I find it difficult to see how you can deduct such a position from the argument that I'm making. I'm not arguing that your life is enriched by something that you don't enjoy, I'm arguing that the attraction of a whole range of stuff isn't immediately apparent. Quite frequently, the greatest things in life are actually quite difficult to the naive and inexperienced brain and a real appreciation of these things only comes with time and effort. Great music, great literature and great art often falls into this category.
By taking the time and effort to acquaint yourself with these things, you may well come to appreciate them and by doing so, your life *will* be enriched. What is it about this concept that you find so difficult to grasp?
And although it wasn't the argument that I'm making, there certainly are those who would argue that one's life is enriched by a closer and more intimate personal relationship with certain types of pain -- and no, I don't have any disagreement with their argument either.
Yes.. a pump is used.. but only to keep the water liquid.
Rubbish. The pump is used to drive the water through the coffee at sufficient pressure (between 8 and 9 bar) to emulsify the oils and ensure proper extraction. If the pump serves to keep the water liquid, how do you account for the fact that until quite recently most 'proper' (ie, commercial) espresso machines used levers that relied on either springs or muscle power to ensure the sufficient pressure?
I own a Gaggia, and I can assure you that the pump doesn't even start until I begin to pull a shot. When my boiler *is* full of steam (because I've been steaming milk for cappucinos), you have to drain it off and pull a few blank shots before the water is cool enough for another espresso.
But if you don't like the stuff, you won't be missing out on anything.
I'm not sure that I agree. If you don't like air travel, would you say that you aren't missing out on anything because you haven't been exposed to the rich tapestry that is life outside the country where you live?
You might be able to convince yourself that you weren't, but I think that your life would be enriched by the experience, regardless of whether or not you don't feel you've missed out.
I can't stand mushrooms: does that make me deprived?
Not deprived, exactly. And there's obviously stuff I don't like as well, but that doesn't invalidate my point. For example, I don't drink alcohol, primarily because I don't like the taste much, but I know that I'm missing out on a huge range of sensory and gustatory experience because of my lack of appreciation.
I'm pretty sure that *my* life would be a great deal richer if I enjoyed wine and was therefore able to sample and appreciate the differences between a bordeaux and a beaujolais, a medoc and a merlot, and my appreciation of life and the pleasure I take in the world in general would be amplified when I found a particularly stunning example of any of those types.
The truth is, any narrowing of one's social or sensory repetoire is rarely life-enhancing. Move it away from food and drink. I know people who don't use a computer and never have. They don't 'miss' the experience either. Would you really say that they aren't missing out on anything?
I'm also allergic to peanuts. Yet there are thousands of other plants I can ingest instead, so I'm not particularly saddened by these things.
Coffee isn't like peanuts at all. It's more like saying 'I don't like Chinese food, but I'm not missing out on anything because I can still eat Italian.' Just because you don't happen to like Pizza, you shouldn't deprive you of the whole of a vast and diverse cuisine.
One thing to keep in mind about the 3 to 4 cup recommended limit -- they mean "cup" as in the liquid measure, ie. 250 mL.
So if I drink ristrettos (14 - 18 grams of ground coffee, concentrated into one ounce of espresso), I should be able to drink a whole load of those without any adverse effects, right?
especially true of steam-brewed coffees, such as espresso
Uh, espresso isn't a 'steam-brewed coffee'. Espresso is usually made by forcing hot water (between 190-204 degrees F) through coffee grounds at around 9 bars of pressure. This is generally achieved by using a pump.
Very cheap, crappy machines (those costing less than $100) sometimes use steam, but it's unlikely that anyone who knows coffee would describe the stuff that comes out of them as espresso.
That should read, "Go to your nearest independant place near a college campus" for cheap, strung-out coffee and obnoxious, pretentious patrons.
Such places *do* tend to be full of obnoxious, pretentious patrons, but the attraction of such places is that the coffee that they sell is supposed to be of very high quality, freshly roasted and with careful attention paid to serving. It's not always the case though, I'll admit.
Look at me, mama! I'm a college boy now! I drink 'expresso' with the girlies! w00t!
