Re:SCO is not targetting Linux with a lawsuit
on
SCO Volleys to Red Hat
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
There are two actions going on here, one is the lawsuit against IBM, the other is the PR campaign against Linux.
You are correct, the only legal action INITIATED BY SCO is a contract dispute with IBM.
However, by making unsubstantiated claims and accusations in the press against Linux, they have harmed developers, distributors, and end-users of that operating system. Therefore, they have opened the door to legal action against SCO.
Again, you are correct, SCO is not targeting Linux with a lawsuit - they are targeting them with misinformation, FUD, unsubstantiated claims, and unsubstantiated accusations, as well as lies adn half-truths - actions which ARE legally actionable by anyone who has been hurt by their actions - including RedHat.
Read the Diamond v. Diehr decision yourself if you don't believe me.
From this discussion of Diamond v Diehr, the answer does not support your contention. "The Diehr court left undecided the question of whether computer programs standing by themselves could ever be patentable."
I have not found citations for The last word from the US Supreme Court is that software is not patentable. as you state. Can you provide other citations that support your claim? Diamond v Diehr doesn't.
There is In Re Alappat, which is what is generally used when refering to the patentablity of software, but that is an opinion by a Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, not the Supreme Court.
"The decision in In Re Alappat No. 92-1381 (Fed. Cir. July 29, 1994) (en banc), clearly paves the way for the patenting of inventions that can be implemented in either hardware or software"
and
"overturns a long standing Patent Office policy of denying patents on inventions that could be functionally implemented in software."
and
"The Patent Office has not yet determined whether to seek review by the United States Supreme Court. See Bart Ziegler, Court Upholds Patent for the Way Software Interacts With Computer, Wall Street Journal, August 8, 1994, at B4."
Is static electricity useful for anything? Can you run an electrical motor with it? I thought the answer was no, but I can not substanciate my reasons for thinking that. Can someone help me out here?
It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to post and remove all doubt.
Guestion for you - what do YOU think would hold this thing up? Maybe you expect a bunch of Indian Fakirs to be sitting around the base blowing on flutes? (reference to Indian Rope Trick for those who were wondering...)
To answer my own question, the fact that one end of the cable is moving faster than the other end makes the part that is moving want to fly off in a straight line - but the tensile strength of the cable keeps the two hooked together. If the cable were at either of the poles, there would be a bunch less difference in speed between the two ends - and the system would be more UNSTABLE.
1) The diesel engines can't be started using the fry grease. In general, the engine is started using diesel and, when warmed up, switched over to the fry grease. The warmup is needed to melt the fry grease!
2) The fry grease has to be filtered, and the filter is only good for about 2K miles, so there is a continuing expense of around $0.10 per mile just for the filter. I would assume the refined biodiesel would not require the filter, however.
In addition, business owners are allowed a federal tax deduction of $37,640 (assuming 40% tax bracket - see the article), making the $55,000 price a much more palitable $17,360.
That is NOT the case with the InSight. The electric motor only assists the three cyl. engine - and I think it acts as the starter when the engine stops when at a stoplight. I am not sure of the last, but there is a definite "torque twist" when the starter kicks in to start the engine when pulling away from a stop!
In fact, the InSight and Prius are routinely sold with under-inflated tires because the dealers have learned that people like the ride better than when the tires are inflated to spec. You can also look at some of the web sites devoted to people who are into getting as high gas milage as they can and they routinely OVER-inflate their tires to lower the rollong resistance.
In the US of A you already get a federal tax break, and some states also give a tax break.
Don't sound like it is very much (when I looked into it, for me it would have been about $2,000), but it is a tax CREDIT, so it reduces your taxes directly, not a deduction that only indirectly reduces your tax liability.
You should not be able to recreate the oridinal given a MD5 sum because of the limitations of computational power, time, cost, energy usage, etc.
is equivelent to
You cannot recreate the original given a MD5 sum.
"Should not be able to" in the sense that "we don't think that it is possible, now or in the forseeable future", not in the sense that you are not allowed.
Not allowed and not possible are, of course, not effectively - or even remotely - the same at all and is not what I said or meant.
I understand what you are saying, but I still don't understand how she was ever sued in the first place.
Who did the RIAA sue?
