I think you meant to write 'chicken magnet'. It would be perfect for a homosexual paedophile cruising for thirteen year old boys.
On the other hand, I don't think any woman I've ever met would be seen dead in the passenger seat o this. Unless she happened to be into thirteen year old boys as well, of course.
they've hired a guy who knows all the weaknesses of Linux
That's a pretty remarkable salesman they've got there then. No wonder Microsoft have hired him -- he'd be totally unlike any other salesman I've ever met.
"Weaknesses? They aren't weaknesses, they're *features*. My other customers can't live without those features.
he's merely found a somewhat smaller, louder herd to join
Not exactly. It's one thing to hold a minority view -- particularly one that can be accused of being unpatriotic -- it's quite another thing to express that view publicly.
Groupthink is not the exclusive domain of the majority.
Yes, but the more significant contradiction is why he should resign from a community group to protest the actions of the military.
My guess is for the publicity -- his attempt to make people think and talk about the issue. In fact, I don't even have to guess because he says as much in the interview.
I'm at a total loss to understand.
I don't see why. After all, he's achieved his objective with regard to you, hasn't he?
We don't need pansy ass babies like that developing the next generation operating system.
You think it takes a pansy ass baby to express dissent in a country where dissenters are regarded as unpatriotic and verging on the treasonous? I disagree. I think it takes a lot more bravery than it does to just go along with the herd -- even if he does happen to be wrong.
Also, it must be nice to have the ability to take and leave jobs at a whim for such stupid reasons in a job market as poor as this one.
What on earth makes you think that the president of a Linux User Group is a salaried position and not just a shitload of unpaid work?
Hey, I'm not even a coder so it's no skin off my nose.
You don't sue individuals for the same kind of money as you sue huge great faceless corporations for.
That's a fair point, but even so, in intellectual property cases, the companys that are doing the suing will tend to throw all of their resources at the case because they're operating out of a sense of 'use it or lose it'. $25,000 tends to be nothing to such companies, so you're not fighting in any sort of level playing field even if you have the insurance.
I'm not sure that $25,000 will go very far in funding any sort of real legal dispute. I don't know what IP lawyers cost in the USA, but say they bill at around $250 an hour, that would buy you around 100 hours.
Perhaps you're right. Perhaps that is manageable for relatively small cases, where the facts aren't in dispute and there's no need for lots of discovery and depositions? I imagine this insurance firm must have looked at it and decided what it took, and I suppose -- with it being their business and all -- that they have more of a clue than I do.
Even so, I do wonder whether people wouldn't be better off being covered by some sort of less specific legal insurance that often has much higher cost ceilings?
She's not selling insurance, that's not her function
Did you R the F'ing A? Because if that isn't selling insurance, I don't know what is.
Now if she begins to put ads all over Groklaw, or shills insurance on a daily basis with no news connection, or somehow sells out, I'll be pointing it out too
So it's OK for her to use the site to shill insurance provided:
a.) She has a news hook to hang it on?
b.) She doesn't do it every day?
Like it or not, PJ now has a vested financial interest in seeing these threats against Linux continue. I believe that today's article is a perfect example of exactly how that vested interest will be shaping future coverage of this issue on Groklaw.
While I absolutely agree that you can't take anything away from PJ's efforts, this financial relationship changes things -- whether you like it or not -- and runs the risk of letting people characterise her and her website as a Linux equivalent of Laura DiDio or Rob Enderle.
And given that she's always said that Groklaw's strength is in how the community researches and unpacks these stories, I think she does that community a serious disservice by conflating her work for this insurance company, and their work on unpacking the SCO vs. IBM story.
"I guarantee there is no natural danger of flooding here, but there are rustlers out there going around causing floods and if you want to protect yourself, try this."
"Our insurance won't pay out enough for you to track down and catch the rustlers, nor will it replace the damage that the flood does, but it should just about cover you for the purchase of a cheap plastic dinghy that might get you to high ground -- if it doesn't get a puncture on the way."
I believe this is a valid bit of news for her site to cover
As do I. Unfortunately, she rapidly moves from covering the news about the kernel's cleanliness into an advertising pitch for the insurance company that now employs her.
