That's where you are wrong. I reread it and it still does not say anything about copyrights. The only text in the minutes is about what IS transfered. You would think if the want to keep something specific, like copyrights, they would explicitly mention it at the least. That's what I find as glaringly obvious, that it wasn't mentioned in the context of everything else that was.
Yea, thats why the terrorists really took the trade centers down. they were screwwing up the climate and blocking the wind in the middle east, causing it to be a desert, (or is that dessert;).
Really though, this is a rediculous arguement. How many turbines would you have to put up to equal the wind stopping power of one face of the Sears tower or the petronis towers? This is so dumb. It suggestes that in taking down trees, (removing friction) and putting up a wind turbine (adding friction) that we unbalance things. lol.
Apparently I am stupid enough for that jury. I think that it clearly states their intention of transfering Unix to SCO. What you are suggesting is that they said, "hey here is my flashlight, use it as you like, but I get to keep the batteries." To suggest that the deliniation is intended without having it explicitely expressed is what is stupid here. The obviously went out of their way to state important facts in that meeting and yet the the only text found relating to the transfer of UNIX states that it is to be transfered. Are you saying that what wasn't stated is more important? That would be a pretty foolish board if they didn't state the important things regarding the sale and purposefully picked at the unimportant things. That seems like a stupid arguement to me.
IT also seems to me that the document they submitted states their intent to transfer Unix to SCO, not the other way around. The bracketed box noted in the filing even states that novell will retain its copyrights and trademarks EXCEPT for UNIX and UNIXware. Hmm. seems pretty clear to me. I guess they just haven't paid the lawyers enough yet to put on their glasses.
I see your point. I didn't get that out of your first post or the article. This one is much more well spoken and uncovers the underlying problem. Thank you for enlightening me as to the real issue at hand, MS passing liability to the end user without giving the end user the ability to see or understand what they are potentially liable for.
Some things just aren't fair in life. My sister got a traffic ticket once for failing to stop at a stop sign. Problem was is that someone had stolen the stop sign. The court said that ignorance of the standing law, that all traffic must come to a complete stop at that intersect, was not an excuse. Just because the sign wasn't there did not releve her of the requirement to obey the law and therefore she was still guilty. because the failure to obey the law resulted in an accident, it was an aggrivated offense and she actually lost her license for a year. (perhaps her argueing with the judge contributed to the license revocation too). It just goes to show that what you can't see and don't know about can certainly hurt you.
The only thing that confuses me, or perhaps scares me is this. Wouldn't open source then mean that you have access to all of the underlying code and therefore are ultimately responsible for whatever infringements may lie therein, as opposed to the manufacturer of the code being liable? Doesn't it just solidify the fact that the end user is the infringer of the patent/copyright/secret/etc. as opposed to the maker of the product? Where does all of this legal nonsense stop? Can I use any software and be truely comfortable about my chances of being sued in the future without studying the source code myself?
hmm. Perhaps I should tell my publisher that he had better meet with you before he publishes my next book then. You certainly have a better handle on the pulse of the reader than I ever did. I am sure that your writings and iterations must certainly have outsold anything I have ever written. I bow to your obvious godliness. I certainly didn't understand that replying in a slashdot forum required precise writing skills. I stand corrected. I should have used the spell checker on the web page and clicked on the grammer checker too. If you get your thrills out of grading english usage on the slashdot forums, then your life is truely pitiful and I am certainly sure that you are not married. I am truely sorry for making such an obviously false accusation. Perhaps you should work on your social skills whilst I run my reply through the grammer checker. (Oops, clicked submit first again, sorry bud!)
What the purpose does a swipe like that serve? Did your wife kick you in the nuts on the way out of the house this morning?
Secondly, I don't claim to be at the cuting edge of anything. Please refer to a written or a transcribed spoken statement I made, and provide proof of it's legitacy prior to issuing your slander.
Secondly, I would challenge you to find either statement, "here here" or "hear hear" in an "old" dictionary anyway.
