So, can you offer a single good reason why anyone would reasonably use "Barney" or "Barbie" or "Pokemon" as keywords for a site featuring a naked woman with semen all over her face?
You have to admit Barbie probably deserves it.
Besides, just because you don't have an imagination...
It's only a monopoly if you don't have other real choices.
Says who? You? You are incorrect, sir. One way in which the governement established that Microsoft is a monopoly is in the fact that they can charge different people/companies different prices for Windows. Google it if you wish.
Linux DOES have to take over the MBR (with either GRUB or LILO), but unlike the Windows bootloader...
Dude, that is incorrect. You can specify to put the Linux boot loader on the same partition that Linux is installed (or any other partition), to be loaded by a different loader, like NT loader or OS/2 Boot Manager, which is included in Partition Magic.
Because the idea that dual-boot somehow causes them to lose money is a false one.
But... see what Microsoft doesn't want you to do is to TRY any one else's products, especially a different operating system, because they don't want you to realize that there are options. They want you to think that Linux is too difficult to work with so that you put up with whatever shtuff they pull with Windows. If someone learned to work with Linux, then it will be that much easier for that person to say, "Nope, Bill, I not am putting up with your shit anymore, I'm through. Get out of my life!"
"Oh, and, your honor... don't take their word that they didn't do anything inappropriate/illegal against us. DO NOT BELIEVE THEM. Make them them tell us."
"Your honor, we're getting tired of IBM dragging their feet. For THREE years we have been demanding of them that they tell us what they have done wrong against us but they won't tell us. Why should we tell them, and tell you, when THEY KNOW WHAT THEY HAVE DONE WRONG! Now make them tell us, your honor."
... they're having difficulty pointing out what exactly they're actually accusing IBM of.
I think I finally understand their claims: they are saying that IBM contributed information to Linux that they weren't allowed to do under their interpretation of IBM's original UNIX contract with AT&T and these contributions to Linux have hurt SCO's ability to compete in the market. Fair, you say, let's say that they are correct, what about this information?
For whatever reason, instead of starting with the contract and whether SCOX is correctly the owner of the other side of the IBM/UNIX contract and its interpretation is correct, we have assumed that they are correct and now they just have to tell us what information they are talking about.
SCOX has played around with what information they are talking about for a while now but have always claimed that it was of various types. Their latest claim is that it was Methods and Concepts for which they don't even have to show where in Linux this information is or whether it was even used because the disclosure itself was the contract violation. And they have 'smoking gun' proof that IBM disclosed UNIX information to Linux developers. But IBM developed this technology themselves... it matters not SCO claims, for once this information was placed in the same computer as actually 'protected information' (by IBM's and everyone else's accounts), it, too becomes protected. This is the case, for example, with regards to JFS, which IBM developed outside of AIX first.
Their copyright infringement claims don't really affect Linux since it has to do with IBM using AIX after SCOX revoked IBM's irrevocable license. Anyone want to correct my understanding? I'm not sure how close IBM developed ideas have to be to 'protect information' to also become protected; for example, it may become protected if a person that works in AIX developed it.
Since IBM purposefully destroyed evidence, SCO wants a ruling in their favor that it's ok to purposefully manufacture evidence. That would balance things out, right?
I think it's something like this:
You're honor, you're probably wondering why we don't have any evidence of IBM's wrongs against us after three years of claims and litigation, well, it's BECAUSE THEY DESTROYED THE EVIDENCE! and we think you should just assume that they are guilty of wronging us and force them to write out a check to us in the order of $5,000,000,000.00. Thank you, your honor, it's been a pleasure working with you.
... who would rather see Americans live under constant surveillance with no actual freedom than have one single person stand a chance of being killed...
Sheet. Didn't thousands if not millions of Americans more or less willfully die for the right of Americans to live freely and not under surveillance? Hell, I'd die if I knew that would be what I were doing.
I think it's time I ran for president and did some serious housecleaning in the USPTO.
I have a hypothesis that well-meaning folk who run for government to do great things can't resist the temptations of power and money and become corporation-loving, lying, cheating, stealing, morally corrupt, freedom-hating pricks who look at normal people as nothing but stupid, potential thieves once they get there. So be careful.
