They are not increasing distribution, they are increasing the number of eyeballs - if they sent it to me and my spamfiter roundfiled it, they have no way of knowing if I read it and deleted it, or deleted it without reading it, or had a spamfilter do it for me.
The email I get that gets past the spamfilter by incorporating mangled words is recognized -usually by the title - and almost always manually roundfiled without being read. So they have bypassed the automated spamfilter by raising a manual spamfilter recognition flag.
Not really all that smart, and it has gained them nothing in my case.
In addition, as has already been pointed out, who would buy \/1@9r@ from someone who evidently can't even spell it correctly? Are you going to expect someone who has shown they don't know the difference between a '4' and an 'A', an 'S' and a '5', etc, to get your credit card number right?
"That's right, my card number is i2ea-s6tb-go. Yes, that is MasterCard, expires oiot."
As far as I can tell, they have not tried to sell any licenses for the Linux "IP" yet, despite their PR talk. In fact, those people who have tried to buy a license have been denied one.
Copyright dispute? What copyright dispute? This case is SCOG accusing IBM of CONTRACT INFRINGMENT.
SCOG is saying they have "Intellectual Property" that IBM allowed into Linux despite a contract that said they would not do so.
SCOG has claimed "millions of lines" of their propriatary code in Linux. IBM has asked for the SPECIFIC code - all "millions of lines". SCOG has replied with 60+ pages
Assuming 8.5x11 pages, 60 pages, 66 lines per page, and 12 CPI text, that is 356,400 characters - they must be able to show 3 complete package names, file names, and line numbers **per character**! Must be some impressive redundancy to get that level of compression.
Insightful? Whathehell? Another case of clueless moderation.
The order was to provide:
1) all alleged trade secrets and confidential or proprietary information that SCO alleges IBM misappropriated or misused by product, file and line of code.
2) For each alleged trade secret and any confidential or proprietary information identified in 1: (a) all persons who have or had rights to the same; (b) the nature and sources of SCO's rights in the same; and (c) efforts to maintain secrecy or confidentiality of the same.
3) the identity of all persons to whom the [Confidential Information] was disclosed and the details of such disclosure. In particular: (a) the date of disclosure; (b) the terms of disclosure; (c) the documents relating to disclosure; (d) all places where the trade secret and/or confidential or proprietary information may be found or accessed.
4) [I]nformation regarding each instance in which plaintiff alleges that IBM misappropriated or misused the [Confidential Information]. In particular: (a) the date of the alleged misuse or misappropriation; (b) the persons involved; c) the manner of misuse or misappropriation; and (d) the location of any method or code in any IBM product, Linux, open source or the public domain. (emphasis added)
5) identification of (a) all agreements relating to [IBMs alleged infringement], and (b) all copyrights and patents relating thereto, including but not limited to the owners, licensors, licensees, assignors or assignees thereof.
6) [For each item SCO alledges was misappropriated]:(a) the origin of the code or method, including where, when and by whom created; (b) all products in which the code or method is included or upon which it is based (in whole or in part).
7) [A] description of each instance in which IBM allegedly engaged in unfair competition, including but not limited to: (a) the dates of such conduct, (b) the persons involved, and (c) the specific manner of unfair competition.
8) [I]dentification of all agreements with which IBM allegedly interfered, including but not limited to: (a) the date of interference, (b) the persons involved in the interference, (c) the manner of interference, (d) the actions (if any) IBM encouraged licensees to take, (e) the actions, if any, such licensees took as a result of IBM's inducement/encouragement, (f) the trade secret or proprietary information (if any) involved in the alleged interference.
9) [I]dentification of all agreements that IBM has allegedly breached, including but not limited to: (a) the date of breach, (b) the persons involved, and (c) the specific manner of breach.
12) [I]dentify, with specificity (by file and line of code), (a) all source code and other material in Linux (including but not limited to the Linux kernel, any Linux operating sytem and any Linux distribution) to which plaintiff has rights; and (b) the nature of plaintiff's rights, including but not limited to whether and how the code or other material derives from UNIX. (emphasis added)
13) For each line of code and other materials identified in response to 12, please state whether (a) IBM has infringed plaintiff's rights, and for any rights IBM is alleged to have infringed, describe in detail how IBM is alleged to have infringed plaintiff's rights; and (b) whether plaintiff has ever distributed code or other material or otherwise made it available to the public, as part of a Linux distribution or otherwise, and, if so, the circumstances under which it was distributed or otherwise made available, including but not limited to the product(s) in which it was distributed or made available, and the terms under which is was distributed or made available (such as under the GPL or any other license).
