PJ's response covers the POWER issue, because that was the subject of her stories. The reason it is the subject of her stories is due to SCO's proposed 4th amended complaint, which seeks to argue that IBM released AIX on Power without their permission.
Of course, you can be forgiven for thinking this is peripheral, because Orlofsky's story doesn't mention it at all. Like PJ, I'm not at all clear what he thinks he's rebutting in his rebuttal.
However, I agree that it isn't a very good putdown.
Um, I hate to break it to you, AC, but the code doesn't give a flying fuck which browser you use to render it, and the people who post comments (ie, the people with the raging hardon) almost certainly didn't write the code that fails to render properly.
> Never had that problem with MSIE!
Neither have I. It was the spyware, adware and various other malware that MSIE lets in that caused me to swap.
> Did you know that PJ has no financial interests in > ANY of the litigants involved in SCO v World?
Not the litigants, no. However, there was a little problem of her involvement with an operation called OSRM, that was seeking to make a dollar by shilling for Linux insurance.
You'll have heard of OSRM, because that's the organization that Steve Ballmer and SCOX have been citing as recently supporting the case that Linux is full of potential intellectual property liabilities. 228 potential patent violations at last count -- but pay us and we'll protect you.
(Now where have I heard *that* line before?)
Granted, she's just resigned from OSRM, but any attempt to discuss the fact that she was working for a FUD factory on Groklaw would get you banned.
> That is what is called 'Clean Hands'!
Mmmmm. I've got another term for it myself. It doesn't resemble yours in the slightest.
As to whether Al Petrofsky is a troll or not, you can see by his recommendation ratings on SCOX, the Yahoo stock discussion board, that he's the third highest rated poster on the board for the quality of his contributions to the discussion -- usually involving as much unpaid effort as the work is linked to in the original article.
You can see Al's rec level on SCOX here:
http://yah.warmcat.com/index.php
Al did have an account of his struggles with PJ on his website, but I can't see it at the moment. Anybody got a link?
Anyway, while you're on warmcat though, you might want to browse the Grokwar discussions on SCOX and CKX, indexed from Yahouvre for your reading pleasure.
In the absence of Al's story, here's a very similar account from another, similarly highly respected ex-Groklaw poster's experience with PJ and her peculiar attitude to things like Open Source and the Creative Commons license, along with links to discussions in other sections of the open source community about the problems there:
http://www.finchhaven.com/TSCOG/
Make your own mind up, and don't let the red dress fanbois make it for you.
That's a perfect cue for that predictable boneheaded poster to chime in about how we'd *all* be speaking German over here if it wasn't for your brave GI's back in WWII.
Re:What's the point?
on
Internet Hunting
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Hunt, don't hunt -- personally, I couldn't give a shit either way, but this statement is just so spurious...
> It may or may not be noble on absolute terms, but > I personally I think hunting a wild animal gives > it far more dignity relative to livestock raised > solely for slaughter.
To that statement reads as equivalent to this:
"It may not be noble on absolute terms, but I personally think that stalking and raping a woman gives her more dignity relative to women who are raised solely for arranged marriages."
Why can't you just be honest? You don't give a shit about the animals. Animals are dumb inferior beasts, you enjoy blowing them away with from a distance with a firearm, and you're going to continue to do so.
> What they're doing, if they're doing it, is
> knowingly and willfully blocking access to
> information, simply because that information
> happens to be controversial.
What exactly do you think is controversial about Lynndie England and Abu Ghraib? These photographs have been shown in all of the major news media everywhere in the world -- and the Abu Ghraib images actually show up if you Google from the UK.
Perhaps you mean 'controversial' in the same way that Stalin regarded photographs of Trotsky as controversial?
> and any moronic idiot that is given mod points > that mods an anonymous post should never again > be given anything.
Surely that depends on whether you think mod points are allocated to assist overcompetitive nerds to rack up their Karma scores, or whether you think the point is to increase the visibility of interesting and insightful articles.
I note that *you* posted as an Anonymous Coward. Perhaps there's some significance in that, but I'm fucked if I can figure out what it might be. Fear of the mods yourself, perhaps?
A bulk mailer that uses open proxies on other people's machines? Proxies that have been opened by viruses or whatever?
> Do you think online publications and retailers use > Outlook or PINE to tell you about the latest > article that has been released or their newest > products to subscribers on a legitimate opt in > list?