The owner of the ISP account? At 12, it couldn't legally be the child.
The owner of the computer? At 12, it couldn't legally be the child.
The person who bought and installed the P2P software? At 12, it couldn't legally be the child.
The person who actually downloaded the copyrighted songs? Even then, at 12 it couldn't legally be the child!
So how did the RIAA LEGALLY sue a 12 year old child?
If the parent is the one with their name on all these contracts and agreements, WHY WASN'T THE PARENT THE ONE BEING SUED - HOW DID THE RIAA GET THE CHILDS' NAME?
Still looking for an answer that I can fit my mind around - so it doesn't have to be TO BIG...:)
At 12, this girl could not consent to giving out her personal information, so how did RIAA get it?
At 12, she could not enter into legally binding agreements for internet access, could not enter into legally binding agreements in reguard to buying or using P2P software - or even legally binging agreements to click through installation of the software!
She also could not legally accept summons for the suit, or hire legal representation to defend herself.
She also could not legally enter into a settlement agreement with the RIAA.
So what is REALLY going on?
Re:How can one steal lines of code?
on
Back To SCO
·
· Score: 1
So you are saying the lawyers and legislators never make bad laws?
Or are you saying they never make laws that are not needed?
Explain to me again why we have a Supreme Court whose purpose is to determine the constitutionallity of laws and overturn those that were passed by lawyers and legislators, but are not constitutional?
AZ You may not have more than two dildos in a house
CA You are not permitted to wear cowboy boots unless you already own at least two cows.
ID Residents may not fish from a giraffe's back.
IN A man over the age of 18 may be arrested for statutory rape if the passenger in his car is not wearing her socks and shoes, and is under the age of 17.
KY It is illegal to transport an ice cream cone in your pocket.
MA It is illegal to frighten a pigeon.
ME Shoelaces must be tied while walking down the street.
NM It's forbidden for a female to appear unshaven in public
NY Women may go topless in public, providing it is not being used as a business.
The penalty for jumping off a building is death.
OH It's illegal to catch mice without a hunting license
TN Driving is not to be done while asleep
The age of consent is 16, but 12 if the girl is a virgin
It is legal to gather and consume roadkill
Illegal for a woman to drive a car unless there is a man either running or walking in front of it waving a red flag to warn approaching motorists and pedestrians
UT It is illegal to detonate any nuclear weapon. You can have them, but you just can't detonate them.
WV It is legal for a male to have sex with an animal as long as it does not exceed 40 lbs
Roadkill may be taken home for supper.
By the way, I assume the reason why the age of consent is 12 in TN if the girl is a virgin, is that there are no 12 y.o. girls that are still virgin in TN!
"The SHA-1 is called secure because it is computationally infeasible to find a message which corresponds to a given message digest, or to find two different messages which produce the same message digest." (emphasis added)
"With a SHA-1 hash, you should not be able to recreate the original. " agreed, but only because it is computationally infeasible, not because it is computationally _impossible_.
I am not the original poster, and (s)he is already responding to this thread, but I think you are both arguing the same thing.
With a MD5 sum/hash, I should be able, given enough motivation, time, and resources, to recreated the original exactly, so it is a non-lossy compression.
I do understand that theoretically you could find two different sequences that hash to the same values, so it may be somewhat lossy.
I think the original poster is saying that there is little difference between a compression technique that removes so much information that you can not get back to the original, and MD5 sums where you COULD get back to the original except that it would take more time, computational power and resources than are available - that in effect you also can't get back to the original from the MD5 sum.
You are right, they are NOT the same thing. The original poster is right, they are effectively the same thing.
Note that they all seem to reference the same poll by the Washington Post...
If you didn't, I think American commonsense has surrendered.
Look at the current administration, the current economic situation, the current legal atmosphere, and if you DIDN'T think American commonsense was seriously deficient, you would either be on drugs like SCO (ObReference) or you just woke from your twenty year nap...
Actually, when you're playing SCO's game you look for victims who can't afford to fight back.
Only if you are looking for extortion money - i.e., getting the defendant to pay instead of fighting as the cheaper way to go.
SCO isn't after the little bit of money SGI has left.
Then they are going after the wrong people.
They'll offer SGI a sweatheart deal to take a fall: all SGI has to do is sell their soul and admit that XFS infringes on SCO's IP.