Prison was never meant to be a deterent, but a means to rehabilitation. If you want a deterent, cut off a body part or take a life. Secondly, what good does it do to stick someone in prison? Now we have to pay to house and feed the guy too. I would prefer that the person have to donate their services to the government or something where we recoup our losses in some fashion. Prison terms only wreck the lives of the family members of the person sent to prison and cause the senders to pay the hefty costs of incarceration. We really need to rethink our justice system in this country. For being so advanced, we certainly don't show it when it comes to doling out justice.
If infringing code is found in open source, it is already too late, you are liable at THAT point in time. Yes, open source has those problems and is probably at a greater risk than closed code because of it. If MS is being sued for IP infringement, what would stop the litigous party from going after Linux next, or any other code that uses TCP/IP. Nothing. Laugh all you want but your laughter will stop short when you are the next target for this stupid infringement stuff that is going on.
I boils down to freedom to speak or act freely. If I write down something that can be used by a processor, I am likely to have stepped on a patent somewhere. I can be sued and my ability to earn a living can be quashed permenantly. Sooner or later, a CPU will come along that can process the spoke english language and use it to do it's job. What will happen then? If you speak out loud will you have violated the patent on the spoken language processor's coding language? Will we have to invent another language so that we can speak freely then? We will have to work out this issue csooner or later. In the mean time, it helps to have people who can see the forest throught the trees.
If the writter of this article did even a 15 second google search, they would find that AT&T, Verizon and Vonage are all already selling VoIP services. Secondly, this is not going to result in free phone service or anything close. You may se a very small reduction in your basic serve rate, but that's it. Most of the major carriers are trying to set the service up to work like cell service and charge you for minutes used, or overage minutes. Others make the rate per month high enouhg to make up for the lost long distance charges. Free, no. It will only end up lining the pockets of the executives in the companies as the profit margin increases for them. It certainly will not save you much money and will never end upp in the hands of the employess of the companies either, (with the exception of the executives).
Yea my company dropped all compensation, including health benefits. At least I still have a job while many of my friends are either unemployed, working for peanuts or at another trade altogether. IT employment sucks nationally right now with employers feeling empowered and grabbing back everything they can while singing that they have to because of their bottom line. My company has posted the largest profit statement ever and still say that they have to cut to survive. Two faced talking is more common than ever in this industry.
Why do people completely discount other people's point of view strictly on the basis of grammer or spelling. It is the same as judging someone based on their race, no difference, (Maybe we should gas all of the people how can't spell well on the fly or don't know what a BR tag is.)
Should this surprise anyone? I think not, and yet it seems to. I find that to be most distressing. We can apply rules to how one persons brain functions and how associations work differently for that person. Yet we cannot seem to bring ourselves to apply the same simply rules to our own students in school. Everyones brain does not work the same. Different people remember things based on different methods of association. What works for some, does not work for others. Yet if one student can't 'get it', we send them to the office for being 'bad'. Some people need multiple points of association to remember one thing, some need one point to rememeber many things. The later is typically an 'autistic' trait because the knowledge is locked behind a string of associations that can appear as not having anything to do with each other. Yet as in the case of Kim Peek, he has a whole different method for recalling these associations based on a completely different method of retrieval. Shame on our educators for STILL trying to force people into boxes after we have supposedly already 'learned' these lessons from people such as mozart and einstein.
Ken Jennings lost about a month ago. You are watching the TV airings of shows taped in the past. Trust me, he lost and went home, albiet very happy with the amount of cash he had in his pocket.
rewritting code does NOT circumvence copywrite, trademark or patent. Legally it is even more difficult to circumvence a signed license agreement, as demonstrated by the upholding of the EULA last week in court, posted here on Slashdot. The previous comment stands, MS would not do this without risking it's ability to continue as a viable business. In that light, I have a hard time believing this gutteral rumor.