A response to any one of these requests should take more than 60 pages - 60 pages for ALL responses is totally out of touch with reality.
I agree that we have to wait until the judge and IBM have read the submission to know how *they* react, but it should be pla
How is this news for those pale skin, 'dew drinkin' parents-basement-livin' nerds? Most of us probably haven't seen the sun for several months - if not longer! ;)
Please point to the part of that statement that says you can only download 8 gigs of data in any one month.
Or the part that says you can not browse to whitehouse.com because of the contents of that site.
OK, then point to the part of that statement that says you are only allowed to access at a specific max transfer speed and that modifying the modem operating software to increase your transfer speed is not allowed.
Ya know, I could not find any of those in that statement either, but somehow the ISPs seem to do so just fine when it suits them.
Yes, I chose my ISP based on availability, speed of transfer of data, and any caps on amount of data transfered, but also chose the plan based on what is advertised and what I need. Not because I am trying to get something for free, but because I have an adversion to giving money to an ISP for nothing when that money could be used for hardware, books, rent, food, etc. It is called 'being a smart shopper'.
I am taking the statement of the ISP at face value, the ISP is the one trying to interpret THEIR OWN ADVERTISEMENT in a way that benefits THEM the most - not in a way that makes the most sense. Sort of "that is what we said, but it wasn't what we meant - and you should be limited to what we meant, not what we said." Truth in advertising says if you don't mean it, don't say it, and if you say it, you will be held to it.
An example - I bought a motorized leaf blower for $16.95. It was on the clearance rack with three others, but I only wanted one (mainly for the gas engine). It rang up on the register at $76.95. I pointed out that it was on the clearance rack and that there were others still on the rack. The manager went back and checked, took the others off the rack, and told the cashier to ring my purchase up at $16.95 as that was the price fixed by the store for the item - even though it seemed the price was fixed erronously. As the manager told me, "that is the price we told you we would sell it for, and you agreed to buy it at that price so we will sell it for that price even though that is not the correct price and we are changing the price on the others."
Again, it is not the problem or the fault of the customer if the ISP advertises and sells 'unlimited access' but can't make a profit when even one of those customers wants to actually use 'unlimited access' - it is the fault and problem of the ISP who CONTINUES to sell 'unlimited access' when they have discovered they can not make a profit doing so.
I have always heard it phrased as "I refuse to reply on the grounds that it might tend to incriminate me."
Might.
Tend.
So what you are saying is that "I can't say anything because if I did, people who either did not know the entire situation or choose to interpret what I said in certain ways might jump to the conclusion that I had done something wrong, and fifth amendment states I am not required to answer if that is the case."
You are right on on the part about not proving guilt.
One of my favorites is the one about the high school student who ran into the old woman, knocking her to the ground. He then held her down and proceded to strike her about the head and body while pulling at her clothes, pulling some of them right off her body!
What a bully! What a cad! Someone call the cops! Put him away for life!
Oh, I forgot to tell you her clothes were on fire, and his actions saved her life.
Knowing the whole story makes a difference, doesn't it?:)
The problem is they are building an infrastructure for limited access and bandwidth, selling 'unlimited' access', then complaining when the users are 'overusing' the system by using it as represented. It is not the customers fault the ISP oversold the network in an effort to wring more income out of the setup costs. The fault lies squarely on the ISP for overselling their services.
Also, if the ISP access plans were spelled out better then there would not be the problems there are.
There should be standard verbage for standard conditions - i.e., "unlimited access" should mean you can access the system at any time and with any number of machines. Just like it says, ACCESS to the system is not limited in number or time. Note that ACCESS does not have anything to do with how fast you can pull or post data, or the amount of data you can get or put over the network.
"1.5down/500 up" specific terms and numbers on max network speed at any time you ACCESS the network. Note that it does not say anything about the quantity of data you are allowed to send or receive at that speed, nor when you are allowed to connect to the network.
"8gigs down/2gigs up" The QUANTITY of usage you are allowed in a month. Says nothing about speed of transmission, or when it is available.
Therefore, "unlimited access times, 1.5m/256k per sec., 20gig/5gig per month." specifies all three - when and how many machines I can CONNECT, the SPEED I am allowed to use, and the QUANTITY of data I am allowed across the network.