Heh. If *you* were a college boy, you'd know that the stuff was actually called 'espresso'. And don't knock it. He'll *still* be fucking those fine, perfumed college-educated girls when Mrs. Lambent is too worn out to give you any, because of her long day tendering the hogs.
If you want REALLY good coffee, get in your car... go out on the highway... drive to the middle of nowhere and stop at the dirtiest, dingiest truck stop you can find. When coffee is a neccessity for your livelihood and personal safety , you can be damn sure they'll do it right.
Don't talk crap. When did you ever find a dirty dingy truck stop that sold single estate arabicas and fine espresso blends that were roasted within the last few days and ground immediately before serving?
Of course, if your idea of 'doing it right' is serving up commercial swill that's grown in Vietnam and sold at $2 per ton to multinational companies, then you're absolutely correct. You'll find plenty of that in dingy truck stops.
Personally, I'd rather drink raw sewage than that crap, but if that's your favoured drink -- enjoy.
Perhaps the old slapper serving up the stuff may even become the future Mrs. Lambent?
Coffee drinking is like gambling or smoking -- if you don't develop a taste for it, you'll be better off and the only thing you'll miss out on is satisfying cravings you don't have in the first place.
Sorry, but that *isn't* the only thing that you'll miss out on. You'll also miss out on the experience of a wonderful food/drink that has been hugely valued by man since its discovery in Ethiopia around a thousand years ago.
You could say exactly the same thing about fine wine, and if you say it loud enough and often enough, you might eventually convince yourself that you're right.
Meanwhile, the rest of us will go on enjoying the complex delights of a fine, single estate arabica, or a good espresso blend, with beans roasted in the Northern Italian style -- and our lives will go on being all the richer for it.
If you want to get technical, you add the milk to the espresso.
This is the most common way of making a milk-based espresso drink, but it can be done either way.
And I'm fairly confident that the milk is hotter, having been burnt by both. The finished drink should be at a minimum of 170 degrees after you are done fiddling with syrups and toppings and shit, so the milk needs to be around 190
It does if you want scalded milk and crap foam. Most barista who have a clue though, will be aiming for their milk to finish steaming at 160 - 165, while the temperature at which an espresso shot is pulled should be around 190 - 204.
The temperature of the drink is maintained by pre-warming the cup. See:
God you make me sick. It's disgusting greedy lawyers, and the disgusting greedy people behind them (your so-called "victims"), who are destroying this country's medical system and driving good doctors out of business.
So let me get this straight.
In the USA, there are all these lawyers who are going to court and making unsubstantiated claims that completely lack any evidence, and the courts are making huge awards to their clients, thereby driving the poor doctors out of business?
That's a very peculiar situation, because here in the UK, you could never even get a medical malpractice case in front of the court without first having several doctors who were prepared to testify that the standards of care provided were negligent.
Almost all of them are paid a significant fee for their expertise and their testimony (even though in the UK, most doctors are paid by the state.) So does that make it an alliance of 'disgusting greedy lawyers' and 'disgusting greedy doctors' who are driving your 'good doctors' out of business?
If SCO is no longer arguing that thier code was copied, then they have no case (if they ever had one) on grounds of copyright, and the GPL is not involved in any way. The only thing that they might get something on is if they have a patent on the concept that IBM implemented in Linux.
I think all of this is absolutely correct. This is certainly my understanding of the current state of play. They have no patents, the copyright ownership is muddy and they've sued IBM over breaches of their licence to System V.
It's actually IBM who is bringing the action in regard to the GPL, not SCO. SCO are challenging its legitimacy, but as part of their defence against IBM's counter-claim.
If not, then it's a simple breach of contract (if there is such clause prohibiting using expertise gained from SCO in other areas such as Linux), and IBM would just have to pay a probably large sum of money to SCO.
Well, this is precisely what Linus has been saying for the last few months. And even their new law suits against end users are aimed at customers -- people they had a pre-existing contract or business relationship with.
All of which makes EV1's decision to pay their license fees even more peculiar -- unless they hosted their servers on SCO linux at some point.