Legal precedents ARE NOT set by out of court settlements. That is the big problem with them. The suits continue without any legal platform until a judge rules in a case somewhere. Just like when RIAA started writting letters to ISP's demanding names of subscribers they wanted to sue, they continued the practice without anyone stopping them until verizon stood up and forced the courts to make a decision on this practice. Only after the 'legal' precedent was set did the action on RIAA's part actually stop. NOw they have to go to court themselves to garner a supeona before enumerating the suit with a defendant's name. The only way to legitimize a claim is to have it heard in court. Otherwise it is illigegitimate and without precednce. That is actually exactly the way MS wants it too. They don't want precedence set and therefore making it easier for them to be sued. NOw the next person who presents a suit carries the entire burden of proof and evidence where legal precedence would provide much of that for you.
The companies spew out as much crap about how bad each others products are as the users of those products do. Nothing is proven on either end in my eyes.
Written by someone who doesn't understand how it all works and posted by a fool who agrees.
NO one in their right mind is going to 'give' apple source code to 'port' games to apple. It's all about money. And if there aren't enough people to support the staff to rewrite the code to a risc processor, then it isn't going to happen. Hence the situation today.
The second major blunder in this post is that they assume a 32 bit processor is a 32 bit processor. NOT! completely different instruction sets and pipelines. Code has to be nearly completely rewritten to get it to the other type. Graphics text and sound files are about the only exception. Core code is tossed.
The third assertation is that 'they are both 32 bit' machines. NOpe. Apple is 64 bit and CISC processors from AMD and Intel are moving that way now although the majority are still 32 bit. There again the way these chips (Apple RISC vs AMD CISC), work are so radically different from each other, that porting doesn't happen without a lot of cash and incentive. Neither of which are there at the moment.
Nothern, Yea next to Sockland, and Spireland
on
Tycho's Supernova
·
· Score: 1
So many spelling mistakes on this site. Spellchecker training anyone?
Slashdot Mirror
That's where you are wrong. I reread it and it still does not say anything about copyrights. The only text in the minutes is about what IS transfered. You would think if the want to keep something specific, like copyrights, they would explicitly mention it at the least. That's what I find as glaringly obvious, that it wasn't mentioned in the context of everything else that was.
Yea, thats why the terrorists really took the trade centers down. they were screwwing up the climate and blocking the wind in the middle east, causing it to be a desert, (or is that dessert ;).
Really though, this is a rediculous arguement. How many turbines would you have to put up to equal the wind stopping power of one face of the Sears tower or the petronis towers? This is so dumb. It suggestes that in taking down trees, (removing friction) and putting up a wind turbine (adding friction) that we unbalance things. lol.
No, they were by Jayson Blair of the New York Times.
Apparently I am stupid enough for that jury. I think that it clearly states their intention of transfering Unix to SCO. What you are suggesting is that they said, "hey here is my flashlight, use it as you like, but I get to keep the batteries." To suggest that the deliniation is intended without having it explicitely expressed is what is stupid here. The obviously went out of their way to state important facts in that meeting and yet the the only text found relating to the transfer of UNIX states that it is to be transfered. Are you saying that what wasn't stated is more important? That would be a pretty foolish board if they didn't state the important things regarding the sale and purposefully picked at the unimportant things. That seems like a stupid arguement to me.
IT also seems to me that the document they submitted states their intent to transfer Unix to SCO, not the other way around. The bracketed box noted in the filing even states that novell will retain its copyrights and trademarks EXCEPT for UNIX and UNIXware. Hmm. seems pretty clear to me. I guess they just haven't paid the lawyers enough yet to put on their glasses.
I see your point. I didn't get that out of your first post or the article. This one is much more well spoken and uncovers the underlying problem. Thank you for enlightening me as to the real issue at hand, MS passing liability to the end user without giving the end user the ability to see or understand what they are potentially liable for.