All three should be specified in any contract for service from an ISP, and they should not be allowed to change the terms of the contract during the life of the contract. That means the contract should have a term and must be honored by both parties for the lenght of the term. If changes need to be made, they should be made on the next contract, not unilaterally to the existing contract. (unilateral changes to a contract is an oxymoron - a contract is a meeting of the minds between two people while unilateral is the opposite - like 'jumbo shrimp')
If you are not offering and providing "UNLIMITED" access, DON'T TELL ME I HAVE UNLIMITED ACCESS!
If you sell me unlimited access, then I can use AS MUCH AS I WANT, WHENEVER I WANT, FOR AS LONG AS I WANT. If you can't make a profit off that, then you have a problem, but don't start telling me my "unlimited" access is really only x hours, or z gigabytes because you are not making as much profit as you wanted to.
UNLIMITED is just that - without a limit; no limit on hours, gigabytes, time on line, etc. Once you (the ISP) starts putting a limit on access IT ISN'T UNLIMITED anymore.
Sure the market 'droids want to keep the "UnLimited!" in there as it pulls in wanabe geeks and people who only use it to check their email once a day - but if you sell it as 'unlimited access' then you have to be prepared to provide UNLIMITED access to everyone who signs up for the plan. The fact that some of them DON'T use 24/7 access is no reason to limit the others - you are supposedly making a profit off them by selling them more than they are using!
It sounds like the ISPs are selling something based on one set of assumptions (no one will really use 'unlimited' bandwidth) then crying when their assumptions are wrong and they don't make the money they thought they would.
There is no way to tell if there is a God or not, but there is also no tangable evidence that there is a devine being. You are allowed to belive in anything you want.
HOWEVER...
You can belive the government is beaming messages into your head. You can believe in God. Both are irrational beliefs without proof and without the possibility of proof, but only one will get you committed to a mental institution - and I am not sure why the other does not as well - and through the same criteria.
I still find it amazing the number of people willing to kill others over interpretations of a book that says "don't kill" (actually "don't commit murder"). Seems to be like fucking for virginity - someone doesn't get the concept!
Ya know, I was in McDonalds the other day, and God came over and sat down and told me that he DID approve. Really interesting being, God - omnipotent and omniscient, ya know, all knowing and all powerful. Means God knows what is happening, and has the power to change what is happening IF GOD WANTED TO - so whatever happens MUST be what GOD wants, otherwise God would change what happens. Unless you want to argue that god doesn't know what is happening (there goes omniscient) or can't change what is happening (and there goes omnipotent) you are left with God knowing what is happening and allowing it to happen - for his own purposes...
Where were you when God personally sat down with you and talked about what was approved and what was not? Or are you saying what YOU THINK, or what SOMEONE ELSE TOLD YOU TO THINK?
My suggestion would be to read the bible - not as a religious, "word of God", divine revelation, but as a compendium of SUGGESTIONS for being a better person.
"Learn compassion for other human beings"
"Do unto others as you would have done unto you."
Understand that all humans deserve fair and just treatment
"judge not, least you be judged." "Do not bear false witness." "Honor thy father and mother."
...and stop listening to a hateful and venegeful [sic] god who is telling you that non believers are heathens...
I have been listening for a long time, and I only hear the voices of HUMANS telling others what THEY SAY GOD WANTS, THINKS, OR INTENDS. Most seem to have their own reasons for saying what they do, either money, power, or prestige. If people are so spineless, so compliant, so unthinking that they need SOMEONE to tell them what to think, then they should be more careful in who is chosen to do their thinking for them.
...deserve to be killed at the hands of the righteous.
"Thou shalt not commit murder."
Interestingly, there is no conditions on that if the bible is taken as a religious document. So where did the "unless they are abortion doctors" or "unless they don't believe as I do" or "unless they are heathens" get added on - and by what PERSON, as I don't see that in the bible anywhere?
Perhaps the best advice - never yet taken by anyone (including me, as you can tell:) ) that I am aware of - is to stop telling others what, or how, to think or believe.
P=IV, so that DI-604 uses 5x2.5=12.5 watts. A PIII 500MHz will use about 30 watts. Difference = 17.5 watts.
17.5 X 24 X 365 = 153,300 watts, or 153 Kilowatts.
At $0.06 cents per kilowatt, that is about $9.20 savings per year if both are left on 24/7.
Assuming ZERO electricity for the router, 30 watts x 24 hours x 365 days / 1000 watts per kilowatt x 0.06 cents per kilowat = $15.77 for electricity FOR THE YEAR for the PC firewall, minus the $50 paid for the router gives $34.23 loss (assuming the hardware for the PC firewall is legacy stuff and costs $0). So you would have been better off NOT going with the router.