Which does not change much. Without a more specific "IP" - Copyright? Patent? - there is little value in getting SGI to support SCO's position. If SGI admits infringing on SCO's copyright, it is limited to SGI - no one else shares liability with them.
My guess is that SCO will SLAPP some of the smaller companies, less healthy, remaining Unix companies that don't take a fall.
Except that (from your referenced link - thanks, I was wondering what SLAPP meant) (SLAPP) refers to litigation filed by a large corporation to silence a less powerful critic by so burdening them with the cost of a legal defense that they abandon their criticism. and SGI is not criticizing SCO that I can tell. There is little other reason for SCO to go for the SLAPP that I can see.
This is the same tactic used by PanIP. Go after companies who will find it cheaper to settle with them rather than fight and who don't have the financial resources to fight even if they wanted to.
Useful tactic if you are wanting settlements not wins.
The goal is to build up a body of cases settled in SCO's favor.
Only cases TRIED AND WON IN A COURT OF LAW help SCO against IBM, except when attempting to extort money from other small companies. Cases settled won't effect the IBM suit at all.
Slashdot Mirror
There are two actions going on here, one is the lawsuit against IBM, the other is the PR campaign against Linux.
You are correct, the only legal action INITIATED BY SCO is a contract dispute with IBM.
However, by making unsubstantiated claims and accusations in the press against Linux, they have harmed developers, distributors, and end-users of that operating system. Therefore, they have opened the door to legal action against SCO.
Again, you are correct, SCO is not targeting Linux with a lawsuit - they are targeting them with misinformation, FUD, unsubstantiated claims, and unsubstantiated accusations, as well as lies adn half-truths - actions which ARE legally actionable by anyone who has been hurt by their actions - including RedHat.
Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) HR 3162
Not "patriot", it is an acronym. U.S.A. P.A.T.R.I.O.T. Act. I do agree that it is NOT patriotic, though.
Read the Diamond v. Diehr decision yourself if you don't believe me.
From this discussion of Diamond v Diehr, the answer does not support your contention. "The Diehr court left undecided the question of whether computer programs standing by themselves could ever be patentable."
I have not found citations for The last word from the US Supreme Court is that software is not patentable. as you state. Can you provide other citations that support your claim? Diamond v Diehr doesn't.
There is In Re Alappat, which is what is generally used when refering to the patentablity of software, but that is an opinion by a Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, not the Supreme Court.
From the lawfirm that argued the Alappat appeal:
"The decision in In Re Alappat No. 92-1381 (Fed. Cir. July 29, 1994) (en banc), clearly paves the way for the patenting of inventions that can be implemented in either hardware or
software"
and
"overturns a long standing Patent Office policy of denying patents on inventions that could be functionally implemented in software."
and
"The Patent Office has not yet determined whether to seek review by the United States Supreme Court. See Bart Ziegler, Court Upholds Patent for the Way Software Interacts With Computer, Wall Street Journal, August 8, 1994, at B4."
Damn, there go my mod points!
Honest question:
Is static electricity useful for anything? Can you run an electrical motor with it? I thought the answer was no, but I can not substanciate my reasons for thinking that. Can someone help me out here?
Thanks
Read it again, I am sure you will eventually get the funny.
Oh hell, I will help you:
At about a third of the way along the cable - 36,000km from Earth - objects take a year to complete a full orbit.
You are right, "it takes one day to complete a full orbit at 36000km", BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT THEY SAID!
-5, Ignorant of laws of physics
+1 Funny
It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to post and remove all doubt.
Guestion for you - what do YOU think would hold this thing up? Maybe you expect a bunch of Indian Fakirs to be sitting around the base blowing on flutes? (reference to Indian Rope Trick for those who were wondering...)
To answer my own question, the fact that one end of the cable is moving faster than the other end makes the part that is moving want to fly off in a straight line - but the tensile strength of the cable keeps the two hooked together. If the cable were at either of the poles, there would be a bunch less difference in speed between the two ends - and the system would be more UNSTABLE.
1) The diesel engines can't be started using the fry grease. In general, the engine is started using diesel and, when warmed up, switched over to the fry grease. The warmup is needed to melt the fry grease!