Some things just aren't fair in life. My sister got a traffic ticket once for failing to stop at a stop sign. Problem was is that someone had stolen the stop sign. The court said that ignorance of the standing law, that all traffic must come to a complete stop at that intersect, was not an excuse. Just because the sign wasn't there did not releve her of the requirement to obey the law and therefore she was still guilty. because the failure to obey the law resulted in an accident, it was an aggrivated offense and she actually lost her license for a year. (perhaps her argueing with the judge contributed to the license revocation too). It just goes to show that what you can't see and don't know about can certainly hurt you.
The only thing that confuses me, or perhaps scares me is this. Wouldn't open source then mean that you have access to all of the underlying code and therefore are ultimately responsible for whatever infringements may lie therein, as opposed to the manufacturer of the code being liable? Doesn't it just solidify the fact that the end user is the infringer of the patent/copyright/secret/etc. as opposed to the maker of the product? Where does all of this legal nonsense stop? Can I use any software and be truely comfortable about my chances of being sued in the future without studying the source code myself?
hmm. Perhaps I should tell my publisher that he had better meet with you before he publishes my next book then. You certainly have a better handle on the pulse of the reader than I ever did. I am sure that your writings and iterations must certainly have outsold anything I have ever written. I bow to your obvious godliness. I certainly didn't understand that replying in a slashdot forum required precise writing skills. I stand corrected. I should have used the spell checker on the web page and clicked on the grammer checker too. If you get your thrills out of grading english usage on the slashdot forums, then your life is truely pitiful and I am certainly sure that you are not married. I am truely sorry for making such an obviously false accusation. Perhaps you should work on your social skills whilst I run my reply through the grammer checker. (Oops, clicked submit first again, sorry bud!)
What the purpose does a swipe like that serve? Did your wife kick you in the nuts on the way out of the house this morning?
Secondly, I don't claim to be at the cuting edge of anything. Please refer to a written or a transcribed spoken statement I made, and provide proof of it's legitacy prior to issuing your slander.
Secondly, I would challenge you to find either statement, "here here" or "hear hear" in an "old" dictionary anyway.
Prison was never meant to be a deterent, but a means to rehabilitation. If you want a deterent, cut off a body part or take a life. Secondly, what good does it do to stick someone in prison? Now we have to pay to house and feed the guy too. I would prefer that the person have to donate their services to the government or something where we recoup our losses in some fashion. Prison terms only wreck the lives of the family members of the person sent to prison and cause the senders to pay the hefty costs of incarceration. We really need to rethink our justice system in this country. For being so advanced, we certainly don't show it when it comes to doling out justice.
If infringing code is found in open source, it is already too late, you are liable at THAT point in time. Yes, open source has those problems and is probably at a greater risk than closed code because of it. If MS is being sued for IP infringement, what would stop the litigous party from going after Linux next, or any other code that uses TCP/IP. Nothing. Laugh all you want but your laughter will stop short when you are the next target for this stupid infringement stuff that is going on.
I boils down to freedom to speak or act freely. If I write down something that can be used by a processor, I am likely to have stepped on a patent somewhere. I can be sued and my ability to earn a living can be quashed permenantly. Sooner or later, a CPU will come along that can process the spoke english language and use it to do it's job. What will happen then? If you speak out loud will you have violated the patent on the spoken language processor's coding language? Will we have to invent another language so that we can speak freely then? We will have to work out this issue csooner or later. In the mean time, it helps to have people who can see the forest throught the trees.
Well, your collection is probably worth more anyway.
Here Here! That's just too much common sense for this place!
If the writter of this article did even a 15 second google search, they would find that AT&T, Verizon and Vonage are all already selling VoIP services. Secondly, this is not going to result in free phone service or anything close. You may se a very small reduction in your basic serve rate, but that's it. Most of the major carriers are trying to set the service up to work like cell service and charge you for minutes used, or overage minutes. Others make the rate per month high enouhg to make up for the lost long distance charges. Free, no. It will only end up lining the pockets of the executives in the companies as the profit margin increases for them. It certainly will not save you much money and will never end upp in the hands of the employess of the companies either, (with the exception of the executives).