I don't know about this.. as I read this This doens't look like a *complete* victory for IBM it says they (IBM) has to provide the "materials and documents" of the people involved in the linux project something that SCO didn't specifically ask for....
That's a standard part of the discovery procedure. Not only had SCO had asked for this stuff prior to the discovery process being frozen by the judge, they'd actually asked for the names of over 10,000 IBM employees -- clearly an attempt to harrass the company and interfere with their business.
Because the case law on discovery insists that courts have to err on the side of generosity during the discovery process, the judge has to do everything that is fair and reasonable to enable SCO to make their case within the limits of legal procedure, there was no way that any judge was *not* going to make such orders. To do so would have simply given SCO good grounds for appeal.
But SCO didn't get the names of their 10,000 witnesses from IBM. The judge ordered that IBM provide SCO with details of a representative 1,000, and SCO will then have to provide good grounds should they wish to interview or depose any other IBM employee.
Seriously, IBM's lawyers would have expected and anticipated this -- indeed, their earlier findings suggest that they would actually welcome it. They're looking for a decisive victory, not some dismissal on a technicality, and so they also want the judge to give SCO all the latitude that they are entitled to under the law, because when they do eventually squash them like a bug, the victory will be decisive.
Basically, SCO got nothing that IBM wouldn't have wanted them to have, but they got a damn sight less than they asked for in all of their motions. While a layman might not see that as a complete victory, I'm pretty sure that that's how IBM's lawyers will view it.
It's my understanding from SCO's recent arguments in court, that they didn't intend to point to specific line numbers or specific lines of code.
At the last hearing, SCO dropped both their trade secret and their breach of copyright claims, and came up with a new, more subtle argument.
As I understand it, their argument is that IBM improperly donated expertise -- around stuff like SMP, etc. -- in breach of their contract with ATT/SCO/whoever, and so they wouldn't be showing direct evidence of line by line copying (as they originally claimed) but are simply saying that these particular parts of the Linux kernel were wrongfully contributed.
That said, it appears that the judge still wants them to identify line numbers, both in Linux, and in the original source code where the methods were supposedly drawn from, even though it's my understanding that SCO no longer seem to be arguing that there was line by line copying -- more a wrongful transfer of knowledge and expertise that was in breach of their contract with IBM.
Some code" meaning the source code control logs and "approximately 232 versions" of Dynix and AIX.
The code that IBM has been 'ordered' to produce is actually the code that IBM offered to produce prior to the point at which the Judge ordered a stay of discovery because she was concerned that SCO was attempting to avoid compliance.
SCO actually asked that IBM issue them with all versions of AIX and Dynix, both released and unreleased, and the judge has disallowed this claim, insisting that before SCO get to see any more documents, they have to show good reason why it is necessary.
In short, this is a total victory for IBM and a total pasting for SCO.
That's curious. You appear to be getting a very different distribution of spam to everyone else in the world.
If you take a look at the database of known spammers and spam gangs, then you'll see that there are just three Russians and a Latvian listed, as opposed to a hundred and thirty four operations being run by Americans from the United States.
That certainly fits the distribution of spam that I see on my computer, but who knows, perhaps *you're* using an ISP based in Moscow?
On second thought, such a major backlash by the OSS community could absolutely destroy SCO's offerings, giving the impression that OSS software is dangerous to use as a core supplement to your products.
This was precisely the route that I suggested taking when SCO originally announced their intentions, but several people here condemned me as being either petty, or taking away from 'freedom'.
Personally, I tend to think that freedom has to be defended, and when people attempt to use the freedom that you've granted them to attack you (as in the case of 9/11), you do whatever it takes to prevent them from doing so again.
I don't believe that SCO could exist without running free software as part of their operating system, and so I've always believed that withdrawing their right (and the rights of those who license their OS as well -- their customers) to use open source software would be the fastest way to bring them to heel or kill them off.
I'm glad to see people are finally coming around to my way of thinking.