*shrug*
I assume that if they have even half a clue, they'd hire people who know how to run proper mailing list software.
It's mostly free and works automatically, without much need for user involvement.
However, what it *won't* do, is make it easy for you to abuse other people's resources.
> And yes, legally, spamming is alright and > phishing is not.
OK, I've just looked at your website. You're either an imbecile or a troll or both, and I'm wasting my time and energy talking to you, so I'll stop now.
> I agree, its unfortunate when a tool designed for > one purpose is used for another, but he is surly > not aiding and abetting anyone as he has no way to > prevent such a illegitimate and/or illegal use. > And yes, I think Kazaa and a few other P2P > services should go away for similar reasons.
I'm not sure that I'm understanding you here. Are you saying that its OK to write spamtools, because they may have a legitimate use, but you think that Kazaa et. al. should be banned?
> By your logic of blaming the toolmaker should > someone use their creation it improperly
What do you suppose the proper use of this programme actually is? The author admits he wrote it for sending spam. Are you suggesting spamming is OK, but phishing is beyond the pale?
Slashdot Mirror
That'd explain Eric's big fat ass: it's an inherited tendency.
PJ's response covers the POWER issue, because that
was the subject of her stories. The reason it is the
subject of her stories is due to SCO's proposed 4th
amended complaint, which seeks to argue that IBM
released AIX on Power without their permission.
Of course, you can be forgiven for thinking this is
peripheral, because Orlofsky's story doesn't mention
it at all. Like PJ, I'm not at all clear what he
thinks he's rebutting in his rebuttal.
However, I agree that it isn't a very good putdown.
Hardly a putdown at all, in fact.
Not forgetting:
http://www.google.com/search?q=buttney+spears
Car?
There are days when I wish I could squat over my CEO's *face*.
The poster should have known the storm this would unleash.
That Li'l Brudder. He's got the heart of a champion.
You can make it Li'l Brudder. You just keep twisting along.
Um, I hate to break it to you, AC, but the code doesn't give a flying fuck which browser you use to render it, and the people who post comments (ie, the people with the raging hardon) almost certainly didn't write the code that fails to render properly.
> Never had that problem with MSIE!
Neither have I. It was the spyware, adware and various other malware that MSIE lets in that caused me to swap.
Perhaps they should get their partners in crime over at the SCO group to help out?
They're a UNIX software house, aren't they? Surely they should be able to produce all of the apps that SUN needs?
<pregnant pause>
Bwahahahahahahahah!
> Uh, more like note that the "Rules of Robotics"
> don't apply in real life
Pah.
Next you'll be trying to tell us that this isn't
going to be an army made up of Benders, and
robot dogs that fire bees from their mouths.
What kind of no-fun army would that be?
He's just an inbred, three-nippled cousin-fucker.
It always helps when you own the company that employs you...
> You didnt hear this from me, but Bill
> Gates actually runs MaTinE.
Yeah, nobody else had the bandwidth and the disk space we needed till Bill came along.
I wish the damn thing didn't run on Windows 2003 Server though....
In 1937, the US Federal Government passed the Marijuana Tax Act.
Do let me know when I'll be free to start smoking marijuana, won't you?
> There's a system that doesn't suck?
Not according to these guys
> PJ is very religious, Al is gay. PJ banishes Al.
Hang on a second, let me get this straight:
PJ says to Big Gay Al, "You will respec' my authoru-tah!" and hits him with her nightstick.
So Cartman, I mean, PJ, banishes Big Gay Al to Big Gay Al's Animal Sanctuary over on:
http://www.ip-wars.net/
"Oh my God! They've killed John Gabriel's Grokposts!"
This is the *first* time I've ever said 'I wish I had mod points so that I could mod that post up.'
If I had them, you'd have gotten all five -- a/c or not.
Thanks for the first laugh I've ever had over this story.
> Did you know that PJ has no financial interests in
> ANY of the litigants involved in SCO v World?
Not the litigants, no. However, there was a little problem of her involvement with an operation called OSRM, that was seeking to make a dollar by shilling for Linux insurance.
You'll have heard of OSRM, because that's the organization that Steve Ballmer and SCOX have been citing as recently supporting the case that Linux is full of potential intellectual property liabilities. 228 potential patent violations at last count -- but pay us and we'll protect you.
(Now where have I heard *that* line before?)
Granted, she's just resigned from OSRM, but any attempt to discuss the fact that she was working for a FUD factory on Groklaw would get you banned.