2) The fry grease has to be filtered, and the filter is only good for about 2K miles, so there is a continuing expense of around $0.10 per mile just for the filter. I would assume the refined biodiesel would not require the filter, however.
H2 is 6,400 according to this article.
In addition, business owners are allowed a federal tax deduction of $37,640 (assuming 40% tax bracket - see the article), making the $55,000 price a much more palitable $17,360.
That is NOT the case with the InSight. The electric motor only assists the three cyl. engine - and I think it acts as the starter when the engine stops when at a stoplight. I am not sure of the last, but there is a definite "torque twist" when the starter kicks in to start the engine when pulling away from a stop!
Pretty much, exactly, and right on the mark.
In fact, the InSight and Prius are routinely sold with under-inflated tires because the dealers have learned that people like the ride better than when the tires are inflated to spec. You can also look at some of the web sites devoted to people who are into getting as high gas milage as they can and they routinely OVER-inflate their tires to lower the rollong resistance.
In the US of A you already get a federal tax break, and some states also give a tax break.
Don't sound like it is very much (when I looked into it, for me it would have been about $2,000), but it is a tax CREDIT, so it reduces your taxes directly, not a deduction that only indirectly reduces your tax liability.
In this case they are.
You should not be able to recreate the oridinal given a MD5 sum because of the limitations of computational power, time, cost, energy usage, etc.
is equivelent to
You cannot recreate the original given a MD5 sum.
"Should not be able to" in the sense that "we don't think that it is possible, now or in the forseeable future", not in the sense that you are not allowed.
Not allowed and not possible are, of course, not effectively - or even remotely - the same at all and is not what I said or meant.
Not the BBC, from Globe News - No I hadn't ever heard of them either.
From a press release from the people at mi2g - google for it, interesting information in the SECOND entry...
Not funded by MS, this is a security consulting group of dubious integrity.
Some of my favorite quotes in reference to their press releases -
"Mathmatical Masturbation" Richard Forno (InfoWarrior.org).
"Winn Schwartau, author of Pearl Harbor Dot Com, noted that mi2g seems to be relying solely on hacks that have been publicly documented".
"Their statistics are basically worthless." Marquis Grove, editor of the Security News Portal.
"mi2g continue to drum up PR about an "Inter-fada," or holy cyber-war, that rages between Palestine & Israel."
and
"Fearmongers" Rob Rosenberger, Vmyths editor.
Read more at Vmyths.com
I understand what you are saying, but I still don't understand how she was ever sued in the first place.
:)
Who did the RIAA sue?
The owner of the ISP account? At 12, it couldn't legally be the child.
The owner of the computer? At 12, it couldn't legally be the child.
The person who bought and installed the P2P software? At 12, it couldn't legally be the child.
The person who actually downloaded the copyrighted songs? Even then, at 12 it couldn't legally be the child!
So how did the RIAA LEGALLY sue a 12 year old child?
If the parent is the one with their name on all these contracts and agreements, WHY WASN'T THE PARENT THE ONE BEING SUED - HOW DID THE RIAA GET THE CHILDS' NAME?
Still looking for an answer that I can fit my mind around - so it doesn't have to be TO BIG...
At 12, this girl could not consent to giving out her personal information, so how did RIAA get it?
At 12, she could not enter into legally binding agreements for internet access, could not enter into legally binding agreements in reguard to buying or using P2P software - or even legally binging agreements to click through installation of the software!
She also could not legally accept summons for the suit, or hire legal representation to defend herself.
She also could not legally enter into a settlement agreement with the RIAA.
So what is REALLY going on?
So you are saying the lawyers and legislators never make bad laws?
:
Or are you saying they never make laws that are not needed?
Explain to me again why we have a Supreme Court whose purpose is to determine the constitutionallity of laws and overturn those that were passed by lawyers and legislators, but are not constitutional?
Nice use of big words, though.
Examples of stupid laws
AZ You may not have more than two dildos in a house
CA You are not permitted to wear cowboy boots unless you already own at least two cows.
ID Residents may not fish from a giraffe's back.
IN A man over the age of 18 may be arrested for statutory rape if the passenger in his car is not wearing her socks and shoes, and is under the age of 17.
KY It is illegal to transport an ice cream cone in your pocket.