Yea my company dropped all compensation, including health benefits. At least I still have a job while many of my friends are either unemployed, working for peanuts or at another trade altogether. IT employment sucks nationally right now with employers feeling empowered and grabbing back everything they can while singing that they have to because of their bottom line. My company has posted the largest profit statement ever and still say that they have to cut to survive. Two faced talking is more common than ever in this industry.
Why do people completely discount other people's point of view strictly on the basis of grammer or spelling. It is the same as judging someone based on their race, no difference, (Maybe we should gas all of the people how can't spell well on the fly or don't know what a BR tag is.)
Get over it.
Should this surprise anyone? I think not, and yet it seems to. I find that to be most distressing. We can apply rules to how one persons brain functions and how associations work differently for that person. Yet we cannot seem to bring ourselves to apply the same simply rules to our own students in school. Everyones brain does not work the same. Different people remember things based on different methods of association. What works for some, does not work for others. Yet if one student can't 'get it', we send them to the office for being 'bad'. Some people need multiple points of association to remember one thing, some need one point to rememeber many things. The later is typically an 'autistic' trait because the knowledge is locked behind a string of associations that can appear as not having anything to do with each other. Yet as in the case of Kim Peek, he has a whole different method for recalling these associations based on a completely different method of retrieval. Shame on our educators for STILL trying to force people into boxes after we have supposedly already 'learned' these lessons from people such as mozart and einstein.
Ken Jennings lost about a month ago. You are watching the TV airings of shows taped in the past. Trust me, he lost and went home, albiet very happy with the amount of cash he had in his pocket.
rewritting code does NOT circumvence copywrite, trademark or patent. Legally it is even more difficult to circumvence a signed license agreement, as demonstrated by the upholding of the EULA last week in court, posted here on Slashdot. The previous comment stands, MS would not do this without risking it's ability to continue as a viable business. In that light, I have a hard time believing this gutteral rumor.
Legal precedents ARE NOT set by out of court settlements. That is the big problem with them. The suits continue without any legal platform until a judge rules in a case somewhere. Just like when RIAA started writting letters to ISP's demanding names of subscribers they wanted to sue, they continued the practice without anyone stopping them until verizon stood up and forced the courts to make a decision on this practice. Only after the 'legal' precedent was set did the action on RIAA's part actually stop. NOw they have to go to court themselves to garner a supeona before enumerating the suit with a defendant's name. The only way to legitimize a claim is to have it heard in court. Otherwise it is illigegitimate and without precednce. That is actually exactly the way MS wants it too. They don't want precedence set and therefore making it easier for them to be sued. NOw the next person who presents a suit carries the entire burden of proof and evidence where legal precedence would provide much of that for you.
The companies spew out as much crap about how bad each others products are as the users of those products do. Nothing is proven on either end in my eyes.
lol, see how annoying it is? (or is that annoieing).
Written by someone who doesn't understand how it all works and posted by a fool who agrees.
NO one in their right mind is going to 'give' apple source code to 'port' games to apple. It's all about money. And if there aren't enough people to support the staff to rewrite the code to a risc processor, then it isn't going to happen. Hence the situation today.
The second major blunder in this post is that they assume a 32 bit processor is a 32 bit processor. NOT! completely different instruction sets and pipelines. Code has to be nearly completely rewritten to get it to the other type. Graphics text and sound files are about the only exception. Core code is tossed.
The third assertation is that 'they are both 32 bit' machines. NOpe. Apple is 64 bit and CISC processors from AMD and Intel are moving that way now although the majority are still 32 bit. There again the way these chips (Apple RISC vs AMD CISC), work are so radically different from each other, that porting doesn't happen without a lot of cash and incentive. Neither of which are there at the moment.
So many spelling mistakes on this site. Spellchecker training anyone?
What is SPIM anyways? Spelling Problems of Immature Moderator's (SPIM)?
That Pastromi capital, PASTROMI not astronomy! ;)