typical consumer items (storing up their money for explosives, plane tickets, guns, etc.), sending government vans to scan peoples residences for items like consumer electronics, sneakers, new furniture and the like would be an effective way of pinpointing the terrorists among us.
And even if they are technically not terrorists, they are an impediment to the recovery that the administration keeps declaring is happening any day now. Which is practically as bad as being a terrorist. Maybe worse. Either way, Hello Guantanamo Bay!
has been determined to be an effective tool to prevent terroristic identity theft" says Department of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge. "Remember, not allowing us to burn numbers into your forehead and the foreheads of your loved ones means the terrorists have won."
Simply showing two code blocks that are identical doesn't demonstrate:
1) where the code originated. If the code preceded both shown examples and was licensed appropriately, copying is non-relevant.
2) from where to where the copying occurred.
3) whether the the copying constitued copyright infringement.
If SCO had a valid case, they would NOT be showing this stuff under a NDA. They would also be showing it to individuals who could properly assess the validity of the claims. They aren't because they don't have a case.
because this opens them up to all sorts of liability issues. All sorts of things that are now just annoying to end-users might be actionable by them against the game hosts. The current level of security would never pass muster. Complaint resolution mechanisms would have to severely upgraded.
Also, if a gang of virtual folk robbed you of virtual wealth, could you have them arrested in the real world?
An intrinsic component of the FCC e911 program is that new cell phones have to have GPS chips to facilitate instantly locating people making 911 calls.
By disable, I mean break into a million pieces (or functional equivalent). Will the phone work without it? If not, how do you misinform it so that it is not accurately giving up/out your location?
As was mentioned in previous post, Sun expanded their Unix deal with SCO, which was made public on July 10, 2003. The deal itself was signed in February. Thus Sun was the secret licensee that was mentioned in all of the press releases at the time of the Microsoft announcement.
In SCO's regulatory filings in July, they list the total value of the Sun and Microsoft deals at $13.2 million. If Sun purchases up to 210,000 shares of SCO stock at $1.83 per share (the price at the time of the signing of the deal), the value of the deals would rise further.
We've all been wondering if this all was a "legitimate" attempt by SCO to try and get some money or if it was purely a financed FUD campaign, an attempt to muddy the OSS waters and benefit the MS and SUN, the two companies that have actually licensed stuff from SCO.
The fact that Novell specifically, explicitly forbade SCO from revoking the AIX license, and the fact that SCO ignored this (despite knowing that they were contractually obligated to respect Novell's orders on this issue) shows that there was never an expectation that this would lead to a payout. This is all about the FUD. Case closed.
it will be worth approximately 10% of the cost of the paper it is printed on. Of course Darl and his bunch will have cashed out by then but remember, caveat emptor translates in this case as "Screw you, buddy".
Never underestimate the power and strength of a bunch of folks running up a stock's price based on specious IP accusations while being covertly funded by a nefarious monopolist company.
SCO continued to sell their Linux distribution AFTER they filed the lawsuit. They distributions are still available on their FTP site. Post suit, this indicates that they are releasing the code that they are identifying as infringing under the GPL.
From the HyperDictionary: scientific theory - a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"
For something to rise to the accepted level of theory, it must be based on scientific observations. It must have passed through the hypothesis stage of initial concept deliniation. It must be tested repeatedly, succeeding each time (or the initial hypothesis must be reworked). It has to pass peer review.
What is a hypothesis? A tentative suggestion to explain observed phenomena based on available evidence. A hypothesis leads to falsifiable experiments. As the body of these experiments builds, a hypothesis either grows toward a theory or is supplanted by a hypothesis that successfully explains the experimental data.
The whole of biological science has build up the evidence to support Darwin's Theory of Evolution (Variation, Competition, Offspring, Genetics, Natural Selection). And while there have been discussions about specifics of components (punctuated vs gradual), neither side disputes the underlying scientific theory. And all sides continue to build the body of scientific evidence to support it.
Trolls and ID'ers continue to abuse the language of science to confuse the issues and attempt to paint some sort of equivalence between their faith -based belief system and a rigorously objective scientific discipline.
They just pointed out that it was already patented. This isn't a ridiculous patent with an enormous amount of prior art to illustrate that it never should have been granted in the first place (AFAIK, IANAL).
First, it is indicative of the dishonestly central to the ID movement that they use their own self-invented sense of the term "theory" and use it to confuse and debase the proper understanding of a scientific theory.
But even then they are abusing the term theory. From Hyperdictionary again: theory - 1. [n] a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"
2 [n] a belief that can guide behavior; "the architect has a theory that more is less"; "they killed him on the theory that dead men tell no tales"
3 [n] a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
As we can see, their use of the term fits into none of those categories. I propose a different term: wild freakin' guess. That matches the evidence advanced so far.
"The existence of God cannot be disproven scientifically. As long as something cannot be disproven, it is a valid theory."
From the HyperDictionary: scientific theory - a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"
Proponents of ID and other some such notions love to brutally abuse the term theory to confuse the issues. For something to rise to the accepted level of theory, it must be based on scientific observations. It must have passed through the hypothesis stage of initial concept deliniation. It must be tested repeatedly, succeeding each time (or the initial hypothesis must be reworked). It has to pass peer review.
