify and what is not?
Because the program exists as data on the computer, and because it modifies itself to track users (read the article), then the program modifies data on the computer.
Hey, I wasn't being sensitive - I was agreeing with you! (see my second post) I AM being anti-Bush. Yes, he is the president. No, I don't think he is doing a good job. Yes, I am a registered voter. No, I will not be voting for him in November.
I must still be dense, as I can't see how, if you USED TO pay CAN$1.58 (US$1.00) for a loaf of bread and you NOW pay CAN$1.34 (US$1.00), you have lost anything unless you are actually taking home less - which I can't figure out how to make Duh'byas fault.
It seems to me you are saying you are receiving less when you exchange your US$ for CAN$, but the prices you pay are going down by the same amount - i.e., the bread thing above - which to me does not represent a pay cut.
I can see where a lease or long term payment obligations (i.e., pay out of fixed number of CAN$) can be a hassle if they are not pegged to the exchange rate, but to say you used to be able to buy 1,000 loaves of bread with your take-home pay and now with the change in exchange rate your take-home pay can only buy 1,000 loaves of bread so you must have gotten a pay cut does not follow.
As I said, I can see that your disposable income as a percentage of total income has dropped, but that is because of the amount of the fixed expenses; as the total CAN$ income drops, the proportion needed to service fixed costs rises - and the amount of fixed costs is not a US policy/exchange rate issue.
Seems to me that the landlord / car loan note holder / bank are enjoying the weak exchange rate now, where you were enjoying it when the USD was strong. I thought you were aware the Duh'bya was pro-business...
I think he's referring to the fact that each dollar he earned used to be worth CDN$1.50.
Good point, I hadn't thought of that.
On the other hand, I also think 'duh'bya is doing all he can to weaken the US dollar against ANY foreign currency, so I really don't think the original poster can blame his 'pay cut' exchange rate on Bush...
Yes, as you point out, "Nearly every major piece of software on any OS, especially those that accept network connections have had multiple vulnerabilities over time".
BUT - and here is where your post leaves rationality - what NEW vulnerability was discovered, investigated, fixed, extensively tested, and released in those 24 hours?
G'parent post is not asinine, it makes a good point - why was a fix that evidently was already in the pipeline not released 24 hours earlier with the other patch, or, if 24 hours more testing was needed for the 'critical' patch, why was the earlier patch not delayed 24 hours so that only one patch (and reboot) would be required?
Speaking of not paying attention...
You posted that you earn USD but live in Canada. Therefore each dollar you earn buys CDN$1.34 of groceries/CDs/rent/utilities/etc at the exchange rate as of the time of this posting.
Please explain what pay cut are you refering to?
Or is this an anit-Bush posting?
Sorry. I appologize if my conclusion jumping was in error, but I thought your post met the criteria of a troll.
Law and morality aren't the same thing.
True, but the law relating to conduct of a monopoly is different than the law for other companies. In this case, IF Microsoft was drumming up support for TSG it may be anti-competitive behavior and warrent a smack down by the legal system. Notice the behavior was not open and public, and has been disavowed by Microsoft - IF Microsoft was drumming up financial support for TSG they were doing it in a mannor that seems to indicate they were aware of the, at best, appearance of improper - or immoral - behavior.
It doesn't to me; these were statements from Baystar
The BayStar statement was that they were contacted by "senior level executives", not BG or SB. Your post was that they were not BG or SB. My point is that there are many more "senior level executives" at Microsoft that DO have the power and authority to make decisions binding on the company, and to throw the weight of the 800# gorilla behind influencing investors to make decisions that benefit Microsoft.
Gotcha. Thanks for the fact (first one so far from anyone on this thread).
You are welcome, but remember, that is from late 2002. Microsoft may claim that they had severed all ties to BayStar at some time between then and now, so their claim of no financial relations may be literally true RIGHT NOW - but misleading as they MIGHT have "had relations" AT THE TIME OF THE BAYSTAR DEAL, even if they don't currently have a relationship.
I'd like to see if they back pedal on that one or just leave the lie(s) out there
Several good ways to lie -
Tell the truth, but not all of it,
Don't correct incorrect assumptions,
Answer a question that was not asked, let questioner read into your answer,
Do not respond responsively.
I think Microsoft has the first one and last two down to a science.
"Did Microsoft orchestrate the TSG funding?"
"Microsoft has no direct or indirect financial relationship with BayStar."
Answer non-responsive as the question was a Yes/No question, while answer was neither yes nor no, neither did it include a yes or no.
Answer also may be true RIGHT NOW, but may not be true at the time of the financing activity. Questioner may think they are talking about the time of the incident, but that was not said by the Microsoft spoksman.