Microsoft will go through the motions, make announcements, hire some people, make more announcements, show a demo, make more announcements... but when it comes time to compete, they will do the only thing they know how to do:
Buy off a company who actually has something to show for their efforts!"
I can almost imagine the US going to war with other countries that "don't have the same copyright laws as us".
Since we already used the WMD line, which one do you suppose Dubya would use this time? "We have evidence that they are supporting terrorism. And we are doing the right thing by bombing them and if you dare question us, well, you're for the terrorists and off with your head!"
I read your post half a dozen times or so and but I can't tell. Do you charge your loved one for making her happy? (I know, I know, I'm making a few assumptions here.)
The game is rigged, sure enough, just as long as we sit down, shut up, and don't vote. I don't care if you disagree with me, I just want you to vote.
Here's why voting won't matter:
The average person is "stupid." By stupid I mean that while the average person probably graduated out of high school, maybe college, can maintain a job and raise a family, they are unable to follow a logical argument. I personally think the education system is rigged to make sure this is true.
The problem then arises because politicians, both the donkeys and the elephans, know this and also know that the since the average person can't follow a logical argument, they can then direct people to do things (i.e. vote for them) by appealing to their emotions, especially fear. They can then take advantage of the old dilemma of fear vs security, and promise security in return for their freedoms.
In short, people like Rove are experts at manipulating people who can't follow a logical argument thus truth won't do any good against these experts of deceptions. Thus voting is a waste of my time.
Slashdot Mirror
So, can you offer a single good reason why anyone would reasonably use "Barney" or "Barbie" or "Pokemon" as keywords for a site featuring a naked woman with semen all over her face?
You have to admit Barbie probably deserves it.
Besides, just because you don't have an imagination...
It's only a monopoly if you don't have other real choices.
Says who? You? You are incorrect, sir. One way in which the governement established that Microsoft is a monopoly is in the fact that they can charge different people/companies different prices for Windows. Google it if you wish.
Linux DOES have to take over the MBR (with either GRUB or LILO), but unlike the Windows bootloader...
Dude, that is incorrect. You can specify to put the Linux boot loader on the same partition that Linux is installed (or any other partition), to be loaded by a different loader, like NT loader or OS/2 Boot Manager, which is included in Partition Magic.
Because the idea that dual-boot somehow causes them to lose money is a false one.
But... see what Microsoft doesn't want you to do is to TRY any one else's products, especially a different operating system, because they don't want you to realize that there are options. They want you to think that Linux is too difficult to work with so that you put up with whatever shtuff they pull with Windows. If someone learned to work with Linux, then it will be that much easier for that person to say, "Nope, Bill, I not am putting up with your shit anymore, I'm through. Get out of my life!"
Do you suppose THAT would cost them money?
"Oh, and, your honor... don't take their word that they didn't do anything inappropriate/illegal against us. DO NOT BELIEVE THEM. Make them them tell us."
How about this:
"Your honor, we're getting tired of IBM dragging their feet. For THREE years we have been demanding of them that they tell us what they have done wrong against us but they won't tell us. Why should we tell them, and tell you, when THEY KNOW WHAT THEY HAVE DONE WRONG! Now make them tell us, your honor."
8. Have fun being Bubba's bitch in federal prison
Darl will be known as "Darl the Bride."
... they're having difficulty pointing out what exactly they're actually accusing IBM of.
I think I finally understand their claims: they are saying that IBM contributed information to Linux that they weren't allowed to do under their interpretation of IBM's original UNIX contract with AT&T and these contributions to Linux have hurt SCO's ability to compete in the market. Fair, you say, let's say that they are correct, what about this information?
For whatever reason, instead of starting with the contract and whether SCOX is correctly the owner of the other side of the IBM/UNIX contract and its interpretation is correct, we have assumed that they are correct and now they just have to tell us what information they are talking about.