A 100 watt lightbulb burning continiously for a year uses (((100*24*365)/1000)*.06) $52.56 in electricity
Your modern power supply is rated at 350 wats - constant load is much less, but using 350 watts for worse case gives (((350*24*365)/1000)*$.06)=$183.96. Subtract the cost of the router ($50) and you have a maximum savings of $133.96 by going with the router. $133.96 won't buy much of a computer.
You are correct, it is the 5th amendment to the constitution and applies to "capital, or otherwise infamous crime", but I was under the impression (no citation) that something simular applied in cival cases. IANAL, I don't know for certain.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb (the rest was snipped - it deals with being a witness against yourself, taking of property only with payment, etc.)
Yes, I do, because there is no other explanation for SCO's actions.
You evidently don't know what a FACT is. You are taking it on faith - a belief in something not proven.
You are implying that because there is no other theory that seems to fit the situation the case is proven. Not true in logic, not true in math, and not true in law.
No, 'with prejudice' means they can't bring THIS EXACT SAME SUIT again - these specific set of allegations agains this specific defendent - i.e., double jeopardy. 'With prejudice' means the judge has evaluated the merits of this case and is saying it does not warrant the courts' time now or ever.
Dismissal WITHOUT PREJUDICE is like getting a 'do-over' from the court - simular to a hung jury. The exact same case can be brought again in the same court with the same plaintifs and defendents.
A precedent WOULD keep them from using the same argument on other defendents - the precedent says the argument is wrong under the law - but a dismissal would be almost as bad as a loss for the GPL and Linux - it would be saying that SCO did not prove their allegations or should not have brought the suit against IBM for whatever reason, but what is wanted is a complete smack down on the claims against GPL and Linux, which a dismissal fails to do.
Doesn't Darl have to show 4 quarters of profit to get his bonus and this is the last one?
I had heard/read that as well, but I am wondering what it has to do with anything.
SCO profits are not tied to the stock price. In general (agreed, not in this case) the stock price is tied to profits. In SCOs case their stock price has always been based on something else, as they have never shown a profit until they received multimillion dollar infusions of cash from Microsoft. What is the lawsuit contributing to the bottom line that would cause Darl to want to keep this going?
Yes, without the "licensing fees" (paid by Microsoft and Sun) SCO/Caldera would have not shown any profit since day one. If the licensing fees are the only source of "profit", then the next 'quarterly profit/loss statement' (a statement of what happened LAST quarter so it doesn't matter WHEN it is submitted) is not in SCOs hands, nor IBM nor even the court - it is in Microsofts and whether they bought (already) another "option".
The FCC says your local phone company can not require the bundling of services for phone service. (my emphasis)
If true, it still does not do any good in this case as they are not wanting phone service - they are wanting DSL service. Can you show where the FCC says your local phone company can not require phone service in otder to provide DSL service?
I have heard the statement about bundling requirements being illegal from several other sources - but I have never heard the opposite (which is what you are stating as true) either as a a result of that requirement or as a separate prohibition or statement by the FCC.
Shucks, the KIM-1 used the 6502 instruction set, didn't it?
Remember the 8008? The S100 bus? Computer shopper when it was worth getting just for the adds from other users - and it was printed on newsprint?
One of my first professional programming jobs was to write an application on a TRS-80 that did dispatching, inventory, billing, and ordering for a company. The trash-80 had 32K of memory, and TWO 5.25 FLOPPY DRIVES! We were not sure the companies would pay for the second floppy drive or the extra memory - after all, how were they going to justify the cost?
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah but how many cigars can you get in it eh, tell me that.
And the question is "What did Bill ask Monica in the Oval office?"
You know, I have never meet any of those lawyers, but I can twist my mind into beleving they actually exist.
Why is it then, that I can not make myself believe there are altruistic spammers?
And remember, the first case of internet spam is believed have originated from a lawyer...
1% of 'billions' is 100s of millions more.
They are not increasing distribution, they are increasing the number of eyeballs - if they sent it to me and my spamfiter roundfiled it, they have no way of knowing if I read it and deleted it, or deleted it without reading it, or had a spamfilter do it for me.
The email I get that gets past the spamfilter by incorporating mangled words is recognized -usually by the title - and almost always manually roundfiled without being read. So they have bypassed the automated spamfilter by raising a manual spamfilter recognition flag.
Not really all that smart, and it has gained them nothing in my case.