MA It is illegal to frighten a pigeon.
ME Shoelaces must be tied while walking down the street.
NM It's forbidden for a female to appear unshaven in public
NY Women may go topless in public, providing it is not being used as a business.
The penalty for jumping off a building is death.
OH It's illegal to catch mice without a hunting license
TN Driving is not to be done while asleep
The age of consent is 16, but 12 if the girl is a virgin
It is legal to gather and consume roadkill
Illegal for a woman to drive a car unless there is a man either running or walking in front of it waving a red flag to warn approaching motorists and pedestrians
UT It is illegal to detonate any nuclear weapon. You can have them, but you just can't detonate them.
WV It is legal for a male to have sex with an animal as long as it does not exceed 40 lbs
Roadkill may be taken home for supper.
By the way, I assume the reason why the age of consent is 12 in TN if the girl is a virgin, is that there are no 12 y.o. girls that are still virgin in TN!
"The SHA-1 is called secure because it is computationally infeasible to find a message which corresponds to a given message digest, or to find two different messages which produce the same message digest." (emphasis added)
"With a SHA-1 hash, you should not be able to recreate the original. " agreed, but only because it is computationally infeasible, not because it is computationally _impossible_.
But again, that is EFFECTIVELY the same thing!
+1 funny.
You are maxed out, and I don't have mod points, but this is still funny!
I am not the original poster, and (s)he is already responding to this thread, but I think you are both arguing the same thing.
With a MD5 sum/hash, I should be able, given enough motivation, time, and resources, to recreated the original exactly, so it is a non-lossy compression.
I do understand that theoretically you could find two different sequences that hash to the same values, so it may be somewhat lossy.
I think the original poster is saying that there is little difference between a compression technique that removes so much information that you can not get back to the original, and MD5 sums where you COULD get back to the original except that it would take more time, computational power and resources than are available - that in effect you also can't get back to the original from the MD5 sum.
You are right, they are NOT the same thing. The original poster is right, they are effectively the same thing.
WTF? You were using a borrowed bentley to deliver pizza? To Wal-Mart?
I say again, WTF!?
Except the "amnesty" is not available to those who are already being sued.
Please tell me you pulled that number out of your arse.
Nope, not out of their... out of thin air.
MSNBC
StarTribune
USAToday
Note that they all seem to reference the same poll by the Washington Post...
If you didn't, I think American commonsense has surrendered.
Look at the current administration, the current economic situation, the current legal atmosphere, and if you DIDN'T think American commonsense was seriously deficient, you would either be on drugs like SCO (ObReference) or you just woke from your twenty year nap...
Maybe they are hoping for legal precedence.
On what point?
As I posted before, only by taking SGI (or anyone else) to court and winning does SCO set legal precedence.
Actually, when you're playing SCO's game you look for victims who can't afford to fight back.
Only if you are looking for extortion money - i.e., getting the defendant to pay instead of fighting as the cheaper way to go.
SCO isn't after the little bit of money SGI has left.
Then they are going after the wrong people.
They'll offer SGI a sweatheart deal to take a fall: all SGI has to do is sell their soul and admit that XFS infringes on SCO's IP.
Which does not change much. Without a more specific "IP" - Copyright? Patent? - there is little value in getting SGI to support SCO's position. If SGI admits infringing on SCO's copyright, it is limited to SGI - no one else shares liability with them.
My guess is that SCO will SLAPP some of the smaller companies, less healthy, remaining Unix companies that don't take a fall.
Except that (from your referenced link - thanks, I was wondering what SLAPP meant) (SLAPP) refers to litigation filed by a large corporation to silence a less powerful critic by so burdening them with the cost of a legal defense that they abandon their criticism. and SGI is not criticizing SCO that I can tell. There is little other reason for SCO to go for the SLAPP that I can see.
This is the same tactic used by PanIP. Go after companies who will find it cheaper to settle with them rather than fight and who don't have the financial resources to fight even if they wanted to.
Useful tactic if you are wanting settlements not wins.
The goal is to build up a body of cases settled in SCO's favor.
Only cases TRIED AND WON IN A COURT OF LAW help SCO against IBM, except when attempting to extort money from other small companies. Cases settled won't effect the IBM suit at all.