That really is a significant departure from her previous coverage of this issue and is a sad loss of her (and Groklaw's) independence in my view.
I dunno, she keeps on telling us that Groklaw is Open Source paralegal work. Well, does that mean that the community can choose to drop these advertising pitches? If so, I vote that Groklaw loses them. What was once a genuine labour of love and anger is now tied up with support for certain business propositions and I think that's a very sad thing.
Hmmm. YANAL, are Y? In fact, I think you'll find that legal aid in the UK doesn't cover civil litigation of this sort. The taxpayer quite rightly doesn't feel that he or she has any role in funding people's lawsuits. The sole exception here is medical negligence claims, which are still legally aided due to the huge cost of bringing an action.
...and if I can't get that, there's plenty of No Win, No Fee legal beagles out there.
You misunderstand how contingency fee arrangement cases are fought. If you're an individual and you want to sue an insurance company or whatever, you may well find a lawyer prepared to act on a contingency fee basis -- though many will expect you to take out insurance to fund the case should you happen to lose in court, and you'll have to cough up around a third if you win.
However, you can't get lawyers to act on a no win, no fee basis if you're *being* sued, because there aren't any damages for them to take their success fees out of.
yep. That's just where I want to go for legal reporting - from a paralegal with a website that sells insurance on the side.
If you have that much difficulty figuring out the difference between factual reporting and commentary, I've got a very nice bridge that you might be interested in.
Just because I don't want my pornographic tastes to be known
Companies can know all they want to about my tastes in pornography -- straight, but I'm happy to look at anything quirky and weird as well, if I've never seen it before.
Personally, I just don't want the bastards making any money out of me without my active permission.
I can't remember what Baystar paid for the stock -- wasn't it around $16 a share? It's been floating at around $10 for the last few weeks, and there are strong indications that someone (probably SCO via their buyback programme) has been buying to keep the stockprice artificially high.
Here's what OSDN's investment analyst Melanie Hollands has to say on this subject in an article on IT manager's journal:
However, I do want to mention that it is possible (although I have no direct evidence at all) that this is a stock that may have been "ramped" from time to time. Stock ramping is a form of price manipulation, and occurs when some market participants act simultaneously to push up a stock price. This kind of action can be done at times when a stock price threatens to fall below, or stay below, important threshold levels such as a conversion ratio connected with a merger or convertible deal, or redemption level associated with, say, a PIPE deal.
My guess is that they've been reading the filings from IBM's lawyers, and they've just finished reading the latest one that asks for a summary judgement as soon as discovery is finished.
I imagine that SCO has shared with Baystar information about the strength of their case, and Baystar now recognizes that this summary judgement is likely to be dismissal of all SCO's charges.
I can't remember what Baystar paid for the stock -- wasn't it around $16 a share? It's been floating at around $10 for the last few weeks, and there are strong indications that someone (probably SCO via their buyback programme) has been buying to keep the stockprice artificially high.
Anyway, they've finally figured out that there isn't going to be any billion-dollar payday and it's much more likely that SCO have simply pissed their investment up against the wall fighting an unwinnable lawsuit.
Slashdot Mirror
This thing is clearly a chick magnet
I think you meant to write 'chicken magnet'. It would be perfect for a homosexual paedophile cruising for thirteen year old boys.
On the other hand, I don't think any woman I've ever met would be seen dead in the passenger seat o this. Unless she happened to be into thirteen year old boys as well, of course.
situations which require ease of use require windows.
Nah, situations which require ease of use require Macs.
Windows is for when the app you need simply isn't available for any other platform.
they've hired a guy who knows all the weaknesses of Linux
That's a pretty remarkable salesman they've got there then. No wonder Microsoft have hired him -- he'd be totally unlike any other salesman I've ever met.
"Weaknesses? They aren't weaknesses, they're *features*. My other customers can't live without those features.
Now sign here..."
he's merely found a somewhat smaller, louder herd to join
Not exactly. It's one thing to hold a minority view -- particularly one that can be accused of being unpatriotic -- it's quite another thing to express that view publicly.
Groupthink is not the exclusive domain of the majority.