Well, it is in a way. You have to accept the terms of the license to be able to redistribute the software. SCO doesn't believe that the license is legitimate, and is therefore redistributing it under it's own license. This redistribution is what bars them from use, but I don't see how you can have that without first believing that the license is invalid.
But who's paying for it? As far as I know, the Russian trade in herbal viagra is pretty small.
When you actually track the spammer to his lair, the guy who is producing and taking the biggest slice of the dough tends to be located in Florida or Tennessee or some such place. The Russians are just on wages -- or using their bots to threaten to bring down a company's website.
For example, a Nigerian email sent from a hotmail/yahoo account (they almost all are) would seemingly, by this standard, come from the US.
And how do you suppose is this *not* spam of US origin?
While the author of the email might not be American, the domain and the sysadmin certainly are.
If someone is using Hotmail or Yahoo to whap out zillions of spams, I see that of evidence of an incompetent systems administration in exactly the same way that I'd see someone failing to secure their mail relays in China, and as such, I'd expect that domain to be held accountable for it.
Only idiots enter file names that long. They take forever to type.
OK, you stick with bunny1.jpg, bunny2.jpg, bunny3.jpg and I'll go with bunny_eating_lettuce.jpg, bunny_getting_squashed.jpg and bunny_having_sex.jpg and we'll see can find the right file fastest.
Slashdot Mirror
I find it difficult to see how you can deduct such a position from the argument that I'm making. I'm not arguing that your life is enriched by something that you don't enjoy, I'm arguing that the attraction of a whole range of stuff isn't immediately apparent. Quite frequently, the greatest things in life are actually quite difficult to the naive and inexperienced brain and a real appreciation of these things only comes with time and effort. Great music, great literature and great art often falls into this category.
By taking the time and effort to acquaint yourself with these things, you may well come to appreciate them and by doing so, your life *will* be enriched. What is it about this concept that you find so difficult to grasp?
And although it wasn't the argument that I'm making, there certainly are those who would argue that one's life is enriched by a closer and more intimate personal relationship with certain types of pain -- and no, I don't have any disagreement with their argument either.
If Darl is packin heat, then we should arm ourselves too
I suspect he's been reading ESR's website and taken his views about the right to bear arms to heart.
So which bit do you feel was wrong?
espresso is made by forcing hot water (215+ degrees F) through coffee grounds.
Not according to the people who are probably regarded as the world's leading experts in espresso, David Schomer and Andreas Illy.
Take Schomerfor example: Yes.. a pump is used.. but only to keep the water liquid.
Rubbish. The pump is used to drive the water through the coffee at sufficient pressure (between 8 and 9 bar) to emulsify the oils and ensure proper extraction. If the pump serves to keep the water liquid, how do you account for the fact that until quite recently most 'proper' (ie, commercial) espresso machines used levers that relied on either springs or muscle power to ensure the sufficient pressure?
I own a Gaggia, and I can assure you that the pump doesn't even start until I begin to pull a shot. When my boiler *is* full of steam (because I've been steaming milk for cappucinos), you have to drain it off and pull a few blank shots before the water is cool enough for another espresso.
Don't be hatin' on the Viet coffee!
Vietnamese coffee is killing people
But if you don't like the stuff, you won't be missing out on anything.
I'm not sure that I agree. If you don't like air travel, would you say that you aren't missing out on anything because you haven't been exposed to the rich tapestry that is life outside the country where you live?
You might be able to convince yourself that you weren't, but I think that your life would be enriched by the experience, regardless of whether or not you don't feel you've missed out.
I can't stand mushrooms: does that make me deprived?
Not deprived, exactly. And there's obviously stuff I don't like as well, but that doesn't invalidate my point. For example, I don't drink alcohol, primarily because I don't like the taste much, but I know that I'm missing out on a huge range of sensory and gustatory experience because of my lack of appreciation.
I'm pretty sure that *my* life would be a great deal richer if I enjoyed wine and was therefore able to sample and appreciate the differences between a bordeaux and a beaujolais, a medoc and a merlot, and my appreciation of life and the pleasure I take in the world in general would be amplified when I found a particularly stunning example of any of those types.