SCOX has played around with what information they are talking about for a while now but have always claimed that it was of various types. Their latest claim is that it was Methods and Concepts for which they don't even have to show where in Linux this information is or whether it was even used because the disclosure itself was the contract violation. And they have 'smoking gun' proof that IBM disclosed UNIX information to Linux developers. But IBM developed this technology themselves... it matters not SCO claims, for once this information was placed in the same computer as actually 'protected information' (by IBM's and everyone else's accounts), it, too becomes protected. This is the case, for example, with regards to JFS, which IBM developed outside of AIX first.
Their copyright infringement claims don't really affect Linux since it has to do with IBM using AIX after SCOX revoked IBM's irrevocable license. Anyone want to correct my understanding? I'm not sure how close IBM developed ideas have to be to 'protect information' to also become protected; for example, it may become protected if a person that works in AIX developed it.
Since IBM purposefully destroyed evidence, SCO wants a ruling in their favor that it's ok to purposefully manufacture evidence. That would balance things out, right?
I think it's something like this:
You're honor, you're probably wondering why we don't have any evidence of IBM's wrongs against us after three years of claims and litigation, well, it's BECAUSE THEY DESTROYED THE EVIDENCE! and we think you should just assume that they are guilty of wronging us and force them to write out a check to us in the order of $5,000,000,000.00. Thank you, your honor, it's been a pleasure working with you.
... who would rather see Americans live under constant surveillance with no actual freedom than have one single person stand a chance of being killed...
Sheet. Didn't thousands if not millions of Americans more or less willfully die for the right of Americans to live freely and not under surveillance? Hell, I'd die if I knew that would be what I were doing.
Our government sure doesn't like competition, hey?
I think it's time I ran for president and did some serious housecleaning in the USPTO.
I have a hypothesis that well-meaning folk who run for government to do great things can't resist the temptations of power and money and become corporation-loving, lying, cheating, stealing, morally corrupt, freedom-hating pricks who look at normal people as nothing but stupid, potential thieves once they get there. So be careful.
Microsoft will go through the motions, make announcements, hire some people, make more announcements, show a demo, make more announcements... but when it comes time to compete, they will do the only thing they know how to do:
Buy off a company who actually has something to show for their efforts!"
I don't believe a change of this magnitude throughout the marketing industry is possible.
Enough scantily clad women and I'm there!
Im suprised how microsoft keeps getting away with it.
Dude, how old are you? $40,000,000,000.00+ can buy your way out of jail anytime in this country.
I can almost imagine the US going to war with other countries that "don't have the same copyright laws as us".
Since we already used the WMD line, which one do you suppose Dubya would use this time? "We have evidence that they are supporting terrorism. And we are doing the right thing by bombing them and if you dare question us, well, you're for the terrorists and off with your head!"
... the reason? who knows..
I think it's because Dubya wants us to declare him King George.
"You do realize that deleting the data could jeopardize our national security, right?"
I read your post half a dozen times or so and but I can't tell. Do you charge your loved one for making her happy? (I know, I know, I'm making a few assumptions here.)
The average person also doesn't get to haggle over their punishment.
Hey, I was just kidding, it should be RPM based!
based off Debian, of course.
What costs does Sony have at that point?
Lawyers to sue copyright infringing teenagers! Duh.
The game is rigged, sure enough, just as long as we sit down, shut up, and don't vote. I don't care if you disagree with me, I just want you to vote.
Here's why voting won't matter:
The average person is "stupid." By stupid I mean that while the average person probably graduated out of high school, maybe college, can maintain a job and raise a family, they are unable to follow a logical argument. I personally think the education system is rigged to make sure this is true.
The problem then arises because politicians, both the donkeys and the elephans, know this and also know that the since the average person can't follow a logical argument, they can then direct people to do things (i.e. vote for them) by appealing to their emotions, especially fear. They can then take advantage of the old dilemma of fear vs security, and promise security in return for their freedoms.
In short, people like Rove are experts at manipulating people who can't follow a logical argument thus truth won't do any good against these experts of deceptions. Thus voting is a waste of my time.
Your comment reminded me about how we put up with our government in spite of the shortcomings. Federal Reserve? DMCA? Bush?
Revolutions are tough aren't they? I think it's because the first ones to stick their necks out end up getting in some kind of trouble every time.