In addition, as has already been pointed out, who would buy \/1@9r@ from someone who evidently can't even spell it correctly? Are you going to expect someone who has shown they don't know the difference between a '4' and an 'A', an 'S' and a '5', etc, to get your credit card number right?
"That's right, my card number is i2ea-s6tb-go. Yes, that is MasterCard, expires oiot."
You put Viagra in there in unaltered plain text.
/", NOT "V" - and is very apparent when quoting into a response.
Wish you would quote the original as I don't think they did.
"V1agra", "\/iagra", "Vi@gra",
Note that the 2nd is "\
You are thinking of their SCO Unix licensees.
As far as I can tell, they have not tried to sell any licenses for the Linux "IP" yet, despite their PR talk. In fact, those people who have tried to buy a license have been denied one.
At least so far...
From the interogatories that SCOG is supposedly responding to "with specificity"
...This information is requested by product, file and line of code." (my emphasis)
..."(my emphasis)
..."(my emphasis)
"INTERROGATORY NO. 1:
"INTERROGATORY NO. 12: Please identify, with specificity (by file and line of code),
"INTERROGATORY NO. 13: For each line of code
When the judge orders that you respond by line of code, you respond by line of code.
Copyright dispute? What copyright dispute? This case is SCOG accusing IBM of CONTRACT INFRINGMENT.
SCOG is saying they have "Intellectual Property" that IBM allowed into Linux despite a contract that said they would not do so.
SCOG has claimed "millions of lines" of their propriatary code in Linux. IBM has asked for the SPECIFIC code - all "millions of lines". SCOG has replied with 60+ pages
Assuming 8.5x11 pages, 60 pages, 66 lines per page, and 12 CPI text, that is 356,400 characters - they must be able to show 3 complete package names, file names, and line numbers **per character**! Must be some impressive redundancy to get that level of compression.
Insightful? Whathehell? Another case of clueless moderation.
The order was to provide:
1) all alleged trade secrets and confidential or proprietary information that SCO alleges IBM misappropriated or misused by product, file and line of code.
2) For each alleged trade secret and any confidential or proprietary information identified in 1: (a) all persons who have or had rights to the same; (b) the nature and sources of SCO's rights in the same; and (c) efforts to maintain secrecy or confidentiality of the same.
3) the identity of all persons to whom the [Confidential Information] was disclosed and the details of such disclosure. In particular: (a) the date of disclosure; (b) the terms of disclosure; (c) the documents relating to disclosure; (d) all places where the trade secret and/or confidential or proprietary information may be found or accessed.
4) [I]nformation regarding each instance in which plaintiff alleges that IBM misappropriated or misused the [Confidential Information]. In particular: (a) the date of the alleged misuse or misappropriation; (b) the persons involved; c) the manner of misuse or misappropriation; and (d) the location of any method or code in any IBM product, Linux, open source or the public domain. (emphasis added)
5) identification of (a) all agreements relating to [IBMs alleged infringement], and (b) all copyrights and patents relating thereto, including but not limited to the owners, licensors, licensees, assignors or assignees thereof.
6) [For each item SCO alledges was misappropriated]:(a) the origin of the code or method, including where, when and by whom created; (b) all products in which the code or method is included or upon which it is based (in whole or in part).
7) [A] description of each instance in which IBM allegedly engaged in unfair competition, including but not limited to: (a) the dates of such conduct, (b) the persons involved, and (c) the specific manner of unfair competition.
8) [I]dentification of all agreements with which IBM allegedly interfered, including but not limited to: (a) the date of interference, (b) the persons involved in the interference, (c) the manner of interference, (d) the actions (if any) IBM encouraged licensees to take, (e) the actions, if any, such licensees took as a result of IBM's inducement/encouragement, (f) the trade secret or proprietary information (if any) involved in the alleged interference.
9) [I]dentification of all agreements that IBM has allegedly breached, including but not limited to: (a) the date of breach, (b) the persons involved, and (c) the specific manner of breach.
12) [I]dentify, with specificity (by file and line of code), (a) all source code and other material in Linux (including but not limited to the Linux kernel, any Linux operating sytem and any Linux distribution) to which plaintiff has rights; and (b) the nature of plaintiff's rights, including but not limited to whether and how the code or other material derives from UNIX. (emphasis added)
13) For each line of code and other materials identified in response to 12, please state whether (a) IBM has infringed plaintiff's rights, and for any rights IBM is alleged to have infringed, describe in detail how IBM is alleged to have infringed plaintiff's rights; and (b) whether plaintiff has ever distributed code or other material or otherwise made it available to the public, as part of a Linux distribution or otherwise, and, if so, the circumstances under which it was distributed or otherwise made available, including but not limited to the product(s) in which it was distributed or made available, and the terms under which is was distributed or made available (such as under the GPL or any other license).