The truth is, any narrowing of one's social or sensory repetoire is rarely life-enhancing. Move it away from food and drink. I know people who don't use a computer and never have. They don't 'miss' the experience either. Would you really say that they aren't missing out on anything?
I'm also allergic to peanuts. Yet there are thousands of other plants I can ingest instead, so I'm not particularly saddened by these things.
Coffee isn't like peanuts at all. It's more like saying 'I don't like Chinese food, but I'm not missing out on anything because I can still eat Italian.' Just because you don't happen to like Pizza, you shouldn't deprive you of the whole of a vast and diverse cuisine.
One thing to keep in mind about the 3 to 4 cup recommended limit -- they mean "cup" as in the liquid measure, ie. 250 mL.
So if I drink ristrettos (14 - 18 grams of ground coffee, concentrated into one ounce of espresso), I should be able to drink a whole load of those without any adverse effects, right?
Heroin is a happy hour cocktail...
Oh, I think it's rather better than that...
Everything causes cancer
Except heroin. Heroin kills the pain *caused* by cancer.
especially true of steam-brewed coffees, such as espresso
Uh, espresso isn't a 'steam-brewed coffee'. Espresso is usually made by forcing hot water (between 190-204 degrees F) through coffee grounds at around 9 bars of pressure. This is generally achieved by using a pump.
Very cheap, crappy machines (those costing less than $100) sometimes use steam, but it's unlikely that anyone who knows coffee would describe the stuff that comes out of them as espresso.
heroin will not relieve a non-withdrawal headache.
Don't be silly. Heroin (Diamorphine) is the strongest analgesic in the British National Formulary.
If it will relieve your cancer pain, you can safely assume that it will also put paid to your migraine.
That should read, "Go to your nearest independant place near a college campus" for cheap, strung-out coffee and obnoxious, pretentious patrons.
... go out on the highway ... drive to the middle of nowhere and stop at the dirtiest, dingiest truck stop you can find. When coffee is a neccessity for your livelihood and personal safety , you can be damn sure they'll do it right.
Such places *do* tend to be full of obnoxious, pretentious patrons, but the attraction of such places is that the coffee that they sell is supposed to be of very high quality, freshly roasted and with careful attention paid to serving. It's not always the case though, I'll admit.
Look at me, mama! I'm a college boy now! I drink 'expresso' with the girlies! w00t!
Heh. If *you* were a college boy, you'd know that the stuff was actually called 'espresso'. And don't knock it. He'll *still* be fucking those fine, perfumed college-educated girls when Mrs. Lambent is too worn out to give you any, because of her long day tendering the hogs.
If you want REALLY good coffee, get in your car
Don't talk crap. When did you ever find a dirty dingy truck stop that sold single estate arabicas and fine espresso blends that were roasted within the last few days and ground immediately before serving?
Of course, if your idea of 'doing it right' is serving up commercial swill that's grown in Vietnam and sold at $2 per ton to multinational companies, then you're absolutely correct. You'll find plenty of that in dingy truck stops.
Personally, I'd rather drink raw sewage than that crap, but if that's your favoured drink -- enjoy.
Perhaps the old slapper serving up the stuff may even become the future Mrs. Lambent?
Coffee drinking is like gambling or smoking -- if you don't develop a taste for it, you'll be better off and the only thing you'll miss out on is satisfying cravings you don't have in the first place.
Sorry, but that *isn't* the only thing that you'll miss out on. You'll also miss out on the experience of a wonderful food/drink that has been hugely valued by man since its discovery in Ethiopia around a thousand years ago.
You could say exactly the same thing about fine wine, and if you say it loud enough and often enough, you might eventually convince yourself that you're right.
Meanwhile, the rest of us will go on enjoying the complex delights of a fine, single estate arabica, or a good espresso blend, with beans roasted in the Northern Italian style -- and our lives will go on being all the richer for it.
If you want to get technical, you add the milk to the espresso.
l e ID=27
This is the most common way of making a milk-based espresso drink, but it can be done either way.