Fair point.
Yes, but the more significant contradiction is why he should resign from a community group to protest the actions of the military.
My guess is for the publicity -- his attempt to make people think and talk about the issue. In fact, I don't even have to guess because he says as much in the interview.
I'm at a total loss to understand.
I don't see why. After all, he's achieved his objective with regard to you, hasn't he?
We don't need pansy ass babies like that developing the next generation operating system.
You think it takes a pansy ass baby to express dissent in a country where dissenters are regarded as unpatriotic and verging on the treasonous? I disagree. I think it takes a lot more bravery than it does to just go along with the herd -- even if he does happen to be wrong.
Also, it must be nice to have the ability to take and leave jobs at a whim for such stupid reasons in a job market as poor as this one.
What on earth makes you think that the president of a Linux User Group is a salaried position and not just a shitload of unpaid work?
Wow. I have a 135 IQ but I calculate that it would be 800 if I hadn't watched so much TV
It appears from the above statement that there was a miscalculation on your original IQ estimate.
Hope this helps.
Satanist.
I think you meant to write 'Emmenthalist', surely?
Yeah.. but no offence.. you aren't IBM.
Hey, I'm not even a coder so it's no skin off my nose.
You don't sue individuals for the same kind of money as you sue huge great faceless corporations for.
That's a fair point, but even so, in intellectual property cases, the companys that are doing the suing will tend to throw all of their resources at the case because they're operating out of a sense of 'use it or lose it'. $25,000 tends to be nothing to such companies, so you're not fighting in any sort of level playing field even if you have the insurance.
I'm not sure that $25,000 will go very far in funding any sort of real legal dispute. I don't know what IP lawyers cost in the USA, but say they bill at around $250 an hour, that would buy you around 100 hours.
Perhaps you're right. Perhaps that is manageable for relatively small cases, where the facts aren't in dispute and there's no need for lots of discovery and depositions? I imagine this insurance firm must have looked at it and decided what it took, and I suppose -- with it being their business and all -- that they have more of a clue than I do.
Even so, I do wonder whether people wouldn't be better off being covered by some sort of less specific legal insurance that often has much higher cost ceilings?
She's not selling insurance, that's not her function
Did you R the F'ing A? Because if that isn't selling insurance, I don't know what is.
Now if she begins to put ads all over Groklaw, or shills insurance on a daily basis with no news connection, or somehow sells out, I'll be pointing it out too
So it's OK for her to use the site to shill insurance provided:
a.) She has a news hook to hang it on?
b.) She doesn't do it every day?
Like it or not, PJ now has a vested financial interest in seeing these threats against Linux continue. I believe that today's article is a perfect example of exactly how that vested interest will be shaping future coverage of this issue on Groklaw.
While I absolutely agree that you can't take anything away from PJ's efforts, this financial relationship changes things -- whether you like it or not -- and runs the risk of letting people characterise her and her website as a Linux equivalent of Laura DiDio or Rob Enderle.
And given that she's always said that Groklaw's strength is in how the community researches and unpacks these stories, I think she does that community a serious disservice by conflating her work for this insurance company, and their work on unpacking the SCO vs. IBM story.
YMMV.
"I guarantee there is no natural danger of flooding here, but there are rustlers out there going around causing floods and if you want to protect yourself, try this."
"Our insurance won't pay out enough for you to track down and catch the rustlers, nor will it replace the damage that the flood does, but it should just about cover you for the purchase of a cheap plastic dinghy that might get you to high ground -- if it doesn't get a puncture on the way."
I believe this is a valid bit of news for her site to cover
As do I. Unfortunately, she rapidly moves from covering the news about the kernel's cleanliness into an advertising pitch for the insurance company that now employs her.
That really is a significant departure from her previous coverage of this issue and is a sad loss of her (and Groklaw's) independence in my view.
I dunno, she keeps on telling us that Groklaw is Open Source paralegal work. Well, does that mean that the community can choose to drop these advertising pitches? If so, I vote that Groklaw loses them. What was once a genuine labour of love and anger is now tied up with support for certain business propositions and I think that's a very sad thing.