A response to any one of these requests should take more than 60 pages - 60 pages for ALL responses is totally out of touch with reality.
I agree that we have to wait until the judge and IBM have read the submission to know how *they* react, but it should be pla
How is this news for those pale skin, 'dew drinkin' parents-basement-livin' nerds? Most of us probably haven't seen the sun for several months - if not longer!
;)
Because there is no "Clueless" moderation available?
Damn you, Billy Gates (198444)! I was eating breakfast when I read your post. I got milk all over my monitor!
long time UnixWare developers L. Ron Hubbard and Joseph Smith
Very funny, wish I had mod points!
"Unlimited Internet access."
Please point to the part of that statement that says you can only download 8 gigs of data in any one month.
Or the part that says you can not browse to whitehouse.com because of the contents of that site.
OK, then point to the part of that statement that says you are only allowed to access at a specific max transfer speed and that modifying the modem operating software to increase your transfer speed is not allowed.
Ya know, I could not find any of those in that statement either, but somehow the ISPs seem to do so just fine when it suits them.
Yes, I chose my ISP based on availability, speed of transfer of data, and any caps on amount of data transfered, but also chose the plan based on what is advertised and what I need. Not because I am trying to get something for free, but because I have an adversion to giving money to an ISP for nothing when that money could be used for hardware, books, rent, food, etc. It is called 'being a smart shopper'.
I am taking the statement of the ISP at face value, the ISP is the one trying to interpret THEIR OWN ADVERTISEMENT in a way that benefits THEM the most - not in a way that makes the most sense. Sort of "that is what we said, but it wasn't what we meant - and you should be limited to what we meant, not what we said." Truth in advertising says if you don't mean it, don't say it, and if you say it, you will be held to it.
An example - I bought a motorized leaf blower for $16.95. It was on the clearance rack with three others, but I only wanted one (mainly for the gas engine). It rang up on the register at $76.95. I pointed out that it was on the clearance rack and that there were others still on the rack. The manager went back and checked, took the others off the rack, and told the cashier to ring my purchase up at $16.95 as that was the price fixed by the store for the item - even though it seemed the price was fixed erronously. As the manager told me, "that is the price we told you we would sell it for, and you agreed to buy it at that price so we will sell it for that price even though that is not the correct price and we are changing the price on the others."
Again, it is not the problem or the fault of the customer if the ISP advertises and sells 'unlimited access' but can't make a profit when even one of those customers wants to actually use 'unlimited access' - it is the fault and problem of the ISP who CONTINUES to sell 'unlimited access' when they have discovered they can not make a profit doing so.
I have always heard it phrased as "I refuse to reply on the grounds that it might tend to incriminate me."
:)
Might.
Tend.
So what you are saying is that "I can't say anything because if I did, people who either did not know the entire situation or choose to interpret what I said in certain ways might jump to the conclusion that I had done something wrong, and fifth amendment states I am not required to answer if that is the case."
You are right on on the part about not proving guilt.
One of my favorites is the one about the high school student who ran into the old woman, knocking her to the ground. He then held her down and proceded to strike her about the head and body while pulling at her clothes, pulling some of them right off her body!
What a bully! What a cad! Someone call the cops! Put him away for life!
Oh, I forgot to tell you her clothes were on fire, and his actions saved her life.
Knowing the whole story makes a difference, doesn't it?
The problem is they are building an infrastructure for limited access and bandwidth, selling 'unlimited' access', then complaining when the users are 'overusing' the system by using it as represented. It is not the customers fault the ISP oversold the network in an effort to wring more income out of the setup costs. The fault lies squarely on the ISP for overselling their services.
Also, if the ISP access plans were spelled out better then there would not be the problems there are.
There should be standard verbage for standard conditions - i.e., "unlimited access" should mean you can access the system at any time and with any number of machines. Just like it says, ACCESS to the system is not limited in number or time. Note that ACCESS does not have anything to do with how fast you can pull or post data, or the amount of data you can get or put over the network.
"1.5down/500 up" specific terms and numbers on max network speed at any time you ACCESS the network. Note that it does not say anything about the quantity of data you are allowed to send or receive at that speed, nor when you are allowed to connect to the network.