And I'm fairly confident that the milk is hotter, having been burnt by both. The finished drink should be at a minimum of 170 degrees after you are done fiddling with syrups and toppings and shit, so the milk needs to be around 190
It does if you want scalded milk and crap foam. Most barista who have a clue though, will be aiming for their milk to finish steaming at 160 - 165, while the temperature at which an espresso shot is pulled should be around 190 - 204.
The temperature of the drink is maintained by pre-warming the cup. See:
http://www.danny.mcnulty.btinternet.co.uk/faq.htm
http://www.coffeegeek.com/guides/frothingguide
http://www.wholelattelove.com/articles.cfm?articl
God you make me sick. It's disgusting greedy lawyers, and the disgusting greedy people behind them (your so-called "victims"), who are destroying this country's medical system and driving good doctors out of business.
So let me get this straight.
In the USA, there are all these lawyers who are going to court and making unsubstantiated claims that completely lack any evidence, and the courts are making huge awards to their clients, thereby driving the poor doctors out of business?
That's a very peculiar situation, because here in the UK, you could never even get a medical malpractice case in front of the court without first having several doctors who were prepared to testify that the standards of care provided were negligent.
Almost all of them are paid a significant fee for their expertise and their testimony (even though in the UK, most doctors are paid by the state.) So does that make it an alliance of 'disgusting greedy lawyers' and 'disgusting greedy doctors' who are driving your 'good doctors' out of business?
If SCO is no longer arguing that thier code was copied, then they have no case (if they ever had one) on grounds of copyright, and the GPL is not involved in any way. The only thing that they might get something on is if they have a patent on the concept that IBM implemented in Linux.
I think all of this is absolutely correct. This is certainly my understanding of the current state of play. They have no patents, the copyright ownership is muddy and they've sued IBM over breaches of their licence to System V.
It's actually IBM who is bringing the action in regard to the GPL, not SCO. SCO are challenging its legitimacy, but as part of their defence against IBM's counter-claim.
If not, then it's a simple breach of contract (if there is such clause prohibiting using expertise gained from SCO in other areas such as Linux), and IBM would just have to pay a probably large sum of money to SCO.
Well, this is precisely what Linus has been saying for the last few months. And even their new law suits against end users are aimed at customers -- people they had a pre-existing contract or business relationship with.
All of which makes EV1's decision to pay their license fees even more peculiar -- unless they hosted their servers on SCO linux at some point.
I don't know about this .. as I read this This doens't look like a *complete* victory for IBM it says they (IBM) has to provide the "materials and documents" of the people involved in the linux project something that SCO didn't specifically ask for ....
That's a standard part of the discovery procedure. Not only had SCO had asked for this stuff prior to the discovery process being frozen by the judge, they'd actually asked for the names of over 10,000 IBM employees -- clearly an attempt to harrass the company and interfere with their business.
Because the case law on discovery insists that courts have to err on the side of generosity during the discovery process, the judge has to do everything that is fair and reasonable to enable SCO to make their case within the limits of legal procedure, there was no way that any judge was *not* going to make such orders. To do so would have simply given SCO good grounds for appeal.
But SCO didn't get the names of their 10,000 witnesses from IBM. The judge ordered that IBM provide SCO with details of a representative 1,000, and SCO will then have to provide good grounds should they wish to interview or depose any other IBM employee.
Seriously, IBM's lawyers would have expected and anticipated this -- indeed, their earlier findings suggest that they would actually welcome it. They're looking for a decisive victory, not some dismissal on a technicality, and so they also want the judge to give SCO all the latitude that they are entitled to under the law, because when they do eventually squash them like a bug, the victory will be decisive.
Basically, SCO got nothing that IBM wouldn't have wanted them to have, but they got a damn sight less than they asked for in all of their motions. While a layman might not see that as a complete victory, I'm pretty sure that that's how IBM's lawyers will view it.
I've never heard anyone who has actually used one of their products say "S-C-O"
I've never heard of anyone who has actually used one of their products.
It's my understanding from SCO's recent arguments in court, that they didn't intend to point to specific line numbers or specific lines of code.