This is hillarious. Darl's been huffing and puffing for a year trying to squeeze water out of a rock
I believe you meant to write:
"Darl's been huffing and puffing on a rock for a year now as he tries to squeeze billions out of IBM to support his crack habit."
Hope this helps.
well, there's always legal aid
...and if I can't get that, there's plenty of No Win, No Fee legal beagles out there.
Hmmm. YANAL, are Y? In fact, I think you'll find that legal aid in the UK doesn't cover civil litigation of this sort. The taxpayer quite rightly doesn't feel that he or she has any role in funding people's lawsuits. The sole exception here is medical negligence claims, which are still legally aided due to the huge cost of bringing an action.
You misunderstand how contingency fee arrangement cases are fought. If you're an individual and you want to sue an insurance company or whatever, you may well find a lawyer prepared to act on a contingency fee basis -- though many will expect you to take out insurance to fund the case should you happen to lose in court, and you'll have to cough up around a third if you win.
However, you can't get lawyers to act on a no win, no fee basis if you're *being* sued, because there aren't any damages for them to take their success fees out of.
Sorry.
$25,000 is not necessarily enough to defend every case
I suspect $25,000 is not enough to defend *any* case. That would barely cover David Boies's laundry bills.
I wonder how much IBM has spent so far -- a lot more than $25,000, I'm sure -- and the case is still at least a year short of going to trial.
Hey SCO, is that your finger in your pocket, or one big wad of crap?
If you can't tell the difference, be very, very careful when you pick your nose...
Oh, I dunno. That Jean Sammett looks kinda hot if you could just run a warm iron out over her body to get all the wrinkles out.
I hope they publish their affiliation on the study.
Heh. You think PJ is becoming the Rob Enderle of Linux, then?
Clot.
yep. That's just where I want to go for legal reporting - from a paralegal with a website that sells insurance on the side.
If you have that much difficulty figuring out the difference between factual reporting and commentary, I've got a very nice bridge that you might be interested in.
Hold a mirror behind your back, you've got "one" there and I'm sure it's big.
It's at times like this when I really miss being able to link to Goatse...
You might have one "rock" of crack, but you don't buy one rock.
Well, you might if it was as big as the rock in Will Self's story, 'A crack rock as big as The Ritz'. A rock like that would last you some time...
Well... if you do buy one rock, you quickly buy some more rocks. Some of you know what I'm talking about!
Indeed we do. Darl McBride does, anyway.
Just because I don't want my pornographic tastes to be known
Companies can know all they want to about my tastes in pornography -- straight, but I'm happy to look at anything quirky and weird as well, if I've never seen it before.
Personally, I just don't want the bastards making any money out of me without my active permission.
It's as simple as that.
Google is not a religion, a form of tantric sex
What, you mean you've never heard of the Ancient Google Genital Kiss and it's capacity to extend orgasm to over twelve hours long?
PLEASE STOP MASTURBATING ABOUT IT
If you'd ever experienced the Ancient Google Genital Kiss, you wouldn't be able to stop masturbating about it either.
Now pardon me while I go and fetch some more lube...
I can't remember what Baystar paid for the stock -- wasn't it around $16 a share? It's been floating at around $10 for the last few weeks, and there are strong indications that someone (probably SCO via their buyback programme) has been buying to keep the stockprice artificially high.
Here's what OSDN's investment analyst Melanie Hollands has to say on this subject in an article on IT manager's journal:
why is Baystar doing it now?
My guess is that they've been reading the filings from IBM's lawyers, and they've just finished reading the latest one that asks for a summary judgement as soon as discovery is finished.
I imagine that SCO has shared with Baystar information about the strength of their case, and Baystar now recognizes that this summary judgement is likely to be dismissal of all SCO's charges.
I can't remember what Baystar paid for the stock -- wasn't it around $16 a share? It's been floating at around $10 for the last few weeks, and there are strong indications that someone (probably SCO via their buyback programme) has been buying to keep the stockprice artificially high.
Anyway, they've finally figured out that there isn't going to be any billion-dollar payday and it's much more likely that SCO have simply pissed their investment up against the wall fighting an unwinnable lawsuit.
It's the beginning of the end, I think...