> That is what is called 'Clean Hands'!
Mmmmm. I've got another term for it myself. It doesn't resemble yours in the slightest.
> But the question is how do you fix it?
Groklaw has been forked:
http://www.ip-wars.net/
Here's why:
http://www.ip-wars.net/section/grok
As to whether Al Petrofsky is a troll or not, you can see by his recommendation ratings on SCOX, the Yahoo stock discussion board, that he's the third highest rated poster on the board for the quality of his contributions to the discussion -- usually involving as much unpaid effort as the work is linked to in the original article.
You can see Al's rec level on SCOX here:
http://yah.warmcat.com/index.php
Al did have an account of his struggles with PJ on his website, but I can't see it at the moment. Anybody got a link?
Anyway, while you're on warmcat though, you might want to browse the Grokwar discussions on SCOX and CKX, indexed from Yahouvre for your reading pleasure.
In the absence of Al's story, here's a very similar account from another, similarly highly respected ex-Groklaw poster's experience with PJ and her peculiar attitude to things like Open Source and the Creative Commons license, along with links to discussions in other sections of the open source community about the problems there:
http://www.finchhaven.com/TSCOG/
Make your own mind up, and don't let the red dress fanbois make it for you.
That's a perfect cue for that predictable boneheaded poster to chime in about how we'd *all* be speaking German over here if it wasn't for your brave GI's back in WWII.
Hunt, don't hunt -- personally, I couldn't give a shit either way, but this statement is just so spurious...
> It may or may not be noble on absolute terms, but
> I personally I think hunting a wild animal gives
> it far more dignity relative to livestock raised
> solely for slaughter.
To that statement reads as equivalent to this:
"It may not be noble on absolute terms, but I personally think that stalking and raping a woman gives her more dignity relative to women who are raised solely for arranged marriages."
Why can't you just be honest? You don't give a shit about the animals. Animals are dumb inferior beasts, you enjoy blowing them away with from a distance with a firearm, and you're going to continue to do so.
> What they're doing, if they're doing it, is > knowingly and willfully blocking access to > information, simply because that information > happens to be controversial. What exactly do you think is controversial about Lynndie England and Abu Ghraib? These photographs have been shown in all of the major news media everywhere in the world -- and the Abu Ghraib images actually show up if you Google from the UK. Perhaps you mean 'controversial' in the same way that Stalin regarded photographs of Trotsky as controversial?
> and any moronic idiot that is given mod points
> that mods an anonymous post should never again
> be given anything.
Surely that depends on whether you think mod points are allocated to assist overcompetitive nerds to rack up their Karma scores, or whether you think the point is to increase the visibility of interesting and insightful articles.
I note that *you* posted as an Anonymous Coward. Perhaps there's some significance in that, but I'm fucked if I can figure out what it might be. Fear of the mods yourself, perhaps?
I think you meant to write shit-e
But malnutrition isn't the same thing as starvation. This may just mean that in 2001, 3,454 people existed solely on a diet of Cheesy Poofs and Coke.
> I see nothing wrong with writing a bulk mailer.
A bulk mailer that uses open proxies on other people's machines? Proxies that have been opened by viruses or whatever?
> Do you think online publications and retailers use
> Outlook or PINE to tell you about the latest
> article that has been released or their newest
> products to subscribers on a legitimate opt in
> list?
*shrug*
I assume that if they have even half a clue, they'd hire people who know how to run proper mailing list software.
It's mostly free and works automatically, without much need for user involvement.
However, what it *won't* do, is make it easy for you to abuse other people's resources.
> And yes, legally, spamming is alright and
> phishing is not.
OK, I've just looked at your website. You're either an imbecile or a troll or both, and I'm wasting my time and energy talking to you, so I'll stop now.
> I agree, its unfortunate when a tool designed for
> one purpose is used for another, but he is surly
> not aiding and abetting anyone as he has no way to
> prevent such a illegitimate and/or illegal use.
> And yes, I think Kazaa and a few other P2P
> services should go away for similar reasons.
I'm not sure that I'm understanding you here. Are you saying that its OK to write spamtools, because they may have a legitimate use, but you think that Kazaa et. al. should be banned?
> By your logic of blaming the toolmaker should
> someone use their creation it improperly
What do you suppose the proper use of this programme actually is? The author admits he wrote it for sending spam. Are you suggesting spamming is OK, but phishing is beyond the pale?