At the last hearing, SCO dropped both their trade secret and their breach of copyright claims, and came up with a new, more subtle argument.
As I understand it, their argument is that IBM improperly donated expertise -- around stuff like SMP, etc. -- in breach of their contract with ATT/SCO/whoever, and so they wouldn't be showing direct evidence of line by line copying (as they originally claimed) but are simply saying that these particular parts of the Linux kernel were wrongfully contributed.
That said, it appears that the judge still wants them to identify line numbers, both in Linux, and in the original source code where the methods were supposedly drawn from, even though it's my understanding that SCO no longer seem to be arguing that there was line by line copying -- more a wrongful transfer of knowledge and expertise that was in breach of their contract with IBM.
Gonna be interesting to watch how this plays out.
Some code" meaning the source code control logs and "approximately 232 versions" of Dynix and AIX.
The code that IBM has been 'ordered' to produce is actually the code that IBM offered to produce prior to the point at which the Judge ordered a stay of discovery because she was concerned that SCO was attempting to avoid compliance.
SCO actually asked that IBM issue them with all versions of AIX and Dynix, both released and unreleased, and the judge has disallowed this claim, insisting that before SCO get to see any more documents, they have to show good reason why it is necessary.
In short, this is a total victory for IBM and a total pasting for SCO.
That's curious. You appear to be getting a very different distribution of spam to everyone else in the world.
If you take a look at the database of known spammers and spam gangs, then you'll see that there are just three Russians and a Latvian listed, as opposed to a hundred and thirty four operations being run by Americans from the United States.
That certainly fits the distribution of spam that I see on my computer, but who knows, perhaps *you're* using an ISP based in Moscow?
Here's the list -- count 'em up for yourself:
http://www.spamhaus.org/rokso/index.lasso
On second thought, such a major backlash by the OSS community could absolutely destroy SCO's offerings, giving the impression that OSS software is dangerous to use as a core supplement to your products.
This was precisely the route that I suggested taking when SCO originally announced their intentions, but several people here condemned me as being either petty, or taking away from 'freedom'.
Personally, I tend to think that freedom has to be defended, and when people attempt to use the freedom that you've granted them to attack you (as in the case of 9/11), you do whatever it takes to prevent them from doing so again.
I don't believe that SCO could exist without running free software as part of their operating system, and so I've always believed that withdrawing their right (and the rights of those who license their OS as well -- their customers) to use open source software would be the fastest way to bring them to heel or kill them off.
I'm glad to see people are finally coming around to my way of thinking.
GPL is not dependant on what you believe.
Well, it is in a way. You have to accept the terms of the license to be able to redistribute the software. SCO doesn't believe that the license is legitimate, and is therefore redistributing it under it's own license. This redistribution is what bars them from use, but I don't see how you can have that without first believing that the license is invalid.
But who's paying for it? As far as I know, the Russian trade in herbal viagra is pretty small.
When you actually track the spammer to his lair, the guy who is producing and taking the biggest slice of the dough tends to be located in Florida or Tennessee or some such place. The Russians are just on wages -- or using their bots to threaten to bring down a company's website.
Follow the money.
For example, a Nigerian email sent from a hotmail/yahoo account (they almost all are) would seemingly, by this standard, come from the US.
And how do you suppose is this *not* spam of US origin?
While the author of the email might not be American, the domain and the sysadmin certainly are.
If someone is using Hotmail or Yahoo to whap out zillions of spams, I see that of evidence of an incompetent systems administration in exactly the same way that I'd see someone failing to secure their mail relays in China, and as such, I'd expect that domain to be held accountable for it.
Only idiots enter file names that long. They take forever to type.
OK, you stick with bunny1.jpg, bunny2.jpg, bunny3.jpg and I'll go with bunny_eating_lettuce.jpg, bunny_getting_squashed.jpg and bunny_having_sex.jpg and we'll see can find the right file fastest.
Personally, I think it's amazing how paranoid and karma-obsessed *you* must be, dropping down to Anonymous Coward status to respond to him.
Repeat after me:
It's only a website, it's only a website...