ID and other notions don't even rise to the level of hypothesis.
Why bother to believe in science backed up experimentally, with research, mathematically, founded by a system of constant examination and rigorous proofs?
Instead misuse the tools of real science to attempt to portray religious doctrine as scientific, abuse the term theory by ignoring the extensive proven underpinnings of real science to which the term is applicable. It's fascinating after all. And isn't that the important part?
Slashdot Mirror
Everybody runs.
"What's his diocese?"
"How should I know?"
"It's tattooed on the back of the neck."
And even if they are technically not terrorists, they are an impediment to the recovery that the administration keeps declaring is happening any day now. Which is practically as bad as being a terrorist. Maybe worse. Either way, Hello Guantanamo Bay!
has been determined to be an effective tool to prevent terroristic identity theft" says Department of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge. "Remember, not allowing us to burn numbers into your forehead and the foreheads of your loved ones means the terrorists have won."
- fire is hot
- water is wet
- SCO is EVIL
- grass is green
sort of a revelation?Remember, Clippy is your friend.
1) where the code originated. If the code preceded both shown examples and was licensed appropriately, copying is non-relevant.
2) from where to where the copying occurred.
3) whether the the copying constitued copyright infringement.
If SCO had a valid case, they would NOT be showing this stuff under a NDA. They would also be showing it to individuals who could properly assess the validity of the claims. They aren't because they don't have a case.
Also, if a gang of virtual folk robbed you of virtual wealth, could you have them arrested in the real world?
By disable, I mean break into a million pieces (or functional equivalent). Will the phone work without it? If not, how do you misinform it so that it is not accurately giving up/out your location?
In SCO's regulatory filings in July, they list the total value of the Sun and Microsoft deals at $13.2 million. If Sun purchases up to 210,000 shares of SCO stock at $1.83 per share (the price at the time of the signing of the deal), the value of the deals would rise further.
The fact that Novell specifically, explicitly forbade SCO from revoking the AIX license, and the fact that SCO ignored this (despite knowing that they were contractually obligated to respect Novell's orders on this issue) shows that there was never an expectation that this would lead to a payout. This is all about the FUD. Case closed.
As has been pointed out, this is a copyright issue, not one about theft/piracy which is clearly the case in your analogy.
more legal action. Now. How many times does the dancing monkeyboy have to go right in the middle of the carpet before someone will rub his nose in it?
Never underestimate the power and strength of a bunch of folks running up a stock's price based on specious IP accusations while being covertly funded by a nefarious monopolist company.
SCO continued to sell their Linux distribution AFTER they filed the lawsuit. They distributions are still available on their FTP site. Post suit, this indicates that they are releasing the code that they are identifying as infringing under the GPL.
For something to rise to the accepted level of theory, it must be based on scientific observations. It must have passed through the hypothesis stage of initial concept deliniation. It must be tested repeatedly, succeeding each time (or the initial hypothesis must be reworked). It has to pass peer review.
What is a hypothesis? A tentative suggestion to explain observed phenomena based on available evidence. A hypothesis leads to falsifiable experiments. As the body of these experiments builds, a hypothesis either grows toward a theory or is supplanted by a hypothesis that successfully explains the experimental data.
The whole of biological science has build up the evidence to support Darwin's Theory of Evolution (Variation, Competition, Offspring, Genetics, Natural Selection). And while there have been discussions about specifics of components (punctuated vs gradual), neither side disputes the underlying scientific theory. And all sides continue to build the body of scientific evidence to support it.
Trolls and ID'ers continue to abuse the language of science to confuse the issues and attempt to paint some sort of equivalence between their faith -based belief system and a rigorously objective scientific discipline.
They just pointed out that it was already patented. This isn't a ridiculous patent with an enormous amount of prior art to illustrate that it never should have been granted in the first place (AFAIK, IANAL).
But even then they are abusing the term theory. From Hyperdictionary again: theory - 1. [n] a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"
2 [n] a belief that can guide behavior; "the architect has a theory that more is less"; "they killed him on the theory that dead men tell no tales"
3 [n] a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
As we can see, their use of the term fits into none of those categories. I propose a different term: wild freakin' guess. That matches the evidence advanced so far.
the virtual pr0n industry.
From the HyperDictionary: scientific theory - a theory that explains scientific observations; "scientific theories must be falsifiable"
Proponents of ID and other some such notions love to brutally abuse the term theory to confuse the issues. For something to rise to the accepted level of theory, it must be based on scientific observations. It must have passed through the hypothesis stage of initial concept deliniation. It must be tested repeatedly, succeeding each time (or the initial hypothesis must be reworked). It has to pass peer review.
ID and other notions don't even rise to the level of hypothesis.
Instead misuse the tools of real science to attempt to portray religious doctrine as scientific, abuse the term theory by ignoring the extensive proven underpinnings of real science to which the term is applicable. It's fascinating after all. And isn't that the important part?
We DO know how it will end. We also know when it will end: when you punks stop buying our books!
Starting to get spooky, isn't it.
How will I pick up the chicks? How will I karoake? How will I LIVE?!?!?!