"8gigs down/2gigs up" The QUANTITY of usage you are allowed in a month. Says nothing about speed of transmission, or when it is available.
Therefore, "unlimited access times, 1.5m/256k per sec., 20gig/5gig per month." specifies all three - when and how many machines I can CONNECT, the SPEED I am allowed to use, and the QUANTITY of data I am allowed across the network.
All three should be specified in any contract for service from an ISP, and they should not be allowed to change the terms of the contract during the life of the contract. That means the contract should have a term and must be honored by both parties for the lenght of the term. If changes need to be made, they should be made on the next contract, not unilaterally to the existing contract. (unilateral changes to a contract is an oxymoron - a contract is a meeting of the minds between two people while unilateral is the opposite - like 'jumbo shrimp')
If you are not offering and providing "UNLIMITED" access, DON'T TELL ME I HAVE UNLIMITED ACCESS!
If you sell me unlimited access, then I can use AS MUCH AS I WANT, WHENEVER I WANT, FOR AS LONG AS I WANT. If you can't make a profit off that, then you have a problem, but don't start telling me my "unlimited" access is really only x hours, or z gigabytes because you are not making as much profit as you wanted to.
UNLIMITED is just that - without a limit; no limit on hours, gigabytes, time on line, etc. Once you (the ISP) starts putting a limit on access IT ISN'T UNLIMITED anymore.
Sure the market 'droids want to keep the "UnLimited!" in there as it pulls in wanabe geeks and people who only use it to check their email once a day - but if you sell it as 'unlimited access' then you have to be prepared to provide UNLIMITED access to everyone who signs up for the plan. The fact that some of them DON'T use 24/7 access is no reason to limit the others - you are supposedly making a profit off them by selling them more than they are using!
It sounds like the ISPs are selling something based on one set of assumptions (no one will really use 'unlimited' bandwidth) then crying when their assumptions are wrong and they don't make the money they thought they would.
Well boohoo.
Or even better -
There is no way to tell if there is a God or not, but there is also no tangable evidence that there is a devine being. You are allowed to belive in anything you want.
HOWEVER...
You can belive the government is beaming messages into your head. You can believe in God. Both are irrational beliefs without proof and without the possibility of proof, but only one will get you committed to a mental institution - and I am not sure why the other does not as well - and through the same criteria.
I still find it amazing the number of people willing to kill others over interpretations of a book that says "don't kill" (actually "don't commit murder"). Seems to be like fucking for virginity - someone doesn't get the concept!
"God does not approve..."
...and stop listening to a hateful and venegeful [sic] god who is telling you that non believers are heathens ...
...deserve to be killed at the hands of the righteous.
:) ) that I am aware of - is to stop telling others what, or how, to think or believe.
Ya know, I was in McDonalds the other day, and God came over and sat down and told me that he DID approve. Really interesting being, God - omnipotent and omniscient, ya know, all knowing and all powerful. Means God knows what is happening, and has the power to change what is happening IF GOD WANTED TO - so whatever happens MUST be what GOD wants, otherwise God would change what happens. Unless you want to argue that god doesn't know what is happening (there goes omniscient) or can't change what is happening (and there goes omnipotent) you are left with God knowing what is happening and allowing it to happen - for his own purposes...
Where were you when God personally sat down with you and talked about what was approved and what was not? Or are you saying what YOU THINK, or what SOMEONE ELSE TOLD YOU TO THINK?
My suggestion would be to read the bible - not as a religious, "word of God", divine revelation, but as a compendium of SUGGESTIONS for being a better person.
"Learn compassion for other human beings"
"Do unto others as you would have done unto you."
Understand that all humans deserve fair and just treatment
"judge not, least you be judged."
"Do not bear false witness."
"Honor thy father and mother."
I have been listening for a long time, and I only hear the voices of HUMANS telling others what THEY SAY GOD WANTS, THINKS, OR INTENDS. Most seem to have their own reasons for saying what they do, either money, power, or prestige. If people are so spineless, so compliant, so unthinking that they need SOMEONE to tell them what to think, then they should be more careful in who is chosen to do their thinking for them.
"Thou shalt not commit murder."
Interestingly, there is no conditions on that if the bible is taken as a religious document. So where did the "unless they are abortion doctors" or "unless they don't believe as I do" or "unless they are heathens" get added on - and by what PERSON, as I don't see that in the bible anywhere?
Perhaps the best advice - never yet taken by anyone (including me, as you can tell
Watchutakinbout, willis?
P=IV, so that DI-604 uses 5x2.5=12.5 watts. A PIII 500MHz will use about 30 watts. Difference = 17.5 watts.
17.5 X 24 X 365 = 153,300 watts, or 153 Kilowatts.
At $0.06 cents per kilowatt, that is about $9.20 savings per year if both are left on 24/7.
Assuming ZERO electricity for the router, 30 watts x 24 hours x 365 days / 1000 watts per kilowatt x 0.06 cents per kilowat = $15.77 for electricity FOR THE YEAR for the PC firewall, minus the $50 paid for the router gives $34.23 loss (assuming the hardware for the PC firewall is legacy stuff and costs $0). So you would have been better off NOT going with the router.
A 100 watt lightbulb burning continiously for a year uses (((100*24*365)/1000)*.06) $52.56 in electricity
Your modern power supply is rated at 350 wats - constant load is much less, but using 350 watts for worse case gives (((350*24*365)/1000)*$.06)=$183.96. Subtract the cost of the router ($50) and you have a maximum savings of $133.96 by going with the router. $133.96 won't buy much of a computer.
You are correct, it is the 5th amendment to the constitution and applies to "capital, or otherwise infamous crime", but I was under the impression (no citation) that something simular applied in cival cases. IANAL, I don't know for certain.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb (the rest was snipped - it deals with being a witness against yourself, taking of property only with payment, etc.)
you don't know that for a fact
Yes, I do, because there is no other explanation for SCO's actions.
You evidently don't know what a FACT is. You are taking it on faith - a belief in something not proven.
You are implying that because there is no other theory that seems to fit the situation the case is proven. Not true in logic, not true in math, and not true in law.
No, 'with prejudice' means they can't bring THIS EXACT SAME SUIT again - these specific set of allegations agains this specific defendent - i.e., double jeopardy. 'With prejudice' means the judge has evaluated the merits of this case and is saying it does not warrant the courts' time now or ever.
Dismissal WITHOUT PREJUDICE is like getting a 'do-over' from the court - simular to a hung jury. The exact same case can be brought again in the same court with the same plaintifs and defendents.
A precedent WOULD keep them from using the same argument on other defendents - the precedent says the argument is wrong under the law - but a dismissal would be almost as bad as a loss for the GPL and Linux - it would be saying that SCO did not prove their allegations or should not have brought the suit against IBM for whatever reason, but what is wanted is a complete smack down on the claims against GPL and Linux, which a dismissal fails to do.
Doesn't Darl have to show 4 quarters of profit to get his bonus and this is the last one?
I had heard/read that as well, but I am wondering what it has to do with anything.
SCO profits are not tied to the stock price. In general (agreed, not in this case) the stock price is tied to profits. In SCOs case their stock price has always been based on something else, as they have never shown a profit until they received multimillion dollar infusions of cash from Microsoft . What is the lawsuit contributing to the bottom line that would cause Darl to want to keep this going?
Yes, without the "licensing fees" (paid by Microsoft and Sun) SCO/Caldera would have not shown any profit since day one. If the licensing fees are the only source of "profit", then the next 'quarterly profit/loss statement' (a statement of what happened LAST quarter so it doesn't matter WHEN it is submitted) is not in SCOs hands, nor IBM nor even the court - it is in Microsofts and whether they bought (already) another "option".
Again, stock price != company profit.
The FCC says your local phone company can not require the bundling of services for phone service. (my emphasis)
If true, it still does not do any good in this case as they are not wanting phone service - they are wanting DSL service. Can you show where the FCC says your local phone company can not require phone service in otder to provide DSL service?
I have heard the statement about bundling requirements being illegal from several other sources - but I have never heard the opposite (which is what you are stating as true) either as a a result of that requirement or as a separate prohibition or statement by the FCC.
You young whippersnappers!!
My KIM-1 was NOT my first computer kit...
Shucks, the KIM-1 used the 6502 instruction set, didn't it?
Remember the 8008? The S100 bus? Computer shopper when it was worth getting just for the adds from other users - and it was printed on newsprint?
One of my first professional programming jobs was to write an application on a TRS-80 that did dispatching, inventory, billing, and ordering for a company. The trash-80 had 32K of memory, and TWO 5.25 FLOPPY DRIVES! We were not sure the companies would pay for the second floppy drive or the extra memory - after all, how were they going to justify the cost?
Yeah, the good ol' days...
White Phosphorous is NOT a smoke grenade. Burns hot (not thermite hot, but hot enough...) and can't be extinguished with water. Nasty, nasty stuff.